Texas Eastern Transmission, LP. Docket No. CP21-31-000

Perulack Compressor Units Replacement Project Environmental Assessment

Washington, DC 20426

Office of Energy Projects

June 2021

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To:

OEP/DG2E/Gas 1 Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. Perulack Compressor Units Replacement

Project Docket No. CP21-31-000

TO THE INTERESTED PARTY:

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)

has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Perulack Compressor Units Replacement Project, proposed by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in the above-referenced docket. Texas Eastern requests authorization to replace four existing natural gas-fired turbine compressor engines with two new units and appurtenant facilities at its existing Perulack Compressor Station in Juniata County, Pennsylvania.

The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and

operation of the Perulack Compressor Units Replacement Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The project includes the following facilities: • two new 18,100-horsepower (hp) Solar Titan 130 natural gas-fired turbines;

• related software controls that would limit the total hp of each compressor

unit to 17,400 hp to be consistent with current certificated capacity of the compressor station of 34,800 hp;

• one new 585-hp Waukesha VGF-H24GL emergency generator;

• a new compressor building to house the two new compressor units;

• conversion of an existing compressor building into a storage warehouse;

- 2 -

• a new service entry building, two new electric buildings, two natural gas-fired heaters, two space heaters, four new filter/separator vessels, and six new gas coolers;

• a new stormwater management retention basin; and Removal of four natural gas fired centrifugal turbine compressor units and the

associated auxiliary piping and equipment and two generators.

The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC’s website (www.ferc.gov), on the natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In addition, the EA may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC’s website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), select “General Search” and enter the docket number in the “Docket Number” field (i.e. CP21-31-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff’s independent

analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the EA’s disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5:00pm Eastern Time on July 5, 2021.

For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments

with the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on

the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

- 3 -

(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on

the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the

Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP21-31-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not

need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission’s decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/ferc-online/how-guides.

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission’s

Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which

allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Project Purpose and Need ....................................................................................... 2

3.0 Scope of this Environmental Assessment............................................................... 4

4.0 Public Review and Comment ................................................................................. 4

5.0 Proposed Facilities .................................................................................................. 6

6.0 Land Requirements ................................................................................................. 7

7.0 Construction Schedule ............................................................................................ 8

8.0 Construction and Operation Procedures ................................................................. 8

8.1. Aboveground facility construction ...................................................................... 9

9.0 Non-Jurisdictional Facilities ................................................................................. 10

10.0 Permits and consultations ..................................................................................... 11

11.0 Environmental Trends and Planned Activities ..................................................... 12

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 14

1.0 Geology ................................................................................................................. 14

1.1. Geologic Conditions .......................................................................................... 14

1.2. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................. 14

1.3. Geologic Hazards............................................................................................... 15

2.0 Soils ....................................................................................................................... 16

3.0 Water Resources and Wetlands ............................................................................ 18

3.1. Groundwater Resources..................................................................................... 18

3.2. Surface Water and Wetland Resources ............................................................. 20

3.2.1. Hydrostatic Testing, Hydrovac, and Dust Suppression ................................ 21

4.0 Vegetation and Wildlife ........................................................................................ 22

4.1. Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 22

4.2. Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 23

4.2.1. Migratory Birds .............................................................................................. 23

4.3. Special Status Species........................................................................................ 26

4.3.1. Federally Listed Species ................................................................................ 26

4.3.2. State-Listed Species ........................................................................................ 26

ii

5.0 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources....................................................... 26

5.1. Land Use ............................................................................................................ 26

5.2. Public Land, Recreation, and Other Designated Areas..................................... 28

5.3. Environmental Contamination Sites.................................................................. 28

5.4. Traffic................................................................................................................. 28

5.5. Visual Resources................................................................................................ 30

6.0 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 31

6.1. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 31

7.0 Air Quality............................................................................................................. 32

7.1. Existing Environment ........................................................................................ 33

7.2. Regulatory Requirements .................................................................................. 34

7.2.1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review 34

7.2.2. Title V Permitting ........................................................................................... 35

7.3. Construction Emissions Impacts and Mitigation .............................................. 35

7.4. Operational Emissions Impacts and Mitigation ................................................ 38

7.5. Climate ............................................................................................................... 40

8.0 Noise...................................................................................................................... 44

8.1. Federal Noise Regulations ................................................................................. 44

8.2. Ambient Noise Conditions ................................................................................ 45

8.3. Construction Noise Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................... 45

8.4. Operation Noise Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................... 46

8.5. Vibration ............................................................................................................ 48

9.0 Reliability and Safety............................................................................................ 49

9.1. Safety Standards ................................................................................................ 49

9.1.1. Station Design ................................................................................................ 49

9.2. Emergencies ....................................................................................................... 50

C. ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 51

1.1. No-Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 51

1.2. System Alternatives .............................................................................................. 51

1.3. Site Alternatives .................................................................................................... 52

iii

D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. 53 E. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 58 F. LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................ 61

FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Overview Map ........................................................................................... 3

TABLES

Table 1 Issues Identified During the Public Scoping Process ............................................. 5 Table 2 Land Requirements for the Proposed Project ........................................................ 7 Table 3 Anticipated Environmental Permits, Reviews, and Consultations for the Project ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Table 4 Potential Impacts on Migratory Bird Species from Project Activities ................ 25 Table 5 Summary of Land Use Impacts (acres) ................................................................ 27 Table 6 Average Daily Traffic............................................................................................ 30 Table 7 Project Construction Emissions............................................................................. 37 Table 8 Pre- and Post-Project Facility Wide Potential to Emit at the Station .................. 39 Table 9 Noise Analysis for the Proposed Modifications at the Station ............................ 47

APPENDICES Appendix A Site Location Map

iv

TECHNICAL ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ATWS additional temporary workspace BBA breeding birds atlas CAA Clean Air Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CO&A Consent Order and Adjudication Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EA environmental assessment EI environmental inspector EO executive order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service g gravity GHG greenhouse gas GWP global warming potential HAP hazardous air pollutant hp horse-power IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation Leq 24-hour equivalent sound level Ldn day-night sound level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review

NOS Notice of Scoping Period Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Perulack Compressor Units Replacement Project

NOx nitrogen oxides NSA noise sensitive area NSR New Source Review OCA Operational Consideration Area

v

OEP Office of Energy Projects PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PADCNR Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PTE potential to emit PGA peak ground acceleration Plan FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan PNDI Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory

Procedures FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

Project Perulack Compressor Units Replacement Project PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology Station Perulack Compressor Station Secretary Secretary of the Commission SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan Texas Eastern Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. tpy tons per year USGS U. S. Geological Survey VOC volatile organic compounds

1

A. PROPOSED ACTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On January 15, 2021, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) filed an application in Docket No. CP21-31-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Sections 7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate, and abandon certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Perulack Compressor Units Replacement Project (Project), and Texas Eastern would abandon by removal four existing compressor units and replace them with two new gas turbines to comply with air emission reduction requirements in Pennsylvania.

We1 prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Parts 1500-1508 [40 CFR 1500-1508]),2 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) regulations for implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). The assessment of environmental impacts is an important and integral part of the Commission’s decision-making process. As such, we prepared this EA to assess the environmental impacts that would likely occur as a result of the proposed Project. We have developed and incorporated measures into this EA that we believe would appropriately and reasonably avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts associated with the Project activities.

Texas Eastern proposes to abandon and remove four existing compressor units with a

total of 34,800 certificated horsepower (hp), install two new 18,100 hp units, and construct auxiliary appurtenant facilities at its existing Perulack Compressor Station in Juniata County, Pennsylvania. Texas Eastern would install related software controls that would limit each new compressor unit to 17,400 hp to be consistent with the current hp of the compressor station. Additionally, Texas Eastern would construct a new emergency generator, a new compressor building to house the two new compressor units, a new service entry building, two new electric buildings, a new stormwater management retention basin, and convert an existing compressor building into a storage warehouse as part of the Project.

The general Project area is shown in figure 1. Appendix A includes a U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map and detailed location map of the Project.

1 “We”, “us”, and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects. 2 On July 16, 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality issued a final rule, Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 43,304), which was effective as of September 14, 2020. Therefore, we are using the new regulations in the preparation of this EA.

2

2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

Texas Eastern states that construction and operation of the new compressor units would replace antiquated compressor units in the Perulack Compressor Station with more efficient gas turbine units to enable the station’s continued operation. The Project would ensure that this portion of Texas Eastern’s system complies with future air emission reduction requirements by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the terms of the existing Title V Permit for the station, which require that the existing compressor units be permanently shut down by January 1, 2024.

The Commission is an independent regulatory agency and conducts a complete

independent review of project proposals, including an environmental review of the proposed facilities. Section 7(b) of the NGA specifies that no natural gas company shall abandon any portion of its facilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction without the Commission first finding that the abandonment will not negatively affect the present or future public convenience and necessity. Under Section 7(c) of the NGA, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate them. The Commission bases its decisions on economic issues, including need, and environmental impacts.

3

Figure 1 Project Overview Map

4

3.0 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The topics addressed in this EA include geology, soils, groundwater, surface waters, wetlands, wildlife, vegetation, species of special concern, land use, recreation, visual impacts, cultural resources, air quality, noise, reliability and safety, and alternatives. This EA describes the affected environment as it currently exists and the environmental consequences of the Project. This EA also presents our recommended mitigation measures.

As the lead federal agency for the Project, FERC is required to comply with Section 7

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. These statutes have been considered in the preparation of this EA. In addition to FERC, other federal, state, and local agencies may use this EA in approving or issuing permits for all or part of the Project. Permits, approvals, and consultations for the Project are discussed in section A.9 of this EA.

4.0 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

On March 3, 2021, the Commission issued a Notice of Scoping Period Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Perulack Compressor Units Replacement Project (NOS). The NOS was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; and local libraries and newspapers. Comments were requested from the public on specific concerns about the Project or environmental issues that should be considered during the preparation of the EA.

The Commission received one comment letter in reply to the NOS from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with recommendations to analyze several environmental resources. The EPA recommended an adverse impacts analysis on the preferred alternative and a discussion on why any adverse impacts from the preferred alternative were unavoidable and how the potential impacts would be mitigated. Additionally, the EPA recommended a general conformity applicability analysis for applicable pollutants and precursors of the Project’s construction emissions; incorporation of low impact design features where possible for the Project; recommendation for native plants within any revegetation plan; vibration, light, and traffic impacts analysis; potential impacts analysis on the local community that may occur during construction and operation, to include truck traffic or noise anticipated; and recommendation for a public engagement plan to layout strategies that would inform local communities on the progress of construction of the Project.

Impacts analysis, mitigation, and minimization measures on resources impacted by

the Project are discussed in greater detail in the section B below as indicated in table 1. Impacts on these various resources are unavoidable given the nature of the construction necessary to achieve the purpose and need for the Project.

5

Table 1 Issues Identified During the Public Scoping Process

Issue EA Section Public Engagement Plan A.4. Vegetation B.4.1. Vibration and Noise B.8. Low impact design features B.5.1. Lighting and Traffic B.5.4. and B.5.5. Alternatives C.

A notice announcing the EA’s issuance will be sent to affected landowners and

stakeholders, including anyone who submitted comments to the Commission. The public will have another opportunity to provide comments during the EA comment period beginning June 4, 2021. All substantive comments received within the EA comment period will be addressed in the Order.

Public Engagement Plan

The EPA suggested developing a public engagement plan to layout strategies that

would best inform the local community on the progress of construction of the Project and how it might impact the surrounding community. In addition to our notifications mentioned above, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. §157.6(d), Texas Eastern provided notification of the Project to all affected landowners, towns, communities, and local, state, and federal governments and agencies involved in the Project via mail service within three business days following the Commission’s February 2, 2021 issuance of the Notice of Application and provided notification on February 5, 2021 via mail service to Governor Tom Wolf, the local federal and state delegation, Juniata County officials, and township officials. Texas Eastern stated that future community engagement with township officials would include briefings on the scope of work and the Project start date. Also pursuant to Section 157.6(d) of the Commission’s Regulations, Texas Eastern published the announcement of the Project on January 27, 2021 and, again, on February 1, 2021 in the Lewistown Sentinel to notify the local community of the Project.

Texas Eastern plans to publish to a public webpage project-specific information for its Perulack Compressor Units Replacement Project, which would provide the public with contact information for any questions, and relevant updates throughout the Project. Texas Eastern also plans to publish an additional notice in the Lewistown Sentinel prior to the commencement of construction to inform the local community of planned activities and increase awareness of available resources including a toll-free telephone number that interested parties may call for additional Project information, and web-based information where relevant updates will be posted. Texas Eastern also plans to provide a similar notification via mail service to all affected landowners and other stakeholders prior to the

6

commencement of construction. Further, Texas Eastern would address any questions or concerns that the township or landowners have throughout the Project.

5.0 PROPOSED FACILITIES

Texas Eastern proposes to replace four existing compressor units with a total certificated hp of 34,800 hp, with two new units and construct auxiliary appurtenant facilities at its existing Perulack Compressor Station (station) in Juniata County, Pennsylvania. The Project would consist of the following new facilities:

• installation of two new 18,100- hp Solar Titan 130 natural gas-fired turbines;

• installation of related software controls that would limit the total hp of each compressor unit to 17,400 hp;

• installation of a new 585-hp Waukesha VGF-H24GL emergency generator;

• construction of a new compressor building to house the two new compressor units;

• conversion of an existing compressor building into a storage warehouse;

• construction of a new service entry building, two new electric buildings, two natural gas-fired heaters, two space heaters, four new filter/separator vessels, and six new gas coolers; and

• construction of a new stormwater management retention basin.

Texas Eastern would install related software controls that would limit each new compressor unit to 17,400 hp to be consistent with current certificated capacity of the station of 34,800 hp. Texas Eastern proposes to replace and remove the following emission units:

• three (5,000 hp) natural gas fired Dresser Clark 990 (DC990) turbines;

• one (19,800 hp) natural gas fired GE Frame 5 Gas turbine;

• one (600 hp) natural gas fired Waukesha Generator; and

• one (600 hp) natural gas fired Leroi Generator.

The two new turbines would be installed with Solar’s SoLoNOxTM dry low emissions technology for the control of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and equipped with oxidation catalysts to control carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The existing compressor units are in two separate compressor

7

buildings: the GE unit building would be converted into a storage warehouse and the Clark unit building would be removed completely from the site. Stormwater Retention Basin

The Project would require installation of a new stormwater management retention

basin within the station fence line. The retention basin is a stormwater management feature that is required to comply with Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 102: Erosion and Sediment Control regulations (Chapter 102) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit - 3.

6.0 LAND REQUIREMENTS

The existing fenced station encompasses approximately 27.2 acres. The replacement activities would require the use of additional temporary workspace (ATWS) beyond the existing facility boundary. Construction of the Project would disturb the 27.2 acres within the existing station fence line, 3.4 acres for ATWS outside of the fence line, and 5.5 acres for a temporary construction yard, southeast of the station. Texas Eastern would maintain the 27.2 acres for permanent operation of the Project’s facilities following construction. No new permanent land for operation is proposed outside of the existing fence line. Land requirements are summarized in table 2 below.

Table 2

Land Requirements for the Proposed Project

Facility Temporary Impact (acres)

Permanent/Operational Impact (acres)

Workspace within Station fence line 27.2 27.2 ATWS outside Station fence line 3.4 0

Temporary Construction Yard 5.5 0 Project Total 36.1 27.2

1 Temporary impacts include construction and permanent/operational acreage impacts.

Although some workspace would be beyond the compressor station area, the majority of the workspace (including the ATWS) is proposed on property owned by Texas Eastern (except for the existing temporary construction yard), which has been utilized for either the operation of the existing permanent facilities or regularly maintained by Texas Eastern as open space for lawn, laydown areas, staging of trailers, and parking. The temporary construction yard would be leased by Texas Eastern prior to use during Project construction. A small portion of the current compressor station’s (in the southwest portion of the site) is on property owned by Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.; however, Texas Eastern has an agreement in place allowing Texas Eastern to maintain its facilities across this property. Texas Eastern would restore the acreage temporarily impacted by construction, and it would revert to former use.

8

7.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

Texas Eastern anticipates construction would commence by August 1, 2021 and continue for 15 months. Texas Eastern anticipates placing the facilities into service by November 1, 2022. Texas Eastern anticipates that the majority of Project construction would occur during the daytime between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m, Monday through Saturday.

8.0 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION PROCEDURES

Texas Eastern would design, construct, test, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities to conform with or exceed current federal, state, and local requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Minimum Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, and 18 CFR 380.15, Siting and Maintenance Requirements.

During construction and restoration of the Project, Texas Eastern would implement

the measures contained in the following plans, in addition to other federal, state, and local permit requirements:

• FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

(Plan);3 • FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

(Procedures);4 • Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan); • Soil and Groundwater Management Plan; • Winter Construction Plan; • Cultural Resources Unanticipated Discoveries Plan; and • Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP).

FERC’s Plan and Procedures are baseline construction and mitigation measures developed to minimize the potential environmental impacts of construction on upland areas, wetlands, and waterbodies. Texas Eastern does not propose any modifications to FERC’s Plan and Procedures.

Texas Eastern would employ an environmental inspector (EI) to oversee and

document environmental compliance. All Project-related construction personnel would be

3 The FERC Plan can be viewed on the FERC website http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/plan.pdf. 4 The FERC Procedures can be viewed on the FERC website

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/procedures.pdf.

9

informed of the EI’s authority and would receive job-appropriate environmental training prior to commencement of work on the Project. Depending on the progress of the construction, additional EIs may be added as necessary.

Prior to commencement of any construction-related activities, survey crews would

stake the limits of the construction work areas and access roads. Texas Eastern would avoid sensitive areas by flagging or fencing the resource, as appropriate. Texas Eastern would contact the national “one-call” system to identify and mark buried utility lines prior to ground disturbance. Construction work areas would be cleared of existing vegetation and graded, as necessary, to create level surfaces for the movement of construction vehicles. In accordance with the FERC Plan, temporary erosion and sediment control measures would be installed following initial ground disturbance.

During Project operation, Texas Eastern would operate and maintain the proposed

facilities in compliance with the Commission’s guidance in 18 CFR 380.15 and the maintenance requirements in the FERC’s Plan and Procedures. Project facilities would be marked and identified in accordance with applicable DOT regulations. In accordance with 49 CFR 192, the facilities would be inspected for leaks as parts of scheduled operations and maintenance.

8.1. ABOVEGROUND FACILITY CONSTRUCTION

The existing compressor units are in two separate compressor buildings; one building would be removed to allow for the installation of a new 9,350-square-foot building to house the two new replacement compressor units. Texas Eastern would convert the second compressor building to an office or warehouse building. Texas Eastern proposes to build additional facilities, which include two electrical control buildings and an electric service entrance building. Texas Eastern would replace the existing emergency generator and install other appurtenant facilities.

The site of the proposed facilities would be cleared of vegetation and graded as

necessary to prepare the area for constructing pads and foundations. In addition to conventional excavation, Texas Eastern would use hydrovac excavation around pipeline facilities. The pressurized water from the hydrovac breaks up the soil, creating a slurry of soil and water removed with the vacuum. Texas Eastern would place the slurry generated during hydrovac operations within fully lined pits within the proposed ATWS to allow for water decantation prior to discharge, in accordance with permit requirements. Texas Eastern would return soil materials generated from hydrovac activities to the specific excavations from which they removed, in accordance with its Soil and Groundwater Management Plan. No blasting is anticipated for this Project.

Based on Texas Eastern’s anticipated schedule, Project construction could occur

during the winter season. Texas Eastern developed a Winter Construction Plan which

10

includes specialized methods and procedures to protect resources during the winter season in accordance with our Plan. These measures include methods of snow management and storage, including leaving gaps in snow windrows and spoil piles to facilitate drainage of melting snow. If inclement weather prohibits replacement of topsoil and/or revegetation activities immediately following construction, Texas Eastern would stabilize topsoil piles and work areas (e.g., mulching, erosion controls) until weather conditions improve.

Texas Eastern would excavate the sites for the new compressor units and buildings as

necessary, to accommodate reinforced concrete foundations to provide a stable support for the operating machinery. The compressor units would then be positioned on the foundations, leveled, grouted, and secured. Texas Eastern would flange, screw, or weld the pipe connections associated with the new compressors and equipment. As the various systems and subsystems are completed, Texas Eastern would test and calibrate them for proper operation using computerized systems prior to start-up of the facilities. Prior to placing the new facilities into service, Texas Eastern would hydrostatically test (or a comparable equivalent method) the system to ensure compliance with DOT’s standards at 49 CFR 192.5 Texas Eastern would check and test the controls and safety devices, such as the emergency shutdown system, relief valves, and other protection and safety devices. The new Project facilities would be operated on a trial basis after the completion of auxiliary piping and mechanical systems to verify operation of the safety and protective devices. Texas Eastern would cover sections of the workspace with gravel or final grade, fertilize, seed, and mulch as work is completed, and as provided in its ESCP. The ATWS and temporary construction yard would be restored to preexisting conditions upon completion of the Project and stabilized in accordance with Texas Eastern’s ESCP. The existing security fence around the permanent aboveground facilities would remain in place.

9.0 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the Commission is required to consider, as part of the decision to approve facilities under its jurisdiction, all factors bearing on the public interest. Occasionally, proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission. These “non-jurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for the proposed facilities, such as a power plant at the end of a jurisdictional pipeline, or they may be minor, non-integral components of the facilities under the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The local electric utility provider (Penelec, a FirstEnergy Corporation Company)

would install three new power poles, 500 feet of 23-kilovolt (kv) distribution line, and a 23-kv utility revenue meter. Additionally, Penelec would rebuild seven miles of 23-kv utility line that would connect to the new Penelec facilities with the existing compressor station.

5 Hydrostatic testing entails filling the pipe facilities with water under pressure for a specified length of time to identify any leaks within the system and ensure that once filled with natural gas, no leaks occur.

11

Work would be conducted within Penelec’s existing 20-foot-wide workspace within the existing compressor station and directly adjacent to the existing facility fence via an overhead power line. There is no additional right-of-way expected for this installation. Impacts from use of the construction workspace within the existing facility are described throughout this EA. Impacts from the use of workspace outside of the existing facility is discussed further below (section A.10). Based on the information provided, no additional federal permits are required for the service connection.

10.0 PERMITS AND CONSULTATIONS

Table 3 provides a list of known federal, state, and local permits for the Project, as well as any responses that have been received to date. Texas Eastern would be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals required for the Project, regardless of their listing in table 3.

Table 3 Anticipated Environmental Permits, Reviews, and Consultations for the Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Status FEDERAL Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Abandonment Authorization under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act

Application filed January 15, 2021

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.)

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) review conducted on October 8, 2020. No further consultation required.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PADEP, Bureau of Clean Water

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Discharges from Hydrostatic Testing of Tanks and Pipelines 3800-PM-BCW0173 (PAG-10)

Filed 2nd Quarter 2021, Anticipated Issuance 3rd Quarter 2021

Temporary Discharge Permit

Filed 2nd Quarter 2021, Anticipated Issuance 3rd Quarter 2021

PADEP, Regional Permit Coordination Office

Certification of Compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and all state water quality standards

Filed November 16, 2020. Anticipated Issuance 3rd Quarter 2021.

PADEP, Bureau of Clean Water and Juniata County Conservation District

Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit for Earth Disturbance Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Processing, or Treatment Operations or Transmission Facilities (ESCGP-3)

Filed November 5, 2020. Anticipated Issuance 3rd Quarter 2021.

PADEP, Bureau of Air Quality

Plan Approval to Construct, Modify or Reactivate an Air Contamination Source

Filed December 30, 2020. Anticipated Issuance 3rd Quarter 2021.

12

PADEP, Bureau of Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields

Consultation per Consent Decree and Adjudication, May 1991

Consultation and approval to occur prior to construction activities within Operational Consideration Areas. Anticipated completion 2nd quarter 2021.

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission; State Historic Preservation Office

Comment on the Project under Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC § 306108)

Completed October 27, 2020

Pennsylvania Game Commission

PNDI Review Completed October 8, 2020 – No further consultation required

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

PNDI Review Completed October 8, 2020 – No further consultation required

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

PNDI Review Completed October 8, 2020 – No further consultation required

FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBES • Absentee

Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

• Cayuga Nation • Delaware Nation of

Oklahoma • Delaware Tribe of

Indians • Eastern Shawnee Tribe

of Oklahoma • Oneida Indian Nation • Oneida Nation of

Wisconsin • Onondaga Nation • Seneca Nation of Indians • Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of

Oklahoma • Shawnee Tribe of

Oklahoma • St. Regis Mohawk Tribe • Stockbridge-Munsee

Band of Mohican Indians

• Tonawanda Seneca Nation

• Tuscarora Nation

Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC § 470f)

Completed October 28, 2020

11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES

The proposed Project is in the Appalachian Mountain section of the Valley and Ridge physiographic province. The Appalachian Mountain section is characterized by long, narrow ridges and broad to narrow valleys with some karst. Local relief in this section

13

ranges from 440 to 2,775 feet above mean sea level (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources [PADCNR], 2018). At the Project site, the topographic elevations range from 667 to 880 feet above mean sea level, sloping towards the northeast. The mid-latitude site location and proximity of the Atlantic Ocean exposes the region to a variety of meteorological conditions and events. Blizzards, tropical storms, thunderstorms, and droughts, and extreme occurrences of such events have been recorded in Pennsylvania. The mid-latitude location exposes the area to large annual ranges in temperatures.

General past activities on the lands in the Project county have included construction of natural gas and oil facilities and commercial and residential development projects. Planned activities in the vicinity of the Project include construction of road and bridge projects, and the non-jurisdictional electrical facilities associated with this Project.

Several reasonably foreseeable planned activities have been identified that may influence the environmental baseline in which the Project would be constructed. The State Route (SR) 3023 over Tuscarora Creek (in development)6, SR 0035 over Willow Run (in construction), 2020 SEDACOG Bridge (in development), SR 0035 over Tributary Lick Run (in construction), SR 0850 Little Laurel Run (future development), SR0850 over Tributary Tuscar (future development), and SR 3016 McKinley Run Box (in development). All projects listed are road or bridge construction projects proposed by the Pennsylvania DOT. The projects under construction may conclude prior to construction of the proposed Project and would be considered part of the affected environment.7 The projects under development or future development that may overlap in construction schedules with the proposed Project would contribute to temporary impacts on transportation, vegetation, groundwater, construction noise, and wildlife. No impacts on wetlands, waterbodies, fisheries, operational noise, and socioeconomics would be anticipated from the proposed Project or the other projects listed. Additionally, the Project would result in fewer emissions than the current facility emits; thus, this Project would reduce current air quality impacts. Section B.7. below provides additional information on air quality analysis that was completed specifically for the Project.

The specific environmental resources and land uses affected by the Project activities are discussed in section B below.

6 In development project consist of projects that are in the beginning stages of development and may

overlap in construction with the proposed Projects. Future development projects may or may not overlap in construction with the proposed Project depending on when they begin construction.

