Comments on the EPA
Just recently there has been a lot of hoopla about the ruling made by the Environmental Protection Agency on air and water quality standards. The new ruling on carbon air emissions requires a 30 percent decrease in 2005 levels by the year 2030. Before the debate gets out of control and before people begin to make rash judgments on how this new ruling will affect us, let me give you some facts and comments about how the system works and how this ruling will affect us.
Let us begin with how the system works when it comes to the relationship between the federal government and the state government. The EPA is trusted with setting the standards nationwide for both air and water. The states must follow these standards; however, the states also have a say in how they control air and water standards. Once a standard is set, the states cannot lessen the ruling, but they can make the ruling more stringent. For example, the current standard set for Radium 226 and Radium 228 combined is 5 pCi/l for drinking water. The states have the right to lower the pCi/l standard to less than 5, but they do not have the right to raise the standard higher than 5.
Another example is the standard for bromide in our drinking water. Presently, there is no standard for bromide in drinking water. The reason for this is that bromide was never really a problem in surface water until the Marcellus drilling began to occur. The Marcellus shale layer is found deep underground, and the bromide, salt, strontium, radium 226 and radium 228 were not reaching surface water to any major degree. When “flow back” water began to be introduced into the surface waters, then problems began to arise. Since there is no standard for bromide in drinking water by the EPA, each state had the right to set a limit for bromide concentrations in drinking water. As for Pennsylvania, our state has chosen not to set the water quality standard for bromide and is waiting on the EPA to set the standard.
Not only do the states have the right to set water quality standards, they also have a right to set air quality standards. These standards may be more stringent than EPA standards, but not less. Currently, the Pa. DEP is handling each gas compression station as a single unit. What does this equate to? For instance, if a compressor station has a certain limit on what it can emit into the atmosphere, and the station is below the standard, then they can emit their waste products into the air.
What the state has failed to consider is the cumulative affect of all these stations. For example, let us say that the compressor station is allowed to emit an “x” amount of pollutants – which is within emission standards – and then we add four more compressors. The “x” now becomes 5x, which exceeds the air quality limits. If our state’s DEP stands by their method, then the EPA has the right to force a change in the method of calculation used by Pennsylvania to bring the air quality into compliance with EPA standards.
This now brings us to the current situation with our area’s role in air quality. For years, the extraction industry has been given relaxed standards on both water and air pollution. We know this because of the current changes that are taking place in the world. Relaxed standards here and elsewhere on our planet have contributed to climate change.
It has been suggested that air pollution is being caused more by other countries and not the U.S. What has been forgotten is that the “Industrial Revolution” in this country has contributed to much of the current air quality problems. Again, we forget to look at the accumulative affect.
If air and water quality are handled properly and with concern for the environment instead of the greed for money, we would not be facing the current climate change problem. A lot of people today do not believe that climate change is taking place because they equate weather to climate. One must remember the climate change is also a cumulative affect. Just because we had a cold winter does not mean that the planet is not warming; in fact, it was an indication that something is actually changing.
As for the economic affect of the new EPA rulings on air quality, there will be an impact. In our area we have failed miserably in diversifying our economy. We have prospered and became economically depressed by depending on coal. Coal is no longer “King.” There is a new kid on the block called “Gas.”
In a recent article, one politician mentioned that there is a deep concern about the environment, but one must look at the social aspects. This is true, but one must also remember that without a healthy environment, there are no social aspects. If you look at a long-range solution, you will realize that we must diversify our economy. Greene County is sitting on abundant gas, coal, and oil resources, yet is the fourth poorest county in Pennsylvania. Why not build a diverse economy near the energy source? Is it because of politics?
As for water quality and the EPA, recently a federal judge in West Virginia ruled that high “electronic conductivity” (EC) in water is a pollutant. This fact has been well documented in the scientific community for many years, yet our DEP is dragging its feet when it comes to controlling high EC discharges into our local waterways. If the DEP does not deal with this problem, the EPA will come in and handle the problem. Pennsylvania has a chance to control and enforce the recommended standard of 1,000 µs or less of EC for discharges into our waters.
For example, the discharge from Emerald Mine #001 into Smith Creek near Waynesburg has been over the 1,000 µs for EC for the past 10 years.
Yet, the DEP continued to issue new NPDES permits without making any allowances to correct the discharges. The federal government stepped in and took control. Fines and future adjustments were agreed to by Alpha Resources and the EPA.
The EPA acts as a check and balance to protect the people. These checks may not always be liked, but if the states cannot protect the people, the EPA will. Proper planning and proper environmental protections should always be implemented when dealing with new industry. We too often are cleaning up the mess left by industry with taxpayer dollars.
With this in mind, I say to Gov. Corbett, “What were you thinking when you opened up our state lands for more drilling by your order?” There is just too much information coming forth on the dangers of drilling to keep going headlong with drilling. Will you expect the taxpayer to clean up the mess that will be left behind when the gas boom ends?
Who will clean up the contaminated ground water? Where will the money come from? Where is our severance tax?
Sometimes, I have more questions than answers, and with that in mind I must keep faith that we will come to our senses and protect what God has given us.