Trending
KAREN ELIAS
Lock Haven
I would like to reply to the Op Ed by Dan Vilello published in the Lock Haven Express on March 15th.
Mr. Vilello assures us that the rail yards in Renovo will be "cleaned up and monitored" as part of the gas-plant project. He also warns us that the site includes a "contaminated plume of underground water that could eventually make its way to the Susquehanna River if not addressed."
For anyone who wants to understand the extent and possible threat of contamination at the Renovo rail yards, the place to look is at the Final Report issued by Letterle and Associates, Inc.
Letterle, an environmental consulting and remediation firm based in Pennsylvania, conducted an assessment of the rail yards in 2016. Their report is now available to anyone who might want to read it. Just ask for it at the front desk of the Ross Library.
I went back to Letterle's report and have read it carefully once again. After conducting an extensive assessment of the site, Letterle concludes that significant amounts of 19 contaminants of concern (COCs) are found in the groundwater at the site. However, because the water is located fairly deeply underground, danger of contact is minimal (with the possible exception of utility workers who might be burying lines). The residents of Renovo are not in danger of coming in contact with this groundwater since they use a municipal water authority.
In reading this report, I looked especially for references to a "contaminated plume" but was unable to find any. Instead, the report refers to "perched water" -- an aquifer located above a clay layer -- and states that this aquifer is stable or even diminishing. The Letterle report does not support the presence of a threatening, migratory plume.
I can only conclude that Mr. Vilello's assertion that a contaminated plume is on the march toward the river is overblown, designed to make folks feel grateful that the plant is coming to save the day!
Unfortunately, the plant is not coming to save the day. Far from it. Like the groundwater at the site, the soil is also badly contaminated. Unlike the groundwater, however, the soil will be seriously disturbed during construction. And although the soil will be handled, according to the report, "in compliance with applicable requirements," it turns out this isn't saying very much.
This time around, I discovered something I hadn't noticed before. The report is clear from the beginning that the company has applied to meet only lower pollution standards.
Referred to as "Site Specific Standards," these are unique to a specific site and allow for higher levels of pollution than those determined by the state. If the company has our best interests at heart, if their intent is to benefit the community by coming (heroically) to Renovo's rescue, why did they opt for lower pollution standards for the clean-up than those set by the state?
The contaminated soil will become air-borne during construction. The plant itself will be constructed on contaminated soil. How many of us would send our sons to work at this plant?