Breaking: U.S. EPA Declares Dimock Water Has No Health Impacts
For those who follow our blog, this news will come as no surprise — but is extremely newsworthy nonetheless. I was just forwarded an email from some our friends in Dimock that was just sent to them by EPA Region 3 staffer Trish Taylor – indicating that EPA’s review has found it does not pose a threat to human health. One can reasonably assess this means it meets Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards which would align with earlier findings from Cabot Oil and Gas and Pennsylvania DEP. Someone may want to pass this along to Binghamton mayor Matt Ryan before he goes and spends his taxpayers money to fix a problem in another state that does not exist.
Dear Dimock Residents,
This email is a follow-up to the visits to Dimock area homes by EPA on November 10, 2011 and the subsequent review of well sampling data for wells impacted by the Cabot Oil and Gas Company drilling activities. EPA has conducted a preliminary review and screening of the data provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and residents. While we are continuing our review, to date, the data does not indicate that the well water presents an immediate health threat to users. EPA will continue to review available information related to the concerns of Dimock area residents. We are continuing to work with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania going forward on this issue.
Please feel free to call me or David Polish, Community Involvement Coordinator, at (215) 814-3327, if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Trish Taylor, Community Involvement Coordinator
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division (Mailcode 3HS52)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA., 19103
phone: (215) 814 – 5539
fax: (215) 814 – 3015
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- EID Ohio » Blog Archive » U.S. EPA Declares Dimock PA water safe
- Mind Your Own Business, Mayor! | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marcellus Initiative
- The Mayor’s Misplaced Priorities | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marcellus Initiative
- Dimock Residents Say “Enough Is Enough” | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marcellus Initiative
- Energy In Depth » Blog Archive » *VIDEO* Dimock Residents Tell Binghamton Mayor Enough is Enough
- Dimock Proud – Enough is Enough! | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marcellus Initiative
- Chasing the Tail that Wags the Dog | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marcellus Initiative
- EPA Overrules U.S. Constitution According to Region III | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marcellus Initiative
- The Facts Behind EPA’s Dimock Two-Step | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marcellus Initiative
- EPA's Comedy of Marcellus Shale Errors in Dimock | Energy In Depth – Northeast Marcellus Initiative
Comments are closed.
What the EPA letter says is that the EPA is reviewing data supplied by PADEP and by NBR’s testing firm, data of which is incomplete. There aren’t even MCLs for some of these contaminants that are not in the data, which are carcinogens. It says no IMMEDIATE harm, but nothing about long term exposure.
It does not say that EPA did their own testing.
All water includes contaminants, a point you seem unwilling to acknowledge because it doesn’t fit your template. The point is that MCL’s are NOT exceeded. If you are suggesting the EPA and DEP standards aren’t adequate and you know better, I respectfully decline to accept that contention.
Go ahead. Make my day.:
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/epa-dimock-water-supplies-merit-further-investigation-1.1251334#axzz1i5KzSBYZ
Federal environmental regulators are reopening their review of Dimock Twp. water supplies after recently released tests of the water wells taken by a natural gas drilling contractor were found to “merit further investigation.”…
…But in an information sheet provided to residents during visits this week, the EPA wrote that it “has recently received additional Cabot data from residents that merit further investigation.” The EPA is now “concerned about” potential gaps in water sampling and test results, the number of water supplies potentially affected, if residents that need them have alternate sources of fresh drinking water, and if residents have any more data to share.”…
Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/epa-dimock-water-supplies-merit-further-investigation-1.1251334#ixzz1i9ZKUSLi
Please read http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/12/30/epa-overrules-u-s-constitution-according-to-region-iii/
the EPA did do their own sampling as noted on nov.10th and the water was found to be not harmful.
As for Binghamton’s taxpayer dollars, my understanding is that the money is coming from private volunteer sources. No taxpayer dollars are supposed to be involved.
Are they paying for the Mayor’s time? And, since when does hearsay (“I understand”) count?
Did the EPA test the wells? If so has the data been released to the public? What did they test for if they did their own testing? Are they relying only on the DEP data? The letter is not too clear on this. I think I will contact the EPA and ask the questions. I will report the answers. I don’t think I would like to drink my water if I lived in these homes, would you? Some of the families have small children.
You can find the answers on Cabot’s website and any number of other places. It’s all publicly available but the Sautners and their film and media friends (who are using them as props) try to deflect attention from the facts so as to be able to maintain the pretense that their water is unusable or that any amount of contaminants found in virtually all public water supplies is somehow unacceptable. Their water meets the standards. There’s nothing else to say.
well said tom, the EPA sampled for 40+ different analyts in nov. and the water meets the acceptable drinking water standards the results should be released in the near future, also a valid point by mr salsman, currently EPA is sampling 60 more homes in dimock which will also show the water is acceptable to drink, but we probably won’t have multiple news confrences or podium rallies showing these facts.
