1 / 10

PRCI Stakeholder Strategic Planning Conference

PRCI Stakeholder Strategic Planning Conference. March 14, 2006 Barton Creek Resort, Austin, Texas. Robert J. Cupina Deputy Director Office of Energy Projects U. S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Issues and Best Management Methods for Pipeline Construction Adjacent to Powerlines.

felix-noble
Télécharger la présentation

PRCI Stakeholder Strategic Planning Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PRCI Stakeholder Strategic Planning Conference March 14, 2006 Barton Creek Resort, Austin, Texas Robert J. Cupina Deputy Director Office of Energy Projects U. S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

  2. Issues and Best Management Methods for Pipeline Construction Adjacent to Powerlines • Co-location benefits versus electrical system vulnerability. Co-location benefits versus electrical system vulnerability, construction techniques, offsets, etc. • Impact – could support or not support co-location.

  3. Noise Effects from Pile-Driving on Fish and Other Aquatic Species • Noise impacts to threatened and endangered fish species and commercially and recreational fish species from LNG terminal construction. • Will result in the use of mitigation only where required to protect aquatic species. • Determine what species are most at risk, best mitigation method to reduce fish kills and impacts to other aquatic species (mammals, invertebrates). • Testing of pile driving impacts to various species in areas where LNG terminals are proposed or under construction.

  4. Water Uptake/Discharge and Air Emissions from LNG Tankers – Air, Water (Cold/Hot) • Water uptake by LNG carriers for cooling water and ballast is a common concern of NOAA. • Impact – It is unknown how mitigation could be developed, given the variability of the LNG fleet and the lack of direct control by applicants. • Survey of operating vessels could provide ranges for documenting impacts.

  5. Noise Associated with LNG Import Terminals • Need to understand the operational noise impacts from LNG Terminals. • May result in the use of mitigation only where required to protect aquatic species. • Determine what species are most at risk, best mitigation method to reduce fish kills and impacts to other aquatic species (mammals, invertebrates).

  6. Noise Impacts due to Pipeline Blowdowns; Nature of the Impact & Mitigation if Appropriate • Investigation into reducing impacts to residents from essential infrastructure. • Determination Survey and review of NSAs near compressor stations to establish the quantitative and qualitative impact to NSAs due to station blowdowns, the efficacy of installing blowdown silencers, and the perceived impacts to local residents. • Impact would determine when and if blowdown mitigation is necessary.

  7. Coastal Marsh Impacts from Pipeline Construction • Important for LNG sendout pipelines. • Could confirm/refute the severity of impacts. Either reduces or increases construction costs. • Survey past construction and interview agency personnel.

  8. LNG Vessel Transit Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles • A big issue for NOAA and the USCG CEU. • Cost would involve improving avoidance guidelines, modifying transit corridors. • Would require a review of vessel strikes, common species affected, and avoidance strategies. Could be co-funded by NOAA.

  9. Stream Crossings – Available Technologies and Expected Impacts • Stream crossing technology discussions affect nearly every project. • Results may argue for more/fewer dry cut crossings. • Canadian Pipeline Water Crossing Committee did a study in 1998. This study could update the technology and provide information for regions of the United States.

  10. More Information • Robert.Cupina@ferc.gov • 202/502-8700

More Related