Notice of Proposed New 6 NYCRR Part 570, Liquefied Natural Gas – Public Comment Period, Availability of Documents, Public Meetings and Public Hearing

ENB – Statewide Notices 9/11/2013 – NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

Notice of Proposed New 6 NYCRR Part 570, Liquefied Natural Gas – Public Comment Period, Availability of Documents, Public Meetings and Public Hearing

Notice is hereby given that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) is proposing to adopt 6 NYCRR Part 570 to implement a permitting program for the siting, construction, and operation of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities in New York State (NYS). LNG facilities are those that either store LNG in a tank system or convert LNG into natural gas through vaporization. The two types of facilities that NYS DEC expects to permit most frequently include facilities to fuel trucks and facilities that store LNG as a backup heating fuel.

Chapter 892 of the Laws of 1976 added Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 23 Title 17, “Liquefied Natural and Petroleum Gas” (the LNG statute). This statute requires NYS DEC to implement regulations with criteria for the safe siting, operation, and transportation of LNG throughout the State. An environmental safety permit must be obtained from NYS DEC prior to construction, operation, or modification of an LNG facility in the State. The LNG statute also directs that operation of LNG facilities must be carried out in conformance with permits and regulations issued by NYS DEC. This rulemaking will establish a program to address the siting, construction, and operation of LNG facilities. Part 570 will also address the transportation of LNG and the statutory requirement that intrastate transportation only occur along approved routes.

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available in the September 11, 2013 issue of the State Register. Written public comments will be accepted by NYS DEC until November 4, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Additional details are provided below.

Availability of documents for review: The proposed Part 570 and supporting rule making documents are available on NYS DEC’s web site at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/93069.html.

These documents may also be inspected at the following NYS DEC offices (call the noted contact for an appointment):

  • NYS DEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233, Attention: Russ Brauksieck, Phone: (518) 402-9553.
  • NYS DEC – Region 1 Office, SUNY, Building #40, Stony Brook, NY 11790, Attention: Karen Gomez, Phone: (631) 444-0320.
  • NYS DEC – Region 2 Office, Hunters Point Plaza, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, NY 11101, Attention: Leszek Zielinski, Phone: (718) 482-6455.
  • NYS DEC – Region 3 Office, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561, Attention: Ed Moore, Phone: (845) 256-3137.
  • NYS DEC – Region 4 Office, 1150 North Westcott Road, Schenectady, NY 12306, Attention: Keith Goertz, Phone: (518) 357-2399.
  • NYS DEC – Region 5 Office, 1115 NYS Route 86, Ray Brook, NY 13601, Attention: Russ Huyck, Phone: (518) 897-1242.
  • NYS DEC – Region 6 Office, State Office Building, 317 Washington Street, Watertown, NY 13601, Attention: Gary McCullouch, Phone: (315) 785-2513.
  • NYS DEC – Region 7 Office, 615 Erie Boulevard West, Syracuse, NY 13204, Attention: Dick Brazell, Phone: (315) 426-7523.
  • NYS DEC – Region 8 Office, 6274 East Avon-Lima Road, Avon, NY 14414, Attention: Pete Miller, Phone: (585) 226-5427.
  • NYS DEC – Region 9 Office, 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14202, Attention: Greg Sutton, Phone: (716) 851-7220.

Public Meetings: NYS DEC will conduct public information meetings to present the proposed regulations and respond to questions prior to the public hearing. These meetings will be held as follows:

Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Time: 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Location: New York State Fairgrounds
581 State Fair Blvd, Martha Eddy Room
Syracuse, NY

Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Time: 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Location: NYS DEC – Central Office
625 Broadway, Room 129
Albany, NY

Public Hearing: A legislative public hearing to receive public comment about the proposed rule making will be held as follows:

Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: NYS DEC – Central Office
625 Broadway, Room 129
Albany, NY

This hearing location is accessible to persons with impaired mobility. Interpreter services will be made available to deaf persons, at no charge, upon written request at least five business days prior to the date of the hearing. Please address requests to: Russ Brauksieck, NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Remediation, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-7020.

NYS DEC invites all persons, organizations, corporations and governmental agencies to attend the hearing and submit either written or oral statements. At the hearing, persons who wish to make a statement will be invited to speak. It is requested that oral statements also be submitted in writing. NYS DEC will give equal weight to written and oral statements. Since a cumulative record will be compiled, it is not required for interested parties to attend the hearing.

