20140957 Ver 2_McLaurin Atlantic Coast Pipeline Comments_20170818

Strickland, Bev
From:[e-mail]
Sent:Friday, August 18, 2017 6:16 PM
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:McLaurin / Atlantic Coast Pipeline Comments
Attachments:FERC FILING_JohnSzoka_04-04-2017 (1).pdf; Speaker FERC Letter.pdf
Donovan McLaurin
P.O. Box 97
Wade, N.C. 28395
[e-mail]
[phone]

Good Day All,
I would like to comment that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline is "NOT" needed as it is a "Self Enrichment Scheme" devised by
Duke Power to keep the "Captive Consumer" captive for many, many more years with an out dated fossil fuel which is
worse on the climate with it's Methane emmissions than CO2.
I would like you to read the attachments from my government representatives concerning the routing of the proposed
pipeline in this area.
I Appreciate Your Protection Of Our Environment,
Donovan McLaurin
1

a w STAIZ
J
�Rpnm rW ;r
mca� 0�
-Qortb Carolina General 015sernblp
gouge of Repreentatibeq
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN D. SZOKA
*tate Zegigfatibe iBuilbing
JAaleigb, QC 27601-1096
April 4, 2017
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Ms. Bose and Mr. Davis, Sr.,
SUBJECT: Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC,
Dominion Transmissions, Inc. and Atlantic and Piedmont natural Gas Co., Inc. (Docket Nos.
CP15-554-000,-001; CP15-555-000; and CP15-556-000).
FERC made notice on May 3, 2016 of the Fayetteville Major Route Modification (Cumberland County,
North Carolina) to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). This major route modification was, in my opinion, a
very reasonable modification that minimized impacts on private property owners and the environment.
Within the northern end of Cumberland County there is still a segment of the pipeline that travels
generally southwest from the vicinity of the Town of Falcon to a connection point with a NCNG existing
pipeline to the west of the Town of Wade. The proposed ACP route then travels back to the Progress
Energy Carolinas (PEC) 500 kilowatt electric transmission line easement and continues southward. (See
attached map.)
Since the Fayetteville Major Route Modification was made I have asked both Duke Energy and Dominion
why this interconnection site (point 3 on the map) was maintained at that location. Why was not the
whole route for this section of the ACP moved east to the PEC transmission line easement? No one in
either company could answer my question. After several telephone conversations and meetings with
company officials at the state legislative building in Raleigh, I met Bruce McKay, a senior engineer from
Dominion on the ground in the Town of Wade. We drove over a portion of the proposed pipeline site.
Afterwards we met at the town hall and I asked him again, why was not the ACP moved over to the PEC
transmission line easement and the interconnection point moved? He had no answer.
The decision for this small portion of the ACP seems to be that the interconnection point with the NCNG
pipeline (west of Wade at point 3) was made before FERC made the Fayetteville Major Route
Modification. Prior to the Fayetteville Major Route Modification, this interconnection point made sense.
I have personally visited this site. There are no improvements to the site at this time. As it now stands, I
know of no rational justification why the interconnection point cannot be moved to the east to point 2
on the map.
My request of FERC is to reroute the current route of the ACP directly from point 1 to point 4, shown on
the accompanying map; the current route runs from point 1 to point 2 to point 3 to point 4. This would

move the interconnection point with the NCNG existing pipeline currently at point 3 over to point 2 in
the vicinity of the existing PEC transmission line easement. My reasons are as follows:
1. Neither Duke Energy nor Dominion can state any reason why the interconnect point with the
existing NCNG pipeline is located where it currently is. Neither Duke Energy nor Dominion can
state any reason why the interconnect point could not be moved further to the east in the
vicinity of the PEC electric transmission line. I believe that the interconnect point is planned at
its current location solely because it made sense before the Fayetteville Major Route
Modification was made. Now, there is no supporting logic in keeping the interconnect point
there as it could easily be moved less than 1.5 miles to the east.
2. Rerouting this small portion of the pipeline prevents the pipeline from boring beneath 1-95
twice. The importance of 1-95 as a major north -south interstate highway cannot be overstated.
Rerouting also prevents this small portion of the pipeline from boring underneath a major rail
line twice. This rail line not only carries a high volume of commercial rail traffic but is a major
north -south AMTRACK route.
3. The number of homeowners whose property would be impacted would be significantly less than
maintaining the current route.
a. I have personally driven/walked the entire route and there are a surprising number of
homes in this mostly rural area. The current route is very close to a substantial number
of those homes which causes the homeowners a great deal of concern. Moving the
route would significantly minimize the number of impacted homeowners.
b. Of significant note is that if the current route is maintained, the small Town of Wade will
be adversely impacted. The route now runs through a planned housing subdivision
within the city limits. If the pipeline remains routed through the planned subdivision
the number of houses built will be substantially fewer than what is planned. This will
adversely impact property taxes collected by the Town of Wade.
4. The area around the Town of Wade is a mixture of farmland and forest. There is one major
creek, under which the pipeline would be bored that is fairly deep; from the lip of the ground
that overlooks the creek I estimate about 30 vertical feet. While that is not significant in and of
itself, it is significant because of the drainage pattern around the Town of Wade. Because of
Hurricane Matthew last year, the topography and the creek itself was changed. I have
personally seen hundred year old massive trees that were ripped out of the banks and major
portions of the creek banks washed out at the exact point where the ACP must be bored under,
or alternatively, go over this creek. I have lived in Cumberland County for twenty-three (23)
years and have seen many Hurricanes rip through the area. I am not an expert at routing
pipelines nor am I a hydrologist; however, what I saw gives me pause. If the pipeline were
rerouted as I suggest, major damage to the pipeline in the future could be avoided.
I believe that this small change to the route is in the best interest of the people in and around the Town
of Wade, the safety of the public and the environment. Thank you for your consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
epresentative Jo n D. Szoka
North Carolina House of Representatives
45th District, Cumberland County
JDS/bbs

y a � ,
f
�r-,�} I aF -
��
- I
. � IN
t
j ••� ATLANTIC PIP`E-LINV
—. F7 s7 r,•
R!F=V- ATIJ"TIG PIPELINE
DUKE POWER EASEMENT