logo
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
    • Collections
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Subscribe
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Complimentary Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership
  • Submissions

Nonprofit, Civic, and Government Groups Unite to Oppose Pipeline Project

Skip Lockwood
April 5, 2019
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
Sam Holt [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons

April 1, 2019; Generocity

Residents and organizations across southern Pennsylvania have put aside political and ideological differences over serious shared concerns about the Mariner East pipeline project owned by Energy Transfer Partners. Topping the list of grievances are safety issues surrounding both the operation and the construction of the three pipelines.

Caroline Hughes of Del-Chesco United for Pipeline Safety started advocating against the project when she learned that her son’s school is 100 feet from the pipeline. She counts at least 40 schools in the blast zone identified in a risk assessment sponsored by the Clean Air Council.

Jim Scanlon, the superintendent of the West Chester Area School District, which has four buildings within 3,000 feet of the pipeline, said it’s been frustrating communicating with Sunoco, the prior project owner.

“We still don’t have a clear communication plan from them, and we can do an awful lot in four or five minutes,” said Scanlon in an April 1, 2019 interview with Generocity.

Even nonprofits that focus on pipelines have had serious misgivings about the Mariner lines. Lynda Farrell, the director of the Pipeline Safety Coalition, an impartial pipeline construction safety organization, turned down a 2015 request from Sunoco to assist them with community education because of serious safety concerns with the project.

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

The original project called for Mariner 1, an existing pipeline built in 1923, to remain in service as Mariner 2 and Mariner 2X were developed. All three lines would carry propane, ethane, and butane, also known as hazardous volatile liquids (HVLs). HVLs are of particular concern to project opponents because they are highly flammable and colorless and odorless when exposed to air. During construction of Mariner 2, Sunoco faced legal challenges, along with sinkholes, multiple drill mud spills, hazardous material spills, vandalism, emergency shutdowns due to public safety risks, and a “pipe strike” by another utility contractor. The other contractor was given incorrect data about the depth and location of the new pipe by Sunoco. Opponents point out that the strike was close to a local elementary school and could have been catastrophic were the line in operation.

Behind schedule and under pressure to bring Mariner 2 online, Sunoco solved part of its problem by cobbling together a Franken-pipeline. Using pieces of Mariner 1 as well as the completed portions of Mariner 2 and several segments of Mariner 2X, Sunoco began operating the hybrid pipeline, dubbed “Mariner East.”

ProPublica notes in a November 2012 article written at the height of the fracking boom, “Based on fatality statistics from 2005 through 2009, oil pipelines are roughly 70 times as safe as trucks, which killed four times as many people during those years, despite transporting only a tiny fraction of fuel shipments. However, when a pipeline does fail, the consequences can be catastrophic (though typically less so than airplane accidents), with the very deadliest accidents garnering media attention and sometimes leading to a federal investigation.”

Three different entities in Pennsylvania have conducted risk assessments of the pipeline—the Clean Air Council, Delaware County, and Pipeline Safety Coalition—and all have arrived at the same general conclusion that though the risk of leak and explosion is low, if it does occur, the potential for damage, death, and injury is significant.

Pipeline opponents don’t need to look very hard to find plenty of examples of the worst-case scenario. An abundance of video coverage exists for pipeline explosions in Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, and Indiana in the last five years alone. Images of neighborhoods ablaze, grieving families, and destroyed homes and businesses rightfully give residents living around these infrastructure projects pause.—Skip Lockwood

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
About the author
Skip Lockwood

Skip has more than 20 years of experience building and managing effective and efficient nonprofit organizations as well as five years as an executive at a for-profit company and six years as an independent political consultant. His proudest achievement was transforming a nearly bankrupt cancer nonprofit into an award-winning, multi-million dollar organization that helped to save lives. Currently, he owns and operates QL3 Strategies to provide nonprofits with the technical, ethical, strategic, and operational expertise they need to fulfill their missions.

More about: nonprofit advocacyCollaborationEnvironmental PolicyNonprofit NewsPennsylvaniaSocial Movements

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

Spring-2023-sidebar-subscribe
You might also like
Telling Better Stories to Fight Disinformation
Sabrina Joy Stevens
White Supremacy and the Disinformation Wars
Joseph Phelan
US Disinformation Against Black Liberation, Then and Now
Shanelle Matthews
Connecting the Dots: Disinformation Narratives and Anti-Trans Violence
Kris Hayashi
Defining Racialized Misinformation and Disinformation
Jacquelyn Mason
Linking Our Fights to Win: On Combatting Elite Capture
Kitana Ananda and Olúfemi O. Táíwò

NPQ Webinars

June 22nd, 12:30 pm ET

Making Co-CEOs Work

Insights from Leaders Sharing Leadership Successfully

Register Now
You might also like
Telling Better Stories to Fight Disinformation
Sabrina Joy Stevens
White Supremacy and the Disinformation Wars
Joseph Phelan
US Disinformation Against Black Liberation, Then and Now
Shanelle Matthews

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

See our newsletters

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

NPQ-Spring-2023-cover

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Copyright
  • Careers

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.