Written comments: The public is invited to submit written comments about these proposed regulations until Monday, November 4, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Mail written comments to:

Russ Brauksieck
NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Remediation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-7020

Email written comments to: derweb@gw.dec.state.ny.us and please write “Comments on Proposed Part 570” in the subject line.

Contact: Russ Brauksieck, NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Remediation, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-7020, Phone: (518) 402-9553, E-mail: derweb@gw.dec.state.ny.us.


Data Solicitation for 2014 CWA Section 303(d) List

Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to compile periodically (every two years) a list of impaired waters that do not meet water quality standards and where designated uses are not fully supported and where a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan is necessary to address the impairment. States are scheduled to submit their next Section 303(d) Lists to USEPA by April 1, 2014. To support the development of the Section 303(d) Lists, States are also required to assemble and evaluate existing and readily available water quality related data and information. New York State is currently soliciting and accepting water quality data and information that may be useful in compiling the 2014 Section 303(d) List.

Background: The water quality assessment of New York State’s waters is a continuous process. Every year waters in two or three of the 17 drainage basins in the state are scheduled to be reassessed. This rotating basin approach allows for a reassessment of water quality of the entire state every five years. The assessment of these waters is a public process and participation and input from a wide range of state, federal and local agencies and non governmental water quality partners (watershed groups, lake associations, academic researchers, etc.) is encouraged. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) is able to effectively manage the statewide assessment process by focusing the effort on a limited number of specific drainage basins each year. Concentrating on a few basins each year allows NYS DEC to provide ample opportunity for the extensive list of interested groups to provide input and allows for a thorough evaluation of all available data.

However every two years, corresponding to the development of the State’s Section 303(d) List, the public is solicited to provide water quality data and information for any waterbody (any basin). This allows for a more comprehensive updating of the List. Some of the solicited data and information may result in changes to the List; other data, it may be determined, will have no impact on the List, but will be used during the subsequent water quality assessment for the corresponding basin during the reassessment cycle. Some of the data and information received during the solicitation may not be sufficiently conclusive to make a definitive impairment determination and use of this data and information may also be deferred until the more complete assessment of the corresponding basin is conducted.

In order to maintain an effective and comprehensive review of solicited data and information and insure the timely submittal of the List, it is necessary to establish a cut off date for the receipt of water quality data and information. Therefore in order to be included for full consideration in the compiling of the 2014 CWA Section 303(d) List, data and information must be received by September 30, 2013. It is not the intent of this cut off date to exclude additional information. Rather the date is necessary in order to provide adequate time to review data and information, complete water quality assessments, receive and respond to public comment on the assessments, compile a draft Section 303(d) List, public notice the List, and submit a List to USEPA by April 1, 2014.

In order to facilitate the review and inclusion of water quality data and information to be considered in the compiling of the 2014 Section 303(d) List, such submissions should be accompanied by a completed Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List (WI/PWL) Assessment Worksheet. This worksheet allows for the capture of water quality information based on available data, or based on general observation of conditions and/or local knowledge of designated use support/non support of a waterbody absent specific (numeric) monitoring data. Information regarding the Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List, including the WI/PWL worksheet and instructions for completing the worksheet, can found on the NYS DEC website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/23846.html. Worksheet information can also be obtained by contacting Jeff Myers at the NYS DEC – Division of Water, Bureau of Watershed Assessment and Management by mail at 625 Broadway, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-3502, or by phone at: (518) 402-8179. Completed WI/PWL worksheets and supporting water quality monitoring data should sent to the address above, or forwarded via e-mail to: 4pwlinfo@gw.dec.state.ny.us. Water quality data and information should also include a copy of the corresponding Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, QA/QC results summary and description of measures used in the collection of the data.

Guidance regarding the use of water quality data and information to conduct assessment and make listing decisions is outlined in the New York State Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology. These methodologies are available for review and NYS DEC will accept public comment on these documents throughout the 2014 Section 303(d) List development process. Additional information regarding Section 303(d) List development, including the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology can be found on the NYS DEC website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/31290.html.

Additional information regarding the NYS DEC Water Quality Assessment Program, including the Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List assessments and Section 305(b) water quality reporting can be found on the NYS DEC website at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/23852.html.

Contact: Jeff Myers, NYS DEC – Division of Water, Bureau of Watershed Assessment and Management, 625 Broadway, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-3502, Phone: (518) 402-8179, E-mail: jamyers@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

 

Background Information LNG, Port Ambrose and LWV positions (mas)

 

http://ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng.asp

 

http://ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng/exist-term.asp

 

http://ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng/lng-approved.pdf

 

http://ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng/lng-proposed-potential.pdf

 

http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-authorizes-dominion-s-proposed-cove-point-facility-export-liquefied

 

CoalitionScopingComments_COASubmission_PortAmbrose_8.22.13.pdf
1433K   View   Download

 

LWVNY August 2013 Comments on Liberty Natural Gas Port Ambrose Deepwater Port License Application-2.doc
50K   View   Download

 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/93179.html

 

 

Companies have been lining up to get the green light to sell U.S. natural gas abroad, as abundant shale gas supplies place the country in a position to become a net gas exporter.

So far, Cheniere’s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana is the only project that has received necessary permits from both the Energy Department and FERC to allow natural gas exports. Reuters 11/13/12

—–

 

Price of natural gas determined by supply per country not by a cartel such as in OPEC with oil;  price is going up; as it goes up, decline in its use for electric power generation.  Local supply and demand determines local prices. MAS

 

1. USEIA 5/7/2013 short term projections

 

“The very warm winter of 2011-12 contributed to the very high inventory at the start of last year’s summer injection season (between the end of March and the end of October). Consequently, the forecast 2,113-Bcf build in working gas inventories during this summer’s injection season is significantly higher than the 1,453 Bcf added last year and in line with longer historical experience. Higher natural gas prices this year contribute to lower natural gas consumption for electricity generation and the higher storage build.”

 

Prices continued to rise in April as lingering cold in the Midwest kept market tight

The projected year-over-year increases in natural gas prices contribute to declines in natural gas used for electric power generation from 25.0 Bcf/d in 2012 to 22.8 Bcf/d in 2013 and 22.2 Bcf/d in 2014.

 

 

U.S. Natural Gas Production and Imports

Natural gas marketed production is projected to increase from 69.2 Bcf/d in 2012 to 69.9 Bcf/d in 2013, and 70.1 Bcf/d in 2014. Onshore production increases over the forecast period, while federal Gulf of Mexico production declines. Natural gas pipeline gross imports, which have declined over the past five years, are projected to remain near their 2012 level over the forecast period. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports are expected to remain at minimal levels of less than 0.5 Bcf/d in both 2013 and 2014.   (which is ½ of what it was in 2011 ma.)

 

 

The tides turned for U.S. LNG import terminal projects after drilling technologies allowed domestic gas producers to unlock vast amounts of the fuel over the last five years, all but canceling the need for gas imports….Total annual LNG imports peaked at 770.8 billion cubic feet (bcf) in 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Between January and November 2012, gas imports dwindled to 157.8 bcf, DOE data showed.

Companies that invested in LNG import terminals have been applying to convert them to export facilities as sharply higher domestic production has depressed local prices. Global demand is strong and LNG can at times fetch six times the amount paid in the United States.

 Reuters 2/21/2013

 

http://portambrose.com/project-description/

http://www.nysenergyplan.com/2002stateenergyplan-documents/sepsection3-5.pdf (natural gas section outdated; 2001 figures)

 

Port Ambrose Project Description:

“Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) supplies will arrive at Port Ambrose via specially designed Shuttle & Regasification Vessels (SRVs).  Once the SRV is connected to the submerged buoy system, the LNG will be re-gasified on board and natural gas will be transferred into a new twenty-two mile subsea pipeline that will connect offshore into the existing Transco Lower New York Bay Lateral pipeline serving Long Island and New York City.”  www.portambrose.com

 

 

League positions from LWV website

 

Natural Resources:  Energy. Support environmentally sound policies that reduce energy growth rates, emphasize energy conservation and encourage the use of renewable resources.

 

Energy:

The League fights to protect the environment and the public’s health. Wise management of natural resources and energy production is critical for our nation’s future.

 

Climate change:

Climate change is the greatest environmental challenge of our, or perhaps any, generation. People are dying because of climate change. The League is calling for prompt action to cut this country’s GHG emissions, freeze construction of new coal-fired power plants and invest in a new clean energy economy.

 

 

 

Höegh LNG (Norway) who is partnering with Liberty Natural Gas on Port Ambrose FRLNG (Floating Regasification LNG) vessels reveals:  “A base-load liquefaction plant has, to date, never been deployed offshore. However, in the last ten years a number of oil companies and independent services providers such as Höegh LNG have committed substantial investment into conceptual and engineering studies to take the concept towards reality….

