Archive for the ‘Drinking Water’ Category

4 Apr

Oil Companies Will Pay Out $320,000 to Montana Town as a Part of EPA Agreement

Posted by Kyle Hargus in Drinking Water, Oil and Gas Sector, Safe Drinking Water Act.

Photo by ESRL. Some rights reserved.

In December 2010, the EPA attempted to act via emergency order under the Safe Drinking Water Act against oil companies that they claimed were polluting the water supply of a small Montana town. Their attempt was appealed by these companies, and finally referred by a federal judge to mediation. However, as of last week, the EPA has finally settled with these three oil production companies operating on Montana’s Fort Peck Reservation (home to the Assiniboine and the Sioux tribes) over claims that their business has compromised the local water supply.

According to an EPA press release, the companies in question (Murphy Exploration & Production Co., Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., and SGH Enterprises, Inc.) have agreed to pay out $320,000 to the city of Poplar, MT (the nearest city to the reservation, whose population of 810 is made up predominately of Native Americans) in order “to reimburse costs related to water infrastructure and relocating water wells.” The companies have also pledged to fund the monitoring of the cities water supply over the coming months, and to fund further relocation/exploration of alternative water sources if it is deemed necessary by the EPA.

The EPA’s study claims that 40 million gallons of brine (an unwanted bi-product of oil and gas drilling and production) have entered Poplar’s water supply over the last five decades, and that while the quality of drinking water has not yet dipped below the acceptable safety level, it is in “imminent danger” according to EPA scientist Sarah Roberts. Studies of the local water have revealed increasing amounts of dissolved metals, chloride, and sodium in past years. The Poplar Public Water Resource carries drinking water to serve 3000 people in the greater Poplar area.

17 May

Let’s Hope This Sunlight Can Kill Coliform, Arsenic, and Bad User Interfaces

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Consumer Tools, Drinking Water, EPA, Transparency, Water.

Photo by mrhayata. Some rights reserved.

In the name of transparency, the EPA announced yesterday the release of several improvements to the availability and usability of drinking water data in the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) tool.

The updated Safe Drinking Water Act search page can ostensibly used to pinpoint violations of drinking water standards in any given individual’s community. The interface, however, leaves much to be desired.

A geographic search on the tool will return a list of violators in your area. However, because of the nature of any given city’s water systems, it can be difficult to know whether a specific discharge or exceedance of the maximum contaminant levels is affecting or has affected your neighborhood’s drinking water.

To boot, the page is riddled with acronyms whose explanations are difficult to locate, and – once you have the codes all figured out – it is still often unclear whether a given episode of noncompliance has been resolved.

If you agree that the functionality and usability of the Drinking Water Data Search could be improved, don’t be shy about letting the EPA know. They are currently accepting comments on the tool that will be used to improve the service.

13 May

Duke University Study Finds Methane Contamination in Drinking Water Near Fracking Sites

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Drinking Water, Global Warming, Hydraulic Fracturing, Wastewater.

Photo by Augapfel. Some rights reserved.

Last month it was Cornell, and this month it’s Duke, but all these universities are telling us the same thing: hydraulic fracturing comes with environmental risks.

While the study from Cornell focused on the global warming effects of methane that escapes from natural gas fracking, a recent study from Duke University found that escaped methane from shale wells is also making it into surrounding groundwater.

Specifically, concentrations of methane in drinking water wells near active drilling and extraction areas were found to be 17-times higher on average than in wells by non-active drilling areas.  “Although dissolved methane in drinking water is not currently classified as a health hazard for ingestion,” the study points out, “it is an asphyxiant in enclosed spaces and an explosion and fire hazard.”

Of course, the results of a study like this won’t go uncontested. One article questioning the study’s reliability points to an industry spokesman who claims that “the authors (of the Duke University study) admit they have no baseline data at all, which makes it impossible to characterize the state of those water wells prior to recent development.”

However, one good – and surprisingly less publicized – piece of news for the gas industry is that this particular study found no evidence of drinking water contamination from the fracturing fluids themselves or from “produced” water (wastewater that results from the fracking process). Still, the EPA announced yesterday that they are continuing to seek information from natural gas drillers on their wastewater disposal processes to “ensure that natural gas production takes place safely and responsibly.”

For more information on the study, check out this Fulbright & Jaworski Briefing.

12 Apr

To Frack or Not To Frack?

Posted by Hester Serebrin in Climate Change, Coal, Drinking Water, Global Warming, Hydraulic Fracturing, Natural Gas, Water.

Photo by Nigel Williams. Some rights reserved.

Hydraulic fracturing has received a lot of press since we originally reported on it (here and here), but probably nothing compared to the debate going forward.

On Sunday, April 10th, The Hill’s E2-Wire released a pre-publication version of a study from Cornell University concluding that natural gas obtained via “fracking” could be even worse for global warming than coal.

This downside is, of course, in addition to concerns about drinking water contamination in the areas surrounding hydraulic fracturing activities. The EPA is still preparing to undertake a study to “understand the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources.”

On Tuesday, April 11th, however, law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf published a client alert implying that hydraulic fracturing’s time has “finally come.” The alert suggested that heightened fears of nuclear fallout as a result of the crisis in Japan could mean a boost for “safer” sources of energy, and that the natural gas industry is “poised to benefit.”

Disagree? Perhaps you’ll be inspired to stand up to fracking, super-hero style.

8 Apr

High Levels of Lead, Low Levels of Communication

Posted by Hester Serebrin in CDC, Drinking Water, GAO, Lead, Toxic Substances, Water.

Image courtsey of CDC.gov. Some rights reserved.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) got a public lesson in post-publication clarification when the GAO’s report “CDC Public Health Communications Need Improvement” was published earlier this week.

The GAO report takes us back to Washington, D.C., in the year 2001, when the District’s Water and Sewer Authority became aware of lead levels in the area’s tap water that were surpassing the EPA’s limit of 15 parts per billion. The elevated levels – now attributed to a change made in the disinfection process in 2000 – were reported to both the EPA and the public starting in 2002.

In early 2004, the District of Columbia Department of Health (DCDOH) asked the CDC to assess the effects of the elevated lead levels on D.C. residents. CDC is generally responsible for developing lead poisoning prevention programs, as well as collaborating with federal and state partners to prevent lead poisoning. Elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) can cause behavior problems and learning disabilities in young children, as well as miscarriage in pregnant women.

In April of 2004, the CDC published their preliminary assessment in an article in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the agency’s “primary vehicle” for disseminating public health information.

But this particular dissemination of public health information backfired.

While the article suggested that no children tested had been found to have concerning BLLs, it was later established that some children’s BLLs had exceeded CDC’s “established level of concern.” According to CDC officials, the article “may have led some people to improperly minimize concerns about lead exposure and conclude that lead in the water had never been a problem.”

CDC took several steps toward addressing the confusion surrounding the article – for instance, the original online article is now preceded by two links to “Notices to Readers” published in 2010 that note the “limitations of methods employed and the manner in which findings were communicated.”

But it wasn’t enough. According to the GAO, “as of January 2011, CDC had no plans to publish an overview of the current knowledge about the contribution of elevated lead levels in tap water to BLLs in children, as suggested by a CDC internal incident analysis of issues surrounding the 2004 MMWR article.”

The GAO reports that the CDC has begun an initiative to revise procedures designed to “help ensure the accessibility and clarity of CDC public health communications,” but that the initiative does not address “how and when to take action about confusion after publication.” (emphasis added)

Therefore, the GAO recommends that CDC do the following: (1) publish an article providing a comprehensive overview of tap water as a source of lead exposure and communicating the potential health effects on children and (2) develop procedures to address any confusion after information is published. CDC has “generally concurred” with the recommendations.

You can find further resources on lead in drinking water – including specifics on the Washington, D.C. incident – from the CDC and EPA here and here, respectively.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 210 other followers

%d bloggers like this: