Overview

Currently there are at least 15 applications for liquefied-natural-gas (LNG) export facilities in the U.S. pending before the federal government. These applications, along with already approved exports, would have the capacity to move over 40 percent of the U.S. annual production of natural gas to foreign countries. The gas companies want the exports overseas because they can sell the gas for more than 4 times the price as they can capture here in the U.S and at present there is a glut of gas in this country and so unless the industry sells it overseas they won’t get their immediate cash sale reward. 

Expert reports and data demonstrate that while LNG exports generate generous profits for the gas drillers and export companies, all other sectors of our country’s economy are in decline. In other words, LNG exports only benefit the gas industry. Similarly, LNG exports, while creating some jobs in the gas industry, many temporary, creates a net job loss effect for the country. In fact, LNG exports could result in the net loss of as many as 270,000 jobs per year in our country. 

The Environmental Cost 

It is almost daily that new research emerges showing the harms of shale gas for our communities, our country and our earth. Among the most recent scientific findings is that as much as 9% of the methane — one of the most potent greenhouse gases known to man — produced while drilling for gas is lost to the atmosphere. That 9% coupled with all the methane emitted during the transport of gas through pipelines, storage and use of the gas means that shale gas is a more potent contributor to climate change than any other fossil fuel – 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide if you look over a 20 year period when it is the most crucial that we reduce damaging emissions. 

The unparalleled level of harm to drinking water, air quality, food supplies, and people’s health that result from ongoing and increasing levels of drilling and fracking for shale gas bring high price tags for the United States economy and taxpayers. Not only do our communities lose out on life’s basic needs – air, water, food and health – but we as taxpayers have to pay the upfront and long-term financial burden of these harms, including the necessary clean up and health care costs. 

The deforestation, land compaction, wetlands destruction, and increased earthquake potential inflicted by shale gas development means increased flooding and flood ravaged homes and communities; it means increased erosion of public and private lands; it means the fear and harm of an earthquake where it happens; it means lost fishing, hunting, boating, birding and all the jobs they generate. And of course someone has to pay for all this harm – that someone is the public in the form of emergency services, taxes, hazard mitigation, and more national debt. 

Transforming our country into one dependent on shale gas instead of oil and coal brings with it a hefty price tag – by some estimates it will cost as much as $700 billion. Recent estimates from the United States Geological Survey of the volume of undiscovered Marcellus Shale gas that may be recoverable is an average 84 trillion cubic feet. At the current U.S. consumption rate of 24 trillion cubic feet per year , chasing after this gas, and incurring all of the harm shale drilling and fracking brings, will only give an additional 3 ½ years of supply. Other estimates that include gas which is proved, probable and recoverable calculate all U.S. natural gas as supporting only 11 to 21 years of energy at this consumption rate. The timeline for infrastructure replacement gets further shortened as LNG exports increase. 

Isn’t it just smarter to pay this bill once? And put in place the infrastructure needed for sustainable energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal and so on?

May 1, 2013 Update:

May 1, 2013 Representative Kowalko asked for a hearing on HB 54, a bill that would have prevented construction of LNG facilities in Delaware’s coastal zone.  At the end of the hearing the bill was tabled.  It is unknown when it may be revived for consideration.  A copy of Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper’s testimony, is provided below.  

  

 

 

Overview

On May 17, 2016 a case was filed in US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania challenging the DRBC’s authority over drilling and fracking actitivies and challenging its defacto moratorium that currently prevents such activities anywhere within the Delaware River watershed.

The case was filed by the Wayne Land and Mineral Group. The action was filed  against the Delaware River Basin Commission.  The Delaware Riverkeeper Network successfully intervened in the case.

March 23, 2017 the case was dismissed with an important legal determination that the DRBC does in fact have jurisdication over drilling and fracking activities in the watershed.   

 

 

Overview

Act 13 amended the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, preempting municipal zoning of oil and gas development. It also established an impact fee on natural gas. 

The  Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Maya van Rossum in her capacity as the Delaware Riverkeeper, Dr. Mehernosh Khan, and seven municipalities filed suit on March 29, 2012 challenging the law on the grounds it violates the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions and endangers public health, natural resources, communities and the environment. The municipalities participating are: Township of Robinson, Washington County; Township of Nockamixon, Bucks County; Township of South Fayette, Allegheny County; Peters Township, Washington County; Township of Cecil, Washington County; Mount Pleasant Township, Washington County; and the Borough of Yardley, Bucks County. 

The named Appellants are the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”); Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”).

Oral argument was held before the PA supreme court on October 17, 2012.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision on December 19, 2013. In that decision the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Act 13 violates the Pennsylvania Constitution on the grounds that it violates the Environmental Rights Amendment. In doing so, the Court held that the right to pure water, clean air and a healthy environment are fundamental rights that must be given high-priority consideration and protection by every level of Pennsylvania’s government. The Court’s decision also struck down the shale gas industry’s effort to force every municipality in the state to allow gas drilling and related industrial operations in every zoning district. The Court’s decision upheld the ability of local governments to protect their local communities and natural resources through zoning. Chief Justice Castille authored the historic majority opinion. Justices Todd, McCaffrey and Baer joined in the result. 

