Westmoreland
Marcellus Citizens’ Group Updates February 14, 2013
To receive our news updates, please email jan at janjackmil@yahoo.com
Please copy and paste links .
* For articles and updates or to just vent, visit us on facebook;
* To view permanent documents, past updates,
reports, general information and meeting information
http://westmorelandmarcellus.blogspot.com/
To discuss candidates: http://www.facebook.com/groups/VoteProEarth/
* To contact your state
legislator:
For email
address, click on the envelope under the photo
* For information on the state gas legislation
and local control: http://pajustpowers.org/aboutthebills.html-
Thank Yous
Herminie Station Alert
***Thanks
to everyone who responded to the Herminie Compressor Station Alert.
Public hearings
for compressor stations should be automatically scheduled since the stations
are large sources of harmful pollutants but the DEP makes it necessary for the
public to request hearings-- so our calls and emails are important.
Our part of
the state is not getting the hearings on compressor stations that NE PA
receives. We have been told that residents of the specific site area need to
send letters, in addition to the public alerts that our entire group responds
to. We will continue to send out alerts
on this important issue.
Publicity
***Thank you to many of you who have offered to post flyers
for our March 19 health forum at St Vincent. Here are three things you can do
to help out:
1.
Copy the flyer I attached and post a few
2.
Post the meeting on your face book site about 1-2
weeks before the meeting
3.
Send out the notice to people on your email list
and ask them to pass it on.
That action is incredibly
helpful in getting the word out to people who are not on our list. Jan
Calendar of Events
***Climate Change March This Week
Bus
organized by Sierra Club Allegheny Group, Environmental Justice Committee of the TMC and EQAT Pittsburgh:
To
all in Western Pennsylvania who are concerned about Climate Change,
In his inauguration speech President Obama made
slowing down climate disruption a priority in his second term. We need to show that he has our support for
vigorous action, starting with stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Join us at the historic rally and march from the Washington Monument to the White House on Feb. 17
We have filled the first 56-seat bus and already
have 12 passengers on a second recently hired bus.
If you intend to join us, please register ASAP.
Thanks,
Peter Wray
Registration
for the Pittsburgh Bus to the Feb 17 "Forward on Climate Rally"
The
fare for a seat on our bus from Pittsburgh is $40, with a student or limited
income fare of $25, payable through our PayPal account at http://alleghenysc.org/?p=11121
Once you have paid your fare, please notify me at
pjwray@verizon.net. We will fill the seats on a first paid, first served basis,
so book your seat ASAP. If you prefer to
pay by check, send me an Email.
Passengers aged 17 or younger must be accompanied
by a parent or guardian.
The
bus will collect passengers promptly at 7:00 am at Edgewood TownCenter (S.
Braddock and Parkway East). Probably
stop in Breezewood for dinner on the return journey. Arrive back in Pittsburgh
about 10 pm.
Please
dress for inclement weather in DC, and have appropriate footwear for the march
from the Mall to the White House. For
convenience, you should probably have a packed lunch with you.
More details
once you have registered.
*** Fracking and Your
Health, Public Health Perspectives Public Meeting
* What common health
problems do residents experience?
* What are the
sources of exposure?
* How can you reduce
your exposure?
* What public health
studies are being done?
Speakers:
Nadia Steinzor -
Earthworks
Raina Rippel- Southwest PA Environmental Health Project
Linda Headley
–member of a SW PA affected family
Dr. Ralph Miranda-
Greensburg Physician, Speaker/Moderator
Where:
Fred Rogers Center, Saint Vincent
College, Latrobe PA
When:
Tuesday, March 19, 7:00-9:00 pm
Free admission
***Jess White Holds Meeting- REGISTER TO TESTIFY IF YOU HAVE HAD ISSUES
WITH THE DEP
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 @ 2:00pm - Washington, Pa county building behind the courthouse on the
1st floor in the room where the county commissioners meet.
` Next week’s
House Democratic Policy Committee hearing in Washington on environmental
testing will be held without anyone attending from the agency at the focus of
the hearing. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has
declined to attend. State Rep. Jesse
White, D-Cecil, will host the hearing beginning at 2 p.m. Tuesday in the public
meeting room of the Washington Courthouse Square building, 100 W. Beau St.
DEP Secretary Michael Krancer declined an invitation to attend. In a news
release, White noted he was disappointed but not surprised.
Katy Gresh, director of DEP’s
communications office, noted Krancer is willing to attend meetings if they are
productive and professional. Scheduled
to testify are several Pennsylvania residents critical of DEP’s handling of
issues on their properties, and a coalition of environmental organizations,
including Earthworks and PennFuture. White proposed new legislation, H.B. 268,
which would require the DEP to provide full results from any testing. “If
DEP is truly doing everything as well as they claim, you would think they would
welcome the opportunity to prove it in a public forum; their refusal to do so
really says quite a bit about the DEP’s lack of commitment to transparency and
public accountability,” White said.
http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20130213/NEWS01/130219712
*** Westmoreland County Commissioners’ Meetings- 2nd and 4th Thursday of the month at
the County Courthouse at 10:00
*** Steering
Committee Meetings- 2nd Tuesday of every month, 7:30
ACTION ALERTS!!
***Tell DEP to
Disclose Water Testing
“You may
have heard that the PA (DEP) refuses to disclose all pollution detected during
water testing from wells suspected of drilling contamination.
We have a right to know what's in our water!
Mystery, questions and concerns continue to surround water
testing policies related to suspected impacts from Marcellus Shale natural gas
operations.
We were optimistic that we might finally get answers when
Secretary Krancer suggested a meeting with Sierra Club and a coalition of
environmental groups to discuss these issues. PA DEP, however, left us in the
dark and extremely disappointed when they abruptly cancelled the meeting.
Help us apply pressure to PA DEP by emailing Governor
Corbett and Secretary Krancer TODAY!
Tell them they need
to reschedule their meeting with us and provide answers to the questions and
concerns surrounding their water testing policies.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Jeff Schmidt
Chapter
Director
Sierra
Club PA Chapter
P.S.
Share this alert with your social networks:
***Email President Obama To Not Appoint Energy
Secretary Moniz
“Did you watch the State of the Union last night?
President Obama explained how speeding up
new oil and gas drilling permits was part of his "all of the above"
energy plan. Obama called natural
gas a good source of clean energy, but we know the truth: more natural gas
means more fracking, and fracking means more toxic chemicals putting our water
and air at risk.
This is
bad. We've just gotten word that President Obama is considering Ernest Moniz, a
cheerleader for the dangerous process of fracking, as his new Energy Secretary.
(See the full details at Reuters.)
We're
counting on you to help change Obama's mind before this plan goes any further.
Can you tell President Obama to find a better choice for Secretary of Energy?
It’s more important than ever that President Obama appoint a
Secretary who will
promote truly renewable energy, not a fracking industry cheerleader like Ernest
Moniz.”
Jo
Miles
Online
Organizer
Food
& Water Watch
act(at)fwwatch(dot)org
Scan down the page to the
yellow box
President Obama’s speech was very disappointing to all of
us volunteers who have been working for a cleaner environment, the health of our
families, and the property values of our communities. More drilling is not a
solution to our energy problems. Opening more public lands to drilling is not
the answer. President Obama is on the wrong page on this issue.
http://ecowatch.org/2013/obama-fracking-moratorium/
***Penn State
Conducting Online Survey About Pennsylvania's Water Resources
“This is your chance to be heard on
the value and importance of water resources in Pennsylvania!
The survey will
remain open until February 28, 2013 and a summary of results will be published
on the Pennsylvania Water Resources Research Center website in Spring 2013 at: http://www.pawatercenter.psu.edu/.
This
survey is funded by the Pennsylvania Water Resources Research Center and Sea
Grant Pennsylvania in partnership with Penn State Extension and the
Pennsylvania American Water Resources Association.
FRACK LINKS
***Winning
Music Video: You've Been Fracked
The teacher who has been spearheading New York
Youth Against Fracking, Mariah Prentiss, got a call from Yoko Ono last night:
Their music video, “You’ve Been Fracked,” has WON the Artists Against Fracking
video contest! The prize is having lunch
in NYC with Yoko and her son, Sean Lennon! VIDEO IS HERE:
http://youtu.be/yCO_WIcWy-Y (3:00)
***Airport Fracking Proposal Draws
Frustrated, Angry Crowd at Only Public Hearing on Issue
***Marcellus Air Pollution Research…
This is a new
publication in Environmental Research Letters, “Estimation of regional air-quality damages from Marcellus Shale natural
gas extraction in Pennsylvania,” by RAND authors A. Litovitz, A. Curtright,
S. Abramzon, N. Burger, and C. Samaras. The full publication and video abstract
are available, with open access, at: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014017
Highlights: This
paper provides an estimate of the conventional air pollutant emissions
associated with the extraction of unconventional shale gas in Pennsylvania, as
well as the monetary value of the associated regional environmental and health
damages.
*** Health Report, By David Brown, SW PA Envir. Health Project;
Ron Bishop, SUNY; and others
FRACK NEWS
1.
Robinson Township-Where Supervisors Are Informed and Laws Must Be Followed By Everyone-
Even The Gas Industry
Citing insufficient documents by Range, supervisors voted down both
permits based on failures to comply with criteria set forth in municipal codes,
including improper submission of a site plan, failure to demonstrate operations
would comply with noise standards and a lack of answers to board questions.
The board passed
separate, unanimous motions to deny each application.
Before the board made
their decisions, community members on both sides of the issue used the public
comment portion of the meeting to let their stances be known.
Some of the roughly
70 residents packed into the garage of the municipal building, which was used
because it had double the capacity of the regular meeting room, believed
supervisors were unjustly holding up proceedings.
“I’ve been to every meeting
and I keep hearing the same questions,” said Robinson resident John Campbell.
“Why is there a hold up here while in Smith Township everything is working?”
During the meeting,
supervisors went into executive session to discuss lawsuits filed by Range
Resources Jan. 28, alleging Robinson is deliberately refusing to make decisions
regarding the two properties.
Supervisors argued, while they want to make a decision, they couldn’t
ethically do so without the proper documentation from Range.
“Is it your position that if Range doesn’t answer our questions, we
should just approve it anyway?” chairman Brian Coppola asked Campbell.
“It’s not the board’s responsibility to do their work for them. How can we vote
to pass their permit when we don’t have the proper information?”
Township special
legal counsel Jonathan Kamin assured the audience the issue before them was a
specific case of a company not providing proper documentation, not a trial of
the industry.
“It has nothing to do
with if you feel drilling is good or bad,” Kamin said, “but whether it meets
the provisions. It’s not a philosophical question, but whether it meets what’s
in our ordinance.”
One man suggested
some of his fellow residents’ ire was misplaced.
“We’ve had wells
before,” said Neil Matchett of Robinson. “Same board members, same rules. All
of a sudden, things have changed.”
However, Matchett
argued it wasn’t Robinson’s board being obstructionist but rather the energy industry’s reaction to new
Pennsylvania legislation.
“The one thing that changed was Act
13. It seems obvious to me that Range is playing a game … They’ve got new
lawyers and something changed in their philosophy.”
Sandy Ulrich gave an
impassioned plea in defense of Robinson’s supervisors, managers and solicitor.
“How many of you know
Mr. Coppola doesn’t take any salary for his position?” Ulrich asked. “The
legacy of this board (will be) they did their best for the residents of this
township. Don’t let Range tell you any different.”
In
an email sent following the board meeting, Range Resources director of
corporate communications Matt Pitzarella disagreed.
“We’ve
provided all of the necessary information and answered all of the questions
posed during the process just as we did two years ago, but it’s been a half of
a year and the township continues to delay this process indefinitely,”
Pitzarella said. “We’re more than willing to make changes, answer questions or
adjust our schedule to best integrate with a community throughout the process,
just as we do in hundreds of municipalities across the country.”
(Aaron Kendeall / Observer-Reporter)
2. Groups-Including Us-WMCG-
Urge Investigation of EPA Actions in
Texas Water Contamination Case
Go here for the
letter and full list of signatories:
“A Coalition
asks the Inspector General to determine whether political meddling led agency
to drop probe of gas drilling company.
A
coalition of more than 80 organizations
from 12 states and New York state senator Tony Avella today called on the
inspector general of the U.S. EPA to investigate a decision to drop legal
action against a drilling company despite evidence that it had polluted
residents’ well water near Fort Worth, Texas.
The
organizations sent a letter to EPA Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.,
asking him to broaden an ongoing investigation of a case that made national
news last year when the EPA dropped an
enforcement action against Range Resources Ltd. after earlier invoking rare
emergency authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Elkins began
investigating the case after six U.S. senators asked him last June to determine
whether EPA had followed proper procedures.
Associated Press and other news outlets have recently
brought new information to light that raises additional questions about EPA’s
commitment to protecting the public.
The case began in 2010 when EPA found that
Range’s natural gas drilling near Forth Worth had “caused or contributed” to
pollution of residents’ well water with benzene and dangerous levels of methane.
The agency issued an emergency order requiring Range to provide drinking water
to two families and to install meters in their homes to monitor explosion
risks, among other actions.
The drilling industry and other critics
charged that EPA’s decision to drop the case was proof that it had “rushed to
judgment” and that Range had not polluted the families’ water. EPA did not
explain its decision, issuing only a two-sentence statement describing its
withdrawal as an opportunity to work with Range to make drilling safer. The EPA
also withdrew the requirement that Range provide the families with drinking
water.
Last month
(January 2013), the Associated Press
reported that the EPA made its decision even though a 2011 report it
commissioned from an independent scientist had strongly suggested that one of
Range’s natural gas wells was the source of the water contamination. EPA did
not mention that report when it announced its reversal.
The
organizations' letter calls on the inspector general to investigate why the EPA
did not mention the scientist’s analysis, whether the EPA had a scientific
basis for dropping the case against Range and whether the EPA had responded to political pressure, including
recently-disclosed communications from Ed Rendell, former Pennsylvania governor
and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
“We fear
that the EPA has failed in its duty to protect people’s health,” said Paul
Gallay, President of New York-based Riverkeeper. “As a critical decision about
fracking looms in New York state, we are left wondering what science and data
have been kept secret from our experts and decision makers. All eyes are on
Governor Cuomo to protect New Yorkers, and we urge him to take a step back and
see what other information is hidden that could prevent an informed decision.”
“Range Resources went behind-closed-doors
and solicited special favors rather than be a good neighbor to homeowners
whose drinking water was polluted by Range’s drilling,” said Earthworks Energy
Program Director Bruce Baizel. He continued, “The fact they were successful,
calls into question all public oversight of oil and gas development.”
“EPA’s
inexplicable decision to drop the case adds to a growing concern that drilling
regulation is woefully inadequate even as drillers push into more populated
areas from New York to California,” said EWG Senior Counsel Dusty Horwitt. “The
public must have confidence that the EPA is acting to protect our health and
drinking water, not corporate profits.”
Associated
Press reported that Steven Lipsky, whose family EPA identified as having been
affected by the contamination, can light his well water on fire and now pays $1,000
a month to have water delivered.”
CONTACT:
Don Carr at Environmental Working Group, 202-667-6982, don@ewg.org, Alan
Septoff at Earthworks, 202-887-1872 x105, aseptoff@earthworksaction.org or John
Armstrong at Frack Action, 607-220-4632, john@frackaction.org
See item #3 for the full
story of Range-EPA-Rendell ---
3. Former Pa.
Gov. Rendell Involved in EPA – Range-Lipsky Pollution
Case Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter
(This is lengthy but full of important details and explains much about
recent non- enforcement actions of the EPA. jan)
An EPA attorney wrote that Rendell, acting
as a "spokesman for Range," met with Jackson in 2011 and
"proposed certain terms to the administrator." But the case didn't
settle for more than a year after that.
When EPA
and Justice Department officials in Washington, D.C., dropped the case, Range
did not agree to do testing sought by the Texas-based EPA officials. They had
wanted Range to test whether natural gas might be seeping into homes from the
soil, but that was not part of the agreement.
"Range
should ensure that it is not making an explosion hazard at the homes," Al
Armendariz, the Dallas-based EPA regional administrator who brought the case,
wrote during negotiations with Range.
The
messages were included in more than 1,000 pages of emails obtained by EnergyWire in a Freedom of Information Act
request from EPA Region 6.
They offer behind-the-scenes insights in a
case that has come to be seen as a major retreat by the agency amid aggressive
industry push-back and support for natural gas drilling by President Obama.
The emails,
redacted in significant places, do not give any answer as to why settlement
discussions began in the first place. But they deliver a counterpoint, never
publicly offered by the agency itself, to the theory that EPA caved in because
it had a weak case.
For
example, EPA officials grumbled
privately in emails the day the case was withdrawn because state oil and gas
officials at the Texas Railroad Commission
claimed victory over EPA. Commissioner David Porter issued a news release
on the withdrawal that accused Armendariz of having engaged in
"fear-mongering," among other things.
"Hang
in there Al. This [is] just a rant from someone with a myopic view," wrote
Deputy Assistant Administrator Steven Chester, who had played a key role in the
negotiations.
"Al,
this is shameful," wrote EPA Senior Policy Counsel Bob Sussman. "I'm
sorry you must endure this."
But things
went from bad to worse for Armendariz. Less than a month later, Sen. James
Inhofe (R-Okla.), an outspoken supporter of the oil and gas industry and a
critic of Armendariz, released a two-year-old video of Armendariz comparing his
enforcement strategy to Romans who would "crucify" random villagers
in retaliation for resistance. Armendariz resigned within days. He now works
for the Sierra Club in Texas.
First hints of settlement
Armendariz brought the high-profile
case in December 2010 as the Dallas-based director for EPA's Region 6, which includes
Texas and surrounding states.
His emergency order charged that
Range's shale gas wells were leaking methane gas into two homes in the
Silverado subdivision in Parker County, just west of Fort Worth. It also
accused the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas but not
trains, of failing to protect the homeowners in the neighborhood.
Range
denied the accusations then and denies them now. On Monday, Range spokesman
Matt Pitzarella stressed that EPA headquarters officials didn't just settle the
case, they abandoned it.
"We're
pleased that once EPA headquarters became engaged and they reviewed the facts
and science they decided to not settle the case, but to fully withdraw their
order," Pitzarella said. "This is consistent with state regulators
who also determined Range to not cause or contribute to a long-standing,
well-documented matter of naturally occurring methane."
The Railroad Commission exonerated Range
after a January 2011 hearing that EPA and the homeowners declined to attend.
The first hints of settlement came about
two months later, apparently arising out of a discussion between Rendell and
EPA's Jackson. But there had been some confusion. A Justice Department
lawyer assigned to the Range case had originally said the politician involved
was Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.).
But Scott McDonald, chief of the Water
Enforcement Branch in EPA's Office of Regional Counsel, told Armendariz that
Rendell had "proposed certain terms to the Administrator" and said he
was acting as "a spokesman for Range."
Pitzarella
wouldn't confirm any relationship with Rendell and said he was definitely never
hired by the company.
"I
don't know the extent of the governor's involvement in energy-related matters, but he never functioned as a spokesperson
of Range," Pitzarella said.
Work begins
The first
indication of active work on a settlement in the Region 6 emails came in
October 2011, with the case heading toward its one-year anniversary. Armendariz sent an email to Region 6
Enforcement Director John Blevins.
"Since
Range has approached the agency with a thought for improved relationship, you
should re-examine our order," Armendariz wrote. He asked Blevins to look
at which provisions Range had complied with, which ones it hadn't and which
ones EPA should stand firm on and not negotiate.
The discussions picked up rapidly as the Christmas holidays
approached.
Cynthia
Giles, the assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, was prodding the negotiations forward.
On Dec. 20,
2011, Andrew Stewart, chief of the litigation and audit policy branch in
Washington, said Range had been calling Giles' office to ask about the status
of settlement discussions. He said Giles wanted the agency "to explore
settlement with the company over the next few weeks," and he had been
asked to develop proposed settlement terms.
As
officials in Dallas hashed out their response, Blevins pushed for soil-gas sampling near the well to see if gas was
rising into homes from the soil. If high levels of methane were found inside
homes, Range would have to pay to have the homes properly vented.
The focus on soil-gas testing also relates
to another frequent criticism of Armendariz -- that he fretted publicly about
the possibility of the landowners' houses exploding, even though they had
stopped using the water wells in question. If methane was coming up from the
soil into the homes, it could accumulate and cause an explosion.
Blevins also wanted Range to pay to extend
a public water system to the homes in the subdivision. Homeowners would pay
the monthly water bill but would not need to use a well.
Armendariz
wanted Range to deliver water to the residents for another six months while
more data was collected. In suggestions to regional staffers negotiating with
Washington EPA officials, he said the
threat of a penalty should remain on the table if testing showed that Range did
contaminate the aquifer.
Armendariz also said
Range's test results should be posted publicly on the Internet. They weren't. EnergyWire got them
several months after filing a FOIA request (EnergyWire, Jan. 15).
On Dec. 27,
2011, Armendariz outlined a position to take to Washington officials. His
"least preferable" option included settling without requiring Range
to provide water. But EPA would reserve the right to go after Range again with
penalties if testing showed the company had contaminated the aquifer.
To the
public, the case was dormant. The Texas Railroad Commission had weighed in
nearly a year before, but EPA was still pursuing the case in federal court.
Elements of the case were also in federal appeals court.
But
discussions continued
On March
15, 2012, Armendariz was traveling but took a call from Jackson's office to
discuss the Range case.
On March
21, 2012, the Supreme Court took a broad
swipe at EPA's enforcement authority in a Clean Water Act matter commonly known
as the Sackett case. Some have attributed EPA's decision to bail out of the
Range case to its loss in Sackett.
Days after
that, and a week before the case was dropped, Armendariz urged the EPA attorneys in Washington to make Range dial
back its aggressive tactics in related state court fights. It appears to be a
reference to Range's decision to subpoena Sharon Wilson, an Earthworks activist
and blogger who posted items about the case.
"I
would suggest continuing to bring up this issue during upcoming conversations
with Range, highlighting the need for them to make this happen,"
Armendariz wrote.
But seven weeks after EPA dropped the case,
Range sued one of the landowners, Steve Lipsky, in connection with a video
posted on YouTube of flames shooting from a hose connected to his well
(EnergyWire, May 21, 2012).
EPA announced its decision to drop
the case on a Friday, March 30, 2012. In statements, EPA and the Justice
Department said they wanted to shift away from litigation to a "joint
effort" involving more testing. Concurrently, Range agreed to do
groundwater testing, although it was not made a condition of dismissing the
case.
In the
weeks before the case was withdrawn, EPA
had also agreed to retest groundwater in Pavillion, Wyo., that it had deemed
contaminated with hydraulic fracturing fluid and announced that its
high-profile intervention in Dimock, Pa., had yielded benign results. The
three-pronged retreat was a dramatic turn away from what had been an assertive
posture in shale drilling cases.
But the
case didn't end there. Almost a month later, Inhofe circulated the
"crucify" video. At the same time, the senator sent a six-page letter
to Jackson, demanding details about the case. Region 6 was assigned the task of
answering. With an air of finality, Armendariz told his top staffers to get to
work answering the questions.
"There
is no higher priority right now than getting started on this letter,"
Armendariz wrote. "Thanks for all your work. Sorry for
the mess."
Three days
later, on April 29, he resigned.
http://eenews.net/public/energywire/2013/02/05/1
And:
“Yet, as the Associated
Press reported last month, EPA commissioned a report by an independent scientist in
2011 that strongly suggests that one of Range’s natural gas wells was the
source of the water contamination. And Tuesday, EnergyWire reported that, on Range Resources’ behalf, former
Pennsylvania Governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Ed Rendell had
pressured EPA to withdraw its action, which the agency did, despite pleas from
regional staff.
“Based on strong
scientific evidence, multiple EPA staff called for immediate action to protect
homeowners from Range Resources drilling pollution,” said Earthworks’ Energy
Director Bruce Baizel. “To discover that
EPA retreated from protecting the health and safety of homeowners because of
political lobbying calls into question all public oversight of oil and gas
development. If the federal government can’t withstand political pressure
from the oil and gas industry, how can we expect state and local officials to
do the job?”
“EPA told me Range Resources polluted our well with their drilling,”
said Steven Lipsky, one of the affected landowners. “I was shocked when they
withdrew. That’s the kind of behavior I expect from the Texas Railroad
Commission, not the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”
“If industry is
so powerful that it can dictate to the EPA, then who is left to protect the
people?” asked Alyssa Burgin of the Texas Drought Project. She continued,
“The protection of our water supply should be at the fore of the agency’s
responsibilities, without outside influence, industry interference or
regulatory capture
4. More on Steve Lipsky—Where the Texas
Debacle Started
“Parker County homeowner Steve Lipsky, accused
of conspiring against a powerful gas exploration company, is speaking out. A
judge ruled last year that Lipsky misled the public by trying to fool the
public into believing his well water could catch on fire. Now that homeowner
wants the public to hear his story and witness his nightmare for themselves. It all started with a video clip posted on
YouTube. Grainy images from a home video recorder showed Lipsky holding a
garden hose, hooked up to his water well, proving a point.
The aquifer beneath
his house was so polluted with methane, he could light emissions from the
well on fire. The video went viral. EPA
tests have shown that Lipsky's well is contaminated with not only dangerous
levels of methane, but also other cancer-causing toxins such as benzene and
toluene. Lipsky sued Range Resources, but a local judge tossed out the
case, calling the video "deceptive."
5.
Cabot Battle Continues
“A state
Environmental Hearing Board judge has denied Cabot’s motion to throw out a
recently reinstated appeal by two Dimock Twp. families who object to the
state's remedy for their methane-tainted water supplies.
Judge Bernard A. Labuskes Jr.
rejected Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.'s argument that the families had forfeited
their right to appeal by accepting payments that the company had put into escrow
accounts for them. The money had been set aside as part of a DEP order that
required the company to restore or replace 18 damaged water supplies.
The families
have argued that the remedy outlined in the order - payments tied to the value
of their homes and a now-expired offer to install treatment systems - is not
sufficient to permanently replace their water wells and would not remove
contaminants other than methane. Cabot denies that its operations affected the
water supplies.
The two
families, the Elys and Huberts, are the last of 12 that initially appealed the
state's order with Cabot. The others withdrew their hearing board appeals after
they settled a separate lawsuit they brought against the company in federal
court.
The Ely and
Hubert appeals were briefly withdrawn by their former attorneys without their
consent in an "unauthorized, inaccurate, ineffective, and void"
action Judge Labuskes said was made by "attorneys who no longer had [the
families'] interests at heart."
In his ruling
on Friday, Judge Labuskes said "So long as a party is aggrieved by a
Departmental action, it may pursue an appeal, even if its receipt of some
benefits make it less aggrieved than it otherwise might have been," he
wrote.
He also
pointed out that Cabot had committed "very clearly" to the board in
the past that it would not take the position that the families waived their
rights or any claims against the company, including their right to continue
with the appeal, if they accepted the escrow funds.
"Somewhat
remarkably," he wrote, Cabot "has now taken that very position."
In a separate
motion filed last week, Cabot offered
to install effective treatment systems at the homes if the board agreed to stay
or dismiss the appeal and the families agreed to certain conditions, including
not having access to the systems without a Cabot representative present and
signing a confidentiality agreement that bars them from photographing the
system, discussing it with the press or disclosing water sampling results until
after the testing phase of the installation is over.
The families' attorneys have until Tuesday to file their
response to Cabot's motion.
Contact the writer:
llegere@timesshamrock.com
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/hearing-board-judge-lets-dimock-water-appeal-continue-1.1443879
6. Why Were Results of Health Review Not Revealed in New York?
“Three
outside experts assisting New York with a health review of hydraulic fracking
say their work was completed more than a month ago, but the state Health
Department didn’t reveal that during lengthy testimony before lawmakers last week.
UCLA
professor Richard Jackson said his review was completed two months ago and has
been in the hands of the state Department of Health since then,
Lynn Goldman, dean of
George Washington University’s School of Public Health, submitted her last
comments on the review about six weeks ago. The third reviewer, John Adgate of the
Colorado School of Public Health, said all three consultants finished their work
at the same time. Jackson, UCLA
professor, went on to offer significant criticism of the hydrofracking process,
urging the physicians’ group to focus its nationwide efforts on the issue.
“Many of the stories I hear, especially
from Pennsylvania and Colorado, are appalling,” Jackson wrote of large-scale
fracking. “The enormous waste of
natural gas through flaring, for example in Texas and the Dakotas, puts a lie
to the assertion that this is natural gas extraction -- in many places fracking
is done for the ‘distillate’ and the natural gas is turned immediately into CO2
pollution and dumped into the atmosphere.”
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20130208/NEWS11/302080034/Health-consultants-say-they-finished-fracking-review-weeks-ago?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
7. PA Senator Greenleaf
Backs Funding for Health Study
“Dr. Amy
Pare says she has treated workers and residents who think gas drilling has made
them sick. She supports funding for a statewide Marcellus Shale health impact
study.
Suburban
Philadelphia Republican State Sen. Stewart Greenleaf
is working on a bill that would allocate $2 million from the state’s impact fee
fund to study the public health impacts of Marcellus Shale drilling.
Greenleaf
has circulated a memo about the bill, which would amend Act 13, the state’s new
drilling law. Despite attempts by the
state’s public health community, Act 13 passed without funds for a health
registry. A similar bill sponsored by Sen. John Yudichak, a Democrat from
Luzerne County, failed to gain any traction in the last legislative session.
Greenleaf
says knowing any potential health impacts related to drilling is crucial.
“I don’t
think we should be afraid of finding out if there’s a negative impact here,”
Greenleaf told StateImpact. “That doesn’t mean we’re going to shut down
drilling, not at all.”
Act 13
places an impact fee on every natural gas well in the Marcellus Shale
formation. The levy will change from year to year, based on natural gas prices
and the Consumer Price Index. In 2012, the state brought in more than $200
million.
Private health systems, including Geisinger Health Systems, Guthrie Health, and Susquehanna Health have
already begun to research public health impacts of natural gas drilling.
Greenleaf says funds from the impact fee could enhance their efforts.” By Susan Phillips
What You Can Do:
TAKE ACTION!! Money for Health Study- Contact your State Senator (Link to find
addresses are listed at the top of the newsletter)
8. Condensate Is Lethal
Sgt. Larry Kish said the man was unloading condensate — a natural gas liquid
— from the tank of his truck into a holding tank when something went wrong.
He was found near a
spillover of condensate.
. The man was
working for Enterprise Products, which contracted with Burlington Resources, a
subsidiary of ConocoPhillips.
“Hazmat crews from Conoco Phillips
were working on cleaning and containing the hazardous fumes Thursday evening. “
9. EPA Back off Hexavalent
Chromium Regs At Request of Chemical Industry
EPA Advisory Panels Stacked
With Industry Reps
“The
compound, hexavalent chromium, gained infamy in the Oscar-winning film Erin Brockovich, about the legal duel
with Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
More than 70 million Americans drink
traces of chromium every day, according to the Environmental Working Group.
And now,
more than a decade after the film, EPA
scientists cite “clear evidence” that the chemical compound, chromium (VI), can
cause cancer. The federal agency was poised to announce its findings in
2011, a step almost certain to trigger stricter drinking-water standards to
prevent new cancers and deaths.
The
chemical industry’s trade association and chief lobbyist, the American Chemistry Council, urged the EPA to wait for more
research, a common practice to delay action on toxic chemicals. However,
Vincent Cogliano, the soft-spoken head of EPA’s chemical-assessment program,
rebuffed the powerful group, writing in an April 2011 letter that “strong” new
research was already available.
Ten months
later, the EPA reversed itself,
quietly posting a notice on the Internet that it was pushing back the release
of its findings for at least four more years. Environmentalists were stunned at the reason: The agency would wait for
the results of new studies costing $4 million and paid for by the American
Chemistry Council. The EPA decided to wait at the urging of a panel of
scientists chosen to give an unbiased review of the chromium findings. But
the EPA doesn’t vet these scientists directly, instead handing the task over to
outside contractors. An investigation by
the Center for Public Integrity found that several of the panelists had worked
on behalf of PG&E to defend the company in the Brockovich lawsuits.
The story of chromium (VI), full of twists
and turns, offers a case study in how the Obama administration has failed to
shield science at the EPA from industry influence.
Ever since
the brassy Brockovich knocked on doors in Hinkley to organize a class-action
lawsuit, scientists paid by industry have
tried to convince the courts and regulators that chromium (VI) poses no health
risk. Some of those scientists ended up on the panel chosen to review the EPA’s
chromium findings, the Center for Public Integrity found. One of those
scientists was retained by PG&E in the company’s ongoing chromium cleanup
in Hinkley at the same time he was serving on the EPA panel.
Another
scientist who urged the EPA to wait for the American Chemistry Council studies
served as a consultant on those studies.
The issue
of scientists with industry ties serving on special EPA peer review panels goes
beyond chromium. One out of every six
scientists appointed to such panels since Obama took office had been a primary
author of research articles funded by the American Chemistry Council over the
past dozen years.
Law
professor Rena Steinzor, an expert at corporate interference in government
science, said industry hogties scientists at the EPA with a flood of
last-minute research as a way of escaping new regulation. When told that industry-funded scientists were reviewing the EPA’s
findings on hexavalent chromium, she said, “You don’t have to be a rocket
scientist to realize that this is corrupt and unacceptable.”
Three of the five panelists who urged delay had worked on
industry's behalf in the Hinkley court cases.”
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/13/12184/epa-unaware-industry-ties-cancer-review-panel
10. PA Legal Bills Exceed
$550,000 in Shale Drilling Court Case
“With
a state Supreme Court ruling still pending regarding the legality of the
Marcellus Shale gas drilling law passed last year, billing documents show that
the case already has cost the commonwealth more than $550,000.
Those costs
stem from hiring an outside legal firm, Philadelphia-based Conrad O'Brien, to
represent the state DEP and the PUC in the lawsuit brought by a group of Western
Pennsylvania towns.
The two
agencies have split the cost of those attorney fees, which already have
surpassed the $150,000 that the PUC had allocated for legal services out of its
$1 million share of last year's shale impact fees.
The state's
costs dwarf those reported by the municipalities involved, which have not been
charged by the attorneys representing them in the appellate courtrooms.
Local
officials from seven municipalities, along with a Monroeville doctor and
members of the Delaware Riverkeepers Network, sued the state in March over the
shale drilling law, which they argued hinders their abilities to protect
residents through the law's restrictions on how they craft local zoning rules.”
Read
more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/marcellusshale/pa-legal-bills-exceed-550000-in-dispute-over-shale-drilling-law-674267/#ixzz2Kkbl5O9Z
11. Northern PA Counties Top
State List of Marcellus Air Pollution
Gas Operations are Now Big Sources of
Pollution in Rural Areas
“Bradford
and Susquehanna counties led the state in the volume of air pollution released
by companies producing and processing gas from the Marcellus Shale in 2011,
according to data published this week by the DEP. The Northern Tier counties ranked first and second in nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides and total shale-related air pollution tallied in
the first-ever statewide inventory of the industry's emissions. They ranked second and third after Washington County for emissions of volatile organic compounds.
Allen L. Robinson, Ph.D., a professor in Carnegie Mellon University's
mechanical engineering department said drilling-related pollution is
significant in aggregate and in rural pockets without established air pollution
sources. "For rural counties that don't
have a few big coal-fired power plants, this is going to be the big
source" of some pollutants, he said.
The data also show that Marcellus
Shale operations are now significant
emitters in rural counties with few other so-called point sources of air pollution.
The 2,600 tons of shale-related nitrogen oxides emitted in Bradford County in
2011 dwarfed the 235 tons of NOx pollution emitted from all other facilities in
the county that year, according to DEP data. And without the 2,440 tons of
shale-related NOx emissions in Susquehanna County, DEP's facility emissions
report for the county includes just one source: a compressor station on the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline that emitted 17 tons of NOx in 2011. The combined
shale-related nitrogen oxide emissions
in Bradford and Susquehanna counties - 5,000 tons - are nearly a third of
the statewide shale-related NOx of 16,500 tons. Both together and separately, they surpass the single-largest industrial
source of NOx pollution in the 11-county northeast region, GenOn Energy's
Portland Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant in Northampton County
that emitted 2,000 tons of NOx in 2011, according to DEP facility reports.”
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/northern-tier-counties-top-state-list-of-marcellus-air-pollution-1.1444316
12. Open Letter From
Reporter Amanda Gillooly
Why Did an Energy- In- Depth Staffer Post a
Blog for a Cecil Resident? (Energy in depth is funded by the industry, jan)
Letter Written by Journalist Amanda Gillooly
Dear
Energy In Depth,
I'll just put my cards out on
the table here: I don't know what kind of unit you're running over there.
First off, and by way of
background for those unfamiliar with your operations: I understand that my
website and yours are different. Mine is journalism-based. And as a reporter
who has worked for a laundry list of newspapers over the years, I can tell you
that accuracy, objectivity and fairness are cornerstones of every one of those
organizations.
Second: While yours might be a
site that is funded by the Marcellus Shale industry, your "about us"
section indicates that you folks have some high standards.
Let
me quote, if I may:
"Launched in April 2011,
the Northeast Marcellus Initiative is a natural gas industry funded
organization that serves as the eyes and ears (as well as arms, legs and heart)
of the EID coalition in the region—and the catalyst for a campaign that seeks
to engage, educate and mobilize supporters of responsible resource development
throughout northeastern Pennsylvania and the southern tier of New York."
