It’s no secret how I feel about the Bishop Tube Site in East Whiteland. It’s the poison ground and apparently now some sort of cleanup is starting. We would not have gotten this far without the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. There really doesn’t need to be any more commentary from me, I am just posting what the DEP posted today and I’m also including the YouTube link to the Bishop Tube documentary.
I haven’t written about Bishop Tube in a very long time. You see, I was the innocent and named resident in the nefarious SLAPP suit the developer filed a few years ago.
You can see a history of the past few years on the Delaware Riverkeeper website (CLICK HERE). Here is a screenshot from the Delaware Riverkeeper website:
Like the Delaware Riverkeeper, I was vindicated. My attorney is and was Sam Stretton of West Chester.
My opinions on this site remain unchanged. TCE isn’t something to play around with and I am entitled to said opinion as per the First Amendment. East Whiteland approved a development plan for 92 homes earlier in 2021. You knew they would. But it’s all still tied up in court, and Maya van Rossum had sent out a message about oral arguments apparently on Monday, September 27th, 10 AM regarding this plan that have now been postponed :
Here is the message about the postponement:
I went looking for the case, don’t know if it is this one, but guess it is? (See below here)
The Delaware Riverkeeper has also pointed out something coming up in November 9th – looks like a public hearing. This notice was from the PA DEP apparently:
Here is the verbiage from above notice:
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP & BROWNFIELDS
HAZARDOUS SITES CLEAN-UP UNDER THE ACT OF
OCTOBER 18, 1988
Notice of Proposed Remedial Response
Southeast Regional Office: Environmental Cleanup & Brownfields Program, 2 East Main Street, Norristown, PA 19401, 484-250-5960.
The Bishop Tube Site, South Malin Road, Malvern, PA, 19355, East Whiteland Township Chester County.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), under the authority of the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA) (35 P.S. §§ 6020.102—6020.1303), is proposing a remedial response action at the Bishop Tube HSCA Site (the Site) to address soil, groundwater, surface water, and a residential drinking water supply that have been contaminated by chlorinated solvents and/or inorganic contaminants of concern (COCs).
The Site consists of areas of groundwater, soil, and surface water contamination. Groundwater contamination at the Site affects properties, located along South Malin Road, Lancaster Avenue (US Rt. 30), Conestoga Road (PA Rt. 401), Morehall Road (PA Rt. 29), and Village Way. The sources of the contaminated groundwater and surface water and areas of contaminated soil are located on the 13.7-acre former Bishop Tube property (Source Property), currently owned by Constitution Drive Partners, L.P. (CDP). The Source Property’s address is listed as 1 South Malin Road, Malvern, PA 19355.
TCE is considered the primary Site-related COC because its concentrations within soil, groundwater, and surface water are generally higher than other chlorinated solvents and pose the most substantial threat to human health and the environment of all Site-related COCs. Additionally, TCE has migrated further in groundwater than the other COCs released at the Site. Since a public water supply is available within the entire Site boundary, vapor intrusion (VI), and not ingestion of or direct exposure to groundwater, is anticipated to be the most significant exposure pathway. Potential routes of exposure on the Source Property include trespasser and construction worker direct contact to soil and surface water, and construction worker inhalation during excavation. Potential exposure routes for a future redevelopment scenario may include inhalation from VI and drinking from wells, if installed. Potential routes of exposure for downgradient properties may include the VI pathway, if new construction occurs in areas impacted by contaminated groundwater and/or occupied buildings are modified, and the potential use of untreated contaminated groundwater, if any new supply wells are installed. DEP is proposing to divide the Site into three operable units (OU) and to remediate the Site to a combination of the Act 2 standards, including background, Statewide health, and site-specific.
