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
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.
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.
In November, Adelphia Gateway, L.L.C. (Adelphia), a subsidiary of New Jersey Resources Corporation, announced that it was buying an 89 mile pipeline from Talen Energy Corp. On January 12, 2018, Adelphia filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for its proposed Adelphia Gateway Project (AGP). The proposed $143,00,000 pipeline project consists of acquiring and converting 89 miles of existing oil and natural gas pipelines, including constructing and operating two new 5,625 horsepower compressor states, installing 4.75 miles of new 16-inch diameter lateral pipelines, and constructing 8 new meter stations. The project will run from Martins Creek, PA to Marcus Hook, PA crossing Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, Bucks, and Northampton Counties, PA. It proposes to ship a total of 250,000 dekatherms a day of natural gas per day.
The whole of the pipeline would lie in the Delaware River watershed and in a portion of the watershed where numerous other pipeline projects are currently in operation, being construction, or are being proposed including, but not limited to, two Mariner East 2 pipelines, Marcellus to Market project, the PennEast project, and the Greater Philadelphia Expansion Project.
See below for a fact sheet describing the resources impact by the Adelphia Gateway Project.
UPDATE 9/19/2018:
DRN wrote to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) asking that DRBC exercise jurisdiction over the Adelphia project, and require that the project receive a DRBC docket before it is allowed to proceed.
UPDATE 5/1/2018:
On May 1, 2018 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) released a notice of intent to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed Adelphia Gateway Project (AGP). Comments to FERC on the scope of all potential environmental and community impacts are due. Two scoping hearings were held on May 30 and May 31 in Center Valley, PA and Essington, PA.
UPDATE 2/22/2018:
FERC requested for Adelphia to initiate the process of providing a third party contractor given concerns that have already been voiced about the project by stakeholders and interveners.
Trains carrying tank cars loaded with volatile domestic crude oil from North Dakota and other domestic shale fields are increasingly traveling across the nation. Many of these 100 to 120 car trains are coming to East Coast refineries and ports. These mile-long trains travel 1400+ miles to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware and the Delaware River port and refinery region on old infrastructure.
Many of the bridges, tracks and rail terminals are out of date and unsafe, unable to handle this new highly dangerous traffic and many are located right up against homes, towns, farms, cities, water supplies and high-risk facilities like nuclear power plants and hazardous waste processors. People and these vulnerable places are in harm’s way but don’t even know it. The industry and government is keeping basic information about what is in these tank cars and when and where they travel secret. For an eye-opening interactive map to see how close you are: http://explosive-crude-by-rail.org/
Emergency responders are most often in the dark about how to handle accidents. Oil train fires, which are common in an oil tank car derailment, burn so hot they usually just let them burn and try to keep the flames and oil from spreading, a difficult task and one many fire companies are not trained or equipped to handle.
This domestic crude is high in dissolved gases that ignite easily and the tank cars being used to carry this volatile cargo are substandard, easily punctured and broken open. The result has been dozens of fiery train derailments and a monumental increase in oil train mishaps, oil spills and damages. In Quebec, Canada, 47 people died in 2013 when a Bakken Crude oil train slammed into downtown Lac Megantic.
Facts About Today’s Oil Trains In Our Region
The development of domestic crude oil by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), mainly in North Dakota’s Bakken Shale fields but also in Canada (tar sands and other crude oil sources) and, to a lesser degree, the Utica shale in Ohio, has resulted in a large increase in the transport of crude oil by rail to this region. The largest single customer of Bakken crude is in Philadelphia – Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery – requiring 2 to 3 mile-long trains every day. The nation’s largest crude by rail yard is also located there.
Crude oil shipments by rail doubled in 2013 from 2012 nationally and Bakken crude went from a few thousand barrels per day to 965,000 barrels per day. 70% of that oil is moved by rail and forecasters expect that to rise to 90% in the near future. Pipelines are also unsafe and not a safe alternative.
Bakken Shale oil production is expected to continue to increase from 1 million barrels of oil per day (MMb/d) to approx.1.4 MMb/d by 2016.
The National Transportation Safety Board found that DOT-111 tank cars, the most commonly used, puncture easily when derailed, often exploding. The newer cars, CPC 1232s, have recently exploded as well, making it clear that no tank cars being used to carry Bakken crude today are safe.
Federal agencies say Bakken crude oil has unusually high gas content, low flash point, a low boiling point and high vapor pressure, risking catastrophic fire that is difficult or impossible to extinguish. Experts say it should be reclassified to require the use of tank cars designed for hazardous material and volatile gases should be stripped from the oil before being transported by train or by pipeline but the government does not require this; new regulations in North Dakota don’t require enough removal to make the cargo safe.
The high gas content means more volatile organic compounds that escape through the inadequate valves on the tank cars while they travel through communities and a greater incidence of leaks and spills, routinely adding to the oil being spilled from these cars.
As crude-by-rail traffic has increased, so have accidents, posing significant risks to life, property and the environment – 113 incidents involving crude-by-rail mishaps occurred in 2013. The most devastating was in Lac Megantic, Quebec where 47 people died and much of the town was blown up. Millions of gallons of oil was spilled in the town and they still haven’t been able to get it all cleaned up.
The U.S. Department of Transportation predicts an average of 10 derailments of trains hauling crude oil or ethanol per year over the next two decades, costing hundreds of lives and more than $4 billion in damages.
According to Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, more than 1.15 million gallons of crude oil was spilled from rail cars in over 35 tank car accidents in 2013, which is more oil than was spilled in the prior 37 years combined.
New regulations governing crude by rail have been adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration but they don’t nearly go far enough. Among the many shortcomings of the newly adopted rules (May 2015): a five year phase-in for new stronger cars and some retrofits as long as ten years; continued use of valves and outlets on tank cars that tend to pop open or burst in accidents, feeding fires and causing substantial spills; a 40 mph speed limit in “high population” areas while most derailments have occurred at much lower rates of speed; allowance of routing through cities and vulnerable high-risk areas; braking safety measures that are inadequate; no reclassification of the flammable and hazardous crude, which would require safer cars under current hazardous materials regulations; and public disclosure of the contents and specifics of oil train schedules are even less transparent than before–hiding more information that some federal officials have argued is not security sensitive.
What Do We Do?
We speak up and tell legislators they must make the public’s safety the priority, not companies’ bottom line. The federal government must hear from our federal elected officials that crude by rail cannot continue as it is. We need to speak up together – especially those who live and work along the routes these trains travel and those whose water supplies are in the path of the oil trains. There is federal legislation that has been proposed, more actions called for by the Federal Railroad Administration, and a network of concerned people has formed across the nation.
Locally, lots can be done to demand safety and protection from the trains’ routine air and water pollution and the potential of catastrophe. Residents and local government can advocate to discover what is actually going through their communities, how much and when, so they can be prepared and make informed local planning decisions. Also, local emergency responders and fire companies need assistance to be trained and equipped to address potential accidents, especially derailments, which are occurring with more and more regularity. In fact, many alog these train routes are no longer askig IF an accidnet will happen, but WHEN.
Considering the dangers of domestic crude oil and the documented very limited production longevity of the North Dakota fracked shale oil wells, a more secure and safe strategy would to leave this oil in the ground where it can be stored for the future. Today the more viable, economical sustainable and environmentally protective path is to leave fossil fuels behind and instead develop a green economy based on renewable, energy-efficient energy sources that will support healthy communities and a thriving biodiverse environment here where the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers come together, bringing us so many environmental and economic benefits if we protect them from degradation and pollution.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network staff is available to speak with residents or town officials and to share information about addressing the dangers and pollution issues presented by oil trains in the region.
October 2021, out of the blue as far as the public is concerned, Nacero, Inc., supported by a set of pro-fracking legislators, announced its proposal to constructed a new fracked gas refinery facility in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The facility would turn natural gas, much if not most of it fracked gas, into gasoline for cars. The unproven technology would cost $6 billion according to press reports, much of it apparently anticipated to come from the government, which is another way of saying the taxpayers.
This project is solidly supported by fracking industry supporters and is an obviously ploy to continue to perpetuate that devasating fossil fuel industry.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is an active part of a growing coalition of environmental and community leaders opposed to the project.
A joint press statement of the organizations issued December 21, 2021 reads as follows:
Opposition Statement on Proposed Nacero Gas-to-Liquids Refinery in Luzerne County Pennsylvania
A proposed gas-to-gasoline industrial plant in Luzerne County touted as being environmentally friendly is anything but, say a group of local, state, and national environmental organizations who have joined forces to oppose the project. The groups released the following statement alongside a Clean Air Council fact sheet about Nacero’s proposal:
Nacero, the Texas-based company behind the $6 billion refinery, markets its business as being environmentally conscious, but there is no evidence to support its claims, especially at the local level. When considering air permit documents obtained by Clean Air Council for Nacero’s similarly proposed Texas facility, Nacero’s proposed Luzerne County refinery would be the third-worst climate pollution emitter in the state and among the top emitters of other harmful pollutants. The current proposal places this big source of pollution in a residential neighborhood near an elementary school.
Little Is Known About the Process
Although Nacero says that its business is based on proven technology, little is known about the process. Since it was formed in 2015, Nacero has not built any of the nine plants it set out to build. Only one plant employing the technology exists in the world and that plant opened in 2019.
While the facility was only announced in press reports starting in October 2021, we are now learning that this facility has been advancing behind the scenes with the active support of Senator John Yudichak, Representative Aaron Kaufer, members of the Wolf administration and other state legislators. As environmental and community leaders from the region and the state, we view the lack of transparency about this project by government officials to date as a threat to undermining the public engagement process for future approvals for the project. As we see with fracking and pipelines, when the public is cut out of the process from the earliest stages, it is usually a sign that the review process is simply an after-the-fact rubber stamp on decisions the government has already promised–either explicitly or implicitly.
The company plans to market two gasoline products, which it will call “Nacero Blue” and “Nacero Green.” Nacero Blue relies on fracked gas inputs. Nacero Green is described as being made from gases from agricultural sites, landfills, and waste treatment facilities. Both products–which are chemically identical–would require more dangerous pipeline infrastructure to move the gas to the plant. Nacero is relying on carbon capture “when feasible” to prop up its claims, but feasibility of carbon capture is not a reality. Calling it “renewable natural gas” is nothing more than greenwashing the burning of gases (primarily methane) that will hurt our climate and release harmful pollutants into the air.
The Climate Impacts of the Proposed Refinery
The climate impacts of this proposed refinery cannot be minimized by the company’s greenwashing. This new refinery would require increased drilling and fracking, which in turn leads to heightened negative impacts on residents’ health and safety. These negative impacts include increased toxic waste from drilling, water contamination, harmful air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and negative economic impacts such as reduced property values.
Although the refinery project’s supporters are claiming that thousands of jobs would be created, the vast majority of those jobs would be temporary construction jobs and Nacero has not committed to hiring local workers to fill temporary or permanent positions. The company boasted in the press that 450-500 permanent jobs would be created, yet its website says that only 300 permanent jobs would be created. Again, the lack of truth and transparency around this project is concerning.
This is only the latest in a series of false climate solutions being proposed by the fossil fuel industry in an effort to keep doing business as usual despite warnings from the world’s top scientists on climate change, as well as local, regional, national, and international agencies. The environmental community is concerned that the proposed Nacero refinery in Luzerne County will be the first in a new wave of proposals for fracked gas-related projects marketed as “good for the climate,” but that instead will pollute local communities while emitting significant amounts of greenhouse gases and expanding the fracked gas industry.
Solutions
Our organizations support solutions that address the climate crisis while creating safe, long-term, good-paying jobs for Pennsylvanian workers which protect the health and safety of our communities and environment. Unfortunately, Nacero’s proposal does none of these things.
The organizations that contributed to this statement include Action Together NEPA, Berks Gas Truth, Better Path Coalition, Breathe Project, Clean Air Council, Climate Reality Project: Pennsylvania Chapters Coalition, Concerned Health Professionals of PA, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, FracTracker Alliance, Green Amendments For the Generations, League of Women Voters Pennsylvania, PennFuture, Pennsylvania Interfaith Power & Light, Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Wyoming Valley, and Watchdogs of Southeastern, PA (WaSEPA).
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network commissioned an analysis from Synapse Energy Economics entitled “Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal: Lifecycle GHG Emissions Analysis” to quantify the extent of greenhouse gas emissions produced from operations related to the Gibbstown Wyalusing LNG export project, from extraction to end use. In May 2023, Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Synapse Energy Economics presented an overview of the report. Watch the presentation here.
Delaware River Partners, LLC is proposing to build a new deepwater port at 200 N. Repauno Avenue, in Gibbstown, Greenwich Township, Gloucester County, NJ on the Delaware River. Dubbed “Gibbstown Logistics Center”, the port would be located on the former Dupont explosives manufacturing site known as the Repauno Plant. The applicant wants to use the site to store and transport natural gas liquids that would be brought in by freight rail cars (rail exists on the site currently) from points west (including the Marcellus shale region in Pennsylvania), offloaded to tanks and an underground cavern located on site that was used for explosives by Dupont, and then shipped out through a new port located on the Delaware River federal navigation channel.
May 28, 2019, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network wrote a scathing letter to the federal and state regulatory agencies of the region for failing to disclose that Delaware River Partners was also seeking approval to use the site for Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports. While obfuscating on the issue initially, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s letter and press efforts resulted in the agencies finally publicly admitting the LNG goals for the site.
The site is under a cleanup order due to toxic contamination of groundwater from Dupont’s use of the property, shuttered about 20 years ago. The site was used for manufacturing and processing of highly dangerous materials and some of the chemicals used are still in the environment at dangerous levels, under a continuing order by NJDEP to pump and treat. This includes nitrobenzene, a highly toxic carcinogenic chemical and aniline, which is involved with the processing of benzene to make nitrobenzene. Toxic acids were also used in the nitrobenzene manufacturing process. Industrial diamond processing was also done and may have used chemical vapor deposition or other processes that are used to manufacture industrial and synthetic diamonds.
Many permits have been applied for by Delaware River Partners for the development of the Gibbstown Logistics Center. The company is also applying for and, in one instance has already received, site plan approvals from Greenwich Township for portions of the property to be used for warehouses and related activities. A copy of DRN’s letter to Greenwich Township Planning and Zoning Boards is below.
Copies of the comments submitted on the original NGL proposal can be found below.
As can the multiple and ongoing letters regarding the newsly exposed LNG export proposal for the site.
Numerous files were obtained by DRN through the Open Public Records Act in New Jersey and reviewed by DRN staff and consultants over several months. All records were also shared with colleague organizations and residents in New Jersey who are concerned about the development of the project. See the running list of permits and approvals from local, state, and federal agencies.
The exposure of the secret plan to export LNG from the Gibbstown Logistics Center resulted in a cascade of events and public outcry.
The Delaware River Basin Commission Unanimously Approved the Permit
The Delaware River Basin Commission, despite strong opposition from the public, unanimously approved the permit for the Gibbstown Logistics Center on June 12, 2019. The vote was rushed through without any disclosure in the public notice that the terminal would handle LNG in addition to the other products at the terminal, which is currently under construction. DRBC hastily added a public hearing for the docket approval on June 6, where the DRBC verbally admitted LNG was a planned cargo. DRN’s comment to DRBC is provided below.
NJDEP had issued a Waterfront Development permit but had to rescind it on June 5 due to inadequate public notice. The draft permit also approved the Water Quality Certificate. Open for a brief 15 days of comment, which closed June 20, organizations submitted comment against the permit, which did not acknowledge or assess the LNG plans for the project. It is revealed in the application that New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is the “lead agency” for the project, providing proof that the state knew about the LNG plans in 2017 but did not disclose that publicly. Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s comment to NJDEP is provided below.
The “Letter of Intent” submitted by Delaware River Partners seeking approval by the Coast Guard for the export of LNG is now out of date as it only references one berth and the application approved by DRBC as well as other currently proposed permits regarding the project is for two new berths at the expanded dock. Also, the amounts of LNG (and natural gas liquids – known as “Liquefied Hazardous Gas”) contained in the application are no longer accurate because the capacity of shipping would greatly increase at the terminal if the two new berths (to be contained at an additional dock – Dock 2) are approved by New Jersey under a state Waterfront Development Permit. The NJ draft permit states that 37 shipping events per year would export the LNG and LHG overseas for sale. The “Letter of Intent” is provided below.
DRN has submitted comments on the expansion of the Gibbstown Logistics Center for what they call “Dock 2”. The second dock is proposed to have two ship berths, tripling the number of berths available for docking by ships. DRN has sent letters to the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard and all agencies that are considering permits, as discussed above. The letters are provided below.
EMPOWER NJ, a coalition of New Jersey organizations who are working for a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects and the development of clean., renewable energy sources has taken on the Gibbstown Logistics Center as one of the projects the coalition is fighting. Organizations from throughout the region, including Delaware and Pennsylvania, have joined the opposition to turning the Delaware River into an export port for LNG and are dedicated to fighting the Gibbstown Logistics Center.
A community public meeting will be held in Gibbstown at the public library on July 10, 2019 to share information and work with local residents and groups. See DRN’s calendar page and home page for the action alert and other action items regarding the project.
President Trump issued an Executive Order in April, 2019 for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to approve rail cars for LNG transport within 13 months. Two months later, PHMSA proposes a “Special Permit” for rail cars to carry LNG, with an environmental assessment that is open for public comment until July 8. The application was filed by Energy Transfer Solutions, a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy. The proposal to rail LNG is being driven by New Fortress Energy’s plans to export LNG overseas from Gibbstown Logistics Center. A sign-on letter prepared by Physicians for Social Responsibility is calling for another 90 days for public comment. This is being shared widely.
This rush to approval is not only reckless but also will launch a whole new highly dangerous means of transporting LNG over land to terminals that plan to export, where companies can get a lot more return for their buck, the public’s safety and the environment be damned. The new “market” means more pollution and destruction from increased fracking, more fracked gas processing plants like the LNG liquefaction plant New Fortress Energy wants to build in Wyalusing Twp., Bradford County, more greenhouse gas emissions and climate crises, more devastating health impacts from the shale gas frenzy and more communities exposed to the dangers of fire and explosion from derailments and accidents.
The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has proposed a new rulemaking that would allow Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to be carried in rail tank cars on the nation’s railways. The rulemaking is in direct response to an Executive Order by President Trump to make it legal to carry LNG by rail across the U.S., which is not allowed at this time. The proposal does not require specially designed tank cars to transport the highly flammable and super-cooled LNG but proposes to simply allow current DOT-113 cars to be used without any new safety testing or changes. There are many other problems with this reckless proposal that will endanger communities along train routes across the nation that are similar to the issues presented by the proposed Special Permit 20534 application made in PHMSA Docket 2019-0100. You can read DRN’s comment on that permit proposal here. That permit was requested by ETS Logistics company, New Fortress Energy’s subsidiary that is planning to build a processing plant for LNG in Wyalusing Twp., Bradford County, PA and rail the LNG to Gloucester County, NJ on the Delaware River where they are proposing to export it from the Gibbstown Logistics Center (hundreds of miles) overseas for sale. DRN issued an action alert with more info and submitted a comment against the rulemaking by the deadline of December 23, 2019. You can read the proposal and submit comment directly to PHMSA here. PHMSA extended the comment period deadline to Jan. 13, 2020.
PHMSA approved the Special Permit for New Fortress Energy’s subsidiary Energy Transport Solutions transport of LNG in rail cars from Wyalusing to Gibbstown in December 2019. The rail cars designed 50 years ago, USDOT specification 113C120W tank cars, will be allowed without any design changes. There are no speed limits and the exact route is not disclosed. There are conditions in the permit that may require some time for the company to meet; the permit expires 11.30.2021. This approval will be the first use of rail cars to move LNG ever in the United States and basically use the people along the railway as guinea pigs since this is a new and untested mode of transport with no proof of safety.
DRN’s filed hearing request legally challenging the approval was accepted by a vote of the Commissioners of the DRBC. A Hearing will be set in the coming months. NJ Department of Environmental Protection approved the Waterfront Development Permit and the Water Quality Certificate for Dock 2 in September. Delaware Riverkeeper Network appealed the permit in October, court proceedings will occur over the coming months. Other permits and approvals are needed in order for the project to proceed.
Also, here is an update on the Gibbstown Logistics Center proposed export terminal, as of December 17, 2019:
Currently, the local community is opposing the truck traffic that is plaguing Gibbstown every day as the site is readied for the use of Dock 1. The small town of Gibbstown has backyards adjoining the Gibbstown Logistics Center property and the entrance to the facility is down a residential street that is plagued dawn to dusk by incessant construction truck traffic for the Dock 1 project for almost a year. EMPOWER NJ has held public forums about the proposed LNG terminal to inform the region of the project; the next forum is in February in Chester, PA. EMPOWER NJ is committed to opposing the project as a dangerous and polluting fossil fuel project that should not be approved by NJDEP, that violates clean and renewable energy goals and does not advance a green economy for the state.
FERC FOIA Appeal
DRN submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to get information about just what Delaware River Partners and New Fortress Energy were telling FERC about their plans for LNG export at the Gibbstown Logistics Center and to find out if they had received any approvals. After FERC denied DRN’s FOIA request, DRN filed an appeal in July 2019. In September 2019, FERC’s Office of General Counsel ruled in DRN’s favor. Documents secured by DRN from FERC as a result of this legal challenge show how the agency failed to: 1) provide meaningful review of its jurisdictional authority over the proposed Dock 2, instead relying only upon industry representations regarding the project, and 2) publicly disclose the information thereby avoiding public scrutiny or challenge of the determination. DRN posted the files on our website for public viewing (see below links) and shared them widely with the media. The public disclosure of this information has been important in our advocacy and advancing our challenges to the Dock 2 LNG export project. It exposes that New Fortress Energy worked behind closed doors with FERC to avoid their jurisdiction and public disclosure of their true plans. Between this and other efforts to avoid regulatory review, New Fortress Energy has basically escaped scrutiny of the full effects of its project and there has been no comprehensive analysis of the public safety and health impacts associated with the unique handling, transloading, and transport of LNG, a hazardous and flammable substance. No agency with direct LNG experience has been involved in the approvals for this project. And many have turned a blind eye to the peril which the public and the environment would be exposed.
Request for DRBC Hearing / Adjudicatory Hearing –The first approval given to GLC’s Dock 2 was the DRBC Docket approved in June 2019 (several more approvals are needed from other agencies). DRN submitted a Request for Hearing asking that DRBC reconsider its approval based on the potential negative impacts of the export terminal on Delaware River resources. The DRBC approved DRN’s Hearing Request unanimously, re-opening the docket decision and allowing DRN legal redress.
DRN’s attorneys participated in various legal proceedings in 2019-early 2020 that set the stage for the DRBC Hearing, defining the timeline, limits of issues to be covered by experts, engagement of a Hearing Officer and other issues. In March, DRBC announced that an adjudicatory hearing would be held on April 15, 2020, as part of DRN’s legal challenge to the DRBC approval of the GLC’s Dock 2. DRBC stated that the hearing would be open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis in terms of seating and that DRBC would re-open the public record for additional written comments, a stunning admission that the DRBC failed to provide a full or fair opportunity for public comment before approving the export facility. However, soon after this announcement, the coronavirus pandemic altered plans for public gatherings of any size. On April 15, DRBC announced that the hearing was rescheduled and would begin on May 11, 2020. The hearing would also be virtual and conducted remotely.
The adjudicatory hearing, DRN’s day in court, began at 9:00 am, Monday, May 11 via the Zoom virtual platform and concluded on Wednesday, May 20. DRN’s attorneys presented testimony from six experts from different fields to address how DRBC did not fulfill its legal obligations for a full and fair review of the proposed Dock 2 project and how this would result in substantial harm to the water resources of the Delaware River, including water quality, habitats, and protected species such as Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. Because the hearing was not publicly viewable as the proceedings occurred, DRN staff observed the proceedings and shared live updates on Twitter and daily recaps on Facebook. Digital and audio recordings of the proceedings were posted at the end of each day or by the next day on DRBC’s website. After follow-up submissions by the attorneys and reviews by experts, the Hearing Officer is now in the process of writing his report, which will make recommendations regarding the Dock 2 approval.
The recommendation that comes out of the adjudicatory hearing will be voted on by the DRBC Commissioners – the Governors of New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware and the Army Corps of Engineers – in the coming weeks or months. DRN attorneys have been advocating for the vote to occur prior to September 15, when the prohibition on construction in the river is lifted; from March 15 to Sept. 15, under the Army Corps of Engineers permit no disturbance or construction for Dock 2 can occur in the Delaware River to protect the federally endangered sturgeon. This protection was advocated for by DRN.
Since the hearing, DRN worked with partner organizations to draft a letter to the DRBC opposing the proposed LNG export terminal. This letter was signed by 126 diverse organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members from geographically broad regions and submitted to the DRBC Commissioners and staff. DRN and partners also announced the launch of a petition addressed to the DRBC that will be circulated throughout the summer for individuals to sign. Also being launched is a municipal resolution campaign focused on Pennsylvania and New Jersey communities where the LNG trucks and/or trains would travel; most communities are unaware of this looming threat. The goal of these campaign actions is too publicly influence the voting members of the DRBC – the Commissioners – to cancel their premature and rushed approval of the Dock 2 terminal that would export LNG. Public opinion has been fairly taken into account by DRBC Commissioners in the past and, once all the facts are revealed about the project to the Commissioners in the upcoming Hearing record and Hearing Officer’s report, and once the huge public opposition to the project is clearly demonstrated, the DRBC could withdraw their approval.
