Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group Updates August 8, 2014
westmcg@gmail.com
* For articles and updates or to just vent, visit us on facebook;
*****Unprecedented Investigation Finds PA Prioritizes Fracking at Expense of Health, Environment & Law
* 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-
To
read former Updates please visit our blogspot listed above.
WMCG Thank Yous
Contributors To Our Updates
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, Computer Training, Merton Society
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 to
Jim Robertson for computer training on understanding DEP search sites and
permitting.
Thank you to
Lou and Dorothy Pochet for representing our group at the Thomas Merton meeting.
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.
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.
*********************************************************************************
Calendar
*** WMCG Group Meeting We meet the second Tuesday
of every month at 7:30 PM in Greensburg.
Next meeting is August 12. Email Jan for directions. All are very welcome to attend.
***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:
*Join the People’s
Climate March in New York City, Sept. 21. ACTION:
Register now for a seat on one of the Pittsburgh buses. http://alleghenysc.org/?p=19091
And Other Sierra Club Posts:
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
Everyone Should Submit a
Written Statement
From Sierra Club: It is too
late to register to speak, but you can send a statement to the EPA. We need to
send a strong message to the EPA and Big Coal that there’s overwhelming public
support for national climate action –NOW! Big Coal and their climate-denying
allies are already trying to weaken the EPA’s historic climate protection
efforts.
Comments on the
Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule must be received by October 16, 2014. You do not have to write a
long statement. Any statement of support for Carbon reduction is helpful and
there’s lots of data, just google climate change—flooding, storms, effects on
health, plant and animal adaptation, etc.
Send Your Comments To:
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 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.
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.
Be sure to reference
Docket ID:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602
For
information about the carbon reduction plan:
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.
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.
***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 .We're
pushing 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:
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.
**Mariner East
Pipeline
From: Chester County Community Coalition
From:
Chester County Community Coalition <3ccoalition@gmail.com>
“Letter To Andy (To Be
Shared)
I
have seen all the emails you have sent to me. I appreciate your presence at the
meeting on Wednesday night and the support of the community members that were
present. Your questions were all valid and the responses were standard issue
rhetoric. The determination by the
Administrative Law Judges proves that legally Sunoco is not a public utility
under the law. The response from the representative was from last year and
since then Sunoco had changed from a claim of Interstate to Instrastate. They
are playing games that must be stopped. Please forward our contact
information to your friends, neighbors, and family so that people on the
western side of the state can stay informed.
Many
of the questions you submitted have already been answered by the fighters on
this side of the state. Rest assured that we have seen through their nonsense
and are fully on the way to stop their lies. Our legal team is working hard for
all PA residents but the fight is not over.
The PUC commissioners can rule in Sunoco's favor by overruling the judges'
decision. We are going to begin a blitz of the PUC commission to uphold the
judges' decision and would appreciate the community around Delmont to support
this goal. I will add you to our email list so that you get continue
updates about the legal fight. You can also go to our facebook page,
wg.justthefactsplease, or the web site 3cCoalition.org to get more information.
Please share this with everyone you know.
Finally,
we have a good strong legal team. Our attorney at the PUC level is the only one
getting paid in our group. If there is anything that your community could do to
help our fight that would be greatly appreciated. If you choose not to
contribute then that is OK as well. We will still fight for you and everyone in
PA so that our rights are upheld by the courts. If there is any more questions
you may have please do not hesitate to ask. PA residents need to stand
together! It was a pleasure to meet your community at the Delmont Library.
Sincerely,
Tom
Casey, Director Chester County Community Coalition
P.O.
Box 2074, West Chester, PA 19380
3cCoalition.org”
**Anti-Pipeline
Group Helps Others At July 30 Meeting
Sunoco
Fights To Bypass Local Regs
“The
local group leading the charge against Sunoco Pipeline LP’s Mariner East
Project pump station in West Goshen is hoping to help community groups across
the state in opposing the pipeline.
Tom Casey of the Chester County
Community Coalition (the 3cCoalition), and representatives from the Clean Air Council
traveled to Delmont Wednesday, July 30 to speak at a community meeting regarding
residents’ fight against the Mariner East Pipeline.
Casey
said the meeting was sponsored by the Clean Air Council and the League of Women
Voters. He said he hopes to share some of the 3cCoalition’s knowledge of how to
work as a group to spread information about the pipelines.
“The
purpose of this meeting was to relate our experiences and help the people of
Delmont organize in their fight against corporate incursions into their
community,” said Casey.
The
3cCoalition began shortly after Sunoco submitted a request for special
exemption to West Goshen Township in February, seeking exceptions to put a
34-foot combustion tower and pumping station in a residentially zoned area as
part of its Mariner East project.
The project looks to re-purpose an
80-year-old pipeline to deliver liquid natural gas products, mainly ethane and
propane, from the Marcellus Shale region in western Pennsylvania to the Marcus
Hook Facility in Delaware County. The pipeline previously carried petroleum
products from east to west, and is now not in use.
Sunoco is seeking public
utility status from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, which would
allow it to bypass local regulations in the 31 municipalities where its pumping
stations and valve control centers are set to be built for the project. Sunoco maintains it is a
public utility based on the previous use of the pipeline, while opponents say
Sunoco does not meet the definition and should be forced to deal with
municipalities’ local regulations.
The
project has garnered attention from across the state, with several community
organizations forming to speak out against the project. It also has its supporters,
especially in Marcus Hook, Delaware County, where the line is expected to
create new jobs.
Casey said 3cCoalition is hoping to speak
at the meeting to inform residents about organizing against Sunoco, as well as
offer advice on community organizing, group dynamics, fund-raising, searching
for legal help and vetting potential experts. Casey said the group was also
making plans to visit some of the construction sites and witness the facilities
that are being built in the area.
“We’re
trying to spread the information out,” said Casey. “We’re trying to say ‘this
is how you do it the right way so you’re not stepping on your own toes.’”
Casey
said he hopes to continue to speak and organize with groups across the state
that are facing similar challenges with pipeline companies. He said the group
is hoping to work with those in Lancaster and South Heidelberg, two areas also
being affected by pipelines.
“The
3cCoalition believes that information is the key to understanding our rights as
landowners here in Pennsylvania,” Casey said. “Our experience has been that these multi-billion dollar companies are
not forthcoming with information. We often receive conflicting information from
the companies. Residents of Pennsylvania are entitled to know what is going on
in their towns.”
****Notes From the
Delmont Meeting: See bottom of blog
**Youngstown Contractor
Sentenced For Illegal Dumping Tens
of Thousands of Gallons of Frack Waste
CLEVELAND,
Ohio – The owner of a Youngstown
oil-and-gas-drilling company was sentenced Tuesday to 28 months in prison for
ordering employees to dump tens of thousands of gallons of fracking waste into
a tributary of the Mahoning River.
U.S.
District Judge Donald Nugent also fined Benedict
Lupo, 64, of suburban Poland $25,000. Nugent rejected defense attorney
Roger Synenberg's request for home detention and a harsh fine.
Synenberg
said Lupo is frail and extremely ill, as he requires dialysis treatments daily
and suffers from chronic pain and diabetes. "If he goes to jail, it's the
death penalty for him,'' Synenberg said.
But
Nugent cited the fact that Lupo ordered two employees to dump the waste and lie
about it. The employees tried to talk Lupo out of it, but he refused. He also
pointed out a prosecutor's pictures that detailed six weeks of clean-up in an
oil-soaked creek.
"All
you have to do is look at those photographs to see the damage that was done,''
Nugent said.
In
March, Lupo pleaded guilty to the unpermitted discharge of pollutants under the
U.S. Clean Water Act. His company, Hardrock Excavating LLC, stored, treated and
disposed waste liquids generated by oil and gas drilling.
As
the stored waste liquids piled up at his company in the fall of 2012 and into
2013, Lupo ordered employees to purge waste tanks into a storm-water drain that
flowed to tributary.
Two
employees dumped waste 33 times. In some instances, they drained only a portion
of a tank; most times, however, they dumped all of it, said Brad Beeson, an
assistant U.S. attorney.
On
Jan. 31, 2013, state authorities, acting on a tip, caught one of Lupo's
employees dumping the waste. Beeson, in court records, said the impact of the
dumping was devastating. Officials found the creek "void of life,'' the
prosecutor said.
"Even the most pollution-tolerant organisms,
such as nymphs and cadis flies, were not present,'' Beeson wrote in court
documents. "The creek was essentially dead.''
In
a statement to Nugent, Lupo apologized to residents of the Mahoning Valley, as
well as his family. "My
actions were irresponsible,'' the statement said.
When
Nugent asked if he had anything else to say, Lupo spoke softly.
"If
this was 20 years ago, this probably never would have happened,'' he said,
citing his health.
Lupo's
sentencing ends a case that brought convictions to the two employees ordered to
dump the waste.
In
March, Nugent sentenced Michael Guesman of Cortland to probation for three
years. In July, Nugent gave Mark Goff of Newton Falls a similar sentence.
Guesman and Goff pleaded guilty to the same Clean Water Act charges as Lupo.
Guesman told authorities that Lupo ordered
him to run a hose from the 20,000-gallon storage tanks to a nearby storm-water
drain and dump the polluted wastewater.
The
wastewater was a byproduct of Lupo's frack operations consisting of saltwater
brine and a slurry of toxic oil-based drilling mud, containing benzene, toluene
and other hazardous pollutants.
Guesman
said he was afraid of losing his job if he failed to comply with Lupo's orders.
Guesman dumped the polluted water into
the drain 24 times between Nov. 1, 2012, and Jan. 31, 2013, according to
court records.
Guesman
said Lupo ordered him to perform the
secret dumping under cover of darkness and after all of the other employees had
left the facility. Guesman said Lupo ordered him to lie if questioned about
the dumping and to tell law enforcement officers he had emptied the waste tanks
only six times.
