LNG port permit reopened
The energy firm BHP Billiton submits a design change for its seawater cooling system to meet environmental limits. It’s all “smoke and mirrors,” says a local environmental group.
By Ward Lauren / Special to The Malibu Times
In response to a design change submitted by energy company BHP Billiton for the seawater cooling system to be used in its proposed liquefied natural gas port off the coast of Malibu, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week reopened its public comment period on the project’s draft water discharge permit for an additional 30 days.
“We had a robust set of comments from the first public comment period,” said Alexis Strauss, EPA water division director for the Pacific Southwest Region, in a press release. “This reopening…gives interested parties an opportunity to respond to the changes.”
Under the terms of the extension, the EPA will also continue to accept comments on all other aspects of the proposed permit until the close of the extended period on Oct. 23.
Revisions to the permit, according to the EPA, involve a volume limit on cooling water discharge, temperature limits consistent with the California Thermal Plan and a baseline biological characterization study for plankton at the project location. The revision to temperature limits was recommended by agencies including the Environmental Defense Center, California Coastal Commission and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The California Department of Fish and Game asked for the plankton study, a one-year sampling of potential losses.
To limit the volume of cooling water, BHP revised its project design so that most of the time the cooling system would operate as a closed loop, the EPA said. BHP estimated that cooling water would still be discharged approximately eight days per year, amounting to a decrease in volume from about 1.2 billion gallons to 61 million gallons annually.
Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network, the public benefit corporation leading the opposition to the BHP project, called Cabrillo Port, said, “According to BHP Billiton’s own consultants, the proposed change would be the first of its kind, and, at best, only ‘appears to be technically feasible,’ in the words of their own report.
“Furthermore, even with this change, the Cabrillo Port project will still have significant adverse impacts on water quality and marine life because it will dump more than 60 million gallons per year of wastewater containing an unlimited amount of chlorine and copper.”
She said the design change sounded more like “smoke and mirrors,” and represented a desperate last-minute attempt by BHP Billiton to try to remove widespread and growing opposition to its proposed massive floating liquefied natural gas terminal.
“Not only has this type of cooling and regasification system never been used before,” Jordan said, “but a facility like Cabrillo Port has never been built anywhere in the world. Again BHP Billiton proposes a technology for California that is untried, untested, unproven and as a result unacceptable.”
Kathi Hann, environmental advisor with BHP Billiton, said, “Our engineers have worked this out in conjunction with the concerned agencies. The EPA has issued a draft-revised permit for the process and is using existing technology. It should be very important from an environmental point of view because there are several benefits.”
First, she said, the system eliminates the discharge of warm water into the ocean; the only exception would be during maintenance activities four to eight days a year. Additionally, the system uses fresh water instead of seawater that would normally be returned to the ocean, also reducing the impact on marine life.
And because it does not use seawater, the process will not have to use chlorine as a biocide, a further reduction in the danger posed to marine life, she said. Finally, the system will result in a net fuel savings, thus reducing engine exhaust emissions.
“This is an important milestone,” Hann said. “As we have done with other things in our project, we’ve made modifications in response to stakeholder comments and also in cooperation with all regulatory authorities.”
In a related development, not specifically involving the BHP port project, in Sacramento last week the Public Utilities Commission, over objections from air quality officials and environmental groups, approved rules that clear the way for large energy companies to import liquefied natural gas into California from foreign sources. A coalition of the protesting environmental and consumer groups said it would file suit in California Superior Court to block the decision.
“What the PUC is doing is just opening the door for these companies to come in and sell gas that does not meet current standards,” Jordan said. “It’s another example of how the Schwarzenegger administration is not doing right by California residents. The governor appoints all the commissioners; he’s responsible.
“He should be speaking up, protecting California consumers. He shouldn’t be greasing the skids so that the gas companies can come in and sell gas that doesn’t meet our current standards.”
In yet another obliquely related development, it was announced this week that gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides will hold a press conference on Friday at 10 a.m. at Malibu Bluffs Park to announce his position on the BHP Billiton LNG terminal proposal..