Background

On January 31, 2025 a jet fuel leak from the Sunoco/Energy Transfer Twin Oaks pipeline was discovered in Upper Makefield Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Residents had reported the smell and taste of gas in their drinking water which led to well water sampling by Sunoco and the discovery of toxic hydrocarbons in at least 6 wells. Additional contaminated wells were identified as sampling was widened, raising more concerns from residents.

The affected pipeline is part of a 105.5-mile liquid petroleum product pipeline that runs from the Twin Oaks Terminal in Aston, Pennsylvania to the Newark Terminal in Newark, New Jersey. The most recent major work on the line was in 2022-2023 when Sunoco replaced the existing Delaware River pipeline crossing with 2,500 feet of pipeline installed underneath the Delaware River through the process of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD).

However, the section of pipeline in Upper Makefield Township that leaked is old, dating back to 1956. The failure of this pipeline demonstrates repeated errors by Sunoco over a protracted period of time, at least 16 months, that led to the prolonged release of jet fuel into the soil, the groundwater, the aquifer, and into residential wells. Sunoco failed to adequately respond to reports from residents on several occasions, its equipment failed to detect pollutants in residents’ well water, and multiple Sunoco inspectors missed heeding the warning signs of the presence of a serious leak or break in the pipeline.

Residents have been bringing their concerns to the Township, Sunoco, PA Department of Environmental Protection and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) at public meetings and advocating for swift action and thorough investigation of the pollution plume and the wells impacted. The Upper Makefield Township Board of Supervisors sent a letter on February 7 to Sunoco/Energy Transfer to shut the pipeline down, followed by a Township Resolution on February 13 articulating their concerns and calling for the pipeline to be closed and remedial measures to be taken immediately. Many elected officials who represent the area have attended the several township-hosted meetings and sent letters to Sunoco/ Energy Transfer and PHMSA, demanding  action.

Sunoco/Energy Transfer says they repaired the pipeline on February 2 and restarted the pipeline within about 48 hours. On February 13, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) released a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (PHMSA Order) which stated that “continued operation of the Twin Oaks pipeline system without corrective measures would pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment”; and that “this risk potentially exists throughout the entire Twin Oaks pipeline.” Despite these concerns, PHMSA is only requiring the restriction of the pipeline operating pressure by 20% and the accomplishment of required tasks while the PHMSA Order is carried out.

This is unacceptable. It is crucial that the entire pipeline be shut down immediately so investigations into the leak can be safely carried out; soil, aquifer and surface water impacts can be assessed and mapped; and any other as yet undiscovered leaks can be tracked down and abated. PHMSA has the authority to order this and should do so – the actions it ordered for Sunoco/ET to carry out to address the pipeline failure is extensive and PHMSA should require they be carried out without the pipeline in operation. Decommissioning of this pipeline should be put under consideration as well. Pollution releases from the pipeline can directly impact local and regional aquifers, groundwater, the tributary watersheds of the creeks that flow to the river (both Dyer Creek and Houghs Creek in Upper Makefield are in the impact zone of the known leak), the Delaware River and the water supply of millions of people. All of this is of huge consequence to the larger region, the public, and to the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, which is dedicated to defending the Delaware River and its watersheds, communities, species, and habitats.

Editor’s note: This issue is currently dormant. We will continue monitoring the situation and may take up the issue in the future.

Overview

The Mohican Lake Homeowners, which only represented a portion of the residents around Mohican Lake, used the presence of an invasive aquatic plant (Myriophyllum spicatum) to conduct broad herbicide treatments in the tannic-water lake over the objections of other lake residents, particularly the Mohican Lake Resort.  Despite multiple problems with the permit applications and objections from lake residents, NYDEC issued permits in two subsequent years to allow herbicide treatments.  Clearly this was not intended to be an invasive species control effort, but instead an overall aquatic plant reduction effort (primarily native aquatic plants) to make the lake recreation more compatible with high-intensity uses (motor boats, water skiing, jet skiing) compared to passive recreation (kayaking).

 

Overview

Holtec International (Holtec) located in Camden, NJ is seeking a federal license to construct and operate a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for spent nuclear fuel/waste that would be transported from all over the nation to southeast New Mexico.  This proposal is unsafe and unwise for people, communities and the environment in New Mexico and in those locations from where the waste will be taken.  We know that PSEG’s Salem Nuclear Generating Station will be one source of waste.  Delaware Riverkeeper Network has taken the position that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to focus on a permanent solution for addressing the hazardous nuclear waste that has been created as the result of the agency’s reviews, approvals and oversight.  Interim storage is a half measure that needlessly increases the threat of contamination from nuclear waste transport and storage to our environment and communities, which is neither an appropriate, nor a defensible solution.  

The Communities in New Mexico

Delaware Riverkeeper Network believes that licensing the Holtec facility will wrongly pass off the problem of spent nuclear waste to communities in New Mexico.  All across the country communities have benefited from the creation of this waste — and to now put the communities of New Mexico in the sacrifice zone as the repository for this joint problem is simply wrong.  New Mexico did not benefit from this waste, and in fact has worked hard to preserve their natural landscapes for their ecological, human health, recreational and economic values — bringing this waste to New Mexico as proposed puts in jeopardy all of the investment and effort that secured the preservation of important and irreplaceable natural resources.

Comments In Opposition

Delaware Riverkeeper Network teamed up with Green Amendments For The Generations  to submit comments in opposition to this dangerous proposal. 

As noted in our comment:

• The Draft EIS fails to consider the foreseeable expansion and/or life extension requests of aged and aging nuclear plants once the burden of waste storage has been lifted.  Seeking and securing life extensions has become common practice amongst nuclear power plants.  These extensions can have significant consequences.  They not only increase the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be addressed, but they can also inflict significant environmental harm. For example, the PSEG Salem Nuclear Generating station located on Artificial Island in Salem County, NJ kills over 14 billion fish, larvae and eggs every year due to the outdated once through cooling technology it uses.  Once relieved of the obligation to store growing amounts of nuclear waste, it is foreseeable that PSEG would seek an additional life extension for Salem resulting in additional massive fish kills every year.  A wide variety of species including endangered sturgeon, as well as a variety of recreational and commercial interests dependent on the Delaware’s aquatic life populations are harmed by Salem’s operations. A life extension for Salem will increase and extend the significant environmental and economic burdens on the Delaware River system and communities inflicted by Salem.  Impacts such as those at the PSEG Salem Nuclear Generating Station may occur at other nuclear plants and these foreseeable impacts are not evaluated; in fact, the Draft EIS does not even identify which facilities will be sending their SNF to the Holtec facility.    

Overview

All across the Delaware River Watershed, townships and private landowners are using herbicides to control invasive plants on parks, trails and public lands.  And so the exposure of children, adults, pets, streams and wildlife is much more pervasive than just a single area that is the focus of a given discussion. In addition, there are many options available for controlling invasive plants to consider, including many non-toxic options.  While there is literature that touts the safeness of glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup, Rodeo and other Monsanto herbicides – there is also peer-reviewed science documenting the known and potential harms.  In addition, these herbicides contain more than their active ingredients, they also include surfactants which help the active ingredient glyphosate penetrate the outer layers of the plant so it can achieve the internal disruption that leads to death.  There is a significant body of science documenting the harms of the surfactant found in the Roundup family of products for people and valuable wildlife such as frogs and amphibians.

An Effective Strategy

In order to have an effective plan/strategy for eradicating non-native invasive plants from an area and allow restoration of a healthy native population, it is critical there be a clear understanding of what invasive plants a community is seeking to impact, coupled with a clear strategy that is known to have the greatest level of effectiveness for the species at issue, and a plan for how native species will be reintroduced in order to help prevent reinvasion of the invasives thereafter.

Communities need to develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing the problem of invasive weeds and how they will accomplish the laudable goal of restoring native plants to those areas controlled by invasives.  A comprehensive strategy needs to include recommendations for private homeowners who could be an important part of the solution for the Township.

Toxic Pesticides

Pesticides are toxic and must be avoided in order to protect local streams and aquatic life. There are various types of pesticides used throughout the United States that can have harmful effects on aquatic and other life. The three major groups of pesticides are herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides.

Although pesticides are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentcide Act as well as the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Action, citizens must take action to prevent the further degradation that excessive pesticide use can cause on the environment. Pesticides are merely a short term solution and do not solve the problem. There are a number of methods that can be taken to ensure that public lands, lawns and gardens remain healthy and maintained without using dangerous chemicals.

The best strategy when it comes to pesticides of all kinds is to exercise the precautionary principle in your own life, if you can’t prove to yourself it is safe perhaps you shouldn’t use it.  In those limited instances when there may be an overriding reason for use, such as engaging in a native plant restoration in an area overrun but invasive plants that cannot be eradicated via any other means, be sure to do your homework.

Most recently the Delaware Riverkeeper Network has been encouraging Radnor Township, Delaware County, PA to avoid the use of herbicides on their public lands.  Herbicides should not be used as the primary mode of weed control on public lands. The unilateral use of herbicides is not an effective means for reintroducing the healthy plant life and habitats that can help keep non-native invasive plants at bay, provide wildlife food and habitats, provide beauty for those enjoying the public lands, and allow children and adults to be educated about the value of healthy native ecological systems.

Overview

The Delaware Riverkeeper was appointed a member of the Delaware River and Bay Oil Spill Advisory Committee created by federal legislation in response to the Athos I oil spill.  This Federal Advisory Committee, which held its first meeting in December, 2008, was given an 18-month life during which it is charged with identifying recommendations to better protect the Delaware River from oil spill events in terms of prevention, response, recovery and mitigation.  The work load  for participants of this Federal Advisory Committee has been daunting but clearly critical.  There are few voices in the group to ensure that the needs of the River and all those who rely upon the River are given the highest priority.  The Delaware Riverkeeper is a member of both the main committee as well as three of the four subcommittees that it has established.

The Report Remains In Stasis

The Committee’s work was to be completed by April 30, 2010.  Due to opposition to key recommendations brought mainly by the Pennsylvania representative and a lack of voting members showing up for the last meeting the committee was unable to render a final vote on the report.  As a result the report remains in stasis.  Efforts are underway to secure a legislative extension that would allow the report to be revisited and finalized hopefully by the end of 2010.

Overview

The Bishop Tube Site is a former metals processing plant located in East Whiteland Township, PA.  The site is bordered by Little Valley Creek, a tributary to the exceptional value Valley Creek. Portions of the site are wooded.  As a result of the historic uses at the site it has been designated as a Brownfields site.

