 This is Jay Clark. We're both... How about this if I talk this loud? There are some of us who are hard-peering right in themselves, and it really helps to help begin the presentation. Okay, so, here, not too loud, okay. Okay. So, just to tell you a little bit about tonight, from now until 7.30, the Public Utility Commission has made the Department of Public Service the host for this session. And we'll talk a little bit about the two cases that we're here for tonight. And then, from my guess, we'll give a short presentation on both of these cases, and then we'll all be available for questions up until 7.30 when the public hearing starts. As many of you know, when the public hearing begins, there will be a court reporter, and if that, you can really make comments, but the commission can't answer your questions. They're just here to listen to what you have to say. So, this part, we hope that you'll have lots of questions and that we can give you some answers. So, very briefly, there are two cases that we're here about tonight as a joint hearing. The first one involves depth of cover with the gas pipeline, which is, you know, 41 miles that's in the ground and it's operational. And so, on the one case we're dealing with tonight is the certificate of public good condition had a burial depth of, I think, four feet for the entirety of the pipeline. There are 18 locations within the clay plain swan that are less than four feet. And so, largely, that investigation is dealing with those 18 places where the pipe is less than four feet. There are also the commission asked, or my guess, to do a recall analysis of a voltage situation that arose earlier with the pipeline and with the harsh sunflower cutting, and they have submitted that in this docket. And then, as well, from my guess, was I asking, they have also done an affidavit about the depth of the pipeline for the entirety of the area. So, in VGS, we'll go into that a little bit more as we go through the night. I'm going to let Jake tell you about the other docket, which is very new. Can you hear me okay? All right. This docket is number 17-4630, and it's officially captioned. The investigation regarding the alleged failure of Vermont gas systems to comply with the final order and certificate of public good in docket 7970 by failing to observe the requirements of the blasting plan. On October 24th, 2017, the Public Utility Commission opened an investigation into whether VGS violated that order and issued to the public good by failing to observe the requirements of that blasting plan. The blasting investigation is based on five allegations that arise from a blasting incident that occurred during the blasting in Moncton, Vermont on June 20th of 2016. The presentation by Vermont Gas Systems will address those allegations. Before we turn it over to VGS, lastly, and I think most of you know this, the Department of Public Service is a party to both of these proceedings, as we are to all proceedings before the Public Utility Commission. VGS is obviously a party, and then there are several parties that have been in both of these dockets, and I think some of you are here tonight, I see some of you. And so, at this point we'll let VGS take their presentation about the two dockets. Is this volume good? Okay, at any point during this, the microphone slips and you can't hear me, please signal and I'll try to speak up or reposition the microphone. So first, thank you for coming out this evening. I appreciate it, and we look forward to taking your questions. I'm Eileen Similardi. I'm the Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Vermont Gas, and with me we have Deb Bouffard, who is legal counsel. Jeff Nelson from PHB, he's an environmental consultant for us. John St-Hilaire, Vice President of Operations. He served as the senior manager on this project for the last couple of years, and also two other Vermont Gas employees are with us, Karen Kotecki and Crystal Ford. So hopefully between us we'll be able to answer your questions. So at the risk of repeating what the department said, let me just give you a little bit of an overview. We're here tonight for two separate Public Utility Commission proceedings. The first is case number 173550, and as the department said before, that's regarding the alleged failure of Vermont Gas to comply with our Certificate of Public Good in docket 7970 regarding burying the pipe at 18 different locations in New Haven. The second proceeding is case number 17463INV, and that's regarding the alleged failure of the company to comply with its final order, our Certificate of Public Good in 7970 by failing to observe the requirements of the blasting plan. So what I'm going to do tonight on each of these is I'll take them individually. I'm going to give a little bit of background on the cases and why there's an alleged allegation of violating our CPG. Then I'll give you the history of where we are and then sort of next steps in the process. But let me just start with a little bit more background on that. First, it's so easy to fall into lingo. So again, if I use any terms or acronyms that people aren't familiar with, please raise your hand and stop me and I'll try to clarify. Let me start with docket 7. That's exactly what I was going to say. Yes, CPG stands for Certificate of Public Good. So in docket 7970, which some of you have heard us refer to as ANGP or the Addison Project or simply the project, that was a docket that we initiated in December of 2012, actually. And it was designed to bring natural gas service to Addison County communities and it entailed the construction of 41 miles of transmission pipe, three gate stations and approximately five miles of distribution mainline. We received our certificate of public good, our initial CPG on that, on December 23rd, 2013. And the project has been in full operation since April of 2017. This is a map of the full service territory, but the ANGP portion is about from here down to Middlebury. So turning first to docket 17, or actually I don't refer to them as dockets anymore, is yes, it was not part of this project, it was a separate docket. He's referring to our 16-inch transmission line. We had a separate proceeding where we looped or put in a parallel pipe and we constructed that three years ago. Last summer, no, looping? I'm off the face. But that was not part of this proceeding. So the first case is 173550, which we also refer to as the depth of cover proceeding. So in this case, what the PUC will ultimately decide is whether or not we have violated our final order and CPG by burying the pipe at less than four feet in 18 locations in the Velco right away in New Haven. Velco is also an acronym for the Vermont Electric Transmission Company and it's the electric transmission system here in Vermont. So questions to be addressed by this investigation include whether or not our deviation from ANGP plans is a material or substantial change and if it is a material or substantial change, is it appropriate to order any remedial action, impose a penalty, or take other steps authorized by law? And this is a quoting from the Commission's order. As the department said a moment ago, the investigation also required Vermont Gats to certify that the rest of the project outside of those 18 locations was buried at the depth required by that 2013 final order in docket 7970 and to conduct a root cause analysis about why that deviation in the depth of cover occurred as well as a root cause analysis on two other matters, one related to the harsh sunflower and another related to induced voltage. So I just wanted to stop for a second on the process and the players. So the way this works is Vermont Gats is the petitioner in this case and we made a request with the Commission. We made a request for a non-substantial change. We filed that request with the Commission and all the parties to docket 7970. When we made that filing, we included some supporting information where we are now as we're responding to information from other parties. So that's Vermont Gats's role. Then there are other parties to the case. The department is already a party. Actually anybody that was a party to docket 7970 is automatically a party to this proceeding. The role of those people or those parties is they look at Vermont Gats's filings. They ask detailed questions of Vermont Gats. They get input from the public which is part of what tonight's proceeding is about. Then they form independent positions and make independent filings with the Commission. And then the Commission serves as the judge in a proceeding. They will review all the evidence. They will hold hearings. They do get input from the public, the second half of tonight's, and then they will issue a final order. So that's sort of the roles of the parties in this proceeding. So a little bit of background. Docket 7970, ANGP docket. We entered, we, Vermont Gats, entered into a memorandum of understanding with Delco. And we'll hear those called MOAs or MOUs, the term gets used interchangeably. So we entered into an MOA with Delco regarding how we were going to co-locate our pipe in the Delco corridor. The MOA states that within that Delco corridor we will design the project in Delcos right away to meet a certain loading standard. It's paragraph five of that Delco MOA. So that's sort of critical fact number one. We have an MOA with Delco that has a loading requirement in it. Further, the certificate of public good that was issued, it's the weight that the pipe could bear something on top of it. So picture a truck driving over the top of the right. What's the loading or the weight that the top of the pipe could bear? The induced voltage that you mentioned earlier. I have John speak today. Do you want to answer that now or do you want to hold it and won't get through this first? Okay. So the second critical point is that the CPG that was issued December 23rd requires Vermont Gas to comply with all of the MOUs that we entered into. So we entered into these agreements and then the commission says Vermont Gas, you have to honor those MOUs. The CPG also has a condition in it that says you have to build this project consistent with the plans and evidence that you put forth in this project. And if you're going to deviate from it in a material way or a substantial change you need to get pre-approval from the commission to do so. So those are the relevant provisions. So during September 2016 when we were constructing the pipeline in an area that we paid in that we refer to as the Clay Plane Swamp that is within the Velco right away. So this is all occurring in the middle of September. At 18 locations along about a half mile stretch of that pipeline we're buried with at least 3 feet of cover which is what the federal code requires. You hear the federal code referred to as PHMSA or the federal code but at less than the 4 feet of cover contemplated by the Velco MOA. We confirm... Contemplated? That was actually what was agreed upon, right? It was not contemplated. I think that's part of what the commission will decide in this case but what the Velco MOA actually says is it's the loading standard that we need to meet which we intend to meet by burying the pipe at 4 feet. So why wasn't that done? You can hold that. I will get you it. But that is fundamentally the question that the commission will be deciding here. The quick answer is At less than 4 feet we have met the Velco Loaning Standard and we had the concurrence to do so but whether or not that's a material deviation or a substantial change to the project is exactly the issue that the commission has to decide in this case. You mentioned September. What year was that? 2016. And that was when this happened. That's when the construction occurred, yes. So when you say less than there's many numbers less than 4. So it's between 3 and 4? It's between 3 and 4. Is it between 2.5 and 3? No, it's greater than 3 and less than 4 in all 18 locations. And that withstood the loading? Exactly. The loading standard. Exactly. How are you defining those 18 locations? No, there are 18 discrete locations across a half mile and we actually gave the as part of the certification of the pipeline we went a piece of pipe is roughly could be 20 to 50 feet long. So 20 to 50 feet piece of pipe and we measured it every weld. So every 20 to 50 feet the depth was measured. 18 locations within a half mile. 18 locations within a half mile. 18 half mile of pipe that's not very If it wasn't going like this. If it's 18 spots it's a continuum. Unless that pipe goes like this. We're assuming the pipe is parallel to the... I understand the point. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I understand the point. I'm not sure that I can answer that way. Okay, I can answer that. Sorry, is this work? Can everyone hear me? Same thing, if I talk about acronyms we tend to use them a lot. So if I use them please correct me. So what we did is we're building the pipeline. We do have these what we call sticks or sections of pipe and every time we weld them together we had a depth reading on each weld. It said some pipe can be 20 feet long simply 50. So in this 2,500 foot section we had a number of locations where we measured the depth. We do not have an assembly standard to measure a continuum depth across every hitch and pipe. We typically do it on certain intervals and as a best practice you do it every weld. So what you just said is 20,000 feet of pipe had it on very wobbly. So we have 18 locations where we measured it between 3 and 4 feet and the other measurements are above 4 feet. This is sort of pipe-ish it's not apparent. Can I make a standard referencing the question is whether it's reasonable to think for all 2,500 feet that it's less than 4 feet. Has to be. These are all continuous so when you look at the weld you can have one weld that's not the next one that is over 4 feet. So it depends on the contour of the surface and also where the pipe lies. So you can actually have one that's just over 4 one that's just under 4 one just over 4 or there could be a couple that are in a row. But it seems characterately obvious that the question I have is why are they not on 4 feet? Which was the agreed about then I don't understand what prevented you from going down 4 feet to be legal. So in this area the process of this on the pipe has a sequence of events and in the 797 there was some information about clearing the right way to turning the pipe to welding so when they actually get to the point where they're installing the pipeline they install the pipe and then they have to kind of do a funnel cleanup and put all topsoil and everything back on top of the trench and so they'll take a reading of the depth when the pipe is installed and then they have to take another reading and they've already cleaned up the site. So there could be a time difference from the time the pipe is installed to when the actual final measurement is achieved and during that time you can have settlement you can add in this area that it was so wet and what I'm hearing from the team is that it's just wet, soupy material that it just moved around so when they were installing it the actual depth that they were measuring finally determined the depth there was a number of four that the actual what they were measuring changed during that time just because of the consistency of the soil. Did you add what I saw there? Well that's what we think because the depth was less that it actually settled so that's why it's it depends the ground settled the ground didn't get deeper it just settled out so when they're moving out of the location we had would mats so we had because of the wet soil we had to actually build a platform in this area to bring the excavators on so when they were pulling those mats out you actually had ground moving after they installed so you can just have the wet soil kind of resettle and that's where the depth changed That's correct Actually we didn't have any further instruction we didn't confirm the depth that it was less than four feet until November so I don't know that Vermont Gas is walking out saying in September it was at four feet I can't say yes The final measurement wasn't taken to determine the actual depth until November or however the contract at the time but they're doing that even outside of the swamp when they did it the whole 41 miles so we had depth and then we checked afterwards so at that time what I'm hearing is that they felt that they were at the four feet and then they cleaned up and then took the measurement to verify So Jim I don't know if you want to moderate Quick question that I could because all these questions are great Do you want to have the DS run through the presentation for the vote and then come back to the questions I'm a little concerned we're not going to get into our two cases that are the subject of tonight We're not going to be here about the depth in the low I think we should settle this before we move on and maybe just limit the questions to the issue about where the pipe is depth wise the loading distribution is is is known to stay legal throughout the lifetime on the pipe if it can if it can move up and down in the media now it certainly will continue to do that and how do you how do you stay legal with the loading That's a really good question so let me just jump to this for a second what we ended up doing with Velco is the agreement with Velco culminated and then giving us a written document saying that the pipe at less than four feet met the loading requirements but it also has some requirements for ongoing management and ongoing evaluation so that is part of the agreement with Velco why are we having agreements with Velco I mean what legal why do we have to deal with Velco other than it's their way I understand that but if we if Vermont Gas had said that they were going to do it for four feet what is Velco about to do with it the four feet stemmed from the Velco MOA and that is fundamentally the issue that the commission is going to decide whether or not Vermont Gas behaved appropriately or not that is the fundamental question that the commission will have to decide the reason we did need Velco's concurrences we are in the Velco right away we do have an MOA with them that says we need to meet that loading standard and it says we intended to meet it by bearing the pipe at four feet we have about half mile 18 locations where it is not at four feet it's at least at three the federal pipeline standards and Velco has agreed that the loading standards are met at that depth but that's why Velco's role is there I don't know if you want to answer I asked the exact same question you did tell me if this is correct I think you said it the loading standard is whatever it is and I think for simplicity you knew you would meet the loading standard everywhere at four feet so where they went below four feet they went to Velco with whom they had the MOA and Velco did whatever they did and they said well you did not meet the four feet but it did meet the loading standard and it was put in there as a if everything was at four feet they wouldn't have had to go to Velco I asked that same question about five times when I first got involved Velco and BGS sister companies with gas metro so it's kind of an agreement within the family no let me just explain Vermont gas is owned by gas metro gas metro also owns Green Mountain Power Velco is in fact owned by the electric distribution systems in the state but as part of the gas metro acquisition of Green Mountain Power they address some of the Velco issues there so Velco is not an affiliate of Vermont gas didn't know until November it wasn't at four feet that's when you got the final confirmation in November after the surveys were done may I then ask you why you solicited and received a letter from Velco on September 21st saying based upon information and discussions yesterday afternoon Velco agreed for you to move forward with the installation of the gas pipeline at less than the agreed four foot depth that was September 21st that was not November that's correct so construction team was out there stalling the pipe it is everyone I would talk to was out there it was extremely tough construction because of the wet material at that time we had reached out to Velco and said this is a really tough area and if they have any issues getting to the four feet what does that mean in this project we were making decisions hundreds of them a day on many different things anytime we saw something come up we would look into it and address it the teams was out there working this very tough area so we reached out to Velco and said we don't know where they're going to end up let's have a conversation just to be prepared and talk about it so in a general sense I'll use some terminology like I'll use let me just go through it we use a GPS device and I'm just going to use this pen for example and a team, a third party engineer was hired for this job and as the construction team installed the pipe they would take a measurement in every single well so they would go out into the trench and they would take this it's actually about 5 feet tall and they would actually put it on the well and take a measurement and this would give you an X, a Y, and a Z and then you have the backfill the cover where they put the final topsoil on, regrade it to the final and then the engineering team would go back out and they have the X and the Y they go back to that location and if they take another shot they can actually get the X, Y, Z the X, Y zeroes out you can take the different what do you mean they take another shot they do that so how do they put the stick on the Y so they don't put it on the well they it's a ground surface over it so if I actually were to take this pen and put it on the floor I could take an X, Y, and a Z and then if I pull the table over I could find the X and the Y and if I pull the table over the well and if I take that reading the GPS reading what the Z axis is the elevation and if I take the difference between the surface that I measure and the one I measure on the well I can get the F I'll take you back to the floor for that I had a question about the loading standards everything that I've seen in your filings about loading standards has been for generic soil wouldn't that be different for this soil wouldn't that be wouldn't that change the loading standards it would but we had a report done on different types of soil and that's it's a great question it does change and one of the things that we're sure of is how much it would change so we actually reached out to a different engineering firm that does this we run a bunch of scenarios with different types of soil from hard gravel to soft sills with a lot of water in calculating what the loading capability of the pipe was and from that analysis is how we determine that the loading standards we've met on basically any soil type sorry add the depth that they calculated that okay suppose we have a piece of pipe and it's at a certain x, y and z okay now you measure down to where that that piece where it is tangent to the normal right there okay and you've got soupy material around it and it can migrate so when you come back to test it what happens if your coordinates say it should be right here but the pipe is actually there and you go down further or it might have come up like that so if I understand the question correctly you're asking if between the time of the first measurement which in a while doesn't solve and the time of the second measurement can the pipe move and change the dimensions of my view but because it's soupy material it does move if it can and even outside of the swamp in just the installation you use pipe supports so actually the pipe can settle down a little bit so you can see a little bit of movement typically it's not a lobby you can see a little bit in this area actually all of that we use concrete coated pipe and the concrete coated pipe is a week so it's to hold the pipe down and that standard industry saw it so it prevents it from coming up giving points it would go down it would go down but if it was heavier than that it depends on the density of the material that it's in not just the concrete from the pipe but the amount of liquid in the so it I think what I understand is the buoyancy effect so if the pipe it overcomes the buoyancy could the pipe settle it could have some it can hold the pipe it can that's typical but that's why and through the design these concrete coated pipe to be able to provide the weight sometimes in other areas we might see what they call pipe sacks they actually just wrap over a pipe with sand bags to hold it down so that's designed to maintain in that area so there can be some small amount of movement but the concept is true okay so what could happen what we had looked at is floating down to that 34 and 5 feet so if the if there's material change on the pipeline yes a lot of cover material but not a cover word change and that's why I was talking with both of them we've set up several different uh uh safety items like we're going to meet every single year we're going to talk about our maintenance and activity our call centers have their cover so if they're going to have to do any work out there we know about it we can work with them to make sure that we protect the pipe we have to control that pipe four times a year on a quarterly basis so we're going out there looking at the area and if we see any kind of change in the contract we can address those things we're going to report it to the public the results of your tests would be available to the public it's for accountability it's a certificate of public good that's for the public so we should have access to that information so we can talk about um yeah I mean I think that he's up to a lot of our information and we share information and we'll have to talk about what kind of form so I'm sorry you and then Mary I was wondering about the soupy material you mentioned a different engineering firm certified for you that's the right word that this material was okay to put the pipe through am I correct so far we had an engineering firm who designed the original pipeline for the whole 41 miles through these swamps through some use of HDD river crossings open track and once they saw because we can't really tell them to start secretly blasting what this was like the engineering firm was okay but then they were part of the project they were the engineering firm was actually the same firm that was doing the death readings so they were aware of the construction on the field the conditions that we were encountering and they designed the pipe with to account for many different soil conditions so um what I'm getting at is what is the name of this different engineering firm so there's a couple of things we should point out here regarding this is while there's clearly an investigation into whether or not we have violated our CPG as it pertains to depth of cover Vermont Gas's engineers and the firm that did the second analysis as Matt McDonald reviewed it and confirmed it would be acceptable Velco's engineers reviewed it and determined it was acceptable and while the department public service clearly supported an investigation into whether or not we have violated our CPG their independent engineer also has determined that there's no safety issues relative to the pipe of the depth it's buried at so anybody who's living in Vermont in the winter knows what frost and sinkholes are at the roads and those roads are pretty substantial and yet they keep right up or open right up with a big old pothole this type of being less than four feet or even at four feet is not below our frost line here I don't know that it's going to withstand those types of heavings and sinkings and it's not the cement coating doesn't comfort me to know that that's going to hold it down so if we go back to the first round that we put up we have had a transmission infrastructure in Vermont since 1965 the bulk of that is not buried to below the I don't know if any of this is well below the frost line so the pipeline is designed to deal with frost and we do frost patrols regularly on that what is a frost patrol system so the frost patrol is sorry it's just going out in the winter time and just so we're looking for gas leaks or any kind of change to walk the pipeline route in the winter and check we actually are required to do that four times a year so we're out on a poorly basis and we walk the pipeline so you will see from our gas technicians they have gas detectors and they are walking and taking information like I said there could be a landowner or someone on the pipeline I've seen where people have driven out and left the vehicle we have to go research that just to find out who's out there we've had landowners who have had trees or started to build buildings in the right way so we just want to follow up with them so it's our opportunity to get out there and share the safety of the pipeline so that's why we're here I'm going to go back just for a minute to my original question in kind of the sort of roundabout way the agreement to have the pipeline going in four feet is that stated in the original certificate of public good is that legally in there forget about VELCO I want to know what's in the certificate of public good should I answer that one first okay so I believe it is now there is a lawyer for GSD may or may not agree with that and to my mind it's a lawyer in the States and he may or may not agree with me and so as I said earlier a lot of this will happen and I'm not very excited by the public building commission because we all may have different opinions on that I just wondered what's in public good in writing so the relevant finding of doing this from memory I believe is the infamous finding 62 in the CPG which references four feet in VELCO and that is exactly one of the things the commission will have to decide recall that this whole proceeding started because Vermont gas made a filing asking the commission to determine that not being at four feet in these 18 locations is not a non substantial change or a material deviation from our certificate of public good so we have asked them to say that this is not a significant change from that CPG that's what we're going to do that's the language but literally the three lawyers can sit down and have a difference of opinion I wonder what we started that would be the place to go I'm almost positive it's finding 62 in the final board order I think Jane was excellent really quickly at some point so as not to get in trouble with the PUC we're going to have to do two minutes on the last thing if you have no questions that's fine we just got to talk about it very quickly but there's just to cover the vice but Jane I have kind of an obvious question why would you go through this swamp there were many other swamps and marshlands that you avoided by doing horizontal directional drilling and this I think you were warned about this swamp by the people that live near there why would you try to put a pipeline through there and I mean I don't really want an answer to that question but that's a question that's here and then the other thing is a year later that you're asking for a non-substantial change when you knew in September of 2016 it was not deep enough it only came to light when a citizen showed a photograph to the department I guess I want to know why do we have to do your job so are you talking about the photograph that was passed around when we were on the market it might be on your high scope yeah okay I believe that was a photograph taken when the pipe was staged so if I remember am I remembering correctly it was the beginning of all of this nothing was said about a non-substantial change until that photograph surfaced and now suddenly we're focusing on that particular part of the pipeline so to be clear I don't remember that connection I know that VPS said we have 18 locations where we're at less than 4 feet and they made a filing but it was a year later you admit that it was a year later a year later from that was February 2016 or 17 17 the only thing I know about that pipe is what our engineer said that night and it was I think a picture of a pipe that was being staged so that picture of that pipe was taken on September 19th in the evening and VPS moved their people out of there from the 20th so if it was staged they sure did a lot of work and heard so if I could respond to the timing of the notice very correct construction occurred over the 19th and the 20th we did not have final confirmation as to the depth of cover in not just in that area but in other areas of our pipeline until November I think I had that on an earlier slide 2016 November of 16 September of 16 to November of 16 two months difference and then from December through April we were working with VELCO to get final confirmation as to what the protocols they would want us to follow to make sure that the pipe would continue to meet their loading standards and that something less than four feet but more than three would be acceptable in those locations that with a written document from VELCO notification in a second so we