Testimonies

 Included Testimonies:

1) Crystal Stroud's Testimony- 4/29/11
2) Pam Judy's statement to Murrysville Council 7/20/11
3)Mike Atherton's statement to county commissioners 3/7/12
4)Cynthia Walter's statement to county Commissioners ( 3/12 and 7/12)
5) Joe Evan's  compressor station facts 3/12
6) Jan Milburn-Frazer Compressor Letter 3/26/12
7) Jan Milburn: Letters to editor concerning Green Slime/D'Amico 6/12
8) Jan Milburn: Testimony to  DEP re Performance Standard Regulations 1/25/14
9) Jack Milburn: Testimony to  DEP re Performance Standard Regulations 1/25/14
10) Jack Milburn: Carbon Hearings
11) Jan Milburn: Carbon Hearings 
12)Cynthia Walters: DEP Hearings 5/1/15 
Testimonies: Prioritized by date with most recent first:

12) Cynthia Walters: DEP Hearings 5/1/2015

To: PA DEP                                                                                                               April 29, 2015

From:  Cynthia Walter, Ph.D.

     I am a scientist with over 25 yrs. experience in teaching and research on environmental topics, including impacts of pollution. My remarks are based on analyses of dozens of peer-reviewed papers, and many talks and interviews with industry scientists, academics, federal and state specialists.

      I am saddened by the need to appear yet again in front of you, our state agency representatives, you who were sworn to protect us, to beg for the same, simple protections from a dangerous, heavy industry.  This should not be happening.   

     My comments from last year are printed below in the first 13 pages and list problems of open pits, inadequate replacement water, brine disposal on roads, the lack of electronic records, etc.  Pages 14-16 list inadequacies in the proposed regulations and they repeat the same problems. The new regulations still do not meet our basic, reasonable requests.

     While you, our protectors, are slowly tweaking regulations that fail to protect us, important events have happened:

1.     People impacted with bad water and bad air from fracking have died, and they died from unusual illnesses associated with shale field toxins.  

2.     Thousands of babies were born to mothers living near wells. At least 2 published studies show increased incidence of birth defects for mothers living closer to wells.

3.     More homes have lost their water and property values & public water exceeds limits for THM

4.     Several air quality measures have gotten worse.

5.     Evidence indicates inadequate DEP documentation of this industry. E.g., Publications reveal that DEP inspectors failed to properly record thousands of cases of well-head failures over several years.  Instead, researchers had to read hand-written notes to document a 7 % well head failure rate in the first year and 40 % likelihood of well head failure in the next few decades. 

6.     Overall, in 500 peer-reviewed publications on shale gas operations in the last 10 yrs,

  90% indicate water problems

  80% document air problem

  70% show human health problems.

Harm to public health is the most difficult effect to prove in general. The evidence is clear that people are being harmed and many more are at high risk of serious harm.

7.     New York State protectors decided to protect their citizens, based on the science of the harm and high risks of the whole shale gas system. 

In sum, the science of harm from shale gas operations is the same for PA.  We should have the same protections.  We need a moratorium.  The DEP should be providing more solid evidence of water and air impacts, as they respond to citizen calls and inspect operations.  The poor record of well head failures is just one example of DEP’s failure to protect.  Evidence of air and water before, during and after shale gas operations is chronically difficult to obtain and often only spot checks are done, resulting in no conclusions, no letters of determination and no help for citizens. You are the department of environmental protection, not the department of environmental permits. Please live up to your mission.

Comments from March, 2014

To: Environmental Quality Board

16^th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 8477

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477

From: Cynthia Walter, Ph.D.

916 Essex Dr.

Greensburg, PA 15601

walteratherton@gmail.com

Re:Proposed Environmental Protection Performance Standards at Oil and Gas Well Sites (25 Pa Code, Chapter 78)

I am a scientist with over 25 years experience teaching and conducting research on water quality in Pennsylvania, and most recently published a report that documents problems and progress to restore streams impacted from coal mining. My remarks are based on analysis of dozens of peer-reviewed papers, and dozens of talks and interviews with industry scientists, academics, federal and state specialists. I submit the following Recommendations to the Environmental Quality Board’s proposed regulations, published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on Saturday, December 14, 2013 (43 Pa.B. 7377) and General Comments as a partial rationale to the comments. 

Specific Recommendations (All underlined statements)

Accompanying justifications/explanations are not underlined.

1.     Water Used for Fracking (i.e. water to be sent into well)

A.    Regulations should not permit open containers or “pits”: all fluids should be contained only in closed tanks and closed loop systems.

B.    The tanks and closed loop systems should be permitted only for a designated, limited time, e.g., during weeks of fracking.

C.    This water should not be called “fresh water.”

The term “fresh water” is confusing to the public and ambiguous for operators. The so called “fresh water” (i.e. water fresh to a well pad) comes from a wide range of sources each with different, often undocumented contaminants.

For example, this “fresh water’ can be any of the following:

a.     Produced water from a prior well fracking that is intended to be recycled into a future well; therefore, this water will have chemicals from the previously fracked shale deposits (e.g., salts, heavy metals, organic compounds and radioncucleotides) as well as chemicals introduced by the prior fracking company (e.g., acids and preservatives) .

b.     Surface or ground water impacted by another industry, e.g., mercury in rivers downstream from coal burning power plants

c.     Surface or ground water where acid deposition has dissolved naturally occurring metals, such as aluminum.

The water prepared to be put into the well is highly variable in chemistry.  It can easily contain enough hazardous chemicals to contaminate the site; thus it must be in closed containers.

          Note that the requirement for closed containers/closed loop systems will avoid the use of      “natural topographic depressions” within the definitions of an allowed   "pit" and/or          “freshwater impoundment.”   No regulations should allow fluids related to oil and gas          operations to be managed in "natural depressions."

2.     Produced Water (i.e. water returned from fracking well)

A.    Regulations should not permit any open containers.

B.    Produced water should be in closed tanks and closed loop systems designed for the broad array of chemicals possible in produced water. 

C.    The tanks and closed loop systems should be permitted only for a designated, limited time, e.g., during weeks of fracking. 

Note that the requirement for closed containers/closed loop systems will avoid the use of “natural topographic depressions” within the definitions of an allowed   "pit" and/or “freshwater impoundment.”  No regulations should allow fluids related to oil and gas operations to be managed in "natural depressions." All facilities used to hold fluids that may contain potential water pollutants should be closed and specifically engineered for the task.

Produced water contains chemicals from the prior shale deposits (e.g., salts, heavy metals, organic compounds and radioncucleotides) as well as chemicals introduced by the fracking company (e.g., acids and preservatives). 

Produced water poses a threat to the water, soil and air.

a.     Water threat: Concentrations of the chemicals listed above are up to 1000 times the allowed limits in surface or drinking water supplies. Numerous cases of harm to well water, municipal water, and stream life have been recorded in PA and in every formation in the US where deep shale operations have occurred.  

b.     Soil threat: The heavy metals and radionucleotides will permanently contaminate any soil where produced water is spilled.  The salts might be washed out, but this simply transfers the problem to water supplies.

c.     Air threat: Produced water often contains organic compounds released as volatiles such as the carcinogen, benzene, that travel in plums off site. These toxic clouds are hard to measure, but scientists have begun to document their presence downwind from operations, resulting in a prediction of increased cancer risk to residents living near shale gas operations.

The many threats to water, soil and air will not be eliminated with containers and closed loop systems, but this will reduce the most obvious problems. The US Department of the Interior, advises of pits:  “Use of enclosed tanks and closed loop or semi-closed loop systems is environmentally preferable to the use of open pits and is to be encouraged by the BLM. Open production pits are to be strongly discouraged. Closed tanks and systems minimize waste, entry by wildlife, fugitive emissions that affect air quality, and reduce the risk of soil and groundwater contamination. In addition, the use of tanks instead of pits expedites the ability to complete interim reclamation. Costs may be reduced with the use of tanks, particularly when the pit requires solidification or netting.”  Waste pits are banned in New Mexico.  According to news articles: Antero in Colorado does not utilize pits, but a closed loop system. Chief and Rex Energy have moved to all closed loop systems. Andarko Petroleum uses close loop systems in Pennsylvania. The EPA Star program recommends a closed loop system.  But Pennsylvania’s new proposed regulations allow the continuance of frack pits, inviting further pollution and contamination of waters.

           

3.     Fumes, Mists and Liquids Discharged from Storage Tanks

A.     There should be no legally allowed leakage or release of vapors, mists or fluids.

B.    Containers that might accumulate vapors, such as condensate tanks or produced water tanks, must have vapor capture mechanisms that prevent the escape of any fumes, especially known toxins such as benzene.

C.    Air quality monitors that operate continuously must be installed to verify and report to the DEP that harmful gases are not escaping from the site.

D.    Limits for chemical emissions from tanks must take into account

(1)  the density of tanks in an area as aggregate air pollution sources

(2)   their proximity to buildings with sensitive populations (e.g., schools, hospitals) 

         

Discharges of vapors and mists during tank checks and leaks during storm water flow are common sources of pollutants.  These are occasionally detected by citizens or the DEP, and receive little penalty.  Such chronic, small releases add up for the people and animals near the well or industry facility.

The proposed regulations will not prevent flooding, spills, and leak violations that are commonly occurring, but they will motivate operators to plan ahead with a greater margin of safety for liquid and vapor releases. For example, allowing open pits and tanks cordoned off within some general freeboard space, allows a company to receive a lower penalty for a discharge of chemicals if stormwater exceeds the freeboard. Even now, violations due to overflow of the required freeboard occur on a regular basis, companies repeatedly are charged with the same violations, and fines are limited or non-existent.  

4.     Seasonal High Water Table

The definition of "seasonal high groundwater table" should be retained in the proposed regulations, because the term continues to play a key role in regulating oil and gas activities. (Section 78.1)

Proposed section 78.1  deletes the definition of "seasonal high groundwater table" even though that term is still used throughout the regulations, including in sections 78.56(a)(11), 78.59b(e). This definition should be maintained to ensure clarity and consistent enforcement.

5.     Fluid Storage Set Back

The prohibition on construction of fluid storage areas within 100 feet of certain water bodies should be extended to all water bodies. (Section 78.59c)

The current draft regulations prohibit well operators from building “centralized impoundments” for wastewaters within 100 feet of any “solid blue line stream” identified by the United States Geological Survey. Solid blue line streams flow consistently year round. This 100 foot buffer is important, but it should be extended to other streams that do not flow continuously. Although we recognize that Act 13 unwisely referred to “solid blue line streams,” intermittent and ephemeral streams need to be protected as well. Some of our most vulnerable waters are intermittent portions of high quality streams. Those waters would not be adequately protected by these regulations. Furthermore, the DEP has a

would not be adequately protected by these regulations. Furthermore, the DEP has an obligation to protect intermittent streams under the Clean Streams Law. Rather than attempt to make that decision on a case by case analysis, the DEP should extend this buffer to all Pennsylvania streams.

1.     Investigation of Water Pollution

The DEP’s duty to investigate water pollution should extend to all oil and gas activities. (Section 78.51(c)).

The Chapter 78 regulations require the DEP to investigate instances of water pollution that occur near oil and gas wells. As part of its investigation, the DEP may determine that water pollution was caused by the “well site construction, drilling, alteration or operation activities.” This set of activities is much more limited than the list of activities defined as “oil and gas activities” in Act 13. To ensure maximum protection of water resources, the DEP’s investigation should extend to all oil and gas activities.  

2.     Pre-drill Water Testing:      

a.     All pre-drill water quality testing should be conducted by a certified third-party professional operator, and made available to the landowner .

b.    Testing should occur a minimum of 3 times for of water quantity and quality during low, high and average hydrological conditions

c.     a consistent list of parameters including at least the following measures:

 Analyte (Inorganic) Analyte (Trace Metal) Analyte (Organic)

Alkalinity

Barium   

Chloride Calcium

Conductivity Iron

Hardness Magnesium Analyte

Hydrocarbons (benzene, ethane, methane)

Microbiology (Total Coliform/E.coli)

Oil and Grease Manganese

pH

Potassium

Radionucleotides (alpha and beta)

Residue – Filterable and  Non Filterable

Sulfate Sodium

Strontium

Total Dissolved Solids

Total Suspended Solids

The list of items for the test are from the document.  “PA-DEP Recommended Basic Oil & Gas Pre-Drill Parameters” (elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-91717/8000-FS-DEP4300.pdf).  

Note that DEP water resource specialists such as Swistock and advisors from local county and the USDA consistently recommend 3 water tests to represent high, low and average conditions because in PA,  the water table and chemistry can change greatly.  Also, 3 water tests are needed to stand up in court.   The short time of presumed liability makes it easy for a company to avoid responsibility for damage to a water supply because forces that impact water take time to emerge.  In such cases, a court case is likely to require at least 3 sample times to prove good water quality existed prior to operations.  Families have lost cases in court because they did not have 3 tests; the drilling company paid for only one test.  The necessary battery of tests is too expensive for the average homeowner, but 3 water tests per home is a small cost for a multimillion dollar well operation. 

3.     Water replacement

Contaminated drinking water should be restored to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act standards. If the quality of water was superior to these standards prior to drilling, the operator must restore the water to that higher standard.

Water quality is closely tied to property value and a homeowner with better than average water should have a right to maintain that quality of the property. Also,  water quality standards are always being revised; a property with better quality water will more likely meet the new standards. This advantage should not be lost through the fault of the oil or gas facility operator.

  

4.     Presumption of liability

Presumption should apply to all oil and gas activities, including site construction.

          78.1 The proposed amendments states,    “That the presumption of liability established in          58 Pa.C.S. § 3218(c) (relating to protection of water supplies) does not apply to pollution resulting from well site construction activities.”  This revision gives the oil and gas       industry special treatment. Also, far too many actions can be hidden under the phrase of        “well site construction activities.” 

  Operations on and near a well pad occur in  a mix of actions and timing before           during           and after well sites are built before during and after drilling and fracking. Furthermore,          sites are often modified during and after fracking.  No one can separate the effects of    “construction activities” from other effects.  Also,  separating out construction allows one           company to attempt to blame another for harm associated with a well operation.      This    delays and may make it impossible for a harmed citizen to seek redress. 

           

5.     Disposal, Brine and Drill Cuttings:

There should be no processing of drill cuttings on site nor should cuttings should be stored in pits.

 Disposal of brine, drill cuttings, and any residual waste should not be allowed for  wells drilled on property not previously designated as a waste site. 

No burial of waste should occur on private or public forests, farms, parks, airport buffer, school property, etc. .       

          Any burial of materials should occur only in sites designated as waste sites and,     when burial is thus validated, it should meet the standards of the US Resource          Recovery and Conservation Act.

The standards state that residual waste including contaminated drill cuttings may be disposed of on site.  This is unacceptable for this or any industry. The storage of contaminated (to any degree) including radioactive drill cutting should be prohibited

Presently, the fracking industry is exempt from the regulation of hazardous substances that other industries must abide by. Those standards should be applied to all aspects of the storage, transport, and use of hazardous materials contained in pits, centralized impoundments, and tanks. 

         

Because Marcellus shale is more radioactive than other shale plays, the drill cuttings can be more radioactive, as evidence by alarms activated at waste disposal sites and the high measurement of radioactivity in a study downstream from the Josephine Treatment Plant in Indiana County which treats wastewater from oil and gas drilling.  Radium levels of sediment samples collected in Blacklick Creek, downstream from the plant, were 200 times greater than background samples.  Researcher Vengosh noted that levels exceed thresholds for radioactive waste disposal and pose “potential environmental risks of radium bioaccumulation in localized areas of shale gas wastewater disposal.” There is no mention that evidence of positive radioactivity or chemical toxicity tests precludes the storage of drill cuttings in a pit or on-site burial.

11. Brine: 

No brine from hydraulically fracked wells should be used for application on the well pad, industry access roads, private roads or public roads due not only to salinity loads, but to the possible presence of toxic chemicals and radioactive particles that may be contained in flowback water.

Comments in other sections in this paper emphasize the many toxins present in produced water. Furthermore, each truckload of brine is unique in chemistry depending on the formation and the time of flow from the well.  It is impossible for an operator to test and certify the safety of each truckload of brine.  Once a load of brine is dispersed, its chemicals will travel through surface flow and infiltration in unpredictable destinations, with unknown consequences.  Furthermore, operators have no way to tally the combined effects of more than one brine application in an area. Permission to disperse brine will result in harm to leased property and neighbors due to read chemical presence and the perceived risk of chemicals. Just the permission to use brine will lower options for future use of the land because the presence or absence of a brine application will be hard to verify.

12. Land Application:     

No wastewater or drill cuttings should be applied to land areas.

The comments for #11 above apply here as well.

13. Condensate Tanks

All gas facilities including tanks, pits, wells, and compressor stations should have monitors designed and operated by a third party, functioning 24 hours a day, and recording findings that are directly available to the DEP and public.

The gas industry should not be responsible for conducting this monitoring but should be financially responsible for payment of the implementation and conduction of that process. 78.56 (17): 

14. Abandoned Wells:

Those wells must be identified and sealed prior to any gas wells being drilled. Drillers are financially responsible for protecting the waters of Pennsylvania via the identification and plugging process

There are thousands of abandoned wells in PA, increasing the possibility of the migration of methane and other contaminants from fracked wells will move up to abandoned well bores to ground water.

15. Radiation Monitoring and Labeling- on site and transport

All liquid and solid waste must be monitored for all relevant forms of radiation and readings must appear clearly on current labels in at least the following conditions:

1). All temporary and permanent impoundments, storage tanks, pits,  that collect discharges from wells must be tested at least quarterly.

 2) All liquid and solid materials transported to permanent sites such as landfills and injection wells, must be tested and clearly labeled, regardless of whether the destination state requires such labeling.

See below Recommendation # 18 for comments

16. Management of Radioactive Waste on site 

 Drill cuttings that are radioactive should not be disposed of, spread on, nor incorporated into the soil 78.61(b) nor in pits §78.62, 78.63.

See below Recommendation # 18 for comments

17. Management of Radioactive Waste Materials to Disposal Sites 

DEP should set standards for radiation monitor alarm set points. Trucks carrying above a certain limit must go to sites designated for radioactive waste.

Trucks below a certain radiation limit and volume might be allowed at a landfill site if the landfill meets at least the following features:

1.)  the intensity and volume of radioactive substances in the landfill has not already reached a pre-determined limit set by the DEP, and verified by a third independent party.

2.)  The amounts of radioactivity and volumes are publically disclosed on a quarterly basis.

3.)  Residents within a 5 mile radius of the landfill are informed annually of the radioactivity status

4.)  The landfill monitors radiation on landfill perimeters and in storm run-off and streams nearby on at least a quarterly basis.

5.)  The landfill leachate does not move the radioactivity to sites other than those designed for radioactivity.  For example, the landfill cannot send radioactive lechate to municipall waste water treatment plants. 

Radiation should be specifically addressed in the new regulations.  Other regulations are not sufficient to guide the current oil and shale gas industry because of the uncertain status of various regulations and the use of varied terms.  For example,  the Solid Waste Management Act (35 P.S. §§6018.101-1003), referred to §78.58(d) has limited provisions for radiation.

Also, the Guidance on Radioactivity Monitoring at Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities (Document 250-3100-001) was offered only as a best management practice in the absence of regulation. This Guidance has many deficiencies:

a.     It carries no regulatory authority.

b.     It is dated written in 2004,

c.     It  handles only small quantities of TENORM,

d.     It did not anticipate the nature and volume of fracking waste disposed in landfills.

“Waste Disposal” (para 2) is among the topics included in this Act, yet omits two items.

The Act omits 1) the handling, monitoring and storage of radioactive waste and 2) waste disposal in landfills an industry-accepted method of disposal of the waste of the hydraulic fracking process, fracking fluid and drill cuttings.

Current language of the Act calls this waste “contaminated” (e.g. §78.62), yet classifies it as

“residual waste.” Fracking fluid and drill cuttings in Pennsylvania are known to contain at least Radium-226, a radioactive material.  Therefore provisions should be made for measuring radiation and handling waste appropriately.   Radium-226 has a half-life of 1601 years and will forever remain to impact the health of residents and the environment.

The ACT fails to mention Radium-226, TENORM or the radioactive nature of this waste. In fact,

“radioactive” is found once in the document in §78.123 regarding logs maintained on the well.

18.  The permit applicant, not the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should be responsible for determining whether proposed oil and gas operations would affect threatened or endangered species, through the use of an independent, professional analyst with a report provided to the DEP and the public. (Section 78.15(d))

Protecting the habitat and physical safety of vulnerable species is a critical part of ensuring biodiversity and the quality of our environment. The federal Endangered Species Act was designed to achieve these goals by making it unlawful for any person to harass or take a listed species, including adversely affecting the habitat of a listed species in a manner that effects a take. Similarly, state law currently imposes the obligation on operators to ensure that their activities will not adversely affect listed species or their habitat. 

The proposed regulations change that obligation by only requiring gas operators to mitigate the impact of their operations on threatened or endangered species if the DEP determines that the well site location will adversely impact species or “critical habitat.”

Because an operator proposing an oil or gas project stands to gain financially from the project, and is in the best position to understand the scope and potential impact of its proposal, the operator (and not the DEP) should have the burden of paying for an independent party to determine whether its project would affect listed species and their habitat.

The analysis of the habitat and the species at risk can then be reviewed by the public.

19. Response to Comments

The DEP should respond to comments received about a permit that may affect an important public resource. (Section 78.15(d))

The proposed regulations allow for a public resource agency to receive notice of, and submit comments about, a proposed well permit that would affect its resources. The regulations, however, do not require the DEP to respond to those comments. To ensure that comments are adequately considered and that public resources are fully protected, the regulations should require the DEP to respond to comments submitted by public resource agencies.

20. Citizen and Environment Protection

The DEP should not compromise its obligation to protect citizens and the environment by balancing the citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed right against private interests in oil and gas. (Section 78.15(g))

The DEP is required by the Pennsylvania Constitution to protect the public’s right to a clean environment. The proposed regulations provide that even though the DEP determines that a proposed well will have a probable adverse impact on a public resource, the DEP still cannot impose conditions that will prevent or mitigate that harm without first considering the impact of the condition on the individual mineral right owner’s ability to “optimally” develop his or her oil and gas rights. This regulation inappropriately places the DEP, whose mission is supposed to be to protect and conserve Pennsylvania’s environment, in the position of balancing protection of important public resources against individual property rights. Furthermore, it inappropriately, and potentially illegally, elevates the “optimal” development of oil and gas over the protection of important public resources against likely adverse impacts. These draft regulations do not give proper weight to the DEP’s constitutional obligation to protect the environment. So long as the DEP’s actions do not affect a taking of private property, the DEP should be obligated to take whatever actions are necessary to condition permits in a manner that protects important public resources.

General Comments in support of recommendations to revise the proposed ammendments

The proposed amendments do not provide appropriate protection to the environment or the health and welfare of citizens of Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania, we have new shale gas wells within 2 miles of at least 190 day care facilities, 223 schools, and 5 hospitals. Many new shale wells are immediately above or adjacent to well water and municipal water supplies for over two million citizens and many wells are on or adjacent to property with critical public food supplies such as dairy herds. These herds put us fourth in the nation in milk production and top in the number of farms.  The DEP has much to protect including a tourism industry of $33 billion and agribusiness of $32 billion. Hunting licenses alone collect almost $1 billion. All this depends on people trusting that our air, land and water are not contaminated or at risk for harm in the future.    

The new technologies of shale oil and gas development have created health and environmental impacts scientists have just begun to document. A pattern of harm from normal operations and accidents is emerging. Over 161 letters have been sent out by the DEP to residents indicating water sources were contaminated by fracking.  In just 2 years, from 2008 to 2010, the DEP recorded thousands of violations of environmental regulations and 241 were at well sites within 2 miles of day care centers and 40 within 2 miles of schools. Many peer reviewed scientific publications and records from the EPA, PA DEP, and agencies from other states document substantial contamination from deep shale oil and gas development in just the last decade, often originating from surface operations. These wells and their waste will be part of PA decades after the oil & gas are gone. We must limit the damage with clearer, more pro-active regulations.     

Peer-reviewed scientific reports of impacts from shale gas development under normal operations:

McKenzie 2010 Univ. Colorado - persons living within ½ mile of fracking operations have an increased risk of disease-- both cancers and non-cancers-- due to exposure to airborn toxic chemicals from normal operations.

Adgate 2010 - Colorado School Public Health - chronic health risks near drilled areas were greatest (in order of prevalence) for neurological disease, hematological disease, respiratory effects, and developmental effects.  

Mead 2012 – PA Academy Of Natural Sciences."As the density of well pads increased, the number of types of stream insects decreased,"

Hill 2012 - Cornell University – A 25 % increased prevalence of low birth weight and lower apgar scores occurred for babies of mothers who experienced their pregnancy near frack operations. 

Currie 2014 - Princeton  - Pennsylvania infants born within 2.5 kilometers of frack sites have higher incidence of low birth weight. The chances of a low apgar score doubled.  (in Review)

Warner 2013 - Duke University study found methane 6 times higher and ethane 23 times higher if a home was within a kilometer of a gas well, probably through natural pathways underground.  

Schug  2013 - University of Texas  - Elevated concentrations of arsenic and selenium were in water closest to gas extraction sites.

Nagel  2013 -  water samples from sites in a drilling dense region of Colorado exhibited more estrogenic, anti- estrogenic, or anti-androgenic activity than reference sites.

         

States – 2013 – Pittsburgh Water Authority – Industrial treatment facilities accepting oil and gas waste legally release bromides into source waters, raising drinking water contaminants above allowed limits.

Papers involving a mix of normal operations, poor management and/or accidents:

Osborn 2010 - Duke University  - water wells within 1 mile of  fracked gas wells had 17 times the methane as reference sites. 

Bamberger 2012 – Cornell - farm animals with neurological, reproductive, and acute gastrointestinal problems after being exposed to  fracking chemicals  

Vengosh 2013 - Duke University - brine from Marcellus shale containing bromide and radioactive radium was incompletely treated and contaminated a PA river upstream from drinking water intakes.

Comments regarding revisions in Oil and Gas Operation Regulations – April 29, 2015

All regulations must apply to both unconventional and conventional drilling.  Conventional wells also use water and chemicals, create waste, and disturb land. Conventional operators, like unconventional operators, cause spills, accidents, and contamination. Due to the inherent risks of all oil and gas development, DEP should require all operators of all wells to follow the same rules.

A.    Frack pits & impoundments (Sections 78.56, 78.57, 78.58, and 78.59)                

1.     Frack pits should be prohibited. Frack pits leak and emit hazardous air pollutants, polluting both air and water.   DEP should amend the final regulations to:   prohibit operators from utilizing any open-air pits and tanks regardless of size or location for storage and treatment of drilling and fracking wastes, including wastewater, drill cuttings, and dangerous substances (like gels and cement) that return to the surface after fracking. The new revisions prohibit the use of production pits at shale gas well sites, an important change that should be supported, but the use of huge open impoundments to service multiple wells will still be allowed.  This latter situation is not acceptable.

2.     Centralized impoundments should be prohibited.  

3.     All waste impoundments should be required to be properly closed immediately upon the effective date of the regulations. Allowing operators 3 years to properly close their existing impoundments, allows toxic pollution to continue, threatening air and water quality.

4.     Tanks used for the storage of waste must be completely enclosed.

The revisions give operators the option of using tanks “without lids” to store waste on well sites; this allows spills to occur and air emissions to escape.

