Shale & Public Health: A conversation that's not fading away

The League of Women Voters of PA presented its third annual Shale & Public Health Conference in Pittsburgh on November 18, and what's abundantly clear is that the nexus of natural gas drilling and public health in Pennsylvania is a subject of continued interest and debate.

A packed room at the University of Pittsburgh's University Club heard a succession of speakers weigh in on impacts to public health from fracking activity in the Marcellus Shale region ranging from compromised air quality to poor outcomes in newborns.

Dr. Bruce Pitt, department chair, University
of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health

Dr. Bruce Pitt, department chair of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, is participating in leading research to better assess perinatal outcomes for mothers in natural gas drilling regions. He noted that there is a fetal basis for adult diseases that can be traced back to the environmental experiences of the mother. Dr. Pitt's current studies are focused on Washington, Butler and Westmoreland counties in southwestern PA -- a heavily-fracked region -- and are showing an increased incidence of babies that are small for gestational age as well as premature births. Dr. Pitt further noted that we need more studies over "an extended period of time" to better assess the public health impacts of natural gas development, and that a 30-year cycle of study makes sense to allow for a full life cycle of fracking plus longer-forming diseases such as certain cancers.

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project's Dr. Jill Kriesky reiterated the need for a registry on the health impacts of fracking in PA. "We need a [fracking] health registry since researchers have determined that there are public health impacts from this activity," said Kriesky. "The goal is for Pennsylvania to have a robust health registry other states would want to replicate so we have this data across the country."

Dr. Brian Schwartz of Johns Hopkins University is the lead on the much-discussed Geisinger study of health impacts in the fracking regions of northeastern Pennsylvania (NEPA). The Geisinger Health System, which has a large presence in NEPA, has an abundance of well-tracked data, making it a good candidate for study. "By using Geisinger data, we're studying the data of people in [fracking] impacted counties," noted Schwartz, adding that the National Institutes of Health is funding three studies to date that are looking at environmental issues and associated health outcomes. One study's key takeaway: An association between fracking and pre-term birth that is 40 percent higher, "conservatively," in fracking regions. Schwartz's continuing research includes studying asthma exacerbation in drilling regions (the disease's latency is short, making it an ideal vehicle to assess fracking impacts) as well as the study of certain cancers including leukemia and tumors.

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, emeritus dean and
professor, Pitt Graduate School of Public Health

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, the emeritus dean and professor of the Pitt Graduate School of Public Health, touched down in Pittsburgh the night before the conference after spending the fall teaching in Cologne, Germany. Consequently, he honed in on the differences in how fracking is viewed in the U.S. and the EU. While European countries with large shale reserves are keen to drill, their public is largely opposed. That's in stark counterpoint to the U.S., where it's unlikely that we'll completely abandon fossil fuels, thereby making it ever clearer that we have to get drilling right for the sake of public health and the environment. Dr. Goldstein continued: "We have not had the oversight we need in Pennsylvania [on shale gas development]. No one on Gov. Corbett's Marcellus Shale Advisory Committee had a public health background."

It was clear after a full day of speakers and breakout sessions that the conversation in PA on shale gas drilling is fluid. However, much more has been learned, especially about the harmful air pollution related to fracking that is leading to negative health outcomes for Pennsylvanians, including our most vulnerable populations.

Consequently, we should continue to push for the strongest possible rules to address air pollution from natural gas drilling including methane emissions from both new and existing sources. Absent strong protections and strict enforcement, we will not be able to ensure good public health and a safe environment.

Elaine Labalme is strategic campaigns director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Seeing is believing: PublicSource and the DEP Air Emissions Inventory

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently released its Air Emissions Inventory, and our Rob Altenburg took the opportunity to break down this dense packet of data to make it more easily understood.

The folks at PublicSource, an investigative news outlet based in southwestern Pennsylvania, took it a step further by creating a series of interactive charts that address key takeaways of the DEP inventory once you take a deeper dive.

Among the items we can now see, in living color, these two stand out:

1. While methane emissions from natural gas operations have decreased statewide, the vast majority of the decline is in categories subject to federal regulation such as "green" well completions. Unregulated sources of methane emissions, such as those from pumps and dehydrators, continue to increase.

