State PUC judge rejects plea for shutdown

A PUC administrative law judge Tuesday ruled against an attempt to shut Mariner East 2 down.

Even as a Reuters study stated Sunoco as ranking third-worst among pipeline companies for incidents from 2010 to 2017, a Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge Tuesday ruled against an attempt to shut Mariner East 2 down and halt operations on an existing line.

Seven residents of Chester and Delaware counties had petitioned the commission to stop the transmission of natural gas liquids through the 80-year-old, 8-inch Mariner East 1 pipeline immediately. The citizens also asked the agency to stop work along the 350-mile Mariner East 2 by the end of the year.

The administrative law judge rejected their claim that the company had not done enough to ensure community safety during the project.

“We are pleased with the judge’s ruling and want to thank those who assisted us in this effort including Range Resources and Anthony Gallagher with the Steamfitters Local Union 420,” said Lisa Dillinger, spokesperson for Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners, parent company of Sunoco Pipeline, which is building Mariner East 2. “We are in the final stages of completing the construction required to put the line in service, which we anticipate will be by the end of the year.”

The residents made their argument before the Public Utility Commission back on Nov. 20.

In addition, a Reuters report analyzed two of Energy Transfer pipeline projects and four other comparable pipeline projects, which cost more than $1.5 billion and were at least 150 miles long.

The massive Mariner East 2 project checks in at about $2.5 billion and is 350 miles long, traversing literally the width of Pennsylvania, set to deliver hundreds of thousands of barrels of liquid gases every day to a facility in Marcus Hook. The Rover line stretches more than 700 miles and costs about $4.2 billion.

Comparatively, the Reuters report said the four other lines averaged about 19 violations during construction while Mariner East 2 received more than 80 notices of violation from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Violations for both the Mariner and Rover lines included spills of drilling fluid, sinkholes in backyards and improper disposal of hazardous waste and other trash, according to Reuters.

Dillinger said the 80 violation notices occurred over a 2-year period. She also stressed that these were spills of petroleum product, not inadvertent return mixture.

“Approximately 86 percent of the spills between 2010-2018 were under 50 barrels,” she said, “and of that percentage, approximately 77 percent were under five barrels, which are all reportable.”

In addition, she said 95 percent of the incidents in 2017 were on company property, which was consistent with incidents that occurred between 2002 and 2017.

“Most importantly, Energy Transfer has a robust Integrity Management Program with advanced monitoring systems and strict compliance programs,” Dill-

inger said. “Since (Sunoco Pipeline’s) integration with (Energy Transfer Partners on) May 1, 2017, accidents have drastically been reduced and 2018 is trending below industry average.”

In the last three years, Energy Transfer has had a 30 percent reduction in the number of accidents per 1,000 miles, she said, adding that aligns them with industry averages.

The company also invests annually to maintain and improve assets, she said, to the tune of $429 million on ETP and legacy Sunoco Pipeline assets.

Dillinger said the company’s permit from DEP includes compliance with an Inadvertent Return Contingency Plan, which directs them to respond to and contain such returns and by reporting them to DEP. These returns are when the drilling mud, a combination of natural bentonite clay and water, goes through an underground fissure and reaches ground level.

“But even while we follow this permit,” she said, “if an inadvertent return occurs that touches water or wetland, it’s considered a ‘violation,’ regardless of the discharge amount ... We always work diligently in coordination with the DEP to ensure that the environment is protected and will continue to do so.”

The spill problems were

among the issues cited by the petitioners in their claim to the PUC. In the petition prepared by Michael Bomstein, of Pinnola and Bomstein law firm, of Philadelphia, the group alleged that Sunoco has not provided a credible public awareness program.

PUC regulations “require that Sunoco give the public adequate notice of procedures to follow in the event of a leak …” reads the petition. Any such public awareness program should state whether or not it is “suitable, applicable, appropriate, and credibly possible to carry out.”

A review by the PUC focused on whether the pipeline is in violation of the PUC code and is “unreasonable, unsafe, inadequate, insufficient, discriminatory.”

Elizabeth Barnes, an administrative law judge with the PUC, rejected all four claims in the petition, including that there was any clear and present danger to the public from construction and operation of the pipelines.

The pipeline foes had hoped for an emergency shutdown while the judge considered a request to permanently shut down the lines. The project entails three parallel pipelines - Mariner East 1, a smaller, existing pipeline which is already in operation and carrying gases; Mariner East 2 and Mariner East 2x.

Because of delays that have plagued construction of Mariner East 2, including

one ordered by the PUC, Sunoco announced they would fill in gaps where Mariner East 2 was not yet completed with an older pipeline. That also was cited by residents as a safety concern in the petition that was rejected by the judge.

“The administrative law judge’s ruling is the latest in a string of court decisions at every level over the years to find that Mariner East is legally permitted and that the builder is in compliance with safety requirements,” said Kurt Knaus, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Energy Infrastructure Alliance. “The facts are clear, this is settled law, and the case is closed. It’s time to end the ideological challenges and put this project to work for Pennsylvania.”

State Sen. Andy Dinniman, D-19, of West Whiteland, offered his perspective of the decision.

“The denial is just another example of how difficult it for citizens to navigate the PUC process in challenging the natural gas industry, corporate giants, like Sunoco, and their teams of high-priced lawyers and lobbyists even when it comes to issues of public safety,” he said. “It also highlights just how important our initial victory before the same PUC administrative law judge was in May. While this denial is disappointing, my complaint continues to move forward.”