For Immediate Release
Contact: Susan Jordan, CCPN, 805-637-3037
Linda Krop and Karen Kraus, EDC, 805-963-1622

EPA Bowed To Political Pressure to Remove Requirements for BHP Billiton LNG Terminal Air Permit

No Legal Analysis to Justify EPA Reversal Exists; Agency
Stonewalls Request to Turn Over Key Documents

In a stunning development just one month before BHP Billiton’s
proposal to build a massive LNG Terminal off the coast of Oxnard
and Malibu goes before California state officials for approval, an
inquiry by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has
confirmed that the EPA’s 2005 reversal on a key regulatory smog
requirement was without legal justification, that career EPA staff
strenuously opposed the move, but were overridden by pressure
from a high level EPA political official.

“BHP Billiton has known since 2004 that its proposed Cabrillo
Port LNG Terminal project was a non-starter under the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. BHP’s solution was to go
behind the public’s back and use its political connections to
pressure the EPA to reverse course and drop the requirements that
every other major new source of pollution would have to comply
with. BHP’s disingenuous behavior is reprehensible, EPA’s
reversal is illegal, and nothing short of full compliance with the
Clean Air Act is acceptable,” said Susan Jordan, Director of the
California Coastal Protection Network (CCPN).

Initially, in 2004 EPA Region IX (located in San Francisco,
California) determined that the Cabrillo Port LNG project would
have to comply with Clean Air Act requirements for the use of
“best available control technology” (BACT) and “emission
reduction credits” (offsets) because the project would be such a
large source of new air pollution. BACT is required to ensure that
air pollution emissions from new facilities are as low as possible,
through the use of state-of-the-art technology. Emission reduction
credits are required to cancel out, or offset, any remaining
emissions and are secured based on emission reductions acquired
from other approved sources. BHP Billiton apparently determined
that it would not or could not secure enough offsets to comply with
the Clean Air Act requirements and instead lobbied the White
House and EPA political appointees in Washington, D.C. in an
attempt to overturn the decision made by EPA Region IX. In July
2005, EPA issued a short letter announcing that the Cabrillo Port
LNG project would be exempt from requirements of the Clean Air
Act.

It was CCPN’s attorneys that did the painstaking legal detective
work that uncovered the string of events that led to the EPA
reversal on the BHP Billiton air permit. Using the Freedom of
Information Act and reviewing thousands of pages, attorneys from
the Environmental Defense Center uncovered key documents and
correspondence that demonstrated the behind-the-scenes lobbying
by BHP Billiton.

“For a year and a half, the EPA argued strenuously, supported by
lengthy legal and factual analyses to the applicant and the White
House, that BHP’s Cabrillo Port LNG Terminal was required to
comply with the Clean Air Act and obtain emission offsets. Then,
in a tersely worded two page letter in 2005, EPA reversed its
position with nothing more than a single paragraph of explanation.
What Representative Waxman has confirmed is that EPA Region
IX had no valid justification for this change in position and that the
decision was based on pressure from Bush appointees in the EPA.
It is illegal to exempt this company from the Clean Air Act
requirement to obtain emission offsets. We know it. BHP Billiton
knows it. And now the public-at-large knows it,” said Linda Krop,
Chief Counsel for the Environmental Defense Center.

CCPN and EDC provided Representative Waxman with the
timeline of EPA’s decisions and supporting documents back in
November of 2006. When Representative Waxman assumed the
Chairmanship of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, he made it a priority to launch an inquiry into
the EPA’s reversal on the BHP Billiton air permit. According to
the March 5, 2007 letter from Representative Waxman to U.S.
EPA Administrator Johnson,

“(1) career officials at EPA opposed the permit decision
reversal; (2) a senior EPA political official intervened in the
permit decision after meetings with the company seeking the
permit; and (3) the analysis that EPA cited to justify
reversing the career officials does not appear to exist.”

Residents from the Ventura and Los Angeles counties applauded
Waxman’s efforts to hold BHP Billiton and the EPA accountable
under the law.

“Representative Waxman is a champion of the people and we
applaud his integrity and determination to safeguard our
environmental laws, protect the air our children breathe, and
expose the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration,” said
Keely Brosnan. She and her husband Pierce Brosnan have been
leading the effort to stop the BHP Billiton floating Liquefied
Natural Gas terminal from being constructed.

Lupe Anguiano, a 50 year resident of Oxnard and long time
community activist said, “For two years, we have begged the
Schwarzenegger Administration to hear our concerns and to
protect us from the illegal actions of this multinational mining
conglomerate to no avail. Representative Waxman took our
concerns seriously and for that we are immensely grateful.”

For more information:
www.coastaladvocates.com
www.edcnet.org

###