Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’
Group Updates
January 16, 2014
* 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/
* Our email address: westmcg@gmail.com
*
To discuss candidates: http://www.facebook.com/groups/VoteProEarth/
* To contact your state
legislator:
For the email address, click on the envelope
under the photo
* For information on PA state gas legislation
and local control: http://pajustpowers.org/aboutthebills.html-
WMCG
Thank You
* Thank you to contributors to our Updates: Debbie Borowiec, Lou
Pochet, Ron Gulla, Marian Szmyd, Bob Donnan, Gloria Forouzan, Elizabeth Donahue,
and Bob Schmetzer.
Donations- Our
Sincere Thanks For Your Support!
Mike
Atherton and Cynthia Walter
The
Marc Levine family
The
Paluselli family
Jan
Kiefer
Annie
Macdougall
Mary
Steisslinger
Calendar
*** WMCG Meeting We meet the second Tuesday of every month at
7:30 PM in Greensburg. Jan 14. Email Jan
for directions. All are very welcome to attend.
*** Public
Hearings On Oil/Gas Regs The public hearings will be held at 6 p.m. A
list of locations and dates follows: (I copied those in our area. Jan)
Washington County
Jan. 22, 2014, Washington
and Jefferson College’s Rossin Campus Center / Allen Ballroom, 60 South Lincoln Street,
Washington, PA 15301
Indiana County
Jan. 23, 2014, Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s Convention and Athletic Complex,
711 Pratt Drive, Indiana, PA 15705
CONTACT:
Lisa Kasianowitz, Department
of Environmental Protection
717-787-1323
(Also see article #1 under Take Action!)
Take Action!!
***As always letters to the editor are
important and one of the best ways to share information with the public. ***
1. Please Comment On Proposed Oil and Gas Regs
This is our only chance to
comment on the regulation that regulates frack pits, potentially radioactive drill cuttings, frack
flowback, and protection of water in general. Jan
Environmental Quality Board Will Hold Public Hearings
Harrisburg –DEP and the Environmental Quality Board
announced that the public comment period for a proposed regulation for
environmental protection performance standards associated with oil and gas
activities will open on Saturday, Dec. 14.
The
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is a
20-member independent board chaired by the Secretary of DEP that adopts all of
the department’s regulations and considers petitions to change regulations.
During the public comment period, the EQB will be hosting seven public hearings
across Pennsylvania and offer multiple ways to submit comments.
“Public
participation is a key part to forging the best regulations possible,” DEP
Secretary Chris Abruzzo said. “An exceptional number of hearings are being
offered by the EQB to gather information and to be sure that people’s voices
are heard.”
The proposed regulation implements key
provisions of Act 13 of 2012, including further consideration of impacts to
public resources, such as parks and wildlife areas; the prevention of spills;
the management of waste; and the restoration of well sites after drilling.
Additionally,
the draft rulemaking also includes standards affecting the construction of
gathering lines and temporary pipelines, and includes provisions for
identifying and monitoring abandoned wells close to proposed well sites.
Public
Hearings
People wishing to present verbal testimony at a
hearing are requested to contact the EQB at least one week in advance of the
hearing to reserve a time. Those who wish to present testimony at the hearing
may use the address below or call the EQB at 717-787-4526 to reserve
time to testify. All relevant written and oral comments that are received at a
public hearing will be considered when finalizing the regulation.
Witnesses are
limited to five minutes of testimony and are requested to submit three written
copies of their testimony to the hearing chairperson at the
hearing. Organizations
are limited to designating one witness to present testimony on
their behalf at each hearing.
Online Comments
The
public is being invited to submit comments to the EQB regarding the proposed
rulemaking by Feb. 12, 2014. Along with their comments, people can
submit a one-page summary of their comments to the EQB. Comments, including the
one page summary, may be submitted to EQB by accessing the EQB’s Online Public
Comment System at http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/RegComments.
Written Comments
Written
comments and summaries should be mailed to Environmental Quality Board, P.O.
Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477.
The summaries and a formal comment and
response document will be distributed to the EQB and available publicly prior
to the meeting when the final rulemaking will be considered.
Email Comments
People
can also submit comments to RegComments@pa.gov.
Online and email comments must also be received by the EQB on or before
Feb. 12. If an acknowledgement of
comments submitted online or by email is not received by the sender within two
business days, the comments should be re-sent to the EQB to ensure receipt.
For
more information or to register for DEP’s Informational webinars, visit
www.dep.state.pa.us, keyword: Webinars. After registration, an email will be
sent containing a link to the webinar. The webinar will be recorded and posted
on the Oil and Gas webinars webpage for future viewing.
To view materials for the proposed regulation,
visit www.dep.state.pa.us and click the “Proposed Oil and Gas Regulations”
button.
Media Contact: Lisa Kasianowitz, DEP, 717-787-1323
Editor’s Note: The
public hearings will be held at 6 p.m. A list of locations and dates follows:
(I copied those in our area. Jan)
Washington County
Jan. 22, 2014, Washington and Jefferson
College’s Rossin Campus Center / Allen Ballroom, 60 South Lincoln Street,
Washington, PA 15301
Indiana County
Jan. 23, 2014, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania’s Convention and Athletic Complex, 711 Pratt Drive, Indiana, PA
15705
CONTACT:
Lisa
Kasianowitz, Department of Environmental Protection
717-787-1323
Take
3 copies of your statement
Proposed
Regs:
Everyone
Must Do This To Have An Impact
We have more wells going
in every day. I receive, on average, a call a week from a distraught area
resident whose neighbor sold out. PA doesn't have a moratorium like more
cautious states, so these regs are critical. Zoning can help to restrict the
placement of gas operations but not the "how they operate " aspect.
If fracking occurs anywhere near you, this is the law that governs much of that
process.
Please testify if you
can. Send in your comments if you cannot. The PA
oil gas regs were never meant to regulate fracking. They were written for
shallow gas wells and do not protect the public. Below are comments sent out by
Sierra Allegheny Group. You can rephrase and add your thoughts to send in a
statement of your concerns. jan
Writing Your
Comments --Testify/ Send Comments
From
Sierra Club
Are
you concerned about impacts to water supplies, open pits and wastewater
impoundments, or radioactivity from oil and gas operations? Tell the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB)!
Your written statements can
be longer than 5 minute summary
The
EQB is holding seven hearings in January to gather public input on their
proposed oil and gas regulations.
We
urge you to attend the one nearest you and tell EQB that:
*Water
supplies should be restored to Safe Drinking Water standards at a MINIMUM
*DEP
should proactively establish standards for pre-drill testing
*DEP
should NOT allow the storage of wastewater in open pits or impoundments
*DEP
should require drill cuttings to be tested for radioactivity
Click
here for a full list of dates, locations and to RSVP.
Initial Talking Points on proposed Chapter 78 regulations
*Water
Supplies should be restored to Equal or Better Condition (Section 78.51)
A resident
whose water supply has been affected by drilling should receive water he can
drink safely. Act 13 (the new Oil and Gas Act) established a provision that
specifies a restored or replaced water supplies must meet the standards in the
Pennsylvania Safe Drinking Water Act or be comparable to the quality of the
water supply before it was affected, if that water was of a higher quality than
those standards. It is clear that legislators intended the person affected to
have safe drinking water and to be in a condition no worse than before drilling
began.
