Proposed by the Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company

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

The Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Size and Scope

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

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

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

Additionally, the Delaware River Basin Commission has the authority to regulate pipeline construction activity if it involves a “significant disturbance of ground cover” affecting water resources. The Diamond East project certainly would trigger review under that standard; however, up to this point the Delaware River Basin Commission has failed to exercise its authority in this arena for any of the pipelines that have crisscrossed the Delaware River Basin. DRN encourages community members to write letters in support of the Commission properly exercising its authority over these projects. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 24, 2017

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

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

Project Suspended!

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

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

Project basics as originally proposed:

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

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

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

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

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

Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline (ASP) Will Move Marcellus Shale Gas 

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

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

 Two Avenues of Litigation 

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

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

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

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

FERC Docket Number: CP18-46

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.

References:

Adelphia Unveils its 84-mile natural gas pipeline through Philly; Will it spur protests?, Andrew Maykuth, Philly.com, January 16, 2018, http://www.philly.com/philly/business/energy/adelphia-gateway-files-ferc-application-20180116.html.

Clean Air Council’s Initial Comments on the Adelphia Gateway Pipeline Project, Clean Air Council, Docket ID No. CP18-46-000, https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20180213-5358.

Resource Report No. 1: General Project Description, Adelphia Gateway, LLC, https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/File_list.asp?document_id=14634543.

Request for Third Party Contractor, FERC, Docket ID No. CP18-46-000, https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20180222-3040.

Volatile Domestic Crude Oil from North Dakota

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. 

Nacero, Inc. Announcement

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).

Synapse Energy Economics Analysis 

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.