Overview

On September 27, 2015, Sunoco submitted an application to the Delaware River Basin Commission for its Pennsylvania Pipeline Project, also referred to as Mariner East 2.  According to its August 2015 application, Sunoco’s Mariner East 2 pipeline would cut across 79 wetlands and 195 streams in the Delaware River Basin in Berks, Chester, and Delaware Counties, impacting 221 acres in Berks County, 184 acres in Chester County and 83 acres in Delaware County within the Delaware River Basin.  Since beginning construction the pipeline has wreaked havoc across the state of Pennsylvania. In response, DRN has initiated two lawsuits against Sunoco and demanded that the DRBC suspend its docket.

In August, 2017, in resolution of legal action the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, in partnership with the Clean Air Council and Mountain Watershed Association brought against the Sunoco Mariner East project, the groups entered into a settlement with the DEP and Sunoco to prevent spills of drilling fluid associated with Sunoco’s horizontal directional drilling and to protect drinking water supplies and fragile ecosystems across the state. Since then, more spills have occurred, adding to the over 100 spills of drilling fluid to date. For example, during the course of less than a week in early October, 2017 there were four spills at a site in Chester County located at Boot Road and Enterprise Drive. Drilling continued anyway. 

In Response

On October 24, 2017, the organizations filed a motion requesting that the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board direct the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to abide by a court-ordered protocol designed to prevent spills of drilling fluid along the Mariner East 2 pipelines.

The August settlement had been adopted by the Environmental Hearing Board as a Stipulated Order and established a protocol that the Department and Sunoco must follow in responding to spills.  The protocol is designed to prevent repeat spills and requires Sunoco to stop drilling until the Department inspects the site of a spill and ensures more spills won’t happen there.

The Department has not been applying the protocol in all instances, resulting in Sunoco continuing to spill drilling fluid at the same sites. Monday’s motion requests that the Board clarify the spill protocol to ensure the protections the parties agreed to are followed moving forward.

“It is unfortunate that once again it is the responsibility of non-profit organizations to ensure that the Department appropriately responds to Sunoco’s ongoing spills,” said Maya K. van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper and leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

The Board’s Order is part of an ongoing appeal of 20 deficient water permits the Department issued for the Mariner East 2 pipelines in February. That Order was entered after the Board had halted all horizontal directional drilling for the Mariner East 2 pipelines due to the damage Sunoco’s drilling practices was causing to drinking water supplies and the environment.

DRN continues to monitor a few areas along the construction route where continued issues and violations are occurring along the ME2 route.  A real time water testing probe was installed by DRN and Stroud in December to document water quality conditions. Landowners along the route continue to document harms and violations and DRN has photo documented and provided reports to the Conservation District for follow up and enforcement.

Updates June12, 2018

Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Sunoco Pipeline L.P. for their failure to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES permit) for the Mariner East II pipeline project.

NPDES permits are required under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law (CSL). The complaint states:

“During construction of an industrial scale natural-gas liquids pipeline, Defendant Sunoco Pipeline LLC (hereinafter “Sunoco”) illegally discharged, and continues to discharge, pollution in the form of sediment-laden stormwater to Pennsylvania’s waters on multiple occasions, causing or contributing to violations of water quality standards on numerous occasions and in various counties across the state of Pennsylvania.”

Construction and operation of the pipeline has resulted in numerous unlawful discharges of sediment-laden water and other pollutants into waters of the United States in violation of the CWA and the CSL. Sunoco has been operating without the necessary permit for 399 days, which subjects Sunoco to civil penalties as high as $14,962,500.

“Sunoco is polluting our waterways and violating the law.  The violations are blatant, willful and having devastating impacts on our environment.  Neither the state nor federal government has enforced this critical permitting requirement on the pipeline company, which is one of the many reasons we are seeing so much environmental harm.  Our laws were passed for a reason, to protect the environment from environmental degradation and harm. Pennsylvania’s government is failing miserably when it comes to these fracked gas and fracked gas liquids pipelines.  Once again, we the people are having to stand up in our own defense,” said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper and leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

DRN is requesting the Court require Sunoco to obtain and comply with a NPDES permit, perform ground water assessments, provide relief to nearby residents if assessments show water contamination, and pay all civil penalties associated with the permit violations.

