Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group Updates
June 5, 2014
* For articles and updates or to just vent, visit us on facebook;
https://www.facebook.com/groups/MarcellusWestmorelandCountyPA/
* To view past updates, reports, general
information, permanent documents, and meeting information
http://westmorelandmarcellus.blogspot.com/
* Our email address: westmcg@gmail.com
* 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, the Pollocks, Marian Szmyd, Bob
Donnan, Elizabeth Donahue, and Bob
Schmetzer.
A little Help Please
Take Action!!
***Tenaska Plant Seeks to Be Sited in South Huntingdon,
Westmoreland County***
Petition !! Please forward to your
lists!
Please share the attached
petition with residents of Westmoreland and all bordering counties. We ask each of you to help us by sharing
the petition with your email lists and any group with which you are affiliated.
As stated in the petition, Westmoreland County cannot meet air standards for
several criteria. Many areas of Westmoreland County are
already listed as EPA non-attainment areas for ozone and particulate matter
2.5, so the county does not have the capacity to handle additional emissions
that will contribute to the burden of ozone in the area as well as health
impacts. According to the American Lung
Association, every county in the Pittsburgh region except for Westmoreland
County had fewer bad air days for ozone and daily particle pollution compared
with the previous report. Westmoreland County was the only county to score a failing grade for particulate matter.
The Tenaska gas plant will add
tons of pollution to already deteriorated air and dispose of wastewater into
the Youghiogheny River. Westmoreland
County already has a higher incidence of disease than other counties in United
States. Pollution won’t stop at the
South Huntingdon Township border; it will travel to the surrounding townships
and counties.
If you know of church groups or other organizations that will help with
the petition please forward it and ask for their help.
*********************************************************************************
Sierra Club Sues Texas Commission on
Proposed Tenaska Plant
SIERRA CLUB VS
TEXAS COMMISSION On ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
I. CASE
OVERVIEW
Sierra Club seeks an order reversing Defendant’s
December 29, 2010, final order in Docket No. 2009-1093-AIR.1 The order
authorizes the construction and operation of a new solid fuel-fired power plant
by approving the application of Tenaska Trailblazer Partners, L.L.C. (Tenaska,
Trailblazer, or Applicant) for state and federal air pollution permits.
This new facility is a large
solid fuel-fired electric generating unit, or power plant, to be constructed in
Nolan County, Texas. The Tenaska facility will generate about 900 megawatts
(MW) of electricity and is authorized to emit over 9,207 tons per year of
criteria air pollutants.2
While under the jurisdiction of the State
Office of Administrative Hearings, the proceedings bore SOAH docket number
582-09-6185. 2 There are several “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead,
particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers, particulate
matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers, nitrogen oxides, ozone,
and sulfur oxides. For each of these air pollutants, National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and are adopted through the Commission’s rules. See e.g 30 TEX.
ADMIN. CODE § 101.21 (“The National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards as promulgated pursuant to section 109 of the Federal Clean Air Act,
as amended, will be enforced throughout all parts of Texas.”) Criteria
pollutants must be evaluated prior to obtaining a PSD permit.
1.
Filed
11 March 14 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
.3
The facility will also emit an estimated 6.1 million tons per year of the
greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).
At the heart of this
lawsuit, Sierra Club alleges the approval of the permit application was made in
violation of:
a. the requirements of the Texas
Administrative Procedures Act (TEX. GOV’T CODE, Chapter 2001) regarding
Defendant’s authority and duties upon adoption of a final order;
b. the requirements for a
preconstruction application and approval by TCEQ, including:
i) Deficient information and legal
bases for the findings related to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and the
corresponding maximum achievable control technology (MACT) determination.
ii) Deficient information and legal bases
for the findings related to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
review and the corresponding best available control technology (BACT)
determination.
iii) Failure to consider and minimize the
impact of greenhouse gas emissions. II. DISCOVERY
1. This case is an appeal of an
administrative agency’s actions, and therefore based on the administrative
record. Designation of a level of discovery is not applicable. If discovery
becomes necessary, it should be controlled by Level 3. TEX. R. CIV. PROC. §
190.4.
Calendar
*** WMCG Group
Meeting We meet the second Tuesday of every month at 7:30 PM
in Greensburg. Email Jan for directions. All are very welcome to attend.
***
Family-friendly acoustic music and
fun,
June 8 (Pittsburgh, Shadyside), 5:00-9:00 pm: Benefit
for Protect Our Parks
at
Shadyside Nursery, 510 Maryland Ave. “Weather Permitting.”
***Rally and Lobby
to Protest Fracking of Our State Forests and Parks, Harrisburg, June 17
Clean
Water Action and Sierra Club are sponsoring a rally and lobby day at 1 pm on June
17th in Harrisburg to protest Gov. Corbett’s recent decision to allow further
fracking beneath our state forests and parks. Unlike the recent fight in
Allegheny County, State Democratic legislators are united in their opposition
to this move by the Corbett administration. Rides from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg
are being co-oridinated by Clean Water Action – please contact Tom Hoffman at
412.523.2255.
*******************************************************************************************
TAKE ACTION !!
***Letters to the editor are important and one of the best ways to share
information with the public. ***
***See Tenaska Petition
at the top of the Updates
***Petition- Help the Children of Mars School District
Below
is a petition that a group of parents in the Mars Area School District are
working very hard to get signatures.
Please take a moment to look at the petition and sign it. It only takes 5 minutes. We are fighting to keep our children,
teachers, and community safe here and across the state of Pennsylvania.
Please share this with your
spouses, friends, family, and any organizations that would support this
cause. We need 100,00 signatures
immediately, as the group plans to take the petition to Harrisburg within a
week.
Your
support is greatly appreciated!
Best
Regards,
Amy
Nassif
***Don’t let Gov Corbett Frack More State Parks and Forests
Gov.
Corbett just lifted the moratorium on leasing our state parks and forests for
fracking. Our legislators could stop him--but only if you act now. Send a
message to your legislators today.
Gov.
Corbett just lifted a three-year moratorium on leasing of state forests and
parks for gas drilling.
He is hoping we’ll all just
forget about the ways fracking has already devastated Pennsylvania. We’re no
fools. We know more drilling means more blowouts, more spills of toxic fracking
wastewater, and more ruined landscapes.
The governor’s order will allow
drilling under our state parks for the first time. The Legislature is the last
line of defense for our state parks and forests--and that’s why I need you to
act immediately.
Tell
your state representative and state senator to fight Gov. Corbett’s effort to
open more of our state parks and forests for fracking.
Already more than 700,000 acres of our state forests
have been leased for gas drilling. That’s more than 40 percent of our existing
state forestlands.
But the drillers want
more--and sadly, Gov. Corbett is happy to hand it to them.
Tell the Legislature to stop this
wrong-headed idea.
It
just makes sense: Our parks are some of the best natural places in our state.
They should not be sold off for private gain and put at risk.
We
cannot stand back and watch as more of our state is opened to drilling.
Click
here to stand up for our state parks and forests today.
Sincerely,
David
Masur
PennEnvironment
Director
***Forced Pooling Petition
“The PA DEP announced the first
public hearing on forced pooling in PA to be held in less than two weeks. We're pushing on the DEP to postpone
the hearings and address the many problems we have with their current plans. In
the meantime, we're circulating a petition to the legislature calling on them
to strike forced pooling from the books in PA.
Forced pooling refers to the ability to drill under private property
without the owner's permission. It's legal in the Utica Shale in western PA,
but the industry has not made an attempt to take advantage of it until now.
Forced pooling is a clear violation of private property rights and should not
be legal anywhere.
I know I've asked a lot of you.
Unfortunately, we're fighting battles on many fronts and they just keep coming.
But with your help, we've made lots of progress, so I'm asking you to help me
again by signing and sharing this petition.”
Appreciatively,
as always,
Karen”
***Sunoco Eminent Domain Petition
“PA PUC for public utility status, a move that
would impact property owners and municipalities in the path of the Mariner East
pipeline. As a
public utility, Sunoco would have the power of eminent domain and would be
exempt from local zoning requirements. A December 2013 PA Supreme
Court ruling overruled Act 13’s evisceration of municipal zoning in gas
operations and upheld our local government rights. We petition PA PUC to uphold the Pennsylvania Constitution and deny
public utility status to the for-profit entity, Sunoco.
That's why I signed a petition to
Robert F. Powelson, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission, John F. Coleman Jr.,
Vice Chairman, Public Utilities Commission, James H. Cawley, Commissioner,
Public Utilities Commission, Gladys M. Brown, Commissioner, Public Utilities
Commission, Pamela A. Witmer, Commissioner, Public Utilities Commission, and
Jan Freeman, Executive Director, Public Utilities Commission, which says:
"We, the undersigned,
petition the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission to uphold the
Pennsylvania Constitution and deny public utility status to the for-profit
entity, Sunoco."
Will
you sign the petition too? Click here to add your name:
Frack Links
***Link to Shalefield Stories-Personal
stories of those affected by fracking
***PCN TV Court Hearing- Act 13 –The remaining 4 issues (from
Debbie)
The May
14th Commonwealth Court session from Philadelphia aired Tuesday, May 27. Here is the link. It is now posted on the
site but will only be available for about a month so watch it now.
***Video Beaver
Meeting –“Living in a Fracking Sacrifice Zone “
Panel
with Yuri Gorbi, Bill Hughes, Jill Kriesky
***Dr. Jerome Paulson-
Links Between Unconventional Gas Extraction and Human Health Thank you to Bob Donnan for taping and getting this video on you tube
Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP, is a Professor in
the Department of Environmental & Occupational Health at The George
Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, and a
Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at The George Washington University
School of Medicine and Health Sciences.
Dr.
Paulson is the chairperson of the executive committee of the Council on
Environmental Health American Academy of Pediatrics, serves for the Children's
Health Protection Advisory Committee for EPA and on the technical advisory
board for the Blacksmith Institute. Dr. Paulson has served as a special
assistant to the director of CDC's National Center on Environmental Health,
again focusing on children, and in 2000 received a Soros Advocacy Fellowship
for Physicians from the Open Society Institute working with the Children's
Environmental Health Network.
At Children's National
Medical Center, Dr. Paulson serves as the Medical Director for National and
Global Affairs of the Child Health Advocacy Institute.
Dr. Paulson is an expert on
the health effects of hydraulic fracturing and has presented and lectured
frequently on the subject.
.***The Sky Is Pink ---
Joe reminds us of this video.
"The
Sky is Pink", a short film by Josh Fox, deals with the issue of
"fairness" as well as the issue of gas migration. The answer from the panelist
"vanishingly small" is patently false. The recent study by Ingraffea supports DEP
and industry findings of about 6 to 7 percent of new wells leak and some fifty
percent leak after 30 years. Ingraffea
also points out that these numbers underestimate the real problem as only
leakage at the wellhead is reported. The
Sky is Pink can be seen:
It
is a good review of both issues and worth a second look if you have seen it
already.
Ingraffea's
work is referenced:
***To sign up for Skytruth 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/
Frack News
All articles are excerpted. Please use links for the full
article.
1. Robinson Township
Supervisors Plan To Weaken Ordinance
On Drilling
“Robinson Township residents
are at odds over proposed amendments to the township zoning ordinance and map,
and nearly 100 people attended a public hearing at the Fort Cherry High School
auditorium to voice their opinions on
the possible revisions.
The
current zoning ordinance, passed in December 2013 by the previous board,
included amendments to how the township would address agriculture, the oil and
gas industry and property subdivison. However, supervisors Rodger Kendall and
Steve Duran, who won their seats in November, announced intentions at that time
to repeal or make substantial changes to the zoning ordinance and map as soon
as they took office.
The
zoning ordinance and map are being revamped to prepare for the arrival of the
Southern Beltway, which will run through Robinson Township.
In all, 21 residents took to the
podium during the hour-long meeting. Overwhelmingly, residents addressed the
topics of gas drilling – which, under
the proposed ordinance, will be permitted in four districts: agricultural,
industrial, Residential 1 and IDB, and will
require conditional use approval in special conservation, commercial, general
residential, and Residential 2 districts – and farming regulations.
“I support the proposed amendment
to the zoning ordinance and zoning map. The new zoning districts allow for growth
along the new turnpike and state Route 22 if developers choose to do so. It
still keeps agricultural and rural residential areas in the township. I am in
favor of this amendment and I support the new supervisors,” said Bob Foley of
Bulger.
Many residents voiced support for
the supervisors and the proposed zoning ordinance, including Jim Cataney who
spoke on behalf of his family and said, “We are in favor of the zoning changes
and thank supervisors for looking out for the best interest of our township.”
Others did not share that
sentiment.
Resident Cathy Lodge contends that the proposed
ordinance is a “re-enactment of the unconstitutional portions of Act 13 and
proposes to allow gas drilling in all zoning districts.”
Said Lodge, “This is a clear violation of the Supreme
Court ruling and in violation of the state constitution. No municipal
government may simply decide what they wish to allow where.”
Lodge said the proposed zoning
ordinance is illegal and that residents can, and should, challenge it in court.
Attorney Michael Oliverio,
representing former supervisor Brian Coppola, who voted in December to approve
the current zoning ordinance, also said he believed the ordinance is
unconstitutional.
And Andrew Zimmer said he
believes the proposed zoning ordinance does not do enough to regulate gas
companies.
“If you pass these ordinances as
they are now, you can’t go back. If you give the gas companies free reign, the
damage cannot be undone.”
Kendall and Duran said following
the public hearing they are confident the proposed ordinance is legal, and the
current one contains dozens of problems and restrictions on property owners and
farm owners. Before the current zoning ordinance was approved in December,
companies could apply for permits by conditional use. That was changed, and the
current ordinance requires companies to apply for permits through a special
exception application.
“The gas companies have to meet
four pages of conditions in order to get approval,” said Duran.
They also believe the current
ordinance places too many restrictions on farmers, including limiting the
operation of equipment to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and think the proposed
zoning ordinance addresses those issues.
Supervisor Mark Brositz said he
thinks some parts of the proposed zoning ordinance will benefit the township,
specifically those items that address farming, but he said he cannot support
the entire ordinance.
“I feel like it’s a wholesale
rezoning of the township. There’s no line item veto, where I can vote against
the parts of the ordinance I don’t agree with, so I can’t support it,” said
Brositz, who thinks the ordinance is not strict enough regarding oil and gas
regulation. “I’m not against any kind of drilling, I just want rules. I don’t
feel we should give up some rules for energy security because I don’t believe
it’s giving us energy security. The gas is sold to the highest paying customer,
even if it’s outside the continental United States.”
http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20140602/NEWS01/140609931#.U41OuXawWO4
Residents attend a hearing on zoning and drilling in Robinson,
Washington County.
“Supervisors chairman Rodger Kendall — who is a leaseholder with driller
Range Resources — proposed the
zoning changes after taking office in January. Zoning rules that were
adopted in December “restricted the [oil and gas] industry very much,” he said.
A May letter from the five-member planning commission listed concerns
about the proposed zoning amendments, including its legality, lack of control
over natural gas development, instances of spot zoning and inconsistencies with
the comprehensive plan that “could create controversy and potential litigation
issues.”
`Supervisors
must vote on the proposal within 45 days.”
Read
more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/washington/2014/06/02/Public-weighs-in-on-zoning-and-drilling-proposal-in-Robinson-Washington-County/stories/201406020193#ixzz33Y38wNiV
2. Act 13 Summary
by David Ball
Comment
by Debbie:“Dave Ball prepared the following summary of the PA Supreme Court decision
on Act 13 in regard to zoning. He wrote
it in response to the attempt by the two new pro-fracking supervisors in
Robinson Twp to change their local zoning ordinances to allow fracking as a
"permitted use" in all zoning districts.
I think we should print this out
and give it to all of our supervisors and solicitors in all of our townships.
And as a reminder, Dave is a plaintiff on the Act 13 lawsuit, both as a
private citizen and as councilman for Peters Township. “
-------------By David Ball
“Zoning is a
limited police power granted to municipal governments and is intended to assure
that one person’s enjoyment of his or her rights does not interfere with the
rights of another person. A zoning
district is a geographically designated area into which are grouped like or
compatible uses. Zoning exists to
protect the due process rights of property ownership as well as to protect the
health, safety, morals and welfare of the community as a whole.
Section
3304 of Act 13 granted the gas industry the right to drill in all zoning
districts and to operate compressor stations and processing plants in most
districts. Section 3303 of Act 13
declared that state environmental laws “occupy the entire field” of oil and gas
regulation, to the exclusion of local ordinances.
The
Supreme Court unambiguously struck down sections 3303 and 3304 as
unconstitutional. They said that local municipalities could zone and could regulate the
location of gas drilling AND they had to do this in a manner consistent with
the environmental protection amendment, Article 1, Section 27 of the
Constitution. They also clearly stated that gas drilling is an industrial operation
and may not exist in a residential area or any other area where the stated uses
are incompatible with industrial operations.