Goff
said Lupo told him to empty tanks of waste into a nearby stormwater drain in
October 2012. Lupo told Goff to do it after no one else was at the business and
only after dark. The charges said Goff emptied tanks of the liquid on nine
different nights.
"Clean
air and fresh water is the birthright of every man, woman and child in this
state," said U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach. "Intentionally breaking
environmental laws is not the cost of doing business, it's going to cost
business owners their freedom."
Plain
Dealer news researcher Jo Ellen Corrigan contributed to this story.
**DEP Refused To Notify,
So Cecil Township Warns Residents
of Potential Water Contamination Near Frack
Pit
“The
controversial Worstell centralized water impoundment in Cecil Township and
operated by Range Resources may have contaminated nearby soil and groundwater, prompting municipal officials there to
hand-deliver letters to about 50 nearby residents.
“The
township has come to learn that the impoundment is currently not holding any
fluids and was taken out of service in April of this year,” the letter reads. “It is the township’s understanding that
the impoundment was taken out of service as part of an investigation to
determine whether any fluids entered the groundwater and soils in and around
the impoundment site and the source of any fresh water.”
Cecil
Township supervisors for more than a year have raised concerns about Cecil 23
impoundment, formerly known as the Worstell impoundment – and the board said in
a press release that information it recently received “has furthered those
concerns.”
Previously unknown to both the township and
the public, is that on July 11 Range Resources notified the DEP that there were
elevated chloride levels detected by the ground water monitoring wells at the
Cecil 23 waste water impoundment, according to the press release.
In
response to repeated inquiries by Cecil Township officials, the DEP confirmed
Thursday that they will conduct a limited investigation.
Upon
learning this information, Cecil
Township called DEP and requested that they notify Cecil Township residents of
potential ground water contamination. Unfortunately, the DEP declined to do so
initially stating ‘the DEP will not make a general notification to residents,
according to Cecil officials.
“Based
on recent evidence of water and soil contamination at other Range Resource
impoundments in Washington County coupled with concerns raised by Auditor
General, DePasquale’s report on DEP performance; we feel that the public has a
right to know if it’s safe to live in their neighborhood,” supervisor’s
Chairman Andy Schrader said. “Our residents’ safety is our first concern.”
The
township intends to closely monitor this investigation and keep residents
informed.
The
Worstell impoundment made headlines in 2013, when Cecil Township supervisors
sought to meet publicly with DEP regarding concerns over the frack pit.
DEP refused to meet
in public, and documents obtained through a state Right to
Know request showed high-ranking officials making a joke about using a
provision in the open records law to keep the gathering in private.
News of possible groundwater
and soil contamination at the Cecil 23 Impoundment comes in the wake of a
“significant” leak at another Range
Resources impoundment in Amwell Township, Washington County. That leak necessitated the removal of at
least 15,000 tons of soil. DEP issued notices of violation for the leak.
A
third frack pit in Amwell run by Range Resources known as the Yeager
impoundment – which was the subject of lawsuits and a federal probe – is
reportedly in the process of being closed.
Range
Resources spokesman Matt Pitzarella did not immediately return an email seeking
more information.”
Editor’s
Note: While the township intends to closely monitor this investigation and keep
residents informed, concerned citizens should contact both the township at
724-745-2227 and the DEP at 1-866-255-5158 with any questions or concerns.”
Aug
01 2014
**Contaminated
Water And Soil At 3 Washington Co. Frack Pits
By
Don Hopey / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
“Leaks
of fracking waste water from three impoundments in Washington County have
contaminated soil and groundwater, prompting the state to issue a violation
notice at one site and increase monitoring and testing at another.
John
Poister, DEP spokesman, said the problems at three of Range Resources Inc.’s
nine Washington County impoundments have raised concerns and increased
regulators’ scrutiny. The impoundments store flowback and wastewater from
multiple Marcellus Shale well drilling and fracking operations.
“We
have had some discussions with Range about its impoundments,” Mr. Poister said.
“We are looking at them and discussing things with them.
“But
in terms of saying all Range impoundments are bad, we can’t say that. But we
are likely stepping up our inspections, and actually have done so already.”
In
response to complaints by Cecil officials, the DEP said it is ordering
additional testing and monitoring around the Cecil 23 impoundment, previously
known as the Worstell impoundment. A Range monitoring well measured chloride
levels at 500 milligrams per liter, twice the acceptable level, during the
second week of July.
Mr.
Poister said it will take 30 to 45 days to get the results of the additional
testing, which will try to determine if there is a “plume” of contamination in
the groundwater.
Township
manager Don Gennuso said the township
sent letters last week to about 50 residents along Swihart Road, most of whom
use private water wells, informing them of the findings. It urged them to
inform the DEP if their well water developed a foul odor or taste and to
immediately get their water tested.
“At no time was the township board or its
residents notified of the potential contamination,” Mr. Gennuso said. “I
know they don’t want to scare people, but we really need in to be informed.”
On
July 24, the DEP issued a “notice of violation” to Range as a result of
contamination of a stream and ground water near its 3-million-gallon Yeager
impoundment on McAdams Road in Amwell.
That
impoundment was put into service in 2010 and is in the process of being closed.
It has been the subject of ongoing investigations
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the EPA, and nearby residents have filed lawsuits, claiming their
health was damaged by air and water pollution.
Also
in Amwell, cleanup is continuing at Range’s
John Day impoundment, where a contractor
is excavating an estimated 15,000 tons of chloride-contaminated soil. The DEP
has issued the company an open-ended violation notice.
Elevated
chloride levels typically indicate fracking fluids or flowback waste water has
been released into the soil, the DEP said in a July 24 letter to Range
detailing the violations at the Yeager impoundment.
Mr.
Gennuso said the three impoundments were
constructed incorrectly because their leak-detection systems are beneath
dual liners instead of between them, meaning leaks in the upper liner aren’t
detected until the ground is contaminated.
Matt
Pitzarella, a Range spokesman, declined to answer questions about the individual
impoundments.
His
statement said company monitoring systems identified small discharges of “brine
water,” which were reported to the DEP and “appropriately, resulted in
regulatory action.”
According
to the statement, Range and the DEP have not found any health or safety impacts
resulting from soil and groundwater contamination, and “the limited
environmental impacts can and have been mitigated.”
According
to the DEP letter about Yeager, the company reported in May that a hole
penetrated the liners of the impoundment, and other holes were found during
earlier company inspections. The company’s own assessment noted that five areas
of elevated chloride levels were found near the holes, which allowed waste
water to escape into the soil in possible violation of the state Solid Waste
Management Act.
The
DEP notice of violation said Range also failed to monitor chlorides as
required, did not provide required impoundment construction records and allowed
impoundment fluids to escape. The company faces civil penalties for the alleged
violations of the state Oil and Gas Act, the Clean Streams Law and the Dam
Safety and Encroachment Act.”
**Frackers Hear
From CSA, Pittsburgh
(CSA is Community Sponsored Agriculture)
By
Eve Andrews
“The
Pennsylvania Constitution stipulates that its citizens have a right to “clean
air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and
esthetic values of the environment.”
In
New Sewickley Township, about 30 miles north of the city of Pittsburgh, there’s
a new microcosm of the ongoing tug-of-war between the oil and gas industry and
people who just happen to like clean air and water (crazy! I know). Kretschmann Farm, which has supplied
certified organic produce to the greater Pittsburgh area for 36 years, is
engaged in battle with Cardinal Midstream, a Texas-based corporation proposing
to build a natural gas compressor station right next door.
The
state has 6,391 active fracking wells, and with salivating oil and gas
companies aggressively courting legislators and landowners across the state,
that number is rapidly growing. But this has all happened very quickly — 10
years ago, the use of “fracking” in conversation was more likely to be
understood as a hedged expletive than anything else.
Becky
Kretschmann, who owns Kretschmann Farm with her husband, Don, tells me that her
opposition to the proposed compressor plant has to do with the possibility of
how it could contaminate their crops.
It’s
not like these concerns are unwarranted. A few recent and alarming news items
from the Keystone State regarding its natural gas industry: Hundreds of incidences of contaminated
water, health workers prohibited from discussing fracking with patients, and
faulty measurement of harmful emissions.
I reached out to Cardinal
Midstream to ask about the precautions that would be taken to prevent
contamination from the proposed compressor station, and received the following
response from their spokesperson:
We
are committed to being a good neighbor and it’s our job to make sure we
minimize impact. We’re serious
about that job. As you know, emissions are heavily regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The station will meet and exceed all federal
and state standards and the requirements of the township’s ordinance. This
facility will not impact the quality of the produce and livestock grown in the
community.
It’s worth noting that just this week, the
DEP issued a report detailing its own inability to adequately monitor and regulate
fracking operations in the state. From the report:
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.
Cardinal Midstream first
started posting notices about a hearing regarding the proposed compressor
station four months ago, Kretschmann tells me, but she didn’t find out about it
until three weeks ago. “We got a call from a neighbor who said, ‘You know
what’s going on?’ and we [didn’t],” she says. “That was on July 2. There was a
meeting that night with the township board of supervisors and the gas company
and the compression company. And they wanted a vote right away, yes or no.”
A
second hearing, which took place last night, was attended by more than 300
people — so many, in fact, that the venue had to be changed at the last minute
— and lasted approximately six hours. “I was astonished at how many people
stayed until the bitter end,” says Kretschmann.
While
the majority of the attendees were New Sewickley residents, a number of the
Kretschmanns’ CSA customers came in from the city for it. Approximately 300 of
their customers wrote letters of support to the township manager.
Kretschmann
tells me that Cardinal Midstream made an hour-and-a-half long presentation on
the safety of the proposed compressor station, and brought along a panel of
their own experts. New Sewickley residents opposed to the station, however,
were not as well-prepared.
“We
were just frustrated — we did the best we could with the information we could
garner ourselves, and had quite a few people presenting various [pieces of]
information, but we didn’t have the experts that they had,” says Kretschmann.
“And shame on us, in a sense, because we weren’t keeping up on what was going
on in the township.”
The
New Sewickley Township supervisors will meet again on July 31, and then render
a decision within the following 45 days.
On
one hand, you kind of have to admire the balls of a corporation fighting to
potentially endanger the supply of Pittsburgh’s up-and-coming restaurant scene.
One does not thoughtlessly fuck with a foodie’s seasonal vegetable ragout. But
on the other hand, the oil and gas industry is pretty much the absolute worst,
so — admiration rescinded.”
**Dan Simpson / Fracking Compromises the
Future of Pennsylvania
Dan Simpson, a former U.S. ambassador, is a
columnist for the Post-Gazette (dsimpson@post-gazette.com,412-263-1976).
“Our
state officials shouldn’t let oil and gas companies run roughshod over the
environment.
I
guess that having lived in the Ohio-Pennsylvania-West Virginia tri state area
for decades of my life should have hardened me to the apparently popular
concept that it is completely acceptable to rape the environment to make a few
people rich. But it hasn’t.
The
grade school I attended as a child was called Indian Run, based on the
red-orange hue of the water in the creek that ran through the neighborhood,
thanks to run-off from coal mines.
When
I read last week that Pennsylvania’s DEP would be releasing a report that oil
and gas operations in the state damaged people’s water supplies 209 times since
the end of 2007, it did not fail to enrage me, even after all these years.
I
have tried, ever since fracking replaced casinos as Pennsylvania’s supposed El
Dorado of unearned wealth, to make light of it. My usual laugh line on the
subject is to claim that I won’t mind having to shower with bottled water. But
the fact is that, even though the oil and gas companies have made a mighty
effort in recent years to buy our support for what they are doing, they still
are raping the environment to the profit of very few, with the vast mass of us
paying the price, now and in the future.
The
fact that Gov. Tom Corbett and the Legislature have been entirely complicit,
not only in what the companies are doing but also in seeing that they are not
adequately taxed for it — even to the level that other gas-fracking states do —
makes it worse, although, honestly, we should be paying the taxes
we need to meet our needs in education, infrastructure and law and order in any
case. These functions should be financed without whatever could be legitimately
extracted from the fracking companies. After
all, what they are doing to the environment and our future cannot be
compensated for by taxes, even high taxes.
Normally
I don’t write about fracking, which is off my normal beat of international affairs,
national politics and economics. Instead, I’ve squirreled away information and
brooded on it, until now, when it has made me angry enough to address the
subject in a column.
It has been preposterous from the start to
imagine that frackers could do what they do — pump a combination of water, sand
and noxious chemicals underground to break up shale formations that then cough
up to the surface petroleum and gas-bearing liquid — without fouling the water
supply. Whether they do it going down, or coming up, or breaking up the shale
down below, they are definitely going to mess up our underground water supply
over the long run.
Someone
gets paid. A few jobs are created. The roads get torn up. I suppose we
shouldn’t care about the formerly scenic views.
America’s
natural gas supply is increased substantially. The companies doing the work
make big money. The increase in the natural gas supply takes some of the heat
off the United States to do something about global warming — if that is a good
thing.
The
augmented U.S. natural gas supply means we now have enough of the stuff to
export. That tempts us to encourage the Western Europeans to replace their
imports of natural gas from Russia with natural gas bought from us. This
generates some of the pressure for the United States to push the Western
Europeans to levy economic sanctions on Russia, including reducing or
eliminating European imports of gas from Russia and replacing them with imports
from the United States. This is sometimes called “doing well by doing good.”
What
is indisputable is that the American population is paying a heavy price for
natural gas extraction and is almost certainly destined to pay even more
dearly.
The
Pennsylvania DEP report includes 209 cases in 77 communities of contaminated water
or reduced flow due to fracking from the end of 2007 to May of this year. That
contamination, particularly from wastewater brought up from down deep, can
include radiation and radioactivity, something none of us would probably like
to think about — except for those who’d like to glow after taking showers.
Given
the mix of water, sand, chemicals, thickeners and other materials forced into
the shale to break it up and free the gas, it is hard to imagine that some of
it will not make its way into underground aquifers, our long-term reserves of
water.
Add
fire to rain. Earlier this year there was an explosion and a fire at a gas well
operated by Chevron in Greene County, killing one person. There have been other
such incidents.
There
are earthquakes. Fracking-related tremors were recorded in Canada as early as
2009 and in Oklahoma in 2011. Closer to home, near Youngstown, tremors earlier
this year drew a very concerned reaction from Ohio officials.
Then
there is the question of long-term property values. After the shale gas has
been pumped out, there will be residual water pollution. There also will be the
possibility of subsidence, already an issue in this area because of the coal
mines. What will fracking do to property values over the long haul?
Three
phenomena are in play at this point regarding fracking.
The
first is, of course, greed, trumping any sense of community responsibility.
The
second is a lack of understanding of the environmental fire that we are playing
with, in terms of potential damage to our water, air and land.
The
third is the politicians who make the rules, starting with the governor and
legislators, who have been bought off by the gas and oil companies.
I
would judge that anyone foolish enough to be taken in by the television and
other media advertisements put up by the gas and oil companies deserves to be
poisoned or radiated. Basically, we’re letting them wreck the place.”
**Drillers Did Not Report Half of Finable Spills
They
Were Found by Landowners or State
By Sean D. Hamill / Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette
“Half the spills at Marcellus
Shale well sites that resulted in fines weren’t spotted by gas companies, which are required by
state law to look for and report spills of drilling-related fluids.
Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette reviewed hundreds of thousands of state and company documents for
every incident at a Marcellus well site that led to a fine against a driller
through the end of 2012.
The
documentation showing that companies often failed to detect spills on their own
sites offers a look at self-regulation in the shale gas industry.
State regulation of the industry
was the subject of a withering state auditor general review of the DEPs oversight issued July 22. The
audit detailed the agency’s shortcomings, including failing to consistently issue enforcement orders to drilling companies after
regulators determined that gas operations had damaged water supplies, even
though the state’s oil and gas law requires it.
The
Post-Gazette investigation using well permit file documents and other DEP data
focused on 425 incidents involving 48 companies that resulted in nearly $4.4
million in fines.
Of
those 425 fines, 137 were due to spills at or near a well site. They ranged from relatively small incidents involving a couple
of gallons of diesel fuel on a well pad to larger accidents involving thousands
of gallons of hydraulic fracturing flowback fluid that killed vegetation or
fish.
Since
the first fine of the Marcellus era in 2005, the DEP has made it clear that
incidents that potentially impact the environment would be the ones most likely
to result in a fine, so it is no surprise that spills make up a significant
portion of the fines.
But
what is surprising — to politicians, environmental groups, the industry itself
and state officials — was the number of spills that were not first spotted by
the drillers themselves. About a third were first identified by state inspectors while others,
about one-sixth, were discovered by residents, according to the
Post-Gazette’s analysis.
State
law requires that reportable spills and even muddy runoff events be called in
to the state within two hours of discovery. At least 60 % of the 137 spills occurred while drilling crews were on
site; it was not always possible to discern from reports whether crews were
working.
Few
of the 20 drillers contacted for this story would address the question of why
spills were missed. Some of those that did cited confusion over what constituted
a spill in the early years of the Marcellus era. Companies that responded said
they never failed to report a spill that they were aware had occurred. Several current and former DEP inspectors —
all of whom asked for anonymity — said they believed some spills they didn’t
find went unreported.
The
Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group that represents all of the
main drillers in the state, dismissed the Post-Gazette’s analysis of spills and
fines because the number of incidents represented just a small percentage of
active well sites in the state (more than 6,000 wells drilled through 2012).
In
some cases, the spills were first noticed by landowners who then reported them
to the driller, who in turn notified the state. State officials sometimes took
companies to task for not spotting the spill first.
“You’d
hope that the companies would report 100 percent of them,” said Davitt
Woodwell, president and CEO of the Pittsburgh-based Pennsylvania Environmental
Council, which has worked with the industry to find ways to make drilling more
environmentally friendly. “Spills have been one of our biggest concerns.
Because the biggest number of problems aren’t necessarily the hydraulic
fracturing itself, but the handling of the chemicals at the surface that poses
the greatest threat.”
The
concern over spills is illustrated by two other facts shown in the state files.
About one-third of the spills that
resulted in a fine impacted a stream, pond or wetland, and about one-quarter of
them occurred in a specialty or high-quality watershed — areas in which the
state asks drillers to take special precautions to prevent spills.
One
of the state’s largest fines for a spill stemmed from an incident that began on
June 10, 2010, at a Marcellus well site owned by Chief Oil & Gas on a
family dairy farm in Somerset County in the Laurel Hill Creek special
protection watershed. April Weiland, a state inspector making a routine
inspection, found what appeared to be a small spill of an oily substance on a
corner of the well pad.
It
didn’t seem to be that big of a deal at first to Ms. Weiland or the landowners.
“I saw the spill earlier” than the
inspector, said Robert Miller, 67, a second-generation farmer who runs the farm
with his wife, Janet, 62. “It was just a darkened area on the side there, but I
didn’t think much of it.”
They
and their son, Andy, 34, who also works the farm, said the well has been good
for them and not impacted their farm life dramatically, and they support the
natural gas industry.
“They provide jobs. They provide
money for landowners. And they provide energy,” Andy Miller said of drillers
like Chief. “But if they did something they weren’t supposed to do, well, yeah,
come down on them.” That’s what the state did in this case.
