Category: Uncategorized

Running the pipeline through areas of regular blasting

Penny from Moore Township, PA writes:

I am a very concerned resident of Moore Township and I am strongly
opposed to the PennEast Pipeline. Moore Township formally adopted a resolution opposing the construction of the PennEast Pipeline. More than 240 concerned citizens attended a meeting in opposition to the PennEast Pipeline in November 2014. Would you please recognize and consider the concerns and opposition of so many
people?

I have numerous concerns in regard to the PennEast Pipeline that is proposed to run through a major part of Moore Township.

CONCERN #1:
BLASTS FROM CEMENT COMPANIES CAPABLE OF SHAKING HOMES ON PENN DIXIE ROAD AND SOUTH PENN DIXIE ROAD

I live on South Penn Dixie Road and I am a witness to my entire home shaking from blasts that are conducted at local cement companies. This is not a safe environment to construct a gas pipeline, especially with the potential of this being a gateway for additional pipelines. A man down
the street from us lives on Sterner Road in Nazareth and he was contacted about the pipeline going through his property. He has also mentioned that his entire house shakes from the blasts. There is major risk of this pipeline running near Penn Dixie Road and South Penn Dixie Road because of the effects in the ground from blasting that is capable of shaking homes.

CONCERN 2:
THE PROPOSED ROUTE OF THE PIPELINE IS APPROXIMATELY 3/10 OF A MILE FROM THE MOORE TOWNSHIP SCHOOL

The close proximity of the PennEast Pipeline to the Moore Township Elementary School is a danger to over 700 students at the school. The catastrophic risk of an explosion to so many children is unacceptable.

CONCERN 3:
SINKHOLES AND POTENTIAL CATASTROPHIC RISK OF EXPLOSION
There have been so many newspaper articles reflecting gas pipeline explosions in regard to sinkholes. I am copying a few links and related articles.

There was the explosion in Dunmore, PA – link –
http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-pa-scranton-gas-explosion-20141204-
story.html

There was a concern mentioned at an Upper Nazareth Township Meeting about
sinkholes: link –
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/nazareth/index.ssf/2014/11/upper_nazareth
_residents_raise.html

There was another near catastrophic event from a sinkhole – link –
http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-bethlehem-township-searches-forwater-line-break-20141121-story.html

Lehigh Valley Planning Commission noted the area is like swiss cheese –
link: http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breakingnews/index.ssf/2014/12/penneast_lays_out_benefits_of.html

CONCERN 4:
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE 108 MILE PROPOSED ROUTE FOR THE PIPELINE IS NOT A
SAFE ROUTE

I attended the PennEast Pipeline presentation and inquired about alternate routes. They said they have about 50 alternate routes but I was very discouraged to hear that these alternate routes are basically the same route with minor deviations within 50 feet to 1 mile of the proposed path. With this being the case, it is impossible to avoid some of the concerns I have noted including blasting, sinkholes, etc. I believe there should be alternate routes in completely different areas so that a
decision can be made on the very safest route. If you look at the map, it is a more direct and safer route to run the pipeline through Saylorsburg and Bangor. I think FERC should demand PennEast Pipeline to have alternate routes that are in completely different areas so that certain problem areas can be avoided completely.

CONCERN 5:
PENN EAST REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE ADVOCATING THE PIPELINE CANNOT ANSWER
SAFETY RELATED QUESTIONS OF CONCERNED CITIZENS

It is a major concern to me as a resident of Moore Township when PennEast Pipeline representatives cannot answer how significant the explosion of a 36 inch high pressure gas line would be.

An important question of mine is what area would a catastrophic explosion encompass? This is a question that should have been investigated and PennEast probably has the answer but they choose not to answer this question because it is most definitely very concerning. What would the explosion area encompass as more pipelines are run through the gateway, which I have heard is not out of the question, and in fact it is a future plan?

The shut off valves are 10 to 20 miles apart which is another concern. How far would the explosion travel?

In rural areas in Moore Township, there are homeowners with their own excavating equipment that could potentially damage the gas pipeline since it is only 3 feet deep. What would the consequences of this be? No one from PennEast will answer these questions.

They’re running a pipeline in areas where cement companies do blasting? I wish PennEast was more open about what methodology they used in choosing this crazy route….

Penny’s submission is below:

Penn’s submission – FERC Generated PDF

Penn’s submission – FERC Generated PDF Alternate Site

Impact on all-volunteer fire departments an issue

Bernice from Milford brings up many good points, among them a note about the nature of the fire departments in our area. The FERC should take notice:

On a closer to home note, I live in Hunterdon County, a very rural, historic, river town area. We are living on a fault line and had an earthquake a few years ago. We have only volunteer fire departments. I have lived through the Edison and Allentown pipeline explosions. It looks like the end of the world. Last winter, a house that probably would be on the pipeline route, went on fire. Every fire department for miles was there. They got stuck getting up the hill to the house and flagged down my kids in a four wheel drive truck to try to clear a path through the snow. They couldn’t and instead had to help drag hoses toward the fire. Needless to say, the house burned to the ground.

What would happen if a pipeline exploded?

Devastation.

And on an even more personal note, I have wanted to be a farmer all my life. I finally bought a farm with eleven rental units on it, nine years ago. I went through the expense of getting a building lot approved for a farmhouse and paid an architect for drawings. Now there will be a bomb in my front yard when I build. How much value will that house lose? All of it. I am in the process of getting funding from the USDA to start my farm, live in the farmhouse and now the pipeline is putting an end to that. My dream of farming and living on the farm and having a retirement income is all lost for the benefit of PennEast and gas that will never be used by Hunterdon County residents. Not to mention, my eleven tenants are worried about living near a pipeline that they will have to cross everyday.

This is just one persons nightmare from this pipeline. Multiply it by 108 miles of lives. If it gets approved, why can’t we be paid fairly for what we are losing? Please deny them permission so I can get on with my future hopes and dreams to just live safely and farm on MY LAND.

I know in my town and the surrounding areas fire departments always have a tough time getting funding. They’re mostly volunteers. They’re always fighting for equipment. It took years for West Amwell to finally get modern radios, which help keep firemen safe when they’re entering burning buildings. Every year we get a note from wafco26 (http://wafco26.com/) asking for money, which we gladly donate to every year. We’re all on wells which means no hydrants. Towns routinely help each other when disasters occur but they can only stretch so much. If a 3′ pipeline ruptured I believe it would be far beyond our local fire department’s ability to handle.

Maybe that $5,000 PennEast is donating to organizations will help? Well let’s see, just the radios I mention above cost more than $5,000 in total cost. So I don’t think it’s going to make all that big of a difference. A single fire truck costs more than $100,000……

David and Merete in Pennington, NJ

David and Merete write to the FERC:

As residents of Hopewell Township, New Jersey who would be directly affected by the proposed PennEast pipeline from Luzerne County, PA to the Transco terminus north of Trenton, NJ, we voice our most strenuous objections to PennEast’s plans and its pre-filing for FERC approval. As proposed by PennEast, the pipeline would run through our property and within 100 feet of our home, and would result in the irreparable destruction of acres of hundred+-year old forest on and adjacent to our
property. Furthermore, the planned pipeline would follow a path taking it through a certified preserved wetlands area to the south of our property that are home and a waystation for migratory birds—green and blue heron and snowy egrets, among others. Those wetlands would be destroyed by pipeline construction.

The pipeline would destroy the local environment, which is the principal reason most residents of our township, including ourselves, chose to live here. No financial remuneration from the taking of our property could ever adequately compensate us for that loss. All local authorities in our and adjacent townships have formally objected to the pipeline. As you consider the PennEast proposal, you must urge PennEast to find an alternative to the proposed route that minimizes environmental damage, such as an existing right-of-way, or deny permission to build.

I remain amazed that PennEast thinks it’s OK to run a 3′ wide high pressure natural gas pipeline within a hundred feet of someone’s house, let alone through wetlands and protected water ways.

Their submission is below:

David and Merete’s submission – FERC Generated PDF

David and Merete’s submission – FERC Generated PDF Alternate Site

Holly from Kingwood Township, NJ

Holly writes:

I am writing to express my opposition to the PennEast Pipeline Company and their intent to disrupt our beautiful preserved properties, our clean Delaware River, our C-1 Streams and the wildlife that so depends on this eco-system. I have resided in Hunterdon County NJ my entire life because it is absolutely beautiful and a hidden treasure. My concern is for our drinking water due to Kingwood Township reliance on independent wells. We have no public services in this area and rely solely on deep wells.

As our soil is mostly clay and sub soil is rock it is difficult to dig in this area. If PennEast begins to blast we will lose our wells. I am also concerned over the acceptable leakage amounts by this company. If it should leak anywhere in this area due to the sub soil rock formations it will pollute miles of drinking wells due to the fractioning of that rock. Our water is our most precious resource. I do not want PennEast to ruin our environment, my home community or disrupt the wildlife that we re-introduced to our area ie, the Bald Eagle. Many Bald Eagles now call our Delaware River Valley their home. We also have many areas with tons of Indian artifacts, historical sites, and parks. This pipeline will not be of any benefit to our area and I, again, oppose this pipeline.

Holly’s comments – FERC Generated PDF

Holly’s comments – FERC Generated PDF Alternate Site

Yet another farm the pipeline is going through

This is getting to be a sadly familiar story. Chris from Etters, PA has owns farmland in PA, and PennEast wants to put their pipeline through it.

I am writing this letter in regards to the PennEast Pipeline Project, pre-filing docket number PF 15-1-000. With the threat of eminent domain looming, we are being coerced to agree to an easement. If the project is approved, FERC will be doing a disservice to the landowners within the
path of the pipeline. I am opposed to this project. I do not want it on my property. The PennEast Pipeline Project is extremely detrimental to the property owners directly affected by its construction, nearby residents, and the environment.

The PennEast Pipeline is planned to cross my family’s property from West Scenic Drive to Hoch Road in Danielsville, Pa. This property is currently rented to local farmers for use in crop production. If the pipeline is constructed on this land, may render a sizable portion of the land as unusable for its intended purpose. Loss of farmable land would impact our income, as well as that of the farmer through lost production. Farmers would be impacted equipment damage and / or catastrophic accidents due to shallow or exposed pipelines; pipelines which are easily damaged by plowing, construction and weather-related accidents, leading to explosions and fires. As landowners we cannot accept the responsibility of damage the pipeline may cause to farmers, area residents or the environment. The proposed route for the PennEast Pipeline traversesfarmland, un-developed land, and areas that have a history of sink-holes; furthering the risks of destructive and catastrophic occurrences. The farm has been in our family for over 60 years. In addition to farming, the land is used for recreational purposes, which would be diminished due to the pipeline. Further, property values and future plans for developing the land for a family profit would be severely impacted by
this project. In addition to lowering property value, having a dangerous gas line on our property will increase our insurance costs. The pipeline would cutoff access to the property from Hoch Road or West Scenic Drive. As building over the pipeline is not permissible, our family will have extremely limited options as to what can and cannot be done on our own land.

Also of great concern is what will happen to the pipeline when it is no longer useable? Will PennEast be required to return the land to its native state? Once can look anywhere in the country and see deteriorating buildings and infrastructure; both of which are dangerous and an eyesore.
On the PennEast site, the proudly boast they will donate UP TO $5,000 to communities along the pipeline. This paltry amount will barely cover a months’ worth of salary for emergency responders, environmental monitoring and remediation. Such an amount will not even make a dent in the amount needed to buy equipment to respond to accidents.

I hadn’t noticed the $5,000 Chris mentions on the PennEast web site. That amount seems pretty insulting for a pipeline that’s going to have 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas running through it per day.

See Chris’ submission below:

Chris’ submission – FERC Generated PDF

Chris’ submission – FERC Generated PDF Alternate Site

Objections to Tetra Tech

Many, many, many (many!) people have written to the FERC objecting to the appointment of Tetra Tech to run the environmental impact study of the PennEast Pipeline. Teresa from Pennington, NJ is one of them:

I request that FERC rescind the appointment of Tetra Tech to perform the
Environmental Impact Study for the proposed PennEast pipeline. It is
absolutely necessary for an unbiased company to undertake this most
important endeavor. Tetra Tech belongs to the Marcellus Shale Coalition.

This is a clear bias.

The health of our community depends on clean water. This pipeline will
cross a multitude of streams and waterways and disturb pristine lands
that serve as a filtration source for our drinking water. The
environmental impact statement must be unbiased and accurate. Public
Health is at stake here. FERC let’s get this environmental impact
evaluation done right. Please appoint a company whose true aim is to
determine the real impact that the PennEast will have on our environment.
Please rescind Tetra Tech’s appointment. If Tetra Tech is permitted to
submit a biased environmental evaluation this will reinforce the belief
that FERC doesn’t work and the pipeline application process is a sham
rather a meaningful process.

The basis of most of the objections is that Tetra Tech is an associate member of the Marcellus Shale Coalition (http://marcelluscoalition.org/). From what I can tell this organization exists primarily to promote Marcellus Shale exploitation. I’m not sure if being an associate member of this coalation is a smoking gun or not but it does seem to be a cause of concern.

Teresa’s submission is available below:

Teresa’s submission – FERC Generated PDF

Teresa’s submission – FERC Generated PDF Alternate Site