Terrorist worries restrict access to liquid gas plans.

Security regulations adopted by the federal government after 9/11 are restricting the public's access to information about proposed liquefied natural gas terminals across the state and nation, including in Long Beach and off the Malibu coast.

Concerned that terrorists could use safety information as a roadmap to blow the up the terminals, government agencies have adopted rules that in some cases will require non-disclosure agreements to be signed before access is allowed. In other cases, documents might not be available at all.

The rules are intended to balance the public right to assess the safety of the proposed terminals with the need to limit disclosures that could make the terminals more vulnerable to attack. Achieving that balance has become increasingly difficult in light of ongoing terrorist threats that have made federal officials reluctant to release information.

But critics say the government's regulations underscore the danger of the facilities. They also fear too much information will be restricted, a concern state and local officials share.

"If it's so unsafe and dangerous that we can't have access to the information, then it's outrageous that they would consider putting them in our residential areas," said Tim Riley, an Oxnard attorney and anti-LNG activist.

After little activity for decades, energy companies are proposing to build four LNG terminals in California and more than two dozen nationwide as the price of natural gas has risen while long-term projections forecast a drop in U.S. reserves.

Natural gas is liquefied through cooling to 260 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. This reduces its volume by a factor of 600 and allows it to be transported on tanker ships. The industry points to a long safety record, but there have been mishaps, including an explosion three months ago in Algeria that killed 27.

In his best-selling book, former Bush Administration anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke disclosed that federal officials were worried that one of the nation's few existing LNG terminals in Everett, Mass. might be a target.

Safety and terrorism fears have prompted strong community opposition that recently caused Calpine Corp. to abandon a proposed terminal in Humboldt Bay.

That still leaves proposals for the Port of Long Beach, Malibu-Ventura and Santa Barbara. ChevronTexaeo Corp. is also proposing an offshore facility in California but has not chosen a site.

Tamara Young Allen, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission spokeswoman, said that while some information might not be available at all to the public, other safety documents would be, though in some cases only to applicants who promise not to disclose it to the general public.

"If every one in your family signs a non-disclosure agreement, you can discuss it amongst yourselves," she said.

In Long Beach, Sound Energy Solutions, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corp., proposes to build a $400 million LNG terminal on 25 acres at Pier T in the West Basin of the Port of Long Beach.

The terminal would include two storage tanks holding up to 320,000 cubic meters of the liquid, just a few miles from such popular tourist attractions as the Queen Mary and Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific.

Soiling through

A joint state and federal environmental impact report is being prepared on the project and should be released later this year. While FERC officials promise to release the report to the public, it's unclear as how much of the supporting documentation will be available.

"I will wait and see what is released," said David Maul, manager of natural gas for the California Energy Commission, which is tracking LNG projects statewide. "FERC is still trying to sort through what is appropriate for widespread release and what is appropriate for limited review."

Bob Kanter, director of planning at the Long Beach port, said he is confident the most important studies will be available, including a risk assessment that will determine the danger of various worse case scenarios. These include the crash of a jet into the terminal. "That is the type of analysis that will be fully disclosed to the public," he said.

But FERC officials already have restricted release of one section of Sound Energy Solution's application, which includes detailed engineering drawings laying out the location of various pipes and valves.

Kanter said he was comfortable with that decision, saying that it was not common for it to be released in environmental reviews anyway. But some community activists are not pleased.

"How are you going to do an evaluation of public safety without engineering diagrams?" asked Don May, co-founder of the environmental group California Earth Corp. "That is pretty fundamental: Just exactly what is it you are approving?"

Under a rule adopted by FERC last year, individuals and groups may gain access to documents if they file a request that asks them some personal data and why they want the information.

Young Allen said the agency has approved 90 percent of the requests made since the rule went into effect. California Earth Corp. now expects to receive the information as a formal "intervenor," giving it standing in the application process under federal rules.

Sean Moulton, a senior information policy analyst with OMB Watch, a Washington-based good government group, said his review of FERC's Web site indicates that thousands of documents pertaining to a variety of projects under the agency's jurisdiction have been classified as restricted, likely meaning the public will have limited access to many LNG safety documents.

FERC has denied a petition from the state Public Utilities Commission seeking authority over the Long Beach project. The PUC is appealing. There will be no local say, however, over a proposed a terminal that the Australian energy company BHP Billiton wants to construct 14 miles west of Point Dume in Malibu.

The BHP terminal falls under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard, whose rules regarding the release of safety information are being generated informally on a case-by-case basis.

"Clearly there is some information that for security reasons cannot be made available to the public, but there is no fixed definition for security-sensitive information," said Bob Corbin, who is overseeing the review of the BHP project as assistant chief of the Deep Water Ports Standard Division of the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard has no formal rules governing even limited public dissemination of sensitive safety data.

While the idea of placing an LNG terminal offshore would appear to alleviate many safety concerns, Riley said a study done in 1977 for a proposed onshore terminal in Oxnard (that was never completed) found that it could create a burning cloud of gas 30 miles long.

Some experts believe that scenario is an overstatement of the risk, but Riley said even the possibility of it should have the government thinking twice about approving the offshore terminal near populated areas.

"I think they want to restrict anything that really lets us know how dangerous it is," he said.