Protecting our Children – Sandra Steingraber May 13-Vestal

May 3, 2011

A FREE TALK BY DR. SANDRA STEINGRABER    Poster   Poster 2/page

Author whose book has been featured as an HBO movie “Living Downstream”

The audio for this event is here:
http://changetheframe.com/audio/sandra_steingraber_vestal_may13-2011/steingraber-audio.mp3

Friday, May 13, 2011 7:00 pm (doors open at 6:30 pm)

Clayton Ave Elementary School, 209 Clayton Ave, Vestal, NY

Dr. Sandra Steingraber is a mother, biologist, ecologist and cancer survivor who has won the Rachel Carson award for her writing about the connection between our health and the environment.  She looks at the toxic, ecologically fractured world our children now inhabit and invites all parents and those concerned to attend this event and learn about the increasing toxic load we all have to carry.  Toxins have been implicated in such problems as childhood cancers, asthma, autism, allergies, reproductive problems and autoimmune problems.  Dr. Steingraber will be available for a book signing of her new book, “Raising Elijah,” following the talk. 

*Sponsored by Binghamton Regional Sustainability Coalition

“Steingraber’s book is a deeply thoughtful, at times frightening, but ultimately hopeful book that describes in compelling and lyrical detail the two great, intertwined ecological crises of our time – the crisis of toxic chemical exposure and the crisis of global warming.  She argues that mastery of these crises will require heroic action, societal action on a scale as great as that which ended slavery in the United States, and is essential to save our planet and our children.”

-Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., MSc, Director, Children’s Environmental Health Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine

“This could be the most important and inspiring parenting book ever written.  With fierce love and hard science, Sandra Steingraber convinces us that protecting children from the poisons that surround them cannot be left to conscientious mothers and fathers alone.  It must instead become our society’s highes collective priority.”

–          Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine


Filed under Health Tagged with , , , ,

Pennsylvania Official: End Nears For Fracking Wastewater Releases

April 25, 2011

Pennsylvania Official: End Nears For Fracking Wastewater Releases.

Filed under Waste, Water Tagged with , , ,

Bromide linked to oil/gas “brines”

April 12, 2011

Dr. Conrad Voltz, formerly of the Center for Environmental Health and Justice at U Pitt, testified in front of a Senate subcomittee today.   (4/11/11)

From a study he and his students did at a treatment plant that only handled “brine” from oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania, they found amongst 8 other effluents at levels that exceed standards:

Bromide, which forms mixed chloro-bromo byproducts in water treatment
facilities that have been linked to cancer and other health problems were found in
effluent at 10,688 times the levels generally found acceptable as a background in
surface water.

On March 7, 2011 Melody Kight at SUNY-ESF presented the initial
findings of her research on identifying flowback fluid contamination.

“It’s very difficult to distinguish” the source of elevated chlorides
in well or surface water, whether they’re from road salt, frack fluid,
or other sources of NaCl (salt).  Her studies indicate that the Na:Cl
ratio is at approximately 1:1 in all of them.  Therefore, a different
ratio must be used to “fingerprint” frack fluid contamination.

Parker in 1978 characterized Appalachian Basin formation brine.  He
found that as NaCl precipitates out of solution, bromide remains
dissolved in the brine.

Therefore, Ms. Kight rationalized, the Br:Cl ratio is the key.  Her
studies, using water samples from the PADEP and various calculating
and modeling software, showed that salty water from frack fluid and
from other sources have different Br:Cl ratios.

Bromide has a 0.01 mg/L detection limit.  Ms. Kight calculated that a
solution contaminated with as little as 0.0015% frack fluid could be
fingerprinted in this way.

http://sites.google.com/site/melodykight/home/research/abstracts

Ms. Kight is known to be a vocal supporter of natural gas drilling, but her research may prove useful.  Landowners should ensure their water, both pre- and post- drilling, has been checked for bromide.

Filed under Waste, Water Tagged with , , ,

MARCELLUS SHALE: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UNKNOWN NYS Grange Apr. 11 at 7pm

March 30, 2011 1 Comment

MARCELLUS SHALE: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UNKNOWN

LESSONS LEARNED FROM BRADFORD COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

An educational seminar on natural gas exploration is scheduled for

Monday April 11th, from 7pm to 9pm at the New York State Grange Headquarters in Cortland, NY.

The seminar will focus on the issues associated with natural gas production in shale formations and lessons learned by our neighbors in northern Pennsylvania (PA).

With over 400 wells, Bradford County, PA is considered to be at the forefront of development in the Marcellus shale “natural gas play”. When the race for natural gas development in shale formations came to PA, the State and Bradford County were not as prepared as they would like to have been. The PA Department of Environmental Protection was quick to issue permits for extracting gas through the use of horizontal hydrofracturing. Horizontal hydrofracturing brought a wide range of opportunities and impacts to the local communities.

With the current moratorium on horizontal hydrofracturing in New York State, local communities have an opportunity to hear firsthand what is happening in northern PA in order to be better prepared for natural gas development, should it come here. With over 30 years of experience at the Bradford County Conservation District, Manager Mike Lovegreen knows every nook and cranny of his county and has seen firsthand the impact this industry can have on small rural communities. Mike will be discussing his experiences relating to the natural gas industry and what the Conservation District and local municipalities roles are regarding issues such as water quality monitoring, roads, economic development, etc. He will discuss the importance of maintaining a good working relationship between local government, the gas industry and the community. All landowners, local officials and community members are invited to attend this informational seminar focusing on Bradford County’s experiences with the natural gas boom of recent years.

This seminar is sponsored by the Cortland County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and is free and open to the public. If you have any questions about the seminar or any of the services or programs provided by the SWCD please call 607-756-5991 or visit the SWCD website at http://www.cortlandswcd.org.

=========================================================

Previous presentation

Mike Lovegreen, Bradford County Conservation District Manager, spoke at the Otsego County Water Quality Coordinating Committee meeting on Tuesday, February 22 on first-hand experiences there. He had a lot of interesting things to say — some expected, some not. The boom town information is worth a look. Please see the article in the current issue of OCCA’s newsletter, “The Lookout.” A video is available, and there is a link to his PowerPoint presentation on the OCCA website homepage.

===============================================

Comment:

Most of what has happened in Pennsylvania is a good lesson – in what not to do:

1. The major assets – the gas wells themselves – are tax exempt from property (ad valorem) tax in Pa.

The schools, counties, towns get nothing from them = zero.

Pa. is perhaps the only (?) state that exempts gas wells from local property tax.

Payoffs in Harrisburg that keep it this way.

No money for regulation, no money for EMS, for roads, nada

2. The product – natural gas –  is tax exempt under Pa. law – one of only 2 states (with gas production) that exempts it

Because Pa. has the best politicians that money can buy. No money for regulation, for roads, for nada

3. Since most of the producers, suppliers and crews are from out of state,  most of the money leaves the state tax free


4. The fracking flowback ends up on the roads and rivers in Pa. because there is no safe place to dispose of it in Pa.

The closest disposal wells are across the state line in Ohio.

So it gets dumped illegally or sold as “de-icer”. They catch some dumpers – most they don’t.

“Recycling/re-use” simply increases the toxicity with  each pass.

“Processing” simply separates the toxic radioactive sludge from the toxic radioactive water.


So far as shale gas development is concerned, Pa. is a bad joke.

More like a 3rd world country.

Suggest you treat any “expert” from Pa. accordingly. . .

James Northrup

Filed under events, Water Tagged with , , , , , , ,

EPA BEGINS INVESTIGATION OF PENNSYLVANIA

March 18, 2011

EPA BEGINS INVESTIGATION OF PENNSYLVANIA


EPA sends letter to PA regarding drinking water.
PA has 30-days notice about waste treatment / records:
http://www.damascuscitizens.org/EPA-to-PA.pdf

Filed under EPA, Waste, Water Tagged with , , , , ,

Groups say facilities wrongly discharging drilling wastewater

March 13, 2011

Groups say facilities wrongly discharging drilling wastewater.

Groups say facilities wrongly discharging drilling wastewater

Organizations plan to file a lawsuit
Friday, March 11, 2011
By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Two municipal sewage treatment facilities that together discharge 150,000 gallons a day of Marcellus Shale wastewater into the Monongahela River watershed don’t have federal permits for such pollution discharges and should, according to two environmental organizations that say they will sue the facilities in federal court.

Clean Water Action and Three Rivers Waterkeeper on Thursday filed a “notice of intent to sue” against sewage treatment operations in McKeesport and Franklin, Greene County, claiming the facilities are in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

The notice marks the first legal action challenging the widespread practice of discharging Marcellus wastewater through municipal treatment facilities that do not have permits to treat such waste.

The groups were critical of both the state Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to enforce existing discharge permits, which limit the facilities to treating and discharging sewage waste water. At least 11 sewage treatment facilities in the state accept and discharge Marcellus wastewater.

 

“We cannot wait any longer to rely on the state and the EPA to act,” said Myron Arnowitt, state director of Clean Water Action. “These sewage plants have been illegally discharging gas drilling wastewater into our rivers since 2008 without a permit as required by the Clean Water Act.”

Mr. Arnowitt said the treatment facilities should immediately stop accepting the gas drilling wastewater or seek permission to amend their permits so they can legally do so.

The 18-page legal notice sent to the treatment plant and municipal officials in McKeesport and Franklin is a requirement of many federal environmental laws that include citizen suit provisions. It’s the first step toward filing a lawsuit and provides 60 days to negotiate a settlement before a lawsuit can be filed.

In response to water quality concerns, the DEP in 2008 limited the Municipal Authority for the City of McKeesport’s treatment and discharge of Marcellus Shale drilling wastewater to 1 percent of its total discharge, or an average of 102,000 gallons a day going into the Monongahela River. This year the authority’s Marcellus discharge is limited to 99,700 gallons a day, based on its average daily discharge in 2010.

The Franklin Township Sewer Authority in Greene County discharges an average of 50,000 gallons a day of Marcellus drilling wastewater into the South Fork of Ten Mile Creek, a tributary of the Monongahela River. That’s equal to 5 percent of the authority’s daily discharge, and allowed under a negotiated consent agreement with the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Those state-imposed treatment and discharge limits don’t address the main claim of the environmental groups: that their existing discharge permits haven’t been changed to allow them to accept the drilling wastewater and that the discharges are having a detrimental effect on water quality in the rivers.

About 500,000 people get their drinking water from the Mon.

“Their failure to follow proper procedures for authorization to discharge oil and as wastewater renders their discharge illegal,” the notice states. “Their failure to follow the requirements pertaining to the pretreatment program also leaves them in violation of the Clean Water Act.”

Joe Ross, executive director of the McKeesport authority, and George Scott, general manager of the Franklin facility, said Thursday afternoon they hadn’t seen the notice filing or been contacted by the environmental groups, so declined to comment.

Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
First published on March 11, 2011 at 12:00 am

Filed under Suits, Waste, Water Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Garfield County – Battlement Mesa HIA EHMS background & information

March 8, 2011

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

Filed under Health Tagged with , , , , , ,

Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR

March 1, 2011

Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR. 3-1-11

 
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-01/drilling-natural-gas-rewards-and-risks

* Comments (2)
* Share
Tuesday, March 1, 2011 – 10:06 a.m.
* 10:06 a.m. (ET) Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
* 11:06 a.m. (ET) Environmental Outlook: Light Bulbs

The jack-up rig Rowan Gorilla III is loaded on to the semi-submersible heavy
lift ship Triumph in Halifax harbor Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011. The rig was drilling
on the Deep Panuke natural gas development offshore Nova Scotia.
AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Andrew Vaughan
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
More sophisticated drilling techniques are unlocking this country’s enormous
reserves of natural gas. But many say environmental concerns – including
radioactive waste water – have yet to be fully addressed. Efforts to reduce the
risks of extracting natural gas.
The state of Pennsylvania is in the forefront of the current rush to extract
natural gas, and it also seems to be in the middle of an increasingly
contentious debate over related environmental risks. The process of extracting
natural gas involves forcing millions of gallons of water deep into the earth to
break up rock and release the gas. Environmentalists say that in some states,
including Pennsylvania, this waste water which is often laden with heavy salts
and naturally occurring radioactive materials is being improperly discharged
into rivers and streams. Please join us for conversation on the risks and
rewards of drilling for natural gas.
Guests
John Quigley
former secretary Pennsylvania’s Department of conservation and Natural Resourses
Ian Urbina
reporter, NY Times
Tony Ingraffea
Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering
Weiss Presidential Teaching Fellow
Cornell University
Kathryn Klaber
president, Marcellus Shale Coalition
Amy Mall
policy analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council
John Hanger
former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

—

Filed under Waste, Water Tagged with , , , , , ,

Hinchey Press Release on SDWA 2-26-11

February 28, 2011

For Immediate Release 

February 26, 2011

 Contact: Mike Morosi 

202-225-6335 (office)

202-407-3787 (cell)


Hinchey: Feds Should Immediately Take Action to Protect Drinking Water from Radioactive Hydrofracking Waste, Congress Must Untie EPA’s Hands, Eliminate Natural Gas Industry Exemption from Safe Drinking Water Act

Washington DC – A New York Times article entitled “Regulation Is Lax for Water From Gas Wells” revealed that toxic wastewater byproducts of hydraulic fracturing, a drilling technique used to obtain natural gas, can contain radioactive contaminants at levels hundreds or even thousands of times the maximum allowed by federal standards for drinking water. In reaction, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) released the following statement.

Hinchey co-authored the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act to eliminate the so-called 2005 Halliburton exemption, which prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating fracking through the Safe Drinking Water Act. The legislation would also require the disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Hinchey is also the author of language that initiated an ongoing EPA study to determine the environmental impacts of the drilling technique.

“The news that radioactive waste from the hydraulic fracturing process is being sent through wastewater treatment plants unequipped to handle it and then dumped into rivers and streams that supply drinking water to millions of people is alarming and must be immediately addressed. This story shows that the risks associated with this drilling technique are far too unknown and the current regulatory framework is far too limited to protect drinking water and the general public.

“Congress must take action to untie the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency, allowing it to assert proper oversight of the full life-cycle of the hydraulic fracturing process by repealing the egregious exemptions that this industry enjoys from our nation’s most important environmental safeguards. I will be introducing legislation in the near future to do just that.

“The EPA should immediately begin requiring states to monitor radioactivity levels at all drinking water intakes that are in close proximity to sewage treatment plants that accept natural gas drilling wastewater.

“We can’t afford to take the ‘wait and see’ approach when it comes to radioactive, carcinogenic materials contaminating drinking water. Now is the time for all those who care about the safety of America’s drinking water supplies to step up to the plate and protect it for future generations.”

###
February 26, 2011

Filed under EPA, Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, Waste, Water Tagged with , , ,

Markey letter to EPA re NYT Expose

February 27, 2011

Markey letter to EPA re NYT Expose markeyepa.pdf (application/pdf Object).

Filed under Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, Water Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →