IROQUOIS PROJECT FACES NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL FINES

Iroquois Gas Transmission Inc. believes the threat by New York state's Public Service Commission (PSC) to fine it and several pipeline contractors $1 million for environmental violations is an overreaction.

Iroquois, of Shelton, Conn., three of its contractors, and two subcontractors are required to show cause by Sept. 5 why they should not be penalized $100,000 for each of 11 violations.

Contractors cited by the order are Southeast Pipeline Contractors Inc., Murphy Bros. Inc., and Latex Construction Co. The subcontractors are Northern Clearing Inc. and Phillips and Jordan Inc.

The violations, which Iroquois does not deny, occurred in 10 incidents along New York Spreads 1, 2, and 3 of the 370 mile gas transmission line under construction from Canada across New York and Connecticut to Long Island.

PSC charges that Iroquois failed to adhere to agreed plans for wetlands protection and proper burning of slash along its right-of-way.

NO COMMUNICATION

Iroquois believes the problems are less significant than suggested by the size of the potential fine, said Gary Davis, Iroquois spokesman.

Any construction project of this size is going to have similar problems, he said. "We think the contractors are doing a good job overall."

PSC spokesman Ed Collins replies that whether they are major or minor, these are nonetheless violations. "When the commission issues certificates, it fully expects operators and contractors to follow the conditions of those certificates."

Iroquois is frustrated that the PSC has taken the tack it has rather than attempt to work out problems through discussion.

Davis said Iroquois Pres. Robert J. Reid has given the PSC staff his home telephone number with a request to call him directly "whenever there's a problem." PSC staff members have not contacted Reid, he said.

"We first heard about the 'show cause' order from the media, not from the PSC," Davis said.

Collins, however, notes that several violations were brought to the attention of Iroquois in July and August in letters addressed to Reid.

In the first incident, which encompasses two violations, Southeast Pipeline Contractors are accused of violating Iroquois' management plan by draining a protected wetland and destroying a "protected natural resource (a beaver dam)." The dam is specifically listed in the management plan as a "unique environmental feature" and its disturbance expressly prohibited, the order says.

In addition, the action by Southeast occurred off the approved right-of-way.

ACCEPTED METHOD

Iroquois' Davis says, however, the drainage method used in the wetlands area is an approved method used elsewhere on the project. No PSC staff were available for comment on this assertion.

Davis added that the landowner "wanted the dam removed." Collins, however, said where designated wetlands are concerned, landowners also must follow specific guidelines.

In any case, the company acted responsibly by reporting the violation, Davis said.

The PSC order in fact confirms that an Iroquois environmental inspector advised the clearing crew foreman that destroying the dam violated the wetland protection provisions of the company's management plan for the New York portions of the line.

The order further acknowledges that Iroquois informed PSC staff of the contractor's action. The contractor, says the order, ignored an oral PSC staff directive to stop work.

In the other violations, PSC reports it has received many complaints from citizens about "unsupervised burn piles, uncontrolled fires off the right-of-way, burn piles larger and closer to residences than allowed in the specifications, inclusion of poison ivy in burn piles near residences, and insufficient fire control personnel and equipment on hand."

Iroquois, PSC says, resisted all efforts by its staff to use alternatives such as chipping, removal, or sale for clearing operations on Spreads 1, 2, and 3.

The order continues: "It should be emphasized that these incidents are those detailed by staff to date in the field.

"They do not include the numerous complaints staff has received but has been unable to substantiate."

Copyright 1991 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.