7 The affected environment, as defined in NEPA (40 CFR 1502.15), includes a succinct description of the environment of the area to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration, including the reasonably foreseeable environmental trends and planned actions in the area.

14

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The following sections discuss the Project’s potential impacts on environmental resources. When considering the environmental consequences of the Project, the duration and significance of any potential impacts are described below according to the following four levels: temporary, short-term, long-term, and permanent. Temporary impacts generally occur during construction, with the resources returning to pre-construction conditions almost immediately. Short-term impacts could continue for up to three years following construction. Long-term impacts would require more than three years to recover, but eventually would recover to pre-construction conditions. Permanent impacts are defined as activities that modify resources to the extent that they may not return to pre-construction conditions during the life of the Project, such as with the construction of an aboveground facility. An impact would be considered significant if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment.

The analysis contained in this EA is based upon Texas Eastern’s application and supplemental filings and our experience with the construction and operation of natural gas infrastructure. However, if the Project is approved and proceeds to the removal/construction phase, it is not uncommon for a project proponent to require modifications (e.g., minor changes in workspace configurations). These changes are often identified by a company once on-the-ground implementation work is initiated. Any Project modifications would be subject to review and approval from FERC’s Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) and any other permitting/authorizing agencies with jurisdiction.

1.0 GEOLOGY

1.1. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

The general surficial geology of the Project vicinity includes residuum, colluvium, and alluvium (Sevon, 1989). Bedrock geology in the Appalachian Mountain section consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, conglomerate, limestone, and dolomite. Project area bedrock geology is mapped as siltstone and shale with thin argillaceous limestone and basal limestone nodules (PADCNR, 2018; Berg et al., 1980).

1.2. MINERAL RESOURCES

Active, historic, and proposed surface or subsurface mines and oil and natural gas exploration or extraction were not identified within 0.25 mile of the Project (USGS, 2011; Pennsylvania State University, 2014; PADEP, 2020a; 2020b; 2020c; 2020d; 2020e; 2020f). Therefore, we conclude the Project would not affect the availability of or access to mineral resources.

15

1.3. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Geologic hazards are natural, physical conditions that can result in damage to land and structures or injury to people. Such hazards typically are seismic-related, including earthquakes, surface faulting, and soil liquefaction; landslides; or ground subsidence hazards such as karst.

The shaking during an earthquake can be expressed in terms of the acceleration as

a percent of gravity (g), and seismic risk can be quantified by the motions experienced at the ground surface or by structures during a given earthquake expressed in terms of g. For reference, a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 10 percent g (0.1g) is generally considered the minimum threshold for damage to older structures or structures not constructed to resist earthquakes. USGS National Seismic Hazard Probability Mapping shows that for the Project area, within a 50-year period, there is a 2 percent probability of an earthquake with an effective PGA of 4 to 6 percent g; and a 10 percent probability of an earthquake with an effective PGA of 1 to 2 percent g being exceeded (USGS, 2018). Even under much higher ground vibrations, the main risk to natural gas facilities would be a slip fault that displaces laterally during an earthquake. Project facilities are not underlain by this type of feature (USGS, 2020). Given these conditions, we conclude that there is low potential for prolonged ground shaking, ground rupture, or soil liquefaction to occur or significantly impact the Project.

The majority of the Project area is relatively flat or gently sloping and has been

previously graded. Therefore, and based on the limited scope of the Project, we conclude that the Project would not significantly contribute to or be impacted by landslides or slope instability.

Project areas are not proposed within federally-designated flood hazard areas

(Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2020). In addition, the compressor station would have a post-construction stormwater management system designed to limit runoff during storm events. Therefore, we conclude that the Project would not impact floodplain storage capacity and would not be significantly affected by flood hazards.

Ground subsidence, involving the localized or regional lowering of the ground

surface, may be caused by karst dissolution, sediment compaction due to oil, gas, and/or groundwater extraction, and underground mines. Active oil and natural gas extraction and subsurface mines were not identified within 0.25 mile of any Project area and Project areas overlie a consolidated aquifer that is not highly susceptible to subsidence from groundwater over-extraction.

At the Project site, the limestone or dolomite component of the bedrock is not

significant. As previously described, Project area bedrock geology is mapped as siltstone

16

and shale with thin argillaceous limestone and basal limestone nodules (PADCNR, 2018; Berg et al., 1980). Further, no karst features (i.e., sinkholes, surface depressions, or caves) were identified within 1 mile of Project areas (PADCNR, 2020a; PADEP, 2021). Therefore, surface subsidence from karst terrain is not considered a geologic hazard for the Project site.

Based on the above assessment, we conclude that the impact from geologic

hazards on the Project facilities during construction and operation would be minimal and the Project would not have significant impacts on geologic resources.

2.0 SOILS

Construction activities such as clearing, grading, excavation, backfilling, and the movement of construction equipment within Project workspaces would affect soil resources. Clearing removes protective cover and exposes soils to the effects of wind and rain, which increases the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation into sensitive areas. Grading, spoil storage, and equipment traffic can compact soil, reducing porosity and increasing runoff potential. Excess rock or fill material brought to the surface during excavation and grading could hinder restoration and revegetation.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey provides

descriptions of the soil series that would be impacted by the Project (2020). Project area soils have low wind erosion potential and moderate to high revegetation potential. Project area soils have low to moderate compaction potential and are highly erodible by water. Approximately 20.1 acres are classified as farmland of statewide importance, approximately 30.7 acres are classified as underlain by shallow bedrock (bedrock within 60 inches of the ground surface).

Because the compressor station is an existing facility, new impacts on farmland of

statewide importance would be limited to areas outside of the existing fence line, totaling approximately 3.5 acres of farmland. The proposed ATWS adjacent to the compressor station is open land and would be utilized for temporary placement of hydrovac decantation pits and fractionation tanks, construction parking, storage, and soil staging areas. The temporary construction yard is existing commercial land, which would not require improvement prior to use. Activities within these areas would be temporary and Texas Eastern would restore these areas upon Project completion in accordance with Texas Eastern’s ESCP and applicable lease agreements. Therefore, we conclude that impacts on farmland of statewide importance would not be significant.

To minimize compaction and the introduction of stones or rocks to surface soil

layers in the ATWS outside of the existing fence line, Texas Eastern would remove the existing vegetation and excavate up to 12 inches of topsoil, which would be temporarily

17

stored within ATWS. The ATWS would then be covered with geo-tech fabric, as well as gravel/stone, prior to use. Upon completion of Project construction activities, Texas Eastern would remove the gravel/stone and replace the stored topsoil. The area would be restored to approximate pre-existing conditions upon completion of the Project. Disturbed area within the compressor station fence line would be returned to pre-construction conditions (gravel surfacing or maintained lawn). Therefore, the Project would not significantly impact surficial soils.

To minimize or avoid potential impacts due to soil erosion, Texas Eastern would

implement its ESCP and the FERC Plan. Temporary erosion controls would be installed immediately following land disturbing activities. Texas Eastern would inspect these devices on a regular basis and after each rainfall event of 0.5 inch or greater to ensure proper function. Texas Eastern would additionally utilize dust-control measures, as outlined in its Dust Control Plan, including routine wetting of the construction workspace, as necessary, where soils are exposed. Temporary erosion control devices would be maintained until the Project area is successfully stabilized/revegetated. In addition, the Project includes development of a stormwater management system designed to limit runoff from storm events during operation. Therefore, we conclude the Project would not result in permanent or significant impacts due to soil erosion.

Soil Contamination

Texas Eastern conducted characterization and remediation activities for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in soils at the compressor station as part of the requirements of a Consent Order and Adjudication (CO&A) between Texas Eastern and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (presently the PADEP) and a Federal Consent Decree between Texas Eastern and the EPA since 1991. With the exception of four areas, PCB impacted soils have been remediated in compliance with the CO&A and Federal Consent Decree. Specifically, concentrations of PCBs in soil samples were generally less than 10 parts per million, and no sample was greater than 25 parts per million.

There are four areas beneath the existing infrastructure that could not be

remediated safely per the Consent Decree and CO&A during the initial remediation activities. The Project would result in three of these four Operational Consideration Areas (OCA) becoming accessible. Therefore, Texas Eastern would remediate these areas during construction.

Texas Eastern would manage any contaminated soil or potentially contaminated

groundwater encountered during construction in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and Texas Eastern’s Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, which describes measures to properly handle, store, and dispose of known PCB contaminated soils and potentially contaminated groundwater.

18

During Project construction, previously remediated areas would be disturbed.

Soils from previously remediated areas may be used as backfill material in the same area from which they are excavated, but not outside of those areas. Material deemed not suitable for reuse on-site would be evaluated via in-situ sampling for waste classification. Sampled material would be pre-characterized and profiled for off-site disposal in accordance with EPA and PADEP requirements to allow for immediate transportation off-site when excavated. Texas Eastern would place all soils excavated from the OCAs into lined roll-off containers for waste classification sampling and disposal. After the soils have been fully classified, Texas Eastern would coordinate off-site disposal in conformance with applicable federal and state regulations.

If suitable for re-use on site, soils generated outside of previously remediated areas

and OCAs may be reused in accordance with the approved environmental permit and grading plans.

Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and coolant from

construction equipment could also adversely affect soils. Texas Eastern would implement the measures outlined in its SPCC Plan to reduce potential impacts on soils from spills of fuel and hazardous materials used during construction. These measures include regularly inspecting equipment to ensure it is in good working order, properly training employees on the handling of fuels and other hazardous materials, implementing appropriate clean-up protocols, and promptly reporting any spills to the appropriate agencies, if applicable. If unexpected areas of soil or groundwater contamination are encountered during Project construction, Texas Eastern would stop work activities in the immediate vicinity of the site and proceed with sampling, monitoring, and disposal/remediation in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.

Given the minimization and mitigation measures described above, we conclude

that soils would not be significantly affected by Project construction and operation.

3.0 WATER RESOURCES AND WETLANDS

3.1. GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

The Project would overlie the sandstone and carbonate rock Valley and Ridge principal aquifer system (Miller, 1999). Well yields within the Valley and Ridge aquifer system vary greatly depending on geologic structural and topographical factors, and the water quality is somewhat variable; however, the water is generally suitable for municipal supplies and other uses (Miller, 1999).

19

The EPA oversees the Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program to protect high production aquifers that supply 50 percent or more of the region’s water supply and for which there are no reasonably available alternative drinking water sources should the aquifer become contaminated. The Project does not overlie a Sole Source Aquifer (EPA, 2020a).

The wellhead protection program in Pennsylvania is deployed voluntarily at a

local level, and a publicly available database outlining the wellhead protection areas is not available. Texas Eastern contacted the local municipality and determined that no wellhead protection areas underlie the Project area.

No off-property wells were identified within 150 feet of Project workspaces (PADEP, 2021; PADCNR, 2020b). One Texas Eastern-owned private water well is within the fence line of the compressor station and is utilized as a domestic water supply. No ground disturbance is planned within 150 feet of the well and no changes to annual groundwater withdrawal volumes are anticipated during the construction or operation and maintenance of the Project. Groundwater Contamination

PADEP and Texas Eastern entered into a Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring

Program which was terminated in 2014 after demonstration that a PCB plume in shallow groundwater within the southwest portion of the compressor station site was stable. Texas Eastern would handle, manage, and dispose of groundwater encountered during construction in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and Texas Eastern’s Soil and Groundwater Management Plan. All materials generated during hydrovac operations would be placed into a fully lined hydrovac slurry pit to allow for water decantation. Texas Eastern would store all water pumped from open excavation areas, as well as decanted hydrovac water, in fractionation tanks and then pump the water through a filtration treatment system to remove potential contaminants. After treatment, Texas Eastern would discharge the water to a constructed dewatering basin.

Texas Eastern would collect a weekly pre-treatment water sample and post-

treatment water sample to verify compliance with PADEP’s temporary discharge permit conditions. Prior to initial discharge, a post-treatment sample would be analyzed for PCBs to verify treatment and compliance. If the post-treatment water sample exceeds temporary discharge permit thresholds, the treatment system would be maintained (e.g., change filters, replace carbon media) accordingly and the water would be recirculated through the treatment system to meet PADEP compliance or transported to a licensed off-site disposal facility.

20

Project construction has the potential to impact groundwater. Impacts may include alteration of overland flow and groundwater recharge resulting from clearing of vegetation, grading, development of the stormwater retention basin, and excavation activities. However, these impacts would be highly localized, minor, and mostly short-term as we would expect overland flow/recharge to return to background levels after revegetation.

Groundwater contamination could occur from accidental spills of fuels, solvents,

and lubricants used during construction. Texas Eastern would minimize spill-related impacts through implementation of the measures included in its SPCC Plan. Texas Eastern would also prohibit refueling activities and the storage of hazardous liquids within at least a 200-foot radius of all private wells.

Given its limited disturbed area and duration of construction, absence of off-property water supply wells in the Project vicinity, and Texas Eastern’s groundwater management measures described above, we conclude that the Project would not have a significant impact on groundwater resources.

3.2. SURFACE WATER AND WETLAND RESOURCES

Texas Eastern conducted wetland and waterbody delineation surveys in February 2019. A waterbody, as defined by the FERC Procedures, is “any natural or artificial stream, river, or drainage with perceptible flow at the time of crossing and other permanent waterbodies such as ponds and lakes.” Three minor surface waterbodies (S1, S2, and S3), all unnamed tributaries to Lick Run, were identified within Texas Eastern’s property boundary. S1 and S2 are approximately 66 feet and 6 feet, respectively, from the Project workspace. Portions of S3 is within Project construction workspace but, would not be affected during construction because Texas Eastern would cross S3 using existing access roadways. No in-stream work is proposed as part of the Project and the Project was designed so that S1 and S2 are completely outside of the Project workspace. Five wetlands (W001-W005) are adjacent to construction workspace but, would not be affected during construction or operation of the Project. Texas Eastern is seeking a 401 permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Regional Permit Coordination Office.

