Home
  Project Description
  Project Facilities
    - Preliminary Maps
  Project Calendar
  Project Q and As
    - Response to Scoping
      Comments
    - FAQs
  FERC
    - Official Documents
  Press Releases
  Local Information
    -Libraries
    -Newspapers
  Surveying
  Tariff
  Project Personnel
  E-mail Us

 

Response to Scoping Comments

On April 10-13, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) held scoping meetings in Pooler, Sylvania, Thompson, and Washington, GA.  On May 8th, Southern LNG and Elba Express Company responded to issues raised during the environmental scoping period.  Click on the appropriate heading to view the questions and responses.

Elba III Project General Comments     

Elba Express Pipeline Project Comments

References

FERC Website

top

Elba III Project General Comments

Purpose and Needs

top

Alternatives

Agency Decision Making

Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Impacts

top

Elba Express Pipeline Project Comments

Pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW)

top

Facilities Design

Safety and Security

top

Elba III Project General Comments

Purpose and Need

Will the need for the planned project be studied? ( Ga. Conservancy Comment #20060424-05053)

Yes, although the Commission usually evaluates economic need in a preliminary determination on nonenvironmental issues (“ PD ”). Resource reports 1 and 10 of the Environmental Report, drafts of which are now available, identify the purposes of and need for the Elba III Project for the Commission's environmental record. Identifying the purpose and need at this stage of the environmental records helps to evaluate alternatives and their reasonableness. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13. The primary objectives of the Elba III Project are to:

  • Provide a competitively priced natural gas transportation infrastructure which will attract incremental global LNG supplies into the southeastern and eastern U.S. natural gas market to help meet the growing demand for clean energy;
  • Provide firm interstate natural gas pipeline capacity which can move gas from Elba Island to major pipeline interconnects with 1) the existing Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern) System in its Zone 3 near the end of its South Main Line, 2) the existing Transcontinental pipeline at the end of its zone 4, and 3) the existing Transcontinental pipeline at the beginning of its zone 5;
  • Provide new pipeline transportation services under agreements with BG LNG Services LLC and Shell NA LNG LLC;
  • Provide direct access to a very reliable source of LNG supply for the southeastern and eastern U.S. markets to supplement traditional domestic supplies; and
  • Provide interstate natural gas pipeline capacity to enhance liquidity in the southeastern and eastern U.S. markets.

The project sponsors have not yet filed applications for Commission authorization. Applications for Commission authorization must include, separate from an environmental report, evidence of need in the form of either precedent agreements, demand forecasts, or both included in Exhibit I. On September 15, 1999, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on New Facilities to provide guidance as to how we will evaluate proposals for certificating new construction. 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 (1999), orders clarifying statement of policy , 90 FERC ¶ 61,128 and 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000), order further clarifying statement of policy , 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000). The Policy Statement on New Facilities establishes criteria for determining whether there is a need for a planned project and whether the planned project will be consistent with the public interest. This determination complements, but is independent of, the environmental review and usually forms the basis for a PD prior to the final environmental impact statement.

top

Is evidence of need publicly available now? (Wilkes-Washington Trans., p. 19)

Yes. The Elba III Project will serve the need for natural gas in the Southeast, particularly Georgia and South Carolina, and other growing markets throughout the interstate pipeline grid. Attachment 1 contains press releases issued on December 21, 2005 by the customers who have entered into precedent agreements for Elba III.

Broader evidence of that need appears in a wide variety of government- and industry-sponsored forecasts of supply and demand, and also in studies showing the benefits of consuming natural gas over other forms of fuel. Sources for these forecasts and studies include the following:

  • The U.S. Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2006
  • The U.S. Office of Fossil Energy's LNG: Understanding the Basic Facts (2005); and
  • The National Petroleum Council's Balancing Natural Gas Policy –
    Fueling the Demands of a Growing Economy     (2003).

Also, the record for other recent projects reviewed by the Commission contains general evidence of need for additional supplies, particularly of LNG from new sources. In February 2006, the Commission published a brochure, “High Natural Gas Prices: The Basics,” projecting that LNG is likely to be an increasing part of natural gas supplies in the United States.

Where will the gas delivered by the Elba III Project go and who will benefit? (Sylvania Trans., pp. 16; Thomson Trans., p. 76-77; Wilkes-Washington Trans., p. 59)

The natural gas transported by the pipeline will be delivered to points selected by the customers of the terminal expansion and the new pipeline. All the delivery points along the planned Elba Express Pipeline are in the States of Georgia and South Carolina. Five of the seven delivery points are located in Georgia . The other two are located in South Carolina. These delivery points include three interconnects with other interstate natural gas pipelines.