I got caught up on the word
"educate," guys.
And here's why: I received a blog entry titled,
"Washington County Resident Speaks up in Support of Natural Gas."
Because I, too, want to educate
my readers on issues of importance (and we all know that Marcellus Shale
drilling in this area has been polarizing), I ran the blog on the
subject—especially since the name of the
woman reportedly writing the story, Janice Gibbs, is a known name in Cecil
Township.
I thought people would be able
to hear first-hand why a woman in our area would support the natural gas
industry.
But upon looking further, the user name associated with the blog was
not Ms. Gibbs—it was from Joseph Massaro, who is a field director for Energy In
Depth's Northeast Marcellus Initiative.
And
the person who posted the blog was apparently not even a Washington County, or
Pennsylvania resident.
Mr.
Massaro actually is from New York, according to his bio located here.
I
would think that an organization that seeks to educate the public would do so
in a more transparent manner.
And I wanted you to know
personally that was the reason why the
blog was removed—because I don't want to pass off what could be the writing of
an industry-paid field director as something that was composed by a local
concerned resident.
I'd like to add that various
comments on my stories from Tom Shepstone, your campaign director, had been
removed because the gentleman would post links to his own stories in the
comments section—despite the fact that they were often off subject.
Mr. Shepstone: In MY industry,
that would be the same as me posting a link to my stories under those written
by the Observer-Reporter or Almanac on their sites. It just doesn't happen.
That all said, I would like to ask why a staffer for your organization
is posting as or for a Washington County resident, yet using his Energy In
Depth email.
You may comment directly on this
story so we are all on the same page—because I don't understand why, if Ms.
Gibbs wrote the story, she was not the one to post it.
Also:
I have included screen shots to show what happened. Take a look at the attached
files.
Sincerely,
Amanda Gillooly, editor of
the Canon-McMillan Patch
PS
- This question goes out to Mr. Massaro personally: You commented on a story
that appeared on my website last week that Energy In Depth just put two people
"on the ground" in our area. What exactly are their responsibilities?”
13. Investors Push Back on Environmental
Effects of Fracking
“An investor network representing $11 trillion
of assets under management announced today that is has filed shareholder
resolutions with nine leading oil and gas companies seeking greater
transparency on how they manage the environmental risks of their fracking
operations. Among the filers are New York City and New York state. The move
signals a growing movement among investors to use their equity stakes to
influence extractive companies' environmental impact. This mirrors similar
tightening in legislation, and some companies will be better equipped to
respond to this shifting landscape than others.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant
The problem
is, we really don't know much about how companies are managing fracking's
environmental risks. They're not really talking.
Investors in Ceres' Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR)
are trying hard to change this situation. They're
pushing oil and gas companies to report on environmental risks and limit
methane emissions from fracking operations. The investors' concerns relate to
companies' water management, toxic chemical disclosure, greenhouse gas
emissions, and other community impacts. The INCR wants the nine targeted
companies to disclose critical information about how they manage and measure
these risks.
The shareholders have filed resolutions
with Cabot Oil & Gas, Chevron, ExxonMobil, EOG Resources, ONEOK, Pioneer
Natural Resources, Spectra Energy (NYSE: SE
) , Range Resources, and Ultra Petroleum (NYSE: UPL ) , challenging these companies to
quantifiably measure and reduce environmental and societal impacts.
"Now is the time for
companies to measure up – literally," said Leslie Samuelrich, senior vice
president of Green Century Capital Management, which filed with EOG Resources
and Ultra Petroleum and coordinates a shareholder campaign on fracking with The
Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN). "Transparency is the first
step, but oil and gas companies must now implement quantifiable plans to reduce
the impact of their operations on the environment.
Apache uses
a multiwall drilling method that allows it to minimize surface environmental
impact at its sites, and often replaces non-biodegradable biocides with less
harmful chemicals. Southwestern has a strong approach to ensuring well
integrity, and has substantially reduced methane emissions since 2006. Talisman
has a water management strategy that defines best practices for water
withdrawal, reuse, disposal, and conservation, and has a better-defined
stakeholder consultation strategy for new drilling sites than many of its
peers.
The majority of the shareholder resolutions "focus on quantitative risk reporting,
urging companies to issue reports including specific data such as the number or
percentage of 'green completions' and other low-cost emission reduction measures;
quantifying the sources and amount of water used for shale energy operations by
region; systems to track and manage naturally occurring radioactive materials;
the extent to which closed-loop systems for management of drilling residuals
are used; and the numbers of community complaints or grievances and portion
open or closed."
"Given the high short-term climate
impact of methane emissions, it is now an open question whether natural gas can
serve as a bridge fuel to a more sustainable energy future," said Natasha
Lamb, vice president of shareholder advocacy and corporate engagement at
Trillium Asset Management, which filed the methane resolutions. "Companies
can and should reduce their emissions using new technologies with positive
return on investment."
Bottom line
With every passing year,
shareholder resolutions related to climate change are winning increasing
support. Couple that trend with public opposition to fracking and increasing
regulatory involvement in companies' environmental risk management, and you
have major pressure building on the oil and gas sector. I've included some of
the best and worst performers in this article. Investors can also use the
factors outlined in the "Extracting the Facts" report as a guideline.
My bet is that companies that get ahead of these issues will benefit in
the long run.”
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02/05/investors-push-back-on-fracking.aspx
14. The Surprising
Connection Between Food and Fracking
“In a recent Nation piece, the
wonderful Elizabeth Royte teased out the direct links between fracking, and the
food supply. In short, extracting natural gas from rock formations by
bombarding them with chemical-spiked fluid leaves behind fouled water—and that
fouled water can make it into the crops and animals we eat.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/01/foodfracking-connection-youve-never-thought-about
The original Nation article: Fracking our Food
Supply
15. PA Jobs Numbers Poor Despite Drilling-
John Hangar
Changes His Tune
By Deborah Rogers
“A run for
public office is just the sort of theatrical venue that is not only
entertaining but also enlightening because all sorts of facts and figures begin
to emerge which blatantly contradict prior statements and positions of the
candidates. Self-interest can be a wonderful segue to the truth.
Much has been claimed by the oil and
gas industry with regard to job creation from shale development. It has been stated repeatedly that as many
as 600,000 jobs will be generated by shale production. But these numbers are
based on economic models which, when assessed, were found to include jobs such
as strippers and prostitutes in the mix. Arguably this is job creation,
just not the sort that most Americans would prefer to acknowledge. Or indeed
create.
