Here’s the latest information, followed by a summary:
- A FERC public scoping meeting is set for October 29th at 7:00 pm at the Sandisfield Arts Center, 5 Hammertown Road, Sandisfield.
- Tennessee Gas Pipeline filed a Draft Environmental Impact Report with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office dated September 30, 2014. Comments are due November 7, 2014.
Summary of the Connecticut Expansion Pipeline process so far
The State process:
The Connecticut Expansion Pipeline project proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP) was first submitted to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office on May 21, 2014 as an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF). While it might have been a large document, it was sorely lacking in essential environmental information. TGP was asking for expedited review. A site visit followed on June 10th. It was the worst site visit BEAT has ever attended as far as gaining any information about the project (see below for more information). The Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs issued a Certificate saying that TGP is required to file a Draft and then Final Environmental Impact Report.
On October 2, 2014, BEAT received the Draft Environmental Impact Report (part of the state process). It came as three 4-inch thick binders. Comments are due November 7, 2014. We will review this document to see what information is missing.
The Federal process:
On August 12, 2014, TGP filed an Abbreviated Application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), again asking for expedited review. Comments were due on 9/4/14.
Here are BEAT’s 9/4/2014 comments to FERC regarding the CT Expansion. (large pdf)
A public scoping meeting is set for October 29th at 7:00 pm at the Sandisfield Arts Center, 5 Hammertown Road, Sandisfield. This is a forum to ask that TGP be required to submit environmental studies, research, and other information to allow discovery of all the potential environmental impacts. (Ask them to map all vernal pools and the upland habitat the amphibian species use. Map all areas that could potentially require blasting. Map all areas of invasive species and provide site specific analyses of how they will ideally eliminate the invasives, if not, how they will prevent further spread to un-infested areas.
Elaine Baum is FERC’s environmental project manager for the CT Expansion Project (Docket CP14-529). She can be reached at 202-502-6467. Her email is elaine.baum@ferc.gov. And there is also a Certificate Project Manager: P.J. Boudreau, 202-502-6854.
The Review Process
Kinder Morgan / Tennessee Gas Pipeline’s presentations show an impressive list of environmental review agencies. Unfortunately, it is not that those agencies have to review this project, but that they might review this project.
Here is a brief sketch of what the environmental review process should look like – followed by what has happened in the Connecticut Expansion Review thus far. (updated 10/2/14)
Local – the local Conservation Commission has no legal authority because it is an interstate pipeline (utility), but they can comment during the other processes.
State
The next process that TGP should go through is the state’s environmental review – MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act) process. The purpose of MEPA is to bring forth all environmentally relevant information. During this process, all those state agencies that are listed on KM’s slide can comment. So can the Conservation Commission and so can YOU!
Usually the proponent files an ENF (Environmental Notification Form) with their first attempt at describing all the environmentally relevant information. Then there is usually a site visit. At the site visit, the proponent shows all the interested parties where the natural resources are and how the proponent plans to avoid those resources, or at least minimize any impact to those resources, and where they do have an impact, how they will mitigate for those impacts.
Comments are accepted. Then the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs issues a Certificate describing what the basic project is and what the scope will be for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The proponent then prepares and submits a DEIR. Everyone can then submit comments on the DEIR. The proponent then reviews the comments, makes changes as appropriate, and submits the Final EIR including in it replies to all the comments that were received.
The Secretary then issues a final certificate either saying that the proponent has, or has not, properly complied with MEPA. The only reason that MEPA would say that the proponent has not complied, is if the proponent does not provide adequate environmental information in response to the scope and to the comments.
Federal
Finally, there is the federal process, in which the proponent applies to FERC. Part of the FERC process is environmental review, and that is all I am going to cover here. It is very similar in many ways to the MEPA process, only the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process is only one aspect of the FERC review. During the FERC review, all the federal agencies can comment, as well as everyone else. This process usually starts with a pre-filing, then FERC comes back with a scope for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the purpose of which is to bring forth all the environmentally important information. The proponent then works to develop a Draft EIS (I am still a little unclear how this process works – I believe the proponent pays for EPA supervised preparation of a Draft EIS.) Then there is opportunity for everyone to comment on the DEIS. Then a Final EIS is prepared making any changes in response to comments and responding to all the comments.
What has happened in Sandisfield
This is not how the process went in Sandisfield. First TGP submitted an “Expanded” ENF, asking that they not be required to submit both a Draft and Final EIR, but proceed directly to a FIER, which would have cut out most of the public process at the state level.
The site visit was unusual in Sandisfield and Tyringham. At the site visit there were no resources marked in the field. In fact, the proponent had not made arrangements for the interested parties to see most of the site. We were able to see the proposed pipeyard, but no wetlands or rare species habitat had been flagged in the field. There were no details of how the rare species would be protected in the Expanded ENF. We were able to go onto Otis State Forest land where the proposed expansion would run. We were able to see a stream crossing that was abysmal! Old pipes left rotting in the stream, blocking fish passage. This is not an acceptable method of stream crossing in Massachusetts.
At the indoor part of the site visit, TGP explained their project and tried to answer questions. One question which still has not been answered is, “What is the coating on the inside of the pipe?” This is important because once assembled, TGP will fill the pipe with water from Spectacle Pond to look for leaks, later releasing the water in the state forest. We did follow up with this question by email as well. We still have not received an answer.
TGP was asked about the fact that Otis State Forest is permanently protected land under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution. TGP responded that they were working with Representative Pignatelli to have that protection released (requiring a 2/3 vote of both houses of the legislature). The implication was that Rep Pignatelli was working with TGP to make this happen. In speaking with Rep Pignatelli later, he was furious, saying that he had told TGP there was no way that he would bring this forward in the house, and that he would actively work to make sure it did not pass if anyone else brought it forward.
Comments were submitted and the Secretary issued a Certificate requiring both a Draft and Final EIR.
Next, TGP filed with FERC – they did not pre-file. Similar to the state process, TGP asked that the intermediate environmental review be skipped thus again trying to limit public review and comment. Comments were due September 4, 2014.
On October 2, 2014, BEAT received the Draft Environmental Impact Report (part of the state process). It came as three 4-inch thick binders.
A public scoping meeting is set for October 29th at 7:00 pm at the Sandisfield Arts Center, 5 Hammertown Road, Sandisfield. this is a forum to ask that TGP be required to submit environmental studies, research, and other information to allow discovery of all the potential environmental impacts. (Ask them to map all vernal pools and the upland habitat the amphibian species use. Map all areas that could potentially require blasting. Map all areas of invasive species and provide site specific analyses of how they will ideally eliminate the invasives, if not, how they will prevent further spread to un-infested areas.
(back to the BEAT Opposes Pipeline page)