Tree Risk Assessment for community trees webinar scheduled
www.tnonline.com/2012/nov/28/tree-risk-assessment-community-trees-webinar-scheduled
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Tree Risk Assessment for Community Trees webinar, Tuesday, Dec. 4, 12-1 p.m. ET. Participation in the web seminar does not require any special software. To view live and previously recorded seminars all you need is a high-speed Internet connection and sound. To take part in the live seminar, visit https://meeting.psu.edu/pacommunityforestry. Login in by registering as a guest (type your name). To view previously recorded webinars, please visit: http://www.pacommunityforests.com/webinar/index.htm.
Rural road program aims to keep dirty runoff out of streams amid drilling boom
citizensvoice.com/news/rural-road-program-aims-to-keep-dirty-runoff-out-of-streams-amid-drilling-boom-1.1408078
By Laura Legere (staff writer)
Published: November 25, 2012
DIMOCK TWP. – Everywhere Tim Ziegler travels dirt tracks and gravel roads in rural Pennsylvania, he sees an insidious threat of pollution beneath his tires.
Sediment is the largest pollutant by volume in the commonwealth’s streams, degrading water quality, smothering natural vegetation and destroying fish habitat.
Worn dirt roads and their ditches are a potent source of grit and Pennsylvania has more than 20,000 miles of them.
Ziegler has driven many of those stretches, spreading the gospel of drainage. He works for the Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies at Penn State University, which helps townships, companies and other agencies build and maintain unpaved roads in an environmentally protective way. Its toll-free number is 1-866-NO-TO-MUD.
The highest density of dirt roads in the state coincides with the richest spots for Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling and Ziegler’s work in recent years has focused on that intersection.
Shale development presents both a challenge and an opportunity for rural road infrastructure: Heavy haulers rut the roads, but posted and bonded thoroughfares have to be returned to their prior condition and companies routinely strengthen the roads before they run trucks on them or improve them beyond their previous state.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition calculated that its member companies spent more than $411 million on road construction in Pennsylvania between 2008 and the middle of 2011.
The problem, Ziegler said, is that much of the companies’ attention and money has been spent reinforcing the roads’ surface while leaving the old drainage infrastructure in place. The hardened, widened roads increase the amount of runoff during rainstorms, exacerbating existing sediment pollution pathways and adding to the likelihood and severity of flash flooding in nearby streams.
“There’s an opportunity that we’re losing here,” he said.
During a recent field trip to a reinforced stretch of road in Susquehanna County, he demonstrated that roads built without protective drainage in mind are also less likely to last.
Like many Pennsylvania gravel roads renovated to withstand thousands of drilling-related truck trips, Hunter Road in Dimmock Township is not strictly gravel anymore. The surface has been solidified with cement.
But the improvements constructed in 2010 are already starting to show wear. A jagged rut snakes under one tire track, a washed-out pile of the new road material threatens to clog a stream pipe that steers a small tributary under the road, and the rush of stormwater where one ditch intercepts another has undermined the road base, leaving the concrete jutting a foot or more over open air.
At the valley intersection of three steep roads, more than a mile of road surface plus half of a gas well pad drains to one small stream.
That system, and its impacts, are only associated with one pad among the thousands built or planned in the state, Ziegler said.
“We’ve got to look at how we’re going to handle this with such an intensive, widespread development across the rural landscape.”
Many solutions are known and affordable, especially for companies already investing in road-repair projects.
Roads should be constructed with several drainage cross pipes and diversion points to interrupt sheets of water and disperse the flow in a way that more closely mimics nature, he said.
Together, the improvements “cut one big watershed” – the uninterrupted ditch – “into lots of little watersheds.”
The center has cooperated with several companies, including Range Resources, Enerplus and Carrizo Oil and Gas among others, to offer tips and suggestions on proper drainage infrastructure.
But Ziegler looks at the effort and money invested in already-cracking Hunter Road and sees much room for improvement.
“It’s just a matter of looking at things a little differently,” he said.
llegere@timesshamrock.com
Symbol of PA gas drilling opposition succumbs to offer of money
www.mcall.com/news/local/carpenter/mc-pc-marcellus-gas-drilling-opposition-20121124,0,5968177.column
Paul Carpenter
November 24, 2012
You have to give Denise Dennis some credit. She did not come cheap. The price tag she put on her virtue is about the same as the amount Gov. Tom Corbett took to sell his soul — or Pennsylvania’s soul, that is — to the gas drilling robber barons of Texas.
Because of her family legacy, however, some might feel Dennis should not have compromised her integrity at any price.
A Philadelphia Inquirer story, published in Friday’s edition of The Morning Call, said that Dennis, as recently as 2010, was a prominent opponent of the gas drilling boom sweeping across Pennsylvania’s portion of the gas-bearing Marcellus Shale formation.
“The process for extracting natural gas from shale is as dirty as coal mining,” she was quoted as saying at a meeting of Philadelphia City Council.
(That city is concerned about drilling because the robber barons want to add the Delaware River watershed to the vast areas already ravaged by hydraulic fracturing, often called fracking, which forces millions of gallons of chemical-laced water deep underground at each well. The putrid concoction breaks up rocks so they release gas, and much of it often returns to the surface to threaten streams.)
Dennis, who lives in Philadelphia, is a descendant of a key figure in the state’s history. She is the great-great-great-great-granddaughter of Prince Perkins, a Revolutionary War veteran who was among the settlers of what is now Susquehanna County in northeastern Pennsylvania.
Her family, the story said, owns a 153-acre farm in that county just five miles from Dimock, a town made famous when residents complained about their well water being contaminated by the Cabot Oil and Gas outfit from Texas.
Corbett’s state regulators said Cabot was not to blame, but a documentary film showed how the residents could ignite the water coming out of their faucets. Lawsuits were filed but Cabot and the residents reached a settlement, leaving much of the rest of the state in legal limbo.
Friday’s story said Dennis previously hurled a “dramatic denunciation” of gas drilling, equating it to the tobacco industry, but her “fervor has subsided in the past two years,” thanks to Cabot’s “salesmanship.”
This month, it was reported, she signed a lease to let Cabot drill for gas under her family’s famous farm. “I decided to stop demonizing the industry,” she said. Details for the new deal were not available, but the story said that in 2010 she was offered $800,000 plus royalties on extracted gas.
(Corbett gave the gas robber barons everything they wanted after they gave him around $1 million in so-called “political campaign contributions.”)
“Yes, I was vehement,” Dennis was quoted as saying when her opposition to drilling was based on principle, “but where did that get me?” It certainly did not get her anything like $800,000.
As the story observed, the family farm in question was pioneered by Prince Perkins, a free black soldier from Connecticut who fought in the American Revolution and moved to Pennsylvania in 1793.
On past occasions, I have written about some of the contributions of those black soldiers, often ignored by history teachers.
After a 2006 visit to Yorktown, Va., where Lord Cornwallis was forced to surrender to the ragtag but gallant forces of Gen. George Washington in 1781, I wrote about the final skirmish of that final battle.
With Alexander Hamilton and the Marquis de Lafayette in command, the last two redoubts (small fortifications) were stormed by Americans in some of the most heroic actions in American history. In the final clash, at Redoubt 10, the soldiers who overcame entrenched British defenders in hand-to-hand combat mainly were black.
They were freed slaves in the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, right next door to Perkins’ Connecticut. Until that visit to Yorktown, I never knew the final clash of the Revolutionary War was won by blacks.
Later, I wrote about the valor and sacrifice of the American Revolution’s soldiers at Valley Forge through the awful winter of 1777-78. Until I made my most recent visit to that site in 2010, I never knew those soldiers included four regiments that consisted, predominantly, of black soldiers from Connecticut and Rhode Island.
After I saw Friday’s story, I went looking on the Internet (I could not reach anybody at the Susquehanna County Historical Society or at the public library in Montrose) and found all sorts of references to Perkins.
Not only was he a soldier in the Revolution, I learned, but he was among those who were willing to suffer and to sacrifice everything at Valley Forge.
Therefore, the farm Perkins and his family established in Susquehanna County, long before the atrocity of slavery ended in America, has been nominated for the National Register of Historic Places.
And now his great-great-great-great-granddaughter apparently has decided to let the Texas gas drillers defile it with their foul fracking fluids — for $800,000 plus royalties on the gas.
I admit $800,000 may be irresistible to somebody who does not enjoy Corbett’s wealth, but I find it very sad that there is no one in Pennsylvania who can stand in the way of what the robber barons want.
paul.carpenter@mcall.com 610-820-6176
Conservation groups debate gas drilling ties
www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pa-gas-drilling-conservation-money-20121123,0,4417994.story
Conservation groups considering accepting donations from drilling industry.
By Kevin Begos, Of The Associated Press
9:02 p.m. EST, November 23, 2012
PITTSBURGH — As a natural gas drilling boom sweeps Pennsylvania and other states, conservation groups are debating whether it makes sense to work with the industry to minimize impacts to the environment — and whether to accept industry donations.
The big question is “how to deal with this overwhelming impact,” said Phil Wallis, executive director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Audubon Society, adding that the industry “in general, is interested in resolving these issues.”
The drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has made it possible to tap into deep reserves of oil and gas but has also raised concerns about pollution. Large volumes of water, along with sand and hazardous chemicals, are injected underground to break rock apart and free the oil and gas.
Over the past five years, thousands of new wells have been drilled across Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio, and hundreds of miles of pipeline have been laid to transport the gas to market. And that’s just a snapshot of a similar boom in Texas, Colorado and other states.
Wallis and the Pennsylvania Audubon chapter discovered that even casual conversations with the drilling industry can generate controversy.
In August, Audubon partnered with the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, and the Ruffed Grouse Society to hold a series of gatherings for birdwatchers, anglers, hunters and hikers to ask questions about drilling. The meetings didn’t attract much notice until it emerged that some had discussed whether the industry might donate $30 million to set up an endowment to fund research on drilling impacts.
The idea of donations “came up several times,” said Don Williams, a Harleysville, Montgomery County, resident.
“It caught me completely off guard. I see that as somehow basically latching on and riding the coattails of the industry,” Williams said. “The message itself bothered me.”
After Williams wrote a blog post about the meeting, Audubon quickly responded that there had been no decision to seek gas drilling donations. Wallis said the $30 million was just a hypothetical number about funding a research project on drilling that a number of conservation groups might provide staff for.
Williams said a representative of Chesapeake Energy was at the meeting, acting as more of a general industry representative. Chesapeake spokesman Rory Sweeny declined to comment on whether the company is donating to any environmental groups.
Two more public meetings with outdoor groups are scheduled for December, said Steve Forde, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
“The sportsmen and conservation communities are an important part of Pennsylvania’s heritage and key partners in responsible shale gas development,” Forde wrote in an email.
But he added that the coalition hasn’t discussed donations with any of the outdoor groups that helped set up the sessions.
It’s a sensitive issue. Earlier this year, the Sierra Club acknowledged that from 2007 to 2010 it had secretly accepted more than $26 million from individuals or subsidies connected to Chesapeake. After deciding it would no longer take such donations, the group launched a campaign that is critical of the gas drilling industry.
Environmental groups and some scientists say there hasn’t been enough research on water and air pollution issues that stem from drilling. The industry and many federal and state officials say the practice is safe when done properly, and that many rules on air pollution and disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking are being strengthened.
Sitting down with people in the gas drilling industry makes sense, said Mark Brownstein, the chief counsel for the energy program at the Environmental Defense Fund.
“If environmental groups who are both passionate and knowledgeable fail to engage the natural gas industry, who will?” Brownstein asked. “If we simply sit and protest, we’re missing an opportunity” to create stronger regulations.
Some conservation groups are finding that they can’t avoid the industry.
The Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania owns or has easements to about 500 acres of land in the region, and drilling company representatives have approached them numerous times, according to executive director Jim Bonner.
Bonner said the chapter decided that current regulations aren’t strong enough to meet their standards for environmental protection, so they haven’t signed any gas leases. But they’re not rejecting the idea.
“We kind of put up the mirror, and said, we are consumers of gas,” and that it would be hypocritical to not try to understand all the pros and cons around drilling, and Audubon’s place in the debate.
“If a company came to us and said we’ve developed a process that does not use any chemicals, we would probably almost feel obliged to consider that, if only to help demonstrate a best practice could be developed,” Bonner said. “We all agree that energy is needed. I’d love to think that we can extract it better here than somewhere else around the world.”
John Eichinger, president of the Ruffed Grouse Society, hopes the discussions with the drilling industry lead to some changes. He thinks the Marcellus Shale Coalition may support some of the suggestions that conservation groups made for stricter regulations.
Gas discharge noise startles neighbors – again
citizensvoice.com/news/gas-discharge-noise-startles-neighbors-again-1.1407649
By Robert L. Baker (Staff Writer)
Published: November 24, 2012
MONROE TWP. – Elizabeth Ide said her husband, Mark, rousted her out of bed around 3 a.m. Friday, but not to go after post-Thanksgiving sales.
There was a loud noise that apparently came from a nearby gas dehydration facility, and it went on and on, she said, for more than 30 minutes.
“He tried to get us dressed and out the door, but we weren’t even sure if we were better off staying indoors,” Ide said. “There were no warnings and no one ever explained anything.”
Friday’s incident marked the second time since September that a deafening sound from the dehydration facility startled neighbors.
Kunkle Fire Chief Jack Dodson said he had tankers and an ambulance near the Chapin Dehydration Plant’s driveway entrance to Hildebrandt Road within minutes, “but our protocol is not to enter a gas site until the plant operator arrives.”
Dodson acknowledged he heard the loud noise, saying it was akin to a freight train going by or a large plane landing, and it was emanating from something being spewed in the air 50 to 100 feet.
People five miles away near Frances Slocum State Park apparently heard it and numerous residents from Dallas Township, Luzerne County, and Monroe Township, Wyoming County were alarmed, Dodson said.
The tone went out over Luzerne County 911 at 2:57 a.m. and Kunkle responded at 2:59, Dodson said. PVR Partners plant operator John Stoner was on scene 20 minutes later and the gas flow was shut down at 3:32. Kunkle emergency responders were back at the station by 4:30.
Ed Senavaitis, safety and regulatory compliance manager for PVR Partners, based in Williamsport, said a safety device at the Chapin facility operated as intended. As of early Friday afternoon, there was still an ongoing investigation as to what set it off.
Senavaitis said there was no overcompression of the line, but something malfunctioned, “and we’ll conduct an investigation until we figure it out.”
He said he had no idea about the volume of material that evaporated or dissipated into the atmosphere.
“The safety device is designed to relieve gas as needed and when our manager arrived, he closed a valve and put everything back into normal operations mode,” Senavaitis said.
Dodson said before the valve was closed, people were contacted at the Transco line, where the gas is fed, and at Chesapeake, a major supplier of gas being moved from the Baker-Hirkey Compressor Station in Washington Township – another PVR Partners facility – southward through the Chapin facility.
Dodson and Senavaitis confirmed that at no time was any individual in danger.
Still, Elizabeth Ide said she wanted answers.
“I thought there wasn’t supposed to be any noise, and here we’ve had two incidents,” she said.
Dodson said the whole incident was a wake-up call that some emergency protocols obviously still have to be worked out.
Looking at a spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan that Chief Energy established when the Chapin plant was built, Dodson said he had two very serious questions for PVR Partners after a similar incident of a shorter duration occurred on Sept. 30.
In that incident, neither the fire company nor Wyoming County 911 was notified.
In Friday’s incident, Luzerne County 911, which notified Kunkle Fire Company, did not in turn notify 911 in Wyoming County, where the plant is actually located.
So Dodson wants to know first, why PVR Partners did not rewrite the Chapin plan after they took over Chief Gathering’s Marcellus assets earlier this year?
Secondly, he wants to know why the established protocol that seems very clear – including contact of Wyoming County EMA – as established by Chief was not followed.
He said late Friday afternoon he was getting answers, even if a little late, and he anticipated a new SPCC plan would be forthcoming this week by PVR Partners.
As soon as that arrives, Dodson said he is working out a timetable about how to better keep the public informed as to what’s going on.
While Dodson does not want to downplay the fear factor that the loud noises created in both incidents, he wants to see some mechanism in place that lets the public know if they are actually in danger.
He said the siren at the Kunkle fire hall will go off at 11 a.m. Dec. 15 as a test drill so the public can hear and know when it goes off after that date that they might be in real danger.
Ide said that given the noise of Friday’s incident, she’s not even sure they’d be able to hear the siren.
Still, Dodson wants to work something out.
“We were lucky this time, and not a few people were very nervous,” he said. “We all deserve better than that.”
bbaker@wcexaminer.com
How Does Groundwater Pumping Affect Streamflow?
www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3458&from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usgs%2FWater+(Newsroom+-+Water+Releases)#.UKecVYXbaWU
Released: 11/16/2012
New USGS Report Describes Processes and Misconceptions Concerning the Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow
Groundwater provides drinking water for millions of Americans and is the primary source of water to irrigate cropland in many of the nations most productive agricultural settings. Although the benefits of groundwater development are many, groundwater pumping can reduce the flow of water in connected streams and rivers—a process called streamflow depletion by wells. The USGS has released a new report that summarizes the body of knowledge on streamflow depletion, highlights common misconceptions, and presents new concepts to help water managers and others understand the effects of groundwater pumping on surface water.
“Groundwater discharge is a critical part of flow in most streams–and the more we pump below the ground, the more we deplete water flowing down the stream,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “When viewed over the long term, it is one big zero-sum game.”
Groundwater and surface-water systems are connected, and groundwater discharge is often a substantial component of the total flow of a stream. In many areas of the country, pumping wells capture groundwater that would otherwise discharge to connected streams, rivers, and other surface-water bodies. Groundwater pumping can also draw streamflow into connected aquifers where pumping rates are relatively large or where the locations of pumping are relatively close to a stream.
“Streamflow depletion caused by pumping is an important water-resource management issue across the nation because of the adverse effects that reduced flows can have on aquatic ecosystems, the availability of surface water, and the quality and aesthetic value of streams and rivers,” said Paul Barlow, USGS hydrologist and author on the report. “Managing the effects of streamflow depletion by wells is challenging, particularly because of the significant time delays that often occur between when pumping begins and when the effects of that pumping are realized in nearby streams. This report will help managers understand the many factors that control the timing, rates, and locations of streamflow depletion caused by pumping.”
Major conclusions from the report:
• Individual wells may have little effect on streamflow depletion, but small effects of many wells pumping within a basin can combine to produce substantial effects on streamflow and aquatic habitats.