Justices Castille, Todd, and McCaffrey held that provisions of the law violate Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution – the Environmental Rights Amendment. Justice Castille stated that “we agree with the citizens that, as an exercise of the police power, Sections 3215(b)(4) and (d), 3303, and 3304 are incompatible with the Commonwealth’s duty as trustee of Pennsylvania’s public natural resources.” In discussing Section 3304’s uniform zoning provisions, Justices Castille, Todd, and McCaffrey agreed that the provisions “sanctioned a direct and harmful degradation of the environmental quality of life in these communities and zoning districts.” They also concluded that the Act forced some citizens to bear “heavier environmental and habitability burdens than others,” in violation of Section 27’s mandate that public trust resources be managed for the benefit of all the people. 

Justice Baer concurred in finding Act 13 unconstitutional, agreeing with the Commonwealth Court’s reasoning. Justice Baer stated that the provisions “force municipalities to enact zoning ordinances, which violate the substantive due process rights of their citizenries.” He further noted “Pennsylvania’s extreme diversity” in municipality size and topography and that zoning ordinances must “give consideration to the character of the municipality,” among other factors, which Act 13 did not.

 

 

Overview

There is a moratorium on natural gas drilling/fracking and water withdrawals in the Delaware River Watershed, enacted by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) in May 2010, by unanimous vote of the Commission’s voting members – representatives of the Governors of Pennsylvania. New York, New Jersey and Delaware and President Obama’s representative, the Army Corps of Engineers. When natural gas regulations were proposed by the DRBC with a close of public comment in April 2011, the public became engaged in a big way. Breaking all previous records for public input, 69,000 comments were submitted to the DRBC, most calling for the proposed rules to be scrapped because they were too weak and narrow and advocating for a comprehensive environmental impact analysis of what gas development would do to the Watershed and the 17 million people and almost 13,000 square miles of ecosystem that rely on the health and abundance of the Delaware River Watershed for water supply and habitat. In November 2011 the moratorium was almost lifted and the rules almost adopted but public pressure and the announcement of Gov. Markell of Delaware and the head of New York’s Dept. of Environmental Conservation that they would not vote to approve the rules, caused the meeting to be cancelled and the rules to be sent back to the drawing board because there was not an assured majority to approve the lifting of the moratorium. As the DRBC continues to consider allowing drilling and fracking, the watershed health hangs precariously in the balance. Delaware Riverkeeper Network and many groups representing hundreds of thousands of members have called for a permanent ban on gas development in the Watershed since the dangerous practices involved are not compatible with maintaining and sustaining the water resources and ecosystems of the Delaware River Watershed.

The Impacts 

The environmental impacts of natural gas drilling include water quantity (on average 11 million gallons of water is used to frack each well), water quality (hydrofracking chemicals, radioactive and highly toxic wastewater, drilling muds and cuttings, waste solids and residuals that results from the well development process), stormwater runoff (nonpoint source pollution, erosion, stream degradation), habitat and ecosystem destruction and disruption, air quality (pollution from methane and other gases, VOCs and other volatile materials, silica, particulates, etc.) noise and light pollution, and community/cultural, scenic and quality of life impacts. These impacts result in direct harm to public health, especially for those where drilling and its activities are occurring.  A large body of evidence is being published today of the harms to human health and the environment. Inadequate regulation of the industry at every level allows these impacts to occur, burdening communities and the environment but no matter how fracking and shale gas development is regulated, the damages are unavoidable – fracking simply cannot be made safe or sustainable.

The practices required to extract natural gas are intrinsically polluting, allowing our aquifers and the environment to be permanently degraded, in violation of our environmental rights. The only way to avoid these negative impacts is to convert our energy systems away from these dirty fossil fuels and towards clean, sustainable, and renewable energy sources and energy efficiency policies.

As shale gas drilling and development inches closer to encroaching on the Delaware River Watershed, public concerns are growing for the safety of water supplies, air quality, the natural environment and communities that will be affected. The 17 million people who rely on the Delaware River for water, including New York City, Philadelphia and millions of residents of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware will all be directly effected if the water resources of the high quality upstream River is degraded. The practices that are used by the gas industry to extract and develop shale gas involve dangerous techniques such as hydraulic fracturing that inject chemicals–most of them hazardous, toxic and/or carcinogenic–and millions of gallons of water into each gas well.

The polluted flowback or “produced water” that erupts back up is contaminated with additional pollutants from the deep geology, such as radioactive materials, and is stored on the well site until it is trucked away to a wastewater plant or injected into the deep wells (even though there are not enough facilities to handle the wastewater and earthquakes caused by the injections in Ohio and other states where many injection wells are located have caused the shut down of several, this highly toxic waste continues to be produced every day throughout the Marcellus and Utica shales). Well sites have huge well pads, usually over 5 acres, containing 6, 10, even 15 or more gas wells each; miles of roads and gas pipelines and compressor stations are begin built; and  forests, farms, and rural communities are being transformed into urban, industrial conditions.

