Comment-Response Matrix
21
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
21
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review – Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses No. Section Page Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response Comments from FERC dated February 13, 2008 1 General Replace all references to “preferred” route, “preferred” site, The requested changes have been made throughout the “preferred” location, “preferred” alternative, etc. with main text, tables, and appendices in Resource Report 1. “proposed” in all resource reports. 2 General Use consistent names for the various parts of the proposed The requested changes have been made throughout the Project; preferably “Oregon Pipeline” and “Lateral” for the ppendices in Resource Report 1. pipeline components, for example. 3 General Identify the amount of land that would be required for These data have been modified or added where needed in construction and operation of all aboveground facilities. the introductory text of Section 1.4 and in Tables 1.4-1 through 1.4.4. 4 General that would be required for These areas are identified on the figures showing the construction and operation of the corrosion protection alignment sheets for the proposed routes of the Oregon system associated with the Oregon Pipeline and Lateral. Pipeline (in Appendix 1C) and the Lateral (in Appendix 1G). 5 General Update Resource Report to reflect the latest project The latest ...
Voir
No. Section Page 1 General 2 General 3 General 4 General 5 General 6 General
7 General
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response Comments from FERC dated February 13, 2008 Replace all references to “preferred route, “preferred site, The requested changes have been made throughout the “preferred location, “preferred alternative, etc. with main text, tables, and appendices in Resource Report 1. “proposed in all resource reports. Use consistent names for the various parts of the proposed The requested changes have been made throughout the Project; preferably “Oregon Pipeline and “Lateral for the main text, tables, and appendices in Resource Report 1. pipeline components, for example. Identify the amount of land that would be required for These data have been modified or added where needed in construction and operation of all aboveground facilities. the introductory text of Section 1.4 and in Tables 1.4-1 through 1.4.4. Identify the amount of land that would be required for These areas are identified on the figures showing the construction and operation of the corrosion protection alignment sheets for the proposed routes of the Oregon system associated with the Oregon Pipeline and Lateral. Pipeline (in Appendix 1C) and the Lateral (in Appendix 1G). Update Resource Report to reflect the latest project The latest Project information has been included where information, including the latest pipeline route in the Gaston applicable throughout Resource Report 1. (Wapato Lake) area. Consider providing a single table that summarizes all water This table has been added to the report as Table 1.3-5, withdrawals and discharge associated with project “Projected Water Needs for Construction and Operation of construction and operation. The table should show volumes, the Terminal, the Oregon Pipeline, and the Lateral. Another rates/frequencies, and locations. Additionally, clarify whether table listing the quarterly water requirements during any of the water discharged during construction or operation construction has been added as Table 1.3-4, “Projected of the project would be treated prior to discharge. Quarterly Water Needs for Construction of the Terminal, the Oregon Pipeline, and the Lateral. These tables and the text in a new Section 1.3.9, “Water Requirements, include the information requested by the reviewer. Provide figures illustrating the design of temporary and These details are shown in three figures that have been permanent water intake and discharge structures. added to Resource Report 1: Figure 1.3-6, “Deluge System Intake Structure (for the Oregon LNG Terminal), and two pipeline-specific figures: 1.5-4, “Hydrostatic Surface Water Intake Structure, and 1.5-5, “Hydrostatic Surface Water Discharge Structure.
Page 1 of 21
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses No. Section Page Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response 8 General How many miles of new, greenfield permanent right-of-way This information has been added to the penultimate would be required in each county crossed by the proposed paragraph of Section 1.3.2.1. Oregon Pipeline? 9 General Provide additional details on the LNG vaporization system, This information has been added to Section 1.3.3.4 and a including: new Section 1.6.1.4, “Vapor Plume from Vaporization a. Number and description of natural gas fired heaters used System. to supplement the ambient air vaporizers. b. A description of whether this vaporization system could potentially cause condensed water vapor conditions (i.e., fog) in the vicinity of the Terminal. If so, how extensive might this be and under what conditions would it be expected? c. The daily range of volumes of water expected to be discharged as condensate from the ambient air vaporizers. Based on typical weather conditions, what would be the total volume of water discharged from the ambient air vaporizers in a year? d. The temperature and water quality impacts of the condensate water discharge. e. A plan for the discharge condensate from the ambient air vaporizers Clarify the locations of the meter stations and other The requested drawing has been added as a new aboveground facilities. A simple line drawing illustrating the Figure 1.3-3, “System Schematic of the Proposed Project locations of the aboveground facilities would be useful. and Associated Aboveground Facilities. The locations of meter stations and other aboveground facilities associated with the Oregon Pipeline and the Lateral are also shown on figures in Appendices D and H, respectively. Note that chipping or burning of woody materials would not This information has been added to the first paragraph of the be allowed in wetlands. “Clearing and Grading subsection of Section 1.5.4.1.