The
proposed Robinson ordinance seems to be a “re-enactment” of the
unconstitutional portions of Act 13 and proposes to allow gas drilling in all
zoning districts. This is a clear
violation of the Supreme Court ruling and in violation of the State
Constitution. Therefore it is an illegal
ordinance. No municipal government may
simply decide what they wish to allow where.
Land uses must conform to the
Constitutional mandates regarding zoning, one of which is that the uses included
in a zoning district must be compatible.
Any
Supervisor voting to enact such an ordinance should be aware that to knowingly
enact an illegal ordinance could subject that supervisor to personal
liability. It may also place the
municipality’s insurance coverage in jeopardy as insurance companies are
increasingly prone to deny coverage under such circumstances.
If
such an ordinance should be enacted, citizens have every right, and indeed
obligation, to challenge it in court as well as suing those who enacted it.
I
hope this very brief summary helps. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. daveball122@comcast.net
Dave
Ball
Peters
Township
PS.
Please note that I am not a lawyer and I do not represent this
explanation as legal advice. It is an
observation of what the SC said. “
3. Crews Still Removing Soil
From Leaking Jon Day Impoundment
Estimated 10,000 Tons Contaminated
“A “broken” leak-detection monitor beneath the Jon Day impoundment
led to a significantly larger breach of brine water than originally estimated
as cleanup crews continue work to remove
as much as 10,000 tons of contaminated soil from the Amwell Township site,
state environmental regulators said .
Heavy rain this week hampered the
cleanup because crews must stop work when storms approach, cover the entire
site and then vacuum up the rain water using a specialized truck before
continuing the soil removal.
By Friday afternoon, workers removed about 5,800 tons
of contaminated soil from the Range Resources impoundment since a tear in the
liner was discovered April 16, with the amount expected to climb even higher,
DEP spokesman John Poister said.
“Our inspectors have voiced some
very strong concerns to Range about this,” Poister
said. “Range is responding. They’re doing
the job, but they have a big job over there.”
The impoundment was last
used by Range to store the salty brine water 11
months ago, leading to concerns by the DEP about how long it was leaking into
the ground and remained unnoticed. Poister
said the leak-detection monitor never alerted the company of the problem
because it was “crushed” either during construction or filling of the impoundment.
“We obviously have a lot of
questions about why the leak-detection system was compromised, or broken, and
why it wasn’t discovered sooner,” Poister said. “If it was undetected here,
could it be undetected elsewhere? We’re concerned about that and have voiced
those concerns to Range about these impoundments.”
Even with the increased amount of
contaminated soil at the site, he said the DEP has found no evidence that it
reached groundwater or affected residents near the area.”
http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20140530/NEWS01/140539947#.U4vtNyi_D4h
4. PA Dept. Conservation
and Natural Resources Former Secretary
Testifies
Opposes More Leasing of State
Forests
“Forcing the Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources to lease more state land for gas drilling by
dictating a revenue goal in the annual state budget is "a knife in the
heart" of the agency's core mission, said former DCNR Secretary Michael
DiBerardinis during testimony in Commonwealth Court Monday afternoon.
DiBerardinis explained that the department is tasked
with managing the state forest ecosystem in a sustainable way, to balance all
interests in the public natural resource for its preservation and future use by
citizens of Pennsylvania.
"It's why the agency exists,"
he said. "To take that away from the department is to take its meaning,
its reason to be."
Yet that's what began to happen in 2009 after Gov. Ed Rendell and the
Legislature realized that millions could be raised from gas leases on the state
forest, millions they could use to plug budget holes, rather than as
outlined in law further preserving the state's natural resources.
DiBerardinis became animated on
the witness stand as he described the threat: "If you get people reaching
in from the outside telling us 'Lease this' now - that destroys what I thought
was the mission of the agency - to manage in a sustainable way.
"Look," he said, "if somebody else is going to tell you
how much to lease and where to lease, why do you need us? You don't need
foresters who give their whole lives to this... If that's the way the game is
going to be played, it's just a waste of money."
It might also be
unconstitutional.
That's the gist of the legal case
before the court: that Rendell, and now
Corbett following in his footsteps, have - along with legislators - placed
short-term budget considerations above their constitutional duties under
Article 1 Section 27.
Rather than managing the forests as trustee, the suit argues the
forests have instead been managed for quick lucre.
The Supreme Court's December ruling on Act 13 gave Article 1 Section 27
new force. The plurality opinion written by Republican Chief Justice Ronald
Castille eloquently condemns the exploitation of state resources for
short-sighted profit motives.
The immediate action before the court is a request for an injunction
against any further leases of state land and any further diversion of
revenues from gas leases to general fund uses until the full case is decided.
DiBerardinis was the second DCNR
Secretary to testify on Monday, and both lent considerable support to the
lawsuit's central thesis that responsible management of the state forests went
out the window in 2009 after the first round of Marcellus leases brought in
approximately $160 million - more than anyone had imagined.
John Quigley, DiBerardinis's
chief of staff at the time and who succeeded him as DCNR secretary, called it
"an oh shit moment."
Rendell froze the proceeds of the
sale and diverted them to the general fund budget, which was contrary to the
1955 law that created the Oil & Gas Lease Fund, which established the
principle that money generated from the public lands should be reinvested back
into the public lands.
Quigley explained how the
legislature then amended the fiscal code in 2009 to give itself the sole
authority to appropriate oil and gas revenues, a move he called "an
effective repeal of the Oil and Gas Lease Fund Act."
Since then, the Corbett
administration has increasingly used money from the Oil and Gas Lease Fund to
pay for general operations at DCNR. While the attorney for the governor
attempted to demonstrate that the money is still being used for many of the
same purposes, Quigley shot back:
"When you reduce the agency budget from $220 million to $35 million, it
doesn't give the agency much choice but use the money to run the show."
Previously, he said, the agency was required by law to use money from
gas leases to fund conservation, recreation and flood control.
DiBerardinis explained a memo he
sent to Rendell less than a month before he resigned in the spring of 2009
telling the governor that he and the DCNR staff were opposed to further
leasing.
"The context of this
memo," DiBerardinis said Monday, "is there was growing interest in
directing the department - directing the department, not letting us manage the
forests as we saw best, but directing us to do more leasing, to direct us at
budget time 'You have to get this much money and lease this much land.'"
` DiBerardinis said the agency's
ability to perform its core mission - to manage the forests in a sustainable
way - was being threatened.
"Once you start getting
directed," he said, "somebody else is calling the shots."
DiBerardinis noted that the very first Marcellus lease was done in
response to growing pressure, especially from members of the legislature, some
of whom were touting legislation that would have opened up all 2.1 million
acres of state forest to drilling.
"We
were very nervous about that," DiBerardinis said. "We thought that
would be disastrous."
One of those legislators, he noted, was Sen. Mary Jo
White. White's chief of staff at the time, Patrick Henderson, is now Gov.
Corbett's chief advisor on energy issues.
DiBerardinis
said the first lease was done with full consultation of the foresters - they
had control of "the where and how much."
In subsequent leases, Quigley
testified, the department was directed by the governor and the legislature to
lease however much land was required to meet their budget goal.
Under those circumstances,
DiBerardinis said, "The fundamental management tool has been taken away
from you."
He
said, "I believed then and I believe it now - this is wrong."
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/state_forest_gas_drilling_stat.html#incart_m-rpt-1
www.PaForestCoalition.org
Mission:
Good Stewardship of our Public Lands
Support
Our Constitutional Right to Clean Air & Water !
Join
Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation's legal action against Governor
Corbett.
http://www.pedf.org/please-help.html
The
PA Forest Coalition will match the first $4,000
donated
- Just mention "PFC Matching"
5. Scientists Believe First
Conclusive Link Between Aquifer Contamination and Fracking
June
14, 2014For the past two years, News 8 has aired a series of stories of flames
shooting from water wells in Parker County. Dangerous levels of methane gas
somehow found its way into the water supply.
While Barnett Shale gas producers
deny any connection to their operations, a pair of scientists are now disputing
that. They say test results just released by state regulators provide concrete evidence linking fracking and
groundwater contamination.
Parker County resident Steve Lipsky first noticed it
in 2010. His well water was becoming contaminated with increasing levels of methane
gas. So much so that once he vented his well, natural gas would come streaming
out. He illustrates the volume of gas by lighting the vent on fire at night.
Today, the contamination has
become so bad, even his well water ignites.
"Oh,
it's getting worse,” Lipsky said. “That's what I'm trying to tell you."
Last summer, Lipsky filed a
complaint with state oil and gas regulators at the Texas Railroad Commission.
Tests were conducted by the Texas
Railroad Commission and it issued its official findings.
The methane concentration levels
in Lipsky's water is up slightly, the report indicates. It also states that the
chemical make-up of the methane was inconclusive as to a specific source of the
gas.
