This section is a reference section with links to the Tacoma Municipal Code and the Washington Administrative Code. It does not represent all applicable regulations related to SEPA. Please note: the controlling laws and regulations for this FEIS are the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The Federal Law for NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and associated CFR’s (Code of Federal Regulations) are not applicable in this case.

Washington State Law and Administrative Code (WAC)

Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC)

With major development projects, an applicant tells the City during the Pre-Application process that they would like to obtain permits. When the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Official determines that there are likely to be significant adverse impacts to one or more elements of the environment, he or she will make a “determination of significance” which means the applicant must go through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. (“Elements of the Environment” are defined in State law and include both the natural environment, like plants and water quality, and the human environment, like noise and aesthetics).

In the case of Puget Sound Energy (PSE), the City and PSE mutually agreed that an EIS was necessary. The Determination of Significance (DS) was issued based on a determination that potential impacts to public safety and traffic need the in-depth study an EIS would provide.

The Tacoma Municipal Code specifically designates Planning and Development Services as the department to issue and revoke all building permits. When a permit is applied for, or when the intent to apply is stated, the City must also ensure that the required environmental review takes place as background information for all decisions on the permits.

The SEPA Lead Agency, as described in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), is the government agency that has the main responsibility for complying with SEPA’s requirements. The designated lead agency is responsible for the SEPA threshold determination, and for preparing an EIS.

For certain large proposals, the Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) is offered the opportunity to be Lead. In the case of the LNG facility, because the storage capacity exceeds one million gallons, ECY would have been the lead agency automatically. However, ECY can defer Lead Agency status. When this happens, ECY then takes on the responsibility of conferring with all interested parties to determine the most appropriate Lead.

After being provided with the full scope of the LNG project, other permitting agencies (these included other local cities, Pierce County, and other state agencies) declined Lead Agency status. ECY concluded that the City of Tacoma had the capacity to manage the EIS. All Lead Agency determinations were made official in writing on August 6, 2014.

The City is in the best position to represent local interests and factors that are unique to a development situation. The ability to represent local policy and planning values in environmental review is strengthened by the process being lead by local leadership.

It is important to note that by deferring Lead Agency status to another agency, other permitting agencies do not give up their responsibility for environmental review. Each permitting agency in the State of Washington has to ensure that the environmental review for a project meets its standards and needs for its permitting process. In other words, the multiple agencies reviewing the LNG proposal had to be comfortable with adopting the City’s environmental review.

These agencies were invited to comment and participate in the scoping process, the Draft EIS, and the Final EIS. If at any time other agencies determined the review did not meet their permitting requirements, they could have petitioned for Lead status. In addition, during the process of reviewing an existing EIS for additional permits by other agencies, if that agency ever determined its concerns were not addressed, they could ask for a Supplemental EIS to address those concerns.

According to the WAC, the Lead Agency may have an EIS prepared by staff, by the applicant, or by an outside consultant hired by either the applicant or the lead agency. This is also set forth in the City’s environmental code. Due to the amount of time and expertise required to complete a thorough EIS, the City engaged an environmental consultant to prepare the EIS. The City conducted a request for qualification (RFQ) process, interviewed three applicant teams, and selected the final consulting team. While PSE reimbursed the City’s costs for the EIS, the process at all times was managed by City staff, and other reviewing agencies.

The purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement and the related review is to figure out potential project impacts. An EIS requires a study of multiple items that may be impacted by the proposal. These items are called “elements of the environment” and are laid out in state law. In addition, the EIS has very specific procedural requirements. An EIS must include public input and agency review while still providing some predictability and clarity for the applicant.

Washington State law allows for something called “SEPA substantive authority” which means an agency can modify, mitigate, or deny a proposal based upon its environmental impacts. Mitigation may involve almost anything, such as paying impact fees to local school districts, or changing the design of the project to avoid impacts to wetlands or other sensitive areas. Other mitigation may be required by city or county development regulations, or other local, state, or federal laws. Mitigation can also be based on information about adverse environmental impacts in the SEPA document.

However, as noted in the state law, all conditions “shall be based upon policies identified by the appropriate governmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans, or codes which are formally designated by the agency.” This means that any mitigation has to be supported by adopted codes and policies (usually in a comprehensive plan or another planning document).

An EIS is not a permit decision – approval or denial. No development can occur once a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is issued. An FEIS is simply a background document, and individual development permits are still required. Some examples include building permits, air quality permits, stormwater discharge permits, and fire protection permits. The EIS provides information that would allow development permits to be approved, approved with conditions, or denied.

