The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
First 11 Dimock homes sampled by EPA show no health concerns


By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)

Published: March 15, 2012


Article Tools


Font size: [A] [A] [A]


0


Our Social Networks


Facebook




Sign Up Text Alerts | newsletter



The first 11 Dimock Twp. water supplies tested by the Environmental Protection Agency did not reveal levels of contamination that could present a health concern, but the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and other compounds that will require further tests at some homes, the agency said Thursday.

Agency officials hand delivered test results to residents whose wells were sampled during the week of Jan. 23 and will meet again with the families individually to review the results and answer questions.

In a statement Thursday, the EPA said samples from six of the 11 homes showed concentrations of sodium, methane, chromium or bacteria, but all were within the safe range for drinking water. The sampling results also identified arsenic in two homes' water supplies, both of which are being sampled again by the agency.

"Although the (arsenic) levels meet drinking water standards, we will resample to better characterize the water quality of these wells," EPA spokesman Roy Seneca said in the statement.

Three of the 11 homes tested during the first week of sampling are receiving replacement water deliveries from the EPA. Those deliveries will continue "while we perform additional sampling to ensure that the drinking water quality at these homes remains consistent and acceptable for use over time," Mr. Seneca said.

The agency began testing about 60 water wells in January after past tests by the state and other groups raised concerns that nearby natural gas drilling had impacted water supplies.

Mr. Seneca said that the agency will share more test results with Dimock homeowners "as further quality assured data becomes available for the remaining homes."


Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/first-1...3#ixzz1pEFWm7ym
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
— <span style="font-weight: bold">Federal environmental regulators say well water testing at 11 homes in a northeastern Pennsylvania village did not turn up elevated levels of contamination from gas drilling</span>.


www.pennlive.com › ... › Breaking News


Hey G-17, doesn't look like the anti gas crowd has much credibility after this does it? Also looks like the group who calls themselves something like "the other 90%" (?)....ya know the group of Dimick residents who claim the water is fine......looks like maybe they are telling the truth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
Looks like the antis don't want to discuss the EPA's findings but if the findings had been the other way this would be a lively topic. Maybe someone should make a movie called the Great white lie in Dimmock. What do you think Buzz?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
Could it be there was a leak and the complaining got it fixed and now it has run it's course and flushed from the system. Maybe if no one complained loud enough it would have continued.

What do these results do for the claim that it was naturally occurring? Did nature fix itself aftre all these years? HMMM.

Not really anti drilling so maybe you won't get any replies from anti's but it still can be discussed. Waugh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
buzz said:
— Federal environmental regulators say well water testing at 11 homes in a northeastern Pennsylvania village did not turn up elevated levels of contamination from gas drilling.


www.pennlive.com › ... › Breaking News


Hey G-17, doesn't look like the anti gas crowd has much credibility after this does it?
Elevated levels no, is it in the water yes. You've got to remember this is from incidents that no one is disputing happened 4 years ago. How those compounds move along an aquifer is really anyone's guess. There are another 48 or 49 results still not in and I do know personally 2 houses that are getting water delivered in a water buffalo by Cabot after the dep found the arsenic levels increased twofold between an August 2011 test and a January 2012 test. These 2 houses are not involved in the Dimock litigation.

As to credibility issues, these people claimed there was something in the water. 4 years pass and the EPA says yes there is something in the water but not at elevated levels at this time. I don't see it hurting anyone's credibility. I think the remaining test results will be interesting.

On another note, how does this affect pro driller's credibility:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n0oM4R5WKE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
jj103.5 said:
Looks like the antis don't want to discuss the EPA's findings but if the findings had been the other way this would be a lively topic. Maybe someone should make a movie called the Great white lie in Dimmock. What do you think Buzz?
I and most of the people I know are more than happy to discuss the epa's testing. As was mentioned: "the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and other compounds that will require further tests at some homes"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The EPA's findings are a long way from what those people were saying.I believe Arsenic can be naturaly occuring, and does not have to be atributed to gas drilling.

" did not turn up elevated levels of contamination from gas drilling"

that was the quote. Note the last 3 words.

You now have DEP and EPA results both confirming that. I still find it odd that 90% of the Dimick residents say that area has always had poor water and methane in it. Now there are EPA and DEP test results to show it's not related to gas drilling, yet you hold tight to the theory that those peoples water is ruined due to NG Drilling, although to be honest.....I did not expect any differant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
*did not turn up elevated levels of contamination from gas drilling" combined with "the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and other compounds that will require further tests at some homes"

to me that reads they found low levels of contamination from gas drilling. Guess we'll have to wait for the rest of the results instead of speculating.

Let me ask you this, if the DEP said the water was no good, If Cabot's own testing last year showed the water was no good, If the EPA looking over the dep and cabot's testing said the water was no good. Would you drink it? All of the above events have happened.

As to the other 90 percent, I know a few who changed their mind when the water buffalo was hooked up to the house.

Your thoughts on the Franklin Forks water well blowing methane? I notice you dodged that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,487 Posts
Let me ask you this, if the DEP said the water was no good, If Cabot's own testing last year showed the water was no good, If the EPA looking over the dep and cabot's testing said the water was no good. Would you drink it? All of the above events have happened.
I believe the "operative issue" here, is whether or not the well water was rendered "no good" due to the recent drilling; OR is determined to have been a pre-existing condition, unrelated to the gas drilling?

Which to me, is what the article is about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I believe the original problem was shallow methane getting into aquifier, and that is what Cabot and Dep were talking about. I am not positive that was all, and dont have time to look it up right now.

There were acusations that a slew of other chemicals are in there water, and all from gas drilling. as I read it, the EPA test show that is not true. I am sure further test will show more results.

Bottom line to me so far......The antis put a big dog and pony show on over in Dimick makeing all kinds of claims.....the EPA results to date show that as usual, they were all talk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
buzz said:
I believe the original problem was shallow methane getting into aquifier, and that is what Cabot and Dep were talking about. I am not positive that was all, and dont have time to look it up right now.

There were acusations that a slew of other chemicals are in there water, and all from gas drilling. as I read it, the EPA test show that is not true. I am sure further test will show more results.

Bottom line to me so far......The antis put a big dog and pony show on over in Dimick makeing all kinds of claims.....the EPA results to date show that as usual, they were all talk.
The original problem was indeed methane getting into the water but as testing has shown, it was thermogenic methane from the devonian shale formation - not shallow.

"There were acusations that a slew of other chemicals are in there water, and all from gas drilling. as I read it, the EPA test show that is not true."

Did you not read this part of the initial testing: "the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and OTHER COMPOUNDS that will require further tests at some homes"

by the way, It's Dimock, PA. and still waiting for your thoughts on the Franklin Forks video.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
DennyF said:
Let me ask you this, if the DEP said the water was no good, If Cabot's own testing last year showed the water was no good, If the EPA looking over the dep and cabot's testing said the water was no good. Would you drink it? All of the above events have happened.
I believe the "operative issue" here, is whether or not the well water was rendered "no good" due to the recent drilling; OR is determined to have been a pre-existing condition, unrelated to the gas drilling?

Which to me, is what the article is about.
Guess we'll have to wait for the rest of the results and hopefully they'll release the results instead of summarizing. When they say "the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and other compounds that will require further tests at some homes", I'm not sure what they found.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Is arsenic found in water wells in Pa before gas drilling was here ?

All I know about the Franklin Forks well is a homemade YouTube video. I am sure if there is a issue there, related to gas drilling, it will make headline news and credible people will investigate and find the cause.
The anti crowd had some of those home made videos which didnt amount to any truth....time will tell with this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,487 Posts
When they say "the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and other compounds that will require further tests at some homes", I'm not sure what they found.
Believe they said those compounds were found in the wells tested thus far, but at lower levels, which may be about what is generally found to be "acceptable" per normal testing standards?

Depending on the water found in certain areas, there are standards established for what is and what is not, acceptable. Those include various chemicals, minerals and other goodies commonly found in various local aquifers.

All water is not "created" equally for various reasons and all water is not contaminated to some degree, by industrial or other activities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
buzz said:
Is arsenic found in water wells in Pa before gas drilling was here ?

All I know about the Franklin Forks well is a homemade YouTube video. I am sure if there is a issue there, related to gas drilling, it will make headline news and credible people will investigate and find the cause.
The anti crowd had some of those home made videos which didnt amount to any truth....time will tell with this one.
Of course arsenic and other compounds are found in the water, and trace amounts won't hurt you. Cabot's own testing which actually brought the EPA in showed much more than trace amounts. More along the lines of what some of the neighbors are experiencing now. (at least according to the DEP and Cabot). Does this mean whatever is in the water is migrating away from the original impacted area? I don't know, nobody does - which is why it's important to see the results for the remaining 45+ wells in the area. I'm more interested in the other stuff they found (quote the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and other compounds). What is it and at what levels?

Quote "I am sure if there is a issue there, related to gas drilling, it will make headline news "

Actually it didn't make headline news and the DEP has been out twice. First test showing 30+mg/liter methane, 2nd test showing 60+mg/liter methane. The results as to whether it is biogenic or thermogenic have not come back yet. Neither has the results for any other compounds.

Seems sometimes "homemade" videos are the only source of information as witnessed by the Franklin Township meeting where all this information came to light, at least to some of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8l61X7nqT0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,753 Posts
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2008/2008-08-28-093.html

<span style="font-style: italic">Issued without comment by New Jersey environmental officials, it shows that more than 12 percent of over 51,000 residential wells sampled failed to meet drinking water standards.

This means that people drinking from those 6,120 wells are drinking polluted water.

Found in 2,209 wells, the most frequent violation was radioactive contamination, called in the report "gross alpha particle activity."


Water in New Jersey's private wells tests too high for radioactivity, arsenic and other contaminants. (Photo by Ray Rocket Creasey)
The term "gross alpha" does not refer to a specific contaminant, but to a group of radioactive elements found in drinking water. Data on gross alpha particle radioactivity in New Jersey private wells are included and evaluated in this report for the first time, the report states.

<span style="font-weight: bold">The next most common violations found through sampling were high levels of arsenic, found in 1,445 wells; </span> nitrates, found in1,399 wells; fecal coliform or E. coli, found in 1,136 wells; volatile organic compounds, found in 702 wells; and mercury, found in 215 wells.

These figures do not count the contamination from lead, found in more than 5,200 wells, because the state Department of Environmental Protection considered the sampling results to be "questionable" in part due to "unrealistically high concentrations of lead."

</span>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
just on WNEP - half of a page of test results:
2-butanol - 10 ug/ml
ethanol - 10 ug/ml
methanol - 10 ug/ml
anionic surfuctants .01 ug/ml
2-butoxylethanol 10 ug/ml
2-methoxyethanol 5 ug/l

Clearly the results should be released as the above compounds have no MCL (maximum contamination level) listed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
g17 said:
just on WNEP - half of a page of test results:
2-butanol - 10 ug/ml
ethanol - 10 ug/ml
methanol - 10 ug/ml
anionic surfuctants .01 ug/ml
2-butoxylethanol 10 ug/ml
2-methoxyethanol 5 ug/l

Clearly the results should be released as the above compounds have no MCL (maximum contamination level) listed.

I just drank about 4 beers, did I exceed the mcl for ethanol?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
It is interesting that originaly there were no chenicals in the water, just gas. Now as the homeowners are looking to sue, the chemicals show up. Now DEP 7 EPA have both indicated there are no unsafe levels or elevated levels due to NG Drilling.

So to me, after all that testing , I say heck yea.....release all the results , and lets try to figure out who contanimated that water. If it came from fracking , there water would continue to get worse as the frac water poured into the aquifier.

The water and gas is under several thousand lbs of pressure, the water aquifier has 0 lbs pressure. If frac fluid got in aquifer, it would continue to flowing in there due to pressure .

How ever, if someone were to pour something down there well, it could be concentrated there and slowly flow around through part of the aquifier.

I say yea, lets figure who put what in there ?
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top