Farmers Need Haliburton Loophole Too

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Today EPA sent out a press release reporting that a PA dairy farmer has been ordered to provide drinking water to his neighbors. Seems he contaminated their well water.

According to David Sternberg at the EPA, the order requires the dairy farmer to provide an alternative source of drinking water to the owners of the contaminated well within 10 days of the effective date of the agency’s order. The order also requires the farmer to pay for sampling of the contaminated well, and to develop an effective plan to manage his dairy operation’s process wastewater, and manure.  The dairy farmer has said he intends to comply with the order.

Back in November an EPA inspector determined that the farm was not taking adequate measures for managing manure. Their manure management allowed contaminants such as fecal coliform bacteria, including E. coli, and ammonia to infiltrate underground sources of drinking water through sinkholes on the farm property.

If not managed properly, notes EPA,  animal feeding operations can be sources of contaminants such as fecal coliform bacteria, nitrate, and ammonia.  These contaminants can endanger human health, harm local water quality, and may also cause detrimental effects to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

I’m not going to defend sloppy manure management, but you’ve got to wonder: how can Cabot get away without providing a permanent source of water to those 18 families in Dimock, PA? How come Anschutz isn’t building a pipeline for the folks in Horseheads, NY? Where’s the frackin’ justice?

You can read the EPA release here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/81ACDFD762C873E7852578D20061B987

EPA Whistleblower Talks "Fracking" with Marcellus Environmental Leaders

EPA whistleblower Weston Wilson addressed hydraulic fracturing concerns with environmental leaders on Saturday, June 19. The 150-or-so environmental activists came from across the Marcellus Shale region - New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia  - for a summit hosted by the Coalition to Protect New York

(CPNY). Sessions focused on a diversity of land issues and health concerns, but the central focus was fracking.

Wilson, an environmental engineer with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed what went wrong with the 2004 EPA report on hydraulic fracturing of coal bed methane reservoirs. EPA scientists proved that there was a risk of benzene and other toxic chemicals migrating into ground water from drilling activities. 

But, Wilson said, heavy industry influence on the panel reviewing the report suppressed this data from the final report. The 2004 study is flawed. And it is those flawed findings that were used by congress to exempt the process of hydro-fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

“Things have changed now,” Wilson said. “The EPA is beginning a new study on hydro-fracking, but even with $1.9 million it is underfunded.” The new study promises to be broader in scope, looking at impacts of the entire life cycle of gas drilling. And it won’t be limited to coal bed methane, Wilson pointed out. The new study promises to be more transparent, too, and peer-reviewed. But that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, Wilson warned. The EPA isn’t interested in studying Dimock, PA or Hickory, or Pavillion, Wyoming, or any of the places that have already experienced water contamination related to drilling activities.

Fracking presents risks

Wilson listed a number of risks that drilling dependent on high-volume hydraulic fracturing presents. Spills – especially spills of undiluted fluids or chemicals – topped his list. While he admitted that the bulk of fracturing fluid is benign, Wilson pointed out that chemicals are added to thicken and thin the drilling mud as needed. The storage and movement of these undiluted chemicals produce an opportunity of risk, he said.

Storing frack fluid in pits creates pathways of exposure via both an air and water. Air emissions, from the volatile chemicals in the fluid, present a temporary risk – unless you are a worker suffering chronic exposure to the chemicals. Leaking pits create long-term risks that may remain hidden for decades.

Fracking fluids can also mobilize toxics that are present in the rock formation, such as radon and other Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM). Production fluids – the brines that come out of the rock formation – contain both frack and formation toxics.

Wilson's advice:

• Make sure that your state requires ground-water testing and monitoring prior to drilling – ambient air monitoring, too.
• Support the current EPA Fracking Study (see below).
• Support the FRAC Act 
• Support a state moratorium (especially people in NY)
• Ensure that science is done by those who do not have a financial interest in the industry

EPA Public Meetings on Hydraulic Fracturing Study

EPA is hosting four public information meetings on the proposed study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and its potential impacts on drinking water. The meetings will provide public information about the proposed scope and design of the EPA “Fracking Study” and will offer an opportunity for local residents to comment on the draft study plan.

While hydraulic fracturing is one way of accessing natural gas, the EPA notes that serious concerns have been raised about the potential impact of fracking on drinking water, human health and the environment. To address these concerns, EPA announced in March that it will study the potential adverse impact that hydraulic fracturing may have on drinking water.

To support the initial planning phase and guide the development of the study plan, the agency sought suggestions and comments from the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)—an independent, external federal advisory committee. Now they are inviting individual citizens, communities, tribes, state and federal partners, industry, trade associations, environmental organizations and other stakeholders to provide input to guide the design of the study.

Find a Meeting near You:

July 8, 2010  in Fort Worth, TX 

  at the Hilton Fort Worth, 815 Main Street 

  6:00 – 10:00 pm

July 13, 2010 in Denver, Colorado

  at the Marriott Tech Center, 4900 South Syracuse Street 

  6:00 – 10:00 pm

July 22, 2010 in Canonsburg, PA

  at the Hilton Garden Inn, Pittsburgh/Southpointe, 1000 Corporate Drive

  6:00 – 10:00 pm

August 12, 2010  in Binghamton, NY

  at the Anderson Center for the Performing Arts, Osterhout Concert Theater

  8:00 am – 12:00 pm

  1:00 – 5:00 pm

  6:00 – 10:00 pm

If you want to make oral comments you need to pre-register at least 72 hours before the meeting. Register online at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_hydroout.html (scroll down to “informational public meeting”). If you have neighbors who lack computer access, tell them to register by calling 1-866-477-3635

You may also submit written comments at the meeting; by e-mail to hydraulic.fracturing@epa.gov; or mail written comments to  Jill Dean, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mailcode 4606M, Washington, DC  20460.

To learn more, visit http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_hydrofrac.html

EPA tells DEC to conduct more thorough review on Marcellus Drilling

Yesterday, December 30, Region 2 of the EPA sent 17 pages of formal comments to NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regarding proposed rules for drilling in Marcellus and shales. According to the EPA, the DEC needs to review and expand their analysis on the cumulative and indirect impacts in the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS). In addition, says the EPA, "greater emphasis needs to be placed on the potential health impacts that may be associated with gas drilling and hydrofracturing."

EPA is particularly concerned about the potential risks gas drilling poses to the New York City watershed. Despite the mitigation measures proposed in the SGEIS, EPA questions whether drilling in the NYC watershed is consistent with the long-term maintenance of the unfiltered water supply.

In addition, EPA lists a number of other issues of particular concern: water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, local and regional air quality and management of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) disturbed during drilling. The EPA monitors plans for disposal of water and brine containing NORM. In their comments, however, EPA notes that NORM concentrations in production brine of Marcellus wells have the potential to far exceed the Maximum Contamination Limits (MCLs) specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). So if brine is going to go through pre-treatments and end up eventually discharged into somebody's drinking water, EPA wants New York to figure out how to meet the federal regulatory levels. They also question the inconsistency of reporting concentration levels; levels of some radionuclides are reported in pico-Curies per gram (pCi/g) while others are reported in parts per million (ppm). Using ppm as an analytical tool could "significantly underestimate the uranium concentrations," says EPA.

The EPA also notes that the dSGEIS supplements the existing 1992 GEIS. But in the 17 years since the GEIS was written, the "existing environment and conditions in New York State have changed significantly". Reliance on the original GEIS as a "baseline" does not take into account the cumulative impacts fom habitat fragmentation and other impacts that may have occurred during the intervening years.