10 General
11 1.5.4.1 1-52
Page 2 of 21
No. Section Page 12 1.1.9 1-12 13 1.2.2 1-16 14 1.3.1 Figure 1.3.1
15 1.3.2 1-25 16 1.3.2.1 1-26
17 1.3.2.4 1-30 18 1.3.2.5 1-30
19 1.3.2.6 1-31
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response Based on projected flow rates and pressure requirements, Information on these topics has been added to Section how frequently does Oregon LNG anticipate that it would 1.3.2.4, where the compressor station is now discussed in operate the compressor station? Would there be daily or greater detail than in Section 1.1.10 (formerly 1.1.9). seasonal periods when it would be more commonly used? Provide citations/references to the discussion included in Citations and references have been provided throughout the section 1.2.2. At a minimum, statements in each of the first revised Section 1.2, “Purpose and Need. three paragraphs should include one or more references. Update figure 1.3.1 or provide a new figure of the Terminal An updated Figure 1.3-1, “General Arrangement Plot Plan, layout that illustrates the construction footprint. Additionally, Oregon LNG Terminal has been included that illustrates the provide an updated figure that illustrates the Terminal Terminal operational footprint including the stormwater operational footprint including the stormwater management management system and the bioswales. A new Figure 1.3-2, system and the bioswales. “Terminal Construction Area, has been added that shows the footprint of the Terminal during construction. Indicate where odorization of natural gas would occur, This information has been added to the second paragraph in particularly in relation to the natural gas going into the NW Section 1.3.2. Natural pipeline system. You state that from milepost (MP) 33.3 to 33.7 you are The text referenced by the reviewer has been changed to considering constructing the pipeline by horizontal indicate that the Oregon Pipeline will cross under the directional drill (HDD) where it crosses some private property Nehalem River by way of a 775-linear-foot HDD crossing. and the Nehalem River. Explain the reasons for considering The mileposts have been changed to 33.4 and 33.6, crossing this area via HDD. What is the status of this respectively. evaluation? Complete table 1.3-2 to include data for the proposed The data on major roads to be crossed by the proposed Lateral. Lateral have been added to Table 1.3-2. Provide the dimensions and/or a plot plan of the mainline A typical plot plan for a mainline valve site has been added valve sites. as Figure 1.3-4, “Oregon Pipeline Mainline Valve Detail. As noted in the revised Section 1.3.2.5, the dimensions of this typical site are approximately 20 feet by 20 feet. Table 1.3-3 lists High Consequence Areas. Provide a FERC’s comments on the first prefiling review draft of definition or clarify your meaning for the following items in Resource Report 11 (February 20, 2008) included the the “Comments column: “number of shopping complexes following: “Suggest moving discussion of high consequence and motel; and “Medium residential subdivision. areas in Resource Report 1 to Resource Report 11. This
Page 3 of 21
No. Section Page
20 1.3.2.6 1-31 21 1.3.4 1-33
22 1.3.4 1-33 23 1.3.6 1-34 24 1.3.8 1-36 25 1.4 1-36
26 1.4.1 1-38
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response has been done, and the revised Table 1.3-3 is now included in Resource Report 11 as Table 11B-1. The language in the last column of that table, for which the reviewer requested definition or clarification, has been replaced by more specific information. Table 1.3-3 should be completed to include data for the Please see the response to Comment 19. As indicated in Lateral. Resource Report 11, no High Consequence Areas have been identified along the proposed route of the Lateral. Section 1.3.4, Electrical Systems only addresses electrical This information has been added as the last paragraph of requirements for the propose LNG Terminal. However, the revised Section 1.3.4. electricity would be required for the proposed compressor station and it has not been included. Provide information about the electric requirements for the proposed compressor station. Under what state agencies authority would these electric This information has been added to Section 1.3.4. facilities be constructed? How frequently would the LNG storage tank firewater deluge This information has been added to Section 1.3.6. system be tested? How much water would be withdrawn from the Skipanon Waterway for testing? No maps or figures showing the proposed access roads for Figures showing the proposed access roads to the Lateral the Lateral were included although they were included for the have been added to Appendix 1E. A list of these