Text size:

A pipeline problem

Coast Guard report raises concerns about safety and security at a planned gas terminal for Long Island Sound

BY TOM INCANTALUPO | Newsday Staff Writer

September 22, 2006

The Coast Guard has concluded that the giant liquid natural gas terminal proposed for Long Island Sound poses safety and security risks that would require added law enforcement and firefighting capability as well as escort boats to help prevent terrorist attacks, shipping accidents or environmental damage.

The Guard isn't recommending, however, that the facility either be rejected or approved by federal officials weighing it.

A report to be released today by the Guard, a copy of which was obtained yesterday by Newsday, says approval of the 1,200-foot-long terminal proposed by Broadwater Energy of Houston for a site midway between Wading River and the Connecticut shoreline should be contingent on "additional measures to responsibly manage risks to navigation safety and security risks ... and reduce the potential consequences" in case of a large release of gas from the terminal or a tanker supplying it.

"The most probable security regime would consist of a mix of federal (including Coast Guard), state, and local law enforcement" that would somehow have to be paid for. It says also that, if the project wins approval, "existing marine firefighting capability in Long Island Sound is inadequate."

Coast Guard officials declined to comment on the report until its release at a news conference this afternoon.

The 200-foot-wide, 80-foot-tall facility, which Broadwater hopes to have in operation by 2010, would accept super cold liquid natural gas from two to three tankers a week. The fuel would be heated, regassified and piped on the Sound floor to tie into a gas pipeline between Connecticut and Long Island.

Located about nine miles north of Long Island and 10 miles south of Connecticut, the terminal could store as much as 8 billion cubic feet of liquid gas.

The proposal has drawn virulent opposition from political leaders and environmental and civic groups on both sides of the Sound. They're concerned about potential security risks and damage to the 1,320-square-mile Sound, and its 600 miles of coastline, from additional ship traffic or potential accidents.

Critic Adrienne Esposito, executive director of the Farmingdale-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment, who was familiar with the Coast Guard report, interpreted it as a setback for Broadwater. "I think the bottom line is that the Coast Guard did not give Broadwater a green light," she said. "They said exactly what we have been saying - that this is a risk, it's dangerous and costly ... "

Politicians from New York and Connecticut were briefed yesterday on the report's contents. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement, "The Coast Guard report confirms what we have been saying all along - that there are significant concerns associated with the project. I continue to believe that the Broadwater proposal is just the wrong idea for the Sound."

Executives of Broadwater, a joint venture between Shell U.S. Gas & Power and Trans Canada Pipelines USA Ltd., declined to comment until today but said, "We are confident the report will show that Broadwater can be operated safely and securely in Long Island Sound ... "

The highly technical Coast Guard report, prepared in conjunction with other organizations that navigate the Sound and law enforcement officials, says a release of liquid natural gas would not result in an explosion. But it said the vapors, if dense enough, could catch fire if there was an ignition source.