Specifically, the tests conducted by the state showed Lipsky's
water contained 8.6 milligrams per liter of methane, just under the federal
government's unacceptable limit of 10. But
tests recently run by University of Texas at Arlington scientist Zac Hildebrand
measured 83 milligrams per liter, the highest methane contamination level he
says he has ever seen.
"But what we can say right
now is that those are dangerous -- that's a dangerous level," Hildebrand
said.
Lipsky says the Railroad Commission knew its concentration tests were
not accurate.
Test data supplied in the report
measured the chemical make-up of both the gas found in Lipsky's water and from
two nearby gas production wells, called the Butler and the Teal. According to
the Railroad Commission report "the evidence is insufficient" to
determine if the two samples match.
Yet an inspection of the test data shows the chemical
signature - known as the isotopic analysis - of the Barnett Shale gas is 46.52.
The chemical signature measurement of the gas in Lipsky’s well is 46.63, an
almost identical match.
"The methane and ethane numbers from the Butler
and Teal production are essentially exactly the same as from Lipsky's water
well,” said earth scientist Geoffrey Thyne of Wyoming, who reviewed the data
for WFAA. “It tells me that the gas is the same, and that the gas in Lipsky's
water well was derived from the Barnett formation."
We also asked soil scientist Bryce Payne of Pennsylvania
to review the data. He agrees, saying the gas in Lipsky's water (referred to in
the report as well number 8) is clearly the result of fracking operations.
"The gas from well number 8
is coming from the Barnett and it's coming nearly straight from the
Barnett," Payne said.
What's more,
both Thyne and Payne believe these test results could represent the nation's
first conclusive link between fracking and aquifer contamination.
And what we seem to have here is
the first good example that that in fact is happening,” Thyne said.
When we asked them to respond to
the alleged discrepancies, state officials declined, instead giving us a
statement: "Railroad Commission staff stands behind the conclusions
reached in the May 23rd report. We are aware of other ongoing studies in the area, and we welcome the opportunity to review
any future reports."
But
Lipsky said he will no longer ask state regulators for protection. He said the
new evidence is illuminating and overwhelming, and that residents of the
Barnett Shale must act now to protect their water.
"Unless people get off the
couch and vote or do something, who's going to stop them from continuing doing
what they are doing?" Lipsky said.”
http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/Scientists-say-state-tests-prove-fracking-to-blame-for-Parker-Co-flaming-wells-262056131.html
6. Leaked EPA Draft
Suggests Closer Scrutiny Of Frack Waste
Treatment Plants
“An internal draft EPA document leaked to DeSmog gives a small window
into how, after a full decade since the start of the drilling boom, the agency
is responding.
The
document, dated March 7, 2014, is titled “National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting and Pretreatment for Shale
Gas Extraction Wastewaters: Frequently Asked Questions.”
It's
revealing for what it shows about how EPA staff are taking the hazards of
fracking wastewater more seriously — and also how little things have changed.
It's far more in-depth than the prior FAQ. It has
twice as many pages as the version the EPA published in 2011, after it was
revealed that regulators had allowed
industry to send hundreds of millions of gallons of this waste through municipal
water treatment plants in Pennsylvania that were not equipped to remove its
most dangerous toxins before the water was then discharged into rivers,
sometimes just a mile or so upstream from drinking water intake pipes.
The EPA's new draft document now lists almost two
dozen individual substances — like benzene, radium, and arsenic — that it says
have been found at high enough levels in shale wastewater to cause concern. By
contrast, the 2011 version focused mostly on the high levels of salts found in
the waste.
The new document also explains
that the substances it lists are not the only potential pollutants that must be
removed before water can be considered fully treated and ready to enter rivers
and streams. It explains that each
treatment plant can only take wastewater once regulators are satisfied that
they know what is actually in it.
This
has been an ongoing challenge for regulators in the past, as the industry has
refused to reveal some of the actual chemicals or their levels to the public because,
they explain, it would put them at a competitive disadvantage by potentially
disclosing trade secrets.
The new EPA document also serves as a final nail in
the coffin for a common industry talking point. This is the claim that
fracking's waste is harmless because it is 99 percent sand and water, with a few chemicals like
those used in ice cream mixed in.
“The wastewater that is generated
after hydraulic fracturing operations is essentially salt, sand and water,”
Energy in Depth, the shale industry's public relations arm, wrote on Jan. 3.
But, in its dry technical jargon, the EPA explains
that tests have found chemicals and heavy metals in the shale industry's waste
at levels high enough to pose hazards to drinking water safety, human health
and the environment.
“Further
examination based on type of criteria showed that: drinking water maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) were exceeded for 8 parameters; water quality
criteria for human health protection were exceeded for 9 parameters; and
criteria for aquatic life protection were exceeded for 16 parameters,” the
EPA's new draft document explains.
These hazards are drawing increased attention from
federal regulators in the wake of recent reports that fracking chemical
exposures can be fatal. In at least four cases, the chemicals in fracking waste
have been so powerful that they have killed workers, according to a May 19
announcement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH).
“According to our information, at least four workers have died since 2010
from what appears to be acute chemical exposures during flowback operations at
well sites in the Williston Basin (North Dakota and Montana),” the
researchers wrote. “While not all of these investigations are complete,
available information suggests that these cases involved workers who were gauging flowback or production tanks or
involved in transferring flowback fluids at the well site.”
Experts including EPA officials,
environmental advocates and front-line scientists who reviewed the EPA's draft
FAQ document for DeSmog generally praised it as thorough. But the document also
drew criticism for failing to directly address one of the key issues in
wastewater disposal: recycling.
Of course, the
EPA's draft document on the wastewater must be read against the backdrop of
certain realities. Laws are only as good
as their enforcement.
The EPA's new document is strong in many ways. But
recent history has shown us nothing if not that the EPA often pulls out of
enforcement actions and investigations when confronted by strong industry
opposition. To be clear, the front-line scientists and regional officials in
closest contact with the effects of shale gas extraction have rarely been the
problem when it comes to enforcement. It has often been the political
appointees that have pulled back on the federal agencies' duties.
In June, the agency pulled out of
investigating water contamination claims in Pavilion, WY after the industry and
its allies in Congress pushed back against the EPA's initial findings (EPA's
own internal watchdog Inspector General later concluded that the original
investigation had been justified).
Al Armendariz, who was the EPA's top administrator for oil-rich
southern states including Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, was driven from
office after Republicans in Congress took aim at him over comments he made
about his approach to law enforcement. There
was also the instance where EPA pulled back from its investigation in Dimock,
Pennsylvania in 2012 — but then internal agency documents obtained by the LA
Times showed staff believed fracking had caused water contamination there.
Nowhere is this pattern clearer
than when it comes to the Congressionally-mandated federal fracking study that
is supposed to assess whether fracking poses a threat to drinking water. That
study is now long overdue, and it serves as a textbook example of the
dichotomies within EPA.
According to the New York Times, which reviewed leaked drafts of
the study over time, important topics
like landfill runoff from drilling waste disposal sites and modeling whether
rivers can dilute fracking wastewater after it is processed by treatment
plants, were cut from study plans as they progressed up to the political
appointees, at times over the objections of EPA staffers on the front line.
EPA higher-ups even attempted to
muzzle staff and prevent them from speaking about ambitions in that study, the
leaked documents showed.
“He could not have been more
adamant or clear about the development of any documentation related to our
efforts on Marcellus,” David Campbell, director of the E.P.A. Region 3 Office
of Environmental Innovation, wrote as he described the instructions he had been
given by the agency’s regional administrator, Shawn M. Garvin. “His concern is
that if we spell out what we think we want to do (our grandest visions) that
the public may have access to those documents and challenge us to enact those
plans.”
With internal conflicts rendering
the EPA slow and erratic in its response to fracking-related pollution
problems, citizen groups have tried to fill the void and enforce environmental
laws such as the Clean Water Act. These groups have sued over treatment plants
that have failed to fully remove pollutants before releasing the wastewater
into drinking water supplies.
“Because state and federal agencies have not taken an
aggressive approach to dealing with drilling wastewater discharges, it has
taken years to start to get this problem under control,” explained Mr.
Arnowitt. “Going to court is not an easy route to take for citizen groups to
get action on gas drilling wastewater discharges. The cost of litigation is
always an issue, especially if you are trying to get court action in a timely
manner.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/28/leaked-epa-draft-fracking-wastewater-guidance-shows-closer-scrutiny-treatment-plants
7. John Stolz’s Study
Of Woodlands’ Contaminated Water
“John Stolz began researching the effects of gas-drilling in 2010, not long
after the hydrofracturing boom took hold in Pennsylvania. These days, the
Duquesne University microbiologist regularly serves as an independent expert on
how fracking can affect well water.
