Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

The Plains Township fire chief has some major qualms with plans to construct a natural gas pipeline near two rock quarries in the township and is far from reassured by the pipeline company’s impact plan submitted to a federal regulatory agency.

Fire Chief Carl Baker on Tuesday submitted written comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding PennEast Pipeline’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

FERC held a public hearing last week at Best Western Genetti Hotel and Conference Center in Wilkes-Barre to allow the public to comment on the the statement submitted by PennEast for the project, which entails constructing a 36-inch, 118-mile natural gas pipeline from Dallas Township to Hopewell Township, N.J.

Baker noted that he concentrated his comments at the hearing on a PennEast report addressing blasting at the Trap Rock quarry in New Jersey, and he tried to apply some of that information to the two local quarries, because “it seems that FERC is unwilling to speak to the potential hazardous condition at these Plains Township sites.”

Baker said that in the entire 1,100-plus pages of the report, “I’ve been able to find a whopping three sentences committed to blasting at these Plains Township quarries.”

The first sentence identifies the quarries as Pioneer Aggregates on East Saylor Avenue and Wilkes-Barre Materials on Ridgewood Road and states they are located “WITHIN 1,320 feet of the project.” The previous report, he writes, “took great pains to emphasize the Trap Rock quarry in New Jersey is greater than 2,000 feet away from the pipeline.”

The second sentence states that PennEast has contacted quarry owners and aligned the pipeline to avoid future expansion plans of the quarries.

“This one is priceless and a real keeper,” Baker said. “How could future expansion possibly make any difference when by their own report’s admission, PennEast is entertaining thoughts of blasting WITHIN 32 feet of their pipeline at one of these two quarries? How much closer to the pit do you think ‘future expansion’ will get?”

The third sentence addressing the quarries states that PennEast evaluated “AVERAGE” quarry blasting vibration and found there should be no effect on the pipeline from these activities.

Baker said no data was provided to back up the statement, and there was no mention that there may be blasting within 32 feet of the pipeline, “contradicting what their own report says is a ‘safe’ distance.”

Baker accused PennEast of downplaying “the potentially catastrophic effects of their projected route through Plains Township,” and he blasted FERC for allegedly parroting PennEast’s assertions in its executive summary.

“Your lack of recommendations, even tepid ones that you used to address other issues, led me to believe I was reading a summary written by the natural gas industry,” Baker wrote.

Baker also said it appears PennEast chose the “least expensive route available, and he asked if FERC ever allowed a large-diameter gas line to run through “a residentially located quarry where blasting occurs anywhere else in the country, or would this be the first of its kind, an experiment or trial that sets the stage for future equally risky endeavors?”

“I’d bet the residents in close proximity to the blasting zone would like to know if this is a unique situation, and if they and their homes would be considered collateral damage should this experiment go horribly wrong,” Baker wrote.

“Should FERC allow the present routing through the Plains Township quarries, I respectfully suggest you change your handle to the Federal Energy Rubberstamp Commission. It would be more forthright and better describe your mission, and you’d be able to keep the same acronym as well,” he concluded.

Provided a copy of Baker’s comments, PennEast spokeswoman Pat Kornick replied that PennEast is committed “to meeting — and in many cases exceeding — safety requirements and best industry practices to ensure the pipeline is constructed and operated in the safest manner. To this end, PennEast will continue working with first responders to ensure they have a complete and accurate understanding of the extensive measures PennEast will be employing to honor its safety commitment.”

Kornick added that PennEast reviewed close to 100 route options and implemented dozens of modifications based on more than two years of input from landowners, public officials and the many state and federal agencies involved in the FERC review process.

“FERC’s draft environmental impact statement is another major step in a lengthy, comprehensive review process, and provides yet another opportunity for public input,” she said.

https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/web1_PennEast-Pipeline-logo.jpg.optimal.jpg
Carl Baker’s written comments highly critical of document

By Steve Mocarsky

[email protected]

Reach Steve Mocarsky at 570-991-6386 or on Twitter @TLSteveMocarsky.