Sierra Keystone Conversations

Fracking and Fundamental Environmental Rights Before the PA Supreme Court

2016-03-07T15:33:00.000-05:00

On March 9, Pennsylvania's highest court will hear arguments about fracking and fundamental environmental rights—rights affirmed in Article I, Section 27 of Pennsylvania’s constitution, the “Environmental Rights Amendment.”

The case on appeal was originally filed by the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation in March 2012. It focuses on a series of short sighted government decisions to address state budget gaps by converting public natural resources into quick cash. More specifically, through an unprecedented expansion of the state's oil and gas leasing program, Pennsylvanians lost nearly a tenth of their state forests to private fracking interests, which gained rights to both public minerals and public lands—for decades.

PEDF is now asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to judge whether the Governor and DCNR, as trustees for public natural resources under the Environmental Rights Amendment, complied with the same when they leased so much public minerals and lands without first assessing how much the public would lose, and what it would take to make the public whole again.

The government has already conceded that it has fiduciary duties under the state constitution to “conserve and maintain” public natural resources. [1] Or, as the plurality of Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices put it in Robinson, “to prevent and remedy the degradation, diminution, or depletion of our public natural resources.”[2]

Moreover, the record shows DCNR—the agency charged with leasing decisions—wanted to stop leasing to the fracking industry because it did not have a good handle on the impacts, but then, under political pressure, leased more and more public minerals and forestlands anyway.

As a result, "pipeline infrastructure build-out" alone "will impact communities and the environment in every county in Pennsylvania," according to the government’s own projections. [3]

On Wednesday, John Childe will argue for PEDF that—before any decision to lease the “common property of all the people”[4]—the government should have completed a comprehensive study of fracking's impacts with special attention to present and future generations' fundamental environmental rights affirmed in the Environmental Rights Amendment. Further, PEDF will argue leasing should have proceeded only to the extent that the government could show, on the record, compliance with the constitutional “conserve and maintain” standard. This is a commonsense look before you leap argument, and it is firmly rooted in the text of the Environmental Rights Amendment.

Similarly, Pennsylvanians have asked the government many times to take its constitutional duties seriously. To put people before profits, and hard won environmental protections before stopgap budget measures.

In fact, like PEDF here, Pennsylvanians have specifically asked the Governor and his administration to take the constitutionally required hard look at the foreseeable impacts of the Marcellus Shale boom, including not only the impacts of leased public minerals and lands but all the associated pipelines, compressor stations, and other industrial fracking infrastructure that will cut through wild places and endanger homes and businesses.[5]

Yellow dots indicate wells in violation of regulations.

Yet the government keeps dragging its heels. That’s why Sierra Club, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, PennFuture, and the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association filed a friend of the court brief in this case to urge the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to give meaning to the text of the Environmental Rights Amendment. The brief is available here.

______________________________________________

[1] Pa. Const. art. I, § 27.

[2] Robinson Township. v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901, 957 (Pa. 2013) (plurality).

[3] Governor’s Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force Report, at 5 (Feb. 2016) [emphasis added] available at http://goo.gl/YvwUN8

[4] Pa. Const. art. I, § 27.

[5] See, for example, joint comments by 12 public interest organizations to Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Quigley (Dec. 29, 2015)available at http://goo.gl/XGd3Cs; see also State Impact, “Citizen’s Marcellus Shale Commission Wants to Slow Down Drilling” (Oct. 24, 2011) available at https://goo.gl/2WJEvc; Citizens Marcellus Shale Commission, "Marcellus Shale: A Citizens View" (Oct. 2011) (urger government to take hard look at fracking's impacts and protect public natural resources) available at https://goo.gl/g0M8c2.

How the Clean Power Plan Could Keep Coal AND Gas in the Ground

2016-02-17T15:00:00.000-05:00

By Tom Schuster, Sr. Campaign Representative, Beyond Coal

Last year’s Paris agreement was a significant milestone in finally building the global political will to tackle climate change, and not a moment too soon. The end goal is pretty simple, even if the pathway is difficult: in order to have a good chance of keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees, a recent study in the journal Nature finds that a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves, and more than 80 percent of coal reserves worldwide need to be left in the ground.

Here in the US, we are finally beginning to take concrete steps in that direction. The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was finalized by the EPA last August, and sets the first ever limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants that burn fossil fuels. While the CPP applies to both coal and gas burning plants, some environmental advocates have expressed concerns that the rule might cause us to invest more heavily in natural gas than in truly clean energy. This is a reasonable concern if one looks strictly at the design of the rule, but taken in the context of broader trends in energy development and technology, it becomes clear that the Clean Power Plan can drive the replacement of coal with truly clean energy, IF we implement it properly at the state level.

A recent analysis by the Rhodium Group looked at the “least cost compliance pathway” for the Clean Power Plan under two scenarios. The first is the CPP only, and as the graphic below shows, coal generation declines significantly (by more than 1/3, compared to 2012 generation). There is a modest increase for wind and solar energy, but the bulk of the replacement generation is projected to come from natural gas.

The second scenario is the CPP plus Tax Extenders. What are the Tax Extenders? At the end of 2015, as part of the omnibus spending bill, Congress authorized an extension of the expiring Production Tax Credit for wind energy, and the Investment Tax Credit for solar energy through the end of the decade, which will increase investment in these technologies by tens of billions of dollars. Although wind and solar are already economically competitive on average in the US (see graphic below), these tax credits make them competitive in just about every region, and will allow them to accelerate their rapid expansion. This will prevent the need for new gas generation to replace the declining coal generation that results as the CPP is implemented. In this scenario, nearly all replacement generation by 2030 is pollution-free wind and solar energy.

It is important to note that in both scenarios, coal generation is decreasing more than the combined increase in other types of generation. That is due to increased energy efficiency, which is by far the cheapest and greenest way to cut our carbon pollution. It is also the most progressive, especially if efficiency programs are targeted at homes and businesses in low-income neighborhoods, as envisioned by the CPP’s Clean Energy Incentive Program.

As hopeful as this is, let’s be honest. First, cutting carbon pollution in the electric sector by 32% by 2030, as the CPP aims to do, is not sufficient by itself to end the threat of climate change. The Sierra Club’s goal is to get to zero carbon pollution in the electric sector by 2030 and a virtual elimination of fossil fuel use by 2050, not because it is easy, but because that is what the science of climate change demands. So this is just one step. Through our continued climate and clean energy advocacy we hope to far surpass the CPP requirements. But the importance of having a law in place that, for the first time, puts actual limits on carbon pollution from the electric sector cannot be understated and we cannot afford to let opponents undo or weaken this important accomplishment.

Second, I’ve done enough modeling in my life (the computer kind, trust me) to know that this analysis only shows what COULD be, not necessarily what WILL be. All models are based on assumptions that may or may not hold true, and the Clean Power Plan is complex with some potential loopholes that could weaken it unless we prevent that from happening. In Pennsylvania, the most important question is whether we will choose to limit carbon pollution from existing coal and gas plants only, or whether pollution from new gas plants will also be subject to the carbon cap.

Under the Clean Power Plan, the EPA does not have the authority to cap system-wide emissions from new power plants. It can only set limits for individual power plants and has done so, but the limits for new gas plants are already being reached by virtually every new combined cycle gas plant. However, the STATES do have the ability to regulate new gas plants just as they regulate existing plants, and that is what we are calling on Governor Wolf to do.

What are the stakes?

If states take the “existing only” approach to compliance, they would indeed be creating an incentive to shift generation away from both existing coal and gas plants to new gas plants, which would not be subject to a system-wide cap. This is called “emissions leakage,” and EPA recognizes that it is a problem, and requires states to include policies to prevent leakage if they opt for existing-only compliance. However, a recent analysis by MJ Bradley & Associates found that EPA’s proposed approach to mitigate leakage is ineffective, and that electric sector emissions could actually increase by 2030 if states choose to only regulate existing sources.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

If we include new gas plants under the carbon cap, we treat every ton of carbon pollution the same no matter when its smokestack was built. That makes it a REAL cap on carbon pollution. Not only is this the only fair way to do it from an economic perspective, it is the best tool we have for preventing most of the 27 (!) proposed new natural gas power plants from coming online in Pennsylvania. Better still, with a real carbon cap, it won’t matter whether electricity demand increases when electric cars become mainstream. Any additional generation requirement would have to be met with carbon-free electricity, so it offers us the chance to clean up both our electric AND transportation systems.

Tell Gov. Wolf to include new gas plants under the carbon pollution cap. And tell your legislators to work constructively with the Administration and ensure a strong, just, and timely Pennsylvania Clean Power Plan!

Local teams are forming throughout the state, and now is the time to get involved! If you are in the Pittsburgh region, contact Randy Francisco (randy.francisco@sierraclub.org, 412-802-6161). If you are in the Philadelphia region, contact Gary Lytle (gary.lytle@sierraclub.org, 215-776-5358). If you live elsewhere, contact Carli Feldman (carli.timpson@sierraclub.org, 717-232-0101). You can also visit www.cleanpowerpa.org for more information.

The Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force – For Whose Benefit?

2016-01-20T12:11:00.003-05:00

Photo of “Williams-Transco Pipeline Crossing Struble Trail, Downingtown, PA” by Jim Wylie

By Bernie Greenberg and Jim Wylie (Southeastern PA Group)

Last year, Governor Tom Wolf established the Pennsylvania Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force (PITF) chaired by DEP Secretary John Quigley, with the goal of achieving a world-class pipeline infrastructure for this state. The responsibilities of the PITF included the siting and routing of pipelines, engaging in public participation and ensuring pipeline safety. The draft recommendations were released in November and the public comment period closed on December 31st. Over those 46 days over 1,500 comments were collected by the DEP website from environmental organizations, gas and pipeline industry representatives, property owners and other concerned citizens.

Just 20 calendar days later (on Jan 20, 2016), the task force will approve the final version of the recommendations. It seems like the real intent of this task force is to streamline the process for pipeline developers.

The Task Force draft recommendations do not adequately address in advance the environmental effects of pipeline proliferation as stated in Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution which provides that people have a right to clean air, water, and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania courts have mandated that Section 27 constrains every entity with the state government and requires that a thorough and comprehensive review be conducted BEFORE activities such as the expansion of gas pipelines which may have a deleterious impact on our land, water, air and communities.

The Task Force proposes a fast-track massive expansion of pipelines across our state without a proper environmental review. This expansion will disturb many of our precious streams, some permanently, clear thousands of acres of woodland, encroach upon farm fields, affect air quality and divide residential communities. The PITF has charged the DEP with monitoring water quality throughout the state as well as evaluating methane emissions from the many compressor stations to be built. This agency is poorly equipped to handle this expansion of activity – a projected quadrupling of pipeline miles by 2030. The same is true for the public utility commission (PUC) which is charged with monitoring pipeline failures. Furthermore there may not be adequate funds or volunteers to provide for emergency responses to the inevitable catastrophe.

Finally, do we even need or want more pipelines when we should be drafting a strategy for transitioning our energy to renewable sources, not expanding our fossil fuel infrastructure? The renewable energy industry should have a seat at the table when it comes to determining the future of our state. I recommend the creation of a task force dedicated to fully transitioning Pennsylvania to renewable energy instead of locking in these dirty fuels for the next several decades.

As it stands, It seems that the real beneficiary of the Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force is the pipeline industry. Period.

To learn more about the Pipeline Infrastructure Taskforce and to read letters submitted to the Taskforce by Sierra Club members in Southeastern Pennsylvania, click here.

Read the Pennsylvania Sierra Club's Comments to the Taskforce here.

Don't Trade Away Climate Progress

2016-01-15T15:23:00.000-05:00

The Sierra Cub opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

Since it’s founding in 1892 the Sierra Club has been dedicated to helping people appreciate, experience, and protect the gifts of Nature in this complex and beautiful World. We have a long history of accepting the responsibility of looking beyond human needs and wants of the moment to identify mistakes made in the past and advocate for policies that, as stated in the Constitution of Pennsylvania, are dedicated “to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and aesthetic values of the environment.”

We support American policy meant to protect the health of our families and the safety of our communities—We oppose policies like the Trans-Pacific Partnership that promote the interests of those who use common natural resources for private gain, think of depletion and destruction as collateral damage, and do not serve the interests of the public and the environment.

Recently TransCanada challenged the decision not to permit the Keystone XL pipeline. Provisions of NAFTA enable foreign corporations to undermine this protective action that the United States had every right to take. These same destructive provisions, that allow corporations to sue in private trade tribunals over laws they claim reduce their profits, these court cases that would attack our safeguards in secret and independent of our democratic processes, are also built into the dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership - only worse - adding just one more reason that this effort must be stopped in its tracks.

Our nation should not sign on to this destructive agreement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

video platform video management video solutions video player

Activists Challenge President’s TPP Pitch in State of the Union

PA AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Speaks at Rally

ALLENTOWN, PA – Today the Pennsylvania Fair Trade Coalition held a rally at the Allentown office of Congressman Charlie Dent to challenge President Obama’s call for Congress to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in yesterday’s State of the Union Address. The event also featured the release of the national letter of opposition to the TPP signed by over 1500 national, state and local organizations. The letter was circulated by the Citizens Trade Campaign, of which the PA Fair Trade Coalition is our state affiliate. Today the letter was delivered to congressional offices throughout Pennsylvania by PA Fair Trade Coalition activists. In Allentown the crowd of fair trade supporters demanded that Congressman Dent vote against the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Phila Back, PA Fair Trade Coalition volunteer said, “Knowing how unpopular the TPP is, the President spoke about it for a scant 28 seconds last night.”

TPP, a NAFTA-style free trade agreement with eleven Pacific rim countries, was negotiated over five years in unprecedented secrecy. The released text confirms that it is a threat to American jobs and wages as well as labor, environmental, food safety and financial safeguards while it reduces access to affordable medicine and internet freedom.

PA AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Frank Snyder said, "The TPP agreement is on track, the wrong track, to become the most harmful trade pact ever. Enough is enough. If we are serious about rebuilding the middle class and creating the millions of good paying jobs we desperately need, we must fundamentally rewrite our trade policies. NO to fast track, and NO to the TPP."

The national letter was signed by several local organizations including the Lehigh Valley Group of the Sierra Club. Their spokesman Tom Church said, “ TransCanada’s recent challenge to the decision not to permit the Keystone XK pipeline – an action that could cost US taxpayers $15 billion – exploits provisions of NAFTA that enables foreign corporations to undermine American policy meant to protect the health of our families and the safety of our communities. These same destructive provisions that wrongly empower corporations to attack our safeguards are also built into the dangerous and far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership – only worse – adding just one more reason that this effort must be stopped in its tracks.”

“Lehigh Valley Gas Truth is concerned that the TPP provides a fast track to future LNG exports, because the US would be required to sell its gas to other signatory countries regardless of any public health and safety or environmental considerations, and that means a lot more illness, eco-destruction, and violation of the rights of PA communities,” said Julie Edgar.

George Piasecki, United Steelworkers, Rapid Response PA Director, said, “TPP has been negotiated in secret for over six years and now they want to sell it to the American public in just a few months with just an up or down vote in Congress. For too long we have let multi-national corporations dictate our trade rules at the expense of working families, resulting in a growing trade deficit, stagnating wages and job loss. These agreements prioritize corporate profits over workers paychecks and workers’ rights.”

“Last night the President repeated the misleading claims he has made about the TPP,” said Back. “His claim about 18,000 tax cuts refers to tariffs on a miniscule quantity of goods. Further, TPP Is not about the U.S. writing the rules versus China doing so - TPP’s rules are those demanded by its 500 official corporate trade advisers.”

Nancy Tate of LEPOCO stated, “LEPOCO has worked against unfair trade agreements since NAFTA, supporting workers in Latin America, the U.S., and now Asia, all of whom are threatened by the TPP.”

The President has previously announced his intention to sign the TPP in early February, seeking a Fast-Tracked vote in Congress in the spring.

# # #

Stop secret provision in the state budget to exempt oil and gas drillers from compliance with health and safety regulations

2015-12-10T17:39:00.000-05:00

legislators in the Pennsylvania General Assembly are trying to use the budget process to hold up oil and gas regulations that have been in the works for years, and to delay the state’s action on the Clean Power Plan despite overwhelming public support. They think that you aren’t watching and they are trying to sneak these provisions in under your nose. Don’t let them get away with it - make your call NOW!