Wells can even be drilled in floodplains in both NY and PA. Communities across Pennsylvania where gas drilling is charging ahead are experiencing pollution incidents, accidents, gas well blowouts, spills, leaks, and illegal dumping of toxic wastewater and produced water, water well contamination, stream degradation and ruined farms and towns.

Join

DRN invites you to join with the growing number of people who want to take action to defend our region from the degradation of shale gas drilling. We cannot sacrifice our water and environment to gas companies. Check out the supporting information below – there are links to multiple studies and reports that delve into all things fracking. Information is power and an informed public is our best defense. People and communities are organizing and fighting back and there are many ways to get involved.

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network published (September 2015) a guidebook, “Defending the Environmental Rights of Pennsylvania Communities from Shale Gas Development”, to provide support and guidance to elected officials, government entities, and residents working at the municipal level to protect the environment and community resources from shale gas development.

The need for a permanent ban on all natural gas development, including drilling and fracking, in the Delaware River Watershed

In the Delaware River Watershed in 2017, DRBC has prohibited natural gas extraction projects in the Basin since 2010 while they study its potential impacts on water resources, a de-facto moratorium that does not allow permits to be issued until natural gas regulations are adopted. The DRBC almost adopted regulations in 2011 but its voting members, the Commissioners, cancelled the meeting where the vote would have occurred amid overwhelming public opposition and that stand-off has endured to this day.  However, in early 2017, the DRBC staff raised alarm bells with signals that the DRBC may be moving to adopt regulations and lift the current moratorium. 

The Delaware River Basin Commission’s moratorium was put in place 7 years ago by the Commission based on the determination that natural gas projects, individually or cumulatively, could have a substantial impact on the River’s water resources. 

Water 

Water use for oil and gas well development and for stimulation and extraction of gas from wells is very large, particularly for hydraulic fracturing (fracking) – the predominant method used today to extract gas – which requires high volumes of water. On average, 11 million gallons of water is used to frack a shale well, a depletive use because the water is not returned to the source, most of it completely removed from the hydrologic cycle when it is injected into deep formations. Of particular concern in the Delaware River Watershed where the shale underlies the upper basins’ streams, is that the required water can remove up to 70 percent of the water in small streams, permanently depleting crucial flows, disrupting natural flow regimes and increasing damaging runoff^[3], essentially turning some of our highest quality streams into ditches.  Removal of fresh water flows also allows for the concentration of contaminants when aquifers are overdrawn, reducing base flow of streams, in turn affecting water quality and habitats. 

Pollution

In terms of pollution potential, fracking uses toxic chemicals and hazardous materials are produced by the formations that are fractured.  1,076 chemicals are known to be used in fracking fluids, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),^[4] many of them carcinogenic, including some linked to childhood leukemia.^[5]

 

Waste Production

In terms of waste production, reuse and disposal, both wastewater and solid wastes pose challenges that have not yet been resolved by government agencies or the industry.  Currently, no set of federal regulations for waste produced during fracking exists except for a prohibition by EPA for the treatment of gas and oil wastewater at sewage treatment facilities.  This only addresses part of the management issues and leaves some critical loopholes in place that pose environmental threats.  Because of a 1988 oil and gas industry waste exemption from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), oil and gas waste is not regulated as hazardous, even though it contains hazardous constituents.  In fact, the shale gas industry has received unprecedented exemptions from our nation’s most important environmental and public health laws, making adequate regulation virtually impossible.^[10]

A Lawsuit Brought

A lawsuit brought by the industry-backed Wayne Land Management Group is attacking the jurisdiction of DRBC over gas development, raising concerns about its outcome. The new Trump Administration is rolling back environmental protections, pushing dirty fossil fuel development including domestic shale gas, and defunding and declawing agencies that protect natural resources, public lands and parks, scenic and recreational rivers. The federal agency vote on the DRBC, the Army Corps of Engineers, represents President Trump so there is mounting concern over how the new federal Administration will influence the DRBC policies and decisions, particularly gas drilling and fracking.

The Coalition

The coalition of organizations that make up the campaign to Ban Fracking in the Delaware River Watershed have vowed to fight for a COMPLETE ban on fracking throughout the Delaware River Watershed, including a ban on frack wastewater processing and discharges and a ban on water exports to fuel fracking elsewhere.  Nothing less is acceptable; it makes no sense to ban fracking but allow its toxic pollution and water depletion to ruin the Watershed.

The Coalition to Ban Fracking in the Delaware River Watershed submitted a letter with DRBC for a more open and just process for commenting on the draft regulations and proposed ban. The comment period was set to close February 28, far too short, and one a few hearings, all in Pennsylvania, were set. The groups demanded more public input opportunities and changes to the difficult process that DRBC set for how to submit comments – the agency wouldn’t even allow written comments to be submitted by email, fax or regular U.S. Postal Service mail. See the letter here. Groups also attended the DRBC’s December public meeting to deliver the message that fair and accessible public input into this all-important rulemaking was essential and must be provided to protect the watershed and to provide a just process.