5.     The onsite processing of shale drill cuttings should be prohibited, which often contain hazardous substances and radioactive materials and require thorough analysis and special handling.

6.      Define “freshwater” that is used in oil & gas operations. Water leftover from fracking and contaminated fluids being recycled for fracking (such as from mining or sewage) is often mixed with clean water for additional operations. The lack of a clear definition allows operators to avoid regulations on the use and disposal of polluted substance.

7.     End the use of all open-air production pits for the storage of waste and require the immediate conversion to closed tanks. Conventional well operators should not be permitted  to store their waste in pits and to bury waste at well sites .

8.       Conventional well operators should develop water management plans that specify the source and volume of the water used in site construction, drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and site restoration. This is only required for unconventional but not conventional operators. All gas development requires large volumes of water and withdrawals can harm streams, rivers, and aquifers.

 B. Disposal of brine, drill cuttings, and residual waste (Sections 78.60, 78.61, 78.62, and 78.63, and 78.70)

           1.  Prohibit the burial or land application of drill cuttings, which can contain polluting and radioactive substances.

            2. Prohibit the onsite burial of waste pits. Buried pits can leak and pollute groundwater over time, yet burial allows operators to walk away from any responsibility after completing operations.

            3. Prohibit the land application of tophole water, pit water, fill, or dredged material. These substances can contain chemicals and sediments bound with pollutants that pose risks to water, air and soil.

          4.  Prohibit the road spreading of brine/gas wastewater from conventional wells.  The standards would continue to prohibit the use of wastewater (brine) from unconventional wells as a de-icer and dust suppressant, but continue to allow waste from conventional wells to be used for these purposes. Brine contains chemicals, hydrocarbons, and concentrated salts regardless of the type of well it from which it was taken.   Limits have been established on contaminant levels in the brine, but there is not a requirement for testing for all contaminants that could be present, requires minimal testing and monitoring, and has not provided scientific evidence that road-spreading is safe for water, vegetation, and wildlife—especially over large areas for prolonged periods of time.

C.    Public resources should be more clearly defined and meaningful protection provided. (Section 78.15, 78.57, 78a.15, 78.57a) 

1.     Set back distances from schools should be at least 1.5 miles.  DEP has added schools to the list of public resources that require additional consideration when permitting oil and gas wells and has extended the setbacks of waste storage from school buildings, parks, and playgrounds.  Those setbacks are inadequate. Recent evacuation zones have been 1.5 miles, the minimum distance fracking should occur from any school.

2.      This setback should also be applied to locations where other vulnerable populations reside, including nursing homes, hospitals, day care centers.

3.     All the setbacks in the public resource section are too small to provide the needed protection and must be expanded to include more sensitive resources, such as private water wells and all our streams and rivers. Current science supports greater protections; see the compendium from Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy: http://www.psehealthyenergy.org/site/show_list/id/15

D.    Any affected drinking water supplies must be restored either to Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards or, if pre-existing water quality was higher than SDWA standards, to the better pre-existing condition.

1.     All drillers to use a consistent list of parameters for pre-drill water testing, which DEP must establish before the proposed regulatory changes are adopted.

2.     All drillers make pre-drill data available to the public, while protecting individual homeowners’ privacy, through an online platform, which DEP must establish before the proposed regulatory changes are adopted.

E.    Orphaned and abandoned gas wells should be identified and plugged prior to new well site construction. (Section 78.52a)

1.      Existing wells should be identified through onsite inspection before site and well construction and drilling so that the location of a new well won’t trigger a pollution incident or pose dangerous conditions. The state doesn’t commit funding to address the large number of old wells, so drillers should be responsible for preventing water and air pollution and for avoiding catastrophes.

2.     Identified old wells should be mapped on a publicly available web platform.

3.     A greater area than 1000’ should to be surveyed and inspected for the presence of orphaned or abandoned wells. Interaction between a newly drilled well and an old well can occur at much greater distances than 1000’ if there is a subsurface connection; scientific research should be used to set safe setbacks. The Federal Bureau of Land Management’s new rules for fracking on public and tribal lands released in March require a survey of a half-mile; Pennsylvania deserves equal protection.

 F.  Provisions must be updated to result in meaningful noise reduction. This is a human health issue because the sustained noise impairs sleep, increases blood pressure, etc. The provisions will not result in meaningful noise reduction or control at well sites. The noise requirement is vaguely worded and fails to set an objective standard for evaluating problems, making it difficult, if not impossible, to assess compliance.

  

 H.   Oil and gas operators should be required to electronically file permit applications and all required reports and those documents should be made available to the public on DEP's website. This should be posted the same day they are deemed complete by DEP. Easy and timely access to information by the public is necessary to ensure agency transparency and operator accountability.

11) Jan Milburn: Carbon Hearings

EPA Testimony- Carbon Hearing

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 (for the Clean Power Plan for Existing Sources)

Pittsburgh, PA

August 1, 2014

Janice Milburn

114 Mountain Road, Ligonier, PA 15658

724- 238- 4968

               My family has resided in western Pennsylvania for generations. My attachment to the area has only been marred by the pollution that we endure and the illnesses it causes and exacerbates. I strongly urge EPA to take action to protect our air and consequently our health.

               According to a recent Harstad Strategic Research Poll more than two- thirds of Americans agree that the EPA should limit carbon pollution.  Power plants, which spew out 40% of carbon emissions in our country, should not be free to dump unlimited carbon into the atmosphere, intensifying climate change and endangering our health. Pennsylvania ranks second worst in the nation in overall power plant pollution, according to a 2011 report based on EPA data. Seven Pennsylvania’s coal-fired power plants are among the 100 highest industrial emitters of greenhouse gases in the United States, (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). The EPA must do what Congress and the Supreme Court directed it to do many years ago: cut carbon emissions from the power sector nationwide by 30% below the 2005 levels.

               As an important co-benefit, particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide will be cut by more than 25%; this will result in avoiding up to 6,600 premature deaths, up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and up to 490,000 missed work or school days—providing up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits.

               Coal fired power pants are responsible for about 90% of the power sector’s CO₂, and for the vast majority of the power industry’s sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrochloric acid, mercury, arsenic and particulate matter. According to the American Lung Association, these chemicals combine to create a stew of some 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants per year. A 2009 report from the National Research Council found that sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides alone impose $62 billion a year in public health cost. A 2010 report from the Clean Air Task Force estimates that coal power was responsible for 13,200 premature deaths, 20,000 heart attacks and 9,700 additional hospitalizations that year. (Post Gazette, 11-2012)

               Pittsburgh ranks among the top ten cities where the highest number of cardiopulmonary deaths occur that are attributable to particulates. A study found a 25% increase in risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in cities with high particulate air pollution. (“Breathtaking: Premature Mortality Due to Particulate Air Pollution in 239 American Cities , NRDC;   Woodruff, The Relationship Between Selected Causes of Post Neonatal Infant Morality and Particulate Air pollution In The US, Env. Health Perspective, sited in Clean Air Council Report, 1998) Those costs are not factored into coal’s market price.         

                In a study commissioned by the Clean Air Task Force, it was found that Greene and Washington Counties spend over $300,000 on health effects from dirty power plants. Those effects include heart attack, asthma attack, chronic bronchitis and even death. And air pollution is linked to a range of ailments never before thought of as environmentally related—diabetes, attention deficit disorder, autoimmune diseases, Parkinson’s and heart disease.  The use of coal has only been affordable over the decades because we have been footing the brunt of the bill in health costs.  (Clean Air Council)

               Doctors note that carbon pollution cycle is dangerous for children in general. It raises air temperatures, which worsens smog pollution, which triggers asthma attacks and can permanently reduce lung function in some children.  Emergency room visits for respiratory problems can double on high ozone days and asthma attacks increase by nearly a third when ozone levels reach even half the current legal level. (National Voter, 99)

               Judy Focarets, a maternal-child nurse in Pittsburgh applauds EPA efforts and notes: “While other states have improved their air quality and conversely reduced their premature birth rates, we have not been able to move that here.” (Tom Joseph, Public News Service, 2012)

               Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, spelled out for the first time the direct links between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases in human mortality. (Jacobson, 2008)

               While it has long been known that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to climate change, this study details how for each increase of 1 degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States.  Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.

               "This is a cause and effect relationship, not just a correlation," said Jacobson of his study.   "The study is the first specifically to isolate carbon dioxide's effect from that of other global-warming agents and to find quantitatively that chemical and meteorological changes due to carbon dioxide itself increase mortality due to increased ozone, particles and carcinogens in the air."

                The effects of carbon dioxide's warming are most significant where the pollution is already severe, worsening people's health in cities already experiencing pollution at a much faster rate than elsewhere in the nation.

               Much of the population of the United States already has been directly affected by climate change through the air they have inhaled over the last few decades and those health effects will worsen if temperatures continue to rise.

               Jacobson determined the amount of ozone and airborne particles that result from temperature increases caused by increases in carbon dioxide emissions. Ozone and particles cause and worsen respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses (including out of hospital cardiac arrest (Ensor and Raun, 2013), emphysema and asthma, and many published studies have associated increased ozone with higher mortality.

               Jacobson calculated the effects of increasing temperatures on pollution. He observed two important effects:

               Higher temperatures due to carbon dioxide increased the chemical rate of ozone production in urban areas.

               Increased water vapor due to carbon dioxide-induced higher temperatures boosted chemical ozone production even more in urban areas.

               And in general, where there was an increase in water vapor, particles that were present became more deadly, as they swelled from absorption of water. "That added moisture allows other gases to dissolve in the particles—certain acid gases, like nitric acid, sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid," Jacobson said. That increases the toxicity of the particles, which are already a harmful component of air pollution.

               Jacobson also found that air temperatures rose more rapidly due to carbon dioxide than did ground temperatures, changing the vertical temperature profile, which decreased pollution dispersion, thereby concentrating particles near where they formed.

               "Ultimately, you inhale a greater abundance of deleterious chemicals due to carbon dioxide and the climate change associated with it, and the link appears quite solid," he said.                "The logical next step is to reduce carbon dioxide: That would reduce its warming effect and improve the health of people in the U.S. and around the world who are currently suffering from air pollution health problems associated with it."

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html

               In the remainder of my statement I will reference ozone, particulate, NOx, and sulfur dioxide based on their relationship to the production or reduction of carbon pollution.

            In Westmoreland County where I reside, and in much of western PA, we are already in a state of non-attainment for ozone. We have a high incidence of asthmatic children and high rates of certain cancers and birth defects.  According to Scorecard records, compiled by Green Media Toolshed, and based on 2002 data (Scorecard's data about criteria air pollutants are derived from U.S. EPA's Air Quality System and National Emissions Trend database), Westmoreland County ranks in the worst 90% of counties nationwide for VOCs, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide.  It also ranks in the dirtiest 80% of counties nationwide for PM 2.5 emissions and sulfur dioxide. http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/cap/county.tcl?fips_county_code=42129#air_rankings  

The county ranked in the 80 to 90% of worst counties for cancer risk and developmental toxicants. http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/county.tcl?fips_county_code=42129#major_chemical_releases 

file://localhost/(http/::scorecard.goodguide.com:env-releases:ranking.tcl%3Ffips_county_code=42129

            Westmoreland County is not in compliance for ozone standards, and was awarded a grade of D by the American Lung Association based on ozone pollution.

               Dr. Levy, Joel Schwartz, and Lisa K. Baxter completed a study in 2009, published in Risk Analysis, that puts values on the health damage from pollution, including premature deaths. (Post Gazette, Templeton and Hopey, 12-19-11)

               The study offers a range of health-related damages of $30,000 to $500,000 for every ton of fine-particle, or PM 2.5 pollution, with a median rate of $72,000 per ton. For each ton of sulfur dioxide pollution, or SOx, the health damage ranges from $6,000 to $50,000 per ton, with a median rate of $19,000. For nitrogen oxide pollution, NOx, the per-ton rate ranges from $500 to $15,000, with a median cost of $4,800. (Existing compressor stations in southwest Pennsylvania yield 877 tpy of NOx.)

               Using the median per-ton costs of health damage, the total annual health damage from the region's major sources of pollution is $9.4 billion.  Such costs are "external" because they are borne by the public rather than industry. We cannot afford this burden physically or financially.

               But do not change reliance on coal to reliance on natural gas - simply exchanging one dirty fossil fuel for another. Or to nuclear energy with its own unsolved problems.

            Just one gas compressor station, Frazier, for example,  will add to our air: tons of sulfur dioxides, carbon monoxide, VOCs, formaldehyde, and 35.04 tons of NOx per year, more than the current emission rate for cars per year. NOx is a precursor to ozone. Westmoreland County alone has 26 new compressor stations and processing plants since 2008.

               Methane produced by gas operations also contributes to ozone and it is produced at far higher rates than originally thought- during the drilling phase, according to Purdue and Cornell researchers, 1000 times more. And methane is a potent greenhouse gas, 20 to 30 times more potent than CO₂.  A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study found that 9% of gas pumped out of the ground leaks into the atmosphere. Malcom Sweney of CIRES Utah, the first to actually sample the air downwind via an aircraft, found methane leakage to be 6.2 to 11.7%.