2. Six companies accounted for nearly half of all methane emissions in Pennsylvania.

Two things are clear here:

1. Regulations work as evidenced by the decline in the one category subject to federal regulation. But federal rules aren't enough -- Pennsylvania needs to directly regulate methane emissions if it wants to get a handle on this potent greenhouse gas, a climate killer that along with other toxic co-pollutants is contributing to serious public health issues.

2. A comprehensive regulatory framework on methane will ensure that ALL operators in the Commonwealth are adhering to the rules and capturing/controlling emissions. When the level of emissions varies wildly between companies, it's easy to see that we need enforceable standards.

But don't just take my word for it. You can see for yourself, clearly, at PublicSource.

Elaine Labalme is Strategic Campaigns Director at PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Speak up at public hearings on oil and gas regulations

On April 4, 2015, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a “Notice of Final Rulemaking” regarding the state’s updated oil and gas regulations (Chapter 78 and 78a). Over a year ago, the state sought public input on proposed requirements for oil and gas operations and received over 24,000 comments. Some of those comments were incorporated into the revised rule, which was released this month.

The DEP will hold three public hearings on these latest revisions. This is our last chance to weigh in on Chapter 78 and 78a of the PA code (78a, which addresses unconventional “fracked” wells, begins on page 121).

Add your voice at the upcoming hearings to submit concerns about the final rule and to show your support for strong drilling standards. We need our regulators to prioritize our health and communities – to reduce toxic air pollution, preserve our waterways and prevent the harmful fragmentation of our natural lands. 

Listed below are a few of our comments and concerns. We continue to review the proposed rule and will incorporate updates here. You are welcome to use these points to guide your testimony. Feel free to contact us at souter-kline [at] pennfuture.org, with any questions.

PennFuture Chapter 78 and 78a rulemaking comments and concerns:

• We support the DEP’s decision to prohibit new on-site pits for storage of flowback wastewater at unconventional operations, and to require those pits that are currently in use to be closed. 
• The revised rule makes clear that earth disturbance operations must comply with the agency’s Chapter 102 regulations, use best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management, and incorporate the agency’s forest buffer guidance. Further, unconventional well operators that propose to work in a high quality or exceptional value watershed must comply with the anti-degradation requirements of Chapter 102.These improvements will help to protect our most pristine waterways from degradation due to erosion and deforestation. 
• The revised rule recognizes that schools and playgrounds are important public resources, and requires an operator proposing to locate a well within 200 feet to demonstrate what will be done to avoid or mitigate harm to that resource. PennFuture continues to have serious concerns about the impact of air pollution caused by shale gas drilling operations on our children. Young lungs are especially vulnerable to pollution and we would like to see expanded buffers around schools. 
• PennFuture supports the proposal that 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.
• While we support including a noise mitigation plan requirement, we are concerned that the provision will not result in meaningful noise reduction or control at well sites. As outlined, 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. 

Valessa Souter-Kline is western Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @ValessaSK.

Let's clean up Cheswick Power Plant and our air

Photo of Cheswick Power Plant from the author's home

On April 2, 2015, community members met in Springdale, Pa. along with PennFuture partner organizations including Sierra Club, GASP and Women for a Healthy Environment to discuss the impact that pollution from the Cheswick Power Plant has made on the local community and the county. NRG Energy, one of the largest owners of coal burning power plants in the United States, owns the Cheswick plant. In 2013, the plant was the largest major point source of air pollution in Allegheny County.

Major point source pollution makes a major impact on a community. In 2010, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Cheswick’s mortality rate was 87 percent over the national average with diseases linked to air pollution such as cardiovascular disease, COPD, and asthma. Allegheny County has some of the highest rates for asthma in the states and a growing number of cases in children. 

Allegheny County currently violates federal safeguards for particulate and smog standards of the Clean Air Act.The Cheswick Power Plant is a source of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide in the county. In 2013, the plant accounted for half of the nitrogen oxide pollution in the county and was the third largest contributor of fine particles. Upgrades at the plant to limit emissions have helped but Cheswick continues to rank among the highest polluters in the county.Though not a violation, the plant's sulfur output has almost tripled between 2013 and 2014, a worrisome trend. 

There are limits to the amount of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide that a power plant can emit. To meet those limits, plants can install and run pollution control technology or, in some cases, purchase credits to pollute. Currently, Cheswick’s permit allows the facility to emit unhealthy smog-forming pollution (NOx) at a rate that exceeds the capacity of the technology installed to control that pollution. Worse yet, the plant does not consistently run the pollution control technology that is installed onsite. This has contributed to the region’s ongoing elevated smog levels, which continue to violate federal safeguards. 

The Title V permit for the Cheswick Power Plant expires at the end of 2015. These permits are required under the Clean Air Act to establish pollution limits for large emission sources. Environmental groups in the region are reaching out to the Allegheny County Health Department to strengthen the polluting limits of the plant. The permit will be drafted this summer and meetings will be held to collect public input. If you'd like to get involved, email Valessa Souter-Kline (souter-kline[at]pennfuture.org) or add your name to Sierra Club's email campaign to clean up the Cheswick Power Plant.

Guest post by Courtney Mahronich, Project Coordinator for the Trail Town Program and PennFuture volunteer extraordinaire. Courtney lives near the Cheswick Power Plant.

Natural gas lobbyists want to silence "public interests."

At a hearing of Pennsylvania's Oil & Gas Technical Advisory Board (TAB) on March 20 to discuss proposed revisions to the state's oil and gas regulations, natural gas industry lobbyists said that "public interests" should not be among the "considerations" when weighing new drilling standards. We're not kidding -- they really said that, and it was picked up in a story by Laura Legere of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Dave Conti at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review also weighed in.

These lobbyists would just as soon dismiss the over 24,000 public comments submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on the proposed rules, which will cover everything from how to handle fracking wastewater -- to keep it from leaching into our drinking water -- to surface activities at well sites including contamination of our air and land as well as noise and light pollution.

Pennsylvania's oil and gas law, Act 13, was passed in 2012. Since then, industry has been dragging out and delaying the process for common sense rules of the road that will help ensure public health and the environment are protected, a standard requested by Gov. Tom Wolf more than once on the campaign trail and since he took office.

Specific proposals include centralized wastewater impoundments; the placement of well pads near public resources that could include schools, parks and playgrounds; and restoring contaminated drinking water supplies to pre-drilling conditions. Similarly, we will need to address methane emissions -- a potent greenhouse gas -- with strong rules as voluntary measures are not working.

It's outrageous that natural gas interests believe the public interest should be dismissed. The impacts of natural gas drilling, an inherently industrial activity, affect our children and families today and may well into the future. We have a right to be heard, and the TAB has the responsibility of recommending standards that will protect the public interest.

Elaine Labalme is director of communications for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh.

Proposed revisions to state oil and gas regulations announced by DEP

We offered our support this week for proposed revisions to Pennsylvania's oil and gas regulations in the following statement: 

PennFuture today signaled its support for comments made by John Quigley, acting secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), as he announced revisions to the state's proposed oil and gas drilling regulations as listed in 25 pa. Code Chapter 78 (for conventional oil and gas operations) and Chapter 78a (for unconventional oil and gas operations). 

The revised proposal is an update to regulations that were proposed by DEP in December 2013. Those draft regulations were the subject of more than 24,000 comments from stakeholders on all sides of the issue. PennFuture submitted detailed comments urging DEP to strengthen the regulations to better protect public health and the environment. The organization was gratified to learn that the revised regulations are expected to incorporate many of the ideas included in its 46-page comment letter, including:

• elimination of the use of well-site waste storage pits by unconventional well operators;
• permitting of centralized wastewater impoundments only through the Residual Waste Regulations at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 299, which have more stringent engineering requirements and environmental protections than those the DEP originally proposed to include in Chapter 78;
• extension of the time period for agencies in charge of “public resources” to review and comment on plans for oil and gas drilling operations that may impact public resources; and
• explicit language making clear that a drinking water supply contaminated by oil and gas operations must be restored to the better of pre-drill conditions or Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
  "We're pleased to hear Acting Secretary Quigley emphasize the importance of 'protecting public health and the environment,' and undertaking a process that is 'thoughtful, deliberate, and transparent,' as DEP moves toward finalizing these vital regulations by spring of 2016," said John Norbeck, acting president and CEO of PennFuture. "It is paramount that we have strong rules of the road for oil and gas operations in the state. Our citizens have been demanding this, as witnessed by the 70 percent of Pennsylvanians who support the direct regulation of methane emissions."
  The environmental advocacy organization will review the draft Chapter 78 regulations in full when they are made available by DEP. It will then offer additional comment during the upcoming 30-day period for public participation.
  Elaine Labalme is director of communications for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Industry cherry-picks data to downplay methane problem

Our friends at the Allegheny Front provide an excellent "cheat sheet" on President Obama's new methane rules. Not surprisingly, the oil and gas industry opposes the regulations and says self-policing is the answer. (Stop me if you've heard that one before.)

To bolster their position, industry claims that methane emissions are down:

"Industry points to the EPA’s own numbers, which show that, even as oil and gas production has surged, methane emissions have declined by 17 percent."

This is a point that has been made repeatedly by industry types so it's helpful to unpack it -- and set the record straight.

Although Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data shows the industry’s total methane emissions fell 12 percent between 2011 and 2013, emissions from key activities not currently covered by federal standards went up substantially.

Reported declines after 2009 also completely ignore oil well emissions, which account for a substantial share of the sector’s total methane footprint. 

Even those numbers don’t paint the whole picture.

Two other recent national studies suggest EPA’s overall estimates of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are too low by half based on actual methane emissions measured by scientists.

Taken together, there is a body of evidence that shows that methane emissions are a huge problem that needs to be addressed -- which is why EPA's new rules on methane are a solid first step. But much more remains to be done. The good news is that low-cost, high-impact regulations provide an opportunity to help fight climate change, improve air and public health -- and prevent waste of product. The time for action is now.  

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's director of outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets @RexBainbridge.

Corbett Is missing the boat, and we'll pay the price

Four former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrators recently wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times. If Governor Tom Corbett missed it, he needs to read it.

The subject was climate change. The four writers, William Ruckelshaus, Lee Thomas, William Reilly and Christine Todd Whitman, all headed the EPA under Republican presidents - Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush, none of whom are light weights when it comes to conservative credentials. The Op-Ed makes several important points.

First, science does not support the claims of climate change deniers.

"There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: Our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean is warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea levels are rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected."

Second, inaction on climate change has real costs, and we do not have time to wait.

"The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: Delay could mean that warming becomes 'locked in.'"

Third, protection of the environment and public health has always been a conservative value.

"As administrators of the E.P.A ... we held fast to common-sense conservative principles — protecting the health of the American people, working with the best technology available and trusting in the innovation of American business and in the market to find the best solutions for the least cost.

That approach helped us tackle major environmental challenges to our nation and the world: The pollution of our rivers, dramatized when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire in 1969; the hole in the ozone layer; and the devastation wrought by acid rain."

Fourth, conservatives should support President Obama's climate action plan to cut carbon emissions and invest in renewable resources.

"[P]resident Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate."

Finally, action on climate change will promote and not harm the economy.

"We can have both a strong economy and a livable climate. All parties know that we need both. The rest of the discussion is either detail, which we can resolve, or purposeful delay, which we should not tolerate.       

[W]e must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste."

Regrettably, the administration in Harrisburg doesn't get it when it comes to climate change. Governor Corbett dodges questions about whether he believes in global warming, and seemingly lacks serious concern about the consequences of not taking action on climate change. Instead of working to cut carbon emissions and invest in clean energy technology, the Governor rejects any new investments in renewable power, all the while offering billions of dollars in subsidies to coal and gas interests.

In the words of four Republican EPA Administrators:

"[W]e must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste."

Should Governor Corbett continue to hide his head in the sand on climate change, Pennsylvanians will undoubtedly pay the price.