Growing protests of federal intervention to ease BHP LNG Cabrillo Port approval precede four crucial hearings likely to determine its fate. An environmental review states that, in addition to contributing pollution, the port would be an eyesore, and lights from it would be visible to Malibu at night.
By Ward Lauren / Special to The Malibu Times
The fight against the proposed BHP Billiton liquefied natural gas project for the coast of Malibu is ratcheting upward, as local protests, a Congressional investigation, and a series of state and federal hearings scheduled for early April that will likely determine the fate of the controversial BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port LNG floating storage and regasification terminal take place.
Sen. Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Lois Capps have tossed their hats into the ring with Rep. Henry Waxman in investigating why the Environmental Protection Agency reversed its decision to require strict air quality permits and offsets for the LNG project. And, at a press conference on the Malibu Pier Saturday, state Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), who in 2004 had written a letter in support of the LNG project, announced his complete reversal and henceforth his opposition to the proposal. He was joined by fellow Assemblymembers Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) and Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) in aligning with the efforts of citizen protest leaders Keely Shaye and Pierce Brosnan to “Terminate the Terminal.” Local Martin Sheen also joined the effort, appearing on Saturday, noting that he is joining the protest late and needs to educate himself on the issues.
“This proposed liquefied natural gas terminal is part of the globalized assault taking place on our Earth,” Keely Shaye Brosnan said on Saturday. “We cannot let this project be approved!”
On March 5, Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a second letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson requesting an explanation of the agency’s reversal of its original interpretation of the air permit rules affecting the LNG port. The letter was prompted by Waxman’s dissatisfaction with Johnson’s reply to his first request, which failed to supply documents supporting the claim that the EPA’s decision was based on sound analysis. It also stated that it appeared that pressure from a high-level EPA official overrode concerns by EPA staff regarding the project.
Boxer and Capps sent a letter, dated March 9, to Johnson expressing their concerns about the reversal and requested all EPA records, including internal ones, in connection with communication between BHP agents and the EPA regarding the air permits or requirements for Cabrillo Port and all EPA records regarding communications between the White House and the EPA regarding the project, as well as additional records and information. They asked that all documents be supplied by no later than April 13.
In response to a request for comment from the agency, Washington EPA Press Officer Dave Ryan said, “We are reviewing the congressman’s letter and will respond in a timely manner. The EPA is committed to protecting public health and the environment by increasing our domestic energy supplies by developing alternative sources of energy like liquid natural gas.”
BHP Billiton Environmental Advisor Kathi Hann, in a prepared statement by the company, said, “Congressman Waxman’s letter to the EPA concerns the process that a government agency followed, not BHP Billiton or Cabrillo Port.”
The Cabrillo Port terminal would be anchored to a 22.2-mile pipeline, located at a depth of 2,800 feet. Described as being 14 stories tall, and the length of three football fields, the ship would receive natural gas from around the world that has been cooled and compressed; the gas would then be reheated to return it to its natural state, and be piped onshore at Oxnard.
Critics say the process is dangerous and accidents could cause catastrophic fireballs, and that the process of regasification, as well as emissions from tankers unloading the LNG, would contribute excessive pollution to the Ventura and Los Angeles regions.
The long-awaited Federal Environmental Impact Report, or FEIR, that is to address these concerns and more, was released on Friday. The 3,000-page report of technical information will be key to a series of hearings next month leading to the governor’s final decision on the LNG project. The Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday that the FEIR states Cabrillo Port would “emit about 219 tons of ozone-forming emissions and 35 tons of smoke and soot daily-ranking it as one of the biggest air pollution sources for Ventura County.”
And although BHP Billiton officials say it will offset those emissions, the FEIR states the company fails to show it can reduce emissions significantly.
Although the FEIR says any danger risks are low, noise pollution from the port’s construction and operations would be high, and could cause harm to marine mammals. At night, lights from the port would be visible in Malibu, and the project could be an eyesore to those visiting the Channel Islands National Park, to boaters and whale watchers and would “cause a long-term significant adverse change in the visual character of the open ocean.”
The first meeting on the project’s FEIR will be the U.S. Coast Guard’s final hearing on the subject in Oxnard on April 4.
Although the Coast Guard will only accept public comment at this hearing, it is critical because it triggers the 45-day review period mandated by the Deepwater Port Act under which the Cabrillo Port application is being processed.
On April 9, the State Lands Commission will conduct a hearing in Oxnard to vote on two aspects of the project: the certification of the FEIR and the lease for the LNG pipeline. Three days later, on April 12, the California Coastal Commission will hold a hearing in Santa Barbara in which it will vote on federal consistency with the state’s coastal plan.
“This is a very important hearing,” said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center. “The Coastal Commission can actually deny the project even though most of it is located in federal waters.”
The next significant date will be May 19 when the clock runs out on the 45-day review period.
“The governor must veto the project or it will be deemed approved even if the SLC and CCC vote against it,” said Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network, the leading environmental group opposing the project.
Assemblyman Levine’s opposition is an important addition to her group’s efforts to prevent approval of the LNG terminal, Jordan said. In his role as chairman of the State Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee he has substantial influence and input on energy policy in California.
The reason he changed his position, Levine said, was that “BHP Billiton assured me that their LNG project was clean and would comply with all of California’s strictest environmental laws. This statement turned out to be false and I am now strongly convinced that the project will pollute the environment, threaten the health and safety of residents, violate the Clean Air Act, and place a needless and dangerous facility off our shores.”
Levine came to this conclusion, in part, because of some of the same unexplained EPA decisions that prompted Rep. Waxman to send his second letter to the agency administrator.
“What Rep. Waxman has confirmed is that EPA had no valid justification for reversing its position,” said EDC’s Krop. “The decision was based on pressure from Bush appointees in the EPA.”