LCL CTLR ALLOWED SMA TO LAND ON RWY THAT WAS RELEASED TO GND CTL AS TAXI ROUTE; RESULTING IN LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION.

Narrative

WE DEPARTED GATE AND WERE GIVEN TAXI INSTRUCTIONS TO TAXI ONTO RWY 22 AND LEFT ON C FOR RWY 28. AS WE APCHED RWY 22 WE ASKED GND CTL TO VERIFY WE WERE CLRED ON RWY 22 AND LEFT ON C. GND CTL REPLIED AFFIRMATIVE. WHILE WE WERE TAXIING ON RWY 22 WE NOTICED A SMALL AIRPLANE LNDG OPP DIRECTION TO US ON RWY 4. WE ASKED GND CTL IF THE AIRPLANE WAS INDEED LNDG ON RWY 4. GND CTL REPLIED YES AND EXPLAINED SHE HAD CTL OF THAT RWY AND TWR CTL APPARENTLY USED IT W/O HER PERMISSION. WE TAXIED OFF OF RWY 22 ONTO C AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE SMA WAS LNDG. WE HAD NO DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE SMA. THE SMA TURNED OFF RWY 4 AT ABOUT A MIDFIELD POS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR WAS ASKED IF A FOLLOW UP TELEPHONE CALL WAS MADE TO BWI TWR TO ASCERTAIN EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. THE REPLY WAS IN THE NEGATIVE. RPTR DID SAY THAT THE GND CTLR STATED ON THE RADIO THAT SHE OWNED THE RWY AND THAT THE LCL CTLR HAD MADE AN ERROR AND ASSIGNED IT TO THE LNDG SMA W/O COORD WITH HER. THE RPTR WAS QUESTIONED IN SPECIFIC AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE CLEAR OF THE RWY BEFORE THE SMA TOUCHED DOWN; BUT HE WAS NOT SURE. HE DID SAY THAT THE SMA DISAPPEARED BELOW A SMALL RISE IN THE RWY; SO IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT THE SMA WAS WELL PAST THE LNDG THRESHOLD AND THEREFORE A LOSS OF SEP OCCURRED.