Sunoco has filed its response to the DEP’s request for more answers about its plan for routing the Dragonpipe (Mariner East 2) through the middle of Exton, but Sunoco has provided very limited answers and has not changed anything. It is still planning the same route that goes right by the library and requires clearing of much of the wetland there.
Comment now. We are currently in a 5-day “public comment” period for this plan (NOT two weeks, like the first time around), and it is critical that you send your comments to the DEP before it ends on January 23.
In my opinion, the most important point to make is that this is a terrible route that poses serious threats to people and the environment. Sunoco was required by the August 9 agreement to consider other routes, but it has not done so. The DEP should require Sunoco to do a serious analysis of alternatives.
There is open space available on either side of Exton (but especially to the northeast) where the route could go. There are plenty of opportunities for alternative routes.
Email your comments to the DEP at this address:
Tell the DEP about the problems you see with this plan: the loss of trees and wetlands, the threat to the library and homes, and whatever else you find wrong with it. But it needs to be done quickly.
But don’t stop there. To have greatest effect, it is important to send copies of your DEP comments to several other places:
- To the Clean Air Council, who needs your comments as ammunition in its fight against the pipeline. Send copies to Kathryn Urbanowicz (kurbanowicz@cleanair.org)
- To Governor Wolf, who has the power to stop this pipeline if he wants to. You can use this contact form: https://www.governor.pa.gov/contact/
- Send copies of your comments to your state senator and representative too. They can help put pressure on the DEP, the PUC, and the governor.
Let Harrisburg know they are not doing their jobs in protecting people and the environment!
Dragonpipe Diary 
My observations:
1. How loud and what type of vibration can we expect from this “percussion hammer” that they will use during the “pilot phase” described on page 1?
2. Sunoco’s response to question 8 on page 8 totally ignores the “adverse environmental impacts” and “impacts to groundwater, streams and wetlands” caused by the switch to open trench from HDD.
3. Sunoco’s entire response centers upon the short distance that will be Bored. They make no mention of the Open Trenching’s adverse impacts and how they will be addressed.
LikeLike
Sample comment below….
________________________________________
East Swedesford Road HDD (West Whiteland Township)
Drill S3-0381 / DEP Permit # E15-862
Response to Sunoco’s letter on 1/18/18
To whom it may concern,
While Sunoco’s response argues the merits of the proposed alternate drilling methods, a key truth is overlooked — trenching/boring these pipelines in the heart of Exton is still not acceptable. These construction methods were off the table (originally in favor of HDD) for good reasons.
1) They will result in irreparable damage to wetlands, waterways, property, and treelines separating residential and commercial areas.
2) Despite being purportedly lower-risk than HDD, they still carry a host of consequences, including sinkholes, IRs, damage to water supplies, and increased flooding in this already flood-prone SFHA. Even Sunoco’s response acknowledges the company’s inability to assess such unknowns because they claim they can’t do local geological studies.
3) Post-construction, leaks in this High Consequence Area result would result in catastrophic loss of life and property for thousands of people who live, work, shop, travel in/through the area. This includes the Chester County Library, and the Exton Mall.
Recall that we’re in this situation because Sunoco didn’t do their due diligence to determine that HDD wasn’t viable for this segment. They conveniently built out adjacent segments, and are now positioning it as a foregone conclusion that these pipelines must traverse Exton (a ‘missing link’). Accordingly, the company is vague, presumptive, and avoidant in their responses concerning rerouting.
1) Rather than providing transparent, verifiable details about specific paths they’ve considered (and their respective considerations) Sunoco mentions general regions, directions, and “considerable efforts”. Without specificity and supporting maps/illustrations, the DEP and residents are asked to blindly trust Sunoco’s conclusions that no other possibilities exist. For example, there’s open space on either side of Exton (especially to the northeast) that needs to be openly vetted.
2) Given that adjacent sections are in place, Sunoco assumes an artificial constraint that an alternate route would have to fall within a relatively narrow distance from its original path. The evaluation radius should be expanded to identify more options, even if this results in a more significant reroute that minimizes impacts to developed areas.
3) Despite the DEP requesting that Sunoco “explain alternatives that have been considered, aside from the PITF recommendation of co-locating the route”, Sunoco’s response still largely rests on the justification that the pipelines should be co-located — essentially ignoring the DEP’s request.
Sunoco’s response and unaltered plans are unacceptable considering the consequences to our environment and safety. Please do not grant these permits, and demand that the company legitimately and transparently vet alternate routes in accordance with the August 9th agreement.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
LikeLike