Document obtained from the “Energy and Resources Group” (http://erg.berkeley.edu) of The University of California, Berkeley

By Lana Skrtic

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
Master’s of Science
May 2006
Energy and Resources Group
University of California, Berkeley

Full Document:  PDF File

8. Concluding Remarks

The literature on human health and hydrogen sulfide reveals serious and lasting physiological and neurological effects associated  with acute exposure.  The health effects of chronic exposure to lower levels of H2S, as documented in several studies, also include persistent physiological and neurological disturbances.   Oil and gas facilities can be expected to accidentally and routinely emit hydrogen sulfide in concentrations that span a wide range and are associated with a variety of health effects.  Academic studies, my conversations with health department staff, and available data from monitoring projects help establish that hydrogen sulfide is indeed present near oil and gas facilities.

Because people live near oil and gas sites, emissions of H2S may be routinely compromising human health.  The interviews I conducted with people who live close to oil and gas facilities, as well as some research reported in the Literature  Review section, provide evidence of health impacts from exposure to H2S emitted by oil and gas development.  Although the anecdotal  evidence from my interviews is vulnerable to criticism that other pollutants or individual health factors may be responsible for the symptoms, the reported health effects are consistent with hydrogen sulfide exposure.  The fact that concentrations of H2S to which people are exposed are often not known does not imply that hydrogen sulfide is  not the cause of the observed health effects.  The lack of precise exposure data is,  however, one area that future research should address.

……..

As I show in the Regulations and Recommendations section, at the federal level, the oil and gas industry and the paper and pulp industry have exerted their influence to prevent H2S from being included on the Clean Air Act’s Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) list, and to exempt it from reporting under the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).  At the time of writing, the EPA is reviewing both decisions, which at the very least indicates that some concern exists over the lack of stricter regulation of hydrogen sulfide at the federal level.  The level of regulation of hydrogen sulfide varies widely across the states that have established an ambient standard in the absence of a federal one, but again, the very  existence of ambient standards suggests that hydrogen sulfide is a concern.

Monitoring of ambient H2S is necessary to determine exactly how much is being emitted and to clarify the link between exposure and health effects.  Enough evidence of routine H2S emissions at oil and gas facilities emerges from my conversations with health department personnel, interviews with people living near oil and gas sites, several studies summarized in the Literature Review section, and state monitoring projects to merit more comprehensive monitoring.  The lack of federal standards for ambient H2S levels or for emissions of H2S is one reason for sparse monitoring even at state level, since state health / environmental departments largely depend on federal funding for their projects.  More routine and special project monitoring would facilitate conducting community health studies, by providing accurate exposure data that could be matched with observed health effects.

In light of the information presented here on the health effects associated with exposure to hydrogen sulfide, even though rigorous data on the dose-response relationship is lacking, it is irresponsible and callous to delay making some public policy decisions that would help protect human health.