westmcg@gmail.com
* 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.
Latrobe
Farm Market
Thank you to Mike Atherton and Cynthia Walter,
Dorothy Pochet and Jan Milburn for working our TDS testing table at Latrobe
Farm Market.
To Carol Cutler for a lovely job on creating the
flyer, Mike Atherton for publicity, and Jan and Jack Milburn for posting flyers
around the Latrobe area.
Thank You --Recent Donations
Thank
you to April Jackman, the Shelton family, and Marc Levine for their generous
donations that support our work to protect the health and environment of local
communities.
We have been busy—You may notice the articles are absent pictures
this week. The group has been incredibly busy so this is a bare- bones summer
issue. We: worked at the Latrobe Farm
Market for two weeks testing water samples and sharing information about
fracking, are working on distributing the Tenaska petitions, are preparing new
handouts on data about fracking –including water pollution to the Yough River
from the proposed Tenaska plant, worked to get a logo created to have our
banner made-which we now have, continue to meet with grad students doing their
research on various aspects of fracking, are talking to reporters as needed, are working on local
zoning issues, are coordinating a session
with Mt Watershed and Jim Rosenberg to learn how to search DEP enotices and
permits, and many of us are preparing
testimony for the Carbon hearings in Pittsburgh next Friday. We always need
your support and could be present at more farm markets and events with more
volunteers. Our success is limited only by the number of people who care enough
to get involved and make a difference. We will
continue informing the public, and fighting for the health and the
environment of our communities.
A little Help Please --Take Action!!
***Tenaska
Plant Seeks to Be Sited in South Huntingdon, Westmoreland County***
Petition !!
Just Use the Link
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.
**Delmont
Community Meeting: Proposed Mariner East I Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline July 30: 6 – 7:30 p.m. Delmont Public Library, 77 Greensburg St, Delmont
Proposed Mariner East I Natural Gas Liquids
Pipeline
Presentations
on environmental, economic and social issues associated with the Mariner East Pipelines.
Come learn more.
Clean
Air Council, Steamfitters Local 449 Union
And----Sign
the petition for the PUC to deny Sunoco Logistics' application to be
designated as a public utility corporation for the Proposed Mariner East I
Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline project and require them to go before local zoning
boards to receive permission for the project.
*BE THERE FOR
PITTSBURGH AIR --- Rally to Support
Curbing Climate Pollution from Power Plants, Pittsburgh, July 31. ACTION. Demonstrate your support for national
climate action. (July 12, 2014) http://alleghenysc.org/?p=19099
See
article below
***Fair Shake Gets
12% Profits at Wigle Whiskey -Monday, August 4 (6-9 PM)
2401
Smallman St.
Pittsburgh,
PA 15222
You
are invited.... and bring some
friends...
12%
of all sales will go to Fair Shake Environmental Legal Services.
http://www.fairshake-els.org/
"Fair
Shake provides legal representation so that your health, your well-being, your
work, and your environmental needs have a voice. No matter who you are. And we
teach young attorneys how to do the same."
Attorney
Jordan Yeager (of anti-Act 13 fame) is on Fair Shake's Board of Directors. Fair Shake is helping to provide legal
services in the fight against fracking.
*** Learn how to
better examine DEP e-notices and permits August 5, Mt Watershed Office Bring your laptop. There is limited room so
let jan know if you are interested. Jim Rosenberg will be our facilitator.
***Boston Art Show
Utilizes Local Voices-- July 11, 2014 through
January 5, 2015
Open to the
public, Boston Museum of Science
Several of us spoke to artist
Anne Neeley about water contamination from fracking. Excerpts of what we said about
our concerns regarding fracking will play in a loop along with music in the
background as people view Anne’s murals of water. The show is not exclusively
about the effect of fracking on water and includes other sources of pollution. (see
sites below).
Some of us were fortunate to see
photos of Anne’s murals. They are beautiful and very thought provoking . Jan
ANNE
NEELY WATER STORIES PROJECT: A CONVERSATION IN PAINT AND SOUND
July
2014 – January 2015, Museum of Science, Boston
“Water Stories: A Conversation in
Painting and Sound” is at the Museum of Science, Boston through January 2015.
In recent years I have conveyed ideas about water and the phenomena of water
through nature, the news, memory and imagination. These paintings explore the
beauty and foreboding of water, related to central themes, mostly manmade and
thru climate change affecting this country. Sound artist Halsey Burgund has
created a 35 minute audio composition that accompanies the paintings, comprised
of five sections grouped by thematic content: The Future, Stories, Bad Things,
Science and Cherish. The voices are edited and combined with water sounds and
musical elements and play in a continuous loop throughout the gallery. By
placing this work in this Museum of Science there is an extraordinary
opportunity to clarify and illuminate issues around water through visceral
connections that paintings often elicit from viewers while raising public
awareness. My hope is that
this exhibition will spawn a new sense of ownership about not only the issues
facing us about water but how we use water on a daily basis.”
"Together, Anne and I plan
to explore big ideas about what’s happening with water in this country. In the
2014, the Museum will exhibit Anne’s work and host a series of related
programs. At the Museum, we find that mixing art with our more typical
educational approaches works well. The art opens people to ideas, emotion,
scale, and import, in ways that more explicit techniques may not. It broadens
the audience, welcomes people who learn differently, and adds dimensions of
experience that are otherwise unavailable."
—
David G. Rabkin, PhD, Director for Current Science and Technology, Museum of
Science, Boston, MA
Visit
these sites for images and more information:
http://www.anneneely.com/pages/mos.html
***Quadrennial
Energy Review July 21 - 10 a.m.
CMU Rashid Auditorium, Forbes Ave Gates-Hillman Center, Pittsburgh,
15213
Panel
discussions on natural gas infrastructure
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
***EPA Carbon Hearing- Pittsburgh’s Air At Stake
To Restrict Carbon From Existing Power plants---Public
Hearing
Everyone Should Submit a
Written Statement
It is too late to register to speak, but you can send a statement and attend the rally
Be there for Pittsburgh’s air. Rally starts at 12:00, July 31.
Join hundreds of citizens from around the tri-state area at a rally and
march outside the public hearing on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan to reduce
climate change emissions. We need to send a strong message to the EPA and Big
Coal that there’s overwhelming public support for national climate action –NOW!
Noon to 1 pm, Thursday, July 31
William S. Moorhead Federal Building,
1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh 15222
Big Coal and their
climate-denying allies are already trying to weaken the EPA’s historic climate
protection efforts. We need a massive turnout for these hearings to demonstrate
overwhelming public support for the EPA’s historic effort to make sure the plan
isn’t made ineffective by climate deniers. For more information contact Randy
Francisco at randy.francisco@sierraclub.org
From Sierra Club
–We need to have interested people at this
hearing. The coal industry will be in full force!!
As a move to mitigate global
warming, the EPA has proposed new rules for CO2 emissions from existing power
plants. Hearings for public comment will be held in Atlanta, Denver,
Pittsburgh, and Washington DC. The Pittsburgh hearing will be:
8:00 am to 9:00pm, Thursday, July 31, 2014
William S.
Moorhead Federal Building
1000 Liberty Ave,
Pittsburgh Pa
15222
At the request
of the coal industry, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to hold a
hearing in Pittsburgh on July 31st about the new rule to restrict carbon
pollution from existing power plants.
We can expect
the coal industry to flood the hearing, so we will need to show the EPA -
and the world - Pennsylvanian's support a strong carbon pollution rule.
Come to the press conference!
LET'S MAKE THIS THE BIGGEST
CLIMATE EVENT WE'VE EVER HAD IN PA!
Supreme Court Supports EPA’s Right to Regulate Carbon Emissions from
Industrial Sources
On June 23 the U.S. Supreme
Court eased the way for President Obama to help mitigate climate change and
create healthier air. Before the Court was the question whether the EPA has the
authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from
stationary sources. In general, environmental groups welcomed the Court’s
finding that the EPA has the authority
to sought regulate carbon emissions from an estimated 83 pct of the stationary
sources across the nation. Here are
some major points:
*EPA’s authority to regulate
CO2 emissions under Clean Air Act was re-affirmed.
*The Court somewhat
chastised the EPA for trying to alter some standards in the Clean Air Act.
*EPA has the authority to
regulate emissions that cross state borders. This is important for SW
Pennsylvania.