Sunoco has faced several fines and permit suspensions throughout construction of the Mariner East II project for violations such as drilling fluid spills and water contamination. Sunoco’s construction activities have also caused large sinkholes to open up in a residential neighborhoods, threatening the integrity of the parallel Mariner East 1 pipeline and consequently leading the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) to issue an Emergency Order temporarily suspending Sunoco’s operations to prevent “catastrophic results impacting the public.” A judge at the PUC specifically noted that Sunoco has “made deliberate managerial decisions to proceed in what appears to be a rushed manner in an apparent prioritization of profit over the best engineering practices available.”

Update June 15, 2018

Delaware Riverkeeper Network wrote to the Delaware River Basin Commission urging them to suspend the Docket provided the project and to undertake a thorough review of the project, because of significant and ongoing violations, the damaging impacts it is having on water resources of the basin, and the need for significant restoration and mitigation activities before any considerations regarding how, when or to what extent construction should be allowed to continue.

Update:  July 3, 2018

After DRBC refused our request to take action to suspend the DRBC docket for Mariner East, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, joined by many community organizations, pushed back.  See our letter here.  

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

Overview

Linden Energy Services is seeking the right an easement over public lands owned by Buckingham and Preston Townships in Wayne, County PA.  The Easement would allow construction of a minimum of two natural gas pipelines on the Right of Way but would give the company an unlimited right to build more as they see fit.  It would also give the right to build pipelines larger than the originally discussed 20 inch size Linden Energy Services is currently asserting they want to build.

At a public meeting the Linden Energy Services said the pipeline was intended to connected the Tennessee Gas Company’s 300 Line in Pennsylvania with the Millennium Pipeline in New York.

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

The Leidy Southeast Expansion Project

The Leidy Southeast Expansion Project (LSE project) is proposed for construction by Transcontinental Pipeline Company (“Transco”). Transco is requesting to construct and operate the LSE project in order to provide 469,000 dekatherms per day (dt/day) of natural gas from receipt points on Transco’s Leidy Line in Pennsylvania to various delivery points along Transco’s Mainline and Leidy systems in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Transco proposes that in order to transport this volume of natural gas it must construct approximately 28.36 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline looping, adding of 92,700 horsepower (hp) at four existing compressor stations, and modifying of various other above ground facilities. 

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network challenged the project before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on March 10, 2015.  

The Franklin Loop

The Franklin Loop would cut across part of the Delaware River Basin in Monroe County that is made up of all special protection streams.  According to Williams Transco Resource Reports, the proposed pipeline would cut across the Lehigh River Watershed and would cross 17 perennial streams, three intermittent streams and five ephemeral streams.  Pipeline cuts would include, for example, the Lehigh River, Tunkhannock Creek, Kendall Creek, Two Mile Run, and Tobyhanna Creek – all waterbodies are designated either High Quality or Exceptional Value in this proposed loop.  The pipeline cut across Tobyhanna Creek would span 70 feet; the cut across the Lehigh River (EV) would span 55 feet; the cut across Tunjhannock Creek would span 30 feet.  Williams Transco is proposing a flowing, dry ditch,dam-and-pump, or dry flumed crossing for most of the streams in this loop despite their current special protection designations.   The Franklin Loop would impact 31 wetlands with a total wetland disturbance of 16.24 acres.  Wetland disturbance breakout reported by Williams Transco is:  4.37 emergent wetlands, 0.64 permanent impact of forested wetland, 0.65 temporary forested wetland disturbance, and 10.58 scrub shrub disturbance.  The Franklin Loop in the Delaware Watershed has more wetland disturbance than any of the other loops for this project (entire project states 22.22 acres of disturbance – Franklin Loop makes up 16.24 of that 22.22 acreage). 

Franklin Loop hydrostatic testing is also being proposed to withdraw from Tobyhanna Creek (MP 65.5) and the Lehigh River (MP61.05). 

To see the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s initial questions and concerns about the project review the comments we submitted to FERC in June, 2013 listed below.

On October 2, 2013 the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed to intervene with FERC on the Leidy Line docket.  Intervention motion in documents below.

In January Delaware Riverkeeper Network asked for a rescission of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued for the project and urged rehearing.  

To follow the process and documents for this project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:  
Sign up at 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. CP13-551

To see a map of this project and the others proposed for the Delaware River Watershed view our
pipeline map. 

To learn more about pipelines in general check out the documents and information at: http://stopthepipelines.org/

Sunoco/Energy Transfer Poised to Replace and Relocate a Gasoline Pipeline under the Delaware River near Washington Crossing

An existing gasoline pipeline that goes under the Delaware River from Upper Makefield Township, PA to Hopewell Township, NJ is planning to use Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to install a new pipeline across and under the Delaware River through a new, deeper HDD pathway into Hopewell Township, replacing exposed pipe in Jacobs Creek. Jacobs Creek is a tributary to the Delaware River and is located along the Hopewell and Ewing Township border in NJ. The new pipeline will connect to the existing Sunoco pipeline in Hopewell Township.

Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (SPLP) owns and operates a 14-inch welded steel high-pressure petroleum products pipeline (“Jacobs Creek Pipeline”) that transports product (gasoline) from Sunoco’s Twin Oaks Terminal in PA to their Newark Facility in NJ. The project area is located near the confluence of the Delaware River and Jacobs Creek where an exposed length of pipeline ­­– length of 301 feet — within the Jacobs Creek bed is to be removed. This replaced section of pipeline will then be connected to approximately 2,500 feet of pipeline that will be installed underneath the Delaware River through the process of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD). The HDD will continue on the New Jersey side of the river through a new pathway using easements on private properties: located at portions of the pathway within the 100-year floodplain; further from Jacobs Creek than the existing pipeline; and mostly still within the Creek’s 150 foot riparian stream buffer, as defined by Hopewell Township.

The proposed HDD will commence in Upper Makefield Township, near Washington Crossing PA and emerge in Hopewell Township NJ, and then travel to a proposed tie-in location with the existing pipeline on what is known as the Gristmill property to the east of the Delaware River. The HDD entry points both in PA and New Jersey will be using easements on private residential properties; the NJ properties are “greenfields” because the pipeline is not currently installed at those locations. The proposed HDD will pass under PA SR 32/River Road, the Delaware River, the Delaware and Raritan Canal and Delaware and Raritan Canal State Park Trail, NJ SR 29/River Road, an historic rock and concrete culvert that supports Route 29 and the Canal, and will terminate where the HDD would tie in with a new length of pipeline in the Jacobs Creek buffer. The new length of pipeline will tie in with the existing pipeline at a point to the east in Hopewell Township, moving away from Jacobs Creek. The project will traverse the Delaware and Raritan Canal Historic District and through the 18^th Century Gristmill which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The new length of pipe will travel to a proposed tie-in to the existing pipeline, which travels on to Newark, NJ.

To remove the exposed pipe, “Jacobs Creek would be dammed off using sandbags or a port-a-dam to allow access into the stream and to the exposed pipe, which would be cut and capped at this location”, according to D and R Canal Commissions records. Records received from DRN’s file reviews to various agencies will be provided and updated on this web page.

The dangers posed by: inadvertent returns of drilling muds and fluids during HDD drilling and construction; pollution spills; stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation to the River, Canal, and Jacobs Creek; disturbance of fish, aquatic life, wildlife and protected species; removal of trees and native vegetation and the need to ensure successful remediation and replacement; damage to Jacobs Creek from the planned temporary obstruction; and accidents during the project are some of the concerns of DRN and the community. Given Sunoco Energy Transfer’s many problems with the poorly executed installation of the Mariner East pipeline installation in PA, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network considers careful monitoring during its construction to be of great importance.

DRBC approved the project in November of 2021 and the project has received other approvals from PADEP, NJDEP, D and R Canal Commission, NJ Water Supply Authority, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has also filed OPRAs (NJ Open Public Records Act) and RTK (PA Right to Know Act) requests with several agencies and with Hopewell and Ewing Townships in NJ and Upper Makefield Township in PA to determine where else the project needs approval before construction will actually begin. Currently, the project appears to be waiting on some key approvals and a prohibition on tree cutting is in place under NJDEP requirements until August 31 for the protection of birds. An exact date of construction has yet to be determined. This page will be kept up to date as new information is learned.

Delaware Riverkeeper Network is actively gathering information on the Jacobs Creek Pipeline project and will be offering free monitoring training to residents who want to monitor the project. DRN is also establishing lines of communication with the overseeing permitting agencies for reporting purposes. To sign up for training contact: tracy@delawareriverkeeper.org.

October 2022 Update:

As of 10/21/2022 Sunoco began the Horizontal Directional Drilling in Upper Makefield Twp., PA to drill under the Delaware River and through to the NJ Side of the project. Hopewell Township has a tree removal application that has been approved for Sunoco to remove 46 trees without replacement and instead to donate to the Hopewell Tree Escrow fund for Lot 6. Lots 9 and 10, the trees will be replaced with 76 trees yet to have size and type determined. The permit for tree removal was approved by Hopewell Township subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to tree removal, Sunoco shall prepare a performance bond estimate for review and approval by the Township Engineer. The performance bond shall be posted with the Township Clerk. 2. Prior to tree planting, Sunoco shall submit a tree replacement plan for review and approval by the Township Engineer and 3. Payment into Tree Fund Escrow shall be submitted prior to tree removal. DRN is still working on obtaining a construction schedule of how the project is planned to progress. At this time, it is unknown when staging  will begin on the NJ side of the project, along Jacobs Creek.