Over
the five months after she first found the spill, Ms. Weiland returned to the
Millers’ farm as Chief dug up enough of the well pad to dispose of the
contaminated soil she found only for Ms. Weiland to return and spot additional
oily spots on the pad that had to be dug up.
It
took Ms. Weiland a dozen return inspections, a dozen phone calls, four soil
samples and several emails in the four months after she first spotted the spill
to get it properly cleaned up, which
involved removing 2,200 tons of contaminated soil. Despite her repeated
requests to identify exactly what was spilled, it took Chief five months to
tell her that it was hydraulic oil.
At a settlement conference with the
state in April 2011, Chief officials “admitted they didn’t adequately handle
the incident initially,” according to a state document.
Ultimately, Ms. Weiland determined that it appeared that Chief
had “intentionally buried” the spill with soil and rock something Chief denies
and it was fined $180,000, one of the largest single-incident fines in the Marcellus era.
State
documents show that the state has assessed fines for everything from the most
basic administrative errors to the most damaging well site accidents.
In
28 incidents, the main reason for a fine was because a state inspector found
“sediment-laden water” runoff at a well site. Such incidents are associated
with inadequate erosion and sedimentation controls. The state considers these
muddy runoff incidents to be potential pollution because they can damage
surface and water environments by choking out vegetation or streams.
Not one of the 28 runoff events that led to
a fine was first reported by a driller, records show, and more than half of the
runoff cases impacted a stream, pond or wetland; seven occurred in a specialty
or high-quality watershed.
In
one of those cases, the state’s largest driller, Chesapeake, paid $215,000 (the
second-largest fine in state history for a single incident tied to a well
permit) after repeated warnings from state inspectors about erosion problems at
a well site in the Pine Creek high-quality watershed in Potter County.
During a rain and snow melt in March 2011,
so much muddy runoff left the well site that the borough of Galeton had to
close one of its two public water supply intakes on a stream for three months
after the runoff choked its filters.
Some of the spills that were missed by the drillers were
relatively small, maybe a couple dozen gallons of spilled brine, drilling mud,
hydraulic fracturing flowback fluid or some other contaminant. But others were
large, comprising thousands of gallons that killed large swaths of vegetation,
state documents show.
There
is no way of determining whether spills not spotted by inspectors or others
went unreported.
Scott
Perry, a DEP deputy secretary who oversees the Office of Oil and Gas Management
for the state, said: “I don’t personally presume any criminal intent” on the
part of drillers.
He
cites confusion over the state’s laws and policies about what constituted a
reportable spill as a possible reason so few of the spills were first spotted
or reported by the drillers.
“The
[former] spill policy had a fair degree of ambiguity to it,” said Mr. Perry.
“We felt that small spills weren’t getting reported to the DEP. With the new
[spill] policy, we’re intending to define a reported release. Anything more than 5 gallons dumped over 24
hours into a noncontained area. Drips are hard to ascertain, so we recommend
spills of any size be reported.”
The new spill policy, adopted last fall, is DEP’s attempt to
provide a thorough definition of a part of the rewrite of oil and gas laws that
were adopted under Act 13 in 2012, he said.
Mr.
Perry said he expects that rewrite, plus additional changes in the industry, to
reduce spills generally and improve the reporting of spills.
Though nearly every major driller has had multiple spills that
resulted in fines, some firms did better than others.
Chief Oil & Gas, which was responsible
for the spill on the Miller farm, had one of the worst records with spills that
resulted in fines. Of 10 spills on the list, Chief spotted two of them
first. Inspectors found seven spills and a farmer spotted one.
A spokeswoman for Chief, which sold
many of its wells to Chevron, did not respond to the question of why the
company failed to spot the spills. But she did say in an email response to
questions, in part: “Chief complies with the regulatory process outlined by the
PA DEP. We are inspected at our locations several times per month by the DEP.
Chief’s goal is zero violations.”
East
Resources, which has sold all of its Marcellus wells to Shell, was the first to
spot three out of 14 spills that resulted in fines, while inspectors noticed
seven of them first and residents spotted four spills.
In
one notable case in May 2010, a spill of hydraulic fracturing fluid was
suspected to have been drunk by some cattle on a farm in Tioga County. The fluid had leaked from a surface
impoundment on a well pad, the seventh such occurrence at an East drilling site.
All were discovered either by a
landowner or a state inspector. East had inspected the cattle farm in Tioga
County site twice in the four weeks prior to the spill there but reported it
did not detect a leak.
Eventually,
all seven incidents, plus one more that occurred a month after the Tioga County
spill, would result in $159,165 in fines by the state.
East’s
record in spotting spills “surprises me,” Scott Blauvelt, East’s regulatory
manager, said in an interview. “With our inspections, we were incredibly
proactive. We were never shut down because DEP believed we were being
proactive. Even though there were releases, very few of them left the well pad
and none affected the ground water. There was no long-term damage.”
Mr.
Blauvelt said East used a two-prong incentive system to try to prevent or find
any spills at well sites.
Employees
involved in drilling activities were given “substantial bonuses if there were
no releases on that well pad,” he said, in an attempt to make them be more
careful.
Asked if that could have had the
opposite reaction of encouraging employees or subcontractors to not report
spills, Mr. Blauvelt said: “No. I don’t think so. We spent a lot of time
talking with contractors. We made it a contractual obligation of them to report
spills and clean them up. And we tried to tell people there was nothing to be
gained by fighting with DEP.”
Private inspectors hired by East
were given bonuses if they found spills at a well site, he said, “so that they
knew they could report them.”
Two other large drillers were among the
five companies with the most spills that resulted in fines: Chesapeake, which
spotted seven of 12 spills that led to fines against it, and Atlas Resources,
which had the most spills that led to fines with 15, and spotted nine of them
itself. Neither company would comment for this story.
The
other large Marcellus driller in the top five is Range Resources, which had a
markedly different record from the other companies.
Range,
the second-largest Marcellus driller in the state behind Chesapeake, had 14
spills that resulted in fines.
One of those spills was one of the state’s
most egregious: A hydraulic fracturing flowback fluid spill that killed fish
and other aquatic life along nearly half a mile of a stream in Washington
County in October 2009. That spill resulted in one of the largest fines in
state history, $141,175.
But
Range reported that spill first, as it did all but three of its 14 spills on
the list. One spill was first spotted by an inspector and two others by
residents.
“Our
goal is to have zero” spills, Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said. But if
there is a spill, “our policy is to report everything spilled over 1 gallon to
DEP, even if it is contained” to the well pad, he said. “We make a big push for
that internally. We discuss that at safety meetings all the time. And we
measure and track all of that stuff internally.”
Sean D. Hamill:
shamill@-post-gazette.com
**Cancer Rates At Flower Mound
“Flower
Mound, population 65,000, sits atop the Barnett Shale, one of the largest and
most heavily drilled reserves of unconventional natural gas in the U.S. with
more than 12,000 gas wells. Most of these wells have been horizontally drilled
and hydraulically fractured (fracked) to stimulate gas flow since 2004. Residents asked for an investigation into
what they thought to be an unusually high number of diagnoses for cancer
including leukemia, brain and breast cancer. After initial investigations
in 2010 and 2011, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS)
concluded that although the breast cancer rate among women was elevated, there
was no reason for concern and not enough evidence of a cancer cluster. But
residents were not convinced, arguing that the cancers in their community
included rare types and affected children and young adults—demographic groups
in which most cancers are typically rare.
In
response to questions about the adequacy of its investigation, the DSHS has now
released a new, updated report, which
concluded that “female breast cancer was the only type of cancer … where the
observed number of cases was higher than expected and the result was
statistically significant; this result is consistent with previous findings.”
Yet, it is not only the breast cancer rate
that is worrisome: a closer look at the numbers shows that certain types of
leukemia and brain and nervous system cancers (reported only for children) also
occurred at higher numbers than expected. However, due to the small population
size it was not possible to say with very high certainty that they were not due
to chance. Leukemia is a type of cancer that has been linked to chemical
exposure, in particular the pollutant benzene, which has been detected in air
samples at and near oil and gas production sites.
The
DSHS simply says that it “plans to continue to monitor cancer incidence in the
Flower Mound area.” As a statistician, and a parent, I can say that neither the
analysis nor the DSHS’s response go far enough to address the legitimate
concerns of Flower Mound residents.
A real response would be to conduct a more
detailed analysis of the patterns of breast, leukemia and brain and nervous
system cancers in the community. The statistician’s toolbox contains a
number of robust methods for working with small sample sizes in addition to the
Standardized Incidence Ratios (SIR) used by the DSHS, which can be too easily
dismissed for lack of statistical significance. Instead, an analysis of the
number and location of diagnoses over time could show if there are increasing
trends in diagnoses and their spatial patterns (i.e. proximity to pollution
sources).
The
choice of study period is also an important component in the search for
potential environmental risk factors. The DSHS based its investigation on the
time period 2000-2011. However, gas production in the Barnett Shale started to
increase substantially around 2001 and the boom in horizontal drilling and
fracking began in 2004. Since gas drilling and fracking is seen by residents as
a potential cause for the perceived cancer cluster, the investigation should have compared cancer incidences before and
after 2001 and also before and after 2004.
The
residents of Flower Mound deserve to have their concerns taken seriously by
their state’s health department. A more detailed and rigorous analysis is an
important first step and will go a long way towards providing this community
with some real, and evidence-based, answers.”
**Scientists
Describe Fracking Effects on Animals and Families
“Michelle
Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine
at Cornell have documented cases of contaminated water and air, of sick pets
and dying livestock and of similar symptoms experienced by the animals’ owners,
all with few apparent explanations. And that, the researchers, argue, is the
real scandal: It’s up to the people being affected, and not the industry
causing the damage, to prove that something’s wrong.