This was a review of existing data only. But to answer your question, the EPA was at two Dimock residents in the beginning of Nov. as part of the hydrofracking study. As far as I know, there were only two of us from Dimock that participated in the hydrofracking study where the EPA actually collected samples. No one in the lawsuit allowed the EPA to sample. What does that tell you about their true concerns ?
Here are some questions I will ask the EPA:
How does the water compare to legal limits for public water supplies?
Would a restaurant in the area be allowed to serve water of the same quality?
Are there any chemicals in the water that are known carcinogens at the levels in which they are found?
What standards does the EPA use to evaluate private water supplies?
Does the data indicate that the water may present a mid- or long-term threat to users?
What chemicals was the water tested for?
At what usage level, or at what health or age might the water present a threat? That is, is the water an issue for the elderly, immune compromised, or young?
After what duration should an individual stop drinking this water?
How much of this water is acceptable to drink each day?
Is it safe to shower and inhale the water vapor from this water?
Those answers have been known for some time. See our responses to the above comments. Unfortunately, you find the answers unacceptable because they don’t fit your template but that isn’t our problem, Cabot’s problem, DEP’s problem or EPA’s problem. It is your problem because you have an agenda and philosophy on this issue that doesn’t fit the facts.
tom, two thumbs way up, could not be stated any better!
The Saunter’s have, perhaps inadvertently, projected an image of greedy landowners…. they could not, however, gotten as far as they did in perpetuating their unsubstantiated claims, had it not been for anti drill organizations “USING THEM” as pawns to push there agenda… When it is all done and over the press will be gone, the anti’s will disappear and the Sautners will be outcasts in their own community because of organizations and individuals such as Josh Fox and yourselves who have used them for the sole purpose of pushing YOUR agenda further….MADE THEM. I hope that the next collection taken up for them isn’t for clean water they don’t need that, but to subsidize them in an effort to relocate out of a town that now looks upon them as the same way I do, as many do….Pawns in a political gameof which there are only losers as long as it’s played
Greg and Julie… I don’t hate you… I hate what NYRAD and other organizations like them have done to you. Someday you will remember this letter and see them for what they did do and will then understand me. I don’t hate the people I hate the lies and the truth will hit the liars like a speeding train hit’s the deer in the spotlite. Splat – It’s over
Dimock Water Situation Explained TATE J. KUNKLE
>Associate – New York Office
>TKUNKLE@NAPOLIBERN.COM
>December 2,
2011
>Ms. Trish Taylor, Community
Involvement Coordinator
>Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
>U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
>1650 Arch Street
>Philadelphia,
PA 19103
>Re: Carter Road Residents, Dimock Township, PA
>
>Dear Ms.
Taylor:
>We are in possession of an extremely disconcerting email sent to
the Dimock residents this morning, many of whom we represent. The email
advises that a preliminary review of the PADEP data indicates that the
contaminants in the groundwater do not present an immediate health threat to
those who use it for household purposes. Presumably, this is based on
comparisons with the maximum contaminant level (“MCL”) of some constituents
present in the water. We strongly disagree that the well water does not
present an immediate health threat to the Dimock residents and hope this
letter aids the United State Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) as it
continues its review.
>First, be advised that a major aspect to the
determination by Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection’s (“PADEP”) that Dimock homeowners’ water is safe to
drink derives from sampling they provided to a laboratory they also retained
to analyze two (2) sample sets for certain parameters, including metals.
However, the results from that laboratory, Test America, are at best
misleading and inapposite to the issue of groundwater safety given the
instructions by Cabot to exclude most contaminants from analysis.
Indeed, many
of the samples were analyzed after being filtered through a 0.45 micron
filter. As you are probably aware, this filter size is capable of removing
very fine to colloidal sized particles. This filtration procedure was
doubtlessly done by the laboratory at the request of Cabot to artificially
lower the contamination concentrations and detection. By filtering the water
samples, much of the total metals concentrations were removed, leaving behind
what the lab sheets refer to as “dissolved” concentrations, which fall below
MCL levels. Even after filtering some concentrations still exceed
the MCLs and
were not taken into account when the USEPA advised the water would
not pose an
immediate health threat.
>As an example, here is the following recent Cabot
data that you are in possession of:
>Iron Iron Iron Mn Mn Mn
>Unfiltered
Filtered SMCL Unfiltered Filtered SMCL
>Location (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l)
(ug/l) (ug/l)
>S-1 Sautner 5000 FH-1 110 7.4 300
95 3.4 50
>R-1 Roos 1600 R-2 Roos 1400 14 300 74 67
50
>TC-1 1100 27 300 190 200 50
>Note that even after filtration, wells
R-1, R-2, and TC-1 still failed to meet SMCL standards for Mn. In addition,
the Sautner well water, unfiltered, detected 10 ug/l of lead. The federal MCL
for lead is zero (0) micrograms per liter; in Pennsylvania the MCL
for lead is
5 ug/l. Prior to filtering, the Sautner well’s iron level exceeded the MCL
standards by 16.7 times on September 1, 2011. Note that the Sautner residence
had no sediment filters prior to Cabot conducting its natural gas extraction
operations.
>The data supplied by Cabot and presumably reviewed by the USEPA
also shows violations relative to pH for sample locations D-1, H-1,
and KDE-1.
This is also true of the Scott Ely well, where numerous pH values have been
recorded in excess of pH 9 by the PADEP indicating that something is very
wrong with the groundwater in Dimock, PA. This is further bolstered by the
color of Scott Ely’s groundwater that far exceeds the SMCL for color of 15
color units. Preliminary lab data from a November 22, 2011 sampling of Scott
Ely’s well also indicates the presence of low level hexanes, octanes, and
decanes. This data will be forward to the USEPA shortly.
>Additional recent
sampling with results exceeding the MCL includes:
>Pb Pb MCL Mn Mn MCL
Arsenic Arsenic MCL
>Location (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
(mg/l)
>Carter 0.025 0.005 0.13 0.05 ——- 0.01
>S. Ely 0.029 0.005 0.50
0.05 0.015 0.01
>As you are well aware, MCLs for groundwater/drinking water
are meant to be applied to the water as it is being used by homeowners. Thus,
if a homeowner did not filter their water, the MCLs should be applied to
exactly what the homeowner used as their potable water supply. If a homeowner
had some kind of filter in use prior to gas drilling activities, then the
standards should apply to that water after the same filtration. No Dimock
residents whom we represent who may have filtered their water prior to gas
drilling activities did so with a 0.45 micron filter. Such a small
filter size
would probably readily clog. In the case of Scott Ely’s now- turbid water, it
is not conceivable that any particulate filter could filter out sediment and
not clog the system in very short order. Thus, MCLs applied in Dimock should
not be relative to finely filtered water. Instead, MCLs should be applied to
homeowners’ water as it formerly came directly from their wells, to
their taps
and ready for ingestion.
>EMPIRE STATE BUILDING, 350 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK,
NEW YORK 10118 | (212) 267-3700
>Chronic, low-level, exposure to fracking
chemicals is too great a medical risk to assume. Our clients are not lab rats
in an experiment. As you are aware, the following chemicals have
been recently
detected in the Dimock/Carter Road Area raw water: naphthalene, phenanthrene,
butyl benzyl phthalate, 1-methylnapthalene, 2-methylnapthalene, ethylene
glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, 2-methoxyethanol, methylene
blue active substances, gas range organics, acetone and ammonia (distilled).
Although not presently regulated by the Environmental Protection
Agency or the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and thus no MCLs exists,
these chemicals are not safe for ingestion, in either the short or long
term.
>Contrary to the statement this morning, we do not feel it is wise for
homeowners to potentially expose themselves to untested chemicals, even if a
few that have been tested for appear to temporarily pass MCL standards. In
light of the data and our analysis we request you retract the statement that
the water is safe for consumption until a thorough review can be
conducted and
order that water deliveries be continued until such time as a water line is
installed from a safe, potable source.
>We appreciate the USEPA’s assistance
in this matter and hope the continued review supports a cautious approach
bearing in mind that its recommendation may ultimately result in the
long-term
ingestion of this contamination by the Carter Road residents. Should you have
any questions or wish to discuss this issue further, please feel free to
contact me at (212) 267-3700.
>Very truly yours,
>Tate J. Kunkle,
Esq.
>
>
There is a whole lot of spinning go on here! Notice how he relies upon SECONDARY MCL’s, list contaminants without saying id they exceed any standards and resorts to saying he doesn’t “feel” the water is safe. This is a rebuttal? You can’t be serious! I’m glad, however, he admits the Sautner well is loaded with iron, which is a likely explanation for the color when it is only infrequently used and has nothing to do with natural gas development.
You don’t filter residential drinking water samples and compare them to any risk levels. It takes out the organics and reduces the metals.
Judge I ask you:
To award me a settlement of wage before any awards or decisions are made at the finalizations of these procedures. My Law office has worked with due diligence to cloud the issue with everything but a scientific footprint that as an exact” would relate mitigating and un rebutted laboratory analysis here width and forth coming to discredit the defendants claim and liability recluse. In my letter above to Tom, I have used scientific terms found on web sites across the world wide web, that talk about acidity levels and waters PH balance, and even normal TOC’s found in every well across the country, “revelatory to no case” but look damning to the average High school pole climber trying to mitigate at the expense of the defendant” A lump sum of cash for a pre existing problem ! It is with the highest hope that I approach this courts compassion to one of it’s own, “Myself” also a pawn in the hallway of civil paning of gas gold. Understand that the truth will not and shall not be ever known as it is possible, in fact probable this families water was unfit for consumption prior to drilling NG. Again I appeal that if you find against my clients you at least force Cabot Oil & Gas to pay me for wasting the courts time and my time, after all we in the law feild must make sure our bretheren get paid even as we screw up and take on frivilous claims
Attorney For The Litigant
Amblence C Chazer