Education symposium held in Kidder Township
http://www.tnonline.com/node/189623
Reported on Thursday, April 14, 2011
By M. CRAIG MCDONALD TN Correspondent tneditor@tnonline.com
A Saturday morning educational symposium on Marcellus Shale was held in the Kidder Township Municipal Building hosted by the Environmental Council.
David T. Messersmith from Penn State Marcellus Education Team fielded questions from residents concerned about various reports conflicting about the safety of “Hydraulic Fracturing” or simply breaking apart Marcellus shale located sometimes more than 1,000 feet below the surface, Messersmith said. Fracturing is using tons of water, chemicals and sand and drilling vertically to a depth of about 1,000 feet or more and moving to a position horizontally drilling where the actual Marcellus is formed looking like a capital L reaching down into the earth.
The rotations of the drill and chemicals of “different” solutions depend on the soil and the area combined. For instance, at first determining if a site is worthy of drilling, studies determine the substance of the soil, sediment, seismic movement, fossil, etc… with millions of gallons of water are literally breaking away the shale and other hard rock moving it back up towards the land surface and into a holding area to be hauled away by what Messersmiths calls, “Trucks, Trucks, and more Trucks.” Impact studies determine what exactly will affect the the entire process, but nothing is entirely certain and outcomes vary greatly.
Back and forth from the drill site trucks must keep vigilance in removing contaminated water and returning with more water to keep the ongoing drilling process active.
The black colored shale is slightly radioactive naturally because it is a source rock for radon gas in addition to small possible radioactive decay of uranium, pyrite. The trace minerals and fears associated with certain compounds raise concerns with handling and moving, making proper training and emergency planning essential.
Someone in the audience said that everyone should be trained. “They should be training everybody in the state,” she said. Others agreed.
Messersmith said that drilling each Marcellus well requires 410 individuals, almost 150 different occupations, 11.5 fulltime direct jobs, he said. That is just drilling though.
While Marcellus Shale has always been in Pennsylvania, tapping the natural resource was not considered as a viable means for energy conversion due in part because of the depth in mining and costs associated in production. Methods used to tap the natural gas have not been productive and developing it has been arduous.
Hydraulic fracturing is seen as a boost to producing the natural gas effectively more than ever before and at a profit to oil and gas companies who before saw next to no profit or slow profit with the shale.
Prior to 2000, older wells tapping into Pennsylvania Marcellus did not produce much, and production rates decline over time up until hydraulic fracturing was introduced, according to the website, Geology.com, which Messersmiths referred to in his research, most gas wells decline over time, however with a second hydraulic fracturing treatment it possibly could be used to restimulate production from old wells.
This question was posed by an audience member who asked what will happen when a well dries up.
While the industry is in its infancy regarding Hydraulic Fracturing, and the danger of polluting water systems is relatively uncertain, the 2005 Energy Policy Act exempts Fracturing giving an appearance of credibility to the operation.
Additionally, Hydraulic Fracturing is currently exempt from EPA regulation. However New York State has taken a stand and currently has a moratorium in effect on Fracturing because of the direct proximity of the shale to its watershed.
The FRAC ACT of 2009 was introduced identically in both houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate and most recently was neglected when it was overshadowed by the budget earlier this year, the FRAC Act stands for, FRACTURING RESPONSIBILITY AND AWARENESS OF CHEMICALS ACT, and it was was supposed to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to allow the EPA to regulate Hydraulic Fracturing. Also, it was intended to do something else, it was supposed to regulate the Fracturing that was taking place in states which have not taken UIC Regulation which is Underground Injection Control, some states have not taken the UIC Regulation.The Bill would require the Energy Industry to reveal what chemicals are being used in the sand water mixture in Hydraulic Fracturing. The EPA states that it is unable to track migration of pollutants and chemicals in fracturing fluid. The Scientific Review Board has reviewed a STUDY plan to be completed by 2012, the EPA will have its report by 2014 titled, Hydraulic Fracturing Report.
Some States have voluntarily adopted the UIC. Sen. Bob Casey, D. Pa. and Chuck Schumer, D. NY introduced the Senate Version of the FRAC Act. It is not known if it will enter the arena this year for a vote, or if it has any chance of passing given the Country’s dependance on energy, job creation, and the Pa. Governors aggressive stance on making Pa. a Corporate friendly place to do business.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America who has a vested interest in the Pa. Marcellus Shale as small amounts of Petroleum can be welled in addition to the shale, believes it is an unnecessary expense to pass the Frac Act which could cost each tap an additional 100,000.00.. The Lobbying Group for the Oil and Gas Industry “Energy in Depth” believes progress would be stunted if the Act would pass. They also contend that the industry reports all chemicals used in all processes for public inspection on the OSHA website, in the Material Data Safety Sheets.
In the report by the Geological Survey of Pennsylvania Board of Comissioners, J. Peter Lesley surveyed the Marcellus Valley along Broadheads Creek dipping North more and more steeply until the formation at Weissport on the Lehigh River it plunges vertically under the Mon Mountain. Pg. 1254. The report identifies north eastern Pa. and New York as rich in Marcellus shale.
Some Chemicals in Fracturing fluid include kerosene, benzene, formaldehyde and many others chemicals depending upon the composite and reaction of the compounds in the project well site. For instance, as an example only, Hickory Run Forest has a well which may have high carbon content and geologists may determine a mixture suitable for the Hydraulic Fracturing content to break through without blowing out a methane pocket situated nearby.
Gas permits rubber stamped
Pennsylvania environmental regulators say they spend as little as 35 minutes reviewing each of the thousands of applications for natural gas well permits they get each year from drillers intent on tapping the state’s lucrative and vast Marcellus Shale reserves.
ALLENTOWN — Pennsylvania environmental regulators say they spend as little as 35 minutes reviewing each of the thousands of applications for natural gas well permits they get each year from drillers intent on tapping the state’s lucrative and vast Marcellus Shale reserves.
And the regulators say they do not give any additional scrutiny to requests to drill near high-quality streams and rivers even though the waterways are protected by state and federal law.
Staffers in the state Department of Environmental Protection testified behind closed doors last month as part of a lawsuit filed by residents and environmental groups over a permit that DEP issued for an exploratory gas well in Northeastern Pennsylvania, less than a half-mile from the Delaware River and about 300 feet from a pristine stream.
Their statements, obtained by The Associated Press, call into question whether regulators are overburdened and merely rubber-stamping permit applications during the unprecedented drilling boom that has turned Pennsylvania into a major player in the natural gas market, while also raising fears about polluted aquifers and air.
The agency has denied few requests to drill in the Marcellus Shale formation, the world’s second-largest gas field. Of the 7,019 applications that DEP has processed since 2005, only 31 have been rejected — less than one-half of 1 percent.
“Even those of us who are skeptics of the DEP, I think we all want to assume that they’re doing the basics. And they’re really just not,” said Jordan Yeager, a plaintiffs’ attorney who is challenging the drilling permit awarded to Newfield Appalachia PA LLC, a unit of Houston-based Newfield Exploration Co.
The agency declined to comment about any aspect of its permit review process, even to answer general questions.
But the depositions of four DEP staffers responsible for processing permits — taken in late March and filed with a regional water agency this week — reveal that:
• The agency doesn’t consider potential impacts on legally protected high-quality watersheds, beyond checking that wells meet minimum setbacks required of all gas wells in the state.
• Staffers don’t consider whether proposed gas wells comply with municipal or regional zoning and planning laws.
• They don’t consider the cumulative impact of wide-scale development of wells in a concentrated area.
• They appear to have a fuzzy understanding of laws that are supposed to govern their work. A supervisor was unable to define the requirements of a key anti-degradation regulation that says pristine waterways “shall be maintained and protected,” while a geologist said he didn’t know that streams and rivers legally designated as “high quality” or “exceptional value” are entitled to an extra layer of protection.
Asked by Yeager whether he had “any understanding of what it means to be an HQ watershed,” DEP geologist Joseph Lichtinger replied: “Only that it means high quality.”
“Any understanding what high quality means?” Yeager persisted.
“No.”
“Do you know what that means in terms of the level of protection that they have under the law?”
Lichtinger, who performed the substantive technical analysis of drilling permit applications, shook his head, then answered no.
Lichtinger and his supervisors also acknowledged they did not take into account that Newfield’s test well would be drilled within the federally protected wild and scenic Delaware River corridor.
The geologist testified he spent as little as a half-hour, and up to a full day, scrutinizing each individual application. His direct supervisor, Brian Babb, testified he took an average of two minutes per application to review Lichtinger’s work. Finally, Craig Lobins, a regional manager with the oil and gas program, told plaintiffs’ attorneys he typically spent another two minutes on each application before signing off on the permit.
“What these depositions reveal is that the state is doing next to nothing in approving permits, even in the Delaware River basin, even in high quality watersheds, even in the wild and scenic river corridor,” Yeager told The AP. “All together, they are spending less than 35 minutes in approving these $5 million industrial sites that have the ability to pollute the water that’s relied upon by (millions of) people. It is unconscionable.”
But Yeager said he didn’t fault the DEP rank-and-file.
“They’ve got limited time to do a massive job. What we have allowed DEP to do is to terribly understaff this permitting process,” he said. “If we’re getting it wrong in this case, we’re getting it wrong for every well site that’s being developed.”
State law generally requires DEP to process applications within 45 days. It’s DEP policy to give drilling companies their money back if they fail to consider permits in a timely fashion. Permit fees for Marcellus Shale wells — raised recently to pay for additional enforcement staff — cost between $900 and $3,000, depending on the depth of the well bore.
Citing the lawsuit, former DEP Secretary John Hanger declined comment on the specifics of the depositions, or on the sufficiency of the permit review process. But he pointed out that overall staffing in the oil and gas division increased from 88 in 2008 to 202 in 2010, and that some of those positions were in permit review.
“The staffing issues are ones the department needs to review constantly as this industry evolves and changes,” said Hanger, who left office in January when Republican Gov. Tom Corbett took office.
Hanger also repeated his call for modernization of Pennsylvania’s 25-year-old oil and gas law, though he said a new regulation that mandates 150-foot buffers from pristine waterways will help protect more than 25,000 miles of high-quality streams and rivers.
DEP awarded a drilling permit to Newfield last May. It was among a handful of exploratory wells grandfathered by the Delaware River Basin Commission, a federal-interstate agency that monitors water supplies for 15 million people, including half the population of New York City. DRBC has declared a moratorium on almost all Marcellus Shale drilling in the watershed while it drafts regulations.
The Newfield well was sunk about 300 feet from Hollister Creek, whose legal designation as high quality means it supports an abundance of fish and other wildlife. In November, DEP site inspectors found deficiencies in Newfield’s erosion and sedimentation control plan and required the company to make fixes.
The plaintiffs, which include the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the Damascus Citizens for Sustainability and three nearby property owners, have appealed Newfield’s DEP permit to the state Environmental Hearing Board. They want the well decommissioned and the site restored to its original state. A hearing on the appeal is scheduled for late May.
April 14, 2011
MICHAEL RUBINKAM
http://www.timesleader.com/news/AP__Gas_permits__rubber_stamped_04-13-2011.html
Drilling wastewater partially treated and dumped into rivers and streams
State’s treatment of fracking water controversial
Hydraulic fracturing is a drilling process that blasts large amounts of water deep into the earth to fracture dense shale and allow natural gas to escape.
The water — from a few hundred thousand to several million gallons — is mixed with sand and chemicals — some of them toxic or potentially carcinogenic. Some of that fracking liquid then gushes back to the surface, often with natural underground brine, in a brew that is intensely salty and often contains barium, strontium and sometimes radium from the earth.
In Texas and other states, the liquids are disposed of in deep injection wells; Pennsylvania is the only major gas-producing state that routinely allows fracking wastewater to be partially treated and dumped into rivers and streams from which communities get their drinking water.
Researchers have been examining whether the discharges might be dangerous to humans or wildlife.
Industry officials, some scientists and Pennsylvania officials insist the practice is safe, if controlled properly, because the relatively small amounts of drilling wastewater discharged are diluted by the state’s rivers.
They also argue that many of the most common pollutants in the waste aren’t very dangerous, even when ingested, and that people would need to drink large amounts over a very long period to become ill.
Several studies are under way.
At least 269 million gallons of wastewater went to treatment plants in Pennsylvania for river discharge in the 18 months ending Dec. 31, according to an Associated Press review of reports filed with the state’s Department of Environmental Protection. Millions more gallons of wastewater went unaccounted for because of weaknesses in the state’s tracking system.
DEP records also show some public water utilities downstream from plants treating wastewater have struggled with unacceptable levels of trihalomethanes, carcinogens sometimes linked to drilling waste.
Most of Pennsylvania’s largest drillers say their river discharges are safely diluted but are taking steps nonetheless to reuse the waste liquids and end the partial treatment and river discharges. Despite those recycling efforts, treatment plants that discharge into rivers were still accepting a large volume of drilling wastewater late last year.
The Environmental Protection Agency, citing the potential danger to human health and aquatic life, asked last month that Pennsylvania regulators begin water sampling for radium and other contaminants. The agency plans a major national study looking at how fracking in the Marcellus, Barnett and other shale regions may already have affected drinking water — and at potential impacts.
Pennsylvania announced recently that it will expand the scope of water tests to screen for radioactive pollutants and other contaminants, but state officials insisted they aren’t doing it because federal regulators prodded them.
The drilling industry insists that fracking water blasted deep underground cannot contaminate underground water aquifers that are separated by thousands of feet of rock. Drilling may have polluted several aquifers another way: by methane gas seeping through shoddy cement jobs in drilled wells in Pennsylvania, Texas, and other states, then migrating into drinking water wells.
In Pennsylvania alone, regulators issued 1,400 citations to drilling companies for regulatory violations between January 2008 and June 2010, according to The Pennsylvania Land Trust Association, an environmental group. Two-thirds of the violations caused or had the potential to cause environmental damage, from chemical spills to improperly lined sludge pits, the group said.
Texas regulators do not separate gas drilling violations from those for oil drilling, making an accurate comparison with Pennsylvania impossible.
Fracking, along with horizontal drilling, allows recovery of natural gas from huge and lucrative shale reserves. In recent years, that has set off a gold rush of leasing and drilling activity, leaving regulators in Pennsylvania scrambling to keep up.
President Barack Obama, in a recent visit to Pennsylvania, said “science” must be done to ensure that natural gas is extracted safely.
“We’ve got to make sure that as we’re extracting it from the ground, that the chemicals that are being used don’t leach into the water,” he said. “Nobody is an environmentalist until you get sick.”
Associated Press writer Ramit Plushnick-Masti contributed to this report.
MICHAEL RUBINKAM and DAVID B. CARUSO
April 14, 2011
http://www.timesleader.com/news/State_rsquo_s_treatment_of_fracking_water_controversial_04-13-2011.html
Marcellus shale gas may head overseas
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_731595.html
By Lou Kilzer and Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Drilling companies rapidly expanding their U.S. operations in places such as Pennsylvania’s vast Marcellus shale formation repeatedly tout they are providing American jobs and securing the nation’s energy future.
Yet, a Tribune-Review examination found foreign companies are buying significant shares of these drilling projects and making plans for facilities to liquify and ship more of that natural gas overseas.
A leading player in the natural gas grab is China, whose thirst for energy to fuel its industrial explosion is growing rapidly. Others include the governments of South Korea and India, and companies in Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Japan and Australia.
“They’re going to come in, extract all this stuff for next-to-nothing, and make global profits off it,” said Pittsburgh Councilman Doug Shields. “This is beads for Manhattan, in a global sense.”
Much of the salesmanship to promote gas exploration nationwide, and especially in Pennsylvania, pressed the point that the country must become less dependent upon foreign energy sources.
It avoided discussion about exporting that gas overseas.
“The implications are great,” said Paul Cicio, president of Industrial Energy Consumers of America, which represents large U.S. manufacturers. He believes exporting newfound natural gas is a strategic blunder that will cost American manufacturing jobs by hiking the price of gas here.
“This is not good for our country,” he said.
Read more
Critics say chemical registry doesn’t do enough
The release of a national online registry of hydraulic fracturing chemicals this week has received qualified praise but has not stemmed calls for more disclosure about the natural gas extraction process.
Fracfocus.org went live on Monday with 24 participating companies, including many natural gas operators active in Pennsylvania. The voluntary registry was developed by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and includes information on toxic chemicals gathered from materials safety sheets. It does not include proprietary or trade secret information.
As of Tuesday, the chemicals used to fracture 30 wells in Pennsylvania have been posted online by three companies: Chesapeake Energy, Seneca Resources and EQT Production.
Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, said in a statement Tuesday that the new site “is a critical tool, and represents a positive step toward further heightening transparency,” one of the organization’s goals.
“This online database should also bring closure to the question of what and how many additives are used in the fracturing process,” she said.
But critics said the voluntary registry does not answer those questions.
Lesser-known chemicals are often not included on the materials safety sheets, whether or not they are toxic, and so will not be included in the registry.
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., who testified Tuesday about the risks and benefits of gas drilling during a Senate committee hearing, said in an interview that the new registry “is voluntary and there’s no oversight. Those are two basic problems there.”
“This isn’t enough, but any progress is welcome,” he said.
Casey recently reintroduced the FRAC Act, a bill that would require chemical disclosure from all drilling companies including a provision that companies release proprietary information to health professionals if it is needed for treatment.
The FRAC Act would similarly create an online registry of chemicals on a well-by-well basis, but it would also require drillers to disclose what they plan to use before they fracture a well, as well as a post-fracturing report.
“I think the legislation is consistent with what the people of our state expect and should have a right to expect: that we’re going to have not just full and fair disclosure, but also a regulatory structure which is consistent with the concerns we have about groundwater, drinking water, quality of life and the environment,” he said.
The hydraulic fracturing process, which the industry contends has never polluted drinking water, has been criticized because companies have been reluctant to reveal the exact composition of the chemicals they use – making it difficult to prove contamination is caused by gas drilling.
The national registry follows similar voluntary efforts by individual companies, including Range Resources, Chief Oil and Gas and Halliburton.
Pennsylvania began requiring disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing as part of a slate of regulations enacted in February. But, unlike Wyoming, which has adopted disclosure rules that mandate drillers reveal all the chemicals they use, Pennsylvania’s rules only require drillers to list the chemicals described on materials safety sheets.
The commonwealth has also not yet made the information available online.
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer llegere@timesshamrock.com)
Published: April 13, 2011
http://republicanherald.com/news/critics-say-chemical-registry-doesn-t-do-enough-1.1131945
Webinar on Marcellus Shale natural-gas trends offered on April 21
The webinar on April 21 will cover the latest trends in Marcellus shale gas-drillig leases, royalties and production.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — The latest trends in Marcellus Shale natural-gas leases, royalties and production will be discussed by experts in a Web-based seminar April 21, sponsored by Penn State Extension.
Les Greevy, of Greevy and Associates in Williamsport, Pa., and Kris Vanderman, of Vanderman Law in Charleroi, Pa. — both firms that specialize in representing clients with Marcellus Shale natural-gas interests — will make presentations in the webinar.
“We started with Extension in 2005-06, doing educational programs for landowners, and we represent many people with gas-drilling leases,” Greevy said. “We have been dealing with issues such as going from the lease stage to the production stage, estate planning, protecting assets and tax issues.
“A lot of leases are starting to run out, so we are starting a whole new cycle of leases. We’ll be discussing that, as well as pipeline-property issues and trends in contract addenda, royalty payments and cash-bonus payments.”
Greevy noted that business dealings with gas-drilling companies have changed somewhat in northcentral Pennsylvania. “The trend that we are seeing now in leasing is less competition between companies,” he said. “Previously you had any number of companies competing for leases and there was rapid growth in leasing.
“Now, the gas companies have pretty much staked out geographic areas that they’re interested in and are not competing quite as much, and as a result, prices are down a little, and the ability to get protective addenda in leases is diminished.”
Vanderman, whose firm represents only individuals and groups with land to lease — and never the gas-drilling companies — has seen the same kind of consolidation in leasing by the companies in the state’s southwestern corner. And he also has witnessed a similar resulting drop in lease payments to and leverage for landowners.
“Right now, there is an active swapping of leases between companies, and they are carving out their territories,” he said. “You have companies that are more or less dominant in areas,and this consolidation of territory by lease swaps or farm-out agreements is ongoing.”
Regarding the trend towards landowners having less ability to insert protective addenda into leases, Vanderman indicated that companies from out-of-state now appear less flexible than they had been when the Marcellus play was newer in Pennsylvania. However, in the southwest there are two “home” companies, EQT and CNX — the third, Atlas, was just aquired by Chevron — that help keep competition in play, which is helpful for some landowners depending on geography.
“I can say unequivocally the hand of Texas is revealed,” he said. “Some of the newest ‘standard offer’ leases are extraordinarily — even dramatically — favorable to the interests of the lessee gas companies. The issue here is, what is a landowner willing to concede for money?”
Vanderman noted that, during the webinar, he intends to also talk about environmental progress that has been made voluntarily by operators in the southwest part of the state. “That includes on-site water-treatment systems that have been implemented, recycling of flowback water from fracking operations and installation of underground water-piping systems to remove truck traffic from the roads,” he said.
The webinar is part of a series of workshops and events addressing circumstances 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.
< http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas >
Future webinars will include speakers on the following topics: the impacts of the natural-gas industry on landfill operations; air quality issues related to unconventional gas plays; a research update on the effects of Marcellus Shale drilling on wildlife habitat; and current legal issues in Marcellus Shale development.
Previous webinars, publications and information on topics such as water use and quality, zoning, gas-leasing considerations for landowners and implications for local communities also are available on the Extension natural-gas website.
For more information, contact John Turack, extension educator in Westmoreland County, at 724-837-1402 or jdt15@psu.edu.
Friday, April 8, 2011
http://live.psu.edu/story/52684#nw69
Pitt: Departing shale drilling opponent free to speak his mind
A researcher and Marcellus shale drilling opponent who said he is leaving the University of Pittsburgh over “philosophical differences” can speak his mind about environmental dangers of natural gas extraction, Pitt officials said yesterday.
Researcher Conrad “Dan” Volz told the Tribune-Review for a story on Sunday that he would step down as director of Pitt’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities because the university said he could not be an advocate for public and environmental health causes. He said yesterday that he expects to leave by the end of May.
“The university does not oppose Dr. Volz’s personally held views,” said Allison Schlesinger, spokeswoman for Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health, where Volz worked since 2004. “He, like any other researcher or faculty member, has the academic freedom to study and research anything he’d like and to express his views based on that research and study.”
Volz is scheduled to testify today before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works in Washington. He will discuss a March research report about nine toxic pollutants found in water from a stream near a wastewater treatment facility for Marcellus shale gas and oil extraction wells in Indiana County.
Asked whether the university reviewed the veracity of Volz’s research work, Schlesinger said she could not comment because it is a personnel matter. She emphasized that Volz voluntarily stepped down without pressure from Pitt administrators. The center does not receive money from the gas industry.
Dr. Donald S. Burke, dean of the graduate school, declined requests for an interview. Volz’s work was not published in an academic journal, which is standard practice for university researchers. Journal publication involves independent peer review of data.
Schlesinger said Volz “is not representing the University of Pittsburgh” when he testifies.
Critics questioned Volz’s March 23 report on samplings of effluent from a facility that treats brine wastewater from oil and gas operations and discharges into Blacklick Creek. The criticism focused on sampling conducted on only one day at three-hour intervals and comparisons Volz made between treated effluent and federal drinking water standards and state environmental regulations.
Volz issued a revised report March 25. Among revisions the Tribune-Review found, he changed risk levels for certain pollutants from a general mean standard to specific toxic levels for adults and children.
Other changes acknowledged the facility’s permit does not require treatment of bromide and some other agents used to extract gas through hydraulic rock fracturing but notes operators must notify the state “if they routinely discharge” certain amounts of pollutants.
Volz said last week that the errors did not change his conclusions, including the fact that pollutants such as barium, bromide and benzene were found in quantities “over either human health or ecological health standards.” The levels, he said, pose a threat to recreationists who might drink the water, come in contact with it while kayaking or take fish from impacted waterways.
“I took samples, and we analyzed them,” Volz said yesterday. “I don’t know what could be wrong.”
Pitt’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities will continue to conduct such research with a goal of improving the environment, Schlesinger said. The center operates with a $2 million grant from The Heinz Endowments.
Doug Root, a spokesman for the foundation, said he expects that funding will continue.
By Luis Fabregas
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_731825.html
The less Gov. Corbett wants to talk about a tax on gas drillers, the more it gets discussed
HARRISBURG — Sitting in a state House hearing on Gov. Tom Corbett’s $27.3 billion budget proposal, Charles Zogby reached his boiling point.
Pressed repeatedly on his boss’s opposition to a “severance tax” on natural gas drillers, Corbett’s usually unflappable budget secretary snapped at Democratic members of the House Appropriations Committee.
“We can talk about this until the cows come,” said Zogby, who, with his sharply parted hair and impeccably knotted ties brings an executive’s poise to the coffee-ringed culture of state government. “The governor is not interested in raising taxes. Period.”
But Zogby can only wish it were that easy to shut down debate on a severance tax, a levy on the gas that drillers take out of the ground. With scores of state programs under the knife to close a $4.1 billion budget deficit, the chorus of those unwilling to let the subject drop has grown louder.
“This has become the issue of the moment,” said G. Terry Madonna, a political science professor and pollster at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster. “It started out as a regular policy debate, but it grew geometrically into the single most important issue outside of the budget.”
Corbett, who ran on a pledge not to raise state taxes or fees, has made it clear that he will not sign a severance tax into law. But partisans have continued to press their argument, hoping that public opinion, which is already strong, will pressure Corbett into a change of heart.
Those on both sides of the issue agree on this much: The burgeoning natural gas industry represents a massive economic opportunity for modern Pennsylvania in much the same way steel and coal did for previous generations. All concerned say they want to help the industry flourish while protecting the environment. But they differ profoundly on how to pay for that.
For supporters, the argument in favor of a severance tax is a simple one: With drillers making untold billions by extracting natural gas from beneath taxpayers’ feet, there’s no reason Pennsylvania should stand alone among major gas-producing states in not imposing a levy. That’s particularly true, they say, when services for children and the most vulnerable citizens are on the line.
Corbett and tax foes argue that gas drillers already pay other types of state taxes, and that a new levy would force them to move to other gas-producing states where it costs less for them to do business. They also say the industry has been an economic engine in economically stagnant and mostly rural sections of the state.
State Sens. John Yudichak, D-Luzerne and Edwin B. Erickson, R-Delaware, recently rolled out a severance tax proposal. It is at least the second such plan hatched during the new legislative session.
“I think we should have a severance tax on Marcellus gas,” Erickson said. “I do hear him [Corbett] loud and clear on [not raising taxes]; on the other hand,” there are impacts from gas drilling that need to be addressed.
That kind of talk from within his own party has left Corbett, who has crisscrossed Pennsylvania in recent weeks to plug his budget plan, spending time and energy explaining and re-explaining his opposition to the levy.