The secret provisions that were added to a piece of legislation that is required to implement the state budget - HB 1327 - would exempt “conventional” oil and gas drillers from compliance with updated health and safety regulations and prevent the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) from submitting the Commonwealth’s plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants to the federal government, delaying it for years.

For both the oil and gas regulations and the Clean Power Plan, DEP has conducted a fully transparent and public process, inviting and incorporating comments from people just like you. Throughout those processes DEP heard that the public wants conventional oil and gas operators to comply with new regulations that will protect the health and safety of the public, and wants a Clean Power Plan that will reduce emissions through energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. The legislature on the other hand, has acted contrary to the public interest with no transparency to undermine these efforts.

The attempt to stop the plan by secretly using budget-related legislation is politics at its worst. It ignores the wishes of the public, and it may be illegal and unconstitutional.

Tell your Senator to VOTE NO on HB 1327 the Fiscal Code bill that includes secret provisions that would delay the Pennsylvania Clean Power Plan and exempt the conventional oil and gas sector from much-needed regulations and demand that legislative leaders remove this from the budget process moving forward.

Notes From The Field #2: Orphaned and Abandoned Gas Wells

2015-12-10T11:22:00.000-05:00

My name is David Platt and I am a father, husband and a member of the Sierra Club. A few weeks ago, I attended an event hosted by the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club and Marcellus Matters, an NSF-funded group out of Penn State that focuses on science education. We spent the afternoon stumbling around public game lands but we weren’t hunting for deer. What were we in search of? We were looking for Pennsylvania’s missing orphaned and abandoned gas wells.

According to an estimate from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, there are 200,000 oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania that undocumented. Out of these, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has located about 12,000 wells. There are potentially thousands of undocumented wells leaking harmful chemicals into the air and into Pennsylvania streams and groundwater. We urgently need people to help find and document these wells.

The industry has been drilling oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania since 1859, when Colonel Edwin Drake struck oil in Titusville. For the first century of drilling, there was practically no regulation or oversight of these operations. There is no comprehensive map or database of these wells. When a well failed to bring enough petroleum to the surface to make it profitable, it was unceremoniously abandoned. Sometimes these wells were plugged to keep gas and oil from leaking out. But many of these “plugs” have failed over the decades. Now, the Sierra Club is partnering with Penn State’s Marcellus Matters to help locate and document these missing wells.

Last month, as part of the Forest Watch Campaign, a group of Sierra Club volunteers gathered in Williamsport where Nooreen Meghani and Terry Noll of Penn State’s Marcellus Matters program showed us how locate and document these missing gas wells. Once the wells are documented, this information is then sent off to the DEP. We started by reviewing old USGS maps of Pennsylvania. These maps, initially drawn up in the 1940s and revised in the 1970s, show tiny circles where oil and gas wells are located and thin lines to show pipelines. But, as we discovered, these maps are only a starting point because most wells never made it onto these maps. Other sources of information used to locate these wells include county records and satellite data. We then headed to the Sproul State Forest near Lock Haven to look at three previously unknown wells.

The first well was found by a small pond near Camp Run at these coordinates. We inspected the rusty monument to see if there was any concrete support around the steel pipes. This monument was found less than 20 yards away from Camp Run. The second well was clearly visible from the road and located near Rock Run. There was a large, wooden oil or gas derrick on the ground next to it. The monument had some kind of gas leaking from the top and it smelled terrible!

As bad as these wells were, however, the third well was by far the scariest! It had water pouring from its monument like a bathtub spigot. This well created its own stream that flowed directly into Cooks Run. (You can see it on a map here.) Not only was the smell absolutely noxious, the water pouring out created a petroleum sheen. How long has pollution from this well been flowing into Cooks Run? No one knows —until Nooreen reported it to DEP, nobody knew it was here.

If you enjoy our state forests and game lands, then please contact us or the folks at Marcellus Matters to participate in future outings in your area. I understand not everyone can do this but you can at least take the opportunity to tell the the state of Pennsylvania to clean up and protect our public lands. A few days after the outing, I gave public comment at the DCNR Bureau of Forestry’s hearing on the proposed State Forest Resource Management Plan. This plan guides the Bureau in managing our state forests and is an important opportunity to speak up in defense of our public lands. At the hearing, I talked about the orphaned and abandoned gas wells I saw on our outing and spoke out against future gas development on public lands. The Bureau will be accepting written comments through January 30th, 2016 so please send an email, fill out a survey, or mail your comments to the Bureau of Forestry.

To learn more about Marcellus Matters, please go to their website and check out their map of orphaned and abandoned oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania.

The goal of the Forest Watch Campaign is to empower Sierra Club members to become the eyes and ears of the forest. We are organizing a series of conservation outings throughout the state designed to take members to areas currently impacted or under threat by coal, gas, and oil and connect them to advocacy opportunities.

Nuclear?

2015-11-11T14:15:00.000-05:00

By Savanna Lenker, Sierra Club PA Chapter intern

At the Clean Power Listening Session, an idea was brought to the table. Someone offered that Pennsylvania makes up its aforementioned 4% “other” deficit (outlined in the Clean Power Plan article) by means of nuclear energy.

The Sierra Club opposes nuclear. Tragic events at Three Mile Island, just down the Susquehanna from where I sit, and in Fukushima, Japan have proved our fears have merit. The primary issues with this source remain uncorrected.

Three Mile Island. Photo courtesy of Savanna Lenker

The stance will remain the same unless sufficient federal and global policies are developed to restrain energy over-use and nonessential economic growth. Changes need to be made to solve the problems with reactor operation, disposal of spent fuels, and the diversion of nuclear materials that can be use in weapons manufacture. Also, there would need to be an establishment of regulatory machinery to make sure the above conditions will be upheld.

The Sierra Club also is advocating for these changes:

1. Federal legislation to require Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing of both military and nonmilitary radioactive waste management facilities, including research and development facilities;

2. Federal legislation to require Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation and control of all shipments of radioactive waste, whether of military or nonmilitary origin, and all commercial radioactive materials.

The Sierra Club also supports state and local efforts to provide greater protection in the transportation of radioactive waste and commercial radioactive materials.

3. Presidential appointment of a special citizens' advisory group to advise the president, Congress, and the NRC on the implementation of reforms recommended by the Kemeny Commission and such additional reforms as may be recommended by other studies now underway of the events leading to the Three Mile Island accident;

4. The making of appointments to this advisory group, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and to staff positions in the NRC from a pool of individuals not committed by past experience to the nuclear industry. Such appointment should have a demonstrated commitment to public health and safety.

The Sierra Club is working toward a nuclear free future.

“… nuclear proliferation and the long-term storage of nuclear waste (which remains lethal for more than 100,000 years) make nuclear power a uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity.”

Nuclear energy is not a probable solution to Climate Change (which the Clean Power Plan aims to combat) and every step closer to nuclear is one step farther from truly safe, inexpensive, and renewable energy sources.

Permit to Pollute?

2015-11-04T09:00:00.000-05:00

FirstEnergy has a coal ash problem, and it wants us to deal with it. Since 1975, the Beaver County power plant has pumped about 20 billion gallons of ash mixed with water to an impoundment called Little Blue Run on the border of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The problem is that the ash is toxic: it contains loads of heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, and cadmium, and other harmful pollutants like selenium and boron. For years, this pollution has been finding its way into groundwater, wells, and streams, and even the air as the ash dries and blows around.

In 2012, FirstEnergy was ordered to close Little Blue Run because of the well-documented damage it was doing to the surrounding environment, nearby property, and neighbors’ health. So FirstEnergy began to look for other places to dispose of this toxic waste. It has now set its sights on the landfill at the Hatfield’s Ferry power station, a plant that FirstEnergy abruptly retired in 2013. The ash would be dried out, loaded onto barges, hauled up the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers for 113 miles, then unloaded onto trucks and dumped at the landfill across the river from Masontown.

The proposed route between Little Blue Run (upper left) and Hatfield's Ferry (lower right) along the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers.

But this landfill has its own set of problems. The original landfill had no liner, and toxins from the ash disposed there have been contaminating the groundwater and surface water since at least 2001. The most severe contamination is from arsenic, which has been found in concentrations up to 342 times the legal limit in monitoring wells around the site. Exposure to arsenic can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, brain and nervous system, and can cause cancer. Other contaminants that exceed federal standards are aluminum, boron, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS). There are at least seven private water wells within a two mile radius that are at risk of groundwater contamination, and one public water intake.