OU 1 consists of soil contamination on the Source Property. Alternatives considered for OU1 include Alternative 1—No Action, which is required to be considered as a baseline for each OU; Alternative 2—Engineering Controls, Coupled with Institutional Controls (ICs); Alternative 3—Excavation with Offsite Treatment and/or Disposal; Alternative 4—Excavation with Onsite Treatment and Alternative 5—In Situ Chemical Oxidation/In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCO/ISCR), Coupled with Soil Mixing. DEP proposes the selection of Alternative 5—ISCO and/or ISCR, Coupled with Soil Mixing to address areas of elevated COCs in unsaturated and saturated soils. The proposed alternative is more cost effective and provides unique benefits that are expected to compliment the preferred groundwater remediation approach, discussed below. This alternative will comply with Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), is expected to have a smaller carbon footprint and results in lower potential for erosion/sedimentation and fugitive air emissions than the other alternatives considered. Engineering controls, designed to protect Little Valley Creek (LVC) and reduce surface infiltration and contaminant migration, would be evaluated upon completion of the soil remedy work and implemented and/or maintained as part of the groundwater remedy. Completion of this alternative is expected to take four years and cost around $2.8 million. Long-term operations and maintenance costs associated with engineering and institutional controls are incorporated into the OU2 Groundwater remedy.
ISCO/ISCR, coupled with soil mixing would be protective of public health and the environment and meet the remedial action objectives (RAOs) by addressing soil exposure pathways, reducing contaminant transfer and migration to and by groundwater, and preventing erosion during construction and after regrading and/or restoration are completed.
OU2 consists of Site groundwater. Alternatives considered for OU2 include Alternative 1—No Action; Alternative 2—Monitored Natural Attenuation; Alternative 3—In Situ Injection (ISCO/ISCR/Bioremediation); Alternative 4—In Situ Thermal Treatment (ISTT); and Alternative 5—Hydraulic Control. DEP proposes selecting Alternative 3—In Situ Injection (ISCO/ISCR/Bioremediation) to address COCs in groundwater. Implementation of this alternative would involve phased injection of amendments to treat the targeted groundwater source areas; engineering and/or ICs to mitigate Site impacts to LVC and address potential future human exposure to COCs in groundwater resulting from water well installation and/or VI; and long-term monitoring of engineering controls/ICs and ongoing natural attenuation.
Establishment of ICs, as an initial step, would immediately address the primary RAO to mitigate potential future human exposure to Site-related COCs in accordance with an Act 2 site-specific standard. Over time, implementation of Alternative 3 would achieve the other RAOs, including reducing COC migration in groundwater across the Source Property boundary, reducing the diffuse discharge of COCs to LVC, and hastening retraction of the contaminant plume. Completion of the active (i.e., injection) phase would be evaluated through monitoring of amendment distribution and attainment of conditions suitable for continued anaerobic biological degradation of CVOCs. After completion of the active phase of remediation, long-term monitoring would continue to assure exposure pathways are not opened due to changes in conditions (i.e., new construction or supply well installation), operations and maintenance of engineering controls and/or ICs, and to evaluate progress toward attaining RAOs.
DEP considers Alternative 3 to be more implementable than hydraulic control and ISTT because no extracted water will require discharge and/or additional pre-treatment before discharge. Any stream or sewage discharge would necessitate additional levels of pre-treatment and approvals for discharge to an exceptional value water or public sewer system. It is also more cost effective than these other alternatives and would provide for quicker attainment of RAOs than monitored natural attenuation alone. Preconstruction, construction, and active remedy implementation costs associated with the proposed alternative would be approximately $2.8M. Long-term post remedial costs are estimated to be $2.5M, based on a present value (PV) calculation, resulting in a total estimated PV cost of about $5.3M.
The in situ injection alternative would comply with ARARs and be protective of human health and the environment primarily through assuring exposure pathway elimination via engineering controls and ICs.
OU3 consists of the one contaminated potable drinking water supply, located within the Site area. Alternatives considered for OU3 include Alternative 1—No Action; Alternative 2—Continued Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring of a Whole House Carbon Filtration System, Combined with Restrictions on the Use of Groundwater; and Alternative 3—Connection to the Existing Public Water Supply Waterline, Combined with Restrictions on the Use of Groundwater. DEP proposes the selection of Alternative 3—Connection to the Existing Public Water Supply Waterline, Combined with Restrictions on the Use of Groundwater. Under Alternative 3, a lateral connection would be installed from the existing waterline main to the affected residential property and the private water supply well would be abandoned. The proposed alternative is a permanent solution that is protective of human health. The nearby existing public water infrastructure makes the proposed project alternative relatively easy to implement. Once connected to the waterline, the private well will be abandoned, therefore additional sampling of the residential well will not be required. The action will comply with ARARs relating to safe drinking water standards.
