Agency cites ‘safety’ report written by firm with gas ties
New York has had a de facto moratorium on the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities for the past 40 years because gas storage and transportation—particularly in populated areas —pose catastrophic risks to human health and safety.
But now, after decades of precaution, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is rushing forward with new regulations that will facilitate LNG fueling stations, mobile LNG production facilities at fracking sites, export terminals, and colossal storage tank farms.
To support its position, the DEC cites a 2011 safety study written by a firm hired by the state. The firm, Expansion Energy, directly profits from the design and production of LNG facilities! Not surprisingly, the study gave LNG a clean bill of health.
The Sierra Club, working with other groups, has insisted that the DEC extend the open public comment period and scrap its draft LNG regulations. As a result, over a two-month period ending in early December, the DEC received more than 50,000 comments opposed to its plan. The department is now required to finalize the rules by October, allow them to expire, or seek a single 90-day extension.
The current moratorium was enacted in 1973 after a catastrophic explosion on Staten Island killed 40 people. Later, when the Legislature enacted Section 23 -1703 of the Environmental Conservation law, the legislative intent was clearly focused on protecting public health and safety.
The Legislature recognized that LNG is an extremely volatile, highly flammable and dangerous substance which, if released into the air under unfavorable atmospheric conditions, can cause severe damage over a wide area. The Legislature also noted that the use of LNG was increasing, making it necessary to minimize the storage, transportation, and conversion of LNG in residential or other populous areas.
When the Legislature raised these concerns in 1976, the restrictions on safe siting of LNG infrastructure were deemed so onerous that the Legislature officially implemented a long-term moratorium on LNG storage soon after. Even when the formal moratorium was lifted decades later, it was deemed virtually infeasible to advance a safe LNG storage and transportation program.
It is for this reason that the Chapter is concerned that the DEC, after more than 37 years of precaution, could declare in SEQRA documents that there is no significant environmental impact associated with siting LNG facilities. The DEC cites several studies conducted by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) that negate any further need for review.
But NYSERDA’s reports from 1998 or 2011 (including the one written by the industry) do not include analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, wildlife and biodiversity, secondary and cumulative impacts to communities and community planning, or impacts to cultural, agricultural or rural resources.
The DEC’s SEQRA documents also minimize the impact of the new siting program by suggesting that growth will amount to a dozen or so small LNG facilities. But the draft regulations allow for a much more open-ended program, with uncertain outcomes from unspecified siting criteria. If the DEC insists that no EIS is required, it should at least institute caps on the size and quantity of facilities it would allow.
The Sierra Club is also concerned that protections offered by the new rules are not rooted in regulation but incorporated by reference to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards.
These codes are proprietary and restricted to the public through convoluted and difficult-to-navigate web access. It costs $44 for the text of the NFPA standards, which NFPA does not want disseminated to our membership or the public.
The NFPA standards center exclusively on public safety protections but do not cover climate change, community planning, protection of bio-diversity or other important environmental considerations that would have been captured in an EIS. Essentially, the NFPA standards are set in stone yet are the predominant component of what should be an interactive rulemaking process. Restricted public access and absolute rigidity does not meet the requirements of the State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA) for transparency and public involvement.
The Sierra Club does not want its opposition to be misconstrued as insensitivity to environmental justice communities that want cleaner alternatives to the diesel trucks and busses that rumble through their neighborhoods. But we won’t make a blind commitment to LNG infrastructure expansion that could lead to unwanted climate impacts, and undermine transportation and energy solutions based upon efficiency, innovation and renewables.
Without an open process, New Yorkers cannot be assured that the DEC’s position on LNG regulations serves the public interest. The DEC should scrap the current draft regulations and conduct a full environmental review.