Group Actions

Group actions during the summer of 2018 included banners being unfurled at popular river recreation areas to raise awareness. For instance, demonstrators met on the Barryville Bridge that connects Shohola Township, Pennsylvania and Barryville, New York to hang a banner that proclaimed, “Defend the Delaware; Ban Fracking and Frack Waste” as people paddled and floated by on the river. New York Governor Cuomo and Pennsylvania Governor Wolf were called to unite to completely ban frack drilling, ban the processing and discharge of wastewater produced by fracking, and ban water withdrawals for fracking. At another event, kayakers and canoeists unfurled the same banner while paddling on the river at Bordentown Beach in NJ. See the news report here.

WHAT HAPPENED FERUARY 25 AT THE DRBC Special Meeting:

The DRBC voted to permanently ban fracking throughout the Delaware River Watershed, affecting four states, after 12 years of raging debate and public discourse. The Delaware River Frack Ban Coalition and many members of the public – reported by DRBC to be at 400 during the meeting – joined the virtual DRBC meeting. The Governors of the four states – New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware – and a federal representative for President Biden from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – voted to enact the regulations that were pending since the public comment period closed in March 2018. All four states voted to approve the ban; the Army Corps representative abstained.

See the resolution adopting the regulations that ban fracking here: https://www.nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/Res2021-01_HVHF.pdf

References:

[1] http://www.nj.gov/drbc/programs/natural/

[2] PSE Healthy Energy Library, https://www.zotero.org/groups/pse_study_citation_database/items; See Compendium, http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/; Delaware  Riverkeeper Network, “Unsafe and Unsustainable,” http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/Documents/DRN_Report_Unsafe+Unsustainable_fr.pdf 

[3] Hansen, L., Habicht, S., and Faeth, P., CNA, “Potential Environmental Impacts of Full-development of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania”, September 2016, p. 35.

[4] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources – External Review Draft. June 2015. Available at: www.epa.gov/hfstudy; Hein 2012, p. 2.

[5] Deziel, N. et al, Yale School of Public Health, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental and Epidemiology, January 2016.

[6] Concerned Health Professionals of New York and Physicians for Social Responsibility, “Compendium of Scientific, Medical, And Media Findings Demonstrating Risks And Harms Of Fracking (Unconventional Gas And Oil Extraction)”, Fourth Edition, November 17, 2016.

[7] Delaware  Riverkeeper Network, “Unsafe and Unsustainable,” http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/Documents/DRN_Report_Unsafe+Unsustainable_fr.pdf

[8]http://files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf accessed by DRN 12.27.2016

[9] https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990

[10] Oil and Gas operations are exempt from portions of major federal environmental laws including: Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (the Superfund Law); and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. Amy Mall, et. al., Natural Resources Defense Council, Drilling Down, October 2001, p.iv.

[11] NYSDEC, Division of Environmental Remediation, August 2012, re. Allied Landfill, Niagara County.

[12] Warner, NR, et al, “Impacts of Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal on Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania,” Enviro Science and Technology, Oct 2, 2013, pp. 11849.

[13] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[14]  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/03/1612066114.full

[15] PSE Healthy Energy, “Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Projected Future Marcellus Development”, 2017.

[16] https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-water-resources

[17] http://www.paenvironmentdigest.com/newsletter/default.asp?NewsletterArticleID=38363&SubjectID=

Overview

Coal fly ash blew out from a storage basin at Pennsylvania Power and Light’s (PPL) Martin’s Creek power plant in 2005, burying at least nine miles of the bottom of the Delaware River and the Oughoughton Creek with toxic sludge.  It took months to vacuum up the slurry and much of the ash was uncontrollably spread downstream, affecting drinking water intakes, fish and wildlife, and smothering the life out of river bottom critters. This catastrophic pollution event may still be negatively impacting the Delaware River and the life that depends on it.

 

Overview

County in the Delaware River Watershed Where Planned — Monroe County (Ross Township) 

The Transcontinental [Transco] Northeast Supply Link Project is an expansion of Transco’s existing pipeline system that will enable Transco to provide natural gas transportation supply interconnections on Transco’s Leidy Line in Pennsylvania to Transco’s Market Pool in New Jersey and delivery points in New York City.  The Project will involve the construction and operation of approximately 13 miles of new 42-inch pipeline looping facilities on Transco’s existing mainline; pressure uprating of approximately 27 miles of existing 24-inch, 26-inch, and 36-inch pipeline; a new 25,000 horsepower compressor station; addition of 16,000 horsepower at an existing compressor station; compressor unit modifications at an existing compressor station; and construction or modification of associated underground and aboveground facilities. As part of this project and in the Delaware Watershed, nearly four miles of 42 inch pipe is being proposed to cut through sensitive habitats and woodlands in Monroe County, crossing eight water bodies including 6 streams of the Aquashicola Creek Watershed (a designated High Quality stream) and 2 streams of the Buckwha Creek Watershed and residential areas.  Much of the area proposed for the pipeline expansion is in steep slopes and hillsides that include Chestnut Ridge that rises to 1,265 feet. 

Size and Scope 

The size and scope of the construction activity and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Delaware River Basin.  There are significant concerns related to the cumulative impact that continuous water body crossing pipeline construction activity has on the health and vitality of the Delaware River Basin.  In addition to the NEUP, there are at least two other major pipeline upgrade projects (including Texas Eastern’s Philadelphia Lateral, and TGP’s Northeast Upgrade Project) that are either currently or soon-to-be under construction within the Delaware River Basin.  These construction projects will facilitate the further development of new wells, access roads, gathering lines, compressor stations, and other supporting infrastructure, which will further degrade the local environment.

There have also been numerous regulatory compliance failures associated with this type of construction activity.  In a recent pipeline upgrade project conducted by Tennessee Gas and Pipeline (TGP), called the 300-Line Upgrade Project, multiple violations were reported by the Conservation Districts in Pike, Wayne, and Susquehanna counties.  In Pike County alone numerous Notices of Violations were have been reported, including: 17 instances of dirt and sediment being discharged into water bodies, 7 violations for worksite conditions, and 21 instances of failure to properly institute Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control.  This high frequency of violations demonstrates that there are systemic and continued failures in TGP’s compliance with regulatory controls, which suggests improper oversight, and or, inadequate enforcement.  In Wayne County, out of 16 inspections conducted by the County Conservation District during the 300 Line Extension Project, 15 violations were found.  This startling 93% failure rate provides further evidence of systemic compliance failures.

Furthermore, at the federal level, during the 300 Line Extension Project, in 28 out of 38 “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report[s]” that were provided on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s [FERC] website there was at least one recorded incident where construction activity did not come into “compliance with Project specifications, mitigation measures, and applicable FERC-approved Project plans.”  Additionally, there were also at least 10 separate instances where an inspector in their “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report” indicated that a noncompliance report would be filed at a later date, but where the inspector failed to file a noncompliance report with FERC (and no reason was provided for the failure to issue that report in the following week’s report).  These 10 separate instances indicate that either FERC has maintained incomplete records for the project, or that there were multiple failures to follow-up on potentially enforceable noncompliance matters by FERC sanctioned environmental inspectors.  It is clear that the regulatory system, at both the state and federal level, is not adequately protecting the resources of the watershed.

The Delaware River Basin Commission has the authority to regulate pipeline construction activity if it involves a “significant disturbance of ground cover” affecting water resources. However, up to this point the DRBC has failed to exercise its authority in this arena.  In light of the regulatory compliance failures overseen by both the FERC and PADEP, the DRBC should exercise their statutory mandate to regulate pipeline construction activities in order to effectively preserve the natural integrity of the watershed.

DRN is committed to restoring natural balance in the Delaware River and watershed where it has been lost, and ensuring preservation where it still exists.  As such, we are actively engaged at the local, state, and federal government levels to ensure that full weight of legal environmental protection laws are brought to bear on all pipeline projects under consideration. 

 

Overview

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (“Transco”) proposes to construct a new natural gas pipeline called the Regional Energy Access Expansion (REAE). The project consists of 22.3 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Luzerne County, PA; 13.8 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Monroe County, PA; a gas-fired turbine driven compressor station in Gloucester County, NJ; and several other modifications to existing pipeline and compressor stations.

Transco REAE would impact 114 Exceptional Value (EV) wetlands and cross 77 waterbodies supporting cold water fisheries, 39 High Quality (HQ) streams, 2 Exceptional Value (EV) streams, 17 Class A Wild Trout Streams, and 57 waterbodies with naturally reproducing trout. Transco also inappropriately proposes to use an existing EV wetland as a mitigation site. Many of the streams that would be crossed by the project are cold water trout streams that are very sensitive to degradation. This project would also impact approximately 297 acres of forested woodlands. Clearing the forest around these streams exposes them to direct sunlight, raising the water temperature and jeopardizing their suitability as trout waters. Cutting forests and riparian buffers also creates habitat fragmentation. Transco fails to factor in not just the impacts of the fragmentation of the forest for these particular pipeline segments, but also by other cuts in the same region, either by Transco on its other pipeline pieces or by other pipeline/linear projects both within and outside the watershed. The project is also proposed to be constructed within the habitat of several threatened and endangered plant and animal species including white-fringed orchid, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, timber rattlesnake, and bog turtle. Transco also completely ignores impacts to vernal pools, which are not mentioned once in FERC’s Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Furthermore, Transco REAE would be an extreme detriment to regional climate change goals because it will consist of 47.8% of New Jersey’s GHG budget in 2050. Nothing is stopping FERC from certificating a second project that would consist of 65% of New Jersey’s 2050 GHG budget, thus, FERC would be virtually guaranteeing that New Jersey would not meet its emissions reductions goals, which is a large-scale issue that affects Pennsylvania as well. FERC also concluded that the REAE Project effects would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. This is despite the fact that FERC admitted that certain project components may be predominately borne by environmental justice communities and that climate change impacts would result in annual operation and downstream emissions of 16.62 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. These levels would exceed FERC’s presumptive significance threshold based on 100 percent utilization.

