Protecting Communities from Pollution with Alison Steele

While pollution mitigation and control is vital to the environment, scientists are finding more and more problems for the humans that live near polluting corporate sites. Unfortunately in the name of jobs and profit, companies have produced pollution while ignoring or hiding the human health from their work, often producing what is known as "sacrifice zones" -- areas where the pollution is dangerous for people who often cannot leave. The Environmental Health Project has taken on the difficult job of using health science discern the short and long term effects of gas fracking and plastic production on local populations. On this week's podcast we welcome Alison Steele, who tells us the good, the bad and the ugly of trying to help communities protect their health from the perils of corporate practices that could affect these communities for generations.

Alison L. Steele, MBA, is the Executive Director of The Environmental Health Project (EHP), a nonprofit public health organization that assists and supports residents of Southwestern Pennsylvania and beyond who believe their health has been, or could be, impacted by shale gas development and other polluting industries in the area.. Alison earned her undergraduate degree in physics from Drew University in Madison, NJ and her MBA in Sustainable Business Practices from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, PA. As part of her graduate work, Alison studied sustainability tools and practices used by leading companies in Europe, performed consulting services for large Pittsburgh-area companies, and published research on organizational behavior techniques used to aid adoption of sustainability initiatives. Prior to starting at EHP, she led policy and education efforts at Conservation Consultants, Inc. and developed the company's flagship grassroots community engagement program, which focused on advancing home health and energy efficiency in low-income Pittsburgh neighborhoods. She joined EHP at the beginning of 2020, and since then, she and her team have been taking advantage of our increasingly virtual world to extend their reach as they work to defend public health in the face of shale gas development.

Some links for further reading:

• Environmental Health Project (EHP) policy white paper mentioned in the episode
• EHP fact sheet page
• Eyes on Shell, a community awareness web site focusing on the Beaver County cracker plant described in the episode

Transcript

Greg Williams: 0:10

Thanks for joining us for another episode of climate money watchdog where we investigate and report on how federal dollars are being spent on mitigating climate change and protecting the environment. We are a private, nonpartisan nonprofit organization that does not accept advertisers or sponsors. So we can only do this work with your support. Please visit visit us at claim money watchdog.org To learn more about us and consider making a donation. My name is Greg Williams and I learned to investigate and report on waste, fraud and abuse in federal spending while working at the project on government oversight, or Pogo 30 years ago, I learned to do independent research as well as to work on conflict work with confidential informants, or whistleblowers as they're sometimes called to uncover things like overpriced spare parts, like the infamous $435 hammers, and weapon systems that didn't work as advertised. I was taught by my co hosts Dena razor, who founded Pogo in 1981, and founded climate money watchdog with me last year, Dana has spent 40 years investigating and sometimes recovering millions of dollars wasted by the Defense Department and other branches of the government at Pogo, as an independent journalist, as an author, and as a professional investigator. Dana, do you want to say a couple of things about yourself and why we're so excited to have Allison with us today?

Dina Rasor: 1:37

Yes. I'm Dina Rasor. And I have and I have been in this for I think it's down 43 years. And one of things I'm proud of is using the whistleblower qui tam False Claims Act law. My at the time business partner and I helped to return over $200 million to the federal government. And through that law, which I always say is probably the two days of the Pentagon toilet paper budget, that's okay. It's the best part about it as it tries to keep other people worried about the fact that they may have a whistleblower in their myths, and maybe not do such bad stuff. And yeah, I get Greg, Greg, his first job out of college, and we have known each other for years, and we decided to do this together. We have both I've investigated other areas like Medicare fraud, oh, gosh, I can't, I can't, besides department fence, Medicare fraud, fraud with the phone contracts with the federal government, lots of different things. So I've gone in other subjects. But once you do the Pentagon, everything seems easier because then the Pentagon has been, you know, pretty much defense contractors have been defrauding since the Revolutionary War. So it is much more frustrating. Yes. And we wanted to talk to Allison today because I, I, personally, am very concerned about pollution. You know, people say, Oh, climate, climate, climate, but one of the things we want to make sure that doesn't happen. And that is in the course of doing money going and climate, we also need to have things go into pollution mitigation, because that keeps going on, even though you know, you can fix. You can take every every molecule of co2 out of the out of the atmosphere, and you still have all these pollution, things that are sitting around. And I'm going to take a little bit of leeway here. I was looking at three years ago, right before COVID hit. I was looking at coal ash, coal ash, mountains, literally in near a family farm, our family farm in Kentucky that were right on the Ohio River watershed and leaked directly into it. And I decided to go undercover, which is my favorite thing to do. And I got a mom van and I drove all over the place. I know the I know, the Kentucky southern wave. And so everybody loves just mom driving around. But what I did was I actually got in the gates and drove around and I noticed that the roads were white, and I thought gee, that's interesting, and they were plowing it and the trucks going by and here's the big coal ash mountain until it dawned on me later, I was standing on the coal ash near of nearest well that had massive amounts of benzene in it. So when the crux went by, you know, white flew everywhere, and I didn't think anything of it made me cough but on the way home thought my god, I'm getting strep throat. And I was going to see my parents. So I went to, I went to urgent care. And the woman looked at my throat and said, What have you been? I thought, Well, I think a strep throat because what have you been doing the back of your coat, your throat is roached it's peeling. It's a chemical peel. And I said, Well, today I was on top of coal ash mountain with trucks going by. And it didn't dawn on me that this that this stuff airborne is so dangerous. And so I she gave me medicine, but two or three days, and the entire back of my throat peeled off. So I've probably taken a few years off my life. For people to know when you're looking at doing pollution, don't don't expose yourself like I did. But I just when she was talking about the fracking and the shale and all the other things that you guys have been working on. I thought about that. And that stuff still sitting there. This not man cleaned up, same as the same with the coal ash. It's not been cleaned up. It's just sitting there. And I don't want the coal I want to work in the climate area, but I do not want to let the polluters off the hook. So that's why one of the reasons that when I see something like Alison when I see some group looking and working with local people on their health, I think back to my broached throat. That's, that's my few words of why I want to do that. Okay, great. You want to go ahead.

