Comment Samples – Scrap-NESE

Comment Samples For ecomments

ISSUES: Incomplete March 23, 2018 DEIS, and voluminous supplemental information (May 11 & 30, 2018) presented near/after the official end of the DEIS comment period

In the March 23, 2018 DEIS, FERC based its conclusions on incomplete, misleading and sometimes inaccurate information without providing independently verified data that accounted for the entire range of predictable costs, potential impacts, and plans to avoid or mitigate potential environmental/social impacts of the proposed NESE Project. There was no scientific basis provided to support FERC’s assertions that “plans” to minimize or mitigate impacts would be effective since site-specific details and analyses were not provided in the DEIS. For “mitigation measures”, FERC vaguely referenced undetailed measures supposedly provided in earlier documents without letting the reader know where to find them and without providing their own independent evaluation of potential environmental/social impacts and required actions to avoid or minimize these impacts from the NESE Project. As such, NESE’s complete impacts and avoidance/mitigation measures could not be assessed at the time of the DEIS. The DEIS is not a thorough and independent environmental impact analysis that would meet NEPA standards.

Some of the critical missing information that was requested by FERC in the DEIS pertained to: (a) Plans for dealing with contaminated water (Madison Loop); (b) Identifying sources for backfill and disposal of dredge material, including volume of expected dredge material (Raritan Bay Loop); (c) I dentifying hydrostatic water test additives with an evaluation of toxicity & potential for bioaccumulation of each additive in the food chain (onland and offshore); (d) Pile-driving activity that may include more and/or larger piles with updated information about methods, noise attenuation modeling, and timing (Raritan Bay Loop); (e) Input from operators of public water systems; (f) Karst investigation report (re: possibility of sinkhole concerns along the Quarryville Loop and at CS200 site); (g) Plans for crossing cables in the Bay (Raritan Bay Loop); (h) Construction schedule that accounts for timing restrictions for crossing saline estuarine waterbodies (Madison Loop); (i) Feasibility studies for proposed HDD (parts of Madison Loop); and (j) Construction schedule that accounts for timing restrictions for fisheries (Raritan Bay Loop).

On April 20, 2018, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) denied issuance of a Water Quality Certificate for the NESE Project for reasons that included missing information as well as the possibility that additional changes may be made to the NESE Project. The NYSDEC listed “items of deficiency” that formed the basis for considering the applications to be incomplete, and these pertained to:

Handling of Class C Sediments (Areas of High Contamination Acute Toxicity to Aquatic Life): handling of sediments in areas of high contamination that are expected to be highly toxic to aquatic biota,

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Side casting I Wet-Storage of Sediment: final determination regarding total suspended solids, sidecasting /wet-storage (wet-dumping) of sediment in areas of high hard clam density in deeper waters at the channel crossing areas,

Backfilling: information about impacts from backfilling in jet trencher installation areas,

Hydrostatic Testing: the need for an application for a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit from NY State for discharge of hydrostatic test water,

Benthic Resources Impacts and Mitigation Plan: a full assessment and mitigation plan (measures & performance measures to ensure success) about impacts to benthic resources, including shellfish, and

Impacts to Fisheries Resources: information to determine if construction activities would adversely impact Atlantic sturgeon and winter flounder, resulting in an incidental take, & activities that detail how impact to them will be avoided. (Accession No. 20180420-5191)

By issuing the DEIS without first obtaining and ensuring completeness of important information, FERC essentially denied the public the opportunity to review and comment on significant environmental impacts as well as relevant recommendations to minimize or avoid adverse environmental impacts. The public was denied the opportunity to use the DEIS to form meaningful comments to participate in the environmental review process since (a) there was a great deal of missing information, (b) FERC wrote about information provided in earlier documents without providing summaries or guides to locate it, (c) conclusions by FERC were not based on independently verified data that accounted for the entire range of predictable costs and potential impacts, (d) a great deal of additional information was provided to FERC on May 11 and again on May 30, 2018 that could not possibly have been reviewed and considered by the public within the timelines imposed by FERC, and (e) all concerns raised by the public during pre-filing and post-application were not all addressed and, when addressed, did not include supporting evidence to justify conclusions.

Given these deficiencies, the DEIS should be rejected, revised, and re-published by FERC in a supplemental/revised DEIS that addresses (a) all concerns raised by the public with supporting evidence for dismissing or minimizing the concerns, if this is still done by FERC, and (b) FERC’s independent evaluation of the thousands of pages of added information provided by Williams/Transco on May 11 & May 30, 2018. With a revised/supplemental DEIS, FERC should also allow at least another 45 days for the public to fully participate in this environmental review process.

