Company fined for dumping HCl in Oklahoma. How safe are Pennsylvania's waters?

On our last show, Dave Yoxtheimer from Penn State's Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research talked about some of the hazardous materials used in hydraulic fracturing operations. One of those is hydrochloric acid. According to the Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs, an employee of Integrated Production Services, LLC has pleaded guilty to improper handling of 500-700 gallons of the acid.

Here's DOJ's release:

WASHINGTON – Integrated Production Services, LLC, (IPS), a Houston-based natural gas and oil drilling contractor, pleaded guilty today to a negligent violation of the Clean Water Act in federal court in Muskogee, Okla., announced Assistant Attorney General Ignacia S. Moreno for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Mark Green, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

In entering the plea, which is subject to approval by the court, IPS has agreed to pay a $140,000 criminal fine and to make a community service payment of $22,000 to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation for ecological studies and remediation of Boggy Creek, located in eastern Oklahoma. IPS will serve a two-year period of probation, during which it will be required to implement and perform an environmental compliance program at a cost of $38,000, to train IPS employees regarding proper hazardous waste handling and spill response procedures.

In May 2007, IPS was performing drilling operations at the Pettigrew natural gas well site in Atoka County, Okla. The company’s operations included hydraulic fracturing, which entails the use of drills and hydrochloric acid to penetrate through bedrock and substrata in order to access natural gas reserves. On May 24, 2007, a tank at the site leaked hydrochloric acid onto the bermed surface of the well, which also was flooded due to recent heavy rainfall. Rather than taking the necessary steps to properly remove the rainwater from the site, Gabriel Henson, an IPS supervisor, drove a company pickup truck through the earthen berm, causing the discharge of the rainwater and an estimated 400-700 gallons of hydrochloric acid into Dry Creek, a tributary of Boggy Creek.

On July 20, 2011, Henson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act. Henson is awaiting sentencing. He faces up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. “As hydraulic fracturing occurs with increasing frequency across the country, companies and individuals involved in those operations must adhere to the laws that protect human health and the environment and level the playing field for responsible businesses,” said Assistant Attorney General Moreno. “We recognize the critical importance of developing domestic sources of energy responsibly, and will continue to vigorously prosecute illegal conduct.”

“This was a case of a corporate employee making a careless decision that caused the release of dangerous hydrochloric acid into our waters,” said U.S. Attorney Green. “Whether to expedite oil production or to save corporate expense, these types of actions cannot be justified nor can they be tolerated. This office will pursue all legal remedies necessary to prevent and/or punish such actions.”

“Hydrochloric acid is a highly corrosive substance. Its release into a tributary of Boggy Creek was a serious threat to the environment,” said Ivan Vikin, Special Agent-in-Charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) criminal enforcement program in Oklahoma.

“Today’s guilty plea demonstrates that companies will be held responsible for environmental crimes.” This case was investigated by the U.S. EPA Criminal Investigation Division and the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office of Inspector General. The case is a joint prosecution between the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma and the Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division.

Just a few weeks ago I was at an EPA public comment hearing on new regulations for natural gas operations (tweeted here on September 27th, 2011). Outraged Pennsylvanians at that hearing wondered who in the government was sticking up for them. It appears as though someone is working in Oklahoma.

But do you ever wonder how many spills like this happen and aren't caught? I am reminded of Jeff Tietz's Rolling Stone article (pdf) on the pork industry a couple of years ago in which he alleged that Smithfield Foods' chairman Joseph Luter III said that the 74 EPA citations under the Clean Water Act were paltry in comparison to the likely 2.5 million violations he estimated they'd actually committed.

The oil and gas industry is not the same as the pork industry. But much of the public suspects that there is woefully little oversight. According to Mary Carol-Frier who compiled DEP numbers with Pennsylvania Land Trust Association report numbers (pdf) , between January of 2008 and June of 2010 in Pennsylvania, the oil and gas industry were cited by DEP for 161 violations for discharge of industrial waste including into streams, 524 discharges of pollutional materials into waters of Commonwealth, 1,149 Oil and Gas Act-specific violations, including improper pits, impoundments, well waste treatment, well casements and cementing and plugging. It is troubling to imagine that the oil and gas industry could be cited for as relatively few violations as the pork industry might have been.

Pennsylvania has the second most surface water in the fifty states after Alaska and a booming gas industry. Many people aren't sure who's protecting them. One woman at the EPA hearing pointed her finger at the board and said, "How do you sleep at night? You're supposed to be protecting us." Three compressor stations roar around her property and fill the air with a smell she can hardly believe. "It's like living in a third world country."

As Dave Yoxtheimer said on our show, there are some good actors and some who aren't. There are the fly-by-night guys and those who are good neighbors who work with families, municipalities and the state. Can we get all of them to be the best neighbors they can be?

Pennsylvania gets double whammy on gas drilling

First, the public gives DEP a black eye. Then a neighboring state is taking us to court.

Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection has stepped back from its policy regarding on-site violation. On March 23rd, an internal memo was leaked to the press directing all DEP inspectors to run potential violations by DEP Secretary Michael Krancer. There was an immediate outcry from citizens and local, regional, and environmental organizations. It looks as though that may have played some part in the policy's reversal.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, DEP is saying that Krancer's intent was not clearly stated. Some, like Sierra Club's Jeff Schmidt aren't buying it. The article quotes Schmidt as saying, "I think they never intended for it to be public, therefore they never planned to deal with it if it became public. Now they're coming up with one story after another to change history." Activists in the blogosphere, on Facebook, and Twitter seem to agree. And history now has the recent well blowout in Bradford County.

That threat to public health and the environment have prompted Maryland's attorney general to sue Chesapeake Energy. The attorney general's statement begins as follows:

BALTIMORE, MD ( May 2, 2011) - Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler today announced that he has sent a letter to Chesapeake Energy Corporation and its affiliates, notifying the companies of the State of Maryland's intent to sue for violating the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). On April 19, thousands of gallons of fracking fluids were released from a well owned and operated by Chesapeake Energy into Towanda Creek, a tributary of the Susquehanna River, which supplies 45% of the fresh water in the Chesapeake Bay. In his letter, Attorney General Gansler notified the company that at the close of the required 90-day notice period, the State intends to file a citizen suit and seek injunctive relief and civil penalties under RCRA for solid or hazardous waste contamination of soils and ground waters, and the surface waters and sediments of Towanda Creek and the Susquehanna River. The State also intends to seek injunctive relief and civil penalties under the CWA for violation of the CWA's prohibition on unpermitted pollution to waters of the United States.

You can read more about the suit at The Baltimore Sun.

There are now a few high-profile lawsuits in the work. Do you think Maryland is in the right on this?

Drilling responsibly?

That question drove today's show. Barb Jarmoska of the Responsible Drilling Alliance came on the show today. They are a group that "Seeking truth about the consequences of deep shale gas drilling." Jarmoska walked us through numerous problems that Pennsylvanians face when it comes to the shale gas drilling. It ranges from the well-known damage in our state forests to the migration of gas into roughly 70 wells in Bradford County and the corporatization of the state government.

What's to be done? Get involved with RDA and other groups. Give a listen here and feel free to leave comments below.

So where are Pennsylvania's Senators?

Released on March 31st: Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and 30 colleagues today introduced a resolution calling for continued implementation of the Clean Air Act.

In the face of efforts by House Republicans and some senators to weaken the nation’s clean air protections, the resolution which specifies the benefits of the Clean Air Act has 34 original cosponsors who and will continue to seek additional support from their colleagues.

The landmark law saves 160,000 Americans from premature death every year and helps avoid tens of thousands of cases of lung disease, heart attacks, and emergency room visits. The act also has reduced major air pollution by 41 percent over the last 20 years even as the economy grew by 64 percent.

Sanders said, “It is absolutely unconscionable that in the year 2011 the Congress is debating amendments to gut the Clean Air Act and I am going to fight back. I also think that at a time when House Republicans might force a government shutdown unless the EPA backs down from protecting public health, we must not let the budget process be used to deregulate polluters.”

Whitehouse said, “Americans are expecting us to roll up our sleeves and get to work, solving today’s pressing issues – putting America back to work, and reducing the federal deficit. Instead, radical Republicans are using the budget process to push for extreme policy positions that would gut the Clean Air Act and roll back important public health protections. These same Republicans are literally demanding that we compromise our children’s health to get a short-term budget deal.”

Carper said, "For the last forty years, the EPA has use the Clean Air Act to foster economic growth and protect Americans from life threatening air pollution. Since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the EPA has saved thousands of lives and saved billions of dollars in health care costs, while keeping electricity rates – adjusted for inflation - constant. At the same time American jobs in engineering and design, as well as in manufacturing, installing and operating pollution control and clean energy technology are being created to meet our clean air needs. Put it another way, the Clean Air Act benefits outweigh the costs by a margin of 30 to 1. Talk about a return on investment. It just doesn't get much better than that.”

Kerry said, “Ever since Richard Nixon signed it into law, the Clean Air Act has saved tens of thousands of lives by curbing air pollution and helped jumpstart new technologies that created millions of jobs in the process. But somehow our political environment has become so divorced from reality, facts, science and history that today even a commonsense law like the Clean Air Act can be used as a partisan punching bag. This Resolution showcases just some of the Clean Air Act’s many achievements, and I hope it will remind my colleagues that under this law we were able to grow our economy and cut harmful pollution that threatens our families.”

The Senate is expected to vote soon on up to four amendments that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to reduce carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. An amendment by the Senate Republican Leadership would overturn EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a public health threat and allow the biggest polluters to spew carbon pollution without restrictions. It also would undermine fuel economy standards that are projected to save drivers of new vehicles up to $2,800 at the gas pump, save more than 2 million barrels of oil per day (roughly as much as the U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf), and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

House Republicans are also reportedly pushing for riders attached to their budget bill, which would shut down Clean Air Act enforcement of big polluters’ greenhouse gas emissions, to be included in a congressional budget deal.

Sanders’ resolution is also sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Environment Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Democrat Conference Secretary Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

The Republican Congress's War on Clean Air and Water

Today, we will be talking to Ed Perry of the National Wildlife Federation. A few weeks ago he hosted a protest outside Pennsylvania Congressman Glenn Thompson (R) because of Thompson's support of some legislation that will gut environmental regulations, inhibit the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, and will expand polluting industries' governmental entanglement.

Ed has recently written the following:

The House Majority Wants to Gut Environmental Protections

On Feb. 25, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a continuing budget resolution to keep the government operating and cut spending. But most people didn’t notice that it also was intended to gut environmental agencies and regulations that have protected our air, water and land for more than 40 years.

The U.S. Senate wouldn’t go along, but a House majority was willing to trash decades of bipartisan support for our most basic clean water and clean air protections in a full retreat from the fundamental expectation that elected leaders should safeguard our health and natural resources.

Instead of adding earmarks to its first budget resolution, this Congress added “oilmarks.” An oilmark is a prohibition attached to a spending bill that handcuffs regulators, forcing them to look the other way as polluters endanger the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the lands and waters that nurture fish and wildlife.

Oilmarks are like earmarks in that they don’t get debated and scrutinized, so members feel safe in voting for them. Of 51 amendments added to the original House continuing resolution, 14 were oilmarks aimed at letting politics override science and commonsense public-health protections.

Among other things, the oilmarks would have:

• Allowed 5,000 additional tons of hazardous air pollution and mercury emissions.
• Blocked new health standards to reduce soot pollution, which is particularly harmful to the lungs of our children.
• Blocked funding for climate change science and sensible regulations to start reducing carbon dioxide pollution from oil refineries and power plants.
• Blocked science-based restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, Klamath Basin, San Francisco Bay Delta and Florida waters.
• Blocked new rules and guidance to prevent hazardous coal ash from entering water supplies as happened in the 2008 Tennessee disaster.
• Blocked new rules and guidance to protect stream valleys and wetlands from the dumping of waste from mountain top-removal mining and other sources.

The total budget savings for the 14 oilmarks would have been zero dollars. Not one dime would have been shaved from the deficit, which ostensibly was the purpose of this bill.

While adding all kinds of oilmarks to the spending bill, the House rejected the one amendment, offered by Rep. Markey, D-Mass., that would have eliminated billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies. Closing a royalty payment loophole for oil companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico could save taxpayers $53 billion in the coming years, but the amendment was defeated.

At least Congressmen Glenn Thompson and Bill Shuster were consistent. They voted for every one of these oilmarks and then voted against the only amendment that would have reduced the deficit; the one that would have cut taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies.

The sheer audacity and scope of the assault on environmental protection makes you wonder if these folks are out of touch with their constituents. Poll after poll shows Americans want Congress to protect air and water regulations and take action on climate change.

A national survey found that two thirds of Americans — including 54 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents — said the EPA should “reduce carbon pollution without delay.” One poll question revealed particularly strong support for clean air updates the EPA is putting forward: 66 percent of Americans — including 54 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Independents — favor stricter limits on the release of toxic chemicals such as mercury, lead, and arsenic from coal-fired power plants and other industrial facilities.

Our representatives may say they don’t want a bunch of unelected bureaucrats setting carbon limits for the United States; they want Congress to do it. But what they really mean is that they don’t want any limits at all.

Last year, Congress had an opportunity to pass clean energy legislation to reduce carbon emissions and virtually every representative who voted for the oilmarks voted against the bill. They continue to vote against clean energy legislation, yet they have no alternatives.

Is this what Americans want this new Congress to do? Assault the agency that has effectively reduced air and water pollution and set environmental standards that make our country’s quality of life the envy of the world?

Really?

You know, not long ago our government reflected Americans’ strong environmental values. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were passed with bipartisan support in the 1970s, with Republican representatives and senators leading the way. And when Congress updated the Clean Air Act in 1990 to protect thousands of lives and curb acid rain, the House passed the legislation with an overwhelming vote of 401-25. Now it appears all of that has changed.

Fortunately, the U.S. Senate refused to go along with the House oilmarks in last month’s temporary budget resolution. But with another resolution coming soon, let’s hope the Senate — with the help of Pennsylvania Sens. Bob Casey and Pat Toomey — stands firm again and continues to support the EPA and its efforts to protect our air, land and water.

- Ed Perry, PA Outreach Coordinator, National Wildlife Federation

Listen in today from 4-5 pm on The Lion.