In September 2008, Mr. Hanger stated during
House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee Testimony:
“Developing [Marcellus] resources not
only will build on our continuing efforts to develop more homegrown energy
resources that are cleaner and better for the environment, but also could lead to billions of dollars in new economic investment
for Pennsylvania’s communities, as well as tens of thousands of new jobs.”
Four years later, in July 2012, Mr.
Hanger was still publicly proclaiming the job creation benefits of shale. He
stated in a blog post which was subsequently promoted by industry:
“Low natural gas prices and the gas boom are creating
desperately needed jobs directly and indirectly.”
In December 2012, Mr. Hanger gave
another glowing endorsement of yet another shale gas report commissioned and
paid for by the oil and gas industry. Mr. Hanger stated:
“IHS Global Insight finds that shale gas development has
created 103,000 jobs in Pennsylvania…The Commonwealth ranks second in shale gas
jobs, behind Texas, according to the IHS new report that was funded in part by
the oil and gas industry.”
And
then Mr. Hanger, the candidate, emerged. Suddenly, it was admitted:
“Pennsylvania needs
more than 6 million jobs to be at full employment, and so, if the IHS report is
near the mark, the gas industry is providing less than 2% of the jobs
Pennsylvania needs.”
And a few more lines
down, Mr. Hanger admits:
“Since
January 2011, Pennsylvania has the worse job performance of any state with a
major oil and gas boom.”
Humorously, by January, 2013, Mr. Hanger the candidate had found his scapegoat:
“[Governor Corbett's]
failure is also rooted in a mistaken belief that gas drilling and gas
production alone can bring Pennsylvania a broad prosperity. .. Pennsylvania
requires approximately 6.5 million jobs to be at full employment. Counting
direct and indirect jobs created by gas drilling, gas drilling provides less
than 2% of the jobs needed.”
Imagine that! You gotta love politics!
Hyperbole about jobs creation has become all too
familiar in the shale gas debate. It provides, of course, much (appreciated)
political cover for elected officials. It sounds good to constituents too…until
they find out about the strippers et al. But more careful consideration should
be paid to such statements for the following reason. Taking Mr. Hanger’s
position as an example, a position which has spanned a number of years, one can
now see the obvious admissions and faulty reckoning upon which policy has been
based:
Admission
1: When it was convenient, Mr. Hanger relied on job reports commissioned and
paid for by the oil and gas industry which possessed an inherent bias. Industry
stood to gain monetarily, therefore numbers were almost certainly inflated.
Admission
2: Mr. Hanger chose to rely upon a priori arguments from industry based on
spurious economic models. What is truly interesting about this, however, is
that in these models all direct and indirect jobs claimed, in spite of probable
exaggeration, only account for less than 2% of the needed jobs for the State of
Pennsylvania. Ergo, gas drilling was never going to make much of a difference
in Pennsylvania’s employment rate.
Admission
3: Unemployment is growing in Pennsylvania in spite of its self-proclaimed
“booming” Marcellus shale production. Ah, now we get to the a posteriori
argument based on fact rather than theory.
Admission
4: “Pennsylvania has the worse job performance of any state with a major oil
and gas boom”.
If
only for this reason, politics is useful. Self-interest finally reveals the
real jobs numbers after all these years. Too bad that so much poor policy has
been put into place in the meantime. I wonder if we can count on Mr. Hanger to
reverse such policy if he gets in office.
Renowned
Expert
Deborah
Rodgers
founder
Energy Policy Forum
(www.EnergyPolicyForum.org)
"I
have never seen an investment more hyped than shale gas," says Deborah
Rogers, who brings both financial & business experience to her shale gas
industry analysis.
She
has worked as a consultant for major Wall Street firms including Merrill Lynch
& Smith Barney.
Ms. Rogers was appointed as a primary member
to the U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (USEITI) for the
Department of Interior in 2013.
Letter to the Editor by Bob Schmetzer
Fracking for natural gas is sold to the public as the
cornerstone of our ongoing efforts for green energy. However, that industry is
responsible for poisoning the environment and the people who are depending on
that environment for their health, safety, and welfare.
Fracking is
not only not green, but also unethical. The potential for water, air and land
pollution is a phenomenon that is being widely documented. In 2012,
Pennsylvania state government passed Act 13. Basically, it defies intelligence
and the law. Example: Toxic industrial zones are not open to build housing,
restaurants, or farming due to the toxic nature of that land. Yet, Act 13
allows a toxic industrial industry to move into these protected zones.
No studies have been taken to monitor public safety until
damage is done. Then when the courts settle the damages, the results are hidden
from public review. Industry pays off victims and moves on. The change needed
is to be proactive and aware.
Bob Schmetzer
South Heights
This is what drilling brings
to SW PA communities-
Mark West Cyrogenic Plant, Houston PA (from Bob)
-Mark West Plant in Houston Plant
Excerpt
from Pa. DEP Plan Approval dated October 4, 2012:
This is a major Title V facility for CO and greenhouse gas
emissions and as such, actual emissions
may equal or exceed the following in any consecutive 12-month period:
100.0 tons of CO (CARBON MONOXIDE)
100,000 tons of CO2e (CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENT)
100.0 tons of CO2 (CARBON DIOXIDE)
100.0 tons of CH4 (METHANE)
This is
a natural minor facility with respect to all remaining pollutants and as such,
actual emissions cannot equal or exceed the following in any
consecutive 12-month period:
100.0 tons of NOx (NITROGEN OXIDES)
100.0 tons of SOx (SULFUR OXIDES)
100.0 tons of PM-10 (PARTICULATE MATTER < 10 MICRONS)
50.0 tons of VOC (VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS)
10.0 tons of a SINGLE HAP (HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT)
25.0 tons of ALL HAP COMBINED
Westmoreland
Marcellus Citizen’s Group—Mission
Statement
To raise the public’s general awareness and
understanding of the impacts of Marcellus drilling on the natural environment,
health, and long-term economies of local communities.
Officers: President-Jan
Milburn
Treasurer-Wanda
Guthrie
Secretary-Ron Nordstrom
Facebook
Coordinator-Elizabeth Nordstrom
Blogsite –April
Jackman
Science
Subcommittee-Dr. Cynthia Walter
To receive our news updates, please email jan at janjackmil@yahoo.com
To remove your name from our list, please put “remove name from list’
in the subject line