were working with VELCO over that timeline I recall DPS saying that they had somebody on the staff checking the depth of that pipe 24-7 days a week so here's what I know we have an internal gas engineer during the construction we hire a contract an external engineer who is in the field and then we have another external engineer who does reviews of the information well whatever you have someone who is supposed to be checking the depth daily shouldn't have to take two months or one week or one day I mean you have a guy there inspecting the depth supposedly every day I think generally that's correct I don't know how I don't know how they measure the depth when they're installing a pipe in the swamp remember that while this proceeding was about those 18 locations in the clay plain swamp this is a 41 mile pipeline and we measured the well we measured the depth of cover every 20 to 40 feet so depth of cover it sounds like it should have been easy to do or just 18 locations but we did it for 41 miles and the report that we got really was for all of those and that's part of the timeline but Jim it's up to you but we still have to do the last two minutes I'm going to do you Senator Bray and then you and then we got to do two minutes I'm blessing when we come back to this I guess my question is how do we know that the ground settled is that a rationale that was made in hindsight in November or perhaps are there other reasons perhaps inaccurate depth readings in this place shallow in the first place how do we know that the ground the ground settled I guess so this is one of the assumptions that we're looking at because there was so much activity in there that it could be there's a lot of theories out there you can't have points so you can have I can go up or down it was just so that monkey in there I mentioned this earlier they used these wood mats to get in and when they were stacking them on a company or other trying to get a stable base or they couldn't go in that they said they were pulling those out you can have displacement going on and just the surface moving around so that was what we were that was the the contractor felt is why that happened but you were coming I can't point and say that's exactly what that is but based on the conditions that's what they felt was going on so that just to clarify that ration came from the contractor on the ground that the ground settled and that's the reason why it's going on is one of the ones that did they felt because of how they had to work in there that they felt that that was the cause Senator Brighton quick question I'm just trying to you had an earlier slide so in terms of trying to understand how the commitment conditions of the CPG there was a reference to HS 20 which EGS intends to meet by varying the poet there so HS 20 that's the velcro loading standard and is that literally the way it's phrased which you intend to meet by that is verbatim so is it that the loading standard and how you need it the depth is umbrella you intend to do it one way but if you could do it two feet and meet the load standard that would be sufficient well no because the federal code requires three feet so there's at least a three foot but your phrasing of that is the requirement there one of the issues that the commission will have to decide for Montgas has a perspective on it but that is the nub of the question which is the prevailing requirement the loading standard of the four feet then Melanie I wanted to understand this as I understand it you requested this non substantial change after you made the change if I recall for all of the other non substantial changes the designations you requested you always did them in advance you are absolutely correct this is non substantial change six it's the only one that we made after the fact partially because knowing about depth of cover is not something you could know beforehand and everything else was really around around rooting but didn't you actually have discussions about the fact that it's going to be hard to build it at this depth with your engineers already a year before a few months before you actually did the installation in September no not that I'm aware of and I understand that you measured the deck on November 4th if you say that it was November I don't have the exact date can you jump? I have to check and the pipeline was pickled at the end of October that segment the segment from the south from the MLV to Middlebury was pickled at the end of October when was this pickled? just the questions about the pipeline and the pipe that made me determine that people aren't familiar with natural gas is odorless in its natural state so we add an odorant to it and actually absorb that odorant so it's called pickling where you continue to put odorant in until the gas will be properly odorized when it comes out of the other end I don't know why they call it pickling but they do that's what we're referring to but no pipe until you start to have gas in it okay so when you was asked my understanding was that your plan according to your gasification plans that you were going to put gas into segment 2 and segment 3 and let that just sit there and store before you actually had gas starting to flow to customers so what I'm asking is when did gas first any gas of any kind first get put into the pipeline into that segment into the segment that we're referring to here yes had to been post-aparctics people early April and was that true of segment 2 as well when you're referring to segment 2 those are not really discrete defines the only one that's a defined segment is that first of all section 1 of segment 2 as defined in your gasification plan that occurred on October 6th or 7th of 2016 the one that you have the an important release on oh that one I'm not sure so I think what you're talking about we had 4 different gas hubs on the project and the first one was down to north of to Bragg's and then we turned and injected gas into that section and we put over into that and we checked over on the tin that their gas wasn't flowing it was just basically like a storey vessel but it was we did put over in day 1 as we turned the gas on so what I'm asking is when was the portion from the gate station located on the Charlotte Heinsberg Road to Middlebury your next gift station when did you do that same operation that's what I'm asking so for the rest of that period between when you finished constructing and then that segment of the pipe was empty it had nothing in it it actually had nitrogen and compressed nitrogen so you had injected something we had injected an inert gas just it's under low pressure and just for the integrity of the pipeline typically when you put a few completed pipeline you want to put something in it nitrogen is a nice dry gas but a small amount of pressure needs to keep the moisture out of it so it was kind of extra oriented until we could finish the to Bragg's drill now is that considered an operations task or a construction task under the federal force? I have to look into that maintenance manual or that be in your construction was that in your construction specifications? are you referring to the odor process? to the injection of the nitrogen the injection of the nitrogen was that in your construction specifications or was it an operation or construction task? so all of the gas I think what you're getting at is was there a procedure for that or was there any approval for that? no I'm asking you whether or not it's any of those specifications for this project as they were approved number one and number two whether that's an operations task or a construction task under the federal rules? I can answer the question that the federal was on the construction operation and have a look at that for the gas every procedure was a specific procedure was developed for the organic so every one of those tasks was then created I would say within three to five days of the actual work being done and for the installation of the pipe as you installed it at a lower you installed it so at fewer feet or maybe it settled but you used a different technique for actually laying the pipe as I understand it than the one that was approved and that was in your original specifications did you have a written separate specification and plan for doing that did you have the documentation that demonstrates your analysis and the decision and the justification for changing that technique? so I can speak to the technique that was used is slightly different however when you look at our specifications every single step is not detailed so there is some discretion for the construction team in the field and the construction technique that they used we feel is consistent with the plans that's presented so really quickly that's all I'm done I think I'm going to go online quickly the presentation of the last thing you don't have to ask questions about last but we just got a percentage quick just one quick thing before we move on to blasting and that's sort of what the schedule is for resolving the docket that we were just talking about we're in the middle of discovery right now these are some of the critical dates the hearing is not scheduled for April 19th parties with file briefs in May and then the commission is expected to issue a decision sometime shortly thereafter so this is the schedule that the proceeding we've been talking about is proceeding on now so case number two it's a 174630 and we refer to it as the blasting it's similar but different in that in both cases the commission is looking at whether or not we have violated our CPG by failing to follow something in the first case it's failing to follow the MOA or CPG by failing to follow the requirements of the blasting plan that was approved by the commission in the final order failure to follow that blasting plan could also be a violation of the memorandum of understanding we have with the town of Moncton from the first one of the first slides the commission or the board requires us to honor those MOUs so in each case if there's a violation of one thing it could be a violation of another so they're linked so a little bit of background here the some areas of the pipeline require blasting in order to construct we filed a blasting plan in docket 7970 the commission approved that blasting plan that blasting plan has a lot of details in it but the ones that are sort of relevant to the docket or the case that we're in now are notices around how we provide notice to affected landowners for blasting and how we conduct pre-blast security so just like we entered into an MOA with Velco in 7970 we also had an MOA with the town of Moncton in 7970 that included some provisions related to blasting so the history on this case June 2016 main drilling and blasting was Vermont Gass' blasting subcontractor conducted blasts along old stage road in Moncton one of those blasts damaged some wooded area of a landowner on the other side of the street other side of the street from the blast we notified that landowner a civil suit ensued we had settled the civil suit with the landowner but as part of that settlement there were some remaining questions around our regulatory compliance so part of that settlement said we're going to provide some additional information to see if the scope of those issues can be narrowed and to the extent that we cannot satisfactorily answer the landowners questions we would report to the public utility commission those allegations and our response to them so the listed issues did get narrowed but at least five remained so on August 11th consistent with that settlement agreement we made a filing with the commission around the five allegations and they're regarding notice of blasting inadequate posting of inadequate posting in the blast area inadequate pre-blast security whether or not we had an on-site representative while we were blasting and whether or not we violated the belonging MOU so these are the allegations that we made a filing to the commission on August 11th on September 13th the landowner made a filing with the commission asking that an investigation be opened up into whether or not we have complied with our blasting plan because the filing that Vermont gas made on August 11th unlike us asking for substantial change we did not ask for anything we simply made a notification filing so the landowner subsequently made a filing with the commission asking the commission to open an investigation into the matter then on October 6th the department of public service filed basically a concurring letter supporting the landowner's request for an investigation the commission opened this case and we are right at the very beginning of it the schedule has not yet been established but there's an expectation that it will likely go along a very similar schedule to the case that we just talked about and if that's the case they would probably have hearings sometime in the same time so this case is in a this blasting case is in a very different stage it's very early and unlike if you go back to the chart I put up about the different players where Vermont gas made a request independent parties will look at and the commission will rule in this case Vermont gas did not make a request the landowner made a request supported by the department that the commission opened an investigation the commission has done so and we are at the beginning of this preparing information and that's the second case and just so you from the department's perspective in that case Jack may have mentioned this we've just issued an RFP for a blasting expert and what they'll do is look at the VGS plan and see what they think a bit generally and then look at whether they met the plan and then look at the specific instances and what's an RFP request for proposal sorry so I'm at the department of public service this is Jack and we're one of the parties to the proceeding this is Vermont gas correct and then we just had a lawyer from the agency of natural resources come in and they're involved in one of the cases yeah I got a question on blasting part of the blasting procedure before they came and they were so close to where they were going to blast they would take pictures of your foundations and stuff and they took pictures of the outside of the foundation but they didn't want to take pictures of the inside of the foundation and his house is sitting on a ledge that was blasted through when he did his foundation he blasted actually a ledge under his house that's attached to it but he put a foundation well it shook that the foundation he had some cracks in it already but it moved it and he talked to Vermont Gas and they said you gotta talk to the main drilling blasting who did it because they were responsible for their insurance and so they came and they denied it they said well we didn't do it so who do we go to now I can answer that can I interrupt for one moment because Irene you stood in Cornwall at our little school meeting and that question was asked of you with the blasting and you said the buck stops here Vermont Gas is responsible you don't have to locate or mitigate whatever with our subcontractor we are the party that is running this project so he should never have been sent to being blasted Vermont Gas should have handled that so let me tell you that I'm going to be honest because I'm more recently familiar with wind cases I read the blasting cases very near but if you'll I'll give you my card email me we have an investigator who will contact the company for you and we'll go from there and you may want it to be a part of this case or something else but we deal with those that's... and remember I stand by that statement at the end of the day the buck does stop it Vermont Gas and ultimately we are responsible for the actions I don't think that's anything inconsistent well the inconsistency is that he was referred to main blasting and you have said that Vermont Gas was if you were running the project your subcontractors were the responsible part of your work at the end of the day that is true that was an interesting scene I stand by that at the end of the day that is true so really he can just speak directly with you about this or the CEO of Vermont Gas he doesn't have to talk to Jeff Porter if he's not getting satisfaction from Vermont Gas his next recourse would be the department but he should be able to speak with you yes of course he could speak to Vermont Gas and get results I don't know I just don't know the details of the claims I can't promise what I don't know but absolutely he can talk to Vermont Gas and we'll see what we'll go I don't know the details of your brother's situation I don't know the details I certainly can't promise something that I just don't have any information about and one thing we have is a person on staff who's actually familiar with these type of complaints and he'll do an investigation and go out to your brother house and talk to him and locate him another question about the blasting is in our contract with Vermont Gas we pretty specify that we wanted the contour of the land put back to the original contour before it was blasted and we had areas where when the blasts 7 to 10 feet down it brings a lot of rubble up and we got mounds that you know it's not the same contour because there's a lot of rubble still there and we're still negotiating the restoration of you know let's get this back but I'm, my concern is how deep is the pipe in that where they blasted and rubbed on me I think the contract said it had me 2 feet below the original surface where it can solid ledge but when it blasts and it comes up 6 feet how deep does the pipe have to be so if you have trouble with that actually last year the legislature gave the department the ability to investigate these type things if they're a CQG violation and to issue fines but if it's a larger thing then we might want to recommend going to the piece but if you have difficulty with any of the parties just feel free to contact us we have people that's what they do I'm Bob Atchison I live in Plainfield I'm an engineer of V-Trans and if I were you I'd be embarrassed about the slip shot contracting that's been going on a decent excavator can control the depth of what he or she is digging you've got people that are blasting one side of the road knocking down trees on the other what's up with that I also have a history of working on the pipeline in Newport, Vermont area back when I was in high school and this was the Portland pipeline we went through and there was do do do do caution for putting this pipe underground careful inspection of the welds careful transportation of the pipe to get it to the site and this is like crap work for what to get your crack gassed to some place that it doesn't need to be and isn't wanted a question for DPS I understand that your engineer engineers think you said you have one internal and external have deemed the burials safe is that correct there's not a safety issue with the depth of cover now did they base these findings as their conclusion on data provided by BGS or did they go out and do their own measurements in all these sites and make their own factual determination so let me answer that as best I know it and I'm fairly need to pretty simple question well our internal engineer is on site and investigates things frequently and then I do not know how much was his and how much was from the BGS I want to say it was a combination but I could be wrong but I think it was but then we have the outside expert who looks at the facts if you will and makes recommendations as to the facts provided by BGS well as far as you know generally the facts provided by our internal engineer and his observations he will say I notice this, this, this and then we get a opinion you're probably aware maybe going to field related to this issue of of credibility for whatever reason we had similar problems with agency of natural resources relying on BGS wetland determinations I was a plaintiff in the Copernic Park case and the reason we were involved we were brought in allowed in because I was part of a group that managed the park and became that first-hand involvement aware of that an agreement between BHS and two of the five select board members was presented to the then public service board as a legal agreement well there's fault all the way around but at the very least there was serious negligence going on and then going back to the wetlands issue the same thing happened we found out only because one of our members on the commission having to have some wetland background who's here tonight and went out with Mr. Quackenbush actually and said tell me if I'm wrong but is this area that BGS experts are saying are not much wetland are they right about that it looks like wetland this is wetland how did this happen there's a lot of employees subcontractors maybe everybody's not doing their job maybe the communications but this like the burial issue this was the one that we found out about because this was the one where people happened to get involved where a group got involved and said hey this smells funny and BGS said oh this is the only case where we you know we mistakenly went into wetlands and it sounds like they're saying we didn't hear about burials maybe you want to disagree this is your position but my feeling from my long experience and very difficult experience and eventually they drilled it and it was a good job and they used a new contractor and they knew this was the first time they drilled the trenching which was the original and they did it because of our involvement and they were under the microscope when they did it and they knew it and we probably got the best drilling in the whole state of Vermont but I think there's enough history and I'm not making any character evaluation we're dealing with the business subcontractors employees are responsible to their bosses to the main contractors VGS is responsible to his parent company the parent company is responsible to its shareholders this is the primary responsibility the state has a different responsibility and I think we need to verify to hire our own investigators to be paid for VGS but who are directly responsible to the state when there is public service PUC but not responsible to VGS let me give you if you'll send me your contact information I'll get you an answer to that as well I got excommunicated from the conservation commission from being such a trouble maker and to all of you I mentioned earlier we started the new CPG investigation protocol this year and so if you any time you think there's a violation of the CPG that you're familiar with let us know as I say we have an investigator for that I know that this area where there are 18 shallow locations in New Haven is a designated state significant area because of the wetland value and it's categorized as that by the agency of natural resources and so my question is why was the decision not to do HDD in this precious wetland from the get-go when you were required to do HDD under various other precious wetlands throughout the state why not do HDD in that site and also to point out we lost the opportunity to demand do HDD when you face problems because we didn't know about it until it was long done nine months after the fact it was all done and so we the state never had a chance to say hey you know what if you're having problems in this precious wetland area instead of crashing through it how about do HDD so that's one of my questions why wasn't HDD required in the first place the second question I had was about streams because again as I understood it they were you know a memorandum of understanding an agreement with A&R about streams this from what I could see shifted over the years from being you know required 7 foot of depth under stream problems to only under certain streams that had certain characteristics the bigger streams to well we met the minimum federal requirements under some streams so a question in my mind is why what was the purpose of requiring 7 foot of depth under those streams in the first place if it was so easily thrown away during the course of the process and the construction what was the point and I'm saying this in part because I know we have somebody from A&R here who can maybe address that why was there a 7 foot depth required under all those streams and then how could A&R come to the conclusion afterwards that it was okay that well we actually cut it back to 5 and we limited the scope of the number of streams that were required and in the end we really only did HDD under a few streams and only put you know went to the 7 foot depth under a small number of streams but A&R says that's okay so how what is the point of having a certificate of public good and a memorandum of agreement if you don't care whether it got followed it's just an exercise I can't answer your writing on question I don't know anyone here so so my name is Jeff Belson I'm a Ph.D. I have a firm that did the environmental permitting for the project and the streams from the project do fall into two different categories the larger streams with a drainage area of greater than one square mile are the streams that are considered jurisdictional under the state's stream alteration permit and there were just under 20 of those crossings the depth of the environment for those per the permit and per the plans it was 7 feet meaning the pipe had to be at least 7 feet below the bottom of the channel and the rationale with those streams the pipe being at that depth of those streams is that over time as we hold those streams the river is going to move they can move from side to side they can move downward or down flat and so the depth of the environment is very good at all times and that's the judgment of the agency was that 7 feet was the appropriate number for the smaller streams less than one square mile streams there really wasn't a clear articulation in the plans there was some confusion in some of the plans as to what the standard ultimately was from our communications with the agency there was not a specific technical concern about having a shallow depth and ultimately the plans were clarified for the contractor in 2015 to indicate that 5 foot depth was the depth for those areas we still hold some areas of the plan where there was contradiction but the inclusion of the specific table to indicate 5 feet was the effort to ensure that that was the number that would be followed was followed for the remaining construction and right so there was no one from A&R he got an archival but he's got the letter that he filed on both of those documents we had filed comment letter in response to the request so I have copies and it's both if anybody wants these I'm sorry I'm late I have car problems but maybe I can just hand them and pass them down as indicated there are what we call jurisdictional streams and then non-jurisdictional streams and the jurisdictional streams fall under our permitting authority stream alteration permits and who determined whether there are jurisdictional streams is it BHB or you guys it's it's under I'm not positive on this but it's under our regulations our permitting regulations so they determine under your regulations yeah that's my understanding and they work for real VGS about that than I do but at a certain size drainage area from a watershed into the stream that will trigger the need for a stream alteration permit I understand that but I do see how it could get fuzzy and somebody who worked for VGS would see it one way and somebody who doesn't would see another no it's not it's pretty clear we have all kinds of GIS data that maps watershed areas and you can pull it up on a computer and verify it like the wetlands we're pretty clear like the wetlands we're pretty clear wetlands are usually evaluated on a case-by-case basis so in any event the jurisdictional streams for subject to the stream alteration permit your larger streams and they had specific depth of aerial requirements in the permit issued by the agency I guess that should have been specified in the CPG and then we would have known which streams and which weren't we're going to get the 7 feet which ones are going to get the 5 feet as I understand CPG it's they needed to comply with the permits issued by the agency including the stream alteration permit and then that permit identifies with specificity streams and the depth that needed to be needed to be accomplished under those streams and that was met and then there are the non-jurisdictional streams and there was not any per se burial depth requirement required by the agency as I understand it the plans that for monk gas prepared for erosion prevention and sediment control which were part of the stormwater permit identified open trench burial at 7 feet depth for streams so because that was a technical detail in the erosion prevention and sediment control plan for the stormwater permit it effectively became a condition of that permit and a condition of the CPG because it complied with the stormwater permit is required by the CPG however the depth of burial is not a material factor to the purpose of an erosion prevention and sediment control plan it's to prevent discharges of sediment laden stormwater to receiving waters and that doesn't it doesn't just really not an impact if it's 2 feet of depth 3 feet, 7 feet, 10 feet so while that was a condition of the permit because it was incorporated into the permit, stormwater permit through the plan set it was not what we had called a material condition and by not achieving that depth of burial it did not have an impact on natural resources so and that's what our second comment letter explains because the burial depth that was achieved even though it was less than 7 feet the agency experts looked at that and determined that the burial depths were sufficient to deal with stream channel issues did somebody actually go and look and go in the field and look at those streams and make that decision like how is that the decision as I understand it is based on the burial depths so nobody actually went to those streams and said oh that's okay, the stream will be okay with a shallower depth of cover then was agreed because of the size of the stream it was sort of a statistical decision it's based on the size of the stream and how much streams move how much streams down cut when you're dealing with that size of the watershed the typical burial depth would be required and we would require sounds of burial depth for those types what does the army corpsmen near permits require and how does that intersect with ANR's permit I'm not real familiar with those but I think they deal more with fill probably Mr. Nelson can address that but certainly fill the wetlands or fill in streams I would assume we're more interested in the geomorphology of streams which means the movement of water and the movement of sediments and the movement of how channels migrate over time or may down cut and to make sure that something is deep enough or far enough away so that it's not going to interfere with what the stream wants to do naturally over time and that determination was made that at the depths that were achieved in those small streams it wasn't going to present an issue to channel migration around down cut I got a question it's around water we have a drainage ditch we dug years ago with a drag line and I talked to Vermont gas it's silted in quite a lot about digging it back out and cleaning it out because it was about 5 feet deep when it was originally dug and I talked to the contractors so when we dig it out it won't hit it all said and done the drainage ditch is level the water above the ditch is running into our meadow and it's turning our meadow into a marsh there's cat tails growing into our meadow where we used to grow corn and we haven't resolved it yet I did talk to Dave Walker and he said maybe we could put a culvert dig it down and put a culvert either under the pipe or over the pipe to let the water go through how deep was it supposed to be in drainage ditches below it that's what that was my question I don't know I don't know the answer to that and drainage ditches would even be jurisdictional from our perspective as to whether or not we would have to say what you could do or couldn't do with those I'm not as familiar with that my question is why are there so many unanswered and seemingly unanswerable questions on this project by Vermont Gas this is a danger to all of us and a huge expense that is out of control and has been since it began why are we doing this why are we all sitting here yet again asking the same questions and new things keep coming up and this company which is owned by a Canadian company is not doing fulfilling its responsibility and should not be doing this project well all I can say is that and don't give me your card I mean I guess we're here because we have allegations to violations of the certificate of public good that there may be more this was a big project any kind of construction project when it's completed we start looking at everything and there may be some more issues but I would differ with you our engineers do not believe there are safety issues these are very much compliance issues with the city but folks there's just a couple more questions we were supposed to begin the public hearing and there are a number of people here and I just heard what sounded like public comments that the commission might want to hear so we can answer the next two questions and then we'll take a little break and move on to the public hearing I have a safety concern also which is inspecting the pipeline four times a year means once in the winter which is not enough I mean there's pipeline accidents in the news practically every week and it seems to me it should either be based on weather or it should be weekly or something way more often than once so where does that sort of input so I would have to defer an engineer to answer why things are looked at well it isn't even a why to bring that to somewhere so the thing that we need to bear in mind is that those pipeline inspections four times a year are only one part of an overall pipeline maintenance protocol including 24-7 monitoring by gas control that's just the foot patrols four times a year the pipeline is long regularly the pipeline has monitoring by gas control 24-7 so there are accidents in the news constantly I can't speak to other companies I can only speak to Vermont I just can't I can speak to Vermont so the hearing officer gives one more question anybody that hasn't asked a question what I'd like to know is when I was young my father said to me you have to do this my friends and I talked with each other we didn't do it my father asked I had to answer to my father now Vermont Gas and the drillers and such and folks said well okay Velco can agree that it's three and a half feet is okay why didn't you respect the authority about you in the CTG which said four feet that is exactly the question that's before the commission right now the commission is your father in this case that would be higher forward and that's exactly the proceeding that we're discussing tonight do you have an answer for that I do but I'm not sure that the council's on the other side would agree it comes back to the fundamental question of whether that Velco MOA whether it was the loading standard that prevailed or the four feet that prevailed that is the number of the question that the commission needs to decide that's when I said earlier their lawyers us and Mr. Daymott we all may have different ideas about that which the commission you would meet that load standard and there'd be no question can we have one more from who has not asked a question because Jennifer Viannach and I live here in town and this is related I guess this might fall under what you would call other concerns and so I about three years ago I began to experience some really terrifying harassment at my home that occurred around my participation in the pipeline citizens activities and I'm really interested in if there are any other people here who feel that you've experienced any kind of harassment at all related to your activities around the pipeline I've stopped my participation in pipeline activities due to my doctor's recommendation that I no longer be involved in it because I became sick and so if anyone would like to see me afterwards I'm really curious if things that may have happened to you are similar to what happened to me so thank you okay we're there we'll go ahead it's now 745 we'll start back up again in five minutes to eight and we have a facility until 10 o'clock I'm going to put out a sign up sheet two sign up sheets one on each table if you want to make a statement please come up during the break and sign in we're going to start here and sign my script I have to wait until I get to the script otherwise I'll get it wrong time to know what happened good evening and thank you all for being here this is Vermont Public Utility Commission public hearing in case numbers 173-550-INV and 17-4630 dash which are investigations into whether Vermont Gas Systems Incorporated violated the certificate of public good in docket 7970 by failing to bury the pipeline at the required depth and failed to observe the requirements of the blasting plan my name is Mike Towsley I am a staff attorney with the public utility commission and have been assigned as the hearing officer in both of these cases as you heard earlier there are representatives here from VGS and they had the opportunity to interact with human information session earlier as well as representatives of the Vermont Department of Public Service and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and Mr. Dumont is also here he represents the interveners in these cases this public hearing is a joint public hearing and it's likely although it has not been finally determined that much of the remainder of the proceedings for these two cases will be held jointly for efficiency since the parties are all the same though some of the witnesses will be different that's not been finalized yet I only saw the request this afternoon but that request is out there we'll make a determination here the next week or two as to whether or not those things can happen at the same time all the parties and that gives me the opportunity to remind everybody that you had your chance to ask questions before I'm here to listen to you not to answer your questions if there are procedural questions I'm more than happy to answer them but the subject matter has been addressed and the questions for the subject matter has been addressed by the folks who spoke earlier so please don't come up and ask me questions because I'll forget my name again over on the table along with the sign up sheet there were a couple of handouts there's one as a handout that talks about how to participate and how to file comments and addresses I sure could thank you for being able to hear me earlier my name is Blake Towsley there are a couple of handouts over here I know on the second table that address basically conditional proceedings on how they work and how you can participate in them and how you can file comments there's basically the schedule for 3-550 which has been agreed upon by the public and by the commission and by the commission and by the commission and by the commission although may change slightly in the next couple of weeks is also listed in those handouts the purpose of tonight's hearing is to provide you an opportunity to hear input from the public regarding these two investigations the comments received at this hearing will become part of the public record system EPUC or by direct mail or email contact information to do that is on the handouts that are over on the other table you can also subscribe to the case in EPUC which means you will receive an email notification of any commission order or filing made by a party in the case you will have to log into EPUC with an account and if you're unfamiliar with that the website does show how you can do it and you can always call Holly the deputy clerk who's more happy to walk you through the process of subscribing and entering and using the EPUC system tonight's hearing will be transcribed by a court reporter this transcript along with all other comments received by the commission become part of the case as public file so that commission members staff and participants can consider the comments although the comments do not become part of the formal evidence in this case they can't be helpful in raising new issues and perspectives and the commission is responsible for addressing those comments as part of its review and file report the transcript of this public hearing will be available on EPUC which is accessible directly online links on the commission's website which is located at puc.verman.gov we have now 20 or 19 folks who've signed up or 20 folks who've signed up and I'll take them in the following order what I'll do is I'll try to say 5 names at a time so that you know whether or not you're in the matters box or not the first 5 to speak are Jane Palmer Barbara Warebridge Mary Martin Rachel Smoker and Lawrence Shelton and I'm going to ask that when you do come up you say your name again and spell your last name for the court reporter so that it gets correctly into the record my name is Jane Palmer J.L. N.E.R. and I've been among them I am one of the interveners in case number 173550 Y.N.P. tonight I do not intend to argue any of the legal points to be made during the investigation tonight I want to talk about the emotional and physical stress that results from living within the potential impact radius for consideration zone of long gas pipeline my husband and I argued vehemently with the PUC to not accept or approve the pipeline project we argued the environmental issues both here in Vermont and at the other end of the pipeline where the extraction of the gas occurs the unacceptable and nice and moral issues one issue we did not argue was about safety this is because we still trusted that the project were true the Department of Public Service would oversee the construction and Vermont gas would build the pipeline to the spirit of safety standards they agreed to build it too and even though more fossil fuel infrastructure was not needed farmland, wetlands and public parks would be desecrated and the rate payers would have to pay for a project they would not benefit from we were confident the pipe would be built to a greater level of safety than the federal minimum over the past several months I have been privy to information that indicates that not only was the pipe not built to the standards agreed to it was not even built to federal minimum safety standards I now know from reading accounts from the gas company and employees of the Department of Public Service that the guidelines and specifications spelled out in CPG were not followed during construction what I don't know is the extent of this negligence the PUC has agreed to conduct an investigation into the depth and burial of the pipe and new payment where a citizen documented the shallowness of the pipe had other citizens been vigilant in their day development and other areas where specific violations would have been observed and documented but the problem is we let our guard down we trusted and believed the PUC when they put in the certificate of public good that the product would have oversight and if any violations occurred and were observed they would be corrected we were assured this personally by the head chairman of the Public Service for James Gould now there is anywhere from 6 to 48 inches of dirt covering on that pipe line that may or may not have faulty wells, faulty wells sleeves, may or not have to be buried deep enough or with the colleagues still attacked it may or may not have to lay it on and surrounded by a soft protective supporting the material to protect the commemoration for rocks or damage from heavy vehicles traveling over the pipe line we are left with a strong sense that this pipe line was built recklessly and without oversight leaving us with a compounding or a coincidence of risk factors that ate an eventual rupture even more likely will that happen in my yard or in my neighbor's yard adding my head 300 feet from this pipe line every pipe line I go to bed can anyone tell me the certainty that this pipe line is safe our Public Service department kind of deflected our worries we were all paying attention to the cost of the project and the department put a cap on the amount the rate of payers could be charged for but the result was the contractors and the gas companies were motivated to build the pipe line as cheaply as possible so the company would not have to pay for any more than the necessary over the same cap my husband had to say you can build things good or you can build things cheap but you can't build things good at cheap a couple of months ago my neighbor called and asked if I could hear a noise coming from the direction of the pipe line it was a loud hissing the sound he would imagine a high pressure leaking pipe would make when I stepped outside I heard the sound and a frightening but what really made the hitter stand up on my arms was that my neighbor called BTS and asked if they were working on the pipe and they said they had no knowledge of anyone working on the pipe line I decided to call 911 and asked the dispatcher what to do when he said he would call the fire department in the meantime I'm thinking about a neighbor whose hair needs and has a shut-in and can't walk far or drive I was thinking I would have to go toward the sound and ask the safety to render the safety this entire episode lasted for about 20 minutes to half an hour until BTS finally determined that they did in fact have a crew of Santa Clapping on the main line now behind my neighbor's home in the meantime the fire department had arrived and I already called my neighbor and told her to get ready to evacuate this entire little terrifying event a few nights ago we had a freakish weather storm before I realized there was a loud rumble I could hear coming from the south was actually thunder my mind raced to explosions and my neighbors in our house being in the path of a huge fireball these theaters might seem a little irrational to the island of my ooh but knowing what I now know about the trash we committed for the building on this pipe line they are entirely rational please do not think that a fine or more testing will make us safe no matter the testing after the fact has made up for lack of oversight in attention to federal minimums during installation and rushed construction which allowed problems to be buried in the first place with a proliferation of long-term unknowns this pipe line has to have been built according to the way it was specified and if it was not allowed to operate if a person has a car that is not past the state's safety inspection they are not allowed to operate that vehicle on public roads this faulty pipe line is potentially a thousand times worse than a rotted out car with an engine like that won't go out I urge the PUC to do what you must to ensure the safety of all people who live near or pass by this pipe line every day because now we have a pipe line in earnest that is not being not delivering the pellet that had been promised it is totally dangerous for us to put the safety and welfare of the people of this state thank you Ms. Palmer Ms. Warebridge Ms. Warebridge I also have safety concerns about the pipe line not only how deep it's very but about the inspections of it we know that the normal precautions and safety standards are not good enough because in the losers pipe line accidents every month, even more often than every month some of these are our red assassins and even one accident is too many so I don't think it should be whose lawyer is clever as to what the outcome is I think we need to overdo the safety very deeper, inspected more often these are our lives we are talking about these are our futures when I asked that question earlier about more inspections I was told about all other kinds besides walking inspections we track it this way we track it that way we track it the other way when all the other companies move these lines they do the same things all over the country, all over other countries and there's still explosions and damage and other things going on so I just want to say to the minimum I think the company can't work bottom line first in this instance it has to over shoot the mark thank you Ms. Clearbridge that's alright Ms. Martin my name is Karen Martin I'm a RTI some of this I said earlier could be more accurate so Vermont Gas State they would build this by one from above and beyond the state standards Vermont Gas said they had no plans to do so in this project either the blasting accident and other violations the company claims were the fault of their contractors not them Vermont Gas was questioned about this in formal back in 2013 and I think somebody said Vermont Gas is the ultimate responsible for the entire project there's a lot of folks out here with us the parent assured us the pipeline death requirements will be followed even if they had to cover the pipe one shovel full one spoonful at a time I think we know it's falling way short of that we never trusted this company's practices and they have proved us right time and time again we do show one of his opinions were in favor of this project but we mistakenly thought the partner public service and the public utility commission had our backs as far as safety is concerned imposing fines does not make the pipeline any safer we don't trust the folks that are at the henhouse and we shouldn't allow Vermont Gas to investigate their own violations at the very least we want to mutually agreed upon private party third party to investigate and Vermont Gas should pay that bill Ms. Smoker, and then Mr. Shelton and then Mr. Hurlburt Hi, I'm Rachel Smoker S.M. McClelland I'd like to start by just thanking your CEO on several occasions I'd just like to take that opportunity I don't normally read my interventions but I am going to do so this time and I'll probably sound very stilted but we study this project in as much detail as the public record requests that we have filed to allow from now we become aware that among many other issues there are persistent problems with padding the support fact filled and compression of fact filled around the pipe we know that the DPS inspector observed this problem in one location the company denied it was a problem but it clearly was a problem the company said well its problem only laid the pipe on the bottom of the church without padding the support in place in one location and lo and behold a little later some other places were discovered and recently even more locations lacking fact filled padding support materials one of the locations where this was the case is the New Haven Swamp the same location that we're talking about where the shallow burial occurred we're not high time engineers or experts but we can see that the ANGP project specifications include very detailed requirements for trenching that include how the trench is dug dewatering supports under the pipeline in the trench laying the pipe into the trench with select backfill material under the pipe around over the pipe the select backfill has to cover the pipe by 12 inches over the top and should be mechanically compressed so that the materials don't settle over time this is all part of the trenching specifications and I have a document here which I'll hand to you which has an illustration of how that is supposed to be done it's very particular select backfill material usually is sand or to the screen material that has to be all the stones above a certain dimension have to be removed and so on these specifications exist for a reason it's considered important to ensure that the pipe is not vulnerable to damage from abrasive rocks or from loading like when a vehicle drives over the top without proper compliance to the specifications on backfill the backfill can settle the pipe may be vulnerable to wall brushing dense impending in June of 2014 a DPS pipeline safety consultant David Berger stated in pre-file testimony that the department the department recommends VGS may be required to use clean select backfill directly on the pipeline to prevent rocks and other debris from causing an integrity issue such as that which was described in the reference responses the cause of a leak on another pipeline owned by VGS this leak was caused by a rock rubbing on the steel pipe using select backfill without any rocks around the pipeline will prevent this problem from happening on the new pipelines that was Mr. Berger's refile testimony that the pipeline support compressed select backfill is integral to the issue of depth after all the depth of the trench has to occur both the padding and support underneath the pipeline as well as the dwellages of cover over the top of the pipeline and ultimately the depth measured from the top of the pipeline to the ground surface so it's an integral part of the depth of the equation purchasing select backfill hauling it to the site or using equipment to screen material to get rid of the rocks including also equipment for compressing the backfill all takes equipment, time and money and when even we have the pipeline that was buried too shallow there are potential risks it lacks the specified support material which adds more additional risks and it is located under high voltage overhead lines which introduces you to further risks and it is located in the wetland where the soil is mushy and changes over the year pipelines move so we have multiple compounded risks and this is just what we know about one location that happened to be the location where somebody took a photograph delivered it to PINSA PINSA came back to EGS and said what about this problem in the wetland in New Haven and eventually EGS came to the state and said hey we have a problem we need a non-substantial change designation to our permit would that at all happen? if we hadn't taken those photographs in that one area and delivered them to PINSA and PINSA come to the state I wonder if EGS would ever have come and gone on with their business the problems in New Haven only came to life as a result of our document in conveying those to PINSA in other words, EGS got caught in the communications we delivered to PINSA we raised many other issues those included things like failed, canusa weld sleeves an alarming lack of comprehensive written specifications for contractors which is very worthy violations of electrical safety requirements gross misinformation failure to provide notifications concerning the owner and leak issue that happened in Williston unqualified workers informed I have Henry to put into your hand here the table of concerns that we delivered to PINSA in April of 2016 to the best of our knowledge many if not all of these issues still remain pending and unresolved even though EGS is now flowing quite through the pipeline those issues have not been resolved so far as we can tell PINSA tells their stakeholders in information online no momentum testing this is PINSA's words no momentum testing after the fact can make up for lack of oversight rush construction which allows problems to be buried in the first place with a proliferation of long-term unknown risks the process tends to treat something at a time but it is becoming increasingly clear it is the collective burden of compounded risks additive in nature that demands a far more comprehensive assessment problems have occurred throughout all years of construction lack of oversight multiple current construction sites the public cannot rest easy we rely on the DPS to do their job oversight enforcement to ensure compliance with the regulations not just the minimum federal regulations but the much more stringent regulations that will partner with the certificate of public good and were put in place specifically to protect the longer safety and our environment DPS failed us and we have been forced to do their job for them because we care if this pipeline blows we need ourselves some time in the future standing here after some horrific accident saying we told you this would happen and you didn't listen to us happy Thanksgiving thank you Ms. Smoker Mr. Shelton Mr. Hurlbert Ms. Clark Mr. Conrad Mr. Hyams and Casey Whiteley are the next five 김Dom persons that have been looking into alarming causes of shock the structure of the AGP earlier tonight in the public portion of the commons when from safety issues, and this photograph, they talked about it, I understand TPS, while you're terminated to, for instance, PGS and getting clarification from them, yeah, that's that picture. That's nothing, that doesn't count for anything. I took that picture. I was in the swamp when you made them. After work, we shut down on September 19th. All the equipment was demobilized from the site. There was a machine there that was light sand. The excavator from all of it, they had demobilized from the site. Whatever they did the next day, they did during that one day with whatever equipment they demobilized from the site, brought in, finished up, did a lot of work, and when I took the pictures of the pipe, it was just inches under the ground, standing in the water. I think standing in the water was a violation too. Construction was completed the next day in June of 2017, PGS from west, that are non-substantial change rebranded after the fact of this alarming shock attack. While the dairy is concerned, it's only one of many examples, I believe, which is systemic failure. From the end to end, reckless construction of PGS and the contractor in combination with the last oversight by TBS. We urge PUC to commission an independent comprehensive end investigation to live not only down from the cover, reeled out with proper measures, not PGS, smoke and mirrors, pretend measures, reeled physical data, and additionally the lithium violations that have been found. The compounding risk of systemic failure to comply with the CPG should compel PUC not to allow gas to occur in this pipeline, at least until everybody committed. Where my gas has been in construction for the year in June of 2016, they failed to submit a filing for non-substantial change to the broker that they permitted then, when it was clear that they were facing problems achieving broader depth. That way until June of 2017, nine months later, through a Western non-substantial change, they were required to notify the DPS of such matters and meet them when they occurred. Doing so would have given DPS to the public an opportunity to consider how to run a really new problem. For example, given that this is a designated state significant area with the same clear demand that the pipeline installation would be done using an HGD, the opportunity to make that demand was lost by virtue of the PGS behavior, not reporting the matter, and proceeding with a reckless construction practice, then after the fight, telling the state and the public, oh well, it's all done. If the requirements were up for a time in reporting, the requirements for death and safe construction are not enforced, even when the PGS sublated the violence, what's the purpose of the CPG? Is the whole CPG process just a PR action assignment, or is it an entire area of the project? What is the role of the PUC if the conditions of the CPG are simply... HUR, LB, ORT, I didn't come prepared, but I'm kind of telling my story a little bit. I've been doing a long ass and quite headache, doing contracts and part of the hearings in three years of paperwork, but I think in the long run it goes long and I actually grabbed a candy bunch out of it, just hope they look after it good, take care of it, regarding the death. In our contract, I talked to the nail on Ernest's white VVD, on our property, his white VVD, and when they started coming onto our property, they dug the trench, they laid the pipe in, and the other time, the tape measure, they put a board across the trench, 40 inches, called Dave Walker. Dave, not Dave Mellon, so they came and dug the pipe back out, they dug it deeper, and they put it down with that Dave Mellon. And I was talking earlier about the blasting, and I realized that this was a combination practice, I still have to resolve that, but he's kind of giving it up, he's trying to insure it, he's denying it the first time, the second time, I don't know, it's becoming more avid insurer sometimes, but we do have various, like I said earlier, where the rubble was left, big piles of rubble, and we specifically, in our contract, said, Lance, you put it back to the regional volunteer, but we're still working on it, with the long-hashing machine, we're still working on the Mylar maps, it's a big two-year report in town, we still have to eat in Estro, and we're still working on that, but Dave Walker seemed to say that you know, try to get it on, and he seemed to say that he didn't want to finish it up until they get to eat, so I wish they did it on, but there's this area, so when they were getting down and you were swamped when you were talking about this, well, we weren't that swamped, and when they were doing the planning, I said you guys need to work on that, there's no bottom in it, they wouldn't listen, and when they were digging with the field before the swamp started, they would leave the timeline, we again went down and checked it for the deep enough, so they came back and they dug some site, and I zoomed to you now, and then when they got out of the swamp, the water started running out of the swamp into our field, and I asked them if they had any trench carriers, and to get it revealed now we're going to keep water that was migrating from the wetlands into our cornfield, and we stayed in a place where you'd ride a tractor across and see straight in, so that I don't know how long it's going to take for it to settle, did put a contract at the lands, the soil slowly compacted to the regional compaction of the splitting of itself, we'll see, there's a lot of selling, there's still a lot of areas that the topsoil is going to be brought in, they did come in four years ago, but the topsoil at the topsoil at the topsoil, because the pipe was deep enough, they did, but the soil won't work, there's still areas where there's wetland sound, and the king won't actually soil it, because there's this wetland area that can't be built in, and the topsoil is at this state that where the water was irrigated, they were raised by the end to drain it down, and once the end of the range ditches is filled in, we're going to clean it up to get it below the sixth of the depth, and now it's level, even to the top, the water level is running in the field, there's still a lot of issues that we've still got to get done, the area down the swamp, and I walked out of there, and they were putting the pipe in, they dug the range, they put it down a couple feet deep, and I was told that they came afterwards and dug the range, and decided to push it down, it's a swamp, it's a soup, and I think some of the pipe had concrete on it, I don't know if all of it is in the swamp, you might want to check it, and see who does, that might be something that the water might want to look at, but that area, if I may put Matt down, they did a rest, they drove in, Matt, so I'm kidding, and they got brought in big long mats, a quarter of a day, so they could get in there, and they got through after a while, and one of the excavators slid off the mat, and it was sunk, and at nine o'clock in the morning, a big deep hole was right in the excavator up through the field, so it was really wet in there, it was this amazing thing about them doing what they did, and I can see why it's probably not deep enough, but hopefully if you don't get the concrete on it, if you don't put concrete water in it, it's like a pipe without an ancient jacket, it won't be good, it won't be a long ass, but I want to recheck it, to see if it's settled down, because I mean, three foot depth, I've seen the skippers in there, logging in the meantime, getting buried, and the big skippers, when they went down three feet, they're buried in my head, so, but I'd like to get this done. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Miss Clark? Is it pronounced Clark? Clark? Sorry. Earlier question and answer period, the idea of the CO certificate of public good had designated, and it took me a while to find that information called, had designated that I wanted to be laid at four feet, and now it seems that the, it was modified somehow, I'm not sure if the PC was involved in that, but there's, it's somewhere between three and four feet. Four feet is the natural depth of things in the state of Vermont because of the cross line, and I'm very concerned about that, but I wondered why if this was the designation of the certificate of public good, how could that be changed and still be legal? It just doesn't seem right to me, and if it's in a swamp, what's the problem with getting it down deeper? It's not like you got a deeper dirt in the solid surface, or you came against rock and you couldn't get it down deeper. I mean, what's, why is there an issue of getting it down four feet, like it was supposed to be? And then there's some comments of her name by the VGS that this was because it was in the elbow corner. Well, the elbow folks are probably very nice folks, but they don't, they can't speak for what the certificate of public good said was the legal place that it had to go. So as far as I'm concerned, they just don't know what they wanted to do and just didn't finish it correctly. And that's a concern. And it seems to be another instance of non-trust on the part of the public. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Mr. Conrad? Good evening, Mr. Conrad, C-man, R-8, and the very long day. I just want to request that the public utility commission not take from one guest's word that the tradition was not taken up only in 18 places, and it's one in red, where it just happens that a Neurotter concerned citizen had to get a picture showing a pipe being flaked in that wasn't taken enough, and that just happens to be the only spot that wasn't taken enough. I find that very hard to believe. And that's because of R-8's past record. They have been consistent in being unruly, starting with claims that they had never done in a domain, and they did in the very first pipeline coming down from Canada, the claims of non-trust passing on people's property, being due diligence and hard people, and contract is burned on the pipe without a contract. I mean, if you work on a pipe without a contract, you think you're overly accurate in all the real materials to follow, to put them right the right way, and then taking care of a dangerous species, reporting financial footage, sharing the information, just consistent over and over and over. So please, if you're hoping the utility commission has the authority to actually have a third party, confirm that the rest of the pipe is actually heard appropriately. And don't use anything from the long gas. You can totally separate from long gas in there. Numbers can be at work and just have someone else just to confirm it, to see if this is another instance of the long gas, saying things it wants to be, being actually deleted, if it's just not true, or if it really did do the job. Thank you, Mr. Conrad. Mr. Himes, as close as you can get. It's not a race, though. My name is H-Y-A-M-S. I am a member of the Hinesburg Conservation Commission, and I want to talk to you about wetlands, and in particular, wetlands in Hinesburg. As a member of the Conservation Commission, we had real concerns about the route of the proposed route of the pipeline going through the park. We went out, we went on the ground, and we saw a lot of wetlands, and a lot more wetlands than were ever on the site land. And there's wetlands and then there's wetlands. And you did not need to be an expert to know that you were in a wetland. In fact, if you were in it too long you'd be up to your knees. Somehow this did not make it to the map, to the wetland map. And we took it out with the Department of Health and Service, asked, hey, what do we do about this? It's not too late. It's already been approved. We took it out with wetlands, talking to Laura LaPierre. She said, no. We've already approved it. It's done. And it was not until we had to pay the interleaders and to pay for the wetlands ecologists to come out and say, yes, this is a wetland. We finally got a wetlands program to come out and verify that in fact it was a wetland and happy ending we got to drill into the park. Well, the other thing we did is we decided to go out and look at the other public wetland crossing in Heinsberg and sure enough we found similar results. By all indications those wetlands were not properly delineated either. So what are the chances that two crossings would yield two poor or insufficient wetland delineations and maybe it's not enough for a pattern but combined with all the other stuff we're hearing tonight and it certainly sounds like a pattern. So I guess what I would ask of you is to consider as representatives of the state that really you guys do not have the capacity to manage and oversee a project of this size and if that's the case that you should not be permitting projects of this size. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Himes. Casey Whiteley. Thank you, specific violations. In the past few years as I've been watching the process of approving the BGS package my night have watched my faith in our democratic institutions like the Public Service Board and now I'm deeply disappointed and angry in the failure of both the department and the PUC to protect the public safety and serve the public good of the citizens of the state. To allow the number of public safety concerns, the cost overruns and BGS violations to continue and accumulate is a theoretical duty. It is challenging as citizens are not to assume a level of partnership between our state administration and departments in furthering and facilitating the construction goals of the Vermont Gas Pipeline. What possible rationale will lead the PUC to approve the continuation of a dangerous pipeline carrying fracked gas that locks us into using fossil fuels for generators to come? Instead of if we wanted to help Vermonters we would be investing in meeting the renewable energy goals of the Vermont comprehensive energy plan which is to use 90% renewals by 2050. We are not on track to achieving that goal instead we are on a track heading in the Amazon direction. Increasing our dependency on fossil fuels imported by the fracked gas from Canada coming through the PGS pipeline. The real goal it seems to many of us is that we are using Vermont as an energy corridor to get gas from Canada to global markets. It's really not to lower energy costs for Vermonters is it? If we really wanted to do that we would be working on renewables to get a software dependency on fossil fuels. We need to stop this pipeline and invest in our future for the next generations and to protect this planet that we live on. Thank you Ms. Whiteley. Bobby Cornwell, Julie McCuga, Lisa Barrett and Bob Etchinson. So Ms. Cornweth please. Bobby Cornwell, Z-A-R-N-W-A-D-H Actually I didn't come from my parent to speak and people about and so I came up before me about a couple of things and one is something Rachel said about the way the process works and those of us who have not been in a favor of pipelines for a long time or through the process step by step and everything you know everything is a cost overrun, it's a safety concerns it's one thing and then another and the PUC finds its way to get past that one technicality that's in the way and I'm just asking the PUC to please just make a list and just keep an overall picture of how problematic this pipeline has been and I was there in Mulberry in Milbury and I remember the similarities saying BGS doesn't do admin domain nor has and it's just been kind of keeping track of what BGS is saying what they're doing and I don't know where or if upside you have to come from always needs to keep track of what's going on and that's all I want to just hope that you're keeping ongoing notes of how this process is working and that we just don't worry about the future Yes ma'am, thank you Julie Makuga Did I pronounce your name correctly? Masuga My name is Julie Masuga I'm a senior at the University of Vermont pursuing a degree in environmental studies I would like to start with a quote pipeline safety is ensuring compliance with design standards and regulations not setbacks this quote is found in both certificate of public good and in a remunneled testimony of John Harvard San Cicero former being the Vermont gas systems I attended the last public hearing on our October 10th many people spoke of fear in their voices they're afraid that projects like these will leave behind a planet that is not livable for their children and grandchildren as one of the children they spoke of I'm afraid to but that rhetoric has fallen on so many deaf ears this time I speak of fear for the immediate future I volunteer with the group protector Bars Park which myself and my colleagues who have been through hundreds if not thousands of documents from Coonsor regulations numerous PUC parties and public reference requests I wish I could say that this was the first time that deaf was an issue but this time two years ago Vermont gas was important their own contractor around 5.6 miles of the pipe that were buried to shell this time Vermont gas had elected a PUC that they had made arguably substantial changes at least not until we brought photographic evidence to the department's attention the photographs according to John St. Hilaire's August 11th testimony show that the mechanism is in what is called a staging trench even if St. Hilaire's testimony is correct there are a number of violations that are still visible according to Vermont gas his own 2016 version of the technical specifications quote the contractor shall remove all water from the excavation promptly and continuously throughout progress of the work and shall keep the excavation dry at all times until the work is completed and excavation is back filled minimum death of Coonsburg shall be strictly adhered to no pipe shall be strong before the trench is excavated to full depth and meets the requirements of this specification pipe shall not be placed directly on the ground without winches with proper protected padding regardless of St. Hilaire's testimony the pipe is clearly on bare ground and in the water with no backfill this is another in a catalog of important safety measures and each compound the rest in the past with many of the people in this room I stood in the way of construction then I bought shares of gas measure over Vermont gas's parent company and tried to clean with their investors to stop this project now I come before the public utilities commission with my concerns hoping that they will listen even if we ignore the inflated cost of the project and the environmental degradation it would be unconscionable to ignore the risks to human health and safety that this pipeline poses we don't want to wait for errors to pile up until we get out of the folks in San Bruno, California where a natural gas pipeline exploded causing a fire that left eight people dead the reason for this tragedy disregard for the rules and regulations coupled with an adequate record to be there is no find that Vermont gas can pay or shirk onto their rate payers that would excuse them from a leak or explosion perhaps it's easy to move on since the sunflowers are destroyed by the floods Vermont gas should probably bury this pipeline before we have to bury our friends and neighbors thank you Lisa Barrett to survey for independent physical measurements of death of cover Vermont gas protest during the CBG buries to create a safer pipeline by quote exceeding federal standards both for death of cover and for pipeline thickness now that Vermont gas has been caught by the Sheldon photos among other things failing to bury the pipeline at the required and promised death death BGS disingenuously claims death doesn't matter because of the thickness of the pipe Sheldon photo and video is clear the pipe is not buried or feet deep or even three feet deep or even two feet deep in the swamp those photos were taken on the evening of September 19 2016 the video pans around the site and shows no excavating equipment and the wooden mats are shown piled up not ready to use and thrive on now Vermont Gas has repeatedly said that the work was completed and the contractor left on September 20 the day after the photos were taken it just doesn't seem to be possible that in one day Vermont Gas or Michaels moved in multiple excavators spread those heavy wooden mats out managed to lower a significant length of pipe another two or three feet by digging along both sides of the pipe an awkward method the best and then remove the mats it just doesn't seem possible that that all happened in one day we need to get some independent physical measurements of the actual size of cover in the swamp I'm sorry to say that just because somebody counted in a state that said 3.5 that shouldn't convince us that the pipe is actually varying 3.5 feet now the 78 page depth of cover table looks impressive but it doesn't offer any information about where those numbers come from and some are estimates and in some cases the depth table is inconsistent with the remediation table in other words the depth table says the final depth is X and the remediation table says the final depth is X minus something the contractor Michaels did not finish its work for Vermont Gas until December Vermont Gas then had almost 3 months to ask the PUC for an amendment during that time VGS still could have sent the excavators back in or perhaps have drilled the pipe under the swamp if that was what the PUC wanted instead Vermont Gas and the Department of Public Service did not disclose the non-compliance until June after the pipeline completed and the gas was flowing to customers the train had left the station before the PUC had a chance to weigh in Vermont Gas insists it has no responsibility for this problem their root cause analysis explains the cause as follows I'm reading from the root cause analysis the root cause the soils in the clay plane swamp were deep and wet resulting in the inability to maintain trans stability while installing the pipeline along its entire length that's the root cause Vermont Gas takes no responsibility for the failure to identify the problem of soupy soils ahead of time or for its decision not to use HDD or for anything else in other words the root cause was the swamp so who's protecting us the federal agency FINSA recently found that the department was haunt doing an adequate job of assuring compliance department records show that inspectors found violations but no action was taken so at the very least we need independent physical measurements of the depth of the curve thank you Ms. Barrett Mr. Atchison My name is Bob Atchison I come to you to Plainfield, Vermont where I serve as energy coordinator and also in the number of 350 Vermont I'm so you know and we work very strongly on climate justice issues it's bad enough that the fossil field industry is peddling their poisons by harvesting them from the ground at the expense and cost of the working people of the plant while somebody else sits there and makes their big profit and secondly bad enough that they pervade this poison to the citizens of the state of Vermont with the claim that it's safe we're going to do it everybody will be happy and we won't have to raise any cause because that natural gas that's the golden fuel of the future no it's all about risk assessment we saw it way back in my day when Ford Motor Company decided that it wasn't worth fixing the gas tanks on the pinto cars because we've got enough lawyers we get enough money to pay off that's when they occur and it goes on to this day the risk involved are not worth costing one human mind the risk involved are not worth the path of the planet that's the people of the planet and hanging on to our children and our grandchildren poisons to take into our deal with them and so the big the big drain goes on from an engineering standpoint this is just a farce why can't you do it once do it right do it with integrity do it with reliability and have it fixed and stop this new launch that's going on here I'm going to close this on my mom's words it is a bad thing if you do something wrong it's even worse when you lie to them thank you Mr. Aschinson the next five begin with Kevin Leverett then Bill Marks General Chapin Jane Peacall and Rick Barston so next up is Mr. Leverett good evening my name is Kevin Leverett I leave the ERPT and I have been thinking about the certificate of public good public good I can't believe it's in a public good to risk polluting the environment by a short future lease especially when you consider that renewable energy has shown that fossil fuels should for now on remain a fossil that is left in the ground isn't it ironic why are we concerned the pikes must be buried between three to four feet of the ground because it belongs in the ground too bad the clay clay spawn isn't the Leverett market a suitable burial site for fossils fossil fuel kind of hard to illustrate a gas the same people producing the fracked gas are also producing the fracked fuel liquid fuel as a matter of fact the T stone still just recently can you see it should I walk over I'm zooming in on yeah okay this is an oval not actually a circle but because of the perspective the circle is like that it looks like an oval so there's the oval this thing is 100 feet radius that means 200 foot this is the leak one brown spot is the fracked fuel that is spilled what was it 210,000 gallons yes indeed so for like 200 feet across how does 21 21 2100 2100 gallons fit in that small space it's because it goes down deep so there's a lot of volume there I don't know it really infuriates me to see waste like that but it even makes me mad to see it not in not a good place thank you Mr. Lover thank you Bill Marx and the art of KS as in Carl I have a specific request for the Law of Utilities Commission I think it's pretty much the same as what Lisa Barris is and that is that the Commission hire its own investigators and experts managing the HDS paying for them to do independent testing of the burials wherever there is a rush of death in the state however my experience or my reason for showing this of black credibility because to me this is a credibility issue is more in line with Bob Hines testimony earlier in that I was involved in the part of the case in fact I was playing I was not because I wasn't particularly knowledgeable on these issues but because I was one person who had authority over the power for the longest period of time over 25 years and the hearing officer had the insight understanding that I could do something for the truth well what I learned in the course of this case were two various challenging things one which really hasn't learned to do with perhaps for my guess is legal advice in that because of other citizens more grab than I was but turned out to be a quote-unquote secret agreement between certain time-aspect war members and the right gas to convey an interest in land this was stopped but any attorney I could think would know enough to present with an agreement between municipal property not to realize something in the signature of the attorney because in fact the majority of the select members didn't even know about the selection agreement and there was no one to vote this shocked me that a company decides who would accept and present to the new public service board an agreement with this background but you say this is the way we're going to do with legal advice and the right to file for my case which brings me to the next point which was the other shocking thing and some of the comparison for me because being a long-term member of the conservation mission was but not an expert in wetlands and when I heard the experts higher about the right gas public and public care agreement their proposed course avoided most of the wetlands and police impact and they presented this finding as possible to the ANR which exactly that because they don't have the ability to do the field work to check the background and they presented it to the an intestinal I believe but in any event there was a lot of time to discover this error and in fact walked these wetlands with previous experts and watched their embarrassment and seeing their error now why this happened I don't know but the fact that we were probably the only group because it was land banished by environmental activists who knows how many other areas in Vermont where they could cross wetlands that were not accurately delineated we were not able of course to determine that in all the hands including the ANR this relates I think directly to the variable issue and why we need to have independent verification of the the organization and again it's not my distrust in that based on a personal certainly at last days or believe in anyone particularly mine but I think there is a very clear loyalty between subcontractors employees, their bosses and the shareholder and that's understandable it's a corporation their loyalties are not to the public which is where we must I think we do thank you Mr. Marks Jono Chapin Jonathan Chapin C-A-J-P-I-N Jono's the next name I don't want to have any prepare accounts tonight what I had great respect for all those that did come prepared and have been following this colossal travesty over the course of a number of years maybe it's four or so at this point I think we have some really disturbing dynamics that are going on now and if you think about it 50 to 70 people that are here probably would be multiplied by a factor of 10 if this vision wasn't so complex it's highly technical it's it takes a great amount of effort to try and stay on top of all of this we have a citizenry here and volunteer efforts and people that are showing up on their own time we have the world that we live in now it's it's a question of inequities very disturbing again the world that we used to live in was an alliance that we used to leave were of trust of honesty of working together and I think now we live in an age of disinformation a totally different ethic and business, money and power seem to prevail and this hearing has an opportunity to try once again see if we can turn that around we have a stream alteration issue, we have burial depths of the pipeline we have a public service department which doesn't seem to really be serving the public over and over again safety, non-compliance if you think about this a little heavy but appeasement over and over again in this process when World War II was going on that was very effective just say we're peaceful we're just going to come in and take over your country and everything will be okay and then march on and march on and march on this is the type of appeasement process that business is very adept at we'll go ahead and do what we want to do and then we'll either ask permission or pay a penalty later and we've got to stop this it's insidious a penalty is some form of reconciliation but the penalties are never high enough so if you're in business pay a penalty and move on the penalty has to be so egregious that a company is going to say we got to adhere to what needs to happen and comply it can't be about non-compliance and so on I come from the woodworking world and it used to be measure choice excuse me, measure once and cut twice and this seems to be the opposite so just go ahead we'll do what we got to do we'll go back and do it again when somebody tells us we did it wrong I don't want to feel that we're in this position where the role is being pulled over our eyes and we're just sort of helpless there needs to be a sense that a person that's trying to follow this process and wants to speak up is not just going to be pulled over by a corporate process that just can out-legalize the common citizen by show of hands if people are still on crime who is here or their own free will testify tonight and is not paid there are many people not maybe many but there are definitely some people that are paid here and they're paid for the whole process of guiding this pipeline it's a navigational sort of track to get to the other end and when you're paid to go ahead and figure it out you're going to snake your way through it and that's pretty pretty scary so we have a world that we used to live in and it was trusting and it was neighbors and a sense of community and we have a world that we're living now and it's really problematic it's about inequities it's about disinformation it's about power and money and business prevailing and if we don't get a handle on that our democracy is already in peril we've got to have a chance to go ahead and change those dynamics disturbing dynamics you need to live in this world and have a conscience about what you do doing well and have it so that it matters not just for your own bottom line but for everybody because we're all in this together thank you Mr. Chapin Jane Peacall and the next three are Rick Barstyn, Jennifer, Vinik and Barry Bailey so it's people P-E-K-O-L I did want to say thank you to all the citizen inspectors and publishers who seem to be coming up to slack but it's from our business sincere thank you I'm originally from Pennsylvania and in August of 2016 I had to be charged to South Atlanta County to see kind of exactly what went on there during the fracking rape war and the image that stays in my mind is the one of the men stacks on top of what used to be household water wells to bend the gas that it mixed in with water to prevent the household well from exploding or slowing again so the image of vintage water wells you know one after another and the water well flow tanks sitting next to the houses a lot of water are not images that do not exist so this family in Pennsylvania they lost their water to fracking chemicals and gas contamination now it's all their water spending time and effort and money so they really lost something and the families here in Vermont they've got to move they've lost their land or no longer feel safe on their land but the purposes of transporting as close as possible as Morrison carbon dioxide have also really lost something and I was just heartbroken to see all this happen and see it grow again and I was frankly shocked to see it happen here and I'm heartened to see some states and countries and even cities and towns and if I would see you over on gas I would start diversifying quickly and I would recommend all the other tools thank you Ms. B. Call Rick Barston Rick Barston, B-A-R-S-T-O-W I wasn't really playing I'm making any comment but I noticed one curious thing during the presentation which I think is indicative of this whole project and it had to do with the streams and the burial head that probably should be 17 kind of these streams because the potential of erosion and cutting down further than the existing stream then we all know that this is becoming more severe in the likelihood that we have a flooding event that could really cut right down to the stream then it becomes more and more likely especially who knows in the next 60 years this pipeline just is supposed to be put in for 60 years out I hope we're long done we need for such pipelines by then but this just shows how this broadcasts in the parent companies that go along with it look for ways to cut costs and for us agency to do this project in a way that yields more income from the shareholders and those at the top who really have no interest in the safety of citizens and so I see this is maybe a situation where it's time to turn this whole thing around this becomes a model issue allowing this kind of corporate greed which I think people are getting really good at the fact that it's become so rampant it's really the root of so many problems that we're dealing with right now so I would hope that the PUC going forward whoever is responsible for making decisions about what kind of projects get that we might better be a much higher degree of scrutiny and oversight so that we're facing this kind of situation where there are many safety concerns in some way great thank you Mr. Barstow Ms. Weineck that's Jennifer Viennock that's V as in the picture Y, H, N and A, K I live here in Barstow and I spoke a little earlier tonight but I feel this definitely needs repeating and you know early on when the local citizens heard that the pipeline was coming I really had it in my heart that I wanted to be a part of educating the public my mother said Jennifer there's a movie you need to see I've saved it on HBO for you and it's called Gas Land the movie while my mom speaks and she says she's got something for me I'm going to watch it and I watched that movie and it changed my life Vermont I gave it to Dave Sharp our local representative and I believe he made showcases of his folks in the legislation in Montpelier three years later I don't know if I had any maybe a little something to do with it perhaps with a lot of other people but Vermont and fracking and so that movie definitely puts into perspective a lot of the things that we've all heard here speaks to a larger picture that it's really important for people to understand if you want to know why folks have motivated about being good to their neighbor taking care of one another you know basic human decent kinds of things that I think is at the bottom of a lot of motivation here so anyway I took it upon myself to show that movie to as many people as I possibly could back here at home I was going to town some folks here and one evening was being shown at Otter Valley High School I mean Otter Valley High School was hosting Vermont Gas and I gave him a call and I asked the principal I said well you've got Vermont Gas there with a demonstration of what they're going to do can folks who have another point of view also be there and the principal said yes so we had a table and I created a handout which mentioned my name and said I'm showing this movie to people because I believe it identifies the activists among us because you get stirred when you see the culture that this practice came from and the culture of the industry and that was probably an unfortunate thing that I made that document with my phone number on it, my name because things started right out to be a great coincidence for all I know but ever since that time for about perhaps six months I experienced things at my home here in Bristol at night and I got phone calls and I got emails that were pretty awful and I didn't tell my doctor about this and my doctor said Jennifer you need to just get at this just leave this whole thing alone and I did but it definitely affected me and I didn't talk about it I did not share this I did not really share this with my fellow activists because I didn't want to scare them I didn't want them to think that there could be anything that I want to hurt them from or deter them from their activities so I kept it quiet and that was probably a mistake but I did tell a few people who were close to me because I felt like my life was in danger and so I told my friends I said if anything happens to me because in my efforts of showing this movie I really helped touch the hearts of a lot of people who are here tonight this is a movie if you haven't seen it you should see it cast play in the movie so so I am here now and I am advocating for myself and I realize that in order for me to get well I would like to find other people and think that they may have experienced harassment terrifying things that affected their health and so if you want to come up to me and we could talk I think it would be a fascinating topic and who knows there might be a little investigation at some point Thank you Ms. Fiannick Ms. Bailey Barry Bailey B-A-R-R-I-E B-A-I-L-E-Y and I'm from Salisbury South of the United Nations because I was listening but this thing kind of gone through my head precedence even setting the precedent in this situation for a few four years there's been double steep landsom threatening landowners they don't sign on the line right away and oh you can't tell anybody what you've paid for and then they find out what you've fought back numerous cheerleading by the Department of Public Service for PGS instead of being in service to public numerous environmental violations lacks enforcement by the agency natural resources and being the public service board now the PEC has also led lives what I see tonight is that the local people here are the ones who are actually doing the due diligence of oversight this is an open indication of other corporations especially possible industries to come into other areas of Vermont because you can get away with things because regulation enforcement is so black that's not what we should be doing in Vermont we do not want to set precedent as an open invitation for the large power struggle of fossil fuels against the local we need to hold our heads up high ask our public utilities commission to do the right thing create a public investigator who's not associated with our public service I've lost faith in them who's not affiliated with A&R who cannot get out in the field and do their own assessment work but some of them are truly independent and it's not correctly paid by our gas but will be billed through the state to Vermont Gas so I ask that you on the public utilities commission please consider the precedent that's being set and help us go on a straight and narrower time so that we aren't seeing this precedent from others to come thank you Ms. Bailey and finally Mr. is it Poisner Powsner Powsner P is a theater of the U.S. and E.R. what's the first name? J.L. from Iowa I guess I have a more personal comment I just wanted to apologize to the future generations of Vermont that are going to have to live with our actions and I think we all failed to come together I think in honor of the apologies I think the U.C. those apologies I think Elko those apologies I think Vermont Gas those apologies and I hope one day we can move towards a place in a conversation where we can talk about making amends Mr. Powsner Mr. Cushik Mr. George Cloak C.K. I'm a retired former minister of the military I've been thinking it's a time role and I've been talking for a long time but we have something to add I want to do it from this perspective that a good religion a good religion a good religion and good living is worrying about love and is about rules which not to say that rules don't matter and love is motivation for keeping the rules so I've heard that every four or seven for a fee some fee mentioned the rules that I wish that they were enforced and I'd like everybody to know who has some leadership position or responsibility that involves other people that very here is a lot of care for each other a lot of care for earth that is ours to use and to live in and to reserve for others and to be able to respect and honor and care for each other in every way we can so thank you for listening thank you Mr. Cloak that is now 24 speakers does anyone else wish to speak if no one else has additional comments thank you to everyone who came tonight we appreciate your comments and concerns good night