A community's proximity to competitive supplies of energy is one of many factors industry considers in locating new business. The Georgia Department of Economic Development showcases Elba Island as a positive for the state's industries:

In 2002, the dormant Elba Island facility off the coast of Savannah was opened for use as an LNG terminal. LNG is a liquid fuel source that can be transported at a rate 600 times greater than when it's in a gaseous state. The terminal is one of only four LNG facilities in the nation, and showcases Georgia 's pioneering spirit and innovative thinking towards power needs. http://www.georgia.org/Business/Industries/EnergyAndEnvironment.htm

Although identifying possible new business is speculative, the Elba Express Pipeline will provide an opportunity for economic growth and development in communities along the route supplied from Elba Island. New delivery points could be added along the route as markets in Georgia and South Carolina develop. New supplies made available by the Elba III Project will likely increase competition for sales of natural gas, and the diversity of the supply will supplement traditional supplies whose sources may experience interruption or outage due to weather or other force majeure.

Local authorities that tax the value of real and personal property in their jurisdiction may receive additional revenues associated with the new facilities. Also, the jobs and purchases linked to the project may inject additional money into the community. Resource report 5 discusses these socioeconomic impacts.

top

How will the benefits to the State of Georgia and its citizens outweigh the impact on natural resources and landowners in the project area? (Tanner Comment #20060426-00091; Lewis Comment #20060424-05133)

SLNG and EEC plan to minimize the impact on Georgia landowners and resources. Each federal, state and local agency that issues permits for the Elba III Project has a process for gathering information and a standard for reviewing the information to make a decision. The Commission must decide whether the project is in the public interest or “public convenience and necessity.” As a federal agency, the Commission has a national perspective on the need for and impact of a project. The Commission has taken note that citizens across the U.S. have concerns about higher gas prices caused by domestic demand increasing faster than domestic supply. In an effort to address higher prices, the Commission has approved applications for LNG terminal expansions and for new pipelines (http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/high-gas-prices.pdf, Feb. 1, 2006, p.3). The Elba III Project facilitates the Commission's effort.

SLNG and EEC believe that the Elba III Project is in the public interest at a local, regional and national level. The project will benefit the State of Georgia and its citizens by making new and diverse supplies of natural gas available for delivery in the state and by supplementing supplies that come from sources within the U.S. The LNG imported through Elba Island and delivered as natural gas supports jobs in the project area—including as many as 23 full-time positions with the project sponsors—fuels power plants providing electricity to local consumers, generates tax revenues collected by local authorities, and has introduced new, state-of-the-art towing capability in the Port of Savannah.

Today, Georgia imports all of the natural gas that it consumes. Georgia receives its natural gas primarily from two sources: (1) production from the Gulf of Mexico (“ GOM ”), and (2) imported LNG received at Elba Island . In 2004 and 2005, Georgia consumers experienced a decline in supplies from the GOM caused by damage to production and pipeline infrastructure from hurricanes. The ability to receive LNG at Elba Island enhances the reliability of supply for Georgia consumers.

Can the new facilities be located closer to the markets that will actually use the gas? ( Ga. Conservancy Comment # 20060424-05115; Ga. Ports Comments #20060424-05102)

No. The Elba Express Pipeline will transport natural gas primarily from the Elba Island terminal to delivery points in Georgia and South Carolina. The location of Elba Island close to these markets offers an advantage over alternative, more distant sources, including other terminals, that would require longer transportation routes by pipeline. The Elba Island terminal offers the advantage of access to imports of natural gas to supplement and diversify traditional sources serving these markets.

Resource report 10 discusses reasonable alternatives to the planned site. While other LNG terminals could potentially be sited elsewhere (onshore or offshore), building a terminal on a new site likely would have more adverse environmental impacts than expanding the existing Elba Island terminal. The existing Elba Island site has existing interconnects with pipeline, provides access to the breadth of markets and proximity to interstate pipelines necessary to secure the commitment for the large LNG supplies that are committed to the Elba III Project. Therefore, there are no sites that would be as suitable for a terminal to provide the service needed from the planned Elba III Terminal Expansion, and the evidence does not indicate that developing alternative sites would offer significant environmental advantages to expanding operations at the Elba terminal on land already owned and maintained for LNG operations.

top

Will the Elba III Project increase dependence on foreign sources of petroleum products? (Sylvania Trans., pp. 21; Wilkes-Washington Trans., p. 28; Bennett Comment #20060424-05051)

No. The Elba III Project will not increase dependence on foreign energy over what would otherwise occur. Imports of energy balance domestic supplies and domestic consumption. The forecasts and studies cited above indicate that domestic consumption does and will continue to exceed domestic supplies of natural gas. The Elba III Project will expand on existing terminal and pipeline facilities to help create supply and a more flexible delivery system for natural gas users in the United States.