Greg Williams: 6:34

So our guest tonight is Allison Steele, the executive director of the Environmental Health Project, a nonprofit public health organization that assists and supports residents of southwestern Pennsylvania and beyond, who believe their health has been or could be impacted by shale gas development, and other polluting industries in the area. Allison earned her undergraduate degree in physics from Durham University in Madison, New Jersey and her MBA in sustainable business practices from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. As part of graduate work, Allison studied sustainability tools and practices used by leading companies in Europe performed consulting services for large Pittsburgh area companies, and published research and Organizational Behavior techniques used to aid adoption of sustainability initiatives. Prior to starting sdhb, she led policy and education efforts at conservation consultants Incorporated, and develop the company's flagship grassroots community engagement program, which focused on advancing home health and energy efficiency in low income Pittsburgh neighborhoods. She joined DHP at the beginning of 2020. And since then, she and her team have been taking advantage of our increasingly virtual world to extend their reach as they work to defend public health in the face of shale gas development. Welcome, Alison.

Alison Steele: 8:00

Thank you so much for having me. I'm thrilled to be on the show and talk about this really important subject and the work that HP has been doing for the past decade. Before we get into that, though, I would just like to say a shout out to other Kentucky heritage on on the podcast, my dad is from Kentucky and actually lived in Lake Dreamland for a while just south of the DuPont works and had lots of very similar stories to what Dana just shared. So I'm really happy to be here to talk about the work that PHP is doing what we've seen on the front lines of shale gas development. You know, I I sometimes joke that my job at bhp is really just going around and bragging about the work that everybody else does on the team. But in reality, having conversations like this are really important to our mission, to make sure that people are aware of what's going on and to push for adequate health protections and, and making sure that no one is is subject to adverse health impacts from any stage of the shale gas lifecycle. So thank you for the opportunity to chat and I'm looking forward to getting started.

Greg Williams: 9:29

You maybe want to start by explaining what shale gas is. And other terms that maybe the same are easily confused with shale gas.

Alison Steele: 9:38

Yes, absolutely. I think probably the term that is most commonly used is natural gas. There are some some groups that advocate against the use of that term because it has a very positive spin on it using the word natural. It is is also described as fossil gas because it is a fossil fuel. And there are a lot of gas deposits it particularly in shale formations, like where we are located sitting on top of the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays. And so that shale gas is the term that we use. But it can go by a number of other names, including just talking about methane. There are a lot of organizations that talk about the use of the burning of methane, methane pollution. Of course, methane is not the only thing coming out of the ground with that gas. But those are those are some of the terms that are used, sometimes interchangeably in discussions on this subject.

Dina Rasor: 10:47

Okay, well, I'll start with the first question. And you can, you know, give us some background. So it's been 10 years since the Environmental Health Project was started. And I understand that you joined in 2020. Yes. Okay. And what triggered you to work for this organization and give us some background on your original work on shale gas, gas development, your accomplishments to date and other areas that you've expanded to beyond shell grass? Yeah, sure. So switchgrass?

Alison Steele: 11:22

Sure, there's there's a lot to cover in our 10 years of work. Each piece goal from the start was to ensure that public health was central to decisions made around the extraction and use of shale gas. And we were founded as a response to growing concerns in the region about the health impacts of shale gas development, particularly fracking. And each piece stepped in to fill what was essentially a very large information gap. There was little known about the process, the potential health impacts, how people might help physically respond to the process and had little information about what they could do to protect themselves from potential exposures that could result in health harms. So we started with a with a geographic focus on Southwest Pennsylvania in the beginning, because that was really the epicenter of the Marcellus boom. But we've expanded our work since then to surrounding states. And that work includes three main areas. The first is data collection and analysis, where we actually look at monitor readings, around sites of concern in communities and analyze and get a better understanding of the type of exposures that people in that community are experiencing. The second is health and wellness education, where we, since the beginning have been consolidating information that's known on the subject largely from academic research being done on the subject, but also information that we've gathered anecdotally from our own our own interactions with communities, consolidating that information and packaging it in easy to understand, easy to follow resources that can be used by a variety of audiences. And then that third area is policy and advocacy initiatives. So in our work, over the years, it really started out when we were trying to just get a sense of what was happening. The the types of questions that we got from impacted residents started off with more questions that were more along the lines of what's happening to me. And over the years, as more information has become available on the subject more people have have gotten up to speed on the process and how it impacts human health. The questions have evolved to something more along the lines of what can I do about it. And so our efforts have evolved as well to incorporate this third area of policy and advocacy initiatives so that we can help arm residents and educate policymakers about these health issues. And in addition to our geographic expansion, and our subject matter or approach, we've also expanded in subject matter as more and more information becomes available about the different stages of shale gas development. And so when I say different stages of the of the the entire supply chain chain, a lot of focus goes to the extraction piece, the drilling and fracking component that's that's where the vast majority of the conversations have been centered over the years. But there are also concerns around the transportation of that gas through pipelines and compressor stations. Also the transportation of equipment associated with putting that infrastructure in place, there's a lot of diesel truck traffic, but also end uses of that gas, whether you're using it to create electricity, or, as I'm sure we're going to talk about, create plastics, or create hydrogen as an alternative fuel source, which is an entirely different can of worms. And then, of course, the the waste disposal piece of that of that supply chain where you're talking about getting transporting hazardous waste, and then getting rid of it either in a landfill or injecting it back into the ground. So that's how our work has evolved over the years. And, as you mentioned, this is we're celebrating our 10 year anniversary this year. And we're really proud of several of our accomplishments over the years, of course, it would be better if we were so successful that we put ourselves out of a job and didn't need to be doing this work at all. But we're very glad that we've been able to expand our reach and our services, and work to help as many people as possible. A couple of things that I would like to point out, just over the years, the there was a grand jury investigation that took place. And the report came out in 2020. And they actually identified EHP as being an organization that quickly stepped in to gather information and provide guidance to frontline communities when government agencies such as the Department of Health did not we've worked nationally, with with various groups concerned about their air quality, in a in a research capacity and a consulting capacity in a data analysis capacity with with groups from New Jersey to New Mexico. But we've also gotten attention from the international community. We've worked with delegation from the European Union Parliament, and also been contacted by individuals from Australia, South Africa, India, France, who who wanted to learn more about the issue, figure out what we knew, figure out what could be done about it. And right after I started with the organization, we were involved in a joint webinar with residents of Ireland and Northern Ireland who were working on a fracking ban and wanted to hear more about our experiences here. So we've managed to do a lot over over the last decade. And to mark that milestone in our work. We released a white paper a retrospective white paper earlier this year that details a lot of the political landscape within Pennsylvania and again, we don't just work in Pennsylvania, our work has expanded to largely to the surrounding states as well. But since our roots are in Pennsylvania, we assembled a rather extensive research paper on Pennsylvania policy and how different governmental bodies over the years created a very business friendly environment for gas extraction companies and set really set the stage for the shale boom. And I'm sure we can go into much more detail about that. But that is that is the last 10 years of EHP in a nutshell.

Greg Williams: 19:40

A couple of things do you want to just quickly remind our listeners what the distinction is between fracking for gas and drilling for gas.

Alison Steele: 19:48

There are two different stages in the in the unconventional gas extraction process. The first is you drill The hole to actually create the bore. And then after the hole itself is drilled, there is the fracking process. It's actually called completion the the industry doesn't use the term fracking anymore. The completion process, fracking process injects a mixture of water, fine sand and chemicals into the bore at high pressure to fracture the shale formation and allow the methane gas, the fossil gas, the shale gas to escape.

Greg Williams: 20:39

So is there any significant amount of gas extraction now done in the United States or elsewhere in the old conventional way? Or is it all done through what we call hydraulic fracturing or fracking?

Alison Steele: 20:54

My understanding is the vast vast majority of gas extraction is done through the unconventional way, certainly in in the Marcellus that that is how it is done now.

Greg Williams: 21:08

Okay, and then do you want to just briefly comment on the significance of this issue for Pennsylvania, and how it had a significant effect on the platform's of recent congressional candidates, much as it is, in other states, there are issues that are so important to that state that people who otherwise take out a more progressive position, you know, you may think of Bernie Sanders and his support for stopping further gun control legislation. It's a big enough issue in Pennsylvania that you have otherwise environmentally progressive candidates who feel the pressure to accommodate the industry.