• Basinwide groundwater development typically occurs over a period of several decades, and the resulting cumulative effects on streamflow depletion may not be fully realized for years.
• Streamflow depletion continues for some time after pumping stops because it takes time for a groundwater system to recover from the previous pumping stress. In some aquifers, maximum rates of streamflow depletion may occur long after pumping stops, and full recovery of the groundwater system may take decades to centuries.
• Streamflow depletion can affect water quality in the stream or in the aquifer. For example, in many areas, groundwater discharge cools stream temperatures in the summer and warms stream temperatures in the winter, providing a suitable year-round habitat for fish. Reductions in groundwater discharge to streams caused by pumping can degrade habitat by warming stream temperatures during the summer and cooling stream temperatures during the winter.
• The major factors that affect the timing of streamflow depletion are the distance from the well to the stream and the properties and geologic structure of the aquifer.
• Sustainable rates of groundwater pumping near streams do not depend on the rates at which groundwater systems are naturally replenished (or recharged), but on the total flow rates of the streams and the amount of reduced streamflow that a community or regulatory authority is willing to accept.
“Conjunctive management of groundwater and surface-water resources is critical in New Mexico, where our limited surface-water supplies can be impacted by new uses that are predominantly dependent on groundwater pumping,” said Mike Johnson, Chief of the Hydrology Bureau in the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. “This new USGS publication consolidates our understanding of the connection between aquifers and streams and provides a clear, thorough and up-to-date explanation of the tools and techniques used to evaluate streamflow depletion by wells. This report will be very useful to New Mexico’s water managers in guiding technical analysis, dispelling common misconceptions, and explaining these complex concepts to decision makers and the public.”
The report, which is a product of the USGS Groundwater Resources Program, is titled “Streamflow Depletion by Wells—Understanding and Managing the Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow” and is available in print and online. [ http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1376/ ]
The Groundwater Resources Program provides objective scientific information and develops the interdisciplinary understanding necessary to assess and quantify the availability of the nation’s groundwater resources. The Program has been instrumental in documenting groundwater declines and in developing groundwater-flow models for use in sustainably managing withdrawals. The research and understanding developed through this program can provide water-resource managers with the tools and information needed to manage this important natural resource.
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communications and Publishing
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119
Reston, VA 20192
Paul Barlow
Phone: 508-490-5070
pbarlow@usgs.gov
Kara Capelli
Phone: 571-420-9408
kcapelli@usgs.gov
Webinar to analyze options for establishing the value of shale gas
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A Web-based seminar, “Analyzing the Options for Monetizing the Shale Gas Resource,” will be presented by Penn State Extension at 1 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 15.
The one-hour webinar will examine the growing supply and varying demand for natural gas produced from deep shale formations in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
Uday Turaga, founder and chief executive officer of ADI Analytics LLC — who is internationally known for his expertise in shale-gas production and the resource’s market — will provide his insight during the session.
While news reports regularly feature stories about new shale-gas basins, increased gas estimates or higher production yields, a thorough public understanding of natural-gas demand often is lacking, webinar organizers said.
Turaga will discuss research conducted by his company, looking at current and future uses of natural gas and options for utilization, conversion and monetization of this resource.
“Shale gas supply is growing rapidly and will significantly impact both the North American and the global energy industry,” said Turaga, a recognized thought leader in the energy and chemical industry, and a frequent speaker on energy issues at conferences and events globally.
“In addition to being used for power, chemicals and vehicles, shale gas could position North America as a major supplier of liquid natural gas in a world that wants more of it,” he said. “Such development would, collectively, stabilize natural gas prices and incentivize continued investments in shale gas and other unconventional resources.”
Presented by Penn State Extension’s Marcellus Education Team, the Nov. 15 webinar is part of a monthly series offered from 1 to 2 p.m. Thursdays. Upcoming topics include:
— Dec. 20, “Shale Energy and Water Impacts: A Review of Recently Published Research”
— Jan. 17, “America’s New Industrial Revolution: A Renaissance for U.S. Chemical Manufacturing”
— Feb. 21, “The Science behind Best-Management Practices”
Registration for the webinars is not necessary, and all are welcome to participate by logging in to https://meeting.psu.edu/pscems. For more information, contact Carol Loveland at 570-320-4429 or by email at cal24@psu.edu.
Previous webinars, publications and information are available on the Penn State Extension natural-gas website, covering topics such as Act 13, seismic testing, air pollution from gas development, water use and quality, zoning, gas-leasing considerations for landowners, gas pipelines and right-of-way issues, legal issues surrounding gas development and the impact of Marcellus gas development on forestland.
live.psu.edu/story/62611#nw69
Friday, November 9, 2012
In wake of Hurricane Sandy, disinfect contaminated wells
live.psu.edu/story/62416#nw69
Monday, November 5, 2012
Where flooding has occurred, well owners should disinfect their water supplies by circulating a bleach solution through the well, said Bryan Swistock, water resources extension associate at Penn State.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — As the Northeast begins the recovery process in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, a water-quality specialist in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences is urging those who rely on private water supplies to guard against possible flood contamination of their wells.
In areas where flooding occurred, well owners should disinfect these water supplies before drinking water from them, according to Bryan Swistock, water resources extension associate.
“Hundreds if not thousands of water wells may have been flooded or affected by runoff from this storm,” said Swistock. “In addition to seeing flood water around their wells or springs, homeowners also might notice increased sediment in their water. Even after this goes away, bacteria still may contaminate the water supply.”
Swistock noted that a simple coliform bacteria test from a water-testing lab can determine if the water supply is safe to use or if disinfection is needed. “If residents suspect that their wells may be contaminated, they should contact their local or state health department for specific advice on disinfecting them,” he said.
Swistock said local well drillers and contractors should be contacted to inspect well components, and he urged residents to follow the suggestions below — found on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/privatewells/whatdo.html — for dealing with a water well that likely was flooded:
— Well and pump inspection: If flood conditions are known to have occurred or are suspected at a well, the well and pump should be inspected. Swiftly moving flood water can carry large debris that could loosen well hardware, dislodge well construction materials or distort the casing. Coarse sediment in the flood waters could erode pump components. If the well is not tightly capped, sediment and flood water could enter the well and contaminate it. Floods also may cause some wells to collapse.
— Check the electrical system. After flood waters have receded and the pump and electrical system have dried, do not turn on the equipment until the wiring system has been checked by a qualified electrician, well contractor or pump contractor. If the pump’s control box was submerged during the flood, all electrical components must be dry before electrical service can be restored. Get assistance in turning the pump on from a well or pump contractor.
— Monitor pump operation. All pumps and their electrical components can be damaged by sediment and flood water. The pump, including the valves and gears, will need to be cleaned of silt and sand. If pumps are not cleaned and lubricated properly, they can burn out. Get assistance from a well or pump contractor, who will be able to clean, repair and maintain different types of pumps.
— Emergency disinfection of wells that have been flooded. Before disinfection, check the condition of the well. Make sure there is no exposed or damaged wiring. If you notice any damage, call a professional before the disinfection process. Materials needed include at least a gallon of nonscented household liquid bleach, rubber gloves, eye protection, old clothes and a funnel.
To disinfect, follow these steps:
— If the water is muddy or cloudy, use a hose to run the water from an outside spigot until the water becomes clear and free of sediment.
— Determine what type of well you have and how to pour the bleach into the well. Some wells have a sanitary seal with either an air vent or a plug that can be removed. If it is a bored or dug well, the entire cover can be lifted off to provide a space for pouring the bleach into the well.
— Mix a gallon of bleach with a few gallons of water. Carefully pour the bleach mixture down into the well casing, using a funnel if needed.
— After the bleach has been added, run water from an outside hose into the well casing until you smell chlorine coming from the hose, then turn off the outside hose. If chlorine odor never develops at the faucet, you may need to add more bleach to the well.
— Turn on all cold water faucets, inside and outside of the house, until the chlorine odor is detected in each faucet, then shut them all off. If you have a water treatment system, switch it to bypass before turning on the indoor faucets.
— Wait six to 24 hours before turning the faucets back on. It is important not to use this water for drinking, cooking, bathing or washing during that time period — it contains high amounts of chlorine.
— Once the waiting period is up, turn on an outside spigot with hose attached and run the water into a safe area where it will not disturb plants, lakes, streams or septic tanks. Run the water until there is no longer a chlorine odor. Turn the water off.
The system now should be disinfected, and you can use the water. However, the water should not be used for drinking until a bacteria test indicates that the disinfection procedure was effective. Have the water tested for bacteria seven to 10 days after disinfection.
To assist owners of private water supplies in the Berks County (Pa.) area, Penn State Extension will offer a Safe Drinking Water Clinic on Nov. 7 at the Berks County Agricultural Center, 1238 County Welfare Road, Leesport. The clinic will take place from 2 to 4 p.m. and will be repeated from 6 to 8 p.m.
Attendees will learn about proper location, construction, testing, maintenance, protection and treatment of private drinking water supplies. The $10 per person/household registration fee will include testing of one water sample for pH, total dissolved solids, nitrate, total coliform bacteria and E. coli bacteria. To learn more or register for the clinic, visit the Web at http://psu.ag/RsWL0N online.
For more information on flooded-well safety, download the free Penn State fact sheet, “Shock Chlorination of Wells and Springs,” at http://psu.ag/RujwBe online.
Rep. White calls on state, federal authorities to investigate DEP
Breaking: PA Rep. Jesse White Challenges DEP Over Deceptive Marcellus Shale Water Testing Practices
by Iris Marie Bloom
November 2, 2012
protectingourwaters.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/breaking-pa-rep-jesse-white-challenges-dep-over-deceptive-marcellus-shale-water-testing-practices/
An explosive press release issued yesterday by Pennsylvania State Representative Jesse White alleges formally, based on a deposition by a high-ranking PA DEP official, what many residents of “shale country” in Pennsylvania have been saying for years: that PA DEP water testing data is manipulated in order to avoid disclosing shale gas drilling water impacts to those affected.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported the story 20 minutes ago, “Lawmaker Challenges PA DEP’s Reporting of Gas Well Water Safety.” Read Post-Gazette reporter Don Hopeys’ article here. [ http://pipeline.post-gazette.com/news/archives/24893-lawmaker-challenges-pa-dep-s-reporting-of-gas-well-water-safety ]
Due to the riveting importance of this call for investigation of PA DEP’s integrity, and due to the severe health impacts experienced by some of those whose water has been fouled by shale gas drilling processes in Pennsylvania, we are publishing Rep. Jesse White’s press release in full: [ http://pahouse.com/PR/046110112.asp ]
White calls on state, federal authorities for investigation of DEP over deceptive Marcellus Shale water-quality testing practices
Testimony by DEP lab chief reveals possibility of intentionally undisclosed public health risks from Marcellus Shale gas drilling
HARRISBURG, Nov. 1 – State Rep. Jesse White, D-Allegheny/Beaver/Washington, today called for state and federal law enforcement agencies to investigate the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for alleged misconduct and fraud revealed by sworn testimony given by a high-ranking DEP official.
White said he received a letter and corresponding documents highlighting the sworn testimony of DEP Bureau of Laboratories Technical Director Taru Upadhyay, who was deposed in a lawsuit alleging nearby natural gas drilling operations contaminated drinking water supplies in Washington County, causing serious health issues. In the deposition, Upadhyay said that the DEP was clearly aware of water impacts from Marcellus Shale drilling, but no notices of violation were filed – a violation of the state’s Oil & Gas Act.
Of more critical concern to Pennsylvania residents, according to White, was that the deposition revealed that the DEP developed a specialized computer-code system to manipulate the test results for residents whose water was tested by the DEP over concerns of adverse effects from gas drilling operations.
According to the transcripts, which have been filed as exhibits in a related lawsuit in Washington County Court of Common Pleas (Haney et al. v. Range Resources et al., Case No. 2012-3534), the DEP lab would conduct water tests using an EPA-approved standard, but the DEP employee who requested the testing would use a specially designed ‘Suite Code’ which limits the information coming back from the DEP lab to the DEP field office, and ultimately to the property owner.
The code in question, Suite Code 942, was used to test for water contamination associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities, yet specifically screens out results for substances known to be hazardous and associated with Marcellus Shale drilling. Similar codes, Suite Code 943 and 946, are also used by the DEP in similar circumstances; both of these codes omit the presence or levels of drilling-related compounds.
As a result, if Suite Code 942 is applied, the report generated for the homeowner by DEP only includes eight of the 24 metals actually tested for: Barium, Calcium, Iron, Potassium, Magnesium, Manganese, Sodium and Strontium. The homeowner would not be given results for: Silver, Aluminum, Beryllium, Cadium, Cobalt, Chromium, Copper, Nickel, Silicon, Lithium, Molybdenum, Tin, Titanium, Vandium, Zinc and Boron.
“This is beyond outrageous. Anyone who relied on the DEP for the truth about whether their water has been impacted by drilling activities has apparently been intentionally deprived of critical health and safety information by their own government,” White said. “There is no excuse whatsoever to justify the DEP conducting the water tests and only releasing partial information to residents, especially when the information withheld could easily be the source of the problem. This goes beyond incompetence; this is unlawful and reprehensible activity by the DEP. If these allegations are true, there needs to be a thorough and objective investigation to determine if someone belongs in a jail cell.”
White continued: “I am not releasing this information to hurt Marcellus Shale development in Pennsylvania, but to help ensure the reality matches the rhetoric. The Marcellus boom was built on the assumption that the DEP was competent and capable of balancing the positive impacts of the industry with its job of keeping residents safe and secure, but we now know that simply isn’t the case. Like most of us, I want the Marcellus Shale industry to succeed by doing things the right way, so it is crucial to find out what exactly the DEP was up to. If the system is indeed rigged, we must do everything in our power to root out corruption and restore public confidence in our ability to have an honest conversation with one another about developing a responsible energy policy for Pennsylvania.”
Due to the strong possibility of unlawful conduct, White is calling on the U.S. Attorney’s office, the Environmental Protection Agency, state Attorney General Linda Kelly and any other appropriate law enforcement agency to pursue an investigation of the DEP to discover the scope and depth of this scheme to withhold important information from Pennsylvanians. White is also sending a letter to the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NJ-NELAP), to investigate whether the DEP’s conduct and practices violated the accreditation standards for the DEP laboratories. If accreditation standards were violated, White is requesting the DEP’s accreditation be stripped, rendering the agency unable to conduct and certify its own tests.
White said he is sending a letter to DEP Secretary Michael Krancer seeking a summary of how many constituents in his legislative district, which includes communities with high levels of Marcellus Shale drilling activity, had DEP tests done using Suite Codes 942, 943 or 946. White also intends to make a blanket request on behalf of his constituents that DEP release the full testing data directly to the individual property owners in question.
Any Pennsylvania resident who received water quality test results from the DEP should look for the number 942, 943 or 946 as a ‘Suite Code’ or ‘Standard Analysis’. White encouraged anyone with questions to contact his district office at 724-746-3677 for more information and noted that the property owner should be entitled to the complete testing results from DEP.
“This isn’t a technicality, and it isn’t something which can be ignored,” White said. “We are talking about people’s health, safety and welfare. The sworn testimony from inside the DEP about a scheme to withhold vital information about potential water contamination is truly alarming. An investigation is necessary to answer these serious allegations.”
The letter sent to Rep. White alerting him of these issues can be found at:http://www.scribd.com/doc/111821139
The deposition of TaruUpadhyay, technical director of PA DEP Laboratory can be found at:http://www.scribd.com/doc/111821978
###
Take Action: Speak Up
Beyond absorbing this important news, this is the time to write your letters to the editor and otherwise speak in public, including direct confrontation at public meetings, to demand an immediate halt on on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania. Residents and workers’ health is being hurt, yet the industry is keeping toxic secrets, with help from far too many friends in high places.
Not to be forgotten in our outrage over PA public officials’ betrayal of public health: the big picture. Fracking accelerates climate change. Even as we post this, over 1.6 million people are without power from mega-storm Sandy; the death toll continues to rise. Extreme weather events are occurring, and will occur, more frequently and with greater severity due to climate change. Climate change is the greatest single threat to all of our health. Whether you drink water from a well that could be impacted — and you now know you are not protected by either our state or federal authorities — or whether you breathe air already impacted by the hundreds of thousands of diesel-powered truck trips, flowback waste emissions, compressor station emissions and pipeline leaks inherent in fracking; or whether you want our people to stop escalating the ravages of global warming, now is the time to speak up and demand change.
Fracking risks reduce value of properties
New economic study: Fracking risks reduce value of properties dependent on groundwater
switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/new_economic_study_fracking_ri.html
November 1, 2012
Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.
There is a new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)* working paper, from researchers at Resources for the Future and Duke University, on the effect that proximity to a shale gas well can have on property values. The researchers looked at more than 19,000 properties sold over a five year period in Washington County, Pennsylvania, and controlled for neighborhood amenities and other factors. Among the findings:
- Concerns about groundwater risks associated with drilling “lead to a large and significant reduction in property values” and “These reductions offset any gains to the owners of groundwater-dependent properties from lease payments or improved local economic conditions, and may even lead to a net drop in prices.”
- Well drilling seems to have impacts on properties up to 2000 meters from a well –more than a mile.
- Properties dependent upon groundwater for their drinking water are more likely to experience negative changes in property values than properties that get their water from a piped-in municipal water supply.
- Local economic development and lease payments associated with shale development can boost the housing market substantially, but only if the property has access to a public water supply.
- The researchers estimate that properties that get their water from public drinking water supplies saw increases in value of 10.7 percent, and speculate that this increase is most likely due to lease payments.
- The researchers estimate that these positive gains from lease payments were fully offset for properties that depend on private drinking water wells. This is due to the perceived risk to groundwater, which is estimated to decrease property values by 23.6 percent if there is a wellpad within 2000 meters.
- Net negative impacts on property values could lead to “an increase in the likelihood of foreclosure in areas experiencing rapid growth of hydraulic fracturing.”
We’ve blogged before about individuals who live near natural gas wells and want to move away, but whose property values have dropped too much, or who have not been able to sell their property at any price, or whose buyers have problems getting a mortgage. Families with contaminated drinking water are truly stuck unless they can find a new source of drinking water. Research such as this is very important to accompany these real life stories with data, and underscores the need for much stronger rules to protect drinking water sources from the risks of fracking.
*Despite its official sounding name, NBER is a private, non-profit entity, not a government program. The paper is also available for free on the website of Resources for the Future.