Providing
safe drinking water is the minimum that this regulation should require and it should
not be "watered down" by changes.
*Pre-Drilling
Water Testing should be comprehensive (Section 78.52)
The
pre-drill testing of water quality at a residence is a way of establishing a
baseline of water quality and for determining one water quality has not been
affected by drilling. One or more tests may be needed to establish this
baseline. The proposed regulation does not specify the parameters for the
pre-drill test of a resident's water quality. A driller may conduct a test
which would not include many of the contaminants (such as dissolved methane
gas, BTEX, barium, bromide, chloride, strontium) for which a resident should be
concerned. DEP needs to be proactive and to establish standards for pre-drill
testing.
*Open pits
are not the best practice for storing wastewater and should be prohibited
(Section 78.56)
DEP
regulations continue to allow the storage of wastewater in open pits or
impoundments. The potential for contamination associated with using pits has
led major companies to adopt operation policies that aim to transition away
from pits and standardize the use of closed loop systems based on tanks. Recent
legislation in Illinois took a similar approach by requiring that hydraulic
fracturing fluid, hydraulic fracturing flowback, and produced water at well
sites be stored in above-ground tanks during all phases of drilling. Tanks
should be used for temporary storage. Unless a backup system for containing
leaks is installed (secondary containment) and unless these tanks are
constantly monitored, pollution of adjacent streams can still occur.
*Drill
Cutting need to be tested for radioactivity (Section 78.61)
The
Marcellus is different from other shale formations in that it is highly
enriched with naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Radiation levels
in the Marcellus may vary widely from region to region and even from well to
well. Newspapers have reported instances where drilling cutting waste has set
off radioactivity alarms at waste landfills. Scientists, academics, and public
health officials have long advocated that cuttings from horizontal wells in the
Marcellus should be tested before choosing a disposal option --and in most
cases disposal should occur at low-level radiological waste disposal sites.
*Residual
waste disposal on roads and land is not a beneficial use (Section78.70)
The disposal
of residual waste from gas and oil development is fraught with problems.
Byproduct wastes can pollute waterways and landscapes in a more significant
manner than other residual wastes. The proposed rules allow the spreading of
wastewater ("brine") from conventional wells on roads, but not from
Marcellus wells. DEP regulations do not
ensure that land spreading do not result in contamination of soil, vegetation,
and groundwater, particularly near drinking water supplies, streams, and
rivers.
*Potential
stray gas migration is not addressed by the proposed rules (Section 78.52a and
Section 78.73)
Stray gas
migration has been and continues to be a major problem in the gas fields of
Pennsylvania. Old unplugged and abandoned wells are a source of gas which
migrates. The proposed rules are not consistent with STRONGER’s (an independent
review group) recommendation to eliminate potential pathways for fluid movement
into groundwater before conducting hydraulic fracturing operations. The
proposed rules for pre-fracking surveys require no on-site inspections and
assessments for the purposes of identification of orphaned or abandoned wells
prior to drilling. Only a "paper" review of maps and questionnaires
is required.
Sierra Club
Pennsylvania Chapter · PO Box 606 · Harrisburg PA 17108 717-232-0101 · (F)
717-238-6330 · pennsylvania.chapter@sierraclub.org
2. Disnney Pulls out of Education Propaganda---Thanks to all
Who Signed the Petition
After hearing from more than 100,000 parents and concerned citizens like
you, Radio Disney has pulled out of "Rocking in Ohio," which
promoted fossil fuels to kids in school in a song and game filled roadshow.
This is an important victory. But Disney runs science education programs
in schools across the country. So it isn’t enough for them to just pull out of
"Rocking in Ohio" — they need to commit to not promote fossil fuels
in any of their science and energy outreach to schools and kids.
Now is a key moment to share the news and to let Radio Disney know they
need to publicly promise to support kid-safe, climate-safe energy!
16
3.
Using Acid Mine Drainage --The Vote on
411-
411 Passed appropriations committee
****Call Senators to tell them to vote no
“
Immunity
to polluters? Corporations profiting from selling contaminated water? Scary
though it may be, that's what a bill moving through the Pennsylvania Senate would
have in store for our state--the bill that
would grant polluters immunity from lawsuits and damage claims.
Were
this bill to be passed, corporations could withdraw contaminated water from
abandoned mines. They wouldn't be required to treat the water before selling it
to firms for other uses, like fracking. And, they'd be granted immunity from
all legal recourse and damages claims. This law helps polluting corporations and hurts
Pennsylvanians. Help us kill it by taking action today.
In
the past, only watershed conservation groups who were dealing with polluted
water were granted these immunities. But now, corporations intend to profit by
taking dangerous substances and selling them for dirty practices such as
fracking.
This destructive bill almost came to a vote at the end of 2013.
With the legislature back in action this week, you can bet our opponents will
try again to push this bill through. We need you to tell your State Senator now that you oppose
the bill.
Send an email now to make sure that companies don't get to profit
off of pollution:
https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=1031
Thanks for taking action, Sam Bernhardt,
Pennsylvania
Organizer
Food & Water Watch
Senate Appropriations Committee Vote on SB411, approved 16-9:
NO votes: Ferlo, Greenleaf, Mensch, Rafferty, Schwenck, Tomlinson,
Vance, Costa, Washington.
YES votes: Argall, Baker, Blake, Brubaker, Farnese, Gordner, Solobay,
Smucker, Vogel, Vance, Vulakovich, Wozniak, Yudichak, Pileggi, Scarnati, Hughes.
Frack Links
***Concerned about the air quality in your community related to
drilling—Speaker Available
Southwestern Pennsylvania Environmental
Health Project will provide a professional speaker if you host a community
meeting. “Tyler Rubright is available throughout the next couple of weeks to
come to meetings and present and/or help to facilitate and answer any
questions.”
Contact Jessa
Chabeau
***Energy Industry Runs Roughshod Over North
Dakota-Video
Rachel Maddow reports on recent oil disasters in North Dakota and how
accountability is sacrificed for fear of discouraging energy industry. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/energy-industry-runs-roughshod-over-nd-105687108001/www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/energy-industry-runs-roughshod-over-nd-105687108001
***WTAE- Societal
Effects Of Gas Industry (Some notes by jan): “Many gas industry workers are not
local people but are from out of state. There have been increased criminal
cases and abuse problems, and housing has become unaffordable especially for
low-income families. In Greene County, the influx of workers spiked housing
costs--a $350 apartment may now be $700. Greene has had the highest peak in
protection from abuse orders in more than a decade. Nearby counties had similar
increases. The Washington County DA notes a steady increase of 700 criminal
cases each year since the industry arrived 5 years ago. He attributes this to a
rise in drug abuse and also more people coming in from the oil and gas
industry.
In West Virginia (Ohio County),
calls for emergency service nearly doubled. Larceny increased more than 50% and
criminal citations more than quadrupled. During the same period in Green
County, larceny climbed 50% and Fayette County drug abuse violations by 20%. In
Westmoreland County curfew and loitering increased by 55%. Two out-of-state
industry workers were recently charged with murder in the beating death of a Wheeling
Jesuit University athlete. No one is tracking whether it is oil and gas workers
who have led to these increases. However, in Bradford County, the DA does say
they see a 40% increase in criminal cases mostly due to the gas industry.
Bradford County has asked a Senate committee for more state police resources
To view the video:
***Video: Hidden Financial Dangers of Fracking-- 16-25 % drop in Property Value--Two
Studies cited in the video: Property values drop if you have a water well and
live within 1 km of a gas well, property values drop by 16%: Denver study if you live near a well values
drop by 25%.
Reuters recently
told the story of one Los Angeles man who blames Freeport McMoRan (NYSE: FCX) for the fact that his property's
value has plummeted, leaving him unable to sell his house for anything near
what he bought it for. Brian Stoffel
discusses how those who hold out are being hurt, and what they are threatening
to do. Lawsuits are being filed by affected landowners.
***To sign up for notifications of activity and violations for your area:
*** List of the Harmed--There are now
over 1600 residents of Pennsylvania who have placed their names on the list of
the harmed when they became sick after fracking began in their area. http://pennsylvaniaallianceforcleanwaterandair.wordpress.com/the-list/
*** Link to the
Duquesne Seminar:
Mediasite presentation -- Facing the
Challenges Conference, Duquesne University, November 2013
List of Presentations:
Bain - Establishing a Water Chemistry
Baseline for Southwest Pennsylvania: The Ten Mile Creek Case
Bamberger,
Oswald - Impacts of gas drilling on human and animal health: updates
Boufadel
- The potential for air migration during pneumatic drilling: Recommendations
for best performance
Brittingham
- The effects of shale gas development on forest landscapes and ecosystems
Brown
- Understanding exposures from natural gas drilling puts current air standards
to the test
Capo,
Stewart - Isotopic signatures as tracers for shale gas fluids
Christopherson
- Why local governments take action in response to shale gas development
Collins
- Regulatory structures for reuse and disposal of shale gas wastewater
Drohan
- How fracking technology is changing landscapes compared to past resource
extraction disturbance
Grant
- Marcellus shale and mercury: assessing impacts on aquatic ecosystems
Howarth
- Shale gas aggravates global warming
Ingraffea
- A statistical analysis of leakage from Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania
Jackson
- Water interactions with shale gas extraction
Jansa
- Gas Rush Stories
Kelso,
Malone - Data inconsistencies from states with unconventional oil and gas
activity
Porter
- Impact of Marcellus activities on salamanders and fish populations in the Ten
Mile Creek watershed
Rabinowitz
- Health complaints, water quality indicators, and proximity to gas wells in
Washington County PA
Robinson
- Air Quality and Climate Issues with Natural Gas Development and Production
Stolz
- The Woodlands: a case study of well water contamination related to
unconventional shale gas extraction
Stout
- Wheeling, West Virginia Experience with Frackwater: What
"Brinewater" and "Residual Waste" Trucks are Really
Carrying
VanBriesen
- Challenges in assessing effects of shale gas produced water on drinking water
treatment plants
Ward
- Measuring the human and social service impacts of natural gas development
Ziemkiewicz
- What does monitoring in the three rivers tell us about the effects of shale
gas development?
Fracking News
1. The Act 13 Defeat
“Local governments
argued that drilling was an industrial activity that should be subject to reasonable
zoning. That view was upheld.
The plaintiffs who
brought the case did not seek to overturn the entire law, said Jordan B.
Yeager, a Doylestown environmental lawyer who represented several
municipalities.
"That's not
something we asked for," he said.
"I think it
would be a mistake for municipalities to do whatever they want to do with oil
and gas," Pifer said. "There still are restrictions."
For the short term, the ruling has created much uncertainty.
Anti-drilling activists are likely to pressure the 60 percent of Pennsylvania
municipalities that don't have zoning laws to enact them.
"Where this
goes is up to the municipalities," said Blaine A. Lucas, a gas-industry
lawyer for the Pittsburgh law firm of Babst Calland. "How are they going to
react to this? To be more restrictive?"
Chief Justice Ronald
D. Castille's opinion said the Act 13 zoning restrictions violated the state's
duties to protect public natural resources under the "Environmental Rights
Amendment," an Earth Day-era law that guarantees Pennsylvanians' access to
clean air and water.” http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20140112_Court_decision_may_have_big_impact_on_drilling.html
2. Legal scholar:
"Inconceivable" That New Corbett Legal Tactic Will Succeed
“In a
statement, Corbett general counsel James D. Schultz said "[T]oday's
request for reconsideration seeks to give Act 13 its fair day in court."
Castille's opinion, he added,
"made its own sweeping factual findings ... none of which finds any
support in the sparse and uneven factual record" in the case.
Jonathan Kamin, one of the attorneys won the case, counters
that if the factual record was uneven, the state only has itself to blame. "Everyone agreed to an expedited
trial and argument schedule, and they are the ones who requested that"
Kamin says. His clients, he adds, did include affidavits and reports
documenting concerns about fracking's environmental impact -- all to help prove
that Act 13's industry-friendly approach to fracking violated the state's Environmental
Protection Amendment. (The amendment, passed in 1971 asserts that
Pennsylvanians "have a right to clean air, pure water, and ... the
natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment.") But the state's legal strategy largely
bypassed that evidence, Kamin says, focusing on legal issues like court
precedents limiting the Amendment's applicability.
In the end, Castille accepted the
environmentalists' more expansive interpretation of the amendment, to the
surprise of many -- Corbett's lawyers perhaps most of all. But "it's funny that now they're saying there wasn't a chance at a
full discussion," Kamin says. "It's like the classic situation where
the children who kill their parents cry about being orphans. "
In
any case, Kamin adds, "This is a 160-page decision, well-reasoned and
thoughtful, and it took the court over a year to produce." Given all that,
"it's not appropriate to say [the court] didn't know what it was doing."
And Duquesne University law
professor Bruce Ledewitz, at least, says "it's inconceivable that the
court is going to revisit" its opinion now.
Ledewitz has written an op-ed trumpeting
the ruling, but he understands the state's objections. "I loved this
decision in every way," he says, "but Chief Justice Castille gave us
a whole history of coal development in the state -- it's not possible for that
have been to decided earlier in this case.
Everybody was completely blown
away by that."
But Ledewitz says that Kamin's response -- that the state had its
chance to argue the facts -- is "absolutely unassailable. The
plaintiffs are going to say, 'We always said the Environmental Protection
Amendment meant more than it has meant [in earlier cases], and that's why we
brought forward the arguments we did. You relied on [prior caselaw], and that's
why you didn't think any of this was relevant.'" And having chosen a
losing legal strategy, Ledewitz says, the state can't get a do-over.
Even if the state did present
evidence to counter the claims made by the plaintiffs, Ledewitz suspects, the
result wouldn't be any different.
"The
chief justice clearly knows the state's position. This court knew there was a
controversy about how much harm fracking does -- we all know that.