His best-known research involves the Woodlands, a
rural Butler County community where residents began complaining of declining
well-water quality shortly after gas drilling began there in 2010. Many still
rely on donated water to survive. Recently,
Stolz — director of Duquesne University's Center for Environmental Research and
Education — completed a three-year study, including water testing and surveys
of Woodlands residents. A summary released in April reported that 56 of the 143
households surveyed (39 percent) had seen changes in their water quality, most
often involving the water's color or smell. Though the findings are complex,
the study concluded that it's "quite plausible" that drilling and
related activities — including some 65 horizontal wells in the immediate area —
had affected the local hydrology. (The full report is due in June.)
Contamination isn't unique to the Woodlands: Statewide, the DEP has
confirmed more than 250 cases where drilling-related activities damaged water
supplies. And recently, Stolz's research team collected samples from a
Washington County community where fracking is occurring. "It's red water,
it's brown water, it's black water," he says.
Stolz is also technical adviser
to a coalition of environmental groups that has been meeting with state
officials in Harrisburg to try to improve how the state deals with
drilling-related water-quality issues. The group includes representatives from
six groups, including the Sierra Club and Penn Environment. "I'm glad to
have John in the room" to explain technical points, says Steve Hvozdovich,
who represents Clean Water Action on the coalition.
"Our goal is to help DEP do
their job better," says Stolz.
Among other issues, the coalition notes that when citizens complain of
fouled water, the state routinely tests for only a narrow range of contaminants
— usually leaving out dangerous toxins like mercury, chromium, cadmium and
beryllium. "They could be reporting on more stuff," says Stolz.
The coalition's key Harrisburg
contact has been Scott Perry, the deputy secretary of DEP's Office of Oil and
Gas Management. "We very much value their input," says Perry of the
coalition. But Perry sounds unlikely to
back a change in testing standards. He says that unless other contaminants
are suspected, the DEP tests only for substances likely to indicate contamination
related to drilling. To "test for everything under the sun every single
time," he tells City Paper, is both inappropriate and a strain on
resources.
"When we're talking about
health and safety and whether someone has safe drinking water, to me that's
tough to place a price tag on," argues Hvozdovich. "If it's a
resource issue, then our state needs to step up."
Stolz also worries that drillers
and regulators pay too little attention to "legacy issues" — the
presence of old coal mines and conventional gas wells drilled before the
fracking arrived on the scene. He
believes contaminants associated with mine drainage that are found in some
water wells are caused by new "conduits" in the rock created by
fracking. He says old mines in places like the Deer Lakes Park area might well
cause problems if drilling happens.
"The
damage," he says, "is gonna start popping up in places it's never
popped up before."
8. Radioactive
Frack Waste-Who Will Take It?
Sludge rejected in PA, sent to WVA
“As the drilling rush proceeds at
a fast pace in PA, nearby states have confronted a steady flow of toxic waste
produced by the industry. Range
Resources, attempted on Tuesday to quietly ship tons of radioactive sludge,
rejected by a local landfill, to one in nearby West Virginia where
radioactivity rules are still pending. It was only stopped when local media
reports brought the attempted dumping to light.
“We are still seeking information
about what happened at the Pennsylvania landfill two months ago when the waste
was rejected, and about the radiation test results the company received from
the lab,” Kelly Gillenwater, a West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection spokeswoman, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which had tracked the
waste after it was rejected by a Chartiers, PA landfill because it was too
radioactive. “For now this is still under investigation.”
It's one of a series of incidents
involving the disposal of fracking's radioactive waste. Collectively these
incidents illustrate how a loophole for
the oil and gas industry in federal hazardous waste laws has left state
regulators struggling to prevent the industry from disposing its radioactive
waste in dangerous ways.
Range Resource's sludge,
transported in two roll-off boxes (the type commonly seen on the backs of
dumptrucks), was rejected by the Arden Landfill in Chartiers, PA, on March 1 after it tripped radioactivity
alarms. After returning the radioactive sludge to the wellsite for storage, the
company hauled it on Tuesday to the Meadowfield landfill in Bridgeport, WV.
The Meadowfield landfill, like
the Arden Landfill, is owned by Waste Management, but the two sites differ in
one crucial respect: Meadowfield lacks a
radiation detector, while Pennsylvania law required the Arden landfill to
maintain one. So no radiation alarm was triggered at Meadowfield.
Ms. Gillenwater told the local
press that West Virginia's inquires did not begin until state officials read
about the dumping in a Pittsburgh newspaper.
Those 12 tons
of sludge, from the Malinky wellpad in Smith Township, showed radiation levels
of 212 millirems (normal background radiation in the area is roughly 7 to 8
millirems). West Virginia officials said the sludge that's been dumped in
Meadowfield will be allowed to stay.
But Range Resources, which is currently storing unusually radioactive
fracking waste at two other wellpads in Pennsylvania's Washington county,
was forbidden to haul that material to West Virginia until regulators find out
more about the potential hazards.
Several of Range Resources wells — the MCC and Malinky well pads in
Smith Township and the Carter well pad in Mt. Pleasant — have produced sludge
with unusually high levels of radioactivity this year.
A Range Resources spokesman, Matt
Pitzarella, was quick to dismiss concerns, appearing in local news reports and
seeking to downplay the incident.
The levels of radioactivity found
in the sludge are in fact over twenty times background levels — not enough to
cause harm to anyone standing a few feet away, but enough to cause concern that
if the sludge were to wash into one of two nearby creeks, tributaries of the
Monongahela River, it could pollute those waterways. In neighboring Ohio, which
has also grappled with disposing Pennsylvania's fracking waste,
environmentalists have also raised concerns about how liquid leachate from
landfills that store radioactive waste will be disposed.
Perhaps the most striking thing
about this incident is the fact that state regulators were only alerted to the
shipment by press reports.
For most industries, a federal law, the Resource Recovery and
Conservation Act, requires that hazardous materials (haz-mat) be closely
tracked and disposed of under tight controls. Shippers must maintain a manifest
that tracks every ounce as haz-mat moves from cradle to grave.
But under an exception to that federal law, crafted in 1988, much of
the oil and gas industry's toxic waste is not regulated by the EPA's haz-mat
rules. Although agency officials discovered strong evidence that the waste
was dangerous, pressure from the Reagan White House kept their conclusions out
of the report that the agency ultimately delivered to Congress.
The state does now require
landfills to install monitors with alarms that go off if trucks carrying
radioactive waste pass through.
Landfills are supposed to reject any waste emitting over 150 millirems. A 2012
investigation by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette found that “nearly 1,000 trucks,
carrying a total of 15,769 tons of Marcellus Shale waste were stopped at
Pennsylvania landfill gates after tripping radioactivity alarms.”
When those trucks were turned
back, that waste had to go elsewhere. And neighboring states have rules about
disposing of fracking waste that are far more lax than in Pennsylvania. The
patchwork of regulations means that rules can vary dramatically from state to
state, and drillers can avoid costly
regulatory compliance by crossing state lines.
“[Radioactivity monitoring]
currently is not a requirement under West Virginia law,” Gillenwater told West
Virginia's MetroNews. “However, legislation was passed recently requiring the
DEP to implement rules related to that and our agency is actually in the
process right now of drafting rules related to that.”
Earlier this month, the New Jersey
state Senate approved a bill that would ban fracking waste disposal in the
state. New York and Massachusetts are considering similar measures. West
Virginia's rules, when they go into effect, will require that radioactive
fracking waste be stored in separately constructed lined pits.
But the state that has seen the greatest amount of waste from
Pennsylvania's fracking rush, Ohio, still has weak regulations for solid
fracking waste, a May 13 investigation by Propublica concluded. The investigation found that over 100,000
tons of solid waste from Pennsylvania drilling wound up disposed in Ohio.
“It has the potential to leave a
toxic legacy,” Alison Auciello of Food and Water Watch, an environmental
advocacy organization, told Propublica, “that could turn much of Ohio into
potential superfund sites.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/02/loopholes-enable-industry-evade-rules-dumping-radioactive-fracking-waste
Marcellus Shale waste trips more radioactivity alarms than other
products left at landfills
By
Anya Litvak Pittsburgh Post-Gazette August 2013
“Last year, nearly 1,000
trucks hauling 15,769 tons of Marcellus Shale waste were stopped at
Pennsylvania landfill gates after tripping radioactivity alarms.
The trucks were pulled to the
side, wanded with hand-held detectors and some of the material was sent to
laboratories for further evaluation. In the end, 622 tons were shipped to three
out-of-state landfills specifically designed to dispose of hazardous and
radioactive materials.
But most of the flagged waste was
eventually allowed past the gates. It was safe enough to be buried along with
other waste as long as it stays below the
annual limit, the DEP and landfill operators deemed.
The increase in radiation alarms
going off at landfills has mirrored the growth in Marcellus Shale activity, and
the DEP has launched a yearlong study of radioactive Marcellus waste to
determine any risks involved in its transportation or disposal.
The
majority of the waste was drill cuttings
-- chunks of earth pulled out of the well during the drilling process -- but
there was also flow-back water, frack sand and other fluids that were turned
into sludge for disposal.
It's these sludges that experts
say are most likely contributing to elevated radiation counts.
According to the DEP, Marcellus sludge is three times more likely to
trip alarms than solid shale waste. Last year, 224 loads of drill cuttings
elicited alarms at landfills, while 773 loads of sludge did the same. So far
this year, 211 loads of sludge and 124 loads of drill cuttings tripped alarms,
the DEP said.
Kelvin Gregory, an assistant
professor at Carnegie Mellon University who works on Marcellus water issues,
said the peak of radioactivity in wastewater comes after the initial gush of
flow-back water comes to the surface after fracking. Radium concentrations are
highest in produced water, a term that describes the brine that continues to
flow out of the well for long periods of time after that well starts producing
gas.
In a survey of flow-back and
produced water at 46 Marcellus sites, Mr. Gregory found radioactivity increases
for two months on average, then he saw plateaus.
Whether
the level stays at that high concentration forever or tapers off at some point
isn't yet clear, Mr. Gregory said. The wells haven't been producing long enough
to tell.
In April, a truckload from Rice Energy arrived
at Max Environmental's Yukon Landfill in Westmoreland County and set off the
alarm. The waste was deemed too radioactive.
The
company shopped it around to a few landfills, but no one would take it, Mr.
Poister said. Eventually, the truck went back to the source while arrangements
were made to transport the waste to a specialized disposal site in Idaho.
"We've taken quite a bit of
drill cuttings at our Yukon facility this year, and only one truck triggered
the radiation alarm," said Carl Spadaro, environmental general manager of
the Yukon landfill. "Other landfills have had alarms triggered quite a
bit."
Yukon accepts about 90,000 tons
of waste annually and just last month amended its permit to be able to accept
waste that trips radiation alarms.
"We didn't do this to bring
in a lot of [radioactive] waste," Mr. Spadaro said. "We did this to
level the playing field."
Yukon competes with two other
landfills within a 5-mile radius.
"The biggest concern is
exposure of a landfill worker during unloading and somebody who's handling
material," Mr. Spadaro said.
The exposure level allowed at
Pennsylvania landfills is a quarter of the EPA's public radiation dose limit of
100 millirem per year.
"This is equivalent to about
two chest X-rays," said Kevin Sunday, a former spokesman for the DEP.
Read
more:
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/marcellusshale/2013/08/22/Marcellus-Shale-waste-trips-more-radioactivity-alarms-than-other-products-left-at-landfills/stories/201308220367#ixzz33hvrqRdZ
9. 250 Medical Organizations Sign On to Letter To NY Gov. Cuomo
“Yesterday, a broad-based
coalition of more than 250 medical organizations, health experts and
researchers - mostly from NYS but some luminaries and fracking researchers from
elsewhere as well - sent a letter to NY's Governor Cuomo and our new acting
Department of Health commissioner, Dr. Zucker. The letter lays out recent
science and trends in the data and calls for a 3-5 year concrete moratorium.
Note that the national Physicians for Social Responsibility is among the
signatories, as are the American Academy of Pediatrics District II, American
Lung Association in NY, Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy,
numerous breast cancer networks, many doctors and even some county health
departments.
The letter is available online: bit.ly/1kO3jFu
The
letter carefully lays out trends in the data with dozens of careful citations
and is fully fact checked. Those parts, in particular, may be useful to borrow
from.
As
the letter puts it, "The totality of the science—which now encompasses
hundreds of peer–reviewed studies and hundreds of additional reports and case
examples—shows that permitting fracking in New York would pose significant
threats to the air, water, health and safety of New Yorkers.”
Some excellent press
coverage as well:
Times Union: Health groups urge 3-5 gas
frack ban by Cuomo http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Health-groups-urge-3-5-gas-frack-ban-by-Cuomo-5515089.php
NYSNYS News: Hydrofracking opponents want
3- to 5-year moratorium
http://www.troyrecord.com/general-news/20140529/hydrofracking-opponents-want-3-to-5-year-moratorium
Innovation Trail (NPR affiliate): Doctors
ask DOH for more time to study fracking
http://innovationtrail.org/post/doctors-ask-doh-more-time-study-fracking
The Letter:
May 29, 2014
The Honorable
Andrew M. Cuomo Governor of New York State NYS State Capitol Building Albany,
NY 12224
Acting Health Commissioner Howard A. Zucker
New York State Department of Health Corning Tower
Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12237
Dear Governor Cuomo and Acting Health
Commissioner Zucker,
We,
the undersigned physicians, nurses, researchers and public health
professionals, write to update you on the alarming trends in the data regarding
the health and community impacts of drilling and fracking for natural gas. The
totality of the science—which now encompasses hundreds of peer–reviewed studies
(Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE), 2014) and
hundreds of additional reports and case examples—shows that permitting fracking
in New York would pose significant threats to the air, water, health and safety
of New Yorkers. At the same time, new assessments from expert panels also make
clear that fundamental data gaps remain and that the best imaginable regulatory
frameworks fall far short of protecting our health and our environment.
Concerned
both by the rapidly expanding evidence of harm and by the uncertainties that
remain, we urge you to adopt a concrete moratorium of at least three to five
years while scientific and medical knowledge on the impacts of fracking
continues to emerge.
Many
of us have previously submitted official comments that highlight various
studies and data that raise a range of concerns about impacts to public health.
In light of such concerns, New York has wisely maintained a de facto
moratorium. However, since the close of the last public comment period, the
body of scientific studies has approximately doubled in size. Moreover, the
pace at which studies are emerging has accelerated: the number of studies on
the health effects of fracking published in the first few months of 2014 exceed
the sum total of those published in 2011 and 2012 combined. (Mobbs, 2014).
All
together, these new data reinforce the earlier evidence, reveal additional
health problems associated with drilling and fracking operations, and expose
intractable, irreversible problems. They also make clear that the relevant
risks for harm have neither been fully identified nor adequately assessed.
While the scope of concerns and new information is far greater than this letter
can accommodate, trends in the data include the following:
Evidence
linking water contamination to fracking–related activities is now indisputable.
An investigation by the Associated Press has
confirmed cases of water contamination in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia,
and Texas (Begos, 2014). Fracking-related
contaminants detected in water sources within the last twelve months include
methane (Jackson et al., 2013),radium (Vengosh, Jackson, Warner, Darrah, &
Kondash, 2014), arsenic (Fontenot et al., 2013), and hormone-disrupting
substances (Kassotis, Tillitt, Davis, Hormann, & Nagel, 2014).
Reviewing
the entirety of the evidence, the Council of Canadian Academies concluded, “A
common claim. . . is that hydraulic fracturing has shown no verified impacts on
groundwater. Recent peer-reviewed literature refutes this claim and also
indicates that the main concerns are for longer term cumulative impacts that
would generally not yet be evident and are difficult to predict reliably. . . .
The most important questions concerning
groundwater contamination from shale gas development are not whether
groundwater impacts have or will occur, but where and when they will occur. .
. ” (Council of Canadian Academies, 2014).
The structural
integrity of wells can fail. These failures are common, unavoidable, and increase
over time as wells age and cement and casings deteriorate.
According to industry data, five percent of
wells leak immediately; more than half leak after 30 years (Brufatto et
al., 2003). Data from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
show a 6 to 7 percent failure rate for new wells drilled in each of the past
three years. The consequences of gas leaks include risk of explosion, drinking
water contamination, and seepage of raw methane into the atmosphere where it
acts as a powerful greenhouse gas (Ingraffea, 2013).
Drilling
and fracking contribute to loss of well integrity. Drilling creates
microfractures in the surrounding rock that cement cannot fill and so opens
pathways for the upward migration of liquids and gases. Additionally, high
pressure from repeated fracturing can deform cement, further raising the risk
of leakage. Age-related shrinkage and deterioration cause cement to pull away
from the surrounding rock, reduce the tightness of the seal, thus opening
potential portals for contamination. According to one expert panel, “the
greatest threat to groundwater is gas leakage from wells from which even
existing best practices cannot assure long-term prevention” (Council of
Canadian Academies, 2014).
The disposal of
fracking wastewater is causally linked to earthquakes and radioactive
contamination of surface water. It remains a problem with no solution.
As
confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey, deep-well injection of fracking waste
has triggered significant earthquakes in Oklahoma (Sumy, Cochran, Keranen, Wei,
& Abers, 2014). A team from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory reports similar findings in Ohio and demonstrates how injection of
fracking waste can stress geological faults and make them vulnerable to
slippage (Davies et al., 2014).
In the United Kingdom, Canada, Mexico and
Ohio, geologists have also linked fracking itself to earthquakes (Godoy,
2014; The Canadian Press, 2012; Vukmanovic, 2011). Members of the Seismological
Society of America warn that geologists do not yet know how to predict the
timing or location of such earthquakes: “We don't know how to evaluate the
likelihood that a [fracking or wastewater] operation will be a seismic source
in advance.” (Kiger, 2014).
are common, unavoidable, and increase over time
as wells age and cement and casings deteriorate.
Researchers
further warn that earthquakes can occur tens of miles away from the wells
themselves. (Walsh, 2014)
Both
the certainties and the uncertainties about the risk of earthquakes from
fracking operations raise serious, unique concerns about the possible
consequences to New York City’s drinking water infrastructure from
fracking-related activities. No other major U.S. city provides drinking water
through aging, 100-mile-long aqueducts that lie directly atop the Marcellus
Shale. Seismic damage to these aqueducts that results in a disruption of supply
of potable water to the New York City area would create a catastrophic public
health crisis.
At
the same time, hauling fracking wastewater to treatment plants has resulted in
contamination of rivers and streams with unfilterable radioactive radium
(Nelson et al., 2014; Warner, Christie, Jackson, & Vengosh, 2013).
Air quality
impacts from fracking–related activities are clearer than ever.
Air pollution arises from the gas extraction
process itself, as well as the intensive transportation demands of extraction,
processing and delivery. And yet, monitoring
technologies currently in use underestimate the ongoing risk to exposed people,
especially children (Brown, Weinberger, Lewis, & Bonaparte, 2014;
Rawlins, 2014; University of Texas, 2014).
Fracking-related
air pollutants include carcinogenic silica
dust (Moore, Zielinska, Pétron, & Jackson, 2014), carcinogenic benzene (McKenzie, Witter, Newman, & Adgate,
2012), and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) that create ozone (Gilman, Lerner, Kuster, & de Gouw, 2013).
Exposure to ozone—smog—contributes to costly, disabling health problems,
including premature death, asthma, stroke, heart attack, and low birth weight
(Jerrett et al., 2009).
Unplanned
toxic air releases from fracking sites in Texas increased by 100 percent since
2009, according to an extensive investigation by the
Center for Public Integrity, InsideClimate News and the Weather Channel
(Morris, Song, & Hasemyer, 2014).
We
are alarmed that Utah’s formerly pristine Uintah Basin now appears on the list
of the nation’s 25 most ozone-polluted counties (American Lung Association,
2014). Indeed, total annual VOC emissions from Uintah Basin fracking sites are
roughly equivalent to those from 100 million cars (Lockwood, 2014). Questions about possibly elevated rates of
stillbirth and infant deaths in the area have prompted an ongoing investigation
(Stewart & Maffly, 2014).
Community
and social impacts of fracking can be widespread, expensive, and deadly.
Community
and social impacts of drilling and fracking include spikes in crime, sexually
transmitted diseases, vehicle accidents, and worker deaths and injuries
(Ghahremani, 2014; Gibbons, 2013; Healy, 2013; Hennessy-Fiske, 2014; O'Hare,
2014; Olsen, 2014). A new investigation by the Associated Press found that
traffic fatalities more than quadrupled in intensely drilled areas even as they
fell throughout the rest of the nation (Associated Press, 2014).
The
Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative’s new report, “Assessing the Impacts
of Shale Drilling: Four Community Case Studies,” documented economic, community
government and human services impact of fracking on four rural communities.
Among the findings: the advent of fracking brings a rapid influx of
out-of-state workers and attendant costs for police, emergency services, road
damage, medical and social services. At the same time, increased rent costs
bring shortages of affordable housing (Multi-State Shale Research
Collaborative, 2014). As medical professionals, we know that these kinds of
social impacts bring health consequences, especially for low-income single
mothers and their children.
Industry
secrecy contributes to unsettled science
Even
as evidence of harm continues to emerge, reviews of the science to date note
that investigations necessary to understand long-term public health impacts do
not exist. Medical and scientific organizations and groups of scholars in the
United States, England, Canada, and Australia have, very recently, acknowledged
the legitimacy of public health concerns and called for high-quality,
comprehensive health studies (Adgate, Goldstein, & McKenzie, 2014; Coram,
Moss, & Blashki, 2014; Council of Canadian Academies, 2014; Kovats et al.,
2014).
These
recommendations echo those made earlier by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office. In 2012, the GAO pointed out
that drilling and fracking clearly pose “inherent environmental and public
health risks.” And yet, “the extent of these risks...is unknown” due to lack of
serious study of the long-term, cumulative impacts (U.S. Government
Accountability Office, 2012).
To
explain why science is missing in action, we emphasize the obstacles faced by
researchers seeking to carry out the needed research. Specifically, as independent observers have noted, “the
gas industry has sought to limit the disclosure of information about its
operations to researchers” (Sadasivam, 2014), and prolifically uses
non-disclosure agreements as a strategy to keep data from health researchers,
among others (Efstathiou Jr. & Drajem, 2013).
Nevertheless,
important studies continue to fill research gaps and build a clearer picture of
the longer-term and cumulative impacts of fracking. Many such studies currently
underway will be published in the upcoming three–to–five year horizon. These
include further investigations of hormone-disrupting chemicals in fracking
fluid; further studies of birth outcomes among pregnant women living near
drilling and fracking operations; further studies of air quality impacts; and
further studies of drinking water contamination.
Just
as medical professionals assert a sacred oath to ‘first do no harm,’ this is
the proper course for New York State to follow in its decision about fracking.
Indeed, Governor Cuomo, we hold you to your promise that fracking will not be
allowed if the health of all New Yorkers and the quality of all watersheds
cannot be protected. Amidst all the uncertainty, this much is very clear: based
on the knowledge available to us now, the NYS Department of Health can come to
no other determination except to say that this admirable and appropriate
standard cannot be met.
Accordingly,
and while critical ongoing studies are conducted, we urge that New York State
take a leadership role in the nation by announcing a formal moratorium. Given
the lack of any evidence indicating that fracking can be done safely – and a
wealth of evidence to the contrary – we consider a three–to–five year
moratorium to be an appropriate minimum time frame.
Finally, we believe that public health is best
served by transparency and inclusiveness – particularly among those who stand
to be affected. With a moratorium in place–and as more data
on the impacts of fracking emerge–the state
should open a comprehensive New York-specific health assessment process that
engages and seeks input from the public and the independent medical and
scientific community (Concerned Health Professionals of New York, 2013).
Sincerely,
HEALTH
& MEDICAL ORGANIZATIONS
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Academy of Pediatrics, District II New
York State
American Lung Association in New York
Babylon Breast Cancer Coalition
Breast Cancer Action, a national grassroots
education and advocacy organization with over 2600 members in New York State
Breast Cancer Coalition of Rochester
Breast Cancer Fund
Breast Cancer Options, Kingston
Capital Region Action Against Breast Cancer
Center for Environmental Health, New York
Great Neck Breast Cancer Coalition
Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition, Inc.
New York State Breast Cancer Network, a statewide
network of 23 member organizations reaching over 135,000 New Yorkers affected
by breast cancer each year
Otsego County Medical Society Physicians for
Social Responsibility Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona Physicians
for Social Responsibility, Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility,
San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility, NYC Chapter
Physicians for Social Responsibility/Hudson-Mohawk Chapter Physicians
Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy Science and Environmental Health
Network Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project
5
Tompkins County Medical Society Western NY
Professional Nurses Association Legislative Committee
Directors and Board Members Holly McGregor
Anderson RN BS, Breast Cancer Coalition of Rochester
Beverly Canin, Board Member, Breast Cancer
Options, Kingston NY, New York State Breast Cancer Network, Breast Cancer
Action
Donna Flayhan PhD, Director, The Lower Manhattan
Public Health Project Andi Gladstone, Executive Director, New York State Breast
Cancer Network Tess Helfman, President, Babylon Breast Cancer Coalition,
Copiague, NY Roy Korn Jr. MD MPH FACP, President, Schoharie County Medical
Society Karen Joy Miller, President, Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition,
Inc. Hope Nemiroff, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Options, Kingston NY
Raina Rippel, Director, Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project
Jeanne Rizzo RN, President & CEO, Breast Cancer Fund
Laura Weinberg, President, Great Neck Breast
Cancer Coalition, Great Neck, NY
10. Oil and Gas Production Wastes-EPA
(This is an excerpt
of the information on the EPA site. Jan)
The geologic formations that
contain oil and gas deposits also contain naturally-occurring radionuclides,
which are referred to as "NORM" (Naturally-Occurring Radioactive
Materials):
-uranium (and its
decay products)
-thorium (and decay
products)
-radium (and decay
products)
-lead-210
Geologists have
recognized their presence since the early 1930s and use it as a method for
finding deposits (Ma87).