W001 is classified as a palustrine scrub-shrub and is in the floodplain of S2 on the

southern boundary of the compressor station property. Typical vegetation includes sandbar willow, Japanese siltgrass, and porcupine sedge. Wetland hydrology is supported by runoff and S2. W002 is a linear, sideslope palustrine emergent wetland (PEM) dominated by porcupine sedge and fowl manna grass and is within the floodplain and is hydrologically connected to S3. W003 is a small complex of linear PEM wetland areas at the base of the wooded hill to the west of the compressor station. Typical

21

vegetation includes narrow-leaved cattail, poison ivy, and soft rush. Wetland hydrology is supported by groundwater seeps upslope and runoff from adjacent upland areas. W004 is a palustrine forested wetland outside of the fence line, in the wooded slope to the west of the existing compressor station. It is dominated by mature deciduous trees including red maple, American elm, swamp white oak, eastern black walnut, and various bushes, such as northern spicebush, Canadian goldenrod, and Japanese stiltgrass. W005 is a linear PEM wetland in a depression along the northern boundary of the construction workspace. Vegetation is dominated by broad-leaved cattail and hydrology is supported by surface runoff.

Texas Eastern would minimize any impacts on surface waterbodies and wetlands

from erosion and runoff by implementing its ESCP, and the FERC Plan and Procedures. The ESCP contains measures such as the installation of erosion control devices, including silt fence and straw bales, and revegetation or stabilization of disturbed areas upon completion of construction. Additionally, Texas Eastern would implement its SPCC Plan which includes preventative measures to avoid spills of hazardous materials and response procedures to be implemented in the event of a release. Any hazardous materials, chemicals, lubricating oils, solvents, or fuels used during construction would be stored in upland areas at least 100 feet from waterbodies and wetlands as required by the ESCP and SPCC Plan. Texas Eastern would maintain erosion and sediment controls throughout the Project and would not remove them until revegetation/final stabilization has occurred.

Following construction, Texas Eastern would restore temporary workspaces to

pre-construction contours, stabilize the areas with erosion control blankets, and would revegetate the area with the appropriate seed mix. Based on the lack of direct impacts on surface waterbodies and wetlands and implementation of the ESCP, SPCC Plan, and the FERC Procedures to minimize any potential impacts, we conclude that the Project would not have significant impacts on surface waterbodies or wetlands.

3.2.1. Hydrostatic Testing, Hydrovac, and Dust Suppression

In accordance with DOT regulations, Texas Eastern would perform hydrostatic testing of the new aboveground facility piping prior to placing the Project facilities into service. Hydrostatic testing is a method by which water is introduced to segments of pipe and then pressurized to verify the integrity of the pipeline. A total of 80,000 to 100,000 gallons of water is anticipated to be used for hydrostatic testing. Texas Eastern would source hydrostatic test water from a non-potable water supplier and trucked to the site. No chemicals would be added to the hydrostatic test water. Following hydrostatic testing, test water would first pass through an energy-dissipation device as necessary, before being discharged into a well vegetated, upland area in accordance with the FERC’s Procedures.

22

Water would also be used for hydrovac excavation activities and the control and mitigate fugitive dust from the Project. Texas Eastern estimates up to 2 million gallons of water over the course of the 15-month construction period for hydrovac. Additionally, about 60,000 to 75,000 gallons of water may be used for dust suppression over the course of construction of the Project. Water for hydrovac and fugitive dust control would also be sourced from local municipal sources.

Based on the limited volume of water that would be used and Texas Eastern’s

implementation of the FERC’s Procedures and its ESCP, we conclude that hydrostatic test water, hydrovac excavation, and fugitive dust control impacts would not result in significant impacts.

4.0 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

4.1. VEGETATION

Project workspaces, including the existing compressor station, ATWS, and the existing temporary construction yard, are characterized as open upland and industrial areas. The open upland areas are predominantly regularly disturbed by ongoing maintenance activities. However, individual trees (12 to 15 trees) within the Perulack Compressor Station’s fence line would be converted to lawn or scrub-shrub areas and permanently maintained to ensure safe operation of the facility. Construction of the Project would include temporary impacts on 3.4 acres of open upland vegetation and 32.7 acres of industrial land. Operation of the Project would consist of 27.2 acres, all of which would be within the existing compressor station; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. No vegetation types of special concern would be impacted by the Project. See table 5 for a detailed summary of land use and vegetation impacts.

Texas Eastern would conduct topsoil segregation during use of the ATWS and would decompact, restore the topsoil layer, and revegetate the area following construction in accordance with its ESCP and the FERC Plan. In its comment letter, the EPA recommended Texas Eastern use native plants within any revegetation plan. In response, Texas Eastern has committed to using native seed mixes as defined in the PADEP’s Authorization under the Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit -3 for earth disturbance associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities.

Land outside of the existing compressor station facility is owned by Texas Eastern, and it would continue to maintain these areas accordingly. Texas Eastern would conduct follow-up inspections and remediation (e.g., additional seeding) of all disturbed areas to ensure revegetation is successful. Given the limited permanent impacts on vegetation associated with the aboveground facilities (i.e., removal of up to 15 trees), the limited area of disturbance, and Texas Eastern’s use of its ESCP and the FERC’s Plan,

23

we conclude that the majority of impacts on vegetation would be mostly short-term and not significant.

4.2. WILDLIFE

The Project consists of grasslands and disturbed and/or maintained areas, such as lawns, where ground nesting birds or raptors with grassland prey, including ring-necked pheasant, short-eared owl, wild turkey, whip-poor-will, prairie warbler, American woodcock, and small mammals, such as meadow voles, eastern cottontail, and shrews may be found.

Potential impacts on wildlife include habitat removal, construction-related ground

disturbance, and noise. Some individuals could be inadvertently injured or killed by construction equipment. However, more mobile species, such as birds and mammals, would likely relocate to other nearby suitable habitat and avoid the Project area once construction activities commence. Given the limited duration of Project disturbance (15 months), the limited area of disturbance (most of the Project activities would occur within the existing compressor station) and abundant adjacent habitat, the short-term disturbance of local habitat is not expected to have population-level effects. Long-term impacts from habitat alteration would be further minimized by the use of previously disturbed areas (i.e., the existing compressor station) and implementation of Texas Eastern’s ESCP and the FERC Plan, which would ensure revegetation of areas temporarily disturbed by construction.

Noise associated with the new aboveground facilities would be permanent; however, operational noise from the facilities would be reduced from existing levels immediately following completion of construction activities. The proposed aboveground facilities would be within existing industrial facilities and replace aging infrastructure. Additionally, operational lighting would remain consistent with existing lighting at the compressor station. Therefore, noise and lighting associated with the Project is not anticipated to significantly impact wildlife in the Project area, and we conclude that the Project would have a short-term and not significant impact on wildlife or their habitat in the Project area.

4.2.1. Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are species that nest in the U.S. and Canada during the summer and then migrate to and from the tropical regions of Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean for the non-breeding season. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ([MBTA] – 16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 703-711), and bald and golden eagles are additionally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.SC. 668-668d). The MBTA, as amended, prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. Executive

24

Order (EO) 13186 was enacted in 2001 to, among other things, ensure that environmental analyses of federal actions evaluate the impacts of actions on migratory birds. EO 13186 directs federal agencies to identify where unintentional take is likely to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations and avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and emphasizes species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors, with particular focus given to population-level impacts.

On March 30, 2011, the FWS and FERC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding implementation of EO 13186, that focuses on migratory birds and strengthening migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration between the two agencies. This memorandum does not waive legal requirements under the MBTA, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the ESA, or any other statutes, and does not authorize the take of migratory birds.

On March 23, 2021, Texas Eastern utilized the Information for Planning and

Consultation (IPaC) tool to identify seven migratory birds with potential to occur within the Project area. Table 4 below lists potential migratory birds and potential impacts from Project activities. Texas Eastern proposes limited tree clearing of 12 to 15 trees within the compressor station. Given the limited amount of vegetative clearing, ample adjacent habitats suitable for any birds that may be disturbed, most vegetative impacts would be limited to short-term impacts (with the exception of removing up to 15 trees), most permanent workspaces are currently graveled, and that no eagles or nests were observed in the Project area, we have determined that the Project would not result in population-level impacts on migratory birds or measurable negative impacts on their habitat.

In addition to the mitigation listed above, Texas Eastern would avoid clearing

during the high probability nesting seasons listed in table 4 to further minimize impacts on species with potential habitat in the Project area.

On March 30, 2021, Texas Eastern contacted the FWS regarding birds protected

under the MBTA. No response or species-specific conservation measures have been received to date regarding migratory bird species.

25

Table 4 Potential Impacts on Migratory Bird Species from Project Activities

Species Common Names

Habitat Entire Range

Breeding Seasona/

High Probability

Nesting Seasonb/

Breeding Status

within Lack Townshipc/

Potential Habitat

within Station

Impact Summary

Black-billed cuckoo

Occurs in large woodlands, typically deciduous stands.

May 15 – October 10

May 8 - June 21

Possible, Probable

No No direct impacts anticipated; lack of good habitat, no confirmed breeding in Lack Township.

Black-capped chickadee

Utilizes small, abandoned tree cavities, or primary excavator in dead trees, found in deciduous forest, mixed forest, disturbed areas.

April 10 – July 31

May 8 - June 21

Possible Yes No direct impacts anticipated; no confirmed breeding in Lack Township.

Cerulean warbler

Prefers large expanses of mature forest, usually nesting along river bottom-lands or mountainous areas with steep ridges.

April 27 – July 20

May 15- June 21

Possible, Probable

No No direct impacts anticipated; lack of good habitat, no confirmed breeding in Lack Township.

Golden- winged warbler

Occurs in early successional forests, along the edges of fields and in shrubby wetlands.

May 1 – July 20

May 8 - May 21

Possible No No direct impacts anticipated; lack of good habitat, no confirmed breeding in Lack Township.

Prairie warbler

Early successional habitats: Lake Michigan dune lands with shrub/grass, jack pine barrens burned 10-20 years prior, and burnt pineries made up of shrubs and small trees.

May 1 – July 31

May 15 - June 21

Not Observed No No direct impacts anticipated; lack of good habitat, no confirmed breeding in Lack Township.

Red-headed woodpecker

Deciduous woodlands with oak or beech, open areas: river bottoms, beaver swamps, orchards, farmland, forest edges, with dead or partially dead trees.

May 10 – September 10

May 15 - June 21

Not Observed Yes No direct impacts anticipated; no confirmed breeding in Lack Township.

Wood thrush Wet or dry deciduous mixed woods. May 10 – August 31

May 8 - June 21

Possible No No direct impacts anticipated; lack of good habitat, no confirmed breeding in Lack Township.

a/ Breeding season is a very liberal estimate of the dates inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. The bird may breed in the Project area sometime within the timeframe specified in the IPaC resource list. b/ High Probability Nesting Season is the likely nesting season within the Project area based on probability of presence as described in the IPaC resource list. c/ Breeding Status source: Pennsylvania Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA). Definitions of Breeding Status adapted from BBA: Possible - Species observed in suitable nesting habitat during its breeding season; Probable - Nesting or breeding behavior observed in suitable habitat; Not observed - Bird species not documented in the Project area by the BBA. Citation: (Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania, Andrew D. Wilson, et. al, 2012)

26

4.3. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies provide an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed species that are protected under the ESA, species considered as candidates for such listing by the FWS, and those species that are state-listed as threatened, endangered, or state species of special concern.

4.3.1. Federally Listed Species

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the FERC, in coordination with the FWS, must ensure that any federal action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in an adverse modification of designated critical habitat of a federally listed species.

On October 8, 2020, Texas Eastern utilized the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) online database to identify the federally listed species potentially present in the Project area. The PNDI review includes consultation with all appropriate state and federal wildlife agencies, including the FWS. The PNDI determined that the Project would have no known impact on federally listed species; therefore, we conclude that the Project would have no effect on listed species and no further Section 7 consultation with the FWS for federally listed species is required.

4.3.2. State-Listed Species

On February October 8, 2020, Texas Eastern utilized the PNDI online database to identify the state-listed species potentially present in the Project area. The PNDI determined that the Project would have no known impact on state-listed species and that additional consultation with the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, or the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission was not required (PNDI, 2020). Thus, we conclude the Project would not impact state-listed species.

5.0 LAND USE, RECREATION, AND VISUAL RESOURCES

5.1. LAND USE

Land use categories identified in the Project area consist of open and industrial land. The total proposed construction acreage for all Project facilities is 36.1 acres, and operation would be about 27.2 acres. All the construction workspace associated with the Project would be on properties that Texas Eastern owns, leases, or has existing

27

agreements for maintaining facilities. A summary of the land use categories that would be affected by construction and operation of the Project facilities is provided in table 5.

Table 5 Summary of Land Use Impacts (acres)

Facility

Open Land Industrial Land Project Total

Const. Op. Const. Op. Const. Op.

Workspace within Station Fence Line

0.0 0.0 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2

ATWS 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0

Temporary Construction Yard

0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 5.5 0.0

PROJECT TOTAL 3.4 0.0 32.7 27.2 36.1 27.2 Const = the total acreage of land impacted during construction. Op = all areas that would be maintained after construction.

Open land typically includes non-forested lands, maintained utility rights-of-way, scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands, waterbody crossings less than 100 feet, and other roads not included under commercial/industrial land. Industrial land includes developed and paved areas, existing roads, and commercial or retail facilities, including all facilities within the existing fence line of the compressor station.

In the EPA’s comment letter, EPA recommended that Texas Eastern incorporate low impact design features where possible for building design, parking, paving, landscaping, and stormwater management. Texas Eastern has committed to incorporating low impact design features where practicable, such as, designing the Project’s stormwater management features, erosion and sediment controls, and the retention basin in accordance with PADEP Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program Manual (Technical Guidance Number 363-2134-008) and Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (Technical Guidance Number. Through compliance with Pennsylvania’s technical guidance manuals, which incorporate EPA design suggestions, we conclude the Project incorporates smaller, low impact features and best management practices where applicable. Texas Eastern’s use of existing facilities at the compressor station would also be considered use of low impact design features.

Impacts resulting from construction would be mostly short-term and limited to the construction period. Texas Eastern would implement the measures in its ESCP and FERC’s Plan to control erosion, segregate topsoil, and minimize impacts due to sedimentation. No existing land uses would be permanently converted to other uses for the Project. Texas Eastern would restore temporary workspaces to current use after

28

construction. Therefore, we find that impacts on open and industrial lands would be mostly short-term and not significant.

The nearest residence is about 520 feet east of the existing compressor station fence line. No future planned developments have been identified within 0.25 mile of the Project area.

5.2. PUBLIC LAND, RECREATION, AND OTHER DESIGNATED AREAS

USGS topographic maps, aerial photographs, state and municipal geographic information system data layers, and various internet searches were used to identify parks, recreation areas, scenic areas, and other specially designated areas at the federal, state, and local level near the Project facilities. The Project would not impact any federal and/or state wildlife preserve areas, conservation land, municipal parks and public lands, utility crossings, transportation corridors, or other designated areas. The closest public land is Tuscarora State Park approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the Project workspace and 0.7 mile from the temporary construction yard and would not be impacted by the Project.

Texas Eastern analyzed the site for potential farmland preservation easements

within the vicinity of the Project workspace. No farmland preservation easements were identified within 0.25 mile of the proposed Project workspace; therefore, the Project is not anticipated to impact any land designated as a farmland preservation easement.

5.3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION SITES

Texas Eastern evaluated environmental regulated facilities on PADEP’s online viewer, eMapPA, to determine if hazardous waste sites were within 0.25 mile of the Project. No hazardous wastes sites were identified within 0.25 mile of Project construction.

Texas Eastern has conducted characterization and remediation activities for PCBs in soils at the compressor station as part of the requirements of a CO&A between Texas Eastern and the PADEP and a Federal Consent Decree between Texas Eastern and the EPA since 1991. This is discussed further in section B.2.0.

5.4. TRAFFIC

The EPA filed a comment requesting that traffic impacts be considered in this EA. The Project involves construction activities within the fence line of the existing compressor station and proposed adjacent ATWS area. The compressor station is on the

29

southwest side of Pumping Station Road (SR 3023), a public road maintained by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The temporary construction yard is approximately 1.3 miles south of the Project area at 6296 PA-75 in East Waterford. During the proposed construction, the bridge at the crossing of SR 3023 and Tuscarora Creek will be undergoing maintenance and may not be available for use. This interrupts the closest road access between the Project workspace and the temporary construction yard.

Texas Eastern would use multiple traffic routes to access the Project depending on

the purpose of the trip and the roadway limits and designations. Rhine Hollow Road is a small road that roughly parallels PA-75 and is accessed on SR 3025 near Waterloo. It connects with SR 3023 about 500 feet east of the existing compressor station. Rhine Hollow Road currently has a 10-ton limit and may be used for personal vehicles up to welding rigs. Rhine Hollow Road turns into Barton Hollow Road (SR 3020) after crossing the intersection with SR 3023 (Pumping Station Road) and continues to parallel PA-75. The road intersects with SR 3018 which returns to PA-75 in East Waterford. Barton Hallow Road also has a 10-ton limit and may be used for personal vehicles up to welding rigs. PA-75 is a main road through the area and can be used to access the compressor station by turning northwest onto SR 3023 between Waterloo and East Waterford. This route requires crossing the Tuscarora Creek Bridge on SR 3023. This bridge currently has a 22-ton limit and, as noted above, is scheduled to be replaced in June 2022. Until the bridge is replaced, this route is useable for material and equipment deliveries under the 22-ton limit. PA-35 can also be used to access the compressor station from the west by turning south onto SR 3025 and then left on SR 3023 for about 3.5 miles to the compressor station. This route has been identified as the preferred route for heavy loads and deliveries to the compressor station.

Table 6 identifies the average daily traffic on main roads in the project area. It is

estimated there would be an average of 115 daily round trips will be generated as a result of construction activities at the Project site. The average daily traffic count for the roadways in the Project vicinity would increase between 20 and 25 percent depending on the roadway.

30

Table 6 Average Daily Traffic

Main Access Roadway Average Daily Traffic

PA-35 250-300 PA-75 650 SR-3023 150 SR-3025 200

The proposed routes for the Project utilize rural roads with very low average daily

traffic volumes. While traffic is expected to increase temporarily during the construction of the Project, that incremental increase is unlikely to result in any utilized roadway being considered a Level of Service D. The maximum number of cars associated with construction of the Project would not exceed the capacity of any of the roads used by the Project. In addition, the current facility operations, including the number of personnel, would not change as a result of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not have permanent traffic impacts during operation and we conclude the temporary impacts to area roadways would not be significant.

5.5. VISUAL RESOURCES Two residences are nearby the existing Station. One residence is approximately

900 feet from the nearest aboveground structures proposed for replacement or upgrade. The residence is screened from the aboveground facilities by several trees directly adjacent to the house, as well as a small hill that obstructs much of the view of the Project components and the existing compressor station. The second nearby residence is 850 feet from the nearest aboveground structures proposed for replacement or upgrade. This residence is screened from the proposed aboveground facilities and the existing compressor station by a small forested area, as well as changes in slope that obstruct the view of most buildings. Because the changes in aboveground facilities are largely obstructed by vegetation and slope changes and the modifications would not change the character of the existing landscape, no additional visual screening is proposed for the Project.

Texas Eastern clarifies that the existing compressor building that would be

removed (Station 314) is 190 feet in length by 35 feet in width with a height of 27 feet. The square footage is 6,650 square feet. The exhaust stack height is approximately 35 feet. The proposed replacement compressor building is 105 feet in length by 95 feet in width with a height of 35 feet. The square footage is 9,975 square feet. The proposed exhaust stack height is 60 feet.

31

The existing compressor building (Station 314) is currently situated so the nearby residences do not have a full view of the 190-foot side wall, which would be replaced by a 105-foot side wall. The replacement building and exhaust stack would be taller than existing conditions, but would appear similar to existing conditions due to the relative size compared to the other existing aboveground facilities.

We received a comment from the EPA regarding impacts associated with facility

lighting. Texas Eastern has stated that outdoor lighting levels would be minimal and limited to those necessary for facility safety and security. Texas Eastern would minimize lighting impacts and visibility from residences by using directional controls and light positioning. In addition, Texas Eastern would incorporate the following minimization measures into its outdoor lighting operations at the compressor station to reduce the visibility of and potential glare from nighttime lighting:

• Texas Eastern would use light-emitting diode (LED) lighting that is directional and does not create a bloom or glowing effect often caused by other light sources;

• all outdoor lighting fixtures would be dark sky compliant with no backward light effect; and

• Texas Eastern would install brackets on outdoor lighting fixtures to focus the light where needed and to avoid offsite light scatter.

While the new buildings may be larger than the buildings that are proposed to be removed, the new buildings are similar in character to the existing infrastructure at the Perulack Compressor Station. Therefore, we conclude visual impacts from construction and operation of the Project would be minimal and consistent with surrounding facilities.

6.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES

6.1. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Texas Eastern contacted the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the Project, providing a Project description, mapping, photographs, and a review of previously recorded cultural resources. No cultural resources were identified in the Project area. On October 27, 2020, the SHPO indicated that the Project would have no effect on historic properties. We agree with the SHPO and have determined that the Project would not affect historic properties. Texas Eastern contacted the following Native American tribes, providing a Project description and mapping: Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Cayuga Nation; Delaware Nation of Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation of Wisconsin; Onondaga Nation;

32

Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Shawnee Tribe; St. Regis Mohawk Tribe; Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians; Tonawanda Seneca Nation; and Tuscarora Nation. The Seneca Nation of Indians requested contact information. Texas Eastern indicated it would provide the information. The Oneida Indian Nation indicated it had no comments on the Project. No other comments have been received. We sent our Notice of Scoping to these same tribes. No responses to our Notice of Scoping have been received. Texas Eastern provided a plan to address the unanticipated discovery of historic properties and human remains during construction. We requested minor revisions to the plan. Texas Eastern provided a revised plan, which we find acceptable.

7.0 AIR QUALITY

Local and regional air quality in the Project area would potentially be affected by construction and operation of the Project. This section characterizes potential impacts the facilities may have on air quality regionally and locally.

The term air quality refers to relative concentrations of pollutants in the ambient

air. Pollutants of concern are primarily ground-level ozone (ozone), carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and respirable and fine particulate matter (inhalable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns [PM10] and less than or equal to 2.5 microns [PM2.5]). Ozone is not directly emitted into the atmosphere from an emissions source, but rather, ozone develops as a result of a chemical reaction between NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight.

As well as being the reactant to form ozone, VOCs are a subset of organic

compounds that are emitted during fossil-fuel combustion and can cause a variety of health effects, from irritation to more serious health impacts. Texas Eastern would use fossil fuels in its Project construction equipment and would continue to combust natural gas during operation of the Perulack Compressor Station. HAPs are also emitted during fossil-fuel combustion and contain compounds that are known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects.

Additionally, fugitive dust would be generated during Project construction from

earth-moving, wind-blown dust from stockpiles, and road dust. The majority of fugitive dust would be particulate matter in excess of 10 microns, but a portion would be PM10 and PM2.5.

The term “greenhouse gases” (GHG) refers to the gases and aerosols that occur in

the atmosphere both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. GHGs produced by fossil-fuel combustion are primarily carbon dioxide

33

(CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. GHGs’ status as a pollutant is not related to toxicity, as they are non-hazardous to health at normal ambient concentrations. GHGs absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and an increase in emissions of these gases is the primary cause of warming of the climatic system. Construction and operation of the Project would result in GHG emissions.

7.1. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The existing Perulack Compressor Station is in Lack Township, Juniata County, Pennsylvania.

Ambient air quality is protected by the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, as amended

in 1977 and 1990. The EPA oversees the implementation of the CAA and establishes the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect human health and welfare (EPA 2020b). NAAQS have been developed for seven “criteria air pollutants,” including nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, ozone, SO2, PM2.5, PM10, and lead, and include levels for short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposures. The NAAQS include two standards, which are primary and secondary. Primary standards establish limits that are considered to be protective of human health and welfare, including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and those with compromised respiratory function, i.e. asthmatics. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against reduced visibility and damage to crops, vegetation, animals, and buildings (EPA 2020b).

The EPA, state, and local agencies have established a network of ambient air

quality monitoring stations to measure concentrations of criteria pollutants across the United States. The data are then averaged over a specific time period and used by regulatory agencies to determine compliance with the NAAQS and to determine if an area is in attainment (criteria pollutant concentrations are below the NAAQS), nonattainment (criteria pollutant concentrations exceed the NAAQS), or maintenance (area was formerly nonattainment and is currently in attainment). Juniata County, Pennsylvania is in attainment for all criteria pollutants. The EPA commented that Juniata County is in a nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard. The 1-hour ozone standard was established in 1979 and was revoked in 2005. The 8-hour ozone standards, issued in 1997, 2008, and 2015 apply to this project; the Project area is in attainment with these standards.

The EPA defines air pollution to include GHGs, finding that the presence of

GHGs in the atmosphere may endanger public health and welfare through climate change. GHGs occur in the atmosphere both naturally and as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and land use change. The primary GHGs that would be emitted by the Project are CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. Emissions of GHGs are typically quantified

34

and regulated in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The CO2e takes into account the global warming potential (GWP) of each GHG. The GWP is the measure of a particular GHG’s ability to absorb solar radiation as well as its residence time within the atmosphere. The GWP allows comparison of global warming impacts between different gases; the higher the GWP, the more that gas contributes to climate change in comparison to CO2. Thus, CO2 has a GWP of 1, methane has a GWP of 25, and nitrous oxide has a GWP of 298. There are no applicable ambient standards or emission limits for GHG under the CAA.

7.2. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

The sections below specify the major air permitting requirements applicable to the Perulack Compressor Station. The provisions of the CAA that are applicable to the Project are discussed in further detail in Texas Eastern’s application. Appendix 9A of Texas Eastern’s application contains the air permit application which was filed with the state in December 2020 and is pending issuance.8

7.2.1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review

Proposed new or modified air pollutant emission sources must undergo a New Source Review (NSR) prior to construction or operation. Through the NSR permitting process, federal and state regulatory agencies review and approve project emissions increases or changes, emissions controls, and various other details to ensure air quality does not deteriorate as a result of new or modified existing emission sources. The three basic categories of NSR permitting are Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and minor source NSR. PSD, NNSR, and minor source NSR are applicable depending on the size of the proposed project, the projected emissions, and if the project is proposed in an attainment area or nonattainment/maintenance area. As the Project is in an attainment area; therefore, NNSR does not apply for this Project. PADEP administers the NSR and PSD program in Pennsylvania.

