Frack well site adjacent to public school playground

Open Letter to Governor Jared Polis and Director Robbins,

My name is Patricia Nelson, I am a resident of Greeley, Colorado and a mother of a student at Bella Romero Academy. On Monday, November 25, 2019, around 12:00 pm, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment sent out a press release reporting that an elevated level of benzene had been measured by the CDPHE’s mobile lab located at Bella Romero’s 4-8 grade campus.

The spike in the levels of benzene was measured at 3:50 pm on Tuesday, November 5, a school day. Pick up time is 3:45 pm. Keep in mind that those ‘safe’ levels of exposure – 9ppb – are typically intended for adults, this means that a chemical exposure would be even more dangerous for these children running out of the building after the bell rang.

The mobile lab also measures 12 ft. in the air. On such a cold November day, it is likely the benzene would have been more concentrated closer to the ground where the children actually are. I was made aware of this incident not by CDPHE, nor school officials, but by a reporter inquiring about the findings.

We have been told time and time again by your COGCC commissioners, your administration, and the operator that this kind of site is safe, that there is nothing to worry about. However, the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization and dozens of peer-reviewed studies, have said otherwise.

Just in case you need more clarity, there are NO safe levels of exposure to benzene, and now your own agency confirms that the children of Bella Romero have been exposed to this carcinogen. The school officials I met with were under the impression that there would be no activity at the site while the children were in school. For the last two years that has been proven to be a lie.

I am writing to you today to ask that there is an immediate stop to Extraction Oil and Gas’s operation that is located a mere 1,200 ft from the front door of my child’s school.

Governor Polis, you appointed the commission and as the Director of the COGCC, Mr. Robbins, you are not only responsible for the approval of the permits but you are also responsible for the protection of public health and safety from oil and gas operations. A full 21 days passed before we were notified of the exposure. Meanwhile, the families of Bella Romero were dealing with children complaining of headaches and nausea. The same symptoms the recent CDPHE health study said would come from benzene exposure from oil and gas activity.

In some cases, our children stayed home from school due to their symptoms. It would be negligent, in fact, willful and wanton conduct, for you to allow continued oil and gas operations at this site until you can be certain that no further benzene exposure will occur. We as Coloradans still do not have the “basic guarantee” of our safety.

This site has been the center of controversy since its permits were approved in March 2017. This site was not supposed to be here, it was slated to be installed behind a more affluent school in Greeley, Frontier Academy. The Frontier parents were organized by Weld Air & Water, a group of mineral rights owners who were concerned by the proximity to the school.

Extraction Oil & Gas (XOG) later decided that the site was “not ideal for oil and gas operations.” They then went on to prey on a more vulnerable community. The demographics of our community made it easy for XOG to come in and set up shop without a fight. Most of the students at Bella Romero are eligible for free or reduced lunch. The majority of our students are Latinx, refugees, and children of mixed-status parents.

Greeley parents, teachers and community groups have done everything we can to try and stop this site after it was moved to Bella Romero. We sued over the approval of the permits, we have repeatedly protested and pleaded with the COGCC to stop this site.

The 24 wells were featured on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. The New York Times even wrote a feature story on the audacity of the project. The world is watching.

In the Spring of 2018, you visited our school, Governor Polis, and spoke with me personally. You said that parents like me shouldn’t have to worry about their children’s safety when it came to oil and gas, you all but said this kind of thing wouldn’t happen if you were elected Governor.

Your surrogates later went on to announce at the Weld County County Assembly that you were the only gubernatorial candidate that stood with the families of Bella Romero. We have heard nothing from you or your administration since.

I am lucky to have the ability to take a day off from work and stay at the Capitol until 2 am to testify – a job that I have almost lost because all of the time I have had to take off to attempt to protect my child from precisely what happened on November 5th. I shouldn’t have to do that. I am a mother. My biggest concern should be how my child doing in math and reading.

There are short term effects and there are long term effects that will result from this. We have heard this story before, it is not new. Considering the climate platform and “be bold” motto that you choose for your election platform, I would hope you would have the foresight and awareness to address this issue head-on and prevent further harm to these children.

Put an immediate stop to Extraction Oil and Gas’s operation behind my child’s school. This risk as it stands now is unacceptable. I encourage you both to visit the site, it has changed drastically since the last time you were here Governor Polis.

Respectfully, Patricia Nelson, Greeley, CO

Supporting organizations: Adams County Communities for Drilling Accountability NOW (ACCDAN), Broomfield Active Moms Community, Broomfield Concerned: A Coalition of Neighborhoods, Broomfield CAN, Be the Change – USA, Climate Justice Ministry at Foothills Unitarian, Colorado Rising, Erie Protectors, Food & Water Action, Front Range Residents for Environment, Safety, and Health (FRRESH), Larimer Alliance for Health Safety & the Environment, The Lookout Alliance, Mothers Out Front – Colorado, North Range Concerned Citizens, Our Health Our Future Our Longmont, Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado, Wall of Women Colorado – WOW, Weld Air and Water, WildEarth Guardians, and 350 Colorado

Public health versus corporate profits in Colorado

From an Article by John Aguilar, Denver Post Newspaper, October 16, 2018

The fight over Prop. 112 has lured big money and clashes over interpretation of health studies.

“The OEHHA chronic benzene REL considers several studies published after USEPA’s 2002 benzene assessment, which found increased efficiency of benzene metabolism at low doses, decreased peripheral blood cell counts at low doses (800−1860 μg/m3)…”

It takes another 20 words — with terms like “metabolic enzymes” and “benzene detoxification” — to close out this sentence from a recent University of Colorado study that looked at the potential health impacts of Front Range oil and gas operations. Thousands of equally abstruse passages fill hundreds of other studies from around the world examining the effects of drilling and hydraulic fracturing on human health.

Welcome to the science behind Proposition 112, the oil and gas setbacks measure that will likely be among the most complex ballot issues to ever go before Colorado voters.

The initiative aims to increase the required distance of any newly drilled wells from homes, schools and water sources to 2,500 feet. The current setback is 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet from densely occupied buildings, like hospitals and schools.

Opponents say the measure will block off so much acreage to drill rigs — it’s estimated that 85 percent of non-federal land in Colorado would be off-limits — that the $31 billion industry in Colorado would virtually collapse.

Backers of 112 say without bigger buffers, Coloradans will continue to be exposed to noxious emissions from well sites, like toluene, formaldehyde, xylene, and cancer-causing benzene, to say nothing of the environmental harm from potent greenhouse gases, like methane.

What is the average voter supposed to do with the reams of data, some in conflict with one another, in deciding whether Proposition 112 is critical to public health or ruinous to Colorado’s economy?

“It’s hard when we ask voters to vote on technical issues like this,” said Tanya Heikkila, a professor at CU Denver’s School of Public Affairs who focuses on environmental policy, management and law.

She said few voters have the time, patience or expertise to navigate through the copious scientific research that has been done on energy extraction. As such, she said, they’ll likely turn to the people they know for advice on which box to check on the ballot — their friends, their neighbors, their doctor.

“I don’t think people’s decision on this will come down to what the science says — it will come down to who they trust,” Heikkila said.

It’s also likely, she said, that voters will employ “motivated reasoning” or be swayed by “confirmation bias” to make their choice on Proposition 112.

“Cognitive research has shown that when people are emotionally attached to an issue, it’s easier to reason away or dismiss the information that contradicts those beliefs — or conversely use information that supports their beliefs to confirm those beliefs,” Heikkila said.

Arguments from each camp are compelling, she said, and voters may find virtue on both sides of the issue.

“No one wants to be exposed to carcinogens, to noise, to (truck) traffic,” she said. “At the same time, when people say 112 is going to cost them their jobs and ruin the tax base, that resonates too.”

“Something is happening here”

Anne Lee Foster, who is with the pro-112 group Colorado Rising, knows she can’t fight the oil and gas industry on the financial front. As of the most recent reporting period from late September, the anti-112 group Protect Colorado had dropped just over $20 million on its battle against the measure, while Colorado Rising had spent less than $650,000.

Foster hopes science speaks louder than cash. She and her allies point to a compendium of studies — now numbering more than 1,300 — that are assembled and updated on the Physicians for Social Responsibility website. The studies have examined one aspect or another of fracking’s harms and risks, pointing out connections to cancer, low birth-weight babies, asthma, headaches and bloody noses for families living near oil and gas wells.

Industry lobby outspending concerned citizens

#########################

Driven by Trump Policy Changes, Fracking Booms on Public Lands – The New York Times

Co-author Dr. John L. Adgate, CO School of Public Health

From an Article by John Ingold, Denver Post, April 9, 2018

A new study led by researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health concludes that the air quality around oil and gas wells places those who live next door at an increased risk of developing cancer, but a state health official said Monday that more testing is needed to better understand what is happening.

The study looked at the concentration of cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene in the air near several oil and gas sites in northern Colorado. It contends that people living within 500 feet of an oil and gas facility have a lifetime excess cancer risk eight times higher than the upper limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency. What that means is that breathing the air near an oil and gas well for years at a time places people at additional risk of developing cancer above normal rates, according to the study.

Five hundred feet is a magic number in Colorado oil and gas regulations because it is the minimum distance the state requires new wells to be set back from existing houses. But the new study found at least a small potential added cancer risk based on air samples taken slightly farther away.

“The cumulative lifetime excess cancer risk increased with decreasing distance to the nearest (oil and gas) facility,” the study’s authors wrote.

The study was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, which is produced by the American Chemical Society. Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Boulder County Public Health Department.

In a statement, Boulder County Public Health air quality program coordinator Pam Milmoe said the study shows the need for better emissions controls on wells and better detection of leaks, as well as stricter setback rules.

“The results underscore the importance of not locating extraction facilities near homes, schools and recreation areas, and having policies that require effective monitoring and reducing emissions from oil and gas facilities, for sites already in those areas,” Milmoe said.

The new study contradicts the results of one published last year by CDPHE, which found little evidence of health harms from living near oil and gas sites. That study found that lifetime cancer risk was not increased near wells due to exposure to benzene or other chemicals.

Lisa McKenzie, a professor at the School of Public Health and the paper’s lead author, said her study used California guidelines for assessing benzene toxicity, which are stricter than the guidelines used in the CDPHE study. She said her study also incorporates newer research.

In a statement, CDPHE executive director Dr. Larry Wolk said the new study’s most dramatic findings came for measurements inside the 500-foot minimum setback and said, so far, a CDPHE mobile lab conducting air monitoring in communities near oil and gas sites has not detected worrying levels of benzene or other chemicals. The department expects to have another report based on what it calls more comprehensive air-quality data completed this summer.

Wolk and McKenzie have clashed before over her previous findings of health risks to people living near oil and gas wells, and he said the latest findings need more follow-up research.

“This report underscores the potential public health importance of the 500-foot setback and the need to collect more comprehensive air quality data in communities in close proximity to oil and gas operations,” Wolk said.

McKenzie said the added lifetime risk of developing cancer was based on an assumption of 30 years of exposure — a period that may exceed the lifespan of an oil and gas well.

“In areas of oil and gas development, no one is living next to just one well,” she said. “They’re usually living in a area with a lot of wells.”

Fire & Explosions Rock Oil Well Pad in Windsor, Colorado

From a Commentary by Wendell Bradley, PhD Physicist, Windsor, Colorado

Regional air quality devices monitor ozone via probes on towers. They show that Windsor has been out of ozone compliance since 2008, thus has been under a long term health threat.

