The arrival late Monday of an 860-foot liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker in Boston Harbor — the first one to enter the port since the U.S. Coast Guard imposed a post-Sept. 11 ban on the shipments — was met with a string of security precautions that was unlike anything ever seen in Boston before.

“A flotilla of Coast Guard small boats accompanied the ship, while fireboats stood at ready, airplanes waited in holding patterns and [Boston’s] Tobin Bridge was closed until the ship slipped passed on its way” to Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC’s off-loading terminal in Everett, MA, according to an article in The Boston Globe. “As the tanker passed Castle Island, a long cable was being rigged from a tug boat to the stern of the tanker,” which “could be used to pull the ship back to sea in case terrorists struck a debilitating blow,” it said.

The tanker laden with 33 million gallons of LNG reportedly coasted along the harbor with “almost no lights on the hull” to avoid attention, and docked safely at Distrigas’ terminal at about 10 p.m Monday, according to the Globe account. With the safe arrival of the vessel, which was bound from Trinidad, the company said it expects to receive a tanker shipment every 10 days.

The tanker, Matthew, entered Boston Harbor only hours after U.S. District Court Judge Reginald Lindsay denied Boston Mayor Tom Menino’s petition for a temporary injunction to halt the LNG shipment, ruling that the city of Boston and several communities bordering the harbor had offered “no discernible claim” to warrant such action. Menino continues to view LNG transportation through the harbor as a potential hazard, and has asked federal Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge to intervene in the case.

The city of Boston claims that it had little input in formulating the stepped-up security plan for LNG transportation in the harbor, and hasn’t even viewed the final plan that was prepared by the Coast Guard in Boston and several federal, state and local agencies. But the Coast Guard countered that the new security procedures were a “collaborative effort…not a unilateral one. No one agency can do this alone.”

Moreover, it believes the security plan developed for LNG shipments in Boston Harbor provides a blueprint for other ports nationwide. “…[W]e have prepared a security plan and a consequence plan with our partners that can be used elsewhere in ports around the United States. These are excellent management plans which will help us deal with hazardous cargos everywhere.”

Although the focus on LNG transportation safety has been “reassuring,” Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), whose district includes the Distrigas LNG facility, has expressed “serious concerns” about the multiple agencies that have jurisdiction over the safety of the facility itself. These concerns, he said, were underscored by a letter he received from Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Norman Mineta last Friday.

Markey on Tuesday sought the “urgent assistance” of Ridge to untangle the overlapping federal, state and local agency responsibilities for ensuring the safety and security of the Distrigas storage/terminal facility. At the federal level, he noted that currently DOT’s Office of Pipeline Safety and the Department of Energy (DOE) share responsibility for the safety and security of the Distrigas site, while the Everett Police and Fire Departments have the lead role in responding to an accident or attack.

Markey proposed that the DOT be designated as the “lead agency” to assure the security of the Distrigas site, and also suggested that Ridge consider authorizing additional resources to help local fire and police units provide on-site protection.

While the Coast Guard — the lead federal agency for securing LNG transportation to ports — “can muster 100 reservists and special equipment on days when a ship arrives, the city of Everett has no such authority for all the other days that a ship is absent,” he said. “I am concerned that our response to the occasional danger posed by the arrival of a ship is disproportional to our response to the routine, everyday danger posed by the onshore facilities themselves.”

Markey believes the risks associated with Distrigas’ on-site LNG tanks are much greater. “If the Coast Guard is concerned about protecting 7 million gallons in a [ship’s tank] if it loses the assistance from 100 reservists, you can imagine how concerned the Everett Police and Fire Departments have become about their ongoing responsibility for 25 million gallons sitting in [onshore] tanks without reserve support.”

He further called attention to the lack of security/safety background checks on personnel employed by Distrigas or by entities involved in LNG shipping. “I believe this is a soft spot in our defenses that invites the kind of attack that would be aided by an insider.”

The Distrigas terminal is the only LNG terminal in the U.S. that is located in a major urban center. One security expert suggested to NGI that there may be pressure to eventually close it and open another one to the north, along the Maine coast.

©Copyright 2001 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.