BP claims their proposal to construct and operate an LNG import terminal on the eastern shoreline of the Delaware River in Logan Township, New Jersey does not violate the terms of Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act. The terminal proposed would consist of facilities capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 450,000 cubic meters of LNG (9.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, adding the "smell" (required for safety), and sending out natural gas at a rate up to 1.2 billion cubic feet per day. The project will also interconnect the LNG facilities onsite with two existing pipelines and would construct another from a site in Chester, PA to the proposed LNG terminal.

Violation of Delaware's Coastal Zone Act is Real
Although most of proposed facility would stand in New Jersey, substantial portions of the project would be located in the Delaware River within in the territorial limits of the State of Delaware and thus covered by state programs regulating coastal zone activities (Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act). This act states that "the coastal areas of Delaware are the most critical areas for the future of the State in terms of the quality of life in the State. It is, therefore, the declared public policy of the State to control the location, extent and type of industrial development in Delaware's coastal areas. In so doing, the State can better protect the natural environment of its bay and coastal areas and safeguard their use primarily for recreation and tourism". Specifically, this law seeks to prohibit entirely the construction of new heavy industry in its coastal areas, which industry is determined to be incompatible with the protection of that natural environment in those areas. (7 Del. C. 1953, § 7001; 58 Del. Laws)

"It is further determined that offshore bulk product transfer facilities represent a significant danger of pollution to the coastal zone ‘and generate pressure for the construction of industrial plants in the coastal zone, which construction is declared to be against public policy.’ For these reasons, prohibition against bulk product transfer facilities in the coastal zone is deemed imperative." [Emphasis added] (7 Del. C. 1953, § 7001).

"Bulk product transfer facility" means any port or dock facility, whether an artificial island or attached to shore by any means, for the transfer of bulk quantities of any substance from vessel to onshore facility or vice versa. [Emphasis added] Not included in this definition is a docking facility or pier for a single industrial or manufacturing facility for which a permit is granted or which is a nonconforming use. Likewise, docking facilities for the Port of Wilmington are not included in this definition" (7 Del. C. 1953, § 7002; 58 Del. Laws, c. 175; 61 Del. Laws, c. 116, § 88(a); 62 Del. Laws, c. 119, §§ 1, 2; 63 Del. Laws, c. 191, § 1(a); 71 Del. Laws, c. 348, § 1.); and

Heavy industry uses of any kind not in operation on June 28, 1971, are prohibited in the coastal zone and no permits may be issued therefor. In addition, offshore gas, liquid or solid bulk product transfer facilities which are not in operation on June 28, 1971, are prohibited in the coastal zone, and no permit may be issued therefor. [Emphasis added] Provided, that this section shall not apply to public sewage treatment or recycling plants. A basic steel manufacturing plant in operation on June 28, 1971, may continue as a heavy industry use in the coastal zone notwithstanding any temporary discontinuance of operations after said date, provided that said discontinuance does not exceed 2 years. An incinerator is neither "public sewage treatment" nor a "recycling plant" for the purpose of this chapter" (7 Del. C. 1953, § 7003; 58 Del. Laws, c. 175; 64 Del. Laws, c. 240, § 6; 66 Del. Laws, c. 256, § 1; 71 Del. Laws, c. 348, § 2.).

Environmental Concerns Are Big
Mr. Chapman, BP’s representative has stated that the specialized, double-hulled ships used for transport can operate in the Delaware's shipping channel without additional dredging. Dredging will be required at the terminal for piers and turning areas. The proposal alleges that the 800,000 cubic yards of dredging spoils taken from the river would be used in construction of the terminal. The terminal would be built to handle "a new generation of tankers" capable of carrying nearly 50 percent more liquefied natural gas than the current fleet.

The frequency with which the proposed facility would receive deliveries by the "new generation of tankers," specially designed to transport super-chilled, liquefied natural gas, is alleged to be limited to twice each week. However, a recent study establishes, "imports have grown by more than 2-1/2" and "between 1998 and 2000, from 85 Bcf to 224 Bcf " and " LNG imports are expected to grow from 1.3 percent consumption to more than 3 percent by 2008" [Properties of LNG, US Department of Energy, February 12, 2002]. The report’s statistics reflect at least another future foreseeable doubling in volume that will render more than a doubling of the alleged future transport frequency increases a foreseeable reality because of the exponential growth differences between doubling growth volume demand and the static tanker capacity.

Terrorism and Public Safety Issues
Although industry officials allege that the cold liquid gas is relatively safe, fire and explosion concerns remain a primary public safety issue. Although BP avers that since the start of open-sea transport in 1964, shippers have never suffered a catastrophic loss of their loads, the increase of sites, tanker size and the increased frequency of transport numerically increases the probability of a future foreseeable occurrence. It is noted here that public safety concerns dictate that traffic on Boston's Tobin Bridge over the Mystic River closes for 19 minutes during tanker trips; the presence of the DE Memorial Bridge would necessitate the implementation of parallel safety measures.

The passage of such vessels in the shipping channel would, while in transit, necessitate potential traffic stoppages leading to subsequent disruptions to average citizens, interstate commerce/ transportation on the bridges connecting Delaware’s and New Jersey’s interstate highways.

The Boston Herald recently reported on a government study which projects that a "partial", major leak from a tanker bound for Boston's liquefied natural gas terminal would devastate nearby neighborhoods and buildings, and notwithstanding the separate issue of the adverse impacts associated with the concussion from an explosion, further states that heat from the resulting fiery pool would extend for a half-mile around the vessel. Potential threats to coastal resort communities, to numerous commercial and industrial facilities and their employees, a major rookery located on Pea Patch Island, Bombay Hook National Wildlife Preserve, Prime Hook Wildlife Preserve, other estuaries, bird flyways, registered historic districts [e.g. Delaware City and New Castle] and historic sites [e.g. Fort Delaware], and are located within the half-mile area around the shipping channel. Even Mr. Chapman, BP’s representative, has stated that "You want to be close to the market, but you don't want to be close to a concentration of residential areas."

In the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, consideration must be given to the possibility of terrorist actions and the potential catastrophic impacts that such actions could impart to a region that contains such a heavy concentration of potential adjacent collateral targets (e.g. oil refineries, a nuclear power facility). Notwithstanding the level of safety alleged by industry officials and touted by the U.S. Department of Energy in citing a recent report prepared in two days by Quest Consultants of Norman, Oklahoma, Mr. Russell Gold’s article in the December 5, 2003, edition of The Wall Street Journal reported that John Cornwell of Quest Consultants, the principal author of the report, stated that the scientific report that has been cited to vouch for the safety of a liquefied-natural-gas tanker port near Boston, "has been widely misused in efforts to gain approval for tanker-port locations" and further reported that, "his calculations were not intended to be a definitive examination of LNG tanker safety"[Emphasis added]

CURRENT AND FUTURE SITUATION
The Chapter is finalizing a procedural plan for dealing with Crown landing as that project moves into the permitting phase. This will involve public information activities, tracking the many permitting processes, preparing and submitting testimony as needed, and working with groups that share our views in the tri-State area.

This matter involves many issues in addition to the Coastal Zone Act, and will require much work over an extended period of time.

Persons who wish to participate in this campaign may contact dkeifersr@hotmail.com

For further information go to http://www.timrileylaw.com