ISSUES: Incomplete March 23, 2018 DEIS, and voluminous supplemental information (May 11 & 30, 2018) presented near/after the official end of the DEIS comment period

Some of the shortcomings in the DEIS were:

There was no complete analysis of the environmental, social and economic adverse impact that will result from noise and contaminated sediment disturbances in/by the Raritan & Lower New York Bays on the greater community and habitat.

There was no complete analysis of both single and combined chemical emissions on the health of people living or moving near the proposed Compressor Station 206, and there was no consideration given to the fact that these toxic chemical emissions can travel miles away, depending on weather conditions, with resultant potential impacts on the health of people living or moving farther away from CS206.

There was no realistic analysis of specific ecological impacts associated with loss of forest and wetland habitat.

There was no consideration of groundwater mounding at the proposed stormwater basin at the CS206 site and how this might impacts the groundwater contamination plumes at the Higgins Farm Superfund Site.

There was no complete analysis of the short- and long-term potential impacts of construction activity on the environment in and around the Raritan & Lower New York Bays from marine vessel traffic, noise, and toxic sediment disturbances.

There was no analysis of predicted impacts from increased Greenhouse Gases and methane leaks and emissions as impacts from the NESE Project on the area.

There was no attempt to assess the economic/social/health costs of the NESE project in a quantified manner. The “significance” of emissions can be determined via the Social Cost of Carbon metric, commonly used by the EPA and other agencies, which estimates the financial damages that could result from a project’s emissions. See: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html This issue about the Social Cost of Carbon was detailed to FERC pertaining to the NESE Project in a submission on May 14, 2018 by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Institute for Policy Integrity of NYU’s School of Law, and the Sierra Club in a 46-page document. [Accession No. 20180514-6016(32884461)]

There was no analytical data provided to support proposed mitigation measures which, in earlier documents provided by Williams/Transco, looked more like a list of best management practices without commitments and without direct links to show how they anticipated these would address the impacts.

ISSUE: Public Denied Opportunity for Meaningful Commenting

I am an intervenor in the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (CP17-101), and I am writing with concerns about FERC’s March 23, 2018 DEIS and the supplemental information provided by Williams/Transco on May 11 and 30, 2018 and how this denied me my right to have sufficiently detailed information to then make meaningful and informed comments to FERC during the environmental review process.

The 3/23/18 DEIS, along with 5/11 and 5/30/18 supplemental material submitted by Williams/Transco, created a challenge for agencies and the public to understand the documentation, know which material was current, and make comments on potential impacts with unspecified plans for avoidance and mitigation and a lacked thorough presentation of FERC’s independent evaluation and analysis of all important information when (a) presentation of information in the DEIS was not clear or complete, and (b) construction plans are still evolving.

The 5/14/18 date to conclude the official comment period following release of the DEIS did not provide the public and agencies with the opportunity for meaningful review and comment since Williams/Transco submitted thousands of pages of information, requested by FERC in the DEIS, on 5/11/18 and 5/30/18. Some was rather technical. Additionally, FERC claimed that all comments from the public, during pre-filing and after the application, were considered in the DEIS, but that is not accurate.

The DEIS was not sufficiently detailed, organized or inclusive of supportive documentation to provide agencies and the public with an opportunity for meaningful review and comment. The potential impacts were not presented in detail, and there was no description of avoidance or mitigation plans to specifically address each potential impact. Additionally, FERC identified many things that were missing and should have been available for the DEIS to have been a true environmental assessment.

Since the DEIS identified information that was missing, and FERC requested some of this missing information before the end of the DEIS comment period, FERC, other agencies and the public could not truly understand the potential impacts of the Project and comment on a thorough analysis that should have been in the DEIS. Asking Williams/Transco to submit additional information after the release of the DEIS pointed to a recognition of the inadequacy of the information considered in the DEIS.

Then, Williams/Transco submitted some of the missing information in thousands of pages that included technical information that was, at times out-of-context and raw data. This did not allow agencies or the public to perform even a cursory, let alone meaningful, review of the material.

The only times that the public has an opportunity to provide meaningful review and comment during the environmental review process are after the application and after the DEIS. To wait for FERC’s final DEIS to see additional information from Williams/Transco, supplied after the release of the DEIS, as part of FERC’s independent evaluation and analysis, would clearly deny the public their right to participate in the environmental review process.

Simply adding the material submitted after the DEIS was released, along with FERC’s evaluation and independent analysis in a final EIS, is insufficient since it does not allow the same degree of meaningful public participation in the environmental review process. The public needs a thorough presentation with FERC’s analysis to be able to provide meaningful comments. Referencing, without noting source documents, things like mitigation possibilities, and allowing thousands of supplemental pages to be filed after to release of the DEIS, reveals the inadequacy and incompleteness of the DEIS. Basic NEPA principles would be violated if FERC uses the supplemental material in a final EIS and in subsequent decisions without first providing a supplemental or revised DEIS with (a) complete information and analyses, and (b) offering that revised DEIS for public comments with at least 45 days to review it.