Connection of the home to the existing public water supply would cost approximately $24,000 and is more cost effective than continuing to operate, maintain, and monitor the point of entry system that currently exists on this residential water supply.
Alternative 3 would protect public health by permanently eliminating exposure to Site-related COCs resulting from use of the impacted private well.
In summary, DEP’s proposed remedy includes ISCO/ISCR, coupled with soil mixing to address unsaturated and saturated soils impacted by Site COCs; in situ injection of ISCO, ISCR or bioremediation amendments in the two primary CVOC source areas to address contaminated groundwater with engineering, and/or ICs, and long-term monitoring; and connection of the residence with an impacted domestic well to the existing public water line.
In combination, implementation of these proposed alternatives would protect public health and the environment and address potential exposure pathways by using engineering controls and ICs, connecting a home with a private well to the public waterline, reducing COC migration across the source property boundary, reducing migration and diffuse discharge of COCs to LVC, and hastening retraction of the groundwater contaminant plume by reducing source concentrations of COCs in soil and groundwater.
If selected, implementation of these alternatives would be designed and implemented in a complimentary manner to avoid potential negative interactions, comport with the protections afforded under Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, comply with ARARs, and avoid negative impacts to LVC. The total estimated PV cost of the proposed final remedial response action is $8.1M.
This notice is being provided pursuant to Section 506(b) of HSCA. The administrative record, including the Analysis of Alternatives and Proposed Response Document, which contains the information that forms the basis and documents the selection of this response action is available for public review and comment. An electronic copy of the administrative record is available to review on the DEP’s website www.dep.pa.gov/bishoptube. The hard copy of the administrative record is located at DEP’s office at 2 East Main Street, Norristown, PA 19401 and is available for review Monday through Friday from 8 am until 4 pm. Those interested in examining the Administrative Record at the DEP’s office should contact Dustin A. Armstrong at 484.250.5723 to arrange for an appointment. Additional copies of the Administrative Record are available for review at East Whiteland Township’s Municipal Building.
The administrative record will be open for comment from September 25, 2021, until January 3, 2022. Persons may submit written comments into the record during this time only by sending them by mail to Dustin A. Armstrong, Environmental Protection Specialist at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2 East Main Street, Norristown, PA 19401 or by e-mail to RA-EP-SEROECB@pa.gov. Please include ”Bishop Tube Public Comment” in the subject of the e-mail.
In addition, persons may present oral comments, for inclusion in the administrative record, at the public hearing. DEP has scheduled a Virtual Public Hearing for Tuesday, November 9, 2021, beginning at 6:30 p.m. Individuals who wish to present testimony at the virtual hearing must e-mail RA-EP-SEROECB@pa.gov a minimum of 24 hours in advance of the hearing to reserve a time to present testimony; a link will be provided upon registration. For those wishing only to listen, access information to the hearing will be posted to the Virtual Public Hearing web page found at www.dep.pa.gov (select ”Public Participation”). All comments, whether delivered orally during the virtual hearing or submitted in writing to RA-EP-SEROECB@pa.gov carry equal weight and consideration with DEP. Verbal testimony is limited to 3 minutes for each witness. Video demonstrations and screen sharing by witnesses will not be permitted. DEP asks that each organization designate one speaker per group and reminds those presenting that time may not be shared or relinquished to others. More information on DEP virtual hearings may be found on DEP’s Public Participation page, at www.dep.pa.gov (select Public Participation).
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 21-1618. Filed for public inspection September 24, 2021, 9:00 a.m.]
Ok that’s all, other than here is where you can find the above notice in native format on the Pennsylvania Bulletin website: CLICK HERE FOR DEP NOTICE.
I am beyond tired of all of the development plans. And East Whiteland Township supervisors have more of a CAN’T do versus CAN do. Two out of the three supervisors are development happy. This plan like Knickerbocker are problematic in my opinion, but East Whiteland Township said yes and always says yes to development. And I am but a mere mortal and a female, so my opinion is just that, my opinion.