Would FERC's authorizing the Elba III Project be consistent with other executive branch policies? (Wilkes-Washington Trans., p. 28-30)

Yes. In fact, the project promotes important policy goals announced by the President and his administration. In Chapter Three of its 2001 report, the National Energy Policy Development Group recommended that federal agencies expedite permits for energy projects, a recommendation the President made law by Executive Order on May 18, 2001. On August 8, 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which amended the Natural Gas Act in several ways to confirm the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction while limiting its ability to deny or condition LNG import projects. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates the United States will have to increase imports of LNG by more than 600 percent in the next 25 years to fulfill America's increasing demand for natural gas. Stakeholders concerned about federal policies regarding LNG are encouraged to participate in the series of LNG Forums sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy ( http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/storage/lng/lng_forums.html ).

Will the Elba III Project be vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of natural gas? ( Ga. Conservancy # 20060424-05115)

No. The project has demonstrable market support in the form of precedent agreements for long-term firm service for both the terminal expansion and new pipeline. Those agreements are not conditioned on the price of natural gas.

top

Alternatives

Will alternatives to burning natural gas be considered? (Pooler Trans., pp. 95-96; Lewis Comment #20060424-05133)

Yes. Resource report 10 will discuss alternatives to the Elba III Project. Although not specifically required by the Commission's regulations, the potential of other forms of energy or of energy conservation to meet the project goals is usually discussed. The Council on Environmental Quality requires that the EIS rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives to achieving the purpose of the project. 40 C.F.R. § § 1502.13, 1502.14(a).

Will alternative LNG import technologies be considered, such as offshore buoys? (Lewis Comment #20060424-05133; Ga. Conservancy Comment #20060424-05115; Ga. Ports Comments #20060424-05102)

Yes. The primary goal of the Elba III Project is to provide an additional supply source and a more flexible delivery system to natural gas consumers in Georgia, South Carolina, and the southeast United States by fulfilling long-term transportation contracts with firm customers. The contracts specify an expansion of the Elba Island terminal to provide the needed capacity. Building the same capacity in another location, onshore or offshore, would likely involve a much larger footprint on land already dedicated to other uses. An offshore project, which will require more pipeline and more coastal impact to reach the same interconnects, could impact sensitive marine life and is not likely to offer a significant environmental benefit over an expansion at Elba Island while meeting the scheduling, cost, and market needs of SLNG's firm customers.

top

Agency Decision Making

Will the environmental impact statement include a “cost/benefit analysis” of the project? (Pooler Trans., pp. 33-34, 84; Lewis Comment #20060424-05133)

Not exactly. The Natural Gas Act defines the Commission's statutory mission of determining whether the planned Elba Island expansion is consistent with the public interest under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and whether the associated Elba Express Pipeline is in the public convenience and necessity under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. The environmental impact statement constitutes only one of several factors in the record of decision that the Commission considers in fulfilling its statutory mission. The environmental and non-environmental factors that the Commission considers and how those factors balance against each other has been established through policy statements, precedent, and judicial decisions under the Natural Gas Act.   The environmental record on which the Commission reaches a decision may discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors including economic and technical considerations and agency statutory missions. 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2(b). Resource report 10 must demonstrate how environmental benefits and costs were weighed against economic benefits and costs. 18 C.F.R. § 380.12(l). The environmental impact statement need not include a formal cost-benefit analysis. 40 C.F.R. § 1507.23. If a cost-benefit analysis is done, it must appear in the record, but only those effects within the scope of NEPA should be included among the “costs” (e.g., loss of land use) and “benefits” (e.g., green-house gas reductions) in an environmental review.

Cumulative Impacts

Will the scoping process include an examination of cumulative impacts? (Pooler Trans., pp. 105; Lewis Comment #20060424-05133; EPA-4 Comments #20060428-00290)

Yes. The EIS will discuss the effects of the Commission's authorizing the Elba III Project. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(b). The notice published by the Commission on March 24, 2006 identified as a preliminary issue the cumulative effects of the project when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area.

top

Environmental Impacts

Will impacts on air quality be considered? (Ga. Sierra Comments #20060424-05053; EPA-4 Comments #20040428-00290)

Yes.

The pipeline compressor station and LNG vaporizers combust natural gas as fuel. Burning natural gas for these and other uses promotes clean air objectives in the markets served by the Elba III Project. A nonprofit report in 2002 highlighted clean air as the most important of three forces driving demand for natural gas:

There remains a powerful movement to address clean air and climate change issues. Regulatory actions to address these environmental challenges are forcing companies to accelerate efforts to reduce emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, and other pollutants. Also, the regulation of greenhouse has emissions may be on the horizon, and natural gas is a relatively low-carbon-content fuel. These environmental factors are driving many firms to use natural gas in new facilities. In fact, natural gas has increasingly become the fuel of choice in the environmental community and industry, who see it as an acceptable alternative in the transition away from coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power. This is due, in part, to the common view of natural gas as an abundant, economical and cleaner fuel source.

The Keystone Center, Expanding Natural Gas Pipeline Infrastructure to Meet the Growing Demand for Cleaner Power (March 2002), at 6. Participants in the report included consumer representatives, environmental advocates, industry and government agencies.

The State of Georgia 's Environmental Protection Division (“ EPD ”) administers a comprehensive air quality programs that includes permitting of new sources, such as the Elba III Project. SLNG has submitted to EPD an application for the terminal expansion, and EEC will submit an application for the new compressor station on the Elba Express Pipeline. The compressor station will be permitted as a minor source, and the permit for the terminal expansion prevents significant deterioration of air quality.

In addition, resource report 9 discusses impacts on air quality for purposes of the Commission's environmental record under NEPA. The discussion will include effects on air quality attributable to the action of the Commission were it to authorize the Elba III Project. While this may include temporary construction impacts from construction equipment and fugitive dust as well as incremental impacts from operation of combustion facilities at the LNG terminal, more far-ranging impacts are too distant and speculative for meaningful analysis in the environmental record before the Commission.

Will impacts on water quality and watersheds from dredging operations and pipeline ROW be considered? (Ga. Sierra Comments #20060424-05053; Linscott Comment #20060424-05027; Temple-Inland Comment #20060424-00018; Bennett Comment #20060424-05051)

Yes. The States of Georgia and South Carolina administer water quality programs for purposes of issuing permits for impacts and for consulting with federal and other state agencies conducting their own review.

In addition, the project sponsors have initiated consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That consultation will include discussion of and mitigation for any impacts to waterbodies and wetlands and new structures in the Savannah River . To identify species that rely on waterbodies and wetlands within the project area, the sponsors consult with various agencies having responsibility to administer the Endangered Species Act, other federal, and state programs.

Finally, resource report 2 discusses impacts to water use and quality for purposes of the Commission's environmental record. Among the data included in resource report 2 is location of watershed areas.

top

Will impacts to cultural resources be considered? (Wilkes-Washington Trans., p. 135; Ga. Sierra Comments # 20060424-05053; Standard Comment #20060427-00058)

Yes. The project sponsors will consult with applicable state and tribal historic preservation officers for the area of potential effect. All identified impacts will be confidentially reported in resource report 4 for the Commission's environmental record.

Elba Express Pipeline Project Comments

Pipeline Right-of-Way (ROW)

Why does the route keep changing? (Wilkes-Washington Trans., p. 79)

The corridor for the pipeline has not changed significantly since the Commission opened the prefiling docket for the project. During this stage of the development process, the corridor for the route planned by EEC moves as the centerline moves to account for more detailed information about local conditions and stakeholder input.

The initial general route was developed using maps and aerial reconnaissance because ground access to property along the route was not available. The purpose of the prefiling process, which the Commission requires for this project, is to take into consideration input from landowners and other stakeholders when selecting the preferred route. As EEC accesses and surveys the property along the general route, and gathers data about the route, including input from landowners and other stakeholders, refinements to the general route may be made. Because the prefiling process involves the public in project development earlier than in the traditional certificate process, the proposed pipeline route is currently not as refined as it will be when the FERC application for the project is filed. As EEC considers route variations at the request of landowners or environmental agencies, changes in the pipeline route may occur.

Will new ROW acquired by Elba Express Company (“EEC”) lie on the east or west side of Southern Natural Gas Company's (“SNG”) existing ROW? (Pooler Trans., pp. 26-27)

For the portion of EEC's pipeline route from Port Wentworth to Wrens, the typical ROW for EEC's pipeline will include part of SNG's existing ROW west of the existing centerline and, as necessary, additional ROW extending westward from the edge of SNG's existing ROW.

top

How many feet of ROW will the Elba Express Pipeline need during construction and operation? (Pooler trans. pp. 42-46)

Attachment 2 summarizes the typical ROW configuration for each segment of the preferred pipeline route. This information could change as the project develops. Site-specific conditions may warrant variations from the typical ROW configurations. These variations will be discussed with affected landowners and agencies.

How wide a corridor will EEC survey?

From the centerline of the planned pipeline, field crews will typically survey a corridor 300 feet wide to gather a wide variety of data, such as topography, geology, soils, species, and waterbodies.

