EPA Announces Nationwide Action Plan to Address PFAS Water Contamination
Andrew Wheeler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s acting administrator, unveiled the Agency’s PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) action plan to address growing concerns around tainted drinking water and groundwater nationwide during a news conference on February 14 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In his address, Wheeler indicated the EPA will propose a regulatory determination, which is the next step in the Safe Drinking Water Act process, for establishing a federal maximum contaminant limit (MCL) for PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) by the end of 2019. Wheeler also said the Agency would continue its enforcement actions, clarify remediation strategies, expand monitoring of PFAS in the environment, and enhance the research and science for addressing the contaminants by developing new analytical methods and tools. The EPA’s current health advisory level for PFAS is 70 parts per trillion.
The National Ground Water Association applauds the EPA’s decision to move forward with the MCL process for PFOA and PFOS and urges the Agency to rely on sound science to make the determination as promptly as is feasible. Moving towards establishing an MCL will provide the national certainty required to ensure effective clean-up at sites around the country.
“PFAS contamination is a national crisis that requires national leadership, and the EPA’s announcement is an important step in providing that leadership,” said Lauren Schapker, government affairs director at NGWA. “As the EPA begins implementation of the PFAS management plan, NGWA will continue to work with the Agency to address the unique challenges facing rural areas and private well owners, and to ensure the technical and financial resources are made available to address the crisis.”
…..
PFAS / PFOS Drinking Water Testing of YOUR Water !
PFAS has been on NGWA’s radar for several years and will remain a priority issue for the foreseeable future. The Association has created a Groundwater and PFAS resource center for NGWA members. The center includes PFAS FAQs, top 10 facts about PFAS, and a homeowner checklist, among other items. NGWA is also the publisher of the guidance document, Groundwater and PFAS: State of Knowledge and Practice.
As in 2018, NGWA is hosting educational events on PFAS this year as well:
- PFAS in Groundwater Workshop: The Professional’s Challenge, June 18 in Westerville, Ohio
- The PFAS Management, Mitigation, and Remediation Conference, June 19-20 in Westerville, Ohio
- PFAS in Groundwater Workshop: The Professional’s Challenge, December 5 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
We are recommending the installation of a final barrier filter on your drinking water and you should learn more about the consumer products that contain PFOA and PFOS, because it is not just your drinking water.
Pennsylvania May Use Coal Mine Water for Hydraulic Fracturing Senate Bill 411
INTRODUCED BY KASUNIC, YUDICHAK, SOLOBAY, WOZNIAK, BREWSTER, ARGALL, WHITE, BAKER, HUTCHINSON, ERICKSON, VULAKOVICH, VOGEL, FERLO, BOSCOLA, ALLOWAY AND DINNIMAN, FEBRUARY 4, 2013
SENATOR YAW, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY, AS AMENDED, FEBRUARY 12, 2013
Mine water for beneficial uses.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, landowners, mine operators and water pollution abatement project operators that are involved in treating mine drainage or mine pool water from a permitted mining activity site or water pollution abatement project shall not be deemed to assume legal responsibility for or to incur liability with respect to a cost, injury or damage that arises out of or occurs in connection with the use of mine drainage, mine pool water or treated mine water in connection with the hydraulic fracturing process or other development of a gas well, industrial or other water supply or other beneficial use of the water
****
Comments by Brian Oram
1. This may have some conflicting language when compared to the Oil and Gas Law and the assume liability that is associated with natural gas development. I may have missed this section, but it would be nice if the law clearly stated this did not resend current provisions and assumed liability related to exiting Oil and Gas Law.
It does appears the assumed liability provision is limited to only the “Project Operators”- so that once the mine water leaves the site (i.e., the site where the mine water is collected or initially treated) – they, the Project Operators are no longer assumed liable for other uses beyond their control, i.e., liable for the use of the water by the Gas Company for Hydrofracturing. (Clarification is needed)
Therefore
A. Land-owner has mine drainage on the property- they or a third party – treat the mine water and then sell or give away to a water company.
B. The water is transported to a site.
C. Industry uses the water for hydraulic fracturing.
Think the the limit of liability is intended to only extend to A related to conyence by B and the use by C This type of liability provision is needed because many of the parties that fit the role of A are either 501 c3, watershed groups or public private partnerships that have nothing to do with the gas company.
2. This may require baseline testing be done in these regions to include additional parameters specific to the source and around treatment project sites.