Windsor’s over-the-limit amount of ozone derives from industrial oil development permitted within its residential neighborhoods.

Windsor’s offending ozone is a decay product of oil-derived Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) of which benzene is the most toxic. There is no safe level of benzene. It attacks every organ in one’s body and causes cancer.

On December 22, 2017, a leaking valve at Windsor’s Stromberger oil-well pad led to a fire and several explosions that threatened health and safety for the entire Town and its surrounding region.

The pad’s escaping methane gas and benzene vapors explosively caught fire. This can happen for methane concentrations in air between 4 and 14 percent, less for benzene.

Leaking methane, during atmospheric inversions, can creep into municipal areas until it ignites and causes an explosion. A natural gas tanker-ship on Lake Erie leaked methane gas into Cleveland, Ohio where it collected, then exploded destroying approximately one square mile of that city.

Apparently, given the atmospheric inversion on the night of Windsor’s pad explosion, Windsor was in danger of creep and devastating explosion, had the gas not burned on site.

Ordinarily fugitive natural gas (mostly methane), being lighter than air, rises whilst decaying into ozone, and finally dissipates without explosion. Methane is odorless, colorless, tasteless, and nontoxic.

The benzene component of a pad’s gas leak, however, is heavier than air. As a consequence, benzene (highly toxic and also explosive) collects in lower lying areas where it may remain for days, undetected, finally decaying into ozone.

The main reason oil industry personnel wear hazmat suits with breathing devices upon arrival at uncontrolled gas leaks on well pads (as they did at Windsor’s Ochsner blowout, 2013) is to avoid immediate benzene poisoning.

Windsor Severance Fire Rescue (WSFR) personnel should know the benzene levels at any oil pad’s leak before entering the site unmasked. Benzene levels will not be measured by the pad’s operator and likely will be extremely high.

Also, prohibitive benzene levels cannot be determined by the ‘big picture’ readings of a VOC meter.

The most efficient, economic way to test for a benzene determination of pad-entry safety is via deployment of dreagger tubes. Later measurement for benzene safety in the pad’s surrounding areas will be tricky and difficult because of its creep and collected concentrations into low lying areas.

Due to the separation and creep of benzene from the larger methane volumes, VOC metering will not provide adequate public protections.

Since it has been amply demonstrated that adequate public health protections and safety cannot be provided in municipal areas for ubiquitous, ongoing well pad negligence leading to highly dangerous releases by any of the means under state regulation (COGCC, CDPHE), it is incumbent on municipal officials to take direct action.

One possibility would be for municipalities to impose a temporary moratorium on all further oil Exploration and Production (E&P) activity until health and safety issues can be assessed and resolved.

Local, temporary moratoria are not precluded by any current state rulings or powers. Indeed, the recent Appellant Court (Martinez) ruling virtually makes local, direct protective actions mandatory as environmental concerns must not get short shrift.

NOOA’s regional ozone monitors detected such high levels of the decay products of Windsor’s negligent, uncontrolled, highly toxic gas releases attending its Stromberger oil pad explosions on Dec 22, 2017 that residents within a 20 mile radius should have been warned, for days, not to go out of doors.

No regional or municipal warnings were given by officials for the impacted areas. Local and Denver news media seemed unaware of any serious dangers. Their coverage seemed routine, assuming the incident was only another minor oil-related accident and fire.

The computer-generated NOOA ozone maps, representing the above monitoring, painted the large, impacted area in dark red. That map’s legend indicates that as long as that coloring persists on the map area residents should, “Stay inside, behind closed doors”.

Dangerous ozone spikes were detected all the way to Boulder.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

UPDATE January 3, 2018: Explosion Victim Recovers; Wife Thanks ‘Whoever Was Watching Over Him’

HALT! Fracking is Too Risky

Risks of shale oil drilling apply in West Virginia, too

Op-Ed by Barbara Daniels, Morgantown Dominion Post, Page 2-D, January 11, 2015

On December 17^th, joining New Jersey, Quebec, the Delaware River Basin and several nations, and due to much hard evidence presented by the public, New York state switched from a six-year moratorium on hydrofracturing (fracking) to a complete ban.

One of the documents most responsible for this historic action is the Grass Roots Environmental Education Summary Report on Health Risks From Proposed Hydrofracturing in New York state.

With the caveat that there is far more evidence, the report lists 26 of what it conservatively terms “risks.”  A like-mined petition to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo sums them up: “New data … associated with frack operations expose … intractable, irreversible problems” that even “th best imaginable regulatory frameworks” cannot protect against.

As fracking is little different in West Virginia, these risks might apply here as well.

Foremost is the enormous quantity of chemical-laden, radioactive, frack-brine in constant need of disposal.  If discharged from sewage plants, it contaminates rivers and streams.  In its most common use as a de-icer on public roads, these contaminants will also be carried into water supplies.  The radioactivity, mainly from radium 226, is soluble in water; but, as dust, can lodge in carpets, upholstery – and lungs.  Radium is colorless, odorless and tasteless.  Even in low doses, once ingested by breathing or drinking, it causes anemia, cataracts, lung and bone cancer, and death.

Secondly, New York state regulators reported that Marcellus-produced gas contains radon at average levels of eight times the allowable limits.  This radioactive gas is liberated whenever the fuel leaks or is burned, as in flares, power plants and homes.

Additionally listed were:

#3. Air pollution from the myriad on-site diesel engines plus the thousand or so truck trips, per well, carrying water and machinery through rural areas.  Diesel exhaust produces ground-level ozone (smog) and particulates.  These pollutants cause asthma in children and lung cancer in adults, and are linked to bladder and breast cancer, stroke, heart attack, cognitive decline and premature death.

#4. Flaring – which releases gasoline-type chemicals, such as benzene and xylene, plus other poisons.  Though the EPA ban on flaring starts in 2015, there are loopholes.

#5. The radiological contamination of ground water that will persist for thousands of years from landfilled frack drill cuttings and sludge.

#6. The certainty of polluted aquifers as frack waste and methane, coming from deteriorating cement well casings, follow old gas wells and fissures into water.

#7. Chemical combinations under heat and pressure with unknown effects.  For instance, 4-NQO, a carcinogenic chemical, even in parts per trillion, and not found in nature, is thought to be so created.  It has been recorded in toxic amounts in 24 out of 24 randomly chosen frack waste samples from Pennsylvania and West Virginia wells.

#8. The gas industry’s ability to fund colleges and research so as to generate false findings that cover up hazards.  These misleading reports create a state of leniency wherein existing rules are ignored and new ones stifled.

The West Virginia Mountain Party is working for a moratorium on mountaintop removal and fracking.

Note:  Barbara Daniels is a writer for the West Virginia Mountain Party, who lives in Richwood, WV.

Conaway Lake on Tyler County road

W.Va. wildlife land fracking could yield $6M, royalties

From an Article by the Associated Press, Huntington Herald Dispatch, November 21, 2014

Charleston, WV — A company has bid $6.2 million plus royalties to drill for natural gas and oil under state wildlife conservation land in Tyler County. Denver-based Antero Resources is offering to pay more than $12,000 an acre for fracking rights under Conaway Run Wildlife Management Area, state Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette said.

The bid includes a 20-percent royalty on what’s extracted, and the lease would likely last three years. The bid on the 518-acre wildlife area’s oil and natural gas rights was unveiled Friday in Charleston. The land is used for hunting, fishing and camping, and includes a 100-yard rifle range.

It’s the second time West Virginia has offered to let companies drill horizontally under its land. Leasing the land for the technique called hydraulic fracturing, commonly called fracking, is a new venture for West Virginia, and officials think it could produce plenty of money during uncertain budget times.

In West Virginia’s first try at fracking leases, officials opened bids for 22 miles of state land under the Ohio River in September. Six miles are under contract negotiations and another 11 miles are out for bid or will be shortly. Seven additional miles are being considered for bid openings.

Environmental groups cautioned Gov. Early Ray Tomblin to reconsider the Ohio River leases, since they would allow drilling beneath a river that provides drinking water to millions of people. Burdette said the drilling would occur about a mile under the river. State environmental regulators would still have to approve permits for the operations. All drilling equipment would need to be off-site of the state lands, Burdette added.

Other properties the state is thinking about leasing rights for include: 131 acres under Fish Creek in Marshall County; Jug Wildlife Management Area in Tyler County; and 24 acres in Doddridge County.

No fracking contracts have yet been finalized, however. All the money from the state’s fracking leases would go back into Division of Natural Resources needs, like upgrades at state parks.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Marcellus Well Pad During Fracking

New study shows gas workers could be exposed to dangerous levels of benzene

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From an Article by Susan Phillips, NPR StateImpact-PA, August 28, 2014

A new study out this month reveals unconventional oil and natural gas workers could be exposed to dangerous levels of benzene, putting them at a higher risk for blood cancers like leukemia. Benzene is a known carcinogen that is present in fracking flowback water. It’s also found in gasoline, cigarette smoke and in chemical manufacturing. As a known carcinogen, benzene exposures in the workplace are limited by federal regulations under OSHA. But some oil and gas production activities are exempt from those standards.

The National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) worked with industry to measure chemical exposures of workers who monitor flowback fluid at well sites in Colorado and Wyoming. A summary of the peer-reviewed article was published online this month on a CDC website. In several cases benzene exposures were found to be above safe levels.

The study is unusual in that it did not simply rely on air samples. The researchers also took urine samples from workers, linking the exposure to absorption of the toxin in their bodies. One of the limits of the study includes the small sample size, only six sites in two states.

Dr. Bernard Goldstein from the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health says the study is the first of its kind. Goldstein did not contribute to the study’s research, but he has conducted his own research on benzene. And he’s treated patients exposed to the carcinogen. “These workers are at higher risk for leukemia,” said Goldstein. “The longer, the more frequently they do this, the more likely they are to get leukemia particularly if the levels are high.”

The study looked at workers who use a gauge to measure the amount of flowback water that returns after a frack job is initiated. A spokeswoman for NIOSH says none of their studies draw any conclusions about exposures to nearby residents, but focus specifically on workers.

But Dr. Goldstein says it shows that there could be potential risks to residents as well. “We’re not acting in a way to protect the public who are at high risk,” said Goldstein. “And we can’t even tell you who is at high risk. Yet we’re rushing ahead in a situation where all of the data are telling us that there are risks.” He urges a similar study should take place in Pennsylvania.

“These are the kind of studies that should be done,” said Goldstein. “It should have been done a long time before this. They’re first being done now. They must be done in Pennsylvania.”

A spokeswoman for an industry group says there is always room for improvement if toxic exposures exist. “[The study represents] a small sample size,” said Katie Brown with the group Energy In Depth. “It is limited in that respect. I think that’s the whole reason for this partnership is to study it and see how [drillers] can improve.”

Authors of the NIOSH benzene study said that more research with larger sample sizes should be done, especially since there was so much variation in the levels observed at different times and well sites. The researchers also listed a number of recommendations for industry to take to reduce benzene levels on the job site. These include changing tank gauging procedures, training workers, limiting exposure times, carrying gas monitors, using respiratory and hand protection, and monitoring exposure levels.

Looking for Loopholes w/ 3D Glasses

Proposed new legislation would undo state laws on fracking toxics

Press Release from John Rumpler and Lauren Pagel, Environment America, April 28, 2014

With “trade secrets” claim debunked, proposed changes are clearly aimed at hiding toxic substances from the public.

The current draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA), made public today, would add another special oil and gas industry loophole to federal environmental law. CICA, legislation that aims to “reform” the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), would block states and localities from requiring the oil and gas industry to reveal the toxics they inject through the water table during hydraulic fracturing. The legislation would also prohibit states or localities from regulating or banning toxic chemicals used in the drilling and fracking process, such as benzene and diesel fuel.

As hydraulic fracturing has facilitated the extraction of shale oil & gas across the country, affected states and communities have increasingly required some form of public disclosure of the chemicals used during fracking.

“Oil and gas industry apologists in Congress have sunk to a new low,” said Lauren Pagel, Policy Director for Earthworks. “This toxics reform legislation risks public health in favor of energy industry profits. It would undo even modest efforts by states to protect and inform the public about fracking risks.”

Nationwide, toxic fluids and waste from fracking are polluting our air and water and making nearby residents sick.  There are more than one thousand documented instances of fracking-enabled oil and gas development contaminating water – from the residential wells in Dimock, PA to the more than 400 waste pits that have leached into groundwater in New Mexico alone.

Last week Baker Hughes Inc., one of the nation’s three major hydraulic fracturing service companies, promised to disclose all chemicals they use in fracking:
“It’s obvious that there’s no compelling reason to hide fracking chemicals behind a ‘trade secrets’ claim,” said Lauren Pagel. She continued, “Baker Hughes’s promise makes clear that the purpose of this bill is to hide fracking toxics from the public, not protect trade secrets from competitors.”

But the oil and gas lobby has rebuffed efforts to close the loopholes that exempt their drilling operations from key provisions of federal environmental laws – maintaining that the states know best when it comes to regulation of oil and gas.

“Fracking is a major toxic threat to our air and water,” said John Rumpler, senior attorney for Environment America.  “Yet the Shimkus TSCA bill belies the utter hypocrisy of the industry’s ‘states-first’ positioning by stripping away the ability of state and local governments to rein in the toxic pollution from dirty drilling.”

For More Information:
Waxman-Tonko letter to Chairman Shimkus

Gas Combustion Flare -- quanity of gas and quality of flame vary widely

Air monitoring in fracking areas fails to detect spikes in toxic emissions, new study says

A large flare at a central collection facility.

From an Article by Lisa Song & Jim Morris, Center for Public Integrity, April 3, 2014

Some people in natural gas drilling areas complain about nauseating odors, nosebleeds and other symptoms (such as rashes & headaches). They fear these could be caused by shale development but usually get the same response from state regulators: monitoring data show the air quality is fine.

A new study helps explain this discrepancy. The most commonly used air monitoring techniques often underestimate public health threats because they don’t catch toxic emissions that spike at various points during gas production, researchers reported Tuesday in the peer-reviewed journal Reviews on Environmental Health. The study was conducted by the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project, a nonprofit based near Pittsburgh.

A health survey the group released last year found that people who live near drilling sites in Washington County, Pa., in the Marcellus Shale, reported symptoms such as nausea, abdominal pain, breathing difficulties and nosebleeds, all of which could be caused by pollutants known to be emitted from gas sites. Similar problems have been reported by people who live in the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the subject of a recent investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, InsideClimate News and The Weather Channel.

While residents want to know whether gas drilling is affecting the air near their homes — where emissions can vary dramatically over the course of a day — regulators generally use methods designed to assess long-term, regional air quality. They’re “misapplying the technology,” said lead author David Brown, who conducted the study with three of his colleagues at the Environmental Health Project. Stuart Batterman, an environmental health sciences professor at the University of Michigan, said the study underscores the need for specialized monitoring programs that target community health.

But creating these programs is difficult, Batterman said, because scientists don’t fully understand the emissions coming from natural gas facilities. Air pollutants ebb and flow based on equipment malfunctions, maintenance activities and the weather. They’re released from storage tanks, compressor stations and pipelines during every step of the process: drilling, hydraulic fracturing, production, and processing.

