A Brain-Frying Foray into the Regulatory Maze
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
11 responses to “A Brain-Frying Foray into the Regulatory Maze”
-
Well, as an environmental regulatory compliance manager, it made perfect sense to me! 😉 …and applicants for such engineering projects either maintain on staff, and/or retain consulting firms, with experience in such permit applications (don’t try this at home).
There are many skillsets that are best hired out. This is not evidence of excessively complex permitting, just unfortunate timing on press releases.
“They” (EPA, ACOE, FERC, etc.) actually *have* tried to simplify it, and the Nationwide Permits are one tool for that. If one submits a project under a nationwide permit, and it meets the conditions, then the project applicant doesn’t have to go thru the individual permitting process.
In the pipeline instance, DEQ is saying that, because of the high variability among sites where the pipeline is crossing regulated waters/wetlands, they need to submit for individual permits.
…don’t know how many metrosexuals on here get “man”-icures 😉 but you know those pumice stones some people keep in their showers to file their feet all smooth and pretty? That’s what karst is like – very fragile.
-
I’m glad you understand it. I’ve had a devil of a time getting it straight. Please weigh in if I get something wrong. I don’t have editors reading my material. I count on readers to set me straight.
-
-
So what do we make of the required info still needed from both pipelines?
-
Can you be a little more specific? What required info are you referring to?
-
-
TomH, LarryG and I were just going at this issue under the heading of your recent April 14 post: https://www.baconsrebellion.com/38942-2/ The CE (not my favorite federal agency from the point of view of responsive, balanced decisionmaking) does have a way with blanket permits — for example, if someone wants to build a private pier in Mathews County, extending past the high tide line and over the water, you can self-certify that the pier will meet the terms of the CE’s blanket permit for private homeowner piers, and, after submitting drawings and notice to all the adjacent property owners and several months wait and no protests, you get a form letter from the CE granting permission to go ahead. What’s astounding here is that such a mundane “check the boxes” process could be deemed appropriate for evaluating the clean-water impact of an interstate pipeline crossing 1000 miles or so of mountainsides and valleys and wetlands and rivers.
I have a hard time criticizing the State DEQ for considering that to be inadequate. But, somehow, we must find a way for the Byzantine State-federal environment regulatory process to reach timely conclusions — a “check-the-boxes” but timely decision, even one heavily biased against the applicant, is better than a decision that takes years to obtain (or can never be obtained) from bureaucrats too spineless to stick their necks out. Take that Surry to Skiffes Creek transmission line across the river, for example, or its equally daunting alternative, a crossing of the Chickahominy Swamp requiring condemnation of a few homes. How can we be a nation of economic progress without making decisions like these in less than our childrens’ lifetimes?
-
Jim,
Could you please get clarification from the DEQ that they intend to require a complete 401 permit application and review for the ACP and the MVP?
This would be significant news if it is true. A complete 401 permit requires far more specific information that what has so far passed muster with FERC. Most pipeline developers are unable or unwilling to provide the information necessary to meet 401 permit requirements.
That is what stopped the Constitution Pipeline dead in its tracks. FERC had issued the CPCN but when the New York Department of Environmental Conservation told the Constitution developers that DEC would require a complete 401 permit application, the developers halted their activity and filed suit.
Based on the incomplete information that has been filed with FERC by the developers of the ACP and MVP it appears that the owners of the new pipeline projects in Virginia would also be unwilling or unable to provide the information needed to meet the water quality permit requirements.
That is why the apparent reversal of DEQ between the April 6 and April 7 announcements seemed plausible. It is possible that DEQ could accept incomplete information and watered down standards in order to issue the pipeline companies a 401 permit, but that could leave them open to legal challenges. The 401 permit requirements are specific and backed by federal law.
I think Virginia citizens are owed a clear explanation about how the DEQ intends to execute this process. If they have in fact accepted the use of nationwide permits for various types of projects, they still must provide evidence of how they reached the decision of how the DEQ determined the types of projects they would accept under the nationwide permit would meet Virginia water quality standards. The DEQ should also announce that the pipeline projects do not qualify for treatment under the nationwide permit so they could not reverse themselves at a later date once the CPCN was issued. It would also be fair to the developers to know now what the requirements will be so they can begin to provide the necessary information.
-
I’m going to presume that DEQ is trying to determine the quickest most efficient way to APPROVE the pipelines as it’s primary goal.
but even for a regulator – picking the best path through the regulatory wickets may be a challenge given the changing dynamics, political and oppositional these days.
-
[…] A Brain-Frying Foray into the Regulatory Maze, Bacon’s Rebellion, 4/19/17 [discussing differences between “nationwide” and “individual” permits under the federal Clean Water Act, relating to potential stream/wetland impacts of the proposed natural gas pipelines]. […]
-
[…] roil Virginia governor’s race, regulators backtrack on their role, Washington Post, 5/25/17. A Brain-Frying Foray into the Regulatory Maze, Bacon’s Rebellion, 4/19/17 [discussing differences between “nationwide” and “individual” […]
-
[…] roil Virginia governor’s race, regulators backtrack on their role, Washington Post, 5/25/17. A Brain-Frying Foray into the Regulatory Maze, Bacon’s Rebellion, 4/19/17 [discussing differences between “nationwide” and “individual” […]
-
[…] roil Virginia governor’s race, regulators backtrack on their role, Washington Post, 5/25/17. A Brain-Frying Foray into the Regulatory Maze, Bacon’s Rebellion, 4/19/17 [discussing differences between “nationwide” and “individual” […]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.