Editor’s note: This commentary is by Rachel Smolker, who is a co-director of Biofuelwatch. She has researched, written about and campaigned against large scale bioenergy and its negative impacts on public health and the environment. She has a Ph.D. in biology/ecology from the University of Michigan. She is on the steering committee for Campaign to Stop GE Trees, is a board member for Global Forest Coalition, and is a founding member of the Hinesburg group Protect Geprags Park.
[V]ermont Gas System, which is owned by Canadian Gaz Metro, was granted a permit (certificate of public good) for its gas pipeline in 2013. The state took testimony from pipeline safety experts and undertook a lengthy process to ensure that permit would protect the public from the danger of leaks and explosions.
That meant going above and beyond the “minimum” standards required by the federal regulators.
The permit incorporated agreements between VGS and VELCO, the Agency of Natural Resources, towns, private landowners and farmers.
The Public Service Board, now called the Public Utilities Commission, held responsibility for oversight and indicated it took seriously its job to protect the public from a potentially dangerous piece of fossil fuel infrastructure that would cut through our communities, back yards, public parks, farms, forests and wetlands, and across dozens of streams and roads.
For many living directly along the pipeline route having confidence that the construction was done with utmost care and stringent standards is key to feeling safe. Pipeline leaks and explosions, often lethal, are increasingly common. We want to believe that Vermont is different, that our Public Utilities Commission is watching out for us, and such an incident won’t happen here.
But even a cursory look at the history of construction for the VGS pipeline undermines confidence. For example, in June, VGS filed a request for a “nonsubstantial change” to its permit, for failing to bury the pipeline to proper depth in an area near the Monkton-New Haven border. VGS says this is only a problem in one area, which coincidentally happens to be where vigilant citizens took photographs and delivered them to the state and federal authorities. Where else was the burial depth insufficient that nobody reported? VGS and a contractor hired in 2014 are engaged in a lawsuit over insufficient depth along highway I-289, and the route of potential buildout of the Circumferential Highway, where the pipeline was supposed to be buried 10 feet deep. A group of citizens are demanding an independent depth survey of the entire length of the pipeline.
Problems with insufficient depth are just one of many concerns. Perusal of documents (acquired from public record requests) raises many questions and alarming concern for the safety of Vermonters living near the pipeline.
In 2016, seven Vermont organizations and concerned citizens filed a lengthy and detailed compilation of concerns to the federal authorities. Recall that the federal regulations are “minimal.” The state permit demanded more stringent and protective requirements. Were they followed?
A recently settled lawsuit is illustrative. Kristin Lyons lives with her family adjacent to the pipeline route in Monkton. She refused to allow construction on her property. VGS hired contractors to detonate explosives in order to break through rock ledge along the route adjacent to Kristin’s land. On June 20, 2016, she discovered that part of her property had sustained extensive damage from an “overblast” that occurred adjacent to her property. Kristin stated, “The place looked like boulders the size of chairs had rained down on my property, obliterating mature trees and scorching those left standing. My first thought was Thank god none of us were out walking in the area when this happened!”
Both the state and the town of Monkton agreed to a “blasting plan.” It states that VGS “shall provide landowners and VGS shall utilize best efforts to notify tenants within one week written notice followed by twenty-four hour advance notice, including ‘door hangers.’”
Kristin received notification that “blasting would begin tomorrow and continue over the next few days” 20 days before the incident that damaged her land. As attorney James Dumont, who represented Kristin, stated, “This is akin to putting up a road sign that there is mowing ahead, twenty miles before the mowing starts.”
The blasting plan states: “All persons within the permit area shall be notified of the meaning of the signals through appropriate instructions and signs posted.” VGS had posted signs, but only at either ends of the road, hence failing to notify anyone who was not traveling via those roads at the time, i.e. residents at home.
The blasting plan required securing a 300-foot radius surrounding the blast site just prior to detonation. Only a 50-foot radius area was secured.
The blasting plan stated that “All blasting operations will be strictly coordinated with VGS’s on-site representative and local Fire Departments.” There was no VGS representative present. VGS had left oversight up to the contractor, who called VGS offices. Nobody knew where the incident occurred or who owned the land. A day later, after contractors had worked to clean up the mess (and removed evidence), VGS realized the work was on Kristin’s land, access to which was illegal since she had given written notice against trespass.
As part of her settlement, Kristin demanded that VGS report its misconduct to the PSB. VGS did so, but denied wrongdoing, claiming that once she had received notice that blasting would happen in the next few days, she should have known that she and her family could have been killed 20 days later.
This is just one example. VGS won permission from Vermont to construct its pipeline by agreeing to conditions in multiple agreements. We now know that it plowed ahead failing to abide by those agreements. In some cases, after citizens reported or engaged in legal challenges, the company was forced to request “forgiveness” and notify the PSB. VGS only reported the incident on Kristin’s land as part of the legal settlement, not at the time the incident occurred (as required).
The PSB has unfortunately granted forgiveness on virtually every occasion, at most slapping VGS with a fine, which the company easily absorbs as “cost of doing business,” often cheaper than abiding by requirements.
VGS is typical of the pipeline construction industry: hasty construction, lack of oversight and failure to comply with even the minimum standards, much less more stringent requirements. The federal regulatory agency identifies these as the underlying reason new pipelines experience more leaks and explosions even than older ones.
VGS is now making their sixth request for “nonsubstantial” permit change, admitting failure to bury the pipeline to proper depth a year ago.
The PSB assured Vermonters they were looking out for our welfare when the pipeline was permitted. Given the multiple issues and concerns that have been brought to its attention, it has a moral obligation and liability if there is a pipeline failure.
People living along the pipeline route, and especially those in the “incineration zone,” as well as first responders, should be concerned. The Public Utilities Commission and VGS need to take seriously their responsibility to Vermonters.
