BOSTON (AP) – Lawyers for families of passengers aboard the airliners hijacked out of Logan International Airport on Sept. 11, 2001 want to use the draft of a consultant’s report on security as evidence in their lawsuit against the agency that runs the airport.

The 59-page draft report, critical of airport executives for failing to improve security before the attacks, goes to the heart of the lawyers’ case in trying to prove negligence by the Massachusetts Port Authority.

“It would be exhibit number one against Massport,” said Joan A. Lukey, who represents the family of Daniel E. Lewin, who was stabbed aboard American Airlines Flight 11, apparently as he tried to thwart the hijackers. “It’s a significant piece of evidence on liability, bearing on what went wrong at Logan on 9-11.”

Lawyers for Massport oppose the public disclosure of the report at trial because they say it contains sensitive security information. The internal security review was commissioned by Massport based on a request by the airport’s director of public safety before Sept. 11, 2001.

Massport general counsel David S. Mackey denied any airport liability for the attacks and refused any further comment on the draft report or defense strategy.

About 90 families, including the Lewins, are suing in U.S. District Court in New York after opting not to participate in the special victim’s compensation fund set up by Congress. The Massport draft report is under lock and key in federal court.

The sides may not be able to reach a compromise on the use of the draft report and other documents that may contain sensitive information, said Lukey, which could mean a judge will have to rule of the report’s value as evidence.

The consulting firm Counter Technology Inc. began its review before Sept. 11, but continued after the attacks with renewed energy.

The first report was issued to high-level Massport officials in November 2002, and described disputes between former safety director Joseph Lawless and aviation director Thomas Kinton, according to the report, obtained by The Boston Globe in 2002.

The draft report said that bureaucratic infighting delayed the installation of closed-circuit security cameras and more thorough checks of passengers about to board planes.

“The Department of Safety’s efforts are continuously mitigated by rogue attempts to address and solve safety and security matters by non-Public Safety personnel,” the report said.

The result “effectively guaranteed inefficiency, encouraged rivalries and disrupted communication,” the draft report said.

Many of the criticisms were dropped from the final version.

Since the release of the report, several key executives have either resigned or been reassigned, while the new leadership has moved aggressively to overhaul security.

Attorneys for Massport and the authority’s insurance agent have demanded that lawyers representing families suing the agency return copies of the draft report, and the matter is in front of a federal judge.

The families’ lawyers argued that it contains no information that will compromise future security, and Lukey said that the fact that the final report had much of the criticism excised is an indication that Massport knew it had failed to enhance security sufficiently.

AP-ES-09-04-04 0143EDT