Letter to the Editor: Middle Interceptor Doesn't Belong in Lower Providence

I write as a concerned resident and property owner along the Perkiomen Creek where a proposed sewer lateral is to be installed. Based on all the information I have read regarding this project, I do not understand why this pipe has to be installed in undisturbed land (Lower Providence side) for the following reasons:

1. This land has significantly more forested wet lands and is in the “flood way” of the creek. Besides taking away from the wetland’s habitat, this soil once disturbed is far more likely to erode and lead to unnecessary sedimentation of the creek. This environmental concern has been recognized by both the Clean Water Action of Pennsylvania and the Army Corp of Engineers.

2. The side that currently has the sewer line has a natural occurring rip rap (critical) that impedes erosion and is most likely why the original pipe was installed in that location.

3. If the new pipe is installed on the existing side and in the existing trench it will minimize blasting, which is always a concern with fissured rock formations. When fissured rock foundations are blasted, they can spread and cause damage to building foundations.

4. The Army Corp of Engineer’s recommendation was to install the pipe on the existing side in the previously disturbed area to minimize creek crossings from two major and four minor if using the LP side to no major and two minor if using the Upper Perkiomen side. Each open cut crossing will add to increased sedimentation to the creek, an environmental hazard also noted by Clean Water Action. 

5. Installing the pipe on the Lower Providence side places it in direct conflict with a Native American archeological find and will require a Phase III Survey prior to construction. Should this survey discover more significant artifacts, a full scale archeological dig will be required thus further delaying this project. Furthermore, it will require cutting through a historical wall (currently an erosion barrier) that will need to be properly replaced to its former state. Since the DEP has already approved the 537 Plan for the existing previously disturbed land, construction could proceed immediately.

6. Finally, with the cost estimates for either side being comparable, and when combined with the above arguments, it strongly suggests installing the pipe in the existing previously disturbed area is the best solution.   

Fred Kaczor

Project Engineer, UGI Energy Services