What People Do Not Understand About Their Public Drinking Water
I get annoyed when people say they don’t want their drinking water ruined by natural gas development even though there has never been a documented case of drinking water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing. Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator, in fact has said “In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.”
They also don’t seem to understand the aquifer is not one body of water underground, but thousands of independent aquifers in Northeast Pennsylvania. Any development, even drilling a drinking water well for a new home, can cause methane migration in Pennsylvania because of our geology (the problem experienced in Dimock) but that has nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing and deep natural gas.
I’ve had people say to me they get their drinking water from the Delaware River and they don’t want it contaminated. Drawing drinking water from the river is not common, except for Trenton, which has a state-of-the art double filtration system.
Most drinking water is actually drawn from city wells, municipal-owned reservoirs and private wells. What I can’t figure is why don’t these same people go crazy when the news reports e-coli contamination from sewage overflows, lazy swimmers, animals feces, or dead bodies in their reservoirs, like the one found in Bethlehem’s Reservoir this week? Maybe that is why Bethlehem’s drinking water reeks of chlorine!
So, I went to get quotes straight from the horse’s mouth. Here is what the City of Bethlehem’s 2001 Annual Consumer Report on the Quality of Tap Water, which also supplies water to Bethlehem Township and other municipalities, says:
Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity.
Contaminants that may be present in source water before we treat it include:
- Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may come from septic systems, agricultural livestock operations and wildlife.
- Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally-occurring or result from stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, or farming.
- Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture and residential uses and stormwater runoff.
- Radioactive contaminants, which are naturally occurring.
- Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes, and can also come from gas stations, stormwater runoff, and septic systems.
Then I wondered, what is their track record? Well, they meet all Federal EPA standards but there are times during the year where there are problems. As they report:
During the month of July there were three locations, in May there were 2 locations and in February, March, September and November there was 1 location out of 100 routine sample sites where Coliform bacteria were detected. Check samples at these locations came back negative. During the month of June there were 2 locations out of 100 routine sample sites that Coliform bacteria were detected. Two check samples came back positive and subsequent check samples came back negative.
If I were to put these sample testing results in perspective, that would mean, for every 100 glasses of water you drink, 2 have been contaminated by Coliform bacteria at the source. Thank God for the treatment they do before delivery.
They also post this warning in their report:
Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
More information is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.cityofbethlehem.org
Now that statement raised my eyebrows! This is delivered water they are warning about. This is the same water that comes through your tap and into your glass, cooking pots, and baby formula. Again, many of the people who have such emotional, unfounded concerns about hydraulic fracturing are the same people who drink city water.
I watched many of the leaders of the anti-natural gas movement drink Bethlehem’s water at the DRBC hearing in Bethlehem a few years ago where you needed to put a lemon in it to tolerate it. Again, I repeat, I get annoyed when people say they don’t want their drinking water ruined by natural gas development even though there has never been a documented case of drinking water contamination due to fracking.
We even have that moment on film (at 1:00).
Marie, yes, me again
Posted at 16:55h, 03 JulyI guess it is ok to change our Endless Mts. water and bring it up to the same levels of contaminants allowed in the drinking water of big cities. After all the EPA says the quality is ok there too. And for those whose wells are vented and have water buffaloes the bottled water they get may be not so great but it is legal under EPA guidelines. You may say we have no proven problems due to drilling but still have not explained why there are so many more problems than before. Unless your answer really is that all of these people are liars and greedy for money? I think you should just say that outright then and stop writing all of these articles that basically say that. You could just say so and so -greedy liar and so and so -greedy liar. Much easier. I thought I would find some real answers here. What a waste of my time.
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 22:12h, 03 JulyThere is no contamination in Dimock, a point made and reaffirmed over and over again by multiple agencies and more water testing than anyone could imagine. Don’t you think it’s time to accept this truth and not self-serving and undocumented claims of litigants?
Marie, yes, me again
Posted at 17:22h, 03 JulyYour article inspired me to do some googling and in an article published yesterday I found this statement,
“the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (www.epa.gov/aboutepa/states/dimock-atsdr.pdf) lists numerous chemicals found in Dimock well water including ethylene glycol, DEHP, and arsenic, some of which exceeded various safe drinking water standards”
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), based in Atlanta, Georgia, is a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ATSDR serves the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances.
But I guess they are liars too?
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 22:15h, 03 JulyYou are referring to the earlier suppositions and not the findings, not the actual results, which subsequently indicated the water met drinking water standards. Listen to the guy from that agency on video here:
http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/sautnergate-unravels-as-dimock-truth-comes-out/8635/
marie vath
Posted at 14:58h, 05 JulyFrom the video you mentioned;
19:00 ATSDR Toxicologist: “It says none of the constituents were detected at levels of concern. That’s different than saying nothing was detected. Anything that was detected was not at a level of concern.”
My point exactly, it is not of concern according to EPA levels but those chemicals were found to be there. And really, if I had these chemicals and did not have them before drilling , would I be happy if the EPA said they were under the levels considering what you have pointed out in your article about drinking water quality? I would want my water back to what it was before the drilling. All I am saying is there are problems, things I have not seen before in my community. If drilling has something to do with this at all, we need to figure it out and fix it before we continue to drill more.
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 16:23h, 05 JulyYou completely ignore the reality that ALL water has some contaminants and simply assume gas is to blame. How is it possible to discuss anything rationally in those circumstances? It isn’t. That’s why you’re losing the battle.
marie vath
Posted at 17:45h, 05 JulyI am not fighting a battle. Are you? I just am wondering why I see all of these incidents and wondering if it is a possibility that gas has something to do with it. It is not only me who see a possible correlation. If I am not mistaken the DEP has said that too. Is your premise that the DEP is wrong? Is this site really a place that is looking for real answers? I must have wandered onto the wrong place. This article here is am responding to is making the point how bad drinking water is in other places. I just do not want my water to be as bad. I do not think our water is as bad as what the EPA allows in many other places. Why should we want that standard?
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 18:45h, 05 JulyYou assume these are new problems simply because someone blames them on gas, a convenient excuse, and you keep assuming any amount of contamination is from gas and is bad. The point is the same as I made earlier – check any water supply and you’ll find contaminants. It’s all a matter of levels and perspective and I sense you aren’t willing to recognize that.
Marie again
Posted at 22:16h, 05 JulyI am not assuming anything. I am asking and researching and I got this idea that the problems are related to gas drilling because of the DEP actions I read about in the paper. Can you address the actions of the DEP and Notices of Violation about methane migration and water contamination? Do you not think they are valid?
Also today I read that The American Water Works Association has joined with the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the National Association of Water Companies in issuing a joint policy statement on the protection of drinking water supplies from hydraulic fracturing and associated oil and gas development.
Here is a link to their statement.
http://www.awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/GADocuments/AWWAStatementHydraulicFracturingJune2012.pdf
“Hydraulic Fracturing – Protection of Drinking Water Supplies
The American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA), and the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) support
legislative and regulatory actions to ensure that oil and gas development receives appropriate
oversight. Specifically:
1. EPA should use existing Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authority to regulate oil and gas well construction and operation, including hydraulic fracturing practices, through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program.
2. Congress should remove statutory barriers impeding federal regulation and oversight of oil and gas wells under the SDWA UIC program, particularly wells developed using hydraulic fracturing.
3. EPA should also use existing authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate discharges to surface water bodies from oil and gas operations, including the expedited preparation of effluent guidelines under the CWA’s National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
4. In addition, Congress should provide adequate resources to EPA and partner federal agencies necessary to support timely research and regulatory oversight under the SDWA, CWA and other appropriate statutes.”
JD Krohn
Posted at 10:10h, 06 JulyMarie:
These are interest organizations just like any other Washington, D.C. based trade association. There are a number of other water related groups in DC who haven’t taken this position. Also, AWWA just last year basically parroted Gasland in their monthly magazine with zero original research. The Obama Administration, as you know, has been studying this process quite intently. Here are some quotes from their senior officials just from this past year.
“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.”
— President Barack Obama (January 25, 2012)
“In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.”
— Lisa Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator ( April 30, 2012)
“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”
–Lisa Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (May 24, 2011)
“We know that natural gas can safely be developed, and to the credit of the industry there are many companies that are leaning into this challenge and promoting best practices for safer and more efficient production. That’s not always widely noticed or appreciated, but it’s a fact. For example, a group of major producers in the Appalachian Basin just last week announced new recommended standards and practices to promote safe and environmentally responsible energy development in that region. This kind of leadership and the underlying commitment by industry to continuously improve and adopt effective practices as technology evolves is something our administration applauds.”
— Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to President Barack Obama on Energy and Climate (May 15, 2012)
“The states are regulating hydraulic fracturing effectively and are fully capable of handling it on a larger scale as shale development expands. … They understand the risks and challenges. They understand the local geology and hydrology. They have the experience.”
— Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to President Barack Obama on Energy and Climate (May 15, 2012)
On hydraulic fracturing: “From my point of view, it can be done safely and it has been done safely.”
— Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (February 15, 2012)
“I think fracking as a technology is perfectly capable of being clean, I do. But it requires people who are doing it, and the innovators who use the technology, to take some time to make sure it is done right and it requires smart regulation, smart rules of the road. What it doesn’t necessarily require, let me be clear in these remarks because I know I will hear it again, is that all that smart rule of the road setting be done at the federal level. There are states who have been regulating oil and gas development for a long time.”
–Lisa Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (February 22, 2012)
“EPA does not regulate – and does not believe it is legally required to regulate – the hydraulic fracturing of methane gas production wells under its UIC program [under the Safe Drinking Water Act].”
“There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water (USDW). … Moreover, given the horizontal and vertical distance between the drinking water well and the closest methane production wells, the possibility of contamination of endangerment of USDWs in the area is extremely remote.”
–Carol Browner, Fmr. Clinton EPA administrator (June 2, 1995)
“The president has made clear that he believes this important, abundant domestic resource holds unique promise to fuel our energy sector, fuel our vehicles, as well as fuel job growth — all while reducing harmful emissions.”
–Heather Zichal, White House energy adviser, (May 31, 2012)
“It’s hard to overstate how natural gas and our ability to access more of it than ever has become a game changer.”
–Heather Zichal, White House energy adviser, (April 24, 2012)
“The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.”
–President Barack Obama (January 24, 2012)
Academics and Other Scientists in conjunction with administration efforts
“We think the mystery surrounding hydraulic fracturing has actually been exacerbated and people have been paranoid, really for no reason.”
–Mark Zoback, Professor of Geophysics at Stanford University and member of the Secretary of Energy Committee on Shale Gas Development (March 5, 2012)
“There have been fears that hydraulic fracturing fluid injected at depth could reach up into drinking water aquifers. But, the injection is typically done at depths of around 6,000 to 7,000 feet and drinking water is usually pumped from shallow aquifers, no more than one or two hundred feet below the surface. Fracturing fluids have not contaminated any water supply and with that much distance to an aquifer, it is very unlikely they could.”
–Mark Zoback, Professor of Geophysics at Stanford University and member of the Secretary of Energy Committee on Shale Gas Development (August 30, 2011)
“The development of shale gas is one of the biggest energy innovations, if not the biggest, in several decades, but to ensure the full benefits to the American people, environmental issues need to be addressed now — especially in terms of wastewater, air quality and community impact.”
“The specific thing that we believe industry can do and are on the path of doing is to more consistently and with a greater commitment push for best practices and measuring and disclosing the results of what they’re doing in the field.”
–MIT professor John Deutch and member of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board Shale Gas Subcommittee (Reuters, August 11, 2012)
Studies conducted by agencies within the administration or supported by the administration
“Ground water is protected during the shale gas fracturing process by a combination of the casing and cement that is installed when the well is drilled and the thousands of feet of rock between the fracture zone and any fresh or treatable aquifers.”
–“Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer,” Ground Water Protection Council and U.S. Department of Energy (p. ES-4, April 2009)
“It is expected that the probability for treatable groundwater to be impacted by the pumping of fluids during hydraulic fracture treatments of newly installed, deep shale gas wells when a high level of monitoring is being performed would be even less than the 2 x 10-8 estimated by API.”
–“Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer,” Ground Water Protection Council and U.S. Department of Energy (p. 54, April 2009)
“EPA did not find confirmed evidence that drinking water wells have been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing fluid injection…”
–“Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (executive summary, p. ES-16, 2004)
Marie, yes, me again
Posted at 17:25h, 03 JulyMore from the article
“Three families from Northeastern Pennsylvania have recently received a $1.6 million settlement because faulty gas well casings resulted in contamination of their well water. This is believed to be the first case where plaintiffs insisted that any settlement be made public. In the past, the gas industry has demanded gag orders be placed on families in order for them to receive water or other restitution, thus restricting the public’s knowledge of the water and air problems.