PSD regulations define a major source as any source type belonging to a list of

named source categories that have a potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any regulated pollutant or 250 tpy for sources not among the listed source categories. These are referred to as the PSD major source thresholds.

The Perulack Compressor Station is an existing major stationary source under the

PSD program because potential NOx emissions exceed the 250 tpy threshold. Following the Project, the facility would be reclassified as a minor source with respect to PSD, with potential emissions of all regulated pollutants below the 250 tpy threshold except for

8 Available in Resource Report 9 and appendix 9A of accession number 20210115-5244.

35

CO2e. Based on EPA guidance, PSD review is not required when an existing source considered to be major under PSD for a certain pollutant undergoes a modification that will bring the source below the major source threshold for that pollutant.9 A complete PSD applicability analysis is included in the Plan Approval application (see table 2).10

7.2.2. Title V Permitting

Title V is an operating air permit program run by each state for each facility that is considered a “major source.” The major source threshold for an air emission source is 100 tpy for criteria pollutants (or lower as defined by nonattainment status), 10 tpy for any single HAP, and 25 tpy for total HAPs. More stringent thresholds apply for VOCs and NOx in ozone nonattainment areas and in the Ozone Transport Region. The Ozone Transport Region includes 11 states in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic, the District of Columbia, and parts of northern Virginia. Ozone transport from states in the Ozone Transport Region contributes to ozone NAAQS violations in one or more other states. The Project is in an attainment area, but is within the Ozone Transport Region; therefore, the Title V threshold of 50 tpy is applicable for VOCs.

As discussed in section A.2, the Project is intended to comply with air emission requirements of Texas Eastern’s Title V Permit for the Perulack Compressor Station and with rules published on April 23, 2016 by the PADEP to require emission reductions at existing major NOx emitting facilities under PADEP’s 25 Pa.A Code, Chapter 129: Standards for Major Sources of NOx and VOCs, Additional Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements. The compressor station is an existing Title V facility. Following construction of the Project, the facility would remain a major Title V facility. Texas Eastern would apply for a minor modification to the Title V Permit once construction is complete.

7.3. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Project construction would result in temporary, localized emissions that would last the duration of construction activities (i.e., 15 months). Exhaust emissions would be generated by the use of heavy equipment and trucks powered by diesel or gasoline engines. Exhaust emissions would also be generated by delivery vehicles and construction workers commuting to and from work areas.

Construction activities would also result in the temporary generation of fugitive

dust due to vegetation clearing and grading, ground excavation, and driving on unpaved

9 “PSD Questions” Memorandum from Mr. Edward Reich, Director, Division of Stationary Source

Enforcement, Office of Enforcement, EPA, to Mr. Merrill Hohman, Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region I, EPA, April 1, 1981.

10 Available in Resource Report 9 and appendix 9A of accession number 20210115-5244.

36

roads. The amount of dust generated would be a function of construction activity, soil type, soil moisture content, wind speed, precipitation, vehicle traffic and types, and roadway characteristics. Emissions would be greater during dry periods and in areas of fine-textured soils subject to surface activity.

Construction emissions were estimated based on the fuel type and anticipated

frequency, duration, capacity, and levels of use of various types of construction equipment. Detailed construction emissions are available in Texas Eastern’s application.11 Estimated emissions for each Project construction activity for each year are summarized in table 7 below. These estimated emissions include exhaust emissions and fugitive dust from on-road and off-road construction equipment, vehicles and exhaust emissions from construction worker commutes and vehicles used to deliver equipment/materials to the site, fugitive methane emissions due to blowdowns and purging, and commissioning blowdowns.

11 Available in Resource Report 9 and appendix 9B of accession number 20210115-5244

37

Table 7 Project Construction Emissions

Emissions (tpy) NOx CO VOC PM10 PM2.5 SO2 HAP CO2e

2021 Non-road and On-road Emissions 0.75 0.50 0.07 0.05 0.04 <0.01 0.03 474.90

Fugitive Dust N/A N/A N/A 14.60 1.60 N/A N/A N/A Blowdown and Commissioning Emissions

N/A N/A 0.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 597.3

Commuting Emissions 0.12 1.59 0.08 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 116.80

Subtotal 0.87 2.09 0.75 14.66 1.64 <0.01 0.03 1,189.00 2022

Non-road and On-road Emissions 4.12 2.61 0.46 0.26 0.25 <0.01 0.18 2,292.40

Fugitive Dust N/A N/A N/A 30.90 3.50 N/A N/A N/A Blowdown and Commissioning Emissions

N/A N/A 6.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6,749.8

Commuting Emissions 0.47 6.15 0.31 0.04 0.01 <0.01 0.02 452.30

Subtotal 4.59 8.76 6.97 31.20 3.76 <0.01 0.20 9,494.50 2023 Non-road and On-road Emissions 0.99 0.60 0.08 0.06 0.06 <0.01 0.04 498.00

Fugitive Dust N/A N/A N/A 14.60 1.60 N/A N/A N/A Blowdown Emissions N/A N/A 2.70 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,432.00

Commuting Emissions 0.13 1.69 0.09 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 124.00

Subtotal 1.12 2.29 2.87 14.67 1.66 <0.01 0.04 3,054.00 Total 6.58 13.14 10.59 60.53 7.07 0.01 0.27 13,737.50

Construction emissions shown in table 7 would be temporary and are not expected

to result in a degradation of ambient air quality. Texas Eastern also stated that it would utilize ultra-low sulfur diesel in construction equipment and would utilize non-road engines either retrofitted with best available technology or certified to meet EPA’s Tier IV Exhaust Emissions Standards. Texas Eastern would also limit idling of engines to a maximum of 5 minutes or whenever the construction equipment is not in use. In addition, Texas Eastern states construction equipment would be properly tuned and operated only on an as-needed basis.

38

Texas Eastern would also implement measures outlined in its Fugitive Dust Control Plan to reduce fugitive emissions, including:

• application of water to disturbed work areas and unpaved access roads; • control tracking of soil onto roads; • maintain low speeds (5 miles per hour) in unpaved areas; • prevent motor vehicle use when unnecessary in unpaved areas; • remove soil from the exteriors of vehicles/construction equipment prior to

moving off the right-of-way; • remove spilled or tracked dirt and construction debris from paved streets;

and • minimize soil disturbance.

Construction emissions would occur over the duration of construction and would

be emitted at different times and locations throughout the Project area. Construction emissions would be minor and would result in short-term, localized impacts in the immediate vicinity of the Project facilities. With the mitigation measures proposed by Texas Eastern, we conclude that air quality impacts from construction would be temporary and would not result in significant impacts on local or regional air quality.

Lastly, the EPA recommended a general conformity applicability analysis for applicable pollutants and precursors of the Project’s construction emissions. Because the Project is in an attainment area, a general conformity applicability analysis is not required for the Project.

7.4. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Project operation would result in a reduction of air emissions due to the replacement of the existing, antiquated compressor units at the compressor station with new, more efficient units with emissions controls. Fugitive emissions are minor leaks that would occur at valves, seals, and other piping components at the compressor station. The compressor station would continue to have minor fugitive emissions from meters and regulators, valves, and other piping components and from operations and maintenance activities that may occur. Section A.1 lists the equipment that Texas Eastern proposes to install and retire.

Table 8 summarizes the proposed potential to emit (PTE), in tpy, of the existing facility and the facility following completion of the proposed Project. Estimates of the emissions from blowdowns and fugitive emissions are included in the emissions estimates presented in table 8.

39

Table 8 Pre- and Post-Project Facility Wide Potential to Emit at the Station

Emission Unit NOX CO VOC b PM10/ PM2.5 SO2 c Total

HAPs CO2e

(tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) Existing Perulack Compressor Station a

937 218 131 18 12 30 299,986

Post-Project Compressor Station

237 158 99 17 25 27 263,887

Difference in PTE -700 -60 -32 -1 13 -3 -36,099 a Pre-project PTE for all pollutants except VOC is based on facility PTE information provided in last Title V renewal application (submitted 1/22/2018). b VOC pre-project PTE reflects limits taken in RACT II Minor Mod issued in November 2016. c Increase in SO2 PTE is a result of changing the calculation methodology. Previously, SO2 was calculated using AP-42 emission factors, new methodology uses sulfur content allowed in Tariff. The PTE numbers are consistent with the state air permits.

The Project would result in the reduction of the majority of pollutant emissions, with the exception of SO2. Best available control technology requirements, as established in 25 Pa. Code 121.11 would apply to NOx and VOC emissions from the new turbine compressor units. Emissions would also be minimized through the use of SoLoNOx combustion technology to control NOx and CO emissions from the new compressor units. The new compressor units would also be equipped with oxidation catalysts to further reduce CO, VOC, and HAP emissions. Because the Project would generally result in an overall emissions reduction, including a 75 percent reduction in NOx emissions, Texas Eastern did not complete an air quality model, which we find appropriate.

Texas Eastern participates in the EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program to share best practices for methane reduction technologies. Texas Eastern would also minimize fugitive equipment leaks at the Perulack Compressor Station by implementing, at a minimum, annual leak surveys. In addition, Texas Eastern reports GHG emissions as required by 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W and would comply with 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart 0000a.

The Project would also result in blowdowns in order to conduct preventative maintenance checks and to complete needed maintenance. The quantity of gas released during these planned blowdowns would be minimized using the following methods:

• conducting annual emergency shutdown system tests while the blowdown vents are capped to prevent gas release;

• utilizing pump-down techniques to lower gas line pressure before maintenance;

• executing pressurized holds on compressor units;

40

• scheduling multiple maintenance activities concurrently; and • performing routine inspection and testing of blowdown systems

electronically.

In addition, unplanned, emergency blowdowns can occur at the compressor station when an automated operating system detects an abnormal condition and engages the designed safety features of the facility.

Based on the reduction of emissions as a result of the replacement of the antiquated compressor units with new ones, the Project would result in a general reduction of most pollutant emissions, especially with regards to NOx, and we find that the Project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS. Therefore, we conclude the Project would not result in significant impacts on air quality, but would result in a reduction of pollutant emissions and would generally improve existing ambient air quality in the Project area.

7.5. CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change is the variation in climate (including temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind, and other meteorological variables) over time, whether due to natural variability, human activities, or a combination of both, and cannot be characterized by an individual event or anomalous weather pattern. For example, a severe drought or abnormally hot summer in a particular region is not a certain indication of climate change. However, a series of severe droughts or hot summers that statistically alter the trend in average precipitation or temperature over decades may indicate climate change. Recent research has begun to attribute certain extreme weather events to climate change (U.S. Global Change Research Program [USGCRP], 2018).

The leading U.S. scientific body on climate change is the USGCRP, composed of

representatives from 13 federal departments and agencies.12 The Global Change Research Act of 1990 requires the USGCRP to submit a report to the President and Congress no less than every 4 years that “1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the USGCRP; 2) analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and 3) analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.” These reports describe the state of the science relating to climate change and the effects of climate change on

12 The USGCRP member agencies are: Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce,

Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of the Interior, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Smithsonian Institution, and U.S. Agency for International Development.

41

different regions of the United States and on various societal and environmental sectors, such as water resources, agriculture, energy use, and human health.

In 2017 and 2018, the USGCRP issued its Climate Science Special Report:

Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volumes I and II (Fourth Assessment Report; USGCRP 2017, and USGCRP 2018, respectively). The Fourth Assessment Report states that climate change has resulted in a wide range of impacts across every region of the country. Those impacts extend beyond atmospheric climate change alone and include changes to water resources, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health. The U.S. and the world are warming, global sea level is rising and acidifying, and certain weather events are becoming more frequent and more severe. These changes are driven by accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere through combustion of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas), combined with agriculture, clearing of forests, and other natural sources. These impacts have accelerated throughout the end of the 20th and into the 21st century (USGCRP 2018).

GHGs were identified by the EPA as pollutants in the context of climate change.

GHG emissions do not result in proportional local and immediate impacts; it is the combined concentration in the atmosphere that affects the global climate system. These are fundamentally global impacts that feedback to local and regional climate change impacts. Thus, the geographic scope for analysis of GHG emissions is global, rather than local or regional. For example, a project 1 mile away emitting 1 ton of GHGs would contribute to climate change in a similar manner as a project 2,000 miles distant also emitting 1 ton of GHGs.

Climate change is a global phenomenon; however, for this analysis, we will focus

on the existing and potential climate change impacts in the general Project area. The USGCRP’s Fourth Assessment Report notes the following observations of environmental impacts are attributed to climate change in the Northeast region of the United States (USGCRP 2017, USGCRP 2018):

• increases in annual average temperatures across the Northeast range from

less than 1 °F (0.6 °C) in West Virginia to about 3 °F (1.7 °C) or more in New England since 1901;

• from 1958 to 2016, the northeast experienced a 55 percent increase in the amount of precipitation falling in heavy events (the greatest increase in the nation) and 5 to 20 percent increase in average winter precipitation;

• warming during the winter–spring transition has led to earlier snowmelt-related runoff in areas of the Northeast with substantial snowpack; and

• ocean and coastal ecosystems are being affected by large changes in a variety of climate-related environmental conditions.

42

The USGCRP’S Fourth Assessment Report notes the following projections of climate change impacts in the Project region (Northeast US) with a high or very high level of confidence13 (USGCRP, 2018):

• precipitation in the Northeast is projected to be about 1 inch greater for

December through April by end of century (2070–2100) under the higher scenario14;

• temperatures are projected to increase by 5.1°F (2.8°C) by the 2090s under the higher scenario and would increase by 4.0°F if emissions were decreased;

• by the middle of the century, the freeze-free period across much of the Northeast is expected to lengthen by as much as two weeks under the lower scenario and by two to three weeks under the higher scenario. By the end of the century, the freeze-free period is expected to increase by at least three weeks over most of the region;

• higher than average sea level rise along the Northeastern coast will occur due to land subsidence; and

• much of the infrastructure in the Northeast, including drainage and sewer systems, flood and storm protection assets, transportation systems, and power supply, is nearing the end of its planned life expectancy; climate-related disruptions will only exacerbate existing issues with aging infrastructure.