And the court has taken a position
that the plaintiffs are right."
It's not that the court never
reverses itself. Ledewitz cites the United Artists case, in which the court
ruled that historic-preservation laws were unconstitutional in 1991 ... and
then reversed itself two years later. Ledewitz says the earlier ruling prompted
preservationists to "come out and say 'You can't mean that.' And the court
reversed itself." But in dealing a
mortal blow to Act 13, he says, "It's very clear that the court did mean
that."
So if a motion for reconsideration is such a
longshot, why bother to try it? Ledewitz suspects two reasons. First, he thinks
the state may have real concerns about the severability question. And second,
he says, Castille's ruling essentially argues that the state has jeopardized
the environment in the name of "jobs." And especially in an election
year, Ledewitz says, "The administration simply can't agree with that
position.
"This
is about the politics of fracking -- and I don't mean that in an underhanded
way," Ledewitz adds. "This is a representation of the governor's
honestly held position, and to make a policy statement like this is perfectly
honorable."
But it's not one, he adds, that is likely to
impress the state's highest court.”
http://www.pghcitypaper.com/Blogh/archives/2014/01/03/legal-scholar-inconceivable-that-new-corbett-legal-tactic-will-succeed-in-fracking-battle#.UscwDiirylQ.email
3. Our Pennsylvania PUC
and DEP Working Against Us On Act 13
Decision
"... the DEP is charged with
protecting the Commonwealth's environment, yet rather than defend its Section
27 (Environmental Rights) fiduciary duties, Agencies seek to undermine their constitutional
role."
Municipalities
ask court to let drilling ruling stand
“ Jan 15 – South Fayette and six
other Pennsylvania municipalities have asked the state Supreme Court to deny a
Corbett administration request to reconsider its order declaring unconstitutional
the "drill anywhere" provision of the state's oil and gas law. The
municipalities say in a 15-page response filed Wednesday that the court's Dec.
19 decision was based on a purely legal determination that the law's provisions
overriding local zoning were unconstitutional. They further say there is no
need to review additional factual evidence and findings that the state
Department of Environmental Protection and the Public Utility Commission now
want to introduce on appeal. "This
wasn't a factual case with evidence," said John Smith, co-counsel for the
municipalities. "It was a pure matter of law and they even argued that, to
the Commonwealth Court, that the factual record was of no relevance."
In an appeal filed
Jan. 2, those state entities and the governor's Office of General Counsel asked
the Supreme Court for an opportunity to re-argue the case and introduce new
evidence. In filing for the appeal, the
Public Utility Commission and DEP asked that the case be returned to
Commonwealth Court for development of the evidentiary record. "They've
lost on the law question, so now they want to re-argue on the facts," Mr.
Smith said. The municipalities also quote the Supreme Court opinion that states
Act 13 did not pass constitutional muster because "constitutional commands
regarding municipalities' obligations and duties to their citizens cannot be
abrogated by statute."
4. Murrysville
Meeting On Leasing Park For Gas
“The possibility
of Marcellus shale gas drilling under Murrysville Community Park could become a
reality. Next Wednesday, council will
discuss a proposed lease to the oil and gas rights at the park.
Murrysville Chief
Administrator Jim Morrison confirmed on Wednesday that the municipality had
been approached by an oil and gas producer regarding the natural gas rights at
the park.
“The council at
their next regularly scheduled meeting will discuss the proposed lease,”
Morrison wrote in an email. “Council feels the input of the residents of the
community is paramount in helping guide an appropriate course of action on this
very important issue.”
Huntley and Huntley,
a Monroeville-based drilling company, has approached officials about leasing
the gas rights under the 262-acre park, but the company has not made a formal
offer, said Mike Hillebrand, vice president and chief operating officer at
Huntley. “
5.Challenge of South Fayette's Zoning Ordinance On Oil/Gas Postponed
Jan 13 – “Range Resources
was attempting to have the South Fayette
Zoning Ordinance thrown out. The current ordinance protects schools,
residential areas, and parks (conservation districts.)
Range Resources on Monday agreed
to postpone its challenge of South Fayette's zoning regulations on oil and gas
drilling, deciding that a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that overturned
statewide drilling rules left too much unclear. Clifford Levine,
representing Range Resources and Cuddy Partners LP, was scheduled to argue on
Monday and Tuesday nights before the township's zoning hearing board and
challenge drilling regulations South Fayette adopted in November 2010.
But just before the hearing was to
begin, he and township solicitor Jonathan Kamin agreed to table the challenge
indefinitely until state courts decide what remains of Pennsylvania's Act 13,
which had overruled many local drilling regulations until the state Supreme
Court threw out parts of the law in December. Rather than fight about what
powers the township has or what pieces of Act 13 still apply, both parties
agreed to table the challenge until either one decides to resume it, in hopes
that the courts would rule on the state law in the meantime.”
6. Candidate for Governor, John Hangar Posts This Article:
DEP, drillers must guarantee safe drinking
water in gas field
“80-year-old
Max Chilson’s water turned black and he began to get rashes after showering
shortly after Chief Oil and Gas began drilling within 1800 feet of his water
well in 2010. Three years later Max still cannot drink his water. DEP must
retest his water and someone – the driller, the state or perhaps the county
must replace Max’s water.
After
Max’s water went bad, DEP tested the water and found diesel fuel, high bacteria
levels and manganese. Chief supplied Chilson with bottled water until DEP said
that the driller was not responsible for the contamination. His water turned
black again when Chief fracked a new well 1200 feet from his well in 2012.
Max has
lived here all his life, paid taxes and raised a family. DEP must retest his
water to determine whether or not it’s safe for any use and conduct a thorough
investigation into the cause of the well contamination.
This
situation is becoming all too familiar in the gas field. Property-owners who
are having serious problems as a result of drilling cannot get help from the
gas driller or the DEP. That’s why I will create an independent office to
handle citizen complaints and work to resolve problems like this.
In the
meantime, providing Mr. Chilson with safe water is the right thing to do. Max
deserves no less and human decency demands drinking water for this life-long
resident of Bradford County.”
7. Range Spokesman Matt Pitzarella Misrepresented Education
Credentials
Range
Resources Director of Corporate Communications Matt Pitzarella has long listed
a master of science degree in leadership and business ethics from Duquesne
University as one of his educational accomplishments – one he claimed to have
earned in 2005. That degree is listed
under his educational experience on his Linkedin profile.
However, an investigation into his
education reveals that Pitzarella never earned a degree through Duquesne
University in Pittsburgh.
Marcellus
Monitor received this email from the university’s Director of Communications,
Tammy Ewin in response to our inquiry into Pitzarella’s degree:
Matt
Pitzarella does not have a degree from Duquesne University. He attended from
the spring of 2004 through fall 2004 in the master of science in leadership and
business ethics program.
But
that’s not the way he’s portrayed his educational accomplishments in recent
publications.
Pitzarella
is the controversial spokesman for Range, a leader in Marcellus Shale drilling,
who has often made national headlines for statements made in high-profile
litigation cases.
In
January 2012, he claimed a Texas man who sued Range for water contamination
lied about problems he was having at his home.