The HDD drilling is very loud with a banging sound that echoes in the area around the Upper Makefield Twp. location. For a video report go here: https://youtu.be/4xXf7yJGPAg

November 2022 Upate:

Delaware Riverkeeper Network is continuing to monitor the progress of the Jacobs Creek Pipeline project that spans the PA and NJ side of the Delaware River. The HDD process on the PA side began in the first week of November and we believe has concluded on the NJ side. DRN is currently seeking confirmation on this and the following construction and remediation steps that will be taking place in Jacobs Creek and through the New Jersey portion of the project. On the PA side, community monitors alerted DRN to unusual hoses they saw in Houghs Creek. DRN then sent a letter to Sunoco, Upper Makefield, and Bucks County Conservation District asking the purposes of the hoses and whether the site had the Best Management Practices in place. Upon sending this letter it does seem hay bales that were not previously present were then brought to the site and DRN was assured by Bucks County Conservation District and Upper Makefield Township that the hoses and site were in compliance with all regulations (documents below).

December 2022 Update:

The Jacobs Creek Pipeline project is ongoing and currently much of the operations and construction are now on the NJ side of the project in Hopewell Township. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network, through file review requests, became aware of a 2 gallon bentonite drilling fluid spill next to the upland area of Jacobs Creek as a result of ongoing construction with the Jacobs Creek Pipeline project.  The spill incident was reported to the appropriate agencies and at such time the spill was cleaned up with hand tools and contained using a temporary compost filter sock. DRN has sent an inquiry to NJDEP to ask further about any continued monitoring with the spill and what is being done to prevent future incidents like this as the project moves forward.

March 2023 Update: 

From DRN’s findings the above mentioned Bentonite spill has been cleaned up and preventative measures taken. The HDD process under the Delaware River and into New Jersey has been undertaken and finished. The project at Jacobs Creek on the New Jersey side of the river involves removing the old pipeline that has become exposed in the creek bed and replacing it with a new pipeline. DRN is currently working to find a schedule of when or if this removal of the old pipeline has taken place yet by reaching out to the various agencies and Sunoco itself.

April 2023 Update: 

The relocation portion of the Jacobs Creek Pipeline Project is now complete and the exposed pipeline located within Jacobs Creek in NJ is grouted in place and is in-active. DRN has been informed that due to a moratorium on in-stream activities currently, construction operations are paused until at least after July 31. It is expected that removal of the exposed section of pipeline will resume in August with final restoration happening in September or October, or throughout both months.

Proposed by the Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company

The Greenspring Pipeline Expansion project proposed by the Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company includes over 11 miles of pipeline (11 miles of 16-inch diameter and 0.1 mile of 10-inch diameter), two new mainline values and one pressure regulating station. The project would be installed in Kent and New Castle Counties, Delaware. And while the project largely follows an existing railroad right of way, there are still serious concerns with its environmental impacts. 

The Project

The project includes a 75-foot wide construction corridor and a permanent 30-foot permanent right of way retained after construction. Approximately 131.54 acres of land would be affected by construction activities. Eleven waterways will be crossed with 13 stream crossings, all but two of those crossings using the open cut method of laying pipeline. 3.34 acres of forest land will be impacted, as will 21 wetlands in 33 different locations including 3.54 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, 0.49 acres of palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands and 1.39 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts to wetlands would include 1.47 acres of palustrine forested, 0.19 acres of palustrine scrub/shrub and 0.71 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands. 

There are 11 waterbodies that would be crossed by this project (with 13 crossings) in the four watersheds of Blackbird Creek, Smyrna river, Leipsic River and the St. Jones River, all tributaries to the Delaware Bay. Of the 11 waterbodies to be crossed by this project, 9 of them will be crossed using the open cut method – digging a trench across the streambed, laying the pipe, and covering it over before the temporary stoppage of stream flow is allowed to resume.

March 21, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gave permission for the project to proceed.

Update:  October 18, 2019 the US Energy Information Administration wrote: “No information since 2013/2014; assumed cancelled“.