Groundwater, soil and surface water at the Site are contaminated with TCE, which is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the EPA, and related products.  TCE is a chlorinated solvent and one of the problematic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) identified at the site, first found in 1987.  TCE causes liver problems and an increased risk of cancer, among other health harms.  (https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants#Organic, visited 2/18/17).

Where Things Stand:

After years of community and Delaware Riverkeeper Network advocacy that began in 2017, multiple rounds of legal action, followed by robust community engagement and expert comment, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is finally enforcing the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) mandating site cleanup.  On September 12, 2022 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued a Statement of Decision identifying the remediation plan it would require for cleanup of the toxins at the Bishop Tube Site.  

Of major continuing concern, Constitution Drive Partners, a developer, continues its pressure campaign to secure township approvals for development of the site, even before remediation begins and an assessment of its effectiveness is known. The Township seems sadly inclined to side with the developer rather than stand in defense of the residents who have been so severely impacted by the decades of toxic contamination.

Background & Details:

The 13.7 acre Bishop Tube site (located in Chester County, PA, on the east side of Malin Road, south of US Route 30) has been abused by industry for over 50 years. The site, formerly used to process precious metals and fabricate tubing and pipeline products, is heavily contaminated with chlorinated solvents, acids and heavy metals. This contamination has impacted neighboring communities and the environment.Contaminants currently at the site include TCE, nitric and hydrofluoric acids; various oils; and other hazardous materials not properly handled or disposed of. Industrial operations began in 1951.  The plant closed in 1999.

While the site is dangerously contaminated, there is also beautiful nature worthy of saving.  Woodlands, wetlands and Little Valley Creek, part of the exceptional value Valley Creek watershed, grace the location as well.

Proposed development by Constitution Drive Partners, including ~ 92 new homes, would cut trees, damage the creek and wetlands.

Rather than continue the abuse, and destroy all the natural beauty of the site for a massive, oversized, development, the community wants the site contamination fully cleaned up by responsible parties and the site protected as natural open space. Protection will benefit all who live around the site in Frazer, Malvern and East Whiteland, and will benefit all who appreciate, enjoy, and live along Little Valley Creek, tributary to Valley Creek, the stream directly in jeopardy from the proposal.

Watch the documentary to learn of the community’s plight and its hard work to secure essential government protection. Documentary by Alex Djordjevic

Major Milestones in the Effort to Ensure Clean Up, Stop Development, and Secure Natural Open Space Protection. 

September 12, 2023, responding to a public demand for more information, PADEP hosts an in person public meeting to discuss the Site and the remediation response action the state has selected; the community will be given the opportunity to ask questions, get answers, and give input.  

August 2023, The community, Delaware Riverkeeper Network and the Pennsylvania DEP respond to the developer’s June 20, 2023 request for final development approval.  The Delaware Riverkeeper Network and community urge the township to reject the request.  Community concerns regarding the application materials submitted are bolstered by a Pennsylvania DEP letter to the Township.

• Delaware Riverkeeper Network to East Whiteland Supervisors, Deny Final Development Approval. 8.20.2023
• Delaware Riverkeeper Network to East Whiteland Township,Deny Final Development Approval, 8.15.2023
• Pennsylvania DEP to East Whiteland Supervisors Responding to Concerns About Developer Application 8.9.2023

September 12, 2022, Remediation Plan Selected and Advancing  After nearly 40 years of ignoring the site’s toxic condition and the ramifications for the environment and neighboring communities, PADEP selects a remediation plan for the site.

Government Grant To Developer Defeated.

After learning that county government was proposing to give the developer a $1 million dollar grant to support their development of the toxic Bishop Tube site, the community organized in opposition. In response, the grant was never given.

August 14, 2019, the Township BOS approved a letter from O’Neill granting an extension of time to February 28, 2020 for the Township to act on the revised Preliminary Plan.

You can find information about the new development proposal on the township website at: https://www.eastwhiteland.org/351/Bishop-Tube-Land-Development

July 1, 2019 — PA DEP has posted the remediation investigation documents for public review.You can find them here.  

July 1, 2019 — The Delaware Riverkeeper Network continues to submit comments to the Township and other officials expressing concerns regarding the October 2018 CDP development proposal. Read here for the first set of comments, here for the second set, here for the third set.  If you would like to submit your own comment you can gather all the information to do so here.

April 29, 2019 — Delaware Riverkeeper Network Wins Challenge Over State Sweetheart Deal With Bishop Tube Site Developer.  Responding to a legal challenge filed by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB), in a rather scathing opinion, has ruled that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s approval of amendments to a Prospective Purchaser Agreement that would allow development of the highly contaminated Bishop Tube site located in East Whiteland, PA is “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore the agreements are void. View the rest of the press release and decision here.

May 7, 2019 — East Whiteland Open Space Advisory Committee Meeting.
Residents attend the an East Whiteland Open Space Advisory Committee meeting and urge that preservation and protection of the Bishop Tube site as natural open space for the benefit of the community be given highest priority in open space and township planning and investment. View the details here. 

October 9, 2018 — New plans for developing the bishop tube site were submitted.  The development is limited to the actual bishop tube manufacturing site and so the number of units is limited to what was originally proposed (or thereabouts) for this area.  The proposal is for ~ 93 units.  While this seems far less than the original 228 proposed, because we are talking about a significantly smaller area of land, in fact what is being proposed is comparable to what was proposed in the past.  While this is progress, it is not the victory the community will accept. Only full remediation and protection of the site as natural open space will satisfy the community and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and so the battle continues.  You can find copies of the land development submissions at:  http://www.eastwhiteland.org/351/Bishop-Tube-Land-Development

Overview of Litigation Delaware Riverkeeper Network Has Advanced to Secure Cleanup and Protection of the Bishop Tube Site.

As of February, 2018, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network has pursued three legal actions regarding the Bishop Tube site:

Additional Updates:

 Click here to see video of residents speaking out in defense of their first amendment right to oppose development of, and demand full clean up, the Bishop Tube site.

June 7, 2017:  Click here for DRN Comment re PADEP deal with the developer

SLAPP Suit to Silence Community

• June 27, 2017, Brian O’Neill and his corporate counterparts filed a SLAPP suit against the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum, a private citizen and threatened to include 10 additional residents as defendants.
• On August 22, 2017 the SLAPP suit was quickly dismissed with the judge ruling:  “This is what we call constitutionally protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution…”
• September 22, 2017 Brian Oneill and his counterparts appealed the decision, once again misusing the law to try to threaten opposition to his plans for Bishop Tube.  September 6, 2018 the Pennsylvania Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for overturning the case.  In a September 20, 2018 filing, O’Neill et.al sought to have the court reconsider the decision.  
• November 2, 2018 the Superior Court summarily rejected the request for reconsideration.

Effort to Secure EPA Documents

• On July 28, 2020,Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) filed an administrative appeal against the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 3 office (EPA) due to EPA’s failure to respond to DRN’s September 3, 2019 request for production of documents, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). DRN’s request sought the production of all records in the EPA’s possession regarding the Bishop Tube Site. Under FOIA law, the EPA is legally mandated to fully respond to a request for records within 20 working days from the date that the request was received, unless unusual or exceptional circumstances exist. DRN argued that EPA continuously delayed the full production of documents for 10-months without asserting that unusual or exceptional circumstances exist. DRN also argued that the partial production of documents submitted by EPA were not responsive to DRN’s request.
• On August 18, 2020, EPA’s General Law Office granted DRN’s appeal regarding the request for EPA documents and stated that DRN’s request would be remanded to Region 3 to conduct an additional search and release the responsive documents to DRN.

A survey was conducted to identify native plant species growing in the forest at the Bishop Tube site in 2023. The remarkable amount of biodiversity found, and the concerning conservation status of three tree species identified are documented in this report. The report was shared with the East Whiteland Township Board of Supervisors in July of 2024. View the report here.

Recent Press:

Plan to Build Housing on Contamined Bishop Tube Site in Chester County Faces Major Setback, Phila Inquirer, 2019-04-29

Environmnetal group challenges decision on bishop tube site, Daily Local, 2018-02-22
DEP accused of neglecting cleanup of contaminated Chesco site, State Impact, 11/09/2017
Chester County Judge Issues Opinion on SLAPP Suit Dismissal (2017-10-24)  DRN Press Release, 10/24/2017
Community Protests Bishop Tube Site, Daily Local News, 10/14/2017
Judge throws out developer’s ‘SLAPP suit’ against environmental group, State Impact, 08/23/2017
Chesco advocates accuse developer of trying to muzzle free speech over toxic site, State Impact, 07/27/2017
Activists response to legal battle with developer at bishop tube site, Daily Local News, 07/26/2017
East Whiteland Officials Pull Support for $1 Million Development Grant, Daily Local News, 07/16/2017
Residents Pack East Whiteland Meeting to Oppose Bishop Tube Plan, Daily Local News, 06/9/2017
Chesco Residents Urge Officials to Reject Development Plan for Contaminated Site, State Impact, 04/25/2017
Foes: Don’t Develop Bishop Tube Site, Daily Local News, 04/21/2017
On Toxic Site Abandoned for Decades, Developer Sees Townshouses Sprouting in Chesco, Philly.com, 04/10/2017

Overview

Communities continue to install an increasing number of artificial turf fields. 

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network receives regular calls for information, assistance and comment letters to help resist these economically costly endeavors that bring a variety of harms to the kids and communities where they are placed.  

Environmental & Human Health Impacts

Our comments and concerns include both the environmental and the human health impacts of Artificial Turf.

Synthetic turf is generally made with rubber from waste tires.  Recycled rubber varies considerably in its chemical composition, even when from the same manufacturer. Hazardous substances found in tires may persist in the environment including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates and certain metals.  These substances may be bioaccumulative, carcinogenic, reprotoxic, mutagenic and/or endocrine disrupting.

Research has demonstrated concerns regarding water qualtiy and toxic affects for aquatic life. 

Direct human exposure to the hazardous substances contained in the rubber in-fill of artificial turf is believed to occur via three pathways:  inhalation, skin contact, and/or ingestion including by children who come into contact with the material.  Each pathway creating its own set of health concerns. 

Excessive heat is a major threat for those that play on artificial turf. High surface temperatures found on artificial turf fields can contribute to physiological stress and cause “serious heat-related illnesses”. Heat stress, heat stroke and burns are all of concern.  

If you are faced with an artificial turf proposal in your watershed community reach out if you think Delaware Riverkeeper Network can be of assistance.  In addition, the fact sheets and comment letters provided below include a wealth of information that can help get you better educated on this important issue and provides key points and information you could borrow for your own local advocacy efforts.

Overview

Currently there are at least 15 applications for liquefied-natural-gas (LNG) export facilities in the U.S. pending before the federal government. These applications, along with already approved exports, would have the capacity to move over 40 percent of the U.S. annual production of natural gas to foreign countries. The gas companies want the exports overseas because they can sell the gas for more than 4 times the price as they can capture here in the U.S and at present there is a glut of gas in this country and so unless the industry sells it overseas they won’t get their immediate cash sale reward. 

Expert reports and data demonstrate that while LNG exports generate generous profits for the gas drillers and export companies, all other sectors of our country’s economy are in decline. In other words, LNG exports only benefit the gas industry. Similarly, LNG exports, while creating some jobs in the gas industry, many temporary, creates a net job loss effect for the country. In fact, LNG exports could result in the net loss of as many as 270,000 jobs per year in our country. 

The Environmental Cost 

It is almost daily that new research emerges showing the harms of shale gas for our communities, our country and our earth. Among the most recent scientific findings is that as much as 9% of the methane — one of the most potent greenhouse gases known to man — produced while drilling for gas is lost to the atmosphere. That 9% coupled with all the methane emitted during the transport of gas through pipelines, storage and use of the gas means that shale gas is a more potent contributor to climate change than any other fossil fuel – 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide if you look over a 20 year period when it is the most crucial that we reduce damaging emissions. 

The unparalleled level of harm to drinking water, air quality, food supplies, and people’s health that result from ongoing and increasing levels of drilling and fracking for shale gas bring high price tags for the United States economy and taxpayers. Not only do our communities lose out on life’s basic needs – air, water, food and health – but we as taxpayers have to pay the upfront and long-term financial burden of these harms, including the necessary clean up and health care costs. 

The deforestation, land compaction, wetlands destruction, and increased earthquake potential inflicted by shale gas development means increased flooding and flood ravaged homes and communities; it means increased erosion of public and private lands; it means the fear and harm of an earthquake where it happens; it means lost fishing, hunting, boating, birding and all the jobs they generate. And of course someone has to pay for all this harm – that someone is the public in the form of emergency services, taxes, hazard mitigation, and more national debt. 

Transforming our country into one dependent on shale gas instead of oil and coal brings with it a hefty price tag – by some estimates it will cost as much as $700 billion. Recent estimates from the United States Geological Survey of the volume of undiscovered Marcellus Shale gas that may be recoverable is an average 84 trillion cubic feet. At the current U.S. consumption rate of 24 trillion cubic feet per year , chasing after this gas, and incurring all of the harm shale drilling and fracking brings, will only give an additional 3 ½ years of supply. Other estimates that include gas which is proved, probable and recoverable calculate all U.S. natural gas as supporting only 11 to 21 years of energy at this consumption rate. The timeline for infrastructure replacement gets further shortened as LNG exports increase. 

Isn’t it just smarter to pay this bill once? And put in place the infrastructure needed for sustainable energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal and so on?

May 1, 2013 Update:

May 1, 2013 Representative Kowalko asked for a hearing on HB 54, a bill that would have prevented construction of LNG facilities in Delaware’s coastal zone.  At the end of the hearing the bill was tabled.  It is unknown when it may be revived for consideration.  A copy of Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper’s testimony, is provided below.  

  

 

 

Overview

There is a moratorium on natural gas drilling/fracking and water withdrawals in the Delaware River Watershed, enacted by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) in May 2010, by unanimous vote of the Commission’s voting members – representatives of the Governors of Pennsylvania. New York, New Jersey and Delaware and President Obama’s representative, the Army Corps of Engineers. When natural gas regulations were proposed by the DRBC with a close of public comment in April 2011, the public became engaged in a big way. Breaking all previous records for public input, 69,000 comments were submitted to the DRBC, most calling for the proposed rules to be scrapped because they were too weak and narrow and advocating for a comprehensive environmental impact analysis of what gas development would do to the Watershed and the 17 million people and almost 13,000 square miles of ecosystem that rely on the health and abundance of the Delaware River Watershed for water supply and habitat. In November 2011 the moratorium was almost lifted and the rules almost adopted but public pressure and the announcement of Gov. Markell of Delaware and the head of New York’s Dept. of Environmental Conservation that they would not vote to approve the rules, caused the meeting to be cancelled and the rules to be sent back to the drawing board because there was not an assured majority to approve the lifting of the moratorium. As the DRBC continues to consider allowing drilling and fracking, the watershed health hangs precariously in the balance. Delaware Riverkeeper Network and many groups representing hundreds of thousands of members have called for a permanent ban on gas development in the Watershed since the dangerous practices involved are not compatible with maintaining and sustaining the water resources and ecosystems of the Delaware River Watershed.

The Impacts 

The environmental impacts of natural gas drilling include water quantity (on average 11 million gallons of water is used to frack each well), water quality (hydrofracking chemicals, radioactive and highly toxic wastewater, drilling muds and cuttings, waste solids and residuals that results from the well development process), stormwater runoff (nonpoint source pollution, erosion, stream degradation), habitat and ecosystem destruction and disruption, air quality (pollution from methane and other gases, VOCs and other volatile materials, silica, particulates, etc.) noise and light pollution, and community/cultural, scenic and quality of life impacts. These impacts result in direct harm to public health, especially for those where drilling and its activities are occurring.  A large body of evidence is being published today of the harms to human health and the environment. Inadequate regulation of the industry at every level allows these impacts to occur, burdening communities and the environment but no matter how fracking and shale gas development is regulated, the damages are unavoidable – fracking simply cannot be made safe or sustainable.