In
“The Real Cost of Fracking: How
America’s Shale Boom is Threatening Our Families, Pets and Food,”
Bamberger and Oswald share the stories of people whose lives have been affected
— and in some cases, destroyed — by fracking, in a way that aims to open up the
conversation to what’s at stake. “Simply put,” they write, “we are not certain
of the public health implications of large-scale industrial oil and gas
drilling.” The effects we are seeing,
they add, are being seen most prominently in animals, children and oil and gas
workers: the ones who, because they are so sensitive to hazards from gas
operations, end up serving as the canaries in the coal mine.
Was it hard to find people who were willing to speak about the
experiences they’re having?
MB: I
started to get emails from people who knew I was a veterinarian who were local
farmer-type people up here in New York who had connections with people in other
states through the farming groups. So they started putting me in contact with
people, and I started to become known as a vet who was interested in looking
into these cases and starting to document them, and that’s how I got pulled
into this.
What are some of the more shocking things you turned up?
MB: I
can think of one particular occasion — this
was in Louisiana in April 2009 — and that was the one where the cattle were
exposed to hydrolic fracturing fluid and they died within an hour. What was
shocking about that was that these are animals, which are over 1,000 pounds,
and it takes something pretty powerful to knock them out, that they’re exposed
to it and then dead in just an hour. That really grabbed me by the neck,
because what I’ve been reading about was usually cattle exposures, where even
if it’s pretty toxic, it’s one to three days. One to three days is pretty fast,
actually, but within an hour is pretty amazing. So I think that was the most
amazing thing that I heard of with these cases. Robert is shaking his head in
agreement.
RO:
I think that was the most dramatic case we had. We had a lot of cases that were
interesting but that was a dramatic one.
MB:
Robert, the other answer you give for this is the case where we were
sitting at the kitchen…
RO:
That wasn’t dramatic but it had a big effect on me, let’s put it that way. We went to visit some people and they had
actually had some documented contamination on their land and their cows were
quarantined. And we’re just sitting in their dining room, which is off their
kitchen, and you can look through their kitchen window and all you can see out
their kitchen window is a well pad. We look outside the dining room window and
about 10 feet away from it is a driveway, and that’s the access road to the
pad. So I realized for these people, all this drilling and fracking and
everything, it was right on top of their house. These people had several hundred acres and they didn’t want them to put
the pad there, but the company insisted on putting the pad right by their
house. That was a thing that was really early on and it really struck me as
something that I just didn’t understand — how people could live with that, and
how the companies could actually do that.
Would you say that all adds up to these people’s lives being dominated,
or ruined, by drilling operations? Or is it just that we’re not hearing enough
about any of these things that are happening?
What
do you with water that’s not good, and you can’t drink it and maybe you can’t
even bathe in it? You’re getting rashes, you’re getting ill — it really does
turn your life upside down and it does dominate it.
We have one woman we described in our book who said, “I go to sleep thinking of
water. I wake up thinking of water. Every minute is thinking of water.” It just
made me realize that we take so much for granted. But this is huge: When you
have to think of every drop, counting exactly how much water you’re going to
need and how much you’re going to use and think of your community and think of
your neighbors, it’s really overwhelming. It’s hard to really understand. We
got a little bit of a taste of it when we went and visited these people and
spent some time with them, but I think no one could ever understand it unless
you go through it.
RO:
You know, Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, during the BP oil spill, he said
he wanted his life back. That had such a hollow ring to it. These are people
who really need their lives back, and they’re not going to get it back.
There’s one point in the book where you compare some of
these people to victims of rape, which seems like a pretty extreme comparison.
MB: The thing I was trying to get at there as an
analogy was lack of control. They’re powerless. And again, you can get that
feeling through all the chapters that we’ve written in describing the cases. Especially in that last chapter, on
environmental justice, where they’re at the complete mercy of these companies
that are working around them and then at the companies’ mercy as to whether
they’re provided with a water buffalo [a large container of replacement water],
to whether it’s decided that the results of their testing show they need it. What
do they have to prove in order to be able to have good water again? I think
that’s the sort of thing I was trying to build and get there with that analogy:
powerlessness and lack of control.
Going back to your research, how many of these case
studies that you feature are backed up by conclusive evidence that says “Yes,
fracking is definitely causing these problems?”
MB: So on those cases, a few are, most are not. We
feel strongly that it’s because of the current testing methods that are used
and the fact that for a lot of these chemicals, we don’t know what they are
actually using — especially the
proprietary mixes, we don’t know what all the components are. But
also we don’t know what the maximum contaminate levels (MCLs) are. So, in other
words, what is the level below which there are no health effects and above
which definitely there are? And what are the effective screening levels for
air? If we don’t really know them, then we believe these people have no
recourse because there’s no MCL. And that came out really strongly for me.
We have several cases in the book that are part of the EPA study, where I was
shocked when I saw the water results that a large
majority of those chemicals the EPA was testing didn’t have MCLs. And if you
don’t have an MCL, you can’t go into litigation, you can’t go to court and say
“we have conclusive evidence.” It doesn’t matter how sick they are and that
they can’t use their water or that when they stop using their water they get
better and when they use it again they get worse. None of that counts as
conclusive evidence. Having said that, we do have several cases you can
read about in the book where it is conclusive evidence. But it’s the rarity
really because of the many reasons we discussed in the book.
RO:
You should also sort of realize that it took about 30 years to determine
conclusively that cigarettes caused cancer, and part of the reason is that
there’s always some sort of plausible deniability. It really depends on what we
accept as a level of truth and what’s more important. Is it more important to
absolutely prove there’s contamination here, or is it more important to prove
that there’s not contamination here? And where do we find the balance? The
balance, unfortunately, is very much in favor of companies and not in favor of
the people who are living with this.
So you mentioned more testing. Are there simple things
that could be put in place to help make the link more clear, or to help protect
people?
MB:
That’s a really good question. We are now, getting back to the testing thing,
thinking of looking at it in a different light, to make it simpler for people
to know right away: “Is this water I shouldn’t be drinking? And if it needs
much further testing that maybe I can’t afford, at least I shouldn’t be
drinking it.”
As far as simple things that could be done that
might lessen the effects right now, I think the best discussion of that is in
our first paper, where we talk about what could be done: just getting further away
from these operations, for the drilling companies to operate further away,
there’s also been a lot, lately, about cement casing failures. I think the big
thing is that we were shocked about the number of inspectors. There are so few
inspectors that they cannot get out and really make sure things are running
correctly, even as they stand now. So there’s something that’s really simple
and really basic, and the state regulators would probably say we don’t have the
money for that, we can’t afford it. But then it comes down to this question
that we’re hearing all over the country now: “What’s more important, to get the
energy out of the ground or people’s health?”
That’s a real basic question; that’s what it comes down to now and we strongly
believe people’s health and children and animals and food and all of that
should come way before going after an energy source that’s not really viable,
especially in light of the climate change we have — but that’s another issue.
I can’t imagine that the industry has had a positive response to
your work.
MB:
Energy In Depth is one of the energy industry sites and they pretty much attack
anybody who doesn’t say that this is great stuff they’re doing. So we are not
the only ones who have been attacked. But we look at it like we don’t really
care what they have to say. We’re just going to do the best science in the most
objective way possible and that’s what we’re still trying to do. The reason to
write the book, in addition to the articles, is to reach an audience that might
not read an article, even though our article was pretty easy to read. A lot of
people hearing it from a scientific journal just would not read it. So the book
is an effort to reach those people who would read a book. So we’re hoping to
get more people aware of the situation, and if more people are aware maybe
things will change eventually.
MB:
That is true and I think that’s happening more and more. And it’s been hard;
we’ve had a few cases shut down and people say “I can’t provide you with any more information,” or right up front we
were not able to follow up on a really good case because they’d already signed.
So for us as researchers that really cuts out a lot of information where we’re
trying to find out what’s happening, especially as health researchers for the
public health — it’s hard to protect the public health if you can’t ask what’s
happening.
Leaving
aside the climate change aspect, and just so far as the direct effects on
people who live near fracking operations, do you see the point where the
industry could make significant enough improvements that fracking will be safe
— or at least safe enough — to be justifiable, from an energy standpoint?
RO:
Well I think they can do better, that’s true. And maybe they are doing better.
I don’t know. I don’t think there will ever be a case where it will always be
safe. There will always be problems; mistakes happen. And when they wipe out a
community’s water by making a mistake, that’s the major issue. When you get
right down to it, what’s more important: Do we find alternative ways of getting
energy? I think there are alternatives, but I think what we’re doing is sending
all our money to subsidize the oil and gas industry and sending very little
money subsidizing alternative energy. It’s that balance for change for
alternative energy, which has become much more affordable for people. I think
it would not be worth taking the risk of contaminating water and air and
ruining some people’s lives.”
**Dads' Regular Exposure
to Benzene Linked To Childhood Brain
Tumors
(As
most of you know, benzene and toluene are found in frack fluids and frack
emissions. Studies have linked fracking chemicals to health problem in babies.
Jan)
“Brain tumors in children
could have as much to do with the father's occupational exposure to solvents as
they have to do with the mother's, a new Australian study has found.
The
study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, has found a link between
parents' exposure to chemicals such as benzene, toluene, and trichloroethylene
and brain tumors in their children.
Lead
author Dr Susan Peters, occupational epidemiologist at the University of
Western Australia, says while brain tumors are relatively rare they are a major
cause of cancer death among children, and the causes are largely unknown.
"Because
most of the cases occur before age five, the question is what are the risk
factors because there are some genetic syndromes that are known to cause brain
tumors but only in less than five per cent of cases," says Peters.