Alison Steele: 21:56

Absolutely. And fracking has continued to be a hot button issue, in politics, in elections in positions of members of both of the major parties. And that's something that we've seen over the years is, when this subject enters the political arena, very often, there is a false dichotomy that's created between jobs and potential economic benefits, and environmental health, public health, climate health, as though they're separate issues and not not connected to each other. And so that's where we see a big dividing line on this issue in, in many conversations in many arguments over the years, even when it comes down to not just elections, but the creation of policy. And one of the things that we really like to stress is the idea that if you're going to have an economic argument, by all means, let's have an economic argument, but make sure that you're including the economic factors of the health impacts of living near this type of industrial activity, we're talking about days of missed work, days of miss school, hospital visits, ER visits, hospitalizations, health treatments, ongoing health treatments, some of which involves cancer treatment, which can be incredibly expensive. So there's, when when you try to pit economics versus health, that it's, as I said, it's a false dichotomy, because the two are connected. So to answer your question, it is a topic that frequently comes up particularly during election years. But it is it is typically not addressed in a holistic or informed manner.

Dina Rasor: 24:25

So I wanted to, to kind of point out to the listeners I did I dabbled in fracking in California offshore fracking and next to an earthquake earthquake fault, which is very exciting, exciting thing

Greg Williams: 24:41

to investigate what rock right you are not out there fracking yourself?

Dina Rasor: 24:45

No, no, I was investigating it because I wanted to unplug the the Santa Barbara wells that could no more oil that had that horrible spill in 1970. And they wanted to frack those wells and get the last part out. and they were in a marine reserve between two earthquake faults. So we started, since we know fracking, you know, can cause earthquakes in Oklahoma if you're doing it next to some of these big faults. So but when I wanted to what I was really surprised at when I got into it is, and this is this is where people say, well, health, what is it, you know, you go down there, you, you frack the rocks, and you pull up and up, methane goes in, causes climate problems. But what I was always amazed at is in certain states, and I think this is true for Pennsylvania, when they do this, they put this chemical, they have a chemical cocktail that they put in, and they go down and helps it, work up the rocks and helps it clean it out, you know, the stuff and they got it. And I think this was something that Dick Cheney put in is that other states grabbed on to it is the they companies convinced the public these this slew that they have that they've shut shot into the ground and brought back up was proprietary. So you can't know about the benzene and all the other healthy stuff that's in it being sarcastic. But what got me is they took when it comes up, they take that slew that they used. And in a lot of cases, I know this was true in California. And I think it's going on in Pennsylvania, too. And we'll talk about it, which I think is the real health problem is they drill their own, you know, disposal drill, and they put the pollution laden slew down under the ground into the rocks, Oh, it'll never come up, we'll never see it again. Well, you just frack the rocks. So it's good. It's gonna go through the years, you know, water finds its way. But I was sort of shocked on that, because people don't know, even know. And I saw this in some of your literature, what is being put into the ground. So you have farmers that are saying, oh, I want to frack having my I'm not making much on my farm, I'll have it frack and everything else. And then neighbors who decide not to, but then it gets into the water table gets into the wells, kind of like coal ash, and, and all that kind of stuff. And there you have people who don't really understand. And they can't go to their doctors to be tested for whatever's in the slew because it's proprietary, you know, it's not healthy. So when you talk about that the problem of you know, some farmers needing you seeing this as an income gathering thing. But the side, part of that is that it can ruin an aquifer, or it can ruin wells, and especially in rural areas, and it could get into the water table, or it can go into rivers, and they pull the water out of the rivers. And it's, they don't I know, in Kentucky, they don't test for heavy metals. They don't test it for me, they said all that it's fine. It's fine. We just dumped a bunch of coal ash stuff, and that's okay, it flooded and got into the Ohio River. That's okay. But they're pulling water for our farm down the river. So we're like, okay, we're not drinking that until it's tested, because they don't test for heavy metals. So I have a long way of going around that I wanted to say that to me, that jumps out to me as here's one of the entry points where people are not very well educated, or cannot be educated on what they're being exposed to. So even if they want to go to their doctor and check and say, Do I have benzene? Do I have this heavy metal, that heavy metal, which by the way, stays in your body forever? Especially the heavy metals. And this must be a difficult thing for you to do in communities where some of the people are saying, but I'm making money and other people saying but yeah, I didn't do this with my farm. But now you've polluted all our drinking water. So I wanted to kind of have you talk about that. Because I think that's isn't that a point where that where some of the real health problems come from?

Alison Steele: 29:14

Yes, and you're absolutely right, that public disclosure of fracking chemicals is not required in Pennsylvania. So you've got people who don't know what they're being exposed to. You've got doctors who don't have necessary information on how to treat their patients. You've got researchers who want to study human health impacts in up and they don't know what they should be looking at. You've also got policymakers who, you know, you can't make informed decisions about regulations. If you don't know what you are or aren't regulating. And you are correct. It is Um, it was the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That created a lot of regulatory preferences for the oil and gas industry, including a lot of exemptions for shale gas from federal regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and a couple others. So that is something that we run into. And we see, we see a lot of frustration around that, where there's still not a lot of transparency about the process, or the chemicals. And, and, you know, to your to your other point, one of the things that we have to keep in mind as we do our work is that, you know, any, every community is different. And even within a community, a given group of people is not a monolith, you're always going to have a range of perspectives within a given community about priorities and concerns and what the impacts are positive and negative. And what potential solutions there are. So from that standpoint, really the best way to approach identifying problems and creating solutions is to have as much transparency and as much information as possible, and we don't have that right now.

