PUC analyst withholding recommendation on Navigator pipeline

FORT PIERRE ― A staff member for the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission raised concerns about missing information pertaining to occupied buildings that would be near Navigator Heartland Greenway's proposed pipeline in South Dakota.

PUC Utility Analyst Jon Thurber addressed the commission Saturday about a filing by the pipeline company that disclosed multiple occupied residences along the pipeline's route sit within buffer zones.

Navigator's Heartland Greenway System, a $3.2 billion endeavor, is expected to run through about 111.9 miles of eastern South Dakota farmland between Brookings, Lincoln, Minnehaha, Moody and Turner counties. If built, the proposed system will connect to five ethanol plants under POET, one of the largest biorefiners in the U.S., as well as a Valero Renewable Fuels plant.

PUC analyst says he would not recommend Navigator's application currently be denied

Brian Jorde, an attorney representing affected landowners, formed an argument around Thurber's Saturday testimony that Navigator's permit application was missing crucial information necessary for the commission to rule on.

This included survey information yet to be submitted by Navigator. Thurber said Navigator made filings indicating it has three "outstanding surveys," but Jorde pointed out there was a lack of clarity on whether the company lacks "individual" or "categories" of surveys.

Jorde also noted there was a lack of defintion on Navigator's claim it is considered making "minor modifications" to its pipeline route at the request of landowners. The landowner attorney specifically took issue with the vague nature of what constitutes "minor," according to Navigator.

More: Attorney argues against 'destruction' of South Dakota way of life in Navigator pipeline hearings

"Would you agree at this point, due to the lack of info on various surveys, the lack of specifics of what a minor or major route modification might mean … and all of the issues around the plume modeling uncertainties in draft form without robust participation by first responders, that this application is ultimately incomplete?" Jorde asked Thurber.

Thurber asked a clarifying question about if Jorde meant PUC staff would be recommending the commission deny Navigator's application.

"No, I do not," Thurber answered.

He later clarified he would be withholding any recommendation, since Navigator has yet to provide a rebuttal case regarding Jorde's argument.

Buildings near Navigator pipeline come into focus

According to an amended response by Navigator to the PUC submitted on July 18, 16 structures sit in varied distances within buffers at multiple points along the pipeline.

Thurber ― whom Commissioner Nelson referred to as the "most anticipated witness on this docket" ― said staff submitted a confidential request to the company for more information on affected residences within five of the buffer zones. The company has so far elaborated on two out of the five areas, Thurber testified.

"I have concerns that we haven't been able to conduct an analysis to determine … what type of additional mitigation measures are needed," Thurber testified.

More: Navigator’s carbon pipeline rupture modeling has some shortcomings, consultant testifies

Navigator's legal counsel raised a point that the company said it intends to make modifications on its route at the request of affected landowners.

"The general intention, I understand, but we also, I think, need to consider the location of the residences on the adjacent properties," Thurber said. "Making those modifications makes sense, but you have to remain cognizant … to the adjacent landowners as well."

The regulators body called for a confidential session at Thurber's request near the end-point of the testimony regarding Navigator's plume data and "the parts per million impacts of CO2 on humans."

Landowner attorney draws distinction between Thurber testimony and Navigator-provided data

Jorder scrutinized Thurber about his testimony and some of the facts he had referenced.

Thurber noted in his statements that certain data, such as distances between Navigator's pipeline and cities near the route, came from Navigator.

Jorde, without focusing on the veracity of the Navigator did provide, instead asked about what information the company left out.

This included "habitable structures," or buildings along the route that may or may not be occupied on a daily basis. Jorde extended his example to include hobby farms and livestock pens and facilities.

Thurber admitted he did not independently vet some of the data provided by Navigator that was used in his testimony such as the pipeline-city distances. He later added he was "primarily focused" on occupied residences.

"There's clearly a lot of different information that, hypothetically, one could request," Thurber said. The analyst later said he did not request information on distances between structures outside of Navigator's scope.

Jorde also argued the listed distances between cities and Navigator's pipeline provided as provided by the company to Thurber did not account for future growth of affected municipalities.

Thurber also mentioned Navigator has created an emergency response plan that can be used by first responders to review in the event of a pipeline-related incident.

The analyst stipulated the plan was still "in draft form."

Thurber said PUC staff conducted a "high-level review" of Navigator's draft plan but added he would have preferred to have heard feedback on the plan from people with more expertise in emergency response plans.

Staff did not have enough time to obtain an expert opinion, Thurber added.

"PHSMA has better resources to review emergency response plans, but I do believe the commission is charged ... to assess the impact on the community. We have a lot of small emergency responder organizations, so I think it's important to know."

This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: PUC analyst withholding recommendation on Navigator pipeline