New Federal Report Shows Dimock Water Unsafe

1-DSC09675
on

Back in 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a startling announcement, shaking up the battle over fracking in one of the nation’s highest-profile cases where drillers were suspected to have caused waterย contamination.

Water testing results were in for homeowners along Carter Road in Dimock, PA, where for years, homeowners reported their water had turned brown, became flammable, or started clogging their well with โ€œblack greasy feeling sedimentโ€ after Cabot Oil and Gas began drilling in the area. The EPA seemed toย concludeย the water wasn’t so bad afterย all.

ย โ€œThe 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,โ€ EPA Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin said in a pressย release.

The drilling industry crowed. โ€œThe data released today once again confirms the EPA‘s and DEP‘s findings that levels of contaminants found do not possess a threat to human health and the environment,โ€ Cabot said in aย statement.

โ€œItโ€™s obviously very good news for the folks who actually live there, and pretty squarely in line with what weโ€™ve known up there for a while now,โ€ Energy in Depth told POLITICOPro. โ€œItโ€™s not very good news for the out-of-state folks who have sought to use Dimock as a talking point in their efforts to prevent development elsewhere, but Iโ€™m sure theyโ€™ll be working hard over the weekend to spin it differently, notwithstanding the pretty clear statement made by EPAย today.โ€

Now, a newly published report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), puts EPA‘s testing results into an entirely newย light.

The water was not safe to drink after all, the ATSDR concluded, after a lengthy review of the same water testing results that EPA used back inย 2012.

โ€œATSDR found some of the chemicals in the private water wells at this site at levels high enough to affect health (27 private water wells), pose a physical hazard (17 private water wells), or affect general water quality so that it may be unsuitable for drinking,โ€ the ATSDR‘s health consultation โ€“ launched in 2011 and published May 24 โ€“ย concludes.

The new report lists ten contaminants, including arsenic, lithium, and 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether, that are โ€œchemicals of health concern,โ€ at the levels found in Carter Road wells, found that five homes were at โ€œimmediate risk of fire or explosionโ€ because of methane in their water, and another dozen showed lower, but still worrisome, levels of methane, and found that the water was laced with elevated levels of metals, salts, and total dissolvedย solids.

The underlying data isn’t new to the residents of Carter Road. The EPA provided it to them individually back in 2012, which is why the EPA‘s announcement that the water was safe was so baffling at theย time.

โ€œIโ€™m sitting here looking at the values I have on my sheet โ€“ Iโ€™m over the thresholds โ€“ and yet they are telling me my water is drinkable,โ€ Nolan Scott Ely, one of the Carter Road homeowners, told ProPublica when EPA made its announcement. โ€œIโ€™m confused about the whole thingโ€ฆ Iโ€™mย flabbergasted.โ€

Oppositeย conclusions?

So how could two different agencies look at the exact same data and come to oppositeย conclusions?

โ€œAlthough the same data set was used, the EPA as a regulatory agency specifically looked at whether or not it was required to take action under theย Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, more commonly known as Superfund, which governs responses to environmental emergencies,โ€ explains StateImpact, a National Public Radio project. โ€œThe ‘health consultation’ looked at the entire data set from a public health standpoint, assessing whether or not it was safe to drink theย water.โ€

In other words, EPA‘s findings, which seemed to show that the water was โ€œsafeโ€ and which were promoted by drillers as proof that nothing was wrong in Dimock, instead represented a very carefully parsed legal finding that the water did not reach Superfund levels of contamination for the specific substances EPA focusedย on.

And the EPA‘s 2012 findings had left out some of the very contaminants that had caused locals the most concern โ€“ including the natural gas, or methane, itself. โ€œEPA‘s investigation does not include an evaluation of the risk posed by elevated levels of methane โ€“ which continue to exist in some homes in Dimock โ€“ and which, at extreme levels and if unaddressed, can lead to explosions,โ€ Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney Kate Sinding wrote in a blog post at theย time.

The EPA‘s strained official interpretation of the data perhaps shows why EPAย staff remained concerned even after the agency dropped its Dimock investigation in July 2012, just months after its testing results had been announced in March andย April.

In 2013, a Los Angeles Times investigation revealed that EPA‘s own staff had disagreed with the agency’s public statements that the water shouldn’t be considered hazardous. An internal EPA Powerpoint presentation, later obtained and published by DeSmog, showed that agency scientists had concluded that the drilling and fracking process โ€œapparently cause significant damage to the waterย quality.โ€

The ATSDR‘s new report very specifically notes that it does not look at whether the water hazards stem from drilling or pre-date Cabot’s arrival in the area. In part, that’s because of a lack of pre-drilling testing for gas and other common fracking-related chemicals in the water. โ€œIt is important to note that methane was not assessed in residential water wells prior to the initiation of natural gas drilling activities in the Dimock area,โ€ the ATSDRย wrote.

Cabot Oil and Gas emphasized their belief that methane in the water was โ€œnaturally occurringโ€ and pre-dated their arrival in a statement provided to StateImpact. โ€œThis data is consistent with thousands of pages of water data collected by both Cabot and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and does not indicate that those contaminants detected have any relationship to oil and gas development in Dimock,โ€ Cabotย said.

The ATSDR report does often note when substances discovered in the Carter Road water are known to be associated with hydraulic fracturing or drilling industry activities, but does not reach any conclusions about whether the chemicals came from Cabot’sย operations.

โ€œIt’s not their job to look at who caused whatever contamination there is,โ€ Bryce Payne, a Pennsylvania environmental scientist, told E&E News. โ€œIt’s their job to see if there are health implications. They did that and concluded there are healthย implications.โ€

The new report is also limited to data from four years ago โ€“ and conditions have changed, the ATSDR noted, in part because a state moratorium on fracking along Carter Road was briefly lifted after the EPA dropped its investigationย and locals quickly reported more changes to their water, including higher levels ofย methane.

Cabotย Oilย settles

In August 2012 โ€“ right around the time that EPA abandoned its investigation โ€“ Cabot Oil and Gas announced it had settled the vast majority of lawsuits against it by Carter Road residents for an undisclosed amount of money, and under terms that barred the plaintiffs from speaking negatively about their experiences with theย company.

This March, a federal jury handed down a $4.24 million verdict to the remaining two Carter Road families, concluding that the water was in fact contaminated because of the negligence of the drilling company. Cabot has begun the process of appealing thatย verdict.

But whileย the legal filings and agency reports continue to stack up, the problem on Carter Road remains the same as it has for many yearsย now.

While those who settled with Cabot had water treatment systems installed by the company, locals familiar with those systems say that even the treated water seems too contaminated to drink and the water treatment systems break downย frequently.

The ATSDR‘s report provides recommendations that water should have been treated to address dangerous contamination levels โ€“ but those recommendations are not binding and the agency noted that while the state government collected samples more recently, the ATSDR did not have access to the newerย data.

Community organizers are still calling for the federal government to resume an active role, arguing that the groundwater remainsย undrinkable.

โ€œWe’re demanding that they reopen the investigation,โ€ Craig Stevens, a local organizer, told DeSmog after the March verdict was announced, โ€œand also get water to theseย people.โ€

Photo Credit: Dimock resident Ray Kemble displays bottles of water that he said were collected from his well and hisย neighbor’s well earlier this year,ย Laura Evangelisto, Copyrightย 2016

1-DSC09675
Sharon Kelly is an attorney and investigative reporter based in Pennsylvania. She was previously a senior correspondent at The Capitol Forum and, prior to that, she reported for The New York Times, The Guardian, The Nation, Earth Island Journal, and a variety of other print and online publications.

Related Posts

on

High demand for wild-caught species to feed farmed salmon and other fish is taking nutritious food away from low-income communities in the Global South.

High demand for wild-caught species to feed farmed salmon and other fish is taking nutritious food away from low-income communities in the Global South.
Analysis
on

Premier Danielle Smith can expect new tariffs, fewer revenue streams, and a provincial deficit brought on by lowered oil prices.

Premier Danielle Smith can expect new tariffs, fewer revenue streams, and a provincial deficit brought on by lowered oil prices.
on

Jeremy Clarkson spreads well-worn conspiracy theory that casts inheritance farm tax policy as plot to โ€œreplace farmers with migrantsโ€.

Jeremy Clarkson spreads well-worn conspiracy theory that casts inheritance farm tax policy as plot to โ€œreplace farmers with migrantsโ€.
on

Premier Danielle Smith declared sheโ€™s pursuing โ€˜every legal optionโ€™ in her fight against Trudeauโ€™s federal proposal to curb emissions.

Premier Danielle Smith declared sheโ€™s pursuing โ€˜every legal optionโ€™ in her fight against Trudeauโ€™s federal proposal to curb emissions.