Natural gas industry says it’s not responsible for Monongahela River pollution

The Marcellus Shale Committee said natural gas development is not a significant contributor to increased levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) in the Monongahela River.

Test results from water drawn in early August showed microscopic TDS amounts exceeded acceptable levels for drinking water established by federal and state authorities.

The US Environmental Protection Agency is talking with Pennsylvania and West Virginia environmental officials to determine the scope of the problem throughout the watershed and find solutions, said the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

The Marcellus Shale Committee noted the natural gas industry complies with Pennsylvania state standards established in October 2008 regarding the handling of the gas industry’s water discharges.

“The natural gas industry almost entirely eliminated water sent to treatment plants along the Monongahela River, equal to a rate of 1% of the total effluent discharge at each permitted facility,” the committee said.

Nearly all water used in gas development in western Pennsylvania is recycled, said the committee, which is jointly sponsored by the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association and the Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania.

Should Clean Air Act regulate carbon dioxide?

Should the US government regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? If so, how? These questions and related issues are drawing much attention among lawmakers this year.

The Obama administration issued a notice Apr. 14 saying the Environmental Protection Agency will review whether CO2 emissions should fall under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA already was reviewing whether CO2 should be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The Obama administration’s notice about the CWA stems from a petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, which wants to protect ocean water from ocean acidification.

The EPA is contemplating mandatory reporting of GHG emissions. In April 2007, the US Supreme Court ordered the Bush administration to reconsider whether GHG emissions are pollutants subject to regulation under the CAA.

H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, questions the CAA approach. He argues that if it must be undertaken at all, then Congress should pass a law directly addressing CO2.

“The regulation of CO2 should not be done through bureaucratic bootstrapping current clean air laws,” Burnett said. “Since this will affect the economy as a whole, it should be undertaken by those directly accountable to the voters or the nation as a whole.”

It will be interesting to see whether others, particularly Congress, adopt his philosophy.

Meanwhile, US House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) suggests the committee’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee will discuss energy and climate legislation on Earth Day, Apr. 22.

Waxman and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the committee’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee, introduced proposed legislation, the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

Waxman expects that the full committee will complete consideration of the legislation by Memorial Day.