Environmental Research Associates

Research & Consulting Ecologists

October 2006


Phila. Int. Airport27 Oct 2006 11:17 pm

October, 2006
by Mike Levin

1.  Explain how government maintains and improves quality of life for residents and protects taxpayers from unwanted and undesirable effects of airport expansion? 

2.  Is there a permanent non-partisan committee that produces detailed and necessary reports to stakeholders concerning proposed changes in Philadelphia International Airport (The Airport) that affects them; if not why not?  

3.  Explain how the voices of stakeholders, elected federal officials, state legislators and municipalities will influence FAA and The Airport in their decisions to improve quality of life and safety and diminish nuisances of noise and  pollution in the county?  Are quarterly reports provided? 

4.  Explain whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires balancing of the environmental quality and economic impact,  has been applied to Runway 17-35 Extension and Capacity Enhancement(sic) Expansion  and Airspace Redesign in its entirety when federal money pays for any airport improvements?  Has NEPA been subverted by applying it separately to each phase?  If NEPA has been violated, how will it be corrected? 

5. Why is Airspace Restructuring not contested in eastern Delaware County along with the proposed changes in southwestern Delaware County when the very existence of an extended Runway 17-35 with its increased capacity would redesign its airspace?

6.  Will a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement and Economic Benefit/Cost Analysis be conducted on the entire Runway 17-35 Extension, Airport Capacity Enhancement Program and Airspace Redesign as it affects not only the Airport, but also the extended area particularly in Delaware County that will be impacted?
                            

7.  Explain when a suit will be filed that includes Runway 17-35 extension and  stop-work injunctive relief for not including it as part of Capacity Enhancement Program and Airspace Redesign.        

Phila. Int. Airport15 Oct 2006 11:16 pm

October, 2006
by Mike Levin

Delaware County Council’s (DCC) response is not encouraging as expressed at the FAA meeting hosted by Rep. Curt Weldon in Ridley Township on October 18, 2006.  Chairman Andrew Reilly gave a spirited oral presentation, but  –  holding his hands to his head like two pistols and pressing his index fingers to both temples — in response to the question whether he had committed his statements to writing he stated, “It’s all up here,” meaning he does not have it in writing; for the 3 - 5 years that this has been on top of the table this is a startling admission that airport expansion is not of utmost importance to quality of life in Delaware County as a whole. 

(read more…)

Havertown PA Superfund15 Oct 2006 12:11 am

by Michael Levin, Ph.D., F.A.A.A.S.
October, 2006

1.  Freedom of Information Request for documentation regarding an exact copy of the letters with proof of mailing and request of return receipt to Haverford Township Commissioners inviting their participation in the August 2005, 5-year review as cited on page 11 of the report.

2.  Freedom of Information Request for methods of determining, identification with proof of and access to all documents, maps, pictures, other evidence of or conjecture about an on-site well in the ground of the Havertown PCP site into which wood preserver waste of chemical components and carrier such as but not limited to diesel oil was placed, injected or poured either intentionally or accidentally.  (If such a well is not verified or is based upon hearsay, this should be clearly identified and stated)

3.  Comparison with another similar wood preserver site, Federal Creosote, illustrates a soil removal action worth $45M plus another $150M to clean up about 35 ac.  There was also a buyout of some contaminated residential properties under the Uniform Relocation Act.  (Havertown PCP will receive a total of $20M after which the site will be turned over to State of PA control by or before 2013).  This is a federal-state action for which, like Havertown, there is not yet a Principal Responsible Party

4.  Serious Questions have arisen at a contaminated chromium waste site in Jersey City whether chromium waste should have been capped or should the contaminated soil be removed making for final unresolved action.

5.  Further Serious Questions have been brought forward about another site where fill contaminated with chromium waste was deposited in Weehawken, New Jersey.  Here, the argument centers upon allowable levels of chromium VI, an established carcinogen.  While NJ sets a level of 240ppm, Maryland is 30ppm and Oregon is 23ppm; lower values are safer. Capping of this site is considered stopgap by soil scientists.  Irony would have it that millions could be paid for land or structures on a contaminated site, affecting higher as well as lower income levels.