                Neither Allegheny nor Westmoreland County is in attainment for ozone at the present time, yet fracking will add tons of pollutants to our already polluted air.  The Marcellus shale play is perfectly situated to worsen existing ozone and PM nonattainment in northeastern United States. (Joe Osborne, GASP, Pittsburgh)

               The PA DEP annual emissions report from the gas industry found a 7.27 % increase from 2011 in carbon monoxide emissions, an 8.51 % increase in particulate matter 2.5, and a 3.99% increase in particulate matter 10, a larger type of particulate matter.  There was also a 42.7 % increase in volatile organic compound emissions, an increase due in part to the reporting of 250 additional compressor stations that were not required to report in 2011. (Emissions were measured from compressor stations; dehydration units; drill rigs; fugitives, such as connectors, flanges, pump lines, pump seals and valves; heaters; pneumatic controllers and pumps; stationary engines; tanks, pressurized vessels and impoundments; venting and blow down systems; well heads and well completions.  http://www.heraldstandard.com/new_today/dep-releases-emissions-data-from-natural-gas-production/article_accd6d52-7e28-5572-a1de-9d35c999f59d.html)              

                              The Post Gazette series dealing with the 14 county Pittsburgh area, presented data on air pollution and risks as they exist now. The standardized mortality ratio comparing disease rates in each county to expected national rates for the same category of disease showed that all 14 counties had heart disease mortality rates exceeding the national average. 12 of 14 counties have respiratory disease mortality rates exceeding the national average, 3 of 14 have lung cancer mortality rates exceeding the national average, and 13 of 14 have a combined mortality rate for all three diseases in excess of combined national expected rates for the three. (Post Gazette, 12-2010)  The total number of excess deaths from those three diseases is a 10% higher mortality rate overall than should be expected based on nationwide rates.

               Mapping revealed an overlap of disease rates with the 166 major sources of pollution in the 14 county region. "Based on the latest PM [airborne particulate matter] data it still ranks as one of the worst urban areas of the country according to John Graham, senior scientist with the Clean Air Task Force.  "The air is not clean, and it's killing people."   

               The rate of asthma is far higher than average. Many school districts have 13 -17% of students afflicted with asthma and in one area district, 37% of students are asthmatic. Pittsburgh has some of the worst levels of particle pollution and ozone in the country according to a recent news report. (Jim Parsons, 7-20-11, WTAE)    Myron Arnowitt, Pennsylvania state director of Clean Water Action, said of the asthma statistics, “This is a public health emergency. I’ve studied this issue. I’ve read the scientific literature on asthma. Numbers over 30 % are off the charts high.”

               Children who live in highly polluted communities are five times more likely to have clinically low lung function—less than 80% of the lung function normal for their age. I have two daughters affected by asthma, therefore I know how severe asthma changes a child’s life, resulting in their missing important childhood events and interfering with their education, social life, and emotional development.

               Allegheny and Westmoreland counties (and the rest of southwestern Pa) show higher mortality rates for multiple sclerosis. Westmoreland County experienced a 41 % increase in MS deaths over a nine- year period. Studies  (including a 2003 Finnish study) conclude that poor air quality may make people with MS more susceptible to relapse and infection. Allegheny County residents have increased risks for several cancers including stomach, thyroid, liver, bronchus and lung, kidney, non-hodgkins lymphoma and breast. I see those statistics personified, having had many friends and family members with cancer and immune diseases. My children have several friends who have had cancer. They are in their thirties.

               Air pollution causes and accelerates cardiopulmonary disease, lung cancer, and all-cause mortality.  A Penn State College of Medicine study found disturbances in cardiac electrical activities within six hours after an episode of elevated particulate levels, raising the risk of cardiac events and chronic heart disease. A team at Long Island Jewish Medical Center and the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research found that even modest increases in fine particulate pollution levels in New York City –even ones under federal pollution standards—cause 4 to 10 percent more out- of- hospital cardiac arrest.

               The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9817, of February 2012, published a study linking pollution to stroke, cognitive decline, and heart attacks. A rise in solid or liquid pollutants suspended in the air, including nitrates and sulphates, was found to adversely affect health in both the short and long-term. 19,409 women were studied for a decade and their cognition was checked about every 2 years. Women with higher levels of long- term exposure to air pollution had significantly faster declines in cognition.

               Upon studying the medical records of 1705 patients admitted with ischemic stroke to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boson, between 1999 and 2008, researchers found that increased risk of stroke peaked between 12 and 14 hours after levels of air particles went up, a shorter time period than previously found. “Even on days when air pollution was moderate, according to the EPA, and Boston is always in compliance with federal levels and is a relatively clean city, the risk of stroke was 35% higher.”

               A third study, cited in The Lancet, found that a rise in concentrated pollutants of 10ug/m3 of air was linked to a 1-3% increase in the risk of having a heart attack. Such an increase could account for up to 4-5% of all heart attacks in an exposed population.

               Harvard University’s Six Cities Study conducted from 1974-1988 revealed that mortality rates decline when pollution declined; air pollution contributes to excess mortality.

               Carbon dioxide (CO₂) also has a negative effect on plants and the quality of wheat crops.  Large amounts of CO₂ collect in the atmosphere, thus affecting plants and crops.

               A new study, the first of its kind, performed by researchers at the University of California, Davis, demonstrated the inhibition of wheat crops to convert nitrate into a protein, due to increased CO₂ levels, which affects its nutritional value. In the past, studies have exhibited this reaction in plants, but this is the first time it is shown in field grown crops. Lead author and plant scientist Professor Arnold Bloom said, “Food quality is declining under the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that we are experiencing.” Plant protein is vital to the entire food chain because humans assimilate it from the plants, or from animals that eat the plants, into energy.

               The results showed that not only are amino acids like protein affected, but trace elements as well. There was a 14 percent increase in lead and an eight percent drop in the iron content of the crop. These are both negative for the health of people around the world, many of which, are already iron deficient. Too much lead in the body is a health risk. It is not clear to researchers exactly why higher amounts of carbon dioxide has negative effects on plants and crops,

 http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/carbon-dioxide-has-negative-effects-on-plants-and-crops/ - IeeGx0svlbfq4X88.99

               There is only one solution to our energy problems and that is renewables. I want my tax dollars to go towards a healthy future for my family and that can only happen with rigorous regulation of fossil fuels, and generous tax credits and other government facilitation of the development of renewables.

               Industry has always complained of the inability to meet environmental standards.

Improvement will only happen with government regulation. It will not happen voluntarily. Meanwhile, residents of Pennsylvania pay for this industry with their health and their health care dollars.

10) Jack Milburn Carbon Hearings
 

Testimony--EPA Carbon Hearings

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 (for the Clean Power Plan for Existing Sources)

Pittsburgh, PA

August 1, 2014

Prior to retirement, I spent over 30 years in the electric utility and independent power producer industries here in Pennsylvania.  I am, therefore, very familiar with most aspects of that energy sector, and I am quite knowledgeable about numerous power generation plants in PA, OH and WV.  During that time period, many technological changes occurred.  For example, in the late 80’s and 90’s, great strides were made in the development of equipment and systems that now capture high levels of particulates, SO2, NOX and mercury from the burning of coal.  At that time, coal and power generation industry advocates argued vociferously that this would destroy the industry and be cost prohibitive.   Neither of course was true.  What caused the development of these technologies by private industry with some financial incentives from the Federal Government?  Necessity—truly the mother of invention.  When Clean Air legislation passed, pollution reduction became necessary, and the energy industry realized that it could no longer stall the inevitable and it made plans to invest billions of dollars in pollution control equipment.  I strongly believe that if additional carbon reductions are mandated, the same will occur now with technology again providing cost-effective solutions to our energy needs.

Many older coal plants have, of course, shut down over the years and many more will close in the future.  Generally, these plants are mid-size in terms of power generation capacity and they are well beyond their expected plant design life.  The plant owners therefore, chose to invest only the minimum amount of capital dollars in these plants for many years.  Indeed, if you spoke with the plant workforces, in many cases they would tell you that they believe the plants’ safety has been compromised due to lack of adequate maintenance.

While coal currently represents a significant portion of US power generation, it cannot and will not last.  But for now it can and should be made cleaner with technology investment.  Natural gas is not a so-called “bridge fuel” when you consider the entire life cycle pollution of that fossil fuel.  And, of course nuclear is clearly not a long-term energy solution.

Renewable energy is the only feasible answer to our long term energy needs, and other nations are doing far better in moving towards this solution to climate change and associated environmental and health problems.   Norway, Sweden and even Germany, for example, have very high utilization of renewable energy for their power generation in terms of the percentage of total required energy.  Most Americans are ashamed of the lack of such energy leadership in the U.S.  A few U.S. companies get it.  One of the largest independent power producers, that has a huge fleet of coal-fired plants, is also investing heavily in existing and new solar and wind plant capacity.  Others are likely to do the same.

I am sympathetic to the ultimate loss of coal producing jobs.  But, renewable forms of energy, such as solar and wind power, are increasingly creating jobs and have the potential to create many more. As fossil fuels become increasingly difficult and expensive to extract, renewables become more cost effective by comparison. Large portions of certain energy grids both in the United States and around the world are being supplied by renewables, and a shift to these industries represents many stable and long-term jobs for Pennsylvanians and other Americans.  EPA should develop a rule that reduces carbon dioxide emissions not only by forcing existing fossil-fueled power plants to emit less, but also by encouraging a shift to renewable energy and development of effective energy efficiency programs.  The EPA and DOE must continue to financially support the development of cost-effective renewable forms of energy.  Such support must be significant and at least equal to the “clean coal” initiatives and all other forms of energy.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.

Jack W. Milburn

114 Mountain Road

Ligonier, PA  15658

(724) 238-4968

9) Jack Milburn:

Comments On 

Proposed Environmental and Protection Performance Standards

At Oil and Gas Well Sites 

TO:

Environmental Quality Board

16^th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 8477

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477

RE:     Proposed Environmental Protection Performance Standards at Oil and Gas Well Sites (25 Pa Code, Chapter 78)

BY:

Jack W. Milburn

114 Mountain Road

Ligonier, PA 15658

(724) 238-4968

jackmilburn174@gmail.com

Introduction:  Research out of Duke University found that water wells within 1 mile of fracked gas wells had 17 times the methane as reference sites.  Another Duke University study found methane 6 times higher and ethane 23 times higher if a home was within a kilometer of a gas well. Dr. Warner of Duke University expressed concerns about natural pathways that might allow gases from gas wells to put drinking water supplies at risk. Kevin Schug of University of Texas  found elevated levels of arsenic and selenium in water closest to gas extraction sites. Avner Vengosh of Duke University, found that brine from Marcellus shale contains bromide and radium which is radioactive.

                              The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality analyzed fracking fluids. Associated health problems found included: 65% of the chemicals were associated with serious health effects, 94% with skin, eye, and respiratory harm, 93% with gastrointestinal problems, 87% with respiratory system damage, 83% with brain and neurological effects.

               Many of the chemicals used to frack are known carcinogens, neurotoxins, and endocrine disruptors. Many, such as the BTEX group, have long been known to be linked to disease.

               40% of frack chemicals have been found to be endocrine disruptors. A recent University of Missouri study done by a team of researchers, including Susan Nagel, head of the Endocrine Disruptors Group, found that water samples collected from sites in a drilling dense region of Colorado exhibited more estrogenic, anti- estrogenic, or anti-androgenic activity than reference sites. Disrupting the endocrine systems of our born and yet unborn children is serious business with the potential to lead to a multitude of diseases and developmental disruption.  Yet in the state of Pennsylvania, we have well sites located within 2 miles of at least 190 day care facilities, 223 schools, and 5 hospitals.

Disposal, Brine and Drill Cuttings:     “Fracking industry truck drivers have been blowing the whistle for some time, saying that radioactivity alarms are going off “all the time.” Workers report that the radioactivity levels are sky-high, even in empty trucks that have already dumped their load of drill cuttings at landfills.” According to PA Department of Environmental Protection data, radiation alarms went off more than 1,000 times in 2012 from oil and gas waste. (Tribune Review)

Mac Sawyer, a former fracking truck driver and environmental cleanup worker in the Marcellus Shale industry in Pennsylvania, has stated that sometimes “they just disable the alarm” rather than treating flowback or drill cuttings waste with the special care required of radioactive waste. Uranium and radium 226 are mobilized by fracking.

Disposal of brine, drill cuttings, and any residual waste should meet the standards of the US Resource Recovery and Conservation Act.  Presently, the fracking industry is exempt from the regulation of hazardous substances that other industries must abide by. Those standards should be applied to all aspects of handling of hazardous materials.

            Because Marcellus shale is more radioactive than other shale plays, the drill cuttings can be more radioactive, as evidence by alarms activated at waste disposal sites and the high measurement of radioactivity in a study downstream from the Josephine Treatment Plant in Indiana County which treats wastewater from oil and gas drilling.  Radium levels of sediment samples collected in Blacklick Creek, downstream from the plant, were 200 times greater than background samples.  Researcher Vengosh noted that levels exceed thresholds for radioactive waste disposal and pose “potential environmental risks of radium bioaccumulation in localized areas of shale gas wastewater disposal.”

                           The storage of contaminated (to any degree) frack waste on-site, including radioactive drill cuttings, should be prohibited.

             There should be no processing of drill cuttings on site nor should cuttings be stored in pits. There is no mention that evidence of positive radioactivity or chemical toxicity tests preclude the storage of drill cuttings in a pit or on-site burial.

            Due to toxicity and radioactivity concerns, there should be no burial of drill cuttings on site.

Brine:  No brine from hydraulically fracked wells should be used for road application due not only to salinity loads, but to the possible presence of toxic chemicals and radioactive particles that may be contained in flowback water.

Land Application:      No wastewater or drill cuttings should be applied to land areas.

The US EPA is aware of the risks involved with fracking wastes.  A confidential Environmental Protection Agency draft document on the environmental impacts of the oil, gas and coal industries was obtained by the New York Times.  It shows that federal authorities are concerned about public drinking water supplies especially in the regions of the Marcellus Shale.  According to the EPA, “As oil and gas development encroach on suburban and urban areas, human health and environmental impacts are expected to escalate.” The document cites waste disposal as the main “bottleneck for the industry.” The study was provided to The Times by an EPA official who said it shows that dilution of drilling waste does not always succeed in eliminating the health risks posed by that waste. The study is marked confidential and was conducted on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute in 1990. It found a potential increased risk of cancer among people who often eat fish from waters where drilling waste is discharged. The study is relevant because state regulators in Pennsylvania have said that dilution is effectively removing the risks posed by drilling waste that is discharged into rivers. Importantly, this study found an increased risk of cancer when drilling waste was dumped into a body of water that was larger than Pennsylvania rivers. Furthermore, state records indicate that the radium levels found in Pennsylvania wastewater are much higher than those used in this study.

In a study by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on Marcellus Shale wastewater discharge to the South Fork Tenmile Creek in Southwest Pennsylvania, state regulators concluded that even after treatment plants reduced the amount of hydrofracking wastewater that they were accepting, the water discharged from these treatment plants still had a negative impact on aquatic life in the streams that received the discharge.” 

Condensate Tanks 78.56 (17):  How will condensate tanks be monitored? All gas facilities including tanks, pits, wells, and compressor stations should have monitors designed and operated by a third party, functioning 24 hours a day, and recording findings that are directly available to the DEP and public. The gas industry should not be responsible for conducting this monitoring but should be financially responsible for payment of the implementation and conduction of that process.

Fresh water:    The term “fresh water” should no longer be used to define both uncontaminated previously unused water, and wastewater left over from fracking that is then recycled to be reused.

Abandoned Wells: There are thousands of abandoned wells in PA, increasing the possibility of the migration of methane and other contaminants from fracked wells up  abandoned well bores to ground water. Those wells must be identified and sealed prior to any Marcellus gas wells being drilled. Drillers are financially responsible for protecting the waters of Pennsylvania via the identification and plugging process.

Wildlife:  As an avid archery deer hunter, there is another matter of significant importance to me and, to the extent they soon become aware of it, to over 1 million PA deer hunters.  Contamination of deer meat may be yet another issue (along with a growing list of other issues) related to the impacts of drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) in the Marcellus shale.  I say that this may be an issue because, according to the PA Game Commission, this issue (like many others regarding fracking) is not being studied or even monitored in Pennsylvania.   Why should this be a concern for over 1 million PA hunters and their families?  The process of fracking requires millions of gallons of water at each well site and up to 50% of that water comes back out of the well—hence the term “flowback”.  This flowback, held in open frack pits, contains large quantities of salt brine which as all hunters know attracts deer.  Unfortunately, the brine also contains heavy metals (cadmium) and sometimes radioactive materials that come from deep within the earth.  The brine likely contains other extremely toxic and carcinogenic chemicals but those are kept secret by the gas industry thanks to legislation pushed through by the Bush/Cheney administration—the so called “Halliburton loophole”.

Deer store all of their fat before the mating and hunting season.  The fat and possibly the liver store the carcinogens.  How much of that gets into the meat is a concern to me.   The salt that attracts the deer could come from several potential sources in areas where Marcellus drilling is occurring—spent and uncapped wells, frack ponds (which store frack flowback water in open pits for a year or more at the well site), contaminated streams, public water sources, spills, leaking trucks and pipes and even road runoff where brine is used to treat roads in the winter.  Note that, incredibly, frack waste has been declared a “beneficial use” in PA.

Pennsylvania needs to thoroughly study this issue.  If the gas industry, PA agencies, or our politicians say “There’s no problem here”, then they should be willing to prove it!  What are they worried about—finding something wrong with our deer herd?

In closing, virtually all of the issues I’ve discussed can be mitigated or indeed eliminated by the use of currently available technologies and alternative operating procedures by drill companies.  Closed loop systems, for example, should be used by all NG operators within PA.  With the incredible amounts of money generated by NG operations (with most operations conducted by major multi-national oil and gas companies), the costs of such technologies and alternative operating procedures are fair and reasonable.  Pennsylvanians deserve nothing less.

Thank you for your consideration. 

Jack W. Milburn 

NOTE:  All specific recommendations set forth herein are highlighted in yellow.

8) Jan Milburn: Testimony to The DEP on Performance Standard Regulations Jan 25, 2012

Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group Comments to

Proposed Environmental and Protection Performance Standards

At Oil and Gas Well Sites

Jan Milburn

Environmental Quality Board

16^th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 8477

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477 

RE:     Proposed Environmental Protection Performance Standards at Oil and Gas Well Sites (25 Pa Code, Chapter 78)

Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group, Westmoreland County, submits the following comments to the Environmental Quality Board’s proposed regulations, published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on Saturday, December 14, 2013 (43 Pa.B. 7377).  Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group is a nonprofit organization that works 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.

                        General Comments 

               The proposed standards do not serve to sufficiently provide protection to the environment or the health and welfare of citizens of Pennsylvania . Over 1600 residents of Pennsylvania thus far have entered their names onto the List of the Harmed, avowing that after drilling operations began in their area, they became ill. Numerous published research documents by professional scientists working in Pennsylvania and around the county have documented a wide range of pollutants and increased health problems associated with deep shale gas industry activities.  Below are a few examples. 

               Research from the Colorado School of Public Health indicates that persons who live within ½ mile of fracking operations have an increased risk of disease-- both cancers and non-cancers-- due to exposure to toxic chemicals. Dr. John Adgate, Colorado School Public Health, found that the chronic health risks near drilled areas were greatest (in order of prevalence) for neurological disease,  hematological disease, respiratory effects, and developmental effects. Several doctors in trying to determine causation of health problems in patients have found chemicals used to frack in their patients’ blood. 

               Researcher Elaine Hill, Cornell University, found decreased birth weight and apgar scores for babies of mothers who experienced their pregnancy near frack operations. The research on the effect to developing babies is staggering- a 25% increased prevalence of low birth weight if the mother lived within 1.5 miles of a gas well. Dr. Currie of Princeton looked at the Pennsylvania birth records from 2004 to 2011 of infants born within 2.5 kilometers of frack sites, and found the likelihood of low birth weight increased by more than half. The chances of a low apgar score doubled. 

               Researchers Bamberger and Oswald list many instances of animals with neurological, reproductive, and acute gastrointestinal problems after being exposed to  fracking chemicals. Their report describes how scores of animals died over the course of several years. In northern central Pennsylvania, 140 cattle were exposed to fracking wastewater when an impoundment was breached. Approximately 70 cows died, and the remainder produced only 11 calves, of which three survived.

               A preliminary study has already shown a statistically significant difference in aquatic life between streams in areas of no drilling and streams where nearby wells are numerous.   "As the density of well pads increased, the number of types of stream insects decreased," said Jerry Mead, a senior biologist with the Academy Of Natural Sciences.

               Research out of Duke University found that water wells within 1 mile of  fracked gas wells had 17 times the methane as reference sites.  Another Duke University study found methane 6 times higher and ethane 23 times higher if a home was within a kilometer of a gas well. Dr. Warner of Duke University expressed concerns about natural pathways that might allow gases from gas wells to put drinking water supplies at risk. Kevin Schug of University of Texas  found elevated levels of arsenic and selenium in water closest to gas extraction sites. Avner Vengosh of Duke University, found that brine from Marcellus shale contains bromide and radium which is radioactive and those pollutants appeared in streams receiving waste water that was treated.

               Dr. Stanley States at the Pittsburgh Water Authority published research warning that trihalomethane limits for drinking water at many facilities will soon be exceeded because of increasing amounts of bromide from shale gas industry waste water in sources for drinking waters.

                              The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality analyzed fracking fluids. Associated health problems included: 65% of the chemicals were associated with serious health effects, 94% with skin, eye, and respiratory harm, 93% with gastrointestinal problems, 87% with respiratory system damage, 83% with brain and neurological effects.

               Many of the chemicals used to frack are known carcinogens, neurotoxins, and endocrine disruptors. Many, such as the BTEX group, have long been known to be linked to disease.

               40% of frack chemicals have been found to be endocrine disruptors. A recent University of Missouri study done by a team of researchers, including Susan Nagel, head of the Endocrine Disruptors Group, found that water samples collected from sites in a drilling dense region of Colorado exhibited more estrogenic, anti- estrogenic, or anti-androgenic activity than reference sites. Disrupting the endocrine systems of our born and yet unborn children is serious business with the potential to lead to a multitude of diseases and developmental disruption.  Yet in the state of Pennsylvania, we have well sites located within 2 miles of at least 190 day care facilities, 223 schools, and 5 hospitals.  

               The EPA is aware of the risks. “A confidential Environmental Protection Agency draft document on the environmental impacts of the oil, gas and coal industries was obtained by the New York Times.  It shows that federal authorities are concerned about public drinking water supplies especially  in the region of the Marcellus Shale. “As oil and gas development encroach on suburban and urban areas, human health and environmental impacts are expected to escalate. The document cites waste disposal as the main “bottleneck for the industry.” It raises concerns about the high number of abandoned wells in Pennsylvania.

               In the document, federal officials also cite the risk to drinking water supplies posed by wastewater carrying radioactive materials that may not be removed by conventional treatment plants. Nationally suspected environmental impacts are diverse; concerns exist with produced water disposal issues as they are impacting surface drinking water intakes in the Marcellus play, and air emissions issues.

               “This study was provided to The Times by an E.P.A. official who said it shows that dilution of drilling waste does not always succeed in eliminating the health risks posed by that waste. The study is marked confidential and was conducted on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute in 1990. It found a potential increased risk of cancer among people who often eat fish from waters where drilling waste is discharged. The study is relevant because state regulators in Pennsylvania have said that dilution is effectively removing the risks posed by drilling waste that is discharged into rivers. Importantly, this study found an increased risk of cancer when drilling waste was dumped into a body of water that was larger than Pennsylvania rivers. Furthermore, state records indicate that the radium levels found in Pennsylvania wastewater are much higher than those used in this study. Radium, for example, was found in Pennsylvania at levels over 18 times the number used in the this study. It should be noted, however, that this study did not detail actual cases of increased cancer. Rather, it modeled potential increases in cancer rates as a result of radium-laced drilling waste being discharged into large waterways.

               In a study by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on Marcellus Shale wastewater discharge to the South Fork Tenmile Creek in Southwest Pennsylvania, state regulators concluded that even after treatment plants reduced the amount of hydrofracking wastewater that they were accepting, the water discharged from these treatment plants still had a negative impact on aquatic life in the streams that received the discharge.”

Specific Comments 

1. Water Data:            The proposed regulations should require that all pre-drill data be made available to the public.  In addition, pre-drill testing should use a consistent list of parameters, the full list of results being released to property owners.  Finally, contaminated drinking water should be restored to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act standards. If the quality of water was superior to these standards prior to drilling, the operator must restore the water to that higher standard.

               78.51 The proposed amendments state,    “That the presumption of liability established in 58 Pa.C.S. § 3218(c) (relating to protection of water supplies) does not apply to pollution resulting from well site construction activities.”  Presumption should apply to site construction activities.

Over 161 letters of determination have been sent out by the DEP indicating that water sources were contaminated by fracking. 

               In just 2 years, from 2008 to 2010, the DEP recorded 241 violations of environmental regulations at well sites within 2 miles of day care centers and 40 violations within 2 miles of schools.

               “States are playing roulette with public health”, according to Nadia Steinzor of Earthworks.

               Fererar et al. of the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, noted that, “Fracking doesn’t only impact health when mistakes are made, it also impacts health when everything goes right. The results are alarming. Community members reported 59 health impacts and 13 stressors from the Marcellus Shale development. They complained of rashes and sores, headaches, and changes in vision, diarrhea and nausea, shortness of breath, and loss of sleep.”  And yet, instead of proposing meaningful regulation that would provide some small measure of increased protection for human health, we see minor changes in detail that will be of little real benefit to the public.  

2. Pits:                   Pits, temporary or permanent, storing waste of any form including flowback water or contaminated drill cuttings, should not be permitted anywhere in the state of Pennsylvania. The standards state that residual waste including contaminated drill cuttings may be disposed of on site.

            The US Department of the Interior, advises of pits:  “Use of enclosed tanks and closed loop or semi-closed loop systems is environmentally preferable to the use of open pits and is to be encouraged by the BLM. Open production pits are to be strongly discouraged. Closed tanks and systems minimize waste, entry by wildlife, fugitive emissions that affect air quality, and reduce the risk of soil and groundwater contamination. In addition, the use of tanks instead of pits expedites the ability to complete interim reclamation. Costs may be reduced with the use of tanks, particularly when the pit requires solidification or netting.” 

               Waste pits are banned in New Mexico.  According to news articles: Antero in Colorado state does not utilize pits, but a closed loop system. Chief and Rex Energy have moved to all closed loop systems. Andarko Petroleum uses close loop systems in Pennsylvania. The EPA Star program recommends a closed loop system.  But Pennsylvania’s new, proposed regulations  allow the continuance of frack pits, inviting further pollution and contamination of waters.

                Presently DEP permits leakage of toxic chemicals onto residential properties and farmlands from the pits, the amount of leakage permitted being determined by the depth of the fluid in the pits.  There should be no legally allowed leakage of fluids onto surrounding land areas.

               The proposed regulations will not help to prevent flooding, spills, and leak violations that are commonly occurring.

            Stating a required footage of freeboard provides little protection.  Violations due to overflow of the required freeboard occur on a regular basis, companies repeatedly are charged with the same violations, and fines are limited or non-existent.    

3. Disposal, Brine and Drill Cuttings:       According to news articles:  “Fracking industry truck drivers have been blowing the whistle for some time, saying that radioactivity alarms are going off “all the time.” Workers report that the radioactivity levels are sky-high, even in empty trucks that have already dumped their load of drill cuttings at landfills.  Mac Sawyer, a former fracking truck driver and environmental cleanup worker in the Marcellus Shale industry in Pennsylvania, has stated that sometimes “they just disable the alarm” rather than treating flowback or drill cuttings waste with the special care required of radioactive waste. Uranium and radium 226 are mobilized by fracking.”      

  Disposal of brine, drill cuttings, and any residual waste should meet the standards of the US Resource Recovery and Conservation Act.  Presently, the fracking industry is exempt from the regulation of hazardous substances that other industries must abide by. Those standards should be applied to all aspects of the handling of hazardous materials.

            Because Marcellus shale is more radioactive than other shale plays, the drill cuttings can be more radioactive, as evidence by alarms activated at waste disposal sites and the high measurement of radioactivity in a study downstream from the Josephine Treatment Plant in Indiana County which treats wastewater from oil and gas drilling.  Radium levels of sediment samples collected in Blacklick Creek, downstream from the plant, were 200 times greater than background samples.  Researcher Vengosh noted that levels exceed thresholds for radioactive waste disposal and pose “potential environmental risks of radium bioaccumulation in localized areas of shale gas wastewater disposal.”

               The storage of contaminated (to any degree) frack wastewater, or drill cutting should be prohibited.

             There should be no processing of drill cuttings on site nor should they be stored in pits. There is no mention that evidence of positive radioactivity or chemical toxicity tests preclude the storage of drill cuttings in a pit or on-site burial. The DEP should be responsible for testing of the chemical content and radioactivity of all frack waste.

            Due to toxicity and radioactivity concerns, there should be no burial of drill cuttings on site.

           

Brine:  No brine from hydraulically fracked wells should be used for road application due not only to salinity loads, but to the possible presence of toxic chemicals and radioactive particles that may be contained in flowback water.  

Land Application:      No wastewater or drill cuttings should be applied to land areas.  

4. Condensate Tanks 78.56 (17):  How will condensate tanks be monitored? All gas facilities including tanks, pits, wells, and compressor stations should have monitors designed and operated by a third party, functioning 24 hours a day, and recording findings that are directly available to the DEP and public.

Fumes from tanks must be recaptured so not to pollute the air.  

The gas industry should not be responsible for conducting this monitoring but should be financially responsible for payment of the implementation and conduction of that process.  

5. Fresh water:    The term “fresh water” should no longer be used to define both uncontaminated previously unused water, and wastewater left over from fracking that is then recycled to be reused. 

6. Abandoned Wells: There are thousands of abandoned wells in PA, increasing the possibility of the migration of methane and other contaminants from fracked wells up  abandoned well bores to ground water. Those wells must be identified and sealed prior to any gas wells being drilled. Drillers should be financially responsible for protecting the waters of Pennsylvania via the identification and plugging process.  

            These operations are not limited to industrial areas in most of the state. They are occurring on farms, woodlands, parks, and next to our homes, schools, hospitals, and day care centers. Frack pits, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, radioactive cuttings, do not belong in areas where people live and raise their families. These regulations will have a direct effect on the health of our children and grandchildren. Do not allow this state to be lowered to the status of Kanawa County’s Cancer Valley or Louisiana’s toxic landscape. The gas industry won exemptions from sections of the Clean Air, Superfund, RCRA, Safe Drinking Water, and Clean Water Acts, and Right To Know Act, and Toxic Release Inventory,  putting millions of dollars into fighting health and environmental regulations. 

               The American Nurses Association House of Delegates passed a resolution stating that frack chemicals now found in our water supplies have been linked to cancer and kidney, liver, and neurological damage. Enactment of  rigorous regulation of the gas industry is imperative. Pennsylvania rushed to open its doors to hydraulic fracturing without having done its homework, without implementing even the most basic regulations for the protection of its environment and its people. The results of this negligence have been water contamination, air pollution, health problems, forest fragmentation, societal problems, property devaluation, and communities divided between those seeking easily gained wealth and those fighting to preserve the quality of life they once knew in their communities.

We encourage you to provide meaningful changes to the Performance Standards that was written decades prior to the advent of the hydraulic fracking process.  

Jan Milburn, President, Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group

114 Mountain Road

Ligonier, PA 15658

724- 238- 4968

7) Jan Milburn: June 2012 Letter to editor: Green Slime letter/D'Amico

Letter to Editor- Citizens Voice

In an April letter to the editor, Mr D’Amico, president of PIOGA, characterized citizens concerned about pollution from the gas industry as ‘green slime.’ This clearly reflects the attitude of the industry towards the thousands of residents of this state who care about the health of their families and the environment. Now billboards are appearing along the Pennsylvania Turnpike spreading the same ‘green slime’ message.

If the fracking process is non-polluting as D’Amico asserts, then why did the industry fight for and win exemptions from parts of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Superfund.

According to a risk analysis by Dr. Joe Evans, based on past DEP data, serious violations per fracked well average .76 . In addition, drillers failed to properly report nearly one- third of pollution incidents as required.

Independent research contradicts D’Amico’s claims of a clean, well regulated industry with no environmental risks. Duke University: Methane levels were 17 times higher in the water wells of people living within 1 kilometer of a fracked gas well. University of Colorado: Measurements of air pollution extrapolated via computer models have greatly underestimated actual atmospheric measurements of pollution from gas operations. Hydrogeologist/researcher Tom Myers: Frack chemicals can migrate from deep shale in just a few years or tens of years. Colorado Department of Public Health: Smog from oil and gas operations exceeded vehicle emissions for the entire state. Dr. Bishop, University of New York: Concrete shrinkage, which leads to well casing fissures, is essentially inevitable in a fifty year time frame.

Three families from northeast Pa have recently received a $1.6 million settlement because faulty gas well casings caused contamination of their well water. This is believed to be the first case where plaintiffs insisted that any settlement be made public. In the past the gas industry has demanded gag orders be placed on families in order for them to receive water or other restitution, thus restricting the public’s knowledge of the water and air problems.

As the debate continues regarding when Dimock water was polluted, the fact remains that several water reports including that of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/states/dimock-atsdr.pdf ) lists numerous chemicals found in Dimock well water including ethylene glycol, DEHP, and arsenic, some of which exceeded various safe drinking water standards.

Most importantly, Mr. D’Amico’s position disregards the pleas of families across the state. In southwest PA, at hearings held by both the EPA and DOE, government officials heard repeatedly families’ stories of : health problems which included frack rashes, nose bleeds, dizziness, constantly burning eyes and sore throats and far more serious conditions; poisoned ponds; animals sickened and dead; stillborn cattle; contaminated wells; horribly polluted air from compressor stations ; enormous frack pits emitting volatized chemicals into the air; loss of property value; and the destruction of their formerly pastoral rural areas. The disregard of the gas industry for health, environment, and property rights is unlike anything seen in Pennsylvania history, surpassing even the devastation wrought by the coal industry.

Jan Milburn

724- 238- 4968

President, Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group

***********************************************************************************

Mr Henderson’s June 14 letter to the editor, avowed that fracking is well- regulated in Pennsylvania . Due to Governor Corbett’s Act 13, highly polluting industrial gas operations are now allowed in residential areas including near schools. Communities have no say in the regulation of the industry or the preservation of the nature of their communities or their environment through traditional land use planning. This places the gas industry in a special classification unlike any other.

If the industry is safe and well regulated, why did gas companies fight for and win exemptions from parts of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Superfund. Why can impact fee money not be spent on air monitoring equipment to see what is really happening to our air? Why will the companies not inform local supervisors of spills and leaks, which companies fail to report one-third of the time. The DEP nor gas companies have to notify local officials, or neighbors of many drilling violations. Some violations can be minor but many are serious including casing problems

The air pollution emitted from compressors is measured in tons, not pounds, adding to already polluted air in SW PA where I reside, and compressors are being added all over the area. Levels of nitrogen oxide, VOCs, formaldeyde, sulfur dioxide will increase dramatically as evidenced by a review of the allowable pollutants which are listed on compressor permits. Pennsylvania does not aggregate and subsequently adequately regulate emissions in the manner recommended by the EPA.

In southwest Pennsylvania, at hearings held by the EPA and DOE, officials heard the stories of: families with frack rashes, nose bleeds, dizziness, sore throats; poisoned ponds; animals sickened and dead; stillborn cattle; contaminated wells, enormous frack pits emitting volatized chemicals into the air, loss of property value; and the destruction of lovely rural areas. Some families have moved, others plan to move, giving up their devalued homes in order to protect their children.

Three families from northeast Pa have recently received a $1.6 million settlement because faulty gas well casings caused contamination of their well water. This is believed to be the first case where plaintiffs insisted that any settlement be made public. In the past, the gas industry has demanded gag orders be placed on families in order for them to receive water or other restitution, thus precluding any publicity about serious water and air pollution.

A report by Clean Water Action noted that “violation citations had ‘little teeth’ behind them, less than half received an enforcement action, and only 7% carried monetary fines. DEP issued fines in an inconsistent manner and overlooked serious violations of environmental rules.”

Regulation? Pennsylvania is the wild west for the gas industry and our children’s health and the environment will suffer.

6) Jan Milburn: Comments on Frazer Compressor

Jan Milburn, President Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens’ Group

Allegheny Department of Health

Frazer Compressor Station

March 27, 2012

Comments regarding the permitting of the SUPERIOR APPALACHIAN PIPELINE, LLC (0837-I001), Kissick Lane, Frazer Township, PA 15084 for the installation of a natural gas compressor and transmission facility comprising five (5) Caterpillar G3516B natural gas fired engines each driving a compressor, three (3) natural gas heated dehydrator/reboilers and two (2) 300 barrel storage tanks. This facility will be fueled by natural gas only. The potential emissions from this facility are: PM(Particulate Matter), PM10 and PM2.5 – 3.65 tpy; SO2(Sulphur Dioxide) – 0.19 tpy; NOx(Nitrogen Oxides) – 35.04 tpy; CO(Carbon Monoxide) – 12.84 tpy; VOCs(Volatile Hydrocarbons) – 16.58 tpy and formaldehyde – 7.05 tpy

I am a lifelong resident of western Pennsylvania, my early childhood years spent in Braddock Hills. I believe that exposure to pollution resulted in my immune conditions and asthma and subsequently the asthma of my two daughters, my eldest daughter being severely asthmatic. People write off asthma as a minor disease controlled by a puff on an inhaler. It is not true. The severity of asthma varies and the events missed in my daughter’s young life, the worry experienced by the entire family, particularly during numerous emergency room visits, and the concerns regarding the finances required for health care dominated our family life.

We presently live in Westmoreland County. Air currents from drilling operations in Allegheny County will pollute not just the air of Pittsburghers; we too will be affected. Despite some improvement in some air quality, southwest Pennsylvania still experiences poor air quality. According to Scorecard, compiled by Green Media Toolshed and based on 1999 data derived from the EPA Air Quality System and National Emissions trend database, Westmoreland County ranks in the worst 90% of counties nationwide for VOCs , nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide. The county is not in compliance for ozone standards and was awarded a grade of D by the American Lung Association based on ozone pollution. In a study at Yale University, sponsored by the EPA, findings showed that even for days that met the EPA limit for acceptable levels of ozone, there was still an increased risk of premature death from the pollutant.

Yet, the Frazer compressor station is estimated to add to the air, tons of sulfur dioxides, carbon monoxide, VOC’s, formaldehyde, and 35.04 tons of NOx per year, more than the current emission rate for cars per year. NOx, a precursor to ozone, will increase problems for those with lung disease. Methane also contributes to ozone. Allegheny nor Westmoreland County is in attainment for ozone at the present time, yet tons of pollutants will be added to our already polluted air. “The Marcellus shale play is perfectly situated to worsen existing ozone and PM nonattainment according to information from GASP.”

Existing compressor stations in southwest Pennsylvania yield 877 tpy of NOx. Therefore, the existing stations plus the proposed station have the potential to emit enormous amounts of NOx posing a real health threat. Dr. Levy, Joel Schwartz, and Lisa Baxter completed a study in 2009 published in Risk Analysis, that puts values on the health damage from pollution, including premature deaths. For nitrogen oxide, the per ton rate ranges from $500 to $15,000 with a median cost of $4,800. Such costs are not external because they are borne by the public rather than industry. We cannot afford to further burden residents physically or financially.

The VOCs emitted can cause eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, and dizziness; some VOCs are carcinogenic and linked to neurological problems. We all know people in the area who have left their homes due to sudden severe, illness in their families after compressor stations were constructed nearby. The deleterious health effects of HAPS, particularly formaldehyde, even at small levels, are well known. Our family ripped out two brand new floors because the glue that was used contained and was emitting small amounts of formaldehyde, resulting in constant, severe asthma attacks by my daughter.

A Post Gazette series dealt with the 14-county Pittsburgh area, presenting data on air pollution and the risks as they exist now, without the additional burden of drilling pollution. It revealed that all 14 counties have heart disease mortality rates exceeding the national average. 12 of 14 counties have respiratory disease mortality rates exceeding the national average. 3 of 14 counties have lung cancer morality rates exceeding the national average and 13 of 14 have a combined morality rate for all three diseases in excess of national expected rates.

Children in our area have exceedingly high rates of asthma. Many school districts have 13-17% of the student population afflicted with asthma and in one area school district, 37% of students are asthmatic. Pittsburgh has some of the worst levels of particle pollution and ozone in the country according to a recent news report. (Jim Parsons, WTAE, 7-20-11) Studies show that children who live in highly polluted communities are five times more likely to have clinically low lung function-less than 80% of the lung function normal for their age.

Both Allegheny and Westmoreland counties show higher mortality rates for multiple sclerosis. Studies, including the work done by Stacey Ritz, research professor at Northern Ontario School of Medicine said the dramatic rise of immune diseases cannot be explained by genetics, strongly implicating environmental factors. Allegheny County residents have increased risks for several cancers including stomach, thyroid, liver, bronchus and lung, kidney, non-hodgkins lymphoma and breast. I see those statistics personified, having had many friends and family members with cancer and immune diseases. My children have several friends who have had cancer. They all grew up here and they are all in their thirties.

Mapping presented in the Post Gazette series revealed an overlap of disease rates with the 166 major sources of pollution in the 14 county region. We simply cannot allow additional air pollution to further harm the health of area residents.

The Lancet , Volume 379 , Issue 9817, of February 2012, published a study linking pollution to stroke, cognitive decline, and heart attacks. A rise in solid or liquid pollutants suspended in the air, including nitrates and sulphates, was found to adversely affect health in both the short and long-term. 19,409 women were studied for a decade and their cognition was checked about every 2 years. Women with higher levels of long- term exposure to air pollution had significantly faster declines in cognition.

