Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 21, 2016

By Lisa Song and Jim Morris, InsideClimate News

People in natural gas drilling areas who complain about nauseating odors, nosebleeds and other symptoms they fear could be caused by shale development are usually told by state regulators that monitoring data show the air quality is fine.

But a new study suggests that the most commonly used air monitoring techniques often underestimate public health threats because they don’t catch toxic emissions that spike at various points during gas production. The study, reported this week in the peer-reviewed journal Reviews on Environmental Health, was conducted by the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project, a nonprofit based near Pittsburgh.

A health survey the group released last year found that people who live near drilling sites in Washington County, Pa., in the Marcellus Shale, reported symptoms such as nausea, abdominal pain, breathing difficulties and nosebleeds, all of which could be caused by pollutants known to be emitted from gas sites. Similar problems have been reported by people who live in the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas.

While residents want to know whether gas drilling is affecting the air near their homes — where emissions can vary dramatically over the course of a day — regulators generally use methods designed to assess long-term regional air quality.

They’re “misapplying the technology,” said lead author David Brown, who conducted the study with three of his colleagues at the Environmental Health Project.

Stuart Batterman, an environmental health sciences professor at the University of Michigan, said the study underscores the need for specialized monitoring programs that target community health.

But creating these programs is difficult, Batterman said, because scientists don’t fully understand the emissions coming from natural gas facilities. Air pollutants ebb and flow based on equipment malfunctions, maintenance activities and the weather.

They’re released from storage tanks, compressor stations and pipelines during every step of the process: drilling, hydraulic fracturing, production and processing.

“Unfortunately, the states don’t have much in the way of discretionary funds” to add monitors, Batterman said. “Their programs have been cut back because most legislatures are not funding their environmental agencies generously.”

The Pennsylvania report is the latest demonstration of how little is known about the health impacts of unconventional natural gas development, which uses hydraulic fracturing to extract tightly bound gas. In February, 190 experts from industry, government and the medical community gathered in Philadelphia to discuss major data gaps. The conclusions they reached were almost identical to those in a recent study in Environmental Science & Technology that cited a lack of “comprehensive” public health research.

Isobel Simpson, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California, Irvine who was not involved with the Pennsylvania study, said the group’s paper shows the lack of a one-size-fits-all solution.

“Air quality monitoring is complex, so you need a range of (methods) depending on what your goal is,” she said. Is the research about asthma or cancer? Overall air quality or human health? “All of those weigh into the strategy you’re using.”

Many federal and state-run monitors average their data over 24 hours or take samples once every few days. It’s a technique that’s been used for decades to assess regional compliance with the Clean Air Act. But natural gas facilities have sporadic emission spikes that last just a few hours or minutes. These fleeting events, which release particulate matter, volatile organic compounds and other harmful toxins into the air, can quickly lead to localized health effects. When averaged over 24 hours, however, the spikes can easily be ignored.

The averaging technique is “useless” for detecting pollution spikes, said Neil Carman, clean air director of the Sierra Club’s Lone Star Chapter in Texas. “If the police had to use 24-hour averaging for enforcing speed limits, nobody would ever speed. It would average out.”

The situation in Texas’ Eagle Ford Shale, which spans an area nearly twice the size of Massachusetts, is particularly problematic because there’s little monitoring of any kind. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) — the state’s environmental regulator — operates just five permanent air monitors in the region, none of them located in heavily drilled areas.

Instead, most of the monitoring in the Eagle Ford is conducted through sporadic TCEQ surveys or investigations of citizen complaints.

But spot monitoring can only catch a fraction of the emission spikes.

  • raginyank

    I am in support of developing natural gas, and see that it could and should provide a win win for the entire country. That being said; we need to scrutinize these extracting processes being developed. How do they interact with the environmentally quality of the country? We need this boom; but it needs to be as transparent as possible. We should not let the foxes guard the hen house.

    • omgamike

      Yes, there is a growing need for natural gas, but only if it can be safely extracted — and thoroughly monitored on a long-term, ongoing basis. No energy source is worth it if it causes human illnesses or death.

    • BillP

      Before the companies start drilling, theses companies must at least tell the public what is being pumped into the ground. If these chemicals are not harmful why aren’t public knowledge?