Can new ROW be reduced by replacing existing pipelines with larger diameter pipelines rather than simply adding a new pipeline? (Pooler Trans., pp. 52-53; Sylvania Trans., pp. 38; Evans Comment #20060426-00099)

No. The existing pipelines operated by SNG within the existing ROW are in good working order, serve firm transportation contracts, and cannot provide the additional capacity needed for the Elba III Project. Replacing the existing pipelines would involve the additional costs and impacts of removal and the additional cost and impact of installing a much larger diameter pipeline. This would constitute at least a temporary abandonment during which that capacity would not be available to serve SNG's customers, who have contracts for service. When evaluating a new project, the Commission considers not only the environmental impact of additional ROW but also to what extent the project has a negative impact on existing customers of other pipelines. Even if SNG agreed and had Commission approval to abandon its existing facilities, the possible benefit of less ROW would be offset by the temporary loss of deliverability on the interstate natural gas pipeline system. While EEC will need permanent ROW to operate the Elba Express Pipeline, only some of that ROW will extend outside SNG's existing ROW, and the new permanent ROW will not have a significant impact on land use.

top

Can new ROW be reduced by using smaller diameter pipelines? (Evans Comment #20060426-00099)

No. Smaller diameter pipe will not provide enough capacity to serve existing and new transportation demand. Installing more, smaller diameter pipes than one, larger pipe planned by EEC would enlarge the width of the ROW.

Can new ROW be reduced by working directly above the existing pipelines? (Pooler Trans., pp. 59-65)

Typically, no. As currently configured, the typical construction ROW would extend away from the nearest existing pipeline. This configuration allows EEC to avoid working directly above existing pipelines. This practice is consistent with Commission precedent. See, for example, the delegated order on April 28, 1999 for ANR Pipeline Company in Docket No. CP99-151-000: “To avoid working directly over the pipelines, a 25-foot wide temporary work space adjacent to the . . . permanent right-of-way will be necessary to provide a construction right-of-way width of 135-feet” (Appendix B). Where site-specific conditions reduce the availability of temporary construction ROW, EEC may consider alternatives to the typical ROW configuration. However, working directly above SNG's existing pipelines presents risks that interstate pipeline operators generally try to avoid.

Can new ROW be reduced by using different construction techniques? (Pooler Trans., pp. 68-72)

Typically, no. Narrowing the width of the temporary construction ROW requires personnel, equipment, and materials to work in a more confined area, increasing the risk of accidents. However, site-specific conditions may require narrower ROW than the typical configuration planned by EEC. Variation from the typical ROW configuration may reduce adverse impacts on sensitive environmental areas. For example, the Commission Staff's procedures for wetland and waterbody crossing may require narrower temporary construction ROW.

How long will the project occupy the temporary, construction ROW? (Evans Comment #20060426-00099)

Construction activities along the entire route will typically take less than a year, ending when the soil has become stable and revegetation is successful. The actual time of those activities at a specific location will depend on weather and soil and subsurface conditions. After completion of construction, restoration, and inspections, the landowner may resume use of the land consistent with EEC's permanent easement.

top

Will top soil be segregated from subsoil during construction? (Pooler Trans., pp. 72-74; Evans Comment #20060426-00099; Bennett Comment #20060424-05051)

Typically, no. EEC will follow the Plan and Procedures, with variations approved as part of project implementation. The Plan and Procedures may recommend segregation in areas where topsoil has particular value. However, segregation of topsoil may require more workspace than otherwise needed for construction ROW.

Will construction activities cause soil compaction? (Evans Comment #20060426-00099)

The Plan recommends soil compaction mitigation in agricultural and residential areas.

Will best management practices and construction procedures such as boring be observed for crossing streams and other waterbodies? (Pooler Trans., p. 87; Sylvania Trans., pp. 41, 48; Evans Comment #20060426-00099)

The Elba III Project will follow the Procedures, with any approved variations. Other permits governing water quality and waterbody crossings may apply.

Will alternative routes be considered to take advantage of existing ROW and lessen environmental impacts? (Pooler Trans., pp. 88; Thomson Trans., p. 60; VanSant Comment #20060421-05039; Bennett Comment #20060424-05051; Standard Comment #20060427-00058)

Yes. Resource report 10 provides a discussion of alternatives to the planned route and compares the environmental impacts.

top

Does national policy require EEC to follow established corridors? (Robinson Comment #20060427-00057)

No. However, the use, widening, or extension of existing rights of way must be considered in locating proposed facilities. 18 C.F.R. § 380.15(d)(1). EEC's planned pipeline conforms to this requirement by acquiring capacity in existing pipelines and by following existing pipeline ROW for over half of the route. Opportunities to use other existing rights of way may be considered in the discussion of reasonable alternatives in resource report 10, but following established corridors may extend the length, widen the ROW, increase the impact, and fail to meet the objectives of the project.

Can the pipeline be built along established pipeline corridors from Wrens, Georgia to the Atlanta area? (Thomson Trans., p. 92; Bounds Comment #20060427-00160; Bennett Comment #20060424-05051)

No. While facilities could conceivably be built completely along established corridors for interstate natural gas pipelines, the planned Elba Express Pipeline will serve markets in addition to those in the Atlanta area. Directing the route solely along established natural gas corridors to the Atlanta area will not provide the Elba Express Pipeline with access to these other markets, will not meet the primary objectives of the project, and will not offer significant environmental advantages over the planned route.

As noted above, one of the primary objectives is to move gas from Elba Island to interconnects with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line at the end of its zone 4 and at the beginning of its zone 5. Routing the Elba Express Pipeline only along established corridors to these interconnects would significantly lengthen the total ROW and impact more acreage than the preferred route.

Can the route use property next to public roads instead of establishing a new corridor? (Standard Comment #20040427-00058)

In selecting the route, the company will consider locating the ROW adjacent to existing easements. If locating along a public road appears to offer a reasonable route alternative, then EEC will consult with the authority having jurisdiction over the road and any landowners that may be affected to gather additional information. However, following existing easements could lengthen the route and may not offer environmental advantages.

top

What about landowners who already have utilities and public roads crossing their property? (Thomson Trans., p. 65, 79).

Siting the pipeline along established corridors may require additional ROW from those landowners.

Why is the route not a straighter line? (Wilkes-Washington Trans., p. 62)

Reducing the length of the pipeline route will typically serve the goals of a project to meet demand for natural gas at the lowest reasonable cost and also reduce the total ROW required for construction and maintenance. A straighter line will tend to reduce the length of the pipeline route, but the planned route deviates from a straight line in consideration of other factors. While EEC has planned a route to keep the length to a minimum, the precise geometry of the line on a map depends on many other factors on the ground, such as the location of sensitive areas the pipeline should avoid, the suitability of the terrain for construction and maintenance, and the markets the project will serve.

Will the ROW avoid the need to remove trees? (Thomson Trans., p. 65)

Selection of the route takes into account the desires of landowners for clearing, which will be kept to a minimum and, where practical, avoid forested areas. 18 C.F.R. § 380.15.

Will the company replace trees removed from the ROW? (Thomson Trans., p. 53)

No. EEC will stabilize the soil in the ROW and ensure successful revegetation according to the Plan as approved for the project.

top

Do national guidelines direct that new construction occur on property less likely to be used for future development? (Robinson Comment #20060427-00057)

No. While the Commission has established requirements to avoid or minimize effects from siting pipeline projects, 18 C.F.R. § 380.15, the loss of use and the value associated with that loss are part of the easement negotiations between the company and landowner and, failing that, court determination of compensation.

How much land will the compressor station require? (Sylvania Trans., pp. 29)

Resource reports 1 and 8 will provide the acreages needed for all facilities, including the compressor station, and discuss the impact on land uses now occupying those acreages. EEC estimates that it will need 25 to 50 acres adjacent to EEC's permanent ROW for the compressor station.

Will the project cause a loss of natural beauty, privacy, agricultural use, property values, or access on land crossed by the ROW? (Wimberly Comment #20060424-00086; Temple-Inland Comment #20060424-00018; Caines Comment #20060426-00095; Bennett Comment #20060424-05051; Standard Comment #20060427-00058; Evans Comment #20060426-0099)

The surveys will only very rarely result in any change to the land. If after surveying and government approvals the land is selected as part of the ROW, then construction and operation of the pipeline will not necessarily result in significant changes. Trees with roots that may damage the pipeline or its coating and other obstructions that prevent observation from aircraft during maintenance are usually not allowed in the permanent ROW. Driveways and other improvements without foundations may be allowed, as well as agricultural use. All improvements are subject to the terms of the easement and are subject to negotiation as long as pipeline maintenance and safety are not obstructed.

Will the project increase undesired access to the land, trespassing, unauthorized access, or illegal activities on land crossed by the ROW? (Temple-Inland Comment #20060424-00018; Bennett Comment #20060424-05051)

Neither surveying of and construction on the temporary ROW nor maintenance of the permanent ROW causes an increase in unauthorized activities. If the landowner has a specific need and reasonable method to control offroad vehicles, then EEC will discuss this as part of the Plan. An easement for the ROW does not, however, prevent the landowner from controlling access to the land as long as pipeline maintenance and safety are not obstructed.

top

Will the project limit desired access by not providing adequate easement crossings? (Temple-Inland Comment #20060424-00018)

EEC will discuss the landowner's desire for access and crossing during easement negotiations.

Will crossing an easement for larger diameter pipe ( e.g. , 42-inch) require greater care than for smaller diameter pipe? (Evans Comment #20060426-00099)

No.

