Texas LNG Brownsville, LLC/Texas LNG Project Docket No. PF15-14-000

Per the attached letter dated Jan 4, 2016 from the UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY to FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ), the United States EPA has some very serious concerns regarding the environmental impacts by the proposed project(s). 

 “We are unsure how FERC anticipates meeting NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) requirements, however, we recommend that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared rather than an environmental assessment, as the potential environmental impacts of the proposed projects appear to be significant.”

An environmental impact statement (EIS) is a more comprehensive method than an environmental assessment (EA) to assess potential and existing environmental risks at once.

The EPA comments are based on their review of Draft Resources Reports 1. General Project, 2. Water Quality, 3. Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation, and 10. Alternatives. 

EPA comment on Draft Resources Report section 1.9 Future Expansion and Abandonment Plans requires the applicant (Texas LNG) to include plans for removal of the facility structures and fill material from the site, and restoration of all habitats to pre-project conditions, upon abandonment of the Texas LNG facility. (bottom line…don’t leave a mess behind for the taxpayers to pay for a cleanup).

1.9 Future Expansion and Abandonment Plans

          “There are currently no plans relating to the abandonment or removal of any of the proposed facility.  The EPA recommends that, if the facility is authorized and constructed, the applicant include plans for removal of the facility structures and fill material from the site, and restoration of all habitats to pre-project  conditions, upon abandonment of the Texas LNG facility." 

EPA comment on Draft Resources Report section 10.2 No Action Alternative basically disagrees with Texas LNG’s assertion that “the economic development policy of the Port of Brownsville  and City and leasing policy of the Port as evidence that if not for the use of the property by the proposed Texas LNG facility, it would be developed for another industrial use”. 

10.2  No Action Alternative

“The report states that the property is located on lands owned by the Brownsville Navigation District and intended for development of the Brownsville Ship Channel. It cites the economic development policy of the Port and City and leasing policy of the Port as evidence that if not for the use of the property by the proposed Texas LNG facility, it would be developed for another industrial use. The EPA does not agree with this conclusion because these policies have presumably been in place for some time, and little development has occurred. These policies have not guaranteed that the site would be developed, nor that it would be in the future. Therefore, the environmental impacts of constructing and operating an industrial facility on the site may or may not occur if the proposed Texas LNG is not constructed.”

EPA comment on Draft Resources Report section 10.4 System Alternatives basically states that it does not accept Texas LNG’s response to FERC data request for system alternatives and it does not appear to fully address the request to consider the alternative of constructing a “combined facility at a single site” in Brownsville with a higher export capacity, but lower direct and cumulative environmental impacts.

10.4 System Alternatives

“ FERC data request regarding alternatives included system alternatives to expand existing or proposed facilities, or to construct a single facility in the Brownsville area that would meet the capabilities of the proposed Project and up to five additional LNG facilities identified in Table 10.4-1 that are proposed for Brownsville. Three, including Texas LNG, Annova LNG, and Rio Grande LNG have initiated pre-filing. The applicant generally stated that some of the Gulf Coast projects are fully subscribed and do not have additional capacity to satisfy the requirements of Texas LNG's customer base, while others remain uncertain about viability. This does not appear to fully address the request to consider the alternative of constructing a combined facility at a single site in Brownsville with a higher export capacity, but lower direct and cumulative environmental impacts.”

It appears that the EPA is our only hope to, if not completely stop the project, recommend that only a single combined facility be constructed that would meet the capabilities of the proposed project and up to five additional LNG facilities that are proposed for Brownsville.

One can only hope.