"The
children are pretty young, [so] it could be that some of the parental exposures
before or during pregnancy may be a cause."
The
new study surveyed nearly 306 cases of parents of children up to 14 years old
with brain tumors, which were diagnosed between 2005 - 2010 in Australia.
The
researchers compared the parents' occupational exposures to solvents with those
of 950 parents whose children did not have brain tumors.
The findings suggest that fathers working
in jobs where they are regularly exposed to benzene in the year before their
child is conceived are more than twice as likely to have that child develop a
brain tumor.
Women
working in occupations that expose them to a class of compounds called
chlorinated solvents -- found in degreasers, cleaning solutions, paint
thinners, pesticides and resins -- at any time in their lives also have a much
higher risk of their child developing a brain tumor.
While
brain tumors in children are relatively rare, previous studies have suggested a
link between parental occupation and childhood brain tumors, finding parents
working in industries such as the chemical and petroleum industries,
car-related jobs, and jobs with regular exposure to paint, have a higher risk
of their children developing brain tumors.
Peters
says a previous study in rats also found that toluene -- found in petrol,
paints, and inks -- had an effect on sperm cells, which points to a possible
explanation for the link in humans.
Commenting
on the study, Emeritus Professor Michael R. Moore, vice president of the
Australasian College of Toxicology and Risk Assessment, says the data shows
paternal exposure was a key issue.
"This
is the children being directly affected by the father and the father's exposure
is taking place prior to the children being conceived," says Moore.
"Parents
who are thinking of having children should be thinking about not just what's
happening with the mums but also with the dads."
Peters
stressed that the study only involved relatively small numbers of cases, and it
was still too early to say whether solvent exposure was the cause of childhood
brain tumors. However she said these solvents were associated with a range of
other effects so exposure should be kept as low as possible anyway.”
News
in Science
**Environmental Groups
Call For Investigation Of PA Health
Dept.
“Science
requires replication, and lots of it.
So it’s been difficult to gauge the health impacts of shale development
from a few scattered studies, says Bernard Goldstein, a public health expert
who once led the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health
and remains an active voice in the fracking health debate.
What’s
more, it’s been difficult to get such studies funded, he said, although
interest and money for research is increasing.
"There
is much more enthusiasm to fund these kinds of studies now than there was before
Obama got re-elected," Dr. Goldstein said.
Public
health concerns with fracking have intensified in recent weeks, although the
issue has been bubbling for years in Pennsylvania.
Earlier
this month, half a dozen environmental
groups called for an official investigation into the state health department's
handling of complaints related to oil and gas development.
The
groups, including PennFuture, PennEnvironment and the Sierra Club, said they
had been provoked by news accounts revealing that the Department of Health had
a list of “buzzwords" relating to Marcellus Shale activities that, if said
by callers, would mean their complaints would be handled differently than other
complaints.
And
former Secretary of the Pennsylvania
Department of Health Eli Avila was quoted saying the state did not study the
potential health impacts of shale gas exploration.
Mr.
Avila, who resigned in 2012, now heads the Orange County Department of Health
in New York State, where shale drilling is under a moratorium. In an interview
with the Associated Press earlier this month, he said the Pennsylvania legislature yanked $2 million in funding for a
statewide health registry that was proposed by the governor's own Marcellus
Shale Commission.
Dr.
Goldstein, who is listed as a member of the Marcellus Shale Commission's health
and environment working group, says no such group was actually convened.
Instead, faced with criticism that the commission failed to include public
health experts, the commission came up with the idea of a statewide health
registry. Mr. Goldstein approved of it.
But,
as Mr. Avila noted, it was never funded.
"I
like to think that was all in another state," said Bruce Pitt, chair of
the University of Pittsburgh's Department of Environmental and Occupational
Health, who has overseen several studies exploring links between health and
Marcellus Shale development.
What’s
comforting to him is that the Allegheny
County Health Department seems to be approaching the issue with
forethought.
In
April, the department hired LuAnn Brink, a former assistant professor at Pitt,
to lead its epidemiology division.
Ms.
Brink was one of the researchers at the university looking into the pregnancy
outcomes for women living near well sites. She declined to talk about her study as it is
being prepared for publication now.
Ms.
Brink said she would like to see some kind of health registry for fracking
complaints and "we would hope that would be at the state level."
But
locally, Ms. Brink said the county health department will investigate any
health complaint that comes in, focusing specifically on "clusters of
illness around drill sites." So far, she's not aware of
any such calls.
People
who think they may have been sickened by nearby oil and gas operations
typically complain of headaches, nosebleeds, lesions, nausea, and dizziness.
"These
issues are pretty nonspecific," Ms. Brink said. "There's no really
definitive health outcome or issue that's been associated with it at this
point."
A
2013 study from the University of Pittsburgh showed that the most common health
outcome from exposure to shale gas activity is stress.
"We're
really keeping a very close eye on what's going on in the published literature
to just maintain awareness of the potential health effects, and, to that end,
we are being pretty proactive in our air monitoring around the fracking sites,
especially ones that are coming up," Ms. Brink said.
"We
just believe that it's very important to monitor the air before drilling
commences and through every phase of the operation — drilling, fracking,
flowback, and of course while they're extracting the natural gas."
Ms.
Brink said the health department also will
work with the DEP to get water samples at Deer Lakes Park before and after
drilling begins.
Also,
the health department is currently compiling a list of government and peer
reviewed studies chronicling what is currently known about drilling health
impacts which will be posted on the agency’s website sometime next month, Ms.
Brink said.
Mr.
Pitt said it's comforting to have someone like Ms. Brink at the health
department of a county about to embark on two major drilling projects.
"We’re
familiar with her skills and looking forward to a closer interaction," he
said. "We're lucky in Pittsburgh."
So far, several studies have
focused on the impacts of shale gas exploration on pregnancy outcomes.
A
study out of Colorado published in April in the journal of Environmental Health Perspectives drew a link between a pregnant
woman's distance from oil and gas wells and the increased prevalence of
congenital heart defects. The study used publicly available data — Colorado's well location database
and the state's birth records registry — for its analysis, which also found that babies born to mothers living near well sites
were slightly less likely to be born early or have low birth weight.
Ms.
Brink’s study in Pittsburgh looked at birth records from Pennsylvania to
explore similar inferences.
So
far, studies have relied only on the location of a well to establish links to
health outcomes. But Brian Schwartz, co-director of the program on global
sustainability and health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health, is breaking down exposures by what's happening on those well sites.
"We're
going to really look at health outcomes by the phase of well drilling and
stimulation," Dr. Schwartz.
Knowing
the date a well was spud, or when construction began, could be a clue for
estimating truck traffic. Knowing the frack date corresponds to diesel
pollution and possible hydrocarbon emissions. The team of researchers on the
project are also mapping the location and capacity of compressor stations,
using paper records from DEP regional offices.
Dr.
Schwartz is involved in a series of studies at Geisinger Health System, a
mostly rural network in northeastern and central Pennsylvania that serves about
3 million people. Geisinger has the advantage of pulling detailed patient data
from its electronic medical records.
Dr.
Schwartz is overseeing two studies at the moment: One will measure pregnancy
outcomes for women living in proximity of a well site. The other will look at
medical events for 38,000 asthma patients, assessing how many times they were
hospitalized, if their medication regimens intensified and if their asthma was under control at critical
periods in the shale gas development process.
The
first round of results will be ready within the next year, Dr. Schwartz said.
Findings
from the Geisinger studies could be generalized to other areas in Pennsylvania,
although different drilling conditions may elicit different responses.
Indeed,
more than 7,000 unconventional wells have already been drilled in Pennsylvania.
But if industry estimates pan out, there might be more than 60,000 wells on the
ground in the future.”
Anya
Litvak: alitvak@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1455
**Research: Gas
Extraction Outpaces Science
Can
Affect Animal Health and Reproduction
“Natural-gas production from shale rock has increased by more than 700 %
since 2007 in the United States alone. Yet scientists still do not fully
understand the industry's effects on nature and wildlife, according to a report
in the journal Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment.
As
gas extraction continues to vastly outpace scientific examination, a team of
eight conservation biologists from various organizations and institutions,
including Princeton University, concluded that determining the environmental impact of gas-drilling sites — such as
chemical contamination from spills, well-casing failures and other accidents —
must be a top research priority.
With
shale-gas production projected to surge during the next 30 years, the authors
call on scientists, industry representatives and policymakers to cooperate on
determining — and minimizing — the damage inflicted on the natural world by gas
operations such as "fracking." A major environmental concern,
hydraulic fracturing releases natural gas from shale by breaking the rock up
with a high-pressure blend of water, sand and other chemicals, which can
include carcinogens and radioactive substances.
"We can't let shale development
outpace our understanding of its environmental impacts," said co-author
Morgan Tingley, a postdoctoral research associate in the Program in
Science, Technology and Environmental Policy in Princeton's Woodrow Wilson
School of Public and International Affairs.
"The
past has taught us that environmental impacts of large-scale development and
resource extraction, whether coal plants, large dams or biofuel monocultures,
are more than the sum of their parts," Tingley said.
The
researchers found that there are significant "knowledge gaps" when it
comes to direct and quantifiable evidence of how the natural world responds to
shale-gas operations. A major impediment to research has been the lack of
accessible and reliable information on spills, wastewater disposal and the
composition of fracturing fluids. Of the 24 American states with active
shale-gas reservoirs, only five — Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming
and Texas — maintain public records of spills and accidents, the researchers
report.
"The
DEP website is one of the best sources of publicly available information on
shale-gas spills and accidents in the nation. Even so, gas companies failed to report more than one-third of spills in the
last year," said first author Sara Souther, a postdoctoral research
associate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"How
many more unreported spills occurred, but were not detected during well
inspections?" Souther asked. "We need accurate data on the release of
fracturing chemicals into the environment before we can understand impacts to
plants and animals."
One
of the greatest threats to animal and plant life identified in the study is the
impact of rapid and widespread shale
development, which has disproportionately affected rural and natural areas. A
single gas well results in the clearance of 3.7 to 7.6 acres (1.5 to 3.1
hectares) of vegetation, and each well
contributes to a collective mass of air, water, noise and light pollution that
has or can interfere with wild animal health, habitats and reproduction, the
researchers report.
"If
you look down on a heavily 'fracked' landscape, you see a web of well pads,
access roads and pipelines that create islands out of what was, in some cases,
contiguous habitat," Souther said. "What are the combined effects of
numerous wells and their supporting infrastructure on wide-ranging or sensitive
species, like the pronghorn antelope or the hellbender salamander?"
The
chemical makeup of fracturing fluid and wastewater is often unknown. The
authors reviewed chemical-disclosure statements for 150 wells in three of the
top gas-producing states and found that an average of two out of every three
wells were fractured with at least one undisclosed chemical. The exact effect
of fracturing fluid on natural water systems as well as drinking water supplies
remains unclear even though improper wastewater disposal and
pollution-prevention measures are among the top state-recorded violations at
drilling sites, the researchers found.
"Some of the wells in the chemical
disclosure registry were fractured with fluid containing 20 or more undisclosed
chemicals," said senior author Kimberly Terrell, a researcher at the
Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute. "This is an arbitrary and
inconsistent standard of chemical disclosure."
Reference:
"Biotic impacts of energy
development from shale: research priorities and knowledge gaps. - Souther,
Sara, Morgan W. Tingley, Viorel D. Popescu, David T.S. Hyman, Maureen E. Ryan,
Tabitha A. Graves, Brett Hartl, Kimberly Terrell. 2014 Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment. Article published online August 1, 2014. DOI:
10.1890/130324.
Source: Princeton
University
**Lesser Prairie
Chicken and Drilling
“Important Birding Areas
(IBAs) as defined by the Audubon Society often overlap with oil and gas
extraction sites as well as endangered species habitat.
A
way to look at the interaction between hydrocarbon production and GSG in the
Great Plains and Pacific Northwest is to investigate the density of wells in
the bird’s historic range. That is precisely what we did for the 16 states
where GSG once roamed. The bird’s historic range is 2.21 times the size of its
current range, while the acreage we analyzed is slightly more than the
often-reported “165 million resource-rich acres” (Cardwell and Krauss, 2014). On average each of the 16 states was home
to 35,580 square miles of GSG habitat and are now home to a mere 28 percent of
that figure.
While
GSG habitat in these states has decreased, hydrocarbon production has
skyrocketed. The
Lesser Prairie-Chicken (LPC)—along with GSG—is hardly what anyone would call
charismatic mega-fauna but it’s habitat is coming under pressure in the name of
drill baby drill “energy independence” across many of the same Great Plains
states. The Prairie-Chicken’s range once spread across 97,977 square miles in
five states with 43 percent of that acreage in Kansas alone. The bird’s range has declined by 68 percent
and as much as 78-79 percent in Colorado and New Mexico. In terms of US
hydrocarbon production the Prairie-Chicken’s historic range is home to 58,152
wells, while its current extent contains 22,049 wells.” http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/31/oil-gas-drilling-greater-sage-grouse-lesser-prairie-chicken/3/
**Swimming Pool Size Hydrochloric Acid Spill
An
acid spill in Kingfisher County, Okla., could turn out to be the largest spill
“in relation to fracking materials” in the state according to an Oklahoma Corporation
Commission spokesman.
Spokesman Matt Skinner said 480 barrels of
fracking-related hydrochloric (HCL) acid, nearly enough to fill an
Olympic-sized swimming pool, emptied out of a tank where it was stored.
Acid
is used in the fracking process to both clean wells and stimulate the flow of
oil and gas.
The
cause of the spill, which occurred in an alfalfa field, is under investigation.
Skinner told ThinkProgress this is
the largest frack-related spill he is aware of in the state’s history. He was
unable to comment on the cause of the spill because it is currently under
investigation, but said they “think they know the cause.”
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
Delmont Mariner
Pipeline Notes
This information was posted in 4 Parts by Alyson Holt
Delmont Sunoco Logistics Public
Meeting
Post #1 - Sam Koplinka-Loehr's
News Report from the Delmont Sunoco Logistics Mariner
Pipeline public meeting run by the Clean Air Council and Council of Women
Voters on Wed July 30, 2014.
There
was a lot of information made available at the meeting that will be of
particular interest to Delmont, Export, Murrysville, Penn Twp, and beyond.
Because of the amount of information, it will be divided into a few posts and
in the next few days, I'll try to add it to the FAQ, too.
The main
speaker was Sam Koplinka-Loehr from the Clean Air Council. His Powerpoint
presentation is well worth reading through and can be found here:
http://cleanair.org/program/outdoor_air_pollution/shale_gas_infrastructure/delmont_presentatinA
few quick highlights:
On the
first page of the PPT presentation, you can see the brown line going from the
left of the picture (west), then crossing 22, then North above Delmont and down
to the gas processing station East of Delmont, visible from 22. That is the gas
pipeline right-of-way and construction work *is* ongoing.
Sunoco Logistics Plan (from the slides):
* Switch
the pipeline direction to pump natural gas liquids from wells near Houston, PA
to the Marcus Hook Refinery near Philadelphia.
*
Increase pressure from 800 psi to 1400 PSI
* 18 new pumping stations and 17 new valve
control stations (along the way)
* 70,000
barrels of liquid natural gas per day, as of 2015 ALL WILL BE DESTINED FOR
EXPORT to gulf coast and overseas
This
100% ethane is extracted as gas (methane), but under pressure becomes liquid
and is EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE
The
Current Public Utility Commission process will determine whether or not the
pumping stations are "reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare
of the public"
Mariner East 1 (I believe Delmont is part
of this) will be operational by Fall 2014.
FLARING will be during maintenance operations and
CONSTANT FLARING of fugitive emissions. Flare will operate 24/7, igniting
fugitive emissions from the motor and pipeline seals.
Contact Sam at SKL@cleanair.org
Next posting will be the email pertaining directly to
Delmont that Sam sent me.
**************
Post 2 Delmont Sunoco Logistics
Public Meeting Post #2 –
My email exchange with Sam Koplinka-Loehr from the Clean Air
Council regarding specifically what's going on in Delmont:
Q1: If any Delmont residents have questions to put to Sunoco
(like where is this flare stack going to be), who is the Program Manager they
could contact?
Answer: Matthew Gordon and his number is 610-670-3284
It would be great for people to call him with tough
questions and leave him messages
His information is publicly available from Sunoco's filings
with the DEP and PUC
Q2: What is the state of development of the pipeline in
Delmont?
Answer: In answer to your question my understanding is that
the Delmont pumping station is the
farthest along with construction with the flare stack basically completed the
last that I had heard. The other stations to the east of Delmont in
Indiana and Cambria counties have not been constructed yet. Tom Casey and I
went by those areas where they are slated to be built today and did not see any
ground clearing or pumping station installation. In terms of the actual
pipeline you can get images from this site, a fellow who does fly-overs of the
pipeline route with updated photos of where they are constructing:
http://www.marcellus-shale.us/Sunoco-Mariner-East.htm
I also saw the pipeyard and a cleared right-of-way for the
pipeline. It is also visible on google earth: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Delmont,+PA/@40.4112536,-79.5832922,5298m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8834c60e84150ff5:0x13df8f35afe691
It is
the tan line that stretches around Delmont, zoom in to see the actual
right-of-way. I am unsure how much of the total pipeline has been constructed,
but yes they have been using eminent domain and definitely constructing
sections of it. My understanding, though, is that the western portion from
Houston to Delmont hasn't been completely finished yet as they are still going
through some final Eminent domain proceedings. Some of the folks on the
Westmoreland County lists may know more about exactly how far along the
pipeline construction has gotten.
The information about the flare stack is available
in the presentation. Basically it would be a constantly running flare to burn
off any ethane that sneaks out of the pipe fittings and seals in the pumping
station. At times it would burn off even more ethane during maintenance
operations when the company needs to empty the line to inspect it. It is going
to be 30 feet tall and 4 feet wide, an enclosed flare manufactured by the John
Zink company. Again, you can see the flare design in the
presentation. My understanding is that it would be at Sunoco Logistics' main
plant in delmont, here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sunoco+Logistics+Partners+LP/@40.428491,-79.577599,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x8834c63e76608dc3:0xd5f372de986f7e19
Q3: Could you tell me how pipelines and fracking economics
are connected?
Answer: In terms of pipelines and fracking as a whole - yes
you have it right that in order to get these products to market (in this case
ethane) the industry needs a way to do it. They can truck it across the state,
or they can send it by rail, or they can build a pipeline. Right now they have
been trucking a lot of the products and are trying to build as many pipelines
as possible since they are cost effective once they are in the ground. What
this means is that they would be able to get ethane from the shale fields and
export it from Marcus Hook Refinery near Philadelphia and ship it overseas to
markets where they can get up to 4 times more for it. This is dangerous in
terms of fracking because it would ensure further avenues for the industry to
increase demand and lock communities into a future based on fracking. If we are
going to work against the impacts from fracking, that also means working
against pipelines, compressor stations, and all the other infrastructure
projects required to get the product from miles under the ground to overseas
markets. Does that answer your question?