Given no official announcement by the company there is a concern that this project will be revived at some point in the future.

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company Proposes its Third Consecutive Pipeline Upgrade in Three Years with its Diamond East Pipeline Project

Diamond East Pipeline Project (Proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company) 

Proposed Project Locations: Potentially – Luzerne County, PA; Carbon County, PA; Northampton County, PA; Bucks County, PA; Hunterdon County, NJ; Mercer County, PA. (Route not yet finalized).

Transcontinental Gas and Pipeline Company (“Transco”) recently announced a new project on August 26, 2014 called the Diamond East Pipeline project. The Diamond East Pipeline is designed to be a large scale transmission pipeline that will stretch 50 miles from a gathering system in Luzerne County and Lycoming Counties in Pennsylvania and terminate at in Mercer County, New Jersey. The proposed project will include new pipeline looping and additional compression to transport roughly 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. The Diamond East Pipeline project will impact over 600 acres of land. The project appears to be wholly redundant with the PennEast Pipeline Project which was proposed earlier in August. Both projects propose to carry 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day and follow a parallel path through the Delaware River Basin. 

The Diamond East project is the third in a series of pipeline upgrade projects that Transco has proposed in the last three years to its Leidy pipeline system. The first project was the Northeast Supply link, which went into service in 2013. The next project was Transco’s Leidy Southeast Expansion project, which is currently in the permitting process at both the state and federal levels. Transco’s third project proposes to fill in the gaps left by the aforementioned projects. Each of these projects impact the same sub-watersheds and tributary systems, and also involve overlapping construction zones and results in the re-disturbance of streams, soils, and habitat. This type of pipeline project segmentation has been recently rejected the D.C. Circuit in Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In that case the D.C. Circuit found that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission improperly segmented its review of a series of four pipeline upgrade project proposed by Tennessee Gas and Pipeline Company over a period of 3 years. Here, we have a substantially similar situation. 

Size and Scope

The size and scope of the construction activity for the Diamond East project and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. Indeed, the Diamond East project may require a crossing of the Delaware River itself as well as many other sensitive exceptional value and high quality tributaries to the Delaware River. Large scale transmission lines such as the Diamond East project also result in significant forest fragmentation, invite and propagate the spread of invasive species, and degrade the diversity and dispersion of native flora and fauna. Furthermore, these pipeline projects also degrade the functions and values of the wetlands that they plow through, as the construction and operation of the pipeline permanently converts forested wetlands to uplands or emergent wetlands. The Diamond East project will further facilitate the development of new gas drilling wells, access roads, gathering lines, compressor stations, and other supporting infrastructure, which will further degrade the local environment. 

There are also significant concerns related to the cumulative impact that continuous water body crossing pipeline construction activity and wetland disturbance has on the health and vitality of the Delaware River Basin. This is particularly a concern with the Diamond East project, as many of these same subwatersheds are proposed to be impacted by construction activity on PennEast’s parallel line.. Also, there are several other proposed pipeline projects that have been concentrated in the same sub watersheds as the Diamond East project, these projects include: Texas Eastern’s TEAM 2014 Project, Columbia’s East Side Expansion Project. 

The Diamond East project will need to receive a number of important federal and state permits and authorizations for it to proceed. This includes authorizations from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity), the Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 permit), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Section 401 Clean Water Certifications). The project proponents have stated that they intend on holding public meetings and submitting initial proposals to regulatory agencies later this year. The process for obtaining each of the aforementioned required permits is an opportunity for the general public to engage with the regulatory body and the project proponent, submit comments, and impact the project itself. 

Additionally, 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. The Diamond East project certainly would trigger review under that standard; however, up to this point the Delaware River Basin Commission has failed to exercise its authority in this arena for any of the pipelines that have crisscrossed the Delaware River Basin. DRN encourages community members to write letters in support of the Commission properly exercising its authority over these projects. 

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, including the Diamond East project.

Delaware River Pipeline Relocation Project – Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company, from Delaware County PA under the Delaware River to Paulsboro Refinery, NJ

The Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company (PNGPC) has proposed to build a pipeline under the Delaware River to connect the Paulsboro Refinery in Paulsboro, Gloucester County, New Jersey (the pipeline actually would surface in Greenwich Township) to a tie-in with an existing Spectra 16-inch diameter Pipeline in Tinicum Township, Delaware County, PA (adjacent to the Philadelphia International Airport).

The project is replacing an existing natural gas pipeline that was damaged by the Army Corps of Engineers’ Delaware River Deepening of the navigation channel and had to be closed off.  The new pipeline would be constructed using HDD under the Delaware River, drilling from both sides of the river towards the center where the wellbores would meet.   The existing pipeline is 6 inches and 8 inches in diameter. The new pipeline would be 12 and 24 inches in diameter, a substantial increase in size that will allow an increase in volume of gas delivered.  The current pipeline can deliver 38 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas; this would increase to 57.7 million standard cubic feet per day.  It is unclear how the added volume of gas would be used. The application states in several places that it will be for “future economic development”.  There is no discussion of the future development impacts, wrongly separating the rest of the project that would serve “future economic development” from the project being permitted at this time.  See DRN FERC comment below for more details.

Approximately 425 feet of the existing pipeline would be removed from the river bottom, 4,179 feet of existing pipeline on land near the Philadelphia Airport would be removed, and approximately 8,153 feet of the existing pipeline will be abandoned in place.  2.6 miles of new 12- and 24- inch pipeline would be installe , about 8,550 feet of it will be constructed using HDD. A new PIG launcher would be installed next to the Spectra metering site where the new pipeline would be connected, modifications would be made to the connection at the Paulsboro Refinery and a new tie-in facility that would include a PIG receiver, would be installed at the Paulsboro Refinery.  A “Y” would be installed at the end of the pipeline at the Paulsboro refinery, capped off.  The portion to be removed was damaged by the Deepening of the Delaware River navigation channel but that portion is not in the Federal Navigation Channel, it is in an area to the west of the channel.  The pipeline now in the river’s Federal Navigation Channel will be closed off and left abandoned in the bottom of the river.

On December 1, 2015, PNGPC submitted an Abbreviated Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Blanket Authority and Request for Waivers (“Application”) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  An Environmental Assessment for the proposed project was published by FERC in January 2016 (Docket No. CP16-27-000).  DRN commented on the Environmental Assessment Notice of Intent.  DRN concluded that the project would have substantial adverse environmental impacts; that it threatens to significantly disturb the ecosystems, habitats, and water quality of the Delaware River, including its Estuary and Bay; and that it poses several unjustifiable public safety threats.  See comment below.

On September 7, 2016, FERC granted PNGPC the authorization it requested, subject to certain conditions.  On November 11, 2016, PNGPC filed its Implementation Plan, as required by Environmental

Condition No. 6 of the Order.  Some permits have been issued such as the stormwater permit from Delaware County Conservation District and certain township permits. http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20161209-5031

DRN Comment on the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to PADEP

On September 5, DRN submitted comment on the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to PADEP.  The project is inconsistent with the CZMA and CRMP.  It would trench through at least five acres of wetlands in an area where wetlands are scarce.  This direct effect on emergent and forested/shrub wetlands violates the CRMP’s policy to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore the remaining wetlands within the Commonwealth’s coastal areas.  The conversion of forested/shrub wetlands has lasting and devastating impacts yet these impacts are not addressed whatsoever, despite the CRMP requirement to mitigate for any lost wetland values.  The project would trench through the floodplain in the Delaware River coastal zone, actions that are inconsistent with the CZMA and Pennsylvania’s Coastal Resources Management Program (CRMP).  Trenching creates a high likelihood of erosion, particularly when used in flood-prone areas. Trenching for pipeline construction and removal of a portion of the old pipeline will result in sediment loading, an increase in turbidity, and an increase in total suspended solids.  

While removal will entail negative impacts, the old pipeline is planned, except for 425 feet, to be abandoned in the river bottom.  If left in the river to corrode, it will create a continuous source of heavy metal pollution, can release any remaining pollutants from the line, and will diminishing habitat for aquatic species.  All of these negative water quality and habitat impacts will directly affect aquatic species such as shad, herring, striped bass, and federally endangered Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon that rely upon them.  Any pipeline leak could have dire consequences for aquatic species.  Leaving the old pipeline in place will also cause future safety and hazard conditions for marine traffic and increase the likelihood of rupture and displacement of the line. DRN is opposed to any portion of the old pipeline being left in the river.The project contributes to the deterioration of the urban coastal environment in this area, in violation of CZMA policy.  Any flood event could expose the pipeline and result in damage and a catastrophic rupture.

Also, trenching produces a large amount of spoils but there is no discussion or proposals about how these spoils would be handled and disposed as is required under the CRMP.  Further, approval of this project would be in violation of the CRMP’s policy to reduce the risk of flood loss and could have negative thermal impacts that have not been examined.  The project will affect coastal uses or resources and DRN concluded that the CZMA approval should be denied. See comment below.