Much of the
petroleum in the earth's crust was created at the site of ancients seas by the
decay of sea life. As a result, petroleum deposits often occur in aquifers
containing brine (salt water). Radionuclides, along with other minerals that
are dissolved in the brine, precipitate (separate and settle) out forming
various wastes at the surface:
-mineral scales
inside pipes
-sludges
-contaminated
equipment or components
-produced waters.
Because the
extraction process concentrates the naturally occurring radionuclides and
exposes them to the surface environment and human contact, these wastes are
classified as TENORM.
How much
radiation is in the wastes? Because
radium levels in the soil and rocks vary greatly, so do their concentrations in
scales and sludges. Radiation levels may vary from background soil levels to as
high as several hundred nanoCuries per gram. The variation depends on several factors:
-concentration and identity of the radionuclides
-chemistry of the geologic formation
-characteristics of the
production process (McA88).
The table below shows the range of
activities in these wastes:
|
Wastes
|
Radiation Level [pCi/g]
|
||
|
|
low
|
average
|
high
|
|
Produced Water [pCi/l]
|
0.1
|
NA
|
9,000
|
|
Pipe/Tank Scale [pCi/g]
|
<0.25
|
<200
|
>100,000
|
The Radiation in TENORM Summary Table provides
a range of reported concentrations, and average concentration measurements of
NORM associated with various waste types and materials.
According to an API industry-wide survey,
approximately 64 percent of the gas producing equipment and 57 percent of the
oil production equipment showed radioactivity at or near background levels. TENORM radioactivity levels tend to be
highest in water handling equipment. Average exposure levels for this equipment
were between 30 to 40 micro Roentgens per hour (μR/hr), which is about 5 times
background. Gas processing equipment with the highest levels include the reflux
pumps, propane pumps and tanks, other pumps, and product lines. Average
radiation levels for this equipment as between 30 to 70 μR/hr. Exposures
from some oil production and gas processing equipment exceeded 1 mR/hr
11.
Radioactive Drilling Waste Poses Serious Threat
By David Kowalski,
Ph.D., Retired Cancer Researcher and member of Union of Concerned Scientists
“The Marcellus Shale contains
radioactive materials, including radium and radon. Normally, the radioactive
material is safely buried deep underground. However, shale gas drilling and fracking bring radioactivity in solids and
liquid wastewater to the surface, posing a risk to public health if not
properly managed.
Radium and radon can cause cancer
if ingested or inhaled. Radium causes leukemia and bone cancer. Radon gas is
the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.
In 2009, the state Department of
Environmental Conservation (I believe the writer means DEP. Jan) found radium levels in Marcellus Shale wastewater
that are thousands of times greater than that allowed in drinking water by the
EPA, and up to 267 times the limit for safe discharge into the environment.
Exemptions from key federal regulations allow gas industry solid and
liquid waste to pass as “non-hazardous.” However, solid drilling waste from
Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale has triggered radiation alarms at landfills. This
waste has been imported by New York landfills. Liquid leachate from landfills
is sent to waste treatment plants unequipped to monitor or remove radioactive
materials, threatening drinking water sources.
Recently, a peer-reviewed
scientific paper reported radium levels
of 200 times background in Pennsylvania’s Blacklick Creek sediments downstream of a fracking wastewater treatment
plant. The gas industry has not identified methods to clean up the wastewater
and safely dispose of the radioactive material removed.
The DEC permits the spreading of
salty wastewater (brine) on roads for de-icing, dust control and road
stabilization as well as on land for dust control. However, because of the
possible presence of radioactive materials, such applications of wastewater
should not be permitted in the absence of testing for radioactive materials.
Radium and radon in waste from
shale gas drilling and fracking pose a serious threat to public health,
although the cancers induced can take years to develop. In light of lax
monitoring of radioactivity by the industry and the states, as well as the
absence of safe methods for waste treatment and disposal, the public should
demand that the State Legislature pass laws banning this hazardous waste in
order to protect our water, land, air and health.
Public input is more important
than ever given heavy campaign contributions to state legislators from the
natural gas industry.
David Kowalski,
Ph.D.
12. Environmental Rights: 5 Facts About The
Pennsylvania Constitution
Added to the state
constitution more than 40 years ago, the environmental rights amendment to the
Pennsylvania Constitution was the basis for the Supreme Court overturning the
law that pre-empted local zoning ordinances in order to maximize gas drilling
in the Marcellus shale.
Article 1, Section 27 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution reads:
"The
people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the
natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment.
Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all of the
people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the
Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people."
Here
are five facts about the amendment:
1 - The right to clean air and pure water is
equivalent to the right to free speech.
As
part of the Constitution's "Bill of Rights" section, the placement
and the phrasing of the amendment puts the right to clean air and pure water
and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of
the environment on par with citizens' right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures.
2 - Both Republicans and Democrats were for it: the amendment passed the
House of Representatives and the Senate unanimously - twice!
Adding environmental rights to
the Constitution was a "strong bipartisan effort," according to its
author, Franklin Kury, who was a representative at the time. "The
leadership of both parties was for it."
3 - In addition to the Speaker at the time, Herbert Fineman, the
amendment was co-sponsored by four future Speakers of the House:
Democrats Leroy Irvis and
James Manderino, as well as Republicans Jack Seltzer and Matthew Ryan.
"There
were heavyweight lawyers looking at this - they knew what was going on,"
said Kury. "Every legislator from the coal region was on there - World War
II vets - no-nonsense guys."
"This was not some feel-good
Earth Day proclamation, not a flight of environmental fancy."
Kury said legislators - and the
people of Pennsylvania - had had enough of the environmental disasters that had
been perpetrated by the coal and steel industries over the previous years.
"We were determined this
would never happen again," he said.
4 - The people of Pennsylvania voted 4-1 in favor of
the amendment. The amendment went before the people of
Pennsylvania as a ballot question in May 1971. It was one of five ballot
questions that election. Voters rejected two, and approved two with a margin of
roughly 2 votes to 1, but the voters overwhelmingly approved the environmental
rights amendment 4 to 1.
It received more than 1 million
votes in favor and just 259,979 votes against.
In fact the environmental rights
amendment received more votes than any of the candidates for statewide office
who were on the ballot.
As the Supreme Court recently wrote: "To say the Environmental
Rights Amendment was broadly supported by the people and their representatives
would be an understatement."
5 - It took more than 40 years before the protections in the amendment
were given full expression by the courts.
Ever since early court challenges
in the 1970s, conventional wisdom held that Article 1, Section 27 didn't have
real teeth.
The case law did establish that
environmental regulations passed by the legislature and enforced by agencies
like the DEP would survive a constitutional challenge because the Environmental
Rights Amendment put environmental protection on par with the constitutional
right to property.
Environmental
enforcement by the state was thereby strengthened.
But citizen - and sometimes even
state - challenges to specific projects rarely succeeded, because the courts
created a "balancing test" in which any particular project was judged
on whether or not it complied with existing regulations, whether an attempt had
been made to mitigate environmental damage and whether that damage so clearly
outweighed any benefits that proceeding would be "an abuse of
discretion."
These precedents in the lower
courts "weakened the clear import of the plain language of the
constitutional provision."
The Supreme Court last year saw an opportunity to weigh in on Article
1, Section 27 in ways it never had before. It took the opportunity and
overturned much that had been considered settled case law.
The Court determined that earlier
precedent "has tended to define the broad constitutional rights in terms
of compliance with various statutes and, as a result, to minimize the
constitutional import of the Environmental Rights Amendment."
In overturning previous
precedents, the Supreme Court attempted to outline the "foundational
principles" for an entirely new and "coherent environmental rights
jurisprudence."
According to the Supreme Court, "The right delineated in the first
clause of Section 27 presumptively is on par with, and enforceable to the same
extent as, any other right reserved to the people in Article 1." That
includes the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness; it
includes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury and
the right to bear arms.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/04/environmental_rights_5_shockin.html
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
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