*The Court dismissed EPA’s
authority to regulate emissions on relatively small sources such as schools,
apartment buildings, and shopping centers, which amount to about 3 pct of the
total stationary sources in the country.
*Judge Scalia made it clear
that the Court would not consider any future appeals regarding the use of the
Clean Air Act for regulation of carbon emissions. This was a needed warning to
Governors of coal-producing states such as Pennsylvania.
*The Court’s decision was
generally accepted by both sides.
For information about the carbon reduction plan:
Q: How long do I have to
speak?
A: Each speaker is given five minutes per public hearing to speak.
Q: Can I register on the day of the hearing to
speak?
A: Yes, you may register the day of the hearing to speak, although we
cannot guarantee what time you will speak. Even if the speaking slots fill
up, we will be accepting written comments at the hearing. Q: If I register
before the hearing what do I need to do the day of the hearing?
A: You will need to check in
at the registration desk prior to the time you are scheduled to speak.
Q: Can I submit written comments at the
hearing site
A: We recommend that you submit your written comments to the docket. The
docket number for this rule is: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 (for the Clean
Power Plan for Existing Sources) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0630 (for the Carbon
Pollution Standard for Modified Sources) and information on how to submit
written comments is listed below. The public comment period will be open for
120 days from the time the rule is published in the Federal Register. We will
be taking comments that are submitted the day of the hearing and will ensure
that those get submitted to the docket.
Sierra Club recommends:
In addition to the public
hearing in Pittsburgh, comments on the EPA’s new rule covering the carbon
emissions from coal-fired power plants
may be submitted via Email to A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov with docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 in the subject line of the message.
Additional information
What the EPA Rules Aim to Accomplish
According to the EPA , the
new emission rules will:
*Cut carbon emission from
the power sector by 30 percent nationwide below 2005 levels, which is equal to
the emissions from powering more than half the homes in the United States for
one year;
*As a co-benefit, cut particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur
dioxide by more than 25 percent;
*Avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, up to 150,000 asthma attacks in
children, and up to 490,000 missed work or school days—providing up to $93
billion in climate and public health benefits; and
*Shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy
efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.
Why the EPA Rules Are So Important
The folk at Think Progress
have nicely explained why this action by the Obama administration is so
important. Jeff Spross explained:
*It’s the first step towards
a global solution
*Climate change is a threat
to America and the world
*U.S. carbon emissions are a
sizable part of the problem
*Congress isn’t going to do
it anytime soon
And Ryan Koronowski expanded
with the following points:
*This is the most
significant move any U.S. president has made to curtail carbon pollution in
history.
*There is room for
improvement, and time to improve it.
*The EPA is just doing what Congress (and the Supreme Court) told it to
do many years ago.
*States will have huge
amounts of flexibility to comply.
*Coal was on its way out and
this speeds up the transition.
*This is one rule in a long
string of carbon-cutting actions since President Obama took office.
*The rule won’t come into
effect overnight.
*It’s not just fossil fuel
companies and conservative groups that have a voice in this process.
Impact on Pennsylvania
According to the EPA, coal
is currently the largest energy source for power generation in Pennsylvania
(Coal – 39.0 pct, Nuclear – 33.6 pct, Natural Gas – 24.0 pct and Clean Energy –
3.4 pct). In 2012,
Pennsylvania’s power sector CO2 emissions were approximately 106 million metric
tons from sources covered by the proposed rule. Based on the amount of energy
produced by fossil-fuel fired plants and certain low or zero emitting plants,
Pennsylvania’s 2012 emission rate was 1,540 pounds/megawatt hours (lb/MWh).
The EPA is asking Pennsylvania to develop a plan to
lower its carbon pollution to meet the proposed emission rate goal of 1,052
lb/MWh in 2030. The EPA is giving states considerable flexibility in how they
achieve their reductions, including energy efficiency, clean energy programs,
etc. It will be interesting to see what Gov. Corbett’s administration plans before
the deadline of June 2016, but the Governor’s quick criticism and the failure
to support programs such as the Sunshine Solar Program do not suggest
enthusiastic compliance. Nor does Pennsylvania’s decision in 2005 to serve as
an observer rather than active member of the northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative cap-and-trade system reflect well on our state.
Opposition to the New EPA Rules
The Obama Administration
clearly anticipates strong opposition to the new rules, and the fight will take
place on several grounds. Despite strong public support for the EPA’s proposed
rules, the climate change deniers were quick to claim the rules were
unnecessary. The national Chamber of Commerce said the costs were exorbitant,
but Nobelist Paul Krugman dismisses their argument. But it is the legal
challenges that will perhaps slow-down the implementation of the EPA’s rules, a
delay we cannot afford.
Global Impact of the EPA Power Plant Rule
The most recent UN report
concludes that there is little time left for a meaningful international
agreement to be enacted. Progress towards global action on climate change has
been stymied by the failure of the U.S. to demonstrate its own willingness to
control CO2 emissions. The new EPA rules will now allow the U.S to take a stronger
stand in the upcoming UN discussions in New York in September and in Paris next
year. Some evidence of that shift came from the G7 meeting this week, and a
suggestion that China will follow the U.S.’s example of CO2 emission reduction.
Shift from Coal to Natural Gas
As early as 2010 utilities
were shifting away from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, partly
in anticipation of eventual climate regulation but also because of lower
operating costs with gas. That shift has accelerated with the greater
production of fracked gas, with natural gas predicted to overtake coal as the
preferred fuel by 2035. Although overall burning natural gas is cleaner than
burning coal, it is by no means a ‘clean’ fuel, and that concerns
environmentalists.
Given the reliance on
natural gas to achieve the reduction in emissions, environmentalists will be
calling for a number of actions, such as calling for removal of exemptions to
the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other laws that the drillers currently
enjoy. But that requires unlikely Congressional action. What the Executive
branch can do is properly understand and strictly regulate air and water
pollution associated with all aspects fracking.
And From Public Citizen
See the top 10 FAQs on the
carbon pollution reduction plan.
From Peter Wray, Sierra Club: MAJOR CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS COMING UP
We
are organizing two buses from Pittsburgh to the PEOPLES CLIMATE MARCH in New
York City, September 21. See
http://alleghenysc.org/?p=19091.
*Join the People’s
Climate March in New York City, Sept. 21. ACTION:
Register now for a seat on one of the Pittsburgh buses. (July 12,
2014) http://alleghenysc.org/?p=19091
State
Ethics Probe Into Deer Lakes Park Vote Expands from Futules to Kress and
Fitzgerald. Financial gain and deal making probed. (July 12, 2014)
http://alleghenysc.org/?p=19105
And Other Sierra Club Posts:
*Divestment from
Fossil Fuel Companies Gains Momentum. Churches and colleges
withdrawing financial support. (July 12, 2014)
http://alleghenysc.org/?p=19114
*Learn How
Citizens Forced Coke Plant Cleanup in New York. Visitors will describe how they gained a
record fine against polluting company, July 17 & 18. (July 10, 2014) http://alleghenysc.org/?p=19072
*Supreme Court
Supports EPA’s Right to Regulate Carbon Emissions from Industrial
Sources. Decision eases way for Obama’s
Climate Action Plan. (June 27, 2014)
http://alleghenysc.org/?p=18967
*Corbett Wants to
Keep Fracking of Parks and Forests under Wraps. Unclear if Ohiopyle Park and Forbes Forest
are threatened. (June 27, 2014)
http://alleghenysc.org/?p=18962
*******************************************************************************************
***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
***Petition For Full Disclosure of Frack Chemicals
From Ron Slabe
I created a petition to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which says:
"We,
the undersigned, in conjunction with the public comment period currently
underway, call on the EPA to conduct public hearings in areas where fracking
operations are either occurring or have occurred so that we may voice our
concerns over the lack of full
disclosure of the fracking chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. (Docket
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-1019)"
Will
you sign this petition? Click here:
Thanks! Ron Slabe
***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
“Sunoco has petitioned the 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:
***Cove Point Liquid Gas Facility--Petition
In order to ship natural gas overseas, you've
got to liquefy it. The process is a very dangerous one. LNG facilities that
serve domestic energy needs already exist. An incident at one of them in
Plymouth, Washington in March forced everyone within a two-mile radius of the
facility to evacuate. The risks it poses are not limited to the area
surrounding the facility, however. Fracking
to extract the gas from the shale and then moving it by pipeline to the LNG
facility damage the environment and put health and safety at risk.
The
ruling comes at an important time because
FERC is currently in the process of downplaying the environmental impacts of
the proposed Cove Point LNG export facility. FERC is currently accepting
comments on the environmental review of the Cove Point project. The Department
of Environmental Protection and others called for an extension of the deadline,
but FERC rejected their requests yesterday. The comment period ends on Monday.
That means we only have a few more days to flood FERC with
comments telling them to conduct a full, comprehensive, and credible study
called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Will you add your name to
my petition and share it with your friends?
Here's
the URL to the petition, just in case the link doesn't work. http://petitions.moveon.org/environmental-action/sign/say-no-to-the-cove-point
Thanks
so much, as always!
Karen
Frack Links
***Link to Shalefield Stories-Personal
stories of those affected by fracking http://www.friendsoftheharmed.com/
***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 and condensed. Please use
links for the full article.
Special Thanks to Bob Donnan for photos.
1. Municipalities Pleased With Act 13 PUC Ruling
http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20140717/NEWS01/140719530#.U8omQEC9Zww
“Of the more than 2,500
municipalities in Pennsylvania, four faced challenges to the money they
received from Marcellus Shale development since 2012.
Those four townships – Cecil, Mt.
Pleasant, Robinson and South Fayette – also happen to be four of seven municipalities
who filed the lawsuit against the zoning provisions of Act 13.
A state appeals court ruled municipalities cannot be subject to zoning
reviews by the Public Utility Commission and, subsequently, to revocations of
impact fee monies by the PUC.
The court decision upheld some
provisions of the law that municipalities argued were unconstitutional, but
several petitioners were still pleased with the verdict.
Peters
Township Councilman David Ball, a petitioner in the case, said he considered
the ruling a big win for municipalities.
“We won the thing that we were most concerned about,
that we really don’t want the PUC reviewing ordinances, and the court was very
clear on that,” Ball said.
Ball said the decision will prevent the PUC “from
being able to basically bully townships” by withholding impact fees on
unconventional gas wells – a revenue stream that was established by Act 13 in lieu of a severance
tax on the industry.
“Now with this court ruling, that threat is gone. … We won’t have to
deal with the PUC’s intimidation anymore,” said Andy Schrader, chairman of
supervisors in Cecil Township, one of the petitioners in the case.
“Everybody that lives in one of these communities is affected,” said
Brian Coppola, former supervisor for Robinson Township and a petitioner in
the case.
Coppola
said the PUC withheld $400,000 in impact fees from Robinson Township when a
resident argued the township zoning ordinance was prohibiting natural gas
development and asked the PUC to review the ordinance. The PUC ultimately
released the funds under court order – an action Coppola thinks ultimately
helped their case.
“We’ve already lived through a challenge,” said John
Smith, solicitor for Cecil and Peters townships, “and we’ve already received,
in the past, suggestions from oil and gas operators that if we don’t approve
certain permits, that our impact fee may be at risk, and/or they would seek
attorneys fees under the act.”
Smith said in an email statement he was “extremely pleased” with the
court ruling Thursday that “once again protected the rights of local
governments and Pennsylvania citizens with its decision in favor of the Act 13
municipalities.”
However, he disagreed with other aspects of the
ruling. The court upheld the provision of Act 13 that drilling operators are
not required to notify private water suppliers if there is a spill, though they
are required to do so for public water sources.
“While we believe all Pennsylvania
citizens agree that the failure of the law to require notice of spills at
drilling sites to local citizens that rely on water wells and springs for
drinking water is not sound policy, the court did not believe that the
provision rose to the level of violating the Pennsylvania Constitution on equal
protection grounds,” Smith said in an email.
Smith said what opponents called
a “medical gag order” was not found to be unconstitutional, but said the
court’s interpretation of that provision was commendable.
“The court did interpret the law
to read that disclosures of trade secrets can be made to patients who suffer
chemical exposures from drilling operations … and that the medical information
can be written in medical records,” Smith said. “The court’s reading of the
statute alleviated much of our concern with how much the confidentiality
agreement or ‘medical gag’ provision would serve to hinder patient care. We
will be discussing the full decision with our clients in the near future.”
2. Compressor
Station Next to Organic Farm?
By Don Hopey / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
“An overflow, equally divided
crowd of more than 300 people attended Wednesday night’s New Sewickley township
supervisors hearing on a proposal to build a Marcellus Shale gas compressor
station in southeast Beaver County next to the Kretschmann Family Organic Farm,
one of the region’s oldest and most profitable organic farms.
“I speak on behalf of the Ziegler
Road neighborhood, and we see no benefits to this compressor station coming
into our neighborhood,” said Chris Palmer, a resident of the road leading to
the proposed compressor station site.
“This type of facility should be put somewhere else, not in a
residential neighborhood.”
Dallas-based Cardinal Midstream Inc.
has applied for a conditional use permit for the proposed 12-acre compressor station site on Teets Road, about 2,000
feet from the Kretschmanns’ farm in an area of the township zoned for
agricultural use.
Darlene
Parisi-Dunne, another township resident, said she has concern the “safety,
quiet and rural serenity” of the township will be lost if the compressor
station is built.
“That’s what drew us here and
that is what is now threatened,” she said. “I ask you to deny the zoning
permits based on property rights, property values and health concerns.”
But Terry Broniszewski, a local
farmer, said the shale gas drilling has brought prosperity to the local farms
that have signed leases and are receiving royalties.
“For all of you against this
proposal, if you stop the compressor station and drilling, you’ll see a lot of
for-sale signs on farms again and we’ll have Walmarts. This is a beautiful
township, and this compressor station is the best way to keep it beautiful.”
The township’s five-member board of supervisors — at least one of whom
has leased the gas under his property to drilling companies that would pipe
gas through the compressor station if it is built — will decide whether to
grant the zoning permit within the next 45 days.
Many at the hearing, held at the
Big Knob Grange in Rochester, Beaver County, wore stickers announcing their
support of Don and Becky Kretschmann, who started the organic farm on Ziegler
Road 35 years ago, and through a Community Supported Agriculture or “CSA”
program they established, now sell vegetables, fruit and herbs to more than
1,000 families in Allegheny, Beaver and Butler counties. They also sell at
various farmers’ markets in the region.
Mr. Kretschmann has said he’s worried about pollution
from the compressor station affecting his organic produce and calling his
certification and livelihood into question.
More than 200 of the farm’s CSA customers have sent letters of support
to the commissioners urging them to deny Cardinal’s request for the zoning
variance.
Duane Rape, the chairman of the
supervisors, said 678 landowners, including him, have signed shale gas leases
for their property, covering a total of 15,517 acres or 71 percent of the
township. The proposed Cardinal
compressor station, which would connect via pipelines to as many as 80 wells in
the area, would initially contain four 1,340-horsepower compressors that would
run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and emit 78 tons of nitrogen oxides, 24
tons of volatile organic compounds and 98 tons of carbon dioxide each year.
The Kretschmanns are concerned those air pollutants, plus the diesel
exhaust from the six to eight tanker trucks a day needed to transport
condensate — water and wet gas — from the site each day, could damage their
crops and call into question the farm’s organic certification. Accidental
spills, additional air emissions, “burps” or “blowdowns” caused by equipment
malfunctions could also occur, adding pollutants to air and water and causing
additional degradation to the farm’s soil and groundwater.
Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds can combine in the
presence of sunlight to produce ground-level ozone, the principal component of
smog. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ozone and smog
can cause a variety of breathing and lung problems, worsen bronchitis,
emphysema and asthma, and interfere with plant growth and development.
Cardinal has said it has plans to double to eight the number of
compressor units at the Pike compressor station in the future.
Several representatives of
Cardinal and its consultants made lengthy presentations about how the
compressor was sited, plans for mitigating the loud operating noise from the
compressors and road improvements in the area around the proposed site.
Christi Wilson, managing
consultant for Trinity Consultants, a Pittsburgh air consulting firm, said the
compressor engines Cardinal would use would meet and exceed state and federal
standards. She said farm animal flatulence releases more methane than the
natural gas industry.