Dina Rasor: 31:31

Yeah, I just wanted to also say when you're you're also studying cancer quarters, you know, which, you know, and you didn't, you know, when California here, we had a freeway earthquake brought it down, they took it away from the they had built it over a minority community, and there was a cancer column there from the air pollution that came through. But, and so of course, you know, the communities Sue, and they go to talk about the cancer, and then they they know exactly what it's in the exhaust that's causing it. But in this situation, how do you when you have cancer zones and stuff? How do you if you don't even know what the chemicals are? How do you then make a scientific decision? When you're doing your thing that you, you know, we are, say you want to sue or say, individuals want to sue? And you're I know, I know that enough about the law, knowing that if you don't know what is in it, how can you show that it caused the cancer?

Greg Williams: 32:36

I'll just quickly observe that, you know, for this is not a small amount of material. I remember once reading that the amount of water and other chemicals pumped into the ground, on an annual basis was similar to the combined weight of every ship in the United States Navy. It's

Dina Rasor: 32:56

it's, yeah, and it's in there forever. I mean, how do you ever get it you once it goes into an aquifer or a water source? How do you, you know, how do you get out? So I'm just wondering, how can you do your cancer studies? When you have all these, you know, people that do that, that come in? And I'm sure the first thing they say was, well, what are we working with here? It's like, Oh, my God. Oh, no. And by the way, I think it's, I think California, they do have to say what's in it, it's scary. It's a scary thing. So go ahead. And I'm convinced I'm confused on this is how you can do the serious scientific health studies without knowing what's in it?

Alison Steele: 33:36

Well, there are a couple of different types of studies that can be done. And certainly for something in the lab, where you're looking at reactions of animal cells or human cells to certain types of chemicals, you need to know what chemicals you're putting on those cells. But the other thing that is important to keep in mind about that is for regulated chemicals, using benzene as an example, we know how that substance in isolation impacts human cells and human health and can extrapolate from that information. But we don't know how some of these chemicals in combination, impact the human body. And so that's part of the problem in trying to understand the impact of living near a site where you might be exposed to this chemical mix. And we don't know what the chemical mix is, even if we do know some of the individual components of that mix. Or can can give it a best guess based on other states that do require public disclosure. The other avenue to take and this is this is more akin to public health research is what epidemiological studies, and so EPI studies are the gold standard of public health research. But they deal with broad trends in the population, you're not going to take one group and expose them to benzene and you're not going to take another group and not expose them to benzene and see what happens, you can't do that. But what you do with a public with an EPI study is you look at certain factors within the population and, and identify trends. So if you're looking for instance of cancer in proximity to a petrochemical facility, that's that's what you would study, if you're looking for incidents of adverse birth outcomes in proximity to well, pads, that's what you're looking at. And so what you can do with those studies is identify or not identify trends in what you're looking for. And with the amount of research that has been done on this subject, we've got 70 Plus peer reviewed health studies that we've tracked, just as part of our own education efforts that examine adverse health outcomes in proximity to shale gas development, and that includes cardiac and respiratory issues, neurological issues, adverse birth outcomes, various types of cancers. And so when you see this plan, preponderance of evidence points all pointing toward the same conclusion. You can't deny the possibility of a connection. And you certainly you certainly can't justify moving forward on a certain path without trying to better understand that connection, and trying to put protections in place for people who might be adversely affected by that activity. Okay,

Dina Rasor: 37:23

you been talking, but we've got we've been talking about how monitoring can be in difficult stuff. But how do you then go and deal with local residents and health health problems that can be contributed, attributed to shale oil? And what's the next step in stopping that? And let me throw this little impossibility in knowing that knowing the politics of Pennsylvania because you know, anything that makes money, it makes jobs, it's hard to get people to worry about, you know, the, the tree huggers, or you're worried about polluting and pollution and all that. And that is? What would it be possible to try to get a movement in the state of Pennsylvania where they do good overturning the proprietary protection that these companies have in putting the pollution in? Is there any local? I mean, I look to local people ask you that it's like, what, why can't I find out what's in it? And all that kind of stuff? And how do you deal with that? When you go up to people and say, well, we don't know. But we think through our studies that it is causing cancer? Well, why won't you know, I know, it's hard, because in a court of law, that's very hard on what caused your cancer? And how do you go to the local people to try to get them put pressure on so that, you know, I think you should have a right to know what you're being exposed to. It's just it's just gobsmacking to me that that is what's knowing I know exactly. What's in the coal ash. They I know exactly what those things that they have to report all that. And so I know exactly what the what the things are, that are bad, and it can cause trouble. But and and thing, but is there any chance that that rule could be changed, broken, you know, maybe even get a court to say it's not? It's not correct that they have to do this? Or is this something that's sort of a holy grail in Pennsylvania for fracking, a lot of fracking has been going on for years.