Multiple agencies, including the City, will review a development proposal for compliance with all regulations, in addition to any conditions that are required by the environmental review or by other applicable codes. The LNG proposal has several required mitigation measures (for transportation and public safety impacts). In addition, each individual permit will be (or has been) reviewed for compliance with all applicable codes and policies. 

Public notice of the EIS process was provided as required by the Tacoma Municipal Code and the Washington Administrative Code. The best source for information is the SEPA fact sheet for the FEIS as well as the comments/response section of the FEIS (Chapter 4), and the distribution list (Appendix B).

Mailing/Scoping:

• The mailing list for the Determination of Significance went to approximately 385 people; it was emailed to an additional 25-30 people who were agency, community group, and neighborhood representatives. (This included the Muckleshoot and Puyallup Tribes.)
• There were 28 people who signed up at the scoping meeting on September 24, 2014, but there may have been more in attendance.
• The City received five comment letters about the scope of the EIS. Three additional comment sheets were filled out at the meeting.

Mailing/DEIS:

• The Draft EIS Comment Period ran from July 7, 2015 to August 17, 2015. The Notice of the DEIS was mailed out to about 425 people on July 7, 2015, and emailed to an additional (approximately) 40 people who were agency representatives and neighborhood or community group representatives.
• A Permit Agency meeting was held July 9, 2015
• The public meeting on the DEIS (July 16, 2015) had about 29 people sign in. More people may have been there.
• The City received about 25 letters commenting on the DEIS. At the meeting, four people filled out comment sheets.

Mailing/EIS:

• The Notice of the FEIS was mailed October 26, 2015
• A comment letter (Citizens for a Healthy Bay) was omitted, and the re-issued FEIS was sent out by notice on November 9, 2015
• The notice of the FEIS availability was mailed (both times) to about 500 people and emailed to about 60 more people.
• The Notice of Action (when the City issued the demolition permit) was mailed November 19, 2015 and published in the paper three times (November 19, 23 and 30). Issuance of the demolition permit started the EIS appeal period, which ended on December 21, 2015
• The shoreline permit was issued along with the initial demolition permits.

Other Outreach:

• Two meetings were held specifically with the NE Tacoma Neighborhood Council; staff attended additional meetings at which the project was discussed.
• Two meetings (and multiple conversations) were held with all the permitting agencies including the Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, Fire, etc.
• A staff meeting and a government-to-government consultation were held with the Puyallup Tribal Council.
• The News Tribune was copied on all notices and ran two semi-related stories in 2014.

Ownership of the facility will not impact the construction or operation of the facility, and review of permits and implementation of mitigation will not vary if ownership changes. Any other financial or legal impacts of an ownership change would be under the authority of the WUTC.

Below is a list of the agency, county, city, and tribal representatives that were invited to comment on the EIS. Other staff from the agencies have been involved in review and commenting on various permits:

The City has received several requests to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) based upon the change in scope of the PSE LNG proposal. In short, PSE modified its own proposal through a stipulation filed with the Shorelines Hearings Board which removed the proposed work in the Hylebos Waterway – other than outfall maintenance, shoreline maintenance, and structure removal. (See FAQ 'What is Included in the Shoreline Permitting' for more information.)

Subsequent to the Shorelines Hearings Board’s decision, the City asked for clarification from PSE related to the change in scope, in order to address continued concerns that PSE would be increasing activity in the Blair Waterway, and increasing truck traffic to distribute the LNG to additional customers. 

PSE provided a clarifying response. In summary, the infrastructure in the Blair Waterway is unique to the design of the TOTE ships and cannot be used for other ships or for bunker barges. Further, no additional truck traffic other than that described/analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will take place from the PSE site.

In summary, changes in the PSE project scope have been reductions. SEIS are warranted when there are increases in scope or changes which would otherwise substantially affect the analysis in the FEIS. No such changes have taken place to date.

The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) sets forth the types of Environmental Impact Statements. The WAC says an SEIS: "shall be prepared as an addition to either a draft or final statement if: (a) There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; or (b) There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts."

Preparation rules for an SEIS are in the WAC, which states "an SEIS shall be prepared in the same way as a draft and final EIS (WAC 197-11-400 to 197-11-600), except that scoping is optional. The SEIS should not include analysis of actions, alternatives, or impacts that is in the previously prepared EIS." This means the scope of an SEIS would be limited to only a review of the new information or the changes in the proposal.

To date, the only changes from the LNG proposal  set forth in the FEIS have been reductions in scope and impacts; thus there is not cause to believe that a reduced-scale project would have additional significant adverse impacts. To date, no new information has been discovered which would alter the original analyses of the Elements of the Environment as contained in the FEIS.

It should be noted that, under Washington law, the adequacy of an EIS is measured by the "rule of reason" which requires a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the likely environmental consequences of a proposed project. SEPA does not require analysis of every possible impact, nor does it require inclusion of specific remedies for all identified environmental impacts. An EIS is intended to be an aid to the decision making process; not to be a collection of every possible effect or alternative to a proposed project.

The Department of Ecology ("Ecology" or "ECY") has the ability to comment on Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes even where it has not taken the role of the SEPA lead agency. ECY did, in fact, review the Puget Sound Energy EIS before it was finalized. ECY made a number of comments on the Draft EIS for the PSE project. The City addressed these comments in the Final EIS, and in issuing the shoreline permit. ECY was reviewing the DEIS from two perspectives: (1) adequacy for the purposes of SEPA; and (2) as a direct permitting agency for various other permits on the project.
 
The FEIS is a foundational document in the review and issuance of these later state permits, the same as with the shoreline permit. Ecology voiced no concerns with the FEIS as issued. City staff has had multiple, recent conversations with Ecology staff inquiring as to whether the agency finds anything in the EIS inadequate, and in light of PSE’s revisions which reduce the scope of its project. The consistent answer from Ecology has been that the project reductions do not trigger the need for additional review. 
 
Two of the permits for the project, over which ECY has review and granting authority—the "401 Water Quality Certification" and the "Coastal Zone Consistency Determination"—are currently on appeal. Ecology has relied on the FEIS as issued, plus additional application materials, to make these permit decisions.  

The bottom line is that the City has consulted with Ecology staff whether Ecology thinks a Supplemental EIS is required for the project, and the answer has been "no."

The City has received several requests to withhold development permits for the PSE Proposed LNG facility, consisting of a liquefaction plant at the PSE site and fueling infrastructure at the TOTE site. (These sites are addressed as 1001 Alexander Ave. E. and 3115 East 11th St., respectively.)

A portion of the work is subject to a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP), the issuance of which has been affirmed by written decision of the Washington Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB) after an appeal by the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The actions that might follow under the SSDP depend upon other agency actions. The SHB decision was appealed on August 16, 2016 by the Puyallup Tribe.  

Under state law, unless the appellant obtains a stay while the appeal is pending, the permit applicant is entitled to rely on the last decision rendered — in this case the decision of the SHB upholding the SSDP as modified by PSE’s voluntary reduction in scope.  What that means is that, even though there is an additional appeal pending, PSE could proceed with its project under the SSDP as upheld by the SHB, but would do so at the risk of later reversal in the pending appeal. At present, there is no stay in place, nor is there any request for a stay pending decision by the court.

The City previously stated that “from a practical standpoint, no permits for work within 200 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (the shoreline jurisdiction) will be issued until the SHB decision is final...” Under applicable law, the SHB decision is now final. Typically, permit holders are reluctant to proceed with projects under appeal because of the risk of reversal, but as already stated, the permit holder can proceed at its own risk unless a stay is imposed.

A pending appeal alone is not grounds for the City to prevent a project from moving forward if the permits are valid under the last decision issued which is why the City previously posted that “When it has been determined that a proposal meets all regulations, permits must be issued. The City does not have the discretion to withhold a permit decision when all permit requirements have been met.” The SHB decision determined that all permit requirements have been met for the SSDP.

Permits issued under the SSDP will have to conform with SSDP requirements. That said, the City does not issue public notice regarding building permit review or when building permits are issued. Nothing requires this under applicable laws, due in part to the fact that issuing a building permit is not a discretionary function of the City. All permit statuses and issue dates are publicly available on the City’s permitting website at Tacoma Permits. 

The timing of the release of information does not affect the validity of either the FEIS or the permit review -- the FEIS did include a review of the siting study and hazard analysis by a third party with expertise in LNG; this review was referenced in the EIS. The siting study could have been requested at that time and the currently pending questions addressed while the EIS was still pending, but no request was made at that time.

Every permit will still be required to meet all regulations and standards of the City and all other agencies with a thorough review by our own staff as well as expert consultants as needed (along with the other State and Federal permitting agencies).

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) team was aware of the 2014 explosion at the Williams LNG Liquefaction and Storage Facility near Plymouth, Washington. However, the only information available at that time and during the preparation of the Tacoma LNG EIS was that an explosion had occurred at the facility and that the LNG storage tanks were not compromised. Without further information, the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation measures could not be addressed. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Management Administration (PHMSA) and the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) conducted a lengthy study into the incident. However, the incident investigation report was not publicly released until April 28, 2016, five months after the Final EIS was completed.

