What You Can Do

The banner at the top of this website has the date, time, and location of the next Board of Supervisors meeting.

Keep showing up. The August 19 Board of Supervisors meeting made clear what happens when residents fill the room, join online, ask informed questions, and demand answers.

This remains one of the most important things you can do. Attend meetings, listen to what is being said, ask questions, and make sure decisions affecting this community are being made with the community watching.

Ask the Board of Supervisors to address the unresolved issues surrounding the project and enforce the Township’s own approvals, agreements, and code.

Specifically, residents can demand:

• Require SGF to submit a new application for its land development plan. Significant changes to the approved project should go through the proper amended land development process, not be treated as minor “field changes.”
• Answer a very simple question: What plan is SGF currently building? SGF has an approved plan, is requesting significant changes to that plan, and construction activity continues onsite. Residents deserve a clear answer.
• Address the missing water-service documentation. SGF’s approved plan requires approximately 4.2 million gallons of water per day, yet records obtained through a Right-to-Know request revealed that SGF does not have the required AQUA will-serve letter for that demand.
• Require the soil testing identified by EPA. FOIA records show EPA specifically called for testing in an area where VOCs were identified “ahead of excavation.” Residents want to know why that testing did not occur before excavation and why it was not reflected in the Soil and Health & Safety Plans posted by the Township.
• Demand answers about liability to the Township. Who is legally and financially responsible if there is an adverse event during construction or operation of the data center, particularly on an active federal Superfund site? Residents deserve to understand what liability or financial exposure the Township and its taxpayers could face.
• Explain why construction and permits are being allowed to continue while these issues, proposed plan changes, and questions surrounding compliance with existing approvals remain unresolved.

East Whiteland Board of Supervisors & Solicitor:

• Scott Lambert, Board Member — slambert@eastwhiteland.org
• Peter Fixler, Board Member — pfixler@eastwhiteland.org
• Clinton Smith, Board Member — csmith@eastwhiteland.org
• Bernadette Kearney, Solicitor — bkearney@hrmml.com

A separate fight over PECO’s infrastructure for the data center is now underway before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Residents have filed Petitions for Rescission challenging the PUC’s approval of PECO’s Phase 1 infrastructure for the project after records showed that PECO told the Commission there were “no environmental matters,” despite requiring an easement across the active Foote Mineral Superfund site.

The proceeding is Docket No. A-2025-3054731.

Residents who have an interest that may be affected by the proceeding can consider filing a Petition to Intervene, which asks the Commission to allow them to formally participate in the case.

Because the PUC is a formal adjudicatory body, filings are subject to procedural and service requirements. Residents should review the Commission’s rules and filing instructions before submitting anything.

Reference Docket No. A-2025-3054731 when reviewing the proceeding or filing documents associated with the existing case.

Residents with concerns about PECO can also use the PUC’s complaint process. Formal complaints are legal proceedings before the Commission, while the PUC also provides an informal complaint process.

Don’t assume someone else will raise your concern. Make your voice part of the record.

The Foote Mineral property remains an active federal Superfund site, and recent records and communications have raised serious questions about what EPA has actually reviewed as development and infrastructure continue to be added to the property.

Ask EPA about the planned 20-foot basement excavation, soil testing requested ahead of excavation, MW-22, site characterization gaps, and what oversight is occurring while construction activity continues onsite.

And the questions are getting bigger.

EPA has not evaluated the impact of the new high-voltage electrical infrastructure because PECO did not submit its activities for EPA review. Those lines are now being added to a site that already contains five pipelines, including two natural gas pipelines and three hazardous-liquid pipelines, as well as areas where VOCs have been identified in soil.

That means the site now has five pipelines, VOCs in the soil, and newly added high-voltage electrical infrastructure, all on a Superfund property where construction of a massive data center is moving forward.

No comprehensive evaluation has been performed to determine the potential fire risks created by these conditions or whether the new infrastructure and construction activities could adversely affect EPA’s Selected Remedy for the Superfund site.

Residents should demand that EPA evaluate these risks before additional work proceeds, not after an adverse event occurs or the Selected Remedy is compromised.

Contact EPA:

• Miranda Cento, Community Involvement Coordinator — Cento.Miranda.N@epa.gov
• Elizabeth Odren, Remedial Project Manager — odren.elizabeth@epa.gov
• Sheila Briggs-Steuteville, Branch Chief, Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Mid-Atlantic Region — Briggs-Steuteville.Sheila@epa.gov