Will the project remove habitat ( e.g. , hardwood stand) for nesting and migratory birds? (VanSant Comment #20060421-05039)

The impact specific to each parcel of land depends on the location of the ROW, which company representatives will discuss with landowners. Resource report 3 describes rare, unique or otherwise significant habitats that might be affected by the planned project.

Will the project impact rare and endangered species such as the Oglethorpe oak, Broad River burrowing crayfish, bald eagle, Pink Lady slipper, and granite Whitlow grass? (Bennett Comment #20060424-05051)

EEC will follow the Commission's regulations for documenting compliance with the Endangered Species Act at 18 C.F.R. § 380.13.

top

Will the project cross through rare species of vegetation, such as the Allegheny chinquapin shrub? (VanSant Comment #20060421-05039)

EEC will consult with state and federal environmental agencies to identify threatened and endangered species and critical habitat in the project area. EEC will also conduct surveys to determine specific communities of species of special concern. 18 C.F.R. § 380.12(e). A search online of the Allegheny chinquapin shrub ( Castanea pumila ) did not yield results from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Threatened and Endangered Species System or the Special Concern Plants list of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

Will construction activities exacerbate the presence of the Southern Pine Beetles (“ SPB ”) or increase the use of pesticides along the ROW? (Linscott Comment #20060424-05027)

Resource report 3 discusses the possibility of major alteration to ecosystems or biodiversity. Records of SPB outbreaks in Georgia go back as early as the 1700's. Statewide outbreaks occur every 5-10 years with local, less intense infestations occuring annually; SPB is particularly destructive in overmature and overcrowded stands. Infestations are often caused by extended droughts, flooding, lightning strikes, and man caused disturbances ( http://www.forestpests.org/georgia/pinebarkbeetles.html), such as timberlands. After EEC completes surveys of vegetation along the ROW, a better assessment can be made whether the construction activities along the relatively narrow corridor of the ROW are likely to increase the possibility of infestation significantly in excess of the possibility already created by these causes and if this or control measures would contribute to a major alteration to the ecosystem or biodiversity.

Will the project impact land subject to conservation use easements? (Linscott Comment #20060424-05027)

Resource report 8 describes the existing use of lands crossed by the planned pipeline and compressor station. Information regarding conservation easements may not be available from up-to-date, public sources, so EEC encourages landowners with land subject to conservation easements to discuss this with field agents surveying the ROW. If the route certificated by the Commission crosses land subject to a conservation easement, then the federal right of eminent domain may have priority to the conservation easement. However, the ROW may not affect the long-term use of the land for conservation purposes.

Will the ROW be adequately revegetated and maintained to prevent erosion that can expose the pipe or silt into streams or watersheds? (Temple-Inland Comment #20060424-00018; Linscott Comment #20060424-05027; Evans Comment #20060426-0099; Bennett Comment #20060424-05051)

Yes. Resource report 2 will propose mitigation for potential erosion, including comparison with Commission Staff's current Plan and Procedures.

top

Will the project disrupt or destroy timber crops? (Bennett Comment #20060424-05051; Evans Comment #20060426-00099)

Resource report 8 will describe the existing land uses in the project area and changes to those lands that would occur if the project is approved and built. EEC will negotiate with landowners for compensable takings associated with the ROW.

Will eminent domain apply to the Elba Express Pipeline project and, if so, what types of easement will be considered for the Elba Express Pipeline? (Thomson Trans., p. 66; Lewis Comment #20060424-05133)

Easements are usually negotiated privately between the pipeline operator and the landowner. If those negotiations fail, then the courts establish the easement under federal and state law. If the Commission were to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Elba Express Pipeline, then the Natural Gas Act grants EEC the right of eminent domain:

When any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipe line or pipe lines for the transportation of natural gas, and the necessary land or other property, in addition to right-of-way, for the location of compressor stations, pressure apparatus, or other stations or equipment necessary to the proper operation of such pipe line or pipe lines, it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts. The practice and procedure in any action or proceeding for that purpose in the district court of the United States shall conform as nearly as may be with the practice and procedure in similar action or proceeding in the courts of the State where the property is situated: Provided, That the United States district courts shall only have jurisdiction of cases when the amount claimed by the owner of the property to be condemned exceeds $3,000.

15 U.S.C. § 717f(h). Taking private property may, under the U.S. Constitution, entitle the landowner to compensation. The Natural Gas Act does not, however, involve the Commission in establishing the type, value and details of easements betweens landowners and holders of certificates of public convenience and necessity.

