40 Tamaqua property owners given 60 days to connect to sewer system
http://www.tnonline.com/2011/jul/19/expensive-proposition
By ANDY LEIBENGUTH aleibenguth@tnonline.com
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Exposed PVC pipe lies behind the Tamaqua Public Library leading into the Wabash Creek.
Forty Tamaqua property owners are being given 60-day notices to stop discharging wastewater directly to the Wabash Creek culvert and to connect to Tamaqua’s municipal sewer system. The work is to be done at property owners’ expense.
The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued an order to the borough last December to investigate and remove all illegal sewage discharges to the creek, which runs under downtown Tamaqua from South Lehigh Street to Rowe Street and then to South Railroad Street.
The deadline to comply with this order is Aug. 31.
The borough hired Alfred Benesch Company and A One Service, Shenandoah, to investigate both the Wabash Creek and Panther Creek, which runs through eastern portions of Tamaqua, for the sources of any possible illegal sewage discharge, aka wildcats. Inspections of the creeks were performed between March 1 and March 31. Initially, 56 connections were found to have active sanitary connections to the Wabash Creek culvert, with dry residue indicating recent sanitary connections.
Investigators used special equipment and cameras. The notice, given to affected property owners about a month ago, states, “In accordance with the DEP order and Borough Ordinance No. 304, you are hereby notified to stop discharging sewage to the Wabash Creek and connect your property to the municipal sewer system within 60 days of your receipt of this notice.”
Receiving the notice were homes and business owners on South Lehigh Street, West Broad Street, Spruce Street, Rowe Street and South Railroad Street. The notice also states that if a property owner fails to correct the illegal sewer discharge within 60 days of receiving the notice, the matter will be referred to the code enforcement officer and borough solicitor for legal action.
Some property owners are upset with the short notice and unexpected financial burden this has placed on them. Ann Brose, 249 West Broad St., said that it will cost approximately $7,000 to connect to the sewer system.
“I have to pay to dig into the second lane of SR209 to hook up to the sewer. I never knew my sewage wasn’t connected to the borough’s system,” adding, “I want to do what’s right, but not 30 years after I purchased my house.”
Brose, who pointed out that she doesn’t qualify for low interest loans, added, “I’ve paid the borough $9,200 over 30 years for sewer and now I have to pay to connect to a sewer system I thought I was already connected to.” Brose and other affected property owners are expected to attend tonight’s borough council meeting to bring up their concerns.
A summary of required steps was also given with the notice. The summary lists detailed instructions concerning steps required to connect to the borough’s sanitary sewer system, as well as a Building Sewer Permit Application. Current sewer customers do not have to pay the borough’s $2,000 first-time sewer connection charge.
Low and moderate income property owners may qualify for financial assistance for construction of their sewer connection. Kevin Steigerwalt, Tamaqua borough manager, stated that property owners can save on construction expenses by consolidating contract work with other affected property owners.
Assistance may be available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Schuylkill Community Action and the Tamaqua Borough’s Community Development Department. Affected residents are encouraged to contact Steigerwalt or Rob Jones, Tamaqua public works director, at (570) 668-3444 or (570) 668-0300 with any questions or concerns.
Your Private Drinking Water and the Natural Gas Industry (Part Two)
http://www.northcentralpa.com/news/2011-07-17_your-private-drinking-water-and-natural-gas-industry-part-two
July 17, 2011
By Penn State Cooperative Extension in Gas Industry
Part two of an article on considerations for private drinking water wells and natural gas drilling
At Penn State Extension’s programs that focus on protection and testing of private water supplies near natural gas drilling, Bryan Swistock, water resource extension specialist provides valuable information and practical advice for people interested in protecting their private drinking water supplies. Knowing the quality of your home well or spring water before natural gas drilling is critical to knowing if that quality changes or is impacted by natural gas drilling (or any other factors, for that matter). Swistock says if you want to legally document your water quality prior to any drilling occurring, you need to use a third-party, state-certified test lab. Importantly, he says that many drilling companies conduct what is called “pre-drilling survey” water testing.
“This is a survey of drinking water supplies in the vicinity of the natural gas drill site. The survey is not actually performed by the drilling company, but by a third-party, accredited testing firm,” says Swistock. “If you are asked to participate in such a survey, it’s in your best interest to do so, since the drilling company will pay for the water test.”
Swistock says people always have the option of paying for their own water testing. He says there are several factors to consider.
As far as “what” to test for when testing your drinking water supply, Swistock recommends a tiered approach. “There’s no perfect answer, but I suggest setting some priorities – ask yourself what is most critical to test for and start there. Prioritize and determine what you can afford to test for. If you are financially able to do more, there are some additional parameters you could consider.”
Once you’ve decided to have your drinking water tested, and have determined what to test for, understanding the results can be complex. Swistock says the report you will receive from the certified testing lab is considered a legal document, and it can be difficult to understand what the numbers mean.
“Many Penn State Cooperative Extension offices have both the people resources and informational materials to help people better understand their water test results. In fact, there’s an on-line form to help people interpret test results. You can also ask the lab that conducted the test if they will explain the results to you,” says Swistock.
Swistock also provided a number of informational web sites. He said the eNotice web site atwww.dep.state.pa.us/enotice/ allows people to sign up to receive e-mail notices when drilling is going to occur in a specific municipality or county.
Swistock says there are a number of pro-active measures people can take to protect their drinking water. For people leasing land to drillers, he recommended several stipulations that should be included as part of the lease. He also urged people to report problems and concerns to the PA Department of Environmental Protection, which has regulatory oversight for the natural gas activities in the region.
In addition, Swistock says researchers at Penn State University, through the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, have begun natural gas-related research to monitor drinking water wells and gather data.
Swistock finishes his presentations by noting the vast amount of information that is available from the Extension Office. He encouraged people to visit their web site at http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas
Excerpted from the Clinton County Natural Gas Task Force (www.clintoncountypa.com ) weekly columns.
Shale commission faces votes on future of drilling
http://citizensvoice.com/news/shale-commission-faces-votes-on-future-of-drilling-1.1173999#axzz1S4wWwA8r
By Robert Swift (Harrisburg Bureau Chief)
Published: July 12, 2011
HARRISBURG – The governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission starts its endgame Friday with members voting in public on what recommendations to put in a comprehensive report guiding the future of natural gas development in Pennsylvania.
This will be the last working meeting of the commission before the July 22 deadline to hand a report to Gov. Tom Corbett.
Heading the agenda will be a series of votes on proposals offered by four working groups established when the commission began its work in March.
The proposals that garner a majority vote from the members will be included in the report, said Chad Saylor, spokesman for Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley, the commission chairman. The bulk of the proposals deal with public health and safety and environmental protection issues, he added.
The commission members are reviewing the working group proposals, therefore allowing for last-minute discussions before the meeting agenda is set, Saylor said.
One of the most closely watched issues facing the commission is levying an impact fee on drillers to offset the cost of drilling operations for municipalities, and additionally address environmental issues related to drilling.
Saylor was unable to say whether an impact fee recommendation will be voted on Friday, but he said a lot of attention was focused on impact fees in the working group that dealt with local impact and emergency preparedness issues relating to drilling.
House and Senate Republican leaders put off plans to vote on impact fee legislation at the close of the spring legislative session after Corbett said he would veto any bill with those provisions that reached his desk in advance of the commission’s report. Corbett has suggested he wants to see what the commission recommends concerning an impact fee, but he doesn’t think impact fee revenue should go to the all-purpose state General Fund.
Cawley has repeatedly said the issue of a state severance tax on natural gas production is off the commission’s agenda given Corbett’s strong opposition to that idea.
Likely to be in the mix for consideration are recommendations offered by the Department of Environmental Protection and Health Department.
DEP has outlined a major overhaul of the state Oil and Gas Act with stronger buffer zones to keep natural gas drilling away from water sources, tougher penalties and bond requirements and a “cradle-to-grave” manifest system to track wastewater from hydraulic fracturing. For example, DEP recommends restricting well drilling within 1,000 feet of a public water supply and doubling the distance from 250 feet to 500 feet to separate a gas well from a private well.
The Health Department wants to create a registry to monitor and study data on the health conditions of individuals who live near drilling sites.
“In order to refute or verify claims that public health is being impacted by drilling in the Marcellus Shale, there must be a comprehensive and scientific approach to evaluating over time health conditions of individuals who live in close proximity to a drilling site or are occupationally exposed,” said Health Secretary Eli Avila in a presentation to the commission last month.
Zoning is another issue on the commission’s radar screen.
In a May presentation, the industry-oriented Marcellus Shale Coalition called attention to a “patchwork” of ordinances dealing with such subjects as road use and well site setbacks. The Coalition called for consistency in zoning powers and not singling out activities by the gas industry.
rswift@timesshamrock.com
As Focus On Fracking Sharpens, Fuel Worries Grow
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/13/137789869/as-focus-on-fracking-sharpens-fuel-worries-grow
by Jeff Brady
July 13, 2011
A controversial technique for producing oil and natural gas called hydraulic fracturing — or fracking — has led to drilling booms from Texas to Pennsylvania in recent years. But there are concerns that it may be polluting drinking water.
As policymakers in Washington discuss how to make fracking safer, there is concern that fracking itself has become a distraction.
In the U.S., pretty much all of the oil and gas that was easy to get to is gone. Fracking makes it possible to extract petroleum from hard-to-reach places — say, a mile underground in dense layers of shale.
Drillers pump truckloads of water mixed with sand and chemicals into the rock. Under intense pressure, that creates tiny fractures that allow oil and gas trapped there to escape.
“Hydraulic fracturing is truly the rocket science of what’s happening in energy,” says Tisha Conoly Schuller, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
Schuller has seen fracking bring new life to old oil and natural gas fields, boosting domestic production in the U.S. She says that’s a good thing — especially for natural gas, because it burns cleaner.
In Pennsylvania the number of natural gas wells drilled into the Marcellus Shale has increased from 34 in 2007 to 1,446 last year.
But drive around the region and you’ll see that not everyone shares the industry’s appreciation of fracking. There are lawn signs opposing gas drilling, and in Sullivan County, N.Y., a handmade sign reads, “Thou shalt not frack with our water. Amen.”
Many fracking opponents were inspired by the movie Gasland. In one compelling scene, Weld County, Colo., resident Mike Markham shows how he can light his tap water on fire.
Throughout the movie, filmmaker and activist Josh Fox gives fracking special attention — calling into question how safe it is and whether it’s adequately regulated.
Says Schuller: “I think hydraulic fracturing has become a synonym for oil and gas development or anything one doesn’t like about oil and gas development.”
The industry worries that the focus on fracking could prompt policymakers to restrict the practice and bring a halt to the gas booms under way. That’s already happening around the country in places such as Buffalo, N.Y., Pittsburgh and most recently Morgantown, W.Va. New York is deciding on new rules to govern fracking there.
It’s not just the industry concerned about the focus on fracking. Some environmentalists say it may be taking attention away from the other problems that go along with drilling, like air pollution and toxic spills.
“I’m hoping that it’s really just a starting point — a jumping-off point — to look at all these other issues,” says Amy Mall, senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
And Mall hopes the focus on fracking will lead to more research about how oil and gas development affects people.
“There’s very little science about any of these impacts — not just the fracking, but the air quality, the waste-management issues,” Mall says. “But it does seem the immediate priority of the agencies is to focus on fracking.”
Certainly that’s what the Energy Department’s Natural Gas Subcommittee will discuss as it meets in Washington, D.C., this week. Eventually the group’s recommendations will be sent to the federal agencies that have a role in regulating fracking.
July 21 webinar to focus on natural gas pipelines
http://live.psu.edu/story/54077#nw69
Friday, July 8, 2011
The type of pipeline -- whether it’s a gathering line or a much larger interstate transmission line -- determines how much surface disturbance takes place.
University Park, Pa. — A Web-based seminar to be presented by Penn State Extension July 21 will explore pipeline development and regulation in regions of the state being intensely affected by drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation.
Speaking in the webinar will be Wayne County extension educator Dave Messersmith, based in Honesdale, who is part of Penn State’s Marcellus Education Team and coordinates the university’s annual Marcellus Summit, and Paul Metro, chief of the Gas Safety Division of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
They will discuss pipeline construction, associated surface infrastructure (valves, compressor stations, etc.), pipeline impacts on the landscape and in communities, ways to reduce pipeline impacts, negotiating terms for a pipeline right-of-way and regulatory oversight of gas pipelines in Pennsylvania.
There have been more than 2,300 wells drilled into the deep Marcellus layer in Pennsylvania in the last few years, primarily in the southwest, northeast and northcentral regions. Many pipelines have been and are being built to get the large volume of gas they produce to consumers.
A pipeline right-of-way is a strip of land over and around natural gas pipelines where some of the property owner’s legal rights have been granted to a pipeline operator, Messersmith said. A right-of-way agreement between the pipeline company and the property owner is also called an easement, which is usually filed in the county Register and Recorders Office with property deeds.
“Many people are concerned about eminent domain as it relates to pipelines,” he said. “In reality the type of pipeline — whether it’s a gathering line or an interstate transmission line — will determine who provides regulatory oversight and whether eminent domain is possible.”
Penn State Extension offers a publication called “Negotiating Pipeline Rights-of-Way in Pennsylvania,” which Messersmith authored, for people interested in knowing more about pipeline issues. Part of the Marcellus Fact Sheet Series, single copies can be obtained free of charge by Pennsylvania residents through county Penn State Extension offices, or by contacting the College of Agricultural Sciences Publications Distribution Center at 814-865-6713 or AgPubsDist@psu.edu. The publication also is available in digital format at http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/PDFs/ua465.pdf online.
The July 21 webinar is part of a series of online workshops addressing opportunities and challenges related to the state’s Marcellus Shale gas boom. Information about how to register for the webinar is available on the webinar page of Penn State Extension’s natural-gas website at http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas/webinars online.
Future webinars will focus on a research update on the effects of shale drilling on wildlife habitat and current legal issues in shale-gas development.
Previous webinars, publications and information on topics such as air pollution from gas development, the gas boom’s effect on landfills, water use and quality, zoning, gas-leasing considerations for landowners, and implications for local communities also are available on the Penn State Extension natural-gas website, at http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas online.
For more information, contact John Turack, extension educator in Westmoreland County, at 724-837-1402 or jdt15@psu.edu.
New study demonstrates toxic impacts of hydrofracking fluid on forest life
http://coloradoindependent.com/93580/new-study-demonstrates-toxic-impacts-of-hydrofracking-fluid-on-forest-life
By David O. Williams
07.11.11
Hydraulic fracturing itself may not directly contaminate groundwater supplies, as the oil and gas industry has steadfastly maintained for years, but the wastewater associated with the controversial process can be very hazardous to forest life, at least according to a new study produced by a U.S. Forest Service researcher.
Conducted by researcher Mary Beth Adams and published in the Journal of Environmental Quality, the study is entitled “Land Application of Hydrofracturing Fluids Damages a Deciduous Forest Stand in West Virginia.”
Adams applied more than 75,000 gallons of fracking fluid to a quarter-acre plot of land in the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia. All of the groundcover on the plot died almost right away, and within two years 56 percent of the approximately 150 trees in the area had died.
“The explosion of shale gas drilling in the East has the potential to turn large stretches of public lands into lifeless moonscapes,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which reported on Adams’ study last week.
Ruch noted that land disposal of fracking fluids is a common practice and that Adams’ study was conducted with a state permit. “This study suggests that these fluids should be treated as toxic waste,” Ruch added.