No easy solutions

The Pennsylvania report is the latest demonstration of how little is known about the health impacts of unconventional natural gas development, which uses hydraulic fracturing to extract tightly bound gas. In February, 190 experts from industry, government and the medical community gathered in Philadelphia to discuss major data gaps. The conclusions they reached were almost identical to those in a recent study in Environmental Science & Technology that cited a lack of “comprehensive” public health research.

Isobel Simpson, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California-Irvine who was not involved with the Pennsylvania study, said the group’s paper shows the lack of a one-size-fits-all solution.

“Air quality monitoring is complex, so you need a range of [methods] depending on what your goal is,” she said. Is the research about asthma or cancer? Overall air quality or human health? “All of those weigh into the strategy you’re using.”

Many federal and state-run monitors average their data over 24 hours or take samples once every few days. It’s a technique that’s been used for decades to assess regional compliance with the Clean Air Act. But natural gas facilities have sporadic emission spikes that last just a few hours or minutes. These fleeting events, which release particulate matter, volatile organic compounds and other harmful toxins into the air, can quickly lead to localized health effects. When averaged over 24 hours, however, the spikes can easily be ignored.

Spot monitoring can only catch a fraction of the emission spikes. “Attempts to capture these peaks with 24-hour [averages]; through periodic or one-time spot sampling (under 24 hours); or after a complaint has been filed, will most often miss times of peak exposure,” the authors of the new study wrote.

Batterman, the University of Michigan professor, said 24-hour samples are still useful for long- term health studies, since pollutants like benzene and particulate matter can lead to chronic effects that don’t show up until years or decades later. Ideally, scientists should use a combination of methods to monitor long-term and acute impacts, he said, “but there are technology and cost issues.”

The best way to analyze short-term impacts like skin rashes and headaches is to take frequent samples over a sustained period of time, said Beth Weinberger, a co-author of the new study. She and her colleagues assessed indoor air quality in 14 homes near drilling sites by taking measurements of fine particulate matter once a minute for up to 24 hours. After examining their data, they found that some homes had very high levels of particulate matter more than 30 percent of the time.

“It was alarming, because we realized if fine particulate matter was getting into the house, other things, like benzene and formaldehyde, probably were as well,” Brown said.

Weinberger said her group is now working with other organizations to find affordable monitors that would allow them to take indoor and outdoor samples so they can design better studies.

The limits of air monitoring are especially apparent when regulators respond to citizen complaints near drilling sites. InsideClimate News and the Center for Public Integrity reviewed more than a dozen TCEQ investigation reports on Eagle Ford oil and gas-related complaints. In most cases, regulators responded by taking instantaneous air readings next to industrial facilities. Some inspectors conducted an initial survey by sniffing the air for detectable odors, then returned days later with monitoring equipment. On several occasions, the instruments detected such high levels of contaminants that inspectors fled the site.

Weinberger said the TCEQ’s practice of taking quick “grab samples” is “the perfect design” to miss detecting emission spikes. “That’s what you do if you’re not interested in capturing episodic exposures,” she said. Also, more frequent and consistent sampling is needed, such as monitoring once an hour for two weeks. Regulators can then compare the individual data points with existing health standards to see how often they’re exceeded.

Even when scientists use the right monitoring techniques, it can be hard to figure out what the numbers mean. Federal air quality standards exist for only six chemicals: ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead. All other pollutants, including dozens of volatile organic compounds, are managed by a patchwork of occupational standards and state guidelines.

Texas, for instance, uses short-term exposure guidelines of 180 parts per billion for benzene and 4,000 parts per billion for toluene to determine whether a situation requires further investigation.

Other states have different guidelines, and some chemicals have none at all because little is known about their health impacts. The guidelines have another flaw: They don’t fully consider what happens when people are exposed to many chemicals at once, as is common near gas and oil production sites.

This report is part of a joint project by the Center for Public Integrity, InsideClimate News and The Weather Channel. Lisa Song is with InsideClimate News and Jim Morris is with the Center for Public Integrity.