The incident report concluded that the explosion at the Williams facility was the result of human error, not an equipment or LNG processing failure. During start-up, after the facility had been down for maintenance, the air in the system was not completely purged, resulting in a flammable air-gas mixture. The incident report also indicated that the explosion resulted in the loss of insulation and in debris damaging and penetrating the outer wall of one LNG storage tank, but did not penetrate the inner wall nor result in a direct release of LNG from the tank. However, an external pipe on the storage tank was cut off, causing a release of LNG that resulted in a vapor plume, but there was no fire or explosion related to the LNG release.

The PHMSA, the WUTC, and the Tacoma Fire Department will all review the final design and proposed operating procedures for the LNG facility. Authorizations, if issued by these agencies, will incorporate the mitigation and lessons learned from the Williams facility explosion. The PHMSA report summarizes the mitigation measures that the reviewing agencies can ensure are incorporated into the final design and operation of the Tacoma LNG facility.

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and EIS is not a permit and does not substitute for permit review. It is a process to help decision makers understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The EIS also develops information that is used to support permit review and development of mitigation measures related to potential impacts in reference to matters such as transportation, fire, health, and safety. Key permits for this project include the City of Tacoma Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Pierce County Conditional Use Permit, Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Section 10 and 404 permits.

Click here to see a list of required permits and contact people for each agency and jurisdiction.

PSE has applied for demolition and site development permits for soil stabilization at the site. It has begun to apply for development permits including foundations and trenching.

PSE has applied for and received its conditional use permit from Pierce County for the natural gas pipeline. It has also completed its Waterway Suitability Analysis through the Coast Guard (although this may be more of an ongoing process). Washington Utilities Transportation Commission (WUTC) review and approval is ongoing. 

PSE will be required to provide permits, documentation of “clearance” from agencies, or other notices to proceed from permitting agencies prior to receiving development permits from the City of Tacoma.

A portion of the work is subject to a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP), which was previously issued by the City. After an appeal by the Puyallup Tribe (August 16, 2016) it was upheld by the Washington Shorelines Hearing Board (SHB) and is now on appeal to the Court of Appeals. The actions that might follow under the SSDP depend upon other agency actions.

Under state law, unless the appellant obtains a stay while an appeal is pending, the permit applicant is entitled to rely on the last decision rendered – in this case, the decision of the SHB upholding the SSDP as modified by PSE’s voluntary removal of the proposed Hybelos pier barging facility. This means that even though there is an additional appeal pending, PSE could proceed with its project under the SSDP as upheld by the SHB, but would do so at the risk of later reversal in the pending appeal. At present, there is no stay in place, nor is there any request for a stay pending. 

The City previously stated that “from a practical standpoint, no permits for work within 200 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (the shoreline jurisdiction) will be issued until the SHB decision is final...” Under applicable law, the SHB decision is now final. Typically, permit holders are reluctant to proceed with projects under appeal because of the risk of reversal, but as already stated, the permit holder can proceed at its own risk unless a stay is imposed.
 
A pending appeal alone is not grounds for the City to prevent a project from moving forward if the permits are valid under the last decision issued, which is why the City previously posted that “When it has been determined that a proposal meets all regulations, permits must be issued. The City does not have the discretion to withhold a permit decision when all permit requirements have been met.” The SHB decision determined that all permit requirements have been met for the SSDP. 
 
Development permits issued under the SSDP will have to conform with SSDP requirements. That said, the City does not issue public notice regarding building permit review or when building permits are issued. Nothing requires this under applicable laws, due in part to the fact that issuing a building permit is not a discretionary function of the City. All permit statuses and issuance dates are publicly available on the City’s permitting website at www.TacomaPermits.org. 

Additionally, the City will not issue permits for any development related to bunker barging at the Hylebos. Because that portion of work has been removed from the shoreline permit, any future proposed work along the shoreline related to bunkering (or any other development) would require additional shoreline permitting.

Yes. Addendums can be added to a FEIS. See WAC 197-11-625.

The term “blast zone” does not occur in the EIS, nor is it shown on a figure in the EIS. The actual terms found in the EIS, “vapor dispersion” and “thermal radiation,” are defined and discussed below. It should be noted that for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) (methane) vapor release in an unconfined environment that results in ignition, the speed at which a flame travels back to the source is too slow to support a blast (explosion). Therefore, ignition of methane in an open space will create a fire until fuel is consumed but will not cause a blast (explosion). Since a blast involving methane is not possible in an unconfined space, the federal codes and design standards that govern vapor dispersion and thermal radiation that may result from an uncontrolled release do not address a blasting scenario for accidental releases of gas or LNG.

Vapor dispersion and thermal radiation are defined in the federal code (49 Code of Federal Regulations 193 and National Fire Protection Association 59A) for “siting” LNG facilities. “Siting,” as required by the code, refers to the study of an LNG facility that evaluates safety distance setbacks from property lines to prevent offsite impacts.

