Cabrillo Port Hopes to Skirt Smog Rules Because It’s at Sea

• Federal Law Requires EPA Enforcement of State Air Pollution Rules to 200 Miles Offshore

BY HANS LAETZ

The company seeking to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on Malibu’s coastal horizon now says it should be exempted from tough federal smog requirements because current standards apply only to land-based LNG ovens, and theirs would be on a ship.

And, in a related matter, the Los Angeles area’s regional smog agency has sued the state panel that gave a green light to hot-burning natural gas imports that might pass through Malibu, increasing air pollution levels all across California.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District filed a lawsuit last week, alleging that liquefied natural gas from foreign nations is often “hot gas,” which it describes as “liquefied natural gas with an inherently different chemical composition and higher heating content than natural gas currently used in Southern California.”

“Preliminary tests have shown that certain equipment burning ‘hot gas’ can nearly double emissions of nitrogen oxides, a key cause of ozone and fine particulate pollution,” an AQMD statement read. “Consumer groups and equipment manufacturers also have raised concerns about potential fire, safety and equipment durability concerns when hot gas is used.”

Last week, AQMD’s executive officer said the suit against the California Public Utilities Commission was only aimed at LNG coming from a new terminal near Ensenada, and that all proposed offshore U.S.-based terminals had pledged not to use “hot gas.”

But after being asked to double-check that by a reporter, AQMD spokesman Sam Atwood reviewed the Cabrillo Port issue. On Monday he e-mailed that “it looks like they (BHP Billiton) have not made a firm commitment to deliver gas that meets AQMD’s recommended (standard),” and that Cabrillo Port’s owners have not in fact committed to avoid the heavier-polluting fuel.

But Atwood said BHP Billiton officials told the AQMD it could be feasible to meet the old, cleaner standard if the state PUC were to reinstate it.

Meanwhile, an attorney for BHP Billiton told the Environmental Protection Agency that it is impossible to place catalytic scrubbers on its Malibu terminal to remove hundreds of tons of smog-producing chemicals because the high-temperature catalytic burners can’t be used on a pitching, swaying ship.

In a letter obtained by the Malibu Surfside News, Thomas R. Wood wrote that scrubbers have never been connected to LNG boilers onboard ships, “and the technology is currently not feasible.” An accompanying technical report says the huge ship would have to be further enlarged to make room for the pollution-control equipment, and even then movement of the ship may cause the scrubbers to work improperly.

At issue is a federal requirement that the LNG terminal use “best available control technology” to reduce the 484 tons of smog-producing chemicals that Cabrillo Port would release into the coastal skies near Malibu each year. Since a similar LNG plant near Baltimore uses a high-temperature flame to remove nitrogen oxide from the smokestack, EPA wants to know why Billiton doesn’t plan that technology for its ship.

The technical report provided by BHP Billiton says the “sloshing effect” from waves would cause burner flames in the catalytic scrubbers to “potentially cause the head on the burner to vary, thus introducing instabilities in the flow...These issues cannot simply be ‘designed around’ because there is little or no data upon which to base the FSRU (ship) design.”

The BHPB report notes that the 82-foot-high scrubbers, mounted on top of the ship, would sway back and forth five feet if the ship rolled just one degree in the ocean waves. The reports says maintenance workers onboard the ship “may potentially be exposed to a release of cold hydrocarbon gas during an emergency venting situation” should the scrubbers fail due to wave action.

In Houston, BHP Billiton spokesman Patrick Cassidy said the report and letter shows that scrubbers have “never been used for submerged combustion vaporizers in a marine application, and substantial research would be required to determine whether the technology is feasible for that application.”

Cassidy said putting the LNG plant offshore, while making the pollution scrubbers impossible, has major advantages.
“Cabrillo Port provides numerous other benefits by virtue of its offshore location, including safety and environmental features, that can’t be had with an onshore facility.

“These include a smaller environmental footprint, a buffer zone of no less than 13 miles that puts the operation safely away from any onshore activities, such as schools, neighborhoods, and businesses; and proximity to existing pipeline infrastructure which minimizes onshore disturbance,” he said.

An attorney at the Environmental Defense Center scoffed at that. “That’s just classic BHP Billiton, saying, ‘Look at all the pretty bows we’ve put on this package, and disregard all the negative impacts,” said EDC attorney Karen Kraus.

The BHPB letter adds attention to the EPA air pollution permit controversy. Last week, Rep. Henry Waxman demanded that EPA turn over its legal memos and e-mails regarding the agency’s 2005 decision to yield to White House pressure and move towards exempting the company from the strictest level of smog rules, which might make building the LNG terminal impossible.

BHPB’s Cassidy this week downplayed the significance of the Waxman inquiry. “The letter is being addressed by EPA, and the issues raised are not new news,” he said in a telephone interview Monday.

Cassidy raised the argument that the company can build its terminal without complying with local onshore smog regulations. “It also should be noted that Cabrillo Port is 14 miles offshore and would not be located in Ventura or Los Angeles counties,” he added.

That distinction may prove critical, if the company spokesperson is correct. Although California coastal jurisdiction only extends three miles offshore, federal law requires the EPA to enforce state smog rules for deepwater port projects out to 200 miles offshore.

The EPA tentatively ruled in 2004 that Ventura County smog rules apply to Cabrillo Port, a holding that has not yet been formally challenged by BHP Billiton. The Ventura smog agency has recently reaffirmed that the LNG terminal must buy smog offsets—a possible fatal blow to the terminal, since Ventura County does not have much heavy industry that can be “greened up” to provide BHPB with smog credits.