Proposed pipe line

[Traveler]

Just a couple un-bent facts.

Most of the Oil & Gas pipelines in the US are over 20 years old, and some currently in operation are over 40. Someone on here brought up the Yellowstone spill. That pipeline was over 20 years old, built with 20 year old technology. This new pipeline utilizes the latest technology, regardless of what some of the anti-pipeline folks publish.

V8

I mentioned it. The pipe was 20 years old, not old by pipeline standards, however the routing package came with assurances that there would be prompt response to spills, routine inspections, ad infinitum. Which didn't materialize as assured, which was my point. That pipe was also "state of the art" technology at the time. Dismissing aging infrastructure owned by private industry as "stuff happens" is not a valid excuse for that level of damage and low response.

I am not against pipelines per se, they are a necessary reality to fossil fuel based society and commerce and are fairly stable as a transportation platform. However I am against the wink and nod of Congress with exemptions from laws and the overblown assurances of the oil and gas industries that they will be Johnny on the spot to remedy maintenance problems, spills, or other issues. The former being the larger problem, the latter being more of a slogan than what actually happens in most instances.

On this pipeline, I've really no opinion either way, its not like its going through an aquifer where one spill can impact a few million people.

[TexasBob]

I’ve read all 56 post (so far) on here and have not seen anyone that will actually have to deal with this particular pipeline being in their “backyard”. I live in the middle of several of the seriously proposed routes.

I used to live in Fairfax Virginia and a gasoline pipeline literally ran under the edge of my backyard to a gasoline distribution terminal in Fairfax. Hardly noticed it was there and had no impact on my life other than the fact that it made gasoline available for sale in gas stations when I needed it.

[gpburdelljr]

Congress exempted the Oil and Gas industries from:

Safe Drinking Water Act, exemption provided in 1974 with respect to Fracking and underground injection of hazardous chemicals.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, exemption provided in 1988 when Congress agreed not to apply oil and gas wastes to RCRA standards.

Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, this act requires companies to report the release of significant levels of toxic substances to EPA. In 1986 Congress exempted gas/oil industry from this act, which benefits petroleum mostly and reduces notification when benzine and Toluene among other chemicals are injected/spilled.

Clean Water Act, (stormwater discharge rule and discharge into surface water among other sections) in 1987 Congress created an exemption for gas and oil industry that prohibits other industries from uncontrolled run off from well pads, pipelines, and other processing, transportation, and acquisition (drilling) operations. Congress also provided a full permit exemption without penalty in 2005 when stormwater discharge permitting process became law.

Clean Air Act, Congress exempted gas and oil industry from air pollution control equipment as it regulated other industries with aggregate (small facilities grouped together that can release an aggregate amount of hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere).

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act that holds most industries responsible for cleaning up hazardous wastes and started the "superfund" trust fund through taxation of petroleum and chemical industries. Congress exempted the petroleum and chemical industries, abolishing the tax on petroleum industry and funds the program now through General Revenues (read common tax payers) which has resulted in underfunding and inability to clean up sites. Further, Superfund regulations allow potentially responsible parties to be held liable for clean up costs, however the law was written to exclude oil and natural gas industries.

National Environmental Policy Act, passed in 1969, Congress exempted oil and gas industries in 2005 from required environmental impact statements of any facilities and transportation systems.


Something to think about.

Are pipelines, typically not owned by oil companies, included in the above exemptions for the oil and gas industry? The reason I ask is that you list oil and gas industries as being exempt from NEPA Eivironmental impact statements, yet a draft EIS has been prepared for this project in accordance with NEPA.

[Tundracamper]

One of the things that I have not seen discussed is what are the hikers are to do when construction is underway? That area is on the ridge with not many good options for a re-route, even a temporary one. I’m going up there on my New Years hike and look around that whole area. (If the weather isn’t horrible) I never looked at it with the idea of a pipeline crossing there. I also plan to attend the next public meeting by the proponents and address this crossing and some of the complications that this will have on hikers that may not have been brought up before.

V8

That's a very good point, and about the only one that would give me any concern. It seems like they need to finish a section approaching the AT, reroute the AT thru that section, and then move onto the next section. I'm sure they want to do long sections all at once, which could be an issue for the trail.

[Malto]

That's a very good point, and about the only one that would give me any concern. It seems like they need to finish a section approaching the AT, reroute the AT thru that section, and then move onto the next section. I'm sure they want to do long sections all at once, which could be an issue for the trail.

it funny, the freckles document linked on page 2 answers this question and many others. Before people get outraged or concerned maybe a quick look at the link will answer the questions. As far as direct impact on the trail there will be none. Here is the page talking about the impact to the AT.

"Alternative Crossing Locations for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail The proposed route would cross the ANST at an area that is predominantly mixedforest/open land within the context of the surrounding area that is primarily forested. Theproposed route crossing would be accomplished using an underground horizontal bore beginningand ending approximately 100 feet on either side of the trail. This “buffer” of undisturbed foreston either side of the trail would prevent direct impacts on the surface of the trail itself and wouldsubstantially reduce visual impacts on users of the ANST. This construction technique wouldresult in noise that may be audible to hikers but these impacts would vary based on the presenceof hikers at the time of construction. The crossing and potential visual impacts on the ANST arediscussed in more detail in section 4.8.
We evaluated two route variations to minimize impacts on users of the ANST. Theseroute variations were specifically designed to generally follow Mountain Valley’s proposed routebefore deviating away north of (and near) the proposed ANST crossing location, crossing theANST at different locations relative to the proposed route, and then rejoining the proposed routesouth of the ANST (see figure 3.5.1-7). These route variations are the State Route (SR) 635-ANST Variation and the AEP-ANST Variation. A comparative analysis of environmentalimpacts of the proposed route and the SR 635-ANST and AEP-ANST Variations is presented intable 3.5.1-6.
The SR 635-ANST Variation would deviate from Mountain Valley’s proposed route nearMP 190.8 and proceed east before turning south (avoiding the Peters Mountain Wildernesslocated to the west) on Jefferson National Forest land, crossing the ANST at SR 635 (Big StonyCreek Road), and then continuing south exiting FS land and rejoining the proposed route nearMP 206.8. SR 635 is the nearest (about 7 miles away) utility or road crossing of the ANSTlocated to the east of Mountain Valley’s proposed route. "

[Malto]

And a map of impacted area. And spell check kill ferc

IMG_0662.jpg

[Malto]

One last snippet.

"

1. On May 16, 2016, the FS filed a letter with the FERC objecting to Mountain Valley’sANST crossing plan. The FS questioned the distance between the bore pits at the crossing. TheFS believed the bore holes and portions of the right-of-way would be visible to trail users duringconstruction and operations. The pipeline crossing may also be visible to hikers at Angels Rest.In addition, Mountain Valley’s proposed ANST crossing would not be consistent with currentJefferson National Forest LRMP Standard FW-252, which specifies that a utility in the Forestmust meet an SIO as high as practicable. The FS sought alternative construction techniques orother mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts.
   A revised crossing plan for the ANST was filed by Mountain Valley on June 24, 2016.Mountain Valley intends to use a 600-foot-long bore to cross under the ANST, leaving a roughly300-foot forested buffer on each side of the trail. This route adjustment is discussed in greaterdetail in section 3.5.1. "
   

[cneill13]

Just came across this....rather worrying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...0b3ddfd8d265e?

Huffington?

Fake news.

Carl

[Traveler]

Are pipelines, typically not owned by oil companies, included in the above exemptions for the oil and gas industry? The reason I ask is that you list oil and gas industries as being exempt from NEPA Eivironmental impact statements, yet a draft EIS has been prepared for this project in accordance with NEPA.

To my knowledge, pipelines are part of the oil/gas industry infrastructure enjoying significant exceptions. That some plans include these filings may be due to the mechanics of State or Regional law or other political considerations.

[V Eight]

One last snippet.

"

1. On May 16, 2016, the FS filed a letter with the FERC objecting to Mountain Valley’s ANST crossing plan. The FS questioned the distance between the bore pits at the crossing. TheFS believed the bore holes and portions of the right-of-way would be visible to trail users during construction and operations. The pipeline crossing may also be visible to hikers at Angels Rest.In addition, Mountain Valley’s proposed ANST crossing would not be consistent with current Jefferson National Forest LRMP Standard FW-252, which specifies that a utility in the Forest must meet an SIO as high as practicable. The FS sought alternative construction techniques orother mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts.
   A revised crossing plan for the ANST was filed by Mountain Valley on June 24, 2016.Mountain Valley intends to use a 600-foot-long bore to cross under the ANST, leaving a roughly300-foot forested buffer on each side of the trail. This route adjustment is discussed in greater detail in section 3.5.1. "

If they (pipeline Co.) can't find the AT center line, what else did they get wrong?

FERC’s Pipeline Impact Statement Full of Errors, say Environmental Groups
http://wvtf.org/post/ferc-s-pipeline...roups#stream/0




V8

[Ktaadn]

Between the power lines, roads and pipelines the AT is hardly pristine wilderness. I don't mind seeing the pipeline swaths in the east because it is often creates some of the best views on the trail.

It it is interesting that nobody wants pipelines in populated areas and there is opposition to them in non-populated areas. There is opposition to thousands of trucks on the road, opposition to trains carrying crude. Opposition to nucs and opposition to importing energy from the Middle East. So which is the least worst option.

Solar and wind are the least worst options

[Ktaadn]

pipe lines, rail lines, power lines. the AT crosses dozens of these. what's the problem

How many times are we supposed to accept the idea that it is only one more crossing? Pretty soon it will be nothing but crossings. Now, if they said this new pipeline will allow them to restore x number of old crossings, that would be something worth listening to.

[pilgrimskywheel]

Here's a single line from my evil trolling and pipeline research that's stuck with me: "...1,115 FOOT BLAST RADIUS..." So stepping over this thing is actually no big deal! I don't know about you, but I always get a little twitchy when straddling a bomb. Here's an image from my ND hike where mountaineers are required to make numerous pipeline crossings. stranglovebombride.jpg

[Venchka]

Having seen the original. On the big screen. Several times. I can say. Conclusively. That is Slim Pickens, aka Maj. King Kong. Riding a missile launched from a B-52. Far fetched to say the least. Almost as far fetched as mountaineers in North Dakota.
By the way. In the real world. Back in the day. During the Cold War. My dad was a Lt. Col. B-52 Aircraft Commander. Flying 24 hour missions. Armed. Ready. To protect your right to speak as you please. Dad was the real life Maj. Kong.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jimmyjam]

How many times are we supposed to accept the idea that it is only one more crossing? Pretty soon it will be nothing but crossings. Now, if they said this new pipeline will allow them to restore x number of old crossings, that would be something worth listening to.

Exactly. Draw the line. No more crossings unless you make one go away. Tit for tat.

[V Eight]

Here's a single line from my evil trolling and pipeline research that's stuck with me: "...1,115 FOOT BLAST RADIUS..." So stepping over this thing is actually no big deal! I don't know about you, but I always get a little twitchy when straddling a bomb. Here's an image from my ND hike where mountaineers are required to make numerous pipeline crossings. stranglovebombride.jpg

Maybe we could schedule some time with that super computer Watson, to help you calculate the odds of that actually happening.Not a math major but I would have to guess it would be millions (or Trillions) to 1. While we're at it, we should apply that same formula to ALL the pipe line crossings we go over or near in our everyday life.

I hear all kinds of off the wall "what if" crap around here. It really adds nothing to the intelligent conversations at hand, but hey I get it someone has to stir the stew.


V8

[Alleghanian Orogeny]

How many times are we supposed to accept the idea that it is only one more crossing? Pretty soon it will be nothing but crossings. Now, if they said this new pipeline will allow them to restore x number of old crossings, that would be something worth listening to.

The AT was first established with intersections/junctions/crossings over and under hundreds of then-existing roads, rail lines, power lines, and pipelines. It has never been a purely wilderness corridor. The very notion of the AT corridor effectively being a wall which can't be crossed stretching from Springer to Katahdin stretches the imagination. We should face up to the reality that the AT is not entirely a wilderness experience, never has been, and never will be.

The proposed crossing south of Rockfish Gap is adjacent to the heavily developed Wintergreen Ski Area and near where a good, paved public road crosses over from the Shenandoah Valley side to the Piedmont side, a road which is also the first access to Wintergreen south of Rockfish Gap for visitors and property owners coming from some areas south and west of there. The plan as it exists calls for a bore (tunnel) of 600' in length under the AT, so no open cut crossing the AT and, presumably, the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP). This strikes me as a generous accommodation in an area where the existing roads, including the BRP, have had development of adjacent private lands, tourist use, and the traffic from both affecting the AT for decades and decades. The design considerations also comply with the statutory restrictions placed upon use of National Forest lands. I'm not sure what there is to fight about unless the real issue is one's preference for one form of energy over another. If that's the case, the discussion belongs elsewhere.

AO

[pilgrimskywheel]

I hear all kinds of off the wall "what if" crap around here. It really adds nothing to the intelligent conversations at hand, but hey I get it someone has to stir the stew. V8[/QUOTE]

Really? What are you adding? The Titanic was unsinkable? I think you mean what passes for intelligent conversation. It is indeed possible, hence the very specific "1,115 foot blast radius" inclusion in the report. Not actually a big deal for stepping over occasionally, but let me ask you: would you like to live 500 feet away from such a potential - however unlikely it may be?

And yes, that's not actually me in the Photo Venchka - that's what passes for levity in the face of a miles long bomb with a kill zone 8 times greater than a 155 howitzer being lain across the AT, and 55 miles of the supposedly protected Jefferson National Forest where not even roads are permitted. I appreciate your Dad's service in protection of our many cherished freedoms - especially my First Amendment privileges.

Does the ATC have any feedback for us on what is actually going to happen?

[scudder]

[QUOTE its not like its going through an aquifer where one spill can impact a few million people.[/QUOTE]
The planned ACP route goes through Augusta County on the west side of the mountain by Reeds Gap. Because of the karst topography in the Shenandoah Valley, (which has been likened to swiss cheese) , water runs through limestone . There are sinkholes that collapse on occasion. In my opinion this is not a desirable area to be digging miles long 40' wide trenches, most likely altering how groundwater moves through the complex geological system.When you resupply or zero in Waynesboro, this is your aquifer I'm talking about. Not millions of people, but if you live here, or visit and depend on clean water, it's a matter of concern.If you use clean water to make beer at the Devil's Backbone Brewery at the foot of the mountain on the Nelson county side you are wondering if your business will be impacted. If you'd like to investigate what locals are up to regarding the ACP I'd like to recommend you check out Friends of Nelson.org.

[Venchka]

AO,
Well said.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk