On May 17, 2016 a case was filed in US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania challenging the DRBC’s authority over drilling and fracking actitivies and challenging its defacto moratorium that currently prevents such activities anywhere within the Delaware River watershed.
The case was filed by the Wayne Land and Mineral Group. The action was filed against the Delaware River Basin Commission. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network successfully intervened in the case.
March 23, 2017 the case was dismissed with an important legal determination that the DRBC does in fact have jurisdication over drilling and fracking activities in the watershed.
County in the Delaware River Watershed Where Planned — Monroe County (Ross Township)
The Transcontinental [Transco] Northeast Supply Link Project is an expansion of Transco’s existing pipeline system that will enable Transco to provide natural gas transportation supply interconnections on Transco’s Leidy Line in Pennsylvania to Transco’s Market Pool in New Jersey and delivery points in New York City. The Project will involve the construction and operation of approximately 13 miles of new 42-inch pipeline looping facilities on Transco’s existing mainline; pressure uprating of approximately 27 miles of existing 24-inch, 26-inch, and 36-inch pipeline; a new 25,000 horsepower compressor station; addition of 16,000 horsepower at an existing compressor station; compressor unit modifications at an existing compressor station; and construction or modification of associated underground and aboveground facilities. As part of this project and in the Delaware Watershed, nearly four miles of 42 inch pipe is being proposed to cut through sensitive habitats and woodlands in Monroe County, crossing eight water bodies including 6 streams of the Aquashicola Creek Watershed (a designated High Quality stream) and 2 streams of the Buckwha Creek Watershed and residential areas. Much of the area proposed for the pipeline expansion is in steep slopes and hillsides that include Chestnut Ridge that rises to 1,265 feet.
Size and Scope
The size and scope of the construction activity and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. There are significant concerns related to the cumulative impact that continuous water body crossing pipeline construction activity has on the health and vitality of the Delaware River Basin. In addition to the NEUP, there are at least two other major pipeline upgrade projects (including Texas Eastern’s Philadelphia Lateral, and TGP’s Northeast Upgrade Project) that are either currently or soon-to-be under construction within the Delaware River Basin. These construction projects will facilitate the further development of new wells, access roads, gathering lines, compressor stations, and other supporting infrastructure, which will further degrade the local environment.
There have also been numerous regulatory compliance failures associated with this type of construction activity. In a recent pipeline upgrade project conducted by Tennessee Gas and Pipeline (TGP), called the 300-Line Upgrade Project, multiple violations were reported by the Conservation Districts in Pike, Wayne, and Susquehanna counties. In Pike County alone numerous Notices of Violations were have been reported, including: 17 instances of dirt and sediment being discharged into water bodies, 7 violations for worksite conditions, and 21 instances of failure to properly institute Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control. This high frequency of violations demonstrates that there are systemic and continued failures in TGP’s compliance with regulatory controls, which suggests improper oversight, and or, inadequate enforcement. In Wayne County, out of 16 inspections conducted by the County Conservation District during the 300 Line Extension Project, 15 violations were found. This startling 93% failure rate provides further evidence of systemic compliance failures.
Furthermore, at the federal level, during the 300 Line Extension Project, in 28 out of 38 “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report[s]” that were provided on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s [FERC] website there was at least one recorded incident where construction activity did not come into “compliance with Project specifications, mitigation measures, and applicable FERC-approved Project plans.” Additionally, there were also at least 10 separate instances where an inspector in their “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report” indicated that a noncompliance report would be filed at a later date, but where the inspector failed to file a noncompliance report with FERC (and no reason was provided for the failure to issue that report in the following week’s report). These 10 separate instances indicate that either FERC has maintained incomplete records for the project, or that there were multiple failures to follow-up on potentially enforceable noncompliance matters by FERC sanctioned environmental inspectors. It is clear that the regulatory system, at both the state and federal level, is not adequately protecting the resources of the watershed.
The Delaware River Basin Commission has the authority to regulate pipeline construction activity if it involves a “significant disturbance of ground cover” affecting water resources. However, up to this point the DRBC has failed to exercise its authority in this arena. In light of the regulatory compliance failures overseen by both the FERC and PADEP, the DRBC should exercise their statutory mandate to regulate pipeline construction activities in order to effectively preserve the natural integrity of the watershed.
DRN is committed to restoring natural balance in the Delaware River and watershed where it has been lost, and ensuring preservation where it still exists. As such, we are actively engaged at the local, state, and federal government levels to ensure that full weight of legal environmental protection laws are brought to bear on all pipeline projects under consideration.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (“Transco”) proposes to construct a new natural gas pipeline called the Regional Energy Access Expansion (REAE). The project consists of 22.3 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Luzerne County, PA; 13.8 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Monroe County, PA; a gas-fired turbine driven compressor station in Gloucester County, NJ; and several other modifications to existing pipeline and compressor stations.
