FERC Spectra info request by 9Jba6rwx

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 12

									                            FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426



OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS


                                                   In Reply Refer To:
                                                   OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 3
                                                   Texas Eastern Transmission, LP and
                                                   Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC
                                                   Docket No. CP11-56-000
                                                   § 375.308(x)


December 2, 2011

Berk Donaldson, Director
Rates and Certificates NE
Spectra Energy Corporation
5400 Westheimer Court
Houston, TX 77056

Re:     Environmental Information Request for the NJ-NY Expansion Project

Dear Mr. Donaldson:

       Please provide the information described in the enclosure to assist in our analysis
of the above-referenced Certificate application. File your response in accordance with
the provisions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission)
Rules of Practice and Procedure. In particular, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
385.2010 (Rule 2010) requires that you serve a copy of the response to each person
whose name appears on the official service list for this proceeding.

        Please file a complete response by December 12, 2011. Send your response to:

                 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
                 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
                 888 First Street, NE, Room 1A
                 Washington, DC 20426

       If certain information cannot be provided within this time frame, please indicate
which items will be delayed and provide a projected filing date. You should be aware
that the information described in the enclosure is necessary for us to continue
preparation of the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Once we have
received your responses and reviewed them for completeness, we will determine if
any modification to the current schedule for issuance of the EIS is necessary.

       When filing documents and maps, be sure to prepare separate volumes, as outlined
on the Commission’s website at http://www.ferc.gov/help/filing-guide/file-ceii/ceii-
guidelines.asp. Any Critical Energy Infrastructure Information material should be filed
as non-public and labeled "Contains Critical Energy Infrastructure Information – Do
Not Release" (18 CFR 388.112). Cultural resources material containing location,
character, or ownership information should be marked "Contains Privileged
Information - Do Not Release" and should be filed separately from the remaining
information, which should be marked "Public."

       File all responses under oath (18 CFR 385.2005) by an authorized representative
of Texas Eastern Transmission, LP and/or Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC and
include the name, position, and telephone number of the respondent to each item. In
addition to the official filing, please provide two hard copies of the response, including
all oversize materials, and an electronic copy of the response, directly to Natural
Resource Group, LLC as the third-party EIS preparation contractor.

       Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact Kara J.
Harris at 202-502-6296.

                                                 Sincerely,



                                                 James Martin, Chief
                                                 Gas Branch 3
                                                 Office of Energy Projects


Enclosure


cc:    Public File, Docket No. CP11-56-000




                                             2
                                                                          ENCLOSURE

        TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP (Texas Eastern) and
           ALGONQUIN GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC (Algonquin)
      New Jersey-New York Expansion Project (NJ-NY Project or Project)
                       DOCKET NO. CP11-56-000

               ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REQUEST

General

1.   The alignment sheets submitted on November 10, 2011 reference detailed design
     drawings for the aboveground facilities (e.g., SPE-0124-C2); however, the
     drawings were not included in the filing. Provide a detailed design drawing for
     each of the new or modified aboveground facilities.

2.   Clarify under what authority Texas Eastern proposes to construct the
     interconnection with Morris Energy/International Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT)
     and the related metering and regulating (M&R) station.

3.   Indicate the contracted delivery volumes of gas for the interconnect with Public
     Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) and the new interconnect with IMTT
     in Bayonne, New Jersey. Indicate how these volumes would impact the previous
     agreements and deliveries for Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc.; Statoil Natural
     Gas, LLC; and Consolidated Edison Company (Con Edison) and update the
     information in Table 1.1-1 of the draft EIS as necessary.

4.   Provide an update regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between Texas
     Eastern and IMTT.

5.   Describe the temporary and permanent land requirements for the new M&R
     station on the IMTT property, and any requirements for temporary or permanent
     access roads, including length, current road surface condition, and a description of
     any required upgrades. Also indicate if the construction and siting of the new
     M&R station and associated piping would result in any change in size or
     configuration of contractor ware yards 15 and 16, which are on the IMTT
     property.

6.   Describe and provide a figure showing the location of the non-jurisdictional
     facilities associated with the new IMTT M&R Station site and the new Bayonne
     M&R Station site.




                                           1
7.    Verify if the information presented in the following draft EIS tables is correct or
      provide updated information based on the route variations filed on November 10,
      2011.

      a.     Table 2.2.1-1.
      b.     Table 4.2.2-1.
      c.     Table 4.3.1-1.
      d.     Table E-1 from Appendix E (the November 10, 2011 supplemental filing
             only included the additional temporary workspace variance tables from
             Resource Report 2).
      e.     Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix I.

8.    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) noted in its
      October 28, 2011 comment letter that the draft EIS permit table (Table 1.5-1)
      should include an entry for tenant permitting and consultation regarding the Port
      Authority’s Tenant Construction and Alteration Process (TCAP) Manual. Texas
      Eastern responded on November 15, 2011 saying it does not envision a
      relationship with the Port Authority that would require tenant permitting and that
      certain requirements in the TCAP will need to be negotiated. Describe how Texas
      Eastern intends to acquire the necessary authorization from the Port Authority and
      identify which requirements included in the TCAP Texas Eastern will seek to
      modify.

9.    Provide the anticipated starting and ending dates for all of the activities associated
      with the 18th Street/Long Slip and Hudson River horizontal directional drills
      (HDD). Include all of the activities listed in Attachment 24 of the Applicants’
      October 14, 2011 response to the draft EIS and any activities associated with the
      Hudson River HDD not listed in Attachment 24. In addition, provide specific
      responses to the questions related to the timing of the HDD and dredging activities
      listed on page 16 of Newport Associates Development Company’s (Newport
      Development) November 21, 2011 comments on the draft EIS.

10.   Provide responses to the Newport Development’s concerns identified in its
      October 28, 2011 comment letter, and other filings, related to compliance with the
      Newport Remedial Plan, interference with its development plans, and indemnity
      from any remediation cost or other impacts resulting from the Applicants’ use of
      Newport Development’s property.

11.   Respond to comments on pages 9 and 10 of Jersey City’s October 28, 2011
      comments on the draft EIS that the revised and compressed work schedule
      (proposed just before the draft EIS was issued) would result in additional impacts,
      including an increase in noise impacts, work hours, air emissions and dust,
      construction oversight, and safety concerns.



                                            2
Alternatives

1.    Provide a comparative analysis including a detailed comparison table of the
      alternative identified by Chevron Land and Development Company (Chevron) to
      the proposed route, and comment on the comparative cost estimate of the
      alternative versus the proposed route that was included in Chevron’s October 31,
      2011 letter. The comparison should include all relevant environmental resources.
      See Table 3.5.3-2 of the draft EIS for a list of the minimum resources to include in
      the comparison.

2.    Provide a comparative analysis of the alternative pipe yards recommended in 380
      Development, LLC’s (380 Development) October 31, 2011 comment letter to the
      proposed contractor ware yards 6 and 7. Indicate if Texas Eastern intends to adopt
      these alternative yards in lieu of the proposed yards. If not, explain why the
      proposed yards would be preferable. The comparison should include all relevant
      environmental resources. See Table 3.5.3-2 of the draft EIS for a list of the
      minimum resources to include in the comparison.

3.    Provide a map, comparative assessment, and detailed comparison table of the
      route alternative described in 380 Development’s October 31, 2011 comments on
      the draft EIS. This alternative, which is south of the proposed route on 380
      Development’s property, begins around MP 2.60 and ends around MP 4.07R.
      Indicate the name of any new landowners that would be affected by the alternative
      and indicate the crossing length on each property. The comparison should include
      all relevant environmental resources. See Table 3.5.3-2 of the draft EIS for a list
      of the minimum resources to include in the comparison.

4.    Provide a map and comparative assessment of the three options referenced on page
      6 in the Port Authority’s October 28, 2011 letter for crossing the Howland
      Hook/Port Ivory Site (i.e., an HDD under the southeast corner of the property and
      under Mariners Marsh, a route that follows “an existing Texas Eastern” right-of-
      way under the west side of Mariners Marsh, and a route near the Port Ivory
      property line that crosses the Howland Hook/Port Ivory site on a straight line).
      Given the uncertainties about the Port Authority’s expansion plans, explain why
      the proposed route adjacent to Western Avenue is preferable to these three
      options. The comparison should include all relevant environmental resources.
      See Table 3.5.3-2 of the draft EIS for a list of the minimum resources to include in
      the comparison. Also, provide a response to the Port Authority’s request for a
      more definitive list of permitted uses of the pipeline easement. Specify, for
      example, if an intermodial railroad track over or across the pipeline would be
      permitted.

5.    Indicate the impact (approximate acres) of the Project on the 110 Hoboken
      Avenue Development Urban Renewal Company, LLC property. Specify both


                                            3
      temporary and permanent impacts associated with the pipeline and the Jersey City
      M&R Station. Describe the development plans for the 100 Hoboken Avenue
      property and discuss any potential conflicts between the NJ-NY Project and the
      development plans for 110 Hoboken Avenue.

6.    Provide a map and an analysis of the Hackensack River and Bergen Arches
      Alternative referred to by Mayor Healy in his comments at the public comment
      meeting in Jersey City on October 19, 2011. Provide a comparison with the
      proposed route. The comparison should include all relevant environmental
      resources. See Table 3.5.4-1 of the draft EIS for a list of the minimum resources
      to include in the comparison.

Horizontal Directional Drills

1.    Update the April 21, 2011 Geotechnical Feasibility Study by providing a Final
      Geotechnical Engineering Analysis, based on the geotechnical work completed for
      each crossing, that evaluates and discusses the feasibility of successfully
      completing the HDD at each of the nine proposed crossings. The engineering
      analysis should include:

      a.     an assessment and discussion of the potential for successful completion of
             each horizontal directional bore based on conditions encountered in the
             geotechnical borings and the literature search conducted;
      b.     an analysis of the geological conditions in terms of the potential for fluid
             losses and inadvertent release of drilling fluids during each HDD bore; and
      c.     the potential for flowing artesian conditions at each entry and exit locations
             and the methods that would be employed if flowing artesian conditions are
             encountered.

      The Final Geotechnical Engineering Analysis should discuss the proposed design
      of each drill path, including drilling depth, pilot and finished hole diameters, and
      casing lengths and diameters.

2.    Provide updated drawings of the Construction Stage Details in Appendix A of the
      sediment modeling report that was prepared by Applied Sciences Associates, Inc.
      The updated drawings should be consistent with the revised construction schedule
      for the Hudson River and 18th Street/Long Slip HDDs.

Water Resources

1.    Address Chevron’s October 31, 2011 letter regarding concerns with the proposed
      alignment’s proximity to the slurry wall, the crossing of the benzene-contaminated
      area, the specific measures that would be implemented to monitor and prevent
      impacts on the integrity of the slurry wall, and the risk of unintended migration of


                                            4
     benzene on and off the site and into the Kill Van Kull. Also address Chevron’s
     concerns regarding the excavated trench creating a preferential pathway for
     contaminants, the mixing of remediated surface soil with underlying contaminated
     soil and groundwater, the timing of construction, and impacts on future
     development and remediation efforts.

2.   Response 17 of the Applicants’ October 14, 2011 submittal to the FERC provides
     additional information about correspondence with the municipalities related to
     water permitting requirements, but does not provide information related to the
     specific municipality sources and discharge locations that would be used for each
     pipeline hydrostatic test segment and the water to be used during HDD operations.
     For each test segment and HDD operation, provide the volume of water that would
     be used from each municipality. Also provide mapping that shows the
     approximate discharge locations for all hydrostatic test water used.

3.   Response 17 of the Applicants’ October 14, 2011 submittal to the FERC states that
     Texas Eastern contacted the Jersey City Municipal Utility Authority (JCMUA)
     and that 12,000 gallons of municipal water per week would be available for
     purchase in Jersey City. However, page 18 of Jersey City’s October 28, 2011
     comment letter states that the JCMUA “would not be able to provide water for
     testing or drilling.” Clarify this discrepancy and identify specific sources of water
     that would be used in place of, or to supplement, municipal water in Jersey City.

4.   Explain why Texas Eastern is not planning to withdraw and discharge hydrostatic
     test water from and to the Hudson River, similar to the Kill Van Kull.

5.   Provide information for the new waterbody crossed by Route Variation 78 as
     necessary to update Table N-1 in Appendix N of the draft EIS.

Aquatic Resources

1.   The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) recommends
     several timing restrictions to protect aquatic resources, including:

     a.     prohibiting work from January 1 to May 31 in areas with winter flounder
            (primarily the Hudson River); and
     b.     avoiding sediment-generating activities and/or major in-water disturbance
            in estuarial streams with unobstructed access to the ocean or known
            anadromous migration corridors from March 1 to June 30.

     Provide a discussion regarding Texas Eastern’s intentions to comply with these
     recommendations or describe other measures that would be implemented to
     address the NJDEP’s concerns.



                                           5
Vegetation and Wildlife

1.    Discuss Algonquin’s intentions to comply with the NJDEP’s recommendation that
      tree clearing necessary at the Mahwah M&R Station should be conducted between
      November 1 and March 31, or describe other measures that would be implemented
      to address the NJDEP’s concerns.

2.    Provide copies of timber rattlesnake survey reports and correspondence with the
      NJDEP regarding the surveys or specify when the Applicants anticipate
      conducting these surveys.

Land Use

1.    The justification for Route Variation 76, which was included in the Supplemental
      Information filed on November 10, 2011, indicates that the New York Container
      Terminal has accepted the route variation if Texas Eastern agrees to address its
      future development and operation requirements. In its November 15, 2011
      response to comments on the draft EIS, Texas Eastern also indicates that New
      York City Transit “has not objected to the proposed alignment provided the parties
      can coordinate their respective activities so as not to impede their respective
      operations and to minimize impacts to future development plans.” Describe the
      specific measures Texas Eastern would implement to address future development
      and minimize impacts on future activities at the site.

2.    The Supplemental Information filed on November 10, 2011 indicates that Route
      Variation 55 would eliminate the open-cut crossing on New Jersey Turnpike
      Authority’s Exit 14C exit ramp and open-cut impacts on Jersey City Boulevard. It
      is not apparent from the alignment sheets how this would be achieved. Explain
      how the new alignment would avoid open-cut crossings, whereas the previous
      alignment would not. Also clarify the discrepancy between the text describing the
      variation, which refers to new temporary access road (TAR) 27 and the alignment
      sheets, which indicates this road is TAR 28.

3.    Route Variation 78 in the Supplemental Information filed on November 10, 2011
      adjusts the pipeline and temporary construction right-of-way immediately adjacent
      to a baseball field within the Cochrane Field Complex. With the proposed
      placement of the pipeline within the sidewalk and immediately adjacent to the
      recreational property, describe any potential impacts on the facility and
      recreational users due to the adjustment and measures that Texas Eastern would
      implement to minimize those impacts.

4.    The discussion of Route Variation 73 in the Supplemental Information filed on
      November 10, 2011 indicates that no additional landowners would be affected but
      states that an abutting landowner’s property that was not previously directly


                                           6
      affected would be directly impacted by the variation. Texas Eastern indicated that
      this variation is acceptable to the property owner (i.e., T.M. Jasme Properties,
      LLC) provided Texas Eastern works through the property owner’s potential
      business interruption concerns. Describe the nature of this landowner’s concerns
      regarding business interruptions and how Texas Eastern proposes to address these
      concerns.

5.    Identify any other route variations by milepost that would directly impact
      landowners that were previously only abutters. For each of these landowners,
      identify the variation name, location of the affected property, and any concerns the
      landowner has regarding the pipeline and easement. Describe how Texas Eastern
      would address these concerns.

6.    Discuss the current schedule for obtaining access to the Port Authority properties
      for the purpose of conducting geotechnical and environmental surveys. Indicate
      when Texas Eastern anticipates the survey results will be available.

7.    Provide a response to the Port Authority’s October 28, 2011 comment regarding
      the design of the pipeline at the Greenville Yards to accommodate current and
      future development.

8.    The Applicants’ November 15, 2011 response to the Port Authority’s October 28,
      2011 comment letter states that Texas Eastern will continue to address the Port
      Authority’s specific concerns with respect to the Staten Island Expressway and
      Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) Yard and will prepare appropriate
      reports/plans as it has in other locations. Provide a schedule for when these
      reports/plans will be completed and filed with the Port Authority and the FERC.

9.    Provide an analysis of the potential impacts on marine traffic during in-water work
      activities associated with the Hudson River and 18th Street/Long Slip HDDs.
      Describe measures Texas Eastern would implement to reduce any potential
      conflicts.

10.   Provide details of the planned developments identified below. Details should
      include, as applicable, a map; the specific distance and direction from the
      proposed pipeline route; planned construction/development timeframes; a
      description of efforts to minimize any conflicts associated with the proposed
      Project; and documentation of consultation with the developers.

      a.     the future development on the Liquori property (Route Variation 74);
      b.     the proposed building lot on Harbor Drive II Real Estate, LLC’s property
             (Route Variation 57); and




                                            7
      c.    the transit alternatives being considered by the Metropolitan Transit
            Authority – New York City Transit in its North Shore Alternatives
            Analysis.

Cultural Resources

1.    File with the Secretary any correspondence or documentation of consultation with
      the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), Native American groups, or other
      consulting parties not previously filed with the Commission.

2.    Provide a table indicating by milepost/station number: identified archaeological
      sites/structures, National Register of Historic Places eligibility
      status/recommendation, Project effects, additional work needed, and SHPO
      comments, if available.

3.    Provide a table documenting the status of Native American consultation to date,
      and include tribes contacted, tribal comments, and any responses.

4.    For the Mahwah M&R Station and associated access roads, provide a large scale
      drawing indicating:

      a.    the location of the proposed Algonquin M&R Station;
      b.    the location of the proposed meter station for Tennessee Gas Pipeline
            Company’s (Tennessee) Northeast Upgrade Project (CP11-161-000);
      c.    new proposed access roads by Algonquin and Tennessee;
      d.    existing access roads to be improved by Algonquin and Tennessee;
      e.    any existing facilities to be removed by Algonquin and Tennessee;
      f.    the area surveyed by the Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. for Docket
            No. CP11-56-000;
      g.    the area surveyed by Gray & Pape, Inc. for Docket No. CP11-161-000;
      h.    any sites identified; and
      i.    any additional work necessary.

      Also indicate which company would be responsible for conducting any necessary
      additional work. File the response to this question in both Docket Nos. CP11-56-
      000 and CP11-161-000.

Air Quality and Noise

1.    Provide updated construction emissions for criteria emissions for the Project based
      upon the changes in the route alignments filed on November 10, 2011. Confirm
      that the emissions would be below the general conformity thresholds for each
      pollutant within the various nonattainment areas for each construction year. In
      addition, provide a plan that details how Texas Eastern would ensure that the
      construction emissions of NOx and CO would not exceed the general conformity

                                           8
      threshold of 100 tons per year in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
      Air Quality Control Region.

2.    Provide updated survey information regarding ambient noise levels, distance and
      direction to nearest noise-sensitive (NSAs) areas, and an acoustical impact
      analysis for the new IMTT M&R Station, the revised Bayonne M&R Station, and
      new mainline valve sites 1 and 2. Include revised numbers to update Tables
      4.11.2-4 and 4.11.2-5 of the draft EIS.

3.    Provide updated information, as necessary, to revise the noise analysis and Table
      4.11.2-3 for the following HDD operations, which have been realigned since the
      draft EIS was issued: the entry side of the Goethals Bridge HDD; exit side of the
      1st Street HDD; and exit side of the Bayonne Inlet HDD. For the Bayonne Inlet
      HDD, also revise the alignment sheet (DWG LD-A 1050A Rev A 14), which
      currently shows the HDD exit site being disconnected from the proposed pipeline
      route.

4.    Describe the local noise codes for the State of New Jersey, Hudson County, the
      City of Hoboken, Jersey City and New York City. Explain what mitigation
      measures Texas Eastern would need to implement to meet these codes. Provide
      justification why these measures would be technically infeasible or cost
      prohibitive. Describe the circumstances where local noise codes would likely be
      exceeded in New Jersey and New York and estimate the intensity and duration of
      the noise over that allowed by the noise codes for each state, county, and
      municipality.

5.    Estimate noise impacts from pile and casing driving, HDD activities, and general
      construction activities for the Hudson River crossing at the NSAs (residential
      buildings, hotels, hospitals, hospices, schools, libraries, places of worship, etc.)
      and to the underwater environment. Confirm that in-water noise levels would not
      exceed the noise thresholds discussed on page 7 of the National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service’s November 2,
      2011 comments on the draft EIS. In addition, estimate construction noise impact
      on pedestrians at the nearest point of the Hudson Waterfront Walkway. Detail all
      mitigation measures that Texas Eastern would implement to reduce noise and
      vibration impacts.

Reliability and Safety

1.    Provide the location of the nearest fire hydrant to the proposed pipeline on Staten
      Island.




                                            9
2.   In addition to designing the 30-inch-diameter pipeline to Class 4 standards,
     confirm that Texas Eastern would construct, operate, maintain, and inspect the
     pipeline to Class 4 standards.

3.   In June 2011, Spectra Energy was cited by the U.S. Department of Transportation
     Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for 17 inadequacies in its
     pipeline safety operations and procedures, including pipeline surveillance,
     emergency plans, and welding procedures. Discuss the actions Spectra has
     taken/is taking to improve safety operations and procedures.

4.   Respond to the following Manhattan Community Board Number 2 comments and
     questions regarding valves, which were included in its October 4, 2011 comments
     on the draft EIS.

     a.    Describe the efficacy of and redundancy in remote shut-off valves and their
           reliability versus automatic valves.

     b.    Indicate what methods and technology are available for shutting off the
           pipeline in the event of a failure.




                                         10

								
To top