Air

Fracking investigation finds toxic emissions at drill sites

By Susan Lamb

Updated: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 03:12

There is new evidence that hydraulic fracturing poses a threat to air quality.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the Chesapeake Bay, conducted an infrared video investigation this spring of air pollution emitting from 15 hydraulic fracturing sites in Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia.

The organization said it found emissions at 11 of the sites.CBF said last week that it had sent the videos along with a letter, dated Nov. 29, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The letter laid out general and specific objections to how the EPA currently handles gas emissions and air pollution.

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, releases natural gas from subsurface rock formations by drilling into the ground and pumping water and chemicals down to fracture the bedrock and release the gas. The Southern Tier sits on top of the Marcellus Shale, a formation of rock that stretches beneath several other nearby states that contains one of the country's largest deposits of natural gas.

Tom Pelton, senior writer and investigative reporter for CBF, said his organization undertook the study to attempt to find answers to ongoing debates about air pollution caused by fracking.

"We decided to do our own examination and decided it seemed quite common," Pelton said. "Methane emissions is quite a problem. We picked sites after we had become aware [that fracking causes air pollution] after a period of a couple years."

CBF looked at 15 fracking sites and compressor stations, which pressurize gas during transport from one location to another. 13 of the sites are located in Pennsylvania, one is in Maryland and one is in West Virginia.

The sites CBF surveyed are operated by EOG Resources, Inc., Williams Production Appalachia LLC Hollenbeck, Cabot Oil & Gas, Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC and Texas Eastern Transmission LP, among others.

The companies were not aware that their sites were being filmed, Pelton said.

"We picked sites that were accessible to public roads," Pelton said. "[We] didn't want to notify them in advance [because the companies might have] shut off emissions."

George Stark, director of external affairs of Cabot Oil & Gas, confirmed that the company was not aware that their sites were being filmed from public roads.

"No, I was not aware of the video," Stark said. "The [Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection] has done studies and determined there was no negative impact from methane emissions."

Pelton, accompanied by David Sawyer of Sawyer Infrared Inspection Services, Optical Gas Imaging, shot footage of the sites in May and June. They used both a standard video camera and a Flir GasFindIR infrared camera, designed to detect methane leaks and hydrocarbon gases.

CBF claims that the infrared equipment detected otherwise invisible gas emissions from 11 of the 15 sites.

Pelton said he believes that EPA needs to conduct another in-depth study into fracking's environmental impacts.

"[A] comprehensive study should be conducted and should be taken in account for EPA air regulations," Pelton said. "When written, those should be strong enough to stop leaks of methane from these sites."

Jon Mueller, vice president for litigation of CBF, called in the letter for tougher federal regulation of air pollution caused by fracking.

"A federal rule governing air pollution associated with natural gas hydraulic fracturing is greatly needed," Mueller wrote in the letter. "EPA has also failed to fully consider the impact of methane released from drilling and process equipment on human health and the environment."

When contacted for comment, the EPA released a statement via email.

"EPA is working to ensure that America's shale gas resources are developed responsibly so that public health and the environment are protected as the nation gains important economic and energy security benefits," the email stated.

The EPA declined to comment on the CBF letter or video footage.

Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, said he believes the CBF footage is important.

"During gas development, storage and transport to market, some of the gas is purposefully vented to atmosphere and some accidentally leaks," Howarth wrote in an email. "The footage from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation does a great job of illustrating some of this venting and leakage, using a special 'FLIR' video camera to 'see' the methane in the natural gas, which is not visible to the naked eye."

Howarth said he believes the footage could be instrumental to stopping methane leaks at drilling sites.

"Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, so this leakage is important," Howarth stated. "Our research indicates that methane makes up more than 40 percent of the entire greenhouse gas inventory for the U.S. . We really need to get this methane leakage under control, if we are to seriously address global warming."

New York State does not currently allow fracking while the state's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) completes a review process of the environmental impacts of fracking and proposed regulations. Fracking may get underway in New York as early as next year, however.

Brendan Woodruff, campaign organizer for the BU chapter of New York Public Interest Research Group, said he believes the CBF video provides evidence that proposed regulations for fracking in New York State are insufficient.

"This [CBF] video clearly demonstrates that hydrofracking creates significant amounts of air pollution and underscores how woefully inadequate DEC's review of this activity is since they do not feel the need to analyze how these emissions would impact public health," Woodruff wrote in an email.

The CBF video footage is available on the organization's YouTube channel, ChesapeakeBayFound, under the title "Drilling Air Pollution."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5nkkRDfGQ

Obama Halts EPA'S Proposed Air Quality Regs

President Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency Friday to shelve proposed regulations for new air-quality standards, citing the potential impact on the weak economy.

"I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover," Mr. Obama said in a statement. "With that in mind, and after careful consideration, I have requested" that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson "withdraw" the proposed smog standards.