Parties looking to progress FLNG developments include both the vertically integrated majors (e.g. Shell) and smaller technology/vessel providers….

Environmental Policy for Höegh LNG
​ Our culture shall be recognised by a deeply held belief in the necessity of taking responsibility for the environment in which we operate. We will not only comply with environmental regulations, but take a more active approach to utilize the best available proven technology to further reduce our environmental footprint.

Our main environmental challenges are air emission and ballast water (all vessels) and sustainable recycling of vessels. In order to meet these challenges, we will focus our efforts on these three areas:

 

  • Reducing emission of CO2, NOX and SO2.
  • Install Ballast water treatment systems in all vessels where feasible.
  • Life extension and sustainable recycling of vessels….

We will take a proactive role in contributing to shaping the regulatory landscape together with key regulators in order to secure legislation which is realistic, goal based and with an actual effect on the environment.

 

http://www.hoeghlng.com/flng/Pages/Why-Floating-LNG-Production.aspx

———————-

Potential terrorist attacks on LNG tankers in U.S. waters have been a key concern of policy makers in ports with LNG facilities because such attacks could

cause catastrophic fires in port and nearby populated areas. The Coast Guard’s FY2006 budget specifically requested funding for “additional boat crews and

screening personnel at key LNG hubs.” 97 To date, no LNG tanker or land-based LNG facility in the world has been attacked by terrorists. However, similar natural gas and oil assets have been favored terror targets internationally. The attack on the Limburg, although an oil tanker, is often cited as an indication of LNG tanker vulnerability. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) specifically included LNG tankers among a list of potential terrorist targets in a security alert late in 2003.98 The DHS also reported that “in early 2001 there was some suspicion of possible associations between stowaways on Algerian flagged LNG tankers arriving in Boston and persons connected with the so-called ‘Millennium Plot’” to bomb targets in the United States. While these suspicions could not be proved, DHS stated that “the risks associated with LNG shipments are real, and they can never be entirely eliminated.” 99 A 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratories concluded that potential terrorist attacks on LNG tankers, could be considered “credible and possible.” 100 The Sandia report identified LNG tankers as vulnerable to ramming, pre-placed explosives, insider takeover, hijacking, or external terrorist actions (such as a Limburg-type, missile or airplane attack). 101 Former Bush Administration counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke has asserted that terrorists have both the desire and capability to attack LNG shipping with the intention of harming the general population. 102

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33787.pdf

 

Safety of LNG

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2008-09-11_SANDIA_2008_Report.PDF

 

 

People (2)

Glenn Arthur
njdiver@verizon.net

Recent photos

 

Show details

Ad

 

Stuart Weitzman

Sale into Summer

Run Don’t Walk: Spring is now 50% off. Complimentary Shipping with every order.

More Promotions (9)

Exclusive: Pipeline Safety Chief Says His Regulatory Process Is ‘Kind of Dying’ | InsideClimate News

Exclusive: Pipeline Safety Chief Says His Regulatory Process Is ‘Kind of Dying’ | InsideClimate News.

Exclusive: Pipeline Safety Chief Says His Regulatory Process Is ‘Kind of Dying’

With ‘few tools to work with,’ PHMSA’s Jeffrey Wiese says he is creating a YouTube channel to persuade industry to voluntarily improve safety.

By Marcus Stern and Sebastian Jones

Sep 11, 2013
Jeffrey Wiese, PHMSA's associate administrator for pipeline safetyJeffrey Wiese (center), PHMSA’s associate administrator for pipeline safety, testifies at a hearing on pipeline safety. Credit: Rep. Gus Bilirakis

 107Share1 

Jeffrey Wiese, the nation’s top oil and gas pipeline safety official, recently strode to a dais beneath crystal chandeliers at a New Orleans hotel to let his audience in on an open secret: the regulatory process he oversees is “kind of dying.”

Wiese told several hundred oil and gas pipeline compliance officers that his agency, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA), has “very few tools to work with” in enforcing safety rules even after Congress in 2011 allowed it to impose higher fines on companies that cause major accidents.

“Do I think I can hurt a major international corporation with a $2 million civil penalty? No,” he said.

Because generating a new pipeline rule can take as long as three years, Wiese said PHMSA is creating a YouTube channel to persuade the industry to voluntarily improve its safety operations. “We’ll be trying to socialize these concepts long before we get to regulations.”

Wiese’s pessimism about the viability of the pipeline regulatory system is at odds with the Obama administration’s insistence that the nation’s pipeline infrastructure is safe and its regulatory regime robust. In a speech last year, President Obama ordered regulatory agencies like PHMSA to help expedite the building of new pipelines “in a way that protects the health and safety of the American people.”

Wiese’s remarks also conflict with industry’s view. Brian Straessle, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, which represents much of the oil and gas industry in Washington, D.C., said the industry “is highly regulated at the state and federal level, and there are strong standards in place to govern the pipeline infrastructure that helps fuel our economy.

“Pipeline operators have every incentive to protect the environment and their financial health by preventing incidents,” Straessle said.

But Wiese’s remarks ring true with people who’ve long been concerned about pipelines near their homes.

Susan Luebbe, a Nebraska rancher who has fought for five years to keep the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from crossing her cattle ranch, reacted with bemusement when Wiese’s comments were relayed to her by cell phone as she repaired a barbed-wire fence. She and other Keystone opponents have long been suspicious of assurances by TransCanada, the company building the line, that it will be safe because it will meet or exceed PHMSA regulations.

“It’s kind of sad in a way, when we push for laws to be enforced and they just throw up their hands, PHMSA and all them, and say they can’t deal with it,” Luebbe said.

Public confidence in pipeline safety has been tested by a spate of serious accidents. In 2010, a natural gas line explosion in San Bruno, Calif., set off a 95-minute inferno that killed eight people, destroyed 38 homes and damaged scores of others. That same year, a pipeline spilled more than 1 million gallons of Canadian tar sand crude into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. The ongoing clean-up of that one spill has already cost more than $1 billion. This year, a pipeline rupture deposited at least 210,000 gallons of heavy Canadian crude in the streets of Mayflower, Ark.

Wiese, as head of PHMSA’s Office of Pipeline Safety, is the federal official most directly charged with preventing these types of accidents. But as his July 24 comments in New Orleans reflect, he is constrained by a pipeline safety budget that has remained flat at about $108 million for the past three years, despite the construction of thousands of miles of new pipeline. Most of that money comes from industry user fees and an oil spill liability trust fund. Taxpayers pay just $1 million a year toward the safety program.

The Obama administration has consistently asked for more money for pipeline safety, but those requests have fallen victim to Congress’ inability to pass anything more than stopgap budgets for the past three years. The administration asked for a 60 percent increase for this year, but the continuing budget standoff and effects of sequestration instead have tightened the budget.

Two stark numbers illustrate the challenge the administration faces in ensuring pipeline safety while pressing ahead with new pipeline projects: 135 federal inspectors oversee 2.6 million miles of pipeline, which means each inspector is responsible for almost enough pipe to circle the Earth. PHMSA says it has the help of about 300 state inspectors, but not all states have inspection programs.

According to an analysis of inspection records by the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), only a fifth of the nation’s 2.6 million miles of pipeline have been inspected by PHMSA or its state partners since 2006. PEER obtained the records through the Freedom of Information Act.

InsideClimate News tried for several weeks to arrange an interview with Wiese about his remarks. At one point PHMSA spokesman Damon Hill wrote in an email, “I’m trying to help you get what you need for your story and in no way are we saying that Mr. Wiese or anyone else in PHMSA is unavailable to provide information or clarifications.”

Comment space is provided for respectful discourse. Please consult our comment policiesfor more information. We welcome your participation in civil and constructive discussions.

 

Notice of Proposed New 6 NYCRR Part 570, Liquefied Natural Gas – Public Comment Period, Availability of Documents, Public Meetings and Public Hearing

ENB – Statewide Notices 9/11/2013 – NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

Notice of Proposed New 6 NYCRR Part 570, Liquefied Natural Gas – Public Comment Period, Availability of Documents, Public Meetings and Public Hearing

Notice is hereby given that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) is proposing to adopt 6 NYCRR Part 570 to implement a permitting program for the siting, construction, and operation of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities in New York State (NYS). LNG facilities are those that either store LNG in a tank system or convert LNG into natural gas through vaporization. The two types of facilities that NYS DEC expects to permit most frequently include facilities to fuel trucks and facilities that store LNG as a backup heating fuel.

