EARTHWORKS – The Dark Side of the Boom: How Natural Gas Drilling in Texas Threatens Public Health and Safety

EARTHWORKS – The Dark Side of the Boom: How Natural Gas Drilling in Texas Threatens Public Health and Safety.

The Dark Side of the Boom: How Natural Gas Drilling in Texas Threatens Public Health and Safety

Sen. Lon Burnam Joins Calling for ‘Urgent’ Reforms

Joint Release:
EARTHWORKS’ Texas OGAP * Public Citizen Texas * Environment Texas * Texas Campaign for the Environment * Clean Water Network * Downwinders at Risk, Texas Drought Project * Argyle-Bartonville Communities Alliance * Dallas Area Residents for Responsible Drilling * Flower Mound Citizens Against Urban Drilling * Wise County Alliance for Responsible Drilling

AUSTIN, TX, APRIL 14 — State, local and federal officials and regulatory agencies are failing to protect Texans from the health and safety risks of the natural gas boom, according to a report released today by the Texas Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP).

State Sen. Lon Burnam of Fort Worth joined OGAP, other state advocacy organizations and community groups in releasing Flowback: How the Texas Natural Gas Boom Affects Health and Safety. The report finds that authorities either lack the resources to deal with the air pollution, water contamination and other problems that accompany natural gas production; are limited in their response by inadequate laws and regulations, or continue the long Texas tradition of favoring the oil and gas industry at the expense of citizens.

The report gives voice to the families and communities on the front lines of a public health crisis that is spreading from the Barnett Shale region in North Central Texas to other parts of the state. It pulls together for the first time detailed results of air and water testing as well as health effects data linking residents’ symptoms to toxic chemicals used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

Flowback roundly criticizes the inadequacy of policies and the response of authorities at all levels of government, but reserves its sharpest criticism for the Texas Railroad Commission: long the oil and gas industry’s lapdog, (the commission) must become a watchdog. The state Sunset Commission recently recommended the complete restructuring of the Railroad Commission because of conflicts of interest with the industry.

We want to lift the veil of denial that hangs over the gas patch, said Sharon Wilson, organizer for Texas OGAP. The reports of health and safety effects across two dozen counties are real, not coincidences or isolated examples. Current laws make it hard to tie a specific illness to a specific well, but residents of these communities know that where drilling goes, problems follow.

Burnam is among state lawmakers trying to address the problems, as the author of bills to prohibit gas wells within 1,200 feet of schools and to reduce air pollution by requiring vapor-recovery units on wells in the Barnett Shale. The report welcomes those efforts but says broader reforms are needed, including:

  • The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality must strictly enforce emission limits from oil and gas exploration and production equipment
  • As the Sunset Commission recommends, the Texas Railroad Commission — whose members currently are elected, often with hefty campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry — should be replaced with an appointed commission that puts the health and safety of Texans first. The new commission should require full public disclosure of drilling and fracking chemicals on a well-by-well basis.
  • The Texas Water Development Board must evaluate the impact that hydraulic fracturing, which uses hundreds of thousands of gallons of water for each injection.
  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should identify sources of drilling chemicals in groundwater and regulate air pollution from oil and gas exploration and production.

For More Information

Download Flowback: How the Texas Natural Gas Boom Affects Health and Safety

Contact:

Sharon Wilson, Texas OGAP, (940) 389-1622

Bill Walker, Texas OGAP, (510) 686-3122

Andy Wilson, Public Citizen Texas, (512) 477-1155

Drilling opponent to leave Pitt post – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Apr. 10, 2011

Drilling opponent to leave Pitt post – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.



Drilling opponent to leave Pitt post

By Luis Fabregas, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Complete coverage

About the writer

Luis Fabregas is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writer and can be reached at 412-320-7998 or via e-mail.

Ways to get us

.

A University of Pittsburgh researcher who is a vocal critic of Marcellus shale drilling said Saturday he is leaving his post because the university won’t allow him to speak publicly about environmental issues, not because of online criticism of his work.

Conrad “Dan” Volz, director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health, said he was not fired or under pressure to resign, but finds he has a calling for advocating for public health.

“There is a basic philosophical difference,” said Volz, 57, of West Deer. “What the university is saying is that they don’t want people to talk about things. They want to do scholarly research and publish it in journals and have it go out into the world.”

Dr. Donald S. Burke, dean of the school, could not be reached for comment. Pitt spokeswoman Allison Schlesinger said she was unable to comment without his approval.

Volz claims drinking water is being contaminated by Marcellus shale drilling. He authored a report in March that showed a high concentration of bromide in Marcellus wastewater at the Josephine brine treatment facility, located in Indiana County, in the Allegheny River watershed. Bromide is a natural compound found in seawater that can form chemicals linked to cancer in laboratory animals when mixed with chlorine used to treat drinking water, Volz said.

“It is now starting to affect drinking water in the Pittsburgh area because the bromide levels in the rivers are so high,” Volz said. He and others say a drilling practice known as “fracking,” in which drillers shoot water, sand and chemicals into the shale to fracture it and free the gas, produces chemically tainted wastewater.

Volz’s work came under attack by unnamed critics in the online newspaper Canada Free Press. The critics claimed he misrepresented facts on the report.

Some Volz supporters said he has been honest and objective about drilling’s potential harm to the environment.

“He’s been a wonderful resource for those who want to know what’s happening,” said Mel Packer, a community activist from Point Breeze. “I hope he continues to speak and finds ways to speak out.”

Volz dismissed the online critics. He said there were some errors in his original report about the Josephine plant, but Pitt never challenged any of his research.

“I have made mistakes in all of my research, as we all do,” he said. “Those errors were minor really and didn’t have any influence over our overall recommendations or conclusions.” He did not describe the errors.

Volz is scheduled to testify on Tuesday in Washington before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, which is holding a hearing titled “Natural Gas Drilling: Public Health and Environmental Impacts.” Robert Perciasepe, deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, also is scheduled to speak.

“If this were an infectious disease, this would be stopped immediately,” he said about Marcellus shale drilling. “If this was Chi-Chis, and we had an outbreak of something, then all the spinach would be sequestered.”

Read more: Drilling opponent to leave Pitt post – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_731592.html#ixzz1J89ASR2m

Gulf Oil Spill

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1007197

The Gulf Oil Spill

Bernard D. Goldstein, M.D., Howard J. Osofsky, M.D., Ph.D., and Maureen Y. Lichtveld, M.D., M.P.H.

N Engl J Med 2011; 364:1334-1348April 7, 2011

Article
References

One year after the Gulf oil spill (also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the BP oil spill, or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill), the full magnitude of the environmental, economic, and human health effects of this major disaster remain unknown. Despite a growing literature describing the impact of oil spills on health1-28 (Table 1Table 1Studies of Effects of Oil Spills on the Health and Safety of Workers and Communities. and Table 2Table 2Studies of Effects of Oil Spills on Mental Health of Workers and Communities.), it is difficult to respond to the many questions asked by clinicians and the public about this spill or the risk of future spills. The uncertainty is exemplified by the study of 55,000 Gulf oil spill workers by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is open-ended rather than focused on a specific number of end points.29 The uncertainty also has consequences for the economic and psychosocial well-being of Gulf Coast residents.

Pollution rules could be eased despite increase in asthma

Pollution rules could be eased despite increase in asthma.

Bassett warns against hydraulic fracturing » Local News » The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY – otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports

Bassett warns against hydraulic fracturing » Local News » The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY – otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports.

March 9, 2011

Bassett warns against hydraulic fracturing

The Bassett Medical Center Board of Trustees and the health care network’s medical staff have each issued resolutions warning against hydraulic fracturing.

Both statements, arrived at separately, emphasize the importance of keeping water resources pure.

The statement by the 274-member medical staff, mostly physicians, reads in part:

“Whereas, the hydrofracking method of drilling for natural gas involves the use of millions of gallons of water mixed with known carcinogens, teratogens, endocrine disruptors, and other toxic materials which are injected under extremely high pressures deep into the earth, and …

“Whereas, contamination of ground water, air and other environmental damage has already been demonstrated in numerous locales with similar geology, such as Pennsylvania …

“We hereby resolve that the hydrofracking method of gas drilling constitutes an unacceptable threat to the health of our patients, and should be prohibited until such time as it is proven to be safe.”