Raising public awareness – Public forums and webinars have occurred over the last months to raise awareness about the LNG export proposal and its implications from cradle to grave – from fracked shale gas wells that ruin the entire region and gravely harm peoples’ health and the dangerous liquefaction facility under construction in Wyalusing PA on the banks of the beautiful Susquehanna River, through the 200-mile truck and/or train transportation route to Gibbstown, NJ and then the enormous tanker ships that would travel down the Delaware River and estuary, past and very close to Delaware and South Jersey bayshore communities, overseas to foreign terminals.
The issues examined have included adverse environmental and water quality impacts, the unjust and substantial harm to public health and safety, particularly for minorities and low-income communities, the harm to special and irreplaceable habitats and species, and the massive release of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere from the cradle to grave life cycle of fracking and its infrastructure and operations. Natural gas is primarily methane, the most powerful of greenhouse gases in terms of heating the atmosphere on a 20-year time scale, the period of time when scientists insist we must be dramatically reducing these emissions in order to address the global climate crisis.
The Public Forums – In February, DRN worked with Widener University College of Arts, Sciences, and the Delaware Law School to present a public forum at the Widener University main campus in Chester, PA, with presentations by Professor Scott Bramer, Rev. Dr. Horace Strand of Chester Environmental Partnership, and LNG Coalition groups from EMPOWER NJ, the end fossil-fuel projects coalition. The proposed LNG export terminal is just across the River from Chester, an environmental justice community already heavily burdened with environmental pollution. DRN provided live streaming coverage of the forum, attended by a standing-room-only crowd.
In April, DRN organized with colleague organizations to testify at a virtual hearing held by NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection for a draft Air Quality Permit for the Gibbstown Logistics Center. In addition to Delaware Riverkeeper Network, verbal testimony was made by representatives of the major environmental organizations in New Jersey – NJ Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Environment New Jersey, Food and Water Action – and Clean Air Council‘s Philadelphia attorney.
In May, DRN was invited to represent the American campaign opposing New Fortress Energy’s LNG development plans on a webinar in Ireland with the theme of connecting struggles to succeed in the shared goal of stopping LNG export and import. A continuing alliance has resulted from that collaboration.
In June, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration made an announcement that they will be approving the proposal for any carrier to transport LNG by rail car anywhere in the United States. This rulemaking, championed by President Trump and his Executive Order last year for federal agencies to quickly get LNG on the nation’s railways for export markets overseas, is a reversal of the long-standing national ban on LNG transport by railcar, instituted because of the substantial safety issues of handling and transporting LNG. Only the Special Permit for LNG by rail to Gibbstown NJ allowed rail tank cars to be used to move LNG until this final rulemaking and that transport has not yet begun. The new regulation (RIN:2137-AF40) will take effect after it is published in the Federal Register. As of mid-July, the Notice has not been published in the Register and no Environment Assessment by PHMSA has been made public.
In June, DRN hosted a zoom forum “The Gibbstown Fracked Gas Export Terminal EXPOSED”, featuring Jeff Tittel of New Jersey Sierra Club, Doug O’Malley of Environment NJ and Jocelyn Sawyer of Food and Water Action, in addition to DRN. DRN introduced the interactive map commissioned from Fractracker to show the four potential transportation routes for the LNG trucks or trains and whom they would affect should there be an accident, derailment, or LNG release. Static maps of the likely routes have also been published. Also in June, Tracy Carluccio of DRN was the featured guest with Diana Dakey of Protect Northern PA on a webinar hosted by the PA Better Path Coalition. to discuss New Fortress Energy’s proposed Wyalusing to Gibbstown LNG scheme, cradle to grave.
In July, DRN kicked off its Summer Series of zoom forums on the project, zeroing in on: the interactive map that DRN published of the transportation routes, showing population impacts to those who live along the potential paths; and the LNG Coalition’s municipal resolution campaign for local governments along the transportation route. In August, the Summer Series will continue featuring the Ireland import terminal connection and the Puerto Rico resistance campaign to New Fortress Energy’s San Juan import terminal and additional webinars will examine other aspects of the complete supply chain of New Fortress Energy’s convoluted fracked gas development plans.
Groups from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and New York have grown the movement over the past year to stop the Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal in an allied coalition of organizations. This collaboration has brought together diverse organizations from many different geographic regions from throughout the LNG supply chain from cradle (fracked gas wells and LNG processing) to grave (end use burning of LNG overseas) reflecting the wide footprint of New Fortress Energy’s LNG project. With the firm resolution that working together from start to finish will expose the massive and destructive impacts of this project, should it be approved, we are allied in our goal of replacing this unsustainable and polluting export project with truly clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency and conservation on a global scale.
In late summer, the DRBC Hearing Officer issued his report based on the record that had been produced (the May 2020 adjudicatory Hearing, legal filings, expert reports, etc.) as a result of Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s appeal of the DRBC permit, called a “docket”. The report recommended that the DRBC uphold its earlier approval for the Dock 2 docket, which would be used for LNG export.
On September 9, the Delaware River Basin Commission, referring to the Hearing Officer John Kelly’s recommendation and report, passed a resolution to keep in abeyance the approval of the permit. The attorney for DRBC Ken Warren recommended they do so. New York introduced the resolution and the representatives for New York, New Jersey and Delaware voted for the delay, Pennsylvania abstained, and the federal representative from the Army Corps of Engineers voted no. The approved resolution delayed the decision on whether or not to approve the permit so the Commissioners could further assess the voluminous record and take a “careful look” at complex issues involved and, importantly, it enacted a stay on project construction until final permit decisions were made by the DRBC Commissioners with a public vote.
Prior to the September vote, public advocacy campaigns included a petition campaign throughout all four watershed states, led by organizations engaged in the broad coalition fighting the project. In September, more than 50,000 petition signatures were submitted to the DRBC Commissioners opposing their approval of the LNG Export Terminal. DRN also organized a local government resolution campaign that was carried out by groups all along the LNG transportation route from Wyalusing, PA where New Fortress energy plans to build the fracked gas liquefaction plant to Gibbstown, approximately 200 miles through hundreds of communities, exposing up to a million people to the danger of LNG transportation by trucks and rail cars.
The adopted local government resolutions were submitted to the DRBC in advance of the September meeting, to advise the Commissioners of the grass roots and “grass tops” opposition. A campaign sharing a sign-on letter with elected officials in opposition to the transportation of LNG through the Philadelphia region was submitted from officials in Philadelphia and another opposition letter from 133 diverse organizations from all over the Delaware River Watershed, updated with new names. Also submitted was a sign-on letter from 50 health professionals, scientists, and safety experts, as well as a formal statement from Lehigh County Commissioner Robert Elbich; Lehigh County adopted a resolution opposing the LNG transportation through their communities based on safety and environmental justice objections. These campaigns continued after the September DRBC vote to amass and relay the public’s opposition to the project in a storm of controversy that built to the December meeting of the DRBC.
Before the December 9 DRBC meeting, ccommunity, organizational, and local government opposition multiplied. The campaigns included another 49,730 petition signatures, totalling over 100,000 petitions by December 4 when they were submitted to the DRBC Commissioners. DRN and coalition partners including EMPOWER NJ, organized and carried out a Week of Action from November 30 through December 4 that resulted in thousands of declarations of public opposition expressed through various platforms such as emails, letters, tweets, Instagram messages, phone calls and faxes to the Commissioners. For example, Tweets sent to the Governors: 2,818 using #DRBCNOLNG in a Dec. 1 Twitter Storm: https://bit.ly/33HczrS. These declarations were generated by many organizations working together to oppose the project, including: 215 People’s Alliance, 350 Philadelphia, Berks Gas Truth, Better Path Coalition, Breathe Project, Bucks Environmental Action, Catskill Mountainkeeper, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Coalition to Ban Unsafe Oil Trains, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, EMPOWER NJ, Environment New Jersey, Food and Water Action, Food and Water Watch – NY and NJ, FracTracker, Friends of Sparta Mountain Associated with NJ Forest Watch, Friends of the Earth, Mark Ruffalo for Move.On, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Sierra Club, New Jersey Student Sustainability Coalition, Northwest Philly Climate Action Network, Not Here Not Anywhere – Ireland, PennEnvironment, Pennsylvanians Against Fracking, Philly Boricuas, Physicians for Social Responsibility, POWER, Protect Northern PA, Resistance Cafe, Safety Before LNG – Ireland, Sierra Club PA Chapter, Surfrider NJ, DE, and NY, and Waterspirit.
Sixteen local government resolutions were adopted in PA, NJ, and Delaware opposing the project and LNG’s dangerous and potentially catastrophic transport risks (by truck, rail, and ship), including Wilmington, Delaware, the most densely populated community in the state whose council members cited environmental justice objections. Resolutions in PA: Clarks Green Borough, Clarks Summit Borough, South Abington Township, Scranton City, Jessup Borough, Pittston Township, Lehigh County Board of Commissioners, Kutztown, Penndel Borough, Bucks County. Resolutions in NJ: Runnemede, Haddon Township, City of Burlington, Pennsauken Township. Resolutions in DE: Wilmington, Bellefonte. Additionally, two influential Delaware boards adopted resolutions: New Castle County Civic League and the League of Women Voters of Delaware.
27 elected officials from the Philadelphia region sent a letter to DRBC objecting to the perilous train transport through Philadelphia, disproportionately impacting black and brown and low-income neighborhoods: https://bit.ly/39HIfkp. The letter was sponsored by the community organization PhillyBoricuas whose members live in many of the neighborhoods along the railway tracks where the LNG rail tank cars would travel on route to Gibbstown. The community also is actively opposed because Puerto Rico is one of the destinations where New Fortress Energy is force-feeding the LNG from Gibbstown at an import terminal they own there; there is a groundswell of support for self-sustaining, independent and clean energy from renewable energy sources in Puerto Rico and people there are fighting New Fortress Energy’s import. Another letter from Philadelphia was submitted by Northwest Philly Climate Action Network, signed by an additional 31 local community groups in Philadelphia, demonstrating grass roots resistance: https://bit.ly/37C7n9O.
Going into the December 9 meeting of the DRBC, opposition to the export of LNG from the proposed Dock 2 at the Gibbstown terminal had quickly expanded as more communities learned of this reckless and dangerous project, its enormous footprint of potentially disastrous impacts on all four Delaware River watershed states, the runaway climate impacts of the additional greenhouse gas emissions that will exacerbate the climate crisis, and the catastrophic public health threats it thrusts on people, unjustly targeting black and brown people and low income communities where the trains and trucks would slice through.
In December, the DRBC voted to approve the terminal, despite the flood of public comments opposing the dangerous project. The representative from New York made a motion to further delay a decision while the issues of water quality and climate impacts from the project can be fully examined but it died for lack of a second. The final vote was unanimous except for New York abstaining. Outrage from the public was expressed during public comment at the meeting and afterwards, with a vow by organizations to continue to fight the project. Just before the vote on December 9 and afterwards, statements were made in the press by NJ Governor Phil Murphy that he voted for the dock at the terminal but did not support and would do what he could to prevent LNG from being exported from Dock 2. The EMPOWER NJ coalition, for which DRN serves on the steering committee, is following up with efforts to help Governor Murphy make his statements a reality.
DRN sued DRBC for their approval of Dock 2, the LNG export project, by filing a Complaint in federal court appealing this decision on January 25, 2021. See Complaint under “Supporting Documents” below.
Connections with partners such as Irish and Puerto Rican activists who are opposing New Fortress Energy’s import terminals that would receive the LNG from Gibbstown have led to even wider participation. In Ireland, Safety Before LNG and Not Here, Not Anywhere are sharing information about the proposed New Fortress Energy import terminal in Shannon and other proposed terminals there and we are participating and supporting each other’s’ efforts. In Puerto Rico, the Sierra Club Chapter and other local activists are opposing New Fortress Energy’s import terminal and their plans to expand and build another LNG export terminal on the southern coast of the island.
The Newly Emerged Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Issue
This part of the story starts in Puerto Rico, where New Fortress Energy has an LNG import terminal. On June 18, 2020, FERC issued an Order to Show Cause that directed New Fortress Energy to show why the “liquefied natural gas (LNG) handling facility it constructed adjacent to the San Juan Combined Cycle Power Plant at the Port of San Juan in Puerto Rico is not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act” (https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/C-4-061820.pdf). New Fortress Energy responded defending their decision not to seek a decision from FERC. New Fortress contended that the Puerto Rico terminal was exempt from FERC jurisdiction. The issue has not been officially resolved. However, it was brought up at the January 25, 2021 FERC public meeting and statements were made by FERC Commissioners, including the new chair Richard Glick, that FERC does have jurisdiction and New Fortress Energy must go through the FERC approval process. However, because the LNG is now being regasified and used for fuel at the power plant, the terminal, which is operational, was not shut down by FERC, unfortunately. A formal vote was not taken on FERC’s Order at this meeting.
In its Sept. 11 Petition regarding the Gibbstown facility, DRP asked FERC to ignore Congress’s command in the Natural Gas Act and look the other way while DRP and its affiliates transport natural gas in interstate commerce and export natural gas in foreign commerce without a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and contrary to the public interest. DRN and several other organizations filed Motions to Intervene and submitted comments and a “Protest” in opposition to DRP’s petition, saying that federal law requires FERC jurisdiction. DRN issued an action alert to spur public participation in the FERC docket process; individuals and organizations filed Motions to Intervene, showing broad public interest and controversy.
On September 18, New Fortress Energy subsidiary Bradford County Real Estate Partners (BCREP) filed a similar Petition with FERC to find the Wyalusing Township LNG plant project not subject to FERC jurisdiction. Many groups filed Motions to intervene and some groups, including Delaware Riverkeeper Network, submitted comments and a “Protest” opposing BCREP’s petition.
These FERC decisions are outstanding at this time and could have substantial impact on New Fortress Energy operations, including the future of the Gibbstown and Wyalusing LNG projects. See the FERC documents, Protests, and Comments submitted under “Supporting Documents” below.
Our advocacy campaigns, in coalition with many other groups in all 4 watershed states, have shifted to focus on other opportunities to affect permits, policies, and regulations that are relevant to the Gibbstown LNG project. A new petition with new “asks” is being developed and sign-on letters, a reworked municipal resolution campaign, and other on-the-ground efforts will continue to work alongside Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s legal challenges to the Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network as organizer of the “Philly Stop LNG by Rail Network” is launching a petition in 2021 urging President Biden to cancel the plans to transport LNG by rail through Philadelphia and to rescind the Trump–era rule that allows LNG transport in rail cars nationwide. You can view the coalition’s petition in English, and Spanish here.
After collecting signatures by hand and electronically, the Stop the Bomb Trains Philly Campaign gathered them together for delivery to USDOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg and President Joe Biden In November 2021. A community video featuring Philadelphia and Allentown PA communities (see link below) was included in the submission and resolutions adopted by nine New Jersey municipalities located along the LNG train route and nine NJ faith-based organizations were delivered with the petitions by NJ activists as well. At an in-person press conference on November 17, 2021, the package of petitions and resolutions were brought by residents, workers, and representatives of community organizations and neighborhoods to the Federal Transit Administration on Market Street where DOT has an office and symbolically submitted (they were actually delivered through the USPS to the federal agency offices). The 3,674 signed petitions to President Biden’s Administration were handed in, calling for cancellation of the Special Permit that would allow the transport of LNG to Gibbstown through Philadelphia and other communities and for the cancellation of the federal LNG by Rail approval by the Trump Administration. In response, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg sent a letter to DRN and partner groups, including Philly Boricuas, Make the Road PA, 350 Philadelphia, Berks Gas Truth, and Physicians for Social Responsibility PA, acknowledging receipt of the petitions and other materials and of the community’s concerns.
The PHMSA Special Permit for LNG rail transport from Wyalusing to Gibbstown hasn’t yet been used since it was issued in December 2019. The Gibbstown LNG export dock has not been built and the LNG processing plant in Wyalusing has not been constructed either, requiring a new air permit. Through a Freedom of Information Act request by Delaware Riverkeeper Network to PHMSA for files related to the Special Permit, it was discovered that Energy Transport Solutions (a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy, the owner of the Gibbstown/Wyalusing LNG export project) did not apply in a timely manner to PHMSA for the renewal of the Special Permit. The Special Permit was due to expire at the end of November, 2021. The applicant submitted a last minute application for renewal/extension of the Special Permit on November 29. Because it was not submitted earlier, PHMSA may use a higher review bar in considering the extension application. PHMSA confirmed the Special Permit did legally expire on November 30, 2021.
DRN worked with our partner organizations in the 4-state STOP LNG Coalition to mobilize public engagement in the comment process in the fall through to the close of comment in late December 2021 for the proposed suspension by PHMSA of the Trump-era LNG by Rail rulemaking. Hundreds of comments were submitted and DRN and other groups submitted extensive comments to PHMSA in support of the Suspension Rule (see DRN comment to PHMSA – page 3 under Supporting Documents – below).
To encourage PHMSA to finalize the proposed rulemaking to suspend the Trump Rule, our campaigns continued to raise the profile of the issue and organize public opposition to the LNG rail transport and the proposed LNG Export Terminal. In May 2022, DRN concluded a second petition campaign that focused on advocating that PHMSA adopt the proposed federal rule to rescind the Trump-era rule that lifted the ban on the transport of LNG by rail as well as cancelling the Special Permit and reinstating the national ban on LNG by rail. The Stop LNG by Rail Network petition was signed by 15,157 individuals and promoted by 14 diverse regional organizations working with DRN. The timing of the delivery was set around the federal government stating that a decision on LNG by rail is expected by June 30, 2022. However, no action was taken by PHMSA at that time and the adoption of the suspension and permanent revocation of the Trump Rule was further delayed. DRN will continue its legal challenge to the Trump Rule, represented by Earthjustice. The case was voluntarily put into abeyance by the consolidated petitioners (the petitioners are: Earthjustice representing 6 organizations, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, and 14 Attorneys General from states opposing the Trump Rule) while PHMSA carried out the Suspension and Replacement Rule process.
DRN, our members, local residents, and groups including Food and Water Watch NJ and Protect Northern PA continue to work at the municipal level to achieve the adoption of resolutions by municipalities along the rail route in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. By late 2022, 15 NJ, 11 PA, and 2 Delaware municipalities adopted resolutions opposing the Gibbstown Terminal and LNG by Rail. (See maps of the locations of municipal resolutions that have been adopted below under Supporting Documents, page 1.) These resolutions are regularly submitted to PHMSA and the Biden Administration as they are adopted to keep the issue publicly before the agency – they speak to government decisionmakers for the communities and their elected officials that are in harm’s way and are a means of educating, engaging, and raising public awareness of the project in frontline communities. Letters submitted by the 4-state coalition opposing the Gibbstown Project and signed by elected officials have also been submitted to the Biden Administration to keep a high profile before PHMSA as they decide. On July 6, twenty three elected officials from the Greater Philadelphia Region, including Pennsylvania State Senators, Pennsylvania House Representatives, Philadelphia City Council members, and local municipal officials, submitted a letter to PHMSA and President Biden requesting the federal government overturn the rule that allows LNG by rail through the region. The letter is here: https://bit.ly/3ygiKBG.
DRN continues to legally challenge the Gibbstown Export Terminal through legal challenges to the major permits before the Army Corps of Engineers and the DRBC, and has filed an appeal of a NJDEP permit to develop a massive rail infrastructure project on the Gibbstown Logistics Center site to accommodate the long (up to 100-car) trains that are used to transport LNG and other natural gas liquids. DRN’s legal challenges have resulted in delay of construction of the project and due to a provision in the Army Corps permit, the dredging and dock construction cannot occur between March 15 and Sept. 15, providing some (but not enough!) protection for this federally endangered and vulnerable species. This federally-required “time-out” does unintentionally allow other strategic challenges to the project to take effect.
DRN also supports action by Pennsylvania groups in opposition to the PADEP Air Permit for the Wyalusing LNG processing plant. Under a negotiated settlement of the groups’ appeal, Bradford County Real Estate Partners, a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy, let the permit expire in 2022. The Wyalusing permit can be applied for again but its expiration is another setback for the Gibbstown project. See up to date information on all permits for the Gibbstown/Wyalusing Project below.
DRN watchdogs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decisionmaking process regarding the New Fortress Energy requests that the Gibbstown and Wyalusing projects escape FERC’s jurisdiction. DRN attends FERC meetings virtually and submits new information to the dockets as appropriate. This FERC decision will define the future of the entire Gibbstown/Wyalusing LNG Export Project since a review by FERC would scrutinize the details of the LNG project and its operations, most likely requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, which no agency has required thus far. There is a critical need for a comprehensive environmental impact review and safety assessment of the proposed LNG project and all its parts.
Nationally and internationally, the war in Ukraine has exerted new pressure to increase domestic fracking, LNG processing and LNG exports overseas. President Biden entered into an agreement with the EU in March 2022 to increase LNG exports by 15 billion cubic meters (bcm) to Europe by the end of the calendar year. DRN and colleague organizations are publicly pushing back on the pro-gas rhetoric and policies being used by the gas and oil industry and their front people in elected positions and government by fact checking the hype, taking part in communicating with the public and media and with government and elected representatives. DRN is also promoting and supporting alternative energy solutions that free the US and Europe from the politicizing and weaponization of fossil fuels. DRN has connected and coordinated with Gulf Coast and other communities that are fighting to stop LNG export increases.
And DRN’s work against fracking in the Marcellus Shale region continues to prevent more environmental and human health damage where shale gas is extracted or plans to be extracted, including our long (more than 10 years) campaign to ban fracking within the Delaware River Watershed. A permanent ban on fracking within the watershed was won in February 2021 by rulemaking by the interstate agency Delaware River Basin Commission. However, a ban on imports of fracking waste and water withdrawals exports is not yet achieved. This is important to protect the Watershed from fracking waste pollution being imported into the Watershed and to prevent the export of water from the Watershed to fuel fracking and to prevent the resulting depletion and degradation of the Watershed’s precious water and stream flows. The Delaware is the lifeline for water supply to over 17 million people and it is the habitat of myriad communities of dependent species. It’s also important so as not to provide easy access to Marcellus and Utica shales proximate to the Delaware River where the Gibbstown LNG export terminal is proposed and other proposals are likely to spring up with local availability of gas and new infrastructure that would deliver it for export. Relatedly, it was exposed in 2022 that Penn America was planning behind closed doors for years in Pennsylvania to build an LNG processing facility and export terminal in Chester PA or other southeast PA location in PA’s Delaware River port region. See DRN’s Chester Penn America LNG.
Discovered Through a Freedom of Information Act Request
In August, 2022 DRN discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request that Executive Director Steve Tambini unilaterally approved the extension of the permit for Delaware River Partners for the proposed Gibbstown LNG Terminal Project without any public disclosure. The revelation set off a series of letters and submissions from representatives of the Delaware River LNG Coalition demanding the approval be rescinded, that there be full public disclosure and agency transparency, that a public hearing be held, and that any final determination be voted on by the DRBC Commissioners, as required by DRBC regulatory procedures. The Commission took up the matter at their September 8 Business Meeting, approving a resolution that rubberstamped Mr. Tambini’s approval, over the outcry of opposition from the watershed community. Ken Kosinski, acting for New York State Governor Kathy Hochul, proposed a resolution to delay the vote until after a duly noticed public process but the motion died for lack of a second. New York also stated they have deep concerns about the LNG export terminal for environmental and climate reasons and asked fellow Commissioners to consider these serious issues. There was no opportunity for public comment before the vote and the resolution was not made public prior to the meeting. DRN and the 4-state LNG Coalition and members of the public blasted DRBC for shutting the public out and approving the unjustified permit. Unfortunatly, the DRBC approval prevailed. To see the details and communications related to this injustice see the Supporting Documents below (web page 2).
On April 24, 2023, the work and public outcry that had been invested by countless people and organizations, elected officials and municipalities and led by Delaware Riverkeeper Network since 2019 when the Special Permit was issued, culminated in success. The Special Permit for the transport of LNG in rail cars from the proposed LNG processing plant in Wyalusing PA to Gibbstown NJ for export overseas was denied by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
The public movement that led to this success was broad and diverse. Many actions expressed opposition to the Special Permit. Municipalities rose up against the proposed rail and truck transport of LNG – a hazardous, flammable, and explosive cargo – through their neighborhoods and towns by passing resolutions in opposition and submitted their adopted municipal resolutions to the agencies and the Governors of their state. Over the years of struggle, more than 100,000 people signed petitions and hundreds of organizations and many elected officials signed letters opposing the LNG transport and calling for PHMSA to pull back their approval. Rallies, press conferences, and special events, all expressed the public outcry against the reckless approval of LNG transport that threatened catastrophe should there be a release of LNG such as in a derailment or accident. A coalition of organizations, including frontline residents from throughout the four watershed states in the Delaware River Watershed, worked to organize and carry out these campaigns to protect our communities and the environment.
The Notice was in the Federal Register and simply stated: SPECIAL PERMITS DATA—DENIED—20534–R, Energy Transport Solutions LLC. 172.101(i)(3) ….To renew authorization for the transportation in commerce of methane, refrigerated liquid in DOT specification 113C120W tank.
While this lack of transportation by Special Permit for LNG between the proposed key facilities – the LNG processing plant in PA and the export terminal in NJ – is a setback for New Fortress Energy’s project, New Fortress Energy can also theoretically still use rail tank cars to move LNG to Gibbstown. That’s because the Trump Rule that lifted the LNG by rail ban is still in place. Until the Biden Administration’s PHMSA suspends that rule, if NFE were to have the USDOT specification cars constructed, they could transport LNG in rail tank cars from anywhere through any of our communities, just like companies can throughout the entire nation. See Press Release from our LNG Coalition under Supporting Documents below.
Also in April 2023, the so-called “Philadelphia LNG Task Force” that the PA Legislature set up through the passage of a bill in 2022 that outgoing Governor Tom Wolf signed into law, emerged with the disclosure that a quietly arranged “public hearing” on April 20 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard (see a copy of the “Philadelphia LNG Export Task Force Act” and DRN’s letter to the Senate opposing the bill below under Supporting Documents web page 1). The Task Force’s statute set a goal of “turning the Philadelphia Delaware River Ports into an LNG Export HUB”. The Task Force is supposed to hold hearings and produce a report from their findings by the end of 2023. The Task Force had one meeting prior to April that was not publicly noticed in January 2022 where PA House Rep. Martina White (R) of the 170th Legislative District (Philadelphia) was elected chair.
Political leadership in Harrisburg changed in 2023 when a Democratic majority was sworn in. PA State Representative Joe Hohenstein, D-Phila., was appointed by the new Democratic Speaker of the House to the Task Force and his first act was to disclose publicly that this hearing was occurring and attempt to invite community representatives and independent experts to testify before the Task Force and to shine some sunlight on the Task Force process. Rep. Hohenstein reached an agreement with Chair White to invite speakers for the hearing. At the last minute, Rep. White revoked her commitment and all the community and expert speakers invited by Rep Hohenstein were barred from testifying. Rep. Hohenstein held a news conference outside of the Hearing “to shed light on the recent shutout of public comment and organizations focused on community and public safety for the Philadelphia LNG Natural Gas Export Task Force meeting”. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCEKp6zGDKg and https://www.pahouse.com/Hohenstein/InTheNews/NewsRelease/?id=128592 It also came to light that the Task Force was planning to force the siting of an LNG export facility in Chester PA instead of Philadelphia – the same place that Penn America was secretly planning their LNG project. The community recognized and condemned that this was environmental racism being supported by government institutions and industrial interests.
Four individuals who were set to testify were shut out of the Task Force meeting, Rep. Hohenstein’s release stated: Zulene Mayfield, chairperson of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL); Fred Millar, a national policy analyst recommended by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network; Tom Schuster, Director of the Sierra Club Pa. Chapter; and Fermin Morales, union electrician for IBEW local 98, community activist, and member of Philly Boricuas, a community group representing northern Philadelphia and Puerto Rican neighborhoods on community safety and LNG transportation issues.
Those who attended the press conference were not only not allowed to testify but were actually barred from the Task Force meeting, turned away at the door. That included Zulene Mayfield and representatives and members of Delaware Riverkeeper Network – they were told the meeting room was “at capacity”. Here is the link of Zulene Mayfield being barred from entering the “public hearing”.
The next Task Force hearing was held May 19. The only community representative allowed was PA State Representative Carol Kazeem D-District 159, who stood up for those she represents in Chester in southeastern PA, condemning the plan to build an LNG facility. The next Task Force hearing is supposed to be held August 22, 2022 and be comprised of community representatives and independent experts that Rep. Hohenstein will invite.
Webinars have been a key way for DRN and the local and regional LNG Coalition to continue to communicate, educate, engage, and mobilize, carrying forward campaigns to stop the Gibbstown Export Terminal and its various components. DRN has participated in, organized and hosted several during the pandemic and after (2020 to 2023) (see links to presentations/webinars below). Public forums, virtual, in person and hybrid continue to effectively expand this struggle.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network commissioned an analysis from Synapse Energy Economics entitled “Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal: Lifecycle GHG Emissions Analysis” to quantify the extent of greenhouse gas emissions produced from operations related to the Gibbstown Wyalusing LNG export project, from extraction to end use. On May 8, DRN released the report and hosted a public webinar with the authors to delve into its findings.
The GHG Report and related documents are below under “Supporting Documents”.
DRN serves on the steering committee for EMPOWERNJ since its formation. EMPOWERNJ opposes all new fossil fuel development and supports clean, renewable energy that is affordable, sustainable, and accessible to all New Jerseyans.
This spring’s Week of Action (2023) highlighted the 7 major new fossil fuel projects the EMPOWERNJ Coalition are collectively opposing in New Jersey with a goal of sending a clear message to Governor Murphy: “Enough talk – we want real action: will the “greenest” Governor please stand up?” Five of these projects are proposed in overburdened and environmental justice communities. All of these projects are in clear opposition to Governor Murphy’s own executive orders to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the Global Warming Response Act target of eliminating gas usage by 2050. Five of the projects violate the Governor’s recently enacted environmental justice law, which was just adopted last month. The actions ran from Wed. May 31 to Wed. June 7, and a rousing march and rally was carried out in Gloucester City to express the communities that are united against the Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal. The week ended with a virtual forum on false climate solutions such as hydrogen, carbon capture, and ‘renewable natural gas.’
Running list of permits required for the Gibbstown Logistics Center Proposed LNG Export Terminal (includes Dock 2): Permits in RED are already granted but could require extensions as expiration dates approach:
a. General Provisions for Individual Permits (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.1) b. Standard Requirements for all Individual Permits (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-7.2) c. Additional Application Requirements for an Individual Freshwater Wetland Permit (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-10.6)
2. Flood Hazard Control Act Individual Permit (N.J.A.C. 7:13), including:
a. Regulated Activities within a Floodway (N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.3) b. Regulated Activities within a Flood fringe (N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.4) c. Requirements that apply to all regulated activities (N.J.A.C. 7:13-12.1) d. Applicable activity-specific requirements (N.J.A.C. 7:13-12.2 through 7:13-12.21) e. Environmental report requirements (N.J.A.C. 7:13-18.6)
3. Waterfront Development Individual Permit and Coastal Wetlands Individual Permit, including
a. Coastal Zone Management Rules on Special Areas (N.J.A.C. 7:7-9) b. Coastal Zone Management Rules on General Water Use Areas (N.J.A.C. 7:7-12) c. Requirements for non-porous cover and vegetative cover for general land areas and certain special areas (N.J.A.C 7:7-13) d. Coastal Zone Management Location Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7-14) e. Coastal Zone Management Use Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7-15) f. Coastal Zone Management Resource Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:7-16)
NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation (issued July 11, 2016, pending revision)
Individual Water Quality Certificate pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 401, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, from the State of New Jersey;
NJDEP Industrial Stormwater Discharge General Permit (NJPDES)
NJDEP PERMIT NUMBER 0807-21-002.1 LUP21001 – series of land use permits (WDP, FHA, Coastal Wetlands, and WQ Certificate) for rail infrastructure. Issued Dec. 30, 2021, expires Dec. 29, 2026. Appealed by DRN, filed with Appellate Division 1.12.22.
NJDEP Sewer Connection Permit
NJPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit
NJ Tidelands License
Gloucester County SCD Approval: Gloucester County Soil Conservation District Case 1:20-cv-04824-NLH-JS Document 22-2 Filed 10/30/20
Gloucester County Planning Board Approval
Greenwich Township Planning and Zoning Board Approvals
Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC”) Project Approval, Docket No. D-2017-009-2, granted June 2019 and extension granted until June 12, 2025 pursuant to Section 401.41(a). DRN appealed original 2019 Docket, currently in federal court.
USACE Jurisdictional Determination (issued July 5, 2016)
USACE Section 404/10 Individual Permit
From DRN appeal of ACE 202 Section 10 and Section 404 Permit approvals for Dock 2 and LNG:
On March 4, 2019, DRP submitted an application to the Corps for an “Individual Permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to construct a two-berth dock” at the Gibbstown Logistics Center, located on Block 8, Lots 2, 3, 4.01, 4.02, and portions of Lot 4 in Greenwich Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. ACE000503–781. Appealed by DRN, currently in abeyance pending FERC jurisdictional determination.
United States Department of Energy (“DOE”) Part 590 Approval (for Wyalusing)
United States Coast Guard (“USCG”) Part 127 Letter of Recommendation. (Received for USCG Letter of Recommendation for Dock 1 but not for Dock 2)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
DRP (Gibbstown) and BCREP (Wyalusing) Petitions for Declaratory Order: Bradford County Real Estate Partners Petition for Wyalusing Facility, Docket No. CP20-524-000, Sept. 18, 2020 and Delaware River Partners LLC Petition for Declaratory Order for Gibbstown Facility Docket No. CP20–522–000, Sept. 11, 2020 (not yet decided, several interveners, commenters, and Petitions submitted inc. DRN, PennFuture, FWW, EnvironmentNJ, Public Citizen).
Sierra Club/Natural Resource Defense Council Petition for Declaratory Order Exercising Section 3 Jurisdiction over the Fortress Liquefied Natural Gas Export Project, Including the Wyalusing Gas Liquefaction Facility and Gibbstown LNG Export Facility, CP22-509-000; Comments submitted by DRN. (not yet decided)
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Re. PHMSA Special Permit for the transport of LNG by Rail from Wyalusing to Gibbstown expired Nov. 30, 2021. Renewal request filed 11.29.21 by ETS (on New Fortress letterhead) is “under consideration” by PHMSA.
Delaware River Partners and New Fortress Energy have not moved ahead with construction of the proposed Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal as of the end of January 2024. They do have the permits in hand to dredge the river and construct Dock 2, the dock they need for the export of LNG overseas. But they cannot operate the export terminal without additional approvals.
While there has not been any construction of the LNG project, Delaware River Partners has been working to garner approvals for land infrastructure for use for LNG operations and for the existing Liquid Hazardous Gas (LHG) facility that currently stores and exports natural gas liquids. These include two major development projects on the Gibbstown Terminal site: new rail infrastructure and new underground storage caverns.
Rail Infrastructure: Delaware River Partners DRN appealed the permits issued by NJ Department of Environmental Protection for a new rail loop and related infrastructure that would accommodate the long (up to 100 car) trains that are used for LNG transport to be built on the Gibbstown terminal site. In November 2023, New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division ruled in favor of NJDEP (see Superior Court Opinion under Supporting Documents). DRN filed a Petition on January 4, 2024 with the Supreme Court of New Jersey to hear our case (see Petition under Supporting Documents). The rail loop has not begun construction as of January 2024.
Underground Storage Caverns: Delaware River Partners plans to build more underground storage caverns at the Gibbstown site to store liquid gasses. There is already one underground storage cavern on the site, built decades ago by DuPont to store anhydrous ammonia for munitions manufacturing. That cavern was repurposed to store butane by DRP and has been in use for several years by the company. The butane can be transloaded from the cavern to a ship for marine transport from the current Dock 1 at the Gibbstown facility, also known as the Repauno Port and Rail Terminal. The terminal does not operate at full capacity for the natural gas liquids (NGLs) that are exported but it does some overseas marine shipping of the NGLs from the terminal.
NJDEP had no regulations governing underground storage caverns of gas liquids, despite there being 6 caverns for this purpose in use in New Jersey. NJ proposed NJDEP Cavern Rule N.J.A.C. 7:1F 1F http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/proposals/proposal-20220516a.pdf in May 2022 and many public comments were submitted through July 15, 2022 criticizing the inadequacy of the rules to protect the environment and the public; one public hearing was held. See link to DRN webinar explaining the cavern rule. NJDEP adopted the rule in May 2023.
DRP proceeded to apply to NJDEP to build two new caverns for storage of liquid gasses. First, DRP applied for land use permits that would be needed for the caverns in 2023 before the adoption of the cavern rule. DRN submitted a series of letters and comments on the applications during the spring of 2023, explaining that the permits should not be considered until after the proposed cavern regulations had been adopted by NJDEP. DRN documented in the comments and letters that the application was inadequate and the proposed activities did not conform to environmental regulations. DRP then submitted an application to build the caverns using the proposed cavern rule as a guide, still prior to the adoption of the cavern rule. DRN again objected to any processing of this cavern application for the building of the caverns as untimely and for multiple environmental and public safety reasons. The application by DRP was and still is the first and only application to date under the new rules.
After NJDEP adopted the cavern rule in May 2023, DEP issued draft land use permits for public comment. DRN submitted comment on NJDEP’s draft land use permits, petitioning DEP not to grant DRP’s “Joint Application under the “Newly Adopted Underground Storage Caverns Rule N.J.A.C. 7:1F – Commercial/Industrial/Public (Landward) Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit Application No(s): 0807-16-0001.5 LUP220001” (See comment under Supporting Documents).
DRP’s applications submitted to NJDEP for the cavern construction under the new regulations was declared administratively complete in January 2024 and the next phase of review by NJDEP has commenced. DRN will be participating in the comment process. There is no public comment opportunity available during this next phase of NJDEP review.
Clean and renewable energy options such as wind and solar, if supported today and coupled with concerted energy efficiency programs, could not only totally power every state in our watershed by the year 2050, but could put us on the leading edge of the clean energy industry. This would allow us to protect our natural resources including healthy water, clean air and vibrant natural resources, and also allow us to keep jobs in our region for generations to come as we build the technologies needed to support ourselves, our nation and countries across the world who will all be turning to clean energy and efficiency technologies with increasing investment and focus in the years, decades and generations to come.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network is working hard to help make the case that a clean energy future is achievable now – we have the technology, we just need the political will and public support.
Envisioning Pennsylvania’s Energy Future Video
Green Justice Philly
Delaware Riverkeeper Network serves on the steering committee as a founding member of Green Justice Philly, a coalition of organizations in the Philadelphia Region. The mission of Green Justice Philly, formed in 2015, is:
Green Justice Philly is a diverse and growing coalition committed to building a healthy, sustainable and economically just Philadelphia region. We work together to oppose the dirty fossil fuel industry that puts our neighborhoods at risk, makes our citizens sick, and does not contribute to our long-term prosperity.
Campaigns have included opposition to the development of fossil fuel projects at Southport, a private-public development site owned by the City of Philadelphia on the Delaware River and robust support instead of union and family-supported jobs. This Green Justice Philly campaign of a labor-environmental-community coalition led to the successful cancellation of a RFP for fossil fuel-related projects, including possible crude by rail facility or an oil/shale gas export terminal, and resulted instead in additional union-supported jobs at Southport and the greening of the Philadelphia Port with State funding.
Green Justice Philly is waging a campaign for clean, renewable energy in the City from locally generated solar; the Solar Justice Philly campaign. The Solar Justice Philly campaign calls for a commitment by the City of Philadelphia to provide 100% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030, generating at least 30% of the electricity used in government-owned buildings, departments and street lights from solar projects in the five county region, including installations on City-owned buildings and property and on properties in under-resourced neighborhoods.
In 2018, the Green Justice Philly’s Solar Justice Campaign became more focused on the goal of implementing the City’s renewable energy goals through specific actions by city government. In April, a letter signed by 11 Philadelphia-based organizations was submitted to the Philadelphia Office of Sustainability outlining actions that should be taken in the coming months, including solar energy projects generated on City-owned infrastructure such as buildings, street lights and bridges. These installations would spur new jobs for city residents and help generate new wealth for the City’s neighborhoods in the form of green jobs. See the letter. The letter was followed by petitions launched by groups and on-line platforms that are being submitted to Mayor Kenney and City Council members to support the local solar campaign. See a sample petition below.
The Concept
The concept is that Philadelphia’s transition to a renewable economy has the potential to improve regional air quality and curb climate change while spurring long-term economic development and jobs for the City’s residents. Since Mayor Kenney has set a goal of purchasing 100% of the electricity the city government uses from renewable sources by 2030, Green Justice Philly has recommended a number of initial actions to advance one specific strategy from the City’s published document on its energy vision – the purchase of long-term contracts for renewable energy called power purchase agreements (PPA). Green Justice Philly’s letter calls for the Mayor to issue a new PPA that would require the generation of solar energy locally on city infrastructure, to enlist other large city institutions to go solar, and to ensure that the new jobs will go to Philadelphia residents, with a commitment to ensuring the workforce reflects the racial demographics of the city as closely as possible and are under union conditions.
In August, Green Justice Philly and the Carnival de Resistance will be hosting a parade and rally to bring attention to and get people engaged with these issues. Partnering with organizations and residents from across the Philadelphia region, people will march for the use of renewable and clean energy sources; an end to power generation using fossil fuels, including fracked gas; and support for locally generated solar energy. The parade will start at PECO’s Headquarters to articulate EQAT’s demand of locally produced solar by PECO, stop at SEPTA Headquarters to demand their planned Nicetown fracked gas power plant is cancelled and end with a rally at City Hall so Mayor Kenny and City Council will hear the community’s demands.
