NorthCoastOregon.com

Local News

FERC staff concludes Bradwood LNG limited adverse environmental impact

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued the following:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the construction and operation of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities, referred to as the Bradwood Landing Project, proposed by Bradwood Landing LLC and NorthernStar Energy LLC (collectively referred to as NorthernStar) in the above-referenced dockets. The Bradwood Landing Project facilities would be located in Clatsop and Columbia Counties, Oregon, and Cowlitz County, Washington.

This final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard (Coast Guard), and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) are cooperating agencies for the development of the EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis.

Based on the analysis included in the EIS, the FERC staff concludes that the proposed action would have limited adverse environmental impacts. However, if the Bradwood Landing Project is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and with implementation of NorthernStar’s proposed mitigation measures, and the additional mitigation measures recommended by staff, environmental impacts would be substantially reduced.

The purpose of the Bradwood Landing Project is to provide a new source of natural gas to the Pacific Northwest through importing LNG. LNG is natural gas that has been turned into a liquid state by cooling it to about -260 degrees Fahrenheit to reduce its volume for transport in specially designed carriers some distance across oceans from its point of origin to the proposed LNG import terminal. NorthernStar would store the LNG at its terminal, vaporize the LNG back into natural gas, and provide up to 1.3 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to the region through its sendout pipeline and interconnects at two industrial facilities, an intrastate pipeline, and an interstate pipeline system.

The EIS addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the following facilities located at the proposed Bradwood Landing LNG terminal, at Columbia River Mile 38, in Clatsop County, Oregon:

• a 58-acre maneuvering area off the federally-maintained Columbia River navigation channel, and a single berth capable of receiving and unloading LNG carriers with cargo capacities ranging from 100,000 to 200,000 cubic meters (m3);

• a set of four 16-inch-diameter LNG unloading arms at the berth, and a 1,240-footlong 32-inch-diameter cryogenic LNG transfer pipeline and 6-inch-diameter LNG recirculation cooldown pipeline from the berth to the storage tanks;

• two 160,000 m3 insulated LNG storage tanks;

• a vapor handling system and vaporization equipment, including seven submerged combustion vaporizers capable of regasifying the LNG for sendout through a transfer meter station; and

• ancillary utilities, service buildings, and associated safety and security systems.

The EIS also addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of NorthernStar’s proposed sendout pipeline and associated facilities,
including:

• a 36.3-mile-long underground, high-pressure steel sendout pipeline consisting of approximately 18.9 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Clatsop and Columbia Counties, Oregon and 17.4 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Columbia County, Oregon and Cowlitz County, Washington; and

• associated facilities, including five meter and regulation stations, four interconnects, two pig1 launchers, and two pig receivers.

The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for distribution and public inspection at:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Public Reference Room
888 First Street N.E., Room 2A
Washington, DC 20426
(202) 502-8371

Only volume 1 of the final EIS, containing text of the analysis, was printed in hard copy. Volume 2, containing the appendices, was produced as .pdf files on a compact disk (CD) that can be read by a computer with a CD-ROM drive. A limited number of hard copies and CDs of the final EIS are available from the FERC’s Public Reference Room, identified above. This final EIS is also available for public viewing on the FERC’s Internet website at http://www.ferc.gov, via the eLibrary link.

Copies of the final EIS have been mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; Indian tribes and Native American organizations with an interest in the project area; interveners; regional environmental organizations and public interest groups; affected landowners; local libraries and newspapers; and other interested parties. Hard copies of volume 1 were mailed to those who specifically requested them, while all others on the mailing list were sent both volumes of the EIS on CDs.

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission’s Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372). The administrative public record for this proceeding to date is on the FERC Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov). Go to Documents & Filings and choose the eLibrary link. Under eLibrary, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (e.g., CP06-365). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at: or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY call 202- 502-8659. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the
amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet website (http:www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp).

LNG – Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
FERC Staff issued a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Bradwood Landing LNG Project (Docket Nos. CP06-365-000 and CP06-366-000)
Issued: June 6, 2008

The FERC staff prepared a final EIS for Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas (LNG) Project in Oregon and Washington. The proposed Project would consist of an LNG import terminal located about 38 miles up the Columbia River from its mouth, in Clatsop County, Oregon, and a 36.3-mile-long sendout pipeline, crossing Clatsop and Columbia Counties Oregon and Cowlitz County, Washington, connecting the terminal with the existing Williams Northwest Pipeline Corporation interstate system near Kelso, Washington. The LNG terminal would have a sendout capacity of 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. Along the pipeline route, would be interconnections and meter stations to deliver natural gas to the Georgia-Pacific Wauna paper mill, Northwest Natural Gas Corporation intrastate system, the Portland General Electric Beaver power plant, and Williams Northwest.

The final EIS was prepared in coordination with our cooperating agencies for the Project, which included the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard (Coast Guard), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The FERC staff determined that if the proposed Project is approved and is constructed and operated in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and the project sponsor’s proposed mitigation, and the staff’s additional mitigation recommendations, it would have mostly limited adverse environmental impacts. The primary reasons that the FERC staff concludes the proposed Project would be an environmentally acceptable action are:
o The final engineering design for the LNG terminal would incorporate detailed seismic specifications and other measures to mitigate the impacts of seismic hazards, and mitigation measures would be implemented along the pipeline route to address landslides and other geological hazards;

o NorthernStar would implement its project-specific Erosion and Control Plans, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Plan, and follow the FERC staff’s Plan and Procedures to mitigate impacts on soils, wetlands, and water resources;

o NorthernStar would implement various mitigation plans to compensate for impacts on waterbodies, wetlands, vegetation, and habitats;

o Consultations with the COE, Coast Guard, National Marine Fishery Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon and Washington State Historic Preservation Offices, and other appropriate agencies would be completed before NorthernStar would be allowed to begin construction;

o The proposed LNG terminal would meet the federal safety regulations regarding the thermal radiation and flammable vapor dispersion exclusion zones, and appropriate safety features would be incorporated into the design and operation of the LNG import terminal and LNG carriers;

o An environmental inspection and mitigation monitoring program would be implemented to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures that become conditions of any FERC authorization; and

o The conditions outlined in the Coast Guard Waterway Suitability Report would be implemented.

The FERC Commissioners will take into consideration the staff’s recommendations and the final EIS when they make a decision on the Project.

16 Comments

Submit A Comment

Name (required)

Email (required, but not shown)

URL

Remember my personal information

Please enter the word you see in the image above: