The Facts Behind EPA’s Dimock Two Step
Set aside all the stage props, backdrops and inflatable scenery deployed as part of the continuing saga known as Dimock, and you’re left with a pretty basic question – albeit one to which very few outside media have gone out of their way to find a legitimate, science-based answer. Quite simply: Is the water up there safe?
In Dec., EPA says water’s safe; in Jan, with no new data, it says it’s not – EID lays out what’s known and what’s not
Set aside all the stage props, backdrops and inflatable scenery deployed as part of the continuing saga known as Dimock, and you’re left with a pretty basic question – albeit one to which very few outside media have gone out of their way to find a legitimate, science-based answer. Quite simply: Is the water up there safe?
On Dec. 2, 2011, EPA declared that it was, sending an email to several Dimock residents indicating that the data it had reviewed from state-certified laboratories and the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) “does not indicate that the well water presents an immediate health threat.” On Jan. 19, despite having no new data, EPA reversed its position, sending a letter to the agency’s hazardous site cleanup division demanding “immediate action” to protect public health and safety.
Predictably, those opposed to the development of affordable, clean-burning natural gas were quick to applaud the news — with ProPublica even declaring in a 38-point headline that EPA’s change of heart constituted “evidence of fracking contamination,” even though EPA never actually said that (and couldn’t have, since it gathered no data) and state experts consistently having shown it to be false. So once again, amidst all the pomp, circumstance and fanfare, we’re left with a couple questions: For starters, what do the data actually indicate is in the water? And second: Is there actually any evidence suggesting that any of it got there as a result of natural gas development?
In an effort to answer the first question, EPA released a series of memos and letters last week – the list is available here — laying out in specific terms what was found in wells tested by DEP on and near Carter Rd. But sift through the dozen or so documents posted on the website, and eventually you stumble across two memos of significantly greater value than the rest. The first is a memo written by technician Donna Ioven to Richard Fetzer, EPA’s “on-scene coordinator” in Dimock. The second is a 10-page letter from Mr. Fetzer to his bosses at EPA.
As you can see by clicking here, the Ioven memo is short, sweet and to the point: not even two pages in length, and almost all of it focused on identifying which specific components were found in which specific residential water wells. Of the eight wells for which DEP collected data, Ms. Ioven writes that four of them contained compounds of potential concern: Resident 4 had high levels of sodium and manganese; same for Resident 6; Resident 7 had manganese; and Resident 8, arsenic. These were the four households selected by EPA for water deliveries.
The Ioven memo is supposed to serve as the factual, technical basis for Mr. Fetzer’s letter to EPA’s Dennis Carney – capturing and reporting what is known and what isn’t, and passing that information up the food-chain for further consideration. But here’s the problem: Fetzer’s letter doesn’t look anything like Ioven’s memo. The latter, as mentioned, is a simple recitation of facts and figures. The former, unfortunately, reads more like a brief filed by a plaintiff’s attorney – attempting to defend EPA’s decision to intervene by going out of its way to link each of the components found in wells to drilling activity (and on several occasions, looking quite silly doing it).
Take, for instance, Mr. Fetzer’s explanation for how arsenic may have found its way into one private well: suggesting in his letter it could have gotten there from “the use and effects of drilling fluids.” But spend about 10 seconds researching the issue online, and you find that arsenic isn’t even used as a component of drilling and/or completing a well. So where did it come from? According to the U.S Geological Survey (4:00 of this video): “Overwhelmingly, the evidence that we have suggests that the arsenic we see in groundwater originates from natural sources.” Unfortunately, this overwhelming evidence appears to be news to Mr. Fetzer.
The Fetzer letter also makes sure to mention that “glycols” were found in one well, once again attempting to blame that on “drilling fluids.”
Glycols are a major ingredient of antifreeze, and much like other industrial processes, are sometimes used in very small percentages in an oil and gas context to prevent scale build-up in the pipe. Thing is, Cabot has already confirmed that it didn’t use any glycols when it drilled and completed its wells in the area more than two years ago. And actually, the one well in which glycols were detected came in at such low levels that EPA didn’t include that household among the four it chose to receive water deliveries. As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer: “Tests also found glycol, which is used in antifreeze, at safe levels, and 2-methoxyethanol, a solvent, which does not have an established toxicity level. Those houses are not receiving shipments of water.”
So, after all that, apparently what we have is an issue with sodium and manganese. According to Mr. Fetzer, manganese is “known to be a constituent of some specialized drilling fluids.” Which fluids are those? And did Cabot actually use any of them in Dimock? Fetzer doesn’t say, probably because Fetzer doesn’t know. So we posed the question to the operator itself; the answer we got back was a resounding “no.” But, as we were reminded, neither sodium or manganese is considered a health hazard by EPA. In fact, EPA doesn’t even have what’s called a “maximum contaminant level” (or MCL) for either of those two. According to one federal report:
|
So there you have it. Boil it all down, condense it, strain it, and reduce it to its irreducible parts, and what you’re left with is a decision by EPA to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying water to people who don’t need it — a decision made less than two months after the agency deemed the water to be safe, using the same exact data that it cited last week in arguing the opposite. Of the four households set to receive water, three of them have elevated levels of two things that EPA itself doesn’t consider hazardous to health. And the fourth? According to federal scientists, that well has something in it of which “overwhelming evidence” indicates a natural origin. Not drilling a well.
But you know what really gets our goat? According to an updated study released by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania last year, more than 40 percent of private water wells tested in the state don’t meet basic health and safety standards for drinking water – for reasons that have nothing to do with oil or natural gas. Considering that more than three million folks across the state rely on wells for their water, that means more than one million Pennsylvanians could be drinking water today that’s unsafe.
All of which begs the question: If this thing weren’t about politics, why isn’t EPA supplying clean water to any of them?
READ MORE
- Video: Dimock residents tell Binghamton mayor “enough already”
- Guest post: Dimock residents lay out the true story of their town
- Flashback: EPA sends email to Dimock indicating water is safe
- Spreadsheet: Complete water testing data for Carter Rd. residents
Study: Methane in Susquehanna Co., Pa. Water Not Related to Natural Gas Development
A comprehensive study released this month brings some much-needed clarity to the ongoing – and increasingly, national — discussion over methane migration in northeastern Pennsylvania. The study, which includes an assessment of over 1,700 pre-development water samples taken in Susquehanna County, PA, offers a number of important facts, figures and general findings — including the fact that pre-drill tests found methane to be present in 78 percent of the water wells sampled.
The study also found that the source for methane in the area isn’t the Marcellus Shale, as some folks continue to suggest- it’s the thermogenic gas-charged sandstone in the Catskill Formation- the primary source for water wells in the region. Indeed, the researchers found that the isotopic signature of thermogenic gas in the area, including samples utilized in Duke University’s earlier study, suggest that the signature of methane is consistent with methane found in the Catskill and Upper and Middle Devonian deposits. From the piece:
The present study, however, shows that the isotopic signatures of the Duke Study’s thermogenic methane samples were more consistent with those of shallower Upper and Middle Devonian deposits overlying the Marcellus Shale. This finding indicates that the methane samples analyzed in the Duke study could have originated entirely from shallower sources above the Marcellus that are not related to hydraulic fracturing activities.
Indeed, these researchers found a much more likely culprit for this methane than the development of shale. In reviewing, the Pennsylvania Groundwater Information System- a database of wells, springs and groundwater quality throughout Pennsylvania- researchers found:
“[M]ost water wells completed in the Catskill formation (bearing significant thermogenic gas) contain only limited grouting, and are unsealed so as to draw groundwater from multiple water-bearing horizons and-or fractures.”
The study also examined whether or not natural gas production can exacerbate these previously existing conditions leading to an increased likelihood of methane intrusion in this area and others. The study split its data into two sets including those located in “gas producing areas” (within 1 km of natural gas operation developed prior to 2011) and those in “non-production areas” (no wells developed within 1km prior to study). In comparing these samples the study found:
[I]t was noticeable that methane concentrations in water well samples exhibit no relationship to existing [natural] gas production activities.
The studies observations seem to confirm findings of a November 2011 study conducted by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania which found no significant relationship of methane concentrations in water wells and correlated distance from natural gas production operations.
Adding to all of this the study also examined historical data regarding methane’s presence in water in the region. In reviewing over 200 years of records the study found that methane has been present in the area in significant quantities long before natural gas development began- dating as far back as the 1800′s.
Table 1- Published records of gas shows in water and oil wells developed in Susquehanna County over the past 200 years
The study paints a well researched picture that methane in the area is in no way associated with natural gas production but instead is a natural part of the sandstone aquifer, and immediately underlying rock strata, which are highly charged with methane, filled with natural fractures aiding its quick passage, and are interspersed with many water wells that “lack proper sealing and casing” thus enabling migration.
The study did make one very important correlation; namely, that methane’s presence in water wells in the region correlates strongly to topography. In fact, the study found “a clear relationship with surface topography, with measurably higher dissolved methane concentrations in water wells located in valleys relative to upland areas”. This was evident in the break-down of samples collected for the study. While only 51 percent of the samples obtained with methane came from wells in a valley setting, approximately 88 percent of well samples containing dissolved methane concentration in excess of 7,000ppb (current action level established by PA DEP) were located in low lying areas.
These results are supported by historical data as well. Testimony from water well developers in Susquehanna County note that water wells with gas shows are most commonly observed in valleys. In addition, similar conditions were observed in a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in West Virginia in 1997-2005 where data showed significant methane concentrations existed only in wells locate in valley or hillsides as opposed to those found on hilltops.
This critical info likely won’t deter future attempts by folks likes of Josh Fox and Mark Ruffalo to blame all methane in water on hydraulic fracturing. But it will go a long way in helping the residents of Pennsylvania understand the unique factors of their geology hopefully leading to the development of suggested standards in the proper construction and maintenance of private water wells.
*VIDEO* Dimock Residents Tell Binghamton Mayor Enough is Enough
Folks in Dimock have had enough. They are, in fact, declaring “Enough Is Enough” and starting to speak out against the ongoing effort aimed at maligning their community, aided and abetted by a fawning media inclined to believe anything that is said about natural gas producers as long as it happens to be negative. Things reached a tipping point last night at a Dimock Township meeting where Binghamton mayor Matt Ryan showed up to interfere and — how do you say this politely? – got his head handed to him on a platter.
Dimock residents have put up with a continuous barrage of insults and hyperbole over the last three years as Josh Fox, Bobbie Kennedy, Jr. and like-minded charlatans have abused them in the name of natural gas obstructionism. They have watched and listened as professional activists use the power of the press to perpetuate the myth that Dimock water is polluted. They have tolerated the incessant meddling of others in the affairs of their community. Last night, however, one meddler, Mayor Ryan of Binghamton, who apparently has trouble running his own city, went just a bit too far — and residents gave him the heave-ho. See for yourself and note how Ryan tries to intimidate Township officials with direct legal threats:
Residents also spoke out on the absurdity of what has happened to their community as natural gas opponents have latched onto it as a symbol and tool to make their case, weak tough it may be. There’s little more that needs to said beyond what the people of Dimock themselves said last night, so take a look:
This is far from the end of the story and we’ll have more to report very soon, I expect, so stay tuned.