It should be noted that while the impacts described above taken individually may be manageable for certain communities, the impacts of compound extreme events (such as simultaneous heat and drought, or flooding associated with high precipitation on top of saturated soils) can be greater than the sum of the parts (USGCRP, 2018).

The GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project

were identified and quantified in section B.7 of the EA. Construction would result in GHG emissions during the temporary period of construction activities (e.g. 15 months) as a result of equipment and commuting exhaust, blowdowns, and commissioning activities. However, operation of the Project would permanently decrease the atmospheric

13 The report authors assessed current scientific understanding of climate change based on available scientific literature. Each “Key Finding” listed in the report is accompanied by a confidence statement indicating the consistency of evidence or the consistency of model projections. A high level of confidence results from “moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/or documentation limited, etc.), medium consensus.” A very high level of confidence results from “strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent results, well documented and accepted methods, etc.), high consensus.” https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/front-matter-guide/. 14 The higher scenario represents a future where annual GHG emissions increase significantly throughout the 21st century before leveling off by 2100; the other scenarios represent more rapid and substantial mitigation by mid-century.

43

concentration of GHGs compared to present operating conditions. In order to assess impacts on climate change associated with the Project, Commission staff considered whether it could identify discrete physical impacts resulting from the Project’s GHG emissions or compare the Project’s GHG emissions to established targets designed to combat climate change.

To date, Commission staff has not identified a methodology to attribute discrete,

quantifiable, physical effects on the environment resulting from a project’s incremental contribution to GHGs. We have looked at atmospheric modeling used by the EPA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others, and we found that these models are not reasonable for project-level analysis for a number of reasons. For example, these global models are not suited to determine the incremental impact of individual projects, due to both scale and overwhelming complexity. We also reviewed simpler models and mathematical techniques to determine global physical effects caused by GHG emissions, such as increases in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations, atmospheric forcing, or ocean CO2 absorption. We could not identify a reliable, less complex model for this task and thus staff could not determine specific localized or regional physical impacts from GHG emissions from the Project. Without the ability to determine discrete resource impacts, Commission staff are unable to assess the Project’s contribution to climate change through any objective analysis of physical impact.

We note that there have been a series of recent administrative changes and we

continue to evaluate their impact on our review process. For example, on January 20, 2021, President Biden issued the Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis (EO 13990) and on January 27, 2021, the Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (EO 14008). Amongst other objectives, the Executive Orders call for a net-zero emission economy and a carbon-free electricity sector. In addition, on January 20, 2021, President Biden announced that the U.S. will rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement (Agreement), enabling the U.S. to be a party to the Agreement on February 19, 2021. The Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.15 On April 20, 2021 the U.S. proposed establishing an economy-wide target of reducing net GHG emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.16 In addition, the state of Pennsylvania in 2019 enacted climate targets for reducing GHG emissions to 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The construction-related

15 Additional information is available at https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-

agreement. 16 The United States of America Nationally Determined Contribution (Apr. 20, 2021), available at https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/United%20States%20of%20America%20First/United%20States%20NDC%20April%2021%202021%20Final.pdf (accessed May 19, 2021).

44

emissions of the project could potentially increase CO2e emissions based on the 2019 levels by 0.0002 percent at the national level,17 however, thereafter, the Project’s operation would result in an annual decrease of up to 36,099 CO2e tpy (or 32,748.5 metric tpy).

8.0 NOISE

Noise is generally defined as sound with intensity greater than the ambient or background sound pressure level. Construction and operation of the Project would affect overall noise levels in the Project area. The magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day, throughout the week, and across seasons, in part due to changing weather conditions and the effects of seasonal vegetative cover. Two measures that relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise to its known effect on people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) and day-night sound level (Ldn). The Leq is an A-weighted sound level containing the same energy as the instantaneous sound levels measured over a specific time period. Noise levels are perceived differently, depending on length of exposure and time of day. The Ldn takes into account the duration and time the noise is encountered. Specifically, the Ldn is the Leq plus a 10-decibel on the A-weighted scale (dBA) penalty added to account for people’s greater sensitivity to nighttime sound levels (typically considered between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). The A-weighted scale is used to assess noise impacts because human hearing is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than mid-range frequencies. The human ear’s threshold of perception for noise change is considered to be 3 dBA; 6 dBA is clearly noticeable to the human ear, and 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling of noise (Bies and Hansen, 1988).

8.1. FEDERAL NOISE REGULATIONS

In 1974, the EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA, 1974). This document provides information for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. The EPA has indicated that an Ldn of 55 dBA protects the public from indoor and outdoor activity interference. We have adopted this criterion and use it to evaluate the potential noise impacts from the proposed Project at noise sensitive areas (NSAs). NSAs are defined as homes, schools, churches, or any location where people reside or gather. FERC does not have noise requirements relevant to typical facility construction, but does require that the noise attributable to any new or modified compressor engine during full load operation not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA at any NSAs. Due to the 10 dBA nighttime penalty added prior to the logarithmic

17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2019 a t ES-9 (Table ES-2) (2021), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-main-text.pdf (accessed May 20, 2021).

45

calculation of the Ldn, for a facility to meet the 55 dBA Ldn limit, it must be designed such that actual constant noise levels on a 24-hour basis do not exceed 48.6 dBA Leq at any NSA. There are no state or local noise ordnances that apply to the Project.

Operation of the Project would comply with applicable noise ordinances as

described above. FERC’s noise requirements are specific to individual NSAs, which are described below.

8.2. AMBIENT NOISE CONDITIONS

The nearest NSAs are between 1,200 feet to 1,650 feet from the Perulack Compressor Station.18 Daytime noise data at the NSAs were collected by Texas Eastern in July 2020 while the existing compressor station was operating four compressor units for a limited time frame. The compressor station was operating at a typical hp capacity (not maximum capacity); however, Texas Eastern scaled up their measurements to assume maximum hp conditions. Texas Eastern also estimated the ambient noise levels without any noise contribution from the existing compressor station using measured levels and/or standard estimates of noise based on land use. The results of the noise surveys are presented in table 9 below.

8.3. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Noise would be generated during construction of the Project. Construction activities would be concurrent over a 15-month period at the Station site and would result in an increase in ambient noise. Construction noise is highly variable as equipment operates intermittently. The type of equipment operating at any location changes with each construction phase. While individuals in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities would experience an increase in noise, this impact would be temporary and localized. Texas Eastern would employ standard heavy construction equipment to complete construction, with the internal combustion engines generating the greatest noise levels.

Texas Eastern anticipates that the majority of Project construction would occur

during the daytime between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m, Monday through Saturday. However, Texas Eastern anticipates the need for some limited and intermittent nighttime work occurring, including the following:

• hydrostatic and/or pneumatic pressures testing; • welding; • X-ray activities including non-destructive testing of welds;

18 Note: the distances here differ from those in section B.5 because these are the distance to the compressor station building where noise would be generated, not the nearest building.

46

• depressurization of pipelines; and • electrical or similar work inside building structures. These proposed activities would not generate significant noise and would not

likely result in impacts on NSAs at night. Work hours/days may also be extended to due to construction schedule constraints. Based on the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities, we conclude construction noise due to the Project would not result in significant noise impacts on nearby residents or communities.

8.4. OPERATION NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

The Project would generate noise on a continuous basis (i.e., up to 24 hours per day) when operating. The noise impact associated with the Project would attenuate with distance. Noise generated from the Project would result primarily from the following operational noise sources:

• new turbine/compressor units; • turbine exhaust and exhaust duct; • gas piping and associated components; • lube oil cooler; • gas aftercoolers, and • air intake systems.

The results of the ambient sound survey were used in determining the proposed

Project’s noise impacts on nearby NSAs. Based on manufacturers’ data, Texas Eastern determined the noise levels due to operation of the new proposed equipment at the Perulack Compressor Station. The results of the existing sound survey were then combined with the predicted noise impacts from the modified station (including proposed new equipment) to determine the noise impacts from operation of the Station at each NSA. The results of the operational noise analysis are provided below in table 9.

Lastly, Texas Eastern would install the following noise control measures, as recommended by their noise consultant:

• enclosing the new turbine compressor units inside an acoustically-insulated metal building, constructed from appropriate building materials, including Sound Transmission Class-36 insulated personnel entry doors and an insulated overhead door;

• installing an adequate silencer system on building air exhaust fans and building air supply fan hoods;

• installing an adequate silencer system on each turbine air intake and exhaust system;

47

• covering outdoor aboveground gas piping and exposed metal pipe supports with acoustical pipe insulation;

• installing a low-noise gas aftercooler; • installing a low-noise lube oil cooler for each new turbine compressor unit;

and • installing silencers on blowdown separators.

Table 9 Noise Analysis for the Proposed Modifications at the Station

NSA Type

Distance and

Direction from New Units

Estimated Sound Level of Existing

Station During

Maximum Load

Operation (dBA Ldn)1

Estimated Station Sound

Level After Project

Modifications (dBA Ldn)

Estimated Ambient Sound Levels

with No Station

Operation (dBA Ldn)2

Total Estimated Sound Level after Project

Modifications, including

Ambient Sound Levels (dBA

Ldn)

Predicted Change in

Ldn Between Existing

and Modified Station Sound Levels (dBA)

NSA 1 residence 1,200 feet east 57.2 48.8 45 50.3 -6.9

NSA 2 residence 1,650 feet

east northeast

60.7 45.3 45 48.2 -12.5

NSA 3 residences 1,300 feet north 62.1 47.9 50 52.1 -10

1 = Sound level was estimated based on measured sound levels during less than maximum operation of the station. The existing units were grandfathered in to FERC’s noise regulations and thus are exempt from the 55 dBA Ldn requirement. 2 = Ambient sound levels assuming no station operation were estimated based on existing land use categories.

The operational noise analysis in table 9 indicates that both the noise contribution from the new turbine compressor units and the total noise (including ambient noise) would be less than 55 dBA Ldn at all NSAs. Additionally, table 9 indicates that following Project modifications, the total noise from the Perulack Compressor Station during full load operation would be reduced from between 6.9 to 12.5 dBA at all NSAs.

While the analysis above shows that noise impacts at the NSAs from the Project modifications at the compressor station would be below our 55 dBA requirement, to verify compliance with the FERC’s noise standards, we recommend that:

48

• Texas Eastern should file noise surveys with the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) no later than 60 days after placing the modified Perulack Compressor Station into service. If a full power load condition noise survey is not possible, Texas Eastern should file an interim survey at the maximum possible power load within 60 days of placing the modified station into service and file the full power load survey within 6 months. If the noise from all the equipment operated at the compressor station under interim or full power load conditions exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSA, Texas Eastern should:

a. file a report with the Secretary, for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, on what changes are needed;

b. install additional noise controls to meet that level within 1 year of the in-service date; and

c. confirm compliance with the Ldn of 55 dBA requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls.

Blowdown events would generate noise at the compressor station and occur when pressure in the compressor casing, piping, or the entire compressor station must be released in a controlled manner. Blowdown events cause a temporary increase in sound levels that would typically last for about 1 to 5 minutes. Because of the short duration and infrequent occurrence, we do not believe that blowdown events would be a significant contributor to operational noise from the Project. Texas Eastern estimates that the noise associated with a blowdown would be approximately 45 dBA Leq at the closest NSA.

Based on the predicted noise impacts at the Perulack Compressor Station, which would result in an overall decrease in operational noise levels in the Project vicinity, the limited duration and timing of construction activities, the sound mitigation measures proposed by Texas Eastern, and the recommendation stated above, we conclude that construction or operation of the proposed Project would not result in significant noise impacts on residents or the surrounding communities.

8.5. VIBRATION

The EPA commented that vibration from the Project should be evaluated. Texas Eastern states that frequencies of 31.5 hertz and 63 hertz at or above 65 and 70 decibels, respectively, may result in vibration. The estimated frequencies at the NSAs are below this criterion. Consequently, the foundations and floor slabs would absorb vibration, if any, and should prevent the movement of vibration beyond the immediate compressor

49

building. Therefore, the proposed Project would not likely result in vibration impacts on nearby NSAs.

9.0 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY

The pressurization of natural gas at a compressor station involves some incremental risk to the public due to the potential for accidental release of natural gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a major pipeline rupture.

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and

tasteless. It is not toxic, but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. Methane has an auto-ignition temperature of 1,000 oF and is flammable at concentrations between 5.0 and 15.0 percent in air. An unconfined mixture of methane and air is not explosive; however, it may ignite and burn if there is an ignition source. A flammable concentration within an enclosed space in the presence of an ignition source can explode. It is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air.

9.1. SAFETY STANDARDS

The DOT is mandated to prescribe minimum safety standards to protect against risks posed by natural gas facilities under Title 49 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 601. The DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other hazardous materials by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other approaches to risk management that ensure safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of natural gas facilities. Many of the regulations are written as performance standards, which set the level of safety to be attained and allow the operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s safety mission is to ensure that people and the environment are protected from the risk of incidents. This work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level.

9.1.1. Station Design The piping and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project would

be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures. The DOT specifies material selection and qualification; minimum design requirements; and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion.

50

Part 192 of 49 CFR establishes safety guidelines for the design and construction of compressor stations in addition to pipeline safety standards. Part 192.163 requires the location of each main compressor building of a compressor station be on a property under the control of the operator. The compressor station must also be far enough away from adjacent property, not under control of the operator, to minimize the possibility of fire spreading to the compressor building from structures on adjacent properties. Part 192.163 also requires each building on a compressor station site be made of specific building materials and to have at least two separate and unobstructed exits. The compressor station must be in an enclosed fenced area and must have at least two gates to provide a safe exit during an emergency.

9.2. EMERGENCIES

The DOT prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline and aboveground natural gas facilities, including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Each operator is required to establish an emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards of a natural gas emergency. Key elements of the plan include procedures for:

• receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, and natural disasters;

• establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, and coordinating emergency response;

• emergency system shutdown and safe restoration of service; • making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of

an emergency; and • protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual

or potential hazards. The DOT requires that each operator establish and maintain liaison with

appropriate fire, police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may respond to a natural gas pipeline or facility emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. Texas Eastern must also establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas emergency and report it to the appropriate public officials. Texas Eastern would provide the appropriate training to local emergency service personnel before the Project is placed in service.

With continued compliance with DOT safety standards, operation, and maintenance requirements, the Project would be constructed and operated safely.

51

C. ALTERNATIVES

In accordance with NEPA and Commission policy, we evaluated alternatives to the Project to determine whether they would be reasonable and environmentally preferable to the proposed action. These alternatives included the no-action alternative, system alternatives, and site alternatives. The evaluation criteria used for developing and reviewing alternatives were:

• ability to meet the Project’s stated objective; • technical and economic feasibility and practicality; and • significant environmental advantage over the proposed action.

Through environmental comparison and application of our professional judgment, each alternative is considered to a point where it becomes clear if the alternative could or could not meet the three evaluation criteria. To ensure a consistent environmental comparison and to normalize the comparison factors, we generally use desktop sources of information (e.g., publicly available data, geographic information system data, aerial imagery) and assume the same general workspace requirements.

1.1. NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the proposed facilities would not be constructed, and the environmental impacts associated with the Project would not occur. However, the Project’s objectives would not be met. The no-action alternative would prevent this portion of the Texas Eastern system from remaining in compliance with the Title V Permit for the Station (#34-05002), which specifically requires that the four existing compressor units be permanently shut down by January 1, 2024. This would prevent Texas Eastern from continuing operations of the pipeline and allowing delivery of natural gas to existing customers. Additionally, without replacement of the compressor units, Texas Eastern would not be able to meet the Pennsylvania RACT regulations to reduce NO2 emissions. The no-action alternative would not meet the Project’s purpose and need and would not result in lower NO2 emissions. Therefore, we have dismissed this alternative as a reasonable alternative to meet the Project objectives.

1.2. SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of existing, modified, or proposed Project(s) systems to meet the stated objective of the proposed Project. System alternatives involve the transportation of the equivalent volume of natural gas by the modification or expansion of existing pipeline systems or by other new pipeline systems. Any other systems would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed Project to reduce emissions and meet the Pennsylvania RACT regulations. Additionally, we have not identified other systems that would be able to meet the

52

transportation needs of this Project. Therefore, this alternative has been removed from further consideration.

1.3. SITE ALTERNATIVES

As discussed in section B above, the majority of construction would occur within existing Perulack Compressor Station facilities and previously disturbed areas. Our review of the Project found that environmental impacts associated with the Project have been minimized.

In its comment letter, the EPA recommended an adverse impacts analysis on the preferred alternative (the Project). Section B of the EA discusses impacts of the Project on resources and mitigation measures. As stated in section A.4., impacts on these various resources are unavoidable given the nature of the construction necessary to achieve the purpose and need for the Project. As stated throughout this EA, Texas Eastern has minimized impacts on resources to the greatest extent practicable. No additional adverse impacts analysis would be necessary for this Project.

Based on the limited environmental impact associated with this Project, we did not

identify any unresolved resource conflicts that would present a need to examine further alternatives. Because the impacts associated with the proposed Project are not significant, we did not evaluate additional alternatives. Therefore, we conclude that the Project is the preferred alternative to meet the Project objectives.

53

D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the analysis in this EA, we have determined that if Texas Eastern abandons, constructs, and operates the proposed facilities in accordance with its application and supplements, and the staff’s recommended mitigation measures below, approval of the Project would not constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We recommend that the Commission Order contain a finding of no significant impact and include the measures listed below as conditions in any authorization the Commission may issue to Texas Eastern.

1. Texas Eastern shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures

described in its application and supplements (including responses to staff data requests) and as identified in the EA, unless modified by the Order. Texas Eastern must: a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a

filing with the Secretary; b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of

environmental protection than the original measure; and d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP, or the Director’s

designee, before using that modification.

2. The Director of OEP, or the Director’s designee, has delegated authority to address any requests for approvals or authorizations necessary to carry out the conditions of the Order, and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the protection of environmental resources during abandonment, construction, and operation of the Project. This authority shall allow: a. the modification of conditions of the Order; b. stop-work authority; and c. the imposition of any additional measures deemed necessary to ensure

continued compliance with the intent of the conditions of the Order as well as the avoidance or mitigation of unforeseen adverse environmental impact resulting from Project abandonment, construction, and operation.

3. Prior to any construction or abandonment, Texas Eastern shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and contractor personnel will be informed of the EI’s authority and have been or will be trained on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before becoming involved with construction and restoration activities.

54

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EA, as supplemented by

filed Project plot plans. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, Texas Eastern shall file with the Secretary any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station positions for all facilities approved by the Order. All requests for modifications of environmental conditions of the Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets.

5. Texas Eastern shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not been previously identified in filings with the Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a description of the existing land use/cover type, documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by the Director of OEP, or the Director’s designee, before construction in or near that area.

This requirement does not apply to extra workspaces allowed by the Commission’s Plan and/or minor field realignments per landowner needs and requirements that do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands.

Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility location changes resulting from:

a. implementation of cultural resource mitigation measures; b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species

mitigation measures; c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and d. agreements with individuals landowners that affect other landowners or

could affect sensitive environmental areas.

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of this authorization and before abandonment by removal or construction begins, Texas Eastern shall file an Implementation Plan with the Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of the OEP, or the Director’s designee. Texas Eastern must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify:

55

a. how Texas Eastern will implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its application and supplements (including responses to staff data requests), identified in the EA, and required by the Order;

b. how Texas Eastern will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite construction and inspection personnel;

c. the number of EIs assigned, and how the company will ensure that sufficient personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation;

d. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the appropriate material;

e. the location and dates of the environmental compliance training and instructions Texas Eastern will give to all personnel involved with construction and restoration (initial and refresher training as the Project progresses and personnel change);

f. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Texas Eastern’s organization having responsibility for compliance;

g. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Texas Eastern will follow if noncompliance occurs; and

h. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar Project scheduling diagram), and dates for:

i. the completion of all required surveys and reports; ii. the environmental compliance training of onsite personnel;

iii. the start of construction; and iv. the start and completion of restoration.

7. Texas Eastern shall employ at least one EI. The EI shall be:

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing documents;

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor’s implementation of the environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 above) and any other authorizing document;

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the Order, and any other authorizing document;

d. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies; and

e. responsible for maintaining status reports.

56

8. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Texas Eastern shall file

updated status reports with the Secretary on a monthly basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On request, these status reports will also be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall include: a. an update on Texas Eastern’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal

authorizations; b. the construction status of the Project, work planned for the following

reporting period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally sensitive areas;

c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by the EI during the reporting period both for the conditions imposed by the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies;

d. a description of the corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of noncompliance;

e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; f. a description of any landowner/resident complaints which may relate to

compliance with the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and

g. copies of any correspondence received by Texas Eastern from other federal, state, or local permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Texas Eastern’s response.

9. Texas Eastern must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP, or the

Director’s designee, before commencing construction or abandonment by removal of any Project facilities. To obtain such authorization, Texas Eastern must file with the Secretary documentation that it has received all applicable authorizations required under federal law (or evidence of waiver thereof).

10. Texas Eastern must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP, or the

Director’s designee, before placing the Project into service. Such authorization will only be granted following a determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the areas affected by the Project are proceeding satisfactorily.

11. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities in service, Texas Eastern

shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior company official:

57

a. that the facilities have been constructed/abandoned in compliance with all applicable conditions, and that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or

b. identifying which of the conditions in the Order Texas Eastern has complied with or will comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the Project where compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance.

12. Within 5 days of receipt of a water quality certification issued by the

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Texas Eastern shall file the complete certification, including all conditions, for review by the Director of OEP, or the Director’s designee, under 40 CFR 121.9. All conditions attached to the water quality certification except those that the Director of OEP, or the Director’s designee, may identify as waived pursuant to 40 CFR 121.9, constitute mandatory conditions of this Certificate Order. Prior to construction, Texas Eastern shall file, for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, or the Director’s designee, any revisions to its Project design necessary to comply with the water quality certification conditions.

13. Texas Eastern shall file noise surveys with the Secretary no later than 60 days

after placing the modified Perulack Compressor Station into service. If a full power load condition noise survey is not possible, Texas Eastern shall file an interim survey at the maximum possible power load within 60 days of placing the modified station into service and file the full power load survey within 6 months. If the noise from all the equipment operated at the station under interim or full power load condition exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSA, Texas Eastern shall:

a. file a report with the Secretary, for review and written approval by the

Director of OEP, on what changes are needed; b. install additional noise controls to meet that level within 1 year of the in-

service date; and c. confirm compliance with the Ldn of 55 dBA requirement by filing a second

noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls.

58

E. REFERENCES

Berg, T. M., Edmunds, W. E., Geyer, A. R., and others, compilers. 1980. Geologic map of Pennsylvania (2nd ed.): Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Map 1, 3 sheets, scale 1:250,000. http://www.docs.dcnr.pa.gov/topogeo/publications/pgspub/map/map1/index.htm. Accessed April 2021.

Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 1988. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice.

Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania, Andrew D. Wilson, Daniel W.

Brauning, and Robert D. Mulvhill, Eds. 2012. Pennsylvania State University Press. Available online at http://www.pabirdatlas.psu.edu/. Accessed March 2021

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974.

EPA. 2020a. Sole Source Aquifers. https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047ba3ec41ada1877155fe31356b. Accessed April 2021.

EPA. 2020b. NAAQS Table. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed May 2020.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. National Flood Hazard Layer Interactive Viewer. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed October 2020.

Miller, James A. 1999. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Introduction and National Summary. https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_a/. Accessed April 2021.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020. Web Soil Survey Geographic Database. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 2021.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources [PADCNR]. 2018. Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania. http://www.docs.dcnr.pa.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_016202.pdf. Accessed April 2021.

59

PADCNR. 2020a. Pa DCNR Interactive Map. Karst Features. https://www.gis.dcnr.state.pa.us/pageode/. Accessed April 2021.

PADCNR. 2020b. Pennsylvania Groundwater Information System. https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Conservation/Water/Groundwater/PAGroundwaterInformationSystem/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed October 2020.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). 2020a. Mine Subsidence Program. http://www.depgis.state.pa.us/msiRisk/. Accessed October 2020.

PADEP. 2020b. Industrial Mineral Mining Operations digital database. Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access: The Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=278. Accessed October 2020.

PADEP. 2020c. Coal Mining Operations digital database. Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access: The Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=271. Accessed October 2020.

PADEP. 2020d. Active Underground Permit Boundaries digital database. Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access: The Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=259. Accessed October 2020.

PADEP. 2020e. Abandoned Mine Land Inventory Sites spatial dataset. Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access: The Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/DataSummary.aspx?dataset=460. Accessed October 2020.

PADEP. 2020f. Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Mapping. http://www.depgis.state.pa.us/paoilandgasmapping/. Accessed October 2020.

PADEP. 2021. eMapPA – Web-based GIS Application. http://www.depgis.state.pa.us/emappa/. Accessed April 2021.

Pennsylvania State University. 2014. Pennsylvania Mine Map Atlas. http://www.paminemaps.psu.edu/. Accessed October 2020.

Sevon, W. D., compiler, 1989, Surficial materials of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Map 64, scale 1:2,000,000. http://maps.dcnr.pa.gov/publications/Default.aspx?id=738. Accessed April 2021.

U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]. 2011. Mineral Resource Data System. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/. Accessed October 2020.

60

USGS. 2018. Seismic-Hazards Maps for the Conterminous United States.

https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5d5597d0e4b01d82ce8e3ff1. Accessed April 2021.

USGS. 2020. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed April 2021.

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory [PNDI]. 2020. Online viewer operated by the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program [PNHP]. Available online at: https://conservationexplorer.dcnr.pa.gov/. Accessed October 2020.

61

F. LIST OF PREPARERS

Poli, Kimberly- Project Manager, Surface Water & Wetlands, Vegetation, Wildlife, Special Status Species, Alternatives

B.S. BioResource Research, 2013, Oregon State University B.A. International Studies, 2013, Oregon State University

Augustino, Kylee – Air Quality, Noise, Reliability and Safety

M.S., Environmental Engineering, 2016, The Johns Hopkins University B.A & Sc., Biology and Geography, 2005, McGill University

Boros, Laurie - Cultural Resources B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, 1980. Queens College, City University of New

York

Griffin, Robin - Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources M.S., Illinois Institute of Technology, 1999, Environmental Management B.A., DePauw University, 1992, English Composition (Minor in Geology)

Jensen, Andrea – Geology, Soils, Groundwater Resources

B.S., Environmental Geology, 2012, College of William and Mary

62

Appendix A

Site Location Map

63

64