A Public Utility Commission official has proposed that Vermont Gas pay $42,500 for failing to comply with its blasting plan for the Addison County pipeline.
Michael Tousley, the hearing officer for an ongoing investigation into the utility’s pipeline blasting, recommended the commission fine the utility for inadequately notifying Monkton resident Kristin Lyons of a blast near her home, and for failing to properly oversee its blasting contractor’s work.
The proposed penalties come after the PUC issued an initial decision in the investigation last fall determining that Vermont Gas had failed to comply with blasting notification and recordkeeping measures in its certificate of public good.
Lyons had taken the utility to court over a blast near her property on June 20, 2016. Lyons, who dropped three of her eight allegations against the company, reached a $10,000 settlement with Vermont Gas. The PUC opened an investigation into the remaining alleged blasting plan violations following petitions from Lyons and the Department of Public Service.
Vermont Gas had notified Lyons multiple times in May of 2016 that blasting work would soon occur near her home and might extend for a few days. Tousley said that while there were no “express requirements” that the utility update its blasting notices, he finds it unreasonable that a few days’ notice for ledge blasting could extend out three weeks.
Also at issue was whether or not Vermont Gas had ensured its contractor was adequately documenting the blasting work. An expert witness for the Department of Public Service previously concluded that “failures in properly completing blast reports went undetected and uncorrected” by the utility. Vermont Gas contended that any recordkeeping failures were the fault of the contractor in charge of the blasting project.
Tousley, however, agreed with the department’s expert witness that the utility had the ultimate responsibility for making sure the blasting records were in order. He also referenced a past PUC case in which Vermont Gas was fined after its subcontractor had unlawfully taken an endangered plant.
“Significantly, all the incidents reflect a lack of adequate oversight of contracted activity while constructing the pipeline and should be accounted for in determining an appropriate penalty amount for the current violation,” he wrote.
Lyons also claimed that the contractor only secured a 25-foot perimeter around the blast, sending one rock onto her property with enough force to knock over a tree. Tousley concluded that while rocks from the blast had gone onto Lyons’ property, they hit within a designated “restricted access” zone. He dismissed allegations that the contractor was not observing safety protocols and that the blasting could have put her family at risk.
“Even though Vermont Gas’s notice to Ms. Lyons was stale and ineffective, I conclude that the remaining procedures made the area sufficiently safe to avoid the danger that Ms. Lyons contends existed,” he wrote.
Jim Dumont, attorney for Lyons, said he and his client were “very happy” with the hearing officer’s proposed decision.
“The actual particular amount of money is not all that important,” he said of the penalty, adding that “what’s really important is the hearing officer captured their pattern of disregard for their responsibilities.”
The company and Lyons have until June 18 to respond to the proposed decision.
Beth Parent, spokesperson for Vermont Gas, said that the utility was “gratified” that the Department of Public Service’s expert and PUC hearing officer agreed that the blasts were conducted safely.
“This project was a major undertaking,” she said. “And we’re assessing areas for future improvements as an important part of the closing project process.”
She added that the utility takes “any issue of safety very seriously” and would comply with the commission’s final decision in the case.
