Leaked EPA Test Results Show Fracking Poisoned Groundwater In Pennsylvania

Update: Meanwhile,  

Senator Coons praises EPA announcement on Renewable Fuel Standard requirements

 

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) released the following statement in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finalized Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) compliance requirements for refineries and importers for 2013 and the agency’s announcement regarding the 2014 requirements:

 

“Diversifying the sources of our liquid fuel production helps our country reduce its dependence on foreign oil while spurring American innovation. Since its implementation, the RFS has served as a critical driver for the development of second-generation biofuels, like cellulosic ethanol and bio-butanol, that utilize a variety of feedstocks and support a new, expansive job sector. Over the last year, however, uncertainty caused by drought, delayed volume targets, and the approaching E10 blend wall have strained the ability of refineries to comply with RFS requirements and placed additional pressure on limited corn supplies utilized by poultry producers.

 

“The new targets for 2013 announced today, as well as EPA’s announcement that it will address the blend wall in determining 2014 volumerequirements, will bring the demands of the RFS in line with market conditions, fuel demand, and refineries’ production capabilities, while giving refineries the additional time they need to meet this year’s benchmarks. I am pleased that the EPA has taken refiners’ concerns into account to develop realistic standards that support continued investment in renewable fuel development while ensuring our refineries and poultry producers can continue to compete.”

(DeSmogBlog) Steve Horn reports ~ Exclusive: Censored EPA PA Fracking Water Contamination Presentation Published for First Time

DeSmogBlog has obtained a copy of an Obama Administration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fracking groundwater contamination PowerPoint presentation describing a then-forthcoming study's findings in Dimock, Pennsylvania. 
The PowerPoint presentation reveals a clear link between hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") for shale gas in Dimock and groundwater contamination, but was censored by the Obama Administration. Instead, the EPA issued an official desk statement in July 2012 - in the thick of election year - saying the water in Dimock was safe for consumption.
Titled "Isotech-Stable Isotype Analysis: Determinining the Origin of Methane and Its Effets on the Aquifer," the PowerPoint presentation concludes that in Cabot Oil and Gas' Dimock Gesford 2 well, "Drilling creates pathways, either temporary or permanent, that allows gas to migrate to the shallow aquifer near [the] surface...In some cases, these gases disrupt groundwater quality."  
Other charts depict Cabot's Gesford 3 and 9 wells as doing much of the same, allowing methane to migrate up to aquifers to unprecedented levels - not coincidentally - coinciding with the wells being fracked. The PowerPoint's conclusions are damning. 

"Methane is released during the drilling and perhaps during the fracking process and other gas well work," the presentation states. "Methane is at significantly higher concentrations in the aquifers after gas drilling and perhaps as a result of fracking and other gas well work...Methane and other gases released during drilling (including air from the drilling) apparently cause significant damage to the water quality."
Despite the findings, the official EPA desk statement concluded any groundwater contamination in Dimock was "naturally occurring."
"EPA found hazardous substances, specifically arsenic, barium or manganese, all of which are also naturally occurring substances, in well water at five homes at levels that could present a health concern," read the EPA desk statement. "EPA has provided the residents with all of their sampling results and has no further plans to conduct additional drinking water sampling in Dimock."
Two EPA whistleblowers recently approached the American Tradition Institute and revealed politics were at-play in the decision to censor the EPA's actual findings in Dimock. At the heart of the cover-up was former EPA head Lisa Jackson. 

Former EPA Head Lisa Jackson's Role in Censoring Report 

EnergyWire's Mike Soraghan explained the studies were dropped - according to one of the unidentified whistleblowers close to the field team in Dimock - "out of fear the inquiries would hurt President Obama's re-election chances." 
Though the two EPA career employees' initial findings pointed to water contamination in Dimock - as seen in the PowerPoint presentation - their superiors told them to stop the investigation, in turn motivating them to blow the whistle.
One of the whistleblowers said he came forward due to witnessing "patently unethical and possibility illegal acts conducted by EPA management."
"I have for over a year now worked within the system to try and make right the injustice and apparent unethical acts I witnessed. I have not been alone in this effort," the unnamed whistleblower told Soraghan. "I took an oath when I became a federal employee that I assume very solemnly."

Meanwhile, EPA Vows To Revise Refinery Air Toxics Rules In 2014

EPA has reached a settlement agreement with environmentalists committing the agency to a late 2014 deadline for finalizing a package of revised air toxics rules for the oil refining sector, prompting criticism from industry groups that say it reflects a pattern of EPA's “sue-and-settle” deals with advocates setting deadlines for new rules.

The consent decree, filed Aug. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, commits EPA to propose by Feb. 14 and finalize by Dec. 19 rules updating maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emissions standards for petroleum refineries, or to propose and finalize rules finding that such revisions are unnecessary.

The agreement also covers under the same schedule a Clean Air Act-mandated risk and technology review to gauge if the existing MACTs achieve sufficient health protections eight years after their implementation.

The deal, which will not be final until EPA publishes it in the Federal Register and takes public comment, drew criticism from the American Petroleum Institute (API). “This is yet another example of EPA being sued and settling with environmental special interest groups, without involving affected industries, to undertake rulemakings on an arbitrary schedule,” Howard Feldman, API director of regulatory and scientific affairs said in an emailed statement.

If finalized, the deal will resolve a lawsuit that Air Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics and other environmental and public health groups filed on Sept. 27, 2012. The suit alleged EPA missed a mandatory air law deadline to update two MACT standards, “subpart CC” covering petroleum refineries and “subpart UUU” covering catalytic cracking units, catalytic reforming units and sulfur recovery units.

Environmentalists say that under the Clean Air Act's requirements to review the MACT standards every eight years, EPA was required to finalize rules updating or maintaining the petroleum refinery rules by Aug. 18, 2003, and the catalytic cracking and sulfur recovery rules by April 11, 2010.

Environmentalists in the lawsuit, Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, argued that EPA's failure to update the standards by the statutory deadline established by Congress was allowing the emissions of air toxics that harmed its members. According to court documents, EPA quickly entered into settlement discussions and reached a tentative settlement deal by May, but has not filed a formal settlement decree until Aug. 2.

EPA sent a pre-proposal version of the rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for inter-agency review on Sept. 4, 2012, but then withdrew the rules from OMB on March 12.

Days earlier, EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) had selected the refinery air toxics rules as one of three rules that might merit a novel pre-proposal scientific review. After months of discussions that SAB held amongst itself and with EPA officials to discuss the scientific issues of the rules, the board decided on a July 19 teleconference that it did not want to review the rules before they were proposed.

EPA on its website projects it will propose the refinery rules by November 2013. An EPA spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment about the cause of the apparent rulemaking schedule change.

http://insideepa.com/EPA-Blog/The-Inside-Story/menu-id-97.html

Login

insideepa.com

If you haven't already had a trial subscription to InsideEPA.com, you can sign up for one right now. Just click on the link below to get started -- you'll get full access for 

~*~