• Vapor Dispersion: Federal code requirements limit the maximum allowable concentration of flammable gas in the air to 50% of the lower flammability limit at the property line. The 50% lower flammability limit of methane is 2.5% of the air concentration. The lower flammability limit for methane (as LNG) is 5%. At concentrations below 5%, the mixture is too lean to sustain a fire.
• Thermal Radiation: Siting requirements for thermal radiation are defined by an accidental release of LNG that becomes a vapor and is ignited and a fire occurs. In this scenario, the regulations stipulate that the maximum allowable rate of heat energy that will pass through a surface (heat flux) from the resulting fire as measured at the property line cannot exceed 1,600 British thermal units per square foot per hour.

Vapor dispersion and thermal radiation “siting studies” for LNG facilities are required by federal code to evaluate process equipment, transfer areas, and storage in such facilities. To prevent offsite impacts from an unlikely, but worst case, accidental release scenario, the code requires extensive modeling that considers location-specific conditions to demonstrate that required minimum safety distance setbacks from property lines have been achieved under all credible scenarios and conditions.

The computer models for vapor dispersion and thermal radiation have undergone extensive international reviews over many years and have been compared to empirical data to demonstrate that the results are indicative of actual conditions. Modeling results are considered “conservative” in analyzing conditions, regarded by regulators and users as reliable, and representative of actual conditions that could occur. Modeling results for vapor dispersion and thermal radiation are an integral and important part of the permitting and approval processes, where a project only obtains approval when all requirements are met or exceeded.

The software used to model the methane concentrations at the property boundary for the Tacoma LNG project is that prescribed by U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The results of the modeling have been validated by third party researchers under contract to PHMSA. The methodology used to evaluate the various failure scenarios is also prescribed by the PHMSA and accepted by the industry as best practice.

The prevention of accidental releases under all operating conditions is the highest priority of the LNG code, and the resulting design provides with robust, redundant layers of protection. In the event of an accidental release, the next priority is timely detection and appropriate responses to minimize its impact. The Tacoma LNG plant is designed with secondary spill containment to prevent any spilled LNG from leaving the property. The design includes different spill detection devices to alert the operating personnel if a spill occurs. The detection devices include gas detection, flame detection, and low-temperature detection. A written emergency response plan is maintained, and responses are practiced to ensure that the plant personnel are prepared to manage any emergency.

The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) and the Tacoma Fire Department share oversight authority for the Tacoma LNG project. The WUTC participates as an approved state partner of the PHMSA. These state partners approve LNG facility designs and siting of new LNG facilities and provide ongoing regulatory oversight and regular inspections during operations. The role of the WUTC and Tacoma Fire Department is to protect the public, ensuring that the LNG facility is safe, reliable, and functioning according to operational codes and requirements. The PHMSA provides regular training and funding for its state partners to provide uniform enforcement of LNG standards across the country.

Like other jurisdictions, the City of Tacoma relies on knowledgeable regulatory authorities with direct technical oversight responsibilities and industry experts to design and construct safe, reliable LNG facilities that meet all the applicable LNG codes and standards. The design proposed for Tacoma LNG is planned to be very robust, and in many ways, should exceed design standards and expectations, thus providing confidence the design is safe for all credible scenarios.

Shoreline: PSE has permission through a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) to request development permits for one loading arm and loading platform at the TOTE site. This includes a cryogenic pipe from their liquefaction facility, a fueling arm, and the required water-side facility for the fueling arm (including containment). The current shoreline permit on the Hylebos waterway, as reduced from what was originally proposed, is limited to stormwater outfall repair and improvements as well as demolition of the deck on the existing pier, shoreline vegetation, some grading/graveling, and security fencing.

According to PSE and TOTE, the configuration of the fueling arm is unique to the TOTE ships, and a conventional bunker barge could not be fueled using this infrastructure. Further, the TOTE site does not have moorage facilities or shoreline permit approval for construction to accommodate a bunker barge.

The City has specifically asked PSE to discuss what further permitting would be needed to accommodate bunker barging at the site. Without knowing what kind of vessels would propose to use the site, the permitting path cannot be determined.

However, it is recognized by all parties that additional shoreline permitting and public review, as well as additional review by the Coast Guard (which has authority over vessels) would be required.

The Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB) upheld the City’s permitting decision following a week-long hearing in May of 2016. This SHB decision was appealed by the Puyallup Tribe on August 16, 2016. The next hearing for the Shoreline Permit will be set sometime in 2017. Under state law, unless the petitioner obtains a stay while the appeal is pending, the permit applicant is entitled to rely on the last decision — in this case the decision of the SHB upholding the City’s decision. (A “stay” means to stop something temporarily through a court order.)  What that means is that, even though there is an additional appeal pending, PSE can proceed with its project under the SSDP, but would do so at the risk of later reversal in the pending appeal. At this time, there is no stay in place, nor is there any request for a stay pending decision by the court.