How will compensation for ROW be determined? (Pooler Trans., pp. 94; Sylvania Trans., pp. 57-58; Wilkes-Washington Trans., p. 59, 73)

If EEC and owners of land crossed by the project cannot agree on compensation for the temporary and permanent easement needed to build and operate the pipeline, then the process specified in the Natural Gas Act will determine compensation in court.

top

Who will pay for taxes associated with the ROW? (Bennett Comment #20060424-05051)

The owner of the pipeline facilities installed within a ROW pays taxes imposed by taxing authorities on their assessed value. The landowner pays taxes on the land crossed by the right-of-way unless a local taxing authority grants relief. The pipeline simply has an easement across that portion of the land.

Facilities Design

Why does the southern half of the route use larger diameter pipeline than the northern half of the route? (Pooler Trans., pp. 65; Sylvania Trans., pp. 13)

The planned ROW configuration shows 42-inch outer diameter pipe between mileposts 0.0 and 104.6 and 36-inch outer diameter pipe between mileposts 104.6 and 188.4. EEC has designed the diameter of each length of pipe to provide enough capacity in the initial phase of the project without compression and associated fuel consumption to transport 945 million cubic feet per day from the primary receipt point at Elba Island, Georgia to the primary delivery points interconnecting with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation at the Georgia-South Carolina border. Shell NA LNG, L.L.C. has subscribed to all the firm capacity provided by this initial phase of construction.

Will the compressor station built in the second phase of the project produce noise (Evans Comment #20060426-00099)?

Resource report 9 will provide the noise levels from operation of the compression and recommend any mitigation for noise that exceeds acceptable levels at the nearest noise-sensitive area.

Safety and Security

How deep is the pipeline buried below ground? (Thomson Trans., p. 72)

Each buried transmission line must be installed with the minimum cover defined in federal safety standards. 49 C.F.R. § 192.327. For the Elba Express Pipeline, the cover will typically consist of 36-inches of soil.

top

What dangers will the pipeline present to landowners? (Thomson Trans., 94)

The dangers consist mostly of an accidental rupture that releases natural gas into the atmosphere in the presence of a source of ignition. Accidents are rare and usually result from heavy digging equipment working over the pipelines. The U.S. Office of Pipeline Safety provides additional information on its website (http://ops.dot.gov/init/prevent/damage.htm).

Does locating new pipeline in established corridors improve safety? (Bounds Comment #20060427-0160)

Whether located along existing ROW or in new ROW, the easement for the Elba Express Pipeline will have a minimum cover below ground and be marked and maintained to avoid damage from digging. As discussed above, federal and state programs exist to prevent damage to buried pipelines from digging.

What is the explosive power of compressed natural gas in a 42-inch pipeline? (Evans Comment #20060426-00099)

The absence of oxygen and an ignition source in the pipeline prevents explosion. Pipe construction and installation below ground prevent air from combining with the gas in an explosive mixture.

If a pipeline is ruptured, then shutoff valves limit the amount of natural gas released. The spacing of isolation valves along a section of pipe will meet or exceed minimum federal safety standards. 49 C.F.R. § 192.179. Any gas released from a rupture between shutoff valves will quickly rise and dissipate because it is lighter than air at ambient temperatures. A leak or rupture is unlikely to ignite or explode. Unconfined natural gas in the air is in a flammable range only very briefly and must meet a source of ignition within this narrow range. But when unconfined, natural gas is not in an explosive concentration.

Will the EIS include an analysis of the risk of terrorist attack on the pipeline? (Ga. Sierra Comments # 20060424-05053; Wilkes-Washington Trans., p. 66)

Risk combines probability of occurrence with magnitude of consequence.

Information indicating the probability of a terrorist attack on a proposed new pipeline relative to alternatives is not typically available for the Commission's environmental record. EEC will not speculate on that probability in its environmental report, nor would the lack of such speculation make the environmental impact statement deficient.

To mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety promulgates minimum federal standards. EEC will follow a compliance program to meet or exceed these standards.

top

References

Official Stenographers Report, Elba III Project, Docket No. PF06-14-000, Pooler, Georgia, April 10, 2006 (“ Pooler Trans. ”)

Official Stenographers Report, Elba III Project, Docket No. PF06-14-000, Sylvania, Georgia, April 11, 2006 (“ Sylvania Trans. ”)

Official Stenographers Report, Elba III Project, Docket No. PF06-14-000, Thomson, Georgia, April 12, 2006 (“ Thomson Trans. ”)

Official Stenographers Report, Elba III Project, Docket No. PF06-14-000, Washington, Georgia, April 13, 2006 (“ Wilkes-Washington Trans. ”)

Written comments filed in Docket No. PF06-14-000 (by eLibrary Accession# )

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Jan. 17, 2003) (“ Plan ”)

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Jan. 17, 2003) (“ Procedures ”)

 

 

© 2006 Southern Natural Gas | Privacy | Webmaster@ElPaso.com
 


Additional Links:
> Elba III Project Home
> Elba III Terminal Expansion