Transco REAE would impact 114 Exceptional Value (EV) wetlands and cross 77 waterbodies supporting cold water fisheries, 39 High Quality (HQ) streams, 2 Exceptional Value (EV) streams, 17 Class A Wild Trout Streams, and 57 waterbodies with naturally reproducing trout. Transco also inappropriately proposes to use an existing EV wetland as a mitigation site. Many of the streams that would be crossed by the project are cold water trout streams that are very sensitive to degradation. This project would also impact approximately 297 acres of forested woodlands. Clearing the forest around these streams exposes them to direct sunlight, raising the water temperature and jeopardizing their suitability as trout waters. Cutting forests and riparian buffers also creates habitat fragmentation. Transco fails to factor in not just the impacts of the fragmentation of the forest for these particular pipeline segments, but also by other cuts in the same region, either by Transco on its other pipeline pieces or by other pipeline/linear projects both within and outside the watershed. The project is also proposed to be constructed within the habitat of several threatened and endangered plant and animal species including white-fringed orchid, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, timber rattlesnake, and bog turtle. Transco also completely ignores impacts to vernal pools, which are not mentioned once in FERC’s Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Furthermore, Transco REAE would be an extreme detriment to regional climate change goals because it will consist of 47.8% of New Jersey’s GHG budget in 2050. Nothing is stopping FERC from certificating a second project that would consist of 65% of New Jersey’s 2050 GHG budget, thus, FERC would be virtually guaranteeing that New Jersey would not meet its emissions reductions goals, which is a large-scale issue that affects Pennsylvania as well. FERC also concluded that the REAE Project effects would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. This is despite the fact that FERC admitted that certain project components may be predominately borne by environmental justice communities and that climate change impacts would result in annual operation and downstream emissions of 16.62 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. These levels would exceed FERC’s presumptive significance threshold based on 100 percent utilization.
Transcontinental Gas and Pipeline Company (“Transco”) is replacing an existing 30-inch gas pipeline in Chester County, PA with a 42-inch pipeline. The project as proposed would cross and affect the East Branch of the Brandywine Creek (WWF-MF) and Ludwig’s Run (WWF-MF) at two locations by utilizing an open cut method. Also, an unnamed tributary to East Branch of the Brandywine Creek (WWF-MF) would be affected by a temporary construction crossing and another unnamed tributary to East Branch of Brandywine Creek (HQ-TSF, MF) would be crossed by the pump diversion during the use of a coffer dam.
Transco is pursuing from the Pennsylvania DEP a Chapter 105 Stream Encroachment Permit (joint 404 permit), an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit, and a NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharge from construction activity. These permits would authorize the replacement of the existing 30-inch gas pipeline with a 42-inch pipeline, between Stations 2269 and 2295, along a 7-mile stretch of one of Transco’s major pipelines. As proposed, the scope of this construction activity and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Brandywine Creek and tributary streams, and the Delaware River Basin.
Transco is currently refusing to implement horizontal direct drilling to mitigate the detrimental environmental impacts on the waterbodies, even though Transco itself recognizes that such a method is a viable option and in the past PADEP demanded that Transco use this less damaging approach. Transco’s only arguments against using such a method are cost and time. The “open cut” stream crossing method that Transco plans on utilizing is associated with significant sedimentation problems, as the construction activity commences in the stream as it is flowing.
Also, much of the right of way in which the construction will take place is atop extremely steep slopes, up to 35-40% gradient, which makes the area particularly vulnerable to sediment and erosion problems from rain events.
Transco has a history of regulatory compliance failures. For example, in a previous project on the same exact stretch of pipeline where work is proposed now, Transco’s BMPs –authorized by PADEP – failed, resulting in significant sediment discharges into water bodies. As a result, PADEP issued at least one Notice of Violation for Transco’s erosion control failures.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is currently working to secure strong review of this proposal and the most protective stream crossing strategy for the Creek and communities, which as of now looks to be the horizontal direct drilling that will go under the creek and not through it, and will also avoid disturbance to the riparian buffer area of the creek for several hundred feet.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Docket Number – CP13-84
The public can subscribe to receive information about this pipeline project as it is filed at the FERC website: http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.com.htm.
FERC Contact for TEAM 2014: Eric Howard at 202-502-6263, or at eric.howard@ferc.gov.
Texas Eastern Filed a Pre-Certification on February 27, 2013. Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed as an intervenor on 3/19/2013. Click below to see this document.
****Environmental Assessment comments due October 16, 2013 to FERC. You can submit comments on the FERC website under Docket CP13-84. To see DRN’s comments to FERC, see the link below (FERCEA CommentsTEAM2014.DRNComments.pdf).
***Army Corps announced a public comment period from Oct 10 to Nov 10, 2014 for the TEAM 2014 project related to waterbodies and wetlands impacts in Pennsylvania to be cut by this pipeline project. See the announcement below to contact Army Corps.
Project Details:
According to reports available from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC): “TEAM 2014 involves constructing approximately 33.4 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline comprised of seven separate pipeline loops and associated pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania; horsepower upgrades at four existing compressor stations in Pennsylvania; and modifications to numerous existing facilities to allow bi-directional flow/transmission of natural gas. A 100-foot ROW with additional work spaces along the pipeline path are being proposed. The bi-directional flow modifications would occur at 18 existing compressor stations, 17 existing pig launcher and receiver sites, and two existing meter and regulating facilities in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi.”
In the Delaware Watershed alone, the 5.6 mile Bernville Loop would pass through parts of Berks County. According to Spectra Energy’s Resource Reports, the pipeline would cut across 3 wetlands, of which at least one wetland could be habitat for the federally listed threatened bog turtle. The proposed pipeline would cut across seven waterbodies including a 230 wide pipeline crossing of the Schuylkill River (WWF) which serves as drinking water for Philadelphia. Unnamed tributaries to the Schuylkill River (WWF,MF) and Laurel Run (CWF,MF) would also be crossed by the pipeline. The eastern small footed bat, a Pennsylvania threatened species (Myotis leibii), is resident to this area of the Bernville Loop. Access roads to the pipeline are proposed on Irish Mountain where there are very steep slopes (TAR 2.5, 2.7, 3.2). Two water wells and one septic field are noted within 200 feet of construction. Detailed topos of the proposed pipeline path are available at the FERC website.
FERC originally anticipated issuing the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project in August, 2013. On August 16, FERC revised this date of the release of the Environmental Assessment to Sept 16, 2013 with a 90-day federal authorization action/decision deadline of December 15, 2013. You can download the EA that was issued on Sept 16th at the FERC website here: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20130916-3025
To follow the process and documents for this pipeline project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Sign up at www.FERC.gov Sign yourself up with an account and password and then ask for an eSubscription You will want to search for and then sign up to follow Docket No. CP13-84
Spectra Energy/Texas Eastern Reports List the Following Loops and Compressors as Part of the Entire TEAM 2014 Project
Bernville Loop – The addition of approximately 5.6 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Bern, Ontelaunee, Muhlenberg, Ruscombmanor, and Alsace Townships, Berks County, Pennsylvania (This loop is in the Delaware River Watershed) The addition of 6.6 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in German, Menallen, and North Union Townships, Fayette County, Pennsylvania east of the Monongahela River The addition of 2.7 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Jackson Township, Perry County, Pennsylvania The addition of 5.3 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Southwest Madison, Northeast Madison, and Tyrone Townships, Perry County, Pennsylvania The addition of 7.0 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Middle Paxton and West Hanover Townships, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania The addition of 2.5 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in North Annville and East Hanover Townships, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania The addition of 3.8 miles of 36-inch diameter natural gas pipeline generally within or adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline easements in Swatara, North Lebanon, Bethel, and Jackson Townships, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania
Horsepower additions and New Compressor Stations Proposed
Increase of approximately 6,160 horsepower (HP) of existing compressor units at the existing Uniontown Compressor Station and associated work in Fayette County, PA. Addition of one new 25,000 HP gas compressor unit and one new 32,000 HP electric gas compressor unit at the existing Delmont Compressor Station and associated work in Westmoreland County, PA. In addition, one 18,500 HP gas turbine unit & six 1,100 HP gas reciprocating units will be abandoned in place, retiring 25,100 HP. Addition of one new 17,000 HP gas compressor at the existing Armagh Compressor Station and associated work in Indiana County, PA Addition of one new 25,000 HP gas compressor at the existing Entriken Compressor Station and associated work in Huntingdon County, PA Modifications to facilities within compressor stations at 34 existing locations along the Texas Eastern system in multiple states including OH, TN, AL, and MS.
To see some of the draft filed documents and environmental description of the project filed on FERC Record for Team 2014/Docket CP13-84: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=14093510
Some of the shorter resource reports also made available below.
Editor’s note: This issue is currently dormant. We will continue monitoring the situation and may take up the issue in the future.
Big Victory!
In a decision issued June 6, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruled that the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the NJ Sierra Club and New Jersey Highlands Coalition were correct in their legal challenge to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s Northeast Upgrade Project and ordered additional analysis and review.
Counties in the Delaware River Watershed Where Planned — Wayne (PA), Pike (PA), and Sussex (NJ)
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s (“TGP”) Northeast Upgrade Project (“NEUP”) is an interstate transmission line upgrade project, designed to allow over 600,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to be transported in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, to be delivered to markets in the Northeast. To create this additional capacity, TGP proposes upgrading its existing 24-inch diameter 300 Line by constructing five, 30-inch diameter pipeline loops and modifying four existing compression stations. A pipeline loop is a segment of pipeline installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to the existing pipeline at both ends. These five loops will close out the remaining un-looped segments of TGP’s existing 300 Line east of Bradford County, Pennsylvania, into New Jersey. Three of these loops are located within the Delaware River Basin (Loops 321, 323, and 325), which span Wayne, Pike, and Sussex counties. The project includes pipeline drilling activities under the Delaware River, significant new grading and clearing of previously undisturbed land, and over 80 separate water body crossings within the watershed.
Size and Scope
The size and scope of the construction activity and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. There are significant concerns related to the cumulative impact that continuous water body crossing pipeline construction activity has on the health and vitality of the Delaware River Basin. In addition to the NEUP, there are at least 13 other major pipeline upgrade projects that are being proposed for construction within the Delaware River Watershed. These construction projects will facilitate the further development of new natural gas wells, access roads, gathering lines, compressor stations, and other supporting infrastructure, which will further degrade the local environment.
There are also numerous documented regulatory compliance failures associated with this type of pipeline construction activity. In a recent pipeline upgrade project similar in both size and scope conducted by TGP, called the 300-Line Upgrade Project, multiple violations were reported by the Conservation Districts in Pike, Wayne, and Susquehanna counties. In Pike County alone, numerous Notices of Violations were reported, including: 17 instances of dirt and sediment being discharged into water bodies, 7 violations for worksite conditions, and 21 instances of failure to properly institute Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control. This high frequency of violations demonstrates that there were systemic and continued failures in TGP’s compliance with regulatory controls, which suggests improper oversight, and or, inadequate enforcement. In Wayne County, out of 16 inspections conducted by the County Conservation District during the 300 Line Extension Project, 15 violations were found. This startling 93% failure rate provides further evidence of systemic compliance failures.
Furthermore, at the federal level, during the 300 Line Extension Project, in 28 out of 38 “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report[s]” that were provided on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s [FERC] website there was at least one recorded incident where construction activity did not come into “compliance with Project specifications, mitigation measures, and applicable FERC-approved Project plans.” Additionally, there were also at least 10 separate instances where an inspector in their “Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program Weekly Summary Report” indicated that a noncompliance report would be filed at a later date, but where the inspector failed to file a noncompliance report with FERC (and no reason was provided for the failure to issue that report in the following week’s report). These 10 separate instances indicate that either FERC has maintained incomplete records for the project, or that there were multiple failures to follow-up on potentially enforceable noncompliance matters by FERC sanctioned environmental inspectors.
On November 21, 2011 TGP presented an Environmental Assessment of the NEUP to FERC. Comments were submitted on behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the New Jersey Highlands Coalition, the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club by the Columbia Environmental Law Clinic before the December 21, 2011 deadline. Click here for comment submitted
In summary of some of the impacts identified in the December 21, 2011 comment to FERC:
“FERC’s conclusion that the Project will have no significant environmental impacts is unsupportable in the face of evidence demonstrating the potential severity of the Project’s impacts.” “…the project will result in environmental impacts to over 800 acres of land over the 40-mile long project area…” “The transmission of highly flammable natural gas creates significant risks of loss of life and major property damage. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reports that, in the past twenty years, significant on-shore gas transmission incidents have caused 43 fatalities, 219 injuries requiring in-patient hospitalization, and over $1 billion in property damage resulting from significant on-shore gas transmission incidents.3 Within the past year alone, three pipeline segments owned and operated by TGP have exploded, causing large fires, forcing residential evacuations, and threatening public safety.4” “The EA identifies no fewer than thirty-five hazardous waste sites within 1,700 feet of the Project.” “Each of the five pipeline loops will cross through sensitive and unique vegetative communities.” “Loop 323 will cross the Delaware State Forest, High Point State Park, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Clove Brook Road Corridor Important Bird Area. EA at 2-73, 2-74, 2-45. Loop 323 will also cross the Delaware River, a National Wild and Scenic River. EA at 2-13. Loop 325 is located entirely within the Highlands Region, and will cross the Long Pond Ironworks State Park, the Monksville Reservoir, and Ringwood State Park. EA at 2-75, 2-76, 2-78, 2-79. The pipeline loops will also cross more than seven miles of prime farmland, EA at 2-4, dozens of high quality and exceptional waterbodies that serve as coldwater and warmwater fisheries, EA at 2-19, and almost fifty acres of wetlands, EA at 2-25.” “The areas affected by the Project serve as habitat for four federally listed threatened or endangered species, the Bald Eagle, and sixty-five state endangered, threatened, or special concern species. “ “The Project will permanently convert approximately eighty acres of forested land, potentially leading to increased erosion, fragmentation, and edge habitat, which could “decrease the quality of habitat for forest wildlife species.” EA at 2-36.” “Construction of the Project will substantially degrade an additional 265.4 acres of forested land, which the EA admits will take “many years to regenerate.” EA at 2-36, 2-80. The Project will also cause “a permanent conversion of previously forested wetland areas to non-forested wetland areas,”
The Delaware River Basin has the authority to regulate pipelines construction activity that involves a “significant disturbance of ground cover” affecting water resources. Specifically, Article 3, section 2.3.5 (12) of the DRBC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures states, that the following activities are excluded from DRBC jurisdiction, “Electric transmission or bulk power system lines and appurtenances; major trunk communication lines and appurtenances; natural and manufactured gas transmission lines and appurtenances; major water transmission lines and appurtenances; unless they would pass in, on, under or across an existing or proposed reservoir or recreation project area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; unless such lines would involve significant disturbance of ground cover affecting water resources. . . ” (emphasis added). However, up to this point the DRBC has failed to exercise its authority in this arena. In light of the regulatory compliance failures overseen by both the FERC and PADEP, the DRBC should exercise their statutory mandate to regulate pipeline construction activities in order to effectively preserve the natural integrity of the watershed. Pressure should continue to be levied against the DRBC to take such action.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network is committed to restoring natural balance in the Delaware River and watershed where it has been lost, and ensuring preservation where it still exists. As such, we are actively engaged at the local, state, and federal government levels to ensure that full weight of legal enforcement authority is brought to bear on pipeline construction projects where operators have failed to comply with their statutory and regulatory responsibilities, and will vigorously facilitate the enforcement those regulations and permit terms and conditions where necessary.
PennEast Pipeline Co. Proposes 114-mile Large Scale Natural Gas Transmission Line Through the Delaware River Basin.
PennEast has been improperly accessing properties for purpose of surveys. See their letter and our response.
The PennEast Pipeline project is being proposed by AGL Resources, NJR Pipeline which is a subsidiary of New Jersey Resources, South Jersey Industries, UGI PennEast which is a subsidiary of UGI Energy Services, PSEG Power, Spectra Energy Partners.
The project, as proposed, will cut through Luzerne County, PA, Carbon County, PA, Northampton County, PA, Bucks County, PA, and Hunterdon County, NJ Proposed The company has created a searchable map if you want a more detailed look at the proposed route: PROPOSED ROUTE
Learn About Pipelines:
Information about pipelines, including research, reports and video interviews with experts, can be found at: www.stopthepipelines.org
Learn about all the natural resources and preserved lands PennEast will cut on its way from start to finish. Fact sheet here.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network comments, copies of township resolutions, and additional information regarding PennEast can be found below.
Project Details:
The PennEast Pipeline Co. L.L.C. announced its new pipeline project on August 12, 2014 called the PennEast Pipeline. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted approval for the project (a Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity) on February 20, 2018. PennEast quickly began demanding that property owners who had not yet signed access agreements with the company either do so or receive a lower payment for the property rights the company would ultimately be taking. Actions for eminent domain have been filed by PennEast against well over 100 properties. (NJ eminent domain actions are listed here; PA eminent domain actions are listed here) . Among the properties targeted are those in which states have property interest. In the State of New Jersey the state has property interests in a reported 42 parcels that PennEast is targeting. New Jersey resisted PennEast’s exercise of eminent domain over these parcels in which the state has property interest and rights. In a decision issued on September 10, 2019 titled In re PennEast Pipeline Company LLC the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that PennEast did not have the right to exercise eminent domain over these parcels as to do so was an infringement on the sovereign immunity of the state. In response, on October 4, 2019, PennEast filed Docket No. RP20-41 urging FERC, after only an 8 day comment period, to issue a declaratory order that rejected the Third Circuit’s interpretation.
To date regarding reviews and approvals:
On April 26, 2017 the New Jersey issued a determination that the PennEast application materials submitted to the state were significantly deficient and incomplete. On June 28, 2017, NJDEP determined the PennEast Pipeline Company’s application for state approval of its project to be “administratively closed” due to the company’s failure to remedy significant identified deficiencies and its failure to provide full information in a timely fashion for Clean Water Act decisionmaking. On August 4, 2019 PennEast submitted a renewed application for a state Freshwater Wetlands Act permit, a Flood Hazard Area Verification and Letter of Interpretation, and a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. On October 8, 2019, NJDEP denied the applications without prejudice (leaving the door open for PennEast to re-file if they so chose).
The DRBC has not issued a docket, necessary for the project to move forward, nor has it scheduled hearings on a docket proposal. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has issued a petition regarding DRBC jurisdiction over the project and its roll in preventing tree felling or clearing prior to approval which can be read here.
The Army Corps of Engineers has yet to issue permits for the project.
Pennsylvania has issued Clean Water Act 401 Certification for the project, a decision the Delaware Riverkeeper Network is challenging in court. But has not issued the underlying permits.The Army Corps has not fully signed off on the project with permits.
The PennEast Pipeline is designed to be a large scale 36 inch transmission pipeline that will stretch 108 miles from a gathering system in Luzerne County and terminate at Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co.’s Trenton-Woodbury Lateral in Mercer County, N.J. The proposed project is planned to transport roughly 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. The project will also require the siting and construction of multiple high-powered compressor stations scattered along the line.
The PennEast Pipeline Project will cut its right-of-way for over 114 miles approximately 87% of which will be within the boundaries of the Delaware River watershed. Among the waterways to be crossed are the Delaware, Lehigh and Susquehanna Rivers. Among the federally listed species already identified that could be impacted by the project are the Bog Turtle, the Indiana Bat, the Dwarf Wedge Mussel and the Northern Long-eared Bat which has been proposed-for-listing. Also targeted are forests as well as public and private lands, much of that land being sensitive green fields that have not previously been disturbed.
The pipeline will affect approximately 1,094 tracts of land and approximately 861 landowners. Eleven municipalities have already passed resolutions opposing the pipeline including: Hopewell Twp, Delaware Twp, Holland Twp, West Amwell Twp, Lambertville, Alexandria, Milford, Princeton, Clinton Twp, Kingwood Twp, NJ and Moore Twp, PA.
Size and Scope
The size and scope of the construction activity for the PennEast line and stream crossings associated with this project will have a deleterious effect on the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. Large scale transmission lines such as the PennEast line 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, 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.
There are also significant concerns related to the cumulative impacts of the continuous water crossings and wetlands disturbance that pipeline construction activity has on the health and vitality of the Delaware River Basin. This is particularly a concern with the PennEast line, as many of these same subwatersheds were recently impacted by construction activity on Transco’s parallel line. Also, in addition to the Transco’s previous and proposed pipeline projects, there are several other pipeline projects that have been concentrated in the same sub watersheds as the PennEast line, such as: Texas Eastern’s TEAM 2014 Project and Columbia’s East Side Expansion Project.
The PennEast Pipeline will further facilitate the development of new gas drilling wells, access roads, gathering lines, compressor stations, and other supporting infrastructure, which will further degrade our environment. The PennEast line 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 (Docket CP15-558), 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).
This fall 2019, we’re sending that message to DRBC in a big way with escalating actions that are easy for you to join from near or far, and that will culminate in a big turnout at the DRBC’s December 11 meeting.
Updates:
March 18, 2020: Delaware Riverkeeper Network sends letter urging DRBC transparency and to remain strong and vigilant on PennEast.
September 10, 2019: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re PennEast Pipeline Company LLCm determined that PennEast did not have the right to exercise eminent domain over land parcels in which the state of New Jersey had property interests and was refusing access. The court said that the exercise of eminent domain over these parcesl would be an infringement on the sovereign immunity of the state. In response, on October 4, 2019, PennEast filed Docket No. RP20-41 urging FERC, after only an 8 day comment period, to issue a declaratory order that rejected the Third Circuit’s interpretation.
October 1, 2019: Just 3 days before the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit was to hear oral argument on the case brought by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and others to challenge the FERC certificate issued to the PennEast pipeline the court placed the case in abeyance for an undetermined period of time.
March 19, 2019: U.S Court of Appeals Grants Motion for Stay on PennEast Pipeline: “In the event [PennEast] transitions from the surveying and testing phase to the construction phase of the pipeline project, physical construction of the pipeline shall be stayed pending this appeal.”
February 16, 2019:PADEP noticed its call for public comment. DRN requested a comment extension and submitted Comments to the DEP, which can be found here.
February 15, 2019: PennEast is Modifying Its Proposed Route. March 8, 2019 is the deadline for Intervening in the FERC Process for the PennEast Pipeline Project Application for Amendment. In addition, the Pennsylvania DEP is seeking comment on its proposal to approve PennEast as being in compliance with state water quality standards.
On February 15, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Notice of Application for Amendment (“Notice”) regarding the PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC’s (PennEast) application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations to amend the certificate of public convenience and necessity and related authorizations issued by the Commission on January 19, 2018. The proposed modifications to the PennEast Pipeline include a series of route realignments and adjustments in Luzerne, Carbon, Monroe, and Northampton Counties, in Pennsylvania. The Notice invites the public to provide motions to intervene before March 8, 2019 at 5:00 pm.
You can find the notice here and PennEast’s Application for Amendment here.
August 13, 2018:On Friday, August 10th, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied the rehearing request from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, NJDEP and others. In reply, on August 13, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the FERC approval of the PennEast pipeline claiming the agency violated the Natural Gas Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it granted approval of the pipeline.
May 30, 2018:FERC denied the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s requests for rehearing from the February 22 request. Commissioner Glick wrote a concurrence highlighting the need for the FERC Commission to act on Rehearing Requests as quickly as possible so as to avoid “needless and avoidable harm” to “landowners, communities, and the environment.”
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 PennEast Pipeline.
May 8, 2018: Delaware Riverkeeper Network initiates two legal actions to stop construction of Penneast pipeline in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. One is challenging Penneast’s Certificate of Convenience and Necessity and includes a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to stop construction of the pipeline. The other case challenges FERC’s continued abuses of tolling orders.
April 13, 2018: FERC issues a second order tolling the second rehearing request submitted by Delaware Riverkeeper Network on February 22.
February 22, 2018: Delaware Riverkeeper Network submits a second rehearing request. This one for the tolling order issued for the initial hearing request on February 22.
February 22, 2018: Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s first rehearing request is tolled by FERC. To learn more about FERC’s abuse of tolling orders in these instances see DRN’s Dossier of FERC Abuses.
February 15, 2018:Delaware Riverkeeper Network petitions the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to exercise its authority in the Delaware River Basin; ensure a nonpoint source pollution control plan is secured, reviewed, and approved for Penneast prior to approval of a DRBC docket; and ensure the DRBC will prevent construction on any part of the Penneast pipeline until Commissioner approval of a DRBC docket for the project.
February 6-13, 2018: PennEast commences almost 200 eminent domain actions in U.S. District Courts in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
January 24, 2018: Delaware Riverkeeper Network submits its first Rehearing Request to FERC and a Motion for Stay to halt construction of any land disturbance project associated with the pipeline.
January 19, 2018:FERC issues Certificate of Convenience and Necessity with a 4-1 vote. The Certificate included two concurrences and a dissent. Commissioner La Fleur and Commissioner Chatterjee wrote separate concurrences to highlight the issue of how pipeline developers engage with landowners. Commissioner Glick wrote a dissent highlighting and criticizing FERC’s allowance of contracts among affiliates to show need and the practice of FERC conditionally granting Certificates due to lack of evidence of environmental harms.
March 2, 2016 the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed a Constitutional Challenge to the FERC process as it applies ot the PennEast project. While the court determined that DRN has met the bar for purposes of standing (an important precedent), the case was ultimately dismissed. DRN is appealing.
April 2016: responding to an effort led by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network that was supported by over 6,000 individuals, DRBC announced its intent to hold independent hearings.
Where PennEast Proposes to Cut Under the Delaware River
September 2014: the Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted a formal petition to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) requesting the agency take jurisdiction over the proposed PennEast pipeline project; DRN also crafted an action alert calling for letters from the public which has resulted in the submission of well over 500 citizen letters. Initially DRBC resisted jurisdiction, but follow-up letters from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network along with a deliberate press strategy and growing public pressure finally convinced the agency otherwise. The DRBC has made the decision to exercise jurisdiction over the project. DRBC has the authority to stop PennEast if it so chooses.
On September 27, 2015, Sunoco submitted an application to the Delaware River Basin Commission for its Pennsylvania Pipeline Project, also referred to as Mariner East 2. According to its August 2015 application, Sunoco’s Mariner East 2 pipeline would cut across 79 wetlands and 195 streams in the Delaware River Basin in Berks, Chester, and Delaware Counties, impacting 221 acres in Berks County, 184 acres in Chester County and 83 acres in Delaware County within the Delaware River Basin. Since beginning construction the pipeline has wreaked havoc across the state of Pennsylvania. In response, DRN has initiated two lawsuits against Sunoco and demanded that the DRBC suspend its docket.
In August, 2017, in resolution of legal action the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, in partnership with the Clean Air Council and Mountain Watershed Association brought against the Sunoco Mariner East project, the groups entered into a settlement with the DEP and Sunoco to prevent spills of drilling fluid associated with Sunoco’s horizontal directional drilling and to protect drinking water supplies and fragile ecosystems across the state. Since then, more spills have occurred, adding to the over 100 spills of drilling fluid to date. For example, during the course of less than a week in early October, 2017 there were four spills at a site in Chester County located at Boot Road and Enterprise Drive. Drilling continued anyway.
In Response
On October 24, 2017, the organizations filed a motion requesting that the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board direct the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to abide by a court-ordered protocol designed to prevent spills of drilling fluid along the Mariner East 2 pipelines.
The August settlement had been adopted by the Environmental Hearing Board as a Stipulated Order and established a protocol that the Department and Sunoco must follow in responding to spills. The protocol is designed to prevent repeat spills and requires Sunoco to stop drilling until the Department inspects the site of a spill and ensures more spills won’t happen there.
The Department has not been applying the protocol in all instances, resulting in Sunoco continuing to spill drilling fluid at the same sites. Monday’s motion requests that the Board clarify the spill protocol to ensure the protections the parties agreed to are followed moving forward.
“It is unfortunate that once again it is the responsibility of non-profit organizations to ensure that the Department appropriately responds to Sunoco’s ongoing spills,” said Maya K. van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper and leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
The Board’s Order is part of an ongoing appeal of 20 deficient water permits the Department issued for the Mariner East 2 pipelines in February. That Order was entered after the Board had halted all horizontal directional drilling for the Mariner East 2 pipelines due to the damage Sunoco’s drilling practices was causing to drinking water supplies and the environment.
DRN continues to monitor a few areas along the construction route where continued issues and violations are occurring along the ME2 route. A real time water testing probe was installed by DRN and Stroud in December to document water quality conditions. Landowners along the route continue to document harms and violations and DRN has photo documented and provided reports to the Conservation District for follow up and enforcement.
Updates June12, 2018
Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Sunoco Pipeline L.P. for their failure to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES permit) for the Mariner East II pipeline project.
NPDES permits are required under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law (CSL). The complaint states:
“During construction of an industrial scale natural-gas liquids pipeline, Defendant Sunoco Pipeline LLC (hereinafter “Sunoco”) illegally discharged, and continues to discharge, pollution in the form of sediment-laden stormwater to Pennsylvania’s waters on multiple occasions, causing or contributing to violations of water quality standards on numerous occasions and in various counties across the state of Pennsylvania.”
Construction and operation of the pipeline has resulted in numerous unlawful discharges of sediment-laden water and other pollutants into waters of the United States in violation of the CWA and the CSL. Sunoco has been operating without the necessary permit for 399 days, which subjects Sunoco to civil penalties as high as $14,962,500.
“Sunoco is polluting our waterways and violating the law. The violations are blatant, willful and having devastating impacts on our environment. Neither the state nor federal government has enforced this critical permitting requirement on the pipeline company, which is one of the many reasons we are seeing so much environmental harm. Our laws were passed for a reason, to protect the environment from environmental degradation and harm. Pennsylvania’s government is failing miserably when it comes to these fracked gas and fracked gas liquids pipelines. Once again, we the people are having to stand up in our own defense,” said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper and leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
DRN is requesting the Court require Sunoco to obtain and comply with a NPDES permit, perform ground water assessments, provide relief to nearby residents if assessments show water contamination, and pay all civil penalties associated with the permit violations.
Sunoco has faced several fines and permit suspensions throughout construction of the Mariner East II project for violations such as drilling fluid spills and water contamination. Sunoco’s construction activities have also caused large sinkholes to open up in a residential neighborhoods, threatening the integrity of the parallel Mariner East 1 pipeline and consequently leading the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) to issue an Emergency Order temporarily suspending Sunoco’s operations to prevent “catastrophic results impacting the public.” A judge at the PUC specifically noted that Sunoco has “made deliberate managerial decisions to proceed in what appears to be a rushed manner in an apparent prioritization of profit over the best engineering practices available.”
Update June 15, 2018
Delaware Riverkeeper Network wrote to the Delaware River Basin Commission urging them to suspend the Docket provided the project and to undertake a thorough review of the project, because of significant and ongoing violations, the damaging impacts it is having on water resources of the basin, and the need for significant restoration and mitigation activities before any considerations regarding how, when or to what extent construction should be allowed to continue.
Update: July 3, 2018
After DRBC refused our request to take action to suspend the DRBC docket for Mariner East, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, joined by many community organizations, pushed back. See our letter here.
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.
