·SPECIAL BULLETIN—MALIBU LNG
WATCH·
Revised Cabrillo Port EIR Identifies 20
Significant Negative Impacts
BY HANS LAETZ
The third version of environmental studies
on the proposed Cabrillo Port liquefied natural gas terminal
was released Friday, and concludes that the project would
impose 20 substantial negative impacts on the scenic views, air
quality and wildlife of the Malibu coastal strip and waters.
“Twenty proposed project impacts have
been identified as significant impacts, [and are] considered
major, permanent, long-term or short-term impacts under
[federal and state laws],” the long-delayed Environmental
Impact Report says. It says the negative effects are
“significant and unavoidable, [and even] would remain
after mitigation is applied.”
The report’s publication triggers a
rapid series of hearings, votes and decisions on the proposed
industrial addition to Malibu’s coastline. Assuming the
project wins a key approval from the California State Lands
Commission and the California Coastal Commission, Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger will have to decide whether to approve or veto
the project before May 20.
The report does not take sides in the
heated argument over federal smog permits for Cabrillo Port, or
whether Cabrillo Port is a part of the Channel Islands
exemption to local smog rules, as BHP Billiton claims. But it
concludes the LNG plant’s smog emissions would include
nitrogen oxides and petrochemicals at levels that will exceed
federal law, despite company plans to reduce smog emissions
elsewhere in the state.
The EIR, posted on the Internet Friday
morning, concludes that “a number of adverse effects
would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant and
unavoidable offshore impacts during project operations would be
potential public safety impacts from a high-energy marine
collision or damage to subsea pipelines; noise impacts to
marine animals; marine biology, air quality and water quality
impacts from a significant spill or LNG release from the
[terminal] or offshore pipelines.”
The report sets up one major bone of
contention with coastal advocates who estimate that opening up
Cabrillo Port to imports would add greenhouse gas equal to five
percent of California’s existing total discharge. The
EIR, however, rejects that argument by only looking at actual
discharges at the port itself, instead of the cumulative total
caused by compressing the gas and shipping it halfway around
the globe.
“The Project would generate emissions
of greenhouse gases that would be insignificant alone, but
could exacerbate, in combination with existing greenhouse
gases, global warming effects,” the report concludes.
The analysis says negative aesthetic, noise
and recreational impacts on boaters traveling near Cabrillo
Port will occur, as well as similar impacts from the visual
intrusion of an industrial facility into two national parks.
Among other major impacts, the EIR
concludes:
· A high-energy collision or an
intentional attack could rupture the tanks holding LNG, leading
to the release of a flammable vapor cloud that could extend
beyond the one-mile safety zone and cover adjacent shipping
lanes, but not the adjacent coastline.
· Commercial and recreational
fishing gear could become hung up on the pipeline and
potentially damage one or both of the undersea pipelines.
· The undersea natural gas pipelines
coursing across 22 miles of ocean bed could be severed due to a
seismic event or undersea landslide.
The report includes the written and spoken
concerns of thousands of Oxnard and Malibu residents over the
past three years, along with specific responses to each and
every specific comment from consultants working for the state
and federal governments. For example, Ventura Congressmember
Lois Capp’s concern about the shape and size of an
explosive vapor cloud is addressed:
“The Independent Risk Assessment
determined that the consequences of the worst credible accident
involving a vapor cloud fire would be more than 5.7 nautical
miles [7.4 highway miles] from shore at the closest point, the
maximum distance from the [ship] in any direction that could be
affected in the event of an accident. The shape and direction
of the affected area would depend on wind conditions and would
be more like a cone than a circle, but would not reach the
shoreline.”
The EIR rejects concerns from Malibu
residents about the visual impact of the ship, which would be
anchored just beyond the shipping lanes used by the container
vessels visible most days along the coast.
“From the shoreline, and particularly
from higher elevations, the [terminal] would be seen but would
appear as a thickening on the horizon,” the report says.
“Night lighting used during pipeline construction and
operations would be visible from the shore and to residents
living in the foothills and higher elevation areas in Malibu
and from the top of Anacapa Island, thereby altering the
nighttime viewshed.”
The report does not mention that a key
federal agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, is
withholding its input on Cabrillo Port until it gets data about
how whales and other protected species will be avoided by LNG
tankers, and how continuous, loud noise from the terminal will
affect whales.
“A natural gas leak from subsea
pipelines could cause morbidity or mortality of marine biota,
including fish, invertebrates, seabirds, sea turtles and marine
mammals,” the report says. “Even with the
implementation of mitigation measures, impacts on marine
biological species from a large accidental release of LNG or
fuel would remain significant.”
The report also repeats NMFS concerns that
“construction and operational vessels could collide with
marine mammals or sea turtles resting on the ocean surface,
resulting in injury or mortality.”
And while the EIR acknowledges the impact
of industrial intrusions into a scenic recreation area, it does
not address the economic impact to whale-watching operations if
the leviathans are driven away by the loud LNG boilers.
Lengthy new material in the report about
the project’s sound impact on animals is included in the
technical appendices unveiled Friday.
The report also takes a closer look at two
low-income trailer parks in the Oxnard area that sit on top of
where a 30-inch, high-pressure natural gas line will be
installed to feed gas from Cabrillo Port to Los Angeles.
The EIR, some 3000 pages thick, will be
reviewed by environmental lawyers, Malibu activists and local
governments over the next three weeks. On April 4, the Coast
Guard will take public testimony, but will not issue its
decision on the matter until later in Washington. On April 9,
the Lands Commission will hold its hearing and take a vote,
followed on April 12 by the Coastal Commission.
BHP Billiton plans to start operations at
Cabrillo Port in three years.
