EPA Issues Updated, Achievable Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Natural Gas

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
EPA - Washington, D.C., April 18, 2012

EPA Issues Updated, Achievable Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Natural Gas

Half of fractured wells already deploy technologies in line with final standards, which slash harmful emissions while reducing cost of compliance

WASHINGTON – In response to a court deadline, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized standards to reduce harmful air pollution associated with oil and natural gas production. The updated standards, required by the Clean Air Act, were informed by the important feedback from a range of stakeholders including the public, public health groups, states and industry. As a result, the final standards reduce implementation costs while also ensuring they are achievable and can be met by relying on proven, cost-effective technologies as well as processes already in use at approximately half of the fractured natural gas wells in the United States. These technologies will not only reduce 95 percent of the harmful emissions from these wells that contribute to smog and lead to health impacts, they will also enable companies to collect additional natural gas that can be sold. Natural gas is a key component of the nation’s clean energy future and the standards released today make sure that we can continue to expand production of this important domestic resource while reducing impacts to public health, and most importantly builds on steps already being taken by industry leaders.

"The president has been clear that he wants to continue to expand production of important domestic resources like natural gas, and today’s standard supports that goal while making sure these fuels are produced without threatening the health of the American people," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "By ensuring the capture of gases that were previously released to pollute our air and threaten our climate, these updated standards will not only protect our health, but also lead to more product for fuel suppliers to bring to market. They're an important step toward tapping future energy supplies without exposing American families and children to dangerous health threats in the air they breathe.”

When natural gas is produced, some of the gas escapes the well and may not be captured by the producing company. These gases can pollute the air and as a result threaten public health. Consistent with states that have already put in place similar requirements, the updated EPA standards released today include the first federal air rules for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured, specifically requiring operators of new fractured natural gas wells to use cost-effective technologies and practices to capture natural gas that might otherwise escape the well, which can subsequently be sold. EPA’s analysis of the final rules shows that they are highly cost-effective, relying on widely available technologies and practices already deployed at approximately half of all fractured wells, and consistent with steps industry is already taking in many cases to capture additional natural gas for sale, offsetting the cost of compliance. Together these rules will result in $11 to $19 million in savings for industry each year. In addition to cutting pollution at the wellhead, EPA’s final standards also address emissions from storage tanks and other equipment.

Also in line with the executive order released by the president last week on natural gas development, the rule released today received important interagency feedback and provides industry flexibilities. Based on new data provided during the public comment period, the final rule establishes a phase-in period that will ensure emissions reduction technology is broadly available. During the first phase, until January 2015, owners and operators must either flare their emissions or use emissions reduction technology called “green completions,” technologies that are already widely deployed at wells. In 2015, all new fractured wells will be required to use green completions. The final rule does not require new federal permits. Instead, it sets clear standards and uses enhanced reporting to strengthen transparency and accountability, and ensure compliance, while establishing a consistent set of national standards to safeguard public health and the environment.

An estimated 13,000 new and existing natural gas wells are fractured or re-fractured each year. As those wells are being prepared for production, they emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contribute to smog formation, and air toxics, including benzene and hexane, which can cause cancer and other serious health effects. In addition, the rule is expected to yield a significant environmental co-benefit by reducing methane, the primary constituent of natural gas. Methane, when released directly to the atmosphere, is a potent greenhouse gas—more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

During the nearly 100-day public comment period, the agency received more than 150,000 comments on the proposed rules from the public, industry, environmental groups and states. The agency also held three public hearings. The updated standards were informed by the important feedback received through the public comment period, reducing implementation cost and ensuring the achievable standard can be met by relying on proven, cost-effective technologies and processes already in use.

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html


Environmental Groups Praise EPA’s First-Ever Clean Air Protections for Fracking

Joint statement by Sierra Club * Earthjustice * Clean Air Task Force * Environment America * Earthworks * Clean Water Action - April 18, 2012
Agency Takes Important First Step to Protect Air Quality and Public Health

Washington, D.C., April 18—Today environmental groups praised the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) vital updates to nationwide air quality protections to include oil and natural gas production. This is the first federal safeguard aimed at curbing air pollution from hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking.’

The EPA’s New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) will benefit the health of Americans and our environment in many ways. The updated standards will result in major reductions in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), toxic benzene and methane, a highly potent contributor to climate disruption. These pollutants are known to cause asthma attacks, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, cancer and even premature death.

The measure will also benefit the gas industry –EPA projects that capturing more methane and other gasses to send to market will save an estimated $30 million annually.

Today’s announcement by the EPA is a major step forward. However, the two-year delay in reducing pollution from wellheads is an unnecessary setback because industry can meet those standards now. The environmental community is committed to working with EPA to strengthen the public health and air quality safeguards to protect families who live near existing fracking sites.

The EPA proposed the updated safeguards in July 2011. Since the proposal, environmental groups submitted more than 156,000 comments and turned out hundreds of supporters of strong standards to hearings in Pittsburgh, PA, Denver, CO, and Arlington, TX.

In response to EPA’s announcement, environmental leaders released the following statements:

“EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is taking an important first step in closing loopholes for the natural gas industry and addressing dangerous air quality levels in and near frack-fields across the country,” said Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. “The natural gas industry dumps massive amounts of air pollutants into our air every day, sickening families and children. An industry that touts its ability to efficiently drill thousands of wells thousands of feet into the earth is crying wolf when it claims it can’t build enough tanks to capture wellhead pollution. It’s time we clean up the natural gas industry’s dirty and reckless practices.”

“From Colorado to Pennsylvania, the gas industry is making a killing from drilling, and at the very least they should cut dirty and dangerous air pollution that threatens our families’ health,” said John Rumpler, senior attorney for Environment America. “EPA’s action today is a breath of fresh air for every man, woman, and child living in the shadow of the gas drilling boom.”

“Left to its own devices, the oil and gas industry has turned the clear skies over Wyoming as smoggy as the car-choked highways of Los Angeles. For decades, industry had a free pollution pass. Thanks to a court victory, that changes today,” said Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen. “There is more work to be done to protect Americans living near oil and gas fields from cancer and other unacceptable health threats, but this rule from EPA is an important first step.”

“The stories of families hurt by gas drilling’s air pollution were essential to the adoption of these new public health safeguards,” said Bruce Baizel, senior attorney for Earthworks. “Hopefully this much-needed first step will soon be expanded to better protect the families that illustrated the need for the new rules in the first place.”

"These important rules start to cut down on air pollution that harms people living near wells, creates smog, and warms the climate," said David McCabe, senior scientist with Clean Air Task Force. "They are a solid start, but we need to keep working to reduce pollution from the gas industry all the way from the well to the customer. People who live near compressors and equipment already in use need to see their air cleaned up as well. Unfortunately these rules won't do that."

“Our members in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Colorado have suffered because state regulators haven’t acted to control oil and gas operations, so these standards are a win-win-win,” said Lynn Thorp, Clean Water Action National Campaigns Director. “They protect people from air pollution, help curb climate change and save the industry money. People expect the federal government to use their authority to protect their health, their drinking water and the air they breathe and this is a good first step.”

http://www.earthworksaction.org/media/detail/environmental_groups_praise_epas_first_ever_clean_air_protections_for_frack

Texas AG asks U.S. House to block regulation of greenhouse gas emissions

By DAVE MICHAELS Washington Bureau The Dallas Morning News - Feb. 9, 2011
WASHINGTON — Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott asked Congress on Wednesday to block the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, saying legislation would allow him to drop his lawsuits over the rules.
Abbott testified at a congressional hearing where Republican lawmakers grilled Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson over her agency’s move to regulate climate-altering gases emitted by industrial facilities.
A Republican bill would overturn the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and would prevent the agency from using the Clean Air Act to address climate change.
Texas’ fossil fuel producers, utilities and other businesses stand to benefit if Republicans succeed in blocking regulation, although President Barack Obama would almost certainly veto the bill. Texas Republicans have been at the forefront of efforts to stymie the EPA.
Abbott has filed six legal challenges of EPA regulations that address climate change. One of the lawsuits challenges the decision to invalidate parts of Texas’ clean-air program over its refusal to award permits for greenhouse gas emissions.
“I am here to tell you that if your legislation passes, that will mean that Texas will be dismissing those six lawsuits against the EPA,” Abbott told the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Jackson said the EPA was forced to take over parts of Texas’ clean-air program because the state failed to carry out its responsibilities. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA sets thresholds for regulated pollutants, which states must enforce.
Texas’ refusal
While other states have challenged EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, Texas is the only state that refused to include greenhouse gases in its clean-air program. Jackson said businesses that wanted to build in Texas would have been unable to get permits without the EPA’s intervention.
“The Nucor steel facility just got a permit in the state of Louisiana,” Jackson told the committee. “If they wanted to build the exact same facility in Texas, they would need a permit for greenhouse gases — and they cannot get one because Texas refuses to consider those permits.”
Jackson also clashed with Texas Republicans on the committee over dozens of pollution permits that were invalidated when the EPA rejected three Texas permitting programs in September 2009. The EPA said the Texas programs failed to meet the standards set by the Clean Air Act.
Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, complained to Jackson that Texas was singled out for disapproval, while other states with similar programs weren’t challenged.
“This appears to be Texas-specific,” Burgess said. “And if it is, that is wrong.”
But Jackson said EPA’s concerns with the quality of Texas’ clean-air programs went back to the Bush administration.
“When I became administrator, I found a situation where businesses in Texas have no certainty that the permits protect them from lawsuits for excessive pollution,” Jackson said. “The answer certainly could not have been to look the other way.”
Jackson testified on the same day that House Republicans unveiled their proposals for spending cuts, including a $1.6 billion budget cut for EPA in 2011. Such cuts could hurt the EPA’s ability to carry out its regulatory agenda.
‘Highhanded’ EPA
The agency has become a prime target for House Republicans who question the science of global warming and assert that EPA regulations create uncertainty for business.
“The EPA has been highhanded in Texas,” said Rep. Joe Barton , R-Arlington. “I don’t think the EPA had the authority to revoke these existing permits, and I think their [carbon dioxide] regulations are extremely onerous if implemented.”
Barton said the committee would probably approve the legislation, called the Energy Tax Prevention Act, in the next two months. Sen. James Inhofe , R-Okla., has sponsored the legislation in the Senate, where its path to passage is much less certain.
Some House Democrats, including Rep. Gene Green of Houston, said they disapproved of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases and preferred Congress to set standards. But it’s not clear that Green and other Democrats would vote for the GOP bill.
Much of Wednesday’s hearing revolved around Republicans and Democrats arguing about whether man-made activities are to blame for climate change.
Republicans faulted Democrats for ignoring the regulations’ impact on jobs and energy costs. Democrats blasted Republicans for trying to legislatively overturn the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health.
“Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question — that would become part of this committee’s legacy,” Jackson said.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News

Eight of Nine U.S. Companies Agree to Work with EPA Regarding Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Extraction

In a press release dated November 9, 2010, the EPA announced that eight out of nine of the largest hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States have agreed to submit "timely and complete information to help the agency conduct its study on hydraulic fracturing." The lone hold-out, Halliburton, has been served a susponea.

EPA conducting congressionally mandated study to examine the impact of the hydraulic fracturing process on drinking water quality; Halliburton subpoenaed after failing to meet EPA’s voluntary requests for information

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced that eight out of the nine hydraulic fracturing companies that received voluntary information requests in September have agreed to submit timely and complete information to help the agency conduct its study on hydraulic fracturing. However, the ninth company, Halliburton, has failed to provide EPA the information necessary to move forward with this important study. As a result, and as part of the agency’s effort to move forward as quickly as possible, today EPA issued a subpoena to the company requiring submission of the requested information that has yet to be provided.

EPA’s congressionally mandated hydraulic fracturing study will look at the potential adverse impact of the practice on drinking water and public health. The agency is under a tight deadline to provide initial results by the end of 2012 and the thoroughness of the study depends on timely access to detailed information about the methods used for fracturing. EPA announced in March that it would conduct this study and solicit input from the public through a series of public meetings in major oil and gas production regions. The agency has completed the public meetings and thousands of Americans from across the country shared their views on the study and expressed full support for this effort.

On September 9, EPA reached out to nine leading national and regional hydraulic fracturing service providers – BJ Services, Complete Production Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services, Patterson-UTI, RPC, Inc., Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, and Weatherford – seeking information on the chemical composition of fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process, data on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, standard operating procedures at their hydraulic fracturing sites and the locations of sites where fracturing has been conducted.

Except for Halliburton, the companies have either fully complied with the September 9 request or made unconditional commitments to provide all the information on an expeditious schedule.

More information on the subpoena and mandatory request for information on Halliburton’s hydraulic fracturing operations: http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing


Rob Lawrence
Senior Policy Advisor - Energy Issues

lawrence.rob@epa.gov

214.665.6580 (Desk)
214.665.7263 (FAX)

Natural Gas Chemicals Disclosed-But Not Texas?

By Sierra Club – July 14, 2010

Natural Gas Drilling Company Announces Partial Disclosure of its “Fracking” Chemicals
Pennsylvania Residents Will Benefit, but What about Texas?