As the debate continues regarding when Dimock water was polluted, the fact remains that several water reports including that of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (www.epa.gov/aboutepa/states/dimock-atsdr.pdf) lists numerous chemicals found in Dimock well water including ethylene glycol, DEHP, and arsenic, some of which exceeded various safe drinking water standards.”
If the people who say they have problems are liars then why does the gas company want gag orders?
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 22:17h, 03 JulyThe Dimock debate only continues in your mind. It’s over and it’s time you got over it as well.
Fred
Posted at 07:47h, 04 JulyWithout Dimock they have no silver bullet to continue there jihad against energy development.
marie vath
Posted at 14:50h, 05 JulyThe families with the settlement are not from Dimock. This is yet another case, this time it is in Bradford County PA.
Again, I ask, if the people who say they have problems are liars then why do the gas companies use gag orders?
Marcellus Drilling News reported the story and had this to say.
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2012/06/chesapeake-pays-3-pa-families-1-6m-for-methane-contamination/
“MDN’s view: If our home’s water went muddy after drilling started and was found to be contaminated with methane, we’d be hopping mad too. And we’d sue too. And we’d expect more than mere “fair market value” for having to uproot and find a new home. No argument there. But methane migration is treatable and is not a permanent situation. It can be mitigated, and it won’t kill you or make you sick (unless it explodes!).”
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 16:21h, 05 JulyJust produce the data. There’s no bar to that.
Marie again
Posted at 22:26h, 05 July“MDN’s view: If our home’s water went muddy after drilling started and was found to be contaminated with methane, we’d be hopping mad too. ”
So who found that the water was contaminated with methane? Wouldn’t that give you data? Wasn’t it the DEP in the Bradford County cases who made that determination? That drilling caused it? If it wasn’t that then why did the gas company pay a settlement?
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 10:14h, 06 JulySo where is the proof, beyond presumed liability? You keep talking in circles.
marie
Posted at 23:25h, 08 JulyI am asking you about the DEP determination of responsibility for water contamination and the numerous Notices of Violation in several different counties. What do you make of those? Are you saying the DEP is presuming liability?
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 06:00h, 09 JulyYou obviously do not Pennsylvania oil and gas law, which includes a concept of “presumed liability.” See No. 4 below:
http://www.environmentallawresource.com/2012/03/articles/marcellus-shale-1/key-environmental-and-safety-provisions-in-new-pennsylvania-gas-act/
M.
Posted at 22:58h, 09 JulyThank you for the link. I will file it away for future reference. As I said I am actively learning and questioning. I have found several references that say the DEP has concluded investigations that found defective well casings were responsible for methane migration and the DEP is continuing to investigate new cases of suspected water contamination. Do you dispute this? Do you disagree with the DEP? You have not really answered my question about this.
Here is some information I found.
Lockhaven University- Dr Robert Myers
The Environmental Dangers of Hydro-Fracturing
http://www.lhup.edu/rmyers3/marcellus.htm
DEP inspections show more shale well cement problems
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/dep-inspections-show-more-shale-well-cement-problems-1.1205108
“In August, DEP inspectors found defective or inadequate casing or cement at eight Marcellus wells, including Hess Corp.’s Davidson well in Scott Twp., Wayne County – the first casing violation found in the county where only a handful of Marcellus wells have been drilled.
During the first eight months of 2011, 65 Marcellus wells were cited for faulty casing and cementing practices – one more than was recorded in all of 2010.
Casing and cementing violations do not necessarily indicate that gas has migrated or will migrate into drinking water supplies, and methane is present in many water wells in Pennsylvania from natural pathways unrelated to gas drilling. But in the three dozen instances when methane has migrated into water supplies from gas wells in Northeast Pennsylvania, cement flaws have been identified by state regulators as a primary pathway for the gas.”
Staber Dearth
Posted at 15:41h, 09 Septemberquote from the above article:
“I watched many of the leaders of the anti-natural gas movement drink Bethlehem’s water at the DRBC hearing in Bethlehem a few years ago where you needed to put a lemon in it to tolerate it. ”
I do not ever recall ever having to put a lemon into any Bethlehem water that I have ever swallowed. Perhaps some sort of locally isolated branch line problem within the city water system created this issue? Allentown with lemon needed in the water…yes. Easton…the same. BTW, it sure seems, from Easton’s city website that Easton pumps its water from the Delaware River to a filtration plant and to a reservior. Allentown draws part of its water from the Lehigh River.