One website reports that Pitzarella
said the man, Steven Lipsky, “deliberately falsified an internet video of his
garden hose flaming.”
Pitzarella
also made national headlines when, at the Media & Stakeholder Relations:
Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011 conference he revealed in a presentation that Range hires veterans with combat
experience in psychological warfare to influence communities in which the
company drills for gas.
Pitzarella also made national headlines
regarding a lifetime gag order on the minor children of a Pennsylvania family that
settled a lawsuit alleging that drilling activity by the company led to water
contamination.
8. Mt Pleasant
Twp. Upholds Violation of Impoundments
Jan 13 – “The Mt.
Pleasant Township Zoning Hearing Board voted unanimously to uphold notices of violation issued by the
township’s zoning officer against four impoundments owned by Range Resources.
Zoning hearing board members Barry Johnston and Ron Stewart rejected Range’s
appeal to the notices of violation.
The township maintains that Range violated its
zoning ordinance by failing to restore the impoundments after completing all
frack wells that were nearby. The Marcellus shale drilling company contends
that all four impoundments – Stewart, Klingerman, Cowden and Carter – are legal
nonconforming use, and made a proposal to the township to end the ongoing
zoning board hearings that began when the township issued notices of violation
to Range’s four impoundments in July 2013. Supervisors rejected the proposal in
November. Three of the impoundments are used for fresh water storage, while the
Carter impoundment holds wastewater.”
http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20140113/NEWS01/140119745
9. Acid Mine Drainage and Fracking Waste Radioactivity
From Bob Donnan
Jan 13 – “:Researchers
believe they have found an unlikely way to decrease the radioactivity of some
fracking wastewater that is created when some of the chemical-laced water used
to frack underground rocks flows back out of the wellbore : Mix it with the
hazardous drainage from mining operations. The water is tainted with chemicals,
toxins and in — such as PA — naturally
occurring radioactive materials, such as radium. Research has shown that even wastewater that had been treated with
conventional means was changing the chemistry of rivers when discharged into
waterways. In 2011, Pennsylvania barred
(Bob Donnan corrects: drillers were not barred but asked”)
drillers from taking the wastewater to treatment facilities, forcing them to
haul the fluid waste to be disposed in underground injection wells in Ohio.
This, along with a lack of
freshwater in other parts of the country needed to drill new wells, has
scientists and the industry looking for creative solutions. The discovery by Duke University researchers
would allow oil and gas drillers to combine flowback waters from the fracking
process with acid drainage from mining, or any other salty water. The solids
that form, which include radioactive materials, are removed and dumped at a
hazardous waste landfill.”
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21517505&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marcellus-shale.us%2FHot-issues.htm
Photo by Bob
Donnan
Drill cuttings are typical hauled on trucks in
covered dumpsters called ‘roll-offs’
10. $280,000 in Penalties On Shale Firm For Using
Illegal Workers
Jan 9 – “A federal judge imposed more
than $280,000 in penalties on a Marcellus Shale surveying firm and a foreman
who were caught using 19 undocumented Mexican workers on a project in
northeastern Pennsylvania. U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane levied most
of that fiscal pain on Sealy,
Texas-based GPX/GXP USA, which she hit with a $25,000 fine and a $250,000
forfeiture order. She gave the company a 36-month probation sentence.”
An operations manager with the firm, Douglas Wiggill, who
lives in Fort Worth, Texas, dodged a prison term, but was ordered to pay a
$5,000 fine. Wiggill's lawyer, told Kane that his client, a Canadian citizen,
might be deported because of the conviction. GPX and Wiggill pleaded guilty in March to conspiracy to harboring
illegal alien charges. The case stemmed from the arrest of the undocumented workers during a June 2011 police raid
of housing the company rented in the Williamsport area. At the time, GPX was
conducting seismic surveying to identify natural gas fields within the
Marcellus Shale deposits.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/01/us_judge_slaps_280000_in_penal.html
11. A Good Example of the Multiple Sources of Pollution that Accompany The Gas Industry
By Bob Donan: “Since I am signed-up for email ‘Permit
Alerts’ from the Pa DEP it is hard not to notice the ongoing string of permits
for the MarkWest Megopolis in spite of all the air pollution issues…
(These are the kinds of polluting sources that
accompany the density of wells we see in neighboring counties. Jan)
THEY JUST KEEP ADDING
ONTO THAT HUGE PLANT!” Bob
Authorization # 1008342 has been updated on
1/8/2014.
Subfacility ID=1018366 Name= SOURCES
ADDED BY PA-C, STABILIZER W/DEPROP, DEPROP, HTR
Subfacility ID=1047679 Name=ENCLOSED
FLARE
Subfacility ID=1036145
Name=FRACTIONATOR TOWER AND 148 MMBTU/HR PROCESS HEATER
Subfacility ID=1084925 Name=HOT OIL
HEATER
Subfacility ID=1084948 Name=HOUSTON
DEETHANIZER
Subfacility ID=1003502 Name=NATURAL GAS
PROCESSING SYSTEM
Subfacility ID=989144 Name=PROPANE
REMOVAL SYSTEM
Subfacility ID=1047676 Name=RAIL
LOAD-OUT TERMINAL
Subfacility ID=1084923 Name=VAPOR
RECOVERY SYSTEM”
http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/eFACTSWeb/searchResults_singleAuth.aspx?AuthID=1008342
12. PINELANDS COMMISSION REJECTS GAS PIPELINE
“The
members of the New Jersey Pinelands Commission stood up to pressure from the
shale gas industry — and from Governor Christie — and voted 7 to 7 to reject a
pipeline which would have carried fracked gas from the Marcellus Shale through
the treasured, and legally protected, New Jersey Pinelands.
Seven
Commissioners rejected an intensely controversial “Memorandum of Agreement”
(MOA) which would have violated the Commission’s own rules in order to permit
the pipeline. These Commissioners acted
to protect a region that provides drinking water to millions of state residents
against a brand new, unnecessary, and damaging South Jersey Gas Pipeline.”
13. Gas Development Disturbing Forest Ecosystems
If They Can't Measure it, they can’t
Manage It
“The DCNR Forest Monitoring Report is more than two years overdue,
with no date of release in sight.
Jan 9 – “Kevin
Heatley lives in Lycoming County and has spent years hiking in the Tiadaghton
State Forest. He’s an ecologist by trade.
As he stands next to a freshly cleared patch of forest, he’s disturbed by what
he sees. “Everything from the noise and the traffic to the lighting, to the pad
placements, to the pipeline construction to the road expansion,” he says. “This
is all industrial infrastructure. It’s inherently incompatible with sustainable
forest management.”
It’s called forest fragmentation.
It’s what happens when human development crisscrosses the landscape, carving up
large swaths of contiguous forest into smaller pieces. The U.S. Geological Survey has found most of the disturbance from
Lycoming County’s gas drilling is happening in sensitive ecosystems known as
core forests. These areas are very different from edge habitat– that’s forest
next to something else, like a grassy field, or a suburban home.
Pennsylvania
currently has 2.2 million acres of public forestland.
About 700,000 acres are available for oil and gas
development.”
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/01/09/scientists-document-gas-development-disturbing-forest-ecosystems/
14. EPA Relies On Industry—Duke U. Rebuts The Data
Jan 10 - When the
U.S. EPA declared that a group of Texas homes near a gas-drilling operation
didn’t have dangerous levels of methane in their water, it relied on tests
conducted by the driller itself. Now, independent tests from Duke University
researchers have found potentially explosive levels of methane in some of the
wells, and homeowners want the EPA to re-open the case. The previously
undisclosed Duke testing illustrate the complaints of critics who say the
agency is reluctant to sanction a booming industry that has pushed down energy
prices for consumers, created thousands of jobs and buoyed the economy.
“I don’t understand why they would let the
company that was accused of doing the wrongdoing conduct the tests,” said
Shelly Perdue, who lives near the two wells in Weatherford, 60 miles (97
kilometers) west of Dallas. “It doesn’t make sense.” The driller, Range
Resources Corp. (RRC), denies that its drilling in the area is the source of
any contamination and says its testing was conducted by an independent
laboratory. Steve Lipsky, another homeowner, said he’s trying to get the EPA to
re-test the water and force Range to permanently close its wells with cement.
He sued Range, which countersued alleging defamation and business
disparagement. “EPA is our best hope,” Lipsky said in an interview. Unless
measures are taken, “something catastrophic is going to happen”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/epa-s-reliance-on-driller-data-for-water-irks-homeowners.html
15. Methane Seeps…
Study finds 5,893 natural gas leaks in Washington,
D.C.
(If you recall there
was a report out of Boston last year about identifying gas leaks by locating
dying trees, the roots being starved for oxygen due to the gas. Jan)
Jan 16 – “New research says the nation's capital, has
thousands of leaks of methane from natural gas pipelines. More than 5,800 leaks from aging pipelines were found under Washington,
D.C.'s streets by scientists from Duke University and Boston University, who
dispatched a car equipped with measuring instruments across the city last
January and February. Their findings appear in this week's peer-reviewed
journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The researchers found 19 of the leaks had high concentrations of
methane, a potent heat-trapping greenhouse gas that contributes to global
warming as well as smog-forming ozone. So they got out of the car and put
probes into manholes. They found 12
could have caused explosions because of their levels — up to 10 times the
threshold at which explosions can occur. "If you dropped a cigarette
down a manhole ... it could have blown up," says Robert Jackson.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/16/washington-dc-gas-pipeline-leaks/4497083/
16. Symptomatology of_a_Gas_Field_
Health
Survey ABSTRACT Queensland, Australia
“The
unconventional gas industry has been allowed rapid, unprecedented expansion in
Queensland within recent years with little regard to the public health
consequences. The people of the remote rural residential estates on the Western
Downs near Tara in Queensland are suffering from the side effects of the
industry. Despite their pleas over the past few years to successive Queensland
Governments, as illustrated in the recently released Queensland Government
health report into the effects of CSG in the Tara region, their reports of ill
health have been trivialized or ignored.
Conversely this study found a pattern of symptoms,
which is extremely concerning. In
particular a high percentage of the residents surveyed had symptoms which could
relate to neurotoxicity. These included tingling, paraesthesiai,
numbness, headaches, difficulty concentrating and extreme fatigue. Of
particular concern was the high percentage of symptomatic children, with
paraesthesia being reported in approximately a third (15/48) of children to age
18, and headaches being reported in more than 70% (36/48). These symptoms
deserve further investigation, something which has not been done adequately to
date. If these symptoms are caused
by living within a gas field, there are serious implications not only for this
community but for many more across Australia. If the health implications of the
unconventional gas industry continue to be ignored and the industry is allowed
to develop along its current path, the potential exists for serious and widespread
harm to human health across Australia.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report documents an
investigation during February and March 2013 by a concerned General
Practitioner, in relation to health complaints by people living in close
proximity to coal seam gas development in SW Queensland.
Thirty -five households in the Tara
residential estates and the Kogan/Montrose region were surveyed in person and
telephone interviews were conducted with three families who had left the area.
Information was collected on 113 people from the 38 households. Of these, 17
were children 5 years of age or less, 31 were children aged between 6 and 18,
and 65 were adults aged between 19 and 82. 58%
of residents surveyed reported that their health was definitely adversely
affected by CSG, whilst a further 19% were uncertain. The pattern reported
was outside the scope of what would be expected for a small rural community. In all age groups there were reported
increases in cough, chest tightness, rashes, difficulty sleeping, joint pains,
muscle pains and spasms, nausea and vomiting. Approximately one third of the
people over 6 years of age were reported to have spontaneous nose bleeds, and
almost three quarters were reported to have skin irritation. Over half of
children were reported to have eye irritation.
A range of symptoms were reported which can sometimes be
related to neurotoxicity (damage to the nervous system), including severe
fatigue, weakness, headaches, numbness and paraesthesia (abnormal sensations
such as pins and needles, burning or tingling). Approximately a third of the
all the 48 children to age 18 (15/48) were reported to experience paraesthesia.
Almost all the 31 children aged 6-18 were reported to suffer from headaches and
for over half of these the headaches were severe. Of people aged 6 years and
over, severe fatigue and difficulty concentrating was reported for over half.
Parents of a number of young children reported twitching or unusual movements,
and clumsiness or unsteadiness.”
17. New York Times –
EPA Knew the Risk of Fracking and Little to Protect Us (from
2011)
Overview
This is a
confidential Environmental Protection Agency draft document on the
environmental impacts of the oil, gas and coal industries. It shows that
federal authorities are concerned about public drinking water supplies in the
region of the Marcellus Shale, an especially abundant natural gas reserve that
stretches from Virginia up to the southern half of New York State. The document
also suggests that the environmental impacts from the oil and gas industry are
likely to grow in the coming year. E.P.A. officials express concern about the
potential for drilling wastewater to pollute drinking water sources, like lakes
and rivers, in the region of the Marcellus Shale, in Pennsylvania.
“As oil
and gas development encroach on suburban and urban areas, human health and environmental
impacts are expected to escalate. ….Nationally suspected environmental impacts
are diverse; concerns exist with produced water disposal issues as they are
impacting surface drinking water intakes in the Marcellus plays, air emissions
issues and induced seismic events associated with the continuing expansion of
Barnett shale play. “
Overview EPA Briefing (Benzene in Petroleum
Distillates) P 6
This is
an E.P.A. briefing, presented by officials from several regional offices to
Robert M. Sussman, E.P.A. senior policy counsel, that highlights concerns and
research priorities related to hydrofracking, a relatively new drilling method.
The document cites waste disposal as the main “bottleneck for the industry.” It
raises concerns about the high number of abandoned wells in Pennsylvania, which
is important because some scientists have suggested that improperly abandoned
well bores could provide a path for contaminants to migrate from drilling sites
deep underground to ground water sources at shallower depths, causing
contamination of drinking water. Indeed, the agency intends to include this
topic in a national study of the potential risks of hydrofracking, according to
draft plans made public on Feb. 8. In this document, federal officials also
cite the risk to drinking water supplies posed by wastewater carrying
radioactive materials that may not be removed by conventional treatment plants.
This
section contains an important policy statement. It says: “E.P.A. recognizes
potential indirect impacts from HF,” or hydrofracking. These indirect impacts
include pollution of surface water like rivers and lakes by hydrofracking
wastewater, the consumption of drinking water supplies, and "methane
migration" or the movement of methane underground. Methane migration can
happen for many reasons, and can cause dramatic impacts, including flammable
tap water. The E.P.A.'s phrasing is significant because the industry has often
avoided responsibility for indirect impacts by claiming that hydrofracking is
not “directly” at fault. Industry officials make this point often in cases
where methane migration is concerned. The E.P.A. is now conducting a national
study which may provide answers about the
extent to which drinking water problems have been caused, directly or
indirectly, by hydrofracking activities.
Here,
the agency discusses the use of diesel fuel in hydrofracking. This is important
for two reasons, one related to the law and the other focused on health risks.
First, although hydrofracking is generally not covered by provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act that deal with underground injection, Congress decided
that the exclusion would not apply to hydrofracking conducted using diesel. In
this passage of the document, E.P.A. officials say that a report by the
Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy group, found that the E.P.A.
was not adequately enforcing laws on hydrofracking with diesel. Second, diesel
carries high levels of the so-called BTEX chemicals -- benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene and xylenes -- which are carcinogens. But E.P.A. authorities say
here that diesel is not the only component of fracturing fluid that contains
high levels of BTEX and other toxic materials. Indeed, companies have disclosed
to the authorities in New York and Pennsylvania that they use other types of
petroleum distillates that contain high levels of benzene, a human carcinogen
that is considered unsafe in drinking water at levels above five parts per
billion, the equivalent of a few drops in a swimming pool. Some of these
petroleum distillates that the
industry uses include kerosene, mineral spirits, petroleum naphtha and Stoddard
solvent. According to scientific literature, these additives can contain up to
93 times the amount of benzene contained in diesel.
Overview Skipping Pre Treatment Causes Pollution P 294
This document, from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, focuses on the development of wells in the state's
Marcellus Shale, a vast natural gas reserve. It highlights worries that sending
drilling waste through sewage treatment plants may adversely affect the ability
of the plant to break down the sewage. When sewage plants fail to effectively
break down the sewage they are designed to handle, fecal matter and other
dangerous pollutants can end up in rivers.
Overview P 297 Brine Causes Problems at Plants
This
document, an internal E.P.A. presentation from September 2009, shows some of
the concerns and challenges of Marcellus Shale drilling. The document points
out that the federal Clean Water Act prohibits industrial users from
discharging wastes to sewage treatment plants that may damage the plant; the
high salt content and other toxic substances in drilling waste have presented
problems to the microbes used by these
plants to clean water. Other documents from Pennsylvania show that some sewage
treatment plants taking large amounts of drilling wastewater have already had
problems properly treating sewage, which has ended up being discharged into
rivers.
Overview Reliance on
Dilution P 306
This document, from
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, is a presentation
related to setting caps on the amount of hydrofracking wastewater that public
sewage treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants (W.W.T.P.s) are allowed
to accept. The document is noteworthy because, in it, state officials say that
their treatment of hydrofracking waste relies on diluting, not actually
removing, contaminants. In other state and federal documents, regulators make
it clear that sewage treatment plants are, under the law, supposed to treat,
not simply dilute, wastewater.
Overview Aquatic Life
Affected P 317
This is a study by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection on Marcellus Shale wastewater discharge to the South
Fork Tenmile Creek in Southwest Pennsylvania. In this document, state
regulators conclude that even after treatment plants reduced the amount of
hydrofracking wastewater that they were accepting, the water discharged from
these treatment plants still had a negative impact on aquatic life in the
streams that received the discharge.
After this document was produced
in 2009, environmental researchers from the University of Pittsburgh came to a
similar conclusion in a study that will not be published until March 2011. Even
after much of the natural gas industry began recycling their wastewater and
even after the state passed new regulations limiting the levels of salts that
treatment plants can release into rivers, the researchers found lingering
problems with these plants. Last November and December, these researchers
tested water discharged by two treatment plants that are still accepting large
amounts of drilling wastewater. At the Franklin Township sewage treatment
plant, which discharges into the Ten Mile Creek, a tributary of the Monongahela
River, the researchers found that the water was more than eight times over a
new state limit for a gritty substance common to drilling wastewater known as
T.D.S. or "total dissolved solids." T.D.S. is a mixture of salt and
other minerals that get pulled up from deep underground during gas production.
At the Pennsylvania Brine Treatment Josephine industrial treatment plant, which
discharges into the Blacklick Creek in the Allegheny watershed, the researchers
found water that was 380 times above that same state limit for the same
contaminant levels, according to the data that will be released publicly in
March. The lead researcher in the study said that the levels found of T.D.S.
represented a breach of state law.
Overview Conference Call
between state and Federal Regulators on Marcellus
This
summary of a conference call between federal and state environmental regulators
about Marcellus Shale reveals that as early as October 2008, E.P.A. officials
raised concerns about the effects of wastewater passed through sewage treatment
plants and taken in by public water supplies.
Overview EPA Scientist Discusses Radioactivity in Waste
P. 388
This is a memo written by Nidal Azzam, a senior E.P.A.
health physicist, to another regulator from E.P.A. Region 2, which includes New
York. It contains suggestions from Mr. Azzam about what points should be made
in an E.P.A. letter bound for New York State. This letter from the E.P.A. was
meant to provide guidance to New York, which is in the midst of conducting a
study on hydrofracking as it considers whether to allow increased natural gas
drilling. The report being conducted by New York is called the New York State
Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (D.S.G.E.I.S.) on the
Oil, Gas, and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. In this memo, Mr. Azzam
raises concerns about the radioactivity in drilling waste. Oil and gas industry
officials have repeatedly said that the radioactivity is too low to be a
concern. But based on radioactivity readings cited in New York’s proposed draft
study, Mr. Azzam takes a different view.
Overview p. 410 Pa Field Survey of Radioactivity at
Marcellus Shale Wells
This is a copy of a field survey of radioactive materials in
Marcellus Shale gas wells in 2008 and 2009, conducted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection. It includes water and soil samples for
multiple well sites that show a range of levels of radium, uranium and other
radioactive materials.
Spreadsheet of Tests
at Pennsylvania brine treatment plant P. 416
This is an E.P.A. spreadsheet of water tests conducted at
Pennsylvania Brine Treatment - Franklin Plant on May 5, 2008; May 19, 2008; and
June 19, 2008. This plant is not a public sewage treatment plant but is built
to treat industrial wastewater. Commercial treatment plants are better at
removing contaminants like heavy metals and operators say they are very good at
removing radioactive materials from the wastewater. This chart includes data
that is difficult to find in Pennsylvania. There is very little information
available that shows what toxic materials remain in the wastewater after processing
by treatment plants; most available data indicates only what was in drilling
wastewater when it emerged from the well, before being sent through sewage
treatment plants. This document, however, has chemical readings of the
substances in the wastewater both before and after treatment, including levels
of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. Because of benzene’s carcinogenic
nature, the federal drinking water standard for this chemical is 5 ug/l; one
test of treated water from this plant showed more than 28 times that amount of
benzene.
