Hearing Officer To DEP: Tell Me Why I Shouldn't Sanction You

The hearing officer who presided over the Department of Environmental Protection’s hearings last week on the Weymouth gas compressor station is now ordering the DEP to tell her why she shouldn’t sanction the department for waiting four days to disclose relevant data.

The hearings concerned an appeal of the DEP’s approval of an air quality permit for the natural gas compressor station that Enbridge has proposed for the Weymouth site.

The hearings were supposed to take three days, beginning on Wednesday. But after two full days of hearings, the DEP released 759 pages of new air quality data that hadn’t been shared with the petitioners yet.

The data came from an outside consultant that had taken air quality samples for the DEP last August. The DEP got the information on Monday, but waited until Thursday night to share it.

“The Department’s delay in disclosing the data to the other parties to the appeal until after the close of business on May 16, 2019, is unacceptable and may warrant the imposition of sanctions against the Department pursuant to 310 CMR 1.01,” wrote presiding officer Jane Rothchild in her order Monday. “The Department is ordered to show cause why I should not impose sanctions against the Department for delaying disclosure of the data to the Petitioners until after the close of business on May 16, 2019.”

Rothchild asks the DEP to respond to four questions: When did the DEP get the data? What employees got the data or knew the department had it? Why did the department wait four days to disclose it? And when did the department tell the applicant (Enbridge) about the data? She also asks for any correspondence to or from the department about the data.

In a statement, DEP spokesperson Ed Coletta laid out the department’s timeline for getting the data, but didn't explain the delay in sharing it with the petitioners.

“While the Department maintains the integrity of its analysis of health and air quality conditions associated with the project, MassDEP will immediately work with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to thoroughly analyze the information and provide any necessary updates to the [health impact assessment],” Coletta said. His full statement is below.

The opponents of the plan who filed the appeal have until 5 p.m. Tuesday to report back to Rothchild about whether they think it’s necessary to reconvene the hearings to get testimony about the new data.

Read the presiding officer's full order to the DEP below.

Read DEP spokesperson Ed Coletta's full statement below.

“While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has primary jurisdiction over the siting of interstate pipeline projects, the Commonwealth completed a detailed and science-based evaluation of air quality and health impacts in advance of approving an air quality permit for a proposed natural gas compressor station in Weymouth, Massachusetts. As part of the Health Impact Assessment (HIA), the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) worked with stakeholders to develop the scope of a thorough review of potential air quality impacts, and contracted with an independent Massachusetts laboratory to analyze toxics using a standard Environmental Protection Agency methodology. The results were provided to MassDEP’s Air Assessment Branch and publicly disclosed as part of HIA process in the summer of 2018, and included in the final report issued in January 2019.

The HIA predicted that estimated air emissions from the proposed station are not likely to cause health effects through direct exposure because estimated air emissions do not exceed daily or annual health-protective regulatory standards or guidelines.

Consistent with practice in validating lab analyses, and outside of the HIA process, the Director of MassDEP’s Air Assessment Branch provided samples of air monitoring conducted to an out-of-state laboratory for testing. The resulting analysis included testing results for more toxics than were included in the testing results for the HIA, however, the comparable data remained consistent with the information published in the HIA.

Once MassDEP became aware of the broader scope of results in the testing, a request was made to the originally contracted lab for all additional data that was not reported as part of the HIA samples. Upon receiving further results, MassDEP provided the additional results to parties involved in the air permit appeal and publicly posted the data.

The additional monitoring data, consistent with the data included in the HIA, showed that the levels of toxics reported are generally consistent with levels measured in other developed and densely populated areas, including sites in Boston and Lynn, where MassDEP performs routine toxics monitoring. The additional data, and any potential impact on the air quality permit proceedings, remain under consideration by the Appeals Officer at MassDEP.

Furthermore, while the Department maintains the integrity of its analysis of health and air quality conditions associated with the project, MassDEP will immediately work with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to thoroughly analyze the information and provide any necessary updates to the HIA.”