ACP is a private for-profit project pretending to be in the public interest

From an Article by Sarah Vogelsong, Virginia Mercury, February 24, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Where does a trail end and the land beneath it begin?

That’s just one of the thorny questions the Supreme Court grappled with Monday morning during a one-hour hearing on a U.S. Forest Service permit for the controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline that has been hotly anticipated by both the gas and oil industry supporting the pipeline and the environmentalists opposing the project.

Since its inception, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile conduit that would bring natural gas from West Virginia, through Virginia and into North Carolina, has been challenged on multiple fronts. The project, 53 percent of which is owned by Dominion Energy, currently has eight outstanding permits that have been revoked as a result of legal resistance.

The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court Monday concerned a permit granted by the U.S. Forest Service giving the pipeline the right-of-way to cross federal lands beneath the Appalachian Trail.

A December 2018 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit stripped the pipeline of that permit on the grounds that the Forest Service had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” and didn’t have the authority to grant rights-of-way for pipelines to cross federal lands under the Mineral Leasing Act.

It was the latter determination that the Supreme Court took up Monday in a narrow, complicated case that pushed environmental concerns to the back-burner to focus on exactly what authority Congress has given to what agency to manage federal lands in the National Park System.

The Mineral Leasing Act says that “rights-of-way through any federal lands may be granted by the secretary of the interior or appropriate agency head for pipeline purposes,” but defines federal lands as “all lands owned by the United States except lands in the National Park System.”

Whether the Appalachian Trail is just a trail that runs over the surface of the land or includes all the land beneath it — “down to the center of the earth,” as Justice Stephen Breyer put it — was a point of contention during arguments.

“The central flaw in the court’s logic lies in the fact that the Appalachian Trail is a ‘trail,’ not ‘land,’” the federal government’s brief argued. “Congress’s charge to the secretary of the interior to provide ‘overall administration of a trail’ does not transfer any administrative jurisdiction over the federal land that the trail traverses. Those lands remain under the administrative jurisdiction of their relevant federal land-management agencies. As such, National Forest lands crossed by the Appalachian Trail remain under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.”

Several of the court’s more liberal-leaning justices, including Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appeared skeptical of that stance. “You’re saying that the trail is distinct from the trail,” said Justice Kagan early in the hearing. “Nobody makes that distinction in real life.”

But Paul Clement, an attorney for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, argued that “multiple provisions” of the National Trails System Act draw a distinction between the two, and that conflating them would have “untenable consequences,” including the conversion of the Appalachian Trail into a 2,200-mile barrier to all pipeline development that would deprive eastern states of natural gas.

That argument seemed to strike a chord with several justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who both questioned Michael Kellogg, the attorney representing the consortium of five Virginia conservation groups opposing the Forest Service permit, about the potential outcome of creating what Roberts called “an impermeable barrier” to gas transportation.

Kellogg, however, contended that argument was misleading, because the Mineral Leasing Act only applies to federal lands and does not prohibit the granting of rights-of-way for pipelines beneath the trail on state, local and private lands. “Congress drew a bright line,” he said.

About 50 pipelines currently cross the Appalachian Trail, either on state, local or private land, or on federal lands under rights-of-way established prior to the passage of the Mineral Leasing Act.

Greg Buppert, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, a law firm that has been heavily involved in fighting both the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Mountain Valley Pipeline, said after the hearing that it was the “unprecedented” nature of the request for a right-of-way to construct a pipeline across federal lands that had brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The statutes, he said, “make it clear that this part of the Appalachian Trail gets its highest protections.” A decision in the case is not expected until late spring.

PHOTO in ARTICLE: Greg Buppert of the Southern Environmental Law Center offers comments about the hearing on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Feb. 24, 2020.

Betty Werner of Four Corners Farm in Franklin County, VA, refers to plastic coated pipe exposed to weather since last summer

Essay by William Limpert, Roanoke Times, June 30, 2019

Limpert is a retired environmental regulator with an emphasis in water pollution and particularly pollution from construction projects. He lives in Bath County, VA.

I much appreciate Laurence Hammack’s article regarding the horrific life-changing impacts to residents along the Mountain Valley Pipeline (“Mountain Valley Pipeline will take longer and cost more to complete, company says,” June 17 news story.) We landowners along the Atlantic Coast Pipeline stand in solidarity with them The Roanoke Times has been a steadfast source of information, and a voice for residents of Virginia for many years. We appreciate the great service that Mr. Hammack and the Roanoke Times has provided to this community, and southwest Virginia.

Nevertheless, I have concerns with statements made by the MVP and the regulatory agencies for the article. My issues are not with Mr. Hammack, nor the paper.

The MVP, and the ACP are coated with 3M Scotchkote Fusion Bonded Epoxy 6233 (FBE) which is designed to protect the pipes from corrosion, which leads to leaks, and explosions. FBE degrades, chalks off the pipes, and becomes thinner and less protective when exposed to sunlight.

The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for this material lists carcinogenic, mutagenic, and toxic properties. Scientific data indicates that chemicals that leach from epoxy resins, like this FBE, contain carcinogenic compounds, including benzene, and other compounds that cause significant health threats. A 3M company position paper states that some of the FBE degradation products are toxic to aquatic life.

Since FBE is degrading off the pipes, it presents both public safety and health threats. The safety threat is catastrophic explosions.from pipe corrosion. Corrosion is a leading cause of pipe failure. The health threat is from ingesting or inhaling FBE or its byproducts, as it degrades into our environment. This is a concern all along the route, but especially in karst areas where private wells and springs are used for drinking water.

Natalie Cox, spokeswoman for the MVP stated that this type of coating is routinely used on the interior of pipes used for drinking water. However, this specific coating has not been approved for potable water pipes, according to the NSF, a public health and safety organization that tests and certifies products for drinking water, and is not listed as approved under NSF/ANSI Code 61.

Ms. Cox also stated that the FBE coating will protect the pipe welds. FBE is a long term corrosion protection measure. It has little, if any, effect on protecting welds, or the pipe itself from stresses caused by ongoing flexing, such as when pipes are immersed in water through a winter of freezing and thawing. Flexing can also result in FBE dis-adhering from the pipe.

MVP’s senior vice president, Robert Cooper, told a federal court last year that MVP needed to immediately seize 296 properties, and begin construction, due to concerns about FBE degradation, but now, with nearly an additional year and a half of FBE exposure to sunlight, everything is apparently okay.

DEQ Director Paylor and Commissioner Oliver stated that neither 3M, the EPA, nor NSF has shared any health risks from the FBE. They also stated that DEQ and VDH have not found a specific environmental or health risk associated with it. Nevertheless, none of these parties have stated that it is safe for our environment, or human health, nor have they produced any reassuring research findings. Paylor and Oliver have seen the MSDS, are aware of the epoxy resins byproducts, and have read the 3M statement regarding toxicity to aquatic life.

FERC spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen is incorrect when she advises that FERC does not regulate pipeline coatings. FERC is required to evaluate the environmental impacts of the coating under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

FERC referred FBE coating issues to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), PHMSA advised that the MVP has followed proper storage procedures, and they found no FBE degradation as of last November. PHMSA is responsible for pipe integrity, and safety issues. PHMSA refuses to give the public any inspection information, and has thrown an iron curtain of secrecy around these projects, so we cannot verify if proper storage is occurring.

Nevertheless, I have an e-mail from PHMSA advising that they found “possible” chalking on MVP pipes last November, but did not consider it serious. Chalking is degradation. Images in the news article clearly show FBE degradation.

We should all be concerned when state and federal agencies fail to act to protect the public, without proof there is no risk, and while making vague and evasive statements to support their inaction. Likewise for the pipeline industry.

They are all playing Russian Roulette with citizens’ health and safety.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NOTE from the Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance: July 3, 2019

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has requested that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and Dominion Transmission, Inc. provide within 20 days toxicological, environmental and health information on epoxy coatings associated with pipeline materials used in the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The operative language in the request is below.

“Please provide toxicological environmental and health information for Fusion Bonded Epoxy (FBE) coatings (3M™ ScotchkoteTM Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coatings and 3M™ ScotchkoteTM Liquid Epoxy Coatings, or their equivalents) used for coating the project’s pipeline and associated utilities. Evaluate and report on the toxicity of the FBE from all potential exposure pathways including from direct and indirect human contact, ingestion or inhalation; as well as environmental pathways (leachability and mobility) in air, soils, surface water, and groundwater. The evaluation should likewise include an analysis of human and environmental exposure from the degradation of FBE due to exposure to sunlight, and sloughing (chalking) of the material.”

Lewis Freeman, Executive Director, Allegheny-Blue Ridge Alliance

https://www.abralliance.org/

ACP protest of Union Hill Compressor Station

From an Article of The Recorder, May 16, 2019

RICHMOND – The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 9 heard environmentalists again ask the three-judge panel to stop a proposed shale gas pipeline’s construction through the Alleghenies due to the presence of an endangered bumblebee and another threatened species.

Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, and the Virginia Wilderness Committee filed a second appeal.

The appeal followed word from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about a second biological opinion and incidental take analysis approving construction of the $7.5 billion, 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would bring shale gas to the Southeast for power generation and to the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay for export.

Dominion Energy manages the project.

The first biological opinion was challenged at the same court.

Late last year, the three-judge panel threw out the permit after finding it ignored regulations for endangered species. Dominion stopped construction in 2018 while awaiting a second permit.

The same environmental groups on May 9 re-challenged the permit’s impact on species including the rusty patched bumblebee.

Southern Environmental Law Center attorney Austin Donald Gerken Jr. argued for the environmental groups that the Fish and Wildlife Service expedited the permit and again failed to address issues raised the first time. He argued that a 2018 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation survey found a few rusty patched bumblebees seen in the area marked “one of only five reported sightings outside the Midwest in the last decade.”

Fish and Wildlife ignored the new bee data and presented other errors in the second permit, Gerken said.

Justice Department attorney Kevin McArdle argued for Fish and Wildlife and was asked about the rusty patched bumblebees. He said Fish and Wildlife said a bee expert’s estimation was a best guess, and her expertise along with new data met legal requirements. U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker suggested that was not very scientific.

Impact on the Madison Cave isopod, a threatened native subterranean freshwater crustacean, was another topic of argument.

McArdle told the panel the project would impact subsurface rock in one area, but not others. The pipeline would be buried eight feet, and the water table for most of the area was about 20 feet deep, McArdle said.

Gerken argued the agency’s documentation showed at least six sinkholes in the pipeline’s path. Blasting and heavy equipment movement would impact the isopod.

Forester Sam Crockett pointed out thousands of workers lost employment before Christmas when the Forth Circuit threw out the first permit December 8th.

All Democratic appointees, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory and U.S. Circuit Judge James Wynn joined Thacker on the panel. There was no time frame for issuing a decision.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See Also: That’s part of our responsibility’: Faith leaders lead march in protest of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, WRIC, Richmond. VA, May 17, 2019

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Allegheny – Blue Ridge Alliance, ABRA Update #230 – May 16, 2019

Some 52 Groups Oppose Congress Acting on Appalachian Trail & BLue Ridge Parkway Crossings

Fifty-Two organizations, representing thousands of individual members in Virginia, wrote to the Virginia congressional delegation on May 16 urging them to oppose “possible federal legislation that would allow the highly controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) to be built across the Appalachian Trail and Blue Ridge Parkway.” The groups’ letter noted that “Dominion Energy is pressuring some members of Congress to consider legislation that could make it easier to build the ACP along the developers’ preferred route. Such legislation would be inappropriate given the ongoing review of the project by agencies and the courts.” Separate letters were sent to Senators Warner and Kaine and to the eleven Virginia members of the U.S. House of Representatives. ABRA and many of its member organizations were among the signatories to the letter.

Some of ACP path in Nelson County where local residents oppose pipeline

From an Article by Emily Brown, Lynchburg News & Advance, December 17, 2018

The board has not yet decided who will represent the county and supervisors in the lawsuit. County Administrator Stephen Carter said such a decision could be made Tuesday, when supervisors are scheduled to have a special called meeting. The agenda for the meeting, set for 4 p.m. in the former supervisors meeting room at the Nelson County Courthouse, includes a “closed meeting” to discuss the case.

Nelson County and its supervisors have less than two weeks to respond to ACP’s complaint.

In a phone interview Monday, Supervisor Ernie Reed said he’s confident in whomever the board chooses as legal counsel, adding he thinks the county is in good position to defend itself.

“I think the main issues are procedural,” Reed said. “I don’t think it’s necessary that an attorney have a strong background on this … because there are resources available to be able to [get] that information without [having] the experience.”

Rutherford said he is only concerned with hiring “someone who is looking out for what’s best for Nelson County, period.”

While the county has insurance that will cover some of the legal costs the county will incur from the case, according to Carter, a portion of the fees will not be covered.

Given the uncertainty of whom the board will hire as legal counsel and how much time the case will require, it’s unclear how much money the county may have to spend on the suit. But Rutherford has thought of the ramifications.

“This lawsuit’s gonna cost us,” Rutherford said. “… I am of the assumption that [the county will] pay what it costs, but it’s hard to estimate what that’s gonna be.”

Following the denial of permitting requests at the local level this month, Atlantic Coast Pipeline took an unprecedented step in an attempt to move the project forward, filing a lawsuit against a locality — Nelson County — for the first time in the years-long approval process.

Three days after Nelson’s Board of Zoning Appeals denied the company’s variance requests for floodplain crossings, ACP filed suit against Nelson County and its board of supervisors.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court’s Western District of Virginia on December 6th, is seeking a judgment stating the Natural Gas Act “preempts” the requirements of Nelson’s floodplain ordinance, which would include “obtaining any zoning permits for any of the floodplain crossings.”

According to officials from Dominion Energy, lead partner of the ACP, the suit against Nelson County is the first of its kind for the project — a 600-mile natural gas pipeline that will stretch from West Virginia to North Carolina and through Virginia.

“While it was not our preference, now that the Nelson County Board of Zoning Appeals has denied our applications, we have no choice but to take the next step of seeking preemption from the federal courts,” Dominion spokesman Karl Neddenien said in a statement Monday. “ … There is a well-established process for resolving conflicts between the decisions of a local governing authority and a federal agency, in this case the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].”

FERC approved the route and issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the ACP in October 2017.

The denial of four variance requests, thanks to a 3-2 vote of the BZA on December 3rd, also represents the first time a locality has denied floodplain crossing requests, according to project officials. Elsewhere along the route, ACP also was required to obtain local permits for floodplain crossings, but Nelson County was unique in its review of the requests.

Because of changes to the county’s floodplain ordinance passed in September 2017 — which resulted in the pipeline qualifying as a “critical facility” that normally would not be allowed to be constructed in a floodplain — ACP was required to obtain variances from the BZA for 11 floodplain crossings. The 11 crossings combine to make up about 3½ miles of the 27-mile pipeline route through Nelson and 1 mile of access roads for the project.

In February 2018, the BZA unanimously dismissed seven of the 11 applications because ACP had not obtained easement agreements from owners of those properties. The four remaining applications, which were reviewed by the BZA’s hired outside consultant KCI Technologies, were denied by the BZA earlier this month.

According to Neddenien, ACP believes the BZA’s decision “is in direct conflict” with FERC’s decision to approve the route. ACP’s lawsuit states, “The application of Floodplain Regulations to the Project conflicts with federal law and regulation and will delay construction and operation of the Project.”

If the court rules in ACP’s favor, the “degree of injury” Nelson County and its supervisors will suffer is “less than the injury” ACP would incur if the court denies the request in the lawsuit, the company alleges in the suit.

Reached Monday by phone, Nelson County Supervisor Jesse Rutherford said he wasn’t surprised by ACP’s lawsuit. “I think everyone knew it wasn’t a matter of if, but when,” he said.

The county and supervisors were named as defendants in the suit because the BZA acts as its own judicial body, similar to a court, and therefore cannot be a defendant.

While the county now must defend itself against the suit that resulted from the BZA’s decision — and incur costs associated with legal fees — Rutherford said he’s not upset by the suit.

“I can appreciate those who voted no, and I can appreciate anyone who voted yes, because that’s their right,” Rutherford said of the BZA members, “and it’s Dominion’s right to take it to [court].

“Anytime something goes before the BZA, there’s the chance that’s gonna happen.”

######################

PLEASE READ & CONSIDER A DONATION AT THIS URGENT TIME:

Risky and Unnecessary Natural Gas Pipelines Threaten Our Region | Southern Environmental Law Center

https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/proposed-natural-gas-pipeline-threatens-scenic-western-virginia

Andrew Downs, Appalachian Trail Conservancy

MVP siting process has ignored our trails, scenic views and public attitudes

Commentary by Andrew Downs, Virginia Regional Director for the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Roanoke Times, May 22, 2017

In less than seven weeks, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could give the nod to questionable plans Mountain Valley Pipeline has proposed. These plans have been rolled out in a way that prevents the public from adequately understanding the effect of major infrastructure on local communities and the world-famous Appalachian National Scenic Trail.

Like all pipeline proposals that traverse more than one state, Mountain Valley Pipeline is required to present a plan to FERC for public review and comment. FERC’s responsibility, in turn, is to evaluate the plan on need, safety considerations, community and environmental impacts, and other factors. FERC is also charged with addressing public concerns.

From the outset, when the company laid out plans to transport natural gas for more than 300 miles through Virginia and West Virginia, the problems with the routing were apparent and grievous because of inaccurate and incomplete information. What the company has since added to their plans is downright disrespectful to the legally-required public engagement and review process.

Therein lies the rub. Since September 2016, when MVP published its draft plan for a 90-day public review (which closed December 22) the company has added nearly 16,000 pages of additional information to their proposal. Sixteen thousand pages.

What all that added information means to the pipeline proposal is a mystery. The added information has not been entered in context, and there is little reference to what it all means. FERC can and should require the pipeline company to go back, sort out and integrate – not simply append – all the information it has added. That is essential to ensure good decisions and make certain that routing does not gravely damage private and public lands. Clear and accessible information about the impacts of this project is our public right.

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy strongly objects to MVP’s proposed route. The ATC’s mission is to ensure the Appalachian Trail and the scenic landscape that surrounds it is preserved and protected for generations to come. More than one-third of all Americans are within a day’s drive of the magnificent Appalachian range which draws all types of visitors – picnickers, campers, hunters and hikers – and contributes to the economic health of local rural communities such as Pearisburg and Narrows, as well as larger communities such as Roanoke and Blacksburg. As the Roanoke Valley has demonstrated, the outdoor-recreation assets of the region are a huge draw for new corporations and important to us.

The ATC finds that MVP’s proposed routing could not be worse. The route snakes through the Appalachians requiring thousands of acres of forest to be cleared and creating gashes the width of a 12-lane highway. The resulting eyesores would be devastating to the trail and surrounding landscape, and would be seen from as far as 20 miles away.

In 2015 the ATC spent considerable time outlining reasonable and workable criteria for energy companies to consider when locating proposed natural gas projects in the Appalachians. The MVP proposal seems to have not considered any of these guidelines.

In addition to the permanent damage to our views of the mountains and our recreation experiences, routing for the MVP crosses numerous waterways. An active seismic zone increases the possibility of natural gas leaks and contaminated groundwater. Proposed routing across steep mountainsides sets ups the certainty of landslides. Furthermore, routing requires the Forest Service to drastically alter a management plan supported by the public.

Thousands of people and communities such as Giles, Montgomery, Craig and Roanoke counties have expressed their serious concerns and objections to the proposed MVP. The ATC, the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club, and many other stakeholders provided input on how the project could be adjusted to avoid unnecessary environmental hazards and unsightly alterations to Appalachian vistas — including building the pipeline alongside existing roads, highways and power lines. Unfortunately, advice from the ATC and many other stakeholders was ignored.

In light of this deeply insufficient process, no one individual nor entity – including FERC – could make a well-informed decision on this proposed pipeline. FERC has a responsibility to see that the public has access to information and that the process is sufficient.

The ATC invites your participation in requesting that FERC requires MVP submit a new document, a supplemental environmental impact statement, which puts more than 16,000 pages of information in context. When that new plan is submitted, we hope the company presents a plan that balances energy infrastructure needs with our mountain heritage, the preservation of our communities and the Appalachian Trail.

For more information about the MVP and the harmful effects to the Appalachian Trail, visit appalachiantrail.org/MVP.

Time to shut-out all these pipelines

Alaska underwater pipeline leak may have started in December 2016

From an Article by Dan Joling, Associated Press, March 7, 2017

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A pipeline spewing natural gas into Alaska’s Cook Inlet may have started leaking in December, two months before the leak was spotted from the air, according to a federal pipeline safety office.

The estimate of when gas started leaking into winter habitat for the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales was issued in a proposed safety order last week by the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration that the agency confirmed on Tuesday.

Processed natural gas continues to leak from a Hilcorp Alaska LLC pipeline that supplies four oil platforms in the inlet south of Anchorage — at a rate estimated by the company of 210,000 to 310,000 cubic feet of gas daily.

A Hilcorp helicopter crew February 7th spotted gas bubbling to the surface about four miles off shore.

However, the company in late January reported that it had detected increased gas flow through the pipeline in January and started looking for a leak, according pipeline safety office’s report.

A subsequent analysis of gas flow indicated the pipeline likely began leaking in December, the agency said. The agency late Friday issued the proposed safety order requiring the line to be repaired by May 1 or shut down.

Hilcorp has 30 days to respond. In a statement Tuesday afternoon, company spokeswoman Lori Nelson said the safety of response personnel is the company’s top priority. She said Hilcorp is pleased that the proposed safety order recognizes that immediate repair is not viable.

The pipeline is in 80 feet of water. Repairs by divers cannot be made in current winter conditions that include sea ice, severe weather and extreme tides, according to Hilcorp. The company told the federal pipeline office safe diving operations cannot start until late March at the earliest.

Shutting the gas pipeline down is not an option, Hilcorp said. Before the pipeline carried natural gas, it moved crude oil. Without pressure in the line, seawater could enter and allow residual crude oil to leak, the company said.

Hilcorp purchased the pipeline and other oil and gas facilities from XTO Energy, Inc., in September 2015. The 8-inch line also leaked in June and August 2014. The leaks were 42 yards apart about two-thirds of a mile from the current leak. They were repaired with clamps.

XTO Energy concluded that previous leaks were caused by rocks contacting the pipe in locations where the line was not continuously supported by seabed.

Annual side-scan sonar or multi-beam echo-sounder surveys conducted by the company do not detect external loads on the pipe, eroded pipe, rock impingements, metal loss, dings or gouges, the federal pipeline office said. The agency called for creating modifications to the pipe to allow in-line inspections or alternative technologies.

Besides endangered beluga whales, Cook Inlet is home to salmon and other fish. Hilcorp last week said its modeling consultants conclude that only tiny amounts of natural gas likely are dissolving into the water.

The company said Tuesday that based on observations so far, the natural gas release does not pose a threat to the public or the environment.

In a letter Tuesday to the Trump administration, however, seven environmental groups strongly disagreed. They called for the federal pipeline safety office to issue an emergency order shutting down the line. The leak is creating a low-oxygen dead zone that threatens belugas and other wildlife, the groups said.

“This dangerous leak could stop immediately if regulators did their job and shut down this rickety old pipeline,” said Miyoko Sakashita of the Center for Biological Diversity. Her group is one of two that have given formal notice that they intend to sue Hilcorp Alaska over the leak.

Hilcorp faces issues elsewhere in Alaska.

The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which oversees oil and gas drilling and production on state and private lands, last week fined Hilcorp $200,000 for unsafe practices in September 2015 at the Milne Point oil field northwest of Prudhoe Bay.

The commission said the company without authorization used nitrogen to clean a well. The gas entered an enclosed “mud trailer” with three workers inside and “nothing but luck” prevented their deaths, according to the commission.

Hilcorp in a statement said it has taken steps to make sure similar incidents don’t happen in the future.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Over 16,000 Citizens Demand Unbiased Review of Proposed Fracked Gas MVP Pipeline

Article from the Press Room, Appalachian Voices, 12/22/16

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Over the past three months, more than 16,000 people have sent comments or signed petitions to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) demanding the agency do a thorough, accurate and unbiased review of the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline, and ultimately reject the project. Local groups and environmental organizations submitted hundreds of detailed comments to FERC outlining numerous reasons finding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) substantially lacking information for meaningful review. FERC’s deadline for public comment is today.

Just yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an official “cooperating agency” during the project review, filed its comments with FERC, finding the environmental review “incomplete” and “insufficient,” and said there are hazards that “have not been fully assessed.”

The proposed pipeline passes through important habitat in the Jefferson National Forest and would have devastating impacts on the New River Valley and surrounding areas. There are many substantial deficiencies in the DEIS that must be corrected through the issuance of a completely revised DEIS, including the failure to fully evaluate the need for the MVP and the failure to fully evaluate the impacts to water resources, wetlands, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, and climate change implications. Correcting these deficiencies will require significant new analysis and the incorporation of high quality and accurate information regarding MVP impacts.

Legal and environmental experts have filed review comments of the nearly 2,600-page document that identified major gaps in FERC’s analysis, including:

• Failure to identify, consider, and analyze all reasonable alternatives. The DEIS fails to consider alternative routes and options, including a “no action” alternative, as required by the National Environmental Protection Act. The Council on Environmental Quality refers to the alternatives analysis section as the “heart of the EIS”.
• Failure to consider climate change impacts. FERC does not analyze the significance of the total annual greenhouse gas emissions in any meaningful way.
• Failure to address the need for the MVP. Despite the clear requirement to discuss the need for the MVP project in the DEIS, FERC says that it will not address project need until after the environmental analysis is over.
• Failure to provide adequate environmental information. The DEIS lacks sufficient information about the MVP and its potential environmental impacts on a wide variety of resources, including water resources, wetlands, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, and climate change implications.

In addition to significant flaws, there is a significant amount of information regarding other environmental impacts that is missing from the DEIS that will not be provided by the applicants in a manner that facilitates meaningful public disclosure and participation.

David Sligh, Conservation Director, Wild Virginia, 434-964-7455, davidwsligh@yahoo.com
“FERC must revise the draft EIS to correct gross deficiencies in information and flawed analyses. Wild Virginia calls on the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to insist on a new and adequate DEIS from FERC, or to fulfill their legal duties and prepare their own.”

Ben Luckett, Senior Attorney, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, 304-645-0125, bluckett@appalmad.org
“We’re shocked the FERC has continued to disregard its federal duties and fast track this project — especially given major gaps in the agency’s understanding of the pipeline’s impacts, as well as any need for it in the first place. FERC has the extraordinary power to allow MVP to take private property for its shareholders’ own private gain. Just because the job of evaluating the impacts of such a massive project is difficult doesn’t mean that FERC may cut corners and ignore its important duty to the public. FERC should not proceed forward, sacrificing family land and other private property, without fully analyzing this destructive and unnecessary pipeline.”

Lara Mack, Virginia Field Organizer, Appalachian Voices, 540-246-9720, lara@appovices.org
“FERC woefully underestimated the impacts the Mountain Valley Pipeline will have on the Appalachian mountains, wildlife habitat, water resources, and communities. If FERC did it’s job correctly, with the public interest in mind, it would see this project for what it is — a dangerous boondoggle.”

Andrew Downs, Regional Director, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, 540-904-4354, adowns@appalachiantrail.org
“Through a deficient level of planning and environmental impact assessment, the MVP project represents a threat not only to the purpose and values of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail but, by undermining the United States Forest Services’ protection of the AT, it represents a fundamental and existential threat to the entire National Trails System”

Anne Havemann, General Counsel, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 240-396-1984, anne@chesapeakeclimate.org
“FERC’s draft environmental review utterly ignores the pipeline’s full impacts on the climate. The limited–and opaque–review fails to fully account for methane pollution from increased fracking that the pipeline would trigger, from leakage along the route, and from the ultimate burning of the gas. The pipeline would fail the White House’s climate test. FERC must revise its review to include the pipeline’s full lifecycle of climate pollution, and consider clean energy alternatives.”

Laurie Ardison, POWHR Co-Chair, Monroe County, WV 304-646-8339
ikeandash@yahoo.com
Ellen Darden, POWHR Co-Chair, Montgomery County, Va. 540-230-1091
greennrv.ellen@gmail.com
“The people of Appalachia stand united in an unprecedented interstate coalition: Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR), to make clear to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the United States Forest Service, the US Army Corp of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management that Mountain Valley Pipeline has failed to establish a need for this destructive project.

FERC’s DEIS summarily ignores the detailed, credentialed hydrogeologic, economic, historical preservation and cultural attachment research submitted by the POWHR coalition and hundreds of landowners opposed to MVP. Rather than interfering and obstructing public opposition to MVP, FERC must review the entire body of scientific research submitted and reject this project.”

Kirk A Bowers, PE, Pipelines Campaign Coordinator, VA Chapter, Sierra Club, 434-296-8673, kirk.bowers@sierraclub.org
“The Draft EIS is blatantly biased. It makes sweeping unsubstantiated claims of the need for the pipeline while dismissing any and all potential adverse effects. The applicant provides cursory responses to data requests in a perfunctory manner without analyses or serious consideration of the adverse effects of the proposed pipeline. The applicant has failed to make reasonable efforts to avoid and minimize adverse effects on communities, landowners and ecosystems impacted by the proposed pipeline. In light of the incompetent and unprofessional manner in which the application has been handled by MVP LLC, it is incumbent on FERC to reject the application.”

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net