Greg Williams: 39:34

Yeah, and maybe you can explain this in the context of how at least from my perspective, pollution like this is more typically handled. I mean, if you have something like a dump or any other sort of facility that's going to have effluent, you know, pollution of some kind flowing out of it. You have to identify not that you not just that you're going to be Having this stuff flowing out, you need to identify specifically all of the places where it's going to be coming out, you need to identify everything that's in what's coming out the amount, and then you're given a license that puts limits on each one of those effluent points and each of the hazardous materials that's going to be in that effluent. I mean, it's the mirror opposite of, you know, pumping more water that you can imagine with God knows what in it wherever you want to pump it.

Alison Steele: 40:34

I think one of the biggest issues that we run into when when we have conversations with people who are living in frontline communities and impact and being impacted, we hear a lot of frustration that people aren't, aren't paying more attention, that there aren't sufficient protections that the protections that are supposed to be in place aren't working. One of the things one of the trends that I believe we identified and in the white paper that we released, is this idea that there is a misconception about regulations, and how they're formed and the purpose that they serve. And it is a talking point for the industry that they are highly regulated. But we know that part of this misconception about regulations involves the belief that the regulations are set at health protective levels, which is not the case to start with. And then the second piece of that is that the regulations are being enforced strictly, which they are not. And so when you have a common narrative, that points to the idea that there are protections in place, therefore everybody is safe, then what happens is the burden of proof of health impacts falls to the people who are being impacted. And that is, not to speak for anybody in a community this is this is, you know, what we have heard from residents it is, it can be incredibly disheartening to, to go through that process, to take the time to learn about the industry and what they're using and what's happening to you and feeling like you have no recourse. So some of the things that we do, certainly from from a public health standpoint, the first step is stopping the chain of exposure to hazardous substances. So one of the things that we wanted to do from the beginning was provide guidance to residents to help them understand how they can limit their own exposures to harmful pollution. We know that policy change is is a long, slow process. And people can't wait for another study for another bill for another election cycle. They're, they're experiencing these impacts now. So providing guidance on things that they can do in their own home, that at least help to mitigate some of the exposures is a first step while also working towards that longer term goal of removing their, their exposure to these hazardous chemicals in the first place. And so to do that, we do direct outreach to policymakers to help them understand the limitations of existing policy and the impacts that their decisions have on the health of frontline community residents, but also giving those residents and grassroots advocacy groups that work with them. tools to help support their efforts, information, advocacy tools that they can use in elevating their own voices to protect themselves. And so that's, it's, as I said, it's a long process and involves, in some cases, a real groundswell of support and knowledge on the subject. To raise enough political will to get the attention of elected officials to make that kind of change.

Dina Rasor: 45:07

So then there's our there are their lawyers, you know, environmental lawyers, environmental groups, and people like that, that actually feel that they can bring lawsuits. I know, having worked in law lawyers, the first thing they're gonna say is, if we don't know what's in it, how are we going to prove it? You know, but is there are there people trying to, you know, I'm sort of thinking about the, the Erin Brockovich route that they did in California, is that the lawsuits were the only thing that exposed these things. And maybe a judge would say, you know, I don't care what Pennsylvania says, you know, especially if it's in federal court, I don't care if Pennsylvania says, you know, you have to disclose to in chambers to me, what's in that stuff, so that we can, you know, inform the jury and all that kind of stuff? Is there any lawsuits going on? Based on this?

Alison Steele: 46:03

There, there is actually a lot of legal action happening. And that's one of the things we're really fortunate to be able to partner with other organizations that, that can that have the legal expertise and can take steps to combat state level regulations, even local level decisions, appealing decisions at multiple levels of government. And then, from a from a partnership standpoint, you know, we don't have that kind of legal expertise, but we've got the health expertise, so we can come in and bring that awareness of health impacts to the table and partner with a group that is able to step in and provide legal support to a community. And we've seen some really exciting developments. Even just in the last couple months, there was a fracking ban in Allegheny County Parks, that that was successful, just this past summer. So there, there is certainly more attention on the subject, and more action and more people getting involved, I think then, than there have been in the past couple years.

Dina Rasor: 47:27

Okay, good. Well, I also want to bring up this new thing that's going on and you're getting involved with is the local shell cracker plant, which no, is they're not making saltines I'll let you explain this. Because this is, this is a pollution problem of plastic. And, you know, everybody starts to understand the micro pellets that that are breaking up, and in everything, and are in our country. In fact, I saw this and I couldn't believe it. I thought it was good and believe it but they said Americans are eating the equivalent of one credit card a week in plastic through all these things, and now they're about ready to open up a plant in your in your area. And, and the doesn't sound like the health. It doesn't sound like the decision making process had a whole heck of a lot to do with the local people's health. Which I when I was working with a New Mexico group, I had never heard this before. And they said, Well, we're part of what you call a sacrifice zone. And they see that is oh, they're rural, or the inner city, they don't have a lot of power. So these people are the sacrifice zones. And it just startled me how it's sort of openly spoken about that way. And this sounds like it's going to make a sacrifice them so good. Maybe you can explain what you're what it's about and what's going on.

