Rover Pushes Back on FERC's Stop Work Order
Today, Energy Transfer's Rover Pipeline submitted a strongly worded letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which essentially asks FERC to step back from its May 10 horizontal directional drill (HDD) stop work order ("Order") issued and illustrates four primary issues: (1) the current stop work on the HDD for the Clarington Lateral, according to Rover, "would delay the Project" from achieving its Phase 1 in-service date; (2) Rover has not yet identified an independent, third party contractor to analyze the Tuscarawas River HDD; (3) the impact from the Ohio EPA's legal challenge against Rover is unknown; and (4) tensions between Rover and FERC appear to be escalating.
Following Rover's recent HDD bentonite drilling fluid spill, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency engaged with Rover in an attempt to come to a settlement regarding its activities. Rover, however, questioned the Ohio EPA's authority to enforce any actions regarding drilling activity, which is a position that the Ohio EPA "strongly disagrees with." As a result, the Ohio EPA appealed to the FERC to seek enforcement, while it pursues "legal options to hold Rover responsible for the violations of the state's federally delegated environmental laws and to ensure that future drilling operations are conducted in a manner which is protective."
In response to the FERC's May 10 Order halting HDD activity, Rover retained an HDD engineering firm, GeoEngineers, to analyze and assemble technical reports regarding the Middle Island Creek and Captina Creek HDD locations. In addition, Rover added "pedestrian surveillance" personnel to identify inadvertent releases more quickly, should they occur again. According to Rover, "as requested" in FERC's Order it has also "prepared a Request for Proposals" to obtain an independent, third party contractor to conduct an analysis of the drilling activity at the Tuscarawas River HDD. Based on these efforts, Rover requested that FERC amend the Order to permit drilling at the Middle Island Creek and Captina Creek locations, as drilling has commenced at Middle Island Creek (apparently unbeknownst to FERC) and site work has been completed at Captina Creek.
Rover likely views these efforts as proactive. FERC may have a different viewpoint, however, given that its Order clearly states that drilling in these two locations is not authorized until a third party contractor -- selected by FERC -- is hired and an investigation, which FERC staff will control, is conducted and approved. If FERC was unaware of the drilling activity conducted at Middle Island Creek, then given the potential environmental impacts associated with conducting a second drill, it is possible that FERC amends its Order based on these new facts to allow Rover to complete that drill.