In 2006, the landfill was expanded and the new portion included a liner. However, the original landfill remains unlined, and continues to leach pollutants. The new lined portion partially overlaps the old portion, so it is difficult to know whether the liner is actually preventing additional toxins from contaminating groundwater.

In 2008, the landfill’s operator was fined for the contamination, and order to take corrective measures. However, it is not clear that these corrective actions have been consistently followed, or whether new pollution continues to leach out from the site.

A view of Little Blue Run courtesy of vice.com. Click the image for Vice's coverage of this impoundment.

FirstEnergy is desperately trying to avoid having to build a new coal ash landfill that meets current federal standards for disposal of this waste that has already proven to be dangerous. So they are trying to find the cheapest way possible to get rid of it. First it announced it would ship it to the unlined pit in Labelle, but ongoing pollution problems at that site have prevented it from being able to accept waste from new sources. So now the company has turned its attention to the Hatfield’s Ferry dump, yet another site with unresolved problems. FirstEnergy, three strikes and you’re out.

In addition to the risks posed at the sites themselves, the transportation of the ash on open barges risks contaminating the Monongahela. The Mon has long suffered from industrial pollution and acid mine drainage, and was at one time mostly dead ecologically. However, it has begun to recover, and was voted River of the Year in 2013. Multiple efforts are underway to encourage river-centered tourism and recreation, and transportation of millions of tons of toxic waste on open barges seems incompatible with that vision.

The Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice, appealed a decision by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) allowing FirstEnergy Generation, LLC to dispose of more than 17 million tons of toxic coal ash from the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant into a closed power plant landfill in Western Pennsylvania.

Bruce Mansfield power plant.

In response to the DEP’s approval of the permit Charles McPhedran an attorney from Earthjustice and Tom Schuster, Pennsylvania Beyond Coal Campaign Representative for the Sierra Club released the following statements:

“This permit puts neighbors at risk” Charles McPhedran, an attorney with Earthjustice said. “There are several private water wells and one public water intake that are at risk from contamination from this site, not to mention the risk up and down the rivers from transport of this ash. DEP needs to protect the families of Western Pennsylvania, not make them a dumping ground for FirstEnergy.”

“Toxins from the ash disposed at the Hatfield’s Ferry site have been contaminating nearby water since at least 2001. Arsenic has been found in concentrations up to 342 times the legal limit in monitoring wells around the site, and continues to violate health standards” Tom Schuster, Pennsylvania Beyond Coal Campaign Representative for the Sierra Club said. “Exposure to arsenic can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, brain and nervous system, and can cause cancer. DEP needs to protect this community and require FirstEnergy to clean up this site before any more toxic ash is dumped.”

The Department of Environmental Protection should not issue a permit to all FirstEnergy to simply move its toxic liability from one community to another. If it must dispose of its ash at Hatfield’s Ferry, it should be required to completely clean up the existing site, line the entire landfill, and monitor extensively to ensure new pollution does not occur. Better yet, the company should avoid barging the ash up our rivers altogether, and build a state of the art landfill on site.

Sierra Club PA Chapter Testifies at EPA Methane Hearing in Pittsburgh

2015-11-03T09:43:00.000-05:00

The following is testimony provided to the EPA by Sierra Club PA Chapter Director, Joanne Kilgour, on September 29, 2015 in Pittsburgh, PA:

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here to day on this important topic - controlling methane emissions from oil and gas sources. My name is Joanne Kilgour and I serve as the Director of the Sierra Club PA Chapter, representing 25,000 members and 80,000 supporters across the Commonwealth of PA. Our members have - for decades - been leading climate advocates and clean air champions in their communities, and I know that each of them would be here testifying today if they could.

By holding this hearing in Pittsburgh, you are recognizing the significant impact air pollution from methane emissions has on this region - and regions across Pennsylvania - largely as a result of the dirty oil and gas industry. While we support and appreciate EPA taking this necessary first step to control methane emissions from oil and gas sources, we also recognize the need for action that will address pollution from existing sources.

I live in Lancaster, PA - one of the areas with the worst air quality in the nation. In fact, more than half of the counties in Pennsylvania are at risk because of air quality concerns, which are exacerbated by harmful methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Just like me, more than four million residents of Pennsylvania live in areas that exceed national ozone standards, meaning that our health and our communities cannot afford to bear pollution from the thousands of existing sources in our state - let alone from new and modified sources. Our children, our elderly, and individuals as greater risk from respiratory complications cannot take another ozone action day.

Since this is the first-ever proposal to control methane pollution from the oil and gas industry we thank you, we support this initial step, and we call for these proposals to be adopted quickly so we can get to work on tackling the threat from methane emissions from oil and gas sources now in existence - sources that by 2018 are projected to account for nearly 90% of all methane emissions in this sector.

In addition to threatening our climate, the public health threat posed by these emissions is staggering. For this reason, we call on EPA to revise its cost-benefit analysis and include in this revision metrics that monetize the public health benefit the methane standard will generate by reducing VOCs - and this smog and soot - as well as hazardous air pollutants. Without this adjustment, the benefits of implementing the rule will remain understated and the cost-benefit analysis will remain an inadequate assessment. Public health benefits are not simply qualitative or experiential, but have quantifiable financial benefits that must be documented.

I applaud the EPA and the Obama Administration for beginning to address this problem of new and modified sources of methane, and I now look to our state Department of Environmental Protection and the Wolf Administration to follow this lead and address fugitive emissions from existing sources, moving as fast and far as necessary to put the health and prosperity of Pennsylvania families first.

Make a Plan to Vote!

2015-10-29T14:10:00.000-04:00

On November 3, several important elections will be taking place in Pennsylvania. Some of the key votes include the mayoral elections in Upper Darby Township, Philadelphia, and Reading. All municipal elections will be on this day as well.

It is imperative that everyone of age votes between 7a.m. and 8p.m. on the 3rd. Through elections, we are able to voice our opinion and have an impact on decisions made in our towns and municipalities. Every vote counts.

Click here to see Sierra Club PA Chapter Supreme Court endorsements.

For more information on voting and polling places click here.

To learn more about your specific needs as a voter click here.

Groups Oppose HB 965

2015-10-19T09:02:00.003-04:00

The Sierra Club PA Chapter joined the letter below, asking members of the PA House to oppose HB 965, expected to come up for a vote on second consideration today:

October 16, 2015

Re: Opposition to HB 965 (P.N. 1885) and SB 562

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of members we represent in Pennsylvania, the undersigned respectfully request that you OPPOSE House Bill 965 (P.N. 1885), which is scheduled for second consideration this Monday, October 19.

You may hear that HB 965 (and its Senate counterpart, SB 562) is necessary for legislative “oversight.” In reality, this legislation would hamstring the current independent and bipartisan process for updating state agency regulations by giving standing committees of the legislature unilateral control to hold up proposals they dislike. At the same time, HB 965 will make Pennsylvania’s regulatory rulemaking process much less transparent to the general public.

At best, these bills are solutions in search of a problem; at worst, they represent legislative overreach that would politicize Pennsylvania’s rulemaking process and take the “independent” out of the Commonwealth's Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC).

We are specifically concerned with two particular changes proposed by HB 965 and SB 562.

First, by enabling standing committees of the General Assembly to repeatedly delay IRRC votes on proposed regulations (and introducing other delays), HB 965 and SB 562 would further complicate an already complicated process – and effectively transfer executive powers to small groups of legislators.

By way of background, one of the stated intentions of the Regulatory Review Act is “to provide ultimate review of regulations by the General Assembly” (see section 2(a)). That step already exists in our current IRRC process. After the IRRC votes on a regulatory proposal by a state agency, legislative standing committees already have the power to further review or disapprove the proposal. When a committee invokes its power to review or disapprove, the regulatory proposal is stayed for fourteen days, so that it can be brought to a vote before the full legislature. For three decades, this process has given the General Assembly ample time to review new regulations proposed by state agencies.

HB 965 and SB 562 would turn this orderly process on its head by (among other things) giving legislative committees the additional power to “further review” proposed regulations before the IRRC ever votes – and to do so repeatedly. By exercising this power, a standing committee could postpone a vote by IRRC indefinitely, and thereby effectively block the executive rulemaking process. In addition, the bills would needlessly inflate several post-vote periods during which the legislature can take action against proposed regulations. These changes would only serve to create bureaucracy and red tape, hinder the passage of much-needed regulations (which are often necessary to implement federal law or statutes passed by the General itself has), and subject the formerly independent IRRC to the control of small groups of legislators.

Second, the bills would block publication of agency “Statements of Purpose” (SOP) in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The only effect of this prohibition would be to make it harder for your constituents to understand proposed regulatory changes. The sponsorship memo for SB 562 suggests that blocking Bulletin publication will prevent courts from interpreting SOPs in a way that is inconsistent with the regulations or the intent of the General Assembly. But courts do not review and interpret SOPs because they are printed in the Bulletin; they do so because SOPs are drafted by agencies and introduced into evidence in judicial proceedings. Blocking Bulletin publication will prevent neither of these things. It will only eviscerate the ability of the public to learn about and comment on new regulations.

Please tell your leadership that you OPPOSE HB 965 and vote to keep the “independent” in the Independent Regulatory Review Commission.

Thank you for in advance for standing up for the integrity and transparency of our regulatory process and OPPOSING HB 965.

Sincerely,

David Masur, Executive Director Joanne Kilgour, Chapter Director

PennEnvironment Sierra Club, Pennsylvania Chapter

Joseph Otis Minott, Executive Director Matthew Stepp, Policy Director

Clean Air Council Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future

Jackson Morris, Director Eastern Energy Gretchen Dahlkemper, National Field

Mark Szybist, Senior Program Advocate Manager

Natural Resources Defense Council Moms Clean Air Force

Josh McNeil, Executive Director Phil Wallis, Executive Director

Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania Audubon Pennsylvania

Alice Tong, Eastern States Advocate Khari Mosley, Pennsylvania Regional

Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) Programs Manager

BlueGreen Alliance

Steve Hvozdovich Mary Booth

Clean Water Action Partnership for Policy Integrity

What you need to know about the Pennsylvania Clean Power Plan

2015-09-18T10:20:00.000-04:00

President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took historic action on August 3, 2015 when they announced the finalized Clean Power Plan (CPP), a step to reduce carbon pollution and combat climate change. The plan extends to the year 2030 and focuses on lowering emissions from power plants and increasing renewable energy and efficiency. States will individually develop plans to meet the guidelines laid out by the CPP.

Pennsylvania already has programs that would get us over halfway to our goal, if they are fully put into effect. These current policies would meet 51% of the goal. The other 49% will be covered by increasing energy efficiency, increasing renewable energy, and taking other additional measures. By adjusting the energy efficiency savings goal to 1.5% (which is consistent with leading states),PA would get to 14% of the target. The state can also increase the percent of renewable energy to 20%, which again compares to surrounding states and would alone get us 31% closer the aim. The leftover 4% is easily attainable by updating building codes and the efficiency of power plants.

The Wolf administration's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), will be holding 14 community listening sessions across to state to provide the public and opportunity to share their thoughts and opinions about the Clean Power Plan. Click here to learn more about these sessions.

Members and staff at the first listening session held in Harrisburg on 15 September.

Field Notes: Ryerson Outing

2015-08-25T11:58:00.000-04:00

Last weekend, the Pennsylvania Sierra Club held its first event as part of the Forest Watch Campaign. Working with the Allegheny Group and the Center for Coalfield Justice, we brought a group of urban Pittsburgh residents and community members from Southwestern Pennsylvania to Ryerson Station State Park. There, we held two hikes and a workshop on bringing together different groups fighting natural gas, longwall, and climate issues.

Southwestern Pennsylvania is under attack from coal and gas extraction on all fronts and Ryerson, a 1,164-acre state park found in Greene County, is no exception. The park was home to Duke Lake, a reservoir lake and cornerstone of the surrounding community. Ten years ago, Duke Lake was drained due to the cracks forming in the dam. The Department of Environmental Protection later determined longwall mining at CONSOL’s nearby Bailey Mine to be at fault. We chose to have our outing at Ryerson to highlight these past injustices and to learn how to support the current work being done by the community members in the area.

We started the day with a bird-watching hike through Polly Hollow led by a DCNR employee. The park is home to a variety of birds, both residents and visitors, and more than 120 species of birds have been documented in the park. While we didn’t see many birds on our hike, we certainly heard a few, including the Orchard Oriole. Participants also shared knowledge on different plants and mushroom varieties we saw along the trail.

A little later in the morning, the rest of our outings participants began to trickle in. The main hike took place along the Iron Bridge Trail. This path follows some of the North Fork of Dunkard fork, a little feeder stream, and what used to be Duke Lake. Here, we stopped to talk about some of the hydrology at Ryerson and wetlands in particular. Members of our group highlighted the important role that wetlands play in regulating streamflow and maintaining water quality.

After our hike, we broke for lunch back at the Iron Bridge where we had a workshop on balancing the complex relationships between communities, extraction, and activism. Our participants broke into small discussion groups to tackle the question, “if you could end all coal mining immediately, would you?” The groups spent a while deliberating and came back with some thoughtful responses. As a group made up of local residents and urban allies, everyone had a different approach and relationship to the issues in the region.

While most people had an immediate response, the effects of their initial decisions became clear through discussion. Some participants talked about the need to stave off future climate disasters but others talked about the immediate harm to local communities forced into a coal-based mono economy. Other people brought up the need for a slow and just economic transition parallel to backing away from a carbon-based economy. Regardless of their decision, it became clear that we don’t win unless everybody wins and many people questioned whether they were the ones to make that call in the first place.

After our workshop, we caravaned to a few locations in Greene County to see the impacts of the coal and gas industry. We stopped by a gas compressor station adjacent to the park, a coal refuse disposal area which is a valley filled in with toxic coal waste, and the largest coal preparation facility in the county that processes over 20 million tons of coal a year.

Veronica Coptis and Eva Westheimer from the Center for Coalfield Justice shared some background on the current threats to the park. Currently the beautiful streams left in Ryerson Station State Park are under imminent threat from ongoing longwall mining that is predicted to destroy them. With the recent news that Duke Lake cannot be restored because of ongoing ground movement from mining subsidence, these streams are vital to renewing and improving Ryerson State Park.

There is still work to be done to save Ryerson State Park. To get involved and learn more about these efforts, please contact Veronica at the Center for Coalfield Justice. To learn more about CCJ’s work with Ryerson, click here. To get involved with the Forest Watch Campaign or to plan an outing in your area, contact me.

Sierra Club Responds to DEP Draft Final Rulemaking for Oil and Gas Operations

2015-08-13T16:09:00.004-04:00

August 12, 2015

Contact:

Joanne Kilgour, Director, Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter, 412-965-9973, joanne.kilgour@sierraclub.org

Thomas Au, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter, 717-234-7445

Sierra Club Responds to DEP Draft Final Rulemaking for Oil and Gas Operations

Governor Wolf has promised to ensure that Pennsylvania’s government would be open and transparent and to regulate oil and gas drilling activities to ensure that operations would be conducted safely. Today, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and DEP Secretary Quigley followed through on the promise of openness and transparency, and announced some of the changes to how it will regulate oil and gas activities.

The Pennsylvania Sierra Club thanks DEP for the thorough and meaningful public participation process that led to this draft final rule, and applauds the administration for taking steps to limit fracking pits and impoundments. “Waste impoundments are a significant pollution threat and create dangerous conditions for public health and the environment,” Chapter Director Joanne Kilgour stated. “We support provisions that prevent operators from using open pits for storage of dangerous substances, including wastewater, drill cuttings, and substances (like gels and cement) that return to the surface after fracking. Many spills, leaks, and incidents involving pits have occurred which have contaminated water, soil, and air.” The regulations will require containment of regulated substances, but does not totally ban open impoundments.

However, the Sierra Club remains concerned that the administration will not keep oil and gas operations at least one mile from schools and playgrounds and will not follow through to regulate noise pollution. The draft final regulations only require drilling activities to be a mere 200 feet from schools and playgrounds. Schools, playgrounds, medical facilities, and nursing homes are public resources which should be protected from hazardous industrial activities, and in the interest of transparency we will seek a full explanation from DEP for its decision to establish such a small setback. “Our children and those in need of medical attention require protection from oil and gas operations and such a small protected area will not be sufficiently protective of their health. We will continue to seek additional protections for schools, playgrounds, and medical facilities.” stated Ms. Kilgour.

“Regulations to protect the public are long overdue” stated Thomas Au, Conservation Chair for the Pennsylvania Sierra Club. “The degradation of our air, water, and health have been a fact of life since the drilling boom began several years ago. Pennsylvania is long past the time of continued debate on whether oil and gas activities impact health. Instead, there is an urgent need to face realities on the ground and fix critical problems, such as failures to immediately notify public officials of spills and leaks.”

The Sierra Club will continue to work with the administration to adopt oil and gas regulations that are fully protective of the public, and looks forward to the inclusion of public health in future regulatory packages. DEP has received significant input from both the public and the regulated community on these changes, and DEP must be empowered to move quickly to finalize these regulations.

#####

Welcome Tom Torres!

2015-07-22T15:53:00.001-04:00

It’s hard for me to talk about myself because what I really want to do is talk about all of the incredible individuals I have had the opportunity to learn from over the past six years. I have supported rural groups resisting extraction in Appalachia, worked with communities of color in the Southeast to build new economic futures, and helped build broad coalitions all across the region to fight for self-determination. I don’t think it’s possible to talk about campaigns and not mention who makes the wins possible: the communities driving and defining our work.

As the Conservation Program Coordinator, I’ll be supporting the Chapter through the Forest Watch Initiative, a program that empowers Sierra Club members to become the eyes and ears of the forest. Through member outings and an interactive campaign platform, we hope to make connections between public land issues, oil and gas infrastructure, and frontline struggles all over the state. With over 20,000 members and a long history of successful grassroots work, the Pennsylvania Sierra Club is in a strong position to push back against the dirty industries that threaten our land, water, and people.

Tom overlooking a strip mine on Black Mtn., Appalachia, Va.

Growing up the child of Mexican immigrants, I know the inherent value in resilient and diverse communities. My experience in Appalachia was as much about immigrants and manufacturing as it was mountains and riverbeds. Navigating different facets of the work — from farmers in Northeast Georgia and black landowners in the Alabama Black Belt to urban residents fighting for security and recognition — I have seen that strong communities are ones that recognize their collective power. Diversity in landscape, in issues, and in people is a value but also a challenge that must be met with compassion and understanding. I’m excited to experience everything Pennsylvania has to offer and I look forward to visiting with all of you across the state.

Tom Torres

Conservation Program Coordinator

Forest Watch Campaign

tom.torres@sierraclub.org

Sunbury Pipeline Landowner Rights Meeting

2015-05-14T10:38:00.000-04:00

Nuclear Knowledge

2015-04-30T12:49:00.004-04:00

Late long-time Sierra Club member and ardent activist Dr.Judy Johnsrud shares her knowledge on nuclear energy. The video includes 3 different segments over multiple years. Everyone will learn a lot as Judy describes the fundamental issues linked to the production and necessary isolation of nuclear waste. Some of Judy’s main points include:

No safe level of exposure;
Don’t transport the waste, but isolate on site;
No radioactive materials in childrens’ toys;
There is no radiation that should be below regulatory concern.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Debates

2015-04-27T10:34:00.001-04:00

Start Date:

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

End Date:

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Location:

Widener School of Law

Common Cause Pennsylvania is co-sponsoring two debates among the primary election candidates for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This will be an historic election, with three vacant court seats being contested.

Democratic Candidates - Debate April 29th

Republican Candidates - Debate April 30th

When it comes time to vote for your Supreme Court Justices, do you often get to the polling booth and realize you really don’t know what each candidate stands for? This is your opportunity to learn where the candidates stand on the issues and their qualifications for serving on Pennsylvania’s highest court.

The seating is first come, first served, so please show up early!

Different, But Alike

2015-04-21T11:01:00.000-04:00

Three famous men of the 19th century had lives that were dissimilar but also followed the same pattern. John Powell, born in 1834, Mark Twain, in 1835, and John Muir, in 1838, grew up in the developing Midwest -- Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

Powell studied biology and geology eagerly. As a teenager, he took several river trips rowing on the Illinois River, studying mollusks along the way and observing variations in appearance up and down the river. He was doing a pre-Origin of Species study of evolution. He studied at Illinois College and at Oberlin but never completed a degree. When the Civil War was imminent, he studied military science and then joined the northern army. He served in the artillery at stations along the Mississippi until he was wounded by an artillery shell and lost an arm. When he recovered from his wound, he returned to active duty. After the war, he planned and went on the trip that he is famous for, down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. Powell didn’t make this trip just to do it. He made it to study the history of the earth. The Colorado cuts through rock layers progressively earlier and earlier. He could plot out much of the development of the earth’s crust on this trip.

John Powell in 1881.

Powell went on to serve as director of the U.S. Geological Survey for thirteen years. One of the interesting positions he took as a result of his Grand Canyon trip was that less than 2% of the west had sufficient rainfall to support agriculture. He predicted correctly that development of irrigation systems that removed water from rivers would lead to endless litigation and disappointment. His life led him from rural Illinois to the wilds of the west and then east, to Washington D.C. He died in 1902, age 68, in Maine.

Sam Clemens -- Mark Twain -- grew up in Hannibal, Missouri, on the banks of the Mississippi River. After his father’s death, he dropped out of school and worked as a printer. After a few years, at age 18, he left Hannibal and went east, working as a printer in New York and Philadelphia. When he returned home, he decided to take a trip to South America. But he got no further than New Orleans. He became an apprentice river boat pilot and then embarked on a career as pilot, a profession that paid well and entailed glamour and prestige. He might have stayed on the river if the Civil War hadn’t closed the Mississippi to traffic.

Twain then followed his brother to Nevada where he became a newspaper man, doing more than typesetting, learning to write. Twain left Nevada for San Francisco then to the Sandwich Islands. Two years later he went on what amounted to the first cruise ship cruise, traveling to the Holy Lands.

With his publication of Innocents Abroad, the story of that cruise, his writing career was launched. He soon moved east and settled in Hartford, Connecticut. But Twain’s best known books are the three that involved the Mississippi River. We group together Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn as his most memorable characters, overshadowed, perhaps, only by his own persona. Mark Twain was after all his best known character.

John Muir was born in Scotland but came to the United States when he was four. His parents established a farm in southern Wisconsin. Muir grew up there and did his share of farm work, but he also had a penchant for things mechanical. He built, among other things, a thermometer that was based on the principle of iron shrinking in the cold. And he built a device that would tip him out of bed at 2 in the morning so he could read and learn undistracted by his family.

John Muir and his beard.

He attended the University of Wisconsin, but when his brother left for Canada to avoid conscription into the army, Muir followed him. He soon found himself working at a saw mill where he redesigned the equipment to make it more efficient. In 1866, he moved to Indianapolis and redesigned a factory there. But then a tool broke. He was hit in the eye and lost sight in that eye for several months. At this point, Muir decided he wanted to live a different kind of life. He packed a small kit and started afoot, walking to Florida. After a couple of false steps in Florida, he booked passage to California. He worked at various jobs, but his work as a shepherd led him into the mountains and even to Yosemite. He had read that Yosemite was created by earthquakes; however, his close look at the striations on cliff sides of streams made him conclude that glacial action had created them. He didn’t keep his opinion to himself but challenged the foremost geologists on the subject. Ultimately, his conclusions proved right. Muir began

to write extensively on a variety of subjects, principally on nature. Muir took up grape cultivation and built an extensive and profitable vineyard. He joined and led an outings/mountain climbing club and began to advocate preservation of natural resources. Eventually the club became the Sierra Club.

Unlike Powell and Twain, Muir did not settle in the east. Instead, he kept a home base in California. He hiked there and traveled north to Alaska and southeast to the Grand Canyon. Muir lived a bit longer than Twain, dying in 1914.

These three were strong, unique, creative individuals caught in the same period of American history. Each grew up in the farm culture that prevailed. Each, in his own way, escaped the confines of that culture. They were inquiring, largely self-educated men using their talents to take on the givens of their world.

In a sense, they proved the limits of the Jeffersonian agricultural ideal. In a sense, the Civil War was a catalyst that moved each away from childhood, away from family, away from home. All three moved west. Only Muir stayed there. But they were part of the American frontier experience.

-Phil Coleman

Sierra Club Responds to DEP Release of Draft Oil and Gas Regulations

2015-03-09T15:56:00.002-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, March 9, 2015

Contact:

Joanne Kilgour, Director Sierra Club PA Chapter, O: 717-232-0101, C: 412-965-9973, joanne.kilgour@sierraclub.org

Thomas Au, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club PA Chapter, P: 717-234-7445, thomxau@gmail.com

Sierra Club Responds to DEP Release of Draft Oil and Gas Regulations

One year ago, in March of 2014, the Sierra Club was among the 24,000 individuals and organizations that submitted comments on proposed revisions to state oil and gas regulations, referred to as “Chapter 78.” Today, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) released its updated draft of these regulations, which will be open for additional 30-day comment period. These draft regulations reflect an impressive attention to detail and responsiveness to public comments.

In joint comments with other environmental organizations, we asked DEP to require that all wells, whether active or inactive, orphaned or abandoned, be identified prior to drilling, and we are pleased to see that DEP is proposing a requirement that operators submit a permit application that includes a map of all active, inactive, abandoned and orphaned wells prior to drilling.

We agree that centralized open waste impoundments must be addressed, but we remain concerned that DEP's requirement that such impoundments be phased out or upgraded to meet residual waste regulations may not address pollution risks in a timely manner. Under DEP’s proposal, it may take more than 3 years before open storage of waste is eliminated.

In response to these changes, Sierra Club PA Chapter Conservation Chair, Tom Au stated:

"We welcome this new draft, which responds to community concerns. We appreciate DEP's willingness to address pollution problems that have resulted from lax regulation of the shale gas industry. We need vigorous on-the-ground checks to ensure that new requirements are put into practice."

Sierra Club PA Chapter Director, Joanne Kilgour added:

“We applaud DEP for taking steps to better protect human health and the environment. Importantly, DEP proposes a prohibition on the use of temporary on-site waste storage pits, and would require operators to restore drinking water supplies to pre-drilling condition or to meet state Safe Drinking Water Act standards. We will continue to advocate for regulations and enforcement that best protect our communities, and hope to see the Department further strengthen its approach to a number of issues including centralized wastewater impoundments, which should be prohibited due to significant risk of air and water pollution, as well as risk of human exposure to hazardous substances.”

#######

PIPELINE MADNESS

2015-02-26T16:02:00.000-05:00

I’ve been trying to figure out who’s truly protecting this beautiful, rich country and her citizens?

Pennsylvania has an estimated 60,000 miles of gas pipelines and the PA Public Utility Commission’s 13 inspectors are responsible for most of them. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is now issuing “Certificates of Necessity and Public Convenience” to pipeline companies for interstate transport of natural gas like there’s no tomorrow. (Well, maybe there won’t be.) But anyway---in 2005, federal legislative changes to the Natural Gas Act authorized FERC to issue private companies permission to exercise “eminent domain” to facilitate import and export of natural gas.

The “taking” of private property for gas extraction and sale starts when property owners with only surface rights are forced to give ground to sub-surface rights owners to drill and produce. The “public interest” concept got expanded to carry the product interstate, to “out of state” consumers. Now it has been expanded again to transport to foreign buyers. Among others, the proposed PennEast Pipeline carrying Marcellus Shale gas through the southeastern corner of Pennsylvania on the doorstep of the newly approved Cove Point, Md. export terminal.

Proposed PennEast Pipeline

As we see in a lot of other areas of legislative action, after issuing the permit, FERC hands over the responsibility for implementation, safety, compliance, and maintenance to--well, let’s see – the pipeline companies. The pipeline company is to hire and pay inspectors and submit progress reports. And after the line is in place the Department of Transportation (DOT) takes over. Each new pipeline brings more work for the 135 inspectors of the DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration who are responsible for inspecting compressors, meters and regulators and relief valves, and other infrastructure nationwide of over 3,000 individual gas companies, some big and some small. The gas companies are supposed to monitor their equipment regularly and submit reports. Something tells me those 135 inspectors are busy folks; or else they sit at their desks all day -- in shock.

Lines are approved even when their necessity is questionable. PennEast representatives said the proposed pipeline will provide gas to 4.8 million households in New Jersey when there are only 3.1 million homes in the state.

How many large, high pressure pipelines are sitting in various stages of approval that plan to go through the same area? Six, seven, or maybe 10? There have been more than 10 worked on in the Delaware River Basin since 2011.

What about damage to streams and rivers and animal habitats? Every newly approved or expanded pipeline carrying product out of state for private gain increases the number of wells that will be drilled, the animals which will be displaced, the water that will be poisoned and removed from our common water supply, which decreases the farms that are able to produce safe food, and on and on and on.

Stop! The entire system needs to be transformed from Environmental Destruction to Environmental Protection. And I can't even figure out where the Department of Environmental Protection fits in. Maybe they can't either.

Let’s stop the madness!!!

Regretfully Yours, Tom Church

Statement on HB 100 to Improve the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard

2015-02-24T11:12:00.000-05:00

On February 19, we joined Rep. Vitali in his important message that Pennsylvania must work toward carbon neutrality and take a comprehensive approach to tackling climate change. One vehicle for putting that message into action is Rep. Vitali's HB 100, a bill that would strengthen our Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard to increase the share of our energy that comes from sources like wind and solar.

Supporting renewable energy creates jobs, spurs economic growth, and helps to clean up our air and water while reducing our contribution to climate change. Already, 10 states get at least 10% of their power from wind alone, but Pennsylvania is falling behind. In fact, a recent study found that we can produce up to 30% of our power from renewable energy by 2026 with only minimal transmission upgrades, all while saving money for Pennsylvania residents. (insert footnote with link: PJM Interconnection, "PJM Renewable Interconnection Study."

While neighboring states like Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey are better seizing the opportunities presented by renewable energy production, Pennsylvania has not updated its standards in over a decade. New Jersey’s Renewable Portfolio Standard is more than twice as aggressive as our own, and that state was recently listed as one of the top states for solar employment in the country. It is time for us to get on that list and take our place as a leader in clean energy.

Though efforts like HB 100, Pennsylvania has the opportunity to support the state's economy with family-sustaining jobs in the renewable energy sector while helping to reduce the Commonwealth's share of harmful pollution from fossil fuels. Strengthening our Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard is not just a step toward securing healthier communities in Pennsylvania, but will make our energy sector more competitive in the region's economy. We urge those Representatives who have not yet co-sponsored this bill to do so today and stand up for clean, healthy, and prosperous communities.

By Joanne Kilgour, Director
Sierra Club PA Chapter

Wolf's Fracking Moratorium is a Good First Step, but More is Needed

2015-02-09T11:34:00.000-05:00

Reprinted from Penn Live.

Environmentalists were pleased to see Gov. Tom Wolf move quickly to overturn ex- Gov. Tom Corbett's plans to open up more state parks and forests to gas leasing. Wolf did this during his first full week in office, fulfilling a campaign pledge.

In the executive order banning new gas leasing on our public lands, Wolf invoked the Pennsylvania Constitution's Environmental Amendment (Section 27, Article 1) as part of the legal framework that supported his action.

This section of our Constitution reads, in part, "the Constitution of Pennsylvania guarantees the Commonwealth's citizens the right to clean air, pure water and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment."

Wolf also invoked the law that created the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which says the agency has a duty to conserve and maintain state parks and state forests in the public trust for the benefit of all its citizens, including generations to come, as required under our state Constitution.

Drilling for natural gas has many harmful impacts.

The state Department of Environmental Protection has determined that hundreds of families have had their drinking water contaminated by poorly constructed wells.

Methane air pollution from leaking wells and pipeline infrastructure is a potent greenhouse gas, contributing to climate disruption.

In the last five years, 10,000 acres of our publicly-owned state forests, have been converted from a wilderness-type experience to outings that have to negotiate drilling pads, pipelines, compressor stations and pipelines, large impoundments to store water for fracking, new roads and power lines.

Wildlife habitat has been fragmented, with interior forest species being forced to find new nesting grounds. Invasive species are moving into areas where gas drilling occurs, threatening the native species.

Recreational enthusiasts such as hunters, hikers, anglers and bird watchers are finding their traditional and favorite forest destinations turned into industrial operations.

A single well drilled in a forest location requires thousands of truck trips to deliver the needed water, chemicals, and equipment. Accidents at well sites have killed workers, caused explosions and spills that have polluted streams and rivers, and contaminated farms, threatening livestock.

These kinds of impacts have occurred in the early "build-out" of the gas drilling industry's efforts to exploit the Marcellus shale deposits.

Based on existing leases approved by prior administrations, they have only drilled 20 percent of their anticipated wells on our public state forests.

Both Corbett and former Gov. Ed Rendell used our public lands as "cash cows" to balance their budgets, while our forests, wildlife and citizens suffered the consequences.

A much better approach would be to halt future leasing, and impose a natural gas extraction tax, similar to what other gas drilling states have had in place.

Make the drillers pay their fair share, rather than allow them to maximize their profits at the expense of us all.

It's also time to tighten the rules on drilling across-the-board.

The state should require drillers to capture their methane pollution, ban open fracking waste water pits, disclose the names of all chemicals using in fracking at each well, require drillers to provide a permanent replacement water supply when they pollute drinking water, expand set-back requirements, require compressor stations to comply with noise and pollution limits.

Pennsylvania needs to create and fund a health registry for impacts from gas drilling and fracking.

I hope our new administration will make these their goals, and not just focus on an extraction tax.

When he took office on Jan. 20, Wolf swore an oath to uphold the Pennsylvania Constitution, and one of his first acts was to do just that.

What a refreshing change from the prior administration, which ignored the Constitution's environmental requirements, and the findings of the professionals in the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Every poll taken has shown that an overwhelming majority of the public oppose more gas leasing of our public lands.

Our 2.2 million-acre state forest system already has more than 650,000 acres available to the gas drillers, thanks to prior gas leasing and privately-held mineral rights under our public lands.

Many citizens believe the gas drillers already have access to way too much of our public lands. But Corbett and the drillers wanted even more.

Wolf has now put those additional acres off-limits, and should be congratulated for taking this important first step.

The new leasing moratorium is a reminder that elections have consequences. And sometimes those consequences benefit all the people, not just wealthy campaign contributors.

Jeff Schmidt is the co-chairman of the Public Lands Committee for the Pennsylvania chapter of the Sierra Club. He writes from Shermansdale, Pa.

ALCOSAN Changes Its Tune

2015-02-06T16:24:00.003-05:00

Two weeks ago, ALCOSAN held three public meetings about fixing our sewer overflow problems. We want to give you an update so that you, as a ratepayer, can know what ALCOSAN is saying and how they plan to spend our money.

The hard work of ratepayers like you has shifted ALCOSAN’s message dramatically. Instead of talking about a Wet Weather Control Plan focused solely on tunnels, they now talk about the benefits and importance of green infrastructure.

ALCOSAN sewer overflow sign.
Recent ALCOSAN messaging has been riddled with unsupported Claims.

Unfortunately, their new message was not supported with evidence. In fact, the information presented showed that the plan and budget have not really shifted at all. What the public heard at these meetings was more of the same. People who came saw budgets that reflect gray priorities and tunnels. They heard excuses for why things can't be done rather than solutions. In short, they saw a presentation long on spin but short on details, metrics and commitments. You can read the campaign’s full update here.

Through the Clean Rivers Campaign, the Sierra Club has been working to ensure that the investment of our ratepayer dollars reflects our values and priorities. We want to maximize green infrastructure and produce benefits and jobs for our communities. We want to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. We want to protect our neighbors and our health by implementing a customer assistance program.

We will have to be vigilant to make sure that ALCOSAN invests our money wisely and fairly. Stay tuned for ways you can get involved with the Sierra Club and the Clean Rivers Campaign!

You can read the Clean Rivers Campaign’s full statement and Fact Check by clicking here.

Thanks for your continuing support,

Tom Hoffman
Conservation Program Coordinator
tom.hoffman@sierraclub.org

70 Billion Deaths in 2014

2014-12-15T09:25:00.000-05:00

Anyone who is concerned with our species damage to the life systems of our planet is faced with making many personal choices to limit their individual foot print. We must first become aware of what we are doing that is polluting our air and water, degrading our forests, destroying our soils, and causing the extinction of many life forms. Our use of all types of chemicals like pesticides and herbicides must be considered. Our use of fossil fuels is probably at the top of many people’s lists. Our consumerism which needs an endless supply of raw materials and creates immense amounts of waste needs to be on the list. Maybe the single most destructive of human activities is the practice of animal agriculture - something on which the environmental community has not placed enough emphasis.

There is a considerable amount of evidence that human consumption of meat, dairy, and fish is the single most destructive of all our activities. Animal agriculture is the largest contributor to global warming, water pollution and depletion, habitat destruction, and erosion of our topsoil. Our over consumption of fish is putting over 70% of all fish stocks under threat.

Humans raise and kill 70 billion creatures for food each year which produce 89,000 pounds of excrement each second. This is 130 times more excrement than humans create. Anyway you think about it, this is a lot of ….. stuff. Much of it ends up polluting our streams causing dead zones in places like the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. While cow burps play their share in producing the powerful greenhouse gas methane, all of this waste makes its contribution. Especially egregious contributors to this waste problem are confined animal feeding operations (CAFO).

Swine in a CAFO - unable to turn around, lay down, or move for the duration of their lives.
Image courtesy of shealynnbenner.com

Animal agriculture makes the single largest use of the earth’s land area and the destruction of its soils and forests. 70% to 90% of grains raised in this country goes to feed animals. We could produce all the food we need with plants on far less land. Over grazing has transformed entire areas of rangeland with an estimated 700 million acres of destruction. Desertification is a world-wide problem. Our precious top soil is being washed and blown away. All the crops being grown for animal feed greatly increase pesticide an herbicide use. Livestock occupies 30% of the earth’s land mass. Slash and burn destruction of the rainforest to raise cattle is the leading single cause of rainforest and species loss.

Not only is animal agriculture directly responsible for polluting water, it is also putting a tremendous strain on clean water resources. While we in the eastern part of the United States may not be conscious of the problem, the Western United States consists of much arid and semi-arid land. Great deals of the cattle raised in this country are raised in this area. The Colorado River is so over used that it never makes it to the sea. The vast Ogallala Aquifer is rapidly being drained, mostly to grow feed for cattle. Vast quantities of water are needed to meet livestock’s direct needs, to grow crops to feed them, and to process and package. Each quarter pounder you eat requires at least 660 gallons of water.

The big environmental groups have been unwilling to take on the issue of animal agriculture directly. They skirt around the edges with the issue such as rainforest destruction for cattle, CAFO’s, over fishing, and antibiotic use, but they never go after the root cause of these problems: our unnecessary and unhealthy consumption of so much meat, fish, and dairy.

Why aren’t they putting the reduction of our consumption of animal products right up there with other environmental concerns? Why aren’t they suggesting that we should greatly reduce our consumption of animal products? If adopting a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle is the single biggest step any of us can take to lighten our impact on the biosphere, why isn’t this front and center? I suspect that they don’t want to alienate any of their members. Are they more concerned with the health of their groups than they are with the health of the planet?

The "cage free" label carries no standards or regulation and simply indicates that hens are not kept in battery cages- but are still raised in CAFOs which deny birds' natural behavoirs likes nesting, roosting, foraging, even flapping their wings. No grass, no insects, no sunshine. Many die from stress and disease.
Image courtesy of 7thwavewellness.blogspot.com

I don’t know that such a conscious decision has been made, but they are committed to their organizations and they don’t want to lose any of their supporters. I don’t want to in anyway diminish what many of these groups do to protect the environment, but only propose that they must take on directly the problem of animal agriculture if we are going to solve a whole range of environmental problems. While the environmental community promotes many lifestyle changes such as using less energy and buying local, it must strongly add a great reduction of the consumption of animal products to the list. Using less doesn’t mean (for most of us) a lower quality of life. In fact lowering our individual consumption by of just about everything can improve the quality of life for all of us.

As a nation we have been very successful in exporting an over-consumption driven lifestyle. As consumption of consumer products grows throughout the developing world, there is an ever growing stress placed on the earth’s life systems. We are also exporting our “meat eating” lifestyle, an unsustainable development. It is time for us who are concerned with defending the planet lead by real example. Let us not ask others to do what we are not willing to do. Meatless Mondays are not nearly enough!

Written by Jack Miller - Sierra Club PA Chapter Vice Chair