Thus, I request that FERC set aside the 3/23/18 DEIS and issue a revised or supplemental DEIS that includes: (1) review and independent examination of the supplemental information from 5/11 & 5/30/18, (2) added information that details potential impacts and commitments to avoidance or mitigation methods, (3) responses that more fully address all comments and requests by officials, agencies and the public during pre-filing and post-application, and (4) inclusion of source citations for all of FERC’s conclusions. This revised or supplemental DEIS should allow for a new comment period of at least 45 days.

ISSUE: Dismissive responses to public concerns by FERC in their DEIS

I am an intervenor in the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (CP17-101), and I am writing because FERC’s DEIS did not adequately address or respond to concerns raised to FERC by municipal and legislative officials as well as the public. Rather, FERC’s DEIS dismissed or minimized these concerns and requests for studies or data without providing scientific or data-driven support for their conclusions that were made with incomplete, misleading and sometimes inaccurate information.

In the DEIS, FERC minimized any need to consider environmental and health damage/danger when the comments of citizens and their elected representatives were dismissed without providing any authoritative and/or scientific, data-based support. Some of the requests for studies and actions that were essentially pushed to the side by FERC are:

Conduct a safety analysis of all pipeline components associated with NESE from CS206 to the Rockaway Transfer Point since capacity increase likely means increased velocity of gas proposed to be sent through aging pipelines.

Require air quality monitoring in the immediate area around the proposed Compressor Station 206 site that would be in place before construction and for the life of the compressor station if the Project is approved.

Validate the reported estimates of chemical emissions for Compressor Station 206 with actual data from another Solar Mars 100 unit.

Perform a Health Impact Assessment of people around the proposed Compressor Station 206 site before construction & for several years following operation if the Project is approved.

Explore the feasibility of reducing heat emissions from Compressor Station 206 by adding a heat recovery system.

Complete additional core sampling analyses in Raritan & Lower New York Bays that are in the workspace area where vessels will anchor and moor, resulting in unstudied seabed disturbances with likely re-contamination of the waters.

Account for the year-after-year compounded effect of Trap Rock Quarry’s blasting on the foundation of Compressor Station 206 and all facilities at the site.

Determine both the short-term and long-term impacts from emissions, noise and the temperature of the exhaust that will exit two 50’ smokestacks (210,000 cubic feet per minute that would be at least 849°F).

Require submission of plans for a septic system at the Compressor Station 206 site along with identification and analyses of potential impacts to wetlands from installation of a septic system at this site.

ISSUE: Disregarding comments and requests from the public, legislators and municipal officials prior to issuance of the DEIS and during the DEIS comment period without providing supportive scientific, data-driven studies

TOPIC: no safety analysis of increased velocity of natural gas

Though requested, there was no safety analysis of increased velocity of natural gas through Mainlines A and C from the proposed Compressor Station 206 to the Rockaway Transfer Point in the DEIS.

In the DEIS, FERC states “Public concerns for safety […] are outside the scope” for FERC’s review of the NESE project, since MAOP will continue to be 800 pounds per square inch.

MAOP is only one aspect of risk on the two main natural gas lines A and C.

The DEIS fails to account for risks associated with the increased velocity of natural gas added to Mainlines A and C.

A majority of the Mainlines A and C are 50+ year old, installed in 1950 and 1969 respectively.

(DEIS, pages ES-5, 2-2).

TOPIC: Air Monitoring directly at the Compressor Station 206 site

Requests to require air quality monitoring put in place at the Compressor Station 206 site prior to the issuance of the FEIS and for the lifetime of the CS206 to monitor all chemical emissions identified in the certificate application from CS206 were ignored in the DEIS.

Data obtained for air quality monitoring was not truly from the immediate area by using existing Monitoring Stations that are 7 miles or farther away.

Ambient air quality measures were not taken close to the proposed site for the Compressor Station 206 which is next to an active mining operation that has air emissions that should be considered in a cumulative assessment. Using data from Monitoring Stations in Elizabeth, East Brunswick & North Brunswick in NJ as well as from Philadelphia, PA does not account for the emissions from the operations of Trap Rock Quarry in a manner that is relevant to those living or visiting the immediate area.

The variance of air quality changes dramatically in this distance between the Air Monitoring Stations and the proposed CS206 site, making it impossible to accurately assess air quality impact in the immediate area.

By not requiring air quality monitoring at the site, FERC is unable to identify the potential impacts in the immediate area surrounding CS206, and FERC is not able to determine what would be needed to avoid, minimize or mitigate the environmental health impacts from CS206. Thus, FERC did not truly complete an environmental impact analysis of air pollution from CS206.

TOPIC: Validate that the “estimated” chemical emissions at proposed CS206 are plausible by measuring actual emissions from another Solar MARS 100 compressor unit

A request to validate chemical emissions of Compressor Station 206’s ‘estimated’ emissions from existing Solar MARS 100 compressors was dismissed by FERC in the DEIS.

The DEIS incorrectly captures the request by stating: “We received several comments indicating that Transco should conduct an analysis of methane leaks and exhaust emissions at its existing Compressor Station 515, which should then be used to inform the analysis of downstream emissions at Compressor Station 206.” (DEIS, page 4-290) This assertion by FERC was not truly reflective of the comments.

One request was to monitor at the Solar MARS 100 exhaust output, located in the STA515 complex or the STA517 complex, to validate actual chemical emissions. Example: (Accession No. 20171130-5036)

Another request was to monitor methane leaks at another Solar MARS 100 station to inform downstream emissions. Example: (Accession No. 20171020-5079)

ISSUES:

Estimated emissions are never actual, especially in natural gas-fired turbines as evidenced in the Williams/Transco 3/27/2017 application where the manufacturer has significantly differing results in two separate test runs performed for the CS206 turbines.

The manufacturer does not warrantee HAP emission accuracy.

Without actual measurements from a Williams/Transco Solar MARS 100 turbine in operation, FERC is unable to determine actual HAP toxic chemical emission quantities.

Throughout the DEIS, there is little validation of statements and specifications provided by Williams/Transco, yet the public has consistently found inaccuracies and at times blatant false statements. Chemical emissions are critical to assessing the health and environmental impact for CS206. For FERC to not validate the chemical emissions exacerbates the failure of the DEIS representing public safety, health and environmental impact.

TOPIC: Health Impact Assessment that includes measurements of complete emissions at the proposed CS206 site including air pollutants and all chemical emissions, exhaust volume and heat

Though requested often by township officials, legislative representatives and people, FERC denied that there is a need to perform a Heath Impact Assessment (HIA) for those in the area around Compressor Station 206 with measurements of complete emissions including heat, exhaust volume and hazardous air pollutants (highly toxic airborne chemicals).

Heat Exhaust: In the DEIS on pages 4-81 and 4-293, FERC dismisses heat exhaust impact to the environment. Instead, the impact of heat exhaust to the environment was only mentioned by FERC in reference to bird flights without providing any studies. There was no determination of potential impact and recommended mitigation for this for weather patterns, birds, insects, trees, and vegetation.

FERC never reviewed the impact of high heat massive exhaust output on the environment, weather patterns or impacts to nearby vegetation and insects in the area. A true environmental impact would review effects of high heat exhaust output (exhaust output of 210,000 cubic feet per minute at temperature greater than 849°F) to identify the impacts to local residents including weather patterns, vegetation, agriculture, rainfall, insects and birds.

Exhaust Volume Flow: The DEIS does not review exhaust volume flow impact on the local area environment. There is no mention in the DEIS regarding exhaust output volume, yet it is integral to the two Solar MARS 100 compressors with two 50-foot smokestacks. Additionally, what is the resonance of the two smokestacks caused by the exhaust output flow? On page 4-81 in the DEIS, FERC acknowledges “there is no available data on high velocity, high temperature exhaust impacts”. The DEIS must perform the impact analysis on high velocity, high temperature exhaust if it is to be regarded as a true environmental impact statement.

TOPIC: Health Impact Assessment that includes measurements of complete emissions at the proposed CS206 site including air pollutants and all chemical emissions, exhaust volume and heat

Chemical Emissions: In FERC’s DEIS, the determination that emissions from Compressor Station 206 would be less than the NAAQS was a reason given for not performing an analysis of the potential impact of highly toxic airborne chemical emissions from CS206. NAAQS do not review formaldehyde, ammonia, acrolein, acetaldehyde, ethylbenzene, benzene, toluene, propylene oxide or xylene. These chemicals, reported by Williams/Transco as ones expected to be emitted from CS206, are highly toxic as airborne and in minute parts per million concentrations (some toxic in parts per billion), as identified by NIH, NOAA and EPA references. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TVdbhjFv4kTD4xgsaH1SBJgLrheLjR15/view?usp=sharing.

The DEIS deems that the Health Impact Assessment is not warranted despite the fact that the DEIS does not review or assess any real environmental or health impacts associated with CS206 emissions types discussed above.

Without assessing environmental impacts resulting from emissions, FERC is not able to provide a valid environmental impact statement.

A Health Impact Assessment is warranted because, as FERC noted, HAP emissions can cause serious health problems and environmental impacts (DEIS, page 4-292).

We live in a nonattainment area for ozone, and emissions of NOx and VOCS, precursors to ozone, would not aid attempts to reduce ozone which is highly correlated with significant health issues.

The NJDEP recently adjusted reporting thresholds for Air Toxics (February 2018) and, using these more restrictive levels which are currently considered to be protective of human health, the “HAP emissions from each of the two Mars 100 turbines exceed reporting thresholds for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, ethylbenzene, napththalene, and propylene oxide.” [Accession No. 20180514-6168(32885359)]

Particulate Matter is clearly linked to significant health impacts, and studies have found that repeated exposure to levels below the “protective” NAAQS is significantly correlated with health issues including early death and kidney disease.

In the Application from Williams/Transco for NESE, they report an expectation, based on modeling, that PM_2.5emissions for Compressor Station 206 and background air would approach the minimally “acceptable” thresholds:

Annual: 10.1 microgram/m³(EPA-NAAQS threshold: 12 microgram/m³)

24-hour 32.1 microgram/m³(EPA-NAAQS threshold: 35 microgram/m³)

TOPIC: impacts from year-after-year of blasting at Trap Rock Quarry on the proposed Compressor Station 206 & its associated buildings and pipelines

Though requested, FERC did not request modeling of the impact of year-after-year blasting at Trap Rock Quarry on the proposed Compressor Station 206 along with all associated buildings and pipelines at the site.

There was no analysis or consideration given to cumulative or compounded impacts of blasting over time.

Trap Rock Quarry anticipates continuing its mining operations on the property until the year 2040 where the face of the quarry is 2,100-feet from the compressor station building. (DEIS, page ES-4)

FERC’s request that the final foundation design of the compressor station be submitted prior to construction (DEIS, page 4-316) does not address these concerns.

TOPIC: Waste Heat Recovery

FERC did not asses the environmental benefit when it dismissed a request to explore enhanced energy regeneration/efficiencies that could reduce heat emissions from Compressor Station 206.

In the DEIS, FERC mentioned requests for waste heat recovery system for CS206 on page 4-292. After noting that the proposed CS206 would meet the specifications put forth by INGAA, FERC dismissed this idea without quantifying their assumptions because: “An aboveground waste heat recovery system at Compressor Station 206 would likely require a power purchase agreement with a utility if the electricity generated could not be used onsite and would result in additional environmental impacts above the proposed activities (e.g., increased site development requirements and visual and noise impacts). While Compressor Station 206 would qualify for onsite waste heat recovery based on INGAA standards, the operational history of the station has not been determined. We acknowledge that there would be some environmental benefit to incorporating waste heat recovery at Compressor Station 206; however, we do not find that the use of waste heat recovery at Compressor Station 206 would provide a significant advantage over the proposed NESE Project.” (DEIS, page 4-292)

Part of the purpose of the request was to reduce environmental damage from exhaust heat output, which the DEIS acknowledges exists, but FERC did not perform an environmental impact analysis and, therefore, FERC is unable to provide a valid finding. With the environmental benefits plus energy cogeneration, which could drive an electric turbine, CS206 could become the first hybrid compressor station maximizing efficiencies and reducing carbon footprint. Yet environmental impact is not assessed in regards to heat emissions and reduction of heat emissions, rendering the DEIS heat recovery response invalid and incorrect.

ISSUES: (1) FERC’s DEIS did not include clearly defined potential adverse impacts from the NESE Project and, without analyzing possible avoidance or minimization measures, FERC concluded that mitigation measures (which are not detailed in the DEIS) would acceptably reduce environmental impacts to minimal or non-significant levels; (2) FERC’s DEIS was not based on a complete economic analysis of benefits and harms, and it did not fulfill NEPA requirements or FERC’s Policy Statement to fully and fairly consider the economic issues of the Project; (3) The conclusions of FERC in the DEIS are not well-supported; and (4) The complete impacts from the NESE Project could not be assessed at the time of the DEIS.

TOPIC: environmental, social and economic adverse impact that will result from disturbances in/by the Raritan & Lower New York Bays on the greater community and habitat

I am an intervenor in the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (CP17-101), and I am writing because FERC’s DEIS did not adequately define potential adverse environmental impacts, and FERC reached conclusions with incomplete information that was not well supported. Additionally, references to possible mitigation actions did not include specifics about these, did not address evaluations to first see if the impacts could be avoided, and did not indicate what actions Williams/Transco would commit to doing.

In the DEIS, FERC failed to completely analyze the environmental, social and economic adverse impact that will result from disturbances in/by the Raritan & Lower New York Bays on the greater community and habitat.

There was no quantitative analysis of the costs, risks and other adverse impacts from NESE on recreation, tourism and the multi-million dollar fishing industry from construction of the Raritan Bay Loop.

Even though they questioned numbers of potential jobs, FERC seemed to have accepted Rutgers’ exaggerated claims of benefits without providing their own independent examination and evaluation of the information. The finding of the Goodman Group [presented in Accession No. 20180514-6168(32885361)] revealed discrepancies between numbers of on-site construction jobs in the Rutgers report and Williams/Transco’s Construction Workforce Data, revealing that the Rutgers authors overestimated the jobs by about 75%.

Without a thorough and independent analysis of economic impacts, FERC’s assertion that impacts would be minor and temporary can’t be accepted. Additionally, there is no basis for defining potential impacts from which to then determine appropriate mitigation actions in the DEIS.

The DEIS did not include a realistic analysis of specific impacts that would occur following destruction of benthic communities that are essential food sources for marine life. FERC dismissed concerns about the loss of benthic species from burial by noting that, in the bigger picture in the areas, there were plenty more sources of this food for marine life in the New York Bight. (DEIS, page 4-114)

The damage done to the benthic community will have far-reaching effects that need to be considered and quantified. Many people in this area rely on the improved water conditions for their economic survival, and this was not considered by FERC in the DEIS.

In summary: (1) There was no presentation of data about current conditions and modeling of potential impacts in the DEIS. There was no scientific basis provided to support FERC’s assertions that “plans” to minimize or mitigate impacts would be effective since site-specific details and analyses were not provided in the DEIS; (2) For “mitigation measures”, FERC vaguely referenced undetailed measures supposedly provided in earlier documents without providing their own independent evaluation of potential environmental/social impacts and required actions to avoid or minimize these impacts from the NESE Project. Furthermore, these possible “mitigation measures” in earlier document are not firm commitments of Williams/Transco; and (3) This left anyone who tried to understand the potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures in the dark and, essentially, it denied the public the opportunity to use the DEIS to form meaningful comments to participate in the environmental review process.

TOPIC: environmental, social and economic adverse impact that will result from disturbances in/by the Raritan & Lower New York Bays on the greater community and habitat

There was not an adequate assessment of avoiding and mitigating impacts from construction on the horseshoe crabs which have a fragile existence, serve as a food source for threatened and endangered species, and are extremely important to biomedical research. FERC basically dismissed impacts to this important species. Additionally, FERC used outdated data about horseshoe crabs that was supplied by Williams/Transco without verifying its accuracy.

FERC used a study from 1983 rather than a more current 2001 study to render conclusions about the hard clam population in the waters to be crossed by the Raritan Bay Loop. Additionally, there was no mention in the DEIS of the fact that the proposed route would go through areas of clam populations infected with the Quahog Parasitic Unknown (QPX) disease which is in sediment and waters that could spread from construction disturbances. There was no attention given to future clam harvesting or a possible transplantation program in the DEIS. [Accession No. 20180514-6168(32885358)]

There were no reported results of testing for contaminants and the impact of excavation for areas from which Williams/Transco might get backfill material for the Raritan Bay Loop, and the source areas have yet to be finalized.

There was no contamination and toxicity analysis of waters in the Raritan Bay for antibiotic resistance pathogens known to exist in shallow seafloor sediment (as indicated in research paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232572/).

TOPIC: ecological impacts associated with loss of forest and wetland habitat.

In the DEIS, FERC failed to provide a realistic analysis of specific ecological impacts associated with loss of forest and wetland habitat.

FERC dismissed concerns about the loss of forested land by noting that, in the bigger picture in the areas, there was plenty more forested land. FERC acknowledges that it would take at least 50 years for these trees to re-establish themselves, but there is no plan to have Williams/Transco maintain responsibility for this until the trees are fully re-established. (DEIS, page ES-14)

The benefit of forests absorbing stormwater and pollutants was not considered by FERC in their DEIS.

Removal of 17.7 acres of forest to build the proposed Compressor Station 206 and its access road (DEIS, page 4-80) is not insignificant.

TOPIC: Contaminated Groundwater from Higgins Farm Superfund Site & proposed stormwater basin at CS206

In the DEIS, FERC did not consider groundwater mounding at the proposed stormwater basin at the CS206 site and how this might impacts the groundwater contamination plumes at the Higgins Farm Superfund Site.

The contamination plumes at the Higgins Farm Superfund Site need to be established as current realities, and the planned 2018 EPA Five-Year Review of remediation effort results at this site should be completed and examined before reaching any conclusions about impacts from construction of any component of the CS206 facility to/from the contaminated groundwater. Any avoidance or mitigation measures pertaining to this contaminated groundwater should be fully detailed and discussed in the supplemental/revised DEIS once the results of the EPA’s Five-Year Review are completed.

TOPICS: Short- and Long-Term Impacts from construction on economics & ecology of Raritan & Lower New York Bays

In the DEIS, FERC failed to completely analyze the short- and long-term potential impacts of construction activity on the environment in and around the Raritan & Lower New York Bays.

Noise & Marine Vessel Traffic

FERC acknowledges that potential noise impacts include temporary or permanent impacts on fish auditory systems that could reduce the survival, growth, and reproduction of the affected fish. (DEIS Section 5.1.5.2, pg. 5-11)

FERC acknowledges that pile driving could result in sound levels capable of disrupting the behavior patterns of marine wildlife, such as migration, breathing, breeding, and feeding, up to 2.9 miles from the sound source and can cause permanent auditory damage within a smaller area from the source. (DEIS Section 5.1.5.2, pg. 5-11)

There was no assessment of acoustic impacts from construction of the Raritan Bay Loop to North Atlantic right whales.

There was no reporting or analysis of construction methods that could refine pile driving methods to reduce acoustic impact, and there was no reporting of acoustic analyses for the added piles that would be installed and removed as part of the new platform at the Morgan Shore Approach.

There was no detailing of potential impacts from marine vessel traffic and activities disrupting the seafloor from transporting, loading/unloading, staging and construction or a plan for avoiding or mitigating the impacts of these activities.

FERC likens concentrated marine vessel activities and movement patterns along the 15,585.7 acres of workspace to normal bay marine vessel activities instead of reviewing activities, patterns and moorings associated with each pipeline segment and the impact on toxic sediment disruption, benthic organisms and acoustical impact.

TOPICS: Short- and Long-Term Impacts from construction on economics & ecology of Raritan & Lower New York Bays

In the DEIS, FERC failed to completely analyze the short- and long-term potential impacts of construction activity on the environment from the Raritan Bay Loop.

Toxic Sediment Disturbances

There was no assessment of potential long-term effects of toxic sediment disturbance on shorelines, beachgoers, marine life or the health of shoreline communities in terms of costs to health, safety and economics.

The impacts to benthic and demersal marine species will certainly impact the economics of the local fishing industry, but FERC did not independently evaluate this prior to reaching conclusions about impacts. Without specifically knowing the potential impacts, and providing information about possible avoidance measures, any suggested mitigation measure is meaningless.

There was no comprehensive, scientific assessment of the short- and long-term impacts to benthic organism (horseshoe crabs, surf clams) and marine mammal (dolphins, seals and whales) habitat.

The DEIS only addressed the actual 117.2 acres of pipe laying activities and did not assess environmental impact of the full work space of 15,585.7 acres with the associated marine vessel traffic, activities and moorings. No core samples were taken beyond the proposed pipeline route and, without this data, it is impossible to assess the full toxic sediment potential contamination and resuspension in the work area.

During the construction, there would be a high concentration of marine vessel traffic, activities and moorings within the 15,585.7-acre workspace. It is impossible that this doesn’t directly disturb benthic and marine mammal habitats as well as disturb the toxic sediment which can also adversely impact habitats and food sources of marine mammal, benthic, fish and migratory bird species. All of these potential impacts are expected to take a toll on the local businesses and industries that rely on fishing and navigating in the bays.

TOPICS: Short- and Long-Term Impacts from construction on economics & ecology of Raritan & Lower New York Bays

In the DEIS, FERC failed to completely analyze the short- and long-term potential impacts of construction activity on the horseshoe crabs in and around the Raritan & Lower New York Bays.

FERC acknowledges that “Horseshoe crabs are an ecologically, economically, and medically important species on the east coast of the United States.” … “The population of horseshoe crabs, once abundant in Raritan Bay and the New York-New Jersey Harbor, has declined substantially in recent decades.” … “In New Jersey, a moratorium is currently in place on the harvest of horseshoe crabs and their eggs.” (DEIS, page 4-101)

Pipeline construction would further threaten this already fragile population.

The threat to horseshoe crabs could impact countless other marine and wildlife species, including birds which migrate along the Atlantic Flyway and feed on the horseshoe crab eggs. Horseshoe crab eggs provide a rich, easily digestible food source for migrating birds. One potentially affected bird is the red knot, whose spring migration is timed to coincide with the spawning season of the crabs. Red knots fly more than 9,300 miles every spring and autumn, making it one of the longest-distance migrating animals. (DEIS, page 4-158)

On top of potentially harming the horseshoe crab population, which is an important source of food for migratory birds, construction would reduce the amount of habitat available to the birds for foraging and predator protection. (DEIS, page 4-84)

The mitigation efforts proposed by Williams/Transco are inadequate due to the complex behaviors of these animals and of the local marine and tidal ecosystems, and also due to pipeline construction, which is expected to last at least 9 months and continue around the clock.

FERC admits ways that its mitigation proposals could fail, stating that they are only willing to ensure any precautions “to the extent practicable.” This is unacceptable.

TOPIC: impact of increased Greenhouse Gases, including methane leaks

There was no analysis of predicted impacts from increased Greenhouse Gases and methane leaks and emissions as impacts from the NESE Project on the area.

In the DEIS, FERC stated: “Construction and operation emissions from the NESE Project would increase the atmospheric concentration of GHGs, in combination with past and future emissions from all other sources, and contribute incrementally to future climate change impacts. However, there is no widely accepted standard, per international, federal, or state policy, or as a matter of physical science, to determine the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions for purposes of meaningfully informing the Commission decision in this proceeding.” (DEIS, page 4-366)

Extreme weather impacts, which can be reasonably anticipated, were not considered as part of the FERC environmental review / permitting process even though the air pollution, exhaust heat, disruptions to the bays, and potential fluid leaks from the proposed NESE Project will certainly increase damaging impacts on wetlands and flood-prone areas. Concerns: (a) Just considering 100-year flood maps is inadequate; (b) Just speaking of prior hurricanes is inadequate for an environmental impact assessment. For example, the area of NESE in NY/NJ suffered from four nor’easters in March 2018, and more storms with high levels of rain followed in April and May.

Compressor stations leak excessively more methane than what is reported by pipeline companies as was found in a recent study by B.F. Payne Jr. et al. (2016). Characterization of methane plumes downwind of natural gas compressor stations in Pennsylvania and New York. (0048-9697/c 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.) Accessed from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2016.12.082 and http://www.damascuscitizensforsustainability.org/2017/01/methane-plumes-downwind-natural-gas-compressor-stations/

TOPIC: impact of increased Greenhouse Gases, including methane leaks

I am an intervenor in the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (CP17-101), and I am writing because FERC’s DEIS did not adequately define potential adverse environmental impacts, and FERC reached conclusions with incomplete and outdated information that was not well supported. Additionally, references to possible mitigation actions did not include specifics about these, did not address evaluations to first see if the impacts could be avoided, and did not indicate what actions Williams/Transco would commit to doing.

Claiming that the natural gas supplied by NESE would help New York attain its clean air goals was misleading.

Methane, the main component of natural gas, is 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO₂ in the first 20 years it is in the atmosphere. This means that if just 3% of natural gas leaks from extraction to delivery, natural gas is worse than coal for the climate.

Even using conservative methane leakage rates, the buildout of natural gas pipelines would prevent New York from meeting its state greenhouse gas emission reductions goals. Source: PSE Healthy Energy. (2018 February 28). The greenhouse gas impacts of proposed pipeline buildout in New York. Retrieved from: https://earthworks.org/cms/assets/uploads/2018/02/NY-Pipelines-PSE-TECHNICAL-REPORT.pdf

Methane leaks have been detected on Staten Island at the rate of one per mile, and National Grid & ConEd are monitoring reported leaks. Though leaks within five-feet of buildings must be repaired promptly, thousands of other leaks continue to emit methane into the air until they are repaired. Sources: https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps/city-snapshots/staten-island and

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Natural-Gas-Leaks-Staten-Island-Map-National-Grid-Environmental-Defense-Fund-267432531.html

The DEIS refers to outdated New York City emission goals, which are now significantly more ambitious, including a goal to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Source: “ 1.5 degrees Celsius: Aligning NYC with the Paris Climate Agreement ” https://www1.nyc.gov/site/sustainability/codes/1.5-climate-action-plan.page

In summary, relying on outdated source material as well as not providing accurate assessments of methane leaking was misleading. By issuing the DEIS without first obtaining and ensuring the completeness of important information that is current, FERC essentially denied the public the opportunity to review and comment on significant environmental impacts as well as relevant recommendations to minimize or avoid adverse environmental impacts. The public was denied the opportunity to use the DEIS to form meaningful comments to participate in the environmental review process since (a) there was a great deal of missing information, (b) FERC wrote about information provided in earlier documents without providing summaries or guides to locate it, (c) conclusions by FERC were not based on independently verified data that accounted for the entire range of predictable costs and potential impacts, (d) a great deal of additional information was provided to FERC on May 11 and again on May 30, 2018 that could not possibly have been reviewed and considered by the public within the timelines imposed by FERC.

TOPIC: impact of increased Greenhouse Gases, including methane leaks

There was no analysis of predicted impacts from increased Greenhouse Gases, methane leaks and emissions as impacts from the NESE Project on the area.

In looking at the Greenhouse Gases that will be emitted and leak in the areas around the pipeline and the compressor station, FERC did not look at the impact of this on increased severe weather events such as floods, increased temperatures of air and water that would affect habitats and changes in insect populations that are associated with diseases and illnesses, and increased ozone levels that also affect health and work productivity. By not considering these predictable impacts in a meaningful way, there was no opportunity to consider the appropriateness of any suggested mitigation efforts.

The “significance” of emissions can be determined via the Social Cost of Carbon metric, commonly used by the EPA and other agencies, which estimates the financial damages that could result from a project’s emissions. See: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html

This issue about the Social Cost of Carbon was detailed to FERC pertaining to the NESE Project in a submission on May 14, 2018 by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Institute for Policy Integrity of NYU’s School of Law, and the Sierra Club in a 46-page document. [Accession No. 20180514-6016(32884461)]