LNG Problems and Solutions

The Problem(s):

The Solution:

Current State law does not specifically state that the siting of LNG peaking and storage facilities must first be approved by County zoning bodies.  The requirement is implied, and is subject to varying interpretation and court challenges.

1. Zoning Authority Over LNG Storage.

Clarify the state zoning law to read unambiguously that local zoning authorities have jurisdiction over land-use decisions relating to LNG peakshaving & storage facilities that are not under the siting jurisdiction of FERC.

There is no requirement or process for gas utilities to demonstrate a need, similar to what currently exists for electric projects,  for their proposals.  Future forecasting, such as 10 year plans, are not required to properly anticipate the need for new gas facilities.

2. New Certificate of Public Safety and Need.

Require the establishment by the Public Service Commission of a CPSN (Certificate of Public Safety and Need) process similar to, but more comprehensive than, the CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Need) process currently required for electric generating and transmission applications.

The process should include the preparation and submission of an Environmental Impact Statement, by the applicant, to be submitted with all LNG facilities applications (peakshaving / storage or import / export terminal).  Said document must include the review and comment by all relevant State agencies (i.e. DNR, DER, DHCD, DBED, MEMA, Homeland Security, and Dept. of Health &Mental Hygiene.)

The EIS should also include the project’s Safety Studies and Plans as well as “worst case” thermal radiation and vapor cloud dispersion calculations, using the most up-to-date best-practice, standards.

The process would also include full public hearings at the PSC level to be held close to the proposed site, and during the evening.

State law does not require the preparation and submission of an Environmental Impact Statement for LNG or other utility applications.   

(see #2 above)

State law does not require a public hearing at the Public Service Commission level for the evaluation of LNG proposals.

(see #2 above)

FERC standards, which the State currently use,  require the submission of only minimal accident scenarios.  This practice leaves the public vulnerable to more serious “worst case” possibilities,  not so far fetched since 9/11 realities. 

(see #2 above

Standards do not exist to determine the appropriateness of sites for LNG facilities.  Standards are needed to ensure that projects are placed in “remote” locations as recommended by the Government Accounting Office.

3. Create Siting Standards.

Require the establishment of standards by the PSC (after public hearings) to be used for evaluating all applications for new or expanded LNG facilities.  Said standards would define dense population and transportation centers, and create siting criteria which would prohibit siting LNG facilities in a manner which would pose potential threats to the safety of said centers.

State law does not require routine and predictable replacement of outdated gas pipelines and other  related equipment.  Gas leaks from outdated parts have resulted.

4.  Updated Facility Standards.

Create concurrent modernization requirements to ensure the adequacy of input and outtake pipelines serving the facility and its environs, and require the maintenance of state-of-the-art technology serving all aspects of new or upgraded LNG storage facilities at reasonable fixed intervals.

Staffing at the Public Service Commission has been inadequate for the past fifteen years, resulting in inadequate inspections.  This shortage contributed to to an LNG accident in 1992 at the Baltimore facility.  Current staffing is inadequate to allow the development of additional facilities within the State.

5. Increase Engineering Staff.

 Increase the staffing level of the PSC gas safety engineering staff, by a minimum of two persons, and develop certification standards for PSC staff to ensure adequate expertise in LNG siting safety and facility oversight.

The Washington Gas Company is pressing forward to push its proposal to construct a highly dangerous LNG plant in the heart of a densely urbanized location in Prince George’s County.  Given their current forecasts, other proposals for other locations are sure to follow soon.  How will they be evaluated? 

6. LNG Moratorium in Prince George’s County.

 Establish a moratorium on the processing or approval of any applications for the construction of LNG facilities to be situated within Prince George’s County, pending the creation of the process, standards and staffing outlined above.