access proposed Oregon Pipeline in appendices 1B and 1C of draft roads is provided in Table 1F-2 in Appendix 1F. Resource Report 1. Provide this information for the Lateral. Provide the land requirements for construction and operation The land requirements for construction and operation of the of the proposed Lateral and the total project. Lateral have been added to Table 1.4-4. The land requirements for the primary Project components and the total Project are summarized in the introductory text of Section 1.4. Table 1.4-2 is incomplete since it does not include acreage As indicated in the revised last paragraph of Section 1.5.2, it for a proposed construction parking lot that would be needed is no longer anticipated that offsite parking or storage for during construction of the proposed LNG Terminal. Provide Terminal-related activities will be required. Parking and this information. storage areas will be provided within the process area construction footprint, and therefore are now included within
Page 4 of 21
No. Section Page
27 1.4.3 1-37
28 1.4.3 1-40 29 1.4.3.3 1-42 30 1.4.3.4 1-42 31 1.5
32 1.5.2 33 1.5.3.2 1-47
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response the “LNG Storage Tanks/Process Area row in the revised Table 1.4-2. The previous “Construction Parking Lot row has been deleted from the table. What is the proposed permanent right-of-way width for the The permanent right-of-way (easement) widths for the Oregon Pipeline and the Lateral? Oregon Pipeline and the Lateral will be 50 feet and 40 feet, respectively. This information has been added to the first paragraph in Section 1.4.3. Provide the data missing from table 1.4-4. The data on land requirements for the Lateral have been added to Table 1.4-4. What is the temporary land requirement for each contractor/ This information is provided in the “Land Affected During pipe yard? Construction columns of Tables 1.4-3 and 1.4-4 for the Oregon Pipeline and the Lateral, respectively. What would the typical permanent and temporary land These land requirements are indicated in Tables 1.4-3 and requirement be for each aboveground facility? During 1.4-4 for the Oregon Pipeline and the Lateral, respectively. operation, how would aboveground facilities be maintained? Information about the maintenance of the aboveground facilities has been added to the text of Section 1.4.3.4. Provide a copy of the FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Proposed changes to the FERC Plan are identified in a Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and redlined version of the Plan that is presented as an appendix Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures in Resource Report 7. Proposed changes to the FERC Pro-(Procedures) showing in redline/strikeout any proposed cedures are identified in a redlined version of the Procedures changes proposed by Oregon LNG. that is presented as an appendix in Resource Report 2. Are additional temporary storage areas needed for dredged As indicated in the revised language in Section 1.5.2, no material? temporary areas will be needed for the storage of dredged materials. Indicate whether or not a separate tank would need to be The design concept does not require the temporary storage constructed on site to temporarily store hydrostatic test of hydrostatic test water. The Skipanon River is slightly water. If so, where would this tank be located? brackish and may need to be treated by reverse osmosis (RO). The water will be pumped directly from the river into the RO system (if needed) and then flow directly into the vessel that is being tested (i.e., the LNG storage tank) at a flow rate that will be limited by the capacity of the RO system. If an RO system is not required, the test water will be pumped directly to the vessel being tested. This
Page 5 of 21
34 1.5.3.2 1-48
35 1.5.3.4 1-49 36 1.5.4.1 1-58
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses No. Section Page Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response information has been added to the “Tank Hydrotesting subsection of the renumbered Section 1.5.3.3. Provide a project specific site restoration plan for the The renumbered Section 1.5.3.3 has been revised to Terminal. generally describe erosion prevention, sediment control, construction stormwater planning, and stabilization and rehabilitation of temporarily disturbed surfaces at the Terminal. As noted at the end of that section, a Project-specific site restoration plan will be developed to describe these activities in detail. Describe why inundation of the operation area during a This comment is no longer pertinent because it has been tsunami event would be limited to 10 minutes. Describe the decided to raise the operations an additional 6 