Is the Virginia DEQ Protecting the Land, Forests, and Streams?

Subject: Dereliction of Duty at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Commentary by Rick Webb, Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition, March 13, 2016

Today’s Roanoke Times carries an op-ed by Columbia Gas Company spokesman, Robert Innes, wherein he objects to our complaints about Columbia Gas Company’s Peters Mountain/Giles County/Celanese pipeline project.

This is the same project associated with diesel fuel contamination of the Peterstown, WV supply last summer, where runoff from the construction corridor continues to discharge into a sinkhole, for which VA-DEQ did no inspections during construction, for which VA-DEQ did not review erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans prior to our during construction, and for which VA-DEQ granted two variances (1000 feet and 2000 feet) to the 500-ft open-trench-limitation minimum standard.

This project provides real perspective about pipeline construction and the regulatory system. Note that this project involved a 12-inch pipeline — compare to the proposed 42-inch ACP and MVP pipelines, which would cross much more of the same type of terrain

I’ve assembled the following in response to Mr. Innes op-ed. Note that Mr. Innes’ op-ed addresses only one of the problems with the pipeline project in question.

Rick Webb, Coordinator, Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition
rwebb.dpmc@gmail.com, 540-468-2881 h, 540-290-0913 c

• > > > > > > > > > >

Robert Innes, 3/14/16:

http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/innes-misleading-photo-circulates-about-pipeline/article_3261bc82-dd36-57b5-b7be-0315eb9c1362.html

****

DPMC 11/11/15 Complaint to DEQ concerning multiple problems on the Columbia Gas Peters Mountain (Giles County) project:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21393847/CGV-GILES/DPMC%20Complaint%201111115.pdf

****

DEQ’s evasive response:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21393847/CGV-GILES/doc07296620151222115607.pdf

A summary of our points and DEQ’s reponses:

(1) CGV failed to properly install and maintain required erosion and sediment control structures.

DEQ: “. . . it may not be practicable to construct WIDs in a manner consistent with the design standard, due to topographical constraints. . . . the on-site location may need to be adjusted to meet field conditions in order to utilize the most suitable outlet.”

Note: our observations indicate that few if any WIDs were in place during the construction phase of the project, nor were they installed in-compliance post construction.

(2) CGV failed to identify and protect sensitive environmental features.

DEQ: “. . . a topographic low point, near station 160+00 is not identified on the USGS map, nor is it identified in the 5 ft contours of the erosion and sediment control plan prepared by the Towes Site Engineering.”

Note: in other words, no one identified the sinkhole that is now receiving the channeled discharge from the pipeline corridor. DEQ wouldt have seen it if they had done any inspection prior to or during construction, but DEQ didn’t go on site or even review construction plans prior to or during construction.

Note: In its inspection report following the contamination incident, the DEQ identified the diesel fuel spilled near the sinkhole as the “only definitive source” of the contamination of the Red Sulphur PSD water system.

(3) CGV failed to preserve watershed hydrologic function through development and implementation of a stormwater management plan.

DEQ: “the project narrative describes the 80-125 ft wide clearing returning to a 40-50 ft clearing within the easement . . . increased from the existing 20-30 ft width. . . significant change in runoff is not anticipated. . . stormwater runoff down the north-facing slope of Peters Mountain is expected to have similar hydrologic characteristics as before the installation of the new pipeline.”

Note: No actual objective data-based analysis would indicate that post clearing, post-construction runoff on a mountainside 40%+ slope would be the same as prior to construction. An actual analysis is required —and is required for other construction projects, which are also required to install stormwater management structures to ensure compliance with Va Stormwater Management regulations. DEQ simply does not apply the regulations to pipeline projects.

Note: The MVP would cross the very same mountain, the very same karst terrain, and a recharge area for the very same public water supply as the Columbia Gas project. .

Links to our website material on the Columbia Gas example of water supply contamination and overall regulatory system failure:

http://pipelineupdate.org/2015/11/29/we-do-the-right-thing-always-have/
http://pipelineupdate.org/2015/10/11/peters-mountain-revisited/

http://pipelineupdate.org/case-study-no-1/

• > > > > > > > > >

Concerning the Virginia-Department of Environmental Quality:

The distressing facts:

— the DEQ does not require submission of required annual standards and specifications for E&SC and stormwater management for pipeline construction

— the DEQ does not require submission of erosion and sediment control plans for pipeline construction (6 county resolutions have been ignored, see attached)

— the DEQ does not inspect pipeline projects unless there is a complaint

— the only thing significant that the DEQ does with respect to pipeline construction is to grant variances to the minimum standard that limits open trench length to 500 feet.

Based documents we obtained through FOIA, there have been 9 requests for variances ranging from 600 feet to 15 miles (average = 2.3 miles). since DEQ assumed the E&SC program in 2013. DEQ approved them all. Dominion has indicated in submissions to FERC that it will apply for a variance to allow 2000-ft segments of open trench. Dominion officials have stated to others that it will need variances for mile-long open trenches. They’ve said they can’t build the pipeline otherwise. Note the trenches will be 8-12 feet deep and 20-30 feet wide.

Despite state laws and regulations that are supposed to be protective of water resources, citizens have no assurance that these laws and regulations will be implemented. This is alarming in the extreme, given the unprecedented scale of the current MVP and ACP pipeline proposals. The VA-DEQ Director, David Paylor, is ultimately responsible. Dereliction of duty is defined as “the shameful failure to fulfill one’s obligations.” So far, the definition fits.