CONCERNS AIRED
Residents ask whether the proposed Shell ethane pipeline is an acceptable risk
The question of what is an “acceptable risk” loomed large over the first of three public hearings on a proposed Falcon ethane pipeline meant to deliver the natural gas liquid to the petrochemical giant rising in Potter Township.
“The question is not whether or not there are potential risks,” Tim Wetzel of Beaver testified Tuesday at the state Department of Environmental Protection’s listening session at Central Valley High School. Crossing the street carries a risk, he said to eye rolls and sighs.
Instead, the question should be whether Shell Pipeline Co. has complied with the requirements that the DEP has set to protect the environment. Mr. Wetzel believes it has.
Craig Stevens, of Silver Lake Township in Susquehanna County, followed with an animated rebuke holding up a plastic bottle with a dense, cider-like liquid — contaminated water from a neighbor’s well affected by fracking operations, he said.
“If the industry keeps coming out here to tell you there’s no problem,” Mr. Stevens said, he’ll keep showing up to talk about his. And so it went for an hour and a half. As DEP officials sat silently, scribbling notes — they will respond to public comments in a document to be published later — residents, opponents of the pipeline, union leaders and industry representatives delivered their brief missives, some of them wondering whether anything they could say would sway the agency tasked with permitting the 97-mile hazardous liquid pipeline.
“I’m aware that accidents happen,” said Dave Blair of Monaca. “I’m also aware that there’s such a thing as acceptable risk. But this is not an acceptable risk.”
He continued, “Something that’s as basic of a need as water should not be weighed against profit.”
Water concerns were also raised by Mike
Dominic, general manager for the Ambridge Water Authority, which said it felt blindsided by Shell’s proposed route. Mr. Dominic asked the DEP to reroute the pipeline away from the Ambridge watershed or at least require the company to use thicker pipe and bury it deeper than is currently proposed.
The arguments in favor of DEP granting the water encroachment and earth disturbance permits to Shell often diverged as much from technical comments as those against granting the permits.
Dave Spigelmyer, president of the Robinson-based Marcellus Shale Coalition, invoked the occasional spikes in natural gas prices that residents of New York and New England — areas that have snubbed pipeline infrastructure — have endured.
Several union leaders and industry representatives spoke in favor of the pipeline in measured tones. They cited job statistics and bemoaned the fall of past industries like steel, welcoming Shell and its ilk as the new economy.
“The Shell cracker plant and pipeline will create an economic boost for this area,” conceded Ellen Gerhart, who traveled from Huntingdon County to her native Monaca to testify against the pipeline. “But at what cost?”
Energized by her experience fighting Sunoco, which is building its Mariner East 2 pipelines through her wooded property by invoking eminent domain, Ms. Gerhart implored attendees not to trust the oil and gas industry.
“These companies have a long history of lying, cheating and bullying,” she said.
The Mariner East 2 pipeline, construction on which has been shut down numerous times for spills, environmental damage and sinkholes, was often invoked as a cautionary tale during Tuesday’s discussion on the Falcon permits.
A friendlier crowd
At a different meeting on the Falcon pipeline last month, residents along the right of way were invited to the Raccoon Township Fire Hall, where more than a dozen Shell representatives were stationed in the back of the hall to talk routes and expectations with attendees.
They stressed how long Shell Pipeline has been working on the route — more than two years — and the relationships the company has built with landowners who were paid for the use of their land in the project.
There will be no compressor stations along the route, Shell’s business opportunity manager, Trey Hartstern, promised. Safety valves, to shut off flow on the pipeline in the event of an accident, will be placed every seven or eight miles, he said.
“In many cases, we’ve gone above and beyond what regulations require,” Mr. Hartstern said.
Shell project manager Doug Scott emphasized that the Falcon pipeline would be buried a minimum of 4 feet underground to prevent damage if someone is digging in the backyard.
“In the industry, we know that the biggest problem with pipelines is when someone, not us, hits the line.”
Fractracker’s Kirk Jalbert took that statement to task in a quick analysis of Shell’s pipeline incident data from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Looking at data since 2002, he calculated that Shell had 194 pipeline incidents. Many of those incidents occurred at facilities such as chemical plants, but a sizable chunk also occurred along rights of way. An incident is defined as a problem that causes either injury or death to a person, results in more than $50,000 in damage or releases more than 5 gallons of hazardous liquids.
Shell Pipeline spokeswoman Virginia Sanchez said the company was checking into the claims made in the FracTracker story — some may be misrepresenting the company’s safety record, she said.
The data was widely cited by opponents of the pipeline at Tuesday’s hearing.
The DEP will hold another hearing on Falcon at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday at the Quaker Valley Middle School Auditorium in Sewickley.
The agency will also accept written comments on the pipeline permits through April 17 by emailing RAEPWW-SWRO@pa.gov.