In making the move, Mr. Obama is sticking with air-quality standards set in 2008 by the administration of Republican George W. Bush, which Obama administration officials have said is based on outdated science. A White House official insisted to reporters that killing the more onerous standards was not intended "to endorse the Bush administration's judgment," but was done because another mandatory review of the standards is set to take place in 2013, and implementing tougher rules now could create "uncertainty."

The current Bush ozone standard of 75 parts per billion was set over the objections of EPA scientists. Ms. Jackson has made tightening the regulation a key priority, pushing for the change ahead of the regularly scheduled five-year review in 2013.

But Cass Sunstein, the president's "czar" in charge of regulatory review, told Ms. Jackson in a letter Friday that Mr. Obama was rejecting her proposal for more restrictive standards.

"He has made it clear he does not support finalizing the rule at this time," Mr. Sunstein said.

The new regulations on ozone ambient air quality standards would have cost the U.S. businesses anywhere from $19 billion to $90 billion per year to comply with, a figure mentioned by the president earlier this week in a letter to Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. Congressional Republicans and industry leaders have been sparring with the administration over the increasing cost of government regulations, arguing that the burden is preventing firms from hiring more workers.

The issue found Mr. Obama caught between environmentalists, an important part of his liberal base, and his push to stimulate the faltering economy. The president killed the proposed air-quality standards just hours after the latest unemployment report showed that employers hired no new workers in August, and the unemployment rate remained at 9.1 percent nationwide.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, called the EPA's proposed rule "the most expensive environmental regulation ever imposed" and said it would have cost 7.3 million jobs by 2020. Mr. Cantor added that the president's move to stop the new rule would give momentum to House Republicans in their agenda to cut more government red tape when they return to Washington next week.

"The administration still has six regulations with a cost of over $1 billion pending and 218 with costs of over $100 million pending, all of which are adding to the economic uncertainty," Mr. Cantor said. "House Republicans will continue our efforts to make sure the remaining regulations do not go into effect. I am hopeful the president will work with us to remove these barriers to growth and move forward on other common-sense legislation to allow businesses to begin hiring again and people to get back to work."

The administration had already missed several deadlines for imposing the new smog rules, but the president's action still angered many of his supporters. Mr. Obama did not appear in public to discuss the decision; he is departing Friday afternoon for a weekend at Camp David with his family.

League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski reacted bitterly to the president's move.

"The Obama administration is caving to big polluters at the expense of protecting the air we breathe," Mr. Karpinski said in a statement. "This is a huge win for corporate polluters and huge loss for public health."

A White House official who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity denied that the president was surrendering to big business.

"This is not a product of industry pressure," the official said. "This has nothing to do with politics."

In an attempt to mollify his base, the president insisted he is still committed to protecting the public health.

"I want to be clear: My commitment and the commitment of my administration to protecting public health and the environment is unwavering," Mr. Obama said. "I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution."

Another White House official defended Mr. Obama's record on the environment, pointing to his push for doubling vehicle fuel efficiency by 2025 and cutting emissions from power plants.

Said Ms. Jackson of EPA in a statement, "This administration has put in place some of the most important standards and safeguards for clean air in U.S. history."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the president's action "highlights the devastating impact on jobs that has been created by this administration's regulatory overreach."

"There are hundreds of regulations that even the administration acknowledges will cost America's job creators billions of dollars," Mr. McConnell said in a statement. "This action alone will prevent more job losses than any speech the president has given, and I hope he will listen to the bipartisan calls from across the country to address his administration's negative impact on job creation."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/2/obama-halts-epas-proposed-air-quality-regs/print/

Air Quality Concerns Threaten Natural Gas's Image

by Elizabeth Shogren

June 21, 2011

Massive stores of natural gas that lie underneath big portions of the United States offer a cleaner source of electricity to a country that relies heavily on coal, but producing all that gas also can pump lots of pollution into the air.

Gas production already has caused unhealthy air in Wyoming's Sublette County and Utah's Uintah Basin. And experts project that booming shale gas developments like Haynesville, stretching through Texas and Louisiana, and Marcellus, which lies beneath several Mid-Atlantic states, will start contributing to unhealthy levels of ozone or smog in coming years.

"This isn't just next to where the development is actually happening - the poor person living downwind of the compressor - this is ozone levels in Philadelphia and [Washington] D.C. and New York City and places like that," says Carnegie Mellon University professor Allen Robinson.

Industry officials argue that the benefits of natural gas for air quality far outweigh any negatives, but experts caution that much cleaner production practices are needed to prevent the industry from becoming an air quality villain.

Dizziness, Nausea And Nosebleeds

In the hilly countryside of the southwest corner of Pennsylvania, Kristen Judy and her mother, Pam, are getting an early whiff of the air pollution problem that could be on the way from the Marcellus gas industry.

"It just hits you in the face and about knocks you over," says Kristen Judy.

"It smells like some kind of petroleum but you can't pinpoint it," Pam Judy adds.

They're talking about fumes from a gas compressor station that went in three years ago just 700 feet from their house.

Natural Gas Emissions

Infrared video showing natural gas air pollution emissions at an Energy Corporation of America compressor station in Greene County, Pa., which is located about 700 feet from the Judys' home. The emissions aren't visible with the naked eye.

To See Video Click Here (infared-air polution)

Credit: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Wisps of exhaust from the compressor station head toward the Judys' place.

White exhaust rises from a building where engines compress the gas for a pipeline. Wavy transparent plumes seep from a big tank that holds liquids extracted from the gas.

Across the road, the same company runs another compressor station. A quarter-mile away, a different company is drilling a new well and burning the gas in a huge flare that lights up the night sky at the Judys' house.

"This property belonged to my great-grandparents. I waited years to get a piece of this property. Truly, within three years of moving here it's been destroyed," Pam says.

First Pam, her husband and two grown kids started getting headaches, and then fatigue set in. They've also had dizziness, nausea and nosebleeds.

"I've had a sore throat so long that I don't know what it would be to not have a sore throat," Pam says.

For a week last summer, Pennsylvania state officials monitored the air at the Judys' house and the compressor station. They found volatile organic compounds, benzene and lots of other toxic chemicals they say almost surely came from the compressor station.

Their report says levels were low and don't pose any short-term health risks. But their study doesn't address cumulative effects or cancer risks.

"They know the chemicals are here, but yet they say the levels aren't high enough. That was a snippet in time. To me any level is too high," says Pam, who has been fighting to get the company that owns the plants to clean them up.

Energy Corporation of America runs the two compressor stations near the Judys' house. A top company executive said he has two valid permits. He refused to be interviewed.

In an email, a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said officials recently met with the company to discuss pollution controls. She refused to give details of those discussions.

Pam Judy stands in the yard of her home in southwest Pennsylvania. Members of her family say they have been affected by unhealthy air quality, which might be connected to natural gas fumes from a compressor 700 feet from their house.

Analyzing The Impacts

Robinson, an engineering professor who focuses on air pollution, agrees with Pam Judy that the limited monitoring the state did may not capture the true risks to local people.

"I think these really sort of short snapshots that people have been doing provide a potentially very misleading view," he says.

Much more monitoring would be needed to get an accurate picture, he says, but resources are limited.

The air pollution impacts of the Marcellus shale formation are not just local, he says.

As companies race to produce gas from the enormous formation, they're operating thousands of new pollution sources. Compressor stations, drill rigs, processing plants, pipelines, diesel trucks and other equipment already leak pollution across large stretches of West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Lots more polluting equipment will be on the way if the industry ramps up as expected and spreads to New York and other states.

Robinson says the nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from all those sources could contribute to regional ozone or smog problems near the development around Washington, D.C., New York City and Philadelphia. Robinson and his graduate students are working up an analysis of these impacts. Early drafts of their work predict significant effects by 2020, he says.

That's particularly troubling since ozone levels are already unhealthy in many areas downwind from the Marcellus. Ozone is linked to lots of health problems from asthma attacks to heart failure to premature deaths.

Gas Vs. Coal

But Robinson only has to look out his office window to see that natural gas can improve air quality, too.

For 100 years, the central heating plant next to his university burned coal and sent lots of noxious exhaust into downtown Pittsburgh. Just recently it switched to natural gas, and the air quality got a lot better.

"If we use that natural gas to displace older coal-fired power plants without emissions controls, like the one we're looking at right here, then there are going to be some benefits as well from [the] traditional air pollution perspective. And so it's kind of a complicated calculus," he says.

The industry won't be able to grow in the way it needs to grow unless it uses the cleanest technologies. It will run into a legal brick wall.

- John Hanger, a utility lawyer and former top Pennsylvania environmental official

Still, Robinson worries that in the rush to produce the gas the country isn't giving enough attention to the health risks.

"They're lots of examples of this through human history where we go, 'Hum, maybe we didn't really want to do that,'" Robinson says.

Robinson points to mounting evidence of cumulative damage to air quality from natural gas production elsewhere in the country.

Wyoming's Sublette County is home to a booming gas development - and not much else besides antelopes and sage grouse. For 13 days this winter, ozone levels there were unhealthy.

Utah's Uintah Basin also started having spikes of unhealthy air. Some studies show that new gas production could be on the way to causing air pollution problems in portions of Colorado, Texas and Louisiana as well.

But gas industry officials downplay the threat of air pollution from production operations, saying it pales compared with the pollution eliminated when electric companies retire old coal-fired power plants and replace them with natural gas power plants.

"I reject the notion of widespread or serious pollution," says Kathryn Klaber, president and executive director of the producers' trade group, Marcellus Shale Coalition.

Klaber acknowledges that now that Marcellus is growing so large, it does create some air pollution.

Air

Fracking investigation finds toxic emissions at drill sites

By Susan Lamb

Natural Gas Emissions

Related NPR Stories