Texas Sharon's Bluedaze

Fracking News

This scientist disagrees with EPA’s conclusion in Dimock water contamination

By

From: Ron Bishop
Date: Friday, May 11, 2012, 3:58 PM

Response to USEPA Region 3 Press Release of May 11, 2012

Ron Bishop 

May 11, 2012

             I have reviewed the test results for 59 homeowners’ water wells in and around Dimock, Pennsylvania which were released by USEPs Region 3 officials, available at:http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/states/pa.html.  These are my observations:

            One-third of the wells (20/59) are contaminated with methane at levels of concern to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), with methane concentrations up to 69 parts per million: well within concentration ranges which can be ignited and/or detonated.  These levels are of special concern where any hot water is used, since heating methane-contaminated water drives most of the methane into the air, which when inhaled can induce symptoms of oxygen deprivation in people or animals with cardiac, respiratory or central nervous system impairments.  According to the ATSDR, these symptoms may include “nausea, headache, dizziness, confusion, fatigue, and weakness” (ATSDR Record of Activity/Technical Assist UJD #: IBD7 Date: 12/28/2011).

            In half of the water wells (32/59), oil and grease were detected but not quantified, and 2-methoxyethanol was similarly found in over a third of the wells (22/59).  Sodium (Na) above the EPA’s Drinking Water Advisory Level was found in a quarter (15/59) of the wells.  Further, arsenic (As) above the EPA’s cancer prevention limit were found in ten wells, barium (Ba) levels above the ATSDR’s comparison values were found in 3 wells, high lithium (Li) levels were found in 2 wells, and manganese (Mn) above the EPA’s MCL was found in one water well. 

            Overall, these observations suggest that many of these homeowners’ water wells are significantly contaminated with a variety of pollutants in concentrations which are of concern to public health professionals.  In fact, EPA officials requested the ATSDR to study the drinking water situation in Dimock, PA, but now make no reference to that health risk report (ATSDR Record of Activity/Technical Assist UJD #: IBD7 Date: 12/28/2011).  Neither do they make any recommendations in concert with its conclusions.  In spite of this glaring discrepancy, Region 3 officials state: “Throughout EPA’s work in Dimock, the Agency has used the best available scientific data to provide clarity to Dimock residents and address their concerns about the safety of their drinking water.”

            This scientist disagrees.

 

About Sharon Wilson

Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.

Comments

  2. Mike George says

    So you just take their word on the subject Dave? Did you take the time to review the 674 page summary?

  3. David Bell says

    Yes. What’s wrong? I guess you don’t trust the EPA anymore since they aren’t telling you what you want to hear.

  4. Mike Knapp says

    Hilarious. EPA was treated as Obama’s guardian angels sent from above. Now that they’ve concluded their testing, they’re evil corporate shills!

    You anti-gas drillers are really something.

  5. Ceal Smith says

    As they say, the devil is in the details. The data says something quite different from the EPA press release. Data doesn’t lie.

  7. Tim Ruggiero says

    Frackers can’t have it both ways, Mikey. Y’all can’t run around and bash the EPA, spend millions on fighting them and supporting propaganda organizations like the BSEEC and Energy In Depth, push your Industry supported politicians to constantly attack the EPA, touting ‘federal agencies sticking their nose in state’s business’, and on and on…and then WELCOME anything from the EPA when it suits their needs.

    By the way, Mikey, STILL waiting on that list of Good Operators you supposedly think are out there. That list really that hard to come up with, or does it only exist in your small world?

  8. Amy says

    Who is Ron Bishop? Any credible scientist would include his/her credentials when making any opinion. You anti-frackers keep up this hilarious charade. Every time one of you makes a claim, it is then researched, tested and proven false. You’re losing the war along with your credibility.