Alison Steele: 48:54

Yes, the cracker actually creates ethylene out of ethane the what the process at the facility they they take ethane which is part of the gas mix in our regional shale play. And they crack the molecule to create ethylene. And ethylene is used in many plastic products, including a lot of single use plastics. And so what this facility creates is they take gas as their feedstock and create little plastic pellets called nurdles. They look like babies. And so then those nurdles are then shipped to other facilities that then create plastic products from them. And the cracker is I believe, expecting to produce 1.6 million metric tons of noodles every year. Just out of this one facility. And so what's important to keep in mind is we Yes, to your point about sacrifice zones, we already know what happens to people living near petrochemical facilities. This is not like the early days of the shale boom in Pennsylvania where there weren't a lot of health studies that had been done. And policymakers were operating without a lot of health information, we already have a stretch of over 150 petrochemical facilities and refineries in Louisiana, and it is called cancer alley, because they have a significantly higher cancer rate than the national average. There are epidemiological studies that have been done in that area that point to increased risk of cancer, like leukemia. And so we're, we know, there is cause for concern, and yet we are moving forward as though there isn't cause for concern. And the thing that is very important to remember is, with this plant opening, and it did, it started production. Two weeks ago, I don't know when the when the podcast is going to air, but mid November, I was going to

Dina Rasor: 51:33

learn in already there already. There's articles about them flaring, you know, putting this you're not controlling the gas and flaring this stuff off. I know, because I live near a Chevron refinery not close that close. But they have these big flares. And they say, oops, sorry, you know, so it's already it was barely opened, it's having environmental problems.

Alison Steele: 51:57

Well, and the thing to remember is that the people impacted by this facility are not just the people living around it, certainly we know that there are adverse health impacts tied to living in proximity to petrochemical development. But we also know that the cracker is going to need gas to operate. And so there's a projection that something like 1000, new wells are going to need to be drilled every five years just to supply this one cracker. And there are other petrochemical facilities proposed for the region. So this is something that is very important to remember, it's not just this one facility, it means an entire network of supply chain infrastructure to support it. And all of that infrastructure itself is going to have health impacts to the people living nearby.

Dina Rasor: 53:05

Okay, so what what's going on on the ground? What organs around that and other you know, based on what they've learned from other petro chemical plants, what did the local with local people doing

Alison Steele: 53:19

their there's actually an organized group working on the ground to monitor air and water quality around the cracker. There is an air monitoring network that has been in place, I believe there's eau de definitely over a year of baseline information. And EHP is involved in analyzing the information that's that's coming in from that monitor network. And so there are also residents who are being trained to collect air samples that can then be taken to labs for analysis. And then in the in the coming months now that it's up and running. Well, you know, we hope to be able to get some better insight into the the air quality impacts but I will note, even even monitor networks have their own limitations, the monitors that are up look at pm 2.5, which is fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in size, and volatile organic volatile organic compounds VOCs. But you mentioned flaring. And there's an indication at this point that the main pollutants coming off of the flares are probably more along the lines of nitrous oxides, which don't get picked up by by the monitors in that network. So every every study has its limitations, every monitor, a monitoring approach has its limitations. And just because Has, you're not picking something up. Just because you're not seeing something doesn't mean that it's safe. It means that you could be missing something if the winds blowing in the wrong direction or your monitor doesn't, doesn't pick up information about a certain type of compound. No, no results does not guarantee safety.

Dina Rasor: 55:26

So that's kind of like put, you know what I like to think of this and I, I read up about how, you know, you and other groups kept trying when this plant was being proposed, inject injecting the health problems and projecting ahead of time. And, you know, it feels to me like this is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. In other words, if this is spewed out, now, you're going to have to go and see in the sacrifice zone and see who has been hurt and where the pollution is. And it's, it's astonishing to me that the politicians, I mean, this happens in California, but not really as much because California is are much more obnoxious. You know, we're not doing this. But it's the idea of that plant got designed. And I'm sure every inch of the way there were community people trying to do something about the health people trying to do something about it. All those things, people that can look, you can look ahead and see this is going to be a problem. It's not just what you're making the plastic, which is going to end up in little little knives and forks that get thrown away and turn into microplastics. But you're going to also have this local, and who knows with the wind and everything else where the wind roses go and whatever, that you're you allowed something to come in, be studied, be approved, be put up. And you know, the first couple of weeks of their operation, they're already having problems and their does. And so you being in Health Organization, you're having to take catch up because nobody thought about that, or they didn't want to know about it while it was being made. And maybe you can talk a little bit about that, because I know you guys have been involved with trying to say this might not be such a good idea.

Alison Steele: 57:20

Yeah, and the the thing that is frustrating about how this plant was pitched as it was supposed to be an economic driver for the region and help reinvigorate the region, when instead it's, it's going to cause a drain between people leaving, because they're afraid for their health, or, you know, if they can leave, if they can't leave, they're going to be seeing health impacts. And that's, that's going to result in negative economic impacts for the region. So to looking at a net negative, and it's, it's unfortunate that very often you need to see an adverse effect before action is taken. You know, we could be learning from cancer alley in Louisiana, and asking, asking hard questions about is this actually what's best for the region? Or do we want to try to push for a more just transition to renewable energy that includes meaningful opportunities, high quality, good jobs for people living in communities that have been host to fossil fuel extraction for generations?