People always say I hate all development and that actually is not true. We need thoughtful development that puts community first. There is nothing wrong with that notion at all. And it is possible.
Anyway, public information sharing is now over for the day.
Thanks for stopping by.
As of a few short days ago, Pennsylvania’s Superior Court dismissed the SLAPP suit I have been a named resident in for quite some time. It has been over the Bishop Tube site in East Whiteland Malvern/Frazer. The original suit was filed June 27, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County by the site developer.
In August of 2017, Judge Sommers, the judge who presided over the case in Chester County dismissed the suit. After that, an appeal was filed by the developer’s attorneys in Superior Court.
I have no idea if there will be an appeal by the plaintiff up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Almost a year ago the Superior Court appeal was filed. It was filed right around the time PA State Senator Larry Farnese held a press conference I could not attend on anti-SLAPP legislation. I sent in a statement. Here is part of what I said then (in italics):
As children we are taught how the founding fathers of this great nation fought, bled,
and died for our rights and freedoms. Yet today, in a modern world, it feels like we still
must fight against injustice and for our very freedoms and, in my opinion, freedom of
speech and expression is particularly threatened. As a native of Philadelphia, the
birthplace of our American freedoms, I find that deeply troubling.
As a blogger, I have been aware of SLAPP suits for years. This year, I became embroiled in one, in Chester County, where I live. The suit is over the potential development of an old factory site in Malvern, East Whiteland Township known as Bishop Tube. I am a resident of East Whiteland Township.
I had written about the Bishop Tube site on my blog. I am not the only one who has
ever written about it or ever has had questions about it. The site has also been written
about in newspaper articles off and on for many years. According to the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (“PA DEP”), there is TCE contamination on
this site. (Reference the PA DEP website’s Bishop Tube page).
I am a breast cancer survivor who underwent breast cancer treatment and, as a
survivor, a site like this should be a concern in my opinion. As a resident I should also
be able to express my opinions and/or ask questions. SLAPP suits are an invasive, fearsome kind of thing. Finding oneself in the middle of something like this feels like you are being bullied and harassed. It can also be unbearably costly. Frequently the suit bringer hopes this is what will defeat you.
Mostly, it makes you wonder about the good and honor of human kind.
Caring about where you live is not wrong, it is democracy in action. When people take
an interest in where they live, it is a powerful force. It is rarely easy for the residents
involved, and I think it does take great courage.
Our American freedoms are a real thing, not just lofty ideals tucked away in a 200+ year-old vault. Think about that as we are also on the eve of 9/11. Never forget September 11, 2001. This is yet another date in the annals of U.S. history which will live in infamy. Remember all those souls and first responders who lost their lives. They lost their lives because of our American ideals and freedoms even if they were not lives specifically lost on a battlefield in combat.
I can’t believe tomorrow it is 17 years already since 9/11.
I will close with saying thank you to Maya van Rossum and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and their amazing lawyers, Mark L. Freed and Jordan B. Yeager of Curtin & Heefner LLP. I will also thank my own attorney, Samuel Stretton of West Chester.
Our inalienable rights as Americans exist for good reason. Hopefully this issue is now at a close, but again, who knows? We live in strange times.
Here is the media coverage thus far along with what the Delaware Riverkeeper has said:
State court ruling favors Chesco residents protesting brownfield development
by Vinny Vella, Philadelphia Inquirer
State Impact PA SEPTEMBER 07, 2018 | 05:48 PM
Court rejects developer’s effort to block protest against town homes plan
Delaware Riverkeeper Network says suit tried to silence its right to free speech
by Jon Hurdle
Daily Local News: Lawsuit denied concerning Bishop Tube site
Digital First Media Sep 7, 2018
Keith Paul Hartman slipped from this world at 1:04 A.M. on Saturday, March 24, 2018. he was in the ICU at Paoli Hospital where he had been taken around March 9th, 2018. Keith was born on December 28, 1955 to the late Lester B. and Louise Capp Hartman. He was 62 years old.
Keith lived in General Warren Village, and he worked for many years at Bishop Tube with David Worst. He and David grew up together in the village. Keith was a proud graduate of Great Valley High School.
