SAFETY

Key Writing Points For Comments


In your comments to FERC, it is important to raise as many different points through multiple letters. You should include detailed notes, specific data and unique stories about how you, your family, your property or business and your community would be impacted by PennEast. 
Following are key facts and figures for your use in your comments, to support your issues and concerns about PennEast. We encourage you to share this information with your friends, family and colleagues, as well.

SAFETY

  • Incidents due to seismic events such as minor earthquakes are not adequately considered.

  • PennEast does not propose to meet New Jersey’s higher safety standards (Class IV) and instead is proposing to build to the state’s lower Class II standards. If PennEast took safety seriously they would build to New Jersey’s higher standards.

  • The DEIS inaccurately applies traditional particle velocity instead of pipe stress data to develop safe distances from live blasting quarries.
Whenever practical and in critical situations, the use of pipe stress data to develop safe blasting criteria for buried pipelines is advocated instead of the traditional particle velocity which originated with the need to protect above ground structures from blast damage. http://www.osmre.gov/resources/blasting/docs/Pipelines/PipelineReport1991.pdf

  • The DEIS does not give adequate consideration of High Consequence Areas such as schools, daycare centers, parks and churches, many of which are illustrated on this map of the proposed route: http://rethinkenergynj.org/learn-more/the-penneast-pipeline/ 

  • Emergency services and residents do not have adequate time or capacity to respond to a natural gas explosion. The PennEast pipeline would be located within close proximity to numerous homes, schools and businesses, putting residents and children at risk. 
 

Sample Letter

Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20426

Dear Secretary Bose,

My name is ____________________  I am a ________________ resident, a registered intervenor on this PennEast Docket CP15-558, and an ____________________.

In reading the DEIS filed on this docket, I feel that the issues of safety were given nowhere near due consideration.  I saw an article from the August 11, 2016 edition of The Washington Post, under the headline "Huge fire and explosion levels Md. apartment complex; two dead, more than 30 injured". 

The article details how almost two miles away, the occupants at a fire station could apparently feel the blast.  County Council member Tom Hucker described what sounded “like a sonic boom” that prompted him to go immediately to the complex.  He said he saw blue flames, which he also said typically indicate gas molecules are present. “I’m not a chemist, but we all know what gas flames look like,” he said.
Apparently one resident was taking out his trash and smelled gas and heard the hiss of gas right before the explosion occurred.  They felt the blast two miles away, and heard what sounded like a sonic boom.   

While this Washington Gas company distribution line to the building would have been much smaller than the 36" transmission pipeline with over 1425 psi that PennEast proposes, it still caused death, injury and property damage.  How is it possible that the DEIS for this PennEast project fails to address the fact that the PennEast project manager company, UGI, has been cited for safety failures, and Spectra has been cited for failing to conduct required routine testing.  Why is FERC even permitting this to go forward, knowing the past under performance of these companies regarding safety?  

PennEast’s proposed pipeline would be a class 2 pipeline rather than class 4, even though New Jersey standards mandate class 4.  But because PennEast wants to save the $20 million that a class 4 would add to the project costs, and because federal regulations supersede state regulations, our safety is less secure with this FERC reviewed project.  

Why wasn’t the strongest pipeline mandated for this project?  And why wasn’t there a real safety discussion addressed in the paltry four paragraph long "No Action" option in the DEIS?  Why wasn’t there due consideration given to the fact that this project places people’s lives in jeopardy, day in and day out.  The answer is simple - because the public's safety is not as high a priority as the member company's profits. 

And since the FERC is funded by the very industry it is supposed to regulate, there is no way that our safety will ever mean more than corporate fiduciary duty to shareholders and the FERC’s budgetary concerns.

This is why the DEIS must be withdrawn and a full exploration of the "No Action option" conducted, weighing the safety of residents now without this pipeline versus the peril they will face day in and day out if this pipeline is built.
  
I ask that the FERC respond directly to me about this comment. 
You will have a FERC ID, if
you filed as an intervener or have filed previously.

  Forgot your FERC ID?
If you have intervened or commented before you should have recieved a FERC ID #.
If you do not have it you can enter your email address you used to file.
Ready to
File?
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE

You will need to know the Docket # CP15-558 when you file.

Comments to FERC on the Docket

Below are some of the teriffic comments from citizens they have already filed on the docket.

You can use these as a tool to help you build your comments. Some of these comments are from specialist in their field so your comment does not have to be as detailed. You can write about your concerns about SAFETY.