Home > Reasons to Regulate Siting of LNG Facilities

Reasons to Regulate Siting of LNG Facilities

Some Reasons to Regulate LNG Industrial Plants in Prince George’s County  (3/08)

Maps show the different danger zones of LNG (7/09)

1.  Residents within 3,000 ft. of a typical 1 Billion cubic foot facility would suffer death or life-threatening radiation burns from the intense heat flux of an LNG fire, created by a major, ignited spill.   Liberal buffer zones need to be required to protect the public from these plants.  (HUD regulations provide more adequate buffer zones, i.e. “acceptable separation distance”; FERC does not, and assumes that citizens can easily locate proper protection within 30 seconds).  

2.  Un-ignited LNG that comes into contact with air or water rapidly evaporates to form a cloud of natural gas (vapor cloud), which can be carried by the wind to neighbors, near and far (3-4 miles from a 1 billion cubic foot spill).        Vapor clouds can suffocate people (because of the lack of oxygen within them), and also ignite if they come into contact with a flame or other ignition source. (Consider all the pilot lights that exist in most neighborhoods).

3.  Any exposure (deliberate or accidental) of the LNG to a flame, live electric wire, or spark, etc. will cause a huge fire that cannot be extinguished with water.   Fire experts generally allow it to burn or may use special foam retardants.      The foam, often used to suppress the intensity of an LNG fire event, may have negative health consequences to the rivers, animal life and people.

4.  Washington Gas’ belligerent proposal to process and store liquefied gas just 1,500 feet from the West Hyattsville Metro stop, and approx. 600 ft. from a densely populated inner-beltway neighborhood, is an example of the industry’s lack of consideration of negative impacts on the public, which includes hundreds of senior citizens. 

5.  Most local communities and counties lack the financial resources to provide the security personnel needed to protect these facilities from vandalism or terrorism around the clock.    The national Department of Homeland Security has cited LNG facilities as legitimate, and among the top three types of vulnerable targets since 2003.

6.  If,  for some reason, the Gas Company doesn’t find a suitable site for an LNG plant, and must continue to operate as they have previously without this technology, the average cost to each residential household will be only $16. per year.  (In 2006 Washington Gas representatives said the figure would be $13./year for each household; we have adjusted because of their more recent & stated higher projections.)  The amount has grown because they continue to procrastinate in finding a suitable location for an LNG plant. 

7.  The large LNG plant in Baltimore City demonstrates that the presence of LNG storage has a limiting impact on property values for neighborhoods that are close-by, and it has a 1991 record of safety problems which were swept under the rug.   This is contradictory to Prince George’s County efforts to enhance its neighborhoods.

8.  In Prince Georges County, MNCPPC reviews the zoning and land use implications of project proposals.  The County’s land-use authority and zoning laws should be unambiguously recognized and acknowledged in State Law with respect to this kind of proposal. 

9.   Current MD’s Public Service commission (PSC) review of LNG facilities relies upon inadequate and outdated federal regulations adopted by FERC.  Impact statements and public hearings, for example, are not required where the facility is something other than a port or terminal.   

Please Help Pass Legislation Which Will Help Create Safe LNG Facilities within Prince George’s County   Contact:   The Washington Gas Watch Alliance,  Ms. Imani Kazana – 301-779-6948