Chapter 892 of the Laws of 1976 added Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 23 Title 17, “Liquefied Natural and Petroleum Gas” (the LNG statute). This statute requires NYS DEC to implement regulations with criteria for the safe siting, operation, and transportation of LNG throughout the State. An environmental safety permit must be obtained from NYS DEC prior to construction, operation, or modification of an LNG facility in the State. The LNG statute also directs that operation of LNG facilities must be carried out in conformance with permits and regulations issued by NYS DEC. This rulemaking will establish a program to address the siting, construction, and operation of LNG facilities. Part 570 will also address the transportation of LNG and the statutory requirement that intrastate transportation only occur along approved routes.

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available in the September 11, 2013 issue of the State Register. Written public comments will be accepted by NYS DEC until November 4, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Additional details are provided below.

Availability of documents for review: The proposed Part 570 and supporting rule making documents are available on NYS DEC’s web site at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/93069.html.

These documents may also be inspected at the following NYS DEC offices (call the noted contact for an appointment):

  • NYS DEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233, Attention: Russ Brauksieck, Phone: (518) 402-9553.
  • NYS DEC – Region 1 Office, SUNY, Building #40, Stony Brook, NY 11790, Attention: Karen Gomez, Phone: (631) 444-0320.
  • NYS DEC – Region 2 Office, Hunters Point Plaza, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, NY 11101, Attention: Leszek Zielinski, Phone: (718) 482-6455.
  • NYS DEC – Region 3 Office, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561, Attention: Ed Moore, Phone: (845) 256-3137.
  • NYS DEC – Region 4 Office, 1150 North Westcott Road, Schenectady, NY 12306, Attention: Keith Goertz, Phone: (518) 357-2399.
  • NYS DEC – Region 5 Office, 1115 NYS Route 86, Ray Brook, NY 13601, Attention: Russ Huyck, Phone: (518) 897-1242.
  • NYS DEC – Region 6 Office, State Office Building, 317 Washington Street, Watertown, NY 13601, Attention: Gary McCullouch, Phone: (315) 785-2513.
  • NYS DEC – Region 7 Office, 615 Erie Boulevard West, Syracuse, NY 13204, Attention: Dick Brazell, Phone: (315) 426-7523.
  • NYS DEC – Region 8 Office, 6274 East Avon-Lima Road, Avon, NY 14414, Attention: Pete Miller, Phone: (585) 226-5427.
  • NYS DEC – Region 9 Office, 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14202, Attention: Greg Sutton, Phone: (716) 851-7220.

Public Meetings: NYS DEC will conduct public information meetings to present the proposed regulations and respond to questions prior to the public hearing. These meetings will be held as follows:

Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Time: 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Location: New York State Fairgrounds
581 State Fair Blvd, Martha Eddy Room
Syracuse, NY

Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Time: 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Location: NYS DEC – Central Office
625 Broadway, Room 129
Albany, NY

Public Hearing: A legislative public hearing to receive public comment about the proposed rule making will be held as follows:

Date: Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: NYS DEC – Central Office
625 Broadway, Room 129
Albany, NY

This hearing location is accessible to persons with impaired mobility. Interpreter services will be made available to deaf persons, at no charge, upon written request at least five business days prior to the date of the hearing. Please address requests to: Russ Brauksieck, NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Remediation, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-7020.

NYS DEC invites all persons, organizations, corporations and governmental agencies to attend the hearing and submit either written or oral statements. At the hearing, persons who wish to make a statement will be invited to speak. It is requested that oral statements also be submitted in writing. NYS DEC will give equal weight to written and oral statements. Since a cumulative record will be compiled, it is not required for interested parties to attend the hearing.

Written comments: The public is invited to submit written comments about these proposed regulations until Monday, November 4, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Mail written comments to:

Russ Brauksieck
NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Remediation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-7020

Email written comments to: derweb@gw.dec.state.ny.us and please write “Comments on Proposed Part 570” in the subject line.

Contact: Russ Brauksieck, NYS DEC – Division of Environmental Remediation, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-7020, Phone: (518) 402-9553, E-mail: derweb@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

Ohio Communities Stand Up to Protect Themselves from the Hazards of Hydraulic Fracturing | Meleah Geertsma’s Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Ohio Communities Stand Up to Protect Themselves from the Hazards of Hydraulic Fracturing | Meleah Geertsma’s Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC.

INVESTIGATION: The Flip Side Of Obama’s Keystone XL Delay

INVESTIGATION: The Flip Side Of Obama’s Keystone XL Delay.

Marcellus Watch: Drillers go for broke in appeal of bans – News – The Leader – Corning, NY

Marcellus Watch: Drillers go for broke in appeal of bans – News – The Leader – Corning, NY.

Oil pipelines monitored for safety | Tulsa World

Oil pipelines monitored for safety | Tulsa World.

Obama administration proposes new standards for silica dust – latimes.com

Obama administration proposes new standards for silica dust – latimes.com.

New York Imports Pennsylvania’s Radioactive Fracking Waste Despite Falsified Water Tests « DC BureauDC Bureau

New York Imports Pennsylvania’s Radioactive Fracking Waste Despite Falsified Water Tests « DC BureauDC Bureau.

Millennium Pipeline Safety Record

Shams Harpur shared the following information at the Stop the I 81 pipeline meeting last night in Cortland.  sc
 
 
 
 
Millennium Past Incidents (Shams Harpur)

 

This document is meant to give those working against Millennium 81 N/S a list of prior incidents and pipeline accidents specifically related to Millennium Pipeline Company (MPC) and Columbia Gas Transmission (the company that operates Millennium Pipeline). The major player in Millennium Pipeline Co, as Gale pointed out, is NiSource, owner of both CGT and major stakeholder of MPC. Looking at prior incidents at Millennium Pipeline itself, as well as the parent companies operating the proposed 81 pipeline will give us vital information about the safety and track record of these companies. Such information can be very effective when reaching out to both landowners and the general public.

 

As an aside, an 2010 article dealing with the infamous San Bruno explosion and pipeline safety should be a must read for everyone looking through this document, and for those doing outreach to landowners. It frames questions about pipeline safety and regulation in a very effective manner. http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/corroding-pipelines?page=0,0

 

Millennium Pipeline Co.

 

To date, the existing E/W Millennium pipeline has had one major incident. In 2011, Millennium Pipeline Co. was cited by PHMSA (a federal regulatory agency) for a leak resulting from a faulty weld. The section of pipe with the faulty weld was placed aside due to failing safety tests, yet was installed anyway. The leak occurred in the Town of Owego (Tioga County), in a remote area under a creek bed. According to PHMSA’s citation, 1,328 million cubic feet of gas was released. No injuries, fatalities, or property damage.
However, also included in the citation were concerns about at least two other faulty welds that were installed without repairs or adequate testing. Also, Columbia Gas Transmission was could not  supply safety records on other suspect welds on the Millennium pipeline. Quoting PHMSA’s report “These issues and the inconsistencies in NDT [non-destructive testing] documentation raise concerns as to the integrity of other welds throughout the Millennium Pipeline System”.
According to an pipeline safety expert quoted in Industrial Safety and Security Source, “not producing records on a relatively new pipeline indicates that something gone wrong here – seriously wrong”.  The same expert, was paraphrased in ProPublica, “Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline safety expert and consultant, said an explosion on the line could be significantly larger than the one that killed eight people in San Bruno, Calif., in September because the Millennium operates at more than double the pressure, even after the recent reduction”. (The San Bruno explosion was an explosion of a high-pressure transmission line which killed 8 people. The proposed N/S Millennium line is a transmission line)

 

Sources:

 

Industrial Safety and Security Source: http://www.isssource.com/feds-millenium-pipeline-unsafe/

 

 

CGT has also been cited by PHSMA for other safety violations during an inspection period from July 2008 and August 2010. These inspections took place at Millennium Facilities in Binghamton, New York and Port Jervis Operating Center, New York. During the inspection period, PHSMA found 6 items of violations. These violations included not inspecting the pipeline for external corrosion within time limits; CGT did not have the required cathodic protection installed on the pipeline in three separate sections, the largest of which ran for 67 miles from Hancock to Tuxedo. The cathodic protection system is required to be installed within one year from when the pipeline is constructed. The lines inspected went into service between 2-3 years before the inspectors cited CGT for non-compliance. Three CGT compressor units at the Sparrowbush open air compressor station are unable to automatically shut off fuel and vent their manifolds, violating pipeline safety laws. CGT failed to follow its own construction specifications, and CGT’s bending and handling techniques resulted in damaged pipe coating.
Pipe coatings on portions of a 186 mile section from Ramapo, NY to Corning, NY were found by inspectors in2008 to be damaged. This citation from PHMSA was sent to CGT in 2012. The same Ramapo-Corning line was also cited by PHSMA in 2008 for not being inspected on installation, in violation of pipeline safety law. During a “jeeping” operation, there was no inspector present, even though it is required by law. On July, 18th, during an installation of a section of pipe, CGT told state inspectors there was an installation inspector on site, but when state inspectors searched for the GCT inspector, they could not find them. On July 25th, a second section was found not to have inspectors on site during installation. Foam padding during installation was found by state inspectors to have shifted, and state inspectors had to inform CGT in order for repairs to be made.
    CGT was also cited by state inspectors for not visually inspecting two weld repairs being done. Welding inspectors required by law to be present for the repairs were not present for any step of the repair process.

 

Citation:
Columbia Gas Transmission:

 

Columbia Gas Transmission L.L.C. is a daughter company of NiSource which operates the Millennium Pipeline. A major pipeline operator, CGT operates pipelines NiSource/Columbia Pipeline Group across the nation. In the period between 2002-2013, which is when we have access to PHMSA data, CGT has been cited a total of 45 times for varying enforcement cases. For the 11 years that PHMSA has data on CGT, they have only gone a single year without citations. I urge that everyone look at the PHMSA’s page on CGT, and read the descriptions of different enforcement categories given below the tablehttp://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/Actions_opid_2616.html#_TP_1_tab_1

 

For example, the enforcement case when the major leak was detected in the Millennium Pipeline is filed under a Notice of Proposed Safety Order, “PHMSA may issue a Notice of Proposed Safety Order to notify an operator that a particular pipeline facility has a condition or conditions that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment. A Notice of Proposed Safety Order addresses pipeline integrity risks that may not constitute a hazardous facility requiring immediate corrective action (see Corrective Action Order described above), but do need to be addressed over time.” For the four years PHMSA has implemented the Notice of Proposed Safety Order (2010-2013), CGT has been cited twice.

 

Corrective Action Orders:

 

Between 2002 and 2013, CGT has been cited 3 Corrective Action Orders. Corrective Action Orders are given when “PHMSA…determines that a particular pipeline represents a serious hazard to life, property, or the environment. They usually address urgent situations arising out of an accident, spill, or other significant, immediate, or imminent safety or environmental concern. In a Corrective Action Order case, PHMSA identifies actions that must be taken by the operator to assure safe operation. These actions may include the shutdown of a pipeline or operation at reduced pressure, physical inspection or testing of the pipeline, repair or replacement of defective pipeline segments, and similar measures”. However, “If PHMSA believes the conditions for a Corrective Action Order case exist, but the Order does not need to be issued expeditiously to prevent likely serious harm to life, property or the environment, the Operator will be given reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing before an actual Corrective Action Order is issued.” For the three CAO issued, two were the result of fire or explosion, and the other was a result of an internal inspection which found 800 anomalies with wall loss over 65 percent.

 

On December 14th 2007, a pipeline operated by CGT exploded near the town of Delhi, Louisiana nearby Interstate 20, killing one person and injuring another. Several farm buildings and equipment nearby was also destroyed by fire. The same pipeline experienced leaks in 2006, and 2001, and another line closeby operated by CGT as part of the same natural gas system leaked in 2000. The leak and explosion were ruled to be caused by external corrosion.

 

 

On December 11th, 2012, a pipeline operated by CGT failed near Sissonville, WV, exploded, shooting a 15-ft section of pipe out of the ground. Two flame plumes were reported, destroying three homes, severely damaged another, and inflicted damage to several other homes. Interstate 77 was also damaged and closed. Preliminary conclusions about the causes of the explosion point to wall thinning. Two other pipeline loops were located within 200 ft and 60 ft of the line that exploded. The case is still under investigation.

 



Probable Violation Cases:




Working Conclusions:

 

From CGT’s record of serious safety violations during the construction of the current Millennium pipeline show that the company has a very poor safety record. The E/W Millennium pipeline has been in operation for 5 years, yet has been cited at least 7 times for serious safety violations. The lack of complete record-keeping of testing on the part of CGT further points to the attitude towards safety that CGT holds. What should also be kept in mind is the time between PHMSA observing violations and citations being issued, 4 years in the case of the Millennium Probable Violation Report, and 6 months in the case of the Millennium leak.
    In the light of a regulatory environment where gas companies are left to regulate themselves, concerns about the maintenance of 50+ year old pipelines, and the poor safety record of a relatively new Millennium pipeline, we have a lot angles to point to the dangers of allowing pipelines to come through New York.