Upon studying the medical records of 1705 patients admitted with ischemic stroke to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boson, between 1999 and 2008, researchers found that increased risk of stroke peaked between 12 and 14 hours after levels of air particles went up, a shorter time period than previously found. “Even on days when air pollution was moderate, according to the EPA, and Boston is always in compliance with federal levels and is a relatively clean city, the risk of stroke was 35% higher.”

A third study cited in The Lancet found that a rise in concentrated pollutants of 10ug/m3 of air was linked to a 1-3% increase in the risk of having a heart attack. Such an increase could account for up to 4-5% of all heart attacks in an exposed population.

Gas Drilling has invaded western Pennsylvania without regulations in place to protect human health and the environment. We know that in Wyoming where there was previously pristine air, the state is now in non-attainment due to the oil/gas industry. Southwestern Pennsylvania does not have pristine air and cannot afford further pollution-caused health issues.

You are responsible for requiring rigorous controls that will protect the health of our families. Anything less is unethical in light of the research on the vast amount of pollution produced by compressor stations and the effect of that pollution on human health.

Recommendations:

*An environmental impact statement must be required, the entire gas gathering process being considered as a single source including compressor station, wells, field tank batteries, and liquids impoundments.

*Emissions from intermittent but significant pollution activities must be accounted for: compressor blowdowns, truck loadout, cold starts.

* Best available technology must be required, not recommended. In Lycoming, as a result of evaluation of the Gas STAR recommendations, the DEP included additional maintenance requirements to optimize the operation of the engine, and requires the ESD (Emergency shutdowns) system and purge pressure shut down controls to be operated in such a way as to prevent blow down of gas into the atmosphere.”The Department is also now requiring additional emissions testing every 2500 hours of operation of these engines.

*Closed loop systems can capture large amounts of pollutants such as volatile organic compounds and should be mandatory.

*Acoustic and infrared detection and repair programs should be mandated.

* It is of utmost importance that there be continuous air monitoring at the station, that data then being available to the public. A 2010 University of Texas air monitoring study suggests that the TCEQ ozone attainment modeling underpredicted NOx by 20%. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study found twice as much methane was emitted from gas drilling as previously thought. Why? Because the study published by the Journal of Geophysical Research, is the first to take atmospheric measurements of emissions from gas drilling. Past estimates were based on isolated sampling and data provided by drilling companies . The states and EPA then used that data for modeling to extrapolate emissions. Pittsburgh area residents deserve to have valid on-site testing.

Our rights to clean air and water, granted to us by the Constitution of Pennsylvania are being violated. We urge you to mandate controls that protect our families. 

       ******************************************************************

5) Joe Evans: Facts about Compressor Stations

Response to request for Comments regarding the permitting of the SUPERIOR APPALACHIAN PIPELINE, LLC (0837-I001), Kissick Lane, Frazer Township, PA 15084 for the installation of a natural gas compressor and transmission facility comprising five (5) Caterpillar G3516B natural gas fired engines each driving a compressor, three (3) natural gas heated dehydrator/reboilers and two (2) 300 barrel storage tanks. This facility will be fueled by natural gas only. The potential emissions from this facility are:

PM(Particulate Matter), PM10 and PM2.5 – 3.65 tpy; SO2(Sulphur Dioxide) – 0.19 tpy; NOx(Nitrogen Oxides) – 35.04 tpy; CO(Carbon Monoxide) – 12.84 tpy; VOCs(Volatile Hydrocarbons)– 16.58 tpy and formaldehyde – 7.05 tpy

FACT 1. The proposed compressor station will add an amount of NOx equivalent to that of 1834 cars to the atmosphere in Allegheny County.

The potential emissions of the proposed compressor to be located in Allegheny County are: NOx –35.04 tpy (tons per year) or 70,080 pounds per year. According to the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f00013.htm) current average emission rates for cars are 38.2 pounds of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per year. Using the current emission levels of NOx for passenger cars, the potential NOx emissions of the proposed compressor station equate to 1834 additional cars operating in Allegheny County every year.

FACT 2. Increased NOx will lead to even greater levels of ozone in the County.

The importance of the unregulated discharge of NOx into the atmosphere in Allegheny County is that ozone formation occurs when nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as xylene, react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. NOx, CO, and VOCs are called ozone precursors. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and chemical solvents and now, natural gas compressor stations, are the major sources of these chemicals. Adding to the NOx emissions will increase levels of Ozone.

FACT 3. Allegheny County is a non-attainment area for Ozone.

There are six principal pollutants, that act as indicators of air quality in the US. The Clean Air Act calls them "criteria pollutants". The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are the concentrations of these principal pollutants which, if exceeded, may produce adverse effects on human health. With respect to these principal pollutants, Allegheny County currently has a "nonattainment" status (exceeds National Ambient Air Quality Standards) for ozone and particulate matter (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/attain/status.htm)

FACT 4. Other gas compressor stations already add to the pollution load in SW PA.

According to GASP (http://gasp-pgh.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GASP-marcelluspresentation-6-20-2011.pdf) nine existing compressor stations located in Southwest Pennsylvania already emit 822 tpy of NOx. It is estimated that over 100 (120-150) similar compressor stations have already been added to SW Pennsylvania. Adding the allowable NOx of the proposed compressor station to the nine stations in the GASP report yields a total increased NOx loading of 877 tpy or the equivalent of an additional 46,000 automobiles operating in Southwestern Pennsylvania each year. Taking into account allof the existing stations in SW PA, leads to an estimate of additional NOx pollution equivalent to the addition of 500,000 cars to the area! Although this number of vehicles is greater than one might have imagined, the comparison with existing heavy industry in Western Pennsylvania is even more startling.

FACT 5. The existing compressor stations plus the proposed station will potentially emit thirty times the NOx as the amount emitted by USS Edgar Thompson Works each year.

The latest figures available In 2008 (http://www.achd.net/air/pubs/pdf 2009_PointSource_Emission_Inventory.pdf) show that the Edgar Thompson Works of the US Steel Corporation NOx emissions were 293 tpy. The Edgar Thompson Works emissions of NOx are approximately 33% of the emissions of the nine compressor stations cited in the GASP study plus the proposed compressor station. That is, the nine stations in the GASP report along with the proposed station will be permitted to emit three times the current emissions of the Edgar Thompson Works! If the total number of installed compressor stations in SW Pennsylvania is used, this estimate increases by a factor of 10 which increases the emissions of NOx to approximately thirty times the emissions of the Edgar Thompson Works! However, the emissions of the Edgar Thompson Works are highly regulated, measured and reported each year. No comparable regulation or monitoring of emissions from natural gas compressor stations are required or performed.

It is our opinion, that given:

•The proposed compressor station will potentially emit NOx equivalent to

approximately 1800 cars added to the roads each year;
•The compressor station emissions will increase the levels of ozone in the
County;
•The location of the proposed compressor station in an environmental nonattainment status for ozone;
•The emissions of the proposed compressor station will be added to that of existing stations;
•The proposed compressor station and existing compressor stations
together will potentially emit thirty times the NOx pollution of the existing
Edgar Thompson Works of USS: no natural gas compressor station should be permitted in Allegheny County or in

Pennsylvania without an evaluation of the impact of the proposed pollution emissions contributed by that compressor station on the overall pollution levels in the County and State to ensure that such stations will not further contribute to non-attainment of acceptable pollution levels. Further, it should be required that best available technology be used to control the emissions of all existing and proposed compressor stations.

Joseph M Evans PhD

CEO

Sense Technology Inc.

1052 Corporate Ln

Export PA 15632

Jme@pulstar.us

***************************************************************

4) Cynthia Walter's Statement to County Commissioners:

7/9/12

To: Westmoreland County Commissioners and the Office of Planning

From: Cynthia Walter, Ph.D.

Re: Use of Shale Drilling Impact Fees as noted in Act 13.

My comments below are based on peer-reviewed published documents and my perspective from 30 years of teaching and conducting research on issues that impact the environment and human health.

Some guiding principles:

All fees should be used to serve the public, not serve this one industry.

No fees should be used to help this industry avoid paying for problems they create.

No fees should be used to promote this industry or prepare workers.

Paying for problems, training and housing out of state workers is the job of this multi-billion dollar, multi-national industry.

Here are my comments on the list of 13 items posted on the Westmoreland County web site:

1. Construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of roadways

No – When they break it, they should fix it.

2. A. Emergency preparedness

No- emergency preparation is the responsibility of any heavy industry and shale drilling certainly qualifies. Unless we get legislators to change it, Act 13 will put drilling rigs within only a few hundred feet of homes and schools. So far, the Marcellus industry averages one accident or major environmental violation per well. Such accidents include explosions, frack ponds fires that melt plastic liners, leaks of thousands of gallons of concentrated acid, chronic outgassing from pipes, well casing failure releasing toxins into well water, fracking vibrations breaking open old abandoned gas wells, trucking accidents, and so on.

This industry is accident prone and it is their responsibility to stop operations until they know why so many accidents are happening and how to prevent them.

B. public safety

Yes - We can serve the public and not the industry if we use shale impact money for public health programs. For example, we certainly need to establish a public health communication network for our county. We have no way for health care providers share information and we need this as a matter of public safety. Here are a few reasons why shale gas operations will impact our health:

Act 13 allows the gas industry more than any other industry to officially interfere with communication between doctor and patient and among doctors.

Coburn, 2011 – Of the 200+ substances the shale gas industry reveals that they use, most are known to cause problems to major organ system, such as nerves and kidney and/or cause cancer.

McKinney, 2012 - Air pollution in shale drilling areas of Colorado have been reported regularly at levels that impact healthy people and seriously impair those with medical conditions. For example, 10% of American kids use respirators for asthma.

3. A. Preservation of surface and subsurface waters and water supplies

Yes – especially if the county establishes a program to provide water testing for lower income people.

B. reclamation of surface and subsurface waters and water supplies

No – if they ruin water, they have to fix it. That is the law for every other industry, the shale industry does not deserve special treatment.

4. Projects to increase the availability of safe and affordable housing

No – We should not spend limited funds to change our housing to temporarily fit the gas industry. Every qualified report from other shale gas areas show shale brings only a boom and bust economy. For example, West Virginia gas drilling increased in the past few years, but there was no corresponding increase in jobs, despite gas industry promises. Homelessness does increase, however, when rents increase because temporary gas workers pay more than long-term renters. We must look to item 5 to help the homeless.

5. Delivery of social services

Yes – Several scientific reports document increased police calls, illegal amphetamine sales, sexually transmitted diseases, and other public problems. We will need extra social service providers to temporarily handle the problems during the boom phase of the boom and bust cycle.

6. Deposit into a capital reserve fund

No – shale drilling is a new kind of gas extraction, the problems in PA are new and we have to spend money now to protect people with the money during this gas boom. Gas industry records show most wells drop 75 % of their production within the first year and continue to decrease production. Yes, lots of gas is buried underground, but it gets harder and harder to get it out. The bust phase of this gas industry will happen soon enough when the easy gas is gone.

7. Career and technical centers for workforce training

No – training workers is their job. We should be educating people with skills they can use in more than one industry and build a sustainable workforce in a diverse sustainable, energy industry.

8. Local or regional planning initiatives under the MPC

Yes, more any other industry, shale drilling and Act 13 will seriously disrupt our municipal planning. First, Act 13 removes zoning, and forces this heavy industry in residential zones. Published reports show that property values decrease from 10-50% when gas drilling or similar operations are nearby. Several major mortgages companies have refused mortgages for people with or adjacent to drilling.

Act 13 allows each company to take private property via Emmient Domain for separate gas lines, thus paralyzing land development more than any other industry to date.

9. Water, storm water and sewer systems

No – qualified water projects have always been paid out of taxes and government funds on an open, competitive basis. As noted in Act 13, Shale impact fund spending is not open to public review like other funds, and some people could get special favors and we would never know.

10. Environmental programs, parks, trails and recreation –

Possibly, depending on the merits of the project. In all cases, the present status of the land, air, water, wildlife and human uses must be documented before shale drilling so we are not simply fixing problems the gas industry caused.

11. Tax reductions, including homestead exclusions

No – Taxes deserve special, separate consideration and long-term planning. Shale industry is a boom and bust system. We need to preserve property values to keep up reasonable taxes and share the load among all citizens.

12. Records management, GIS and information technology

No, maintaining good records is the job of the shale industry, just like every other industry. They have a Marcellus Coalition. If they are honest, they would make proper records of well drilling, waste water disposal, air toxin emissions, etc. in a standard format available on line for public review. California requires this of all heavy industries. Why don’t we require this for shale gas and all our heavy industries?

13. Judicial services – No comment. I do not know how these funds would be used.

*************************************************

Questions for County Commissioners

Will the shale impact fee compensate us for becoming another county hit with shale syndrome?

Shale syndrome is a new medical condition documented in people near shale gas operations. This new industry exposes citizens to a cocktail of air and water toxins. It often begins with respiratory problems and if people are properly tested, we find industry specific substances such as benzene and heavy metals in blood and urine.

Westmoreland County already has a D rating in air quality and our water is not ideal. We know shale trucks, drilling motors, compressors, release serious air pollutants. We know counties with A ratings dropped to F only 3 years after shale operations arrived. Look at the list of carcinogens like benzene and other toxins in Dish Texas air. Look at how the tiny town of Dish is monitoring air and public health. I propose we spend some of the impact fee to write grants to document the air, water and public health of Westmoreland County. We are going to get shale syndrome here.

I want to use the impact fee to document impacts and better protect our citizens. That’s what you were elected to do. Road repair should be paid by those who damage roads. Water and sewer are already covered by state and federal programs. Shale impact fees should be directed to handle shale syndrome.

I am leaving you with publications from the EPA and scientific journals that document the serious problems we face in

1. bad air quality – e.g. Local air monitoring and local warning systems when air quality drops

2. uncertain of water quality –

a. a minor spill on one of the several well pads next to the water’s edge of Beaver Run Reservoir contaminates water for 80,000 people.

b. private wells near drill pads (but beyond the 1000 ft. limit) cannot document water problems they see because they can’t afford the hundreds of dollars for testing

Cynthia Walter
916 Essex Dr.
Greensburg, PA 15601
724-834-6264

********************************************************

3)Mike Atherton's Statement to County Commissioners:

Commissioners Westmoreland County March 7, 2012

Topic: Impact Fees from Marcellus Shale drilling

Issue: How will these fees will be spent

Proposed thus far: road and bridge repair

Problem with proposal: road and bridge repair should be addressed by another revenue source. This impact fee should be used to address the impact on human health, not just infrastructure.

Advice: The American Lung Association rates the air in Westmoreland County as D level. Better than Allegheny county with its F rating but not far ahead. We know Marcellus Drilling causes air pollution but we need much more precise information in order to protect the health of our citizens. We should use the impact fee to establish the facilities and personal for frequent testing to determine the following:

what contaminants are found in shale drilling pollution,

what are the volumes of shale drilling pollutants,

what are the intensities of shale drilling pollutants

what are the locations of shale drilling pollutions

what directions do the plumes of shale drilling pollution follow

We must gather this information in order to protect the health and well-being of our citizens. We cannot take the word of the industry about these pollutants because there is a clear conflict of interest. We must use impact fees to establish an independent, certified air and water pollution testing company. If we fail to implement a rigorous and well-publicized monitoring system we risk the health of our citizens.

Roads and bridges need repair, to be sure, but if someone is sick you do not first pave the driveway, you address their sickness. In order to know how sick we will become from this industrial pollution we need to test, test, and test again.

Only with enough well-documented test results can we determine the levels and kind of pollution.

Only after we have enough information will we be able to enforce the law.

Only with knowledge can we confidently shut down illegal operations and fine them into compliance.

The county would be foolish to fight the deep-pocketed business conglomerates without enough data. THEREFORE we need testing that is frequent, thorough, and publicly known. The country government must have confidence when it takes legal action against polluters and this confidence can only come from rigorous testing.

J. Michael Atherton

916 Essex Dr.

Greensburg, PA 15601

**************************************************************

2) Pam Judy's statement to Murrysville Council 7/20/11:
. Pam spoke at the St Vincent meeting and has been quoted in numerous news articles and reports.

July 20, 2011

Dear Council:

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my family’s personal story as it relates to various health issues we have been experiencing after a Marcellus Shale compressor station was built near our home.

My name is Pam Judy. I am a resident of Carmichaels in Greene County.

In April 2006 we built a new home on property originally belonging to great grandparents and a part of the family farm. For three years my family enjoyed the peace and quiet of living in the country. However, in the spring of 2009, that quiet way of life abruptly came to an end when a compressor station was built 780 feet from our home on an adjoining landowner’s property.

Due to the noise and the fumes from the engines and dehydration unit that settle in our yard we can no longer spend time outdoors. Shortly after operations began, we started to experience extreme headaches, runny noses, sore/scratchy throats, muscle aches and a constant feeling of fatigue. Both of our children are experiencing nose bleeds and I’ve had dizziness, vomiting and vertigo to the point that I couldn’t stand and was taken to an emergency room. Our daughter has commented that she feels as though she has cement in her bones.

In November of last year our son was out on our property scouting for deer in preparation for the opening day of the season. Some of these areas were in close proximity to the compressor site. Within one day of being out, he developed blisters in his mouth and throat, had extreme difficulty swallowing, and on Thanksgiving morning he went to the emergency room of a nearby hospital.

After conducting research regarding possible emissions from facilities such as this, and the associated illnesses, I contacted Calvin Tillman, Mayor of Dish Texas. Dish residents had experienced a similar problem a few years ago when drilling was done into the Barnett Shale. Mayor Tillman provided me with a list of blood and urine tests which could be done to determine exposure. In May 2010 I had those tests performed and the results revealed my body contained measurable levels of benzene and phenol.

This prompted me to become even more vigilant in determining what we were being exposed to. In June 2010, I was able to convince the PA DEP to conduct an air quality study which focused on concentrations of volatile organic compounds typically found in petroleum products. The study consisted of a 24 hour canister air sampling in my yard and 4 days of monitoring at the site where an infrared camera was used.

The results of the 24 hour canister sampling revealed 16 chemicals including benzene, styrene, toluene, xylene, hexane, heptane, acetone, acrolein, propene, carbon tetrachloride and chloromethane to name a few.

Most, if not all, of the aforementioned compounds are known carcinogens and, if exposed, carry with them the very symptoms my family and I have been experiencing. Benzene has been directly linked to various blood cancers including leukemia and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.

In November 2010 the DEP released their final report regarding findings at this site as well as four additional locations. That report states the department could find no emission levels that would constitute a concern to the health of residents living near Marcellus operations and that the sampling results were used to characterize the acute non-cancer health risks associated with industry emissions. The report further states that they did not address the cumulative or long-term impact of air emissions or the lifetime cancer risks because this was a short-term study.

Given the health issues we have been experiencing since this facility began operations, I am extremely concerned that as a result of prolonged exposure to the previously mentioned chemicals, we will develop even more serious health issues including cancer. Yet this report focused on the non-cancerous health risks.

As the Marcellus industry continues to grow so does the number of compressor sites required. With every compressor site comes increased atmospheric hydrocarbon emissions that will, in my opinion, and in the opinion of former DEP Secretary John Hanger, have a huge cumulative impact on air quality in PA.

As a local governing body you have the authority to impose restrictions on companies wanting to do business in your community. I would implore you to exercise that authority and establish set-backs so that compressor sites cannot be built 780 feet from a residence. I realize that such facilities are a necessary evil of this industry. However, they should be built in more desolate areas with the least amount of impact.

I have likened the Marcellus industry to that of the asbestos industry years ago. Both our government, and the asbestos industry, through very elaborate public relations schemes led us to believe there was no harm in being exposed to asbestos. Only to find out years later the true cancer risks. I truly believe we could be facing a similar situation as a result of the Marcellus industry. And for those of who have been exposed it could be too late.

For this reason, I would ask that you take every precaution to protect the residents of your community. It is your duty as elected officials to insure their welfare and safety. A charge you should not take lightly.

Should any members of council wish to speak with me in person, I would be more than happy to do so. And if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully,

Pam Judy

     ********************************************************************************

1) Crystal  Stroud's Testimony
http://protectingourwaters.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/statement-to-bradford-county-commissioners-chrystal-stroud-towanda-pennsylvania-42811/

Statement to Bradford County Commissioners; Crystal Stroud, Towanda Pennsylvania 4/28/11

April 29, 2011

by Kristian Boose

Crystal Stroud reads a prepared statement about her ordeal to the Bradford County commissioners. (Source: Review Photo/JAMES LOEWENSTEIN)

Crystal Stroud’s public statement to the Bradford County Commissioners on the morning of Thursday April 28, 2011 appears below in its entirety:

“Thank you for allowing me to speak. My Name is Crystal Stroud. I am a formerly healthy, 29 year old Hairstylist at a downtown Towanda salon, and my husband and I are local business owners with a 4 year old little boy, who were living out “our American Dream” until 3 weeks ago on Monday April 11^th, 2011. That is the day we were notified our water well was contaminated with Barium, Chloride, Strontium, Manganese, Lead, Methane, Radiological material, and Radon from the drilling of the natural gas well 1200 feet from our property — the water that we had been drinking, cooking with and showering in.
Prior to that day I, too, believed in the Goose that was going to lay the Golden Egg in Bradford County. I leased my two acres of property for $5,000 to Chesapeake. We used the money to start fixing up our house, adding a pool, and thinking we were increasing our property value. Little did I know we were signing away life as we knew it.
Three weeks prior to April 11^th I became ill. My hair started falling out. I was having heart palpitations, shortness of breath, and stomach cramps. My husband feared I was having panic attacks and suggested I see a doctor. I went to my family physician and the only thing they could find was that my heart rate and blood pressure were elevated. They sent me for blood work on my thyroid, those test results came back within normal range. They then recommended I take a medication for anxiety, as they didn’t know what else could be afflicting me. Three days went by and my hands began to tremble and I would lose my balance as I stood from a sitting position. My speech started to become slurred and at that point I made another phone call to the doctor’s office. I told them, “Something is wrong, This isn’t right.” I was told to continue the medication, hoping that it would “kick in soon.”
Then on Monday April 11^th, I received the phone call from Benchmark Analytics. They said my well water results were in and they were a major concern. My reply was “ What do you mean? I have been extremely ill for the past 3 weeks and we can’t figure out why” Their reply was “This could be the cause – Barium is known to cause the symptoms you’re experiencing” I then called my doctors office and son’s pediatrician who then ordered blood work, as the Lead and Barium levels in our water was a major concern
After more blood tests and research they found I had extremely high levels of Barium in my body at a range of 110 normal range being 0 or less than 10 . When Barium accumulates in the body, it usually affects the functions of the nervous system. Barium poisoning displays symptoms that are similar to flu or anxiety which is why it is not strange to find the condition misdiagnosed as flu or anxiety. Common symptoms of Barium poisoning include:
1. Muscle weakness and tremors
2. Difficulty in breathing
3. Stomach irritations accompanied by diarrhea
4. Anxiety
5. Cardiac irregularities such as abnormally high blood pressure and rapid heartbeat from profoundly low potassium levels and eventually
6. Paralysis
When I contacted Chesapeake (who I signed a lease with) and told them my well was contaminated, they sent out a Mr. Rick Hall. He came to my home and sat at the table and looked over my water results. He started by trying to explain away the substances found in my water.
When I asked him to explain the Radiologicals found in my water, he flipped to the last page and said “Oh the radon (which was 1.2 pCi/L when we purchased the house four years ago, and is now 154.5 pCi/L) ?” I said “No, the Radiologicals, Gross Alpha and Gross Beta.” His reply was “Oh I don’t know anything about them” (which surprised me as Benchmark informed me they were direct contaminates of the natural gas industry). He then asked me, “Didn’t I realize anything was wrong with my water while I was drinking it? I said. “No! Here let me show you.” I then drew a glass of water from the refrigerators’ water and ice maker, I held it up to him and said, “Clear, now wouldn’t you drink this?” His reply was “Yah, looks good to me”
This water was clear, but yet had so many chemicals in it, it required an emergency phone call from the water testing company. Mr. Rick Hall stated he would need to “Pass the Buck” to Chief (gas company), saying they were the closest well. I had to contact them. I told him they had not fracked the well next to my property and he stated, “It’s a common misconception that fracking is what contaminates well water. It’s the actual drilling process that causes the first phase of water contamination.”
However, before leaving Mr. Hall could not give me a phone number to contact someone from Chief and had no clue even who I would speak with. After 3 days of phone calls to every phone number I found online associated with Chief, I finally spoke to a Mr. Richard Adams who told me “Lo and behold” a Mr. Rick Hall had called him…. Yet, Mr. Hall told me he had no clue who to call with Chief. Since 3 weeks ago when all this transpired, I have still not seen a Chief representative at my home nor have I received a phone call. I have however had people hang up on me and tell me that they would pass on the information, never returning my calls. My well still has not been vented (with Methane levels of 32.4 mg/L) nor have I been offered water or a water buffalo, from either company.
I have gone door to door around my neighborhood warning people about my well contamination, hoping to prevent this from happening to someone else. Every neighbor I have talked to has problems with their water but they have not called anyone to test it. I was told that there is known Methane migration up the road and had one neighbor tell me that he can now light his water on fire, but that he isn’t drinking it. Only “making coffee with it.” These people aren’t informed. There are children who are showering and drinking this water around my neighborhood. They don’t know the risks and don’t understand the severity of this situation. They don’t have the money to spend $900 on independent water testing. They believe that if it was a concern, the DEP would take care of it. It sickens me to think that nothing is being done.
I have since learned that NYC DEP has posted videos on their website, and signs next to public drinking fountains, educating people of the possible contamination from hydraulic fracturing,. and what symptoms to look for.
Our plans for breaking ground on an addition on our home and to have another child have since come to an abrupt halt. That day our world spun out of control. My family physician has never seen Barium poisoning nor do they know exactly what was in the drilling mud that contaminated our well water. They don’t know how to treat for these types of illnesses, and they can’t give me any indication of what long term affects this may cause on my health.
Our Family is collateral damage!
We are just 1 of the 33% failure rate of these gas companies. The failure to keep the residents of
Bradford County’s wells contaminate free.
I fear that someday in the distant future our State and County government will “wake up” and realize that the cancer clusters, heart conditions and children with learning disabilities are too frequent to ignore. By that time it is too late!
I get that there’s a huge opportunity here for our state and our county… I get that! However, the people need to be the priority. We need to be responded to promptly in case of a contamination, Neighbors need to be notified of nearby well contaminations and their water testing should be the gas companies’ responsibility, not the homeowner. Care needs to be taken that these wells are drilled in the safest way possible, with no regard for the expense on the “poor drilling company.” It doesn’t have to be this way.
Two years ago drilling began on my grandfather’s land on Armenia Mt by a company named Talisman. This company was considerate of my grandfather’s wishes, prompt when there was an issue with the well or his land, respectful of his peace, tested all the surrounding water wells before drilling commenced and from what I have been told “Go above and beyond” to ensure their well casings are the safest possible. When My uncle, who lives nearby water well was contaminated with Manganese, they promptly brought him a water buffalo and since that date have now encased his well, preventing any further contamination from the Manganese that was leaching in. My family has only had good experiences with this company. Something I wish I could say about Chief or Chesapeake.
I would like to read an excerpt from Article I of the Pennsylvania State Constitution Sec 27:
‘The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s natural resources are the common property of all the people including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.’
In closing. I would now like to ask my state Representative and my County Commissioners: Why have my Constitutional rights been taken from me?”