Public Comment Period Closes Today On Transco Compressor Station “Dewatering” Permit for Southern Reliability Link Pipeline

Key Freshwater Wetlands Permits and Water Quality Certificate Pending

The public comment period on the DEP’s proposed draft “dewatering” permit for the Transco compressor station in Chesterfield closes today. The compressor station would serve the proposed NJ Natural Gas “Southern Reliability Link” Pinelands pipeline. That pipeline is part of the regional interstate PennEast pipeline project.

The draft permit, DEP staff report, public hearing transcript, and public comment information can be found here (upper right “What’s New”).

I understand that the Pinelands Preservation Alliance has challenged the stream encroachment permit issued for the project.

[Update – Rich Bizub of PPA testified in opposition to the draft permit at the public hearing and submitted detailed technical comments I will discuss in a future post.]

More importantly, the freshwater wetlands permits and the Clean Water Act Section 401 “water quality certificate” for the project have not been issued by DEP. Applications for those DEP approvals were submitted last July and August.

Here are my comments on the dewatering permit – I was simply laying a foundation to challenge the final permit if and when it is issued by DEP.

Dear DEP:

I hereby incorporate the full public hearing transcript:

http://www.nj.gov/dep/watersupply/pdf/1322d-hearing-transcript.pdf

In addition to my comments at the April 26, 2016 public hearing, I would like to add the following:

1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the project is in the public interest. There is no demonstration at all. The applicant has not met his regulatory burden under applicable laws and DEP rules.

2. The basis for the Department’s determination that the project is in the public interest is not based on stated facts that are in the administrative record or based on promulgated regulatory criteria. The Department’s determination is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.

3. The applicant has failed to show – and the Department has failed to consider and conclude – whether the project would comply with groundwater quality standards and surface water quality standards, including hydro-modifcation of streams and wetlands and associated ecological and aquatic life impacts on existing uses of the ground and surface waters.

4. It is premature to issue this permit before the State freshwater wetlands permit is issued.

5. It is premature to issue this permit before the State and federal Clean Water Act “Water Quality Certificate” is issued.

6. The Department is improperly segmenting the permitting and environmental review of a massive regional gas infrastructure project. The full scope of the project involves impacts from fracking wells that supply the gas, the pipeline and compressor station infrastructure, and the end uses of the gas. Such segmentation frustrates the public’s ability to adequately review and comment on this draft permit.

7. The Department has failed to consider the cumulative and lifecycle impacts of the compressor station and the complete gas infrastructure project that the compressor station serves. Such a narrow “silo” scope of permit review frustrates the public’s ability to adequately review and comment on this draft permit.

8. Improper segmentation and scope of review constitute inappropriate review practices that violate sound science, competent regulatory practice, and the public interest.

*9.  I heard nothing from the applicant during their presentation at the public hearing or in the permit application (the initial version or the amended version) or the DEP’s draft permit and staff report that provided facts and standards upon which to establish the “just and equitable” requirement with respect to other users.

A “just and equitable” analysis would have to be based upon and explicitly consider the public ownership of the State’s water resources and the DEP’s Trustee obligations established under the Water Supply Management Act to protect that resource for the people of the State, not an out of State corporation.

Risks, impacts, benefits and costs and their distribution would need to be considered explicitly and heavily weighted in favor of the people of the state and the public interest.

This demonstration has the same technical flaws noted about impacts on residential wells and similar  legal flaws as the “public interest” demonstration.

For these reasons, the draft permit should be denied by DEP and not issued as a final permit until all of the above flaws and deficiencies are remedied.

These permit review practices violate Department’s Public Trust Obligations under the NJ Water Supply Management Act pursuant to which the draft permit is authorized.

Bill Wolfe

* updated, revised and extended point