He was an active member of the Malvern Pocahontas Lodge #201 IOOF. Keith worked at Bishop Tube, Herzak’s Automotive and later operated Hartman Automotive. Keith found a great enjoyment fishing and spending time with his family, especially his grandchildren.
I only knew Keith a little over a year, and I thought he was one of the nicest people I had ever met. He was a kind man with a larger than life voice and a laugh that was joyful from deep inside. He had a very funny sense of humor.
As a relatively new person to Chester County, he and many of the General Warren Villagers I have met have been among the most warm and welcoming. I met Keith through his lifelong friend, David Worst.
Keith also had the courage of his convictions, and stood up for what he believed in.
I am actually pretty sad as I write this. I told some of his friends I would write a tribute to Keith, and as I am given more details, I will update this post. I felt I had to write something now. He was too nice a guy not to ask for prayers for in his memory. I honestly thought he would come home.
Joyce Anne Hartman, Keith’s beloved wife predeceased him in 2011 and I also know he leaves behind his stepdaughter; Anna K. Schaeffer (Garett) and his four step-grandchildren. He is also survived by cousins including Kevin L. Hartman. He is also survived by his stepmother, Jane Hartman.
Light a candle for Keith and say a prayer.
Life is so precious, and we are faced with that thought every time we lose someone who touched our lives. Keith touched my life only briefly, but I am glad I knew him for any amount of time.
My heartfelt condolences to his family and friends.
A service has been planned as per his cousin Kevin Hartman:
Just wanted to post Keith Hartman’s service arrangements.
Saturday 3/31/18 from 10 – 11 AM are the visitation hours at Malvern Baptist Church,
11- 12 AM will be the service at Malvern Baptist Church
Keith was a great friend (and cousin) to those of us who knew him .
Rest in peace Keith and fly with the angels.
May the road rise to meet you,
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm on your face,
The rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again, May God hold you in the palm of His hand.
Social media page screenshotted above FIRST is one of the many pages which I follow. I am not an administrator or page owner. The SECOND screen shot is from the public docket –Case #2017-03836-MJ. The developer has filed for reconsideration.
Timing being everything, this all happened around the same time this week as State Senator Larry Farnese’s press conference in Philadelphia City Hall regarding the anti-SLAPP legislation currently pending in the PA house. (Visit this link http://www.senatorfarnese.com/farnese-delaware-riverkeeper-network-news-conference-on-anti-slapp-suit-legislation)
CLICK HERE to find out about the bill and please contact your State Representative in PA and urge their support. Residents in Chester County, please contact YOUR state representative and urge passage of this legislation. CLICK HERE to find out who represents YOU as a Chester County, PA resident.
And as I was asked to prepare a statement for the aforementioned press conference, here is what I wrote- Farnese Press Conference Philadelphia PA 9.13.2017
Thanks for stopping by.
Hello Dear Readers,
Earlier this year, I was hit with a Cease and Desist in the form of something known in legal circles as a Writ of Summons. It was issued on behalf of developer Brian O’Neill and Constitution Drive Partners over the Bishop Tube Site in Malvern/Frazer in East Whiteland Township. It was sent to me by the West Chester and Chester County law firm of Lamb McErlane.
This whole thing also involves Maya van Rossum, who is The Delaware Riverkeeper , her non-profit The Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and people thus far referrred to as “John Does 1 -10”
Yes I know Maya. I used to live not too far away from her before I moved to Chester County. She lives in Radnor Township and I once lived in Lower Merion Township. As I have previously stated, Maya van Rossum is one of the most ethical, dedicated, and smart women I have ever met. I am honored to know her.
I actually had not seen Maya van Rossum in a few years in person before I turned around at that February 27, 2017 East Whiteland Zoning Hearing Board Meeting because I heard a familiar voice – hers. Others (unknown as to precisely who) had contacted her about this site. And I also think the folks from Trout Unlimited were there, and have also been at meetings (I never even knew what that non-profit was until all of this.)
Within a couple of days of that February 27 meeting, I injured my knee seriously enough to require surgery. My injury was to my right knee which meant I did not drive or even truly walk again until quite recently and even now the distances are brief. As I sat on the sidelines (which included NOT attending public or other meetings), many more public meetings happened. The whole debate of the Bishop Tube site in East Whiteland raged on (and continues to do so seemingly.) The DEP has been weighing in, along with State Representative Duane Milne, State Senator Andy Dinniman, even East Whiteland Township Supervisors.
The residents of General Warren Village also banded together and began to advocate for themselves as they live adjacent to this site. People from neighboring areas seemed to have joined them based on replays of public meetings I have watched over the past few months. And the Delaware Riverkeeper has persisted. (See this section on their website.)
This is democracy in action. When people take an interest in where they live, it is a powerful force. It is not easy for the residents involved, and it does take great courage, I applaud them.
As I have sat on the sidelines watching, this whole SLAPP thing has persisted. At its most basic, things like this are an affront to our inalienable rights to protest and speak. Our very rights are at risk, including that thing called the First Amendment:
First Amendment (As reprinted by the ACLU)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I am not the only one experiencing this (even on this topic) but when you are faced with this it feels so very and truly personal. Because in a way, it is. It is a challenge to those aforementioned freedoms we as Americans (regardless of political and religious persuasion) hold dear and even at times…take for granted.
It is because of situations like this I believe municipalities need to do better by us as residents. It is because of this that those we elect to the most basic of municipal levels, including the State House, State Senate, U.S. House and U.S. Senate need to do better by us.
As a perennial student of history, I have faith that the truth will indeed out. And I do indeed have representation. Mr. Samuel Stretton. A gentleman whose career I have followed off and on for many years and now have the privilege of knowing. Any questions may be directed to him.
I just thought it fair to let you my readers, neighbors, friends, and family know what was going on.
Thanks for stopping by
Chester County has been overrun by greedy developers. For perspective remember that size-wise Bryn Coed is like a giant super-sized Chesterbrook.
If not for those who care, like Natural Lands Trust, you would be seeing “coming soon” signs for developers like Toll Brothers.
These screen shots are from the Natural Lands Trust Bryn Coed Farms website.
Imagine living in an expansive, conserved landscape with a thriving nature preserve and miles of trails just next door. That is the unique opportunity available at Bryn Coed Farms.
In order to preserve as much of Bryn Coed Farms as possible, a number of large conservation properties will be made available to individual buyers. Each property will be placed under a conservation easement to be held and monitored by Natural Lands Trust, ensuring that the land is protected in perpetuity.
Seems like a revolutionary idea, doesn’t it? It’s not. It’s how parts of Ardrossan are staying intact in Radnor Township and it is how large swaths of countryside and history in places like England remain intact.
It is a viable solution to developing every square inch. It’s a compromise point.
Now critics will say more land should be saved with these plans and maybe they aren’t necessarily wrong , but this IS a viable compromise in my opinion.
Imagine if the Robinson Family did this at Crebilly, for example?
Or imagine if say developers who want to develop the Bishop Tube site chose a plan like this versus doing things like picking on me for wanting the best clean-up possible?
The Natural Lands Trust has once again proven, there is another way.
And speaking of Bishop Tube it is a big story in the Philadelphia Inquirer today:
by Michaelle Bond, Staff Writer @MichaelleBond | email@example.com
Asleep after a long day at her social-work job, Peggy Miros was jolted awake by a booming voice through a loudspeaker urging her and her neighbors to evacuate their homes.
A cloud of toxic gas had formed when chemicals accidentally combined at the steel tube manufacturer next to her housing development in East Whiteland Township, Chester County, in the early morning hours of June 9, 1981. In the sultry air, a steady southwest breeze exported the chemical mist toward General Warren Village, 500 yards away, before the cloud dissipated. Some of Miros’ neighbors went to the hospital with nausea and skin irritation…The EPA later found trichloroethylene (TCE), a degreasing agent linked to cancer, in the property’s groundwater. The former Bishop Tube Co. site, which produced stainless steel tubes from the 1950s until 1999, now is host to graffitied and dilapidated buildings, shattered windows, cracked concrete, and overgrown vegetation, one of more than 450,000 contaminated “brownfields” across the nation.