The practices required to extract natural gas are intrinsically polluting, allowing our aquifers and the environment to be permanently degraded, in violation of our environmental rights. The only way to avoid these negative impacts is to convert our energy systems away from these dirty fossil fuels and towards clean, sustainable, and renewable energy sources and energy efficiency policies.

As shale gas drilling and development inches closer to encroaching on the Delaware River Watershed, public concerns are growing for the safety of water supplies, air quality, the natural environment and communities that will be affected. The 17 million people who rely on the Delaware River for water, including New York City, Philadelphia and millions of residents of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware will all be directly effected if the water resources of the high quality upstream River is degraded. The practices that are used by the gas industry to extract and develop shale gas involve dangerous techniques such as hydraulic fracturing that inject chemicals–most of them hazardous, toxic and/or carcinogenic–and millions of gallons of water into each gas well.

The polluted flowback or “produced water” that erupts back up is contaminated with additional pollutants from the deep geology, such as radioactive materials, and is stored on the well site until it is trucked away to a wastewater plant or injected into the deep wells (even though there are not enough facilities to handle the wastewater and earthquakes caused by the injections in Ohio and other states where many injection wells are located have caused the shut down of several, this highly toxic waste continues to be produced every day throughout the Marcellus and Utica shales). Well sites have huge well pads, usually over 5 acres, containing 6, 10, even 15 or more gas wells each; miles of roads and gas pipelines and compressor stations are begin built; and  forests, farms, and rural communities are being transformed into urban, industrial conditions.

Wells can even be drilled in floodplains in both NY and PA. Communities across Pennsylvania where gas drilling is charging ahead are experiencing pollution incidents, accidents, gas well blowouts, spills, leaks, and illegal dumping of toxic wastewater and produced water, water well contamination, stream degradation and ruined farms and towns.

Join

DRN invites you to join with the growing number of people who want to take action to defend our region from the degradation of shale gas drilling. We cannot sacrifice our water and environment to gas companies. Check out the supporting information below – there are links to multiple studies and reports that delve into all things fracking. Information is power and an informed public is our best defense. People and communities are organizing and fighting back and there are many ways to get involved.

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network published (September 2015) a guidebook, “Defending the Environmental Rights of Pennsylvania Communities from Shale Gas Development”, to provide support and guidance to elected officials, government entities, and residents working at the municipal level to protect the environment and community resources from shale gas development.

The need for a permanent ban on all natural gas development, including drilling and fracking, in the Delaware River Watershed

In the Delaware River Watershed in 2017, DRBC has prohibited natural gas extraction projects in the Basin since 2010 while they study its potential impacts on water resources, a de-facto moratorium that does not allow permits to be issued until natural gas regulations are adopted. The DRBC almost adopted regulations in 2011 but its voting members, the Commissioners, cancelled the meeting where the vote would have occurred amid overwhelming public opposition and that stand-off has endured to this day.  However, in early 2017, the DRBC staff raised alarm bells with signals that the DRBC may be moving to adopt regulations and lift the current moratorium. 

The Delaware River Basin Commission’s moratorium was put in place 7 years ago by the Commission based on the determination that natural gas projects, individually or cumulatively, could have a substantial impact on the River’s water resources. 

Water 

Water use for oil and gas well development and for stimulation and extraction of gas from wells is very large, particularly for hydraulic fracturing (fracking) – the predominant method used today to extract gas – which requires high volumes of water. On average, 11 million gallons of water is used to frack a shale well, a depletive use because the water is not returned to the source, most of it completely removed from the hydrologic cycle when it is injected into deep formations. Of particular concern in the Delaware River Watershed where the shale underlies the upper basins’ streams, is that the required water can remove up to 70 percent of the water in small streams, permanently depleting crucial flows, disrupting natural flow regimes and increasing damaging runoff^[3], essentially turning some of our highest quality streams into ditches.  Removal of fresh water flows also allows for the concentration of contaminants when aquifers are overdrawn, reducing base flow of streams, in turn affecting water quality and habitats. 

Pollution

In terms of pollution potential, fracking uses toxic chemicals and hazardous materials are produced by the formations that are fractured.  1,076 chemicals are known to be used in fracking fluids, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),^[4] many of them carcinogenic, including some linked to childhood leukemia.^[5]

 

Waste Production

In terms of waste production, reuse and disposal, both wastewater and solid wastes pose challenges that have not yet been resolved by government agencies or the industry.  Currently, no set of federal regulations for waste produced during fracking exists except for a prohibition by EPA for the treatment of gas and oil wastewater at sewage treatment facilities.  This only addresses part of the management issues and leaves some critical loopholes in place that pose environmental threats.  Because of a 1988 oil and gas industry waste exemption from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), oil and gas waste is not regulated as hazardous, even though it contains hazardous constituents.  In fact, the shale gas industry has received unprecedented exemptions from our nation’s most important environmental and public health laws, making adequate regulation virtually impossible.^[10]

A Lawsuit Brought

A lawsuit brought by the industry-backed Wayne Land Management Group is attacking the jurisdiction of DRBC over gas development, raising concerns about its outcome. The new Trump Administration is rolling back environmental protections, pushing dirty fossil fuel development including domestic shale gas, and defunding and declawing agencies that protect natural resources, public lands and parks, scenic and recreational rivers. The federal agency vote on the DRBC, the Army Corps of Engineers, represents President Trump so there is mounting concern over how the new federal Administration will influence the DRBC policies and decisions, particularly gas drilling and fracking.

