Maury Johnson: Is PHMSA part of a cover-up over safety concerns on the Mountain Valley Pipeline?

Maury Johnson is a southern West Virginia landowner, whose organic farm has been impacted by the Mountain Valley Pipeline. He is a member of Preserve Monroe and other community organizations that have been fighting the MVP and other harmful projects across WV, VA & NC for over eight years.

In 2014, people across West Virginia and southwestern Virginia were notified that a massive 42-inch fracked-gas pipeline called the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) was slated to cross pristine areas in both states. Community groups quickly formed, and then banded together to fight the massive, unnecessary project. A similar project, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) was announced for the same area just weeks earlier. Similarly, grassroots opposition formed around that pipeline project. Eventually both pipeline opposition groups joined forces to fight both projects. After years of pushback and court battles, the ACP project was canceled by its developers in July of 2020. 

A couple of years passed, and when it appeared that the Mountain Valley Pipeline was a doomed project in late 2022, it was announced by then-West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin that he had stuck a “dirty deal” with Congressional leaders, and then President Joe Biden to fast-track the project, override federal courts, and mandate the pipeline’s completion.

Through our opposition – with the help of many national and other groups from around the country – we stopped the “Dirty Deal” from being included in the Fiscal Year Funding Bill of 2022. Unfortunately, during the budget negotiations in early 2023, the “Dirty Deal” was slipped back into the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Section 324, the final four pages of that Act, mandated that the pipeline be completed “in the national interest”– and the environmental permits that had been struck down by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA would be restored, and that all future courts cases would be heard in the DC Circuit Court. Furthermore, it removed the citizens’ right to appeal any decision, and gave MVP carte blanche to do just about anything it wanted to do to complete the pipeline.

There was one hitch: the remaining pipe that was slated to go into the ground had been laying in pipe yards and in the fields for years had become degraded, corroded and out of compliance with manufacturers’ warranties. In short, it was unusable. At least, that is what you would have thought.

MVP was determined to put this degraded pipe into the ground and then push gas through it at pressures exceeding 1400 PSI. Once again, citizens, environmental and pipe safety groups pushed back, and after weeks of wrangling they convinced the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to issue a safety order letter, setting up some minimum guidelines for MVP to follow in order to proceed with construction with the old, degraded pipe.

One of those conditions was that MVP would have to hire “independent inspectors” to inspect and sign off on any remaining pipe and/or welds. In late 2023, I heard that MVP was burying pipe over the objection of the “independent inspectors”. But, like most rumors, the rumors were short-lived, and as quickly as they had popped up, they disappeared. I didn’t hear any more about it after MVP left my area in Monroe County, WV in early 2024.

In April of 2025, an independent inspector from Texas named Michael Barnhill filed a lawsuit in Monroe County, WV, alleging he was wrongfully terminated for refusing to sign off on certain pieces of pipe and some specific welds. I did not hear about this until the lawsuit until Environmental Reporter Mike Tony of the Charleston Gazette-Mail broke the story “Mountain Valley Pipeline inspector fired for raising safety concerns lawsuit says,” in early June, when the case was transferred to Federal Court in nearby Bluefield WV. 

Since that time, Mr. Tony has written two additional stories about this issue (“Mountain Valley Pipeline lawsuit renews safety concerns” and “PHMSA evades on alleged Mountain Valley Pipeline coverup,”) and Laurence Hammack of the Roanoke Time has written a story about the lawsuit (“MVP inspector fired for reporting safety concerns.”) In June, Carlos Anchondo from E&E News published a report about the lawsuit (“Mountain Valley executive disputes pipeline safety concerns.”) And, E&E News published another story on August 18th (“Feds won’t confirm safety findings on Mountain Valley Pipeline”) which highlights the trouble people have had trying to get information from PHMSA. He talked about the type of response people are getting from PHMSA:

“By saying it “can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records,” the agency is employing what is known as a “Glomar response (We FOIA’d every agency’s ‘Glomar’ responses. Here’s what we learned).,” which has its roots in national security concerns during the Cold War,” said Adam Marshall, senior staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. But he said it doesn’t make sense in this case. Such responses are supposed to be used only in cases where simply acknowledging the existence of records would cause harm, he said — in this case to someone’s privacy. But Barnhill filed a public lawsuit that extensively detailed his communication with PHMSA, which essentially waived any privacy right he would have on the topic, Marshall said. “There’s really no basis for PHMSA to issue a Glomar response here,” Marshall said.” 

To many of us seeking answers, it appears that PHMSA may be participating in some sort of cover-up. 

In June, I wrote an Op-Ed in Common Dreams (“Is the Mountain Valley Pipeline Safe? We Who Live in Its Blast Zone Need Answers”), and sent several letters to PHMSA seeking information and asking for federal officials, Congress and law enforcement to conduct investigations into these allegations by Mr. Barnhill. 

Finally, on August 15, I filed a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) to PHMSA that seeks answers to the following questions:

• Has PHMSA launched an official investigation into the allegations made by Michael Barnhill?
• In light of the lawsuit and rupture reports, what steps is PHMSA taking to ensure MVP currently meets minimum safety standards?
• What is PHMSA’s threshold for shutting down a pipeline due to structural or procedural integrity concerns?
• Does PHMSA consider the coercion of inspectors to falsify reports or approve unsafe welds as a regulatory violation?
• Why has PHMSA not publicly responded to these allegations, despite multiple community and landowner requests for action?
• Will PHMSA commit to publicly releasing all correspondence related to MVP safety concerns and any resulting investigations?
• Will PHMSA produce all the inspection reports generated by the consent agreement and either send them to us or put them in the reading room.
• Does PHMSA know where the bad pipes or welds in the Barnhill Lawsuit are located?
• Are there other areas along the MVP where similar problems or complaints exist.
• Is any of the pipe (s) or welds contained in the Barnhill complaint to the court or to PHMSA on my property or other areas in Monroe County?   
• Will PHMSA release all complaints or filing from inspectors to the public so that we can see where problems may exist? 
• Will PHMSA release these reports to Congress?

I have asked Congress to launch a thorough investigation into the safety concerns of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, in light of the Barnhill Complaint. 

Will PHMSA also launch its own investigation into these allegations, and other allegations that are yet unknown to the public – and issue a report to the public in the next 60 days? The community liaisons that I work with have asked that PHMSA produce all the inspection reports generated by the consent agreement, and either send them to us, or make them available in a public reading room. 

Last week, PHMSA contacted me and said it would release some of the information requested, but would need me to pay $240 for a records search. I am continuing to work for the release of all the records associated with his request. This week, I have returned to Washington to advocate for an investigation of these allegations and to advocate for reform of pipeline safety rules.

Again, I must say the continued refusal by PHMSA to answer these questions and just give a “Glomar Response” to those who ask questions, make many of us feel that PHMSA is participating in a public safety cover-up.