May 11, 2014 4 min read

When Chevron’s Lanco well pad exploded Feb. 11 in Dunkard Township, killing one worker and injuring another, the state Department of Environmental Protection was immediately on site. Two wells on the pad damaged by the explosion burned for several days and then continued to release gas until they were successfully capped.

DEP took samples at several sites, upwind and downwind of the well pad, from Feb. 12, the day following the explosion, to Feb. 20, the day the wells were capped. The samples were analyzed for 57 toxic air pollutants.

But on the day of the explosion, Chevron barred DEP personnel and the agency’s emergency response vehicle from access to the site. DEP subsequently cited Chevron for failing to allow its personnel access to the property.

This explosion presented unusual challenges for the DEP and for Chevron, and that makes us wonder why the Clean Air Council would take on such a posturing stance by submitting a letter to state Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Chris Abruzzo questioning DEP’s air-quality monitoring report.

By no means are we acting as apologists for the DEP, but let’s consider the facts.

The results of air sampling conducted following the explosion indicated no pollutants at concentration levels harmful to local residents or emergency responders. Abruzzo said it was a top priority of the department to be certain emergency response workers and nearby residents were not harmed by any emissions caused by this incident. That seems like a very responsible response.

None of the levels of pollutants detected during the nine-day period in which the sampling was conducted presented a threat to health. Propene, heptane and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, however, were detected at higher concentrations than are normally found in other rural areas across the state. DEP could not verify the higher concentration of these chemicals resulted from the fire and gas release at the well site.

To tests for air quality, DEP used air-sampling canisters to collect both instantaneous samples, referred to as grab samples, and 24-hour continuous samples.

Each day, two grab samples were collected near residences downwind of the well site. For an air-quality benchmark, a single daily upwind grab sample also was taken. In addition, a 24-hour continuous sample was taken at one of the two downwind sample sites.

DEP compared the upwind and downwind samples to estimate the air toxin concentration during the nine days of the event. The samples also were compared to data gathered by the 24-hour method.

But the Clean Air Council questioned the protocol, saying it suffered from numerous inadequacies that could have prevented the investigation from detecting harmful levels of pollution. The DEP should have evaluated impacts based on the most vulnerable individuals, including the elderly, children and those with existing medical conditions, the council’s letter said.

We have no knowledge of anyone – elderly, children or those with existing medical conditions – requiring medical treatment following the explosion.

The council also noted DEP failed to conduct sampling the first day of the fire. “It is possible that many of the most harmful air toxins were emitted on the first day of the fire,” it said. “This conforms to a troubling pattern in which PA DEP fails to enforce environmental laws and abdicates its legal obligation to protect the people’s right to breathe clean air,” the council added.

In a brief response, DEP said its personnel were on-site almost immediately following the explosion and remained there 24 hours a day until the emergency ended.

“We began our independent sampling a day after the fire was reported,” said DEP spokeswoman Morgan Wagner said. “Our staff is highly trained in this area, and we stand by our sampling protocol.” Chevron also was monitoring the air at the same time, she said.

We believe DEP acted responsibly under extremely adverse conditions. While we respect the Clean Air Council’s efforts to ensure air quality is maintained at the safest levels, no matter what the event, we find their critical letter to be grandstanding.

Yes, DEP can be an easy target for environmentalists, but in this case we think the criticism is unwarranted.

DEP was at the well site doing what it was supposed to do. The Clean Air Council was not.