Staff at Mid-Atlantic EPA office in Philadelphia argued for continuing the assessment

Last updated: July 31. 2013 12:11AM - 3046 Views

Story Tools:

Font Size:

Social Media:

WASHINGTON — One year ago, the federal Environmental Protection Agency finished testing drinking water in Dimock, Susquehanna County, after years of complaints by residents who suspected that nearby natural gas production had fouled their wells. The EPA said that for nearly all the 64 homes whose wells it sampled, the water was safe to drink.


Yet as the regulator moved to close its investigation, the staff at the Mid-Atlantic EPA office in Philadelphia, which had been sampling the Dimock water, argued for continuing the assessment.


In an internal EPA PowerPoint presentation obtained by the Tribune/Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau, staff members warned their superiors that several wells had been contaminated with methane and substances such as manganese and arsenic, most likely because of local natural gas production.


The presentation, based on data collected over 4 1/2 years at 11 wells around Dimock, concluded that “methane and other gases released during drilling (including air from the drilling) apparently cause significant damage to the water quality.” The presentation also concluded that “methane is at significantly higher concentrations in the aquifers after gas drilling and perhaps as a result of fracking (hydraulic fracturing) and other gas well work.”


Critics say the decision in July 2012 by EPA headquarters in Washington to curtail its investigation at Dimock over the objection of its on-site staff fits a troubling pattern at a time when the Obama administration has used the sharp increase in natural gas production to rebut claims that it is opposed to fossil fuels.


In March 2012, the EPA closed an investigation of methane in drinking water in Parker County, Texas, although the geologist hired by the regulator confirmed that the methane was from gas production. In late June, the EPA dropped a study of possible contamination of drinking water in Pavillion, Wyo., despite its earlier findings of carcinogens, hydrocarbons and other contaminants in the water.


“We don’t know what’s going on, but certainly the fact that there’s been such a distinct withdrawal from three high-profile cases raises questions about whether the EPA is caving to pressure from industry or antagonistic members of Congress,” said Kate Sinding of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.


The EPA confirmed the authenticity of the presentation about the Dimock wells but said it was the work of one employee.


“This presentation represents one (on-scene coordinator’s) thoughts regarding 12 samples and was not shared with the public because it was a preliminary evaluation that requires additional assessment in order to ascertain its quality and validity,” said EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson.


“The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action,” Johnson said. “Throughout EPA’s work in Dimock, the agency used the best available scientific data to provide clarity to Dimock residents and address their concerns about the safety of their drinking water.”


At the same time, the energy industry and its congressional allies have hammered the EPA for undertaking the studies, which they say are a pretext for regulatory overreach.


“They have attempted to link fracking to water contamination in at least three cases, only to be forced to retract their statements after further scrutiny proved them to be unfounded,” Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, said at a recent hearing.


Robert B. Jackson, professor of environmental sciences at Duke University, who has researched methane contamination in the Dimock area and recently reviewed the presentation, said he was disappointed by the EPA’s decision.


“What’s surprising is to see this data set and then to see EPA walk away from Dimock,” Jackson said. “The issue here is, why wasn’t EPA interested in following up on this to understand it better?”

Comments
comments powered by Disqus


Featured Businesses


Poll



Mortgage Minute