Running an 8-inch diameter natural gas pipeline beneath Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park has been given the go-ahead from the National Park Service, which said the pipeline shouldn't cause an impact to the park.
The permit authorizes Columbia Gas to run 553 feet of 8-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline under the national historical park. The pipeline is to be placed via horizontal directional drilling at a depth between 116 and 148 feet below the ground surface of the park near Hancock, Maryland.
The proposed pipeline is part of Columbia Gas’s Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project, an approximately 3.37-mile natural gas transmission pipeline that runs through Fulton County, Pennsylvania, Washington County, Maryland, and Morgan County, West Virginia.
A right-of-way permit is required to authorize Columbia Gas to construct the pipeline under Park Service land. The Park Service says it will issue the permit once Columbia Gas completes an appraisal of the property that is accepted by the Interior Department.
The National Park Service's finding of no significant impact determination was made based on an environmental assessment performed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The gas company's plan does touch on the possibility of a break in the gas line.
"Columbia will establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and public officials to ascertain the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may respond to a gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance in responding to emergencies," the paperwork says. "Columbia provides annual emergency response training for its operations personnel which includes coordination with local officials during an emergency event. Local emergency response organizations will be invited to participate in mock drills as a part of this program.
In reviewing the project, the Park Service compiled data for the annual number of "significant incidents" per miles of transmission pipelines, including those that transport natural gas and hazardous liquids, from 2004 to 2017. It found that the average number of such accidents per year worked out to one for every 9,037 miles of pipeline
While the Park Service acknowledged there are risks of spills, leaks, and fires, since the length of pipeline going beneath the historical park would be roughly one-tenth of a mile, it concluded that "the risks were so minimal that they did not rise to the level of being inconsistent with the park's purposes."
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
This is unacceptable
I just got around to noticing this article and I'm very confused, happening more often under the Trump Administration. The article says the gas company has already "been given the go-ahead" for this pipeline by the NPS. The gas company has not yet been issued any "right-of-way permit" that authorizes them to work on the property; but, the NPS says it WILL issue that permit once the gas company completes an appraisal that is accepted by the Interior Department. That's actually what the article says; I kid you not.
So, first, since when is it common practice for the property owner to allow the potential leasee to appraise and set the value of the lease? Since when does the lease applicant get to set the value of what the leasee wants to lease? I have inadvertantly come to own rental properties in the past and I always used independent sources to appraise the value of the property and the subsequent value of the lease.
Second, is it common practice for property owners to trust and accept appraisals from potential leasees or is that a clear conflict of interest and a clear, in the case of the Trump Administration, another clear indication of corruption? What's happening here? From what this article is saying, I'm seeing the gas company holding a gun to Ranger Rick's head and telling him either his signature or his brains are going onto that lease agreement. Again, I have inadvertantly come to own rental properties in the past and I would never have trusted the renter to appraise my property; in fact, if a renter ever even suggested that, I would take it as an indication that I should not trust or ever do business with that renter.
Third, shouldn't the Department of the Interior and the NPS, as a federal land management agency, have specialists on staff who can be trusted to already know the value of their property and thereby the value of this lease?
Fourth, how and why was the gas company "given the go-ahead" for this pipeline by the NPS before the value/price of this lease was even established/negotiated? What if the gas company comes back with an appraised lease value of $1.98? Won't the subsequent negotiating position of the NPS be compromised by having an already issued "go-ahead" for the project on the table? Shouldn't this process have proceeded the other way around?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over!
For another thing, the article states, "the Park Service acknowledged there are risks" but concluded that "the risks... did not rise to the level of being inconsistent with the park's purposes." So, does that mean that the risks generated by this pipeline and thereby the pipeline itself are consistent with the purpose of this park? If so, are pipeline risks recorded in the mission statement for this park? If so, who determined the purpose of this park? And, if hosting commercial pipelines is its purpose, why is it a park?