Upland – PSE Site: This is the site on the east side of Alexander, neighboring the Hylebos Waterway. The EIS analyzed the environmental impacts of the liquefaction facility. This includes an LNG storage tank, the liquefaction facility (refrigerants propane, isopentane, and ethylene), the cryogenic pipeline and loading facility for TOTE, and two truck loading bays on the west side of the facility. Up to two tanker trucks per day would arrive empty at the Tacoma LNG Facility and leave carrying LNG to market, generally to a local user. (The EIS also analyzed a bunkering facility in the Hylebos, which has since been removed from the proposal.)

Other Activities: The proposal also includes extension of the existing natural gas distribution infrastructure with a new limit station and gate station in Pierce County, and approximately five miles of new pipeline (12"-16" diameter) in two segments (Pierce County, Fife, and Tacoma).

Current permitting: The following table shows the current status of development permits at the site. PSE has begun demolition of structures, utility and ground improvements, and tenant improvements to one building at the site. PSE has yet to apply for permits for the development of the LNG facility. These permits are expected to consist of one or more foundation and trenching permits as well as the building permit for the tank itself. All permits may be viewed on our permits portal by entering the permit number in the search field.

On the Blair Waterway: PSE has the authorization to request development permits for one loading arm and one loading platform at the TOTE site.

This includes one cryogenic pipe from their liquefaction facility, a fueling arm, and the necessary water-side facility for the fueling arm (including containment). The configuration of the fueling arm is unique to the TOTE ships and a conventional bunker barge could not be fueled using this infrastructure. The TOTE site does not have moorage facilities or shoreline permit approval for construction to accommodate a bunker barge.

On the Hylebos Waterway: PSE will work on stormwater outfall repair and improvements as well as demolition of the deck on the existing pier, adding shoreline vegetation, some grading/graveling, and security fencing, all of which are environmental mitigation measures.

It is recognized by all parties that additional shoreline permitting, environmental assessment, and public review, as well as additional review by the Coast Guard (which has authority over vessels) would likely be required for any non-de minimus work not currently within the (current and now reduced) scope of the shoreline permit.

The appeal period for the Shoreline Hearings Board decision ended on August 17, 2016. Washington State rules for shoreline permits (WAC 173-27-140) require a revised permit to be filed with the Department of Ecology when the revisions are final (i.e., all appeals are complete and the decision is final). Once all appeal periods are over, the City will require a revised site plan and permit narrative from PSE, and that revision will be filed with the Department of Ecology. As stated above, all permits for work within the shoreline jurisdiction will be reviewed for compliance with this revised permit. For the FEIS, documents will be added to the file noting the reduction in scope of the shoreline proposal.

The PSE site is the site on the east side of Alexander, abutting the Hylebos Waterway. The Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS) that was done analyzed the environmental impacts of the natural gas liquefaction facility. This includes an LNG storage tank, the liquefaction facility containing propane refrigerants, isopentane, and ethylene. Additionally the cryogenic pipeline and loading facility for TOTE, and two truck loading bays on the west side of the facility are included. 

Up to two tanker trucks per day would arrive empty at the LNG Facility and leave carrying LNG to market, generally to a local user. (The EIS also analyzed a bunkering facility in the Hylebos and that has since been removed from the scope of work.)

The proposal also includes an extension of the existing natural gas distribution infrastructure with a new limit station and gate station in Pierce County, and approximately five miles of new pipeline in two segments (Pierce County, Fife, and Tacoma).

Concerns were expressed that the fire station operation may not be feasible. The Tacoma Fire Department has confirmed that budgeted funds will be made available to renovate and re-open the fire station at East 11th Street and Taylor Way, and that project will begin upon the issuance of a permit for the construction of the PSE facility. The City is planning to staff that fire station with new tax revenues available from and contingent upon the construction of the PSE facility.

For more information, read the Tacoma Fire Department’s Proposed LNG Facility FAQs.

The FEIS analyzed a defined scope of the project as proposed by Puget Sound Energy, which has been carried through to the Shoreline Substantial Development permit and other permits:

• One loading arm and platform to serve only the TOTE vessels in the Blair Waterway;
• Stormwater infrastructure and pier surface removal in the Hylebos Waterway;
• Construction of the LNG liquefaction facility;
• Extension of a natural gas pipeline to the site; and
• Distribution of product using up to two tanker trucks per day.

When Puget Sound Energy submits a building permit it will be reviewed for consistency with the proposed project in the FEIS. If anything beyond that scope is proposed or there are substantive changes to the project that are likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts, additional review will be required to determine if the changes, and the likely impacts therefrom, are significant. For example, serving additional vessels in either the Blair or the Hylebos Waterway will require additional infrastructure in the shoreline, since that part of the project, as originally proposed, has now been removed. This will require a new shoreline permit (with a public notice and review process) and concurrent environmental review.

There has been some confusion caused by the term “bunkering” as it has been used in multiple contexts. The term “bunkering” applies in general to ship fueling whether from land during berthing or from water by barge. The term applies in general to any ship fueling at a dock (including  TOTE ships), but is also used to describe barges which would fill and then go to another site to fuel ships (as in bunkering barges).

Bunkering from land can include fuel trucks or fixed bunkering facilities such as proposed by PSE. Bunkering from water can be done by barge or in some cases bunkering ships for refueling at sea. 

The proposed dock on the Hybelos to load LNG barges was not intended for bunkering barges to be used by TOTE Marine. If the dock was constructed the purpose would be to load barges intended to deliver LNG to other customers in Puget Sound. However, after the EIS process was completed, PSE stipulated to withdraw the construction of a LNG barge dock on the Hybelos from the shoreline permit. There is no proposal to relocate bunkering of LNG barges to the Blair Waterway. Such a proposal would require additional environmental analysis under SEPA.

Further, there appears to have been some confusion regarding the use of the term “bunkering” in relation to recent conveyances of easements leading to a misunderstanding about PSE’s ability to move elements of the project previously proposed on the Hylebos Waterway to the Blair.

Despite the language of the easement, such a relocation is not allowed under the shoreline permit. Any relocation would involve additional shoreline permitting, environmental assessment, and public review.

The FEIS analyzed two bunkering barges calling in the Hylebos. Relocation to the Blair might benefit from analysis of impacts due to the move, or any other change in impacts from the relocation, but no such relocation is taking place.

Finally, a 2015 article about TOTE’s purchase of a bunkering barge has created confusion. That barge has been deployed to Jacksonville, Florida and will not be used in Tacoma.  Further, the purpose of the barge would have been to take fuel to TOTE’s ships and fuel them from the water, and not to take fuel from TOTE’s site to other locations. Had the barge deployed to Tacoma, it would have filled with LNG in British Columbia and traveled to Tacoma to fuel TOTE ships.

The PSE site is located on the east side of Alexander, bordering the Hylebos Waterway. The EIS analyzed the environmental impacts of the facility. This includes an LNG storage tank, the liquefaction facility (refrigerants propane, isopentane, and ethylene), the cryogenic pipeline and loading facility for TOTE, and two truck loading bays on the west side of the facility.

Under the project as proposed, up to two tanker trucks per day would arrive empty at the Tacoma LNG Facility and leave carrying LNG to market, generally to a local user. These would service the existing peak-shaving facility in Gig Harbor, as well as other users. PSE has indicated no intent to increase trucking beyond the two trips a day analyzed in the FEIS; should trucking increase, the City would analyze the proposed increase to determine whether it requires additional review.

The present proposal also includes an extension of the existing natural gas distribution infrastructure with a new limit station and gate station in Pierce County, and approximately five miles of new pipeline in two segments (Pierce County, Fife, and Tacoma).

LNG-Fueled trucks that have nothing to do with the PSE project are already being driven on the I-5 corridor. LNG-fueled trucks, when compared to diesel and gas-fueled trucks, make up a very small portion of the overall truck traffic in Washington. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in the use of LNG as fuel because of LNG’s cleaner burning properties. Currently Clean Energy Fuels Corp. operates 10 LNG fueling stations along the I-5 corridor from Washington to California including a fueling facility in Fife that provides LNG to the trucking industry in Washington State (Clean Energy Press Release, 2016). A hazard assessment is not required to operate an LNG-fueled truck.

The FEIS analyzed, and PSE plans to operate, up to two LNG trucks per day. These trucks will be to serve the peak-shaving facility in Gig Harbor, replacing trucks that currently come from British Columbia to service that facility, and which were accounted for in the FEIS.

In several places in the FEIS, the daily production capacity of the LNG plant is listed as a range of 250,000 – 500,000 gallons per day. The question has been asked about which production level was used to generate the emissions analysis in the air quality impacts section of the FEIS. PSE has confirmed that the production limit of the plant as currently designed is 250,000 gallons per day; the plant is not capable of producing more LNG daily than that.

Any increase in production would require an expansion of the plant, which would require additional permitting and applicable environmental review. A 500,000-gallon production capacity would be predicated on additional customers, which would also have additional infrastructure needs and/or trip generation with additional review and permitting.

As indicated in the FEIS, the Proposed Action would emit more than an estimated 20,000 metrics tons of Carbon Dioxide emissions (CO2e) per year and thus would be subject to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting requirements, per WAC 173-441. An annual GHG report must be submitted to Ecology each year even if the source does not meet applicability requirements in WAC 173-441-030(1) or (2) in a future year. If the annual reporting ever shows GHG emissions in excess of 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year, additional environmental review would be required.

Also, as indicated in the FEIS, the liquefaction process would operate 8,760 hours per year and the vaporization process would operate 1,000 hours per year. However, the two processes cannot operate at the same time. Based on potential emissions (See Table 3.2-3 in the FEIS) from the Tacoma LNG Facility and TOTE Marine Vessel LNG Fueling System, the proposed action would not be subject to the requirements of Prevention of Significant Deterioration in air quality, nor be subject to Title V permitting under the Clean Air Act.

However, as part of the New Source Review requirements Puget Sound Energy would be required to submit a Notice of Construction (NOC) application to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. As part of the NOC permit application process, ambient impact modeling would be conducted for each Toxic Air Pollutant (TAP) that exceeds respective small quantity emission limits as defined in WAC 173-460. This modeling, if required, would determine if the impacts are below acceptable levels. Based on emission calculations in the FEIS the small quantity emission limits would not be exceeded so no criteria TAP modeling is expected to be required as part of the New Source Review.

The FEIS includes information on refrigerants being contained in three 4,500 gallon tanks, but does not include a reference to a 9,700 gallon tank. However, a commenter was referencing the CB&I siting study that included information on a 9,700 gallon tank. A review of the CB&I study shows the project includes a 1,200 cubic foot tank which is equal to approximately 9,700 gallons. The tank referenced in the CB&I study is for refrigerants that were identified by name in the FEIS. However, the discrepancy is the size of the tank(s), the FEIS indicates the refrigerants are in three tanks totaling 13,500 gallons versus 9,700 gallons in the siting study. It is not uncommon that design and engineering details of a facility will change during the permitting process and this discrepancy in tank(s) volume does not change the analysis in the FEIS. 

The current design of the plant shows a total volume of 4,760 gallons in all three vessels. 

Final design and engineering construction drawings will be extensively reviewed by the Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Tacoma Fire Department, and the City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services prior to issuing building permits.

Monoethanolamine  (MEA), diethanolamine (DEA) , methyl diethanolamine (MDEA), and diglycolamine (DGA) are widely used in the natural gas and petrochemical refining industries for removing carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from natural gas. Amine is also used to remove CO2 from exhaust and flue gases for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Amines are also used to pretreat natural gas for the removal of CO2 and H2S (acid gas) from the feed gas ahead of the LNG liquefaction this process.

In the last 15 years, MDEA has emerged as the amine of choice for treating feed gas for removal of CO2 in the LNG liquefaction industry.  MDEA has a very low vapor pressure which limits vapor losses in the process; it requires less energy to regenerate and is less corrosive to metal components.

All of the amines are classified by 29 CFR 1910.1200 (OSHA standards for Toxic and Hazardous Substances) as “Hazardous Chemicals.” These products do not represent a danger to the public or the plant operating personnel when handled in the proper and responsible manner. Essentially none of the amine used to treat the natural gas will escape the closed loop treating process. All of the amines will either be recovered and recycled in process separators, dehydration process or disposed of in the process incinerator or flare where it is fully combusted.  

Proper precautions in the design of the facility will effectively eliminate the potential for an accidental release. Liquid Amine exposure is considered moderately irritating to the eyes, and slightly irritating to the skin. Design and handling measures implemented to eliminate the potential for accidental contact with operating staff or accidental release of the material are:

1. Safety goggles and gloves required during handling.
2. Dual mechanical seals for all pumps with seal leak detection
3. Minimize flanges where possible
4. Secondary drip pans under filters and pumps
5. Secondary containment around bulk storage
6. Closed amine drain for recycling and proper disposal.

With these measures in place, the health and safety to the public or plant operating personnel are not affected by the amine process.

As part of the LNG pretreatment process, the carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds removed by the amine process will be flared through a ground flare system as described in Section 2.2.1.7 of the Final EIS.

PSE has significant incentives to follow safety precautions during construction and operation of the LNG facility including:

• Regulatory requirements and potential for fines for not complying with federal, state and City of Tacoma health and safety rules and regulations.
• Very significant financial investment in the facility that would be at risk if safety precautions are not followed.
• Very significant investment in personnel and training in facility operations, including strict health and safety standards and protocols.

To maintain insurance coverage PSE has to follow health and safety rules and regulations.