The medical center’s board said: “The New York City Department of Environmental Protection has taken the position that hydraulic fracturing to recover natural gas poses unacceptable risks to the water supply and has asked the state Department of Environmental Conservation to prohibit natural gas drilling in the NYC watershed.

“The Susquehanna River watershed warrants the same consideration that assures protection for its aquifers and surface water reservoirs.”

The Susquehanna River’s source is Otsego Lake, situated in the towns of Otsego, Springfield and Middlefield, and the river flows right by the medical center.

Bassett President Dr. William Streck said Tuesday the board’s statement has been in the works since last fall and sprang “from the fundamental concern of the board about the safety of the water supply. That is our primary point of emphasis.”

In its resolution, which was approved unanimously, the board noted: “While the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulates natural gas development in New York, the historic responsibility to preserve the safety of water has resided in the purview of the Department of Health.

“For this reason, the board of trustees of Bassett Medical Center supports the DOH’s (Department of Health’s) continued involvement and attention to the public health concerns that have been raised, including possibly contamination of the water supply.”

Asked if the board’s statement on such an issue is unprecedented, Streck said, “It is unusual.”

He noted that many Bassett employees live in the towns of Springfield, Middlefield and Otsego _ towns taking steps to ban or restrict the controversial technique.

 

 

Garfield County – Battlement Mesa HIA EHMS background & information

PUBLIC HEALTH

pages
Battlement Mesa HIA/EHMSBattlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment (2nd Draft) 

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Annotated Acronym Definitions

Part One: Health Impact Assessment
Preface
Regarding Ozone and Human Health
Regarding Climate Change and Human Health

1 Introduction
1.1 Antero’s Plan to Drill within the Battlement Mesa PUD
1.2 Community Concerns
1.3 Initial Responses to Community Concerns
1.4 Battlement Mesa Health Profile
1.4.1 Measures of Physical Health
1.4.2 Measures of Community Health

2 Information Gaps
2.1 Information Gaps and Implications
2.2 Remedies

3 Findings and Recommendations
3.1 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Air Quality Assessment
3.2 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Water and Soil Quality Assessment
3.3 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Traffic and Transportation Assessment
3.4 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Noise, Vibration, and Light Assessment
3.5 Findings and Specific Recommendations Related to Community Wellness
3.6 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Economic and Employment Assessment
3.7 Findings and Specific Recommendations Related to Health Care Infrastructure
3.8 Findings and Specific Recommendations from Assessment of Accidents and Malfunctions

4 Summary of Assessments on Health in Battlement Mesa
4.1 Summary of Health Assessments

5 Assessment of Health Impacts
5.1 Assessment of Air Quality on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.1.1 Air Quality and Health
5.1.2 Current Air Quality Conditions
5.1.3 What We Know and What We Do Not Know
5.1.4 Human Health Risk Assessment
5.1.5 Antero’s Best Management Practices
5.2 Characterization of the Air Quality on Health
5.3 Assessment of Water and Soil Quality on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.3.1 Water and Soil Quality Impacts on Health
5.3.2 Water and Soil Quality and Natural Gas Operations
5.3.3 Current Conditions of Water and Soil Quality
5.3.4 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Water and Soil Quality
5.3.5 Characterization of the impact on Water and Soil Quality
5.4 Assessment of Transportation and Traffic on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.4.1 Traffic and Safety
5.4.2 Current Traffic Conditions
5.4.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Traffic
5.4.4 Characterization of Traffic Impacts on Safety
5.5 Assessment of Noise, Vibration, and Light Pollution on Health in Battlement Mesa 5.5.1 Noise, Vibration, Light pollution and Health
5.5.2 Current Noise, Vibration, and Light Conditions
5.5.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Noise/Vibration/Light
5.5.4 Characterization of Noise, Vibration and Light Impacts
5.6 Assessment of Impacts on Community Wellness
5.6.1 Community Wellness and Health
5.6.2 Natural Gas Industry and Community Wellness
5.6.3 Garfield County and Battlement Mesa during the Garfield County 2003-08 Boom
5.6.4 Current Battlement Mesa Community Amenities and Services
5.6.5 Current and Possible Anticipated Impacts to Community Wellness from the Antero Project
5.6.6 Characterization of Community Wellness Impacts
5.7 Assessment of Economic and Employment Impacts on Health in Battlement Mesa
5.7.1 Ways Economic Activity can Influence Health
5.7.2 Past Natural Gas Economic Impacts in Garfield County
5.7.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa
5.7.4 Characterization of the Economy, Employment and Property Values Impacts on Health
5.8 Assessment of Impacts to Health Infrastructure in Battlement Mesa
5.8.1 Private and Public Health Services and Health
5.8.2 Current Health Infrastructure Conditions
5.8.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Healthcare Infrastructure
5.8.4 Characterization of Healthcare Infrastructure Impacts
5.9 Assessment of Accidents and Malfunctions Impacts on Health
5.9.1 Accidents, Malfunctions and Health
5.9.2 Current Conditions for Accidents and Malfunctions
5.9.3 Antero Drilling Plans in Battlement Mesa and Accidents and Malfunctions
5.9.4 Characterization of the Impact from Accidents and Malfunctions

6 Conclusions

7 References

Part Two: Supporting Documentation
TABLES
Table 1: Identified Stakeholders
Table 2: Stakeholder Meetings
Table 3: Stakeholder Concerns and Questions
Table 4: Estimated Annual Emissions from Trucks

APPENDICES
APPENDEIX AA
1 HIA Methods
1.1 Screening
1.2 Scoping
1.3 Assessment
1.4 Recommendations
1.5 Reporting
1.6 Implementation
1.7 Evaluation

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF THE NATURAL GAS DRILLING PROCESS

APPENDIX B: NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE PICEANCE BASIN
B1 Geology
B2 Energy Development in the Piceance Basin: Past
B3 Energy Development in the Piceance Basin: Present
B4 Antero’s Plan in Battlement Mesa

APPENDIX BB
2 Site Description of the Battlement Mesa Community
2.1 The Battlement Mesa Community
2.1.1 Parachute
2.1.2 Demography
2.1.3 Economy

APPENDIX C: BATTLEMENT MESA BASELINE HEALTH PROFILE
C1 Measures of Physical Health
C1.1 Methods
C1.1.1 Cancer Data Methods
C1.1.2 Inpatient Hospital Diagnoses Data Methods
C1.1.3 Mortality Data Methods
C1.1.4 Birth Outcomes Data Methods
C1.2 Population/Demographics
C1.3 Vulnerable populations
C1.4 Cancer, Death, Birth, Hospital Inpatient Data
C1.4.1 Cancer Data
C1.4.2 Inpatient Hospital Diagnoses Data
C1.4.3 Mortality Data
C1.1.4 Birth Outcome Data
C.1.5 Health Data Gaps/Limitations
C1.5.1 Cancer data
C1.5.2 Inpatient hospitalization data
C1.5.3 Mortality Data
C1.5.4 Birth Data
C1.6 Conclusions for Physical Health
C2 Measures of Community Health
C2.1 Education/School Enrollment
C2.2 Crime
C2.3 Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Suicide:
C2.4 Sexually Transmitted Infections
C2.5 Limitations of Social Determinants of Health
C2.6 Summary and Conclusions for Social Determinants of Health

APPENDIX D: HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT*

*This is a very large file. If you have trouble opening it, please send an email to jrada@garfield-county.com to have this document sent by email to you. Also, a browser issue may block the file from opening – click here for a fix.

APPENDIX E: COMMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 2010 DRAFT HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT*

*This is a larger file and may not download without high speed internet. Please access through above recommendations if needed.

APPENDIX F: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 2010 DRAFT HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Figures
Figure 1: Locations of Proposed Well Pads within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit

Attachments
Attachment 1: BCC letter
Attachment 2: Surface Use Agreement

resources