Dina Rasor: 59:02

Well, I think, you know, I don't try to I'm trying not to be you know, Debbie downer here. I see that I know how frustrating this is because you look at something and you tell the people I can see into the future based on all the other things that have happened and you know, we're going to have this trouble, but if the if the political will, isn't there, to or if the if the company is you know, putting money in everybody's campaign, and then and whatever the if it feels kind of frustrating, but I think that luckily, the climate concerns is also getting people interested again in pollution, you know, and starting to see that but what what kind of plans do you I mean, do you see in the future you've got a new governor, and that kind of thing and a new lunch they do see any possibility of trying to you You know, mitigate this stuff that's already there and try to stop it, the neck, you know, stop more of this kind of stuff from being done.

Alison Steele: 1:00:10

Well, interesting that you mentioned our new governor as he was the attorney general who oversaw the grand jury report that I mentioned earlier. So I would like to think that he keeps that in the front of his mind when dealing with this issue as he enters office. You know, to your point about political will, I think it really, ultimately comes down to a matter of awareness, and shifting the narrative, and making sure that people understand the health impacts, the, you know, the economics, the climate impacts, you know, climate has really taken a front seat in this argument. But, you know, you said this right at the beginning of the podcast, Tina, you know, it's not just climate, it's a it's a health issue and public health is is inextricably tied to climate impacts, as well. You know, no matter how we want to attack the issue, you know, if it's a if it's a climate focus, if it's a health focus, if it's an economic focus, we're all we're all going to arrive at the same point that we we are not in a position to be doubling down on fossil fuels right now. We need to be prioritizing public health and health protective actions. And more more drilling, more fracking, more petrochemical development, those are antithetical to public health, at least, as far as we're handling them right now.

Dina Rasor: 1:02:01

Yeah, well, I, you know, I sort of I, in the past 10 years, I've run into some climate deniers, oh, isn't bad, oh, it isn't happening, including some scientists. And I always say, Okay, if even if you, let's just erase the thing in the climate, even that's happening, they're getting rid of fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is causing way beyond just methane and co2 going the atmosphere, fossil fuel has had its own baseline, like you were saying these cancer, alleys and everything else for years. So I always say, Well, if you're not, if you don't believe in climate, but if they start taking fossil fuel out of the thing, a lot of these people do believe in pollution. You know, they know there's pollution, and some of them are very much worried that climate would take away from pollution mitigation. And I've always said, Well, you know, if you whether you like it or not, we get rid of the fossil fuel, that pollution will go down. Because if you're not using fossil fuel, you know, if you don't care how much methane and co2 goes into the atmosphere, if you don't believe it, you should be happy that it's not going to cause cancer. So Greg, is there anything else you would like to ask or else and anything more you want to say? Because we're coming towards the end of our hour?

Greg Williams: 1:03:21

Yeah, I will say that I'm particularly intrigued to hear about your work in Europe, especially since I don't think of that as an area of shale gas production. I think it is interior, especially now with the conflict was Russia, a big importer. But we've already covered a lot of very interesting ground tonight. And I'd be delighted to thank you for your visit tonight and move right on to scheduling your next visit.

Dina Rasor: 1:03:52

Yeah, I always I always say that to people, when something new happens or something else happens, call us because we love to do follow up. Or if you guys have a big victory. I'd love to have you on to talk about, okay, you have this big victory. How did you get there, because this is we're all learning. We're all learning. This is all especially climate stuff. This is all new territory, and pollution from fossil fuel. And fossil fuel is not new, but people are becoming really aware that this isn't going to work anymore.

Alison Steele: 1:04:23

Well, I'd be thrilled to come back for another visit, the more we can get people talking about these issues, the closer we can get to creating critical mass that can push for change. So

Dina Rasor: 1:04:36

and I always say I always say this at the end. We are we are also whistleblower experts, you know, whistleblower or source experts, if anybody and you know no other lawyers, and I've been involved in helping whistleblowers for 40 years to wait too long. But if you know of anybody that has a concern and whatever needs guidance That's what we're, that's that's our next step as the money's getting spent. We are saying, Okay, send whistleblowers to us. We've never had anyone caught and fired. For two years, I've never had anybody gotten fired, because I'm very careful about it. But that's kind of the next way to go is to help people have to go to have to come out anonymously or on the record. And we try to keep people to stay anonymous, because it's too high a price. But we can then get that to the right people to try to show that this is going on from the inside. And the problem so what if you know if anybody calls up, or if any of our listeners know if anybody calls up, we have or go to our website, we have ways to transport men information that is safe.

Greg Williams: 1:05:53

So I think I'm gonna go to bed tonight fixing not only about how many equivalent credit cards I eat every week, but now I'm aware that I breathe in a certain number as well. So I want to thank you for visiting us tonight. And thank our listeners for joining us for another episode of climate money watchdog