While Mr. Rape said he has signed
a lease for his shale gas, Supervisors Ross Jenny, Greg Happ and Dave Yeck have
not signed leases for their property. John Nowicki declined to say if he has
signed a shale gas lease.
Richard Weber, chief executive officer
of Penn Energy Resources LLC, which will push gas from its wells to the
proposed compressor, said the Cardinal proposal meets or exceeds the terms of
the township’s ordinances and the zoning law.
“I know not everyone supports
this and I know it will have an impact,” he said. “Our job is to make sure to
minimize that impact. ... This facility will not impact the quality of the
produce and livestock grown in the community.”
But Holly Wilson-Jene, a Mt. Lebanon resident who is a chemical
engineer and customer of the Kretschmanns, said the chemical pollutants that
would be released by the compressor station are highly toxic, including
cancer-causing benzene. “My concern is the proximity to the organic farm,” she
said. “This facility is more like a small refinery. It may be classified as a
minor source of pollution, but it’s a major issue.”
Michael Oliverio, an attorney
representing the Kretschmanns, moved to enter the 200 statements from the
organic farm’s customers into the record and also to continue the hearing to
allow additional experts to offer testimony.
Wayne Lucas, the attorney representing Cardinal, objected to the
introduction of the organic farm customer emails because they were not from New
Sewickley, and said the company “vigorously objects to a [hearing]
continuance.”
(I
question if the attorney’s name is an error and is actually Blaine Lucas of
Babst Callen who appears frequently in local districts always representing the
gas industry. Jan)
Don
Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
Read
more:
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/west/2014/07/24/New-Sewickley-residents-turn-out-to-oppose-gas-facility/stories/201407240211#ixzz38MYeyP3g
TO TAKE
ACTION:
EMAIL:
the New Sewickley Board of Supervisors: manager@newsewickley.com
and cc: kretschmann@verizon.net
3. Auditor General Report:
DEP Does Poor Job of Record Keeping,
Monitoring, and Taking Action
Anyone who has tried to navigate DEP sites
for information on permits, inspections,
or spills can concur with this report. I have called and spoken to DEP people
who tell me that they don’t know how to use some of the sites. jan
“The DEP was “unprepared to meet
the challenges of monitoring shale gas development effectively,” according to a
scathing 128-page audit report released Tuesday by state Auditor General Eugene
DePasquale about DEP’s performance monitoring of potential impacts to water
quality from Macellus Shale development between 2009 and 2012 – a report that
lists eight findings that detail the department’s “shortcomings” related to its
function as a regulatory agency.
In a press release DePasquale
said, “There are very dedicated hard-working people at DEP but they are being
hampered in doing their jobs by lack of resources – including staff and a
modern information technology system — and inconsistent or failed
implementation of department policies, among other things. “It is almost like
firefighters trying to put out a five-alarm fire with a 20-foot garden
hose. There is no question that DEP
needs help and soon to protect clean water.”
The audit revealed that DEP failed to consistently issue official orders to
well operators who had been determined by DEP to have adversely impacted water
supplies. After reviewing a selection of 15 complaint
files for confirmed water supply impact, auditors discovered that DEP issued
just one order to a well operator to restore or replace the adversely impacted
water supply.
DEP claims that in many cases
such orders are procedurally unnecessary as well operators may have already
taken steps to restore the water supply under what the agency terms “voluntary
compliance.”
“When DEP does not take a formal, documented action against a well
operator who has contaminated a water supply, the agency loses credibility as a
regulator and is not fully accountable to the public,” DePasquale said.
“When DEP has enforcement authority under the law it must exercise that
authority routinely, consistently, and transparently. Those gas well operators whose actions cause harm
to water supplies should not get an enforcement ‘pass’ just because they have
convinced DEP that they will come into compliance with the law or that they
negotiated a settlement with the property owner.”
Auditors also reported that DEP did a poor job in communicating its
investigation results to citizens who registered complaints with the
department. The agency was not always
timely in meeting statutory timeframes for response to complaints it did
receive.
“For example, of the
water-related complaints reviewed by auditors, the DEP Williamsport
regional office responded to complaints
within 10 days, 100 percent of the time, while the DEP Pittsburgh regional office
responded to the complaints within the 10-day time period only 64 percent of
the time,” DePasquale said. “Why would citizens in the Pittsburgh area
have to wait longer for a response than people in the Williamsport area?”
Auditors also noted that DEP’s complaint tracking system, which is used to
monitor all environmental complaints, including those that are oil and
gas related, was ineffective as it did not provide management with
reliable information to effectively manage the program.
“We could not determine whether all complaints received by DEP actually
were entered into the system. What’s more, because of how DEP grouped related complaints, it is difficult to
figure out exactly how many complaints were received, investigated, and
resolved by DEP,” DePasquale said. “While DEP did issue a new policy
related to complaint handling, for most of our audit period the existing policy
was woefully inadequate. DEP must get that complaint system working.”
In the area of inspections,
auditors attempted to measure how
quickly DEP was in conducting its initial inspection of shale gas wells, a
basic regulatory responsibility.
Unfortunately, auditors were thwarted by DEP’s lack of reliable data—learning that only a “needle in a haystack”
review of thousands of hard-copy files would ever yield a conclusion. Worse, DEP uses a 25-year-old policy on
the frequency of inspections, which has a “loop
hole,” that only requires DEP to conduct inspections as it has the financial
and human resources to do so.
Auditors also found that DEP does not post to its website all statutorily
required inspection information. When the data was tested for
accuracy, the auditors found errors of more
than 25 percent in key data fields, and that as many as 76 percent of inspectors’ comments were
omitted from the online inspection reporting.
“It is unfathomable to us that
for a basic responsibility of DEP — inspecting oil and gas facilities – little
criteria exists for when those inspections should occur,” DePasquale said.
“Until DEP updates its out-of-date
inspection policies, to include mandated inspections at specific critical
drilling stages and during the life of the well, it will be nearly impossible
to measure DEP’s performance in conducting this very basic responsibility to
protect the environment.”
The auditors also noted that DEP does not use a manifest system for tracking
shale gas well waste from the well site to disposal. Instead DEP relies upon a disjointed process
that includes self-reporting by well operators
with no assurances that waste is disposed of properly.
With respect to transparency,
auditors discovered that accessing DEP data is challenging as it is a myriad of
confusing web links and jargon. The information that was presented on its decades-old
eFACTS database was often incomplete—requiring a physical review of
hard-copy files at distant offices to verify the actual information.
“Through our audit we found that even
conducting a review of hard-copy files is not a fool-proof guarantee, as we
found some supporting paper files were missing and DEP was not able to produce
them,” DePasquale said. “DEP must improve how it conveys reliable information
to the public for an activity that is as high-profile as shale gas
development.”
Of the eight audit findings and
29 recommendations to improve DEP’s monitoring of potential water quality
impacts of shale gas development, DEP disagreed with all audit findings, but
conversely agreed with the majority of the recommendations, indicating that
there is some acknowledgement on DEP’s part that it must improve. Eighteen of
the 29 recommendations do not require additional funding.
“There was plenty of back and
forth with DEP during this audit, and in some cases we just could not agree on
some findings,” DePasquale said. “What
matters here is the protection of our drinking water supplies. Implementing
these 29 recommendations, two of which were directed to the General Assembly,
will go a long way now to protecting drinking water resources. When we look back five years from now, I
believe everyone will all agree that our environment and our quality of life
are better because of this audit.”
Among the recommendations,
auditors encouraged DEP to:
*always
issue an administrative order to a well operator who DEP has determined
adversely impacted a water supply—even if DEP used the cooperative approach in
bringing the operator into compliance or if the operator and the complainant
have reached a private agreement;
*develop
better controls over how complaints are received, tracked, investigated, and
resolved;
*invest
resources into replacing, or significantly upgrading, its complaint management
system;
*find
the financial resources to hire additional inspectors to meet the demands
placed upon the agency;
*implement
an inspection policy that outlines explicitly the requirements for timely and
frequent inspections;
*create
a true manifest system to track shale gas waste and be more aggressive in
ensuring that the waste data it collects is verified and reliable;
*reconfigure
the agency website and provide complete and pertinent information in a clear
and easily understandable manner;
*invest
in information technology resources and develop an IT structure that will
ensure its oil and gas program has a strong foundation for the ongoing demands
placed upon it; and
*develop
an all-electronic inspection process so that inspection information is accurate
and timely to DEP—and more importantly—public stakeholders.
“Shale gas development offers significant
benefits to our commonwealth and our nation, but these benefits cannot come at
the expense of the public’s trust, health, and well-being,” DePasquale
said. “We must collectively find
solutions to this challenge so that Pennsylvania becomes a leader among states
in regulating shale gas development. I
am committed to working with the governor, the General Assembly, and other
partners to ensure this audit begins that discussion.”
Here were the findings:
DEP failed to issue administrative orders – DEP has a statutory
mandate to issue an administrative order when it determines an operator
adversely impacted a water supply. Despite this mandate, DEP in many cases chose instead to seek voluntary compliance and
encouraged operators to work out a solution with affected parties. DEP also
used operators’ time and financial assistance to complete investigations. In our review of 15 positive determination
complaint files, we found that DEP issued just one order to an operator to
restore/replace the adversely impacted water supply.
DEP communicated poorly with
citizens. In cases where DEP investigated allegations of adverse impacts to
water quality from oil and gas activity,
it didn’t consistently and effectively
provide complainants with clear written investigation results. Further, DEP
missed certain key statutory deadlines in investigating these complaints. For
example, the Pittsburgh district resolved 76 percent of its complaints within
45 days. DEP cited the complexity of some of its investigations, which may
involve extensive testing and specialized isotopic testing, as a reason for
missing these deadlines.
DEP was unprepared to handle
citizen complaints. DEP stated it
tracked all complaints it received about oil and gas activity through its
complaint tracking system, yet this system was unable to generate consistent
and reliable data on the nature and total number of complaints DEP received.
DEP has tried to patch CTS and improve its procedures for use of CTS, but DEP
still cannot use CTS data to reliably answer simple questions such as: how many
shale gas related complaints were received or how many complaints resulted in a
positive determination?
No assurance that shale gas wells
were inspected timely. DEP followed an outdated and ambiguous inspection policy that did not provide any clear
criteria for how many times DEP should inspect a well. We attempted to
measure DEP’s performance in this critical area, but we were stymied by DEP’s
continual reliance on manual records and limited reliable electronic data.
Also, despite adding several oil and gas inspectors to its staff, DEP did not
have sufficient resources to manage the increased demands from Pennsylvania’s
shale gas boom.
Shale waste monitoring needs to
improve. DEP monitors shale waste with
self-reported data that is neither verified nor quality controlled for accuracy
and reliability. A true manifest system would allow waste to be tracked
seamlessly from generation to transport to final disposition, and it could be a
proactive tool for DEP to ensure waste is properly disposed. DEP has been
reactionary—only if a complaint is registered or an accident occurs, does DEP
verify that where the waste was generated. Such an approach is counter-intuitive to being
proactive over waste management.
Transparency and accountability are lacking. DEP “provides a spider web
of links to arcane reports on its website. Users are left with a dizzying
amount of data, but none of the data is presented in a logical and sensible
manner. Worst of all, where DEP could be open and transparent about credible
cases of adverse impacts to water supplies, it chooses instead to use an overly
strict interpretation of the law and not post any such information.”
Information on inspections poorly
tracked. Inspections of shale gas facilities are one of the key aspects of
DEP’s monitoring efforts. By law, DEP is
to post certain inspection and any resulting violation information on its
website. The audit found DEP does not post all required information and in
testing the data for accuracy, and found errors as high as 25 percent in key
data fields. We also found that as many as 76 percent of inspectors’ comments
were omitted from online inspection reporting.
Information technology resources
are inefficiently used. DEP’s oil and gas program is not effectively using
current IT resources available to it. The systems are reliant upon inefficient
manual procedures, which impede effective and efficient data collection and
reporting. DEP relies on contracted vendors (some of which are former DEP
employees) for many of its IT-related needs.”
http://marcellusmonitor.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/auditor-general-report-dep-was-unprepared-to-meet-shale-gas-monitoring-responsibilities/
4. Greene Co. Town
Sued Over Regulating Seismic Testing
By
Brian Bowling
“A Greene County municipality
delayed a seismic testing agreement so that it could pass an ordinance that
effectively makes seismic testing impossible, a Texas company claims in a
lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court.
Geokinetics USA Inc. of Houston wants U.S. District
Judge Maurice Cohill to rule that Center Township's ordinance is invalid and
that the company doesn't need the township's approval to conduct the testing.
Cohill in April ruled that a
Westmoreland County municipality couldn't block seismic testing on its roads.”
5. DEP: Oil/Gas
Operations Damaged Water Supplies 209 Times Since
2007
“Oil and gas operations have
damaged Pennsylvania water supplies 209 times since the end of 2007, according
to DEP.
The spreadsheet lists the 209 affected water supplies by county,
municipality, and the date, regulators concluded that activities related to oil
or gas extraction were to blame for contaminating or diminishing the flow to a
water source.
The document does not disclose
property owners’ names or addresses and it does not detail which companies that
were deemed responsible for the damage, what caused the disruptions or what
pollutants were found in the water.
DEP’s
deputy secretary for oil and gas management, Scott Perry, said the agency
intends to enhance the spreadsheet by adding links to the letters or orders
related to each case at some point, which should reveal more information about
how water was affected.
Environmental regulators are required by law to
determine within 45 days of getting a drilling-related water complaint if oil
and gas operations contaminated a water supply or reduced its flow. DEP reports its findings in
letters to property owners. It also issues orders to companies to fix the
damage in cases where oil and gas operations are found to be accountable or are
presumed to be the cause because of the proximity between drilling activities
and a disrupted groundwater source.
Those conclusions are public
records.
After initially fighting news
organizations’ requests for the determination letters and arguing it would be
too difficult to find all of them in its files, DEP has increasingly provided
access to the documents in the last year after
courts required their release and as public interest in the information has
grown.
When DEP posts the tally of damaged water supplies
this month, it will mark the first time the agency has released its official
accounting of drilling-related pollution and diminution cases on its website.
“There are 209 contamination
cases since 2008, which is a lot, in my book, especially when you are talking
about somebody’s drinking water supply,” said Steve Hvozdovich, Marcellus Shale
coordinator for Clean Water Action.
The DEP spreadsheet reveals that oil and gas
operations have affected water supplies in nearly every region where drilling
occurs, from the shale gas sweet spots in northeastern Pennsylvania to the
traditional oil and gas patch in the state’s northwest corner. DEP found that drilling
activities damaged water supplies in Bradford County 48 times – the most of any
county – followed by SusquehannaCounty (35 times), McKean County (24 times) and
Forest County (17 times).
DEP’s southwest regional office
issued the fewest water impact determinations of the three regional offices
that oversee the industry. It found drilling activities caused water supply
problems 13 times in six years: eight times in Indiana County, twice each in
Washington and Westmoreland counties, and once in Fayette County.
The rate of problems has stayed
flat in recent years following a surge in cases between 2008 and 2009 as shale
gas extraction increased in the northeast region and methane trapped in shallow
rock layers escaped into groundwater through flaws in some new wells there.
DEP found 18 cases of water
supply impacts in 2008, 47 in 2009, 34 in 2010, 34 in 2011, 35 in 2012, 33 in
2013 and five through May of this year.
Mr. Hvozdovich said he is “glad
to see that DEP is taking some concrete steps to try to improve transparency on
this issue, especially considering how disorganized they were and how secretive
water impacts from natural gas drilling were in Pennsylvania.”
But he called the information in
the spreadsheet “pretty woefully below what the public deserves to see” and encouraged DEP to add details such as
what types of impacts oil and gas operations have caused to water sources,
which companies were involved, whether shale gas drillers or operators of
shallow, traditional wells were found responsible, how companies addressed the
problems and whether they were fined.
Academic researchers said even
the spare information in the document so far will still be useful for
understanding the geographic distribution of drilling-related issues across the
state. And it might encourage the public to ask for more readily available
data.”
http://%20http//powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/policy-powersource/2014/07/22/DEP-Oil-and-gas-endeavors-have-damaged-water-supply-209-times-since-07/stories/201407220069
6. Families Sick
From Fracking Exposure Turn to Concerned
Scientists-Southwest Health
“Like people in other regions
transformed by the shale energy boom, residents of Washington County,
Pennsylvania have complained of headaches, nosebleeds and skin rashes. But
because there are no comprehensive studies about the health impacts of natural
gas drilling, it's hard to determine if their problems are linked to the gas wells
and other production facilities that have sprung up around them.
A group of scientists from
Pennsylvania and neighboring states have stepped in to fill this gap by forming a nonprofit—apparently the first of
its kind in the United States—that provides free health consultations to local
families near drilling sites. Instead of waiting years or even decades for
long-term studies to emerge, the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health
Project (SWPA-EHP) is using the best available science to help people deal with
their ailments.
"As far as unconventional natural gas drilling
goes, we are the public health service of the United States right now,"
said Michael Kelly, the media liaison for the EHP.
David Brown, a toxicologist and
the group's co-founder, said government agencies haven't done enough to study,
analyze and mitigate the risks people face from drilling.
The DEP—which oversees the oil and gas industry—has no
ongoing or planned health studies, though it is researching air and water quality at
certain sites, Scott Perry, the agency's director of oil and gas management, said.
None of the hundreds of millions of dollars in impact fees the state has
collected from the industry since 2011 has gone to state or local health
departments.
The EPH's decision to take a
public health approach, rather than focus on research, was an ethical one, said
Brown, a former chief of environmental, epidemiology and occupational health at
the Connecticut Department of Public Health.
"We saw that people were sick, and the risks
[from shale extraction] were plausible," he said. "You really cannot
or should not do studies on sick people without providing some sort of
assistance. You should help them get better."
EHP does not advocate for or
against shale development. Too often,
said Brown, residents who are sick end up "neglecting themselves" by
spending all their energy trying to stop drilling in their backyards instead of
seeking medical help.
Based in McMurray, a small community about 15
miles southwest of Pittsburgh, EHP’s services are available to anyone who makes
an appointment at the clinic, where the staff of five will:
· explain
what scientists know and don't know about the risks and impacts of shale gas
development.
· provide
tips on how to reduce exposure to natural gas activities, perhaps by using
indoor air filters or keeping daily logs of symptoms, odors and wind direction.
· lend simple air monitors so residents can track the
air quality inside their homes to determine when and how often they are exposed
to certain air pollutants.
"In a sense, they're filling
a role that some of the public health agencies have not been fulfilling,"
said Lisa McKenzie, a researcher at the Colorado School of Public Health who
studies gas drilling impacts.
When people blame their health
problems on gas drilling, the EHP staff sifts through the clues to find the
most probable explanation by taking into account a patient's medical history,
their proximity to shale activity and other industrial sites. In addition to
the clinic staff, seven other EHP scientists based across New England provide
support.
EHP's
nurse practitioner, Suann Davison, meets one-on-one with patients and also
conducts house calls in and around Washington County. When health problems are likely
linked to drilling, patients may be referred to pulmonologists or other
specialists.
If someone lives 20 miles from the nearest well, their
symptoms probably aren’t related to shale gas, said EHP director Raina Rippel.
The link would be much stronger for a resident downwind of a gas well who
develops new respiratory problems or worsening pre-existing symptoms after the
drilling starts.
"If we can document there
was a probable exposure and absence of a more likely explanation, like an
underlying medical problem, then I think it helps us define it as more than
just self-reported health impacts," said Rippel, a former community
organizer who led the advocacy group Center for Coalfield Justice.
Davison said her patients usually have a combination
of symptoms including respiratory problems, rashes and lesions, irritated eyes,
nosebleeds, numbness, tingling, headaches, nausea and vomiting. These symptoms
have been linked to some of the chemicals emitted during shale development,
including formaldehyde, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds.
Other compounds may be linked to water pollution.
Some of her patients are wary of
the industry, but others are landowners who leased their mineral rights and now
worry about the health impacts. "It doesn't matter to us [who they
are]," she said. "We'll see anyone."
EHP was launched in 2011 with a grant
from the Heinz Endowments. The group also receives support from the Pittsburgh
and Claneil Foundations.
Philip Johnson, senior program
officer of the Heinz Endowments'
environment program, began paying attention to the potential health risks of
fracking in 2009, when he noticed a sharp increase in complaints from Western
Pennsylvania residents.
"We realized we had a
potential public health threat. Typically what happens when new threats emerge
is you need information and data flows to separate anecdotes from empirical
evidence...And there were really no intervention models like this we were aware
of in the country," he said.
Heinz Endowments approached some
public health experts for help. As part of the planning for what eventually
became EHP, they interviewed residents, studied the available scientific
research and toured communities near drilling sites.
Rippel, the EHP director,
remembers being shocked at the size of a processing plant they visited in
Houston, Pennsylvania. She said it took up about as much space as a football
field and looked like a refinery. "It [was] almost reminiscent of a
Houston, Texas kind of scene," she said.
Amelia Pare, a plastic surgeon in
Washington County, said what EHP is trying to do is "laudable" and
"the most positive thing we have. But it's nowhere near enough…It's a drop
in the bucket for what's really needed."
Pare has lived in Southwest
Pennsylvania for 15 years. Four or five
years ago, she noticed patients coming in with strange symptoms, including
lesions on their face. Most were poor and lived in areas with gas drilling.
Pare began searching for
guidelines and practical tips that could help her patients.
If
someone comes in with a skin problem that could be linked to drilling, what
medical tests should she run? What experts should she turn to, and which
specialists would be willing to see her patients, many who are on Medicaid? But
she found few satisfactory answers, despite contacting everyone she could think
of—poison control, her state legislators, national representatives, the
Pennsylvania medical society, the Pennsylvania health department, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
"There's no one doing
research on this. No one's testing what's going on," she said. "I'm
not against oil and gas drilling. I'm a Republican…I just think you need to do
it safely, and you need to know what you're doing, and I don't think either of
those things is happening right now."
Pare said EHP would have more of an impact if it went
door to door collecting urine samples and tested them for exposure to
fracking-related compounds. "The Heinz [Endowments] puts a lot of money into this, but not a
lot has changed…The people that run [EHP] need to be more courageous. You've
got to go out and test people."
Kelly, the EHP media liaison, said that kind of
research is beyond the scope of EHP, which has an annual budget of about
$750,000. Instead,
the peer-reviewed research the group publishes is usually an outgrowth of its
public health service.
In March, four EHP scientists published a paper
explaining that the air monitors used by most state regulators rarely detect
toxic emission spikes in shale fields. Some of the data for that study came from simple
air monitors EHP developed with scientists at Carnegie Mellon University. Local
residents used the monitors to track concentrations of particulate matter—a
respiratory irritant—inside their homes. The results showed dramatic but
fleeting spikes throughout the day.
EHP has also analyzed data from 27 patients whose symptoms were likely
caused by shale drilling activity. Rippel said the patients were screened
to eliminate other probable causes, and that the results could help other
health professionals working with patients in drilling regions. EHP presented
the cases at a science conference last summer and is preparing the data for
peer-reviewed publication.
A blog post by Energy in Depth—an
outreach arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America—challenged the
usefulness of drawing conclusions from just 27 patients. But Barry Johnson, a former assistant administrator at the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the CDC), said the type of case
series EHP produced is "very common and useful in the practice of public
health," because it can serve as a precursor to larger epidemiological
studies.
As an example, he pointed to the
evolution of the science that documented the appearance of AIDS.
It began with a few reports of
people who were seriously ill and dying from a new collection of symptoms, said
Johnson, now an adjunct professor of public health at Emory University.
"These in effect became case studies, and you started putting together
these kinds of cases, and asking questions [like] 'how widespread it this
problem? Where is the origin?'
"I don't know what, if
anything, can be caused by fracking,” he said. “But I think we should find
out."
This
report is part of a joint project by InsideClimate News and the Center for
Public Integrity
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140722/families-sick-fracking-exposure-turn-concerned-scientistshttp
7. Air Monitors
for Residents
“Mickey Gniadek remembers the
exact day when he stepped outside his Finleyville home and felt like a fish out
of water. It was Dec. 4, 2013.
Gniadek, who had no pre-existing conditions, gasped for air and nearly
collapsed from what he believes was a suffocating mix of gases in the
atmosphere.
“When I came out the door I
noticed there was a heavy white cloud that just hung across (the property). …
It smelled very acidic,” said Gniadek, who lives on Cardox Road.
Gniadek never learned what caused
the incident, but he hopes to glean new findings from an air-quality monitor
placed inside his home. More than 100
people in Washington County have received an air monitor, free of cost, from a
public health and research group, the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental
Health Project.
Ryan Grode, environmental health
educator with the McMurray-based SWPA-EHP, said ongoing research focuses on
residents who live near natural gas wells and compressor stations in Washington
County and, to a lesser extent, Greene County and Morgantown, W.Va.
“The important thing to know with
our organization is that we’re not an activist group. … We’re actually just a
public health organization,” Grode said.
Monitoring
the air
The group uses Speck air monitors, which were built in
Carnegie Mellon University’s CREATE lab and provided to SWPA-EHP for
distribution. Once an air monitor is plugged into an outlet, it takes a reading
of particulate matter concentrations every second of the day for two to four
weeks.
Those readings are displayed on
the monitor in real time and then are transferred to a database for analysis.
The results, which are provided to participating residents, show any major spikes in particulate matter and contain graphs with
30-minute and hourly averages.
Larger particles, or a higher
concentration of particulate matter, can cause health problems when the
particles enter the lungs and even the bloodstream.
Any reading above a 5,000 count
for particulate matter is considered “very unhealthy” on the Speck monitor. Some participants with air monitors had
results with spikes above 14,000, but Grode acknowledged that “just because
it’s a spike, (it) doesn’t mean that we’re saying it’s from the industry.”
Indoor pollutants – such as
cooking with oil, or vacuuming – also could be contributing factors. Grode said the group is more interested in
the prolonged spikes, especially ones that occur overnight when most people are
sleeping. He said, for example, a spike above 4,000 that lasts for six hours
likely indicates an outside pollutant.
A nurse practitioner on staff
visits any participating residents with medical concerns. The group also
recommends the use of air purifiers to keep homes free of pollutants.
David Brown, a public health
toxicologist with SWPA-EHP who works in Connecticut, said he is comparing particulate readings near
different Marcellus Shale facilities, and also analyzing variables such as
proximity to industry activity and the time of day spikes occur.
“There are clearly exposures to
people living near the wells, and certain well types seem to be causing more
health effects than others,” Brown said.
It’s not uncommon to hear
residents at township meetings complain of a “rotten egg” smell, difficulty
breathing and gas flarings that release black smoke into the air.
Gniadek and his wife, Sabine,
never received a definitive answer as to what transpired that day in December. Gniadek lives directly across from the
Trax Farm well site operated by EQT that he said has caused him and his
neighbors grief in the past.
Gniadek and others on Cardox Road were offered $50,000
from the company to resolve claims involving the gas company’s operations,
including damages, annoyance, inconvenience, nuisance and pain and suffering.
Gniadek said he believes it was an effort to silence them.
Gniadek refused the money, and he and his wife
continue to monitor and document the air conditions along their road. A video,
taken by his wife, shows black smoke coming from the well site last month.
At a January township meeting,
EQT officials said their next rig would be a dual natural gas rig that would
run on 70 to 80 percent natural gas, fitted with a catalyst unit, to reduce
emissions.
Gary Baumgardner, who also lives on Cardox Road and
has an air monitor, said the smell of diesel fuel has been most problematic.
“In
the middle of winter, it got into our house where it was so bad that I called
the fire department, and they wanted to put fans in our house and open the
windows and (air out) our house,” he said.
Residents
living near the MarkWest natural gas processing plant in Chartiers Township
also have complained of “routine” flarings that release thick black smoke into
the sky.
Dan Bykens, who lives next
to a MarkWest compressor station, went to the hospital last week because of
respiratory problems and said he was recently diagnosed with asthma.
“Everyone out here seems to be
having more issues than in the past,” Bykens said, but he acknowledged he can’t
prove his health problems are directly related to industry activity.
His daughter, Hayley Martin, also
has an air monitor in her home, located next to Allison Park Elementary School.
Martin’s air monitor results just
came back, and she said a string of spikes appeared in the results for last
week, culminating in a spike of 23,653 particulates the day before her father
was hospitalized. She said nearby road construction could be a factor, but many
spikes occurred late at night when road work was halted.
“I can’t tell you that’s the
direct result (of industry activity),” Martin said. “I can’t tell you, the
doctor can’t tell you, but it’s kind of weird.”
8. Mars Parents
Write to PA Assembly Members and DEP
“To:
PA Assembly Members and DEP Officials
A
direct quote from the PA Auditor General to Governor Corbett regarding the
performance audit of the DEP on July 21, 2014:
"In conclusion, as evidenced
by this audit, DEP needs assistance. It is underfunded, understaffed, and does
not have the infrastructure in place to meet the continuing demands placed upon
the agency by expanded shale gas development. Shale gas development offers
significant benefits to our commonwealth and our nation, but these benefits
cannot come at the expense of the public’s trust, health, and wellbeing."
I am well aware that changes have
been made at the PA DEP since the report's conclusion in 2012. It is clear that the changes have not kept
pace with the expansion of shale gas development. You
have allowed for the citizens of Pennsylvania to become the collateral damage
for development of shale gas. Our water
is contaminated at an alarming rate.
Millions of gallons of residual waste are accumulating rapidly. Gas
wells continue to encroach on schools and densely populated areas, thereby
increasing health and safety risks to the community.
Yet,
despite this report and many others, the DEP continues to issue unconventional
well permits "according to the law".
Each
and everyone of you now has this report and the plethora of research and
information that The Mars Parent Group and numerous additional health and
environmental groups have shared with you over the past four months and past 10
years respectively.
Each
of you will be held accountable and are responsible to now act on this
information immediately. In whatever
capacity and responsibility you have in the Pennsylvania government, you each
have the duty to protect the citizens of Pennsylvania first. Developing shale gas is a far distant
second. Monetary gains will no longer
hide the harm and risk that communities have endured.
Do not issue another unconventional well
permit. Corrective action needs to take
place. The DEP needs the proper
resources to oversee and regulate what has already been allowed prior to adding
to that burden.
I expect a response to this email, including
what action you will be taking to protect the citizens of Pennsylvania and the
children in the Mars Area School District.
Best Regards,
Amy Nassif
Mars
Parent Group”
9. Sample Letter for Sewickley Compressor Station
(Or any compressor station)
Please see last week’s updates at our blogspot for the article about
this proposed station. jan
Nancy
Downes wrote this letter to New Sewickley Twp.
She said it can be used for thoughts to create your own letter.
Date:
July 16, 2014 at 4:17:34 PM EDT
To:
manager@newsewickley.com
Dear Sir/Madam,
I
am writing to request that you reject the request for a compressor station to
be built next to Kretschmann’s organic farm, a well established and highly
valued resource to thousands of Pittsburgh-area families.
In making your decision, I urge you to
consider the following:
1. what compressor stations sound like:
http://dearsusquehanna.blogspot.com/2010/07/compressor-stations-noise-that-can.html
2.
a recent Pittsburgh Business Times op-ed by former Pittsburgh Tom Murphy on the
problems fracking causes for local municipalities:
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/print-edition/2014/03/21/act-13-didn-t-do-enough-to-protect-citizens.html?page=all
3.
the risks associated with compressor stations:
http://fracdallas.org/docs/compressorstations.html
4.
the health risks associated with all phases of hydraulic fracturing as stated
by a board of nationally respected health experts (MDs, PhDs, engineers) who,
after diligent and objective scrutiny of the evidence on the health effects of
fracking operations stated: Our examination of the peer-reviewed medical and
public health literature uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced
in a manner that does not threaten human health.
http://concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CHPNY-Fracking-Compendium.pdf
5.
a statement about NYS Supreme Court’s recent 5-2 decision in favor of “home
rule” by towns and counties, a blow to natural gas production
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-two-small-new-york-towns-have-shaken-up-the-national-fight-over-fracking/2014/07/02/fe9c728a-012b-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html
5.
how fracking damages local economies: http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/20/udated-fracking-vs-american-dream-resource-guide/
6.
why banks and other mortgage vendors are steering clear of properties
containing/near a fracking site:
file:///Users/nancydownes/Desktop/*INT*/NYTimes
article on mortgages.webarchive
7.
Article 27 from the PA Constitution, which states that citizens have "a
right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic,
historic and aesthetic values of the environment.”
Thank you for considering this evidence.
Sincerely,
Nancy
Downes, Pittsburgh business owner, mother, technical editor, former medical
writer for NIH
ndownes@editsinternational.com
10. Author Anne Neumammn’s Response
to Nasty Letters
(I printed Anne Neumanns op ed on the pipeline last week. You
can visit our blogspot if you missed it. Jan)
“What a week! The response to my op-ed in
last week’s New York Times Sunday Review has been overwhelming–and for the most
part, phenomenal. People have written from all over the country to share their
stories, strategies and encouragement. Thank you!
A few letters, however, and a
segment on the Diane Rehm show on Tuesday, have convinced me that the framing
of the conversation about natural gas is dangerously wrong. Here’s my response
to a really nasty letter I received two days ago. I’m posting it because it
pulls apart that erroneous frame (and because the letter pissed me off). I’ve
edited it slightly.
Dear XXX,
Sorry it took me so long to
respond to your letter, forwarded via the NYT and in response to my op-ed last
Sunday about fracked natural gas infrastructure. I’m on book deadline and, as
you can imagine, my inbox has been filled with op-ed responses (strangely, with most negative responses
coming from angry men telling me what I don’t know, and positive ones coming
mostly from women across the country who are engaged in the same work my sister
is–preventing seizure of her property).
At first, I wasn’t sure your
letter was legitimate. The tone, content and structure seemed somewhat
incongruent with your credentials (listed in detail at the top of your letter).
However, I’ve made the decision to respond to every email I receive.
My point is this: “Natural”
gas is a ruse that distracts us from preferable (economic, ecological) methods
of weening ourselves off non-renewable energy sources. We’re being sold the story
that fracking is progress, the future, that it puts America back on top thanks
to “Yankee ingenuity.”
I counter that frame, largely
because it is developed by those who benefit (gas/oil corporations) and because
it wrongly limits our thinking about alternatives. The benefits of natural gas are overstated and oversold. The job
creation numbers are inflated and temporary; cheaper gas only further
entrenches us in non-renewable systems; gas has a duration of only 35 years (less
when manufacturing and exports kick in) and our investment in it is short
sighted; co2 emissions should not be the
only metric we use to determine clean (pipelines, post-fracking water, methane
are pollution too); new gas infrastructure like pipelines and plants serve gas
and oil corporations, not the citizens who are bearing their burden at the
expense of clean water, air, soil, at the expense of public and private land,
and at the bodily risk of leaks and explosions.
I reject your argument that my
opposition to new natural gas infrastructure demonstrates support for coal.
Minnesota is doing a fine job with solar and wind (and while it’s converting
coal plants to gas, its example shows that new gas infrastructure is a
short-sighted waste). I reject your argument that my opposition to natural gas
infrastructure demonstrates support for the Keystone pipeline, nuclear power or
any other non-renewable resource. I find your either-or argument to be too
narrow for a conversation about the nation’s energy future. All renewable
alternatives should be further developed and expanded.
As to your nimby comment, I
oppose this pipeline, regardless of where Williams attempts to put it. To your
inaccurate point that I prefer the development of public lands over private:
this pipeline will pass through conserved/preserved property, which I oppose.
And for the record, all NYT op-eds are rigorously fact-checked. Too, you would
benefit from further research into the use of eminent domain in pipeline cases
across the country.
I find directives from others
that landowners and general citizens with concerns for their health,
environment and well-being should quietly take installation of pipelines on the
chin for the good for the country (or rather, for the good of gas corporations)
to be paternal and naive. They’re also privileged: do you have a pipeline on
your property?
I find your comment that I
haven’t “given the matter much thought” to be demeaning. And I find your
uninformed insinuation that I have not engaged in other energy activism to be
irrelevant and illogical. You assert that, because this is a democracy and I am
a citizen, I am in part responsible for our existing energy systems but, as you
must know, the process that has created this current system was highly
undemocratic (and in many ways unethically coercive), just as the process for
approving new natural gas infrastructure is. (Besides, democracy is
historically, notoriously inept at protecting minority rights.)
Your reference to global and
worldwide needs implies that natural gas exports will be good for the US and
the world. They may help us geopolitically, they may briefly boost the national
GDP–but in the long run, they will put us behind by distracting us from
developing alternative sources of energy. Currently, long-term natural
resources (the environment we depend on) are being rampantly destroyed by
natural gas industrialization; your letter only demonstrates the kind of
short-sighted, narrow fervor that is fueling it.
You seem to misunderstand power
in the US. Williams and other corporations, whose bottom line is profit, are
claiming “public good” for extraction and transport of resources that they
increasingly wish to export, via seizure of public and private property and
endangerment of air, water and soil purity. Of course I blame Williams and
other corporations for the use of eminent domain, as much as I blame complicit
federal agencies, and our local, state and federal legislators. Building and/or
expanding natural gas infrastructure in the US only ensures that we will pay
most dearly for corporations’ gains for decades to come.
Thank
you for reading and writing. Best,
Ann
11. CA Halts Injection of Fracking Waste,
May Be Contaminating Aquifers
by Abrahm Lustgarten
ProPublica, July 18, 2014, 11:50 a.m.
“California officials have
ordered an emergency shut-down of 11 oil
and gas waste injection sites and a review more than 100 others in the
state's drought-wracked Central Valley out
of fear that companies may have been pumping fracking fluids and other toxic
waste into drinking water aquifers there.
The state's Division of Oil and
Gas and Geothermal Resources on July 7 issued cease and desist orders to seven energy companies warning that they may
be injecting their waste into aquifers that could be a source of drinking
water, and stating that their waste disposal "poses danger to life,
health, property, and natural resources." The orders were first
reported by the Bakersfield Californian, and the state has confirmed with
ProPublica that its investigation is expanding to look at additional wells.
The action comes as California's
agriculture industry copes with a drought crisis that has emptied reservoirs
and cost the state $2.2 billion this year alone. The lack of water has forced farmers across the state to supplement
their water supply from underground aquifers, according to a study released
this week by the University of California Davis.
The problem is that at least 100 of the state's
aquifers were presumed to be useless for drinking and farming because the water
was either of poor quality, or too deep underground to easily access. Years
ago, the state exempted them from environmental protection and allowed the oil
and gas industry to intentionally pollute them. But not all aquifers are
exempted, and the system amounts to a patchwork of protected and unprotected
water resources deep underground. Now,
according to the cease and desist orders issued by the state, it appears that
at least seven injection wells are likely pumping waste into fresh water
aquifers protected by the law, and not other aquifers sacrificed by the state
long ago.
"The aquifers in question with respect to the orders that have been
issued are not exempt," said Ed Wilson, a spokesperson for the
California Department of Conservation in an email.
A 2012 ProPublica investigation of more than 700,000 injection
wells across the country found that wells were often poorly regulated and
experienced high rates of failure, outcomes that were likely polluting
underground water supplies that are supposed to be protected by federal law.
That investigation also disclosed a
little-known program overseen by the U.S. EPA that exempted more than 1,000
other drinking water aquifers from any sort of pollution protection at all,
many of them in California.”
12. Governor Agrees to Delay any New
Leasing of State Parks & Forests
The
Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation [ PEDF ] has prevented the
Governor from new leasing of gas rights under DCNR lands for now.
Commonwealth Court has entered
an order in which Governor Corbett has agreed not to lease any more State
Forest or Park land until the Court has made a decision on the merits of PEDF’s
big [eight-point] court case against him.
Since
our current State Budget [ signed by the Governor last week ] made DCNR almost
entirely dependent on the Oil and Gas Lease Fund to operate, PEDF will hold off
on the issue of the illegal transfer of Oil & Gas Lease Fund money because
that would leave DCNR without the ability to operate for the next year. PEDF is
bringing this case to support DCNR’s ability to protect our Parks and
Forests, not to shut them down.
With the fear of losing more Park and Forest land
to new leases for gas extraction gone, PEDF is eager to get the main legal
action case decided as quickly as possible.
The main part of PEDF's legal action v. Governor
Corbett is on schedule to complete the briefing of the issues by
September 14. Oral Argument will then be held before the court in October,
2014.
It's a reprieve for our State Parks and
Forests.
Support PEDF's efforts by relaying this
message to your local newspapers - and see below for supporting PEDF.
Yours in conservation,
Dick Martin Coordinator
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