 

Overview

Transcontinental Gas and Pipeline Company (“Transco”) is replacing an existing 30-inch gas pipeline in Chester County, PA with a 42-inch pipeline.  The project as proposed would cross and affect the East Branch of the Brandywine Creek (WWF-MF) and Ludwig’s Run (WWF-MF) at two locations by utilizing an open cut method. Also, an unnamed tributary to East Branch of the Brandywine Creek (WWF-MF) would be affected by a temporary construction crossing and another unnamed tributary to East Branch of Brandywine Creek (HQ-TSF, MF) would be crossed by the pump diversion during the use of a coffer dam.

Transco is pursuing from the Pennsylvania DEP a Chapter 105 Stream Encroachment Permit (joint 404 permit), an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit, and a NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharge from construction activity. These permits would authorize the replacement of the existing 30-inch gas pipeline with a 42-inch pipeline, between Stations 2269 and 2295, along a 7-mile stretch of one of Transco’s major pipelines.   As proposed, the scope of this construction activity and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Brandywine Creek and tributary streams, and the Delaware River Basin. 

Transco is currently refusing to implement horizontal direct drilling to mitigate the detrimental environmental impacts on the waterbodies, even though Transco itself recognizes that such a method is a viable option and in the past PADEP demanded that Transco use this less damaging approach. Transco’s only arguments against using such a method are cost and time. The “open cut” stream crossing method that Transco plans on utilizing is associated with significant sedimentation problems, as the construction activity commences in the stream as it is flowing. 

Also, much of the right of way in which the construction will take place is atop extremely steep slopes, up to 35-40% gradient, which makes the area particularly vulnerable to sediment and erosion problems from rain events. 

Transco has a history of regulatory compliance failures. For example, in a previous project on the same exact stretch of pipeline where work is proposed now, Transco’s BMPs –authorized by PADEP – failed, resulting in significant sediment discharges into water bodies. As a result, PADEP issued at least one Notice of Violation for Transco’s erosion control failures. 

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is currently working to secure strong review of this proposal and the most protective stream crossing strategy for the Creek and communities, which as of now looks to be the horizontal direct drilling that will go under the creek and not through it, and will also avoid disturbance to the riparian buffer area of the creek for several hundred feet.

 

Overview

Appalachia to Market Expansion 2014 (TEAM 2014)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Docket Number – CP13-84

The public can subscribe to receive information about this pipeline project as it is filed at the FERC website:  http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.com.htm.    

FERC Contact for TEAM 2014:  Eric Howard at 202-502-6263, or at eric.howard@ferc.gov.

Texas Eastern Filed a Pre-Certification on February 27, 2013. Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed as an intervenor on 3/19/2013.  Click below to see this document.

****Environmental Assessment comments due October 16, 2013 to FERC.  You can submit comments on the FERC website under Docket CP13-84.  To see DRN’s comments to FERC, see the link below (FERCEA CommentsTEAM2014.DRNComments.pdf). 

***Army Corps announced a public comment period from Oct 10 to Nov 10, 2014 for the TEAM 2014 project related to waterbodies and wetlands impacts in Pennsylvania to be cut by this pipeline project.  See the announcement below to contact Army Corps.

Project Details: 

According to reports available from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC):
“TEAM 2014 involves constructing approximately 33.4 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline comprised of seven separate pipeline loops and associated pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania; horsepower upgrades at four existing compressor stations in Pennsylvania; and modifications to numerous existing facilities to allow bi-directional flow/transmission of natural gas. A 100-foot ROW with additional work spaces along the pipeline path are being proposed. The bi-directional flow modifications would occur at 18 existing compressor stations, 17 existing pig launcher and receiver sites, and two existing meter and regulating facilities in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi.”

In the Delaware Watershed alone, the 5.6 mile Bernville Loop would pass through parts of Berks County.  According to Spectra Energy’s Resource Reports, the pipeline would cut across 3 wetlands, of which at least one wetland could be habitat for the federally listed threatened bog turtle.  The proposed pipeline would cut across seven waterbodies including a 230 wide pipeline crossing of the Schuylkill River (WWF) which serves as drinking water for Philadelphia.  Unnamed tributaries to the Schuylkill River (WWF,MF) and Laurel Run (CWF,MF) would also be crossed by the pipeline.  The eastern small footed bat, a Pennsylvania threatened species (Myotis leibii),  is resident to this area of the Bernville Loop. Access roads to the pipeline are proposed on Irish Mountain where there are very steep slopes (TAR 2.5, 2.7, 3.2).  Two water wells and one septic field are noted within 200 feet of construction.  Detailed topos of the proposed pipeline path are available at the FERC website.