Fort Worth, Texas – Natural gas drilling company Range Resources announced today that it would voluntarily disclose the chemicals it uses in Pennsylvania in the hydraulic fracturing process used to extract natural gas. But the company did not agree to disclose the large amount of chemicals it uses elsewhere, including Texas.

“We call on Range Resources to bring the same level of transparency to Texas that they have announced for Pennsylvania,” said Jennifer Powis, Sierra Club’s Senior Regional Representative in Texas. “While we are glad to see the company announce this first step, it’s only through full, nationwide disclosure and tough regulation of fracking chemicals that we can protect water and communities.”

Fort Worth-based Range Resources is an active driller in Texas’ Barnett Shale, boasting on its website that it makes its "highest rate of return" in Texas.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process in which oil and gas companies try to get at hard-to-reach natural gas by pumping millions of gallons of water, chemicals and sand into a well at high pressures to create cracks in underground geological formations, freeing trapped gas and letting it flow to the surface. Currently there's a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act that allows oil and gas companies to
frack without any testing of how those chemicals affect our air and water.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input and suggestions on the design of their fracking research study. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board -- an independent, external federal advisory committee -- recently recommended that the scope of the upcoming EPA study of hydraulic fracturing be broad and encompass the entire life cycle of these "frack jobs. "

Drilling dispute's hidden conflict: Who's going to run Texas?

By MITCHELL SCHNURMAN - Fort Worth Star Telegram - July 10, 2010
Science and politics go together about as well as natural gas and drinking water.
The combination can be dangerous, with long-term consequences. In the deep-red state of Texas, where history and economy intertwine with oil and gas, new clashes over science and politics are bubbling to the surface, threatening even more confusion.
It's tough enough for an average citizen to make a judgment on gas drilling. Advocates insist it's safe and there's never been a case of groundwater contamination. Residents cite cancer-causing emissions and say, "Check my back yard -- and take a swig of this water."
Science is supposed to settle the matter, drawing a bright line between things to fear and fear-mongering. But now we also have to decide whom to believe and whom to trust.
The Environmental Protection Agency came to Fort Worth last week, holding a public meeting as part of a new study on gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing. About 600 people turned out to hear stories about "fracking," and many implored the EPA to ride to the rescue because they felt betrayed by their state.
The day before, Gov. Rick Perry went to Dallas to unveil an effort to pull together all of Texas' resources on energy, including programs at major universities. Perry was responding to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but part of his mission is to stay on top of fracking -- and keep the natural gas flowing in Texas.
There was nothing coincidental about Perry's timing or the EPA kicking off its study in the home of the Barnett Shale. The conflict within the conflict: Who's going to run Texas?
Perry wants to reassert the state's primacy over all things oil and gas, and extend his vision of states' rights. The federal government, through the EPA, wants to show that it can make meaningful progress in even the most hostile territory.
On the political front, this clash has been at a high pitch since President Barack Obama took office 18 months ago (although Perry knocked heads with the EPA during the Bush administration, too). Perry rejected more than $500 million in unemployment insurance funds, saying too many strings were attached. He passed on the chance for federal education grants and pushed Texas to be among the states suing over the healthcare law.
Oil and gas should afford more room for a middle ground. Texas has a long track record developing and monitoring gas drilling. And Perry, like many local leaders, has experience balancing the economy and the environment.
At the EPA, the focus is solely on the environment, so it seems that both sides could learn from the other.
Instead, the debate over fracking could devolve into one more battle between Washington and a conservative Southern governor. That could generate more heat than light, at a time when communities want to get a handle on the true threats of drilling and protect their residents.
In North Texas, the Barnett Shale has been a huge boost to jobs and income, but more people are worrying about the long-term risks. The Gulf oil spill has become a reminder that serious dangers can lurk beyond public view.
The oil and gas industry wants states to manage fracking, fearful of new federal standards. Officials from the Texas Railroad Commission, as well as representatives from Oklahoma and Louisiana, were quick to defend their regulatory records at the EPA hearing.
The EPA didn't criticize the states directly. Plenty of citizens did that, telling stories of contaminated water, polluted air and dying cattle -- and alleging that state agencies had ignored them. Many also believe that businesses and their lobbyists have too much clout with state legislatures.
The scope of the EPA study is a bit unnerving, given the amount of fracking that's already occurred. Plus, it won't be completed for 21/2 years.
Some questions listed by the EPA: How are well casings constructed? How is dirty fracking fluid managed? What are the gaps in current knowledge?
Sounds like basic stuff -- facts that really should have been settled long ago.
The Barnett Shale has about 14,000 gas wells, and we're now asking what we don't know about the environmental impact?
Parker County Judge Mark Riley, one of dozens of speakers at the hearing, blamed the states and the gas industry for the current crisis in confidence.
"The states just haven't been responsive to citizens," Riley said.
The gas industry stirred fears by refusing to disclose chemicals used in the fracking process, he said. And states lost credibility by considering exemptions on air permits. If state regulators and industry had been more aggressive on safety and the environment, federal intervention would be unnecessary -- and Riley wants to keep the feds out.
Mark Brownstein, deputy director for energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the nuclear industry took its own aggressive steps after the Three Mile Island accident. One bad player damaged the entire industry, so companies set higher standards and posted annual rankings.
Investors watch those scores closely, and Brownstein says that people get fired if performance drops.
He says states and industry have legitimate reasons to police the gas drilling business. They have more experience, more staff and can tailor regulations to their geology.

"But if they fail to make sure that it's being done properly, this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy -- the federal government will step in," he said.
Reach that point, and even a Texas governor won't be able to push back.

Mitchell Schnurman's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. 817-390-7821

Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Fort Worth meeting on gas drilling process draws heated response Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/07/08/2323407/fort-worth-meeting-on-ga

