Caution prevails as final decision to issue permit still rests in the hands of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
By Ward Lauren / Special to The Malibu Times
Local opponents of the proposed liquefied natural gas facility for the coast of Malibu/Oxnard were cautiously jubilant last week as the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board voted to oppose a permit being considered by the federal Environmental Protection Agency that would allow construction and operation of the BHP Billiton LNG processing terminal 14 miles off the coast.
The board’s decision followed a public hearing prompted by Ventura County Supervisors Steve Bennett and Linda Parks. The two collaborated to write a strong letter to Ventura County pollution control board members urging them to take specific action in opposition to a recent EPA decision easing air quality regulations pertaining to the LNG facility, known as Cabrillo Port.
“Initially, the U.S. EPA determined that the project would be required to meet the same air quality regulations that apply to any new source of pollution,” Bennett and Parks wrote. “Subsequently, the EPA changed its position, and citing a provision of our own Air Quality Management Plan that was never intended to apply to projects of this type … indicated that the LNG terminal would be held to a far lesser standard.”
The provision the letter referred to is a special air quality rule that specifically exempted some minor U.S. Navy operations being conducted on San Nicholas Island. With the EPA interpretation that this rule also applied to Cabrillo Port, BHP Billiton would not be required to comply with the same county pollution regulations that all other new, modified or relocated businesses must comply with.
The two supervisors’ letter asked the Ventura pollution control board to direct its executive officer to take three actions: Oppose the EPA’s decision and request that the agency require the BHP Billiton project comply with Ventura County’s New Source Review regulations; make an analysis of other options available to assure that offshore LNG operations comply; analyze and provide specific language clarifying that the original intent of the special rule was only to exempt minor Navy operations on offshore islands.
“I’m particularly pleased that [the board’s decision] was a unanimous vote,” Bennett said after the public hearing. “The EPA was making a wrong interpretation of a county rule. Now we’ll find out whether the EPA is going to change their draft indication that they were going to allow [Cabrillo Port] to be treated like it was out on the islands and therefore not subject to new source review.”
As to why the EPA changed its original decision to apply the Ventura County new source pollution rules, Linda Krop, attorney for the Environmental Defense Center and the California Coastal Protection Network, had her own interpretation.
“In 2004,” she said, “BHP Billiton found out they weren’t going to be able to comply [with the original new source rules]. So they started lobbying the White House and EPA headquarters to convince [the] EPA to change its decision. Ever since then we’ve been trying to convince the EPA that this would be illegal.
“We’ve been giving all of our information to the county of Ventura because we thought they would want to agree with us, since it’s their air quality. And sure enough they did, and we’re pleased to have that support.”
“The result is fantastic,” said Susan Jordan, CCPN director. “It’s what we’ve been pushing for ever since the EPA reversed its position. We didn’t agree with that from the start; we felt it was a political decision, not a scientific or legal one.
“So we’re thrilled that the Ventura County APCB, in a unanimous vote, clarified that the permit [for Cabrillo Port] needs to processed for just what it is, a major new source of pollution. But we’re still waiting for the final environmental impact report to be released, and now we hear that it’s going to be delayed again until the first quarter of 2007.”
The next thing the EPA will do at this point, said Attorney Krop, is consider the Ventura County request, which is similar to those it has been receiving for some time from her organization, CCPN and other concerned groups and citizens. She felt this one would carry a little more weight, however, because it is from the district that will be most affected by pollution from the LNG facility.
The EPA can now do one of two things, she said. For one, it can continue on its present path and exempt the project, in which case the license would be approved and the EPA would issue the final air quality permit.
“The other thing, which we’re hoping for,” she said, “is that the EPA could decide to apply the original Ventura County rules and issue a new proposed permit, and then that would go out for more public comment. An EPA representative who was at the hearing said he didn’t know which direction they were going at this point, so we’re on pins and needles.”
Kathi Hann, environmental advisor for BHP Billiton, said the Ventura pollution control board ruling had no effect on the project at the present time; it depends on the next decision the EPA makes.
“It’s actually the Ventura APC District’s rule that’s in question,” Hann said. “It pertains to the rule exemption that the EPA used in writing our permit, [which it applied] because [the LNG facility will be] in federal waters, farther out than those ships that are passing up and down the coast every year. But the Ventura County air pollution control rules pertain to onshore facilities.”
It’s up to the EPA to decide which rules will apply to Cabrillo Port, she said.
Meanwhile the company is already applying controls and reducing emissions.
“We’re confident that our project is environmentally benign in many ways,” Hann said. “We’re using proven technologies, we’ve been under very intensive review for over three years, and we believe we will meet, even exceed, the requirements of both the state and federal authorities.”