FINAL_HRO_Attachment_C2thruC4-Northampton_Compressor_Station

Chapter 4. Facility Profiles

Page C.2-387
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station

Sources:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. EPA Envirofacts,
U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory
* System Configuration - natural gas pipeline system design layout. Some systems are a combination of the trunk and grid.
Where two are shown, the first represents the predominant system design.
Trunk - systems are large-diameter long-distance trunklines that generally tie supply areas to natural gas market areas.
Grid - systems are usually a network of many interconnections and delivery points that operate in and serve major
natural gas market areas

Page C.2-388
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
This page intentionally blank.

Page C.2-389
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.1. Algonquin Gas Southeast Compressor Station (Putnam, New York)
4.1a. Facility Profile
Table 4.1a.
Algonquin Gas Southeast Compressor Station: Facility Profile
Putnam NY
Facility name, short AGT SOUTHEAST CS Southeast
Facility name, full Algonquin Gas Southeast Compressor Station
EIS Facility ID 8474311
DEC Region 3 -- Lower Hudson Valley
County Putnam
Town Southeast
Village \ Hamlet Brewster
Address 142 Tulip Rd
Zip 10509
DEC Facility ID 3373000060
DEC Permit Type Air State Facility
DEC Permit ID 3-3730-00060/00013
DEC Permit Effective Date 7/15/2015
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC
Project Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM)
Pipeline Algonquin
Principal Supply Source Interstate System
System Configuration (Primary / Secondary) * Trunk/Grid
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 10,302

Horsepower, modifications\expansion 43,640

Page C.2-390
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.1b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.1b.
Algonquin Gas Southeast Compressor Station: Health Effects of Releases by ICD-10 Chapter & Group
Putnam NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition Ch
#
2008-14 Estimated Lbs. State
Rank
% of
State Ch. Description Code Average Total
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 40 72,072 504,510 7 5.26
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 37 67,423 471,962 7 5.02
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 11 5,788 40,519 12 2.81
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 23 5,830 40,810 12 2.79
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 28 67,391 471,742 7 5.04
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 26 59,530 416,713 7 4.75
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 8 288 2,021 4 7.58
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 13 614 4,303 3 15.74
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 15 36,301 254,113 7 5.86
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 13 28,590 200,134 8 5.28
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 3 9 64 9 1.31
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 3 289 2,025 4 7.77
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 8 4,587 32,109 11 2.65
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 16 5,538 38,766 12 2.69
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 14 5,828 40,796 12 2.79
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 7 4,481 31,369 11 2.57
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 6 979 6,858 2 20.69
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic and
related tissue
C81-C96 20 37,129 259,904 7 5.93
2a.14 Malignant neoplasms of independent (primary) multiple sites C97 0 0 0 0 0
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 2 834 5,841 3 13.98
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 17 967 6,771 8 4.09
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 27 5,582 39,074 12 2.69
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 24 62,269 435,885 13 2.31
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 37 48,166 337,165 8 4.71
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 21 62,261 435,828 13 2.31
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 26 67,069 469,483 13 2.46
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 27 183,354 1,283,479 7 5.17
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 12 57,674 403,718 13 2.31
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 20 55,141 385,987 13 2.38
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 35 233,542 1,634,795 9 4.12
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 31 222,553 1,557,872 9 4.05
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 34 214,802 1,503,615 7 5.42
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 13 11,741 82,188 6 6.66
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 28 236,452 1,655,165 9 4.14
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 20 35,528 248,697 10 3.88
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 25 236,445 1,655,115 9 4.14
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 11 148,254 1,037,778 5 5.29
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 18 179,875 1,259,125 5 5.59
17 Congenital malformations, deformations, chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 42 233,541 1,634,787 9 4.12
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal cl. and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 30 233,540 1,634,782 9 4.12
Total Releases 48 241,259 1,688,814 9 4.20
Page C.2-391
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.2. Algonquin Gas Stony Point Compressor Station (Stony Point, New York)
4.2a. Facility Profile
Table 4.2a.
Algonquin Gas Stony Point Compressor Station: Facility Profile
Stony Point NY
Facility name, short AGT Stony Point CS
Facility name, full Algonquin Gas Stony Point Compressor Station
EIS Facility ID 7952911
DEC Region 3 -- Lower Hudson Valley
County Rockland
Town Stony Point
Village \ Hamlet
Address 1 Lindberg Rd
Zip 10980
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 3392800001
DEC Permit ID 3-3928-00001/00027
DEC Permit Effective Date 12/21/2015
Company Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC
Project Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM)
Pipeline Algonquin
Principal Supply Source Interstate System
System Configuration (Primary / Secondary) * Trunk/Grid
Facility Status Operational \ Expansion under review
Facility Status Dates
Horsepower, existing 12,000
Horsepower, modifications\expansion One new compressor to be added at this site.

Page C.2-392
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.2b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.2b.
Algonquin Gas Stony Point Compressor Station: Health Effects of Facility Releases
Stony Point NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Ch. Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 5 42 110,464 773,249 8.07
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 5 40 106,763 747,345 7.95
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 7 10 12,190 85,332 5.92
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 7 30 12,784 89,492 6.12
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 5 29 106,158 743,106 7.93
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 5 26 100,507 703,555 8.02
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 2 7 650 4,553 17.06
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 1 13 1,073 7,515 27.49
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 8 17 33,931 237,522 5.48
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 7 16 29,326 205,287 5.41
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 3 3 99 698 14.27
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 2 3 649 4,548 17.44
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 6 10 9,786 68,506 5.66
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 7 19 11,842 82,899 5.75
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 7 16 12,800 89,604 6.13
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 6 10 9,756 68,294 5.59
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 1 5 1,541 10,792 32.56
2a.13 Malignant neoplasms, lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 8 28 35,662 249,634 5.69
2a.14 Malignant neoplasms of independent (primary) multiple sites C97
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 2 3 1,444 10,109 24.19
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 2 22 3,270 22,896 13.84
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 7 30 12,248 85,739 5.90
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs, immune mechanism D50-D89 7 29 154,987 1,084,914 5.75
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 4 35 90,940 636,585 8.89
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 7 28 154,887 1,084,215 5.74
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 7 36 159,633 1,117,432 5.84
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 6 33 192,160 1,345,120 5.42
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 7 14 144,423 1,010,967 5.79
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 10 26 102,539 717,779 4.42
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 7 42 282,933 1,980,536 5.00
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 7 37 273,624 1,915,369 4.98
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 6 39 215,263 1,506,847 5.43
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 7 14 11,114 77,802 6.31
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 7 36 282,892 1,980,244 4.96
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 4 27 82,163 575,141 8.97
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 7 30 282,888 1,980,219 4.96
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 8 16 117,277 820,945 4.18
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 8 18 139,970 979,796 4.35
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal ab. Q00-Q99 7 42 282,934 1,980,541 5.00
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical, laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 7 36 282,933 1,980,536 5.00
Total Releases 7 49 287,639 2,013,478 5.01

Page C.2-393
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.3. DTI E.M. Borger Compressor Station (Ithaca NY)
4.3a. Facility Profile
Table 4.3a.
DTI E.M. Borger Compressor Station
Ithaca NY
Facility name, short DTI Borger CS
Facility name, full DTI E.M. Borger Compressor Station
EIS Facility ID 8542411
DEC Region 7 -- Central New York
County Tompkins
Town Ithaca
Village \ Hamlet
Address 219 Ellis Hollow Creek
Zip 14850
DEC Permit Type Air State Facility
DEC Facility ID 7502400007
DEC Permit ID 7-5024-00007/00004
DEC Permit Effective Date 01/08/2014
Company Dominion Transportation Inc.
Project New Market Project
Pipeline Dominion
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary / Secondary) *
Facility Status Operational
Facility Status Dates
Horsepower, existing 18,430 HP
Horsepower, modifications\expansion (1) Dresser Clark DC 990 5800 HP ngfsct,
(1) Dresser Clark DC 990 5800 HP ngfsct,
(1) Dresser Clark DC 990 5800 HP ngfsct,
(1) Solar Turbines Inc. Taurus 70-1030S HP ngfsct

Page C.2-394
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.3b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.2b.
DTI E.M. Borger Compressor Station: Health Effects of Facility Releases
Ithaca NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Ch. Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 17 40 7,571 52,998 0.55
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 17 37 6,881 48,166 0.51
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 18 12 189 1,322 0.09
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 18 21 198 1,389 0.10
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 17 29 6,875 48,128 0.51
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 16 27 6,195 43,362 0.49
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 13 10 2 16 0.06
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 13 12 30 211 0.77
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 18 14 3,040 21,283 0.49
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 18 12 2,361 16,525 0.44
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 11 3 0 1 0.01
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 13 3 2 16 0.06
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 18 7 153 1,070 0.08
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 18 15 175 1,227 0.09
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 18 12 191 1,338 0.09
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 18 6 142 997 0.07
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 13 6 43 300 0.90
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 18 19 3,079 21,553 0.49
2a.14 Neoplasms of independent (primary) multiple sites C97 0 0 0 0 0.00
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 13 2 27 188 0.45
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 13 15 27 187 0.11
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 18 26 186 1,305 0.09
3 Diseases of the blood, blood-forming organs¸ immune mechanism D50-D89 17 22 21,652 151,564 0.80
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 17 36 5,354 37,476 0.52
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 17 20 21,652 151,563 0.80
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 17 24 22,343 156,404 0.82
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 11 25 90,898 636,288 2.56
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 16 12 21,502 150,516 0.86
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 16 19 20,045 140,315 0.86
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 14 33 110,772 775,401 1.96
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 14 29 110,016 770,114 2.00
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 11 33 93,789 656,521 2.37
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 18 12 798 5,584 0.45
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 14 26 110,760 775,319 1.94
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 16 18 3,987 27,909 0.44
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 14 23 110,758 775,306 1.94
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 10 11 86,398 604,785 3.08
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 10 16 89,289 625,024 2.78
17 Congenital malformations, deformations, chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 14 41 110,770 775,390 1.96
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 14 28 110,772 775,401 1.96
Total Releases 14 47 111,451 780,159 1.94

Page C.2-395
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.4. DTI Utica Station (Frankfurt NY)
4.4a. Facility Profile
Table 4.4a.
DTI Utica Station
Frankfurt NY
Facility name, short DTI Utica Station
Facility name, full DTI Utica Station
EIS Facility ID 8035211
DEC Region 6 -- Western Adirondacks/Eastern Lake Ontario
County Herkimer
Town Frankfort
Village \ Hamlet
Address 1103 Higby Rd
Zip 13340
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 6212600037
DEC Permit ID 6-2126-00037/00025
DEC Permit Effective Date 5/25/2016
DEC Permit Description Application for renewal of Air Title V Facility.
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Dominion Transmission Inc.
Project New Market Project
Pipeline Dominion
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 5,550
(5) 1,100 hp Cooper Bessemer GMVC-6 compressor units

Page C.2-396
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.4b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.2b.
DTI Utica Station: Health Effects of Facility Releases
Frankfurt NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Ch. Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 15 51 12,696 88,873 0.93
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 15 48 12,660 88,622 0.94
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 15 13 2,295 16,063 1.12
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 15 30 2,356 16,491 1.13
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 15 34 12,589 88,120 0.94
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 15 31 11,862 83,035 0.95
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 6 13 95 665 2.49
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 11 14 61 427 1.56
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 16 19 4,537 31,755 0.73
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 16 17 4,098 28,687 0.76
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 6 3 27 189 3.86
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 6 3 94 660 2.53
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 15 11 1,947 13,631 0.97
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 15 22 2,324 16,269 1.13
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 15 18 2,367 16,568 1.13
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 15 9 2,003 14,019 0.99
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 12 6 44 306 0.92
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 16 27 4,637 32,462 0.74
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 0 0 0 0 0
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 7 3 100 702 1.68
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 9 20 669 4,682 2.83
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 15 35 2,347 16,430 1.13
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 16 31 22,270 155,891 0.83
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 15 45 10,601 74,209 1.04
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 16 30 22,243 155,702 0.83
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 16 35 22,575 158,022 0.83
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 17 34 25,770 180,386 0.73
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 17 15 20,007 140,049 0.80
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 17 26 16,299 114,095 0.70
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 17 43 39,738 278,165 0.70
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 17 40 38,557 269,901 0.70
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 17 44 28,034 196,235 0.71
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 16 15 1,140 7,977 0.65
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 17 37 39,872 279,102 0.70
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 15 28 10,060 70,421 1.10
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 17 31 39,864 279,049 0.70
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 18 16 17,827 124,788 0.64
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 18 20 19,886 139,202 0.62
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 17 52 39,732 278,121 0.70
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 17 38 39,738 278,165 0.70
Total Releases 17 59 40,196 281,369 0.70

Page C.2-397
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.5. DTI Woodhull Station (Woodhull NY)
4.5a. Facility Profile
Table 4.5a.
DTI Woodhull Station
Woodhull NY
Facility name, short DTI Woodhull Station
Facility name, full DTI Woodhull Station
EIS Facility ID 8437611
DEC Region 8
County Steuben
Town Woodhull
Village \ Hamlet
Address 974 Co Rte 99
Zip 14898
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 468200006
DEC Permit ID 8-4682-00006/00034
DEC Permit Effective Date 7/10/2014
DEC Permit Description Title V Facility Permit renewal
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Dominion Transmission Inc.
Project New Market Project
Pipeline Dominion
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 14,700 HP
(5) 2,000 HP reciprocating ngfce
(2) 1,800 HP reciprocating ngfce
(1) 1,100 HP reciprocating ngfce

Page C.2-398
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.5b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.2b.
DTI Woodhull Station: Health Effects of Facility Releases
Woodhull NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Ch. Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 11 53 47,086 329,602 3.44
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 11 50 47,013 329,091 3.50
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 9 13 9,688 67,813 4.71
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 9 32 10,400 72,801 4.98
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 11 35 46,203 323,418 3.45
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 11 32 43,265 302,854 3.45
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 3 13 412 2,883 10.80
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 5 15 276 1,929 7.06
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 10 20 18,612 130,284 3.00
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 10 18 16,924 118,465 3.12
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 2 3 119 835 17.06
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 3 3 402 2,811 10.78
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 10 11 8,216 57,511 4.11
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 9 23 9,842 68,892 4.78
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 9 18 10,419 72,931 4.99
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 10 10 8,441 59,084 4.19
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 5 6 201 1,404 4.22
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 10 28 19,186 134,302 3.06
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 0 0 0 0 0
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 4 3 431 3,015 7.22
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 3 22 3,270 22,892 13.84
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 9 36 10,353 72,472 4.98
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 12 32 86,683 606,778 3.21
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 11 46 38,601 270,204 3.77
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 12 31 86,571 605,996 3.21
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 12 37 87,890 615,229 3.22
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 14 36 59,457 416,201 1.68
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 12 15 77,004 539,026 3.09
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 12 27 67,558 472,907 2.91
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 13 45 116,642 816,492 2.06
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 13 42 111,868 783,072 2.04
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 14 46 68,499 479,496 1.73
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 10 16 5,165 36,154 2.93
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 13 39 117,138 819,966 2.05
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 8 30 36,570 255,987 3.99
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 13 33 117,052 819,363 2.05
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 16 16 31,911 223,376 1.14
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 15 20 40,063 280,440 1.25
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 13 54 116,594 816,160 2.06
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 13 40 116,642 816,492 2.06
Total Releases 13 61 118,460 829,223 2.06

Page C.2-399
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.6. NFGSC Beech Hill Compressor Station (Willing NY)
4.6a. Facility Profile
Table 4.6a.
NFGSC Beech Hill Compressor Station
Willing NY
Facility name, short NFGSC Beech Hill CS
Facility name, full NFGSC Beech Hill Compressor Station
EIS Facility ID 8377711
DEC Region 9
County Allegany
Town Willing
Village \ Hamlet
Address 1161 Peet Rd
Zip 14895
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 9027400004
DEC Permit ID 9-0274-00004/00015
DEC Permit Effective Date 4/8/2013
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project and the Northern Access 2015 Project which
are joint projects undertaken by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
Pipeline Empire (AKA "National Fuel")
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 8,350 HP
(2) 2,750 HP reciprocating ngfce
(1) 2,850 HP reciprocating ngfce
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-400
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.6b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.6b.
NFGSC Beech Hill Compressor Station: Health Effects of Facility Releases
Willing NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Ch. Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 13 19 37,053 259,370 2.71
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 13 18 36,733 257,128 2.74
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 11 7 7,182 50,270 3.49
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 11 13 7,184 50,287 3.44
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 13 15 36,636 256,453 2.74
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 13 13 34,633 242,427 2.77
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 14 2 1 7 0.03
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 15 4 12 80 0.30
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 11 9 17,440 122,076 2.82
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 12 8 15,436 108,053 2.85
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 12 1 0 0 0.00
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 14 2 1 7 0.03
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 11 4 7,072 49,504 3.54
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 11 8 7,081 49,564 3.44
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 11 10 7,086 49,599 3.39
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 11 4 7,068 49,476 3.51
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 15 3 17 115 0.35
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 12 13 17,550 122,849 2.80
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 0 0 0 0 0
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 14 2 10 72 0.17
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 16 9 9 64 0.04
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 11 12 7,179 50,255 3.46
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 9 15 140,703 984,922 5.22
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 13 15 28,685 200,796 2.80
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 9 14 140,703 984,921 5.22
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 9 17 141,024 987,167 5.16
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 13 17 73,519 514,635 2.07
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 9 9 133,537 934,758 5.35
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 8 13 129,878 909,148 5.59
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 10 20 196,224 1,373,569 3.46
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 10 18 192,242 1,345,694 3.50
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 13 20 83,888 587,215 2.12
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 11 10 4,093 28,650 2.32
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 10 19 197,907 1,385,347 3.47
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 13 13 26,363 184,538 2.88
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 10 17 197,810 1,384,673 3.47
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 12 9 53,918 377,422 1.92
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 12 10 64,287 450,005 2.00
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 10 19 196,128 1,372,896 3.46
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 10 20 196,224 1,373,569 3.46
Total Releases 10 21 198,227 1,387,592 3.45

Page C.2-401
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.7. NFGSC Concord Compressor Station (Concord NY)
4.7a. Facility Profile
Table 4.7a.
NFGSC Concord Compressor Station
Concord NY
Facility name, short NFGSC Concord Compressor Station
Facility name, full NFGSC Concord CS
EIS Facility ID 8503411
DEC Region 9
County Erie
Town Concord
Village \ Hamlet Springville
Address 5510 Genesse Rd
Zip 14141
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 9143800044
DEC Permit ID 9-1438-00044/00014
DEC Permit Effective Date 3/31/2015
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project and the Northern Access 2015 Project which
are joint projects undertaken by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
Pipeline Empire (AKA "National Fuel")
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status
Horsepower, existing

Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-402
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.7b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.7b.
NFGSC Concord Compressor Station: Health Effects of Facility Releases
Concord NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Ch. Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 8 10 58,379 408,650 4.26
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 8 9 58,216 407,511 4.34
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 5 3 18,010 126,066 8.75
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 5 5 18,010 126,067 8.62
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 8 7 58,212 407,482 4.35
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 9 6 54,199 379,392 4.33
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 -- -- 0 0 0.00
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 14 2 16 113 0.41
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 6 5 39,853 278,969 6.43
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 6 4 35,840 250,878 6.61
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 -- -- 0 0 0.00
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 -- -- 0 0 0.00
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 2 1 26,984 188,888 13.49
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 5 4 18,006 126,039 8.75
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 5 4 18,006 126,039 8.62
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 2 2 27,008 189,058 13.40
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 14 1 24 170 0.51
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 6 6 39,857 278,996 6.36
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 -- -- 0 0 0.00
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 -- -- 0 0 0.00
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 14 2 16 113 0.07
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 5 5 18,010 126,067 8.67
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 10 7 133,625 935,371 4.96
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 10 7 40,512 283,584 3.96
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 10 7 133,625 935,371 4.96
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 10 8 133,787 936,510 4.90
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 9 8 128,461 899,225 3.62
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 10 4 115,615 809,305 4.63
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 7 8 133,132 931,923 5.73
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 8 11 243,583 1,705,081 4.30
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 8 10 234,664 1,642,645 4.27
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 9 11 150,324 1,052,268 3.79
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 8 4 8,924 62,464 5.07
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 8 11 247,433 1,732,031 4.34
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 9 6 36,353 254,468 3.97
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 8 10 247,429 1,732,003 4.34
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 9 4 109,935 769,543 3.92
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 9 7 131,814 922,698 4.10
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 8 10 243,579 1,705,053 4.30
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 8 11 243,583 1,705,081 4.30
Total Releases 8 12 247,596 1,733,171 4.31

Page C.2-403
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.8. NFGSC Independence Compressor Station (Andover NY)
4.8a. Facility Profile
Table 4.8a.
NFGSC Independence Compressor Station
Andover NY
Facility name, short NFGSC Independence Compressor Station
Facility name, full NFGSC Independence CS
EIS Facility ID 8377611
DEC Region 9
County Allegany
Town Andover
Village \ Hamlet
Address 2210 County Road 22
Zip 14806
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 9026000009
DEC Permit ID 9-0260-00009/00016
DEC Permit Effective Date 4/9/2013
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project and the Northern Access 2015 Project
which are joint projects undertaken by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
Pipeline Empire (AKA "National Fuel")
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 5,000
(2) 1,000 HP reciprocating ngfce
(2) 1,500 HP reciprocating ngfce
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-404
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.8b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.8b.
NFGSC Independence Compressor Station: Facility Releases by Health Effects (2008-2014)
Andover NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 10 15 56,144 393,010 4.10
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 10 14 56,041 392,290 4.17
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 10 7 9,210 64,473 4.48
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 10 10 9,211 64,477 4.41
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 10 11 55,997 391,984 4.19
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 8 10 55,385 387,695 4.42
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 17 1 0 1 0.00
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 16 3 4 30 0.11
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 13 6 12,417 86,924 2.00
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 13 5 11,805 82,636 2.18
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 -- -- 0 0 0.00
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 17 1 0 1 0.00
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 9 3 9,162 64,140 4.58
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 10 7 9,167 64,173 4.45
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 10 9 9,168 64,176 4.39
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 9 3 9,166 64,168 4.55
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 16 4 4 32 0.10
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 13 9 12,460 87,225 1.99
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 -- -- 0 0 0.00
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 15 2 .4 3 0.01
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 17 5 4 33 0.02
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 10 9 9,211 64,477 4.43
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 8 12 147,748 1,034,238 5.48
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 7 12 53,498 374,487 5.23
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 8 12 147,748 1,034,238 5.48
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 8 13 147,851 1,034,958 5.41
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 10 13 95,202 666,418 2.68
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 8 9 138,538 969,769 5.55
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 9 10 106,814 747,699 4.60
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 11 16 192,806 1,349,642 3.40
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 11 15 191,487 1,340,411 3.48
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 10 16 98,457 689,200 2.48
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 15 8 1,362 9,540 0.77
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 11 16 193,315 1,353,211 3.39
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 7 10 52,786 369,507 5.76
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 11 15 193,272 1,352,909 3.39
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 13 6 51,476 360,333 1.84
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 13 10 54,734 383,143 1.70
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 11 15 192,762 1,349,340 3.40
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 11 16 192,806 1,349,642 3.40
Total Releases 11 17 193,418 1,353,931 3.37

Page C.2-405
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.9. NFGSC Nashville Compressor Station (Hanover NY)
4.9a. Facility Profile
Table 4.9a.
NFGSC Nashville Compressor Station
Hanover NY
Facility name, short NFGSC Nashville Compressor Station
Facility name, full NFGSC Nashville CS
EIS Facility ID 7806511
DEC Region 9
County Chautauqua
Town Hanover
Village \ Hamlet Forestville
Address 11413 Allegany Rd
Zip 14062
DEC Permit Type Air State Facility
DEC Facility ID 9064600048
DEC Permit ID 9-0646-00048/00019
DEC Permit Effective Date 7/25/2014
DEC Permit Description Permit modification was made to correct two administrative errors
DEC Permit Review Report
Company National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project and the Northern Access 2015 Project which
are joint projects undertaken by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Tennessee
Gas Pipeline Company.
Pipeline Empire (AKA "National Fuel")
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 1,028 HP
(2) 660HP, (1) 225 HP, (1) 203 HP
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-406
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.9b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.9b.
NFGSC Nashville Compressor Station: Facility Releases by Health Effects (2008-2014)
Hanover NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 14 31 19,663 137,639 1.44
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 14 28 19,592 137,144 1.46
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 14 7 4,274 29,915 2.08
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 14 16 4,285 29,993 2.05
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 14 21 19,553 136,871 1.46
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 14 20 19,171 134,194 1.53
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 15 7 0 0 0.00
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 17 10 2 15 0.06
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 14 9 6,339 44,374 1.02
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 14 7 5,957 41,697 1.10
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 13 2 0 0 0.00
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 15 2 0 0 0.00
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 14 4 4,243 29,704 2.12
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 14 12 4,246 29,721 2.06
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 14 8 4,257 29,798 2.04
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 13 4 4,246 29,719 2.11
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 17 3 2 15 0.05
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 14 15 6,367 44,568 1.02
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 16 2 0 0 0.00
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 15 10 13 92 0.06
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 14 20 4,285 29,993 2.06
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 14 16 54,249 379,740 2.01
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 14 29 17,947 125,632 1.75
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 14 16 54,249 379,740 2.01
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 14 18 54,319 380,235 1.99
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 15 19 50,123 350,859 1.41
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 14 10 49,975 349,825 2.00
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 14 16 42,750 299,248 1.84
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 15 27 88,588 620,115 1.56
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 15 24 87,732 614,122 1.60
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 15 25 52,218 365,527 1.32
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 17 9 895 6,266 0.51
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 15 20 88,900 622,297 1.56
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 14 13 17,497 122,476 1.91
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 15 17 88,872 622,101 1.56
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 15 8 36,799 257,594 1.31
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 16 14 38,897 272,276 1.21
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 15 32 88,560 619,919 1.56
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 15 22 88,588 620,114 1.56
Total Releases 15 38 88,970 622,791 1.55

Page C.2-407
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.10. TGPC Compressor Station 224
4.10a. Facility Profile
Table 4.10a.
TGPC Compressor Station 224
Clymer NY
Facility name, short TGPC Compressor Station 224
Facility name, full TGPC CS 224
EIS Facility ID 7806411
DEC Region 9
County Chautauqua
Town Clymer
Village \ Hamlet
Address 9766 Ravlin Hill Rd
Zip 14724
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 9064200016
DEC Permit ID 9-0642-00016/00017
DEC Permit Effective Date 5/21/2013
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project by TGP/Kinder Morgan, which is related to
National Fuel's Northern Access Project.
Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 8,000 HP
(4) 2000 HP4-cycle lean burn reciprocating ngfce
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-408
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.10b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.10b.
TGPC Compressor Station 224: Facility Releases by Health Effects (2008-2014)
Clymer NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 12 40 40,157 281,096 2.93
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 12 37 39,935 279,548 2.97
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 8 8 11,094 77,661 5.39
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 8 29 11,454 80,175 5.48
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 12 25 39,258 274,805 2.93
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 12 22 37,179 260,256 2.97
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 5 7 141 990 3.71
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 6 8 143 1,004 3.67
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 12 19 17,399 121,793 2.81
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 11 17 16,280 113,960 3.00
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 4 3 52 365 7.44
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 5 2 126 881 3.38
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 8 9 9,516 66,614 4.76
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 8 17 11,221 78,549 5.45
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 8 18 11,403 79,821 5.46
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 8 7 9,565 66,955 4.75
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 7 3 112 787 2.36
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 11 23 17,967 125,770 2.87
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 6 3 155 1,086 2.60
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 4 21 2,829 19,804 11.97
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 8 28 11,383 79,684 5.48
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 11 25 105,076 735,534 3.90
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 12 32 34,003 238,018 3.32
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 11 27 105,039 735,270 3.90
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 11 34 106,266 743,864 3.89
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 12 31 84,984 594,890 2.40
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 11 12 93,625 655,373 3.75
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 11 23 88,805 621,634 3.83
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 12 37 162,657 1,138,602 2.87
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 12 35 158,556 1,109,894 2.88
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 12 35 91,319 639,232 2.30
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 12 13 3,494 24,460 1.98
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 12 34 162,635 1,138,443 2.85
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 12 26 32,594 228,156 3.56
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 12 30 162,603 1,138,223 2.85
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 11 16 63,140 441,983 2.25
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 11 16 68,616 480,315 2.13
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 12 42 162,655 1,138,582 2.87
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 12 34 162,642 1,138,497 2.87
Total Releases 12 47 163,828 1,146,797 2.85

Page C.2-409
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.11. TGPC Compressor Station 229 & TEG Dehydration Facility (Eden NY)
4.11a. Facility Profile
Table 4.11a.
TGPC Compressor Station 229 & TEG Dehydration Facility
Eden NY
Facility name, short TGPC Compressor Station 229 & TEG Dehydration Facility
Facility name, full TGPC 229 & TEG DF
EIS Facility ID 8503511
DEC Region 9
County Erie
Town Eden
Village \ Hamlet
Address 7586 East Eden Road
Zip 14057
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 9143800044
DEC Permit ID 9-1440-00034/00021
DEC Permit Effective Date 7/31/2013
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project by TGP/Kinder Morgan, which is related to
National Fuel's Northern Access Project.
Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 9,714

Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-410
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.11b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.11b.
TGPC Compressor Station 229 & TEG Dehydration: Facility Releases by Health Effects (2008-2014)
Eden NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 12 40 40,157 281,096 2.93
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 12 37 39,935 279,548 2.97
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 8 8 11,094 77,661 5.39
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 8 29 11,454 80,175 5.48
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 12 25 39,258 274,805 2.93
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 12 22 37,179 260,256 2.97
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 5 7 141 990 3.71
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 6 8 143 1,004 3.67
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 12 19 17,399 121,793 2.81
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 11 17 16,280 113,960 3.00
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 4 3 52 365 7.44
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 5 2 126 881 3.38
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 8 9 9,516 66,614 4.76
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 8 17 11,221 78,549 5.45
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 8 18 11,403 79,821 5.46
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 8 7 9,565 66,955 4.75
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 7 3 112 787 2.36
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 11 23 17,967 125,770 2.87
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 6 3 155 1,086 2.60
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 4 21 2,829 19,804 11.97
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 8 28 11,383 79,684 5.48
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 11 25 105,076 735,534 3.90
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 12 32 34,003 238,018 3.32
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 11 27 105,039 735,270 3.90
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 11 34 106,266 743,864 3.89
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 12 31 84,984 594,890 2.40
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 11 12 93,625 655,373 3.75
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 11 23 88,805 621,634 3.83
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 12 37 162,657 1,138,602 2.87
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 12 35 158,556 1,109,894 2.88
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 12 35 91,319 639,232 2.30
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 12 13 3,494 24,460 1.98
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 12 34 162,635 1,138,443 2.85
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 12 26 32,594 228,156 3.56
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 12 30 162,603 1,138,223 2.85
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 11 16 63,140 441,983 2.25
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 11 16 68,616 480,315 2.13
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 12 42 162,655 1,138,582 2.87
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 12 34 162,642 1,138,497 2.87
Total Releases 12 47 163,828 1,146,797 2.85

Page C.2-411
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.12. TGPC Compressor Station 230-C (Lockport NY)
4.12a. Facility Profile
Table 4.12a.
TGPC Compressor Station 230-C
Lockport NY
Facility name, short TGPC Compressor Station 230-C
Facility name, full TGPC CS 230-C
EIS Facility ID 7417311
DEC Region 9
County Niagara
Town Lockport
Village \ Hamlet
Address 5186 Lockport Junction Rd
Zip 14094
DEC Permit Type Air State Facility
DEC Facility ID 9292000008
DEC Permit ID 9-2920-00008/00015
DEC Permit Effective Date 12/2/2014
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project by TGP/Kinder Morgan, which is related to
National Fuel's Northern Access Project.
Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 18,000
(4) 4,500 HP Solar Centaur H compressor turbines
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-412
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.12b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.12b.
TGPC Compressor Station 230-C: Facility Releases by Health Effects
Lockport NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 16 23 9,972 69,806 0.73
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 16 22 7,013 49,091 0.52
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 16 7 369 2,580 0.18
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 16 14 399 2,792 0.19
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 16 20 7,007 49,046 0.52
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 17 18 5,958 41,706 0.48
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 11 3 5 36 0.14
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 7 8 112 783 2.86
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 15 11 5,817 40,722 0.94
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 15 10 4,771 33,396 0.88
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 10 2 2 16 0.33
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 11 3 6 44 0.17
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 16 5 274 1,915 0.14
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 16 12 353 2,469 0.17
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 16 11 375 2,626 0.18
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 16 6 282 1,972 0.14
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 6 5 137 962 2.89
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 15 16 5,882 41,174 0.94
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 11 2 48 333 0.80
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 11 11 70 487 0.29
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 16 14 382 2,671 0.18
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 15 17 22,498 157,488 0.83
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 16 20 5,433 38,028 0.53
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 15 16 22,498 157,487 0.83
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 15 19 25,460 178,218 0.93
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 16 19 42,774 299,420 1.21
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 15 10 22,205 155,432 0.89
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 15 15 25,902 181,314 1.12
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 16 24 68,325 478,274 1.21
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 16 21 66,076 462,535 1.20
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 16 22 48,326 338,285 1.22
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 13 9 2,305 16,133 1.31
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 16 21 66,406 464,840 1.16
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 17 14 1,428 9,997 0.16
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 16 20 66,405 464,837 1.16
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 14 10 38,680 270,758 1.38
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 14 14 44,297 310,080 1.38
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 16 24 68,322 478,255 1.21
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 16 22 68,321 478,245 1.21
Total Releases 16 27 69,373 485,610 1.21

Page C.2-413
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.13. TGPC Compressor Station 233 (York NY)
4.13a. Facility Profile
Table 4.13a.
TGPC Compressor Station 233
York NY
Facility name, short TGPC Compressor Station 233
Facility name, full TGPC CS 233
EIS Facility ID 8471211
DEC Region 8
County Livingston
Town York
Village \ Hamlet Piffard
Address 2262 Dow Rd
Zip 14533
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 8245200008
DEC Permit ID 8-2452-00008/00007
DEC Permit Effective Date 10/28/2015
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project by TGP/Kinder Morgan, which is
related to National Fuel's Northern Access Project.
Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 9,000
(2) 4,500 HP compressor engines
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-414
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.13b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.13b.
TGPC Compressor Station 233: Facility Releases by Health Effects
York NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 18 23 3,492 24,447 0.26
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 18 22 3,395 23,762 0.25
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 17 7 263 1,841 0.13
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 17 14 278 1,945 0.13
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 18 20 3,391 23,740 0.25
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 18 18 2,867 20,069 0.23
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 12 3 4 28 0.10
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 9 8 72 502 1.83
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 17 11 4,455 31,182 0.72
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 17 10 3,669 25,686 0.68
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 18 2 0.00
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 12 3 5 32 0.12
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 17 5 195 1,363 0.10
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 17 12 248 1,733 0.12
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 17 11 268 1,874 0.13
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 17 6 189 1,320 0.09
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 8 5 94 659 1.98
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 17 16 4,510 31,567 0.72
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 12 2 40 283 0.68
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 12 11 45 314 0.19
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 17 14 263 1,843 0.13
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 18 17 6,638 46,465 0.25
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 18 20 1,159 8,114 0.11
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 18 16 6,638 46,464 0.25
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 18 19 6,737 47,158 0.25
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 18 19 23,203 162,421 0.65
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 18 10 6,505 45,534 0.26
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 18 15 8,572 60,007 0.37
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 18 24 31,616 221,312 0.56
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 18 21 30,446 213,124 0.55
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 18 22 26,048 182,337 0.66
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 14 9 1,802 12,614 1.02
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 18 21 32,039 224,273 0.56
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 18 14 537 3,762 0.06
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 18 20 32,039 224,271 0.56
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 17 10 22,714 158,999 0.81
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 17 14 25,582 179,073 0.80
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 18 24 31,615 221,306 0.56
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 18 22 31,615 221,303 0.56
Total Releases 18 27 32,140 224,978 0.56

Page C.2-415
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 18 23 3,492 24,447 0.26
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 18 22 3,395 23,762 0.25
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 17 7 263 1,841 0.13
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 17 14 278 1,945 0.13
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 18 20 3,391 23,740 0.25
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 18 18 2,867 20,069 0.23
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 12 3 4 28 0.10
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 9 8 72 502 1.83
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 17 11 4,455 31,182 0.72
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 17 10 3,669 25,686 0.68
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 18 2 0.00
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 12 3 5 32 0.12
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 17 5 195 1,363 0.10
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 17 12 248 1,733 0.12
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 17 11 268 1,874 0.13
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 17 6 189 1,320 0.09
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 8 5 94 659 1.98
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic,
related
C81-C96 17 16 4,510 31,567 0.72
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 12 2 40 283 0.68
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 12 11 45 314 0.19
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 17 14 263 1,843 0.13
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 18 17 6,638 46,465 0.25
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 18 20 1,159 8,114 0.11
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 18 16 6,638 46,464 0.25
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 18 19 6,737 47,158 0.25
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 18 19 23,203 162,421 0.65
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 18 10 6,505 45,534 0.26
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 18 15 8,572 60,007 0.37
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 18 24 31,616 221,312 0.56
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 18 21 30,446 213,124 0.55
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 18 22 26,048 182,337 0.66
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 14 9 1,802 12,614 1.02
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 18 21 32,039 224,273 0.56
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 18 14 537 3,762 0.06
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 18 20 32,039 224,271 0.56
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 17 10 22,714 158,999 0.81
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 17 14 25,582 179,073 0.80
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal
abnormalities
Q00-Q99 18 24 31,615 221,306 0.56
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 18 22 31,615 221,303 0.56
Total Releases 18 27 32,140 224,978 0.56

Page C.2-416
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.14. TGPC Compressor Station 237 (Manchester, Phelps NY)
4.14a. Facility Profile
Table 4.14a.
TGPC Compressor Station 237
Manchester, Phelps NY
Facility name, short TGPC Compressor Station 237
Facility name, full TGPC CS 237
EIS Facility ID 7210411
DEC Region 8 -- Western Finger Lakes
County Ontario
Town Manchester, Phelps
Village \ Hamlet Clifton Springs
Address 2001 Archer Road
Zip 14432
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 323400013
DEC Permit ID 8-3234-00013/00011
DEC Permit Effective Date 6/14/2016
DEC Permit Description Renewal of the Title V Facility Permit originally issued November 23, 1999
and previously renewed October 4, 2010.
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project by TGP/Kinder Morgan, which is
related to National Fuel's Northern Access Project.
Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 8,000
(1) 4,000 HP reciprocating ngfce, (2) 2,000 HP reciprocating ngfce

Page C.2-417
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.14b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.14b.
TGPC Compressor Station 237: Facility Releases by Health Effects
Manchester, Phelps NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 6 7 97,331 681,320 7.11
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 6 6 97,146 680,023 7.24
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 6 1 16,708 116,956 8.12
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 6 2 16,709 116,964 8.00
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 6 5 97,145 680,015 7.26
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 6 4 91,916 643,411 7.34
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 5 5 42,837 299,859 6.92
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 5 4 37,608 263,255 6.94
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 6 1 16,708 116,956 8.35
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 6 2 16,709 116,964 8.12
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 6 2 16,709 116,964 8.00
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 6 1 16,708 116,956 8.29
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 5 4 42,836 299,851 6.84
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 6 2 16,709 116,964 8.05
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 5 4 195,395 1,367,764 7.25
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 6 5 76,433 535,029 7.47
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 5 4 195,395 1,367,764 7.25
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 5 5 195,580 1,369,061 7.16
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 8 5 177,838 1,244,864 5.01
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 5 3 178,687 1,250,808 7.16
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 5 5 161,984 1,133,891 6.98
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 6 8 323,113 2,261,791 5.70
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 6 7 313,810 2,196,672 5.71
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 8 8 203,966 1,427,759 5.15
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 5 2 13,956 97,690 7.92
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 6 8 328,157 2,297,097 5.75
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 6 3 71,018 497,128 7.75
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 6 8 328,157 2,297,097 5.75
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 7 3 123,343 863,403 4.40
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 7 5 149,470 1,046,290 4.65
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 6 8 323,113 2,261,791 5.71
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 6 8 323,113 2,261,791 5.70
Total Releases 6 9 328,342 2,298,394 5.72

Page C.2-418
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.15. TGPC Compressor Station 241 (LaFayette NY)
4.15a. Facility Profile
Table 4.15a.
TGPC Compressor Station 241
LaFayette NY
Facility name, short TGPC Compressor Station 241
Facility name, full TGPC CS 241
EIS Facility ID 7436111
DEC Region 7 -- Central New York
County Onondaga
Town LaFayette
Village \ Hamlet
Address 3447 Sentinel Heights Rd
Zip 13084
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 7313400022
DEC Permit ID 7-3134-00022/00011
DEC Permit Effective Date 1/23/2012
DEC Permit Description Title V Renewal and a modification to revise to the condition requiring that
TGP comply with 6 NYCRR Part 212.
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project by TGP/Kinder Morgan, which is
related to National Fuel's Northern Access Project.
Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 6,800 HP

Page C.2-419
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.15b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.15b.
TGPC Compressor Station 241: Facility Releases by Health Effects
LaFayette NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 3 40 162,854 1,139,976 11.89
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 3 37 159,625 1,117,378 11.89
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 2 8 26,645 186,512 12.95
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 2 29 26,850 187,951 12.85
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 3 25 159,204 1,114,430 11.90
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 3 22 149,626 1,047,383 11.95
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 7 7 86 602 2.26
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 8 7 85 595 2.18
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 4 19 72,893 510,251 11.77
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 4 17 63,931 447,517 11.80
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 5 3 32 222 4.54
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 7 2 82 572 2.19
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 3 10 25,626 179,381 12.81
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 2 17 26,713 186,990 12.98
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 2 17 26,839 187,876 12.85
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 3 7 25,649 179,540 12.72
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 9 3 72 507 1.52
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 4 22 73,255 512,783 11.69
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 8 3 99 690 1.65
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 5 20 1,801 12,605 7.62
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 2 27 26,809 187,665 12.91
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 3 24 278,616 1,950,313 10.33
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 3 32 124,938 874,563 12.22
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 3 26 278,597 1,950,179 10.33
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 3 33 282,459 1,977,210 10.34
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 4 30 222,020 1,554,140 6.26
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 3 11 251,763 1,762,343 10.09
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 3 22 229,876 1,609,133 9.90
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 4 37 425,243 2,976,701 7.51
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 4 34 406,862 2,848,035 7.40
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 4 34 268,300 1,878,097 6.77
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 4 12 17,983 125,878 10.21
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 4 33 430,379 3,012,652 7.54
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 3 25 112,696 788,872 12.30
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 4 29 430,367 3,012,569 7.54
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 6 15 132,651 928,556 4.73
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 6 15 178,380 1,248,662 5.55
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 4 41 425,236 2,976,652 7.51
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 4 33 425,231 2,976,619 7.51
Total Releases 4 48 434,237 3,039,661 7.56

Page C.2-420
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.16. TGPC Compressor Station 245 (Winfield NY)
4.16a. Facility Profile
Table 4.16a.
TGPC Compressor Station 245
Winfield NY
Facility name, short TGPC Compressor Station 245
Facility name, full TGPC CS 245
EIS Facility ID 8035411
DEC Region 6 -- Western Adirondacks / Eastern Lake Ontario
County Herkimer
Town Winfield
Village \ Hamlet West Winfield
Address 457 Burrows Rd
Zip 13491
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 6215600018
DEC Permit ID 6-2156-00018/00021
DEC Permit Effective Date 4/1/2015
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project by TGP/Kinder Morgan, which is
related to National Fuel's Northern Access Project.
Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 7,000
(5) 1,400 hp Worthington UTC-165, 2-Stroke Lean Burn(2SLB) compressor
engine
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-421
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.16b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.16b.
TGPC Compressor Station 245: Facility Releases by Health Effects
Winfield NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 3 40 162,854 1,139,976 11.89
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 3 37 159,625 1,117,378 11.89
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 2 8 26,645 186,512 12.95
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 2 29 26,850 187,951 12.85
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 3 25 159,204 1,114,430 11.90
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 3 22 149,626 1,047,383 11.95
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 7 7 86 602 2.26
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 8 7 85 595 2.18
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 4 19 72,893 510,251 11.77
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 4 17 63,931 447,517 11.80
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 5 3 32 222 4.54
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 7 2 82 572 2.19
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 3 10 25,626 179,381 12.81
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 2 17 26,713 186,990 12.98
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 2 17 26,839 187,876 12.85
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 3 7 25,649 179,540 12.72
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 9 3 72 507 1.52
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 4 22 73,255 512,783 11.69
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 8 3 99 690 1.65
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 5 20 1,801 12,605 7.62
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 2 27 26,809 187,665 12.91
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 3 24 278,616 1,950,313 10.33
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 3 32 124,938 874,563 12.22
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 3 26 278,597 1,950,179 10.33
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 3 33 282,459 1,977,210 10.34
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 4 30 222,020 1,554,140 6.26
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 3 11 251,763 1,762,343 10.09
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 3 22 229,876 1,609,133 9.90
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 4 37 425,243 2,976,701 7.51
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 4 34 406,862 2,848,035 7.40
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 4 34 268,300 1,878,097 6.77
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 4 12 17,983 125,878 10.21
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 4 33 430,379 3,012,652 7.54
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 3 25 112,696 788,872 12.30
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 4 29 430,367 3,012,569 7.54
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 6 15 132,651 928,556 4.73
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 6 15 178,380 1,248,662 5.55
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 4 41 425,236 2,976,652 7.51
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 4 33 425,231 2,976,619 7.51
Total Releases 4 48 434,237 3,039,661 7.56

Page C.2-422
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.17. TGPC Compressor Station 249 (Carlisle NY)
4.17a. Facility Profile
Table 4.17a.
TGPC Compressor Station 249
Carlisle NY
Facility name, short TGPC Compressor Station 249
Facility name, full TGPC CS 249
EIS Facility ID 8435311
DEC Region 4
County Schoharie
Town Carlisle
Village \ Hamlet
Address 2480 US Route 20
Zip 12031
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Facility ID 4432400005
DEC Permit ID 4-4324-00005/00007
DEC Permit Effective Date 11/6/2015
DEC Permit Description Renewal of the Title V permit.
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project by TGP/Kinder Morgan, which is
related to National Fuel's Northern Access Project.
Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 9,100 HP

Total estimated releases (2008-2014): pounds
Total estimated releases (2008-2014): rank

Page C.2-423
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.17b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.17b.
TGPC Compressor Station 249: Facility Releases by Health Effects
Carlisle NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 2 41 194,333 1,360,334 14.19
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 2 38 190,789 1,335,524 14.21
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 3 8 22,754 159,281 11.06
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 3 30 22,925 160,478 10.97
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 2 26 190,447 1,333,127 14.23
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 2 23 176,886 1,238,204 14.12
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 8 7 71 495 1.86
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 10 8 70 493 1.80
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 2 19 92,653 648,571 14.96
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 2 17 79,589 557,125 14.69
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 7 3 26 183 3.73
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 8 2 66 461 1.77
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 4 10 21,935 153,543 10.97
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 3 18 22,813 159,689 11.08
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 3 18 22,912 160,382 10.97
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 4 7 21,956 153,691 10.89
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 10 3 58 409 1.23
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 2 23 92,946 650,622 14.83
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 9 3 80 560 1.34
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 6 21 1,454 10,181 6.15
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 3 28 22,890 160,231 11.02
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 2 25 299,200 2,094,397 11.09
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 2 34 136,996 958,972 13.39
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 2 27 299,178 2,094,247 11.10
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 2 34 303,242 2,122,695 11.10
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 3 31 368,833 2,581,834 10.40
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 2 12 276,272 1,933,902 11.07
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 2 23 258,460 1,809,220 11.13
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 3 38 604,524 4,231,665 10.67
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 3 35 576,081 4,032,565 10.48
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 3 35 438,754 3,071,281 11.07
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 2 13 28,130 196,907 15.97
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 3 34 613,568 4,294,974 10.75
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 2 26 120,350 842,447 13.14
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 3 30 613,556 4,294,893 10.75
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 3 16 267,623 1,873,364 9.54
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 3 16 337,101 2,359,705 10.48
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 3 43 604,523 4,231,660 10.67
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 3 34 604,520 4,231,638 10.67
Total Releases 3 50 617,612 4,323,285 10.76

Page C.2-424
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.18. TGPC Compressor Station 254 (Chatham NY)
4.18a. Facility Profile
Table 4.18a.
TGPC Compressor Station 254
Chatham NY
Facility name, short TGPC Compressor Station 254
Facility name, full TGPC CS 254
EIS Facility ID 8525311
DEC Region 4
County Columbia
Town Chatham
Village \ Hamlet Riders-Mills
Address ST Rte 66 -- E Side S of County Line
Zip 12123
DEC Facility ID 4102600037
DEC Permit Type Air Title V Facility
DEC Permit ID 4-1026-00037/00029
DEC Permit Effective Date 8/11/2014
DEC Permit Description
DEC Permit Review Report
Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Project Part of the Niagara Expansion Project by TGP/Kinder Morgan, which is
related to National Fuel's Northern Access Project.
Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Principal Supply Source
System Configuration (Primary/Secondary)
Status Operational
Horsepower, existing 10,475
(1) gas turbine, (6) reciprocating engines

Page C.2-425
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
4.18b. Health Effects of Facility Releases
Table 4.18b.
TGPC Compressor Station 254: Facility Releases by Health Effects
Chatham NY
International Classification of Disease, 10th edition State Ch 2008-14 Estimated Lbs. % of
Chapter Description Code Rank # Average Total State
2 Neoplasms C00-D48 9 23 57,856 404,994 4.23
2a Malignant neoplasms C00-C97 9 22 56,750 397,251 4.23
2a.1 Lip, oral cavity and pharynx C00-C14 13 7 4,723 33,063 2.30
2a.2 Digestive organs C15-C26 13 14 4,732 33,124 2.26
2a.3 Respiratory system and intrathoracic organs C30-C39 9 20 56,703 396,923 4.24
2a.4 Bone and articular cartilage C40-C41 10 18 52,602 368,212 4.20
2a.5 Skin C43-C44 10 3 33 234 0.88
2a.6 Connective and soft tissue C45-C49 4 8 298 2,088 7.64
2a.07 Breast and female genital organs C50-C58 9 11 25,754 180,276 4.16
2a.07.50 Female breast C50 9 10 21,664 151,648 4.00
2a.07.55 Uterus C55 15 2 0.00
2a.07.56 Ovary C56 10 3 34 237 0.91
2a.08 Male genital organs C60-C63 13 5 4,382 30,671 2.19
2a.09 Urinary organs C64-C68 13 12 4,607 32,249 2.24
2a.10 Eye, brain and central nervous system C69-C72 13 11 4,770 33,391 2.28
2a.11 Endocrine glands and related structures C73-C75 14 6 4,234 29,641 2.10
2a.12 Secondary and ill-defined C76-C80 4 5 642 4,497 13.50
2a.13 Stated or presumed to be primary, of lymphoid, haematopoietic, related C81-C96 9 16 26,113 182,788 4.17
2a.14 Independent (primary) multiple sites C97 -- 0 0 0 0.00
2b In situ neoplasms D00-D09 5 2 392 2,743 6.56
2c Benign neoplasms D10-D36 10 11 265 1,854 1.12
2d Neoplasms of uncertain or unknown behavior D37-D48 13 14 4,660 32,623 2.24
3 Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders
involving the immune mechanism
D50-D89 6 17 161,398 1,129,784 5.98
4 Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases E00-E90 9 20 40,522 283,651 3.96
5 Mental and behavioral disorders F00-F99 6 16 161,398 1,129,784 5.99
6 Diseases of the nervous system G00-G99 6 19 162,516 1,137,610 5.95
7 Diseases of the eye and adnexa H00-H59 5 19 194,478 1,361,349 5.48
8 Diseases of the ear and mastoid process H60-H95 6 10 157,064 1,099,446 6.30
9 Diseases of the circulatory system I00-I99 6 15 147,900 1,035,300 6.37
10 Diseases of the respiratory system J00-J99 5 24 337,862 2,365,031 5.97
11 Diseases of the digestive system K00-K93 5 21 329,499 2,306,496 6.00
12 Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue L00-L99 5 22 215,885 1,511,192 5.45
13 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue M00-M99 9 9 8,668 60,676 4.92
14 Diseases of the genitourinary system N00-N99 5 21 340,832 2,385,827 5.97
14a Diseases of the genitourinary system: urinary system N00-N39 11 14 35,305 247,133 3.85
14b Diseases of the genitourinary system: pelvis, genitals and breasts N40-N99 5 20 340,830 2,385,810 5.97
15 Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium O00-O99 4 10 162,679 1,138,751 5.80
16 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period P00-P96 4 14 184,151 1,289,056 5.73
17 Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities Q00-Q99 5 24 337,861 2,365,027 5.97
18 Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, nec R00-R99 5 22 337,861 2,365,025 5.97
Total Releases 5 27 341,952 2,393,661 5.96

Page C.2-426
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
References
Andersen 2011. Andersen LK. Global climate change and its dermatological diseases. Int J
Dermatol. 2011 May;50(5):601-3.
Andersen et al. 2012. Andersen LK, Hercogová J, Wollina U, Davis MD. Climate change and skin disease:
a review of the English-language literature. Int J Dermatol. 2012 Jun;51(6):656-61.
Applebaum et al. 2016. Applebaum KM, Graham J, Gray GM, LaPuma P, McCormick SA, Northcross A,
Perry MJ. An Overview of Occupational Risks from Climate Change. Curr Environ
Health Rep. 2016 Mar;3(1):13-22.
Balato et al. 2013. Balato N, Ayala F, Megna M, Balato A, Patruno C. Climate change and skin. G Ital
Dermatol Venereol. 2013 Feb;148(1):135-46. Review.
Bamberger and Oswald 2014. Bamberger M, Oswald RE. Unconventional oil and gas extraction and animal
health. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2014 Aug;16(8):1860-5.
Barne et al. 2013. Barne C, Alexis NE, Bernstein JA, Cohn JR, Demain JG, Horner E, Levetin E, Nei A,
Phipatanakul W. Climate change and our environment: the effect on respiratory
and allergic disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2013 Mar;1(2):137-41.
Beck et al. 1977. Beck BE, Wood CD, Whenham GR. Triaryl phosphate poisoning in cattle. Vet
Pathol. 1977 Mar;14(2):128-37.
Behrendt and Ring 2012. Behrendt H, Ring J. Climate change, environment and allergy. Chem Immunol
Allergy. 2012;96:7-14.
Belpomme et al. 2007. Belpomme D, Irigaray P, Hardell L, Clapp R, Montagnier L, Epstein S, Sasco AJ. The
multitude and diversity of environmental carcinogens. Environ Res. 2007
Nov;105(3):414-29
Bernstein et al. 2011. Bernstein AS, Myers SS. Climate change and children's health. Curr Opin Pediatr.
2011 Apr;23(2):221-6.
Bielory et al. 2012 Bielory L, Lyons K, Goldberg R. Climate change and allergic disease. Curr Allergy
Asthma Rep. 2012 Dec;12(6):485-94
Bouzid et al. 2014. Bouzid M, Colón-González FJ, Lung T, Lake IR, Hunter PR. Climate change and the
emergence of vector-borne diseases in Europe: case study of dengue fever. BMC
Public Health. 2014 Aug 22;14:781.
Boyle et a. 2017. Boyle MD, Soneja S, Quirós-Alcalá L, Dalemarre L, Sapkota AR, Sangaramoorthy T,
Wilson S, Milton D, Sapkota A. A pilot study to assess residential noise exposure
near natural gas compressor stations. PLoS One. 2017 Apr 3;12(4):e0174310
Brown et al. 2015. Brown DR, Lewis C, Weinberger BI. Human exposure to unconventional natural
gas development: A public health demonstration of periodic high exposure to
chemical mixtures in ambient air. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ
Eng. 2015;50(5):460-72.
Bunkley et al. 2017. Bunkley JP, McClure CJW, Kawahara AY, Francis CD, Barber JR. Anthropogenic
noise changes arthropod abundances. Ecol Evol. 2017 Mar 23;7(9):2977-2985.
Page C.2-427
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Caminade et al. 2014. Caminade C, Kovats S, Rocklov J, Tompkins AM, Morse AP, Colón-González FJ,
Stenlund H, Martens P, Lloyd SJ. Impact of climate change on global malaria
distribution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Mar 4;111(9):3286-91
CHPNY 2015. Letters to Governor Cuomo and Health Commissioner Howard A. Zucker from
Concerned Health Professionals of New York, Physicians for Social Responsibility -
- U.S., Physicians for Social Responsibility -- New York (October 14, 2015, May 29,
2014, February 27, 2013, October 4, 2012, March 16, 2012, December 12, 2011,
October 5, 2011, March 26, 2011, February 28, 2011).
http://concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/New-York-
Infrastructure-10-13-15-SIGS.pdf
Christiani 2011. Christiani DC. Combating environmental causes of cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar
3;364(9):791-3.
Clapp et al. 2008. Clapp RW, Jacobs MM, Loechler EL. Environmental and occupational causes of
cancer: new evidence 2005-2007. Rev Environ Health. 2008 Jan-Mar;23(1):1-37.
Clark 195. Clark HM. The Occurrence of an Unusually High-Level Radioactive Rainout in the
Area of Troy, N.Y. Science. 1954 May 7;119(3097):619-22.
Clark et al. 2016. Clark P, et al. Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial
climate and sea-level change. Nature Climate Change 2016;(6):360–369.
Confalonieri et al. 2015. Confalonieri UE, Menezes JA, Margonari de Souza C. Climate change and
adaptation of the health sector: The case of infectious diseases. Virulence.
2015;6(6):554-7.
De Blois et al. 2015. De Blois J, Kjellstrom T, Agewall S, Ezekowitz JA, Armstrong PW, Atar D. The
Effects of Climate Change on Cardiac Health. Cardiology. 2015;131(4):209-17.
Doll and Peto 1981. Doll R, Peto R. The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of
cancer in the United States today. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981 Jun;66(6):1191-308.
Doll and Peto 1981. Doll R, Peto R. The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of
cancer in the United States today. J Natl Cancer Inst 1981(66):1191-1308.
Dominion 2016. New Market Project: New York project, built by New York contractor for New York
customers.
https://www.dominionenergy.com/about-us/news-center/natural-gas-projects-
and-initiatives/new-market-project
Dove 2016. Dove A. Is replacing coal with natural gas actually good for the climate? Phys.org.
November 7, 2016.
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-coal-natural-gas-good-climate.html
EIA 2007-11. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas. Natural Gas Compressor
Stations on the Interstate Pipeline Network: Developments Since 1996. November
2007.
Feely et al. 1988. Feely HW, et al. Fallout in the New York metropolitan area following the
Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 1988. 7(2):177-191.
Friedrich 2016. Friedrich T, Timmermann A, Tigchelaar M, Timm OE, Ganopolski A. Nonlinear
climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming. Science
Advances. 09 November 2016;2(11),31501923
Page C.2-428
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Gamble et al. 2013. Gamble JL, Hurley BJ, Schultz PA, Jaglom WS, Krishnan N, Harris M. Climate
change and older Americans: state of the science. Environ Health Perspect. 2013
Jan;121(1):15-22.
García et al. 2008. García J, Migoya E, Lana JA, Crespo A. Study of the dispersion of natural gas
issuing from compressor stations through silencers with upper cover. J Hazard
Mater. 2008 Apr 15;152(3):1060-72
Gerardi DA, Kellerman RA. Climate change and respiratory health. J Occup Environ Med. 2014 Oct;56 Suppl
10:S49-54.
Gislason 2014. Gislason MK. Climate change, health and infectious disease. Virulence.
2015;6(6):539-42.
Glikson 2010. Glikson A. CO2 Mass Extinction of Species and Climate Change.
Countercurrents.org. 22 February 2010.
Goetz et al. 2015. Goetz JD, Floerchinger C, Fortner EC, Wormhoudt J, Massoli P, Knighton WB,
Herndon SC, Kolb CE, Knipping E, Shaw SL, DeCarlo PF. Atmospheric emission
characterization of Marcellus shale natural gas development sites. Environ Sci
Technol. 2015 Jun 2;49(11):7012-20.
Goodman et al. 2013. Goodman JE, Prueitt RL, Sax SN, Bailey LA, Rhomberg LR. Evaluation of the causal
framework used for setting national ambient air quality standards. Crit Rev
Toxicol. 2013 Nov;43(10):829-49.
Gould 1990 Gould P. Fire in the Rain: The Dramatic Consequences of Chernobyl. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1990.
Grossman 2015. Grossman D. Big Oil and Gas Emissions out West – New Report Sizes Up Methane
Problem on Federal and Tribal Lands. Environmental Defense Fund. June 25,
2015.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2015/06/23/big-oil-and-gas-emissions-out-
west-new-report-sizes-methane-problem-on-federal-and-tribal-lands/
Hatch et al. 2005. Hatch M, Ron E, Bouville A, Zablotska L, Howe, G. The Chernobyl Disaster: Cancer
following the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Epidemiol Rev
(2005) 27 (1): 56-66.
Heffernan 2013. Heffernan C. The climate change-infectious disease nexus: is it time for climate
change syndemics? Anim Health Res Rev. 2013 Dec;14(2):151-4.
Heller 2003. Heller B. A Good Day Has No Rain. '' Albany NY: Whitston Publishing, 2003.
Hill and Hill 2002. The People’s Law Dictionary. Fine Communications.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1586
Huang et al. 2015. Huang YB, Song FJ, Liu Q, Li WQ, Zhang W, Chen KX. A bird's eye view of the air
pollution-cancer link in China. Chin J Cancer. 2014 Apr;33(4):176-88.
Kelso 2015. Kelso, M. Updated National Well Data. Fracktraker.
https://www.fractracker.org/2015/08/1-7-million-wells/
Koivusalo et al. 1997. Koivusalo M, Pukkala E, Vartiainen T, Jaakkola JJ, Hakulinen T. Drinking water
chlorination and cancer-a historical cohort study in Finland. Cancer Causes
Control. 1997 Mar;8(2):192-200.
Page C.2-429
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Lade 1053. Lade JH. Effect of 1953 Fallout in Troy, New York, upon Milk and Children's
Thyroids. Science. 1962 Nov 9;138(3541):732-3.
Lade 1964. Lade JH. More on the 1953 fallout in Troy. Science. 1964 Mar 6;143(3610):994-5.
Lakoff 2012. Global Warming Systemically Caused Hurricane Sandy. November 2, 2012.
https://georgelakoff.com/category/misc/
Lan et al. 2015. Lan X, Talbot R, Laine P, Torres A, Lefer B, Flynn J. Atmospheric Mercury in the
Barnett Shale Area, Texas: Implications for Emissions from Oil and Gas Processing.
Environ Sci Technol. 2015 Sep 1;49(17):10692-700.
Lavoie et al. 2015. Lavoie TN, Shepson PB, Cambaliza MO, Stirm BH, Karion A, Sweeney C, Yacovitch
TI, Herndon SC, Lan X, Lyon D. Aircraft-Based Measurements of Point Source
Methane Emissions in the Barnett Shale Basin. Environ Sci Technol. 2015 Jul
7;49(13):7904-13
Lichtenstein et al. 2000. Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, Iliadou A, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M, Pukkala
E, Skytthe A, Hemminki K. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of
cancer--analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J
Med. 2000 Jul 13;343(2):78-85.
Lin et al. 2012. Lin GC, Zacharek MA. Climate change and its impact on allergic rhinitis and other
allergic respiratory diseases. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012
Jun;20(3):188-93
Lin et al. 2012. Lin S, Hsu WH, Van Zutphen AR, Saha S, Luber G, Hwang SA. Excessive heat and
respiratory hospitalizations in New York State: estimating current and future
public health burden related to climate change. Environ Health Perspect. 2012
Nov;120(11):1571-7.
Litto et al. 2012. Litto R, Hayes RE, Liu B. Capturing fugitive methane emissions from natural gas
compressor buildings. J Environ Manage. 2007 Aug;84(3):347-61
Liu et al. 2014. Liu E, Li C, Yang Y. Optimal energy consumption analysis of natural gas pipeline.
ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:506138.
Lovinsky-Desir et al. 2016. Lovinsky-Desir S, Miller RL, Bautista J, Gil EN, Chillrud SN, Yan B, Camann D, Perera
FP, Jung KH. Differences in Ambient Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Concentrations between Streets and Alleys in New York City: Open Space vs.
Semi-Closed Space. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Jan 12;13(1). pii: E127.
Mauderly et al. 2010. Mauderly JL, Burnett RT, Castillejos M, Ozkaynak H, Samet JM, Stieb DM, Vedal S,
Wyzga RE. Is the air pollution health research community prepared to support a
multipollutant air quality management framework? Inhal Toxicol. 2010 Jun;22
Suppl 1:1-19.
Mayfield et al. 2017. Mayfield EN, Robinson AL, Cohon JL. System-wide and Superemitter Policy
Options for the Abatement of Methane Emissions from the U.S. Natural Gas
System. Environ Sci Technol. 2017 May 2;51(9):4772-4780.
Maynard et al. 1995. Maynard RL, Cameron KM, Fielder R, McDonald A, Wadge A. Setting air quality
standards for carcinogens: an alternative to mathematical quantitative risk
assessment--discussion paper. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1995 Feb;14(2):175-86.
Page C.2-430
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
McClellan 2012. McClellan RO. Role of science and judgment in setting national ambient air quality
standards: how low is low enough? Air Qual Atmos Health. 2012 Jun;5(2):243-
258.
McKenzie et al. 2014. McKenzie LM, Guo R, Witter RZ, Savitz DA, Newman LS, Adgate JL. Birth outcomes
and maternal residential proximity to natural gas development in rural Colorado.
Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Apr;122(4):412-7.
Medical Professionals 2016. Letter to Mr. Christopher Hogan, NYSDEC, Division of Environmental Permits from
14 NYS Physicians (September 12, 2016).
http://www.otsego2000.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Medical-
professionals-statement-DEC-9-12-16.pdf
Medlock and Leach 2014. Medlock JM, Leach SA. Effect of climate change on vector-borne disease risk in
the UK. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Jun;15(6):721-30
Memmott 2016. Memmott J. Remembering when radioactive snow worried Kodak. Democrat &
Chronicle, January 19, 2016.
Milham and Stetzer 2017. Milham S, Stetzer D. Tumor-specific frequencies and ocular melanoma.
Electromagn Biol Med. 2017;36(2):149-153.
MOF Public Statement: Mothers Out Front Mobilizing for a Livable Climate (Monroe
County NY).
http://mothersoutfrontmonroecounty.nationbuilder.com/health_impacts_of_co
mpressor_stations_other_gas_infrastructure
Mohamed et al. 2016. Mohamed O, Wang J, Khalil A, Limhabrash M. Predictive control strategy of a gas
turbine for improvement of combined cycle power plant dynamic performance
and efficiency. Springerplus. 2016 Jul 4;5(1):980.
Mokdad et al. 2004. Mokdad AH, Dwyer-Lindgren L, Fitzmaurice C, Stubbs RW, Bertozzi-Villa A,
Morozoff C, Charara R, Allen C, Naghavi M, Murray CJ. Trends and Patterns of
Disparities in Cancer Mortality Among US Counties, 1980-2014. JAMA. 2017 Jan
24;317(4):388-406.
Moskowitz 2015. Moskowitz P. New report estimates enough natural gas is leaking to negate
climate benefits: Natural gas drilling only has environmental benefits over other
processes like coal and oil production if producers can keep a tight lid on leaks.
The Guardian. June 24, 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/natural-gas-leaks-
methane-environment
Nathan et al. 2015. Nathan BJ, Golston LM, O'Brien AS, Ross K, Harrison WA, Tao L, Lary DJ, Johnson
DR, Covington AN, Clark NN, Zondlo MA. Near-Field Characterization of Methane
Emission Variability from a Compressor Station Using a Model Aircraft. Environ Sci
Technol. 2015 Jul 7;49(13):7896-903
NYAS 2014. National Academy of Science published Health Impact Assessment of Shale Gas
Extraction: Workshop Summary 2014.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18376/health-impact-assessment-of-shale-gas-
extraction-workshop-summary
NYSDOH 2014. NYS DOH published A Public Health Review of High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing
for Shale Gas Development.
Page C.2-431
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
https://www.health.ny.gov/press/reports/docs/high_volume_hydraulic_fracturin
g.pdf
Ogden et al. 2014. Ogden NH, Radojevic M, Wu X, Duvvuri VR, Leighton PA, Wu J. Estimated effects
of projected climate change on the basic reproductive number of the Lyme
disease vector Ixodes scapularis. Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Jun;122(6):631-8.
Parham et al. 2014. Parham PE, Waldock J, Christophides GK, Michael E. Climate change and vector-
borne diseases of humans. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Apr
5;370(1665). pii: 20140377.
Parrish H, et al. 2008. Parrish Horstwood M, Arnason JG, Chenery S, Brewer T, Lloyd NS, Carpenter DO.
Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after
approximately 20 years: implications for human health assessment. Sci Total
Environ. 2008 Feb 1;390(1):58-68.
Payne et al. 2017. Payne BF Jr, Ackley R, Paige Wicker A, Hildenbrand ZL, Carlton DD Jr, Schug KA.
Characterization of methane plumes downwind of natural gas compressor
stations in Pennsylvania and New York. Sci Total Environ. 2017 Feb 15;580:1214-
1221.
Pekney et al. 2014. Pekney NJ, Veloski G, Reeder M, Tamilia J, Rupp E, Wetzel A. Measurement of
atmospheric pollutants associated with oil and natural gas exploration and
production activity in Pennsylvania's Allegheny National Forest. J Air Waste
Manag Assoc. 2014 Sep;64(9):1062-72.
Prüss-Ustün et al. 2016. Prüss-Ustün A, Wolf J, Corvalán C, Neville T, Bos R, Neira M. Diseases due to
unhealthy environments: an updated estimate of the global burden of disease
attributable to environmental determinants of health. J Public Health (Oxf). 2016
Sep 12.
Rice et al. 2014. Rice MB, Thurston GD, Balmes JR, Pinkerton KE. Climate change. A global threat
to cardiopulmonary health. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Mar 1;189(5):512-9.
Rodríguez-Morales 2013. Rodríguez-Morales AJ. Climate change, climate variability and brucellosis. Recent
Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov. 2013 Apr;8(1):4-12.
Schottenfeld et al. 2013. Schottenfeld D, Beebe-Dimmer JL, Buffler PA, Omenn GS. Current perspective on
the global and United States cancer burden attributable to lifestyle and
environmental risk factors. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:97-117.
Shuman 2011. Shuman EK. Global climate change and infectious diseases. Int J Occup Environ
Med. 2011 Jan;2(1):11-9. Review.
Subramanian et al. 2015. Subramanian R, Williams LL, Vaughn TL, Zimmerle D, Roscioli JR, Herndon SC,
Yacovitch TI, Floerchinger C, Tkacik DS, Mitchell AL, Sullivan MR, Dallmann TR,
Robinson AL. Methane emissions from natural gas compressor stations in the
transmission and storage sector: measurements and comparisons with the EPA
greenhouse gas reporting program protocol. Environ Sci Technol. 2015 Mar
3;49(5):3252-61.
Takaro et al. 2013. Takaro TK, Knowlton K, Balmes JR. Climate change and respiratory health: current
evidence and knowledge gaps. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2013 Aug;7(4):349-61
Page C.2-432
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Taningher et al. 1999. Taningher M, Malacarne D, Perrotta A, Parodi S. Computer-aided analysis of
mutagenicity and cell transformation data for assessing their relationship with
carcinogenicity. Environ Mol Mutagen. 1999;33(3):226-39.
U.S. DHHS 2010 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing Environmental Cancer
Risk: What We Can Do Now. 2008–2009 Annual Report. President’s Cancer Panel.
https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualreports/pcp08-
09rpt/pcp_report_08-09_508.pdf
U.S. DHHS 2010. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Environmental Cancer Risk: What
We Can Do Now. 2008–2009 Annual Report of the President’s Cancer Panel. April
2010.
U.S. DOE 1986. U.S. Department of Energy. Laboratory: A compendium of the Environmental
Measurements Laboratory's research projects related to the Chernobyl nuclear
accident: October 1, 1986. Report No. EML-460. U.S. Department of Energy, New
York, NY. pg. 1-104.
U.S. EPA 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental radiation data: Report 46:
April 1986-June 1986. Report No. EPA520/5-87-004. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
UCS. Union of Concerned Scientists. Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-
impacts-of-natural-gas
UNSCEAR 1988. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources,
effects and risks of ionizing radiation. 1988 Report to the General Assembly, with
annexes. New York, NY: United Nations, 1988. (United Nations sales publication
no. E.88.IX.7).
USATSDR 2016. U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Health Consultation:
Brooklyn Township PM2.5 Brooklyn Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.
Cost Recovery Number: 3A4K00. April 22, 2016.
USEPA 2013. EPA Needs to Improve Air Emissions Data for the Oil and Natural Gas Production
Sector. Report No. 13-P-0161. February 20, 2013.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/20130220-13-
p-0161.pdf
Wang and Pinkerton 2007. Wang L, Pinkerton KE. Air pollutant effects on fetal and early postnatal
development. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2007 Sep;81(3):144-54.
Westchester 2015. Letter to Mr. Michael Higgins, NYS DEC, Division of Environmental Permits, from
the Westchester County Board of Legislators (February 2015). Board of Legislators
Resolution No. 80-2014 Resolution No. 80-2014.
http://www.westchesterlegislators.com/committees/2014_2015term/lpph/2015
0121_Westchester%20County%20Legislators%20Comments%20on%20NYSDEC%
20Permits%20Algo.pdf
WSJ Energy Boom Puts Wells in America's Backyards: Hydraulic Fracturing Largely
Driving Transformation of the Nation's Landscape. Wall Street Journal.
Wu et al. 2016, Wu S, Hannun Y. The importance of extrinsic factors in the development of
cancers. Mol Cell Oncol. 2016 Feb 24;3(3):e1143079.
Page C.2-433
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Xu and Ramanathan 2017. Xu Y, Ramanathan V2. Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding
dangerous to catastrophic climate changes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Sep
26;114(39):10315-10323.
Yablokov and Nesterenko 2009. Yablokov AV, Nesterenko VB. Chernobyl contamination through time and space.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Nov;1181:5-30.
Zielinski S. 2014. Zielinski S. Natural Gas Really Is Better Than Coal: If too much methane leaks
during production, though, the benefits will be lost. Smithsonian. February 13,
2014. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/natural-gas-really-
better-coal-180949739.
Zoetman et al. 1982. Zoeteman BC, Hrubec J, de Greef E, Kool HJ. Mutagenic activity associated with
by-products of drinking water disinfection by chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone
and UV-irradiation. Environ Health Perspect. 1982 Dec;46:197-205.

Page C.2-434
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station

Page C.2-435
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station

www.environmentalhealthproject.org

Summary on Compressor Stations and Health Impacts
February 24, 2015

Compressor station emissions
Compressor station emissions fall into two categories: construction emissions and
operational emissions. Within operational emissions there are three types that warrant
individual attention – blowdowns, fugitives and accidents. This document provides
perspective on the aptness of the method of estimation (in tons per year) and need for
further detail about the VOC and PM estimated emissions to better consider health risk.

Compressor construction and operational phases are generally projected to produce
emissions below the NAAQS standards. They are presented in tons per year. This
measure of emissions is used for NAAQS purposes which determines the air quality
designation over a region and over long periods of time. The problem posed by
estimating tons of contaminants emitted per year is that over the course of a year
emissions will vary, often greatly. As phases of construction and operation change so
will emissions content and concentrations. For a resident living near a compressor
station, the concern is not simply PM2.5 emissions over the course of a year, but is
PM2.5 emissions during the peak construction time when it’s at its most intense.

Even during normal operations compressor stations have been shown not to emit
uniformly (“blowdown” and accident events will be discussed separately).1 The
measurement tons per year, while common in the industry and common in the
environmental field where regional air quality is at issue, is not an appropriate measure
to determine individuals’ health risks which increase during episodes of high exposures.

Table 4 shows the day to day and morning to evening variability in emissions at one
compressor station near Hickory, Pennsylvania. It comes from a Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection. We present this case to show documentation
of fluctuations not captured by averages.2 Note how much relevant emissions
information is lost when relying on averages, even of just three days. When extending
this logic across a year, there is little doubt that there will be times of high levels of
contaminants released and these high levels can increase health risks to residents. It is
also notable that the EPA inhalation reference concentration (RfC) for ethylbenzene is 1
mg/m3 (equivalent to 1,000 ug/m3).3 Some of the reported emissions exceed this
standard of health safety.

Page C.2-436
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Table 1. Variation in ambient air measurements of five VOCs near a compressor
station reported in ug/m3 *4
Chemical May 18 May 19 May 20 3 day
average morning evening morning evening morning evening
Ethyl-
benzene
No
detect
No
detect
964 2,015 10,553 27,088 6,770
n-Butane 385 490 326 696 12,925 915 2,623
n-Hexane No
detect
536 832 11,502 33,607 No
detect
7,746
*The PA DEP collected data on many more chemicals than those listed above; the
authors of this paper have chosen these chemicals specifically to highlight variation in
emissions.

Documented compressor emissions
It is important to know, with more specificity, what chemicals will be emitted by a
compressor facility so that a targeted assessment can be made about its potential
health impacts.

There is a small but growing body of literature on emissions from shale gas extraction,
processing and transport activities. In its early stages of inquiry, the focus was
predominantly on drill pad activity, but there are now some reports on natural gas
compressor station emissions. Below are examples of chemicals that have been found at
or near compressor stations during operations. These emissions reports – whether from
public databases or from a private sector firm or organization – do not provide relevant
background levels of the chemicals detected. Without a “control” location it is not
possible to say with certainty that the chemicals found are the result of the compressor
station, although these facilities are often the only industrial activity in the areas where
they are found.

Emissions from two compressor stations (Stewart and Energy Corps), published by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)5 are:

MTBE
CO
iso-Butane
methyl mercaptan
n-Butane
n-hexane
n-octane
nitrogen dioxide
nitrous-
acidstyrene
2-methyl butane
2 methyl pentane
3 methyl pentane
ethyl benzene
benzene
ethane
propane
methanol
napthlelene
Page C.2-437
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), as part of its Barnett Shale
Formation Area Monitoring Projects found the following chemicals downwind from two
monitored compressor stations 6:
• Downwind of Devon Energy Company LP’s Justin compressor station the TCEQ
reports propane, isobutene, n-butane, ethane, cyclohexane, benzene, n-octane,
toluene, m+p-xylene, n-hexane.
• Downwind of Targa North Texas LP’s Bryan Compressor Station the TCEQ reports:
ethane, propane, isobutene, n-butane, cyclohexane, n-octane, toluene,
isopentane, n-pentane + isoprene, benzene.7

Officials in DISH, TX commissioned a study of compressor station emissions in its vicinity.
Wolf Eagle Consultants performed whole air emissions sampling for VOCs, HAPs as well
as Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs). Chemicals identified as exceeding Texas’s
ESLs include: 8

benzene
dimethyl disulfide
methyl ethyl disulphide
ethyl-methylethyl disulfide
trimethyl benzene
diethyl benzene
methyl-methylethyl benzene
tettramethyl benzene
naphthalene 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene
m&p xylenes
carbonyl sulfide
carbon disulfide
methyl pyridine
dimethyl pyridine

In 2011 and 2013, Earthworks, a non-profit organization, collected air samples within
0.33 miles of two compressor stations: Springhill compressor in Fayette County and the
Cumberland/Henderson compressor station in Greene County, Pennsylvania.9 Results
from samples collected include:

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane,
1,2-dichlorobenzene
2-butanone
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
chloromethane
dichlorodifluoromethane
ethylbenzene
methane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
trichlorofluoromethane
Page C.2-438
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Anecdotally, we know that people living near compressor stations report episodic
strong odors as well as visible plumes during venting or blowdowns. Residents often
report symptoms that they associate with odors such as burning eyes and throat, skin
irritation, and headaches. These are simply anecdotes but they are fairly consistently
reported. It should be noted that residents in southwest Pennsylvania where these
anecdotes were collected, often live near drill pads and in some instances processing
plants along with compressor stations.10

Emissions pathways
In addition to the emissions produced during the normal operations of a compressor
station there are several other ways that emissions might be dispersed from the site.
These include fugitive releases, blowdowns, and accidents. Trucks play a significant
role in the emissions profile during construction but are not common once the facility is
complete and on line.

Fugitive emissions
Fugitive emissions are uncontrolled or under-controlled releases. They occur from
equipment leaks and evaporative sources. It has been suggested that fugitive emissions
will increase over time as machinery begins to wear.11

There does not appear to be a central publically available source of information of
these emissions. There are, however, many opportunities for fugitive emissions to be
released from a compressor station. We were able to locate only one study on natural
gas compressor station fugitive emissions. In that study, conducted in the Fort Worth,
TX area, researchers evaluated compressor station emissions from eight sites, focusing
in part on fugitive emissions. A total of 2,126 fugitive emission points were identified in
the four month field study of 8 compressor stations: 192 of the emission points were
valves; 644 were connectors (including flanges, threaded unions, tees, plugs, caps and
open-ended lines where the plug or cap was missing); and 1,290 were classified as
Other Equipment. The Other category consists of all remaining components such as
tank thief hatches, pneumatic valve controllers, instrumentation, regulators, gauges,
and vents. 1,330 emission points were detected with an IR camera (i.e. high level
emissions) and 796 emission points were detected by Method 21 screening (i.e. low
level emissions). Pneumatic Valve Controllers were the most frequent emission
sources encountered at well pads and compressor stations.12

Blowdowns
The largest single emission at a compressor station is the compressor blowdown.13
They can be scheduled or accidental. As the natural gas rushes through the blowdown
valve, a gas plume extends upward of 30 to 60 meters. The most forceful rush of air
occurs at the very beginning, then the flow gradually slows down. The first 30 to 60
minutes of the blowdown are the most intense, but the entire blowdown may last up
to three hours.14 One blowdown vents 15 MCf gas to atmosphere on average.
Isolation valves leak about 1.4 Mcf/hr on average through open blowdown vents.15
Page C.2-439
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
It is not possible to know what exactly would be emitted in a given natural gas
compressor station blowdown as there is no data available. We know that it will
include whatever is in the pipeline when the blowdown occurs. This would
undoubtedly include the constituents of natural gas: methane, ethane, etc., and
various additional constituents would be present during different episodes. We are
especially concerned about the presence of radioactive material during a blowdown.
Anecdotally, there are reports of odors and burning eyes, headaches and coughing
associated with the events.16

An exposure to blowdown concentrations of contaminants would have different health
implications than a long-term lower level exposure (i.e. yearly average) to the same
contaminants when the compressor is on line.

Accidents
In addition to planned emissions, fugitive emissions and blowdowns there is also the
possibility of accidents at the compressor station. There are no central national or
state inventories of compressor station accidents that we were able to locate. In their
absence we turned to local news accounts of individual accidents (which are generally
in the form of fires). Without knowing what precisely is in the pipeline nor what else (if
anything) may be housed on the site, it is not possible to estimate emissions from a fire
at the compressor station. The possibility, however, is very real. A gas compressor
station exploded near Godley, TX. That fire destroyed the compressor station where it
started and also the one next to it. The fire burned for several hours.17 In a
compressor station fire in Madison County, TX volunteer firefighters from four towns
were dispatched to the site. First responders blocked roads near the site and
evacuated three homes.18 In Corpus Christi, TX a fire broke out at a compressor station
which then spread to nearby brush before being extinguished.19

The possibility of fire or other accidents raises the concern over whether the localities
surrounding a compressor station have the resources available to contain a fire or
explosion adequately and whether first responders and hospitals are able to care for
injured workers or others nearby or whether an evacuation plan could be
implemented. In Wheeler County, TX four contractors were performing maintenance
activities near a compressor station when a flash fire occurred. The workers were
brought to a nearby hospital. Two were treated and released; the other two were
transferred to a burn unit in Lubbock.20 In Carbon County, UT an explosion and fire
damaged a natural gas compressor station and other buildings on the site injuring two
workers and engulfing the facility in flame. Firefighters from every city in the county
responded to the emergency. Injured workers had to be evacuated by medical
helicopters.21

Overall, there is little information on the division of responsibility between the
company operating the facility and the locality. This should be clarified.

Page C.2-440
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
The question of radioactivity
A 2008 publication of the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers has laid out
the discussion on radioactive material in the natural gas extraction and production
process.

During the production process, naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
flows with the oil, gas and water mixture and accumulates in scale, sludge and
scrapings. It can also form a thin film on the interior surfaces of gas processing
equipment and vessels. The level of NORM accumulation can vary substantially
from one facility to another depending on geological formation, operational and
other factors.

[R]adionuclides such as Lead-210 and Polonium-210 can … be found in
pipelines scrapings as well as sludge accumulating in tank bottoms, gas/oil
separators, dehydration vessels, liquid natural gas (LNG) storage tanks and in
waste pits as well as in crude oil pipeline scrapings.22

The gas which flows through the pipeline likely carries gaseous radon with it, and as
radon decays within the pipeline, the solid daughter elements, polonium and lead,
accumulate along the interior of the pipes. There is a concern that the gas transiting,
and being compressed and regulated, will have radioactivity levels which will put at risk
not only the workers at these stations and along the pipeline, but potentially also to
the residents.23 Radon, a gas, has a short half-life (3.8 days) but its progeny are lead
and polonium, and these are toxic and have relatively long half-lives of 22.6 years and
138 days respectively.24 There is no data that we can turn to in order to assess the risk
of radioactive exposures in our community.

Health risks from relevant air contaminants
Averages, peaks and health events
As stated previously, one of our primary concerns is the poor fit of a tons per year
measurement to the assessment of risk to the public’s health near a compressor
station. Furthermore, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) used as a
benchmark for air quality were not created to assess the air quality and safety in a
small geographic area with fluctuating emissions. NAAQS effectively address regional
air quality concerns. But these standards do not adequately assess risk to human health
for residents living in close proximity to polluting sources such as unconventional
natural gas development (UNGD) sites, where emissions can be highly variable.

Generally, it has been shown that:

1. Current protocols used for assessing compliance with ambient air standards do
not adequately determine the intensity, frequency or durations of the actual
Page C.2-441
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
human exposures to the mixtures of toxic materials released regularly at UNGD
sites, including compressor stations.
2. The typically used periodic 24-hour average measures can underestimate actual
exposures by an order of magnitude.
3. Reference standards are set in a form that inaccurately determines health risk
because they do not fully consider the potential synergistic combinations of
toxic air emissions.25

Thus estimates of yearly totals of contaminants released by a compressor station do
not allow for an assessment of the physiological impact of those emissions on
individuals.

NAAQS reflects what, over a region, over time, is deemed safe population-wide. This is
very different than what is safe within for instance 1200 feet of this compressor
station. As already stated, averaging over a year can wash out important higher spikes
in emissions (thus exposures) that may occur at various points throughout the year.
These high spikes can put residents at risk for illnesses caused by air toxics.

Toxicity and characterization of exposures
Toxicity of a chemical to the human body is determined by the concentration of the
agent at the receptor where it acts. This concentration is determined by the intensity
and duration of the exposure. All other physiological sequelae follow from the
interaction between agent and receptor. Once a receptor is activated, a health event
might be produced immediately or in as little as one to two hours.26 27 In some
instances, where there is a high concentration of an agent, a single significant exposure
can cause injury or illness. This is the case in the instance of an air contaminant
induced asthma event. On the other hand, after an initial exposure, future exposures
might compound the impact of the first one, in time, producing a health effect.
Repeated exposures will increase, for instance, the risk for ischemic heart disease.28

Peak exposures
Researchers have demonstrated the wisdom of looking at peak exposures as compared
to averages over longer periods of time. Darrow et al (2011) write that sometimes
peak exposures better capture relevant biological processes. This is the case for health
effects that are triggered by, short-term, high doses. They write, “Temporal metrics
that reflect peak pollution levels (e.g., 1-hour maximum) may be the most biologically
relevant if the health effect is triggered by a high, short-term dose rather than a steady
dose throughout the day. Peak concentrations … are frequently associated with
episodic, local emission events, resulting in spatially heterogeneous
concentrations….”29

Delfino et al (2002) posited that maxima of hourly data, not 24-hour averages, better
captured the risks to asthmatic children, stating, “it is expected that biologic responses
may intensify with high peak excursions that overwhelm lung defense mechanisms.”
Page C.2-442
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Additionally, they suggest that “[o]ne-hour peaks may be more influenced by local
point sources near the monitoring station that are not representative of regional
exposures….”30

Because episodic high exposures are not typically documented and analyzed by
researchers and public agencies, natural gas compressor stations emissions are rarely
correlated with health effects in nearby residents. However, examination of published
air emission measurements shows the very real potential for harm from industry
emissions.31 Reports of acute onset of respiratory, neurologic, dermal, vascular,
abdominal, and gastrointestinal sequelae near natural gas facilities contrast with
research that suggests there is limited risk posed by unconventional natural gas
development.

Health Effects from exposures to VOCs
VOCs, present at compressor station construction and operation, are a varied group of
compounds which can range from having no known health effects to being highly toxic.
Short-term exposure can cause eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches,
dizziness, visual disorders, fatigue, loss of coordination, allergic skin reaction, nausea,
and memory impairment. Long-term effects include loss of coordination and damage
to the liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some VOCs, such as benzene,
formaldehyde, and styrene, are known or suspected carcinogens.32 The case for
elevated risk of cancer from UNGD VOC exposure has been made by McKenzie et al
(2012) and others.33

The inhalation of the VOC, benzene, produces a number of risks including

[acute (short-term)] drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and
respiratory tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. Chronic (long-
term) inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood, including
reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in occupational
settings. Reproductive effects have been reported for women exposed by
inhalation to high levels, and adverse effects on the developing fetus have been
observed in animal tests. Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues
that form white blood cells) have been observed in humans occupationally
exposed to benzene. EPA has classified benzene as known human carcinogen for
all routes of exposure.34

Benzene, which is documented at compressor stations by the States of Pennsylvania
and Texas, carries its own risk, including risk for cancer.35 36 There is growing evidence
that benzene is associated with childhood leukemia. Benzene affects the blood-
forming system at low levels of occupational exposures, and there is no evidence of a
threshold. It has been argued in the literature that “[t]here is probably no safe level of
exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not
supralinear, and additive fashion.37
Page C.2-443
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station

Another substance that is detected near compressor stations is methylene chloride.

According to the EPA:

The acute (short-term) effects of methylene chloride inhalation in humans consist
mainly of nervous system effects including decreased visual, auditory, and motor
functions, but these effects are reversible once exposure ceases. The effects of
chronic (long-term) exposure to methylene chloride suggest that the central
nervous system (CNS) is a potential target in humans and animals. Human data
are inconclusive regarding methylene chloride and cancer. Animal studies have
shown increases in liver and lung cancer and benign mammary gland tumors
following the inhalation of methylene chloride.38

The VOC formaldehyde is also considered a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) by the US
EPA (EPA).39 It is one of the emissions chemicals that the natural gas development
industry is required to report, for instance to the PA DEP. According to these reports,
compressor stations are the highest UNGD source for formaldehyde.40 For the year
2012, emissions of formaldehyde from compressor stations in Pennsylvania ranged
from 0.0 TPY to 22.5 TPY. 41

A recent study of air emissions in the Barnett shale region of Texas found
concentrations of formaldehyde at sites with large compressor stations.42 Some of
these concentrations were greater than the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality’s health protective levels (page 62). Formaldehyde was one of 101 chemicals
found in association with methane in this study. The research showed that aromatics in
particular were associated with compressor stations.

Air exposures to formaldehyde target the lungs and mucous membranes and in the
short-term can cause asthma-like symptoms, coughing, wheezing, and shortness of
breath. The EPA classifies it as a probable human carcinogen.43 The World Health
Organization classifies it as carcinogenic to humans.44 It has also been associated with
childhood asthma.45 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard assessment
(OEHHA) has “identified formaldehyde as a Toxic Air Contaminant and gives it an
inhalation Reference Exposure Level (REL) of 55 ug/m3 for acute exposures and 9
ug/m3 for both 8-hour and chronic exposures.46 The acute REL is 74 ppb based on
irritation of asthmatics.47 It has also been linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes and
reproductive and developmental toxicity.48

More recent investigations on formaldehyde near compressor stations are focused on
the chemical reaction between methane and sunlight.49 While it is well known that
stationary compressor station engines emit formaldehyde, it is less well known that
formaldehyde may also be formed at these sites through this chemical reaction. While
the research is ongoing, it suggests that health hazards associated with formaldehyde
Page C.2-444
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
may be greater than previously thought. Because reported health symptoms near
compressor stations, such as respiratory impacts and shortness of breath, can be
caused by exposure to formaldehyde, targeted monitoring of this chemical at these
sites would be recommended.

Effects from exposure to particulate matter
In addition to the VOC exposure presented above, PM2.5 also poses a significant health
concern and interacts with the airborne VOCs increasing their impact. In fact, at a
compressor station PM2.5 may pose the greatest threat to the health of nearby
residents. Fine particles are expected to reach a total of 1.136 tons for 2015 and 2016.

The size of particles determines the depth of inhalation into the lung; the smaller the
particles are, the more readily they reach the deep lung. Particulate matter (PM10,
PM2.5 and ultrafine PM), in conjunction with other emissions, are at the core of
concern over potential effects of UNGD.

High particulate concentrations are of grave concern because they absorb airborne
chemicals in their midst. The more water soluble the chemical, the more likely it is to
be absorbed onto a particle. Larger sized particles are trapped in the nose and moist
upper respiratory tract thereby blocking or minimizing their absorption into the blood
stream. The smaller PM2.5 however, is more readily brought into the deep lung with
airborne chemicals and from there into the blood stream. As the particulates reach the
deep lung alveoli the chemicals on their surface are released at higher concentrations
than they would in the absence of particles. The combination of particles and
chemicals serves, in effect, to increase in the dose of the chemical. The consequences
are much greater than additivity would indicate; and the physiological response is
intensified. Once in the body, the actions between particles and chemicals are
synergistic, enhancing or altering the effects of chemicals in sometimes known and
often unknown ways.50

Reported clinical actions resulting from PM2.5 inhalation affect both the respiratory
and cardiovascular systems. Inhalation of PM2.5 can cause decreased lung function,
aggravate asthma symptoms, cause nonfatal heart attacks and high blood pressure.51
Research reviewing health effects from highway traffic, which, like UNGD, has
especially high particulates, concludes, “[s]hort-term exposure to fine particulate
pollution exacerbates existing pulmonary and cardiovascular disease and long-term
repeated exposures increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and death.”52 PM2.5, it
has been suggested, “appears to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease via
mechanisms that likely include pulmonary and systemic inflammation, accelerated
atherosclerosis and altered cardiac autonomic function. Uptake of particles or particle
constituents in the blood can affect the autonomic control of the heart and circulatory
system.”53

Page C.2-445
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Ultrafine particles (<0.1) get less attention in the literature than PM2.5 but is found to
have high toxic potency.54 These particles readily deposit in the airways and
centriacinar region of the lung.55 Research suggests increases in ultrafine particles
pose additional risk to asthmatic patients.56 Ultrafine particles are generally produced
by combustion processes. They, along with the larger PM2.5, are found in diesel
exhaust.

Diesel is prevalent during the construction phase of compressor station site. High
levels of diesel exhaust from construction machinery as well as trucks increase the level
of respirable particles. Health consequences of diesel exposure have been widely
studied and include immediate and long term health effects. Diesel emissions can
irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and can cause coughs, headaches,
lightheadedness and nausea. Short-term exposure to diesel exhaust also causes
inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and
increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks. Long-term exposure can cause
increased risk of lung cancer.57

PM2.5 acute effects
There is an abundance of research on the health effects of short term PM2.5 exposure.
Mills et al demonstrate that one to two hours of a diesel exhaust exposure, which
occurs during the construction phase of development, includes reduced brachial artery
diameter and exacerbation of exercise-induced ST-segment depression in people with
pre-existing coronary artery disease; ischemic and thrombotic effects in men with
coronary heart disease;58 and is associated with acute endothelial response and
vasoconstriction of a conductance artery.59 Fan He et al. suggest that health effects
can occur within 6 hours of elevated PM2.5 exposures, the strongest effects occurring
between 3 and 6 hours. Such an acute effect of PM2.5 may contribute to acute
increase in the risk of cardiac disease, or trigger the onset of acute cardiac events, such
as arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death.60

Numerous epidemiological studies have demonstrated a consistent link between
particulate matter and increased cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality (Brook et al.
2004; Mann et al. 2002; Pope et al. 2002; Samet et al. 2009; Schwartz 1999).61 Previous
studies have suggested that PM2.5 exposure is significantly associated with increased
heart rate and decreased heart rate variability (HRV; Gold et al., 2000; He et al. 2010;
Liao et al. 1999; Luttmann-Gibson et al. 2006; Magari et al. 2001; Park et al. 2005).

In addition to short term exposures and associated effects, there is evidence of health
impacts from long-term exposures.62 An HIA reviewing data from a number of
European cities found that nearly 17,000 premature deaths from all causes, including
cardiopulmonary deaths and lung-cancer deaths, could be prevented annually if long-
term exposure to PM2.5 levels were reduced. Equivalently, this reduction would
increase life expectancy at age 30 by a range between one month and more than two
years in the study cities. A Canadian national cohort study found positive and
Page C.2-446
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
statistically significant associations between non-accidental mortality and estimates of
PM2.5, the strongest association being with ischemic heart disease. Associations in this
study were with concentrations of PM2.5 as low as only a few micrograms per cubic
meter.63 Research has also shown that there is an association between PM2.5 and
hospitalization for COPD in elderly people.64

There is also a considerable literature on the health effects specifically from diesel
emission that include PM2.5 along with chemical components. Mills et al conclude that
even dilute diesel emissions can induce risk and point to ischemic and thrombotic
mechanisms for the adverse cardiovascular events associated with diesel exposure.65

After an extensive review the EPA concluded that

long-term inhalation exposure is likely to pose a lung cancer risk to
humans. Estimation of cancer potency from available epidemiology
studies was not attempted…. A noncancer chronic human health hazard
is inferred from rodent studies showing dose-dependent inflammation
and histopathology in rats. Short-term exposures were noted to cause
irritation and inflammatory symptoms of a transient nature these being
highly variable across an exposed population. The assessment also
indicates that there is emerging evidence fro the exacerbation of
existing allergies and asthma symptoms.66

Children, pregnant women and air contaminants
Children and pregnant women are especially sensitive to pollution. Many studies
confirm a range of adverse effects of air pollution on children's lung function and
respiratory symptoms, especially for asthmatics. Recent studies have found statistically
significant associations between the prevalence of childhood asthma or wheezing and
living very close to high volume vehicle roadways.67 Other research aimed specifically
at children’s PM2.5 exposure has found that PM2.5 and several of its components have
important effects on hospital admissions for respiratory disease, especially pneumonia.
The authors count among the sources for this exposure diesel exhaust, motor vehicle
emissions, and fuel combustion processes.68
Health effects have been found in pregnant women from high particulate highway
pollution. Such particle pollution “may provoke oxidative stress and inflammation,
cause endocrine disruption, and impair oxygen transport across the placenta, all of
which can potentially lead to or may be implicated in some low birth weight … and
preterm births.” The consequences do not stop with low birth weight and preterm
births because these conditions can negatively affect health throughout childhood and
into adulthood.69

Mixtures and sequential exposures
Page C.2-447
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Mixtures of pollutants are a critically important topic in addressing the public health
implications of UNGD broadly and compressor stations in this case. While this report
has focused primarily on three pollutants (VOCs, formaldehyde as one example, and
PM2.5), in fact, a very large number of chemicals are released together. Medical
reference values are not able to take the complex nature of the shale environment, its
multiple emissions and interactions into full consideration.70 Although the shale gas
industry is not unique in emitting multiple pollutants simultaneously, this industry is
unique in doing so as close as 500 feet from residences.

Chemicals that reach the body interfere with metabolism and the uptake and release of
other chemicals, be they vitally important biochemical produced and needed by the
body or other environmental chemicals with potentially toxic effects. Some chemicals
attack the same or similar target sites creating an additive effect. This is the case with
chemicals of similar structure such as many in the class of VOCs. Some mixtures like
PM and VOC act synergistically to increase the toxicity of the chemicals. Other
chemicals released environmentally are rapidly absorbed and slowly excreted. These
slowly excreted chemicals will interfere with subsequent actions of chemicals because
the body has not yet cleared the effects from the earlier exposure.

Noise
Excessive noise has been associated with an array of psychological and physical effects.
A review article on noise exposure and health risk published in Noise and Health claims
that the evidence for a causal relationship between community or transportation noise
and cardiovascular risk has risen in recent years. In sum, the author finds limited
evidence for a causal relationship between noise and biochemical effects; limited or
sufficient evidence for hypertension; and sufficient evidence for ischemic heart
disease.71

According to a World Health Organization assessment of research, excessive noise can
also increase risk of cognitive impairment in children, sleep disturbance, tinnitus, and
high levels of annoyance.72 Researchers have found associations between elevated
sound levels – including community sounds levels – and hearing loss, reduced
performance and aggressive behavior.73 Additionally some attention is being paid to
the health effects of vibration exposure which is connected with but distinct from noise
itself.74

Noise exposures are associated with construction activities and during blowdown
episodes. As with air exposures, the periods of extreme exposures (in this case noise
exposures) can cause different and sometimes more serious effects than low-level
exposures.

Summary
In sum, we know that a number of different chemicals as well as PM2.5 are present
during the construction phase of compressor stations and they are present in close
Page C.2-448
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
proximity to compressor stations that are on line. Some, although not all, have
documented health effects on vulnerable populations and on the population at large.
What we do not know is the precise mix and concentration of chemicals that will be
released into the air. Without that information it is not possible to assess the
compressor station’s full impact on area residents.

Reported health effects specific to compressor stations
There is a growing body of research on emissions and health impacts from UNGD
generally, though few studies specifically address health impacts from compressor
stations. This is partly due to the fact that many compressors are sited in proximity to
other UNGD sites such as well pads, impoundments, condensate tanks and processing
stations. As the infrastructure for transporting natural gas continues to expand, more
pipelines, metering stations and compressor stations will be sited away from other
UNGD facilities.

Recent research that has been conducted near compressor stations in different parts of
the country shows consistencies in the types of symptoms experienced by those living
near these sites. These symptoms are associated with health impacts on respiratory,
neurological and cardiovascular body systems. It should be noted that in each of the
studies cited here health survey forms were filled out by residents and, as such, the
findings are self-reported. To date there have been no epidemiological studies
performed to identify health impacts from compressor stations.

A peer-reviewed article, Investigating Links Between Shale Gas Development And
Health Impacts Through A Community Survey Project In Pennsylvania (2014) is one of
the few publications that explicitly addresses health impacts from compressors.75 The
report states:

In the Pennsylvania study, distance to industrial sites correlated with the
prevalence of health symptoms. For example, when a gas well, compressor
station, and/or impoundment pit were 1500-4000 feet away, 27 percent of
participants reported throat irritation; this increased to 63 percent at 501-1500
feet and to 74 percent at less than 500 feet. At the farther distance, 37 percent
reported sinus problems; this increased to 53 percent at the middle distance
and 70 percent at the shortest distance. Severe headaches were reported by 30
percent of respondents at the farther distance, but by about 60 percent at the
middle and short distances. 76 P.62

Age groups also responded differently in terms of health symptoms:

Among the youngest respondents (1.5-16 years of age), for example, those
within 1500 feet experienced higher rates of throat irritation (57% vs. 69%) and
severe headaches (52% vs. 69%). It is also notable that the youngest group had
the highest occurrence of frequent nosebleeds (perhaps reflective of the more
Page C.2-449
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
sensitive mucosal membranes in the young), as well as experiencing conditions
not typically associated with children, such as severe headaches, joint and
lumbar pain, and forgetfulness.

Among 20- to 40-year-olds, those living within 1500 feet of a facility reported
higher rates of nearly all symptoms; for example, 44 percent complained of
frequent nosebleeds, compared to 29 percent of the entire age group. The
same pattern existed among 41- to 55-year-olds with regard to several
symptoms (e.g., throat and nasal irritation and increased fatigue), although with
smaller differences and greater variability than in the other age groups.

The subset of participants in the oldest group (56- to 79-year-olds) living within
1500 feet of facilities had much higher rates of several symptoms, including
throat irritation (67% vs. 47 %), sinus problems (72% vs. 56%), eye burning (83%
vs. 56%), shortness of breath (78% vs. 64%), and skin rashes (50% vs. 33%).

In sum, while these data do not prove that living closer to oil and gas facilities
causes health problems, they do suggest a strong association since symptoms
are more prevalent in those living closer to facilities than those living further
away. Symptoms such as headaches, nausea, and pounding of the heart are
known to be the first indications of excessive exposure to air pollutants such as
VOCs [36], while the higher level of nosebleeds in the youngest age group is also
consistent with patterns identified in health survey projects in other states [9,
10].” P.64

Earthworks, a non-profit organization, conducted the Pennsylvania study referred to
above, (Gas Patch Roulette 2012) in which they surveyed residents about health
symptoms and conducted air and water tests near residences in Pennsylvania and New
York77. In their report, specific mention is given of a residence 800 feet from a
compressor station. Health symptoms experienced by the residents (parents and
children) were extreme tiredness, severe headaches, runny noses, sore throats and
muscle aches, as well as dizziness and vomiting by one individual.

Earthworks also conducted a health survey in Dish, Texas in 2009.78 The health
symptoms reported to be associated with compressors were: burning eyes, nausea,
headaches, running nose, sore throat, asthma, sinus problems and bronchitis. Odors
experienced by residents near compressor stations were described as: sulfur smell,
odorized natural gas, burnt wire, strong chemical-like smell and ether.

Wilma Subra 79, an environmental chemist and consultant who is on the Earthworks
Board of Directors, has compiled information on health symptoms experienced near
compressor stations based on her research with communities concerned about health
impacts from UNGD 80. Subra has served as Vice-Chair of the Environmental Protection
Agency National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT),
Page C.2-450
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
and recently completed a five year term on the National Advisory Committee of the
U.S. Representative to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation and a six year
term on the EPA National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) where she
served as a member of the Cumulative Risk and Impacts Working Group of the NEJAC
Council. While her research on health impacts associated with compressor stations is
reported back to communities, most of the data shown here have not been published
in peer-reviewed journals (she is an author on the above-mentioned peer-reviewed
article on Pennsylvania data).

Subra has reported the following health impacts in association with compressor
stations:

Table 2. Most Prevalent Medical Conditions In Individuals Living in Close Proximity to
Compressor Stations and Metering Stations
Medical Conditions: % of Individuals (71)
Respiratory Impacts 58
Throat Irritation 55
Weakness and Fatigue 55
Nasal Irritation 55
Muscle Aches & Pains 52
Vision Impairment 48
Sleep Disturbances 45
Sinus Problems 42
Allergies 42
Eye Irritation 42
Joint Pain 39
Breathing Difficulties 39
Severe Headaches 39
Swollen & Painful Joints 32
Frequent irritation 32

The full list of health impacts “Reported by Community Members Living 50 feet to 2
miles from Compressor Stations and Gas Metering Stations Along Gas Transmission
Pipelines” is available at the Luzerne County Citizens for Clean Air website 81. It is
notable that Subra reports that 61% of health impacts are associated with the
chemicals present in the air that were in excess of short and long term effects
screening levels.

Subra further reports that the following units at compressor stations and gas metering
stations release emissions into the air:

Compressor Engines Compressor Blowdowns
Page C.2-451
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Condensate Tanks
Storage Tanks
Truck Loading Racks
Glycol Dehydration Units
Amine Units
Separators
Fugitive Emission Sources

She reports that 90% of individuals surveyed reported experiencing odor events from
these facilities. Based on her analysis, the following health symptoms are associated
with the chemicals detected in the air at compressor stations:

Allergies
Persistent Cough
Shortness of Breath
Frequent Nose Bleeds
Sleep Disturbances
Joint Pain
Difficulty in Concentrating
Nervous System Impacts
Forgetfulness
Sores and Ulcers in Mouth
Thyroid Problems
Lydia
Subra reports that both the construction and production phases of compressor stations
can cause acute and chronic impacts. In the construction phase impacts come from
diesel truck emissions and from dust particles. In the production phase impacts are
derived from constant emissions, venting, blowdowns, accidents/malfunctions and
from the effects of noise, light and stress. She considers respiratory health impacts of
particular concern, and vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, children, the
elderly and sensitive individuals to be at greatest risk. Acute and chronic health impacts
that Subra has documented are listed below.

Acute Health Impacts Experienced by Individuals Living and Working near
Compressor Stations

Tense and nervous
Joint and muscle aches and pains
Vision Impairment
Personality changes
Depression, Anxiety
Irritability
Confusion
Drowsiness
Weakness
Irregular Heartbeat
Irritates skin, eyes, nose, throat and
lungs
Respiratory impacts
Sinus problems
Allergic reactions
Headaches
Dizziness, Light headedness
Nausea, Vomiting
Skin rashes
Fatigue
Weakness

Page C.2-452
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Chronic Health Impacts Experienced by Individuals Living and Working near
Compressor Stations

Damage to Liver and Kidneys
Damage to Lungs
Damage to Cardiovascular System
Damage to Developing Fetus
Reproductive Damage
Mutagenic Impacts
Developmental Malformations
Damage to Nervous System
Brain Impacts
Leukemia
Aplastic Anemia
Changes in Blood Cells
Impacts to Blood Clotting Ability

Radioactive elements: a long-term health threat
The possibility of exposure to radiation from natural gas pipelines and compressor
stations is also a concern, especially for long-term health effects. The New York public
health group, Concerned Health Professionals of New York, describes the problem in
their report, Compendium Of Scientific, Medical, And Media Findings Demonstrating
Risks And Harms Of Fracking (Unconventional Gas And Oil Extraction) (July 10, 2014):
“Unsafe levels of radon and its decay products in natural gas produced from the
Marcellus Shale, known to have particularly high radon content, may also contaminate
pipelines and compressor stations, as well as pose risks to end-users when allowed to
travel into homes.”(P.5). Health impacts from exposure to radioactive materials in
compressor station emissions have not been documented, but the risk of exposure to
these carcinogens are a serious public health concern.
Page C.2-453
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station

1 Southwestern Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. November 2010.
2 Southwestern Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. November 2010.
3 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp110.pdf. Page 216.
4 Ibid., Appendix A, p.31.
5 “Emission Inventory.” Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/emission/emission_inventory.h
tm 2010.
6 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Barnett Shale Formation Area Monitoring
Projects. Doc number BS0912-FR
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/barnett_shale/2010.01.27-
BarnettShaleMonitoringReport.pdf.
7 Ibid.
8 Wolf Eagle Environmental. Town of DISH, Texas Ambient Air Monitoring Analysis Final
Report. September 15, 2009.
9 Steinzor N, Subra W, Sumi L. Investigating Links between Shale Gas Development and
Health Impacts through a Community Survey Project in Pennsylvania New Solutions
2013; 23(1): 55-84.
10 Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project internal review of intake
materials, August 2014.
11 Eastern Research Group, Inc. and Sage Environmental Consulting, LP. City of Fort
Worth natural gas air quality study: final report. 2011. Available at:
http://www.edf.org/sites/ default/files/9235_Barnett_Shale_Report.pdf. July 13, 2011.
12 Ibid.
13 Natural Gas Industry Methane Emission Factor Improvement Study Final Report
Cooperative Agreement No. XA-83376101. Prepared by: Matthew R. Harrison Katherine
E. Galloway Al Hendler Theresa M. Shires
14http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Our_Responsibility/Blowdown_Notification_Facts
heet.pdf
15http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Our_Responsibility/Blowdown_Notification_Facts
heet.pdf
16 Personal communication with staff at SWPA-EHP.
17 http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/godley/x489007782/Compressor-station-
blows-up.
18 http://www.madisonvillemeteor.com/news/article_bb02293e-656e-11e2-b466-
0019bb2963f4.html
19 http://www.caller.com/news/natural-gas-explosion-in-jim-wells-county-shoots
20 http://www.newschannel10.com/story/24605246/four-people-injured-in-workplace-
accident
21 http://www.sunad.com/index.php?tier=1&article_id=26535
Page C.2-454
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
22 Guidelines for the management of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in
the oil & gas industry. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, Report No. 412,
September 2008. http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/412.pdf
23ATSDR. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=8&po=5.
24 Dyrszka L. Potential Health Impacts Proposed Minisink Compressor Station. October
9, 2012. Unpublished affidavit.
25 Brown D, Weinberger B, Lewis C, Bonaparte H. Understanding exposure from natural
gas drilling puts current air standards to the test. Reviews in Environmental Health 2014;
DOI 10.1515/reveh-2014-0002.
26 Brook RD, Rajagopalan S, et al. Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular
disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
Circulation. 2010; 121(21):2331–2378.
27 Wellenius GA, Burger MR, Coull BA, Schwartz J, Sus HH, Koutrakis P, Schlaug G, Gold
DR, Mittleman MA. Ambient Air Pollution and the Risk of Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Archives of Internal Medicine 2012; 172(3):229-34.
28 Pope CA, Muhlestein JB, May HT, Renlund DG, Anderson JL, Horne BD. Ischemic heart
disease events triggered by short-term exposure to fine particulate air population.
Circulation. 2006; 114: 2443-2448.
29 Darrow LA, Klein M, Sarnat JA, Mulholland, Strickland MJ, Sarnat SE, Russell A, Tolbert
PE. The use of alternative pollutant metrics in time-series studies of ambient air
pollution and respiratory emergency department visits. Journal of Exposure Science and
Environmental Epidemiology. 2011; 21(1): 10–19.
30 Delfino R, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Street DH, McLaren CE. Association of asthma
symptoms with peak particulate air pollution and effect modification by anti-
inflammatory medication use. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2002; 110(10):A607-
A617.
31 Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project. EHP’s Latest Findings
Regarding Health Data. http://www.environmentalhealthproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/6.13.13-general.pdf. See also, Earthworks. Subra W. Results
of Health survey of current and former DISH/Clark, Texas Residents.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/health_survey_results_of_current_and
_former_dish_clark_texas_residents/#.UsG_EihCR0M.
32 EPA. An introduction to indoor air quality: volatile organic compounds.
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html#Health_Effects
33 http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=31
34 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/benzene.html
35 Marlyn T. Smith “Advances in understanding benzene health effects and
susceptibility. Annual Review of Public Health. 2010; 31:133-48.
36 http://www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/BENZ_summary.pdf
37 Smith MT. Advances in understanding benzene health effects and susceptibility.
Annual Review of Public Health. 2010; 31:133-48.
38 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/methylen.html
39 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html
Page C.2-455
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
40 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2013. Air Emissions Inventory Data for the Unconventional Natural Gas Industry, http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/emission/marcellus/Nat%20Gas%20Emissions%202012%20-WellFarmStation20140324.xlsx. The Lathrop compressor station in Springville, Susquehanna County, PA emitted 22.5 TPY of formaldehyde. See page 78 of the data sheet.
41www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/emission/marcellus_inventory.html
42 Rich A, Grover JP, Sattler ML. An exploratory study of air emissions associated
with shale gas development and production in the Barnett Shale. Journal of the Air &
Waste Management Association 2014; 64:1, 61-72DOI:10.1080/10962247.2013.832713
43 www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/formalde.html
44 www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/Formaldehyde_summary.pdf
45 Mcgwin G,J, Lienert J. and Kennedy, JI. Formaldehyde exposure and asthma in
children: a systematic review. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2009; 118, 313-317.
46 http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
47 http://oehha.ca.gov/air/toxic_contaminants/pdf_zip/formaldehyde-final.pdf
48 Duong A, Steinmaus C, McHale CM, Vaughan CP, Zhang L. Reproductive and
developmental toxicity of formaldehyde: a systematic review. Mutation Research. 2011;
728(3):118-38. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2011.07.003.
49 Personal communication, David Carpenter. August 20, 2014. Research article under
review.
50 Amdur MO. The response of guinea pigs to inhalation of formaldehyde and formic
acid alone and with a sodium chloride aerosol. International Journal of Air Pollution
1960; 3:201-20.
51 http://www.epa.gov/pm/health.html
52 Brugge D, Durant JL, Rioux C. Near-highway pollutants in motor vehicle exhaust: A
review of epidemiologic evidence of cardiac and pulmonary health risks. Environmental
Health. 2007; 6:23.
53 Ibid.
54 Geiser M, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Kapp N, Schurch S, Kreyling W, Schulz H, et al.
Ultrafine particles cross cellular membranes by nonphagocytic mechanisms in lungs and
in cultured cells. Environmental Health Perspectives 2005; 1131(11):1555. Frampton
MW, Stewart JC, Oberdorster G, Morrow PE, Chalupa D, Pietropaoli AP, et al. Inhalation
of ultrafine particles alters blood leukocyte expression of adhesion molecultes in
humans. Environmental Health Perspectives 2006; 114(1): 51.
55 Donalson K, Stone V, Clouter A, Renwick L, MacNee W. Ultrafine particles.
Occupational & Environmental Medicine 2001; 58:211-216.
56 Peters A, Wichmann HE, Tuch T, et al. Respiratory effects are associated with the
number of ultrafine particles. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine
1997; 155:1376-1383.
57 Oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts.html. See also Zhang JJ. McCreanor JE,
Cullinan P, et al. Health effects of real-world exposure to diesel exhaust in persons with
asthma. Research Report. Health Effects Institute 2009; 138:5-109; McClellan RO Health
effects of exposure to diesel exhaust particles. Annual Review of Pharmacology and
Page C.2-456
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Toxicology 1987; 27(1):279-300; Ris C. US EPA health assessment for diesel engine
exhaust: a review. Inhalation toxicology 2007; 19(S1):229-239.
58 Mills NL, Tornqvist H, Gonzalez MC, Vinc E, Robinson SD, Soderberg S, et al. Ischemic
and thrombotic effects of dilute diesel-exhaust inhalation in men with coronary heart
disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 357(11):1075-1082.
59 Paretz A, Sullivan JH, Leotta DF, Trenga CA, Sands FN, Allen J, et al. Diesel exhaust
inhalation elicits acute vasoconstriction in vivo. Environmental Health Perspectives.
2008; 118(7):837-942.
60 He F, Shaffer ML, Rodriguez-Colon S, Yanosky JD, Bixler E Cascio WE. et al, Journal of
Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 2011, 21. Acute effects of fine
particulate air pollution on cardiac arrhythmia: the APACR study. Environmental Health
Perspectives 2011; 119(7): 927-932
61 Ibid.
62 Boldo E, Medina S, LeTertre A, Hurley F, Mucke HG, Ballester F, et al. Apheis: Health
impact assessment of long-term exposure to PM2.5 in 23 European cities. European
Journal of Epidemiology 2006; 21:449-458
63 Crouse DL, Peters PA, van Donkeiaar A, Goldberg MS, Villeneuve PJ, Brion O, et al. Risk
of nonaccidental and cardiovascular mortality in relation to long-term exposure to low
concentrations of fine particular matter: a Canadian national-level cohort study.
Environmental Health Perspectives 2012; 120:708-714.
64 Chen Y, Yang Q, Krewski D, Shi Y, Burnett RT, McGrail. Influence of relatively low level
of particulate air pollution on hospitalization for COPD in elderly People. Inhalation
Toxicology 2004; 16(1):21-25.
65 Mills NL et al. 2007.
66 US EPA. U.S. EPA health assessment for diesel engine exhaust: A review. Inhalation
Toxicology 2007; 19(s1): 229-39.
67 Li S, Williams G, Jalaludin B, Baker P. Panel studies of air pollution on children’s lung
function and respiratory symptoms: a literature review. Journal of Asthma 2012;
49(9):895-910.
68 Ostro B, Roth L, Malig B, Marty M. The effects of fine particle components on
respiratory hospital admissions in children. Environmental health perspectives 2009;
117(3).
69 http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a110/
70 For additional information see, for instance, EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System
database.
71 Babisch W. Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk: Updated review and
synthesis of epidemiological studies indicate that the evidence has increased. Noise &
Health 2006; 8(30):1-29.
72 World Health Organization. Burden of disease from environmental noise:
Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. 2011.
73 Moudon AV. Real noise from the urban environment: How ambient community noise
affects health and what can be done about it. 2009. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 37(2):167-171.
Page C.2-457
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
74 Alves-Pereira M and Branco NC. Vibroacoustic disease: the need fro a new attitude
towards noise. 1999. Public Participation and Information Technologies.
http://www.citidep.pt/papers/articles/alvesper.htm
75 Steinzor, N W. Subra and L Sumi. Investigating Links between Shale Gas Development
and Health Impacts Through a Community Survey Project in Pennsylvania. New
Solutions: A Journal Of Environmental And Occupational Health Policy Vol 23:55-83.
2013.
http://baywood.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.2190/NS.23.1.e
Accessed 8.8.2014.
76 Steinzor, N W. Subra and L Sumi. Investigating Links between Shale Gas Development
and Health Impacts Through a Community Survey Project in Pennsylvania. New
Solutions: A Journal Of Environmental And Occupational Health Policy Vol 23:55-83.
2013.
http://baywood.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.2190/NS.23.1.e
Accessed 8.8.2014.
77 Earthworks, Gas Patch Roulette, October 2012,
http://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/gas_patch_roulette_full_report#.Uc3M
Am11CVo, and “Investigating Links between Shale Gas Development and Health Impacts
through a Community Survey Project in Pennsylvania,” 2013, New Solutions 23 (1), 55-
84, Nadia Steinzor, Wilma Subra, and Lisa Sumi.
78 Wilma Subra, “Results of Health Survey of Current and Former DISH/Clark, Texas
Residents” December 2009. Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project,
http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/DishTXHealthSurvey_FINAL_hi.pdf
79 Wilma Subra, President, Subra Company P. O. Box 9813 New Iberia, La 70562.
80 Summary tables posted at http://lu zernecountycleanair.com/health-affects/ .
Accessed July 29, 2014.
81 Ibid.
Page C.2-458
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Lauren Nyland
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:21:49 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hello,
I am writing to ask the Division of Air Quality to deny the Air Quality permit for the proposed
Atlantic Coast Pipeline.
To even consider this permit, more information is needed, such as:
- accurate modeling of the expected air pollution from this compressor station
- monitoring of existing, nearby sources of air pollution.
I, personally, was exposed to a small amount of formaldehyde almost 20 years ago and that
has led to me having increased sensitivities to environmental pollutants. I take the individual
and compounded risk from the potential pollutants very seriously and ask you to do the same.
To approve this permit, the DAQ must be able to guarantee no adverse health effects from the
compressor station - also including other nearby sources in their consideration of risk.
Other areas to consider:
- This proposed pipeline will damage farmland now and into the future. The area above the
pipeline will not be able to be used. Farmers with pipelines on their property note that the
yield has decreased.
- The siting of this compressor station will likely cause disproportionate environmental
burdens on low-income minorities and people of color. A comprehensive environmental
justice review seems necessary before consideration of a permit.
- The construction of this pipeline will have little economic advantage for the people of NC.
There will be few jobs generated and the price of electricity will go up to the benefit of Duke
Energy.
Please protect our health and air quality by denying this permit.
Thank you,
Lauren Nyland
Page C.2-459
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Patience Vanderbush
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:02:53 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed ACP compressor station in
Northampton County, NC.
According to a 2016 report by Clean Water for North Carolina, compressors on gas
pipelines emit volatile organic compounds that are associated with higher risks of
cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular illness, and birth defects. The closer people
live to the compressors, the higher the risk of problems.
I am very concerned about the health effects of this compressor station on the
people of Northampton County, who already suffer from higher rates of cancer than
the state average, with 517 cases per 100,000 people, compared to 489 cases per
100,000 people across the state. Lung and bronchial cancers occur at a rate of 81
cases per 100,000 people in Northampton county, while the state average is 70
cases.
Patience Vanderbush
23 Bayswater Pl
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Page C.2-460
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:MARTHA W GIROLAMI
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:06:43 AM
Attachments:Compressor Station Comments 1117.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Page C.2-461
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Comments by Martha Girolami—11/15/17
Duke Energy Atlantic Coast Pipeline Compressor Station —Northampton County, NC
I oppose this frack gas pipeline compressor station for the damage it brings to Northampton
County, North Carolina and our Earth. I do not trust the data from Dominion and Duke Energy.
In NC, Duke Energy has committed federal pollution crimes and recently has lied about the
independence of scientists that study and recommend coal ash dump reclamation policy. All the
data submitted for this air permit must be reviewed and viewed with great skepticism. Duke
Energy is not trustworthy.
DEQ must deny this permit because of the environmental injustice and the climate damage from
natural gas which is mostly methane. It should and must not be an allowable or acceptable
project in the face of climate change.
Also, I do not believe this is the only compressor station that will be required on Duke Energy’s
ACP. A second or third is likely as Duke Energy transports its gas to South Carolina and then
Georgia to be liquefied and shipped offshore.
Exploitation:
It is wrong to use Northampton as a dumping ground for the enormous pollution and explosion
risk from this compressor station. This siting is environmental injustice at its worst. It is
exploitation to site this project in a rural, largely African American and poor county whose ability
to resist and political power is weak compared to urban areas. This compressor station harms
the County with perpetual air pollution, noise pollution, health effects and endangerment from
explosions. Duke Energy is using the County for corporate gain and gives nothing
commensurate in return.
Weak regulations on air pollution:
A compressor station is a grossly polluting technology— burning gas to pressurize gas in the
pipeline and collecting and storing frack liquids.
This permit has very weak requirements for noise and pollutant emission testing and controls.
Emission testing for methane, formaldehyde, other VOC’s and particulates should be
continuous and tightly restricted. Emission inventories must be monthly not at intervals of five
years. All emissions and performance testing must be defined and not left to the operator’s
discretion or to loose verbiage like “to the extent practical” or “good pollution control practice”.
Pollution limits must be defined and backed up with frequent testing. Limits must be health
based and take into account the accumulated impacts of many other polluting facilities nearby
including the compressor station at Pleasant Hill.
Climate Warming is Accelerating:
The Duke Energy ACP pipeline and compressor stations make a mockery of any effort to
mitigate and stop climate change. Fracking and all gas infrastructure leak methane
which is 86X more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The ACP project will
intensify fracking and gas infrastructure build out.
North Carolina must reduce carbon emissions immediately! This is because the rate of climate
change has accelerated. North Carolina must honor its pledge to participate in the Paris
Climate accord when it joined the U.S. Climate Alliance by denying this permit for the Duke
Energy ACP compressor station.
Page C.2-462
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
At a recent forum at the Duke Law School entitled “Rethinking Ocean Conservation Technology
and Law in Action” in early November 2017, the speakers were extremely concerned abut
climate . These were knowledgeable science faculty and attorneys from Duke University and
Smithsonian and other NGO’s. There were many reports of existing and future
pollution and damage to the marine world. One Attorney said it best. He said “climate
change is happening so fast…it is a fast moving dangerous process and no matter
what we worry about in the ocean—acidification, plastic debris, shrinking fisheries, deep
sea mining wastes—no efforts to fix these things will matter at all if global warming is not
mitigated.”
Many speakers described how the earth has already passed many tipping points that keep a lid
on temperature. Some of these are —the earth has lost the reflectivity of the arctic ice which
will be gone in 15 years; the permafrost is now melting as temperature rises and releasing
methane; the Boreal forest is rapidly dying; fires are burning widely across the globe releasing
carbon and black carbon ash.
The Only way scientists say we can buy some time is to stop releasing HFC’s (Montreal
Protocol), black carbon and methane. Methane is causing warming added on top of warming
from carbon dioxide. Since methane it is 86 X more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, it
has an immediate warming impact. Stopping methane release is the single most effective thing
any nation and State can do to delay temperature rise.
Methane can be reduced by stopping fracking and gas infrastructure which leak or vent
methane constantly. The earth has a choice and it is sustainable energies and agriculture. We
are already late in starting the conversion to clean energy. Massive efforts must be devoted to
carbon sequestration in soils and forests and hopefully the future will produce carbon
sequestration technology breakthroughs.
Page C.2-463
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Tracy Raines
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 06, 2017 12:03:43 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I am writing to appose the construction of the proposed air compressor
station for the ACP on the NC-VA border. The reasons for my opposing this
project are below:
1. In North Carolina the ACP crosses more than 1300 parcels of land,
and is near enough to thousands of homes that, in the event of a
rupture or explosion, it will endanger both homes and families in
them, as well as farm animals and pets.
2. Farmland is damaged by the installation of the pipeline, both
temporarily and permanently. To install the pipeline workers will clear
a 150 foot wide swath of land through fields, pastures, gardens, and
everywhere else it goes.
3. In communities along the proposed route, the ACP is promoted as a
driver of new business and jobs. But the falling shale gas supply and
high future prices make this a risky promise. Also, solar power brings
far more jobs that are long lasting - the Bureau of Labor Statistics
forecasts continued rapid solar job growth, as solar installation is the
fastest growing job category in the US.
4. The ACP, which will cost about $5 billion, will increase the price of
electricity. As a regulated monopoly Duke Energy is by law
guaranteed a hefty profit on anything it builds.
Sincerely,
Tracy Raines
Chapel Hill, NC
Page C.2-464
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Hope Taylor
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ Clean Water for NC Comments on ACP Compressor Station draft permit
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 4:17:03 PM
Attachments:image002.png
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
November 20, 2017
3326 Guess Rd. Suite 105
Durham, NC 27705

Division of Air Quality, Attn: Charles McEachern
3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, N.C., 27609
[e-mail] (subject line include ACP/DAQ)

Dear Mr. McEachern;
In addition to our brief oral comment on the ACP Compressor Station 3 Draft Air Permit, we
are submitting the following written comments.
Clean Water for North Carolina draws your attention to strong evidence from several sources
that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline is not justified as meeting any pubic need for additional gas
supply electricity from gas fired power plants, while knowing the customers of utility affiliates
of the ACP will bear the overwhelming burden of rate hikes to cover the cost plus ACP’s
profits (see, for example, reports from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial
Analysis http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-atlantic-coast-pipeline-risk-borne-not-dominion-duke-
customers/ and from Synapse Energy Economics,
https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/words_docs/2016_09_12_Synapse_Report_-
_Are_the_ACP_and_MVP_Necessary__FINAL.PDF ). We have argued these points strongly to
FERC before its misguided October 13th granting of a Certificate of Necessity and
Convenience, as well as documenting substantial impacts that were marginalized or
completely ignored in its Final Environmental Impact Statement and Approval. In addition, we
note that DEQ’s longstanding Environmental Equity Policy requires that a detailed evaluation
of the impacted population in the area around the proposed compressor station should have
raised substantial concerns regarding the location, the health impacts and other
disproportionate effects of this facility, as well as the protectiveness of the permit provisions.
Page C.2-465
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
On November 13th, just one month after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted
a Certificate to the ACP, Clean Water for North Carolina and representatives of many
organizations who have been working to oppose the pipeline, met for a press conference and
rally in front of the Dept. of Administration, and carried copies of a letter to the offices of
Governor Cooper and DEQ Secretary Regan. We thanked DEQ and the Governor’s policy team
for rigorous reviews of ACP’s applications for a 401 Water Quality Certificate, an Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan and a stormwater permit, all of which have been disapproved or
returned to the application for substantial additional information. Now, we ask DEQ and the
Governor to use the extensive information provided about the harms and lack of promised
economic benefits to deny all permits for the ACP, and protect the people, waters, air, land
and communities of eastern NC from an unneeded, extremely costly, damaging and
dangerous pipeline.
The draft permit simply requires the facility to be operated “to the extent practical, consistent
with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions,” an unenforceable
requirement. All permit provisions must be clear, quantitative and enforceable through
monitoring requirements, equipment testing and limits. The Compressor Station would
contribute more hazardous air pollutants, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds
(precursors of ozone), particulate matter, greenhouse gases, and other pollutants into the air
that people breathe. All of these pollutants are harmful to people’s health.
An Oct, 2017 study by the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project
(www.environmentalhealthproject.org) states that every compressor station they have
studied routinely releases large volumes of chemicals associated with a variety of diseases and
disorders. Nearby residents experience higher respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological
problems, and documented elevated stress levels due to round the clock noise. Even if the
average noise level is within the federal limit, the fact that it is incessant, and that it can
exceed those levels during blowdowns and other operational excursions, only adds to the
stresses that would be faced by residents within a few miles of the facility. In 2015, several NC
organizations, including CWFNC, sent representatives to see fracking and other oil and gas
operations in and around Doddridge County West Virginia, near where the ACP would begin.
While standing across the valley (estimated distance nearly 2 miles) from a large compressor
station, our observers reported that the noise was too loud to carry on a conversation. We
were assured by residents in the area that this was only routine noise, and that it was
significantly louder at times.

The provisions and limits in the draft permit do not take into account the impact of air
pollution from major nearby air emissions sources, including another compressor station in
Pleasant Hill with documented leaking equipment, the Georgia Pacifica mill just above the VA
border and about 2 miles west of the Compressor Station site, and the huge Enviva Wood
Pellet plant several miles to the southwest. Regional modelling and increased monitoring
must be required in this permit. All of these facilities are current or prospective emissions
sources for formaldehyde and a variety of VOCs’. Because it describes formaldehyde only as
an irritant, rather than a carcinogen, the Department only places a maximum hourly limit for
formaldehyde, but does not regulate total annual exposure from sources similar to the
Northampton compressor station. Particularly given the other sources of formaldehyde
pollution nearby—another compressor station in Pleasant Hill and the Georgia Pacific Mill—
Page C.2-466
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
the department should ensure that the community is not going to be exposed to dangerous
levels of this known carcinogen on an annual basis. DAQ’s permit provisions must ensure no
adverse health effects from this facility, taking into account emissions from other nearby
sources. DAQ has not performed the analysis to make this determination, and must be
required to do so before issuing a permit.

Studies cited by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its environmental impact
statement (Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Final Environmental Impact Statement, at 4-513 to 514)
found elevated concentrations of dangerous pollutants from samples collected near
compressor stations. These include volatile organic compounds, fine particulate matter, and
gaseous radon. Some VOCs routinely emitted by compressor stations, such as benzene and
formaldehyde, are known carcinogens. Those who live near compressor stations have
reported a range of symptoms from skin rashes to gastrointestinal, respiratory, and
neurological problems.

There are no monitoring requirements in the permit for Volatile Organic Compounds or
Hazardous Air Pollutants. According to the permit application, the Northampton Compressor
Station would emit 19.2 tons per year of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 21.2 tons per year of volatile
organic compounds (VOC), 18.4 tons per year of particulate matter (PM), nearly 130,000 tons
per year of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2E), several different hazardous air
pollutants, and a significant amount of ammonia.
Dust and fine particulates control and odor control, according to the draft permit, would be
completely “complaint-driven,” which is unacceptable, and leaves the public at the mercy of
the facility’s operators. The facility is supposed to avoid causing “substantive complaints”, or
excessive odors or dust beyond the boundary of the facility. This is an unenforceable
requirement. Further, the draft permit says if there are “substantive complaints” (not
defined) or excessive dust outside facility, it MAY be required to submit a dust control plan!
DEQ must require monitoring and dust control and odor control plans that are specific and
enforceable.
ATSDR, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry studied air quality near a
natural gas compressor station in Pennsylvania and discovered PM2.5 at dangerous levels.
(Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Health Consultation: Exposure
Investigation, Natural Gas Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Initiative Brigich Compressor
Station, Chartiers Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania (Jan. 29, 2016). One
compressor station in Pennsylvania emitted dangerous amounts of ethylbenzene, butane, and
benzene on some days and hardly detectable amounts on other days, resulting in averages
that did not appropriately indicate the threats to human health. Visual emissions, are limited
in the permit to an average of 20% opacity measured over a 6 minute period, but the
monitoring is extremely subjective and infrequent, allowing for excess releases with no
reporting.
Given the other polluting facilities close to the proposed Northampton compressor station,
and the high percentage of African-American, low-income, and other vulnerable residents,
the Division of Air Quality needs more information about the effects of this pollution before it
can issue a permit. DAQ should require modeling of the expected air pollution from this facility
, as well as monitoring of existing, nearby major sources of air pollution. These steps are
necessary to ensure that low-income communities and people of color are not at risk for
disproportionate, harmful health effects from the added air pollution emitted by this facility.

Page C.2-467
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
The compressor station must be considered a major new source of greenhouse gas emissions,
principally methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, a major component of with nearly 130,000
tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. Given Governor Roy Cooper’s
commitment to combating climate change, as evident by joining our state into the U.S.
Climate Alliance, DEQ should update its regulations and subject facilities like the Northampton
compressor station to major source permit requirements as the greenhouse gas major source
threshold is exceeded by the emissions of this facility.

As required by North Carolina DEQ’s long-standing Environmental Equity policy and its
obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, DEQ MUST consider the project’s
environmental harms to minority and low-income communities. The Department’s
Environmental Equity Policy recognizes the potential for disproportionate environmental
burdens imposed on low-income communities and communities of color. The Northampton
compressor station would be in a county with over 58% African American population, and
within a census block group where 79.2 percent of the population is African American. DEQ
must complete a rigorous Environmental Justice review before it can grant this permit.

The draft permit would allow emissions of ammonia and other toxic pollutants, including
formaldehyde and ammonia, from equipment that is associated with “insignificant activities”
and thus claimed as “exempt”, so DAQ did not perform the necessary analysis to see if these
emissions would exceed health based safety standards when combined with other toxic
emitters nearby. DAQ should rescind the draft permit and require the ACP to obtain an air
toxic permit that fully evaluates the public health risks.

Due to the inadequately characterized emissions, failure to include emissions from other
nearby facilities in setting limits for this permit and a population percentage of African
Americans near the site nearly 60 % higher than the state’s average African American
population, we request that the Division of Air Quality to WITHDRAW this permit, and
require more information from ACP about emissions, as well as other nearby large scale
sources of air pollution nearby residents, and complete a detailed health assessment of the
impacted population. Then the DAQ should redraft the permit with stronger, more
protective provisions, incorporating Environmental Equity considerations, for a new
comment period!

Thank you for your kind consideration,

Hope Taylor, MSPH
Executive Director
Clean Water for NC
3326 Guess Rd. Suite 105
Durham, NC 27705
[phone]

Page C.2-468
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Felysha Jenkins
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ - Deny Draft Permit
Date:Sunday, November 19, 2017 7:20:33 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
November 18, 2017
Mr. Charles McEachern
Engineer, Division of Air Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
RE: Northampton Compressor Station
Draft Permit
Dear Mr. McEachern,
I have lived in North Carolina for almost 16 years and I have been glad to call NC my new
home. As a concerned citizen, I write to you about the development of the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline. After hearing that there is a great deal of ambiguity concerning the impact of the
compressor station, I strongly urge that the Division of Air Quality deny the draft permit
for this equipment.
The draft permit contains glaring weaknesses. There should be more air controls for
compressor engines bigger than 500 horsepower, but the current plan would only require
an inspection evere three years after the initial testing done in the first year. Also, the
facility's operators have to comply “ to the extent practical” but that description is vague and
unenforceable. Deny the draft permit for this equipment.
What are the long-term effects on the community where the compressor engine will be
placed if its building is approved? The census block group where the installation of the
compressor station is planned is 79% African American, and as such, there is a potential
for a disproportionate burden for a community of color. This is a social justice issue that
needs to be addressed. To what extent will the affected residents be compensated when a
minor or major event happens that negatively impacts their health or financial well-being?
The draft permit is silent on this. Deny the draft permit for this equipment.
Also, despite the fact that toxic chemicals, including the carcinogenic formaldehyde and
other VOCs, are found in higher concentrations around compressor stations, the draft
permit does not include any requirements to monitor the level of pollutants that surrounding
residents would be exposed to. Lack of monitoring is especially problematic in
Northampton County where other major polluting facilities are already burdening our fellow
Page C.2-469
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
North Carolina residents with toxic emissions. Deny the draft permit for this equipment.

I have three recommendations: DEQ should 1) complete a rigorous environmental justice
review before granting the permit; 2) fund a study that includes baseline data on relevant
physical and psychological indicators in the community surrounding the area of the planned
compressor station; and 3) develop unequivocal language that is enforceable, rendering
ACP’s developers responsive to clear requirements such that they keep emissions below
thresholds.
This draft permit is clearly out of alignment with the Governor’s commitment to combating
climate change, DEQ’s own Environmental Equity policy, its obligations under Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 to consider environmental harms to minority and low-income
communities, and more generally, our State’s commitment to the safety and well-being of
its residents. Again, I urge DEQ to deny the draft permit for the compressor station
planned for Northampton County.
Felysha Jenkins, PhD
Page C.2-470
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Cary Rodgers
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc:Bredl; Therese Vick; Michael James-Deramo; Sharon Ponton; Ann M. Rogers; Mara Robbins
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ - Public Comments
Date:Wednesday, November 08, 2017 10:29:38 PM
Attachments:11-8-17 Northampton Compressor Station.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
TO: Division of Air Quality,
Attn: Charles McEachern,
3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, N.C., 27609
RE: Public Comments – Northampton proposed Compressor Station GISparcel number 0500230 ACP/DAQ
FROM: Cary Rodgers, Jr.
NC Environmental Justice Coordinator
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
[e-mail]
The proposed compressor station in Northampton County, NC for the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline totally ignores the fact that the citizens of
Northampton will be inundated with yet another source of daily 24 hours of
toxic air. Northampton County is the second poorest county with
approximately 60% African Americans. They currently suffer from the
cumulative pollution impacts from multiple industries that NC DEQ has
already permitted. Is NC DAQ going to take a blind eye like FERC and
ignore the environmental injustice? Is it coincidence that yet another poor
community is chosen as “sacrifice zone” for a billion dollar company and its
stockholders? No!
I have personally seen one of these compressor station “monsters” in
action. They are very loud. Would you want to live in a neighborhood with
one of these “monsters?” The proposed permit is asking to dump more
toxic pollution into air that is already toxic. When is enough enough? A
single compressor emits huge amounts of air pollution. A compressor
station investigated by Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League was
permitted to emit the following amounts of pollution into the air annually:
Page C.2-471
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Pollutant Emissions, pounds/year
Particulates (2.5, 10 and total) 25,000
Sulfur dioxide, SO2 1,400
Nitrogen oxides, NOx 360,000
Volatile organic compounds, VOC 70,000
Carbon monoxide, CO 44,000
Carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2e 407,000,000
Hazardous air pollutants, HAP 25,000
Formaldehyde 17,000
NC DAQ, please stop the “rubber stamp” mentality that our environmental
government agencies have taken over the years to score political points by
pleasing the profits of billionaires. Your main objective is not to protect the
profits of corporations, but to protect ALL citizens from the overload of
toxic air. This proposed compressor station is unjust and heartless for the
most vulnerable especially the children.
NC DAQ deny this permit. Northampton does not need more toxicity.
Public Comments: Also attached
Page C.2-472
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
TO: Division of Air Quality,
Attn: Charles McEachern,
3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, N.C., 27609
RE: Public Comments – Northampton proposed Compressor Station GIS parcel number 0500230
ACP/DAQ
FROM: Cary Rodgers, Jr.
NC Environmental Justice Coordinator
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
[e-mail]
The proposed compressor station in Northampton County, NC for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline totally
ignores the fact that the citizens of Northampton will be inundated with yet another source of daily 24
hours of toxic air. Northampton County is the second poorest county with approximately 60% African
Americans. They currently suffer from the cumulative pollution impacts from multiple industries that
NC DEQ has already permitted. Is NC DAQ going to take a blind eye like FERC and ignore the
environmental injustice? Is it coincidence that yet another poor community is chosen as “sacrifice
zone” for a billion dollar company and its stockholders? No!
I have personally seen one of these compressor station “monsters” in action. They are very loud.
Would you want to live in a neighborhood with one of these “monsters?” The proposed permit is
asking to dump more toxic pollution into air that is already toxic. When is enough enough? A single
compressor emits huge amounts of air pollution. A compressor station investigated by Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League was permitted to emit the following amounts of pollution into the air
annually:
Pollutant Emissions, pounds/year
Particulates (2.5, 10 and total) 25,000
Sulfur dioxide, SO2 1,400
Nitrogen oxides, NOx 360,000
Volatile organic compounds, VOC 70,000
Carbon monoxide, CO 44,000
Carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2e 407,000,000
Hazardous air pollutants, HAP 25,000
Formaldehyde 17,000
NC DAQ, please stop the “rubber stamp” mentality that our environmental government agencies have
taken over the years to score political points by pleasing the profits of billionaires. Your main objective
is not to protect the profits of corporations, but to protect ALL citizens from the overload of toxic air.
This proposed compressor station is unjust and heartless for the most vulnerable especially the
children.
NC DAQ deny this permit. Northampton does not need more toxicity.
Page C.2-473
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:bredl
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc:Vick Therese
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ AIR QUALITY PERMIT #10466R00
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 11:58:33 PM
Attachments:171120_BREDL comments re Northampton compressor permit_LAZ.pdf
Importance:High
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Charles McEachern
Division of Air Quality
3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, N.C., 27609
Email: [e-mail]

RE: N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DIVISION OF AIR
QUALITY INTENT TO ISSUE AIR QUALITY PERMIT #10466R00 for the
Northampton Compressor Station Facility ID 6600169

Dear Mr. McEachern:

On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and our members in North
Carolina, I write to provide the attached comments on the above captioned matter. These
remarks will supplement those submitted in writing by our staff and orally at the public
hearing held on November 15.

Louis A. Zeller, Executive Director
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Page C.2-474
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
www.BREDL.org PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 [e-mail] [phone]

Esse quam videri
November 20, 2017

Charles McEachern
Division of Air Quality
3800 Barrett Dr., Raleigh, N.C., 27609
Email: [e-mail]

RE: N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DIVISION OF
AIR QUALITY INTENT TO ISSUE AIR QUALITY PERMIT #10466R00 for the
Northampton Compressor Station Facility ID 6600169

Dear Mr. McEachern:

On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and our members in North
Carolina, I write to provide the following comments on the above captioned matter.
These remarks will supplement those submitted in writing by our staff and orally at the
public hearing held on November 15.

Background Information

On January 13, 2016, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality received
a completed application associated with the Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC’s proposed
Northampton Compressor Station for a permit to construct and operate a new compressor
station at 718 Forest Rd., Pleasant Hill, N.C. in Northampton County, GIS parcel number
0500230. On July 20, 2017, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline submitted an application update.

North Carolina DEQ Improperly Designates Facility a Minor Source

In its application, ACP seeks to have the facility permitted as a small or minor source of
air pollution. However, the natural gas compressor station proposed for Pleasant Hill
would emit large amounts of pollution and does not meet the requirements to be
considered a minor source of air pollution.

Under federal law, the emission threshold for major sources of air pollution is 100 tons
per year for designated sources and 250 tpy for others. The Clean Air Act1 definition
states:

Except as otherwise expressly provided, the terms “major stationary source” and
“major emitting facility” mean any stationary facility or source of air pollutants
which directly emits, or has the potential to emit, one hundred tons per year or
more of any air pollutant (including any major emitting facility or source of
fugitive emissions of any such pollutant, as determined by rule by the
Administrator).

1 U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 85, Subchapter III, § 7601
Page C.2-475
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Page 2 November 20, 2017
Esse quam videri
See 42 U.S. Code § 7602(j).

Further, a small source, or minor source, is defined as follows:

The term “small source” means a source that emits less than 100 tons of
regulated pollutants per year, or any class of persons that the Administrator
determines, through regulation, generally lack technical ability or knowledge
regarding control of air pollution.

See 42 U.S. Code § 7602(x).

However, the potential to emit air pollutants at the proposed Northampton Compressor
Station exceeds the benchmarks to a considerable degree. Our analysis indicates the
potentials to emit are significantly above major source thresholds.

Table 1 and Table 2 contain the results of our pollutant emission analysis based on heat
input rates provided by the permit application and US EPA air pollution emission factors
for natural gas-powered turbines.

Table 1. Northampton C3 Station Turbine Power Ratings
Turbine Type
Manufacturer:
Solar
Emission
Unit
Heat input
100% load
mmBTU/hour
Taurus 70 CT 01 96.0
Centaur 50 CT 02 60.0
Centaur 40 CT 03 51.0
Total = 207.0

For annual operation, calculate hourly heat rate mmBTU/hour time 8760 hours/year to
find annual heat input of 1.81 e+06 (or 1,813,320 mmBTU per year).

Table 2: Northampton C3 Station Annual Emissions
Pollutant Heat Input
mmBTU/year
Emission Factor2
AP-42 uncontrolled
Air Emissions
Tons/year
Carbon Monoxide 1.81 e+06 1.77 e-01a 160.2
Carbon Monoxide 1.81 e+06 8.23 e-02b 74.6
Nitrogen Oxides 1.81 e+06 2.95 e-01a 266.9
Nitrogen Oxides 1.81 e+06 3.23 e-01b 292.3
a. all loads
b. high loads

2 AP-42 Table 3.4-1, Summary of Emission Factors for Natural Gas-fired Gas Turbines, April
2000
Page C.2-476
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Page 3 November 20, 2017
Esse quam videri
These air pollution levels are projections. They could be higher. The actual emissions
can be affected by many things, including weather conditions, operator ability, control
devices, regulations and load factors. According to the air permit application, Form A1,
the compressor is considered a “small” source. We hereby request that the DEQ take
steps to correct this error before issuing this permit. The compressor station proposed for
Northampton should be deemed a major source.

Conclusion

If permitted, the Northampton Compressor Station would be a major source of air
pollution. The NC Department of Environmental Quality draft permit incorrectly allows
the facility to be a minor source.

Respectfully,

Louis A. Zeller, Executive Director
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

Page C.2-477
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Therese Vick
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ Draft Air Permit Number 10466ROO for the Proposed Northampton County Compressor
Station, Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 6:19:14 PM
Attachments:TVickBREDLDAQCommentsNoCoCompressorStation 11202017.pdf
A Brief Review of Compressor Stations 11.2015.pdf
NGCS-Russo-Carpenter-2017-10-11-B (2).pdf
Fumes-Across-the-Fence-Line_NAACP_CATF.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hello:
Please find attached comments and reference material on the proposed Northampton County
compressor station.
Therese Vick
--
Therese Vick
North Carolina Healthy Sustainable Communities Campaign Coordinator
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League/Coal Ash Coordinator
[e-mail]
The Office of Imminent Disaster
919-345-3673
www.bredl.org
@tvickBREDL Twitter
https://www.facebook.com/BlueRidgeEnvironmentalDefenseLeague?ref=hl
http://bredlbetweenthelines2.blogspot.com/2016/04/deqs-weird-science.html
Be kind to all you meet, each of us carries a burden that others cannot see
—
Page C.2-478
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
www.BREDL.org 4617 Pearl Rd Raleigh NC 27610 [phone] [e-mail]

November 20, 2017

Mr. Charles McEachern
Division of Air Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609

VIA EMAIL: [e-mail]

Re: Draft Air Permit Number 10466ROO for the Proposed Northampton County Compressor
Station, Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Dear Mr. McEachern:
The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) offers the following comments on
Draft Air Permit Number 10466ROO for the proposed Northampton County Compressor Station
(Atlantic Coast Pipeline- ACP).
Warren County, North Carolina is the birthplace of the Environmental Justice movement, and
Northampton County is no stranger to polluting industry and environmental justice issues. Over
the years, the County has been targeted for hazardous waste disposal, industrial hog operations,
coal ash disposal and is home to numerous polluting facilities including an existing pipeline and
compressor station. The site for the proposed compressor station is located in census block group
6 (a subset of census tract 9203). The population in census block group 6 is 79.2 percent African
American, and in census tract 9203, 32.3 percent of the population is at or below the federal
poverty line. These demographics far exceed the state average.
However, the substantial environmental injustices from the Atlantic Coast Pipeline reach further
than Northampton County. The disproportionate impacts from the proposed compressor station
cannot be confined to just one county-the compressor station facilitates the development of the
ACP- and magnifies the pipeline’s significant impacts on communities of color along the route.
Page C.2-479
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station

The proposed compressor station will emit benzene, ammonia and formaldehyde, as well as
other pollutants. Both benzene and formaldehyde are considered carcinogens. Day-to-day
emissions from compressor stations are highly episodic and can create periods of potentially
extreme exposures. People living near compressor stations report episodic strong odors as well as
visible plumes during venting or blowdowns. Residents often report symptoms that they
associate with odors such as burning eyes and throat, skin irritation, and headaches.1,2 Fugitive
emissions from several tanks include ammonia, benzene, and methane. The DAQ did not
consider the fugitive emissions from tanks in the totality of emissions for the facility, which
minimizes and underestimates the potential facility-wide emissions.

Additionally, the Division has been reprimanded by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for essentially giving facilities a “pass” and allowing them to abuse start-up, shut-
down, malfunction (SSM) regulations. This practice allowed industry to misuse upsets and
emission “excursions” and avoid enforcement actions required by law. This is of special concern
in an environmental justice community, studies show that not only are these communities
disproportionately targeted for dirty industry, regulations are often not enforced adequately- if at
all.

Environmental justice communities are often medically underserved and suffer from higher rates
of disease than their wealthier, whiter neighbors. On November 15, 2017, the NAACP released a
report on the health impacts from oil and gas facilities. The report, “Fumes Across the Fence-
Line” includes a case study of the ACP.3 According to the report, the overall cancer rate for
Northampton County exceeds the state rate.
The DAQ, and the Department of Environmental Quality must give more than lip service on
environmental justice concerns. The Division should withdraw the draft air permit until thorough
environmental justice and health assessments are completed for this facility and the entire
Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP).

Therese Vick
North Carolina Healthy, Sustainable Communities/Coal Ash Campaign Coordinator

1 “Brief Review of Compressor Stations.” Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project. November 2015.
http://www.environmentalhealthproject.org/files/A%20Brief%20Review%20of%20Compressor%20Stations%2011.
2015.pdf (Copy attached to emailed comments).
2 Carpenter, D.O. and Russo, P.N. “Health Effects Associated with Stack Emissions from NYS Natural Gas
Compressor Stations.” Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project. 12 October 2017. (Copy attached to
emailed comments).
3 http://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Fumes-Across-the-Fence-Line_NAACP_CATF.pdf (Copy
attached to emialed comments).
Page C.2-480
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station

www.environmentalhealthproject.org
SW Pennsylvania Office
2001 Waterdam Plaza Suite 201, McMurray, PA 15317
Office: 724.260.5504 • Cell: 724.249.7501 Connecticut Office
760 Chapel Street, New Haven, CT 06510
Fax: [phone]

A Brief Review of Compressor Stations
Prepared by: Nathan Kloczko, Yale University Graduate Student Assistant
November 2015

Compressor Stations and Pipelines
To transport natural gas across the country, the oil and gas industry relies on an extensive network of
inter- and intrastate pipelines. A crucial component of this network is the compressor station. As gas is
transported, it needs to remain under pressure (800-1500 psi) to ensure consistent movement against the
friction and elevation changes it experiences through the pipeline. Compressor stations, located every 40-
70 miles along the pipeline, are used to increase the gas pressure and to scrub the gas of any liquids or
solids that may have accumulated through transport. These stations typically consist of 8-16 compressors
of 1,000 horsepower or more running in parallel, operating continuously.i

Sources of Emissions
There are three types of compressor stations: reciprocal, centrifugal, and electric. Reciprocal and
centrifugal stations are powered by unprocessed natural gas taken directly from the pipeline. Depending
on the composition of the shale play from which the gas in the pipeline was extracted, this gas can be
considered 'dry' or 'wet.' Wet gas, or gas that contains a higher composition of C2+ hydrocarbons such as
ethane and butane, (commonly found in the Marcellus shale playii), often does not meet the necessary
specifications for compressor engines, causing incomplete combustion of the natural gas and increased
emissions of a number of chemicals, explained in detail below. Electric compressors are powered
independently, so there are significantly fewer emissions associated with their operation.

Two other sources of pollutant emissions from compressor stations are from fugitive emissions (leaks)
and blowdowns. A blowdown is a complete venting of the natural gas within a compressor or pipeline to
the atmosphere, to reduce pressure and empty the system. These typically either occur during an
emergency shutdown or during routine station maintenance. It is unknown exactly how often these events
occur—a recent FERC risk assessment calculates exposures from a complete station blowdown
happening once every 5 years,iii though it has been noted that planned maintenance blowdowns typically
occur 8 to 10 times a year.iv Anecdotally, there are other reports of multiple blowdowns occurring per
month.v

A single compressor blowdown can release up to 15,000 cubic feet of methane to the atmospherevi, along
with any other products in the pipeline. Anecdotally, there have been reports of respiratory conditions,
headaches, and burning eyes associated with these events. Methods exist to reduce gas loss and human
exposure during blowdowns, such as re-routing the gas to alternative pipelines or compressor station fuel
Page C.2-481
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
tanks, or maintaining the gas at pressure within sections of the pipeline.vii In addition to reduced human
health impacts, there are also significant financial incentives to reducing the amount of natural gas
released from the pipelines.

Health Impacts
The health impacts of residing near these compressor stations are far-ranging, from the chemical
exposures to mental health impacts and greater community stress. The chemical emissions attributable to
compressor stations are associated with the three forms of emissions mentioned above: leaks, blowdowns,
and incomplete combustion. Leaks and blowdowns typically result in emissions of the pipeline contents,
such as methane, heavier hydrocarbons, and any byproducts used to ‘sweeten’ (reduce hydrogen sulfide)
or dry the gas, such as alkanolamines and ethylene glycols, while incomplete combustion is associated
with increased emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and
other volatile organic compounds (VOCs).viii

NOx, CO, and PM, all major components of smog, are known to cause significant health effects in
exposed populations. These primarily increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate respiratory conditions
such as asthma, especially in children, older adults, or individuals with heart or lung diseases. Recent
measurements near the Minisink compressor station in Westtown, NY have demonstrated that families
living within 1.5 km of a compressor station, many of whom reported repeated respiratory symptoms,
were acutely exposed to elevated levels of PM2.5.ix

Along with the major operating emissions mentioned above, there have been a host of other chemicals
found to be associated with the operation of these compressor stations that have potential to impact
human health. Carcinogens such as benzene and formaldehyde have been found at levels exceeding
federal risk levels over 2,500 ft from compressor stations,x far greater than currently mandated residential
setbacks (the largest of which is 750 ft). Other benzene-like chemicals known to impact the central
nervous system such as ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene have been identified as a fingerprint for
compressor station emissions.xi Beyond these, a wide range of chemicals have been found at different
stations at varying levels across the country, which have been categorized elsewhere.xii Further
information concerning compressor station emissions and health impacts has been previously
summarized.xiii

Additionally, there have recently been reports about the increasing impact of shale gas development on
mental health.xiv This association continues when investigating the mental health impacts of the wider
unconventional natural gas infrastructure—both mental and physical impairment has been found in
greater proportions of populations that live in close proximity to compressor stations as compared to
expected numbers in the U.S.xv

Current and Future Regulations
Regulations for these stations are still in development. There is little being done to address the health
concerns associated with compressor stations; much of the focus has been on greenhouse gases (GHGs).
For example, while there are regulations on the amount of methane and NOx that can be emitted from
Page C.2-482
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
these stations, the only health-oriented measures are mandated setbacks, which vary widely by town and
state.

In August 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency released an update to their 2012 New Source
Performance Standards, a set of measures to further reduce the amount of methane and VOCs released
from compressor stations, primarily from improved engine operations and scavenging of leaks.xvi Though
these efforts are targeted to reduce GHG emissions, increasing maintenance on engines and proactively
searching for and eliminating leaks will likely reduce exposures to health hazards as well. Notably, these
proposed guidelines do not target equipment that routinely vents natural gas as its function, so blowdowns
would not be impacted.

One potential regulatory method to reduce human exposures is to require electric engines at compressor
stations, eliminating emissions from incomplete combustions. As well as the beneficial public health
ramifications, this has also been shown to be economically beneficial for pipeline operators due to the
reduction of gas used from the pipeline.xvii Though some compressor stations are geographically isolated
far from the electric grid, it is likely that any stations in an area populous enough to pose a public health
risk would also have access to electricity.

Questions to be Answered
More information is continually emerging that demonstrates the impacts of unconventional natural gas
development on human health, much of which has been categorized and summarized.xviii Information on
compressor stations has been scarce, but many of the same health impacts have been observed.
Unfortunately, there is still a tremendous amount of information missing.
• Daily Health Effects from Gas Quality
It is difficult to determine potential health effects from exposure to compressor station emissions, since
the actual contents of the pipeline vary from day to day. Some days the gas may be wet, others dry,
which will ultimately change the symptoms of the exposed populations. Developing a monitoring and
reporting program for the pipeline gas quality may provide a method for communities to know the
potential health impacts they may face in a given day.
• Acute Emissions and Associated Health Effects
Much of the exposure research done to date has either measured the concentrations of compressor station
emissions averaged over 12- or 24-hour periods, or calculated yearly total emissions, neither of which are
particularly effective at linking immediate respiratory symptoms to acute exposures. Few have
investigated these chemical emissions on a shorter time scale, though there are many anecdotal reports of
acute symptoms associated with blowdowns, or with close residential proximity to compressor stations.
Measuring emissions on a much shorter time scale, averaged over the minute or quarter-hour, would
provide a more accurate measure of the acute exposures people are receiving, and may help link
respiratory outcomes with measured exposures.

A recent study has used a community-based method to capture grab samples at times when they were
experiencing negative health symptoms.10 This methodology can help elucidate the connections that exist
between high exposures and immediate respiratory effects.
Page C.2-483
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
• Long-term Health Effects
Simultaneously, it is important to begin to observe long-term impacts of exposure to compressor stations.
The shale gas boom and associated infrastructure has been in place for over a decade, so it may be
possible to begin investigating the impact to chronic exposure to these chemicals. One method of
achieving this is to create a health registry, as has been previously explained.xix Establishing a population
of exposed individuals can provide a more thorough understanding of reported health effects in the short-
term, but can also create a population to follow through time, elucidating the long-term impact of
exposure to this family of chemicals.
• Radioactive Exposure
Finally, it would be beneficial to determine the risk of radioactive exposure associated with compressor
stations. It has been established that radioactive materials are present within the shale underground, and
are being mobilized through the extraction process of hydraulic fracturing. It has been observed that radon
levels across Pennsylvania have been rising, potentially due to these processes.xx Natural gas samples
taken at the input of four PA compressor stations has ranged from 28.8 to 58.1 pCi/L, with fence monitors
measuring up to 0.8 pCi/L, double the average outdoor concentration.xxi These levels suggest that there is
significant potential for human health impacts. The effects of radon exposure are typically long-term,
reinforcing the need for extended monitoring of exposed individuals through a health registry.

In summary, though many questions about compressor stations and their health impacts upon
communities still exist, it is necessary to begin to take action for individuals affected by their presence.
Continued research on the topics mentioned above will help complete the picture, but initial research and
anecdotal reports have demonstrated a clear negative impact on human health. Compressor stations are a
necessary component of the natural gas transportation system, so it is unlikely any substitution or removal
will occur in the near future. Tighter chemical emission regulations and increased engineering innovations
guided by recent research can begin to tackle the problem of degrading air quality and negative human
health impacts.
November 2015
Prepared for EHP by
Nathan Kloczko, Yale School of Public Health

i Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. Understanding Natural Gas Compressor Stations. 2015. Accessed 19
Oct 2015.
ii Bullin K and Krouskop P. Composition Variety Complicates Processing Plans for U.S. Shale Gas. Bryan Research
and Engineering, Inc.
iii Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. New Market Project: Environmental Assessment.
https://www.dom.com/library/domcom/pdfs/gas-transmission/new-market/new-market-environmental-
assessment.pdf?la=en. October 2015. Accessed 26 Oct 2015.
iv New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Response to Public Comments: ALgonquin
Incremental Market Project. May 2015. Accessed 2 Nov 2015.
v Madison County, New York Department of Health. Comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee.
https://www.madisoncounty.ny.gov/sites/default/files/publicinformation/madison_county_doh_comments_-
_docket_no._cp14-497-000.pdf. Oct 2014. Accessed 26 Oct 2015.
vi EPA. Reduce natural gas venting with fewer compressor engine startups & improved engine ignition. 2011.
Accessed 2 Nov 2015.
vii EPA. Reducing emissions when taking compressors off-line. October 2006. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.
Page C.2-484
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
viii Joshi S and Lokhandwala K. Reduce Emissions for Compressor Stations in Condensate-rich Shale Gas Plays by
Reducing Heavy Hydrocarbons in Fuel Gas. Membrane Technology and Research, Inc. 2011. Accessed 12 Oct 20
15.
ix Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project. “Summary of Minisink Monitoring Results.”
http://www.environmentalhealthproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Summary-of-Minisink-Results.Public.pdf.
June 2015. Accessed 12 Oct 2015.
x Macey GP, Breech R, Chernaik M, Cox C, Larson D, Thomas D, & Carpenter DO. Air concentrations of volatile
compounds near oil and gas production: a community-based exploratory study. Environmental Health. 2014, 13;
82
xi Rich A, Grover JP, & Sattler ML. An exploratory study of air emissions associated with shale gas development
and production in the Barnett Shale. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2014. 64(1): 51-72.
xii Pennsylvania DEP. 3 independent reports: The Marcellus Shale Short-Term Ambient Air Sampling Report in the
Southwest, Northcentral, and Northeast of Pennsylvania Appendices A & B in all reports.
https://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/oil_and_gas_related_topics/20349/air/986695. Nov
2010, Jan 2011, and May 2011.
xiii Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project. “Summary on Compressor Stations and Health Impacts.”
Feb 2015. http://www.environmentalhealthproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Compressor-station-emissions-
and-health-impacts-02.24.2015.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2015.
xiv Ferrar JK, Kriesky J, Christen C, Marshall LP, Malone SL, Sharma RK, Michanowicz DR, Goldstein BD.
Assessment and longitudinal analysis of health impacts and stressors perceived to result from unconventional shale
gas development in the Marcellus Shale region. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.
2013. 19(2): 104-112.
xv Greiner LH, Brown D, Resick LK, Glaser D. Mental Health and physical health in a convenience sample of adult
residents of communities experiencing rapid growth of unconventional natural gas extraction: A descriptive study.
To be submitted. Accessed 10 Oct 2015.
xvi EPA. Summary of Proposed Requirements for Equipment at Natural Gas Transmission Compressor Stations.
http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/natgas_trans_site_summ_081815.pdf. 18 Aug 2015. Accessed 19
Oct 2015.
xvii EPA. Install Electric Compressors. http://www3.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/installelectriccompressors.pdf. 2011.
Accessed 5 Nov 2015.
xviii Concerned Health Professionals of New York. Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings
Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction). Third Edition. 14 Oct 2015.
http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/. Accessed 19 Oct 2015.
xix Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project. “The Case for an Unconventional Natural Gas
Development Health Registry.” 8 Sep 2015. http://www.environmentalhealthproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/Registry-White-Paper-09.08.15-PDF.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2015.
xx Casey JA, Ogburn EL, Rasmussen SG, Irving JK, Pollak J, Lock PA, & Schwartz BS. Predictors of Indoor Radon
Concentrations in Pennsylvania, 1989-2013. Environmental Health Perspectives. Advance Publication. 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409014.
xxi Pennsylvania DEP. Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM) Study
Report.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/oil___gas_related_topics/20349/radiation_protection/986
697 Jan 2015. Accessed 29 Oct 2015.
Page C.2-485
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
The documents listed below were submitted by Commenter Terese Vick. These documents were also
submitted by Commenter John Runkle. Due to the size of these documents, they will only be presented
once in this document. The page numbers for the documents is listed below.
1. Fumes Across The Fence-Line – The Health Effects of Air Pollution from Oil & Gas Facilities on African
American Communities (See Page C.2-92)
2. Health Effects Associated with Stack Chemical Emissions from NYS Natural Gas Compressor Stations:
2008 – 2014. (See Page C.2-128)
Page C.2-486
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Seth Harris
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ Northampton
Date:Friday, November 17, 2017 1:28:22 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
The pipeline compressor station in Northampton County proposed by ACP serves no long
term benefits for the people of Northampton County or for the people of NC in general.
Compressor stations are a threefold attack on the people that live around it.
First, the noise from these compressor stations is constant and can be heard from up to a mile
away (see this study conducted by the University of Maryland School of Public Health).
Second, compressor stations increase the chance for the surrounding areas to be exposed to
naturally occurring or man-made chemicals which can cause a wide range of health problems.
Even brief exposures can precipitate symptoms. (see this presentation done by the SW PA
Environmental Health Project)
The third often overlooked aspect of a compressor station would be the attack on the mental
health of nearby residents. Stress over health impacts to family members or themselves, rapid
change in the surrounding area, increased noise, increased truck traffic. All of these will have
an impact on the well being of the people of Northampton County. (see SWPAEHP study
mentioned above).
In conclusion, the air permit for the Northampton compressor station proposed by ACP should
not be issued by NCDAQ in order to protect the overall health and well being of current and
future residents of Northampton County.
Seth Harris
[e-mail]
Page C.2-487
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Celena Bunn-Bissette
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ regarding permit #10466R00
Date:Sunday, November 19, 2017 10:42:59 PM
Attachments:NCDEQ Air Quality letter 11.19.17.docx
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].

Dear Members of NC Division of Air Quality
Please see attached letter regarding Air Quality permitting of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Northampton
Compressor Station Facility ID 6600169.
Respectfully,
Celena and Robert Bissette
Wilson County NC
Page C.2-488
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
NC Division of Air Quality
Mr. Charles McEachern
3800 Barrett Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27609

Dear Members of the NC Division of Air Quality:
We appreciate the opportunity you have given to the residences of North Carolina to voice
their concerns regarding the construction and operation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the
Compressor Stations related to the project. I hope you will have time to read this letter to the
end. Please do not approve permitting for the ACP Compressor Stations proposed in
Northampton County North Carolina.
Of utmost concern is the negative impact a compressor station in Northampton County will
have to the residence that live in proximity to the station. Natural gas compressor stations
operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week to move natural gas through a pipeline. During its
operation it will emit air pollution in the form of particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide formaldehyde and other hazardous air pollutants. It is
documented that these pollutants cause adverse health effects on humans and animals such as
respiratory problems including but not limited to bronchitis, shortness of breath, persistent
cough, throat irritation, eye irritation and burning, frequent nose bleeds, allergies, sinus issues,
dizziness, severe headaches, ringing in the ears, sores and ulcers in the mouth, nervous system
impacts, falling, staggering, brain disorders, difficulty concentrating, severe anxiety,
forgetfulness decreased motor skills and many more. It is documented that people previously
or currently living near a natural gas compressor station report significant decline in their health
after a station has been placed in operation.
Compressor stations are required to move natural gas thorough the proposed Atlantic Coast
Pipeline. The compressor station pump engines operate on natural gas as a fuel source.
Natural gas has its own pollutant that negatively impacts human health and the environment,
which is methane. Methane gas produces 25 times the amount of the greenhouse gases than
CO2 and other pollutants that cause global warming which effects Air Quality.
Although we are primarily addressing Air Quality I would like to comment on the noise from a
natural gas compressor station as it also negatively impacts human health and the
environment. By regulations the noise level of a compression stations should not exceed an
average day-night sound level of 55 decibels at the nearest noise sensitive area. There is
documentation that at certain times and under certain conditions this limit is exceeded,
sometimes to 100 decibels. In any case there is an unnatural noise that disrupts lives of
residence and animals in the area. Negative health effects include severe headache, sleep
disturbances, depression, tiredness, anxiety to name a few.
Page C.2-489
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
No one should have to trade their health or quality of life for what some call a cheaper,
environmentally friendly energy resource when it has been shown to adversely affect those
directly affected by its presence.
Have of our regulatory agencies accessed the need for the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
its compressor stations? The construction of another pipeline is not needed. There have been
documented studies and reports published that state s the pipelines currently in place are
sufficient to meet the current and future needs. A study (Sept 12, 2016) by Synapes Energy
Economics, Inc. found that “given existing pipeline capacity, exiting natural gas storage, the
expected reversal of the direction of flow on the existing Transco pipeline, and the expected
upgrade of the existing Columbia pipeline, the supply capacity of the Virginia-Carolinas region’s
existing nature gas infrastructure is MORE than sufficient to meet expected future peak
demands.

Please do not approve permitting for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Compressor Station in
Northampton County North Carolina.
Respectfully,
Celena and Robert Bissette
Wilson County, NC
7623 Leonard Rd
Kenly, NC 27542
Page C.2-490
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Andrews WeatherCenter
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ: Deny the Air Quality Permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 11:58:23 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear DAQ, NCDEQ, and those involved with the permitting process for the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline,
Good evening. I have monumental concerns ahead of this pivotal period for the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline. As a citizen of North Carolina, I refuse to idly stand by and watch the proposed ACP
clear hurdle after hurdle with anything but the most stringent of environmental scrutiny in
regard to the impacts of a major pipeline. The NCDEQ must demand environmental analysis
carried out in the highest regard for how it will affect citizens of Northampton County and
how this unnecessary pipeline would bring nothing but headaches (both metaphorically and
physically from the air pollution) to residents of northeastern NC.
The proposed compressor station would yield unknown impacts to an area that environmental
injustice is commonplace. Recent findings from studies analyzing environmental health in
southwestern Pennsylvania reveal that each of the studied compressor stations released large
quantities of air pollutants and aerosols that are commonly associated with a variety of
respiratory illnesses and other disorders. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC has been woefully
inadequate in supplying data on projected impacts from the proposed compressor station
and have not yet proven that they have taken the necessary steps and precautions to safely
and efficiently installed a major natural gas transmission pipeline.
The installation of such a large scale compressor station would make surrounding residents'
lives an exercise in futility in regard to living a normal, quiet, and healthy life. Sound
pollution, air pollution, and other unknown byproducts would result from this proposed
compressor station. The overall effrontery assumed from the proposal of an unjustified,
damaging, and dangerous pipeline is eclipsed by the utter lack of consideration for thousands
of people's lives that would be permanently altered by both the pipeline's construction and the
construction of this compressor station. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC appears to be
unqualified to make ethical and moral decisions - and that is something that is extremely
concerning considering they are at the helm of the proposal of an unnecessary and
pernicious pipeline.
I do not trust an entity such as Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC that appears to be blinded by
nearsightedness and fails to acknowledge the broad scope of impacts that would result from
this proposed pipeline, but I do trust that the readers of these comments will make the morally
and ethically correct decision to deny or at least defer the air quality permit for the proposed
compressor station. On behalf of those who fervently opposed the unnecessary and unwanted
Atlantic Coast Pipeline of which no need has been justified, we are relying on you to protect
the people of North Carolina from falling more susceptible to environmental hazards from this
haphazard pipeline. Please make the morally just, scientifically backed, and common sense
decision and deny the air quality permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.
Take care,
Page C.2-491
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Andrew Henderson
Page C.2-492
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Keely Wood
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DEQ
Date:Wednesday, November 08, 2017 1:32:05 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
CO = 56.86; NOx = 22.74; VOC = 8.35; PM10 = 18.94; PM2.5 = 18.94; SO2 = 3.07;
and GHG (natural gas) = 132,720.
· Estimated caustic chemical emissions, in pounds per year for air compressor
Formaldehyde = 660lbs; Ammonia = 29,580lbs; HCHO3 = 320lbs; Acetaldehyde =
44lbs; Acrolein = 6lbs; Benzene = 14lbs; Ethylbenzene = 34lbs; Propylene Oxide =
32lbs; Toluene = 142lbs and Xylenes = 70lbs.
Quite simply, an air compressor station poses a very real chemical and air quality
threat to the North Hampton community at a constant rate, year over year, for the
next 50+ years with the potential of Dirty Duke Energy adding more compressors to
the site. If you look up CDC on the chemical emissions, you will see how dangerous
they are. This will forever change the landscape of North Hampton from a rural
preserved land area to a highly contaminated area with increasing child
immunological syndromes including asthma, neurological development issues and
cancer.
WWJD? Be good stewards of the land, water and air, deny the
application.

Keely Wood
Euro USA Trading Co. Inc.
Central & Eastern Sales Manager
919-708-5221
www.bionaturae.com
www.jovialfoods.com
CHECK out Our Brown Rice Harvest for 2017
https://wp.me/p5yfS4-chi

Page C.2-493
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Janet Wooten
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Compressor station in Northampton County
Date:Sunday, November 19, 2017 2:47:41 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Please, DO NOT let this permit go forward!
The draft permit for the huge compressor station in Northampton County, in a
low income area that is almost 80% African American, doesn't take into
account Environmental Justice consideration, and other nearby major
polluters!
A review of the permit application shows that DEQ has not received some critical
information needed to properly regulate this facility, and doesn’t take into account
the impact of other nearby major polluters.With all of its compressor engines bigger
than 500 horsepower, this should trigger more air controls, but the permit only
requires the facility’s operators “to the extent practical, consistent with good air
pollution control practice for minimizing emissions”. This is an unenforceable
requirement.
Initial performance testing is only required within the first year, then every
three years thereafter. The facility will put more hazardous air pollutants,
nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (precursors of ozone, also
known as smog), particulate matter, greenhouse gases, and other pollutants
into the air that people breathe. All of these pollutants are harmful to
people’s health.
According to an Oct. 2017 study by the Southwest Pennsylvania
Environmental Health Project, every compressor station they studied
routinely releases large volumes of chemicals associated with a variety of
diseases and disorders. Nearby residents experience higher respiratory,
cardiovascular and neurological problems, and report elevated stress levels
due to 24/7 noise.
There is no acknowledgment of the impact of total air emissions from other
nearby polluting facilities, including another compressor station in Pleasant
Hill with leaking equipment, the Georgia Pacifica facility just above the VA
border, and the huge Enviva Wood Pellet plant a few miles to the
southwest. Regional modelling and increased monitoring must be required.
Page C.2-494
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Studies cited by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in its
environmental impact statement found elevated concentrations of
dangerous pollutants from samples collected near compressor stations.
These include volatile organic compounds, fine particulate matter, and
gaseous radon. Some VOCs, such as benzene and formaldehyde, are
carcinogens. Those who live near compressor stations have reported a
number of symptoms from skin rashes to gastrointestinal, respiratory, and
neurological problems.
Page C.2-495
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Maple MaryAnn Osterbrink
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Compressor Station Northhampton
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 5:19:06 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hi Mr. Abraczinskas and team,
I chatted with you after the Friday EJ conference at The Bricks, I was the lady who fasted on
Jones St. for the denial of ACP 401 water permit decision...I wore my 'loud' same green pants
that I wore on Jones so that you guys might recognize me, and you did. We chuckled about it
that Friday.
Of course I am against the station greatly affecting health for any humans, but especially this
being a racial-environmental justice issue as you know.
The chemicals that will out-pour are known carcinogens. Globally these have already
damaged plants and animal on land and in oceans, damaging life for generations before and
ahead.
New volatile organic compounds have no place in NC, which cause birth defects, cancer, lung
problems and heart issues.
Formaldehyde is NOT OK to be emitted anywhere in NC.
Equally unacceptable is the methane's 80X carbon addition to already advanced global
warming / climate catastrophe.
Thanks to all who care for NC,
Maple Mary Ann Osterbrink
500 Cobb ST
Durham NC
Page C.2-496
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Sharon Garbutt
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] NC DEQ/DAQ: Please deny permit for the ACP Northampton Compressor Station until ACP guarantees
protection of all citizens and the environment
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 12:39:52 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear NCDEQ/DAQ,
I am writing to ask that NCDEQ/DAQ deny the permit for the ACP
Northampton Compressor Station until the ACP guarantees protection of
all NC citizens and our environment. My request is based on the following
observations:
There is no need for the ACP and the proposed compressor. There is
already enough gas available through existing pipelines to service the
needs of potential ACP customers now and for the foreseeable future.
Therefore, there is no need for the Northampton compressor station
and the adverse, toxic effects it will have on NC citizens and our
environment.
Consistent with NC DEQ’s long standing environmental equity policy
and its obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, this permit
should not be given until DEQ performs a thorough environmental
justice review and assures that minority and low income populations
will not experience disproportionate adverse impacts from the
compressor station.
Because the compressor station will need to push gas a longer
distance than most compressor stations, either the pressure at the
station will need to be dangerously high or more compressor stations
will be needed along the pipeline. The ACP needs to clarify how gas
will be moved the length of the pipeline so that the potential impacts
of the compressor station(s) can be accurately assessed.
In order to protect NC/Northampton citizens and their environment,
Page C.2-497
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
DAQ must perform a science based assessment of the cumulative
impact of emissions from the proposed compressor station, combined
with emissions from existing industries in the area, including the
existing compressor station in Pleasant Hill, the Georgia-Pacific
industry site in nearby Skippers Va. and the Enviva wood pellet plant.
Given the high level of emissions expected from the new compressor
station and the emissions already present from existing industries
near the proposed compressor station site, in order to fulfill its
obligation to NC/Northampton citizens, DAQ must require constant
monitoring of air emissions and have a clear plan of steps to be taken
to reduce air emissions when they reach harmful levels. No permit
should be given until this plan is in place.
I hope that NCDEQ/DAQ will consider the above observations and deny the
permit for the proposed compressor station in Northampton County.
Thank you for your consideration,
Thelma Sharon Garbutt
Chatham County, NC
Page C.2-498
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:David Neal
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] RE: ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 5:51:58 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
To Whom it May Concern,

After I submitted this comment letter, the Northampton County Branch of the NAACP asked to sign
on to this letter as well. Please let me know if you would accept a substitute version of the letter
submitted by the Southern Environmental Law Center that includes the local chapter of the NAACP.

Regards,
David Neal

From: David Neal
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 4:55 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: ACP/DAQ

To Whom it May Concern:
Attached are comments to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s Department
of Air Quality regarding draft permit No. 10466ROO for the Northampton Compressor Station of the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline. These comments are submitted on behalf of:

North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP
Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe
North Carolina Environmental Justice Network
Sierra Club
Natural Resources Defense Council
Concerned Citizens of Tillery
North Carolina Conservation Network
Clean Air Carolina
North Carolina Council of Churches
North Carolina Interfaith Power and Light
350 Triangle
Rachel Carson Council
Southern Environmental Law Center

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
David Neal

David L. Neal
Page C.2-499
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
601 West Rosemary Street, Suite 220
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516-2356
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
SouthernEnvironment.org

This email may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized
to receive email for the addressee), you may not use, copy, or disclose this email or any information therein. If you
have received the email in error, please reply to the above address. Thank you.

Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential.
Page C.2-500
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Harvey Richmond
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] RE: ACP/DAQ
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2017 4:23:41 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I am a retired environmental analyst who worked on the review and revision of the
national ambient air quality standards for over 31 years at the U.S. EPA. Below are
concerns I have with the proposed Compressor Station for the ACP to be built near
the NC/Virginia border.
1) The proposed compressor station would add significant emissions of Greenhouse
gases (GHG) and other pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic
compounds. The GHG emissions, especially methane which is a more potent GHG
than carbon dioxide, will contribute to climate change. The NOx and VOC
emissions will contribute to formation of elevated nitrogen dioxide and ozone
levels, that will adversely affect public health (e.g., aggravation of asthma and other
respiratory conditions, increased hospital admissions and asthma attacks, increased
doctors visits).
2) Residents who live in the vicinity of the proposed compressor station include
particularly vulnerable populations with higher rates of asthma and respiratory
diseases and respiratory cancer.
3) Residents living in the vicinity of this proposed compressor station are also near
other proposed energy facilities that will increase the exposure of these residents to
even higher levels of ozone and nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants.
4) The proposed air pollution monitoring is inadequate. Monitoring needs to be
closer to the facility and needs to include hourly levels of pollutants like nitrogen
dioxide that pose health risks associated with short-term exposures and to include
longer-term monitoring and reporting for formaldehyde and any other toxic air
pollutants which pose health risks associated with chronic health effects.
I urge the NC Division of Air Quality to reject the ACP's air quality permit for the
proposed compressor station. Unless the owners of the ACP can demonstrate
dramatic lower levels of pollution, this project poses an unacceptable threat to
public health both due to projected emission levels and the dangers associated with
potential fires and explosions and also unacceptable threat to our climate.
Harvey M. Richmond
[e-mail]
[phone] (mobile)
Page C.2-501
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Rachel Karasik
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Re: DEQ PERMIT #10466R00 for the Northampton Compressor Station Facility ID 6600169
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 9:56:55 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hello,
My name is Rachel Karasik and I am a resident of Durham and a voter in North Carolina. This
weekend I learned a lot more about the ACP I now oppose giving Dominion, Duke, and
eventually Piedmont permits that will enable them to build pipelines in many counties in
North Carolina. I believe that using eminent domain to take peoples' lands who are low-
income, have little access to education to understand the issues, and possess few opportunities
to generate income is taking advantage of and exploiting our most vulnerable. Also we all
know that people who lease their land for solar will generate more income than a one-time
payment from a natural gas or coal company. Additionally Duke energy has not demonstrated
due diligence in the past when it comes to avoiding the threat of a spill or a blast in the
community, nor has Duke paid to clean up for such errors (re: current rate hikes).
DEQ, DAQ, and DWR can help residents of North Carolina engage with energy production in
a way that is better for our natural resources, corporations’ bottom line, and community
development - but the ACP is not the way.
I believe these permits should only be granted when EIS and EA demonstrate that the risk to
communities in terms of losing access to jobs, resources, and the utility of their land is zero. I
am happy to comment further on this if necessary.
Thank you
Rachel Karasik
Page C.2-502
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Liz Adams
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Subject: ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 6:57:57 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Nov 20, 2017
VIA E-MAIL [e-mail]
Subject: ACP/DAQ
NC Division of Air Quality,
Attn: Charles McEachern
3800 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, N.C., 27609
Sun, wind and storage could supply 100% of North Carolina’s electricity generation needs
and will allow us to transition our transportation sector from petroleum to electric vehicles.
Incorrect and outdated assumptions about the costs, benefits and public necessity of
building the Atlantic Coast Pipeline may lock us into a costly and dangerous future.
Environmental groups in North Carolina are united against this project for health and safety
concerns documented in the following reports:
Clean Water for NC Report “Dangerous-Neighbors” documents health impacts of our
rapid expansion of unconventional natural gas infrastructure.
Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and Oil Change International report “The Art of the Self
Deal” that breaks down how companies manufacture demand for new pipelines by
entering into contracts with their own subsidiaries for fracked gas shipping capacity on
those same pipelines.
The NAACP Report “Fumes Across the Fenceline” documents the health impacts of
Air Pollution from oil & gas facilities on African American Communities.
Allowing the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s linear greenfield development from Northampton to
Robeson County without communicating the full risks and requirements for mitigating the
potential harms is inconsistent with the constitutional protections provided for human health
and the environment in North Carolina.
Article XIV, Section 5, of the North Carolina Constitution provides the following:
It shall be the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the
benefit of all its citizenry, and to this end it shall be a proper function of the State of
North Carolina and its political subdivisions to acquire and preserve park, recreational,
and scenic areas, to control and limit the pollution of our air and water, to control
excessive noise, and in every other appropriate way to preserve as a part of the
common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, open
Page C.2-503
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
lands, and places of beauty.
The perfect storm of corporate malfeasance and a lax regulatory and enforcement
environment is brewing to degrade the air quality in North Carolina, and I call on DAQ to
deny the air permit for the Northampton compressor station to prevent harms to public
health. Technology is improving our ability to educate the public about how changes in air
quality, weather and climate can impact public health, but full disclosure and improved
monitoring of emissions is needed.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, itself a company that consists of a partnership between Duke
Energy and Dominion Energy, plans to build the pipeline to supply unconventional
natural gas or “fracked gas” from Pennsylvania and West Virginia to power generating
stations owned by Duke Energy in NC and Dominion Energy in Virginia.
An assessment of the peer-reviewed research on the public health impacts of
unconventional gas development infrastructure shows the number of publications increasing
exponentially between 2009 and 2015. Expanding the pipeline to North Carolina will drive
demand for new exploration in these communities that are already experiencing the harmful
effects of this expanding industry.
Gas could be used by Duke Energy to switch their remaining high polluting power plants in
NC from coal to natural gas, to rid North Carolina of coal and their waste, but there is no
guarantee. Leaked audio recently revealed the pipeline’s owners — which include Duke
Energy and Dominion Energy and their subsidiaries — plan to run the project into South
Carolina, too. If the pipeline is extended to South Carolina and Georgia, the unconventional
natural gas may be exported overseas at a converted LNG Export Port on Elba Island in
Georgia. Atlantic asserted to FERC that this pipeline was a “public necessity” and omitted
disclosing their future plan to extend the ACP further south than the current terminus
Page C.2-504
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
north of the Lumbee River. The ACP will transport 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas daily or 1,500
million cubic feet of gas daily. If the natural gas that is delivered through the ACP pipeline
will end up supplying this LNG export facility, then the ratepayers should not pay the full cost
for building the pipeline. If we assume the ACP fully supplies the LNG facility, then (.35
bcf/1.5 bcf) x 100 = 23.33 % of the pipeline should be paid for by the investors of the LNG
facility. Duke and Dominion will not share the profits of the LNG facility sales with the
ratepayers who are told they must pay full cost + a guaranteed 14% rate of return to Atlantic
to build the pipeline. Displacing U.S. coal generation by combusting U.S. natural gas is more
efficient in reducing global greenhouse gases than exporting it abroad; an equivalent
reduction in combustion emissions can be obtained without the additional supply chain
emissions required by the liquefaction, shipping, and re-gasification steps for export. I
recommend that DAQ weigh the full costs of expanding the pipeline on our climate, and if it
is approved DAQ must limit and control the greenhouse gas emissions according to our
state constitutional provisions.
The EPA’s Endangerment Finding included key environmental and welfare effects that North
Carolina is especially vulnerable to including sea level rise, water stress, forest and
agricultural disruption by forest fires, impact on our energy infrastructure, by drought and
threats to physical infrastructures and institutional infrastructures and threats to ecosystems
causing species to shift north and to higher elevations. These, in combination with other
stresses such as development, habitat fragmentation, invasive species could have negative
consequences on biodiversity and the benefits that healthy ecosystems provide to humans
and the environment. Building this pipeline will create future threats that will make it more
likely that the pipeline will be damaged by storms, flooding, and other climate catastrophes. I
recommend that NC DEQ require the Atlantic to create a Hazard Assessment Plan and
provide a full report to the public for public comment.
The Climate Science Special Report, volume one of 4th report of the National Climate
Assessment, was released on November 3rd. It’s findings show distinct ways climate change
is showing up in our communities:
Heavy rainfall is increasing in intensity and frequency across the U.S. and is expected
to continue rising.
The number of large forest fires in the West and Alaska has increased and are
projected to happen more often with rising temperatures.
Sea-level rise has already affected the U.S. with daily tidal flooding events
accelerating in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast Cities.
16 of the last 17 years are the warmest on record for the world
The magnitude of future climate impacts depends on the amount of emissions we create.
Page C.2-505
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
NOAA Global Monthly Trends Report for Greenhouse Gases
Under the Trump Administration, the Federal Government is greasing the wheels for the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, allowing these monopoly utility companies to distort the market and
increase the concentration of methane in the atmosphere. Governor Cooper’s Administration
and NC DEQ need to be our regulatory enforcer of last resort. They must enforce our
environmental regulations and laws to protect and preserve our environment, it’s people,
land and our freedom to choose a clean energy solution for our power generation needs.
Atlantic’s public permit filings do not disclose the full environmental risk and harm to
communities, and this inaccurate and incomplete disclosure makes it unlikely that NCDEQ
can implement appropriate controls to noise and air pollution to protect public health, so
therefore I recommend that NC DEQ deny all permits associated with the pipeline.
North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality’s long-standing Environmental Equity
policy recognizes the potential for disproportionate environmental burdens imposed on low-
income communities and communities of color. Under this Environmental Equity policy and
obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the NC DEQ is required to consider
the project’s environmental harms to minority and low-income communities. I recommend
Page C.2-506
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
that NC DEQ complete a robust environmental justice review before it can grant this permit.
The State of NC also needs to deny the Air Quality permit for the Northampton Compressor
Station or it will be unfairly exposing taxpayers to costly and risky “RESTORE Acts” that will
follow future catastrophic climate events. Access to “cheap gas” doesn’t account for the full
costs of pipeline leaks and explosions. Catastrophic climate events from increased
greenhouse gas emissions are increasing the amount of perilous destruction that
communities are being exposed to. The cost estimates for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline don’t
factor in the disaster assistance required to help local low capacity, high hit communities
recover and rebuild. I recommend that the DAQ deny the permit. However, if it is approved, I
recommend that DAQ require the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to use a robust and continuous
optical monitoring system for leak detection of methane and ethene along the pipeline,
metering and compressor stations and report the results to the NC DEQ and the public.
All components of the pipeline infrastructure cause RISK to HUMAN HEALTH and the
ENVIRONMENT.
Pipeline infrastructure including air compressors, metering stations, and release valves
along the pipeline will emit methane, radon, air toxics, and reactive nitrogen and volatile
organic carbon, creating a toxic stew of air pollution. NAAQS standards are insufficiently
protective for local air quality impacts. Current protocols used for assessing compliance with
ambient air standards do not adequately determine the intensity, frequency or durations of
the actual human exposures to the mixtures of toxic materials released regularly at
unconventional natural gas development sites, including compressor stations. More recent
investigations on formaldehyde near compressor stations are focused on the chemical
reaction between methane and sunlight. While it is well known that stationary compressor
station engines emit formaldehyde, it is less well known that formaldehyde may also be
Page C.2-507
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
formed at these sites through this chemical reaction. I recommend that DAQ perform
Chemical Transport Modeling to model ozone and atmospheric deposition of nitrate to
determine the full impact of the pipeline on future NAAQS attainment and the health of
impaired watersheds.
Air Quality Monitoring Stations are located across the country. However, the nearest
stations (measuring PM2.5) are over 60 miles away from the proposed Northampton
compressor station. I recommend that DAQ deny the permit, but if it is approved I
recommend that DAQ require Atlantic to perform Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) at
60 ft high stacks on each compressor.
Exposure to pollutants depends on meteorology, chemical reactions, your proximity, the
duration and type of events (blowdown, leaks) that create pollutant emissions. The reaction
of VOC and NOx + sunlight forms Ozone and other secondary organic particulates
(PM2.5). Atmospheric Inversions limit the mixing and transport in the atmosphere which
concentrates air pollutants in the stagnant air. NC has higher rate of multi-day inversions
than most of the US due to frequency of Bermuda High. I recommend that the DAQ create a
website to provide Inversion Alerts to the public (this service would serve multiple users:
warnings to farmers to avoid spraying pesticides during inversion events to prevent
agricultural drift, warnings to firefighters to avoid prescribed burning, warnings to
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) reduce controllable emissions such as
spraying of hog farm waste on fields)
Frequency of inversions in the eastern United States
Page C.2-508
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
The monitoring stations image shown above from the NC DEQ, shows an increase in Ozone
for 2014–2016.
Methane emissions from compressor blowdown events and pipeline leaks and explosions
will increase the greenhouse emissions significantly. Total GHG emissions for the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline is 38 Million metric tons. This is an emissions equivalent to 20 coal plants or
14 million passenger vehicles.
Air toxics are emissioned from the compressor turbines and pipeline infrastructure. NC’s Air
Toxic regulation sets a singular standard to protect public health: a “facility shall not emit any
of the [listed] toxic air pollutants in such quantities that may cause or contribute beyond the
premises…to any significant ambient air concentration that may adversely affect human
health.” 15A NCAC 2D 1104. The Ohio DAPC has found that some compression-ignition
engines emit significant quantities of formaldehyde. In order to ensure new or modified
projects do not cause any potential threats to health and the environment, the Ohio DAPC is
asking permittees to conduct modeling for formaldehyde whenever the project is expected to
emit more than 1.0 ton/yr of formaldehyde. The Ohio DAPC stipulates when the more
sophisticated methods are used, the ambient modeling concentrations that must be met
are 49 µg/m3 maximum 1-hour concentration and 0.8 µg/m3 on an annual basis. Short
term exposures may be masked if annual averages are used, so maximum 1-hour
concentration limits are more protective to local communities. Note: The Potential to Emit
rate for Formaldehyde from the three Northampton Compression Turbines is 2.83 lb/hr or
12.4392 tons/year. Compressor stations have been documented sources of Formaldehyde. I
recommend that DAQ deny the permit, but if it is approved I recommend that DAQ require
that Atlantic demonstrate that the NC and Federal Air Toxic Regulations are met using an
optical Formaldehyde Monitor for continuous emission fenceline monitoring. I recommend
that the DAQ create permit guidelines for compressor stations that include guidelines for
ambient modeling and fenceline observed concentrations that must be met for both a
Page C.2-509
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
maximum 1-hour concentration as well as an an annual concentration. Formaldehyde
emissions are an important precursor to producing hydroxyl radicals and thus can impact
atmospheric chemistry and the formation of ozone. I recommend that DAQ report on the
baseline sources of formaldehyde emissions in North Carolina, how these emission sources
are distributed across the state, how the Atlantic Coast Pipeline will contribute to those
emissions. I recommend that the DAQ review and model their regulations after learning
from the challenges faced by states who are having difficulty characterizing their regional air
quality due to the presence of multiple complex air emission sources.
Emissions of criteria air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from the Northampton Compressor Station may cause future violations of the Clean
Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the Raleigh area. Current protocols used
for assessing compliance with ambient air standards using annual averages, does not
adequately determine the intensity, frequency or durations of the actual human exposures to
the mixtures of toxic materials released regularly at pipeline compressor stations. Due to the
low population density in Northampton County and surrounding counties, there aren’t nearby
air quality monitoring stations. What is the probability for an exceedance of 70-ppb ozone
standard due to the addition of the pipeline and the Northampton Compressor Turbines? I
recommend that DAQ deploy a special purpose monitoring site or site a monitor from their
rotating background monitoring network, to establish a baseline concentration data for SO2,
PM2.5, PM10, NOX near the proposed compressor station, prior to the installation of the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline.
Noise from compressor turbines, causes disruption to sleep and stress for people and
wildlife, with problems of mating pairs of birds becoming disoriented and unable to find each
other. More than 1,700 acres of North Carolina forest; dozens of rare, threatened or
endangered species; and seven vital waterways would be affected, and even harmed by
Page C.2-510
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Tree clearing will impact the nesting and courting
of the endangered Red-cockaded woodpecker, the protected Bald eagle, the threatened
Cerulean warbler, Cooper’s hawks, red-tailed hawks and other migratory songbirds. The red-
cockaded woodpecker plays a vital role in the intricate web of life of the southern pine
forests. A number of other birds and small mammals use the cavities excavated by red-
cockaded woodpeckers, such as chickadees, bluebirds, titmice, and several other
woodpecker species, including the downy, hairy, and red-bellied woodpecker. It is prohibited
by federal law to clear trees in areas where these species are present during their nesting
seasons. Birds, amphibians, and mammals provide an easy-to-read barometer of the
pressures that human activities bring to bear on the world’s biodiversity. I recommend that
NC DEQ perform a baseline study using camera traps to document the pre-existing number
and varieties of birds, amphibians, and mammals in the swamps surrounding the
Northampton Compressor Station and along the entire length of the proposed pipeline, so
that the health of the ecosystem can be monitored and protected over time.
Figure of Red-cockaded Woodpecker from article Species Worth Saving
Atmospheric deposition of pollutants to the groundwater, wetlands, waterbodies, and water
supply, may result in further damage to already impaired watersheds. The fall line that the
pipeline follows through North Carolina is a natural formation that separates the Piedmont
from North Carolina’s coastal plain. Waterfalls are often present where rock meets the sandy
soils. The North Carolina Coastal Plain aquifer, underpinned by sand from ancient seas and
shorelines, is permeable, the groundwater vulnerable to pollution. And in eastern North
Carolina, where the population is largely rural, many people depend on groundwater for their
private wells. Wet deposition maps by year from the CASTNET monitoring sites show that
there are existing wet deposits of atmospheric nitrate in the region. At what rate will the
compressor station deposit wet and dry atmospheric nitrate and ammonium nitrogen to
these impaired watersheds? I recommend that DAQ assess the inputs of atmospheric
nitrogen deposition from the construction and operational phase of the Atlantic Coast
Pipelines to these impaired watersheds.
Page C.2-511
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Wet deposition of Nitrate for 2014, from maps by year from the CASTNET monitoring sites.
Market distortion, unmitigated emissions, and lack of full public disclosure of the risks of the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline are preventing healthy change in our energy system by discounting
the environmental harms of unconventional gas development. Clean energy and clean
technology companies including wind, solar and storage are in demand, and North Carolina
risks losing its leadership position of being attractive to businesses if the NC DEQ permits
the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to move forward. The Sierra Club’s analysis shows renewables
can reliably meet state’s energy needs in their report “A Pathway To A Cleaner Energy
Future in NC”. I recommend that DAQ deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor
Station as baseline studies, comprehensive air quality modeling, a robust leak-detection and
monitoring system plan, and hazard assessment reports have not been prepared and shared
with the public for review and comment.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Adams
103 Larkspur Lane
Cary, NC 27513
Page C.2-512
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Steven Norris
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Why the Northhampton compressor station and the ACP should not be built
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 9:30:16 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I am sure you are aware of the Frack Free NC report:
https://frackfreenc.org/wp-content/uploads/Dangerous-Neighbors-Final-6-8-2016.pdf
I cannot make any better arguments against the compressor station and the ACP generally than
are made in this report. In my mind, it proves many times over that the projects are so
damaging and dangerous that permitting them will degrade and endanger the lives not only of
those living along the pipeline route, but of the entire planet through climate change.
Hurricane Mathew in eastern NC and the wildfires in western North Carolina a year ago are
the opening chapter of how projects like this will impact the state. This fall's hurricanes give
an even clearer picture of what is ahead unless this rush to build more fossil fuel infrastructure
ceases.
Please do the right thing and reject the permits. Thank you.
Steven Norris, Ph.D., 828-777-7816, 372 Sharon Rd, Fairview, North Carolina 28730
Page C.2-513
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Normandy Blackman
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] "ACP/DAQ NO COMPRESSOR STATION(S)
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 8:52:02 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Please do not issue permits to ACP or any of its affiliates to build compressor stations in any of our
communities. SAY NO TO ACP/DAQ PERMITS TO SAVE OUR LAND, COMMUNITIES AND
ENVIRONMENT!!!!
FROM: Normandy Solomon Blackman
Page C.2-514
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Normandy Blackman
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] "ACP/DAQ" -NO ACP/DAQ PERMITS
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 8:18:30 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
We want energies for our digital age. WE DO NOT
WANT DIRTY FOSSIL FUELS FROM HISTORIC
TIMES!!! WE WANT WIND, SOLAR OR THE NEW
ZERO POINT ENERGIES. NO ACP/DAQ PERMITS!!!
WE WANT TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT AND
LAND FROM DISASTER AND DESTRUCTION.
PLEASE HELP US BY SAYING NO TO THE PERMITS
Page C.2-515
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Normandy Blackman
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] "ACP/DAQ*=ACP%2FDAG
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 11:23:51 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE? PLEASE SAY NO TO COMPRESSOR
STATIONS!!! FROM: Normandy Solomon Blackman
Page C.2-516
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Harriett Gray
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP / DAQ
Date:Sunday, November 12, 2017 7:06:05 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
The long term regional economic damage from lower air quality and polluted waterways to
tourism, agriculture and quality of life far outweigh a few localized economic gains. The
compressor is being planned for a dangerous pipeline that has not passed any sort of water
quality safety and erosion control measures. Stop both projects now before the deleterious
effects are forced on the citizens of the Piedmont and eastern North Carolina.
Thank you,
Harriett Gray
2709 Mulberry Lane
Greenville, NC 27858
Page C.2-517
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Normandy Blackman
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP%2FDAQ--- NO TO ACP COMPRESSOR STATIONS
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 8:30:09 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
We want energies for our digital age. WE DO NOT
WANT DIRTY FOSSIL FUELS FROM HISTORIC
TIMES!!! WE WANT WIND, SOLAR OR THE NEW
ZERO POINT ENERGIES. NO ACP/DAQ PERMITS!!!
WE WANT TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT AND
LAND FROM DISASTER AND DESTRUCTION.
PLEASE HELP US BY SAYING NO TO THE
PERMITS!!! From: Normandy Solomon Blackman
Page C.2-518
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Amanda Ibarra
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 11:57:00 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
To whom it may concern, which is the citizens, denizens, and residents of the state of North
Carolina:
I am writing to express my opposition to the installation of Atlantic Coast
Pipeline/Compressor Station.
Just under three years ago, Duke Energy was charged with dumping coal ash waste into
leaking ponds in North Carolina. These toxic spills add insult to injury to the residents in and
around Roxboro, NC, a town which houses two power plants that provide the state with
energy. Residents have high rates of cancer and some folks lost their clean water, which Duke
Energy refused to take responsibility for. This is an example of environmental racism--racism
enacted through policies that target poor and marginalized folk. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is
scheduled to be installed in fragile ecosystems, fragile economic communities, farmland,
private land, and indigenous land.
This is coming just on the heels of a nation still smarting from Standing Rock, and this
proposed pipeline will be met with the same show of resistance. North Carolina is prime for a
shift in renewable energy. It is a state that has been spurned from the modern age because its
economy slid into regression after textiles fell. As an industrial state, much like rust belt states,
it is among the poorest states that feels left behind in the wake of advancing industries. Clean
energy is one of them.
This pipeline will dig our grave as a state of the past.
Our state does not want invasive installations for oil extraction or companies that are known
heavy polluters. After 12 years of battling, the town of Wilmington, NC triumphed in their
Stop Titan campaign, which prevented Titan Cement from building in the fragile ecosystems
like the Cape Fear River, and wetlands and marshes and polluting air and water quality for
residents of Coastal North Carolina.
What little wealth we have in terms of natural beauty, land, and state pride, will be stripped
away as surely as this pipeline will leak and endanger the lives of everyone--plants, animals,
human, natural resources.
With Duke Energy's track record of neglect, irresponsibility, and unaccountability, I do not
think they - or any for-profit oil company - are fit to implement a project this big, covering so
much land, and endangering so many resources. If Duke Energy were truly "Progress" they
would be investing in clean energy--energy that would be guaranteed to provide for the
residents of North Carolina for this generation and for the future of our planet.
This pipeline will increase the cost of living by raising electricity prices all while making the
state unlivable with inevitable oil spills that will contaminate drinking water, ground water,
Page C.2-519
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
and recreational water. This pipeline will displace people and damage the environment so that
Duke Energy may live.
Page C.2-520
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Julia Haslett
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 9:40:03 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
To Whom it May Concern:
I write to express my opposition to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Compressor Station proposed for Northampton
County. The pipeline has the potential to endanger thousands of residents who would live nearby it and it would
damage hundreds of acres of farmland.
As a concerned citizen of this state, I urge you to vote this proposal down.
Sincerely,
Julia Haslett
Orange County
Page C.2-521
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Ryan Williams
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 9:00:21 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
To Whom it May Concern,
I am opposed to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. I'm concerned about the cost, the possible safety
concerns, and the impact it would have on the surrounding community. Additionally, I do not
believe that spending money on oil is the right way to prioritize investments in our energy
future.
Thanks,
Ryan
Ryan Williams
108 Cardriff Pl.
Durham NC, 27712
919.399.9491
Page C.2-522
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Nancy Jacobs
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 7:00:49 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
My family does not want the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Time and time again, this has shown to
be bad... for People, for the Environment, and for Animals. We sy NO. It will create very few
permanent jobs, and only the oil companies will be making money off of this.
Nancy Jacobs
Craig Jacobs
Sarah Slepak
Elijah and Noah Teague.
Page C.2-523
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Cheri DeRosia
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 6:46:23 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I'm really concerned about the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Northampton County Compressor Station. Why is the
state even thinking about allowing a private company to damage thousands of acres of privately-owned land
for the benefit of a small number of corporations? How can we possibly know whether that destruction will
be rewarded with any public good given the volatility of the price of natural gas? Wouldn't it be a much
better idea to support renewable energy such as solar, given that the BLS forecasts continued rapid solar job
growth?
It feels like the ACP would be a free handout to Duke Energy at the expense of North Carolinians.
Cheri DeRosia
201 Ray Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Page C.2-524
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:douglasnorton21
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 12:15:19 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
As a voting citizen of New Bern, NC I don't believe this project is in the best public interest
and will unnecessarily impact private property in addition to presenting environmental
concerns. From all the information I've read this additional natural gas supply is not needed.
Thank you, Douglas Norton
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Page C.2-525
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Janine Latus
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 11:30:44 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I absolutely oppose the pipeline and the compressor station in Northampton County. As we
know from the recent leaks in the Dakotas, pipelines leak. You'd already be disrupting
agricultural land to install the pipeline; what happens to the farms along the route if/when
there's a leak? What happens to the people who live along the pipeline in the event of an
explosion?
Fracking and/or harvesting through shale production is financially inefficient and potentially
terribly polluting. Please do not approve this pipeline nor this compressor station.
Thank you,
Janine Latus
836 Edinborough Drive
Durham NC 27703
Page C.2-526
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Becca Zerkin
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 9:51:58 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
To the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Thank you for soliciting public comments regarding the Atlantic Coast pipeline air compressor
station.
I strongly oppose building this station and the pipeline. Electricity rates for my family and my
fellow North Carolinians will increase if it is built due to Duke Energy's guaranteed profits.
This economic sacrifice by citizens is not justified by the potential for economic activity that
is touted by Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas and Southern Company
Gas. Solar power is a much safer and more robust investment for our state - it is providing a
rapidly-growing, longer-lasting job market in NC and a cleaner source of energy.
The pipeline would pose health and safety hazards, as well as economic disruption, to North
Carolinians who would live near it, disportionately affecting poor African American
communities. Cancer and other health problems are documented risks associated with living
near pipelines. Leaks are a real risk to property and water, as we've just seen along the
Keystone pipeline. The proposed NC pipeline would traverse more than 1300 parcels of land
and damage farmland.
Please do not approve the air compressor.
Thank you,
Rebecca Zerkin
211 Glade St.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Page C.2-527
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Hamilton, Darlene
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 7:54:18 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Compressor station is not the energy wave of the future. Too much at risk for the citizens of NC
especially those in Northampton County. Going “Carbon Free” means you have to stop pushing
outdated forms of energy. Take a stand for the future.

With best regards,
Darlene Hamilton

Install Base Administrator
Customer Administration Services
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.
HC NAM USA BA SV CA CE ADM
221 Gregson Drive
Cary, NC 27511, USA
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.siemens.com

Page C.2-528
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Edith Braginton
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Sunday, November 19, 2017 7:39:06 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I vote NO. We need clean air, clean water, and clean farmland. The pipeline is an accident
waiting to happen.
Edith Braginton, Halifax County
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
Page C.2-529
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:lauralkuebler
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Sunday, November 19, 2017 11:34:01 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
No! I do not want North Atlantic Pipeline to build their Air compressor in our State or
Counties. CLEAN AIR FOR NC
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Page C.2-530
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Brett Sheppard
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Saturday, November 18, 2017 5:48:54 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear DEQ Representative,
I’m writing to register my disapproval of the proposed Atlantic Coast pipeline. The social and environmental
impacts far outweigh any benefits citizens would receive from the pipeline. Please represent the people, and put a
stop to this project.
Thank you,
Brett Sheppard
Page C.2-531
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Valerie Williams
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Saturday, November 18, 2017 2:28:02 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Say no to any industrialization of pipelines infrastructure. We are living in a digital age which
no longer requires dipping into the past for fossil usage when we should advance toward with
wind, solar or newly released creation of up coming zero point energies that do not come with
the dangers and destruction by LNG creating dangers and possible attacks of nuclear warfare.
God created all things and said it was good. Revelation Revelation 11:17-19 ..... and
those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those I
who destroy the earth.”.
Please let's not get locked down with fossil fuels. Let's move forward. Deny
deny deny!
Valerie Williams,
President
Concerned Stewards of Halifax County, A BREDL Chapter
"Stewards of All of God's Creations"
Page C.2-532
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Stuart
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Saturday, November 18, 2017 12:12:53 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear Officials:
Please turn this permit down. The assault on our air is unbelievable. I can’t even believe we are considering this.
Please vote NO!
Page C.2-533
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:[e-mail]
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Friday, November 17, 2017 6:47:39 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear Mr. McEachern,
Please don't allow the ACP Compressor Station to be built in Northampton County.
My heart has been broken in recent years by the deforestation and environmental abuse imposed upon one of the
most beautiful and underprivileged counties in North Carolina. Truly a Heaven on Earth.
I beg of you.
Page C.2-534
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Chris Chato
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] acp/daq
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:34:42 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Below are two reasons to oppose this pipeline.
1. In North Carolina the ACP crosses more than 1300 parcels of land, and is
near enough to thousands of homes that, in the event of a rupture or
explosion, it will endanger both homes and families in them, as well as
farm animals and pets.
2. Farmland is damaged by the installation of the pipeline, both temporarily
and permanently. To install the pipeline workers will clear a 150 foot wide
swath of land through fields, pastures, gardens, and everywhere else it
goes.

Thank you very much, Chris Chato
Page C.2-535
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Susan Weaver
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:52:55 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Please do not approve the compressor station or other measures toward the pipeline. The
pipeline will involve damage or disruption of private property and is not needed.
Solar is more efficient and creates jobs. Let's work in that direction instead.
Susan Weaver
3003 Shaftsbury St
Durham, NC 27704
To help provide free food for starving people:
http://www.Thehungersite.com
Page C.2-536
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Betsey Granda
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:28:02 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I am wring to you in opposition to the Northampton County Compressor
Station.
In North Carolina the ACP crosses more than 1300 parcels of land, and is near
enough to thousands of homes that, in the event of a rupture or explosion, it
will endanger both homes and families in them, as well as farm animals and
pets.
The ACP, which will cost about $5 billion, will increase the price of electricity.
As a regulated monopoly Duke Energy is by law guaranteed a hefty profit on
anything it builds. We are tired of footing the bill for Duke Power's follies.
Yours truly,
Betsey Granda
27516-4604
Page C.2-537
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Benjamin Bundy
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:39:07 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hi my name is Benjamin Bundy, I am a resident in Raleigh, North Carolina
I would like the NC Department of Environmental Quality to deny the permit
to build the Atlantic Coast Pipeline through the state of North Carolina. The
pipeline and the natural gas that will be pumped through it pose a safety and
health threat to all of the citizens of North Carolina as well as its valuable
ecosystems.
Thank you!
Page C.2-538
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Michael Mitchell
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 7:27:44 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hi my name is Michael Mitchell I am a resident in Raleigh, NC
I would like the NC department of Environmental quality to deny the permit to build the
Atlantic coast pipeline through the state of North Carolina. The pipeline and the natural gas
that will be pumped through it pose a safety and health threat to all citizens of North Carolina
as well as its valuable ecosystems.
Thank you for your time
Page C.2-539
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Emily Trentham
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 7:22:57 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hi,
I am Emily Trentham and I am a first year student at North Carolina State University as well
as a resident of Raleigh, North Carolina. I would like the NC Department of Environmental
Quality to deny the permit to build the Atlantic Coast Pipeline through the state of North
Carolina. The pipeline and the natural gas that will be pumped through it pose a safety and
health threat to all the citizens of North Carolina as well as its valuable ecosystems.
Sincerely,
Emily Trentham
--
Emily Trentham
North Carolina State University,
B.S. Environmental Engineering,
B.S. Political Science,
Class of 2021
[e-mail]
Page C.2-540
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Tymber Felts
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 7:06:36 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hi, my name is Tymber Felts, I am a resident of Raleigh, North Carolina.
I would like the NC Department of Environmental Quality to deny the permit to build the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline through the state of North Carolina. The pipeline and the natural gas
that will be pumped through it pose a safety and health threat to all citizens of North Carolina
as well as its valuable ecosystems.
Thank you!
--
Tymber Felts
NC State University, 2020
Global Sustainability and Development
Page C.2-541
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Robert Van Der Drift
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 7:02:52 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hi, my name is Robert van der Drift. I am a resident in Raleigh, North Carolina.
I would like the NC Department of Environmental Quality to deny the permit to build the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline through the state of North Carolina. The pipeline and the natural gas
that will be pumped through it pose a safety and health threat to all of the citizens of North
Carolina. Furthermore, important and valuable ecosystems will be negatively impacted by the
construction of the pipeline.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Robert van der Drift
Page C.2-542
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Cameron Howard
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 7:02:12 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hi, my name is Cameron Howard, I am a resident in Raleigh, NC.
I would like the NC Department of Environmental Quality to deny the permit to build the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline through the state of North Carolina. The pipeline and the natural gas
that will be pumped through it pose a safety and heath threat to all of the citizens of North
Carolina as well as its valuable ecosystems.
Thank you!
Cameron Howard
NCSU 2019
Electrical Engineering
[e-mail] | [phone]
Page C.2-543
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Donna Bullock
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Sunday, November 12, 2017 3:23:00 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
If there is no danger to those close to the pipeline facility, then why are they never put by
wealthy neighborhoods? So, the lies are told to make the poor and people of color submit or
for people not to speak out against enforced death traps that are always put near the poor and
people of color! If there is no danger, then put them where the wealthy live!
Page C.2-544
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Tamara S
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 7:35:15 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I writing today to oppose The Northampton County Compressor Station.
The risk is not worth the reward.
I understand and respect the effort to move away from using coal in our power
supply, but not at the expense of personal property, farmland and residents' health
and safety. Duke Energy stands to profit from this risk as it will pass along the
expense of the ACP to its customers. For the standpoints of risk management and
long-term profits, investment in solar is a much better idea.
Thank you
Tamara Sanders
708 Davie Rd
Carrboro NC 27510
Page C.2-545
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:[e-mail]
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 11:09:43 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I am writing in opposition to the construction of the proposed air compressor station for the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline on the North Carolina-Virginia border (in Northhampton County, NC). The pipeline is costly, dangerous
and unnecessary. If the pipeline is built farms, people and animals will be at risk of leaks (or worse) and the
damages that would cause. Almost as important is the unnecessary cost and investment in an outdated, dirty
technology with an uncertain future.
Although boosters of the project tout job growth, jobs associated with building a pipeline are temporary.
Real, sustainable job growth would result from installation of new technologies, particularly solar energy.
Perhaps if the regulated monopoly, Duke Energy, is denied this route, they will seriously consider
investments in clean, sustainable energy - wind and solar.
Thank you for taking my comments.
Vickie Atkinson
361 Wild Ginger Ridge
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Page C.2-546
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Jo Ann Amey
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 06, 2017 9:01:59 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
As a resident of northern North Carolina, I have a particular interest in and concern about the
proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline compressor station. This station, which would carry gas
produced through very dangerous fracking, could put our area in danger of explosions.
Today we have access to wind energy and solar power. Why should we put our people and
environment in danger when there are much better options? Please reconsider the fracking,
the pipeline, and the compressor station.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Amey
Page C.2-547
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Pam Frome
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 06, 2017 3:54:25 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
This comment is to oppose the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the creation of the air compressor
station. In the event of a rupture or explosion (as we have seen in other areas of the country)
thousands of people will be at risk. Solar power will bring far more jobs that are long lasting
into NC. And this will increase the price of electricity. We should stick with investing in solar
and wind power and not put people at risk with a pipeline.
Pam Frome
Page C.2-548
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Shawn O"Neill - Print Plus
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:26:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Please do not allow anything to be approved for use with the Atlantic Coast Pipeline! This an
unnecessary pipeline where the risks out way any kind of benefit.
Thanks,
Shawn
Kill Devil Hills, NC
Page C.2-549
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Helen Furr
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:55:23 AM
Attachments:sig2015.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
verify that the attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].
Good Morning,
I am strongly against the construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and/or any pipelines that
will transport fracked fossil fuels. Along with the lack of through information provided by the
developers, we as North Carolinians must look further into the future and understand that
fossil fuels are analog. We as a nation should embrace the economic potential of renewable
energies and provide incentives, work programs, and education outreach to help transition to a
healthier way of life. I envision NE North Carolina as a renewable mecca opening up all kinds
of environmentally friendly industries and jobs. Let’s tap into this potential NOW and pull off
the fossil fuel band aid.
Thank you
Helen Furr
OBX
Helen Furr
North Beach Sun
Access Design & Print
[e-mail]
252.982.6269
252.449.4444
Page C.2-550
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Gary Wiggins
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ comments
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 11:56:44 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I am opposed to granting an air quality permit for the Northampton County compressor station on the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline due to the likelihood of natural gas leaks leading to increased greenhouse gasses and more immediate
health concerns for local residents.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Gary Wiggins
Raleigh NC
Sent from my iPad
Page C.2-551
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Pamela Culp
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ PLEASE RECONSIDER
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 8:36:14 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I am a physician and life long North Carolinian. I do not support the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline going through our state due to the very real potential of negative impact on
the health of our citizens and deleterious environmental effects. Please consider this
for the health and well being for all our citizens and our beloved state.
Thank you,
Pamela J Culp
42 River Walk Drive
Asheville, NC 28804
Page C.2-552
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:june wollett
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Air quality
Date:Sunday, November 19, 2017 10:00:13 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Hello
I am opposed to the compressor station being planned for Northhampton County.
Methane gas is a much more potent gas and will dramatically increase the dangers of climate change.
Already, the permafrost is melting and will create catastrophic events in the future.
June Wollett
Sent from my iPhone
Page C.2-553
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:steve roberts
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Compressor Station
Date:Friday, November 17, 2017 4:04:50 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
No to the pipeline! No to the compressor station.!
Thank you!
Steve Roberts
Sent from my iPhone
Page C.2-554
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Valerie Williams
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] DEQ/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 11:23:01 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
If you are able to pull up map of properties in Halifax County, NC. 0402993. Richneck Rd.
Enfield N C Mary W. Williams now deeded to Travis M. Privott. Please check subsurface
Beech Swamp. The ACP route could have gone straight but angled left from Beaverdam Rd
and will angle back right onec they destroy our white granite and other liquid and solid
mineral. I am a minister with plan to develop a spiritual outdoor adventure farm habitat. Have
had this vision since 1997. All groups will visit the farm. The majority will be kids from
schools Please don't contribute to what Revelations 11:17-19. says.
Now it will cut through our recognized century farm destroying everything . There is no
qarantee of no problems but as is is excellent. Please deny the permits. Look at lessons learned
the link below. A survey was done by the Roanoke Rapids Daily Herald . Over 60% replied
No Pipeline. I am looking for it.
http://www.agweb.com/mobile
Much Thanks for our legacy, our heritage
Page C.2-555
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Melanie Raskin
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] I oppose the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:31:57 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear Reader,
I am writing in opposition to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and air
compressor station. I am concerned about the impact on the 1300 parcels
of land the pipeline will travel and the threat to homes, families and
animals in the event of an accident or explosion. As a lover of fresh
foods and devoted shopper of the Carrboro Farmers' Market for the last
25 years, I am especially worried about the effect on our beautiful
beloved farmlands. These are precious lands that feed us--bodily and
spiritually. I want to protect our food and our environment--farms are
both. I question the reliance on gas when solar is a proven boon to
communities, with an excellent prosperity forecast. Last, I absolutely
do not relish the idea of still higher electric bills. As our family
ages (and our friends!), it is a very real concern to face ever-higher
energy costs...and honestly, I think it is quite closed-minded, silly,
and yes, shameful, to rely on electricity costs in this amazing era of
creativity, entrepreneurism and success in the alternative energy fields.
I absolutely oppose this pipeline.
Thank you for kindly reading my opinion, and thoughtfully considering my
position in your decision.
Sincerely,
Melanie Raskin
Orange County
Chapel Hill, NC
Page C.2-556
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Bob Dietz
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Northhampton County Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 6:03:31 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
As a long term North Carolina resident I strongly urge the commission to refuse the draft permit for this unnecessary
project that will only harm the environment and destroy the surrounding areas under development. We are well
beyond this need for fossil fuel production which only degrades the air, land, and homeowners quality of life in the
surrounding area. I urge you to vote NO to protect this beautiful land and the quality of life of those around this
proposed atrocity.
Sincerely,
Bob Dietz
Cary, NC
Page C.2-557
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Mary Honeycutt
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Opposition to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline & the Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:08:12 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I am opposed to the ACP for many reasons. The release of methane gas from the compressor
stations only increases climate change, not to mention the burning of fracked gas. Solar
energy offers us a much better alternative with no risks to human and animals that would be
caused by putting a pipe line through 600 miles. Solar energy will provide many more long
term jobs for North Carolina than the ACP. The destruction of waterways and farmland is
inevitable and not good for our state. Matter of fact I cannot think of even one reason that the
ACP would be good for North Carolina.
Thank you,
Mary Honeycutt
Page C.2-558
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Normandy Blackman
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Re: "ACP/DAQ" -NO ACP/DAQ PERMITS
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 8:19:50 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
We want energies for our digital age. WE DO NOT
WANT DIRTY FOSSIL FUELS FROM HISTORIC
TIMES!!! WE WANT WIND, SOLAR OR THE NEW
ZERO POINT ENERGIES. NO ACP/DAQ PERMITS!!!
WE WANT TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT AND
LAND FROM DISASTER AND DESTRUCTION.
PLEASE HELP US BY SAYING NO TO THE PERMITS.
From: Normandy Solomon Blackman
On Monday, November 20, 2017 8:17 PM, Normandy Blackman <[e-mail]> wrote:
We want energies for our digital age. WE DO NOT
WANT DIRTY FOSSIL FUELS FROM HISTORIC
TIMES!!! WE WANT WIND, SOLAR OR THE NEW
ZERO POINT ENERGIES. NO ACP/DAQ PERMITS!!!
WE WANT TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT AND
LAND FROM DISASTER AND DESTRUCTION.
PLEASE HELP US BY SAYING NO TO THE PERMITS
Page C.2-559
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Delicia Blackman
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Re: ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 11:39:58 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
To whom it concerns:
Please DO NOT allow for the ACP happen. Time and again it
has been shown that these pipeline burst, leak and cause
major damage. You are making decisions about peoples lives
and about their land when it has no impact on you. Don't
make the easy decision, make the right decision.
Page C.2-560
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
From:Julie Nye
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Stop the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Date:Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:44:03 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear Secretary Michael Regan,
The proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline pathway through North Carolina puts communities and natural resources at
great risk. I appreciate your agency’s insistence on collecting more information and asking tough questions of Duke
Energy and Dominion Energy.
But we cannot afford the costs and risks this pipeline will bring. Please protect our people and environment, and
keep the ACP out of North Carolina!
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Julie Nye
407 River Trace Dr Rougemont, NC 27572-6500
Page C.2-561
Attachment C.2: Unique Comments Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station

Attachment C.3
Unique Comments Received via Email Supporting the Northampton Compressor Station
There were three unique written comments received that expressed support for the air quality permit for the
Northampton Compressor Station. These commenters are identified in Table C.3-1. Copies of the comments are
included in this section.
Table C.3-1. Commenters that Submitted Unique Comments in Support
of the Northampton Compressor Station

From Subject Received Page
[e-mail] ACP/DAQ 11/20/2017 C.3-2
Sam True Atlantic Coast Pipeline -- Air Quality Permit
Comments
11/15/2017 C.3-4
Kenneth Rich Compressor station in Northampton County 11/17/2017 C.3-6

From:[e-mail]
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] ACP/DAQ
Date:Monday, November 20, 2017 1:00:01 AM
Attachments:ACPcompcomm.docx
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear Mr. McEachern:
I've attached comments regarding the proposed Northampton Compressor Station for
the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. I would greatly appreciate an acknowledgement your
agency received these comments.
Thanks, John Williams
503-439-9028
Page C.3-2
Attachment C.3: Unique Comments in Support of Northampton Compressor Station
WORLD WITHOUT COAL
2373 NW 185th Ave., #615
Hillsboro, OR. 97124
503-439-9028
North Carolina DAQ via e-mail
RE: Northhampton Compressor Station
Dear Mr. McEachern:
I am the director of Preferred Alternative’s World Without Coal campaign. We are a non-profit that
seeks to reduce coal usage worldwide. We offer the following comments on the proposed air permit for
the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s Northampton Compressor station.
The permit application and review say this facility will operate three turbines generating a total of about
21,700 horsepower. This facility’s add-on controls of Selective Catalytic Reduction and oxidation
catalysts will tightly control the potential emissions of Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide emissions.
We commend the operator’s decision to install add-on controls. We rarely, if ever see emissions from
compressor stations that are as well-controlled or even have add-on controls. For instance, the
following comparison illustrates that the proposed Northampton compressor station is better-controlled
than a nearby comparable facility.
Facility and location Horsepower Potential NOx
emissions, ton/year
Potential CO
emissions, ton/year
Northampton, NC 21,700 19.6 33
Tenn. Gas. Station
119a, WVA (permitted
in 2015) Table N-2.
21,197 62 68
This chart shows that the Northampton compressor station’s potential emissions are from 1/3rd to one
half h the emissions from a similar, recently permitted compressor station in a neighboring state.
World Without Coal is participating in this public comment period because the proposed operation of
the ACP pipeline and its compressor stations are part of Duke and Dominion’s plans to shut down seven
coal fired power plants and install thousands of megawatts of solar power, backed by additional gas
fired generation.
This plan would vastly reduce air emissions from coal combustion in North Carolina and neighboring
states, by tens of thousands of tons annually.
Since the Northampton compressor’s potential emissions are well-controlled to low levels, we urge
approval of the proposed permit.
Yours, John Williams (signed)
Page C.3-3
Attachment C.3: Unique Comments in Support of Northampton Compressor Station
From:Sam True
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Atlantic Coast Pipeline -- Air Quality Permit Comments
Date:Wednesday, November 15, 2017 12:02:22 PM
Attachments:S True, ACP Air Permit, November 15, 2017.docx
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Thank you for your consideration.
Sam True
Operations Manager
NCCAR Inc.
310 Technology Dr
Garysburg, NC 27831
[e-mail]
[phone]
Page C.3-4
Attachment C.3: Unique Comments in Support of Northampton Compressor Station
November 15, 2017
Public Hearing
Draft Air Quality Discharge Permit --- Atlantic Coast Pipeline
NC Department of Environmental Quality
To whom it may concern:
I’m a life-long resident of the Pleasant Hill community in Northampton County. My wife and I
reside approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the site of the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Compressor Station in Northampton County. My mother lives nearby and we raised our
children in that same neighborhood.
I write to express my support for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project and the location of the
compressor station in the Pleasant Hill community. I understand that there are concerns about
safety and have had individuals visit my home distributing materials in opposition to the
pipeline project.
The facts are that this pipeline and the compressor station have been designed to very exacting
standards. The pipeline will be closely monitored 24/7, 365 days a year, at Dominion Energy’s
Gas Control Center where experts will monitor pressure, temperature, and flow of gas at all
times through remote sensors.
Both during my service in the US Navy and in my subsequent professional career, I’ve been
responsible for the very thorough standards by which such sophisticated industrial systems are
controlled. I’m confident that best practices will be implemented and the regimen for
operations strictly enforced.
Likewise, two compressor/regulator stations already exist in the Pleasant Hill community close
to my residence. Those stations have existed for decades without incident other than the
occasional notice of odor as Mercaptan is added.
The ACP will bring much needed natural gas and provide a second gas line into the state, which
will help all of us, particularly those of us in eastern North Carolina. That’s why I support this
project, and I believe the Department of Environmental Quality should approve the minor
source draft air permit.
Thank you for your consideration.
William (Sam) True
4273 US Hwy 301
Pleasant Hill NC 27866
Page C.3-5
Attachment C.3: Unique Comments in Support of Northampton Compressor Station
From:Kenneth Rich
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] Compressor station in Northampton County
Date:Friday, November 17, 2017 6:27:25 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
This is where infrastructure like this belongs. If you don't want it in your backyard get off of
welfare and get a better job and move to a better location.
Page C.3-6
Attachment C.3: Unique Comments in Support of Northampton Compressor Station

Attachment C.4
Form Letters Received via Email Opposing the Northampton Compressor Station
Of the 2,328 written comments received that expressed opposition to the air quality permit for the
Northampton Compressor Station, 2,236 of these comments were submitted using one of two form letters as
the basis for their comments. Form Letter No. 1 was submitted by 876 commenters and is presented in
Figure C.4-1. The commenters that submitted Form Letter No. 1 are identified in Table C.4-1. Form Letter No. 2
was submitted by 1,360 commenters and is presented in Figure C.4-2. Of the 1,360 comments submitted using
this form letter, 1,290 commenters used the form letter presented in Figure C.4-2 and are identified in Table
C.4-2. The remaining 70 commenters used Form Letter No. 2 as a basis for their comments but included
additional points beyond the standard form letter language. These commenters are identified in Table C.4-3 and
copies of these comments are included in this section.
Figure C.4-1. Form Letter No. 1
Dear Michael Abraczinskas,

I am writing to urge you to reject the air permit for the proposed compressor station for the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline.

This major industrial facility's three gas-fired compressor turbines would be run every hour of every day of the
year to maintain pressure in the pipeline. Impacts from compressor stations include air pollution, noise, and visual
impacts. The permitting of this facility involves both public health risks and environmental justice concerns.
Without more adequate information, no meaningful environmental justice review can proceed.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline states that the air pollutants associated
with the project, including the compressor stations, "are known to increase the effects of asthma and may increase
the risk of lung cancer." Construction and operation of the Northampton compressor station carries a high risk of
disproportionate environmental harms to low-income communities and African American communities.

The people of North Carolina deserve clean air and water. Please don't let this pipeline put vulnerable
communities in danger. Please reject the ACP's air permit.

Sincerely,
XXXX

Figure C.4-2. Form Letter No. 2

Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential threats of this
facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit dangerous amounts of noise pollution
and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary
disease, respiratory disease, and even cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting the permit for the
Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Page C.4-2

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Aaron Jones 11/16/2017
Ada Khoury 11/12/2017
Adam MacNeill 11/19/2017
Adam Molesky 11/10/2017
Adina Cooper 11/19/2017
Adrian Smith 11/10/2017
Agatha Ocko 11/10/2017
Agnes Crews 11/16/2017
Akila Mosier 11/10/2017
Albert Miller 11/14/2017
Alex Blaine 11/16/2017
Alfred Lindem 11/18/2017
Ali Boden 11/16/2017
Alice Corson 11/15/2017
Amanda Brewer 11/10/2017
Amanda Burns 11/16/2017
Amanda Mayes 11/16/2017
Amanda Ragsdale 11/10/2017
Amy Dalporto 11/10/2017
Anara Brinmere 11/16/2017
Anatole Olczak 11/11/2017
Andrea Crook 11/10/2017
Andrea Lewis 11/14/2017
Andrew Henderson 11/19/2017
Andrew Weatherly 11/17/2017
Andy Mcglinn 11/16/2017
Andy Shrestha 11/20/2017
Angela Guinan 11/16/2017
Anita Shanker 11/10/2017
Ann Eastabrooks 11/16/2017
Ann Gallman 11/16/2017
Ann Hanson 11/10/2017
Ann Johnson 11/19/2017
Ann Prince 11/17/2017
Ann Sillman 11/16/2017
Anne Broadwater 11/10/2017
Anne Green 11/10/2017
Anne Lanzi 11/11/2017
Anne Nadeau 11/10/2017
Annie Miracle 11/16/2017
Ariel Hewlin 11/17/2017
Ariel Wynn 11/16/2017
Arielle Schechter 11/10/2017
Arlene Thomas 11/16/2017
Name Date
Aron Lanie 11/12/2017
Arthur Firth 11/18/2017
Ashley Brown 11/10/2017
Ashley Wittmer 11/20/2017
Ashly Hamilton 11/17/2017
Audrey Ashford 11/19/2017
Audrey Tillinghast 11/10/2017
Aurelie Ward 11/10/2017
Autumn Croft 11/10/2017
Barbara Benson 11/17/2017
Barbara Brown 11/16/2017
Barbara Burkett 11/16/2017
Barbara Burns 11/10/2017
Barbara Withem 11/16/2017
Becky Shepherd 11/17/2017
Belinda Dining 11/11/2017
Belynda Kinney 11/16/2017
Bernice Turnipseed 11/10/2017
Beth Brown 11/17/2017
Beth Cagle 11/11/2017
Beth Lyons 11/17/2017
Beth Lyons 11/17/2017
Beth Olson 11/10/2017
Beth Stanberry 11/16/2017
Bethany Dusenberry 11/10/2017
Bethany Stang 11/13/2017
Betsy Buchanan 11/16/2017
Betsy Freeman 11/16/2017
Bette Bates 11/16/2017
Bette-Burr Fenley 11/10/2017
Betty Alexander 11/10/2017
Betty Beaver 11/16/2017
Betty Moses 11/10/2017
Beverly Dawson 11/17/2017
Bill Groves 11/10/2017
Billy Simpson 11/16/2017
Bob Dietz 11/16/2017
Bobby Wynn 11/16/2017
Bonnie Abbott 11/10/2017
Bonnie Cooper 11/10/2017
Braethun Bharathae-Lane 11/16/2017
Brandon Becker 11/14/2017
Brandylyn Lemen 11/10/2017
Brenda Denton 11/17/2017
Page C.4-3

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Brenda Dixon 11/10/2017
Brenda Psaras 11/10/2017
Brenda Starr 11/16/2017
Bronwyn Lane 11/16/2017
Cameron Riddle 11/17/2017
Camie Rodgers 11/16/2017
Camille Thompson 11/17/2017
Candace L 11/10/2017
Candee Peacock 11/19/2017
Carla Shuford 11/10/2017
Carmen Jimenez 11/10/2017
Carol Aldridge 11/16/2017
Carol Ann Minor 11/16/2017
Carol Bentley 11/19/2017
Carol Carlson 11/10/2017
Carol Hay 11/10/2017
Carol Moldoveanu 11/10/2017
Carol Tertzagian 11/10/2017
Carol Thompson 11/11/2017
Carole Newsome 11/10/2017
Carole Newsome 11/10/2017
Caroline Ervin 11/10/2017
caroline hansley 11/6/2017
Caroline Walters 11/16/2017
Carolyn Hess 11/10/2017
Carolyn Perrigo 11/17/2017
Carolyn Smith 11/16/2017
Carrie Fawcett 11/10/2017
Cashin Hunt 11/10/2017
Catherine Denham 11/17/2017
Catherine Hotard 11/19/2017
Cathy Brunick 11/10/2017
Charles Floyd 11/16/2017
charles mcmahan 11/16/2017
Charles Mcmahan 11/16/2017
Charles Shackelford 11/16/2017
Charles Webb 11/10/2017
Charlotte Kurland 11/10/2017
chelsa tifft 11/19/2017
Cheryl Collins 11/11/2017
Cheryl Mcgraw 11/18/2017
Cheryl Media 11/17/2017
Chesley Hight 11/16/2017
Chris Grater 11/10/2017
Name Date
Chris Logan 11/10/2017
Chrishelle Micolucci 11/11/2017
Christi Dillon 11/10/2017
Christie Cantrell 11/19/2017
Christina Clyburn 11/16/2017
Christina Crawford 11/10/2017
Christina Morrison 11/19/2017
Christine B. 11/10/2017
Christine Conley 11/18/2017
Christine Turnbull 11/14/2017
Christine Voss 11/17/2017
Christopher Riegert 11/16/2017
Christy Jenkins 11/10/2017
Cindy Flaisig 11/16/2017
Cindy Moore 11/17/2017
Cindy Ray 11/19/2017
Claudia Kaplan 11/10/2017
Cody Hulme 11/17/2017
Connie Raper 11/16/2017
Connie Toops 11/10/2017
Corina Mitrov 11/11/2017
Cornelia Powell 11/10/2017
CW Newhall 11/20/2017
Cynthia Bernett 11/12/2017
Cynthia Canaris 11/16/2017
Cynthia Mastro 11/17/2017
D Rex Miller 11/16/2017
Da Rhyne 11/16/2017
Dale Burr 11/10/2017
Dale Hocker 11/16/2017
Daniel Graham 11/10/2017
Daniel Mccaslin 11/17/2017
Daniel Mulligan 11/16/2017
Danna Mclintock 11/10/2017
Dante Cordaro 11/16/2017
David Fletcher 11/16/2017
David Galloway 11/17/2017
David Lee 11/11/2017
David Sices 11/10/2017
David Stevens 11/18/2017
Daysha Deen 11/19/2017
Dean Thompson 11/10/2017
Deb Buday 11/10/2017
Debbie Baucom 11/10/2017
Page C.4-4

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Debbie Gouldin 11/16/2017
Debbie Watterson 11/10/2017
Deborah Beroth 11/10/2017
Deborah Fox 11/11/2017
Deborah Milkowski-California 11/10/2017
Debra Teger 11/19/2017
DeDreana Freeman 11/20/2017
Deidre Goldsmith 11/10/2017
Demetria Gordon 11/10/2017
Denise Conner 11/10/2017
Destinee Means 11/16/2017
Diana LeBlanc 11/20/2017
Diane Even-Tov 11/19/2017
Diane Leonard 11/16/2017
Diane Lowman 11/16/2017
Dolores Saenz 11/17/2017
Dolores Sowinski 11/10/2017
Donald Harland 11/14/2017
Donald Rumph 11/18/2017
Donna Durfee 11/17/2017
Donna Maher 11/17/2017
Donna Ohmstead 11/18/2017
Donna Provance 11/16/2017
Donna Watson 11/19/2017
Doris Hinson 11/17/2017
Doug Wingeier 11/10/2017
Douglas Merhar 11/17/2017
Douglas Merhar 11/17/2017
Drew Langsner 11/16/2017
Dylan Lambert 11/20/2017
E Jezierski 11/10/2017
Ed Turley 11/16/2017
Edith Nash 11/10/2017
Edith Simpson 11/10/2017
Edward Wolfsohn 11/10/2017
Edwin Jones 11/10/2017
Eileen Juric 11/16/2017
Eileen Noyes-Verchereau 11/17/2017
Eleanor Mcnair 11/16/2017
Elena Guim 11/17/2017
Elisabeth Wixson 11/16/2017
Eliza Wizenberg 11/19/2017
Elizabeth Adams 11/14/2017
Elizabeth Adams 11/14/2017
Name Date
Elizabeth Baumann 11/14/2017
Elizabeth Cruise 11/10/2017
Elizabeth Harless 11/16/2017
Elizabeth Kearse 11/16/2017
elizabeth loftin 11/13/2017
Elizabeth Schulz 11/16/2017
Elizabeth Smith 11/13/2017
Elizabeth Wagner 11/16/2017
Ellen Beery 11/10/2017
Ellenore Pinkham 11/10/2017
Elois Anderson 11/14/2017
Elsa Desrochers 11/10/2017
Emily Baty 11/11/2017
Emily Guess 11/20/2017
Emily O'Hare 11/11/2017
Emmie Giguere 11/10/2017
Eric Greene 11/16/2017
Eric Leary 11/17/2017
eric schweitzer 11/17/2017
Eric Zimdars 11/17/2017
Erik Schreiner 11/16/2017
Erin Foley 11/20/2017
Erin Pugh 11/15/2017
Ernie Howe 11/16/2017
Erv And Jane Kelman 11/12/2017
Evan Macmillan 11/20/2017
Everett Marvin 11/17/2017
Faith Moxham 11/12/2017
Farzana Ismail 11/16/2017
Fleeta Wilkinson 11/16/2017
Frances Manning 11/16/2017
Francesca Galbani 11/19/2017
Francie Rawl 11/10/2017
Francisco Plaza 11/16/2017
Frank Armato 11/16/2017
Frank I. Fiamingo Sr. 11/10/2017
Frank Moore 11/11/2017
Fred Ehrgott 11/10/2017
Fred Martin 11/10/2017
Freddie Cobbs 11/10/2017
Gail Mcdaniel 11/16/2017
Gail Noon 11/20/2017
Gail Safrit 11/16/2017
Galia Goodman 11/16/2017
Page C.4-5

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Gareth Wynn 11/16/2017
Gary Feimster 11/16/2017
Gary Lavinder 11/17/2017
Gary White 11/17/2017
Gavin Dillard 11/10/2017
Gene Fox 11/16/2017
Gene Hanson 11/16/2017
Gennelle Wilson 11/17/2017
George Phillips 11/10/2017
Georgia Sizemore 11/10/2017
Gerald John 11/16/2017
Geri Solomon 11/16/2017
Gina Doddy 11/16/2017
Ginny Shelton 11/16/2017
Gladys G Colson 11/10/2017
Gloria Bagwell 11/17/2017
Gloria Shen 11/10/2017
Graham Pocialik 11/10/2017
Greg Myers 11/11/2017
Gregory Hall 11/12/2017
Hal Trufan 11/15/2017
Harold Hudson 11/16/2017
Harvey Richmond 11/16/2017
Harvey Sellner 11/16/2017
Hazel Poolos 11/10/2017
Heather Prior 11/10/2017
Heide Coppotelli 11/10/2017
Heidi Haehlen 11/16/2017
Helen Carlton 11/12/2017
Helen Johnson 11/14/2017
Helen-Renee Brawner 11/16/2017
Helga Barden 11/18/2017
Hellen Wilson 11/12/2017
Herb Lamb 11/11/2017
Hilary Hall 11/17/2017
Holly Adkisson 11/12/2017
Holly Matt 11/16/2017
Hona Lee Harrington 11/17/2017
Ian Shannon 11/20/2017
Ilana Krug 11/19/2017
Isabel Cervera 11/17/2017
Isabel Mclain 11/16/2017
Ivy Baker 11/20/2017
J S Weathers 11/11/2017
Name Date
J Smith 11/10/2017
J Stewart 11/11/2017
J. Austin Watson 11/16/2017
J. Renee Hawthorne 11/17/2017
Jackie Collie 11/10/2017
Jacqueline Merriman 11/16/2017
Jade Dell 11/16/2017
Jaedra Luke 11/10/2017
James A And Suzanne Null 11/16/2017
James Carroll 11/16/2017
James Hoots 11/13/2017
James Johnson 11/19/2017
James Kunz 11/10/2017
James Marsh 11/16/2017
James Sourherland 11/19/2017
James Stone 11/10/2017
James Stone 11/10/2017
James Zelbacher 11/10/2017
Jan Wilson 11/16/2017
Jane and Diane Jdianejohnston 11/10/2017
Jane Church 11/11/2017
Jane Church 11/10/2017
Jane Stanhope 11/11/2017
Jane Williams 11/17/2017
Janeann Hughes 11/16/2017
Janet Deaver 11/16/2017
Janet Hosey 11/10/2017
Janet Pecci 11/12/2017
Janet Scott 11/16/2017
Janette Moser 11/16/2017
Janey Mcmillen 11/16/2017
Janine Tokarczyk 11/17/2017
Jasmine Henderson 11/16/2017
Jason Decristofaro 11/10/2017
Jason Gaylor 11/10/2017
Jay Pfeil 11/11/2017
Jayme Reichart 11/20/2017
Jean Ann Wheelock 11/16/2017
Jean Graff 11/19/2017
Jean Port 11/10/2017
Jeanne Graffin 11/14/2017
Jeannette Affolder 11/19/2017
Jeff Deal 11/10/2017
Jeff McDermott 11/10/2017
Page C.4-6

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Jeffrey Kulp 11/10/2017
Jeffrey Rix 11/16/2017
Jenafur Maherbernard 11/10/2017
Jenafur Maher-Bernard 11/10/2017
Jennifer Brandon 11/10/2017
Jennifer Dimarco 11/10/2017
Jennifer Guderian 11/10/2017
Jennifer Ivey 11/10/2017
Jennifer Kain 11/10/2017
Jennifer Lama 11/17/2017
Jennifer Ott 11/16/2017
Jennifer Reed 11/17/2017
Jennifer Tirrell 11/16/2017
Jenny Leinbach 11/16/2017
Jeremy Stubbs 11/16/2017
Jerome Barber 11/10/2017
Jerry Hamilton 11/17/2017
Jerry Tertzagian 11/10/2017
Jessica Smith 11/17/2017
Jessie Morrissey 11/17/2017
Jill Jenkins 11/17/2017
Jill Slee 11/12/2017
Jim Stilwell 11/10/2017
Jin Adams Parker 11/16/2017
Joan Grant 11/16/2017
Joan Jobsis 11/10/2017
Joan Learner 11/10/2017
Joan Parks 11/17/2017
Joanne Barber 11/10/2017
Joanne Heckel 11/10/2017
Joe Adamsky 11/17/2017
Joe Bearden 11/17/2017
Joel Marchesoni 11/17/2017
John Abicht 11/12/2017
John Bowker 11/16/2017
John Bradshaw 11/10/2017
John Crunk 11/10/2017
John Darrow 11/16/2017
John Dunning 11/10/2017
John Freeze 11/16/2017
John L. Godwin 11/16/2017
John Lamkin 11/16/2017
John Marquez 11/19/2017
john sullivan 11/20/2017
Name Date
John Terribili 11/16/2017
John Wiles 11/16/2017
John Wiseman 11/16/2017
Jonathan Jenkins 11/19/2017
Joseph Harper 11/10/2017
Joseph Marenfeld 11/10/2017
Joyce Hollifield 11/10/2017
Judith Dewar 11/11/2017
Judith Foster 11/10/2017
Judith Howell 11/16/2017
Judith Porter 11/11/2017
Judith Prizio 11/10/2017
Judith Rose 11/16/2017
Judith Smith 11/10/2017
Judy Larrick 11/17/2017
Judy Matheny 11/13/2017
Judy Smith 11/16/2017
Julia Hartman 11/17/2017
Julia Martinelli 11/10/2017
Julie Gillum 11/12/2017
Julie Kelch 11/16/2017
Julie Shoemaker 11/16/2017
Julie Thomson 11/11/2017
Julienne Johnson 11/16/2017
June Linhart 11/16/2017
Justin Landry 11/10/2017
Kaitlyn Bellino 11/16/2017
Kar Lang 11/10/2017
Karen Langelier 11/16/2017
karen Langelier 11/10/2017
Karen Mallam 11/11/2017
Karen Mallam 11/11/2017
Karen Reynolds 11/10/2017
Karen Rivers 11/10/2017
Karen Tierney 11/19/2017
Kari Mccormack 11/16/2017
Karola Luttringhaus 11/16/2017
Karola Luttringhaus 11/10/2017
Kate Capehart 11/17/2017
Kate Lamar 11/13/2017
Katherine Capehart 11/11/2017
katherine davidson-york 11/20/2017
Katherine Davison-York 11/18/2017
Katherine Dennett 11/11/2017
Page C.4-7

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Katherine Li 11/16/2017
Katherine Meyer 11/10/2017
Katherine Rickett 11/17/2017
Kathleen McQuaid 11/17/2017
Kathleen Mcquaid 11/16/2017
Kathleen Sinclair 11/10/2017
Kathryn Williams 11/10/2017
Kathy Gister 11/16/2017
Kathy Jarvis 11/17/2017
Kathy Johnson 11/19/2017
Kathy Miller 11/10/2017
KATHY MONTANEZ 11/15/2017
Kathy Wright 11/16/2017
Katie Morrissey 11/11/2017
Katja Kochvar 11/16/2017
Katrina Emanuel 11/16/2017
Kayla Williams 11/19/2017
keith johnson 11/10/2017
Keith Martin 11/18/2017
Kelly Dobroski 11/16/2017
Kelly Hetrick 11/20/2017
Ken Bosch 11/16/2017
Kendall Hale 11/16/2017
Kenneth Davis Sr 11/19/2017
Kerstin Sindemark 11/12/2017
Kevin J Lyons 11/10/2017
Kicab Castaneda-Mendez 11/10/2017
Kieta Osteen-Cochrane 11/16/2017
Kim Poetzscher 11/17/2017
Kim Preish 11/10/2017
Kimberly Hurtt 11/10/2017
Kimberly Masonturcios 11/16/2017
Kimberly Salerno 11/17/2017
Kinsey Nelson 11/10/2017
Kirk Dougherty 11/16/2017
Kristina Heiks 11/17/2017
Kurt Weaver 11/16/2017
Kyle Cory 11/16/2017
L Heintz 11/10/2017
Langston Boyles 11/16/2017
Lara Little 11/16/2017
Lara Rouse 11/10/2017
Larry Cooper 11/10/2017
Larry Hale 11/17/2017
Name Date
Lashonna Geter 11/16/2017
Laura Adams 11/12/2017
Laura Bishop 11/10/2017
Laura Cousino 11/17/2017
Laura Simonson 11/17/2017
Laura Smith 11/16/2017
Laura Weaver 11/10/2017
Lauren Elizabeth 11/12/2017
Lauren Klingman 11/16/2017
Lauren Mulligan 11/16/2017
Laurie Carroll 11/10/2017
Lawrence East 11/10/2017
Lawrence Turk 11/10/2017
Leah Dekoskie 11/17/2017
Lee Rynearson 11/16/2017
Lenore Baum 11/16/2017
Les Forman 11/18/2017
Leslie Brown 11/10/2017
Leslie Hawkins 11/10/2017
Leslie Richardson 11/16/2017
Leslie Temme 11/18/2017
Leslie Thacker 11/16/2017
Lewis and Jeannette Patrie 11/16/2017
Lidia Lucaciu 11/16/2017
Lidia Lucaciu 11/14/2017
Lillian Swindell 11/16/2017
Linda Alfredson 11/18/2017
Linda Bach 11/16/2017
Linda Barker 11/16/2017
Linda Bossert 11/17/2017
Linda Campbell 11/10/2017
Linda Mccrosky 11/10/2017
Linda Orlandi 11/16/2017
Linda Peterson 11/13/2017
Linda Ricks 11/10/2017
Linda Serrato 11/19/2017
Linda Sue Barnes 11/16/2017
Lisa Fisk 11/10/2017
Lisa Hatch 11/16/2017
Lisa Moulton 11/16/2017
Lisa O'Brien-George 11/11/2017
Lisa Rademacher 11/12/2017
Lisa West 11/19/2017
Liza Rebold 11/16/2017
Page C.4-8

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Loretta Churchill 11/17/2017
Loretta Pappan 11/16/2017
Lori Bright 11/11/2017
Lucy Tyndall 11/12/2017
Lydia Coates 11/16/2017
Lynda Ellington 11/17/2017
Lynn Betts 11/10/2017
Lynn Elliott 11/16/2017
Lynn Kohn 11/14/2017
Lynn Lamar 11/16/2017
Lynne C 11/10/2017
Lyra Rittger 11/16/2017
M Woolley 11/12/2017
M. Garvey 11/11/2017
Mackenna Moore 11/12/2017
Mackie Jackson 11/10/2017
Mae Basye 11/10/2017
Mara Wooten 11/10/2017
Marcia Bailey 11/10/2017
Marcia Greenstein 11/11/2017
Marcia Kane 11/16/2017
Margaret Balsamo 11/19/2017
Margaret Ford 11/16/2017
Margaret Gjertsen 11/10/2017
Margaret Holcomb 11/10/2017
Margaret Jordan 11/10/2017
Margaret Sharp 11/17/2017
Margaret Silvers 11/16/2017
Margaux Escutin 11/17/2017
Margi Erickson 11/16/2017
Marianne De La Vega 11/16/2017
Marilyn Brown 11/10/2017
Marilyn Collins 11/16/2017
Marion Edrington 11/10/2017
Marion Solomon 11/10/2017
Mark Bodenheimer 11/10/2017
Mark Hemenway 11/10/2017
Mark Henderson 11/10/2017
Mark Hurmence 11/16/2017
Mark Shapiro 11/16/2017
Mark Stevens 11/10/2017
Mark Taylor 11/10/2017
Marlene Joyce 11/11/2017
Marsha Bennett 11/17/2017
Name Date
Martha Brimm 11/16/2017
Martha Brimm 11/10/2017
Martha Dalton 11/17/2017
Martha Spencer 11/11/2017
Marty Hazeltine 11/17/2017
Marvel Ann Rushing 11/16/2017
Mary Anglin 11/16/2017
Mary Ann Till 11/11/2017
Mary Anne Mcdonald 11/16/2017
Mary Antunes 11/14/2017
Mary Combs 11/17/2017
Mary Detwiler 11/16/2017
Mary Fortunato 11/10/2017
Mary Frazer 11/19/2017
Mary Goodkind 11/11/2017
Mary Goodkind 11/11/2017
Mary Herscher 11/17/2017
Mary Jackson 11/16/2017
Mary Jo Hoff 11/19/2017
Mary Mcqueen 11/17/2017
Mary Patricia Brown 11/16/2017
Mary Rand 11/10/2017
Mary Rogers 11/10/2017
Mary Skelton 11/16/2017
Mary Stascak 11/19/2017
Mary Wakeman 11/11/2017
Maryann Watjen 11/16/2017
Mason Linkous 11/16/2017
Massimo Strazzeri 11/16/2017
Mathis Jenkins 11/10/2017
Mckenzie Bazen 11/10/2017
Megan Kelly 11/16/2017
Melinda Hildreth 11/19/2017
Melinda Trevorrow 11/16/2017
Melissa Bahleda 11/13/2017
Melissa Hastings 11/17/2017
Melissa Howell 11/10/2017
Melissa Lefevre 11/12/2017
Melissa Lomax 11/16/2017
Melissa Williams 11/16/2017
Mercedes Fisher 11/11/2017
Meredith Arkin 11/19/2017
Merril Cook 11/16/2017
Michael Busko 11/10/2017
Page C.4-9

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Michael Joyce 11/10/2017
Michael Kenney 11/17/2017
Michael Lowder 11/16/2017
Michael Marshall 11/10/2017
Michael Mccrory 11/16/2017
Michael Mcgowan 11/10/2017
Michael Pawlyk 11/17/2017
Michael Teuschler 11/16/2017
Michele Carter 11/17/2017
Michele Clark 11/13/2017
Michelle Bentley 11/16/2017
Michelle Metzler 11/19/2017
Michelle Mitchell 11/10/2017
Michelle Sauber 11/20/2017
Mickey Buckwalter 11/11/2017
Miguel Liriano 11/17/2017
Minori Hinds 11/10/2017
Molly Riddle 11/12/2017
Monica Mintz 11/16/2017
Monica Sanchez 11/16/2017
Moses Adams 11/16/2017
Nadine Duckworth 11/10/2017
Nan Martin 11/11/2017
Nancy Acopine 11/10/2017
Nancy Coffey 11/10/2017
Nathan and Carol Bales 11/12/2017
Nathan Auge 11/17/2017
Nathan Jones 11/20/2017
Neal Halloran 11/10/2017
Neil Infante 11/10/2017
Nick Hood 11/10/2017
Nicole Ditillo 11/11/2017
Nicole Gadon 11/10/2017
Nicole Landry 11/10/2017
Nikki Schipman 11/16/2017
Noah Mitchell-Ward 11/19/2017
Noel Jones 11/11/2017
Olga Lampkin 11/13/2017
Oliver Thomas 11/10/2017
Paige Sellers 11/17/2017
Pam Chapman 11/10/2017
Pamela and Robert Baugh 11/16/2017
Pamela Hoge 11/10/2017
Pamela Hudson 11/10/2017
Name Date
Pamela Nicholson 11/16/2017
Pat Biscoe 11/19/2017
Pat Blackwell 11/17/2017
Pat Hewett 11/10/2017
Pat Hewett 11/10/2017
Pat Mcgrath 11/16/2017
Pat Stockwell1000 11/16/2017
Pat Zook 11/16/2017
Patricia Bass 11/17/2017
Patricia Boll 11/16/2017
Patricia Carstensen 11/20/2017
Patricia English 11/11/2017
Patricia Guthrie 11/16/2017
Patricia Pearson 11/19/2017
Patsy Rooks 11/17/2017
Patti Sonnentag 11/16/2017
Paul Getty 11/17/2017
Paul Hawkins 11/18/2017
Paul Hawkins 11/18/2017
Paul Moss 11/10/2017
Paul Naylor 11/10/2017
Paul Nowosielski 11/16/2017
Paula p 11/16/2017
Paula Poe 11/16/2017
Peaches Rankin 11/16/2017
Peggy Braswell 11/11/2017
Peggy Fry 11/10/2017
Peggy Wynn 11/16/2017
Penelope Depriest 11/10/2017
Penny Hooper 11/16/2017
Phil Welch 11/16/2017
Philip Gorman 11/12/2017
Philip Walker 11/16/2017
Phyllis Brandon 11/17/2017
Punita Koustubhan 11/19/2017
Quando Gerst 11/10/2017
Rachael Gernhart 11/19/2017
Rachel Pearce 11/17/2017
Ralph Bishop 11/16/2017
Randal Kempka 11/17/2017
Ray Hearne 11/11/2017
Rebecca Campbell 11/16/2017
Rebecca Carey 11/10/2017
Rebecca Conway 11/16/2017
Page C.4-10

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Rebecca Hoffman 11/16/2017
Rebecca Soule 11/16/2017
Regene Butler 11/10/2017
Regina Martinaitis 11/16/2017
Reginald Martin 11/16/2017
Renee Ertischek 11/10/2017
Rhonda Garner 11/20/2017
Rhonda Godbee 11/17/2017
Richard George 11/10/2017
Richard Honeycutt 11/10/2017
Richard Klett 11/10/2017
Richard Moseley 11/10/2017
Richard Moseley 11/10/2017
Richard Piatkowski 11/10/2017
Richard Pierce 11/16/2017
Richard Strowd 11/16/2017
Rick Hills 11/11/2017
Rien Zabor 11/10/2017
Rita Burns-Wooten 11/12/2017
Rita Mullis 11/10/2017
Robbie Harter 11/13/2017
Robert Becquet 11/12/2017
Robert Belknap 11/10/2017
Robert Burns 11/17/2017
Robert Cherry 11/16/2017
Robert Kitteringham 11/10/2017
Robert MacArthur 11/16/2017
Robert Phipps 11/10/2017
Robert Snowden 11/16/2017
Robert Swett 11/11/2017
Roberta Calgaro 11/10/2017
Robin Hennessy 11/10/2017
Robin Raynor 11/16/2017
Ron Bryant 11/16/2017
Ronald Clayton 11/10/2017
Ronette Kolotkin 11/16/2017
Rosemarie Sawdon 11/12/2017
Rosemary Carton 11/11/2017
rusty dixon 11/16/2017
Ruth Bradshaw 11/16/2017
Ruth Noble 11/16/2017
Ruth Talley 11/10/2017
Ruth Van Sickle 11/11/2017
Ryan Robertson 11/16/2017
Name Date
Sally Buchanan 11/16/2017
Sally Kopp 11/16/2017
Sally Northrop 11/10/2017
Sally Stone 11/16/2017
Sam Bryan 11/10/2017
Sam Leeper 11/11/2017
Samuel Falvo 11/10/2017
Sandra Mazo-Nix 11/10/2017
Sandra Ricci 11/10/2017
Sandy And Gerald Core 11/10/2017
Sandy Steers 11/10/2017
Sara Rich 11/10/2017
Sara Smithe 11/12/2017
Sarah Nichols 11/17/2017
Sarah Simpson 11/11/2017
Sarah Walker 11/14/2017
Sarala Mundassery 11/10/2017
Scott Bowling 11/16/2017
Sean Hartung 11/16/2017
Shannon Caviness 11/16/2017
Shannon Simpson 11/11/2017
Sharon Burtner 11/16/2017
Sharon Johnson 11/10/2017
Sharon Johnston 11/10/2017
Sharon Kenny 11/19/2017
Sharon Matchett 11/19/2017
Sharon Pugh 11/10/2017
Sharon Vaden 11/10/2017
Shawn Oneill 11/16/2017
Shelley Burton 11/10/2017
Shelley Moore 11/16/2017
Shelley Stone 11/18/2017
Shelley Tsuji 11/10/2017
Shelly Simmons 11/10/2017
Sheri Boris 11/16/2017
Sherrell Cuthbertson 11/10/2017
Shilpa Shah 11/16/2017
Shirley Story 11/17/2017
Shirlie Pinkham 11/18/2017
Shoshana Serxner-Merchant 11/17/2017
Sister Therese Galligan 11/18/2017
Somer Spradley 11/16/2017
Stacy Decaussin 11/10/2017
Stefon Lira 11/10/2017
Page C.4-11

Table C.4-1. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 1a

aSee Figure C.4-1 for text of Form Letter No. 1.
Name Date
Stephanie Kriner 11/17/2017
Stephanie Woelfle 11/18/2017
Stephen Boletchek 11/16/2017
Stephen Weissman 11/12/2017
Steve Colbert 11/17/2017
Steven English 11/16/2017
Stuart Locklear 11/16/2017
Stuart Matthews 11/16/2017
SueAnn Mitchell 11/20/2017
Susan Hollister 11/10/2017
Susan Jacquet 11/10/2017
Susan Kilzer 11/17/2017
Susan L Barry 11/11/2017
Susan Lee 11/15/2017
Susan McReynolds 11/10/2017
Susan Pope 11/16/2017
Susan Preble 11/19/2017
Susan Workman 11/20/2017
Suzanne DeGroat 11/19/2017
Sylvie Horvath 11/10/2017
Tammy Dickens 11/10/2017
Tanya Gerard 11/18/2017
Tanya Manning 11/17/2017
Tara Spurling 11/20/2017
Teresa Bratton 11/12/2017
Teresa Bratton 11/10/2017
Teri Teed 11/10/2017
Terri J and P Edward Forsyth 11/19/2017
Terri Lefler 11/10/2017
Theresa Waldspurger 11/10/2017
Thomas and Adrienne Lux 11/16/2017
Thomas and Tiki Adkisson 11/20/2017
Thomas Huzij 11/10/2017
Thomas O'Neal 11/16/2017
Tia Douglass 11/19/2017
Tia Douglass 11/10/2017
Tiffany Allen 11/17/2017
Timmy Smith 11/16/2017
Timothy Langford 11/16/2017
Timothy Steele 11/16/2017
Tina Shurtleff 11/16/2017
Tom Shafer 11/16/2017
Toni Wiker 11/10/2017
Tracy Lewis 11/16/2017
Name Date
Tyson Johnson 11/14/2017
Tyson Johnson 11/10/2017
Uli Alsentzer 11/10/2017
Valerie Fox 11/16/2017
Valerie Rabeler 11/10/2017
Valerie Reynolds 11/10/2017
Valerie Williams 11/17/2017
Vera Crumley 11/10/2017
Veronica Jones 11/10/2017
Vicki Zhang 11/16/2017
Victoria Stocksdale 11/20/2017
Virginia Matthews 11/10/2017
Virginia Schmidt 11/16/2017
Virginia Sparks 11/10/2017
Vivian Lord 11/10/2017
Vivian Yoder 11/16/2017
Wafa Khalil 11/10/2017
Walter Abercrombie 11/10/2017
Wanda Jane Burlinson 11/16/2017
Wanda T Stephens 11/11/2017
Wendy Trakes 11/19/2017
Wendy Waugh 11/16/2017
Wesley Garner 11/16/2017
Wesley Wallace 11/16/2017
Wesley Weaver 11/10/2017
Whitley Baxter 11/19/2017
William Brown 11/16/2017
William Garrard 11/10/2017
William Hunter 11/11/2017
William Massengill 11/17/2017
William Mclarney 11/16/2017
William Morris 11/16/2017
William Phillips 11/11/2017
William S Holcomb 11/17/2017
William Schwendler 11/16/2017
William Shelton 11/10/2017
William St George 11/16/2017
Winthrop Southworth 11/10/2017
Z. Vijay Director 11/10/2017
Zeleny Terretta 11/16/2017

Page C.4-12

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Barbara Barcomb 11/13/2017
Brooks Nichols 11/13/2017
Cheryl Bledsoe 11/13/2017
Christopher Powell 11/13/2017
D H 11/14/2017
Dale Bradley 11/13/2017
Dr. Diane Hopkins 11/13/2017
Dr. Donald Drost 11/18/2017
Dr. Gavin Dillard 11/13/2017
Dr. Jeffrey Blum 11/13/2017
Dr. Jeffrey Collins 11/13/2017
Dr. Maria Celeste Delgado-Librero 11/13/2017
Dr. Norma Hanson 11/13/2017
Dr. Ada Khoury 11/13/2017
Dr. Allan Moss 11/13/2017
Dr. Amy Henley 11/14/2017
Dr. Anders Frick 11/13/2017
Dr. Andrea E. Floyd D.V.M. 11/14/2017
Dr. Anne W. 11/15/2017
Dr. Audrey Urling 11/13/2017
Dr. Barbara Stenross 11/13/2017
Dr. Benjamin Chatfield 11/13/2017
Dr. Bonnie J. Smith 11/17/2017
Dr. Brandylyn Lemen 11/13/2017
Dr. Bruce Kirchoff 11/13/2017
Dr. Bruce Miller 11/13/2017
Dr. Carol Chowdhry 11/13/2017
Dr. Carol S. Soroos 11/13/2017
Dr. Cheryl Bloom 11/13/2017
Dr. Clair Claiborne 11/13/2017
Dr. David David Loven 11/13/2017
Dr. David Flora 11/13/2017
Dr. David Hagy 11/13/2017
Dr. David Nikkel 11/13/2017
Dr. Dorothy Harper 11/13/2017
Dr. Douglas Wingeier 11/13/2017
Dr. Dr. Dan N. Graham 11/13/2017
Dr. Eileen Juric 11/13/2017
Dr. Gregory Hall 11/14/2017
Dr. Heather Stevens 11/13/2017
Dr. Heide Catherina Coppotelli 11/13/2017
Dr. Holly Mills 11/13/2017
Dr. J S 11/13/2017
Dr. Janice Larsen 11/13/2017
Name Date
Dr. Jo Ellen Ellen Brandmeyer 11/14/2017
Dr. John Parrotta 11/13/2017
Dr. Joseph Robustelli 11/14/2017
Dr. Judith Porter 11/14/2017
Dr. Karen Cairns 11/13/2017
Dr. Katie Delk 11/13/2017
Dr. Kelly Theisen, Ph.D. 11/20/2017
Dr. Laurence Webster 11/14/2017
Dr. Leonard Mole 11/13/2017
Dr. Lorin4196513990 Swinehart 11/13/2017
Dr. Lorri Drozdyk 11/13/2017
Dr. Lynn Spees 11/13/2017
Dr. Margaret Silvers 11/13/2017
Dr. Maria Salgado 11/15/2017
Dr. Marilyn Collins 11/13/2017
Dr. Mary Ashcliffe 11/13/2017
Dr. Melissa Reisland 11/13/2017
Dr. Michael Busko 11/14/2017
Dr. Pamela Thomas 11/13/2017
Dr. Pinakpani Roy 11/18/2017
Dr. Renee Goodwin 11/13/2017
Dr. Richard Mcanulty 11/13/2017
Dr. Robert Belknap 11/13/2017
Dr. Robert Mccarthy 11/13/2017
Dr. Robert Mccarthy 11/13/2017
Dr. Robert Mccarthy 11/13/2017
Dr. Sarah K. Chi 11/13/2017
Dr. Sean Cohen 11/13/2017
Dr. Sean O'Connell 11/13/2017
Dr. Tanya Taylor 11/13/2017
Dr. Teresa Bratton 11/13/2017
Dr. Thomas Moore 11/13/2017
Dr. Thomas Struhsaker 11/13/2017
Dr. Tom O'Neal 11/13/2017
Dr. Tracy Feldman 11/13/2017
Dr. Vance Reese 11/14/2017
Dr. William Morris 11/13/2017
Ellen Waltrip 11/16/2017
Energy ⭐ Janet Grimes 11/13/2017
Energy ⭐ Janet Grimes 11/13/2017
Iris Waite 11/13/2017
James Wheeler 11/13/2017
JEAN JUDGE 11/13/2017
Jenna Prince-Farmer 11/14/2017
Page C.4-13

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
John Myer 11/13/2017
Joy Reeves 11/13/2017
Kevin Sprouls 11/13/2017
Konnie Stanfill 11/13/2017
Linda Melrose 11/13/2017
M R Stern 11/13/2017
Marian Rowe 11/13/2017
Mason Mccullough 11/13/2017
Me. Elliott De Luca 11/13/2017
Megan Friend 11/13/2017
Merrie Salvo 11/14/2017
Miss Akila Mosier 11/13/2017
Miss Alice Zelenak 11/13/2017
Miss Amy Carpenter 11/13/2017
Miss Andrea Almony 11/13/2017
Miss Angela Brunett 11/13/2017
Miss Anna Hendrick 11/14/2017
Miss Caitlin Archambault 11/13/2017
Miss Carolina Vasquez 11/13/2017
Miss Cheyenne Russo 11/19/2017
Miss Danielle Kienholz 11/13/2017
Miss Darlene Falk 11/13/2017
Miss Destinee Means 11/13/2017
Miss Dina Hussain 11/14/2017
Miss Elaina Therrien 11/14/2017
Miss Emily Baty 11/13/2017
Miss Evelyn Betancourt 11/13/2017
Miss Flora Konz 11/14/2017
Miss Hannah Norwood 11/13/2017
Miss Jacq Roshay 11/15/2017
Miss Jamie Rasmussen 11/13/2017
Miss Juliana Bognar 11/13/2017
Miss Kerstin Sindemark 11/14/2017
Miss Laura Blake 11/18/2017
Miss Madison Crouch 11/13/2017
Miss Margaret Dyre 11/13/2017
Miss Mary Rogers 11/19/2017
Miss Megan Kelly 11/13/2017
Miss Naomi Edmondson 11/13/2017
Miss Patricia Postel 11/13/2017
Miss Phyllis Dawson 11/13/2017
Miss Rebecca David 11/15/2017
Miss Rebecca David 11/15/2017
Miss Tanja Rieger 11/13/2017
Name Date
Miss Tiffany Reynolds 11/13/2017
Miss Wendy Costa 11/13/2017
Mme Solène Ostheimer 11/14/2017
Mr. Alejo Nieto 11/14/2017
Mr. Alex Blaine 11/13/2017
Mr. Alexandros Sapounakis 11/13/2017
Mr. Art Smoker 11/13/2017
Mr. Brian Habenicht 11/15/2017
Mr. Brian Kalimian 11/13/2017
Mr. Bruce Cox 11/13/2017
Mr. Buckie Jones 11/13/2017
Mr. C L. Fisher Jr. 11/13/2017
Mr. Chas Griffin 11/13/2017
Mr. Christopher Baxter 11/14/2017
Mr. DAVID DORN 11/17/2017
Mr. David Williams 11/13/2017
Mr. Don Barth 11/13/2017
Mr. Donald Harland 11/13/2017
Mr. Doug Franklin 11/14/2017
Mr. Felix Gostel 11/13/2017
Mr. Fred Karlson 11/16/2017
Mr. George Viveiros 11/13/2017
Mr. Glenn Yutzy 11/13/2017
Mr. James Seramba 11/13/2017
Mr. Jesse Bohl 11/13/2017
Mr. Jim Duff 11/13/2017
Mr. Jim Thomas 11/13/2017
Mr. Joe Edwards 11/17/2017
Mr. John Bradshaw 11/13/2017
Mr. John Lucas 11/14/2017
Mr. Jonathan Gottlieb 11/13/2017
MR. JOSEPH MARENFELD 11/13/2017
Mr. Kenneth Anderson 11/13/2017
Mr. Kris Pagenkopf 11/13/2017
Mr. Lee Fink 11/13/2017
Mr. Malik Griffin 11/13/2017
Mr. Mark Koritz 11/13/2017
Mr. Mathis Jenkins 11/13/2017
Mr. Matthew Neill 11/13/2017
MR. MAXIN HOPKINS 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael Brandes 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael F Adams Sr 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael Lewandowski 11/14/2017
Mr. Patrick D. Green 11/13/2017
Page C.4-14

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Mr. Paul Shivery 11/15/2017
Mr. Pete Miller 11/13/2017
Mr. Piotr Sliwka 11/13/2017
Mr. Ray Nuesch 11/13/2017
Mr. Raymond Nuesch 11/13/2017
Mr. Richard Ziegler 11/13/2017
Mr. Robert Swett 11/15/2017
Mr. Robert Zinn 11/13/2017
Mr. Ronald Soltau 11/13/2017
Mr. Russ Ludwick 11/13/2017
Mr. Sam Todd 11/13/2017
Mr. Samuel Brewer 11/14/2017
Mr. Scott Zellner 11/13/2017
Mr. Sean Damrel 11/14/2017
Mr. Steven Kranowski 11/14/2017
Mr. Stuart Cain 11/13/2017
Mr. Todd Bush 11/13/2017
Mr. Tony Demetriou 11/19/2017
Mr. Walter Saffell 11/13/2017
Mr. William St. George 11/13/2017
Mr. William Welkowitz 11/13/2017
Mr. & Mrs. William S.T. S. T. Holcomb
& Family
11/13/2017
Mr. & Mrs. Carla Takacs 11/13/2017
Mr. & Mrs. Jonathan K. Ocko 11/14/2017
Mr. Aaron Lavallee 11/13/2017
Mr. Adam Boehley 11/14/2017
Mr. Adam D’Onofrio 11/13/2017
Mr. Adam Matar 11/13/2017
Mr. Adam Mills 11/17/2017
Mr. Adrian Smith 11/13/2017
Mr. Alan Harper 11/13/2017
Mr. Alan Katzer 11/13/2017
Mr. Alan Wayson 11/13/2017
Mr. Albert Miller 11/17/2017
Mr. Alek Hyra 11/18/2017
Mr. Allen Witherington 11/14/2017
Mr. And Mrs. Eloy Santos 11/13/2017
Mr. Andrew Beelen 11/15/2017
Mr. Andrew Cahan 11/13/2017
Mr. Andrew Porter 11/13/2017
Mr. Angus M Macdonald 11/13/2017
Mr. Anthony Gresham 11/15/2017
Mr. Anthony Madejczyk 11/14/2017
Name Date
Mr. Anthony Wilks 11/13/2017
Mr. Arthur Swers 11/13/2017
Mr. Barry Smith 11/13/2017
Mr. Ben Conley 11/13/2017
Mr. Bill J. Groves 11/13/2017
Mr. Billy Buckingham 11/13/2017
Mr. Bob Dietz 11/13/2017
Mr. Bob High 11/13/2017
Mr. Bob Rosen 11/13/2017
Mr. Bob Shippee 11/13/2017
Mr. Brandon Schepp 11/13/2017
Mr. Brian Keck 11/13/2017
Mr. Brian Maglietta 11/13/2017
Mr. BRIAN SWANSON 11/13/2017
Mr. Bruce And Penny Triplett 11/13/2017
Mr. Bruce Burkard 11/13/2017
Mr. Buddy Ramey 11/14/2017
Mr. C Smith 11/13/2017
Mr. C. Warren Pope 11/14/2017
Mr. Caleb Laieski 11/13/2017
Mr. Carl Burdick 11/13/2017
Mr. Carl Gipson 11/13/2017
Mr. Chad Davis 11/13/2017
Mr. Chad Ransom 11/13/2017
Mr. Charles Charles Moss 11/13/2017
Mr. Charles Dougherty 11/13/2017
Mr. Charles Keeling 11/13/2017
Mr. Charles Webb 11/13/2017
Mr. Chris Gunn 11/13/2017
Mr. Chris Mclaughin 11/13/2017
Mr. Chris Van Gorder 11/14/2017
Mr. Chris Walker 11/13/2017
Mr. Christian Ayers 11/13/2017
Mr. Christopher Dunn 11/13/2017
Mr. Craig Collins 11/13/2017
Mr. D. Rex Rex Miller 11/13/2017
Mr. Dan Nimershiem 11/13/2017
Mr. Dan Parham 11/13/2017
Mr. Daniel Aleman 11/13/2017
Mr. Daniel Cline 11/18/2017
Mr. Daniel Glidden 11/14/2017
Mr. Daniel Glidden 11/14/2017
Mr. Daniel Mulligan 11/13/2017
Mr. Daniel R. Drewyer 11/13/2017
Page C.4-15

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Mr. Danny Douglas 11/13/2017
Mr. Darrell & Carol Vale 11/13/2017
Mr. Dave Blumenstock 11/14/2017
Mr. David Andrews 11/13/2017
Mr. David Campbell 11/19/2017
Mr. David Cazenas 11/13/2017
Mr. David Hill 11/13/2017
Mr. David Hobbs 11/14/2017
Mr. David M CARTER 11/13/2017
Mr. David Nardo 11/13/2017
Mr. David Pugh 11/13/2017
Mr. David Ralls 11/13/2017
Mr. David Sachter 11/14/2017
Mr. David Thompson 11/13/2017
Mr. Dean Amel 11/13/2017
Mr. Dean Thompson 11/13/2017
Mr. Dennis Raines 11/13/2017
Mr. Derek Chase 11/13/2017
Mr. Derek Young 11/14/2017
Mr. Derrick Jenkins 11/13/2017
Mr. Derrick Jenkins 11/13/2017
Mr. Diane Clark 11/13/2017
Mr. Diane Clark 11/13/2017
Mr. Don Gay 11/13/2017
Mr. Don Hill 11/13/2017
Mr. Donald Kruel 11/13/2017
Mr. Donald Moore 11/13/2017
Mr. Douglas Bristow 11/13/2017
Mr. Edward Savage 11/13/2017
Mr. Edward Wolfsohn 11/13/2017
Mr. Edwin Jones 11/14/2017
Mr. Eliot Singer 11/13/2017
Mr. Eric G. Horlbeck 11/13/2017
Mr. Eric Schweitzer 11/14/2017
Mr. Eric W. Beck 11/14/2017
Mr. Eric Zimdars 11/14/2017
Mr. Frank Firinci 11/13/2017
Mr. Frank Lorch 11/14/2017
Mr. Frank Mcconnell 11/13/2017
Mr. Frank Moore 11/13/2017
Mr. Frank Schmidt 11/14/2017
Mr. Frank Stroupe 11/13/2017
Mr. Fred Coppotelli 11/13/2017
Mr. G.W. Cheney 11/13/2017
Name Date
Mr. Gary Harris 11/13/2017
Mr. Gary L. Pasaua 11/13/2017
Mr. Gary Lavinder 11/13/2017
Mr. Gene Cochran 11/13/2017
Mr. George Bilyeu 11/13/2017
Mr. George Cooper Jr. 11/13/2017
Mr. George Neste 11/14/2017
Mr. George Phillips 11/13/2017
Mr. Gihon Glenn 11/13/2017
Mr. Glenn Rape 11/13/2017
Mr. Greg Gillis 11/14/2017
Mr. Harold Aylsworth 11/13/2017
Mr. Harold Bankirer 11/13/2017
Mr. Henri Carnal 11/13/2017
Mr. Herman Diaz 11/18/2017
Mr. J S Weathers 11/14/2017
Mr. Jack E. Grup 11/13/2017
Mr. Jack Hickman 11/13/2017
Mr. Jack Middour 11/13/2017
Mr. James Amerault 11/14/2017
Mr. James Chambo 11/13/2017
Mr. James D. Trimm 11/14/2017
Mr. James Grant 11/13/2017
Mr. James Hardin 11/14/2017
Mr. James Hoots 11/13/2017
Mr. James Hoots 11/13/2017
Mr. James Kuhn 11/14/2017
Mr. James Matthews 11/13/2017
Mr. James Matthews 11/13/2017
Mr. James Prendergast 11/14/2017
Mr. James Sakolosky 11/14/2017
Mr. James Schall 11/13/2017
Mr. James Smiley 11/13/2017
Mr. James Smiley 11/13/2017
Mr. James Zizzo 11/13/2017
Mr. Jason Gaylor 11/14/2017
Mr. Jason Mccammon 11/13/2017
Mr. Jay Rose 11/13/2017
Mr. Jeff S. Kulp 11/13/2017
Mr. Jeff S. Kulp 11/13/2017
Mr. Jeffrey Hollar 11/13/2017
Mr. Jeffrey L. Clark 11/13/2017
Mr. Jeffrey Pilkinton 11/13/2017
Mr. Jeffrey Schnebelen 11/13/2017
Page C.4-16

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Mr. Jesse Boeckermann 11/13/2017
Mr. Jim Eshelman 11/13/2017
Mr. Jim Lindsay 11/13/2017
Mr. Joe Anshien 11/13/2017
Mr. Joe Harman 11/13/2017
Mr. Joe Shanley 11/13/2017
Mr. John Bastian 11/13/2017
Mr. John Bryan 11/14/2017
Mr. John C. Barry 11/13/2017
Mr. John Godfrey 11/13/2017
Mr. John Gray 11/14/2017
Mr. John Kalina 11/13/2017
Mr. John L. Grannis 11/14/2017
Mr. John Macconnell 11/13/2017
Mr. JOHN PETSCO 11/13/2017
Mr. John Reilly 11/13/2017
Mr. John Speed II 11/13/2017
Mr. John Varley 11/13/2017
Mr. John Wiles 11/13/2017
Mr. Johnny Mayall 11/13/2017
Mr. Jon Batson 11/13/2017
Mr. Jon Franks 11/15/2017
Mr. Jon Kalbfleisch 11/13/2017
Mr. Jonathan Cruise 11/13/2017
Mr. Jonathan Hotz 11/13/2017
Mr. Jonathan Taylor 11/13/2017
Mr. Joseph Glombiak 11/13/2017
Mr. Joseph Senyk 11/14/2017
Mr. Joseph Stanway Harper 11/13/2017
Mr. Josh Tootell 11/13/2017
Mr. JOSHUA LIES 11/13/2017
Mr. Jules Fraytet 11/13/2017
Mr. Justin Landry 11/13/2017
Mr. Justin Windhorst 11/13/2017
Mr. Karl Koessel 11/13/2017
Mr. Ken Ashe 11/14/2017
Mr. Ken Bosch 11/13/2017
Mr. Kenneth Byrd 11/15/2017
Mr. Kenneth Lapointe 11/14/2017
Mr. Kenneth Lederman 11/14/2017
Mr. Kevin O'Donnell 11/14/2017
Mr. Kicab Castaneda-Mendez 11/13/2017
Mr. Kimberley Arnette 11/19/2017
Mr. Kirk Rhoads 11/14/2017
Name Date
Mr. Kyle Cory 11/13/2017
Mr. Kyle Semon 11/13/2017
Mr. Larry Heyl 11/13/2017
Mr. Lawrence Beebe 11/13/2017
Mr. Lawrence East 11/13/2017
Mr. Lawrence Jacksina 11/13/2017
Mr. Lawrence Turk, RN 11/14/2017
Mr. Lee Zacha 11/13/2017
Mr. Len Gregorio 11/13/2017
Mr. Leo Roberson 11/13/2017
Mr. Lorenz Steininger 11/13/2017
Mr. Lowell Johnson 11/13/2017
Mr. Malcolm Crosbie 11/13/2017
Mr. Marc Pendergast 11/14/2017
Mr. Marc Pendergast 11/13/2017
Mr. Marco Parravicini 11/15/2017
Mr. Mark Hurmence 11/13/2017
Mr. Mark Simonsen 11/13/2017
Mr. Martin Hazeltine 11/14/2017
Mr. Marvin Scherl 11/13/2017
Mr. Matt Cormons 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael Broughton 11/14/2017
Mr. Michael Mcgowan 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael Minnick 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael O'Malley 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael Pan 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael Shell 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael Sileno 11/13/2017
Mr. Michael Wallace 11/13/2017
Mr. MIKE BYRUM 11/14/2017
Mr. Milan Mehta 11/13/2017
Mr. Miles Varner 11/13/2017
Mr. Milton Davis 11/14/2017
Mr. Mitchell Ward 11/13/2017
Mr. Moss Charles Charles 11/13/2017
Mr. Nancy Coffey 11/13/2017
Mr. Nathan Peterson 11/13/2017
Mr. Nathan Peterson 11/13/2017
Mr. Neil Infante 11/13/2017
Mr. Newton Teichmann 11/13/2017
Mr. Nick Hood 11/14/2017
Mr. Norman Dowling 11/13/2017
Mr. Norman Lafleur 11/13/2017
Mr. Patrick Dennis 11/13/2017
Page C.4-17

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Mr. Patrick Farrell 11/13/2017
Mr. Patrick Farrell 11/13/2017
Mr. Patrick T. Stout 11/13/2017
Mr. Paul Gallimore 11/13/2017
Mr. Paul Macomber 11/13/2017
Mr. Paul Mazzola 11/15/2017
Mr. Pete Shae 11/13/2017
Mr. Pete Shaw 11/13/2017
Mr. Peter Knebel 11/15/2017
Mr. Peter M. Pickens 11/13/2017
Mr. Peter Murphy 11/13/2017
Mr. Peter Vanderwolf 11/14/2017
Mr. Philip Huffsmith 11/13/2017
Mr. Phillip Loughmiller 11/13/2017
Mr. Ralph Lee 11/13/2017
Mr. Randal Kempka 11/14/2017
Mr. Randall Nord 11/14/2017
Mr. Raymond O'Shaughnessy 11/13/2017
Mr. Rhonda Richardson 11/13/2017
Mr. Richard Ferneyhough 11/13/2017
Mr. Richard Fullerton 11/13/2017
Mr. Richard Hybil 11/13/2017
Mr. Richard Mclane II 11/13/2017
Mr. Richard Starling 11/13/2017
Mr. Richard W. Firth 11/13/2017
Mr. Richard W. Firth 11/13/2017
Mr. Rick Mcanulty 11/13/2017
Mr. Robert Amoroso 11/13/2017
Mr. Robert Bowen 11/18/2017
Mr. Robert Hansberry 11/13/2017
Mr. Robert Meyer 11/13/2017
Mr. Robert Voelker 11/13/2017
Mr. Rod Parker 11/13/2017
Mr. Roger Walker 11/13/2017
Mr. Ron & Nancy Bryant 11/13/2017
Mr. Ron Edwards 11/14/2017
Mr. Russ Elliott 11/14/2017
Mr. Russ Watkins 11/13/2017
Mr. Russell J. Fowler 11/14/2017
Mr. Russell James 11/13/2017
Mr. Ryland Bowman 11/14/2017
Mr. Sam Heaton 11/13/2017
Mr. Sandy J. 11/13/2017
Mr. Saul Oliansky 11/13/2017
Name Date
Mr. Scott Dixon 11/15/2017
Mr. Scott Meyer 11/13/2017
Mr. Severn Kellam 11/13/2017
Mr. Shelton Jenkins 11/13/2017
Mr. Sherman Hoover 11/14/2017
Mr. Simmons (Bill) Isler 11/13/2017
Mr. Stanley Hix 11/14/2017
Mr. Stephen Boletchek 11/13/2017
Mr. Stephen Gregoire 11/13/2017
Mr. Stephen H. Juhlin 11/13/2017
Mr. Stephen Whitfield 11/13/2017
Mr. Stephen Witt 11/13/2017
Mr. Steve Adams 11/13/2017
Mr. Steve Plant 11/13/2017
Mr. Steven Gordon 11/13/2017
Mr. Stuart Stein 11/13/2017
Mr. Thomas Antoon 11/13/2017
Mr. Thomas C. Johnson 11/14/2017
Mr. Thomas Danieli 11/13/2017
Mr. Thomas Huzij 11/13/2017
Mr. Thomas Lux 11/13/2017
Mr. Thomas Sweeny 11/13/2017
Mr. Thomas Sweeny 11/13/2017
Mr. Ti Harmony 11/13/2017
Mr. Tim Schmitt 11/13/2017
Mr. Tom Antoon 11/13/2017
Mr. Tom Hoffman 11/13/2017
Mr. Tom Leonard 11/13/2017
Mr. Tommy Boyd 11/13/2017
Mr. Tony Piselli 11/13/2017
Mr. Tripp Carter 11/13/2017
Mr. Ulrich Alsentzer 11/14/2017
Mr. Ulrich Alsentzer 11/14/2017
Mr. Vic S. Fahrer 11/14/2017
Mr. Victor Escobar 11/16/2017
Mr. Wagner Parente 11/13/2017
Mr. Walter Kross 11/13/2017
Mr. Wes Weaver 11/13/2017
Mr. William Carter 11/13/2017
Mr. William Hackney 11/14/2017
Mr. William Higgins 11/14/2017
Mr. William Massengill 11/14/2017
Mr. William Phillips 11/14/2017
Mr. William Richards 11/13/2017
Page C.4-18

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Mr. William Skirbunt-Kozabo 11/13/2017
Mr. Z. Vijay Director 11/13/2017
Mrs. Allison Delavan 11/13/2017
Mrs. Allison S. Taylor 11/13/2017
Mrs. Andrea Saad 11/13/2017
Mrs. Annette Peterson 11/14/2017
Mrs. Barbara Conrad 11/16/2017
Mrs. Betsy Webster 11/13/2017
Mrs. Beverly Bradshaw 11/14/2017
Mrs. Carol Miller 11/13/2017
Mrs. Cathy Nieman 11/13/2017
Mrs. Christie Cantrell 11/13/2017
Mrs. Christina Milauskas 11/13/2017
Mrs. Christine Fuss 11/13/2017
Mrs. Constance Engle 11/13/2017
Mrs. Debbie Kearns 11/13/2017
Mrs. Denise Brown 11/13/2017
Mrs. Denise Sicotte 11/13/2017
Mrs. Diane Arnal 11/14/2017
Mrs. Felicity Francis 11/13/2017
Mrs. Ginny Nolan 11/13/2017
Mrs. Grace Strong 11/13/2017
Mrs. Gretchen Sukow 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jean Hopkins 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jenn Rogers 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jennifer Brandon 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jessica Barbour 11/13/2017
Mrs. Judy Bryan 11/13/2017
Mrs. Julia Young 11/13/2017
Mrs. Julia Young 11/13/2017
Mrs. Julie Stull 11/13/2017
Mrs. Katherine Meyer 11/13/2017
Mrs. Kimberley Fisher 11/13/2017
Mrs. Marjorie Andrews 11/13/2017
Mrs. Mary Dorner Stephens 11/13/2017
Mrs. Melinda Keith-Singleton 11/13/2017
Mrs. Mieke Rose 11/13/2017
Mrs. Nancy Stoepker 11/13/2017
Mrs. Nicole Foster 11/14/2017
Mrs. Patty Kunc 11/13/2017
Mrs. Robbie Harter 11/13/2017
Mrs. Robin Hall 11/15/2017
Mrs. Rosemary Carton 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sadie Sondgerath 11/13/2017
Name Date
Mrs. Tanya Manning 11/14/2017
Mrs. Wava Osborne 11/13/2017
Mrs. Agatha Ocko 11/13/2017
Mrs. Agnes Stringfellow 11/13/2017
Mrs. Alyce Quinn 11/13/2017
Mrs. Angela Calabrese 11/13/2017
Mrs. Annie Parr 11/13/2017
Mrs. April Gillespie 11/14/2017
Mrs. April Hardee 11/13/2017
Mrs. April Lecato 11/14/2017
Mrs. Barbara A. Valenza 3881 11/13/2017
Mrs. Barbara Benson 11/13/2017
Mrs. Barbara Workman 11/13/2017
Mrs. Betty Byrne Ware 11/13/2017
Mrs. Betty Ramsey 11/13/2017
Mrs. Bj Wallace 11/14/2017
Mrs. Bonnie Claggett 11/13/2017
Mrs. Bonnie Claggett 11/13/2017
Mrs. C Longmore 11/13/2017
Mrs. Cameron Wright 11/13/2017
Mrs. Carla Barrell 11/13/2017
Mrs. Carol Briggs 11/13/2017
Mrs. Carole Schreiber 11/13/2017
Mrs. Carolyn Smith 11/13/2017
Mrs. Carrie Goodykoont 11/13/2017
Mrs. Caryl Sawyer 11/13/2017
Mrs. Caryn Brown 11/13/2017
Mrs. Catherine Denham 11/14/2017
Mrs. Catherine Hays 11/15/2017
Mrs. CATHERINE SIMARD 11/13/2017
Mrs. Charlene Knop 11/13/2017
Mrs. Charlotte Kurland 11/13/2017
Mrs. Charlotte Shnaider 11/13/2017
Mrs. Chelsea Bee 11/13/2017
Mrs. Chelsea Bee 11/13/2017
Mrs. Cheryl Haislar 11/14/2017
Mrs. Chris Gaines 11/13/2017
Mrs. Chris Oxford 11/13/2017
Mrs. Christi Dillon 11/13/2017
Mrs. Christie Driscoll 11/13/2017
Mrs. Cindee Messineo 11/14/2017
Mrs. Cindy Shoaf 11/13/2017
Mrs. Darleen Tomayko 11/13/2017
Mrs. Dawn Ehli 11/13/2017
Page C.4-19

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Mrs. Deb Peckitt 11/15/2017
Mrs. Deborah Roney 11/13/2017
Mrs. Dee Reed 11/13/2017
Mrs. Deede Snowhite 11/13/2017
Mrs. Della Oberst 11/13/2017
Mrs. Diane Clark 11/13/2017
Mrs. Dolores Saenz 11/18/2017
Mrs. Donna Feirtag 11/13/2017
Mrs. Edie Loesch 11/14/2017
Mrs. Eleanor Schilder 11/13/2017
Mrs. ELIZABETH Hillerstrom 11/13/2017
Mrs. Elizabeth Smith 11/14/2017
Mrs. Elizabeth Watts 11/13/2017
Mrs. Elizabeth Willcox 11/13/2017
Mrs. Erin Rothman 11/16/2017
Mrs. Esther Meter 11/13/2017
Mrs. Ethel Powell 11/13/2017
Mrs. Evelyn Coltman 11/13/2017
Mrs. Faith Herbst 11/13/2017
Mrs. Gale Rullmann 11/13/2017
Mrs. Gayle Hartman 11/14/2017
Mrs. Geri Southard 11/13/2017
Mrs. Hannah Schwartz 11/13/2017
Mrs. Holly Dowling 11/13/2017
Mrs. Holly Grundheber 11/14/2017
Mrs. Iris Carman 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jane E. Church 11/13/2017
Mrs. Janeanne Huang 11/14/2017
Mrs. Janelle Peters 11/13/2017
Mrs. Janet Doyle 11/13/2017
Mrs. Janet Drew 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jean Carlton 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jean Foster 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jean Marie Vinecourt 11/16/2017
Mrs. Jenafur Maher-Bernard 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jennifer Ivey 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jeri Edwards 11/17/2017
Mrs. Jill Bailey 11/14/2017
Mrs. Jill Klemm 11/13/2017
Mrs. Joan Blake 11/13/2017
Mrs. Joanne Heckel 11/13/2017
Mrs. Johnna Huxtable 11/13/2017
Mrs. Jon Deboer 11/14/2017
Mrs. Jon Deboer 11/14/2017
Name Date
Mrs. Joyce Harvey 11/14/2017
Mrs. JOYCE VEIT 11/13/2017
Mrs. Judith Barton 11/13/2017
Mrs. Judith Berry 11/13/2017
Mrs. Judy Mcfadden Dowdy 11/13/2017
Mrs. Judy Porray 11/13/2017
Mrs. Judy Smith 11/13/2017
Mrs. Judy Williams 11/13/2017
Mrs. Julia Borg 11/14/2017
Mrs. Karen Kaser-Odor 11/13/2017
Mrs. Karyn Collier 11/13/2017
Mrs. Kathleen Betters 11/13/2017
Mrs. Kathleen De Los Reyes 11/15/2017
Mrs. Kathy Royal 11/13/2017
Mrs. Katie Carter 11/13/2017
Mrs. Katrina Emanuel 11/13/2017
Mrs. Kim Preish 11/13/2017
Mrs. Kimberly Hart 11/13/2017
Mrs. Laura Bishop 11/13/2017
Mrs. Laura Luyendyk 11/13/2017
Mrs. Laurel Strutton 11/15/2017
Mrs. Leigh-Ann Renz 11/14/2017
Mrs. Leslie Hutcherson 11/13/2017
Mrs. Leslie S. Hardie 11/13/2017
Mrs. Leslie Simon 11/13/2017
Mrs. Linda Barker 11/13/2017
Mrs. Linda Konold 11/13/2017
Mrs. Linda Thorpe 11/13/2017
Mrs. Linda Voelker 11/15/2017
Mrs. Lorraine Cocomero 11/13/2017
Mrs. M.K. Ramm 11/13/2017
Mrs. Madeline And Victor Perkins 11/14/2017
Mrs. Mandy Devine 11/13/2017
Mrs. Marcia Summers 11/13/2017
Mrs. Margo Pinkerton 11/13/2017
Mrs. Maria E. Godbey 11/13/2017
Mrs. Marilyn Clark 11/13/2017
Mrs. Martha Spencer 11/14/2017
Mrs. Mary Ann Till 11/13/2017
Mrs. Mary Anne Klasen 11/13/2017
Mrs. Mary Barhydt 11/13/2017
Mrs. Mary Jane Moore 11/13/2017
Mrs. Mary Nolan 11/13/2017
Mrs. Mary Van Son 11/20/2017
Page C.4-20

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Mrs. Megan Clendenon 11/13/2017
Mrs. Meghan Blydenburgh 11/13/2017
Mrs. Melinda Trevorrow 11/13/2017
Mrs. Melissa Gold 11/13/2017
Mrs. Melissa Henninger 11/13/2017
Mrs. Michaela Oldfield 11/13/2017
Mrs. Michelle Jacobs 11/14/2017
Mrs. Michelle Rivers 11/13/2017
Mrs. Michelle Stewart 11/13/2017
Mrs. Mina Lloyd 11/13/2017
Mrs. Miriam Youngquist-Thurow 11/13/2017
Mrs. Monique Richter 11/13/2017
Mrs. Nancy Byrum 11/14/2017
Mrs. Nancy Devereux 11/13/2017
Mrs. Nancy Koone 11/13/2017
Mrs. Nancy Zora 11/13/2017
Mrs. Nicole Brostek 11/14/2017
Mrs. Olga Lampkin 11/13/2017
Mrs. Ongkar Kar Khalsa 11/15/2017
Mrs. Pamela Phillips 11/13/2017
Mrs. Pamela S. Jiranek 11/13/2017
Mrs. Patricia Burgert 11/14/2017
Mrs. Patricia Rister 11/13/2017
Mrs. Patricia Winne 11/13/2017
Mrs. Patrtizia Lazzeri 11/14/2017
Mrs. Phyllis White 11/13/2017
Mrs. Rachel Howe 11/13/2017
Mrs. Ruth Reagel 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sallie Thalhimer 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sally Courtright 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sandra Howson 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sandra Middour 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sandra Rohde 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sandra Slone 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sandra Uribe 11/14/2017
Mrs. Sara Bernardi 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sarah Simpson 11/14/2017
Mrs. Selene Russo 11/13/2017
Mrs. Shelor Robin 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sherrie Langston 11/13/2017
Mrs. Shirley Midyette 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sigrid Kilcullen 11/13/2017
Mrs. Somer Spradley 11/13/2017
Mrs. Stacey Moretti 11/14/2017
Name Date
Mrs. Stephanie Reis 11/13/2017
Mrs. Susan Brown 11/13/2017
Mrs. Susan Meredith 11/13/2017
Mrs. Susan Ruckle 11/13/2017
Mrs. Susan Zimmer 11/13/2017
Mrs. Susan Zimmer 11/13/2017
Mrs. Sylvia Stack 11/13/2017
Mrs. Teresa Mccartney 11/14/2017
Mrs. Terri Rosenberg 11/13/2017
Mrs. Tiffany Ehnes 11/13/2017
Mrs. Tina Schwartz 11/13/2017
Mrs. Tracy Gourville 11/13/2017
Mrs. Trudy Luman 11/13/2017
Mrs. Valarie Little 11/14/2017
Mrs. Vicki Gaffney 11/14/2017
Mrs. VIRGINIA WOOTON 11/13/2017
Mrs. Wanda Burton 11/14/2017
Mrs. Wendy C 11/14/2017
Mrs. Yanyra Nieves 11/13/2017
Mrs. Yvonne Hoffman 11/13/2017
Ms. Angie Stovall 11/18/2017
Ms. Ann Bicking 11/13/2017
Ms. Anne Rippy 11/17/2017
Ms. Annie Caulkins 11/13/2017
MS. Antonia Valakas 11/14/2017
Ms. Ashli Peebles 11/13/2017
MS. Barbara Borucki 11/14/2017
Ms. Barbara Coogle 11/15/2017
Ms. Barbara Coogle 11/15/2017
Ms. Barbara Coogle 11/15/2017
Ms. Barbara Jacoby 11/13/2017
Ms. Beth Olson 11/14/2017
Ms. Beth Stanberry 11/13/2017
Ms. Brenda Moore 11/14/2017
Ms. C. Kasey 11/13/2017
Ms. Camie Rodgers 11/13/2017
Ms. Camie Rodgers 11/13/2017
Ms. Catherine Marie 11/14/2017
Ms. Celeste Winterberger 11/13/2017
Ms. Chanda Farley 11/13/2017
Ms. Cheryl Neville 11/13/2017
Ms. Corinne Benbow 11/14/2017
Ms. Courtney Birkett 11/16/2017
Ms. Crystal Polk 11/14/2017
Page C.4-21

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Ms. Dale Mendoza 11/13/2017
Ms. Deborah Caskey 11/14/2017
Ms. Elizabeth Albright 11/14/2017
Ms. Elizabeth Bartlett 11/18/2017
Ms. Elizabeth Beamon 11/15/2017
Ms. Elizabeth Beamon 11/15/2017
Ms. Elizabeth Beamon 11/15/2017
Ms. Elizabeth Mcmahon 11/13/2017
Ms. Emily Charles 11/19/2017
Ms. Erica Burns 11/13/2017
Ms. Jaedra Luke 11/13/2017
Ms. Jaedra Luke 11/13/2017
Ms. Janice Steever 11/13/2017
Ms. Jean Tunstall 11/14/2017
Ms. Jennifer Harris 11/13/2017
Ms. Judy L. Taylor 11/13/2017
Ms. Karen Westermann 11/13/2017
Ms. Kathy Day 11/13/2017
Ms. Kathy Laughlin 11/13/2017
Ms. Kathy Mason 11/14/2017
Ms. Kathy Mason 11/14/2017
Ms. Katie Morrissey 11/14/2017
Ms. Laura Lavertu 11/13/2017
Ms. Leigh Clodfelter 11/13/2017
Ms. Linda C. Liptak 11/13/2017
Ms. Linda C. Liptak 11/13/2017
Ms. Lis Hoveland 11/13/2017
Ms. Lisa Walthers 11/13/2017
Ms. Lois Lois Gebhardt 11/14/2017
Ms. Lynne Euse 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Anne Loughlin 11/13/2017
Ms. Melissa Nemeth 11/13/2017
Ms. N. Lee 11/14/2017
Ms. Nancy Hess 11/14/2017
Ms. Nancy Loftin 11/13/2017
Ms. Niyaso Cannizzaro 11/13/2017
Ms. Pat Bedford 11/13/2017
Ms. Patricia Hyde 11/13/2017
Ms. Patti Sonnentag 11/13/2017
Ms. Sara Loeppert 11/13/2017
Ms. Sara Roderer 11/13/2017
Ms. Sharon Vinsant 11/13/2017
Ms. Sheryl Goodwin 11/14/2017
Ms. Stacy Trumbull 11/15/2017
Name Date
Ms. Stephanie Doetsch 11/13/2017
Ms. Susan Edelstein 11/13/2017
Ms. Susan Lind 11/13/2017
Ms. Suzanne Dahlquist 11/14/2017
Ms. Suzanne Riera 11/13/2017
Ms. Tania J. Malven 11/13/2017
Ms. Wendy Vandergrift 11/13/2017
Ms. A J Hawkins 11/18/2017
Ms. A Paul 11/13/2017
Ms. Abby Helfand 11/13/2017
Ms. Agnes Crews 11/13/2017
Ms. Alexandra Digiacomo 11/16/2017
Ms. Alice Case 11/14/2017
Ms. Alice Long 11/13/2017
Ms. Allison Murray-Nikkel 11/15/2017
Ms. Allison Sasso 11/13/2017
Ms. Amanda Douglass 11/14/2017
Ms. Amanda Esposito 11/16/2017
Ms. Amanda Yoder 11/13/2017
Ms. Andrea Reimers 11/13/2017
Ms. Andrea Snyder 11/15/2017
Ms. Angela Vieth 11/13/2017
Ms. Angie Smith 11/13/2017
Ms. Anita Shanker 11/13/2017
Ms. Ann Collins 11/13/2017
Ms. Ann Marie Dunn 11/13/2017
Ms. Ann Mazzullo 11/13/2017
Ms. Ann Murray 11/20/2017
Ms. Ann Whitford 11/13/2017
Ms. Ann Wood 11/13/2017
Ms. Anna Sims 11/13/2017
Ms. Anne Nadeau 11/13/2017
Ms. April Salyards 11/13/2017
Ms. Arden Green 11/13/2017
Ms. Barbara Bailey 11/13/2017
Ms. Barbara Francis 11/14/2017
Ms. Barbara Robertson 11/13/2017
Ms. Barbara Seaman 11/13/2017
Ms. Barbara Withem 11/13/2017
Ms. Barbara Withem 11/13/2017
Ms. Bea Baxter 11/17/2017
Ms. Benita Auge 11/13/2017
Ms. Beth Kissling 11/13/2017
Ms. Beth Mchenry 11/13/2017
Page C.4-22

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Ms. Beth Pensiero 11/18/2017
Ms. Bethany A. A. Dusenberry 11/13/2017
Ms. Betsey Granda 11/13/2017
Ms. Betsy Cruise 11/13/2017
Ms. Betty Beaver 11/13/2017
Ms. Betty Beaver 11/13/2017
Ms. Betty Funkhouser 11/13/2017
Ms. Betty Gunz 11/13/2017
Ms. Betty Stewart 11/13/2017
Ms. Bonnie Farmer 11/14/2017
Ms. Bonnie Hershberg 11/13/2017
Ms. Brea Viragh 11/13/2017
Ms. Brenda Starr 11/13/2017
Ms. Brenda Tilson 11/13/2017
Ms. Bronwyn Lane 11/13/2017
Ms. C Lifsey 11/13/2017
Ms. C Stevens 11/14/2017
Ms. C. W. Langston 11/13/2017
Ms. Camelia Stewart 11/15/2017
Ms. Candace Shaffer 11/13/2017
Ms. Cara Smith 11/13/2017
Ms. Carla Shuford 11/13/2017
Ms. Carol Dugger 11/15/2017
Ms. Carol Elliott 11/13/2017
Ms. Carol Hoke 11/13/2017
Ms. Carol L. Lipper 11/13/2017
Ms. Carol S. Simpson 11/15/2017
Ms. Carol Swing 11/13/2017
Ms. Carole Dupre 11/13/2017
Ms. Carole Jones 11/13/2017
Ms. Carole Meyer 11/13/2017
Ms. Carole Schaefer 11/13/2017
Ms. Caroline Ervin 11/13/2017
Ms. Catharine Bishop 11/13/2017
Ms. Catherine Boyd 11/13/2017
Ms. Cathy Almeida 11/13/2017
Ms. Cathy Brunick 11/13/2017
Ms. Cathy Keizer 11/13/2017
Ms. Cheryl Arthur 11/13/2017
Ms. Cheryl Militello 11/13/2017
Ms. Cheryl Militello 11/13/2017
Ms. Cheryl Villante 11/13/2017
Ms. Christina Gallo 11/14/2017
Ms. Christina Van Winkle 11/13/2017
Name Date
Ms. Christine B. 11/13/2017
Ms. Cindy Chilton 11/13/2017
Ms. Cindy Levey 11/13/2017
Ms. Claire Marsh 11/14/2017
Ms. Claire Wang 11/13/2017
Ms. Clara L Yoder 11/13/2017
Ms. Connie Raper 11/13/2017
Ms. Corinne Andersen 11/13/2017
Ms. Cornelia Powell 11/14/2017
Ms. Crystal Hart 11/14/2017
Ms. Cynthia Beane 11/13/2017
Ms. Cynthia Ghafari 11/13/2017
Ms. D Bakas 11/13/2017
Ms. D. Grady 11/14/2017
Ms. Danna Mclintock 11/13/2017
Ms. Darlene Ward 11/14/2017
Ms. DE Corum 11/13/2017
Ms. Deborah Dobson 11/13/2017
Ms. Deborah Fox 11/19/2017
Ms. Deborah Kenyon 11/14/2017
Ms. Deborah Swanson 11/13/2017
Ms. Debra Moody 11/13/2017
Ms. Dena Radley 11/16/2017
Ms. Diana Ranco 11/13/2017
Ms. Diane De Groot 11/13/2017
Ms. Diane Mason 11/13/2017
Ms. Diane Wynne 11/13/2017
Ms. Diane York 11/14/2017
Ms. Dianne Brown 11/13/2017
Ms. Dolores Sowinski 11/14/2017
Ms. Donna Allison 11/14/2017
Ms. Donna Bender 11/13/2017
Ms. Donna Howell 11/13/2017
Ms. Donna Kersey 11/14/2017
Ms. Donna S. Provance 11/13/2017
Ms. DONNA THOMPSON 11/14/2017
Ms. Doris Hinson 11/13/2017
Ms. Doris Marshall 11/13/2017
Ms. Doris Whitfield 11/13/2017
Ms. Ebony Welborn 11/20/2017
Ms. Egan Robinson 11/13/2017
Ms. Eileen Hughes 11/13/2017
Ms. Elaine Long 11/14/2017
Ms. Elaine Weinmann 11/13/2017
Page C.4-23

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Ms. Elena Carleo 11/13/2017
Ms. Eli Celli 11/13/2017
Ms. Elisabeth Brisebois 11/13/2017
Ms. Elisabeth Thornton 11/14/2017
Ms. Elizabeth Perdue 11/13/2017
Ms. Ellen Fallon 11/13/2017
Ms. Emily White 11/13/2017
Ms. Emma Oxford 11/13/2017
Ms. Erica Winston 11/14/2017
Ms. Erin B. Donnelly 11/13/2017
Ms. ESTHER MEGILL 11/16/2017
Ms. Eve Schwartz 11/15/2017
Ms. Evelyn Baldwin 11/13/2017
Ms. Evelyn Baldwin 11/13/2017
Ms. Fae Thompson 11/18/2017
Ms. Genevieve Henderson 11/13/2017
Ms. Genevieve Miller 11/13/2017
Ms. Gerri Morringello 11/13/2017
Ms. Gladys Colson 11/13/2017
Ms. Gloria Shen 11/13/2017
Ms. Gracie Roberson 11/13/2017
Ms. Gretchen Messer 11/14/2017
Ms. Gwen Corrie 11/13/2017
Ms. Gwen Doddy Lowit 11/13/2017
Ms. Hanna Page 11/13/2017
Ms. Hart Palmer 11/13/2017
Ms. Hedy Byrne 11/13/2017
Ms. Helen Bell 11/13/2017
Ms. Helen Harbett 11/13/2017
Ms. Ida Smith 11/13/2017
Ms. Ileana Clavijo 11/13/2017
Ms. J & D J 11/13/2017
Ms. Jacklene Speector 11/13/2017
Ms. Jan Ellen Komarnitzki 11/14/2017
Ms. Jan Phillips 11/13/2017
Ms. Jan Wilson 11/14/2017
Ms. Jan Zollars 11/13/2017
Ms. Jane Burgess 11/15/2017
Ms. Jane Laping 11/14/2017
Ms. Janet Dix 11/13/2017
Ms. Janet E. Tice 11/13/2017
Ms. Janet Ledermann 11/13/2017
Ms. Janet Rodrick 11/13/2017
Ms. Janine Tokarczyk 11/14/2017
Name Date
Ms. Janis Chevalier 11/14/2017
Ms. Jann Rosemerta 11/14/2017
Ms. JC Honeycutt 11/13/2017
Ms. Jean Burnett 11/13/2017
Ms. Jeanine Noblett 11/13/2017
Ms. Jeannie A. Danford 11/13/2017
Ms. Jennie Thompson 11/13/2017
Ms. Jennifer Cutright 11/13/2017
Ms. Jennifer Dimarco 11/13/2017
Ms. Jennifer Midgett 11/14/2017
Ms. Jenny Quist 11/13/2017
Ms. Jess Perry 11/13/2017
Ms. Jess Smith 11/17/2017
Ms. Jess Smith 11/17/2017
Ms. Jewell Smith 11/13/2017
Ms. Jill Brown 11/13/2017
Ms. Jillian Forschner 11/19/2017
Ms. Jin Adams Adams Parker 11/13/2017
Ms. Jo Scott 11/13/2017
Ms. Joan Christensen 11/14/2017
Ms. Joan Learner 11/13/2017
Ms. Joan Maples 11/13/2017
Ms. Joan Parks 11/13/2017
Ms. Joan Urban 11/13/2017
Ms. Joanna Bose 11/13/2017
Ms. Joanne Mcgrath 11/14/2017
Ms. Johanna Woodchild 11/14/2017
Ms. John R. Cannon 11/14/2017
Ms. Joyce Pusel 11/13/2017
Ms. Jude Maglione 11/13/2017
Ms. Judith Prizio 11/13/2017
Ms. Judith Williams 11/13/2017
Ms. Judy O. Mcclung 11/13/2017
Ms. Julia B. Riddle 11/13/2017
Ms. Julia Martinelli 11/14/2017
Ms. Julie E. Irwin 11/13/2017
Ms. Julie Kunz 11/13/2017
Ms. Julie Tonti 11/13/2017
Ms. JUNE LINHART 11/14/2017
Ms. Kailey Kefi 11/13/2017
Ms. Karen Criner 11/13/2017
Ms. Karen Delmonico 11/13/2017
Ms. Karen Domanski 11/13/2017
Ms. Karen Koenig 11/14/2017
Page C.4-24

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Ms. Karen Mallam 11/14/2017
Ms. Karen Rivers 11/13/2017
Ms. Kate Lamar 11/13/2017
Ms. Katherine Capehart 11/14/2017
Ms. Katherine Chapman 11/13/2017
Ms. Katherine Connor Mckee 11/13/2017
Ms. Katherine Dreyer 11/13/2017
Ms. Kathleen Mclane 11/13/2017
Ms. Kathy L. Crosby 11/13/2017
Ms. Kathy Nance 11/14/2017
Ms. Kathy Wilt 11/15/2017
Ms. Kathy Wright 11/13/2017
Ms. Kay Liestman 11/19/2017
Ms. Kiele Goins 11/13/2017
Ms. Kimberly Houser 11/13/2017
Ms. Kimberly Hurtt 11/13/2017
Ms. Kimberly Nelson 11/13/2017
Ms. Kitty Freeman 11/13/2017
Ms. Kristen K. Zuk 11/14/2017
Ms. Kristin Mumm 11/13/2017
Ms. L CARROLL 11/14/2017
Ms. L. Barr 11/13/2017
Ms. Lara Marshall 11/13/2017
Ms. Laura Ballance 11/13/2017
Ms. Laura Floyd 11/13/2017
Ms. Laura Lawrence 11/13/2017
Ms. Laura Tomi Wolf 11/13/2017
Ms. Laura Vaughan 11/19/2017
Ms. Lauren Beissinger 11/13/2017
Ms. Lauren Haley 11/15/2017
Ms. Lauren Klingman 11/13/2017
Ms. Lauri Maerov 11/13/2017
Ms. Laurice Ferris 11/14/2017
Ms. Leslie Calambro 11/14/2017
Ms. Leslie Morris 11/13/2017
Ms. Leslie Stewart 11/13/2017
Ms. Linda Bancroft 11/13/2017
Ms. Linda Cash 11/16/2017
Ms. Linda Day Evans 11/13/2017
Ms. Linda Fenner 11/13/2017
Ms. Linda Krasny 11/13/2017
Ms. Linda Muntner 11/14/2017
Ms. Linda Sperath 11/13/2017
Ms. Linda Worsley 11/13/2017
Name Date
Ms. Lindsay Pugh 11/13/2017
Ms. Lisa Lewis 11/13/2017
Ms. Lisa Rademacher 11/13/2017
Ms. Liz Dyer 11/13/2017
Ms. Lois Garrett 11/13/2017
Ms. Lori Brune 11/13/2017
Ms. Lori Williams 11/13/2017
Ms. Lynn Elliott 11/13/2017
Ms. Lynn Elliott 11/13/2017
Ms. Lynn Jones 11/13/2017
Ms. Lynne Adams 11/15/2017
Ms. Lynne C. 11/13/2017
Ms. Lynne Royall 11/14/2017
Ms. Madeline Helbraun 11/13/2017
Ms. Marcia Carter 11/13/2017
Ms. Margaret L. Spilker 11/15/2017
Ms. Margie Deal 11/13/2017
Ms. Maria Leblanc 11/14/2017
Ms. Marie Hyder 11/14/2017
Ms. Marie Robertson 11/13/2017
Ms. Marilyn Brown 11/13/2017
Ms. Marion Edrington 11/13/2017
Ms. Marla West 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Bartlett 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Bolin 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Combs 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary E. Parker 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Hitz 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Hitz 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Jackson 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary K. Wakeman 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary M. Salvo 11/14/2017
Ms. Mary Martin-Falanga 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Mcqueen 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Orton 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Rush 11/14/2017
Ms. Mary Sayler 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Schmotzer 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Stone 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary T Moorcones 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Totty 11/14/2017
Ms. Mary Tuma 11/13/2017
Ms. Mary Vickery 11/13/2017
Ms. Maryjon Mcavery 11/14/2017
Page C.4-25

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Ms. Maureen Mcmanus-Powers 11/13/2017
Ms. Maxine R. Cannon 11/14/2017
Ms. Melinda Bashen 11/13/2017
Ms. Melissa Peters 11/13/2017
Ms. Michelle Morse 11/14/2017
Ms. Michelle Sauber 11/18/2017
Ms. Miriam Brancato 11/14/2017
Ms. Misa Y 11/13/2017
Ms. Nadine Duckworth 11/13/2017
Ms. Nancy Acopine 11/13/2017
Ms. Nancy B. Glynn 11/13/2017
Ms. Nancy Ferguson 11/15/2017
Ms. Nancy J. Sweet 11/14/2017
Ms. Nancy Montgomery 11/13/2017
Ms. Nancy Parsons 11/13/2017
Ms. Nancy Rominger 11/14/2017
Ms. Naomi Avissar 11/13/2017
Ms. Necole Cook 11/14/2017
Ms. Nikki Schipman 11/15/2017
Ms. Norma Elrod 11/19/2017
Ms. P Holmes 11/13/2017
Ms. Pamela Dunston 11/14/2017
Ms. Pamela Johnston 11/13/2017
Ms. Pamela Watson 11/13/2017
Ms. Pamela Woods 11/13/2017
Ms. Pat Bennett 11/13/2017
Ms. Pat Connell 11/13/2017
Ms. Pat Gallimore 11/13/2017
Ms. Pat M. Mcgrath 11/13/2017
Ms. Patricia Allen 11/13/2017
Ms. Patricia Bernarding 11/13/2017
Ms. Patricia English 11/13/2017
Ms. Patricia Guild 11/15/2017
Ms. Patricia Lowder 11/13/2017
Ms. Patricia Murningham 11/13/2017
Ms. Paula Holmes 11/14/2017
Ms. Paulette Kaplan 11/13/2017
Ms. Peggy Hustad 11/17/2017
Ms. Rain Hummingbird 11/13/2017
Ms. Ray C. Derrickson 11/13/2017
Ms. Ray Hearne 11/14/2017
Ms. Rebecca Calhoun 11/13/2017
Ms. Rebecca Scarborough 11/13/2017
Ms. Renee Roper 11/13/2017
Name Date
Ms. Rio Alden 11/13/2017
Ms. Rita Large 11/13/2017
Ms. Rita Large 11/13/2017
Ms. Rita Waine 11/13/2017
Ms. Robert Powers 11/13/2017
Ms. Robyn Barnes 11/15/2017
Ms. Ruth Bauer 11/13/2017
Ms. Ruth Grubb 11/13/2017
Ms. Ruth Noble 11/13/2017
Ms. Ruth Talley 11/13/2017
Ms. S. K. 11/13/2017
Ms. S. Teel 11/13/2017
Ms. Sallie Park 11/14/2017
Ms. Sally Jones 11/13/2017
Ms. Samantha Embrey 11/14/2017
Ms. Sandra Hillerstrom 11/13/2017
Ms. Sandra Resner 11/13/2017
Ms. Sandy Camp 11/13/2017
Ms. Sara Smithe 11/13/2017
Ms. Sarah Brewer 11/13/2017
Ms. Sarah Denes 11/14/2017
Ms. Sarah Hawes 11/14/2017
Ms. Sarah Jordan 11/13/2017
Ms. Sarah Kazdan 11/14/2017
Ms. SD Moniz 11/14/2017
Ms. Shakayla Thomas 11/13/2017
Ms. Sharon Diwns 11/13/2017
Ms. Sharon Kaye 11/15/2017
Ms. Sharon R. Fisher 11/14/2017
Ms. Shelley Frazier 11/18/2017
Ms. Shelley Tsuji 11/13/2017
Ms. Shelley Tsuji 11/13/2017
Ms. Shelly Simmons 11/13/2017
Ms. Sheryl Leaf 11/16/2017
Ms. Sheryl Schweitzer 11/13/2017
Ms. Sidney Jones 11/13/2017
Ms. Sondra Camp 11/13/2017
Ms. Sondra Camp 11/13/2017
Ms. Sonia West 11/13/2017
Ms. Stefon Lira 11/13/2017
Ms. Sue Chard 11/17/2017
Ms. Susan Allen 11/17/2017
Ms. Susan Black 11/13/2017
Ms. Susan Galante 11/14/2017
Page C.4-26

Table C.4-2. Commenters that Submitted Form Letter No. 2a

aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Ms. Susan Kilzer 11/15/2017
Ms. Susan Kilzer 11/15/2017
Ms. Susan Loscalzo 11/14/2017
Ms. Susan Mccarthy 11/13/2017
Ms. Susan Mchenry 11/13/2017
Ms. Susan Polizzotto 11/13/2017
Ms. Susan Redding 11/14/2017
Ms. Susan Reddington 11/13/2017
Ms. Susan Richmond 11/19/2017
Ms. Susan Schorin 11/13/2017
Ms. Suzanne Post 11/14/2017
Ms. Suzanne Yeaman 11/13/2017
Ms. Suzy Lawrence 11/13/2017
Ms. Taffi Newhouser 11/14/2017
Ms. Tamekka Davis 11/13/2017
Ms. Tammy Dickens 11/13/2017
Ms. Tara Kerr 11/13/2017
Ms. Tasha Pate 11/13/2017
Ms. Tawny Manuel 11/13/2017
Ms. Terri Armao 11/13/2017
Ms. Theo Giesy 11/13/2017
Ms. Tina Shurtleff 11/13/2017
Ms. Tina Vazquez 11/13/2017
Ms. Toby Cardoso 11/13/2017
Ms. Tomeka Watkinson 11/13/2017
Ms. Toni Wiker 11/13/2017
Ms. Tracy Freeman 11/13/2017
Ms. Tricia Oakley 11/13/2017
Ms. Trish Deane 11/14/2017
Ms. Ursula Finkel 11/16/2017
Ms. Valarie Snell 11/17/2017
Ms. Veronica Jantzen 11/13/2017
Ms. Vicki Kruschwitz 11/13/2017
Ms. Vickie Morton 11/13/2017
Ms. Vicky Brandt 11/13/2017
Ms. Virginia Broadbeck 11/13/2017
Ms. Virginia Germino 11/13/2017
Ms. W. Clark 11/13/2017
Ms. Weldine Dossett 11/13/2017
Ms. Wendy Stevens 11/13/2017
Ms. Yol Swan 11/13/2017
Ms. Zee R. Fisher 11/14/2017
Mt Lee Warren 11/13/2017
Nicole Harmony 11/13/2017
Name Date
Pam Burns 11/14/2017
[e-mail] José Luis
Guichard Salomón
11/13/2017
Ramon Gonzalez-Molina 11/13/2017
Randy & Wanda Hillman 11/13/2017
Rev Chad Barnes 11/13/2017
Rev. David Fouche 11/13/2017
Rev. Gailbeth Works 11/14/2017
Rev. Pam Hudson 11/15/2017
Rev. Vickie Penninger 11/13/2017
Reverend Eric Anspaugh 11/13/2017
Sahas Panda 11/13/2017
Sara Galletti 11/13/2017
Sr. Sister Mary Schmuck RSM 11/13/2017
Tamara Sanders 11/13/2017
Victoria Childers 11/14/2017
Page C.4-27
aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Table C.4-3. Commenters that Used Form Letter No. 2a as Basis For Comments

Name Date
Mr. Erich Priest 11/18/2017 C.4-29
Ms. Vonda Vandaveer 11/14/2017 C.4-30
Mr. Ronald M. Clayton 11/14/2017 C.4-31
Dr. Benjamin Smith 11/14/2017 C.4-32
Ms. Carolyn Barker 11/14/2017 C.4-33
Ms. Cheryl McGraw 11/14/2017 C.4-34
Ms. Katherine Fredricks 11/14/2017 C.4-35
Mr. Gary Simpson 11/13/2017 C.4-36
Mr. John Davis 11/13/2017 C.4-37
Mr. & Mrs. James & April Thompson 11/13/2017 C.4-38
Ms. Suzanne Dickson 11/13/2017 C.4-39
Ms. Lucile Miller 11/13/2017 C.4-40
Mrs. Liz Davis 11/13/2017 C.4-41
Ms. rusty dixon 11/13/2017 C.4-42
Ms. Barbara Gabriel 11/13/2017 C.4-43
Ms. Kathleen Taimi 11/13/2017 C.4-44
Ms. mae basye 11/13/2017 C.4-45
Mr. Jason Owen 11/13/2017 C.4-46
Ms. P. A. McCauley 11/13/2017 C.4-47
Ms. Susan Andre 11/13/2017 C.4-48
Mrs. Margaret Sabol 11/13/2017 C.4-49
Mrs. Eleanor Chouiniere 11/13/2017 C.4-50
Mr. Kay & Mark Guimond 11/13/2017 C.4-51
Ms. Miriam Angress 11/13/2017 C.4-52
Ms. R Mitchem 11/18/2017 C.4-53
Ms. Susan J. Williams 11/16/2017 C.4-54
Ms. Susan McSwain 11/15/2017 C.4-55
Ms. Linda Wilkins 11/15/2017 C.4-56
Ms. Jeannette Episcopo 11/14/2017 C.4-57
Ms. carole williams 11/14/2017 C.4-58
Ms. Pat Anthony 11/14/2017 C.4-59
Ms. Alicia L. Berry 11/14/2017 C.4-60
Mrs. Lisa Bradford 11/14/2017 C.4-61
Dr. Deborah Milkowski 11/14/2017 C.4-62
Ms. Jeanette Beauclair 11/14/2017 C.4-63
Mr. edward pine 11/14/2017 C.4-64
Mr. Gene Hanson 11/14/2017 C.4-65
Mrs. Tobey Henry 11/13/2017 C.4-66
Mr. William Dubishar 11/13/2017 C.4-67
Ms. A. A. Lloyd 11/13/2017 C.4-68
Ms. Elizabeth Bailey 11/13/2017 C.4-69
Ms. Elizabeth Deogratias 11/13/2017 C.4-70
Page C.4-28
aSee Figure C.4-2 for text of Form Letter No. 2.
Name Date
Ms. Sarah Stansill 11/13/2017 C.4-71
Dr. Christina Peterson 11/13/2017 C.4-72
Mrs. Nancy Brown 11/13/2017 C.4-73
Ms. Kristin Bolles 11/13/2017 C.4-74
Ms. Ellen Cohen 11/13/2017 C.4-75
Ms. Mary Brown 11/13/2017 C.4-76
Ms. Rachel Sternberg 11/13/2017 C.4-77
Mrs. Barbara Coulson 11/13/2017 C.4-78
Ms. Lyssa Twomey 11/13/2017 C.4-79
Ms. Linda Smathers 11/13/2017 C.4-80
Dr. Philip Sannes 11/13/2017 C.4-81
Ms. Grace Holden 11/13/2017 C.4-82
Mrs. Mary Pollock 11/13/2017 C.4-83
Mr. John Fitzpatrick 11/13/2017 C.4-84
Ms. Virginia Leslie 11/13/2017 C.4-85
Ms. Cynthia Slaughter 11/13/2017 C.4-86
Ms. Kathryn C. Kuppers 11/13/2017 C.4-87
Ms. Claire Ziffer 11/13/2017 C.4-88
Ms. Eileen McCorry 11/13/2017 C.4-89
Ms. Karen Nagy 11/13/2017 C.4-90
Mrs. Maxine Davis 11/13/2017 C.4-91
Ms. Heidi Haehlen 11/13/2017 C.4-92
Mr. Gary Andrew 11/13/2017 C.4-93
Ms. Diane Berlin 11/13/2017 C.4-94
Mrs. Diane Wallace 11/13/2017 C.4-95
Mrs. Amy Millerlamb 11/13/2017 C.4-96
Mr. Daniel Rodeheffer 11/13/2017 C.4-97
Ms. Ashley Newton-Lazzarino 11/13/2017 C.4-98

From:Mr. Erich Priest
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Saturday, November 18, 2017 2:25:33 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
As a social worker and constituent I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the
Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Erich Priest
Pittsboro, NC
Page C.4-29
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Vonda Vandaveer
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 11:31:25 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families living or visiting
the region. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Vonda Vandaveer
Arlington, VA
Page C.4-30
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. Ronald M. Clayton
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 11:20:16 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Protect the public ..... NOT the polluters!.
Mr. Ronald M. Clayton
COVE CITY, NC
Page C.4-31
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Dr. Benjamin Smith
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 8:57:47 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
As a lifelong North Carolina resident, I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the
Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better! The future of energy development in our state should be focused on
cleaner solar and wind energy.
Please commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting the
permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Dr. Benjamin Smith
Raleigh, NC
Page C.4-32
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Carolyn Barker
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:38:42 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
Please deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Carolyn Barker
Aldie, VA
Page C.4-33
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Cheryl McGraw
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:39:49 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is NOT ENOUGH data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the
potential threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could
emit DANGEROUS amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already
vulnerable communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory
disease, and even cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Cheryl McGraw
Raleigh, NC
Page C.4-34
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms Katherine Fredricks
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:54:44 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on families across North Carolina.
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms Katherine Fredricks
Flagstaff, AZ
Page C.4-35
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. Gary Simpson
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 10:56:27 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
As a life long asthmatic, I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton
Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Gary Simpson
Pittsboro, NC
Page C.4-36
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. John Davis
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 9:40:32 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I am writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I am deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our
great state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. John Davis
Greensboro, NC
Page C.4-37
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. & Mrs James & April Thompson
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 8:55:47 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time. James & April Thompson
Mr. & Mrs James & April Thompson
Hendersonville,, NC
Page C.4-38
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Suzanne Dickson
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 8:48:18 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this compressor station -- and the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great state. We
deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Suzanne Dickson
Sneads Ferry, NC
Page C.4-39
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Lucile Miller
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 8:06:54 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my families across our great state. We
deserve better! Who is going to pay health care bills for those impacted citizens?
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Lucile Miller
Richmond, VA
Page C.4-40
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Liz Davis
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 8:02:51 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
No disastrous, leaking, polluting pipelines!
Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Liz Davis
Brevard, NC
Page C.4-41
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. rusty dixon
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 7:47:34 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time. Rusty Dixon
Ms. rusty dixon
Charlotte, NC
Page C.4-42
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Barbara Gabriel
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 6:54:46 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Barbara Gabriel
Chapel Hill, NC
Page C.4-43
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Kathleen Taimi
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 6:20:35 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on families across our great state. r!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you.
Ms. Kathleen Taimi
Arlington, VA
Page C.4-44
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. mae basye
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 6:11:05 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities - please
REJECT the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. mae basye
fuquay varina, NC
Page C.4-45
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. Jason Owen
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 5:51:51 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on families across our great state. We deserve
better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Jason Owen
Charlottesville, VA
Page C.4-46
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. P. A. McCauley
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 5:02:35 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately. I am very concerned about the potential adverse health and environmental
effects of this facility.
There is not enough data, analysis or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. P. A. McCauley
Weaverville, NC
Page C.4-47
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Susan Andre
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:29:42 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects this compressor station -- and the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great state. We
deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Susan Andre
Davidson, NC
Page C.4-48
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Margaret Sabol
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 3:40:20 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station. Our federal government is not doing
anything to keep our air clean. It is up to our state to do this!
Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Margaret Sabol
Hendersonville, NC
Page C.4-49
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Eleanor Chouiniere
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 3:12:49 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Eleanor Chouiniere
Mrs. Eleanor Chouiniere
Greensboro, NC
Page C.4-50
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. Kay & Mark Guimond
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:29:17 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
We are writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
We are deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on our family and families across our
great state. We deserve better!
We call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by
rejecting the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Kay & Mark Guimond
Hampstead, NC
Page C.4-51
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Miriam Angress
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:07:38 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I am a resident of North Carolina and I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the
Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Miriam Angress
Durham, NC
Page C.4-52
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. R Mitchem
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Saturday, November 18, 2017 1:40:57 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I am one of millions of Americans who have had asthma and a depressed immune system
since birth. Since the age of 16 I've had pneumonia four times; and I'm only 39. I keep Epi-
Pens and rescue inhalers in my home, vehicle, my fiancé's home, his vehicle, and three of my
coats.
My aunt just had a double lung transplant three years ago and must be extremely cautious of
her surroundings. One of my other aunts is headed down that same path; quickly.
My family can't afford for the air they breathe to needlessly become their death sentence. My
father's family stretches from OH, WV, throughout North Carolina, and into GA. We live in
VA. We don't need nor want a money-grubbing, heartless company taking away our lives.
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. R Mitchem
North Prince George, VA
Page C.4-53
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:ms Susan J. Williams
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2017 12:12:53 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
This compressor station could emit dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air
pollutants that could put already vulnerable communities at risk of asthma attacks,
cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
ms Susan J. Williams
Cary, NC
Page C.4-54
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Susan McSwain
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Wednesday, November 15, 2017 4:30:13 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
When it comes to the Northampton Compressor Station, you only need to answer one question
in order to determine if it should be approved. Would you vote "yes" if it was proposed to be
built next door to your house? Would you want your children exposed to the 24/7 loud noise
and bad air?
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Susan McSwain
Shipman, VA
Page C.4-55
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Linda Wilkins
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Wednesday, November 15, 2017 12:48:16 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
I sincerely believe North Carolinians deserve your protection against the many dangers of the
various pipelines and their compressor stations. The idea is to keep North Carolina not only
"Clean and Green" but to enhance our environment by using less fossil fuels while protecting
the beautiful state we all enjoy.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Linda Wilkins
Butner, NC
Page C.4-56
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Jeannette Episcopo
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:24:31 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
North Carolina is a beautiful state where tourism generates millions of dollars of revenue.
There is not enough data for the public to fully understand the potential threats this facility
could have to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit dangerous
amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Jeannette Episcopo
Fredericksburg, VA
Page C.4-57
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. carole williams
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:51:23 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
We have received what is most likely our final warning from world scientists, in every field,
that we have reached a critical time to save our planet. At some point in the very near future
there will be no turning back the damage we have done to our planet, our only home. Please
do not go forward with this pipeline which will add to the damage humanity has, and is doing
to destroy parts of our envionment that cannot be replaced. Stop the destruction. Earth is our
only home.
Thank you for your time.
carole a . williams
williamsburg, virginia
Ms. carole williams
Virginia, VA
Page C.4-58
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms Pat Anthony
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:52:07 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately. This continued destruction and pollution of our environment must be stopped
since once allowed there is turning back or undoing the damage done.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms Pat Anthony
Beaufort, NC
Page C.4-59
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Alicia L. Berry
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:50:33 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
My family and I request that your department deny the permit for the Northampton
Compressor Station immediately.
There hasn't been enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the
potential threats this facility could present to surrounding communities. This compressor
station could emit dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put
already vulnerable communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease,
respiratory disease, and even cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
We call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by
rejecting the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Ms. Alicia L. Berry
Pittsboro, NC
Page C.4-60
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Lisa Bradford
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 11:58:31 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer. Especially now with Pruitt who is nothing more than a shrill for toxic corporations
rather than protecting our environment expressly poisoning our environment so the profits can
continue to roll in for these disgusting companies. Trump preferred to nominate people who
were ready to destroy the very agency's goal they were supposed to lead and had done all they
could to destroy that agency while they were civilians.
I’m deeply concerned about effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Lisa Bradford
Alexandria, VA
Page C.4-61
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Dr. Deborah Milkowski
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:40:33 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
North Carolina is already facing significant environmental health threats. Recently, residents
in my area were just informed that the Cape Fear river is polluted with GenX. At this point in
time we are not even sure of the long term consequences of the multiple chemicals in GenX. It
also seems apparent that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality may not
have the funding or personnel to handle the clean up of GenX and the Cape Fear river.
Therefore, why place even more North Carolinians at risk by allowing this dangerous pipeline
to be built?
Please act responsibly. Please think of the long term consequences of these decisions. If there
is a negative environmental impact this will lead to a fiscal disaster.
Thank you for your time.
Dr. Deborah Milkowski
Wilmington, NC
Page C.4-62
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Jeanette Beauclair
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:14:22 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer. Any toxins spewed into the air will also contaminate drinking water sources. It is
criminal to knowingly endanger the health of citizens and forcefully subject them to toxins
that will cause years of suffering / death with cancer and other health issues. I do not give my
permission for this project. If you approve and allow the Northampton Compressor Station to
be built when any objection exists, I demand that you pay every citizen of North Carolina
$10,000 per day to compensate us for destroying the air we breathe, the water we drink and
pay for any and all medical bills related to toxin exposures from the operation of the
Northampton Compressor Station.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Beauclair, RN
Ms. Jeanette Beauclair
Graham, NC
Page C.4-63
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr edward pine
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:16:31 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
Remember 3-Mile Island. That was a case in point that the technology is not up to safely
operating a compressor station. I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the
Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr edward pine
Asheville, NC
Page C.4-64
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. Gene Hanson
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:02:38 AM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer. These are serious diseases and need to be take seriously. As a sufferer from asthma, I
know how frightening it is to gasp for air and to try to kick start one's lungs.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Gene Hanson
Chapel Hill, NC
Page C.4-65
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Tobey Henry
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 9:51:44 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
As a North Carolinian, my voice counts in this matter.
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Tobey Henry
Lincolnton, NC
Page C.4-66
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. William Dubishar
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 9:36:55 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
As an East Coast resident with children growing up in this region, the importance of clean air
and curbing potential toxic air pollutants is of great importance to me. I’m writing to urge you
to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. William Dubishar
Herndon, VA
Page C.4-67
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. A. A. Lloyd
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 8:47:28 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I am extremely concerned about the continuing degradation of our planet and its natural
resources.
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. A. A. Lloyd
Asheville, NC
Page C.4-68
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Elizabeth Bailey
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 8:25:25 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
NC is a spectacular state. Why let old fossil fuel industry destroy the entire East Coast,
including North Carolina. We have solar energy to spare in our beautiful South. Europe has
wind power from their offshore turbines. Why not North Carolina. Tourists flock because of
your natural beauty. KEEP NORTH CAROLINA FOR NORTH CAROLINIANS.
WHY the rush now? We are not desperate for more natural gas or any other obsolete fossil
fuel. Sign quickly before the state discovers the loss of air to breathe caused by their money
grubbing activities. NO. Don't let anyone destroy the air or make the incredibly loud noise for
people just to line their greedy pockets. At least not until all North Carolina can find a new
planet with clean environment and air.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Elizabeth Bailey
Arlington, VA
Page C.4-69
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Elizabeth Deogratias
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 8:23:26 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
NC is a spectacular state. Why let old fossil fuel industry destroy the entire East Coast,
including North Carolina. We have solar energy to spare in our beautiful South. Europe has
wind power from their offshore turbines. Why not North Carolina. Tourists flock because of
your natural beauty. KEEP NORTH CAROLINA FOR NORTH CAROLINIANS.
WHY the rush now? We are not desperate for more natural gas or any other obsolete fossil
fuel. Sign quickly before the state discovers the loss of air to breathe caused by their money
grubbing activities. NO. Don't let anyone destroy the air or make the incredibly loud noise for
people just to line their greedy pockets. At least not until all North Carolina can find a new
planet with clean environment and air.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Elizabeth Deogratias
Arlington, VA
Page C.4-70
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms Sarah Stansill
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 7:38:34 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
Please reject issuing this permit. Thank you.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms Sarah Stansill
Columbia, SC
Page C.4-71
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Dr. Christina Peterson
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 7:11:46 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I ask that you immediately deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
There is not enough information available to the public about the station's potential threats to
surrounding communities. There should be further studies to determine the likelihood that it
will produce dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put
already vulnerable communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease,
respiratory disease, and even cancer.
I ask that you commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station until the science is clear.
Thank you,
Dr. Christina Peterson
Greensboro, NC
Page C.4-72
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Nancy Brown
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 6:10:15 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
I would like to remind you that oil and water don't mix and that oil in water makes the water
undrinkable.
Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Nancy Brown
King, NC
Page C.4-73
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Kristin Bolles
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 5:13:13 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
North Carolina is such a naturally beautiful State and it behooves the people with the ability to
make decisions for continuing this beauty into the future, for the sake of the health and
wellbeing of not only everyone who lives here, but also for the sake of preserving the health
and beauty of the flora and fauna, to make wise long-range decisions. Please deny this permit!
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Kristin Bolles
Hickory, NC
Page C.4-74
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Ellen Cohen
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:34:53 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
You have probably already received this message from the NRDC, so I would like to point out
that the wiser move for the long term would be to take the funds which perpetuate the use of
oil, gas and coal projects and put them into solar energy and other clean renewables.
Many more jobs would be created, and the health of our citizens and future of our planet
would be protected rather than constantly challenged and degraded.
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Ellen Cohen
Pittsboro, NC
Page C.4-75
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Mary Brown
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:29:12 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
What hurts one of us hurts all of us
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Mary Brown
Durham, NC
Page C.4-76
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Rachel Sternberg
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:21:43 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS REQUEST......NO COMPRESSOR STATION IN NC !!!!!
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Rachel Sternberg
Asheville, NC
Page C.4-77
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Barbara Coulson
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:21:42 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
Pipelines across the United States have ruptured and spread toxic pollution throughout
neighborhoods. Now you want to issue an air quality permit for a compressor station that
would add insult to injury by possibly emitting dangerous amounts of noise and air pollution?
I urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Barbara Coulson
Marshall, NC
Page C.4-78
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Lyssa Twomey
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:19:16 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
No one's health (people and animals) should be put at risk. I urge you to do the right thing and
deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Sincerely,
Lyssa Twomey
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Lyssa Twomey
Kernersville, NC
Page C.4-79
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Linda Smathers
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:12:21 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I strongly urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
The effects that this reckless compressor station and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project as a
whole could have on my family and families across our great state is of great concern to me.
We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Linda Smathers
Asheville, NC
Page C.4-80
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Dr. Philip Sannes
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:11:13 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to strongly urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. Our children and future generations deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Dr. Philip Sannes
Raleigh, NC
Page C.4-81
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Grace Holden
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:06:51 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I ask you to please DENY the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is insufficient data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
DANGEROUS amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already
vulnerable communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory
disease, and even cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my mother, a North Carolina resident, and
families across our great state. This is just not acceptable.
I urge you to commit to protecting the public and environmental health of North Carolina’s
communities by rejecting the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for considering my thoughts on this issue that is critically important to me and so
many others.
Ms. Grace Holden
Arlington, VA
Page C.4-82
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Mary Pollock
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 4:00:21 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
What is the matter with the North Carolina Compressor Station people?! How can it do this
willfully and destructively to the people of North Carolina - just for the almighty dollar!?
Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Mary Pollock
Charlottesville, VA
Page C.4-83
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. John Fitzpatrick
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 3:52:06 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I request that you commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by
rejecting the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this issue.
Mr. John Fitzpatrick
West Springfield, VA
Page C.4-84
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Virginia Leslie
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 3:44:46 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
NO! The ACP is not needed and will do more harm than good.
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Virginia Leslie
Chapel Hill, NC
Page C.4-85
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Cynthia Slaughter
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 3:40:35 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
I am native North Carolinian AND I VOTE!
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Cynthia Slaughter
Waynesville, NC
Page C.4-86
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Kathryn C. Kuppers
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 3:35:13 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve so much better!
Please commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting the
permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Kathryn C. Kuppers
Midland, NC
Page C.4-87
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Claire Ziffer
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 3:07:49 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is NOT enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the
potential threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could
emit dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already
vulnerable communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory
disease, and even cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Claire Ziffer
Horse Shoe, NC
Page C.4-88
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Eileen McCorry
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 3:01:26 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There are not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the
potential threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could
emit dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already
vulnerable communities at risk of increased morbidity and mortality due to asthma attacks,
cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Eileen McCorry
Pittsboro, NC
Page C.4-89
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms Karen Nagy
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:54:12 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
Has an adequate assessment been done to look at the air pollution that will be generated?
Thank you for your time.
Ms Karen Nagy
Spotsylvania, VA
Page C.4-90
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Maxine Davis
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:45:08 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the agency and/or the public to fully
understand the potential threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor
station could emit dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put
already vulnerable communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease,
respiratory disease, and even cancer.
These communities are historically under served and do not have readily available health care
to monitor significantly negative environmental impacts. No community should be the prize in
a "high stakes" gamble that '...everything will probably be OK." lottery of health/quality of life
issues.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state.
We deserve better! You deserve better! Our neighboring states and the ocean deserve better!
I call on you to commit our State's resources to protecting the health of North Carolina’s
communities by rejecting the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time. Thank you for taking the proper actions for your role in saving each
of us.
Mrs. Maxine Davis
Cedar Point, NC
Page C.4-91
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Heidi Haehlen
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:43:21 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public, and most officials, to fully
understand the potential threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor
station could emit dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put
already vulnerable individuals and communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary
disease, respiratory disease, and even cancer.
We are deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on our family and families across our
great state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Heidi Haehlen
Clyde, NC
Page C.4-92
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr. Gary Andrew
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:38:13 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer. People living in the purposed site area deserve better.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state.
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Gary Andrew
Davidson, NC
Page C.4-93
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Diane Berlin
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:34:16 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
IT IS CRAZY TO INSTITUTE SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW WILL EVENTUALLY
CONTAMINATE AN AREA WITH ALL KINDS OF POLLUTANTS CAUSING ASTHMA
ATTACKS AND DISEASES!
Please prevent this permit! DO THE RIGHT THING!!!
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Diane Berlin
Charlottesville, VA
Page C.4-94
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Diane Wallace
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:34:00 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
FROM DIANE WALLACE- FORSYTH COUNTY RESIDENT- Please deny the permit for
the Northampton Compressor Station immediately.
Mrs. Diane Wallace
Kernersville, NC
Page C.4-95
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mrs. Amy Millerlamb
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:29:54 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately. As a resident of this county, this amazing land is a precious resource. Just
because we are a minority community isn't a free ticket to subject us to unsafe conditions. This
shouldn't be a "it's fine until it isn't " situation.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Amy Millerlamb
Marion, NC
Page C.4-96
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Mr Daniel Rodeheffer
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:26:31 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
Beyond the fact that further carbon emissions, which would be released by the completion of
the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project, are by themselves a hazard to the health of our state, there
is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential threats
of this specific facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer.
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Mr Daniel Rodeheffer
Asheville, NC
Page C.4-97
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis
From:Ms. Ashley Newton-Lazzarino
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:[External] [ACP/DAQ] Deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
Date:Monday, November 13, 2017 2:10:51 PM
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to [e-mail].
Dear North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality:
I’m writing to urge you to deny the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station
immediately.
There is not enough data, analysis, or modeling for the public to fully understand the potential
threats of this facility to surrounding communities. This compressor station could emit
dangerous amounts of noise pollution and toxic air pollutants that could put already vulnerable
communities at risk of asthma attacks, cardiopulmonary disease, respiratory disease, and even
cancer. As a nurse, I can speak to the fact that our youngest population - our children - would
be particularly at risk and this is unacceptable!!!
I’m deeply concerned about the effects that this reckless compressor station -- and the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline project as a whole -- could have on my family and families across our great
state. We deserve better!
I call on you to commit to protecting the health of North Carolina’s communities by rejecting
the permit for the Northampton Compressor Station.
Thank you for your time.
Ms. Ashley Newton-Lazzarino
Durham, NC
Page C.4-98
Attachment C.4: Unique Comments Opposing Northampton Compressor Station Using Form Letter No. 2 as Basis