“The message in the last campaign was clear — no new taxes,” Corbett recently told a statewide meeting of county commissioners. “The people are fed up with taxes.”
But it’s unclear whether Corbett was echoing public sentiment or merely reaffirming his election season vow for his political base.
It is clear state voters don’t want their own taxes raised to preserve cuts in state services. But a majority of voters do support a severance tax.
Sixty-two percent of respondents to a March 17 Franklin & Marshall poll said they strongly or somewhat supported a drilling tax, compared with 30 percent who opposed it. The survey of 521 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.
“There is virtually no tax that passes [public] muster,” Madonna said. “[A severance tax] is the only [one] that passes muster.”
Another problem for Corbett: Voters aren’t buying his tax-them-and-they’ll-leave argument, said Christopher Borick, a pollster and political science professor at Muhlenberg College in Allentown. And in a year in which Corbett is calling for shared sacrifice from the public, voters are having a hard time understanding why the cash-flush drilling industry isn’t being asked to shoulder some of the burden.
“From a political sale position, that’s an incredibly difficult case to make and the more he makes the case [against], the more he infuriates a lot of people,” Borick said. “If that’s his core argument, it’s not getting a lot of traction.”
Democrats have made the same point.
“It’s absolutely indefensible, as a matter of public policy, that the governor has refused to consider a Marcellus shale tax when other states have this tax and we’re considering other cuts,” said Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware, who raised Zogby’s hackles at that House hearing. “When the people of my district hear that he’s received … donations and refuses to consider a tax, they think he’s in the pockets of the gas companies.”
Corbett has steadfastly rejected any notion that gas drillers gained influence with his office when they pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into his campaign coffers in 2010. Nonetheless, those donations have created an image problem.
“When they see the donations, it opens you up to criticism,” Borick said. “It doesn’t prevent the public from reaching conclusions that are negative.”
The state House and Senate each passed severance tax proposals last year, but ran out the clock before they could reconcile differences between the two proposals. Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, stood ready to sign a severance levy into law.
Despite Corbett’s opposition to the severance levy, he has expressed a willingness to consider a locally imposed impact fee aimed at helping counties and municipalities cover costs associated with drilling, such as damaged roads. Corbett laid down parameters for his consideration: that such a levy not be called a “tax” and a guarantee that any money raised from it go to local and county governments — not the state’s general fund budget.
“I understand the issue of impacts,” Corbett told the county commissioners. “That’s one of the reasons I have a Marcellus Commission. And we’ll be talking about that. That’s one of the reasons I have my lieutenant governor as chairman. So we can work with you.”
It’s unclear what effect such a fee would have on the question of a severance tax.
April 10, 2011
By John L. Micek, CALL HARRISBURG BUREAU
john.micek@mcall.com
(717) 783-7305
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pa-budget-shale-debate-20110410,0,6359202.story
State may limit drilling byproduct from being spread on farms
Pennsylvania is seeking to limit the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer on farmers’ fields if the sludge comes from sewer plants that treat wastewater from natural gas drilling.
Environmental regulators’ concerns about the sludge were highlighted in a New York Times article on Friday that described the risks of radioactive contaminants in the drilling wastewater concentrating in the sludge during treatment. The sludge, also called biosolids, is sometimes sold or given away to farmers and gardeners as fertilizer if it meets certain standards for pathogens and metals.
The Times article quotes from a transcript of a March 15 conference call between officials with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Environmental Protection about how to better regulate discharges of the wastewater that can be high in salts, metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials.
DEP is developing a guidance document about how to include new wastewater treatment standards into permits for new or expanding treatment plants that handle the drilling fluids. The new standards limit the amount of salty discharge, called total dissolved solids, that can enter state streams.
The draft guidance document would also bar treatment plants that receive untreated drilling wastewater from using their sludge for land application.
Ron Furlan, a division manager for DEP’s Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation, is quoted in the the New York Times as saying sludge was included in the guidance document because “we don’t have a good handle on the radiological concerns right now, and in any case we don’t want people land-applying biosolids that may be contaminated to any significant level by radium 226-228 or other emitters.”
The guidance does not carry the legal weight of a regulation and would not be imposed on treatment plants unless their discharge permit is up for renewal or they apply for a new or expanded permit.
The draft guidance also proposes that treatment plants accepting untreated drilling wastewater develop radiation protection “action plans” and have monitoring requirements for radium 226 and 228, gross alpha and uranium established in their permits.
In a letter this week to the EPA, DEP Acting Secretary Michael Krancer wrote that the state has directed 14 public water supplies that draw from rivers downstream from treatment plants that accept Marcellus Shale wastewater to test the finished drinking water for radioactive contaminants and other pollutants. The state also called on 25 treatment plants that accept the wastewater to begin twice monthly testing for radioactivity in their discharges.
Tests of seven state rivers at sites downstream from wastewater treatment plants last fall showed that levels of radioactivity were at or below normal levels.
In the conference call quoted by the New York Times, environmental regulators also expressed concerns about radionuclides settling in the sediment of rivers where the incompletely treated wastewater is discharged from sewer plants.
“If you were really looking for radionuclides, that’s the first place I would look,” Furlan said.
DEP spokeswoman Katy Gresh said Friday that there are currently no plans to begin testing river sediment for radionuclides.
“We will use the results of the increased testing/monitoring to see what is being discharged before making that decision,” she said.
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: April 9, 2011
http://citizensvoice.com/news/state-may-limit-drilling-byproduct-from-being-spread-on-farms-1.1130088#axzz1J1xZtYwG
Radioactive Frack Waste Dumping Prohibited
W.Va. bans wastewater from being let loose in rivers, streams, wells
WHEELING – West Virginia environmental regulators do not allow natural gas companies to dump radioactive frack water from drilling sites into streams, rivers or injection wells.
Pennsylvania regulators are preparing to screen the frack water for radioactive elements such as uranium and radium.
These elements are found in fracking wastewater because they are naturally occurring in the earth.
Mountain State officials said such rules are already in place in West Virginia to prevent these elements from entering the state’s water supplies.
“Back in 2009, we informed the wastewater treatment plants that if they wanted to try to treat the frack water, there were 41 parameters beyond what they were currently testing for that they would be required to monitor, and one of those was for radiation,” said West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman Kathy Cosco.
“If a wastewater treatment plant came to us and said, ‘We want to try to treat this fluid,’ it is already understood that they would be required to test for those parameters and the radiation,” she added.
Marcellus Shale Coalition President Kathryn Klaber admits natural gas development can release radioactive materials, but said the levels of the released elements do not pose much of a hazard.
The coalition is a Canonsburg, Pa.-based group whose members include drilling companies such as Chesapeake Energy, Range Resources, along with others.
“In Pennsylvania, we are now required to treat the water to the point that it is drinkable by the time it leaves our facilities,” she added.
Prodded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania regulators said they are expanding the scope of water tests to screen for radioactive pollutants and other contaminants. The tests should check for radium, uranium and the salty dissolved solids that could potentially make drilling wastewater environmentally damaging, according to letters Keystone State officials sent to 14 public water authorities and 25 wastewater facilities.
Radium that is swallowed or inhaled can accumulate in a person’s bones. Long-term exposure increases the risk of developing several diseases, such as lymphoma, bone cancer, and diseases that affect the formation of blood, EPA officials said.
Most major gas producing states require drillers to dump their wastewater into deep shafts drilled into the earth to prevent it from contaminating surface water.
Although it has moved to limit it, Pennsylvania allows partially treated drilling wastewater to be discharged into rivers from which communities draw drinking water.
Some Pennsylvania drilling wastewater is reused or trucked out-of-state for disposal underground. Cosco said West Virginia does not allow frack water to be injected into these underground wells, but Ohio does. The well David Hill Inc. is drilling at the top of Kirkwood Heights near Bridgeport may become one of these injection wells, prompting Belmont County Township Association President Greg Bizzarri to recently say, “It seems like, basically, Ohio is a dumping ground.”
Of the wastewater that was taken to Pennsylvania treatment plants in recent months, the great majority went to seven plants that discharge into the Allegheny River, the Mahoning River, the Conemaugh River, the Blacklick Creek, the Monongahela River, the Susquehanna River and the South Fork Ten-mile Creek.
Last month, the Pennsylvania DEP said earlier tests from those seven waterways showed no harmful levels of radium, which exists naturally underground and is sometimes found in drilling wastewater that gushes from wells.
EPA spokeswoman Donna Heron said her agency would review the Keystone State’s situation, noting, “We will continue to work closely with the state of Pennsylvania on all the issues involving Marcellus Shale.”The EPA is currently planning a nationwide study on the environmental consequences, particularly the impact on the quality and quantity of water.
Though Klaber said the issue of radioactivity may be exaggerated by some of those who oppose natural gas development, she also knows there are legitimate community concerns for her industry to address.
“We are trying to respond to those concerns,” she said. “We have to make sure we get this right, considering how important drinking water is.”
April 8, 2011
By CASEY JUNKINS – Staff Writer With AP Dispatches , The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register
http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/553874/Radioactive-Frack-Waste-Dumping-Prohibited.html?nav=515