Dimock, PA Water Deemed Safe By EPA

By Timothy Gardner
WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said drinking water is safe to consume in a small Pennsylvania town that has attracted national attention after residents complained about hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas.

The EPA has completed testing water at 61 homes in Dimock, Pennsylvania where residents have complained since 2009 of cloudy, foul-smelling water after Cabot Oil & Gas Corp drilled for gas nearby.

"This set of sampling did not show levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action," Roy Seneca, a spokesman for the regional EPA office, said about the final set of data released Friday. The agency released data for only 59 of the homes as they could not contact residents at two of them.

Dimock became ground zero for the debate about fracking after Josh Fox, the director of Oscar-nominated 2010 documentary called "Gasland," visited the town and met residents who feared their water was contaminated by the drilling.

Techniques including fracking have revolutionized the U.S. natural gas industry by giving companies access to vast new reserves that could supply the country's demand for 100 years, according to the industry.

Environmental and health groups, however, say that some fracking operations near homes and schools pollute land and water.

The EPA will re-sample four wells where previous Cabot and state data showed levels of contaminants, but where EPA's first round of testing did not find levels that would require action, Seneca said.

The agency found one well in the last batch of data that contained methane, a main component of natural gas.

Seneca would not say what the agency thought the source of that methane was, but said the agency will conduct a review of the data.

Residents have complained that methane could be from fracking, but industry groups say methane can occur naturally in wells in energy-rich areas.

Over the course of the EPA tests that have been released since mid-March, contaminants were found in some wells. But the EPA said those levels were safe. In the first set of tests, for example, six of 11 homes showed concentrations of sodium, methane, chromium or bacteria. Arsenic was also found at two homes, but, again, levels were deemed safe.

Cabot spokesman George Stark said any contaminants found in the tests "are more likely indicative of naturally occurring background levels or other unrelated activities."
Another three Dimock homeowners had wanted their water to be sampled by the EPA but they have not scheduled a time for the testing.

Also on HuffPost:

From our partners

• How Two Determined Sisters Set Up A Pet Rescue Pipeline To Colorado - Mother Nature Network
• Panel Finds Flaws In Hurricane Sandy Warning System - Climate Central
• 11 Images And Facts About A Misunderstood Creature - Mother Nature Network

Comments

[Rasebiho]

09:43 PM on 05/14/2012

An article that lists all the scary things they found in the water and not a single number from any of the 59 test sites where data was released.

All drinking water has stuff in it. It's the nature of water. If the EPA had gone say 50 miles outside the fracking area and done the same measurements would the results have been better or worse?

[OkieMon]

07:04 AM on 05/14/2012

how can brown water be safe to drink ?

[personal beliefs]

11:41 AM on 05/14/2012

why do you believe in global warming?

[Zariana]

12:55 PM on 05/13/2012

Good news for the residents of Dimock.

Personally, though, if I were a land owner who leased/sold her mineral rights, I would stipulate that independent, 3rd party testing of water be done before, during, and after my land was drilled--paid for by the oil and gas company.

[Abonides]

10:49 AM on 05/13/2012

I don't believe that the EPA is a trustworthy, independant agency. I suspect that they are being leaned on, money is more important to our government than the health of it's citizens. The EPA has been neutered, turned into a government "yes-man". Our society is crumbling but people are more concerned with getting their piece of the pie.

[niko73]

04:35 PM on 05/13/2012

Yup. And global warming is a lie cooked up to stop development and Obama was born in Kenya.

[June25]

08:59 PM on 05/13/2012

Whats a moderate liberal doing on a site like this?Fanned

[earthotter]

10:41 AM on 05/14/2012

So, how is it that you don't believe the EPA's opinion can be bought by corporate interests? Seems to me it happens all the time. Cancelling regulations at the last minute, rewriting findings to suit corporate interests... Isn't this why scientists often resign from the EPA in protest?

[WESmith]

08:54 PM on 05/12/2012

The water sold to gas companies are usually contaminated. If not sold to gas companies, the water is sold to farmers to grow crops for us. Potable water is not used for these purposes. We were told to not use the water for anything except showering. And then to be careful to not get any water in our eyes, nose or mouth. The chemical they add to the water for frack fluid is usually guar gum or hydroxyethylcellulose. These are food fillers that get thick and can carry the sand to the fractures and thin so it can be removed. If the water isn't removed, the gas can't flow. The rock is 1000 times denser than concrete. The fractures are 1/8th of an inch wide, if they are lucky. And water has a hydrostatic pressure that will keep the gas in.
The cement in the BP well lost it's hydrostatic head when it gelled. That's why the gas was able to come to the surface.

[niko73]

06:12 PM on 05/12/2012

Wow, frankly some of these posts are an embarrassment to the environmental community. Folks, the EPA does it's job well. They hire good scientists who go about their duties with utmost scientific integrity. Now we have people making up silly conspiracy theories when the facts don't jive with their opinions. Right, and global warming is a conspiracy to shut down development. And Obama was born in Kenya too, right? There is nothing logical or scientific about that argument, it's purely emotion-based.

Don't worry. This doesn't mean fracking is always safe. There still could be elevated levels of some chemicals in this well. And there are many, many more wells that could test differently. Let's at least keep a bit of integrity and quit denying the test results.

[Roosevelt Democrat]

05:06 AM on 05/13/2012

someone who realizes you can't have it both ways. It's a start to educating Anti-Frackers.

[HazelPethigFan]

10:03 AM on 05/13/2012

a nice response from the reality wing.

[Ronald Malaney]

05:36 PM on 05/12/2012

water is not safe and if you keep drinking it you are going to die.

[Rasebiho]

09:35 PM on 05/14/2012

Very true. Water picks up all kinds of crap as it flows across and through the ground. If you measure carefully enough you can always find all kinds of stuff in it.

[julieintx]

04:46 PM on 05/12/2012

The EPA recently found the water in Parker County, TX to be safe too.

[Aquest]

12:36 PM on 05/12/2012

The water is save...in smaller print it continues on to say 'as long as you drink it or get it on your skin.'

[Jeff4141]

09:04 AM on 05/12/2012

I am glad that the water in Dimock is deemed safe to drink. I do not, however, think that this clearly opens the door for Hydrofacking. There is still work to be done to understand effects associated with emmissions into the athmosphere / disposal of wastewater / covering the costs of inspections and wear and tear on our onfrastructure. I sincerely hope that States which currently have moritoriums hold off until these questions can be sorted out (and why not? there is currently such a glut of natural gas that prices have fallen 75% since peak)

[Roosevelt Democrat]

12:19 PM on 05/12/2012

valid points.

[julieintx]

04:51 PM on 05/12/2012

Yes, those concerns you mention all valid, and it's true there is a glut of gas.

Where I live, just north of the Eagle Ford shale play, the oil containing parts of the formation are being drilled and fraced like crazy because oil prices are high. Tens of thousands of jobs have been created, and so far drinking water is fine.
The areas with the moratorium are stopping job creation in a time of very high unemployment. If that is the tradeoff those folks there are willing to make, then that is their business.

[WESmith]

09:05 PM on 05/12/2012

The people that own the oil and/or gas want to be paid for their resources now, not later. They fear we might not allow them later with the political atmosphere as it is. They contract will oil & gas companies to produce their oil for them.
We The People make more than all 13,000 American Oil&Gas companies combined. Do we want to give up a trillion dollar a year revenue income while we are so far in debt? We also need to keep the price of oil low by producing our oil since the value of the US Dollar is inversely proportional to the cost of crude. When gasoline was $4 a gallon, most of our refineries almost went bankrupt. What would we do without half of our refineries? We couldn't pollute the environment anymore. 1700 lives were saved by $4 gasoline. We might not be able to continue our 32,000 Americans killed on our highways statistic. It is down from 40,000, mostly due to the cost of gasoline.

[Margo Lechner]

11:50 PM on 05/11/2012

How many of those EPA testers actually live there in Dimock?

[Roosevelt Democrat]

05:07 AM on 05/13/2012

Would it matter?

[banana republican]

10:21 PM on 05/11/2012

I love the posts. When scientist say global warming is real, liberals say, 'only a fool would argue against science.' When scientists say the water it in Dimock is safe, they say, "scientists are idiots.'

[Roosevelt Democrat]

12:29 PM on 05/12/2012

f&f

Had a survey of how well middle school kids did on science. Our kids did terrible!

I believe it's the parents fault, to many parents will reject science that does not agree with their political point of view?

Me, I change my political point of view when confronted with science that says my political view is wrong!

[banana republican]

07:29 PM on 05/12/2012

You lack some of the characteristics that are essential to being a true liberal. I like that in a person. 

[HazelPethigFan]

10:37 AM on 05/13/2012

Good response from the science wing there. f&f

Science trumps political talking points any day at any time.

[HazelPethigFan]

10:04 AM on 05/13/2012

welcome to politics.

[Spencer P Lane]

09:19 PM on 05/11/2012

We should demand the EPA and Cabot employees associated with testing move their children into the homes in Dimock. I bet the next round of tests would have different results.

[Roosevelt Democrat]

12:31 PM on 05/12/2012

As a chemist if I had to drink water from PA I would prefer water from Dimock!

It's that science verses superstition thing for me!

[trucker1000]

11:06 AM on 05/13/2012

Why is that? The water is tested and nothing found so you make up stuff.

[idyl]

08:10 PM on 05/11/2012

Not according to 2011 Duke University Study: "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing" (May 17, 2011).

http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/pnas2011.pdf

The study looked at 68 wells in NE Pennsylvania (where Dimock is located), and found: "systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction."

What homes did they test, and were they allowed to test at locations where industry already bought out homeowners, and signed confidentiality agreements? A great deal needs to be explained in this article (and presumably, by the EPA).

[oil patch]

09:27 PM on 05/11/2012

um....first page, first paragraph
"We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids."
So once again, do you have any F-A-C-T-S?

[Annie100]

10:16 PM on 05/11/2012

That is not what it says about contamination with methane. You reread the first paragraph again.

[idyl]

10:49 AM on 05/12/2012

You don't consider methane contamination above the "action Level for Hazard Mitigation" by the US Dept. of Interior to be a FACT? How about when it is a "potential explosion hazard."

New research also raises alarm about migration of frack water from underground formations into shallow water aquifers.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00933.x

Is it time to repeal 2005 Energy Act exemptions, and regulate this industry "free for all" at the Federal level yet?

[trucker1000]

11:08 AM on 05/13/2012

You do understand that methane can be in well water by nature and has nothing to do wit fracking

[idyl]

03:20 PM on 05/13/2012

How is that at all pertinent to the findings of the study?

Methane concentration in drinking wells from natural occurrence (in similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes): 1.1 mg/L

Methane concentration in drinking wells located less than 1 km from drilling sites:19.2 - 64 mg/L

That's a 1700% - 6300% increase over background levels, and exceeds the "Action Level for Hazard Mitigation" by the US Department of Interior. Study authors emphasize higher contamination levels in drinking water wells near drilling sites are a "potential explosion and asphyxiation hazard." Who among us drinks from water that is a potential explosion and asphyxiation hazard?

[JPETERB]

06:38 PM on 05/11/2012

This is not your father's EPA. This is Ronnie Reagan's "private/public partnership" EPA, all grown down. Small enough to drown in a slightly contaminated water sample.

[Roosevelt Democrat]

08:41 PM on 05/11/2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/national-assessment-for-educational-progress-science-test_n_1504537.html

Climate Change Deniers or Anti-Frackers are scientifically challenged! It's this mind set that has our kids failing science.

They are raised by parents that truly believe that the only science that counts is the science that agrees with their political point of view.

Worse they will express the idea out loud that our government agencies are corrupt if they don't supply them with the results their political point of view requires.

Whenever you mix science and politics, science is always the loser!

As for the EPA, it employs over 17,000 people. The German equivalent employs about 1,500. We can all agree that people and manufacturing, minining, drilling cause pollution not mountains, plains, wetlands, & tundra.

Germany with a population of 1/3 our population employs nearly as many people in manufacturing today as we do here in the U.S.!

See where this lack of cause and effect -science is leading us?

[trinity]

10:20 PM on 05/11/2012

Germany also protects it's jobs (and unions are strong)...unlike our country that protects corporations' bottom lines even if it means laying off thousands of Americans in order to move to China or India....

[JPETERB]

12:07 AM on 05/12/2012

From environmental law to environmental order

The concepts of economic order and social order are well-known in Germany; the term environmental order is however largely unknown and is common neither as a set phrase nor as a concept. By giving the examples of economic order and social order, however, I am also giving some indication of the direction considerations surrounding environmental order are taking: economic order, comprising private ownership of the means of production and competition, and social order, marked by social justice and social security, must be expanded to include environmental order so that the economic system which prevails in Germany and in the European Union can, with justification, be called a social and environmentally sound market economy. Environmental order, understood as the whole gamut of regulations and institutions serving the protection, care and development of the natural foundations of human life, is geared towards the sustainability and standardisation of care of the environment. It is more than peripheral short-term environmental protection effected on a case-by-case basis to ward off risks; rather it means blanket, comprehensive and long-term protective care in line with the enduring responsibility we bear for the world around us, for the world we share with others and for the world of the generations to come.

[julieintx]

04:55 PM on 05/12/2012

This is President Obama's EPA.

[JPETERB]

10:54 PM on 05/12/2012

In the matter at hand, the issue of pumping toxins into the ground for private profit, it is Dick Cheney's EPA, barred by law from regulating this entire industry and it's massive and widespread drilling, fracking, gas extraction and economic activity.

Economist's View: Cheney's Fracking "Halliburton Loophole"
economistsview.typepad.com/.../cheneys-fracking-halliburton-looph...Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Oct 20, 2011 – Safety First, Fracking Second, The Editors, Scientific American: A ... of gas driller Halliburton—exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe ...