NGA+NEPA reform Wish List

Thank you Molly. 

That's a very good start. 

I am very happy to see the part about "all environmental reviews must be complete before the Certificate is Issued", aka, the problem of the "Conditional Certificate" Catch 22.

Here are some things not present which I'd like to see added:

1: CLOSE THE API LOOPHOLE

Presently, gathering lines are not considered jurisdictional. Sounds good until you realize that the DEFINITION for "gathering line" is held by the American Petroleum Institute, via API RP-80, which is "included by reference" @ 49 CFR § 192.8

This allows MONSTER compressor stations like the Williams Dunbar Station in Windsor NY, and the Williams Central Station in Brooklyn PA to escape the multi-year FERC permitting, and escape an environmental review under NEPA.

Enumerating some specific reforms which arise from this:

2. Eliminate "inclusion by reference": Regulations and definitions should be defined by Congress, and not delegated to industry.

3.a (minimum) Interstate gathering line systems (compressors and pipelines) must  be considered jurisdictional which supply FERC regulated facilities (pipelines, storage, compressors, or facilities used for export) should be considered jurisdictional and subject to NEPA review, and to PHMSA regulations for safety, integrity management, mapping, etc. 

3.b (IDEAL) ALL gathering line systems (compressors and pipelines) which supply FERC regulated facilities (pipelines, storage, compressors, or facilities used for export) must be considered jurisdictional and subject to NEPA review, and to PHMSA regulations for safety, integrity management, mapping, etc. 

Why just natural gas?

4. ALL Interstate hazardous liquids pipelines as defined by 49 CFR § 195.2 and related facilities MUST be subject to a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. (similar to @ 15 USC § 717f) and NEPA environmental review.

Why just buried pipelines?

5. All fixed facilities involved in interstate commerce in bulk hazardous gas or liquid commodities by any mode (rail, truck, air, pipeline) MUST be subject to a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. (similar to @ 15 USC § 717f) and NEPA environmental review.

(this includes LNG, NGLs, LPG, crude oil, refined petroleum products, Diluted bitumen, etc. and Compressed Natural Gas)

Can we include NEPA reforms too, as these are connected to the NGA?

NEPA reforms

6. ALL fixed facilities involved in bulk haul of hazardous gases or liquids (or mixed phase gas+liquids), either commodities OR WASTE, shall require a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity subject to NEPA review.

7. Eliminate problems with the Fast Track "Environmental Assessment"

This is very complicated and I don't know how to phrase this concisely. 

Basically: FERC and other agencies are presently often using their discretion to choose a Fast Track EA over a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement.

According the the CEQ guidance, some EA's should result in a Finding of Significant Impacts (FOSI), and trigger an EIS.

I have read DOZENS of EA's, and I can find NO EXAMPLE from ANY AGENCY where this has ever happened!!!

IN EVERY CASE I have reviewed, each EA results in a FONSI: Finding of NO Significant Impacts. This indicates to me that the EA process is broken.

That's my list, for starters.

I'm going to consult some experts I know.
I will be adding to this list!

BH

--
William Huston:  WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY

Public Service Mapping / Videography / Research / Education / Safety Advocacy
Blog -- Facebook -- Twitter  -- Youtube -- Podcast Blog

Document collections: VirtualPipelines -- BHDCSDimockArchive
Please support my work! -- TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston

Small scale LNG "Virtual Pipeline" up and running Tioga County PA to Norwich CT!?

from the article

Small scale LNG "Virtual Pipeline" up and running Tioga County PA to Norwich CT!?

What the hell? I try to stay informed about such things, and I've never heard of this. 

Interstate bulk-haul natural gas by truck or rail, (either CNG/LNG) seems to be obviously "interstate commerce in natural gas" and this jurisdictional under §7 of the Natural Gas Act. 

In the case of New Fortress LNG, which is seeking to create a truck+rail Virtual Pipeline between Wyalusing, Bradford Co. PA and Gibbstown, Gloucester Co NJ and has declared this will be for export, this seems jurisdictional under both §7 (interstate) and §3 (export) jurisdictional. 

FERCs own case, Gulf Oil, Ltd's, Petition for Declaratory Order, 148 FERC ¶ 61,029 (CP14-132) suggests that under these conditions, these bulk route activities would be jurisdictional. 

Thus, the ground facilities should be subject to National Environmental Policy Act and require a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from FERC. 

I know it might seem weird to this list, but this is a case where I am arguing FOR FERC jurisdiction, because it would buy us more time and require an EA or ideally and EIS. 

https://www.gasworld.com/edge-lng-expands-in-marcellus-basin/2018385.article

LNG by Rail, comments by Environmental Groups, NTSB, etc.

Link to this: https://billhustonpodcast.blogspot.com/2020/01/lng-by-rail-comments-by-environmental.html




I was asked to do some research and find interesting objections to PHMSA's LNG by Rail Rulemaking presently before PHMSA, such as comments made by big environmental groups. I put some files up on Dropbox and gave links below to browse online, or to download the entire set.

NOTE: I desperately need to raise about $650 before the end of January! Please donate of you can! Paypal: TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston USPS: Wm Huston, PO Box 22, Endicott NY, 13761

 
There are the two related dockets:

• LNG by Rail Special Permit PHMSA-2019-0100
  (CLOSED, SP has been issued)
  This is given for completeness only. This SP docket concerns LNG
  by Rail also, but is unrelated to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
  
  
• LNG by Rail NPRM PHMSA-2018-0025
  This is the docket I was harvesting for comments.
  
  FYI, Here is the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
  Here is the petition for the rule made by the American Association of Railroads.
  

I searched for comments by big groups and found these.
I'm not sure if this is all of the big groups, but this should
give you a good idea of the top objections.


Right now, here's what's there:

• 350 dot org, PSR, et. all. joint comments, w/comments on the Special Permit
• DRN
• EarthJustice joint comments, w/attachments
• National Assoc of State Fire Marshalls
• NTSB
• DCS

Browse the files online: (recommended for portable devices)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gwv6v7tupqdehjk/AADA2gBev2deyH4-MjeM9vW3a?dl=0


Download these all at once: (recommended from a desktop computer)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gwv6v7tupqdehjk/AADA2gBev2deyH4-MjeM9vW3a?dl=1

I find reading these like a crash course in learning about the issue.

Commentary on the Special Permit

The only reason the Special Permit is needed, is because there is
presently no US DOT approved package for transporting LNG by rail.

Thus, a SP is needed to actually transport LNG by rail by EXEMPTING THE OPERATOR
from complying with the law regarding approved packages for HAZMAT.

My friend Ron Barton (NYS DOT, retired) says this SP has very restrictive permit
conditions, which will be very costly for the operator to implement.
He says (in his expert opinion) it will be very unlikely this SP will ever be used, for multiple reasons.

Another concern is the lack of the railcars.  Ron told me this, and then this appeared confirming:

"PHMSA said moving LNG by rail would be no different than other flammable cryogenic liquids already authorized for bulk rail transport. NTSB, however, found very few DOT-113 cars (405), commonly used for cryogenic ethylene service, are available. Even fewer (67) exist that meet the specifications PHMSA is considering for LNG transportation."
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/120760-ntsb-sounds-alarm-on-proposal-to-authorize-lng-by-rail-across-us

IF PHMSA adopts these proposed rules, the legal effect will be to make
the DOT-113 variant railcar an approved package for LNG, thus making the Special Permit obsolete.

Another important consideration is liability.

The Special Permit places all of the liability on the shipper
(Energy Transport Solutions, LLC. Doral, FL, one of 71 different subsidiaries of New Fortress Energy)

Whereas, once the DOT-113 becomes an approved package for LNG, the
liability shifts to the railroad operator. 

Hope this is helpful,
BH


--
William Huston:  WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY

Public Service Mapping / Videography / Research / Education / Safety Advocacy

Blog -- Facebook -- Twitter  -- Youtube -- Podcast Blog

Document collections: VirtualPipelines -- BHDCSDimockArchive

Please support my work! -- TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston

MARATHON Bill Huston Podcast Livestream Sunday!

Share this: https://billhustonpodcast.blogspot.com/2020/01/marathon-bill-huston-podcast-livestream.html

MARATHON! Starting at ~2:30pm Sunday!

Watch on the Bill Huston Podcast

channel on YouTube....

I will be taking your phone calls!

Please DONATE to support my work!

I will be broadcasting continuously until I can raise $800!

I will target $100 per hour and will target 8 hours.

Paypal: TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston

TODAY, Sunday 1/19/2020

TV Show Agenda

• Jen Metzger's Fracking Ban Bill:
  Good or Bad?
  
  Analysis and Discussion!
• LNG by Rail -- some updates
  
  
  
• CNG #BombTrucks topics
• Regulatory Free Pass w/BREAKING NEWS concerning Massachusetts!
• NYS PSC
• FERC: No CPCAN -> No NEPA -> No EIS or EA
• USDOT/PHMSA: Covering up, refuse to provide data,
  refuse to revoke SP
• NYS Thruway Authority
• Susq. County EMA
• PA Department of Community and Economic Development / Gov's Action Team
• County Solicitor: Giangreco challenge got changes
• PennDOT (tag+title violations)
• NYS DOT
• NYS AG
• OSHA (multiple incidents)
• PEMA
• PA PUC
• PA AG office
• NY Fire Marshall
• Sen. Tony Avella
• PASP
• NYSP (reluctant to investigate specific vehicles for weight/violations, write the wrong violation)
• US DOE: Funding development grants, "Clean Cities Program"
• BREAKING NEWS: Mass Fire Marshall!
• BREAKING NEWS: MA DPU
• XNG & the $100 Whip Check
• #BombTrucks MVA update
• How can we ban Ultra-High-Pressure CNG #BombTrucks?
  (we may be close than you think… and need YOUR HELP!)
  
  
• Endicott Battery Incinerator Update
  
  
• Why does NY Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo
  insist on calling the HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR
  .... a "Manufacturing" facility?
  
  I refuse to believe she has SOLD OUT to INDUSTRY
  sacrificing the health and well-being of her community for cash.
  So I must ask: Is there something wrong with her cognitive function?
  
  
  
  
  
• Ask Me Anything!
• Possible SUPRISE CALL IN guests!
• YOU get to chose from these topics for donations!

TinyURL.com/BillHustonPodcastSubscribe

Click the Bell 🔔 and select All Notifications. 

I will be broadcasting LIVE continuously until I raise $800!

Please DONATE to support my work!

I will target $100 per hour and will target 8 hours.

Paypal: TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston

--
William Huston:  WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY

Public Service Mapping / Videography / Research / Education / Safety Advocacy
Blog -- Facebook -- Twitter  -- Youtube -- Podcast Blog

Document collections: VirtualPipelines -- BHDCSDimockArchive
Please support my work! -- TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston

15 State AGs + NTSB oppose LNG by Rail

15 State AGs + NTSB oppose LNG by Rail

1: https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2020-01-14/15-states-oppose-trump-plan-to-allow-lng-shipments-by-rail

2: https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/120760-ntsb-sounds-alarm-on-proposal-to-authorize-lng-by-rail-across-us

Read the NTSB comments here.

If you want to review the source documents, or the public comments received, here are the two dockets involved:

• LNG by Rail Special Permit PHMSA-2019-0100
• LNG by Rail NPRM PHMSA-2018-0025

My documents archive regarding LNG by Rail:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/43p75uuruxyi1gq/AACiG7k5X-uZcU-RLPIoqDqZa?dl=0

 

Jeff Zimmerman asked me to look into the existence of a NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) for each one. (Note well: an EA is a fast-track. The more complete review is called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)).

I only found an EA for the Special Permit:
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/safe-transportation-energy-products/72911/environmental-assessment.pdf

Notice the conclusion at the end: FONSI:

Finding of No Significant Impact.

Here's the interesting thing about NEPA.

I went through it all once (when I was doing a lot of pipeline stuff involving FERC)

and I read through the CEQ guidance and studied the flowcharts.

Notice that there SHOULD be a way to go from an EA to an EIS.

This is after you did your fast-track EA review, you discover that

there ARE "significant" potential impacts.

This is called a FOSI: Finding of Significant Impacts

...which triggers a full EIS.

What I found was (at least with FERC), that the agency apparently had reached

a decision about using an EA or an EIS *prior to scoping*. I could find no instance where an EA was turned into an EIS!

I also worked with Barbara Arrindell, and we determined that a 100x car "Unit Train" of LNG carries the same explosive potential as 5 Hiroshima Bombs.

Now keep this in mind, and know that in their EA for the Special Permit, PHMSA did not even examine the rail routes (for schools, day care, homes, shopping, nursing homes, critical infrastructure, etc).

5 Hiroshima Bombs worth of potentially explosive LNG travelling just 100'ft from homes and schools, and PHMSA says there is a FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impacts!!!

FONSI: "Yo!" (or something close...)

So I'm very happy that the 15 AG's and the NTSB are opposing this!

BH

--
William Huston:  WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY

Public Service Mapping / Videography / Research / Education / Safety Advocacy
Blog -- Facebook -- Twitter  -- Youtube -- Podcast Blog

Document collections: VirtualPipelines -- BHDCSDimockArchive
Please support my work! -- TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston

NVDA vs NVR vs CD

In a prior post, I used the term "NVDA".

I didn't realize that people here might be new to these

concepts, so I thought I'd explain it.

(Someone did ask me about this... this was my response)

What is Nonviolent Direct Action (NVDA)?

There are several types of NVDA.

Voting might be considered NVDA.

But usually we are either talking about

* Civil Disobedience (CD) or

* Nonviolent Resistance (NVR).

People often call NVR "Civil Disobedience" but that is technically incorrect.

(even people who teach these techniques!)

Civil Disobedience is "intentionally breaking a bad law".

Examples:

* Women voting defying a bad law

* Black sit-ins in the 1960's defying bad law

* Weed-fests where people gather and smoke pot openly defying a bad law

When people nonviolently block an industrial facility with their bodies,

they are usually charged with either Trespassing (if on private property()

or else Disorderly Conduct (if on public rights-of-way).

In either case, the point of NVR is not to violate

laws against trespass, because trespass is a bad law,

(which would be the case for Civil Disobedience)...

Instead, the point of Nonviolent Resistance is to

stop some harm from happening (like polluting the air

or groundwater), where the charge (trespass, disorderly

conduct) is incidental to the action. 

With Civil Disobedience, the charge is the main point

of the action.

One of the principle philosophers who developed this

approach was arguably Jesus, who defied the money changers

at the Temple.

In more modern times, it is certainly Henry David Thoreau,

who wrote the pamphlet "Civil Disobedience" in prison for

defying a tax law.

Probably the most famous adherents was Mohandas K. Gandhi,

who was influenced by Thoreau, and who coined the term,

Satyagraha, a Sanskrit word which means (roughly) "Truth Force".

Gandhi really contributed a lot to the philosophy of nonviolent direct

action, what it is, and HOW IT WORKS. (it alters the mind of the oppressor).

Of course MLK patterned himself after Gandhi and Thoreau.

In modern times we have people like Sandra Steingraber who

was a huge part of defining the modus opperandi of We Are Seneca

Lake, but there were others like Michael Dineen, Jan Quarles, Doug Couchon.

N.B., I have studied this stuff for many years, but I must thank Elliot Adams

of Veterans for Peace who helped me understand the subtle difference

between NVR and CD.

Hope this helps someone!

BH

--
William Huston:  WilliamAHuston@gmail.com
Binghamton NY

Public Service Mapping / Videography / Research / Education / Safety Advocacy
Blog -- Facebook -- Twitter  -- Youtube -- Podcast Blog

Document collections: VirtualPipelines -- BHDCSDimockArchive
Please support my work! -- TinyURL.com/DonateToBillHuston