The Coalition

The coalition of organizations that make up the campaign to Ban Fracking in the Delaware River Watershed have vowed to fight for a COMPLETE ban on fracking throughout the Delaware River Watershed, including a ban on frack wastewater processing and discharges and a ban on water exports to fuel fracking elsewhere.  Nothing less is acceptable; it makes no sense to ban fracking but allow its toxic pollution and water depletion to ruin the Watershed.

The Coalition to Ban Fracking in the Delaware River Watershed submitted a letter with DRBC for a more open and just process for commenting on the draft regulations and proposed ban. The comment period was set to close February 28, far too short, and one a few hearings, all in Pennsylvania, were set. The groups demanded more public input opportunities and changes to the difficult process that DRBC set for how to submit comments – the agency wouldn’t even allow written comments to be submitted by email, fax or regular U.S. Postal Service mail. See the letter here. Groups also attended the DRBC’s December public meeting to deliver the message that fair and accessible public input into this all-important rulemaking was essential and must be provided to protect the watershed and to provide a just process.

Group Actions

Group actions during the summer of 2018 included banners being unfurled at popular river recreation areas to raise awareness. For instance, demonstrators met on the Barryville Bridge that connects Shohola Township, Pennsylvania and Barryville, New York to hang a banner that proclaimed, “Defend the Delaware; Ban Fracking and Frack Waste” as people paddled and floated by on the river. New York Governor Cuomo and Pennsylvania Governor Wolf were called to unite to completely ban frack drilling, ban the processing and discharge of wastewater produced by fracking, and ban water withdrawals for fracking. At another event, kayakers and canoeists unfurled the same banner while paddling on the river at Bordentown Beach in NJ. See the news report here.

WHAT HAPPENED FERUARY 25 AT THE DRBC Special Meeting:

The DRBC voted to permanently ban fracking throughout the Delaware River Watershed, affecting four states, after 12 years of raging debate and public discourse. The Delaware River Frack Ban Coalition and many members of the public – reported by DRBC to be at 400 during the meeting – joined the virtual DRBC meeting. The Governors of the four states – New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware – and a federal representative for President Biden from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – voted to enact the regulations that were pending since the public comment period closed in March 2018. All four states voted to approve the ban; the Army Corps representative abstained.

See the resolution adopting the regulations that ban fracking here: https://www.nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/Res2021-01_HVHF.pdf

References:

[1] http://www.nj.gov/drbc/programs/natural/

[2] PSE Healthy Energy Library, https://www.zotero.org/groups/pse_study_citation_database/items; See Compendium, http://concernedhealthny.org/compendium/; Delaware  Riverkeeper Network, “Unsafe and Unsustainable,” http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/Documents/DRN_Report_Unsafe+Unsustainable_fr.pdf 

[3] Hansen, L., Habicht, S., and Faeth, P., CNA, “Potential Environmental Impacts of Full-development of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania”, September 2016, p. 35.

[4] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources – External Review Draft. June 2015. Available at: www.epa.gov/hfstudy; Hein 2012, p. 2.

[5] Deziel, N. et al, Yale School of Public Health, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental and Epidemiology, January 2016.

[6] Concerned Health Professionals of New York and Physicians for Social Responsibility, “Compendium of Scientific, Medical, And Media Findings Demonstrating Risks And Harms Of Fracking (Unconventional Gas And Oil Extraction)”, Fourth Edition, November 17, 2016.

[7] Delaware  Riverkeeper Network, “Unsafe and Unsustainable,” http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/Documents/DRN_Report_Unsafe+Unsustainable_fr.pdf

[8]http://files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Determination_Letters/Regional_Determination_Letters.pdf accessed by DRN 12.27.2016

[9] https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990

[10] Oil and Gas operations are exempt from portions of major federal environmental laws including: Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (the Superfund Law); and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. Amy Mall, et. al., Natural Resources Defense Council, Drilling Down, October 2001, p.iv.

[11] NYSDEC, Division of Environmental Remediation, August 2012, re. Allied Landfill, Niagara County.

[12] Warner, NR, et al, “Impacts of Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal on Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania,” Enviro Science and Technology, Oct 2, 2013, pp. 11849.

[13] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[14]  http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/03/1612066114.full

[15] PSE Healthy Energy, “Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Projected Future Marcellus Development”, 2017.

[16] https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-water-resources

[17] http://www.paenvironmentdigest.com/newsletter/default.asp?NewsletterArticleID=38363&SubjectID=

Volatile Domestic Crude Oil from North Dakota

Trains carrying tank cars loaded with volatile domestic crude oil from North Dakota and other domestic shale fields are increasingly traveling across the nation.  Many of these 100 to 120 car trains are coming to East Coast refineries and ports.  These mile-long trains travel 1400+ miles to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware and the Delaware River port and refinery region on old infrastructure. 

Many of the bridges, tracks and rail terminals are out of date and unsafe, unable to handle this new highly dangerous traffic and many are located right up against homes, towns, farms, cities, water supplies and high-risk facilities like nuclear power plants and hazardous waste processors.  People and these vulnerable places are in harm’s way but don’t even know it. The industry and government is keeping basic information about what is in these tank cars and when and where they travel secret. For an eye-opening interactive map to see how close you are: http://explosive-crude-by-rail.org/

Emergency responders are most often in the dark about how to handle accidents.  Oil train fires, which are common in an oil tank car derailment, burn so hot they usually just let them burn and try to keep the flames and oil from spreading, a difficult task and one many fire companies are not trained or equipped to handle.

This domestic crude is high in dissolved gases that ignite easily and the tank cars being used to carry this volatile cargo are substandard, easily punctured and broken open.  The result has been dozens of fiery train derailments and a monumental increase in oil train mishaps, oil spills and damages.  In Quebec, Canada, 47 people died in 2013 when a Bakken Crude oil train slammed into downtown Lac Megantic. 

Facts About Today’s Oil Trains In Our Region

The development of domestic crude oil by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), mainly in North Dakota’s Bakken Shale fields but also in Canada (tar sands and other crude oil sources) and, to a lesser degree, the Utica shale in Ohio, has resulted in a large increase in the transport of crude oil by rail to this region.  The largest single customer of Bakken crude is in Philadelphia – Philadelphia Energy Solutions refinery – requiring 2 to 3 mile-long trains every day. The nation’s largest crude by rail yard is also located there.

Crude oil shipments by rail doubled in 2013 from 2012 nationally and Bakken crude went from a few thousand barrels per day to 965,000 barrels per day.  70% of that oil is moved by rail and forecasters expect that to rise to 90% in the near future.  Pipelines are also unsafe and not a safe alternative.

Bakken Shale oil production is expected to continue to increase from 1 million barrels of oil per day (MMb/d) to approx.1.4 MMb/d by 2016. 

The National Transportation Safety Board found that DOT-111 tank cars, the most commonly used, puncture easily when derailed, often exploding. The newer cars, CPC 1232s, have recently exploded as well, making it clear that no tank cars being used to carry Bakken crude today are safe.

Federal agencies say Bakken crude oil has unusually high gas content, low flash point, a low boiling point and high vapor pressure, risking catastrophic fire that is difficult or impossible to extinguish. Experts say it  should be reclassified to require the use of tank cars designed for hazardous material and volatile gases should be stripped from the oil before being transported by train or by pipeline but the government does not require this; new regulations in North Dakota don’t require enough removal to make the cargo safe.

The high gas content means more volatile organic compounds that escape through the inadequate valves on the tank cars while they travel through communities and a greater incidence of leaks and spills, routinely adding to the oil being spilled from these cars.

As crude-by-rail traffic has increased, so have accidents, posing significant risks to life, property and the environment – 113 incidents involving crude-by-rail mishaps occurred in 2013. The most devastating was in Lac Megantic, Quebec where 47 people died and much of the town was blown up. Millions of gallons of oil was spilled in the town and they still haven’t been able to get it all cleaned up.

 The U.S. Department of Transportation predicts an average of 10 derailments of trains hauling crude oil or ethanol per year over the next two decades, costing hundreds of lives and more than $4 billion in damages.

According to Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, more than 1.15 million gallons of crude oil was spilled from rail cars in over 35 tank car accidents in 2013, which is more oil than was spilled in the prior 37 years combined.

New regulations governing crude by rail have been adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration but they don’t nearly go far enough. Among the many shortcomings of the newly adopted rules (May 2015): a five year phase-in for new stronger cars and some retrofits as long as ten years; continued use of valves and outlets on tank cars that tend to pop open or burst in accidents, feeding fires and causing substantial spills; a 40 mph speed limit in “high population” areas while most derailments have occurred at much lower rates of speed; allowance of routing through cities and vulnerable high-risk areas; braking safety measures that are inadequate; no reclassification of the flammable and hazardous crude, which would require safer cars under current hazardous materials regulations; and public disclosure of the contents and specifics of oil train schedules are even less transparent than before–hiding more information that some federal officials have argued is not security sensitive.  

What Do We Do? 

We speak up and tell legislators they must make the public’s safety the priority, not companies’ bottom line. The federal government must hear from our federal elected officials that crude by rail cannot continue as it is. We need to speak up together – especially those who live and work along the routes these trains travel and those whose water supplies are in the path of the oil trains.  There is federal legislation that has been proposed, more actions called for by the Federal Railroad Administration, and a network of concerned people has formed across the nation.

Locally, lots can be done to demand safety and protection from the trains’ routine air and water pollution and the potential of catastrophe.  Residents and local government can advocate to discover what is actually going through their communities, how much and when, so they can be prepared and make informed local planning decisions.  Also, local emergency responders and fire companies need assistance to be trained and equipped to address potential accidents, especially derailments, which are occurring with more and more regularity.  In fact, many alog these train routes are no longer askig IF an accidnet will happen, but WHEN.

Considering the dangers of domestic crude oil and the documented very limited production longevity of the North Dakota fracked shale oil wells, a more secure and safe strategy would to leave this oil in the ground where it can be stored for the future. Today the more viable, economical sustainable and environmentally protective path is to leave fossil fuels behind and instead develop a green economy based on renewable, energy-efficient energy sources that will support healthy communities and a thriving biodiverse environment here where the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers come together, bringing us so many environmental and economic benefits if we protect them from degradation and pollution.

Delaware Riverkeeper Network staff is available to speak with residents or town officials and to share information about addressing the dangers and pollution issues presented by oil trains in the region.