Externalities of Shales: Health Impact Costs | EnergyPolicyForum
April 6, 2013
Externalities of Shales: Health Impact Costs | EnergyPolicyForum.
Schools and Gas Drilling
February 1, 2013
And Claire Barnett of the Healthy Schools Network joins Jeff Jones to discuss schools and gas drilling Interview at about 38 minutes into the program:
Capitol Pressroom, Feb. 1, 2013 http://www.wcny.org/thecapitolpressroomorg/wp-content/uploads/FEB012013.MP3
“Cuomo Puts the Cart Before the Horse on Fracking—Elected Officials, Leading Environmental and Health Experts Call on Cuomo to Open Health Review to the Public,” Dec. 3, 2012
December 3, 2012
With thanks to Richard Averett for posting info about Concerned Health Professionals of New York, here is my entire statement from the press conference today in Albany with Barbara LIfton, Matt Ryan, Walter Hang, and Roger Downs of the Sierra Club. I haven’t seen any media coverage yet. Sandra
Prepared Remarks, Albany Press Conference, “Cuomo Puts the Cart Before the Horse on Fracking—Elected Officials, Leading Environmental and Health Experts Call on Cuomo to Open Health Review to the Public,” Dec. 3, 2012
I am Sandra Steingraber, biologist at Ithaca College
I saw some of you last Thursday when I was here to announce the launch of Concerned Health Professionals of New York—an initiative of doctors, nurses, and environmental health researchers.
Concerned Health Professionals was launched in response to the secrecy of the ongoing health review, the exclusion of New York State’s own public health experts in the process, and Governor Cuomo’s rejection of our unified demand for a transparent, comprehensive Health Impact Assessment.
Not knowing what documents the three outside health reviewers have been asked by DOH to review, we’ve created a website: www.concernedhealthny.org where we’ve uploaded peer-reviewed studies, reports, and our testimonies and letters to serve as a repository of our many concerns about the consequences of fracking for public health.
Since then, we’ve also uploaded an eight-minute video appeal to the three panelists from three of New York’s leading public health physicians, two nurses, the founder of New York Breast Cancer Network, and myself—an environmental researcher. In this video, we speak directly to the three panelists about our most urgent concerns. These include—
- Radium in flowback fluid
- Diesel exhaust and its link to breast cancer risk
- Impaired birth outcomes of newborns born to women living near drilling and fracking operations
None of these concerns appear in the last iteration of the sGEIS. We have no idea if they are in the current one or are part of documents pieced together in secrecy by the DOH.
Okay. Can I just say that this is crazy? Scientists and doctors creating videos and websites funded out of their own pockets to get information and data to our out-of-state colleagues because our collective knowledge has been entirely ignored by our own government?
But it gets even crazier. On Thursday, we learned that draft regulations were being released. On Friday, we learned that two of the three outside reviews—in whose hands the fate of millions of New Yorkers now lie—are being paid for 25 hours of work. Twenty-five hours is three working days. You cannot even READ all the literature on fracking’s health effects in three days.
So what should be a linear, deliberative process of decision-making—
first, we investigate cumulative health impacts (how many New Yorkers will get sick and die if fracking comes to our state?), then we fold those answers into a larger EIS that examines if said impacts are acceptably mitigatable, and only then, if they are, do those results become the foundation for regulations—
what should be a linear process of decision-making is twisted into a pretzel:
The regs are out and we can comment on them.
But the EIS is not out.
And the health study, which should be its basis, isn’t even done, and it’s being carried out in total secrecy, and, oh, yeah, today’s the reported deadline for the receipt of the outside reviewers review based on unknown scoping and three days’ work.
That’s not just irrational. That’s surreal
In twenty years of serving on state and federal advisory panels and watching science get turned into policy, I have never seen a more shameful process. The scientific process behind the decision to frack or not to frack New York is befitting a Third World dictatorship, not a progressive democracy.
Here’s what needs to happen: The process by which the state of New York is evaluating health effects must be opened up to public scrutiny and input. We must have public hearings. We must define the broad spectrum of pollutants associated with fracking, document their fate in the environment, identify pathways of human exposure, and investigate long-term health consequences.
Until then, the public health community of New York will raise our voices in objection. Because science is supposed to be transparent, and the Governor’s process has been anything but transparent. Because this process feels like a series of reactions to attacks from the fracking industry, rather than a deliberative process for implementing sound public policy.
It is alarming for the administration to attempt to rush the enormous amount of work that must be done into the next 85 days. We hope—and demand—that they will step back, see the dangerous path they are on, step out of the backrooms to engage the public, and keep their promise to follow the science.
Air Pollution and Natural Gas Operations
November 14, 2012
Air Pollution and Natural Gas Operations
An Exploratory Study of Air Quality near Natural Gas Operations
| Download the article(PDF)Findings and Implications (PDF) |  |
 |
 |
This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal (November 9, 2012).
Abstract
This exploratory study was designed to assess air quality in a rural western Colorado area where residences and gas wells co-exist. Sampling was conducted before, during, and after drilling and hydraulic fracturing of a new natural gas well pad. Weekly air sampling for 1 year revealed that the number of non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs) and their concentrations were highest during the initial drilling phase and did not increase during hydraulic fracturing in this closed-loop system. Methylene chloride, a toxic solvent not reported in products used in drilling or hydraulic fracturing, was detected 73% of the time; several times in high concentrations. A literature search of the health effects of the NMHCs revealed that many had multiple health effects, including 30 that affect the endocrine system, which is susceptible to chemical impacts at very low concentrations, far less than government safety standards. Selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were at concentrations greater than those at which prenatally exposed children in urban studies had lower developmental and IQ scores. The human and environmental health impacts of the NMHCs, which are ozone precursors, should be examined further given that the natural gas industry is now operating in close proximity to human residences and public lands.
Citation
Colborn T, Schultz K, Herrick L, and Kwiatkowski C. 2012 (in press). An exploratory study of air quality near natural gas operations. Hum Ecol Risk Assess.
U.S. GAO – Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks
November 13, 2012
What GAO Found
Estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Potential Gas Committee–three organizations that estimate the size of these resources–have increased over the last 5 years, which could mean an increase in the nation’s energy portfolio. For example, in 2012, EIA estimated that the amount of technically recoverable shale gas in the United States was 482 trillion cubic feet–an increase of 280 percent from EIA’s 2008 estimate. However, according to EIA and USGS officials, estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States are highly dependent on the data, methodologies, model structures, and assumptions used to develop them. In addition, less is known about the amount of technically recoverable shale oil than shale gas, in part because large-scale production of shale oil has been under way for only the past few years. Estimates are based on data available at a given point in time and will change as additional information becomes available. In addition, domestic shale oil and gas production has experienced substantial growth; shale oil production increased more than fivefold from 2007 to 2011, and shale gas production increased more than fourfold from 2007 to 2011.
Oil and gas development, whether conventional or shale oil and gas, pose inherent environmental and public health risks, but the extent of these risks associated with shale oil and gas development is unknown, in part, because the studies GAO reviewed do not generally take into account the potential long-term, cumulative effects. For example, according to a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed, shale oil and gas development poses risks to air quality, generally as the result of (1) engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, (2) emissions from diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, (3) gas that is flared (burned) or vented (released directly into the atmosphere) for operational reasons, and (4) unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment or impoundments–temporary storage areas. Similarly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals. For example, tanks storing toxic chemicals or hoses and pipes used to convey wastes to the tanks could leak, or impoundments containing wastes could overflow as a result of extensive rainfall. According to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s 2011 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, spilled, leaked, or released chemicals or wastes could flow to a surface water body or infiltrate the ground, reaching and contaminating subsurface soils and aquifers. In addition, shale oil and gas development poses a risk to land resources and wildlife habitat as a result of constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to develop oil and gas; using toxic chemicals; and injecting fluids underground. However, the extent of these risks is unknown. Further, the extent and severity of environmental and public health risks identified in the studies and publications GAO reviewed may vary significantly across shale basins and also within basins because of location- and process-specific factors, including the location and rate of development; geological characteristics, such as permeability, thickness, and porosity of the formations; climatic conditions; business practices; and regulatory and enforcement activities.
Why GAO Did This Study
New applications of horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracturing–in which water, sand, and chemical additives are injected under high pressure to create and maintain fractures in underground formations–allow oil and natural gas from shale formations (known as “shale oil” and “shale gas”) to be developed. As exploration and development of shale oil and gas have increased–including in areas of the country without a history of oil and natural gas development–questions have been raised about the estimates of the size of these resources, as well as the processes used to extract them.
GAO was asked to determine what is known about the (1) size of shale oil and gas resources and the amount produced from 2007 through 2011 and (2) environmental and public health risks associated with the development of shale oil and gas. GAO reviewed estimates and data from federal and nongovernmental organizations on the size and production of shale oil and gas resources. GAO also interviewed federal and state regulatory officials, representatives from industry and environmental organizations, oil and gas operators, and researchers from academic institutions.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review. The Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Energy did not provide comments.
For more information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.
EARTHWORKS | Public health and gas development
October 18, 2012
EARTHWORKS | Public health and gas development.
Public health and gas development
Where oil and gas development goes, health problems often follow.
Yet industry representatives and policymakers seeking to expand drilling often dismiss claims of health impacts as “personal anecdotes” and isolated incidents.
The primary reasons that public health risks posed by increasing gas development can be disputed:
- A lack of established science. Widespread scientific investigation has only recently begun to investigate the relationship between gas development and public health impacts.
- State governments, which are largely responsible for protecting the public from irresponsible oil and gas development, have until recently refused to consider the issue.
- Even as they have become widespread, individual reports of health problems in the gas patch have been continually dismissed as anecdotal by industry and government.
To investigate the connection, between August 2011 and July 2012 Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP) researched the extent, types, and possible causes of health symptoms experienced by people living in the gas patches of Pennsylvania.
The main conclusions of the project — Gas Patch Roulette: How Shale Gas Development Risks Public Health in Pennsylvania:
- Contaminants associated with oil and gas development are present in air and water in many communities where development is occurring.
- Many residents have developed health symptoms that they did not have before—indicating the strong possibility that they are occurring because of gas development.
- By permitting widespread gas development without fully understanding its impacts to public health—and using that lack of knowledge to justify regulatory inaction—Pennsylvania and other states are risking the public’s health.
Gas Patch Roulette documents:
- Press release
- Gas Patch Roulette: Summary Report (4 pages)
- Gas Patch Roulette: Full Report (51 pages)
For more information:
The health survey form through which residents reported health symptoms.
Additional information and data tables to support some of the analysis and charts found in the report.
- Association of symptoms and distance from facilities, by age group – Data associated with Figure 1
- Data on Air Tests Results by County
- List of Symptoms Associated with Chemicals Detected in Air Tests
- Data related to Figure 4: Differences in symptoms based on respondents with water and air tests
Tagged with: toxics, regulation, public health, pennsylvania, marcellus shale, health and toxics, gas patch roulette
Gas Patch Roulette: Differences in symptoms based on respondents with air and water tests
Publication »
Gas Patch Roulette: Summary Report
How Shale Gas Development Risks Public Health in Pennsy
GDACC 
