Environmental Issues

Executive Summary
Natural gas remains one of the most viable solutions to the US energy needs; however, the production process has presented critical environmental concerns not only to the state of Maryland, but to the United States as a whole. Natural gas producing plants are considered significant air pollutants thereby posing great danger to the immediate surrounding and the entire global ecosystem (Inhofe 1). Based on the exponential increase in natural gas plants during the past two decades, arguments and counterarguments have been presented on the controversial subject of natural gas processing and its adverse environmental impact, cases in which the state of Maryland can borrow a leaf from prior to approving the establishment of any natural gas plant. Inhofe (2) notes that, in excess of 1,000 proposals for new natural gas power plants were advanced in the U.S alone in the early 1990s, 90% of all power plant proposals globally.

Owing to the energy needs of the nation and the world at large, it may not be possible to replace all natural gas plants hence alternatives must be sought. We propose the establishment of guidelines in consultation with various stake holders to determine whether specific locations are viable. At best, we recommend that the state of Maryland opposes the establishment of any new natural gas plants within its jurisdiction. We also propose that the state offers more funding to alternative energy sources to reduce the overreliance on natural gas by the residents of the state of Maryland. Statistics provided by IPCC Fourth Assessment Report indicate that, based on 2004 statistics, natural gas produced 5,300 Mt/yr of carbon dioxide emission, statistics indicative of its relatively minimal carbon dioxide emission when compared to the 10,600 and 10,200 Mt/yr produced by coal and oil respectively (Inhofe 1). Although this is considerably favorable statistics, scientific analyses conclude that natural gas is far more potent when released in the atmosphere when it comes to its environmental implications.
Problem Statement

Dominant scholars argue that natural gas plants release carbon dioxide, the main green house gas during NG production. McAllister & Lofgren (1) assert that these plants are significant air pollution sources that lead to the release of hazardous air pollutants leading to the combined effects of global warming and fine particulate matter pollutions. Natural gas plants also release small amounts of carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and nitrogen oxides, primarily nitrogen dioxide. In most cases, methane is unintentionally released into the air by these plants, a major concern to environmentalists owing to the classification of methane as a more powerful greenhouse gas comparative to carbon dioxide (McAllister & Lofgren 1).

The extraction of natural gas has also been noted by environmental experts as threatening to the ecosystem. Natural gas plants are being established in nearly all regions of North America with drilling occurring on farms, public land, forests, and parks, mountains, off costal waters and even within great lakes (Schechter, Spitzer, Hutcheon 284). The creation of natural gas plants incorporates the inclusion of pipeline and compressor station adding to environmental harm. Water bodies are threatened owing to proposal by natural gas producers to bury pipeline underwater in trenches, a move that may lead to the accumulation of toxic sentiments on the floor of major water sources (McAllister & Lofgren 1).

McAllister & Lofgren (1) also affirm that natural gas plants often emit high concentrations of Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), a feat proven by the compounds’ relatively high prevalence in communities neighboring the plants. Based on epidemiological studies conducted on the health of communities living in the vicinities of natural gas plants, reports indicate multitudes of adverse effects inclusive of elevated occurrences of cancer, adverse effects on reproduction and increased birth defect, skin problems, heightened levels of mortality and contamination with certain heavy metals. Other less considerable consequences such as fatigue and headache were also observable (Schechter, Spitzer, & Hutcheon 108).

It is imperative to note that natural gas plants emit high proportion of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), aerosols, particulates, volatile organic compounds, organo-metallic compounds, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) during gas processing (McAllister & Lofgren 1).  Nitrogen dioxide has adverse effects when exposed to the environment with documentations noting that it is a contributory factor to the development of asthma. Natural gas plants also emit fine organic particles inclusive of carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons and certain volatile organic solvents all of which adversely affect the environment.  Clinical indicators also attest to the fact that sulphur dioxide (SO2) exposure may lead to lung cancer, furthermore there is increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms to children who have evident environmental exposure to natural gas plant emissions (McAllister, & Lofgren 1). Additional serious challenges extending beyond human life such as adverse effects on livestock, plants and property within the surrounding areas of a natural gas plant have been documented.