FERC originally anticipated issuing the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project in August, 2013. On August 16, FERC revised this date of the release of the Environmental Assessment to Sept 16, 2013 with  a 90-day federal authorization action/decision deadline of December 15, 2013. You can download the EA that was issued on Sept 16th at the FERC website here: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130916-3025

To follow the process and documents for this pipeline project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:  
Sign up at www.FERC.gov
Sign yourself up with an account and password and then ask for an eSubscription
You will want to search for and then sign up to follow Docket No. CP13-84

Spectra Energy/Texas Eastern Reports List the Following Loops and Compressors as Part of the Entire TEAM 2014 Project

 Bernville Loop – The addition of approximately 5.6 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Bern, Ontelaunee, Muhlenberg, Ruscombmanor, and Alsace Townships, Berks County, Pennsylvania (This loop is in the Delaware River Watershed)
    The addition of  6.6 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in German, Menallen, and North Union Townships, Fayette County, Pennsylvania east of the Monongahela River
    The addition of  2.7 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Jackson Township, Perry County, Pennsylvania
    The addition of 5.3 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Southwest Madison, Northeast Madison, and Tyrone Townships, Perry County, Pennsylvania
    The addition of  7.0 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Middle Paxton and West Hanover Townships, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
    The addition of  2.5 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in North Annville and East Hanover Townships, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania
    The addition of  3.8 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Swatara, North Lebanon, Bethel, and Jackson Townships, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania

Horsepower additions and New Compressor Stations Proposed

 Increase of approximately 6,160 horsepower (HP) of existing compressor units at the existing Uniontown Compressor Station and associated work in Fayette County, PA.
    Addition of one new 25,000 HP gas compressor unit and one new 32,000 HP electric gas compressor unit at the existing Delmont Compressor Station and associated work in Westmoreland County, PA. In addition, one 18,500 HP gas turbine unit & six 1,100 HP gas reciprocating units will be abandoned in place, retiring 25,100 HP.
    Addition of one new 17,000 HP gas compressor at the existing Armagh Compressor Station and associated work in Indiana County, PA
    Addition of one new 25,000 HP gas compressor at the existing Entriken Compressor Station and associated work in Huntingdon County, PA
    Modifications to facilities within compressor stations at 34 existing locations along the Texas Eastern system in multiple states including OH, TN, AL, and MS.

To see some of the draft filed documents and environmental description of the project filed on FERC Record  for Team 2014/Docket CP13-84:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=14093510

Some of the shorter resource reports also made available below.

 

Editor’s note: This issue is currently dormant. We will continue monitoring the situation and may take up the issue in the future.

Big Victory! 

In a decision issued June 6, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruled that the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the NJ Sierra Club and New Jersey Highlands Coalition were correct in their legal challenge to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s Northeast Upgrade Project and ordered additional analysis and review.

Counties in the Delaware River Watershed Where Planned — Wayne (PA), Pike (PA), and Sussex (NJ)

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s (“TGP”) Northeast Upgrade Project (“NEUP”) is an interstate transmission line upgrade project, designed to allow over 600,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to be transported in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, to be delivered to markets in the Northeast.  To create this additional capacity, TGP proposes upgrading its existing 24-inch diameter 300 Line by constructing five, 30-inch diameter pipeline loops and modifying four existing compression stations. A pipeline loop is a segment of pipeline installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to the existing pipeline at both ends. These five loops will close out the remaining un-looped segments of TGP’s existing 300 Line east of Bradford County, Pennsylvania, into New Jersey.  Three of these loops are located within the Delaware River Basin (Loops 321, 323, and 325), which span Wayne, Pike, and Sussex counties.  The project includes pipeline drilling activities under the Delaware River, significant new grading and clearing of previously undisturbed land, and over 80 separate water body crossings within the watershed.

Size and Scope

The size and scope of the construction activity and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Delaware River Basin.  There are significant concerns related to the cumulative impact that continuous water body crossing pipeline construction activity has on the health and vitality of the Delaware River Basin.  In addition to the NEUP, there are at least 13 other major pipeline upgrade projects that are being proposed for construction within the Delaware River Watershed.  These construction projects will facilitate the further development of new natural gas wells, access roads, gathering lines, compressor stations, and other supporting infrastructure, which will further degrade the local environment.

There are also numerous documented regulatory compliance failures associated with this type of pipeline construction activity.  In a recent pipeline upgrade project similar in both size and scope conducted by TGP, called the 300-Line Upgrade Project, multiple violations were reported by the Conservation Districts in Pike, Wayne, and Susquehanna counties.  In Pike County alone, numerous Notices of Violations were reported, including: 17 instances of dirt and sediment being discharged into water bodies, 7 violations for worksite conditions, and 21 instances of failure to properly institute Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control.  This high frequency of violations demonstrates that there were systemic and continued failures in TGP’s compliance with regulatory controls, which suggests improper oversight, and or, inadequate enforcement.  In Wayne County, out of 16 inspections conducted by the County Conservation District during the 300 Line Extension Project, 15 violations were found.  This startling 93% failure rate provides further evidence of systemic compliance failures.

Furthermore, at the federal level, during the 300 Line Extension Project, in 28 out of 38 “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report[s]” that were provided on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s [FERC] website there was at least one recorded incident where construction activity did not come into “compliance with Project specifications, mitigation measures, and applicable FERC-approved Project plans.”  Additionally, there were also at least 10 separate instances where an inspector in their “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report” indicated that a noncompliance report would be filed at a later date, but where the inspector failed to file a noncompliance report with FERC (and no reason was provided for the failure to issue that report in the following week’s report).  These 10 separate instances indicate that either FERC has maintained incomplete records for the project, or that there were multiple failures to follow-up on potentially enforceable noncompliance matters by FERC sanctioned environmental inspectors. 

On November 21, 2011 TGP presented an Environmental Assessment of the NEUP to FERC.  Comments were submitted on behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the New Jersey Highlands Coalition, the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club by the Columbia Environmental Law Clinic before the December 21, 2011 deadline.  Click here for comment submitted
 
In summary of some of the impacts identified in the December 21, 2011 comment to FERC:

    “FERC’s conclusion that the Project will have no significant environmental impacts is unsupportable in the face of evidence demonstrating the potential severity of the Project’s impacts.” 
    “…the project will result in environmental impacts to over 800 acres of land over the 40-mile long project area…” 
    “The transmission of highly flammable natural gas creates significant risks of loss of life and major property damage. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reports that, in the past twenty years, significant on-shore gas transmission incidents have caused 43 fatalities, 219 injuries requiring in-patient hospitalization, and over $1 billion in property damage resulting from significant on-shore gas transmission incidents.3 Within the past year alone, three pipeline segments owned and operated by TGP have exploded, causing large fires, forcing residential evacuations, and threatening public safety.4” 
    “The EA identifies no fewer than thirty-five hazardous waste sites within 1,700 feet of the Project.” 
    “Each of the five pipeline loops will cross through sensitive and unique vegetative communities.” 
    “Loop 323 will cross the Delaware State Forest, High Point State Park, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Clove Brook Road Corridor Important Bird Area. EA at 2-73, 2-74, 2-45. Loop 323 will also cross the Delaware River, a National Wild and Scenic River. EA at 2-13. Loop 325 is located entirely within the Highlands Region, and will cross the Long Pond Ironworks State Park, the Monksville Reservoir, and Ringwood State Park. EA at 2-75, 2-76, 2-78, 2-79. The pipeline loops will also cross more than seven miles of prime farmland, EA at 2-4, dozens of high quality and exceptional waterbodies that serve as coldwater and warmwater fisheries, EA at 2-19, and almost fifty acres of wetlands, EA at 2-25.” 
    “The areas affected by the Project serve as habitat for four federally listed threatened or endangered species, the Bald Eagle, and sixty-five state endangered, threatened, or special concern species. “ 
    “The Project will permanently convert approximately eighty acres of forested land, potentially leading to increased erosion, fragmentation, and edge habitat, which could “decrease the quality of habitat for forest wildlife species.” EA at 2-36.” 
    “Construction of the Project will substantially degrade an additional 265.4 acres of forested land, which the EA admits will take “many years to regenerate.” EA at 2-36, 2-80. The Project will also cause “a permanent conversion of previously forested wetland areas to non-forested wetland areas,” 

The Delaware River Basin has the authority to regulate pipelines construction activity that involves a “significant disturbance of ground cover” affecting water resources.  Specifically, Article 3, section 2.3.5 (12) of the DRBC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures states, that the following activities are excluded from DRBC jurisdiction, “Electric transmission or bulk power system lines and appurtenances; major trunk communication lines and appurtenances; natural and manufactured gas transmission lines and appurtenances; major water transmission lines and appurtenances; unless they would pass in, on, under or across an existing or proposed reservoir or recreation project area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; unless such lines would involve significant disturbance of ground cover affecting water resources. . . ” (emphasis added).  However, up to this point the DRBC has failed to exercise its authority in this arena.  In light of the regulatory compliance failures overseen by both the FERC and PADEP, the DRBC should exercise their statutory mandate to regulate pipeline construction activities in order to effectively preserve the natural integrity of the watershed.  Pressure should continue to be levied against the DRBC to take such action. 
 
Delaware Riverkeeper Network is committed to restoring natural balance in the Delaware River and watershed where it has been lost, and ensuring preservation where it still exists.  As such, we are actively engaged at the local, state, and federal government levels to ensure that full weight of legal enforcement authority is brought to bear on pipeline construction projects where operators have failed to comply with their statutory and regulatory responsibilities, and will vigorously facilitate the enforcement those regulations and permit terms and conditions where necessary.

To keep abreast of the latest on this project be sure to read the Delaware Riverkeeper’s Countdown blog posts.