DRN Comment to PADEP on the Proposed Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit 

On December 9, DRN submitted comment to PADEP on the proposed Water Obstruction and Encroachment permit and in opposition to the finding that the project meets the requirements of the Federal 401 Water Quality Certificate.  The Project does not comply with Chapter 105 of the Pennsylvania Code and is not consistent with 401 Water Quality Certification requirements in the Clean Water Act due to adverse impacts to waters and wetlands, adverse and unmitigated impacts on protected uses and on the maintenance and propagation of indigenous fish and habitat.  As mentioned above, potential impacts to the federally endangered species Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon are not addressed by the Project.  In addition to the aquatic species already mentioned, important species of relevance for commercial fisheries include, among others, American eel (Anguila rostrata), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) but these are also not considered despite the potential for negative impacts from the Project.

In addition to the impacts discussed above, the Project would disturb a minimum of 0.15 acres of Exceptional Value “Open Water”/Wetlands that is home to the state listed threatened/endangered species Pseudemys rubriventris (northern red bellied turtle) by drilling and by conducting construction activities above and around the pond and the habitat for the turtle. It would also permanently damage additional wetlands that should be classified as Exceptional Value to protect the habitat of the turtle but because of the mis-designation of the so-called ”Open Water” the protections that would apply for the turtle’s use of the wetlands are not applied by PADEP (there is no such designation in PA Chapter 93 water quality regulations as ”Open Water”, a fictitious term apparently invented for the Project).   The Project can reasonably be expected to have permanent impact on the turtles and their habitat, not a temporary impact as is claimed by the applicant.  Adequate protection for the turtles requires that there be no activity within at least 225 meters from the pond to provide available nesting area and that the time restriction be revised to include the nesting period (May-June), which is outside of the hibernation period of October to April.  There should be no drilling under the wetlands.  The nearby wetlands may be an important part of the habitat for these turtles, requiring that those wetlands also be classified as Exceptional Value and added to the protected area.  Additional protections are needed to preserve access to the river and feeding areas required by the turtles.  There should be a comprehensive analysis done of the site to assess the areas needed to be excluded and the time restrictions for any and all activity within at least a 225 meter radius of the pond.  Delaware Riverkeeper Network advocates that the work areas and Directional Drill Pullback Areas be moved from the proposed location to another location without Open Water or wetlands.

The project would also permanently degrade 6,436 square feet of streams and permanently impact at least 50 feet of floodway in the floodplain of the Delaware River.  It is claimed that the lay down area cannot be lengthened to remove the drilling further from the river because the length of the HDD drilling and pipeline construction is “at the limit of current technology”, bringing forward the question of the safety and technical soundness of drilling and maintaining such a long and deep well bore under a major waterway and Federal Navigation Channel.  The Pennsylvania construction site is simply too small for the activities planned.  It is also too small to provide adequate buffering between the Project and the river.  It can be expected that runoff from day to day operations could enter the river due to the proximity of the river and any spills, eruptions, accidental releases from the drilling operations could quickly effect the river and its water quality.  Options that do not require a river crossing must be considered but were not part of the environmental review process.

Additionally, Little Tinicum Island is located off shore and contains a heron rookery and could be home or foraging area for other species as well.  Species on nearby islands will be disturbed by the drilling noise, vibrations, lights, equipment emissions and round-the-clock construction activity related to the Project.  These potential harmful impacts are not addressed, discussed, or mitigated in any way. See comment below.

The PA state permits and the FERC approvals for the Project have been rushed through, seemingly to meet the construction schedule favored by the applicant. The opportunity for public comment and participation has not been very limited.  For all state permits, the public comment period should be extended because the applicant has submitted an incomplete application and inaccurate assessments and erroneous designations have been made, denying the public of the ability to effectively comment on the complete and accurate applications.  

March 24, 2017

The NDNY court dismissed Constitution Pipeline Company’s lawsuit against NYDEC. DRN had submitted a motion to intervene on behalf of NYDEC, and while our pending Motion to Intervene and pending Motion to Dismiss were dismissed as moot, the Court largely followed our argument that the harm suffered by Constitution was purely speculative at this point and that therefore the case should be dismissed.

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

Project Suspended!

Posted April 2013 to the Commonwealth Pipeline’s website (www.commonwealthpipeline.com): 

 “The sponsors of Commonwealth Pipeline have suspended development of the project. We will be updating the website periodically to provide current information regarding the project’s status. Thank you for your continued interest and patience.”      

Project basics as originally proposed:

Inergy Midstream, L.P., UGI Energy Services, Inc. and Capitol Energy Ventures, a subsidiary of WGL Holdings, Inc., are proposing construction of a new interstate natural gas pipeline they call the Commonwealth Pipeline. 

The Commonwealth Pipeline project would span approximately 120 miles in order to lay a 30-inch pipeline. The pipeline project is proposed to begin in Lycoming County, PA and to cut through Columbia, Montour, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Berks and Chester Counties, also in Pennsylvania. 

The Pipeline as proposed would transport an estimated 800,000 dekatherms per day of gas drilled and fracked from the Marcellus shale.

Warwick Township, West Vincent Township, and East Nantmeal worked with the Delaware Riverkeeper Network to oppose the project.  Communiities passed resolutions of opposition, issued public statements, and were well organized in opposition.  Organizing happened along the entire proposed route.

On February 2, 2013 the Delaware Riverkeeper Network urged DRBC to undertake review of the project and to mandate it secure a DRBC docket.  This was another pipeline that DRBC, early on, failed to act upon.  But in the end, our victory mooted the importance of their failure.

Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline (ASP) Will Move Marcellus Shale Gas 

The Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline (ASP) will move Marcellus Shale gas from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to as far as south as Alabama. The ASP is a Williams Energy Partners project, which currently operates the Transco system (a network of over 10,000 miles of pipeline).  ASP will consist of compression and looping of the Transco Leidy Line in Pennsylvania along with a greenfield pipeline segment, referred to as the Central Penn Line, connecting the northeastern Marcellus producing region to the Transco mainline in southeastern Pennsylvania. In addition, existing Transco facilities are being added or modified to allow gas to flow bi-directionally. The line cuts through 10 central Pennsylvania counties (Columbia, Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Clinton and Lycoming).

FERC issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project on Feb. 3, 2017. And, despite active litigation that questions permits issued by the states as well as certification from FERC, construction began in March 2017 and, in October 2018, FERC allowed for the project to go into service.

 Two Avenues of Litigation 

Delaware Riverkeeper Network has pursued two avenues of litigation in order to prevent this destructive pipeline, including a case that was just applied for certification to the Supreme Court of the United States. The first case brings a challenge to a permit issued by Pennsylvania for the project and is still pending in front of the Third circuit. In this case, Delaware Riverkeeper Network claims that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection failed to allow for public partition in the issuance of a NPDES permit for the project, in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

The second case, first filed at both the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board and the U,S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, alleges that PADEP improperly issued a Clean Water Action Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the project, and that Delaware Riverkeeper Network, as well as other groups appealing similar natural gas permits, have the right to appeal the 401 Certification to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, the state administrative body. The second conflict, whether the appeal of a permit goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals or to the state administrative adjudicatory body, arises due to language in the Natural Gas Act that requires permits issued for natural gas projects to be appealed to U.S. Courts of Appeals. In argument in front of the Third Circuit, Delaware Riverkeeper Network argued that under the Natural Gas Act, the Clean Water Act, the federal constitution, and Pennsylvania’s laws and regulations, any permits issued by the state of Pennsylvania should be first appealed to the PA Environmental Hearing Board (EHB). While the EBH agreed with the DRN, in the case filed at the EHB, the Third Circuit did not. Instead, the Third Circuit found that the EHB has no authority to review the issuance of permits under the NGA. This holding is contrary to fundamentals of federalism, the Clean Water Act, and Pennsylvania law. Further, it is contradictory to holdings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and within the Third Circuit itself.

After receiving the opinion from the Third Circuit, Delaware Riverkeeper Network felt that it was necessary to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. On January 9, 2019, Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted a petition for certification to the Supreme Court of the United States arguing both that Third Circuit was wrong in its interpretation and that if this decision is left to stand, it will create uncertainty for states in the Third Circuit (which includes Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) as well as nationally as it conflicts with other opinions issues by the First Circuit (Berkshire Envtl. Action Team, Inc. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, 851 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2017) and with an opinion issued by the Third Circuit itself (Twp. of Bordentown v. FERC, 903 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2018).

Below are some photos of monitoring and community watchdogging underway at the Transco Williams Atlantic Sunrise gas pipeline. DRN has trained over 50 volunteers to document construction conditions over the last few months. These pictures were taken in the vicinity of a trout stream located in Schuylkill County after the landowner called us with concerns and complaints.