Natural gas plants also emit certain deposits of toxic heavy metals inclusive of mercury, arsenic and lead. Analyses indicate that natural gas contains high concentrations of heavy metals including lead, copper, mercury, silver and arsenic hence they emit high deposits of the noted heavy metals which are dangerous if absorbed into human and animal system. More specifically, methyl mercury, for example, produced in higher levels in natural gas plants can be absorbed up to nearly 100% in the gastrointestinal tract, yet mercury is a known neurotoxin and has also reproductive effects on humans (McAllister & Lofgren 1).

Dominant studies attest to the fact that natural gas plant workers are at elevated risk for certain types of cancer, most prevalently cancer of the brain, testis, skin and intestinal tract (McAllister & Lofgren 1). These employees may be exposed to radon radiation in the course of processing or as a result of having contact with the storing or cleaning equipment (McAllister, & Lofgren 1). Other studies also ascertain to the environmental exposure of natural gas plant employees to large concentration of mercury in spite of personal protection. Prolonged occupational exposure within natural gas plants may lead to slowed long term neural and tremor effects and renal problems.
Issue Background
    Manufactured natural gas was first put to use in the United States in 1816 when the streets of Baltimore, Maryland were lit with the naturally occurring gas. Since then, rise in manufactured gas has been exponential, drawing considerable opposition due to its low efficiency and environmental unfriendliness. At present, owing to the relatively lucrative business potential, commercial production of natural gas attracts a number of agencies, interest groups and large corporations and is also a source of intense opposition from environmentalists (Schechter, Spitzer, Hutcheon 283). Gas plants enjoy environmental advantage relative to other power producing plants. Based on statistical analysis the emissions of carbon dioxide per GJ of produced energy for brown coal, black coal, petroleum and natural gas stand at 93.3 kg, 90.7 kg, 68.2 kg, and 50.9 kg respectively (Schechter, Spitzer, Hutcheon 287).

Supporters and various interest groups affirm that NG is widely available, clean, and relatively easy to extract and used for commercial purposes. At present, the American environmental policies have generally favored the creation of natural gas plants owing to its commercial benefits. Environmental policies created during the early years of 1990s made the operation of coal-fired power plants extremely complex, burdensome and uneconomical thereby making many companies resort to investments in gas-fired plants. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendment was instrumental to shifting the trend from coal to gas since it required all plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions with the key purpose of combating acid rain and reducing particulate matter. Yet natural gas plants also pose threats to the specific concerns addressed by the Clean Air Act Amendment.

Since the United States congress supports the creation of additional natural gas plants, it is only the environmental groups who could aid in assessing the relative adverse impact of NG plants if it remains unchecked. Environmental groups have certainly complicated the creation of additional natural gas plants through an assortment of strategies one most notable of which remains filing costly and time consuming lawsuits to block drilling of projects (Inhofe 5). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is considered a massive bureaucratic constraint on the establishment of natural gas plants. A number of several states and local governments must assess existent environmental condition prior to the establishment of a plant (McAllister & Lofgren 1).

The Bureau of Land Management (BLB), Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service and the Federal Energy Regulatory commission must be incorporated to assess the environmental impact of establishing natural gas plants.  The NEPA provision stipulates two key steps which govern the creation of a natural gas plant; conduction of environmental assessment (EA) which serves as a determinant of the effects of the proposed activity on the environment (McAllister & Lofgren 1). If the assessment attests to the viability of the project, Environment Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared before the responsible federal agency may approve its creation. EIS is a complicated process involving multiple federal agencies hence may take several months or even years (Inhofe 6).
Policy Alternatives

Since the establishment of natural gas plants cannot be stopped entirely, effective management with legal definition presents the best alternative to managing the potential environmental impact of natural gas plants. Regular monitoring of fugitive emissions from pipes, valves, seals, and tanks should be a key safety priority for all natural gas plants. The state government must increase its monitoring efforts in ensuring that plants take precautions to maintain stable tank pressure and vapor space in addition to selecting and designing storage tanks in accordance to internationally prescribed standards. These precautionary measures must be guided by government officials and agencies rather than leaving them to gas plants.  Further precautionary measures should be inclusive of the use of bottom-loading tracks and minimization to the most limited level emissions possible in the course of natural gas processing (Bolland, & Sæther 467).

Since the location of the plants has been predicted to affect surrounding environmental conditions, such as surface water resources in areas that surround the plant, it should be a government policy that they be established within secluded regions. Establishment within or nearer to residential or water areas may lead to the contamination of surrounding water resources, an aspect that calls for conclusive assessment of existing water resources prior to the creation of a natural gas plant. The effect of plant on public health, most notably air quality and noise, are also notable environmental concerns of natural gas plants which directly supports the proposition that the gas should be established within secluded regions.

Presently, the control of natural gas production is minimal owing to its strong economic position. It is hereby recommended that more stringent regulations be established to ensure the control of natural gas production for the purpose of environmental preservation. This should be favored in comparison to the question of whether energy requirement by the masses should justify creation of more plants. Although natural gas is an important component of the American economy contributing to approximately 25% of all the U.S energy need based on 2004 statistics control for the sake of environmental preservation is called for (Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. 1).
Recommendations

Since the safety of individuals within the plants (such as employees) and others in the surrounding environments has been put to question, it is recommended that a motion be moved to congress to advocate for the absolute seclusion of new natural gas plants.  In contrast to conventional reports by various studies that natural gas toxicity to human health is low, experiences indicate that a good proportion of the general population react extremely adversely in the emissions of a natural gas plant. Adverse effects of air emissions, waste water exposure, exposure to hazardous materials, noise pollution and wastes are some of the environmental effects that natural gas plant employees are exposed to.

Fugitive emissions occurring during natural gas processing may be as a result of leaks in tubing, valves, connections, flanges, open-ended lines, gas conveyance systems, pressure relief valves, tanks or open pits, and in the process of loading and unloading hydrocarbons (McAllister & Lofgren 1). This is attributable to the impurities and odorants in the gas. Specific components of the gas such as methane are believed to contain low conventional toxicity; however, it is also classified as an asphyxiant. In addition to the environmental concerns, safety concerns have also surrounded the natural gas cost-benefit debate. It is estimated that a minute amount of leaks of the natural gas may cause an enormous explosion. Furthermore, natural gas is recognized as one of the most important sources of indoor air pollution. Taking all this into consideration justifies the call for absolute seclusion of new natural gas plants.

More control of natural gas production by setting of limits is recommended as it is noted that natural gas production in the global domain is expected to increase its emission of CO2 by 2030. Projections presented by SRES B2 emissions indicate that natural gas emission is expected to surplus that of coal reaching 11,000 Mt/year while coal and oil reaching 8,400 and 17,200 Mt/year respectively (Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc.1). Since the environmental concerns of natural gas plants are quite substantial, more stringent limiting legislations are recommended to overburden natural gas producers. The work of the environmentalists should be encouraged making the creation of new plants difficult. As of present, prior to the establishment of a new natural gas plants, gas producers face an indeterminate number of lawsuits from a variety of interest groups. The ultimate creation of a plant occurs alongside considerable legal restrictions making production an extremely costly and time consuming exercise (Inhofe 8). This trend must be supported at all costs to ensure the environment is considerably protected.

Conclusively, natural gas has a high share in fossil fuel consumption and poses positive characteristics such as high heating value, easy transportation and supply, less commissioning and maintenance, relatively attractive cost making its adoption suitable and justifying the establishment of additional natural gas plants. However, environmental impacts are certainly adverse; hence while the growing demand for natural gas in the contemporary society is put into consideration, environmental and biological impacts of creating such plants should also be taken into account. At all times, the middle ground needs to be reached on the controversial topic of environmental impact of natural gas plants. Proponents should conclusively demonstrate that natural gas plants many not cause harm to both natural and human environments without which further justification for creation of additional natural gas plants may be invalid.  Based on the above analysis, precautionary measures should be undertaken prior to the establishment of natural gas plants.