In Colorado, U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette for several years has been pushing different versions of the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, which in its latest incarnation would require the national disclosure of chemicals used in the process.
The oil and gas industry maintains it must keep its formulas secret for proprietary reasons, and the process is exempt from federal regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
But state oil and gas regulators in Colorado, as well as state industry representatives, argue that chemical disclosure will not prevent spills from holding pits and pipelines and that those areas of concern should be the real focus of regulatory efforts.
Fracking typically injects water, sand and chemicals thousands of feet below the surface to crack open tight rock and sand formations in order to free up more natural gas. Those results occur far below drinking water wells and groundwater supplies. There is still debate, even among scientists, over whether fracturing itself can cause contamination of groundwater.
Doubt on cancer cluster legislation
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pa-cancer-cluster-legislation-20110710,0,6315339.story
By Andrew McGill, Of The Morning Call
9:57 p.m. EDT, July 10, 2011
Some fear measure, which would create ‘first-responder’ task force, may not be genuine effort to protect public health in Carbon, Schuylkill, Luzerne counties.
Merle Wertman has been kept waiting a long time.
Eight years ago, doctors diagnosed him with polycythemia vera, a rare cancer that thickens the blood to a sludge only bloodletting can relieve. His neighbors in Tamaqua had just started to speak up, to declare something was wrong in the coal region, something that made people sick.
Eight years, millions of dollars in grants and countless studies later, investigators still don’t know why Wertman fell ill or why so many of his neighbors in this rural region share the same disease.
So every time the 66-year-old sits at a public meeting, checks his hemoglobin count or makes the twice-monthly trip to Coaldale for treatment, he can’t help but wonder: Are we being ignored?
“This is going on for eight years, and we’re getting no headway with it,” he said. “There’s no answer.”
Concerned by reports of cancer clusters in his own district near Wilkes-Barre, state Sen. John Yudichak, D-Luzerne, proposed a bill last week for a statewide cancer cluster task force that would investigate cases like the coal region’s.
Pitched as a union between the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Protection, the team would be the state’s first responders, evaluating the situation and calling in the feds if necessary.
His measure drew applause from residents in Pittston, who say runoff from a local mine has sickened dozens. But those who have been here before — namely weary members of the coal region’s Community Action Committee, the guardians of the area’s only federally-confirmed cancer cluster — have learned to be skeptical.
“My fear is that this is not a genuine effort to protect public health,” said Henry Cole, an environmental scientist from Upper Marlboro, Md. and the committee’s hired expert. “My fear is that it will be used to funnel public discontent into a system that can be controlled without any real protection.”
Yudichak’s bill would require the Department of Health to develop guidelines for investigating cancer clusters. It would bring together a team of experts in epidemiology, toxicology, pollution control and other specialties to look into complaints and write a report.
Anyone could submit a petition to call in the response team. The Department of Health would consider the site’s local pollution sources, significant health threats or the lack of good data.
“Any way that you can make the bureaucracy of state or federal government work more efficiently is a good thing,” Yudichak said. “Particularly when you’re talking about an emotional issue like this.”
The senator wrote the bill amid complaints from residents in Pittston, who said they had to go to local television stations before anyone would look into the high rate of cancer in some neighborhoods. The Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t found evidence of a cluster and said it won’t investigate further, residents say.
He’s lauded by his Luzerne County supporters, who say the bill would set into statute a clear path to addressing their concerns.
The subjects of the coal region’s cancer cluster study aren’t so sure. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been investigating the cluster, which spans Carbon, Schuylkill and Luzerne counties, for nearly five years, making those who live in the area all too aware of the government’s limitations.
Joe Murphy, president of the Community Action Committee remembers 2004, when representatives from the Department of Health told him a cancer problem “didn’t exist.” DEP is hardly more popular. At a meeting in Tamaqua in June, residents heaved a collective sigh of exasperation when a DEP spokesman said tests to determine a cause haven’t found anything conclusive.
Neither state agency has the experts necessary to effectively investigate cancer clusters, Murphy said. For example, he said, much of the groundwork in the Tamaqua investigation has been outsourced to universities and professional contractors.
It’s also unclear how Yudichak’s team would be financed. The current bill doesn’t appropriate funds, and the senator admits both departments may have to use existing equipment and personnel.
That’s what Cole, a veteran and skeptic of government investigations , calls a recipe for neglect. He’s doubtful Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration would push the envelope on environmental issues, particularly when industry could stand to lose.
“They function in accordance with the policy of the executive branch of government, which is to promote energy development — with environmental protection taking the back seat in the bus,” he said. “This bill would do little to change that.”
Despite his distrust, Wertman is willing to give Yudichak’s bill a chance. Anything is better than being ignored, the polycythemia vera patient said. And hope does spring eternal.
“The more people you get involved, the better,” he said. “I’m not in love with DEP, don’t get me wrong, but maybe there’d be someone that could turn things around.”
andrew.mcgill@mcall.com
610-820-6533
Pa. seeks stronger look at drilling near water
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OBFMKG0.htm
By MARC LEVY
HARRISBURG, Pa.
Pennsylvania environmental regulators have agreed to take more precautions before they approve certain permits for oil and natural-gas drilling sites where well construction poses a pollution threat to some of the state’s highest-quality waterways.
The state Department of Environmental Protection agreed to the measures to settle a complaint by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation first filed in 2009 that also asserted the agency had approved three deficient permit applications.
The settlement, dated Wednesday, essentially reverses some steps the department took two years ago to speed up the permitting process for Pennsylvania’s booming natural gas industry. The foundation argued the speedup was illegal.
Primarily, the agreement will impact drilling-related activity — land clearing, production, processing, treatment and pipeline construction — in northern Pennsylvania, where the state’s “high quality” and “exceptional value” waterways are predominantly found, said foundation scientist Harry Campbell.
“The heart of the matter is that those water bodies overlay, almost to a T, where predominantly the drilling activity is occurring,” Campbell said. The settlement contains “very significant sea changes in the way we are permitting those facilities within those watersheds that house the very special water.”
The settlement was approved by an Environmental Hearing Board judge and included subsidiaries of Houston-based Ultra Petroleum Corp. and Calgary-based Talisman Energy Inc. The resulting stricter review process could take up to 60 days. Currently, those permits can get approved in a matter of two weeks.
“It’s important to give the DEP more time to look at everything,” foundation lawyer Amy McDonnell said.
The DEP said in a statement that the revisions would make the permit review process “more robust.”
“This proposed settlement is an important step forward in our continued commitment to oversee this industry in an environmentally and economically conscious manner,” the statement said.
The agency must still take public comment for 60 days on the proposed change.
Under it, the department will require the stricter review if drilling-related activity poses the potential to pollute a high-quality waterway, or if a well pad is on a flood plain.
The DEP will have to decide how close a project has to be to warrant more scrutiny, McDonnell said. Current state law dictates that no well may be prepared or drilled within 100 feet of any waterway, though a number of lawmakers, as well as the DEP, have proposed expanding that buffer.
Amid industry complaints about a slow and bureaucratic permitting process, the DEP in 2009 took steps to speed up reviews of permits for well-related construction. However, the foundation complained that, without a technical review, fast-tracking the permit reviews of erosion, sediment and stormwater control plans was illegal.
The DEP was only reviewing the applications administratively to ensure they were complete, and relied on the word of a professional engineer that the application complied with the law.
The foundation began reviewing some of the permits the department had issued and found, for instance, that one failed to mention that a pipeline would be crossing a high-value wetland or they lacked stormwater preparations, foundation officials said.
As a result, the DEP revoked permits issued to Ultra and Talisman, both in northern Pennsylvania, and then reissued them after the problems were fixed.
The foundation has not carried out a more recent review to see whether the DEP has continued to approve error-riddled permit applications. But Campbell said the department since then has made strides to get more inspectors in the field to enforce compliance.
Major drilling companies began descending on Pennsylvania in earnest in 2008 to exploit the Marcellus Shale formation, regarded as the nation’s largest-known natural gas reservoir.
It lies primarily beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio. Pennsylvania is the center of activity, with more than 3,000 wells drilled in the past three years and thousands more planned in the coming years as thick shale emerges as an affordable, plentiful and profitable source of natural gas.
For decades, energy companies have drilled shallow oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. But the use of high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which involves the underground injection of chemicals and produces millions of gallons of often-toxic wastewater, in the Marcellus Shale formation has sparked fresh environmental concerns about the protection of public waterways that provide drinking water to millions of people.
EPA Reduces Smokestack Pollution
EPA Reduces Smokestack Pollution, Protecting Americans’ Health from Soot and Smog
Clean Air Act protections will cut dangerous pollution in communities that are home to 240 million Americans
WASHINGTON – Building on the Obama Administration’s strong record of protecting the public’s health through common-sense clean air standards – including proposed standards to reduce emissions of mercury and other air toxics, as well as air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today finalized additional Clean Air Act protections that will slash hundreds of thousands of tons of smokestack emissions that travel long distances through the air leading to soot and smog, threatening the health of hundreds of millions of Americans living downwind. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will protect communities that are home to 240 million Americans from smog and soot pollution, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014 – achieving up to $280 billion in annual health benefits. Twenty seven states in the eastern half of the country will work with power plants to cut air pollution under the rule, which leverages widely available, proven and cost-effective control technologies. Ensuring flexibility, EPA will work with states to help develop the most appropriate path forward to deliver significant reductions in harmful emissions while minimizing costs for utilities and consumers.
“No community should have to bear the burden of another community’s polluters, or be powerless to prevent air pollution that leads to asthma, heart attacks and other harmful illnesses. These Clean Air Act safeguards will help protect the health of millions of Americans and save lives by preventing smog and soot pollution from traveling hundreds of miles and contaminating the air they breathe,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “By maximizing flexibility and leveraging existing technology, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will help ensure that American families aren’t suffering the consequences of pollution generated far from home, while allowing states to decide how best to decrease dangerous air pollution in the most cost effective way.”
Carried long distances across the country by wind and weather, power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) continually travel across state lines. As the pollution is transported, it reacts in the atmosphere and contributes to harmful levels of smog (ground-level ozone) and soot (fine particles), which are scientifically linked to widespread illnesses and premature deaths and prevent many cities and communities from enjoying healthy air quality.
The rule will improve air quality by cutting SO2 and NOx emissions that contribute to pollution problems in other states. By 2014, the rule and other state and EPA actions will reduce SO2 emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels. NOx emissions will drop by 54 percent. Following the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” mandate to limit interstate air pollution, the rule will help states that are struggling to protect air quality from pollution emitted outside their borders, and it uses an approach that can be applied in the future to help areas continue to meet and maintain air quality health standards.
The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule replaces and strengthens the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered EPA to revise in 2008. The court allowed CAIR to remain in place temporarily while EPA worked to finalize today’s replacement rule.
The rule will protect over 240 million Americans living in the eastern half of the country, resulting in up to $280 billion in annual benefits. The benefits far outweigh the $800 million projected to be spent annually on this rule in 2014 and the roughly $1.6 billion per year in capital investments already underway as a result of CAIR. EPA expects pollution reductions to occur quickly without large expenditures by the power industry. Many power plants covered by the rule have already made substantial investments in clean air technologies to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions. The rule will level the playing field for power plants that are already controlling these emissions by requiring more facilities to do the same. In the states where investments in control technology are required, health and environmental benefits will be substantial.
The rule will also help improve visibility in state and national parks while better protecting sensitive ecosystems, including Appalachian streams, Adirondack lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and forests. In a supplemental rulemaking based on further review and analysis of air quality information, EPA is also proposing to require sources in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin to reduce NOX emissions during the summertime ozone season. The proposal would increase the total number of states covered by the rule from 27 to 28. Five of these six states are covered for other pollutants under the rule. The proposal is open for public review and comment for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.
More information: http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/
CONTACT:
Enesta Jones
jones.enesta@epa.gov
202-564-7873
202-564-4355
Gas industry must learn Pennsylvania not for sale
http://tribune-democrat.com/editorials/x1511088498/Gas-industry-must-learn-Pennsylvania-not-for-sale
Edward Smith-Editorial June 29, 2011
Gov. Tom Corbett accepted more than $1 million from the gas industry, got elected, appointed a gas driller to head his transition team, appointed his man to run the Department of Environmental Protection (and regulate the gas industry), and has steadfastly refused to tax the gas industry even though Pennsylvania is the only state without a severance tax.
Drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is a historic, one-time opportunity to produce a big enough source of new revenue for the state to solve some real problems and reduce the growing property tax burden on homeowners and businesses.
The biggest problem facing the state is the miserable quality of public education.
Former Gov. Tom Ridge said his biggest regret was his inability to improve public education.
Pennsylvania has the opportunity to enact a tax on the still-emerging gas drilling industry and earmark the revenue for education and environmental protection.
Earmarking this new revenue to fund education would reduce state spending and go far to balance current and future state budgets. Property taxes should be rolled back to a base year and further increases prohibited.
Pennsylvania’s Environmental Bill of Rights makes its citizens (not the gas companies) beneficiaries and the governor and Legislature trustees.
As a trustee, the governor has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the beneficiaries, not to favor the gas industry.
Legislators have the same responsibility. It’s time they act like trustees.
Corbett has chosen, instead, to make deep cuts in the funding of all public education and avoid taxing the gas industry. The result is likely to be further slippage in the quality of education, higher costs for higher education (already unaffordable for many) and higher property taxes.
An impact fee is not the same as a severance tax, but there should be impact fees on every gas well and there should be an environmental impact statement tied to regulation because the geology on every well is different.
The revenue from impact fees should go to local governments to offset the costs of infrastructure and services.
The revenue from the severance tax should go to the state (but not into the General Fund) and be earmarked for education and environmental protection.
Ridge, now a consultant to the natural gas industry, says that drillers need to improve their image. He might have said that the industry needs to clean up its act and its image.
The oil and gas industry is the only one in America allowed to inject – unchecked – known hazardous, rock-dissolving chemicals into the earth, thus risking contamination of drinking water.
The “Halliburton Loophole” is the name given to the exemption in the Clean Drinking Water Act that exempts the industry from federal regulation.
Halliburton patented the toxic cocktail of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing technique to extract natural gas.
John Hanger, former secretary of the state Department of Environmental Protection, said that frak fluid is “one of the most hazardous materials on earth.”
The New York Times says, “If hydraulic fracturing is as safe as the industry says it is, why should it fear regulation?”
Governmental regulation is all that stands between environmental destruction and an industry that has shown a total disregard for the environment (dumping frak waste into rivers and streams is one example).
As The New York Times pointed out in a series of investigative reports, Pennsylvania was unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with the Marcellus Shale gas drilling dilemma.
When the gas industry gives millions of dollars to candidates, they expect favors in return. They are trying to buy Pennsylvania.
Recently, the industry tried to stack a public hearing held by the U.S. Department of Energy by offering all-expense-paid trips to pro-drilling landowners in northeast Pennsylvania to attend and testify at a public hearing held in Washington, Pa.
Citizens with poisoned wells and those who care about poisoned streams and water tables had to pay their own way.
The gas industry has funded university studies and opinion polls to mold public opinion.
When the gas industry invites regulation, behaves ethically, does not try to buy votes and favors from public officials, avoids half-truths and untruths, accepts responsibility for disasters and protects the environment, it will deserve respect.
Money talks, as it did 100 years ago when mining companies polluted our streams.
But I believe that most Pennsylvanians agree that our state is not for sale.
Edward Smith of Jackson Township is a retired city and county manager.