Sunoco Mariner East 2 Pipeline appears “high risk” for residents

Editorial of the Delaware County Daily Times, Swarthmore (Pa), January 25, 2018

A community group has asked Delaware County Council to do a risk assessment on the Mariner East 2 pipeline project, seen in the photo during construction. Council has agreed to the request.

Don’t look now, but those who for months have opposed Sunoco’s massive $2.5 billion Mariner East 2 pipeline project have just scored a couple of significant victories.

First, the PA state Department of Environmental Protection halted all construction on the pipeline project across the state. The PA-DEP cited “egregious” problems that have plagued work on the pipeline now for months, including several discharges and spills. In at least one instance, private water wells in Chester County were disturbed.

The state also noted that Sunoco Pipeline LP, the offshoot of Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners, which is planning to move hundreds of thousands of barrels of volatile gases across the state, from the Marcellus Shale region to Marcus Hook, had done some work for which it was not permitted. Mostly, it involved a controversial drilling technique called Horizontal Directional Drilling, which the company utilizes in tricky areas and which they say is actually less destructive to the environment.

But they got caught doing it out near Harrisburg in an area where they were not permitted to do so. So the PA-DEP finally shut down all work until Sunoco can come in with a report telling them how they plan to avoid any more mishaps and adhere to all PA-DEP regulations. Sunoco says it plans to do just that.

Then this week a group of citizens opposed to the pipeline appeared before Delaware County Council asking them to support their push for a full risk assessment study of the project and its effects on the county.

Council, which was one of the early supporters of the pipeline plan and the economic boost it held for the county, agreed.

Council Chairman John McBlain and new Democratic Councilman Brian Zidek will set up the parameters for the study, then council will put the project out for bid for outside consultants.

It’s one of the persistent cries of those who have watched in horror as Mariner East 2 has cut an ugly path through the county. Sunoco, having been granted the crucial public utility status by the courts years ago, went about acquiring property as close as possible to an existing pipeline, Mariner East 1. That line, which used to ferry oil to the refinery at Marcus Hook, already is up and running delivering the kind of ethane, butane and propane that for the most part will be stored at the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex before being shipped to markets overseas.

Look, putting in a pipeline is not pretty. And one look at the neighborhoods where Mariner East 2 has come in – 11 miles across western Delaware County and another 25 miles across Chester County – can easily attest to that. Eventually, Sunoco insists, the landscape will be restored and no one will know the pipeline is there. After all, pipelines are not exactly a new idea in this area of the state. There are hundreds of miles of pipeline criss-crossing all kinds of neighborhoods.

But none will carry the kind – or the amount – of materials that Mariner East 2 will ferry across Delaware County. Through densely populated neighborhoods. A few hundred feet from elementary schools such as Glenwood Elementary in Middletown.

Those who stand against the pipeline don’t buy all the hype about the economic benefits of this project. They are leery of almost anything Sunoco says, and they have the scars to prove it.

But while they grudgingly admit there is an economic benefit to the pipeline, they continue to question why that necessarily overrules their safety concerns, their hardships during construction, their property values, and their worries about problems once the pipeline is up and running.

And they question why no risk assessment was done before the project was approved.

In fact, several state legislators, including state Rep. Chris Quinn, R-168 of Middletown, and Chester County Sen. Andy Dinniman, D-19 of West Whiteland, have fired off letters to Gov. Tom Wolf asking for exactly that.

“There is no example of a pipeline of that size with this sort of material running through a built-up area like our county,” George Alexander of Media told County Council.

Eve Miari, a member of the Middletown Coalition for Community Safety, one of the most vocal critics of Mariner East 2, said no governing body in the state has stepped up to answer questions or at least delve into the potential for a problem.

“We have a huge regulatory gap where no one at the federal or state level is looking out for the safety of the residents and you have an out-of-state corporation basically putting their pipeline through the regulatory hole,” Miari told council.

For their part, Sunoco and their backers among labor unions and the oil and natural gas industry, insist that they are following all state regulations in construction of Mariner East 2, and that it is being installed and will be operated to the highest industry standards.

Sunoco spokesman Jeff Shields responded to the move by County Council by saying the project has been “thoroughly vetted” by federal, state and local agencies. He pointed out that pipelines have been used to move natural gas and other materials safely across Pennsylvania for nearly 100 years, including in many areas across Delaware County, and in close proximity to schools, hospitals, senior living facilities and homes.

“We have been living with these pipelines safely for decades, and we know that pipelines are the safest way to transport petroleum products,” Shields said. Opponents remain unconvinced. And the tide just might be turning in their direction. It’s late in the game, but their questions are not going to go away. It might be the only way to resolve their concerns. Bring on the risk assessment.