BY JACK Z. SMITH - Fort Worth Star Telegram - July 8, 2010
FORT WORTH -- It wasn't an event for the meek and indecisive, nor for those seeking middle ground.
A capacity crowd of about 600 gathered at the downtown Hilton Fort Worth hotel Thursday night, and dozens of speakers voiced either grave concerns about -- or enthusiastic support for -- the increasingly controversial hydraulic fracturing process that has made possible drilling booms such as the Barnett Shale play in North Texas.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency called the meeting -- the first of four around the nation -- to determine the scope of a study that will focus on the issue of whether the fracturing process poses a significant threat in terms of groundwater contamination. But the study also will examine other issues, including the large volume of water used in "fracking" wells.
"I'm sending out an SOS to the EPA," said fervent fracking critic Sharon Wilson, a local representative of the Texas Oil and Gas Accountability Project, which favors strong federal regulation of the energy industry and full disclosure of chemicals used in fracturing.
"We need you here. We need you on the ground. We need you now," Wilson told EPA officials, as supporters applauded enthusiastically.
But Angie Burckhalter, speaking on behalf of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association and the Independent Petroleum Association of America, also elicited enthusastic clapping after describing fracking as "a safe, proven technology that has been used over one million times for 60 years."
Fracturing is vital to producing "clean energy that makes modern life possible," she said.
Boos and cheers
Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Victor Carrillo also strongly defended fracturing, saying that without it, gas recovery from tight rock formations such as the Barnett Shale -- the leading gas-producing area in the nation -- would be "impossible." There are no documented cases of fracturing causing groundwater contamination in Texas, he said, drawing both cheers and boos.
Meeting moderator Adam Saslow repeatedly implored audience members to tone down, urging them to employ "manners your mother taught you."
Calvin Tillman, an outspoken critic of the oil and gas industry and mayor of the Denton County community of Dish, held up a container of murky water and said it came from the home of a resident who fears his water well has been contaminated by Barnett Shale operations.
In considering stronger regulation, the foremost concern should not be about what might "negatively affect Chesapeake or Devon," Tillman said, referring to two large gas producers. Instead, the emphasis should be on negative effects on drinking water, he said.
America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents 34 independent gas exploration and production companies, defended fracking and pledged to "be a constructive participant in the progress of the [EPA] study going forward."
"We are confident that a scientifically sound and data-driven examination will provide policymakers and the public with even greater reassurance of the safety of the longstanding practice," ANGA said in a statement.
How it works
Hydraulic fracturing is a technique in which huge volumes of water and sand, along with a much smaller amount of chemicals, are injected deep underground to fracture rock formations and allow gas and oil to flow into a wellbore.
Concerns have been expressed about the potential for fracturing to pollute groundwater; about surface spills of well wastewater that include chemicals used in fracturing; and about the volume of water that fracturing requires -- often 3 million or more gallons for a single well.
JACK Z. SMITH, 817-390-7724


Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Dish residents water contaminated with hydrocarbons

That Tap Water Is Legal but May Be Unhealthy

By CHARLES DUHIGG - The New York Times - December 16, 2009
The 35-year-old federal law regulating tap water is so out of date that the water Americans drink can pose what scientists say are serious health risks — and still be legal.

Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Government and independent scientists have scrutinized thousands of those chemicals in recent decades, and identified hundreds associated with a risk of cancer and other diseases at small concentrations in drinking water, according to an analysis of government records by The New York Times.

But not one chemical has been added to the list of those regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000.

Other recent studies have found that even some chemicals regulated by that law pose risks at much smaller concentrations than previously known. However, many of the act’s standards for those chemicals have not been updated since the 1980s, and some remain essentially unchanged since the law was passed in 1974.

All told, more than 62 million Americans have been exposed since 2004 to drinking water that did not meet at least one commonly used government health guideline intended to help protect people from cancer or serious disease, according to an analysis by The Times of more than 19 million drinking-water test results from the District of Columbia and the 45 states that made data available.

In some cases, people have been exposed for years to water that did not meet those guidelines.

But because such guidelines were never incorporated into the Safe Drinking Water Act, the vast majority of that water never violated the law.

Some officials overseeing local water systems have tried to go above and beyond what is legally required. But they have encountered resistance, sometimes from the very residents they are trying to protect, who say that if their water is legal it must be safe.

Dr. Pankaj Parekh, director of the water quality division for the City of Los Angeles, has faced such criticism. The water in some city reservoirs has contained contaminants that become likely cancer-causing compounds when exposed to sunlight.

To stop the carcinogens from forming, the city covered the surface of reservoirs, including one in the upscale neighborhood of Silver Lake, with a blanket of black plastic balls that blocked the sun.

Then complaints started from owners of expensive houses around the reservoir. “They supposedly discovered these chemicals, and then they ruined the reservoir by putting black pimples all over it,” said Laurie Pepper, whose home overlooks the manmade lake. “If the water is so dangerous, why can’t they tell us what laws it’s violated?”

Dr. Parekh has struggled to make his case. “People don’t understand that just because water is technically legal, it can still present health risks,” he said. “And so we encounter opposition that can become very personal.”

Some federal regulators have tried to help officials like Dr. Parekh by pushing to tighten drinking water standards for chemicals like industrial solvents, as well as a rocket fuel additive that has polluted drinking water sources in Southern California and elsewhere. But those efforts have often been blocked by industry lobbying.

Drinking water that does not meet a federal health guideline will not necessarily make someone ill. Many contaminants are hazardous only if consumed for years. And some researchers argue that even toxic chemicals, when consumed at extremely low doses over long periods, pose few risks. Others argue that the cost of removing minute concentrations of chemicals from drinking water does not equal the benefits.

Moreover, many of the thousands of chemicals that have not been analyzed may be harmless. And researchers caution that such science is complicated, often based on extrapolations from animal studies, and sometimes hard to apply nationwide, particularly given that more than 57,400 water systems in this country each deliver, essentially, a different glass of water every day.

Government scientists now generally agree, however, that many chemicals commonly found in drinking water pose serious risks at low concentrations.

And independent studies in such journals as Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; Environmental Health Perspectives; American Journal of Public Health; and Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, as well as reports published by the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that millions of Americans become sick each year from drinking contaminated water, with maladies from upset stomachs to cancer and birth defects.

Those studies have tracked hospital admissions and disease patterns after chemicals were detected in water supplies. They found that various contaminants were often associated with increased incidents of disease. That research — like all large-scale studies of human illnesses — sometimes cannot definitively say that chemicals in drinking water were the sole cause of disease.

.... READ MUCH MUCH MORE in the New York Times

Midland Texas Wells Contaminated with Chromium

By Dr. Shezad Malik - Dallas Fort Worth Injury Lawyer - July 16, 2009

Beverly Crouch spent hundreds of dollars on chemicals last fall to try to get the green tinge out of her backyard pool.
It wasn't until two months ago that she learned why the chemicals she put into her 13,000-gallon, above-ground pool wouldn't clear the water. The green color came from well water contaminated with hexavalent chromium, a known human carcinogen.
Crouch, 44, isn't alone. Some of her neighbors' wells gushed water the color of urine.
Texas environmental officials are still trying to determine the extent of the contamination. Later this month, they will ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to consider the site for federal Superfund status.
After that, efforts will begin to find who dumped the dangerous chemical, which appears to have been in the area for years, according to one environmental investigator.
Residents have enlisted the help of Erin Brockovich, who helped Hinkley, Calif., residents after their groundwater was found to be contaminated by the same chemical.
Industrial workers who breathe airborne hexavalent chromium may get lung cancer, and it can irritate or damage the nose, throat and lungs if inhaled at high levels. It can also damage eyes or skin.
People and animals exposed to hexavalent chromium in drinking water face an increased risk of stomach tumors.
As of June 30, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has found contamination in about one-third of the 125 wells tested in Cotton Flats, a community south of Interstate 20 on the fringe of Midland.
Most of the Cotton Flats homes are in Midland County and are not connected to the city's water supply.
The highest reading was 5,250 parts of chromium per billion — or more than 50 times the maximum allowed by the EPA.
Hexavalent chromium compounds, a toxic form of the element chromium, are man-made and used as an anticorrosive and rust inhibitor; in chrome plating; in pressure treating of wood; in dyes and pigments; and in leather tanning.
The state environmental agency continues to test wells; so far the commission has spent more than $1 million on testing and dealing with the contamination. Texas law allows the agency to seek reimbursement from polluters for costs associated with dealing with the contamination. Such costs would include filtration systems the commission has installed at homes where levels of hexavalent chromium exceed the EPA maximum.
The filtration systems provide water that is safe for all household uses, agency spokeswoman Andrea Morrow said.
The well tests began in early April, but it not known how long the chemical has been in the groundwater, Morrow said.
The concentrations of hexavalent chromium are the highest he's ever seen in groundwater, and he believes the chemical has been in the groundwater for up to five years.

The culprit is definitely oilfield activity, Bowcock said, saying that's the only industry in the area.

Bowcock and some Cotton Flats residents believe Schlumberger, an oilfield services company, is responsible. In an e-mailed statement, company spokesman Stephen T. Harris denied Schlumberger is to blame.

"Schlumberger fully appreciates the concern of the public and continues to cooperate with the TCEQ to help identify sources of chromium in the area," Harris wrote. "Independent groundwater tests, however, indicate that the source of the contamination is likely an adjacent site unrelated to our facility."

Sheldon Johnson, who has lived in Cotton Flats for 17 years and works for the city of Midland, said he doubts whoever is responsible will step forward.
Johnson and others frequently check and change the filters inside the system to ensure they are working properly. The potential heath threat is never far from their thoughts.
Read more in Dallas Fort Worth Injury Lawyer

U.S. to Issue Tougher Fuel Standards for Automobiles

By JOHN M. BRODER - The New York Times - May 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce tough new nationwide rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards on Tuesday, embracing rules that California has sought to enact for years over the objections of the auto industry and the Bush administration.

The rules, which will begin to take effect in 2012, will put in place a federal standard for fuel efficiency that is as tough as the California program, while imposing the first-ever limits on climate-altering gases from cars and trucks.

The effect will be a single new national standard that will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.

Environmental advocates and industry officials welcomed the new program, but for different reasons. Environmentalists called it a long-overdue tightening of emissions and fuel economy standards after decades of government delay and industry opposition. Auto industry officials said it would provide the single national efficiency standard they have long desired, a reasonable timetable to meet it and the certainty they need to proceed with product development plans.

Yet the industry position represents an abrupt about-face after years of battling tougher mileage standards in the courts and in Congress, reflecting the change in the political climate and the industry’s shaky financial condition. The decision comes as General Motors and Chrysler are receiving billions of dollars in federal help, closing hundreds of dealerships and trying to design the products and business strategy they will need to survive.

“For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should regulate autos,” said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, the industry’s largest trade association. “President Obama’s announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking to set a national program.”

Mr. McCurdy, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, has been working with Mr. Obama and his advisers on the issue since early this year.

In announcing the new program at the White House, Mr. Obama will be accompanied by Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, along with auto industry executives and environmental leaders.

The administration’s decision resolves a question over California’s application for a waiver from federal clean air laws to impose its own, tougher vehicle emissions standards. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have said they plan to adopt the California program.

The new national fleet mileage rule for cars and light trucks of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 roughly corresponds to the California requirement, which will be shelved as a result. The current national standard is slightly more than 25 miles per gallon.

The California plan, first proposed in 2002, had been stalled by industry lawsuits and the Bush administration’s refusal to grant a waiver from less stringent federal rules, although California has been given dozens of such exemptions over the last 40 years.

The program will also end a number of lawsuits over the California standards, officials said.

“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, who has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards for two decades with the goal of curbing the gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

The administration had faced a June 30 deadline set by Congress to decide whether to grant California’s application to put its emissions rules into effect. President Obama became personally involved in the issue because he was also trying to find a way to rescue American auto companies from their financial crisis.

One ranking industry official said that the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors made a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of this month. The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.

To meet the new federal standards, auto companies will have to drastically change their product lineups in a relatively short time.

The companies have declined so far to comment on the costs involved in meeting a fleet standard 0f 35 miles a gallon. For starters, the automakers will probably have to sharply reduce the number of low-mileage models, like pickup trucks and large sedans.

The president’s decision will also accelerate the development of smaller cars and engines already under way.

But Mr. McCurdy said the industry could meet the new mileage targets using existing technology and improvements in future models. He said that 130 models already got 30 miles a gallon or better on the highway.

In January, Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. He also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to complement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020. The Bush administration wrote no regulations to enforce the 2007 law.

Mr. Obama will direct the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department to jointly write enforcement regulations.

Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that under the White House plan, California would retain the ability to set its own emissions standards in the future when the current program expired.

He also said the new administration program was very close in language and intent to a provision in the climate change and energy bill now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That bill calls for a “harmonization” of the California and federal regulatory programs to provide a nationwide standard.

Mr. Obama has been thinking about the future of the American automobile industry for years. He co-sponsored two bills in 2006, during his second year as a United States senator, one to raise fuel economy standards and the other to encourage the use of alternative fuels.

During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and improve their vehicles’ efficiency.

“The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out,” Mr. Obama said.

That inaction has been a factor in the current dire state in which General Motors and Chrysler find themselves. The Japanese automakers are far ahead in developing smaller, more efficient vehicles, although they, too, will have to adjust their product lines.

Fran Pavley, the California state senator who sponsored the legislation that established the California standard, praised the decision as she traveled to Washington Monday to join the White House meeting on Tuesday.

She said through a spokeswoman that California would work on its own rules while the federal regulations were drafted. “This cleans up our air, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and continues to allow California to lead the way,” she said.

Read more in The New York Times

EPA Waives Clean Cars Goodbye

By Josh Dorner - Sierra Club - Issue #238 - December 21, 2007
EPA Waives Clean Cars Goodbye

The Bush Administration sure knows how to ruin a good party. On Wednesday morning, President Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a whole pack of Congressmen gathered at the Energy Department to enjoy a brief moment of peace between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and sing Kumbaya over the energy bill. Then, in a classic bit of Washington high theatre, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson swooped in like the Grinch and stole our Green Christmas by denying California the waiver it (along with at least 16 other states) needs to move forward with its landmark global warming emissions standards for cars.

In an evening press conference called with little more than half an hour's notice, Johnson explained that California's need to deal with global warming did not meet the "extraordinary and compelling" circumstances spelled out in the Clean Air Act and that the energy bill's compromise CAFE provision was the administration's "comprehensive" response to global warming emissions from vehicles, thank you very much. While this decision has long been expected, it was particularly galling that the energy bill, with its ink barely dry, was used as the pretext for denying the waiver.

The reaction of state officials and politicians ranged from "disappointing," "absurd," "indefensible," "a mockery of the law," to "disgraceful." But at least someone was happy. The auto industry -- fresh off yet another stinging loss in the courts just last week -- issued a glowing press statement commending EPA. California, the Sierra Club, and others of course immediately pledged to take EPA to court over the decision.

While EPA may have thought that its hastily-called, Wednesday-evening-before-Christmas presser would be enough to bury the news, they were badly mistaken. For one, the Washington Post obtained internal EPA documents that demonstrate that Johnson denied the waiver over the "unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs." Indeed, the EPA's own lawyers predicted they would lose in court if it denied the waiver and would almost certainly beat back an auto industry lawsuit if it approved it.

Looks like Johnson's got some 'splainin' to do. Luckily, it appears he will have no shortage of venues in which to explain exactly why he overruled his staff and participated in a possibly illegal lobbying campaign against the waiver orchestrated by the White House and the Department of Transportation. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, whose requests for meetings with Johnson over the past two weeks went unanswered, has pledged to bring him before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. Similarly, Congress' Maestro of Oversight, Rep. Henry Waxman -- also of California -- expressed his outrage in a statement and indicated his own Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be delving into the process behind the denial.

As our lawyer who's been fighting this in the courts all year said, these guys are 0-4 and they are about to go 0-5.

Texas Firm Indicted for Disposing Hazwaste Underground

By Environmental News Services, November, 20, 2007
HOUSTON, Texas, November 20, 2007 (ENS) - The owner of a hazardous waste transport company and his operations manager face federal charges for their roles in a conspiracy to illegally transport and dispose of hazardous waste underground. Their alleged misuse of an underground injection well may have contaminated drinking water.

The men were arraigned Friday in U.S. District Court in Houston. They are charged with 14 felony counts including conspiracy, violating the Safe Drinking Water Act and violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes.

John Kessel, the president and owner of Texas Oil and Gathering, Inc., and Edgar Pettijohn, the company's operations manager, were arrested and charged with illegally disposing of hazardous waste at a facility only approved to take oil and gas production waste.

Texas Oil and Gathering, Inc., a licensed hazardous waste transporter and used oil handler, was also named in the indictment.

Kessel and Pettijohn allegedly conspired to purchase hazardous waste from multiple generator facilities and process it at their Texas Oil and Gathering facility in Alvin, 12 miles southeast of Houston.

The men then sold portions of the waste as a fuel additive, and allegedly directed their employees to transport the remaining hazardous waste, disguised with documents indicating the waste was from an oil production well, to Disposal Facility A.

This facility is not permitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to accept, store or dispose of hazardous material.

Once at Disposal Facility A, the hazardous waste allegedly was disposed into Class II injection wells in violation of the law.

Class II injection wells are for disposing of saltwater or brine that is produced when oil and gas are extracted from the Earth. It is illegal to dispose of anything other than these fluids through Class II wells.

The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the unauthorized use of these injection wells to prevent contamination of drinking water sources.

In furtherance of the conspiracy, Kessel and Pettijohn allegedly falsified bills of lading and trip tickets which misrepresented the origin and type of waste they were transporting.

If convicted of all charges, Kessel and Pettijohn each faces five years in prison, and the business faces fines of up to $7 million.

The investigation was conducted by the EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the Texas Environmental Task Force, the Houston Police Department, and the Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General.

The prosecution is being handled by the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section.

This is not the first time Texas Oil and Gathering has been in trouble with the EPA. In 1999, the company settled with the federal agency for selling diesel fuel with an illegally high proportion of sulfur. While denying the allegations, the company paid a civil penalty of $6,300.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2007. All rights reserved.

Bush's Appalachian War: Bombing Ancient Mountains

by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse - Daily Kos - Sat Oct 27, 2007
Click on the title. This journal is a MUST READ.

Texas leads nation in number of water polluters

By R.A. DYER - Star-Telegram staff writer - Fri. Oct. 12, 2007
AUSTIN -- Texas led the nation in the number of facilities discharging pollution at levels exceeding federal clean water guidelines, according to a new report from an environmental watchdog group.

The Austin-based Environment Texas said that in 2005, 318 facilities in the state reported 1,340 incidents in which they discharged more pollution than permitted under the federal Clean Water Act. The group also reported that more than 53 percent of Texas' industrial and municipal facilities discharged more pollution in 2005 than permitted under the law.

"With so many facilities dumping so much pollution, no one should be surprised that more than half of Texas waterways are unsafe for swimming and fishing -- but we should be outraged," Environment Texas Citizen Outreach director Brad Hicks said in a statement.

See http://www.environmenttexas.org/

MTBE - The saga continues

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - September 30, 2007

Working together to meet federal air quality standards

By RICHARD GREENE - Special to the Star-Telegram - Sun, Aug. 05, 2007
Editor's note: EPA Regional Administrator Richard Greene sent the following reply Thursday to Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley's letter, printed in the July 29 Star-Telegram. It is being published with Greene's permission.

Thank you for your recent letter expressing concerns about the adequacy of the clean air plan that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has proposed for the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

I have shared our reservations about the proposal with state officials and explained that the EPA cannot approve a plan that does not meet federal air quality standards. I am pleased to be able to say that we enjoy a good working relationship with our state counterparts, and efforts are ongoing to develop ways to strengthen the proposed plan.

All of the specific questions and suggestions contained in your letter are under active consideration and review. I am especially encouraged by your attention to various measures to clean up the air that can be accomplished by local government entities.

Under the jurisdiction of the North Central Texas Council of Governments, in which Tarrant County is an active participant, initiatives are being considered that could result in the adoption of city or county ordinances designed to reduce and eliminate local sources of harmful emissions that lead to air pollution.

Nothing could serve the public better than unified and committed officials at all levels of government working to achieve healthy communities. I am pleased to know of your strong interest in air quality and your willingness to assume a leadership role, and I look forward to your continued efforts to help find local solutions.

Richard Greene is Region 6 administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Opinion - Al Armendariz: We can't wish our smog away - Clean-air plan won't keep N. Texas from violating ozone standard. We deserve better.

Al Armendariz- Dallas Morning News - Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Dallas-Fort Worth's ozone smog is going to disappear. No more yellow, orange or red alert days. No more concern about children playing soccer at the park during summer and fall afternoons. No more guilt about not carpooling or not riding DART. In 2 ½ years, the lung-damaging, asthma-inducing ozone smog will be as much a part of Dallas' past as the Wright amendment and Cowboys games at the Cotton Bowl.

Why is the ozone problem going away? The state of Texas said so.

On June 15, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality submitted the latest in a long line of Dallas-Fort Worth clean-air plans to the Environmental Protection Agency. The plan was required by the federal Clean Air Act because North Texas does not meet the ozone air-quality standard.

The plan contains emission reductions that are supposed to ensure that our air quality will meet the ozone standard by the end of 2009. For this to happen, our ozone levels have to drop from the current level of 96 parts per billion to 84 ppb. A drop of 12 ppb is substantial – levels of ozone have never dropped this far in a short period of time in any metropolitan area in the history of the Clean Air Act.

The state's latest clean-air plan for the region targets emissions of nitrogen oxides, one of the two air pollutants that transform into ozone with the help of abundant summer sunlight. Over the next 2 ½ years, the plan will lower emissions from cars, trucks, factories and utilities in North Texas by approximately 5 percent.

The EPA is now evaluating the plan and will approve or reject it, based on whether it believes that the state has demonstrated conclusively that D-FW air will meet the ozone standard.

In contrast to the state's conclusions, I think the evidence is clear that the plan will not succeed and that our area will continue to violate the ozone standard well into the future. There are a number of reasons the plan will fail, including:

•EPA analyses indicate that emissions reductions of approximately 20 percent are required to lower ozone concentrations by 3 ppb. Remember, we need a 12 ppb drop to meet the standard.

•Ozone levels in North Texas would have to begin dropping immediately more than 10 times as fast as the state's own long-term data show is actually occurring to reach the standard by the end of 2009.

•The state's short-term data show that ozone levels are actually increasing in Tarrant, Denton and Parker counties.

•The state has submitted numerous failed ozone plans for our area, including in 1976, 1979, 1984, 1987, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2001 and 2003. Each has not only been a state failure but also a failure by the federal government, since the EPA approved each plan.

It is time for the failure to stop. We pay high taxes and deserve better service from our government administrators and scientists. The EPA should not approve the plan submitted by the state and instead require a new one with emission reductions that ensure that our area will meet the ozone standard.

Everyone who breathes should contact Steve Page, EPA director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, at page.steve@epa.gov, and Richard Greene, EPA regional administrator, at greene.richard1@epa.gov, and tell them that it is time for the state to submit a real clean-air plan for our area.


Al Armendariz is an assistant professor in Southern Methodist University's School of Engineering. His e-mail address is aja@engr.smu.edu.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News

Perry wants 9 yr. extension on pollution standards - says Houston can't meet air quality standards

Wire Report - Sunday, June 17, 2007
HOUSTON - Gov. Rick Perry has asked federal officials for an extra nine years for the Houston-Galveston region to meet health standards for ground-level ozone, a request that if granted would make the area one of the last in the country to comply with clean-air guidelines.

In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency dated Friday, Perry wrote that the region will be unable to meet guidelines by 2010 and that "not even a complete shutdown of the Houston Ship Channel would bring about sufficient reductions."

The request for an extra nine years to clean up Houston's smog is more than Harris County and city officials wanted. It's also the latest postponement in Houston's efforts to improve its air quality; the city's first federal deadline passed in 1975.

Houston officials and environmentalists said they were surprised that Perry asked for such a lengthy extension. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, as well as city and county officials, preferred a 2013 deadline.

"We thought it would be a challenge to do so by 2013 ... but we thought we could get close and give it shot," Mayor Bill White said. "I've said for years we have needed serious deadlines to ensure we were doing everything practical to reduce the ozone."

The EPA must reclassify Houston's smog problem from moderate to severe to grant the nine-year extension. The only city in the nation with a smog problem classified as severe by the EPA is Los Angeles.
Read more

Regional focus on air quality - State environmental agency offers grants to clean up gas compressors

Galen Scott - Weatherford Democrat - June 22, 2007
State environmental officials announced $4 million in grants designed to help Texas natural gas producers limit harmful emission levels Friday.

Nine counties in the Dallas/Fort Worth air quality non-attainment area, including Parker, were identified in a group where “rich-burn” gas compressor engines are producing high levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx).
“Rich-burn” engines run on natural gas and are usually located near individual gas wells or at extraction junctions. Though most produce less than 500 horsepower, official estimates indicate the engines emit 32 tons of NOx per day and contribute to the growing Metroplex air quality problem.

The engines are used for moving natural gas to market. Since mineral production levels in the Fort Worth Basin began their steady climb six years ago, an unknown number of compressors have been installed.

Andrea Morrow, a spokesperson for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said the agency is currently conducting a study to find out how many of the rich-burn compressor engines are in each county.

“[The engines] are going to need to be retrofitted in order to comply with the new rules and these grants are going to help with the cost of that,” Morrow said.

Despite prolific activity associated with the Barnett Shale, the incentive to cooperate could be higher in East Texas where the state also offered 33 other counties the same retrofit reimbursement deal.

Sen. Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler) authored Senate Bill 2000, which freed up the funding. Eltife’s district managed to ward off non-attainment classification in 1997 when the federal Environmental Protection Agency announced additional eight-hour ozone standards. If East Texas counties remain in attainment, the region could avoid the same set of motor vehicle restrictions currently hinging on the next Metroplex air quality assessment.

“This legislation set up a grant program to help reduce emissions in our area on certain compressors in the oil field by over 96 percent,” Eltife said in a statement. “This is very important in helping us keep our area in attainment.”

In 1990, the EPA classified nine counties surrounding Dallas and Fort Worth as “moderate” ozone non-attainment, meaning those counties failed to meet national air quality standards. Since the original federal designation, Metroplex non-attainment areas have failed to achieve compliance by deadlines mandated in 1996 and 1999, and the EPA reclassified the region as “serious.” After an extension was granted in 1999, the pending DFW attainment date was set for November of this year.

Several important federal concessions are tied to an area’s EPA air quality attainment status, including transportation funding, but whether or not gas operators in the Dallas/Fort Worth area will choose to participate in the grant program remains to be seen.

The grant system was designed to serve as a partial reimbursement of costs associated with the installation of new NOx reduction systems. So far, retrofitting remains voluntary, emissions reductions must be verified in order to receive grant money and the state only provides a 75 percent reimbursement of capital costs.

And because much of local gas exploration is taking place near businesses and homes, some Barnett Shale drillers are already paying out of pocket to address noise and safety concerns.

Three local operators did not immediately respond to requests for interviews regarding the compressor engine grant program Friday.
See Weatherford-Democrat

gscott@weatherforddemocrat.com

State environmental officials announced $4 million in grants designed to help Texas natural gas producers limit harmful emission levels Friday.

Nine counties in the Dallas/Fort Worth air quality non-attainment area, including Parker, were identified in a group where “rich-burn” gas compressor engines are producing high levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx).

“Rich-burn” engines run on natural gas and are usually located near individual gas wells or at extraction junctions. Though most produce less than 500 horsepower, official estimates indicate the engines emit 32 tons of NOx per day and contribute to the growing Metroplex air quality problem.

The engines are used for moving natural gas to market. Since mineral production levels in the Fort Worth Basin began their steady climb six years ago, an unknown number of compressors have been installed.

Andrea Morrow, a spokesperson for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said the agency is currently conducting a study to find out how many of the rich-burn compressor engines are in each county.

“[The engines] are going to need to be retrofitted in order to comply with the new rules and these grants are going to help with the cost of that,” Morrow said.

Despite prolific activity associated with the Barnett Shale, the incentive to cooperate could be higher in East Texas where the state also offered 33 other counties the same retrofit reimbursement deal.

Sen. Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler) authored Senate Bill 2000, which freed up the funding. Eltife’s district managed to ward off non-attainment classification in 1997 when the federal Environmental Protection Agency announced additional eight-hour ozone standards. If East Texas counties remain in attainment, the region could avoid the same set of motor vehicle restrictions currently hinging on the next Metroplex air quality assessment.

“This legislation set up a grant program to help reduce emissions in our area on certain compressors in the oil field by over 96 percent,” Eltife said in a statement. “This is very important in helping us keep our area in attainment.”

In 1990, the EPA classified nine counties surrounding Dallas and Fort Worth as “moderate” ozone non-attainment, meaning those counties failed to meet national air quality standards. Since the original federal designation, Metroplex non-attainment areas have failed to achieve compliance by deadlines mandated in 1996 and 1999, and the EPA reclassified the region as “serious.” After an extension was granted in 1999, the pending DFW attainment date was set for November of this year.

Several important federal concessions are tied to an area’s EPA air quality attainment status, including transportation funding, but whether or not gas operators in the Dallas/Fort Worth area will choose to participate in the grant program remains to be seen.

The grant system was designed to serve as a partial reimbursement of costs associated with the installation of new NOx reduction systems. So far, retrofitting remains voluntary, emissions reductions must be verified in order to receive grant money and the state only provides a 75 percent reimbursement of capital costs.

And because much of local gas exploration is taking place near businesses and homes, some Barnett Shale drillers are already paying out of pocket to address noise and safety concerns.

Three local operators did not immediately respond to requests for interviews regarding the compressor engine grant program Friday.

Feds plan to boost ozone standards

By SCOTT STREATER - Fort Worth Star-Telgram - Thu, Jun. 21, 2007

The federal government announced Thursday that it plans to significantly strengthen ozone regulations, concluding that the current health-based standard fails to protect the public from the damaging effects of the lung-scarring pollutant.

Regional leaders have warned that a substantially stricter federal ozone standard could force them to take dramatic steps to lower pollution, including adopting restrictions on driving activity in North Texas, as well as placing additional restrictions on industrial operations.

But just how significant those restrictions could be won’t be known until the standard is finalized in March. That’s because the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a range of alternatives, from substantially lowering the acceptable threshold of ozone that’s considered safe to breathe, to only a modest revision of the existing standard.

The EPA will conduct a series of public hearings across the country during the next few months to gather feedback before setting the new standard.

The new standard would not go into effect before June 2010.

The current standard mandates that average daily ozone levels cannot exceed 85 parts per billion over any eight-hour period.

But the agency’s own science advisory committee last year recommended the acceptable threshold for ozone be lowered to no more than 70 parts per billion, arguing that recent studies show the existing standard fails to protect those most sensitive to ozone pollution: children, older adults, people who work outdoors and people with respiratory problems.

The EPA’s proposal calls for lowering the ozone threshold to between 70-75 parts per billion.

"I have concluded that the current standard is insufficient to protect public health,” said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson during a teleconference early Thursday with reporters. “I do not believe there is scientific evidence for retaining the current standard.”

Last year, air monitors in Dallas-Fort Worth measured ozone concentrations of 70 parts per billion or greater 642 times over 73 days, a review of state ozone data shows.
Setting the standard at 70 parts per billion could reduce exposures that produce health problems nationwide by as much as 90 percent, said Lydia Wegman, director of the EPA’s health and environmental impacts division.

In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, which does not meet the existing ozone standard, regional leaders warn that dramatic new steps may be needed to lower pollution, such as restricting the number of days people could drive their cars, limiting when construction equipment could be operated and possibly shutting down drive-through windows during peak ozone season, state and regional leaders said.
In addition, further steps would need to be taken to lower ozone-forming pollutants from industrial sources, such as local cement kilns as well as power plants in East Texas. Even if dramatic steps are taken locally, however, that might be enough. Steps would have to be taken in other states to lower pollution emissions that blow into North Texas each day and that impact regional air quality. Ozone review

The federal Environmental Protection Agency is under a federal court mandate to review the ozone standard to ensure it adequately protects public health and the environment.
The American Lung Association and other groups threatened to sue the EPA in 2003, saying the ozone standard set in 1997 is no longer sufficient to protect children, older adults, people with respiratory ailments and people who work outside.

To resolve that case, the EPA agreed to review the standard in light of new research that indicates that ozone concentrations can be well below the health-based standard and still trigger asthma attacks and inflame the conditions of those suffering from a host of other respiratory ailments.

What’s next

The EPA will hold a series of public hearings across the country beginning in August to discuss the proposal. The only public hearing in Texas will be Sept. 5 in Houston, which has the state’s most severe ozone problem.

By June 2009, Texas and other states will recommend to the EPA which areas cannot meet the new standard.
The new standard would take effect by June 2010.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency Ground-level ozone

The federal government regulates ozone levels as a health concern.

At high concentrations, ozone can trigger asthma attacks, stunt lung development in children and aggravate bronchitis, emphysema and other respiratory problems.

There are nine counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment area: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant.

Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, needs lots of sunlight and heat to form. For that reason, ozone season in Dallas-Fort Worth runs from May through October.

Ozone is produced when nitrogen oxides mix with volatile organic compounds. Those come mostly from automobile exhaust and industry smokestacks. Trees also produce the organic compounds as part of photosynthesis.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.star-telegram.com/traffic/story/144519.html