3. It is possible this may result in decreased streamflows downgradient of withdrawal points – I am not sure how the river basin commissions will evaluate and if they may consider the need for a water withdrawal permit and consumption use fees, but I would assume a consumptive water use docket with provisions for treatment and by-pass flow maybe needed.
4. I like the provisions and hopefully this will more forward the use of degraded waters for hydraulic fracturing and help clean up impacted waterways in PA.
5. I do like the provisions, but for some streams baseflow associated with mine drainage may be a significant portion of the flow and it maybe necessary to maintain some by-pass flow with treatment.
6. Hope this encourages public private partnerships to address Acid mine drainage and mine drainage.
7. Would be nice if this program could be applied indirectly to the Northern Fields –No Gas Development, but it would be great to treat and clean the mine drainage and then issue some type of credit.
8. The law looks like it could be applied to discharges and releases of brine water associated with historic oil and gas development and not just mine drainage? (Clarification is needed)
9. I am not sure of the eligible land provision? Unless this relates to building some type of treatment structure, etc (Water pollution abatement project operator). (Clarification is needed)
10. The exemptions near the end of the document seem reasonable – I would assume this came from Senator Yaw – Very Nice.
11. I would recommend the Senators that support this document make the necessary clarifications of the intent, but this is something that is needed. I think this would have been a better approach then all the press releases on the topic. The goal should be to fix issues and get them resolved.
Additional Comments
Mine Drainage and/ or Acid Mine Drainage is the result of natural discharges and legacy issues related to the mining of the anthracite and bituminous fields in Pennsylvania.
Over 4,000 miles of streams in Pennsylvania are adversely impacted by mine and/or acid mine drainage. The most cost effective treatment approaches of these problems tend to be a mixture of land-reclamation and passive treatment systems. Many watershed groups and other organizations in Pennsylvania have been active in attempting to minimize the adverse impacts of mine drainage. One main limitation to the effective management and control of these discharges is the significant capital investment to implement the reclamation process and install the passive or semi-passive remediation system, but the largest hurdle is typically the long-term cost of maintaining these systems and liability that is associated with the operations and maintenance of these systems. The Senate Bill creates an opportunity for public and private partnerships to cover the initial cost for the installation of a more rapid and active treatment system and there is then the opportunity to put in place long-term funding for a passive treatment approach.
The Senate Bill has some key liability provisions. These provisions appear to be:
1. Provisions granted to the landowners and operators of the treatment system so they are no liable for the conveyance and ultimate use of the water. This is critical, because a watershed group or small business that is treating the water only and not hauling should not be liable for the conveyance and final use. This liability should rest with the individuals and companies that are transporting and using this water.
2. The proposed bill provides limits of liability associated with downgradient stream conditions. This provision is needed because it is possible that augmenting the flow of the stream by removing mine drainage will likely decrease water levels and flow volumes, but should eliminate the long-term pollution source. Even though it is not stated in this Senate Bill, it is likely that the river basin commission would play a significant role in reviewing consumptive use permits and may require a baseflow of treated water to maintain stream temperature and flow.
Some missing parts
The bill does require more context and specific language; because it appears the bill will extend to historic oil and natural gas development areas. Therefore, it is possible that some of the sites are releasing water that contains a mixture of brine, heavy oil residues, and other fugitive emission.
The bill may not address the status of the “sludge” generated by the remediation efforts. Does this sludge have a beneficial use or is it classified as a solid waste?
The bill does not address the issue of the need for a water withdrawal permit if the water is used for a consumptive water use
There needs to be a balance on the amount of withdrawal because in special cases excess water withdrawal may induce significant surface and subsurface impacts, such as subsidence and mine fire propagation.
This activity should not be conducted in combination with efforts to produce coal-bed methane gas.
Missing provisions for bonding.
http://www.bfenvironmental.com
http://www.water-research.net/Watershed/
Support Groundwater Education in Pennsylvania and Consider Scheduling an Education Workshop for Your Community – just email bfenviro@ptd.net
Carbon County Groundwater Guardians is a 501(c)(3) IRS approved nonprofit, volunteer organization and your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law.
State may limit drilling byproduct from being spread on farms
Pennsylvania is seeking to limit the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer on farmers’ fields if the sludge comes from sewer plants that treat wastewater from natural gas drilling.
Environmental regulators’ concerns about the sludge were highlighted in a New York Times article on Friday that described the risks of radioactive contaminants in the drilling wastewater concentrating in the sludge during treatment. The sludge, also called biosolids, is sometimes sold or given away to farmers and gardeners as fertilizer if it meets certain standards for pathogens and metals.
The Times article quotes from a transcript of a March 15 conference call between officials with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Environmental Protection about how to better regulate discharges of the wastewater that can be high in salts, metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials.
DEP is developing a guidance document about how to include new wastewater treatment standards into permits for new or expanding treatment plants that handle the drilling fluids. The new standards limit the amount of salty discharge, called total dissolved solids, that can enter state streams.
The draft guidance document would also bar treatment plants that receive untreated drilling wastewater from using their sludge for land application.
Ron Furlan, a division manager for DEP’s Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation, is quoted in the the New York Times as saying sludge was included in the guidance document because “we don’t have a good handle on the radiological concerns right now, and in any case we don’t want people land-applying biosolids that may be contaminated to any significant level by radium 226-228 or other emitters.”
The guidance does not carry the legal weight of a regulation and would not be imposed on treatment plants unless their discharge permit is up for renewal or they apply for a new or expanded permit.
The draft guidance also proposes that treatment plants accepting untreated drilling wastewater develop radiation protection “action plans” and have monitoring requirements for radium 226 and 228, gross alpha and uranium established in their permits.
In a letter this week to the EPA, DEP Acting Secretary Michael Krancer wrote that the state has directed 14 public water supplies that draw from rivers downstream from treatment plants that accept Marcellus Shale wastewater to test the finished drinking water for radioactive contaminants and other pollutants. The state also called on 25 treatment plants that accept the wastewater to begin twice monthly testing for radioactivity in their discharges.
Tests of seven state rivers at sites downstream from wastewater treatment plants last fall showed that levels of radioactivity were at or below normal levels.
In the conference call quoted by the New York Times, environmental regulators also expressed concerns about radionuclides settling in the sediment of rivers where the incompletely treated wastewater is discharged from sewer plants.
“If you were really looking for radionuclides, that’s the first place I would look,” Furlan said.
DEP spokeswoman Katy Gresh said Friday that there are currently no plans to begin testing river sediment for radionuclides.
“We will use the results of the increased testing/monitoring to see what is being discharged before making that decision,” she said.
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: April 9, 2011
http://citizensvoice.com/news/state-may-limit-drilling-byproduct-from-being-spread-on-farms-1.1130088#axzz1J1xZtYwG
Budget cuts tap out safe drinking water
In all of the debate on Capitol Hill about cutting budgets, you wouldn’t expect water to get a great deal of attention. But it should.
The Continuing Resolution set to emerge from the House this week makes drastic reductions in support for critical functions of the Environmental Protection Agency – the federal entity charged with protecting water supplies for hundreds of millions of Americans. But slashing the EPA’s budget, without shifting legal and financial responsibility to polluters, will leave America’s fisheries, drinking water supplies, and coastal areas vulnerable. No one else is guarding the door to the henhouse – quite literally, it turns out, when it comes to water pollution.
Industrial animal agriculture operations in the U.S. generate up to one billion tons of manure annually, most of which is applied – untreated – to cropland. As a result, according to the EPA, drinking water sources for an estimated 43 percent of the U.S. population have suffered some level of pathogen contamination associated with livestock operations, and 29 states have identified livestock feeding operations as a source of water pollution. In Congressional testimony, the U.S. Geological Survey identified livestock manure as the single largest source of nitrogen pollution in major rivers across the country, including rivers in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Arkansas, California and Wisconsin.
As food animal production in the U.S. has shifted from family farms to a concentrated industrial production system, efforts to protect the environment, rural communities and water supplies have not kept pace. These massive operations, housing thousands of hogs or hundreds of thousands of chickens in tight quarters, produce manure and other waste on an equally large scale, but continue to be regulated under a now-antiquated set of rules designed for small family farms. Corporations that own slaughterhouses, packing facilities and livestock often contract with farmers to raise the animals to the point of slaughter and argue that they bear no liability for compliance with Clean Water Act permits during the production period. The companies own the animals; the farmers are stuck with the manure.
Under this system, corporate owners have not been obligated to provide any financial assistance to farmers for the costs of waste treatment and disposal. As a result, local water utilities spend millions monitoring and treating this water pollution, and treasured gems like the Chesapeake Bay suffer from livestock-related pollution, while taxpayers pay the cleanup costs through EPA water programs. These programs are now on the chopping block.
Congressional efforts to find legitimate savings through efficiency and the elimination of waste in government programs are of course laudable. But members of Congress also have a responsibility to ensure that alternatives to government spending are identified so the health and welfare of millions of Americans is not jeopardized.
When it comes to water pollution, the polluters – and not the general public – should be responsible for cleaning up their own waste. It¹s time for industrial animal agriculture to pay its fair share.
By Karen Steuer – 02/15/11
Karen Steuer is Director of Government Relations for the Pew Environment Group.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144261-budget-cuts-tap-out-safe-drinking-water
DEP orders Tamaqua to fix sewer discharge
http://republicanherald.com/news/dep-orders-tamaqua-to-fix-sewer-discharge-1.1080322
DEP orders Tamaqua to fix sewer discharge
BY BEN WOLFGANG (STAFF WRITER bwolfgang@republicanherald.com)
Published: December 21, 2010
TAMAQUA – The borough has a little more than eight months to identify and reroute all illegal sewer discharge into Wabash Creek, the state Department of Environmental Protection ordered last week.
“The borough’s failure to address the problem left us with no choice but to order them to comply,” DEP’s Northeast Regional Director Michael Bedrin said in a written statement Monday.
According to DEP, at least two locations have been illegally discharging sewage directly into the creek, and there are 39 other potential illegal discharge sites.
The Tamaqua Public Library, 30 S. Railroad St., is one of the two confirmed locations, according to DEP.
DEP conducted dye tests earlier this year confirming the illegal discharge. Complaints about the discharge have been ongoing for several years and efforts to fix the problems have been unsuccessful, DEP said.
The discharges violate Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law.
“We want this addressed as quickly as possible,” DEP spokesman Mark Carmon said Monday. “This isn’t something new. They should have been looking at this for a while.”
DEP has ordered the library to connect to the borough sewer system by May 31, 2011. The other sites have until Aug. 31 to comply.
“There are no excuses for these violations. The borough was responsible for dealing with this pollution, failed in that responsibility and allowed raw sewage to be discharged into the creek,” said Bedrin.
DEP has ordered the borough to:
– Take whatever steps necessary to require the library to connect to the Tamaqua wastewater system
– Take whatever steps are necessary to investigate the sources of the sewage, notify owners of the problem and order them to correct it
– Identify any and all pipes funneling sewage directly into Wabash Creek
– Submit a report to DEP by Sept. 30 documenting the results of borough investigations and outlining the steps taken to address the problem
– Submit quarterly written progress reports
Tamaqua Mayor Christian Morrison and solicitor Michael Greek had no comment and directed all questions to borough manager Kevin Steigerwalt, who did return calls Monday.
Official seeks ordinance barring use of biosolids
http://www.tnonline.com/node/146100
Official seeks ordinance barring use of biosolids
Reported on Tuesday, October 26, 2010
By CHRIS PARKER cparker@tnonline.com
Lansford needs to have an ordinance in place barring the use of biosolids – commonly known as sludge – in the community, Tommy Vadyak of borough council’s Public Safety Committee said Monday.
He hopes that if Lansford adopts such an ordinance, surrounding communities will follow suit to the material, the byproduct of domestic and commercial sewage and wastewater treatment, out of the area.
Council may discuss the matter when it meets at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 9 in the borough’s community center at 1 W. Ridge St.
“It’s a safety matter,” he said. “Years ago, there were two young boys who died … I’m on the down side of life. It’s not to protect me, it’s to protect the youth coming up. I’m just looking out for their safety.”
Vadyak referred to 17-year-old Daniel Pennock of Mohrsville, Berks County, who died in 1995 days after coming in contact with biosolids used as fertilizer in a farmer’s field. Pennock died about six months after an 11-year-old Clearfield County boy, Tony Behun, died after riding his dirt bike across a strip mine where biosolids had been used.
He said there are few areas where biosolids might be used in Lansford. However, Lehigh Coal & Navigation of Pottsville has extensive mine pits in the Panther Valley where the substance could be used.
“I want to get a start here. Maybe if we get something started here, maybe the other communities around us will pick up on it and get one in place in their communities,” he said. “There are proper places to take biosolids; it’s not to dump it in our backyards.”
Vadyak said toxins from the material can be carried up to four miles on the wind. “I want to have a buffer,” he said. “Maybe we can get something going here to protect the whole area. This is not a dumping ground.”
Vadyak said that the biosolids matter surfaced in 1999-2000, when Lehigh Coal & Navigation of Pottsville proposed using the material to reclaim mine lands behind the Panther Valley High School in Summit Hill along Route 209 between Lansford and Nesquehoning. That plan was later dropped.
Lansford In June 2004 expected to adopt an ordinance governing biosolids, after neighboring Summit Hill adopted such an ordinance. That borough’s action was prompted by LC&N’s proposal to use biosolids, along with fly ash and kiln dust, for mine reclamation. The ordinance required that biosolids be tested for germs, chemicals, metals, radioactivity and material that would attract rodents.
Vadyak wants his council and those of neighboring communities to adopt an ordinance modeled after the much tougher one in place in East Brunswick Township, Schuylkill County, one that has withstood legal challenges at the state level.
East Brunswick’s ordinance will also likely be adopted Schuylkill Township supervisors. On Oct. 6, the Harrisburg Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility withdrew its plans to use biosolids in a Schuylkill Township mine reclamation project. The mine is on land owned by the county and leased to Premium Coal of Hazleton. The treatment facility and Material Matters, the Lancaster County consultant representing it, ran into a wall of opposition from residents and township officials.
Although Schuylkill Township has an ordinance in place regulating the use of the material, supervisors plan to update the law by adopting one based on the East Brunswick Township ordinance.
Packer Township to adopt environmental protection law
Published on Times News Online (http://www.tnonline.com)
http://www.tnonline.com/node/86740
Packer Township to adopt environmental protection law
By admin
Created 04/08/2010
The Board of Supervisors for Packer Township has voted unanimously to advertise an ordinance that would enable the municipality to adopt and enforce environmental protection standards exceeding those set by the State legislature.
The ordinance is being considered by the Township in wake of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s lawsuit to overturn an ordinance adopted in 2008 which bans corporate sewage sludge dumping within the township.
The vote to advertise the Packer Township Community Self-Government Ordinance is the necessary legal step prior to it being adopted by the township, which could occur as early as May 4.
The Board’s consideration of the ordinance followed a ruling by the Commonwealth Court on March 17 that let stand all but one provision of the Packer Township Sludge Ordinance, adopted in 2008.
Reacting to the attorney general’s legal filing in another municipal sludge ordinance case, in which he argued that “there is no inalienable right to local self-government” (Corbett vs. East Brunswick, January 31, 2008), Packer Township amended its sludge ordinance to remove authority from the attorney general to enforce state laws that violate community self-governing rights.
Claiming authority to sue to overturn the entire ordinance, Attorney General Thomas Corbett filed suit against Packer and on behalf of corporate waste haulers in August, 2009. Corbett requested the court nullify the ordinance without going to trial and find the ordinance void as a matter of law.
The opinion filed on March 17 stated that “Corbett’s Motion for Summary Relief is granted with respect to the amendment removing the authority of the Attorney General to enforce state law. The Motion for Summary Relief is denied with respect to all remaining issues.”
The new ordinance under consideration asserts that the “Pennsylvania legislature has repeatedly violated the right of Packer Township residents to govern their own municipality” and calls for “the outright nullification of the doctrine of preemption when it prohibits the people of Packer Township from adopting higher standards than those set forth in state law, but also requires the people of Packer Township to refuse to recognize the authority of the Attorney General or the courts, when those entities attempt to enforce the legislature’s illegitimate acts.”
“We know we’re pulling the tiger’s tail, but it’s not a question of which branch of government is more powerful; it’s a matter of right and wrong,” said Thomas J. Gerhard, chairman of the Packer Township supervisors. “It’s about justice and the denial of justice by the state, the legislature, the courts and the attorney general.”
How quickly the sewage sludge ordinance law suit moves forward in a politically packed year is up to the office of the attorney general. The state’s claim that dumping sewage sludge in rural communities is a “normal agricultural activity” protected by the state’s “Right to Farm” (ACRE) law will be one of the questions of fact before the court, as will the question of who has the right to govern in the municipalities of Pa.: corporate Boards of Directors and state regulatory agencies, or the people who live and raise families in those communities.
The case is Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Packer Township, 432 MD 2009.