feet by safeguards that would be in place to protect the safe placing dredged materials in the operations area. At this operation of the Terminal during an inundation of the higher elevation, the operations area will be 3.5 feet above operations area. the predicted peak tsunami elevation. Indicate which of the sources of hydrostatic test water in This information has been added to the “Hydrostatic Testing Table 1.5-3 include waterbodies that are state-designated subsection of Section 1.5.4.1. exceptional value waters, waterbodies which provide habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or waterbodies that are designated as public water supplies. If any of the waterbodies meet these classifications, describe how Oregon LNG intends to comply with Section VII.C.2 of our Procedures. How many Environmental Inspectors does Oregon LNG This information (three or more Environmental Inspectors intend to employee per spread? per construction spread) has been added to the last subsection, “Construction Environmental Inspection and Compliance, of Section 1.5.4.1. Provide copies of the following plans: The Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated • Plan for the Unanticipated Discovery of Contaminated Environmental Media will be developed before construction Environmental Media; begins. The SPCC Plan is included in an appendix in • Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) RPreesvoeunrtcieo nR Pelpaonr,t a2n, da lionnclgu dweitsh ian fSortomramtiwona treer gParodlliuntigo tnh e Plan; containment of drilling mud during HDD wetland and • Plan for the Containment of Inadvertent Release of Drilling waterbody crossings. The last plan referenced by the Mud During Horizontal Directional Drilled Wetland and reviewer is provided as an appendix in Resource Report 4,
37 1.5.4.1 1-59
38 1.5.4.1 1-59
Page 6 of 21
No. Section Page
39 1.5.4.2 1-63
40 1.5.4.2 1-65 41 1.5.3.4 1-49 42 1.5.3.6 1-49
43 1.5.3.9 1-50
44 1.5.4 1-52 45 1.5.4.1 1-53
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response Waterbody Crossings; and Plan for the Unanticipated under the title “Plan and Procedures for Unanticipated Discovery of Historic Properties, Human Remains, or Discoveries of Cultural Resources (Including Human Potential Paleontological Evidence During Construction. Remains). All the above information has been included in Alternatively, provide a schedule/timeframe for when these raenvdi sCedo tmepxlti ainn cthee “sCuobnssetcrtuicotni oonf ESnevcitrioonn m1.e5n.t4al1 I. n spection plans would be provided. . Describe dust minimization techniques, including a The requested information has been added to the paragraph discussion of sources of water and/or types of chemical dust in the “Residential Areas and Existing Structures subsection suppressants that would be used. If chemical dust of Section 1.5.4.2 that begins “The principal methods that suppressants would be used, describe any regulatory will be used to mitigate impacts on existing residential areas approvals that would be necessary. are
. It is not anticipated that chemical dust suppressants will be used. Identify site-specific locations and justifications for siting any This information is provided in Resource Report 2. additional temporary work space within 50 feet of wetlands or waterbodies that are currently known. In section 1.5.3.4 you state that a seismic event that This information has been added to the renumbered Section generates a tsunami with a peak elevation of 14.2 feet could 1.5.3.5. also result in 4.3 feet of subsidence of the proposed LNG Terminal area. Please explain. Provide the Dredging Operations Plan. The Dredging Operations Plan will be prepared prior to the commencement of dredging operations. This is now noted in the first paragraph of the renumbered Section 1.5.3.7. Provide additional information on the soil enhancements, This information has been added to the text in the ground improvements, and deep foundations that would be renumbered Section 1.5.3.10, and two new figures have used to mitigate for potential liquefaction and to provide been added: Figure 1.5-2, “Soil Improvement Methods, vertical and lateral support for structures at the LNG Oregon LNG Terminal, and Figure 1.5-3, “Ground Terminal. Improvement and Foundations, Oregon LNG Terminal. Provide the missing data about proposed pipeline These data have been added to the renumbered Table 1.5-4 construction spreads listed in table 1.5-2 for the proposed (formerly Table 1.5-2). Lateral. Describe the ‘mitigation system’ that could be needed to This information has been added to the “Pipeline Corrosion reduce alternating current voltages on the pipeline. Protection and Induced Alternating Current Mitigation subsection of Section 1.5.4.1.
