View: Changed landscape adds to pipeline risks

Re "Hundreds turn out for Algonquin pipeline hearing," Sept. 16 article:

Pipeline activists aren't alarmists, the Algonquin Incremental Market Project is alarming.

If the 26-inch Algonquin pipeline did not have an existing right of way through Westchester County, there is no possible way a 42-inch pipeline would even be considered through our area. Yet, we are facing the AIM expansion. Fifty-plus years ago when the 26-inch pipeline was put in, Westchester was different place: federal, state and environmental regulations were different; population density was lower; and Indian Point had not been built.

We cannot assume that because of an existing right of way a 42-inch pipeline with 300 percent the capacity is safe. There are several issues, any of which would be enough to halt a new pipeline along this route:

• Proximity to Indian Point nuclear power plant. When the 26-inch Algonquin Pipeline was built, Indian Point did not yet exist. In the intervening decades, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rejected proposals for smaller pipelines, in sparsely populated areas, near decommissioned nuclear power plants, citing safety concerns. Why then is Spectra trying to put a massive 42-inch high-pressure pipeline near an active power plant with 40 years of spent fuel? What risk does this pose? So far, neither Spectra Energy nor the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have provided any such information.

• Presence of active fault lines. When the 26-inch pipeline was put through, no one was aware of the risks posed by the Ramapo and Stanford-Peekskill faults. Today we know that these faults are active and increase the risks of damage to infrastructure.

• Proximity to schools. The AIM Project includes miles of new pipe,outside the existing right of way. That includes a new route through Verplanck and Buchanan that would pass 450 feet from Buchanan-Verplanck Elementary School. What is the risk to the site, if there was an explosion? Spectra has refused to conduct an independent and transparent risk assessment.

• Bisecting densely populated areas. When construction of the pipeline began in the 1950s, northern Westchester was not as populated. In the intervening time, hundreds of homes have been built along the pipeline right of way. Increasing the diameter from 26 inches to 42 inches and increasing the pressure at which it operates means the Potential Impact Radius of the proposed pipeline is doubled, greatly increasing the number of homes, schools, and business that would be damaged in the event of a rupture. Yet again, we do not know the risk of such an event, because Spectra has not provided a risk assessment.

• Known hazards of emissions from compressor stations. Our understanding of the dangers of air pollution and the negative impacts on health has expanded. We now know that breathing polluted air has serious health consequences. Westchester already has terrible air quality; this new project would exacerbate it, releasing many tons of gas emissions. Do we know what the emissions from this pipeline will do to our health? No, because Spectra has refused to monitor air quality or conduct an independent and transparent health impact assessment!

Spectra/Algonquin has stated multiple times to elected officials that the sole purpose of the AIM Project is to increase capacity (not repairs). However, they have failed to prove that there is a need for this natural gas and they have told media outlets of plans to export it. Assuming Spectra can demonstrate a need, how can that need outweigh the risk? Why won't Spectra conduct or finance transparent and independent risk assessments and health impact assessments?

The Westchester legislature asked for air quality testing. Spectra refused.

If this project is safe for Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties, why doesn't Spectra step up and prove it?

I encourage readers to visit sape2016.org to learn more about this project, see maps of the work area, and file a comment with the FERC demanding answers to the many unanswered questions. I urge readers to reach out their elected officials asking for help to demand clear and transparent risk and health impact assessments. The deadline for public input is Sept. 29. We do not have much time.

As a cancer researcher, resident, and parent, the research I have done on this project leads me to only one conclusion: The risks to residents do not outweigh the benefits to Spectra's bottom line.

The writer, a Peekskill resident, is a research scientist specializing in oncology and angiogenesis, and a Buchanan-Verplanck Elementary School parent.

MORE

FERC will accept public comments on the AIM project's environmental studies through Sept. 29.

Include in your comments: Algonquin Incremental Market Project, Docket # CP14-96.

• Via FERC's website: Go to www.ferc.gov, click on Documents and Filings. Use eComment for a short statement, eFiling for a longer one.

• Via mail, address to:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First St. NE, Room 1A

Washington, DC 20426