Diesel Trucks on WV Country Road

Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles (2005)

From a Scientific Article by Günter Oberdörster (Dept. of Env. Medicine, Univ. of Rochester), Eva Oberdörster (Dept. of Biology, So. Methodist Univ.) and Jan Oberdörster (Toxicology Dept. at Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC) in 2005

ABSTRACT — Although humans have been exposed to airborne nanosized particles (NSPs; < 100 nm) through-out their evolutionary stages, such exposure has increased dramatically over the last century due to anthropogenic sources. The rapidly developing field of nanotechnology is likely to become yet another source through inhalation, ingestion, skin uptake, and injection of engineered nano-materials. Information about safety and potential hazards is urgently needed.

Results of older bio-kinetic studies with NSPs and newer epidemiologic and toxicologic studies with airborne ultrafine particles can be viewed as the basis for the expanding field of nanotoxicology, which can be defined as safety evaluation of engineered nanostructures and nanodevices. Collectively, some emerging concepts of nanotoxicology can be identified from the results of these studies. When inhaled, specific sizes of NSPs are efficiently deposited by diffusional mechanisms in all regions of the respiratory tract.

The small size facilitates uptake into cells and transcytosis across epithelial and endothelial cells into the blood and lymph circulation to reach potentially sensitive target sites such as bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen, and heart. Access to the central nervous system and ganglia via translocation along axons and dendrites of neurons has also been observed. NSPs penetrating the skin distribute via uptake into lymphatic channels.

Endocytosis and biokinetics are largely dependent on NSP surface chemistry (coating) and in vivo surface modifications. The greater surface area per mass compared with larger-sized particles of the same chemistry renders NSPs more active biologically. This activity includes a potential for inflammatory and pro-oxidant, but also antioxidant, activity, which can explain early findings showing mixed results in terms of toxicity of NSPs to environmentally relevant species.

Evidence of mitochondrial distribution and oxidative stress response after NSP endocytosis points to a need for basic research on their interactions with subcellular structures. Additional considerations for assessing safety of engineered NSPs include careful selections of appropriate and relevant doses/concentrations, the likelihood of increased effects in a compromised organism, and also the benefits of possible desirable effects.

An interdisciplinary team approach (e.g., toxicology, materials science, medicine, molecular biology, and bioinformatics, to name a few) is mandatory for nanotoxicology research to arrive at an appropriate risk assessment.

Reference: Environ Health Perspect 113:823–839 (2005). doi:10.1289/ehp.7339 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 22 March 2005]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NOTE: Diesel exhaust contains toxic air contaminants and is listed as carcinogenic for humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) in group 1. Diesel exhaust contains fine particles which are harmful. Diesel exhaust pollution was thought to account for around one quarter of the pollution in the air in previous decades, and a high share of sickness caused by vehicle pollution.

Public Input Requested on Risks of Shale Drilling & Fracking

The National Research Council of The National Academies (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine) is conducting a project to look into the risks associated with extracting natural gas from shale deposits using technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (commonly called fracking).  The project is supported by the National Science Foundation.

About the Project

Scientists involved in the project will summarize available knowledge about risks of fracking and about ways such risks might be effectively and consistently managed. Our hope is to advance understanding and help to better inform national discussions about the future use of fracking technologies.

The first step in this project is to identify the range of issues about fracking that concern Americans. To do this, we have examined research and news reports, and through this message, we are canvassing a wide-range of potentially concerned individuals and groups across the nation that may have concerns about issues related to fracking. We want to learn about public concerns because we believe that science should address those concerns. We also want to identify fracking-related issues or concerns about which people would like to learn more. The National Research Council will use this input to help choose the issues its project will address.

Although we will not be able to address all the issues and concerns that are raised, we will commission papers to summarize the scientific knowledge on selected issues and have the papers presented and discussed at two workshops this year. The workshops will be open to the public, space permitting, and they will be webcast. The papers and presentations from the workshops will be made available to anyone on the project’s website. More information about the project is already available there, and updated information will be posted periodically and at the end of the project.

Please Submit Replies

We are interested in your concerns about any aspect of fracking, including the technologies, the ways they are or may be used, the effects of their use, the ways they are or may be regulated, etc.

We invite you to submit your concerns by entering them in the boxes below.  We encourage you to submit as many concerns as you have, and to share this invitation with others in your community or organization. However, this is not a scientific survey. We are not trying to find out which concerns are most common.  Also, our interest at this point is in learning what people’s concerns are rather than in getting ideas about how to address the concerns.

Your input is very important to us and we are grateful for your taking the time to respond. A few questions ask about you, but your responses will remain completely anonymous. We want to reach as many people as possible who may have concerns about fracking or want to know more about fracking. For that reason, we are distributing this email request widely and we encourage you to forward it to people you think would be concerned and likely to participate. We would appreciate receiving responses by March 19, 2013.

Thank you,  Paul C. Stern (Study Director) and Professor Mitchell Small, Carnegie Mellon University (Study Chairperson)

Comments and Input Requested:  http://fluidsurveys.com/s/nrc/