Page 7 of 21
49 1.5.4.2 1-61
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses No. Section Page Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response 46 1.5.4.1 1-54 Identify locations by MP where additional easement would This information is provided in Table 1I-1 in the renumbered be required at each of the rectifier stations. Appendix 1I. 47 1.5.4 1-58 Provide the missing data about hydrostatic test water source The former Table 1.5-3 has been deleted because the and discharge locations listed in table 1.5-3 for the proposed information is provided in the new Table 1.3-4, including the Lateral. data requested by the reviewer. Please see the response to Comment 6. 48 1.5.4.2 1-60 Justify why Oregon LNG would require an extra 50 feet of This explanation has been added to the “Rugged additional temporary workspace (ATWS) in areas of rugged Topography subsection of Section1.5.4.2, where it is also topography. noted that the alignment sheet pipeline construction cross-sections provided in Appendices 1C and 1G for the Oregon Pipeline and the Lateral, respectively, show how the additional ATWS will be used. Table 1.5-4 lists locations where you have identified The issues raised by the reviewer have been addressed in residential and other structures within 50 feet of construction the revised and renumbered Table 1.5-5 (formerly Table 1.5-workspaces for the proposed Oregon Pipeline. It indicates that 4), including its footnotes. Site-specific mitigation measures many of these structures would be within the construction to address impacts on residences and structures within 50 workspaces. You have not provided site-specific plans for the feet of the proposed Oregon Pipeline route are shown on the affected properties, nor have you proposed mitigation to drawings in the new Appendix 1J, “Residential Mitigation minimize impacts to them. Provide the missing information, Plans for the Oregon Pipeline Route, which has been added including a description of the “unknown structures. Also, to Resource Report 1. explain why pipeline alignment or workspaces have not been modified to avoid the 16 listed structures that would be within the proposed construction workspaces. For residences within 50 feet of the edge of the construction work area, explain how Oregon LNG would ensure that the trench is not excavated until the pipe is ready for installation and that the trench is backfilled immediately after pipe installation. For residences within 25 feet of the edge of the construction work area, provide site-specific construction plans and for residences within 10 feet of the edge of the construction work area, provide site-specific construction plans and landowner agreement in writing unless the construction work area is part of the existing maintained right-of-way.
Page 8 of 21
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses No. Section Page Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response 50 1.5.4.2 1-62 Table 1.5-5 which lists the locations where the proposed No mitigation measures are necessary for the route of the Lateral would be within 50 feet of residences has not been Lateral because no residences or structures are located completed. Provide the missing information within 50 feet of this proposed route. Therefore, the former Table 1.5-5 has been deleted. 51 1.5.4.2 1-68 Table 1.5-6 lists the locations where HDDs are proposed; This information has been added to Table 1.5-6 along with however, it does not list the locations that would be along adjustments to the HDD data for the Oregon Pipeline. the proposed Lateral. Provide the missing information. 52 1.5.4.2 1-69 Define the term ‘large-diameter’ vegetation as it relates to The sentence referenced by the reviewer has been rewritten cutting that would be completed to accomplish HDD guide as follows: “No vegetation with a truck diameter greater than wire installation. 2 inches will be cut to accomplish guide wire installation. 53 1.6 Maintenance dredging frequency, amount of material, and Modeling is currently being performed to estimate the placement should be included. frequency and volumes of future maintenance dredging required for sediments in the river following the removal of dredge material during construction of the marine facilities associated with the proposed LNG Terminal. The results of this evaluation and stakeholder input will be included in the next submittal of Resource Report 1. Confirm that the list of landowners included in Appendix 1J The list of landowners included in this appendix (now includes affected landowners as defined in 18 CFR 157.6(d). renumbered as Appendix 1M) meets the criteria specified by This should include landowners within 0.5 mile of the the reviewer. proposed LNG Terminal and the compressor station and those landowners directly affected access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary workspace. For all non-jurisdictional facilities, including the electric This information has been added to Sections 1.3.4 and transmission system and the water supply system, provide 1.3.5, which are referenced in Section 1.11. the following detailed information for each facility: a. company/owner; b. type of facility; c. dimensions (pipe diameter, length, horsepower, etc. as appropriate for pipeline and land area for other facilities, including construction and operation right-of-way widths); d. maps showing locations (including likely and alternative routes);
54 1.9 1-80
55 1.11 1-81
Page 9 of 21
56 General
57 1.1.1 1-9
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses No. Section Page Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response e. federal permits required and their status; f. status of local and state permits required; and g. who would be responsible for construction and operation of these facilities. Comments from Oregon Coastal Management Program dated February 14, 2008 In our scoping comments we outlined the role of the These requirements have been added to Table 1.8-1. Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the basic requirements for federal consistency review required by the Coastal Zone Management Act. We will not repeat those comments here, but do note that resource reports do not adequately address the requirements for local and state approvals that are integrated into the Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP). On page 1-9 there are references to zoning provisions that Detailed information about zoning provisions and are incomplete and incorrectly imply that uses are allowed requirements for the Terminal and the associated marine outright rather than subject to conditional use approval. The facilities has been included in a new subsection entitled report should provide more detailed information about the “Location that has been added at the beginning of City of Warrenton requirements that are applicable to the Section 1.3.1.1. project as components of the OCMP. On page 1-13 we note that Oregon LNG and the Palomar Comment noted. Section 1.1.10 includes a summary of pipeline both appear to serve a similar purpose and need. discussions that have taken place between Oregon LNG and We suggest that FERC work with the applicants to avoid Palomar. overlapping projects and minimize the need for the public and agencies to review two separate projects with significant environmental and natural resource effects. 59 1.2 1-13 On pages 1-13 through 15, the assumptions about purpose The issues raised by the reviewer have been addressed in through and need require further justification. Assumptions about the revised Section 1.2, “Purpose and Need. 1-15 demand and available supplies are not supported by reliable evidence. The resource report does not identify a need for this project based on any national or regional planning effort. As a result, only general information about market demand for natural gas is included in the report. More importantly, there is no overall national or regional energy plan to guide
58 1.1.9 1-13
Page 10 of 21
Oregon LNG Terminal and Oregon Pipeline Project FERC Review Resource Report 1, General Project Description Comments on Prefiling Review Draft 1 from FERC and Other Agencies, and Responses No. Section Page Question/Comment/Additional Information Needed Response the siting and construction of natural gas infrastructure that assures the economic and efficient provision of import terminal and pipeline facilities. Because of the absence of specific information documenting the need for terminal and pipeline facilities in this location and the Pacific Northwest and the FERC practice that relies on applicant to propose projects for case-by-case review, the resource report does not adequately assess fundamental energy infrastructure planning issues. Such an approach could result in approval of several terminal and pipeline projects, each with significant environmental effects that provide excess import terminal capacity, unnecessary pipeline infrastructure and unnecessary environmental effects. The public interest is best served by a meaningful analysis of need and alternatives. On page 1-19, the report indicates that land for the terminal Detailed information about zoning provisions and is appropriately zoned. Language also refers to the berth requirements for the Terminal and the associated marine and dredging. We note that additional review and local facilities has been included in a new subsection entitled approvals are required for the project as outlined in planning “Location that has been added at the beginning of documents that are part of the OCMP. Section 1.3.1.1. Also see the revised Table 1.8-1. We note that for the pipeline, there is no information on any This information is provided in Resource Report 8. zoning or planning requirements that apply to the project. The report should indicate zoning for the portions of the pipeline route within the coastal zone and any related review/approval standards and requirements. On page 1-35 there is reference to a 2005 traffic impact The Traffic Impact Study was updated in February 2008, study. The report should address construction and post addresses the issues raised by the reviewer, and is provided construction requirements and should demonstrate as an appendix in Resource Report 5. An expanded compliance with City of Warrenton and Clatsop County description of the Traffic Impact Study and its findings has transportation system planning standards. been included in the renumbered Section 1.3.8.1 in Resource Report 1. 63 1.4 1-36/37 On pages 1-36/37 there is discussion of the Pier Dock and This information has been added to Section 1.4.1. Additional turning basin. The resource report should demonstrate that detailed information describing consideration of alternative the applicant has considered alternative designs and designs and locations is provided in Resource Report 10.
60 1.3.1 1-19
61 General
62 1.3.7.1 1-35
Page 11 of 21