…Given the site’s history, residents are wary of plans for the property. Neighbors say they fear their families and any new residents could be harmed if workers disturb the polluted soil without removing every bit of contamination.
Last month, 40 people gathered for the first time in the home of one of their neighbors to plan a coordinated effort to oppose the project.
“These people know what they’re talking about and they have a right to be concerned,” said Maya K. van Rossum, leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, who became involved after residents asked her for help.
Read the entire article. Read where the chair of the supervisors in East Whiteland says he expects the developer will get the zoning variance. That is East Whiteland’s compromise point? Gambling with people’s health and safety? (Notice you hear little to nothing out of state officials and why are these people in office again?)
And I am confused because this developer refers to his neighbors in General Warren so I have to ask does he no longer live in Lower Merion Township?
As a “newcomer” resident of Chester County, am I supposed to be the perfect Victorian woman and be seen and not heard?
No, I haven’t written lovely large checks to the wonderful and deserving East Whiteland Fire Company, does that make me a bad person?
I do not write the flyers going out. I have expressed my opinions on my blog. Opinion is not against the law is it? The First Amendment still exists right?
Maya van Rossum is one of the most ethical and dedicated and smart women I have ever met, I am honored to know her. She is the Delaware Riverkeeper and it is her job to know about these sites like Bishop Tube.
The ultimate irony for me is I am a cancer survivor. I do not wish cancer treatment on anyone. Ever. That is why TCE terrifies me. So is that making me a bad person for caring?
The other thing is I have never said don’t develop the Bishop Tube site. I have said do lots and lots of clean-up based on past news articles and other documents and things like first hand accounts from former Bishop Tube employees and why is that bad? I have said I thought it was too much proposed density and why not an alternate, non-residential use but that is my opinion, yes?
So I am sorry the developer thinks I am being unfair, I think I am being justifiably concerned, and is that bad?
Also see this:
The Delaware Riverkeeper is keeping up the pressure on the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Hot off the presses find these two letters:
Bishop Tube is a crazy tale that just keeps getting more interesting, doesn’t it? Trichloroethylene (TCE) is so damn toxic. Yet you have to wonder why is seems the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) seems to play dodge ball on it at Bishop Tube, right? (Here is something the EPA put out around 2015 *I think* and something else from Arizona and how NASA deals with TCE.)
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency that is supposed to protect residents from toxic hazards, yet who is supposed to protect residents from them? I hear State Senator Dinniman’s office is starting to feel the pinch of Bishop Tube phone calls but what is he actually doing? (keep calling Phone: 610.692.2112 Fax: 610.436.1721 for West Chester PA and Phone: 717.787.5709 • Fax: 717.787.4384 for Harrisburg )
Hey Erin Brocavitch can we interest you in a little good old PA TCE????
File under April Fools’ from the Pennsylvania DEP?
At this point I can’t decide who is sleazier, can you? Developers with their perpetual sets of the emperor’s new clothes or the state agencies who are supposed to protect us?
I wonder what does the EPA think? I realize they are a Federal agency but do they care? Or are residents on their own with TCE across the country and the damage it does? The damage TCE has done already?
So yeah, Pennsylvania DEP, people ARE watching you. Remember Limerick? Remember how people rose up and demanded the DEP actually do their jobs and not just push paper around?
And while we are calling people out on toxic Bishop Tube and the fact that way too many in authority have known for DECADES about this site, should we not call out State Representative Duane Milne and State Senator Andy Dinniman?
This is a deadly, toxic site and it needs to be cleaned up properly. Those three hot spots which are the only ones that supposedly are going to get cleaned up are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg and the Pennsylvania DEP knows it, don’t they?
For more recent posts on Bishop Tube see:
Pay attention to the post containing documents above, old documents tell interesting tales don’t they?
As of now there is a meeting hosted by East Whiteland Township on Bishop Tube on April 19. Note the careful wording of the notice because they have invited all the below parties to show up and hopefully all the below parties will show up considering the fact that some of them are now contacting residents right? I think this meeting is a demonstration of good faith on the part of East Whiteland Township. Here’s hoping all invited show up to the party, can’t we all agree?