Note the pipeline construction barrier in the backyard of Paula Brandt, Exxon, PA

From an Article by Claire Sasko, Philadelphia Inquirer, July 6, 2019

The ongoing battle over the Mariner East project is taking place in the backyards of Chester and Delaware county residents, who live in fear of a catastrophe.

CASE STUDY — It was dark outside, around 5 a.m., when the flames took over the sky. Neighbors described it like this: a loud hissing noise. A massive ball of fire. A jet, or a meteor, crashing into the earth. Night turning into day.

On September 10, 2018, a section of the Revolution Pipeline — which had begun carrying natural gas just a week earlier — leaked and ignited in rural Beaver County, Pennsylvania, northwest of Pittsburgh. The rupture shot flames 150 feet into the air, destroying one house, collapsing several overhead power lines, and forcing the evacuation of nearly 50 residents.

Fortunately, no one was injured; the couple who lost their home had fled in the nick of time.

But for residents living along the thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines in Pennsylvania — second only to Texas as the nation’s largest producer of the fossil fuel and home to the newly booming, energy-rich Marcellus Shale region — the fire and the charred earth it left behind serve as a haunting reminder: Something like this could happen in our backyards.

That dread is perhaps nowhere more evident than 300 miles southeast of Beaver County, in the dense suburban neighborhoods west of Philadelphia, a city that energy industry leaders have, in the past decade, eyed as a global processing and trading hub. Here, tensions surrounding the cross-state Mariner East pipelines — a project much larger than Revolution and owned by the same parent company, Dallas-based Energy Transfer — are only intensifying.

The pipelines (Mariner East 1 and 2 and the not-yet-completed 2x) carry highly compressed natural gas liquids. Once they are fully operational along a 350-mile route from their Marcellus Shale source to a revitalized former oil refinery in Marcus Hook, they promise to be vastly lucrative for Energy Transfer — and for the state, which, the company boasts, could see an economic impact of more than $9 billion from the project. But since work began in February 2017, Mariner East has been plagued by nearly 100 state Department of Environmental Protection violations, multiple sinkholes, service shutdowns and construction chaos. Glaring gaps in state regulatory oversight have been exposed, and opposition has grown into significant pushback from neighbors and a bipartisan group of lawmakers who say Pennsylvania communities are at risk of — and unprepared for — a potential pipeline disaster.

Mariner East is headed for an inflection point: Construction could continue despite opponents’ pitched efforts, or officials could take steps to pause, end or remedy a project that’s been embattled since its inception. In the meantime, those at the heart of the Mariner East conflict zone live in fear of an incident like Beaver ­County’s — or worse.

In April, a fortress-like metal barricade was erected across the center of Paula Brandl’s quiet, grassy backyard in Exton, Chester County. The scene outside her kitchen window is almost dystopian.

Brandl says land agents connected with Sunoco Pipeline LP, the Energy Transfer subsidiary that’s building the lines, told her the wall was installed as a noise barrier. For roughly two weeks after it went up, she says, she and her family members were “in shock.” Brandl contacted the agents and various state agencies to inquire about vibrations caused by the hidden construction as well as diesel exhaust in the air in and around her home, but she says no one she spoke with was helpful or informative.

“I have every right to know what is going on back there,” Brandl says at her dining room table one late-April day. “It’s just as if I don’t even own that land anymore.”

Energy Transfer is able to occupy Brandl’s backyard (and yards in 17 Pennsylvania counties) through what a recent New Yorker story termed a “legal loophole” linking the Mariner East project to the route of a 1930s pipeline that formerly transported heating oil. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the main state agency tasked with overseeing oil and gas projects, has deemed the project a public utility, stressing that state code “recognizes the intrastate transportation by pipeline of petroleum products.” Doing so grants the pipelines right-of-way, which is typically reserved for utilities offering some sort of benefit to the general public, like schools or highways.

Energy Transfer spokesperson Lisa Dillinger says that putting additional pipelines into an existing right-of-way is a common practice that “helps to reduce our environmental footprint.” But the pipelines’ public utility status enrages Brandl and other residents, especially since a significant quantity of the product the lines carry is to be shipped overseas to make plastics.

“The PUC failed us,” Brandl says. “This is not a utility. This is not a gas line that’s serving the benefit of Pennsylvanians. And that’s basically the root of this entire issue.”

In Pennsylvania, there’s no state agency responsible for approving the routes of intrastate hazardous-liquid pipelines — nor does federal law require that oversight. David Hess, who served as Pennsylvania’s DEP secretary under Republican governors Tom Ridge and Mark Schweiker from 2001 to 2003, says the lack of any such authority puts Pennsylvania “in a very disadvantageous position … because the pipeline route is critical. If the law was different, I don’t think you’d ever approve a route through populated areas like these, given the risks with some of these materials being carried.”

Dillinger says that Energy Transfer goes “above and beyond what is required to ensure the safety of our lines.” But it’s clear that the state agencies left to regulate the massive Mariner East project — the Pennsylvania DEP and the PUC — have an unprecedented situation on their hands, with what Hess calls “unanticipated impacts” in areas “overgrown with development.” Chief among those impacts are sinkholes that have opened in yards along the pipeline construction route in Chester County, twice exposing the buried pipe of the 1930s line (now repurposed as Mariner East 1) and prompting pipeline shutdowns to avert what the PUC called a potentially “catastrophic” risk to public safety.

The residents who owned those once-quaint yards — on Lisa Drive, just outside Exton — said they were terrified for their lives. Then, in April, Energy Transfer bought two of the homes, and the families moved out. Now, the properties sit eerily quiet and mostly empty, save for construction equipment and a small sign in one of the yards: notice: audio and video recording in progress. When I visited the area in early May, a man who identified himself as a relative of one of the former homeowners told me that in the neighborhood, “Everybody wants to get out.”

Paula Brandl and other residents who have endured the complications of hosting Mariner East construction on or near their properties — water contamination, spills of drilling mud, intimidating contractors — say those side effects pale in comparison to their biggest fear: a pipeline leak.

Natural gas liquids can rapidly change to an explosive gaseous state during a leak, and the gas can be ignited by sources as small as static discharge from using a cell phone, flicking a light switch or ringing a doorbell. Leaks, which can be caused by welding failures, material defects, pipeline corrosion, shifting land and other factors, have already happened along Mariner East 1 — three since 2014, though none resulted in an explosion. Energy Transfer’s Dillinger says the 88-year-old pipeline underwent “integrity testing and major upgrades” when it was repurposed for natural gas liquids service, and in April, two years after a high-profile leak in Berks County, the company said it would conduct a “remaining life study” of the line.

Energy Transfer’s safety record is, however, bleak in general. Between 2002 and the end of 2017, pipelines affiliated with the company across the country experienced a leak or an accident every 11 days on average, according to an analysis of federal pipeline data compiled by environmental advocacy organizations Greenpeace USA and Waterkeeper Alliance. In an evaluation by NPR affiliate StateImpact Pennsylvania, the same federal data showed that Sunoco Pipeline is responsible for the industry’s second-highest number of incidents reported to inspectors over the past 12 years.

“When it comes to number of accidents, Sunoco’s not just an outlier; they’re sort of an extreme outlier,” Eric Friedman, a Delaware County resident who lives steps from the Mariner East pipeline route, tells me.
Friedman, a former airline pilot who has worked for the FAA since 2006, sees Mariner East through a risk-management lens. (“Everything we do in commercial aviation is based on risk,” he says.)

He learned of the pipelines in 2013 — a year after buying his home in an affluent Glen Mills ­neighborhood — and has been researching the project ever since. He’s in regular contact with the offices of lawmakers like U.S. Rep Mary Gay Scanlon and Chester County State Senator Andy Dinniman — the politician widely considered to be the pipelines’ most vocal opponent — and he’s one of the leaders of a nonpartisan residents group called the Middletown Coalition for Community Safety.

In November 2018, seven residents of Chester and Delaware counties filed a complaint with the PUC against Sunoco Pipeline LP, alleging that the subsidiary hasn’t provided the public with a sufficient emergency notification system or management plan in the event of a pipeline-related disaster. The petitioners (nicknamed by residents the “Safety 7”) argue that as a public utility operator, Sunoco is tasked by federal regulations enforced by the PUC with providing an emergency-preparedness plan for potential disasters, like a possible leak along the Mariner East route. The failure to release a satisfactory plan, they say, places residents in the pipelines’ blast zone “at imminent risk of catastrophic and irreparable loss, including loss of life, serious injury to life, and damage to their homes and property.”

Energy Transfer has disputed the residents’ claims, saying that its emergency-response professionals “work and train with local first responders” and that it has shared a written public-education program specific to the area with emergency-response professionals along the line. Still, residents say the company hasn’t sufficiently involved the public in its preventative plans; the complaint is scheduled for hearings before an administrative law judge in July.

Meanwhile, the PUC has said it won’t release information about the potential impact of a leak or an explosion for several reasons, including that the state’s Right to Know law prohibits the disclosure of records that are “reasonably likely to jeopardize or threaten public safety.” Sharing the hazard assessments, the PUC argues, could compromise pipeline security by revealing information “which could clearly be used by a terrorist to plan an attack … to cause the greatest possible harm and mass destruction to the public living near such facilities.”

Brandl and other residents stress that living next to a “mass destruction” target is terrifying, with or without a disaster plan. To make matters worse, a recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found major weaknesses in how the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration — which is responsible for addressing terrorism risks along the nation’s 2.7 million miles of oil and gas pipelines — manages its pipeline security efforts.

“I don’t think I’d be living 25 feet away from that pipeline,” Hess, the former DEP secretary, says. “But again, the question is, why was someone allowed to live within 25 feet of this pipeline in the first place?”

In December, Chester County District Attorney Tom Hogan announced a criminal investigation into conduct related to the Mariner East project, saying that potential charges against individual Energy Transfer employees or corporate officers could include causing or risking a catastrophe, criminal mischief and environmental crimes. More recently, Delaware County DA Katayoun Copeland and Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro launched a joint investigation into Sunoco Pipeline LP and Energy Transfer over allegations of criminal misconduct related to the project, with Copeland stating that there “is no question that the pipeline poses certain concerns and risks to our residents.” (At press time, both investigations were ongoing.) Energy Transfer’s Dillinger says that the company remains “confident that we have not acted to violate any criminal laws in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and are committed to aggressively defending ourselves.”

After years of pressure, residents might finally be getting through to the state. At a Pennsylvania Senate committee meeting in June 2018 — before, even, a number of critical developments regarding Mariner East — former Republican State Senator Don White of Indiana County made a surprising statement: If issues raised at the committee’s meetings regarding pipeline safety consistently involve one project — referring to Mariner East — then “we have the ability in this state to find a way to deal with this company and put them out of business.”

David Hess, the former Republican DEP secretary — he was also executive director of the state Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee in the ’90s — says that for a “Republican senator to say that is astounding … [it] really underscores the problems this company is generating.”

As frustration and fear about Mariner East spread to constituents in red and blue districts alike, lawmakers who are typically supportive of the oil and gas industry (like north-central Pennsylvania State Senator Gene Yaw) are voicing concern. White’s proposition poses a question that residents are forcing officials — particularly Governor Tom Wolf, who has positioned himself as an ally to environmentalists and residents but has received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from oil and gas industry ­affiliates — to consider: How should they deal with the Mariner East pipelines?

Several months after the Revolution Pipeline incident in Beaver County, Wolf released a statement calling on state lawmakers to “address gaps in existing law which have tied the hands of the executive and independent agencies charged with protecting public health, safety and the environment.” His suggestions included giving the PUC authority over the routing of intrastate pipelines, ordering companies to work with local emergency coordinators, and requiring the installation of remote shutoff valves to contain leaks.

But the GOP-dominated legislature has yet to move any bills that would allow for those reforms. And none of that changes the fact that Mariner East has been unfolding on Wolf’s watch.

The Governor has yet to visit Delaware or Chester counties to speak firsthand with residents living near the pipelines about their experiences. (Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman visited before the 2018 primary; a spokesman for Wolf’s office said the Governor has met with residents and lawmakers about the project in Harrisburg.) Constituents say Wolf is simply not doing enough to prevent a potential disaster. Whether his administration will adopt a firmer stance toward Mariner East — as residents and local lawmakers have requested — remains uncertain.

Meanwhile, the project continues to highlight the limitations of both the DEP and the PUC. After all, there were warning signs before the Beaver County leak, which Energy Transfer has said resulted from a landslide that followed heavy rains. (Both the company and the PUC are still investigating the incident.)

The DEP had fined Energy Transfer three months before the Revolution Pipeline explosion for failing to mitigate erosion on a hillside about a mile from the site; the DEP says that at the time, it was “unaware of the issues associated with the blast site.” Critics have also questioned the agency’s decision to allow Sunoco Pipeline to use relatively new and potentially disruptive drilling methods that geologists say may have increased the risk of sinkholes along Lisa Drive in Chester County.

The PUC and state DEP have penalized Energy Transfer for many of the company’s missteps, at times (and increasingly) seriously. Revolution Pipeline remains out of service, and since February, the DEP has suspended all Energy Transfer permit applications (including for Mariner East) until the company reaches compliance in Beaver County. To Hess, the agencies are “working in the best way they can.” But, he argues, lawmakers need to consider more stringent regulation, especially of pipeline routes.

The question for residents is whether officials or Energy Transfer will act before an emergency. Until then, Eric Friedman says, they’ll continue to feel unprotected.

“I think at some level, the most important function of government is to reasonably provide for the public’s safety,” he says. “And how can you have a project like this, that could kill hundreds or thousands of people in the worst-case scenario, and hope for the best and not plan for the worst?”

>>> Published as “What Lies Beneath” in the July 2019 issue of Philadelphia magazine.

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

PUC Hearing for Wilmer BAKER

Public · Hosted by Faith Alliance for Pipeline Safety

Two Dates · Jul 17 – Jul 18
>>>>> JUL 17 Wed 10:00 AM
>>>>> JUL 18 Thu 10:00 AM

Keystone Building 400 North St, Harrisburg, PA 17120

Show Our Public support for Wilmer Baker at his PUC hearing JULY and 17 and 18th . Wilmer has an important case !

He is asking for SIRENS and SAFE Replacement PIPE- and appropriate installation practices. As a retired welder, Hazmat trained and former Union President, Wilmer has meticulously built a case against Sunoco /ET. Come and show your support. Most other cases have been delayed.. till next summer.

Please SHARE widely. RSVP to this site.

https://www.facebook.com/events/869984080045327/

Property rights need to be basic in the U.S.

Essay by George Neall, Rockingham County, VA, August 6, 2018

Studies have documented that the construction of gas pipelines can cause the value of properties impacted by the pipelines to decrease an average of more than 30%. Other studies have documented similar decreases in land values caused by fracking. Who pays for these losses? Beyond the decrease in appraised property values, what are some of the other losses that occur as a result of pipeline construction?

There seems to be little useful and publicly available information on getting fairly compensated for the loss of your land, your quiet enjoyment, and other factors if your property is confiscated, despite the fact that condemnation proceedings are not uncommon. You are typically on-you-own when it comes to this. Most people hire an attorney to represent them in such matters. Finding a knowledgeable attorney who has a successful track record in such cases is very important.

Clearing a pipeline pathway through forested and mountainous land will result in the loss of many tons of topsoil. In one instance (not related to pipeline construction) documented in Texas, 23 tons of topsoil per acre were lost in just one rain event on fairly flat land with a slope of just 4%. Who will pay landowners for the loss of topsoil from their land where pipeline construction will result in the denuding of land? In many areas where the pipeline will be installed, ground slopes exceed 50%. Even after being “reclaimed,” erosion will be astronomical compared to pre-pipeline conditions, especially in forested land.

How much would it cost to have topsoil trucked in and spread on the ground to replace the topsoil that was washed away? What thickness of topsoil loss is equivalent to 23 tons per acre? The answer, shown in the simple calculations below, is just 1/8 in! Soil is not renewable in the classical sense. It takes a long time to form. Allowing topsoil to erode from landowners’ properties is akin to stealing money from them. Will we allow topsoil thieves get off scot-free like all of the crooked “too-big-to-fail” bankers?

The weight of a one-foot thickness of topsoil covering one acre of land area is approximately 4,000,000 lbs. Using 23 tons of topsoil loss per acre, we can calculate how thick this topsoil loss would be:

First, 23 tons/acre x 2,000 lb./ton = 46,000 lb./acre lost from just one rain event

Then, 46,000 lb. soil erosion / 4,000,000 lb./ft. thickness = 0.0115 ft./acre = 0.138 in., a little over 1/8 inch!

In other words, you would not be able to accurately measure soil depth to document this loss. You would actually need to see the topsoil being washed away during or following a rain or observe the gullies and rills left by water that eroded the topsoil to know that erosion had occurred.

Beyond compensation to the landowner for the loss of valuable topsoil, who will pay citizens for the degradation of water, our most precious resource, caused by the erosion of soil into surface and underground water sources? Let’s assume that pipeline construction will result in a total of 23 tons of soil erosion per disturbed acre of land. The actual figure will likely be much greater because most of the land being disturbed by the pipeline will have a slope much greater than 4%, with slopes exceeding 60% in areas. The 23-tons/acre figure was also from just one rainfall, albeit a big one, whereas increased erosion from pipeline construction will continue for many years. The pipeline will result in the denuding of approximately 10,000 acres of land, which would result in more than 200,000 tons of topsoil being washed into our fresh water resources. The rivers and streams carrying this sediment-laden water will eventually carry it to the oceans, further polluting them.

What are trees worth? I’m not a forrester. Standing tree values will vary depending upon a lot of factors, but an estimate of $1,500.00/acre can be used for tracts that are commercially clear-cut. Many people who have purchased forested tracts of land for recreational or retirement use would consider their land more valuable with standing timber than without. Indeed, many people looking for recreational or retirement land would not consider purchasing a clear-cut tract or land that was crossed by or adjacent to a large natural gas pipeline.

My wife and I would not sell the timber rights on the land we temporarily own. The timber is more valuable standing than cut down. The timber is what helps produce the pristine spring water we drink and the pure stream that flows down the mountain behind our house. When you really think about it, we’re all “temporary owners” while we’re alive. The land will endure and flourish if we let it. Sooner or later, someone else will temporarily own our land.

Water is not only the most important product of our wooded property but also of the national forests. Pristine water is dependent upon trees. The animals are dependent upon the trees and water. How much is it worth listening to woodpeckers drumming for food or catbirds calling from the trees? Can you assign a worth to collecting black walnuts, hickory, and May apples nuts in the fall? What about wineberries, blackberries, raspberries, blueberries and mulberries in the summer? If you’re a pipeline company that wishes to profit from the resources in our environment, they would have you believe the values of these things are intangible and irrelevant. We all know better!

There are many other factors that need to be considered if you are faced with condemnation of your land for the construction of a natural gas pipeline. Will your mortgage be affected? Will your house/property insurance be affected? What happens if the pipeline pollutes your land? What happens if/when the pipeline is abandoned? How will your use of the land confiscated by the pipeline be limited or adversely affected? How will the pipeline owner ensure the pipeline right of way is kept clear of trees or other objectionable plants? Will they use herbicides or will this be done manually? How often will these or other pipeline activities disrupt the “quiet enjoyment” of your property? What will happen if you lose your water supply as a result of pipeline construction? If your property is near a compressor station, is that station a nuisance, legally?

Here is the dictionary definition of “nuisance”: “Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising or lowering of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream or underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light or high temperatures.”

Pipeline companies don’t care about any of these “theoretical” considerations. They don’t care about inconveniencing people. They don’t care that their actions may cost other people money or cause emotional pain. They’re not in the business to be nice. They’re in business to make money. They make money by externalizing as many costs as possible, like pollution of our environment. Violations of environmental regulations should result in significant fines. Landowners should receive fair compensation that not only includes the actual value of confiscated land, but also compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment, loss of topsoil and other factors. The cost of mitigating pollution should be paid up front and not by society after is has occurred. If paying environmental costs up front makes the product or project too expensive to generate a profit, it would not happen.

We may be able to stop some pipelines from being built. This needs to be our collective goal. But there will be instances where pipelines are built in spite of widespread and fervent opposition, science and common sense. Dominion and other corporations pay politicians to do their bidding. They help write the laws that let them run roughshod over you and me.

Suggested further reading:
Finding and Buying Your Place In The Country by Les & Carol Scher

Forest Service has grave concerns about burying ACP in the mountains

Greenbrier River Watershed Association

Mark Your Calendars & Take Action — April 5 & 6, 2017

Call In Days to Protect Communities from Fracked Gas Pipelines, Compressors and LNG Exports

Right Now, FERC Can’t Approve Any Fracked Gas Pipelines or LNG Export Facilities Because they Don’t have the Legal Quorum Necessary to Cast Binding Votes.

Let’s Keep it That Way

Join the call-in days on April 5 and 6 when we’re asking you to make 6 calls to tell your Senators and the members of the Energy and Natural Resources committee to hold hearings to get to the bottom of FERC’s abuses of power and address them before approving one more appointee to the Commission!

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is a proven rubber stamp for fracked gas pipelines. In 30 years, the FERC Commissioners have only rejected one (1) pipeline project.

Right now, FERC is operating without a Quorum – it only has 2 Commissioners, not the needed 3.* Until a new FERC Commissioner is approved by the Senate, the agency cannot issue the Certificates needed to approve fracked gas pipelines, compressors or LNG exports subject to its jurisdiction.

It’s Time to Call Our Senators and Secure their Commitment to:

• Oppose Any New FERC Commissioners
• To Demand Congressional Hearings into FERC Abuses and Bias
• To identify reforms that will result in an agency dedicated to a just transition to energy that serves the people rather than abuses them.

Demand an investigation and reform of FERC before supporting any Trump nominations.

What will we be saying to senators?

1.FERC is a demonstrably biased agency – it has only denied one pipeline project brought before its commissioners in 30 years

2. Trump’s nominees for FERC Commissioner need to be opposed until Congress has held hearings into FERC’s abuses of power and has identified and put in place needed reforms.

3. Ask Trump’s nominees the tough questions that will expose the bias and abuses that exemplify FERC.

Find more information and all of the resources you need to make your calls, including phone numbers, a sample script, and an optional form to tell us how your calls went here:

http://bit.ly/CallReFERCApril

Details can also be found at our Facebook event page: http://bit.ly/2o2xGkr

>  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >

Down to the Finish Line: DEIS Comments Due

The April 6 deadline for commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). Submitting comments for the DEIS is the most important action someone can take to influence the decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Even if someone testified at one of the recent FERC comment sessions, they are urged to also file written comments, permitting them to provide more expansive views.

To assist commenters, ABRA has prepared a guidance document:

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic

Coast Pipeline: What is it? What’s in it? What you can do!

Here’s how comments can submitted:

1. File comments electronically (which is encouraged) using the eComment feature on the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings.

This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project.

2.File comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission’s website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings.With eFiling, one can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.”

3. File a paper copy of comments by mailing them to the following address:

…………….. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary

……………….Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

……………….888 First Street NE, Room 1A

……………….Washington, DC  20426
>> Article from Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance <<

>>> Greenbrier River Watershed Association

>>> 120 W. Washington St. Suite #4

>>> Lewisburg, WV 24901

See also:  www.pipelineupdate.org

Springtime is spoiled by toxic fumes & chemicals

Proctor Residents Suing Williams Ohio Valley Midstream

From an Article by Drew Parker, Wetzel Chronicle, March 22, 2017

Proctor, WV — An energy company is facing a lawsuit for allegedly disrupting the daily lives of local residents.

On January 4th, Proctor residents Glenn Whisler, Sandra Whisler, Gary Hall, James McKinney and Jennifer McKinney filed a lawsuit against Williams Ohio Valley Midstream LLC, claiming the company caused noise disruptions, exposed them to toxins and devalued their properties.

Williams operates a compressor site in close proximity to the homes in question, located near Rines Ridge in Marshall County.

According to the complaint, the lawsuit alleges the Williams operations caused fumes, dust, dirt and noise and bright light to be present on the properties during all hours of the day and night. The complaint also cited fear of risks such as possible explosions near the site, as well as constant traffic surrounding the homes.

Attorney Jim Bordas of Bordas & Bordas Law Offices said the alleged damages have caused fear and concern in the affected community.

“In all cases like these the damages are a result of these big factories being put in put in people’s backyards, which is not what they bargained for when they bought their homes. Now, they’re concerned not only about the noise, smell and toxicity but the value of their property. When you move to the country, you figure you’re getting away from the effects of industry,” Bordas said. “We’re seeking for them to pay damages for the annoyance, aggravation fear and diminishment of property value, which will be up to a judge to determine. We think they’re looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Their whole lives have been disrupted.”

Bordas & Bordas attorney Jeremy McGraw said the case follows several other similar suits filed against Williams, which include about three dozen local plaintiffs. Other suits involve the energy company’s main facilities in Oak Grove on Fork Ridge Road and at Fort Beeler on Waynesburg Pike Road, both in Marshall County.

The series of litigation began in late 2015.

“One of the things that worries us about the industry is that they put a lot of lobbyists in Charleston this past year (pushing for legislation) that would make them not responsible for these incidents,” McGraw said.

Officials with Williams Energy could not be reached for comment.

See also: www.Marcellus-Shale.us

Report on Pipelines and Community Activities in West Virginia

From Elise Keaton, Greenbrier River Watershed Association, April 22, 2015

Community Meetings for You

Tuesday, April 28 (6-8 pm) – Preserve Monroe has their bi-monthly meeting every other Tuesday at the Union Senior Center in Union (Monroe County).

Thursday, April 30 (7-8:30 pm) -Preserve Greenbrier County will hold a community meeting in the Board Room at Carnegie Hall in Lewisburg (Greenbrier County).

Wednesday, May 20 (5:30 pm) – Summers County Residents Against the Pipeline (SCRAP) will hold their regular meeting at the corner Episcopal Church in Hinton (Summers County).

Sunday, June 14 (9am-10pm) – Preserve Monroe Fundraising Concert at Salt Sulphur Springs, WV (Monroe County).

Please call Elise at 304-207-1150 for more information about these community meetings.

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

Join us this Saturday for the Great Greenbrier River Race!

The Greenbrier River Watershed Association is a sponsor of the Great Greenbrier River Race in Marlinton this Saturday, April 25th from 11am to 4pm. This is an annual event held the last Saturday in April each year. With great prizes, live music and good food,the event attracts a loyal following of racers and fans.The race is organized by the Greenbrier River Trail Association and monies raised are spent on trail improvements.

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

Pipeline Meetings Upcoming

FERC sent a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline project. As a part of this process, FERC will hold scoping meetings the first and second weeks of May. The schedule for the meetings is as follows:

Monday, May 4, 2015 – 7:00 pm, James Monroe High School – Lindside, WV

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 – 7:00 pm, Eastern Montgomery High School – Elliston, VA

Thursday, May 7, 2015 – 7:00 pm, Chatham High School – Chatham, VA 24531

Monday, May 11, 2015 – 7:00 pm, Robert C. Byrd Center – Pine Grove, WV

Tuesday, May 12, 2015 – 7:00 pm, West Virginia University Jackson’s Mill – Weston, WV

Wednesday, May 13, 2015 – 7:00 pm, Nicholas County High School – Summersville, WV

The last day that FERC will receive comments for the MVP is June 16, 2015.

The last day that FERC will receive comments for the ACP is April 28, 2015.

Please call Elise at 304-207-1150 for more information.

See also:  www.MAREproject.org

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

Marcellus Academy June 27-28

Learn as much as you’ve ever wanted to know about Marcellus drilling and fracking at the Marcellus Academy. This year, participants may help work on developing a “Marcellus Campaign Plan.” The Academy will be held at the West Virginia Wesleyan College Campus. To register please contact: Jim Sconyers, jimscon@gmail.com 304-698-9628.