From : MARCELLUS-SHALE.US
http://www.marcellus-shale.us/Sunoco-Mariner-East.htm
Our look at construction of the
SUNOCO LOGISTICS MARINER EAST PIPELINE
The
Sunoco Logistics Mariner East pipeline was constructed to deliver ethane and
propane from Marcellus Shale gas wells to the Marcus Hook facility where it
will be processed and stored until distribution can take place to foreign and
domestic markets. The transport of butane may be also be added at a later date.
Initially the pipeline will have
capacity for 70,000 barrels (2.94 million gallons) per day of NGL (natural gas
liquids) with the potential for increased capacity. Initial estimates include
the transport of propane in late-2014 with the addition of ethane
transportation beginning in the first half of 2015. Ethane is used to
manufacture plastics.
The
pipeline will run from the MarkWest Gas Plant in Houston, Pennsylvania to an
existing gas processing facility in Delmont, Pennsylvania. From Delmont the NGL
will enter an existing Sunoco pipeline and be transported to Sunoco Logistics'
SPMT terminal river port in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania and Claymont, Delaware.
**********************
Meeting Post #3 - Sam Koplinka-Loehr
from the Clean Air Council also provided this Sunoco Logistics Emergency
Response presentation. It has information that the general public has not been
informed about. It's a good read to see what they have yet to inform people
living next to the pipeline (at the link).
One
as-yet unclear issue is HOW CLOSE these pipelines can be to homes. Perhaps the
Delmont Council addressed this but I'm (Alyson) not sure. My suggestion would
be to call Sunoco if your home is near the right of way (brown line from post
#1 today) because the Delmont facility is being worked on right now.
A few highlightsfrom the Sunoco Report: http://www.sunocologistics.com/SiteData/docs/PipelineLP/6ecbe6bdd2ee06ae/Pipeline
LPG Response - MERO-ME-.pdf
On page 15, a discussion of Gathering lines, Transmission
lines, Distribution lines, Pump stations and valve sites.
Gathering lines are well head to storage and treatment
(compressor stations I presume) - not run by Sunoco, but by drilling companies.
I assume these come under the authority of local councils/ordinances.
Transmission lines ARE Sunoco lines like Mariner East.
Diameter ranges from 6 to 42 inches. 300 to 1500 psi. Mariner East will have
8" and 12" internal diameter pipes.
Distribution lines move product from transmission system and
storage directly to consumer (think of your neighborhood gas distribution
lines). 1/2 inch to 18 inches with pressure up to 250 psi on distribution main.
(Alyson question - I assume these are not liquid natural gas, but just natural
gas in gaseous form. The kind in our homes.) Sunoco does not operate these.
These are public utilities and subject to PUC (PA Utility Commission) and
eminent domain.
Pump stations -
every 17 miles along Transmission lines. Hazards
include high pressures, high voltage and gas. Delmont will have a pumping station
and a flare stack.
Valve sites every 5
miles. There was some concern expressed at the meeting that these are not fully
automated enough for public safety but are manual. Some are automatic, some
are manual. This was one area of concern of the union representatives attending
the meeting.
Pipeline Maintenance
includes: flaring, "smart pig runs" (not sure what that is), road
openings and major excavation
Pipeline has a command center: Pipeline Control Center
1-800-786-7440.
Page 29 - "How will you know where a pipeline is
located?" yellow markers with approximate location (NOT EXACT and does not
include depth)
Page 34: Deliveries through pipeline will be
"batched". (interesting)
Page 46: Ethane, Propane, Butane - General Hazards
heavier than air, spread along ground and may travel to
source of ignition and flash back. colorless, tasteless, odorless, under high
pressure 1500 psi. Severe injury possible.
Page 37: Ethane, Propane, Butane comparison chart
Page 45: Pipeline
incidents "releases" either Not ignited, or ignited.
Page 46: How would you recognize a pipeline release? sight -
bubbling, fogs, blowing dirt and sound - hissing or roar. And then a
continuation of procedures for first responders.
Page 65: Pump
stations problems - electrical fire, fuel-fed fire, non-ignited release.
http://www.sunocologistics.com/SiteData/docs/PipelineLP/6ecbe6bdd2ee06ae/Pipeline%20LPG%20Response%20-%20MERO-ME-.pdf
www.sunocologistics.com
SUNOCOLOGISTICS.COM
The Sunoco Logistics Mariner East pipeline was constructed
to deliver ethane and propane from Marcellus Shale gas wells to the Marcus Hook
facility where it will be processed and stored until distribution can take
place to foreign and domestic markets. The transport of butane may be also be
added at a later date.
Initially the
pipeline will have capacity for 70,000 barrels (2.94 million gallons) per day
of NGL (natural gas liquids) with the potential for increased capacity. Initial
estimates include the transport of propane in late-2014 with the addition of
ethane transportation beginning in the first half of 2015. Ethane is used to
manufacture plastics.
The pipeline will run
from the MarkWest Gas Plant in Houston, Pennsylvania to an existing gas
processing facility in Delmont, Pennsylvania. From Delmont the NGL will enter
an existing Sunoco pipeline and be transported to Sunoco Logistics' SPMT
terminal river port in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania and Claymont, Delaware.
The Mariner East Pipeline originates at the
MarkWest Gas Plant in Houston, Pennsylvania
The Sunoco Mariner East Pipeline
terminates in Delmont, Pennsylvania
at an existing Sunoco pipeline
**************
Delmont Sunoco Logistics Public Meeting-- Post #4 - Sunoco's web page
dedicated to the overall Mariner project:
http://www.sunocologistics.com/Customers/Business-Lines/Natural-Gas-Liquids-NGLs/NGL-Projects/208/
**********************
Alyson’s Added Quotes
The
Penn-Franklin had a front-page thorough report on the Sunoco Mariner Delmont
meeting last week that I posted about on 4 posts. Good job on following up on
details to the staff at Penn-Franklin!
A
few quotes that add to what I had posted previously:
"Currently,
Sunoco Logistics is attempting to obtain a designation from the PA Public
Utility Commission (PUC) as a Public Utility Corporation. If granted, Sunoco
would be exempt from complying with all local zoning laws and ordinances that
would otherwise prevent them from constructing flaring stacks in residential
areas. A preliminary ruling that the company oddes not meet the criteria of a
public utility, was made by a PUC judge last week, but a final ruling has not
been made.
Since
the majority of the natural gas liquids in Mariner East I would not be
distributed to the public but sent to Europe for the manufacture of plastics,
the argument is that Sunoco Logistics should not be granted status as a public
utility corporation."
2
reps from the Steamfitters Union and Operating Engineers Local 66 are in favor
of the pipeline but also in favor of more regulation and one mentioned
"you need to slow them down".
"Although
the information on the pipeline states that it will go to a pump station in
Delmont, from informatoin and maps it appears the station is the existing one
which is actually in Salem Township, just beyond the Delmont line."
*****Unprecedented Investigation Finds PA Prioritizes Fracking at Expense of Health, Environment & Law
Nicole D'Alessandro | August 7, 2014 10:05 am | Comments
177 71
16 282
Pennsylvania has been a hot spot for fracking—and many
consequences of this from of gas drilling in the state have come to light, from
social to health to environmental costs, as well as controversies, including
contaminated drinking water in the town of Dimock, gag orders on doctors and
victims, and the state health department’s enforced silence on the practice.
While that sounds ominous enough, a new report released by
Earthworks, after a year in the making, proves that the rush to drill
undermines the protection of Pennsylvanians and the enforcement of regulations.
Blackout in the Gas Patch: How Pennsylvania Residents are Left in the Dark on
Health and Enforcement for the first time definitively connects health and
environmental impacts of fracking with a lack of state oversight on a
site-by-site basis.
“Legitimate, well-funded oversight should be a prerequisite
for deciding whether to permit fracking, not an afterthought,” said Nadia
Steinzor, the report’s lead author. “Governor Corbett and [Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection] DEP Secretary Abruzzo often say that
the state has an exemplary regulatory program—but refuse to acknowledge that
it’s not being implemented properly and that air, water and health are being
harmed as a result. DEP’s limited resources make it impossible to keep up with
required paperwork, let alone enforce the law and hold operators accountable.”
Blackout in the Gas Patch looks at the permitting,
operational and oversight records of 135 wells and facilities in seven counties
and details 25 key findings of associated threats to residents’ health and the
environment. It also includes seven case studies using detailed timelines and
maps, including the experiences of the Judy family from Carmichaels in Greene
County.
Pam Judy said of her family’s experience with fracking: “The
Governor and DEP claim that gas and oil operations are safe and that they have
everything under control. I live with it every day, and know that’s not
true—and this report confirms it.”
Based primarily on data and documents from the DEP, Blackout
in the Gas Patch has found that Pennsylvania prioritizes development over
enforcement; neglects oversight; fails to consider known threats; undermines
regulations; and prevents the public from getting information.
The report concludes that the oversight of Pennsylvania’s
oil and gas industry is occurring with three inherent contradictions at play,
which are as follows:
1. DEP is charged with protecting the environment and the
public, but is under strong political pressure to advance an industry that harms
water, air and health.
2. Steep budget cuts to DEP during a shale gas boom means
the agency has to do more with less—which in effect has meant insufficient
oversight and enforcement.
3. As the number of people impacted by and concerned about
the impacts of gas development grows, public access to information on the
activities of both operators and DEP remains limited, inconsistent and
restricted.
While the report, which offers many recommendations for the
state, is a firm indictment of the current situation in Pennsylvania, as Bruce
Baizel, director of Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project, points out:
“There’s a national crisis in fracking oversight. This report focuses on
Pennsylvania, but it easily could have been written about Ohio, or the federal
Bureau of Land Management, or Denton, Texas. Blackout illustrates why many
residents across the United States have given up on the idea that regulators
can manage the oil and gas boom, and are working so hard to stop fracking.”
http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/07/pa-prioritizes-fracking-at-expense-of-health-environment-law/