This
document was presented to the owner of the Pennsylvania Brine Treatment -
Franklin Plant, Paul Hart. In an e-mail sent on Feb. 18, 2011, he confirmed
that his facility can only remove about 50 percent of these chemicals. However,
he contested the idea that the concentrations in the discharges in this
document were high. To bolster his point, he cited the ability of the river to
dilute the waste. Asked whether the state permit that he received to operate
the Pennsylvania Brine Treatment - Franklin Plant allows him to discharge the
amounts of benzene found in the document, Mr. Hart declined to comment.
Overview-Radiation in
Aquatic Systems P. 417
This study was provided to The Times by an E.P.A. official
who said it shows that dilution of drilling waste does not always succeed in
eliminating the health risks posed by that waste. The study is marked
confidential and was conducted on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute in
1990. It found a potential increased risk of cancer among people who often eat
fish from waters where drilling waste is discharged. The study is relevant
because state regulators in Pennsylvania have said that dilution is effectively
removing the risks posed by drilling waste that is discharged into rivers.
Importantly, this study found an increased risk of cancer when drilling waste
was dumped into a larger body of water than Pennsylvania rivers. Furthermore,
state records indicate that the radium levels found in
Pennsylvania wastewater are much higher than those used in
this study. Radium, for example, was found in Pennsylvania at levels over 18
times the number used in the this study. It should be noted, however, that this
study did not detail actual cases of increased cancer. Rather, it modeled
potential increases in cancer rates as a result of radium-laced drilling waste
being discharged into large waterways.
In an
e-mail exchange with The Times, Anne F. Meinhold, one of the lead authors of
the study, wrote, “I suspect that the dilution rates in a river would not be as
high as for the open water discharges we considered.” She cautioned, however:
“The bioaccumulation factors and ingestion rates we used were based on data
collected in the Gulf of Mexico. I don't know if bioaccumulation factors for
freshwater fish would be similar or if freshwater fishermen could be assumed to
eat as much fish caught over their lifetime.”
Asked
about the study, Bill Bush, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute,
said, “We have no reason to challenge what’s in the study, but to confirm it’s
accurate would require someone with expertise to go over it and thoroughly
digest what it says in light of any additional related research done over the
past 20 years.” Asked to review the study, an expert on human health and
ecological risk analysis said that it clearly shows that the drilling waste is
not sufficiently diluted in some cases. As a result, the radioactivity levels
left behind in receiving waters come close to reaching the threshold at which
the E.P.A., under federal Superfund rules, requires a cleanup, the risk expert
said.
Overview-Marcellus
Shale Wastewater P. 533
This PowerPoint presentation, given by E.P.A. officials in
2009 to state and federal regulators in Pennsylvania, includes some of the
results from an E.P.A study that tested whether certain rivers can sufficiently
dilute radium-laced drilling wastewater. Such wastewater is passed through
sewage treatment plants and discharged into the rivers. In their modeling,
E.P.A. researchers looked at one plant where waste was being discharged into
the Ohio River, a comparatively larger river that provides more dilution. They
also studied another plant that discharged waste into the South Fork Tenmile
River, which is smaller and thus provides less dilution. In both cases, the
scientists found that the rivers would not dilute radium to allowable levels,
according to this slideshow, as explained by an agency scientist familiar with
the research. The radium levels considered in the agency’s modeling were also
much lower than those found in The Times's review. E.P.A. officials said that
the type of calculations done in their modeling of radium-laced waste
discharged into rivers are actually something that the state is supposed to be
doing as a standard step before they issue permits for sewage treatment plants
to accept drilling wastewater. But the E.P.A. officials added that the state
had not been doing all of these sorts of calculations for the range of
contaminants, including the radioactive elements, in the wastewater.
Tracking Gas Wastewater
Overview
This
is an example of the kind of document -- known as a 26R -- that tracks gas
drilling wastewater in Pennsylvania. 26Rs are very useful because the same
document records lab tests that show levels of contamination in wastewater and
a list of treatment facilities where this waste was sent for disposal, often
including the amount of wastewater sent to each plant. This is a 26R form from
2010 that was provided by EXCO Resources, a company that explores for and
produces oil and natural gas, to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, regarding the Sterling Run No. 5 Well. Wastewater from this well
contained high levels of radioactive material, as shown in the lab tests
attached by the company to this form. The company sent this wastewater to be
treated at a sewage treatment plant. In interviews with The Times, officials at
the plant said they could not remove radioactive material from wastewater.
Under Pennsylvania regulations, public sewage treatment plants are supposed to
be sent copies of this form within 30 or so days of taking drilling waste from
a particular well, but this does not always happen.
18h. Heinz Endowments President Goes through Swinging Door
Commentary from Bob Donnan: Wow! Imagine the surprise when everyone
heard this news… we’ve seen lots of ‘jumpers’ from the Pa DEP to
industry, but this is bigger. Ha, looks like everyone was right about his “ties
to the O&G industry!”
“Robert Vagt, president of the Heinz Endowment, the city's second-largest
foundation, is leaving his post Jan. 24 and later this year plans to become
chairman of the board at Rice Energy Inc., a Canonsburg-based drilling company.
The news that Mr. Vagt will depart next week was not unexpected; he disclosed
in October that he planned to step down from his job following upheaval at the
endowments that focused on its involvement in creating the Center for
Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD), a nonprofit that supports best
practices in the shale gas drilling industry.”
Donations
We are very appreciative
of donations, both large and small, to our group.
With your help, we have handed out thousands of flyers
on the health and environmental effects of fracking, sponsored numerous public
meetings, and provided information to citizens and officials countywide. If you
would like to support our efforts:
Checks to
our group should be made out to the Thomas
Merton Center/Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group. And in the Reminder line
please write- Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group. The reason for this
is that we are one project of 12 at Thomas Merton. You can send your check to:
Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group, PO Box 1040, Latrobe, PA, 15650. Or you
can give the check or cash to Lou Pochet or Jan Milburn.
To make a contribution to our
group using a credit card, go
to www.thomasmertoncenter.org. Look for the contribute
button, then scroll down the list of organizations to direct money to. We are
listed as the Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group.
Please
be sure to write Westmoreland Marcellus
Citizens’ Group on the bottom of your check so that WMCG receives the
funding, since we are just one project of many of the Thomas Merton Center. You
can also give your donation to Lou Pochet or Jan Milburn.
Westmoreland Marcellus Citizen’s Group—Mission Statement
WMCG is a project of the Thomas
Merton Society
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 and Thomas Merton Liason-Lou Pochet
Secretary-Ron Nordstrom
Facebook Coordinator-Elizabeth Nordstrom
Blogsite –April Jackman
Science Advisor-Dr. Cynthia Walter
To receive our news updates, please email jan at westmcg@gmail.com
To remove your name from our list please put “remove name from list’ in
the subject line
