Latency periods vary for PFAS compounds and type of cancer

From the Article by Allen Siegler, Mountain State Spotlight, May 2, 2023

State lawmakers passed the PFAS Protection Act to start controlling pollution in drinking water. While a step in the right direction, many are concerned that it prolongs health hazards for West Virginians.

In the 1990s, when Chuck Crookshanks worked as a teacher at Parkersburg South High, a student told him about her family’s farm and how dozens of their animals had grown physical deformities. “Not only the livestock, but also other animals near it,” Crookshanks recalled. “Deer, frogs and anything else that was around it. It was pretty remarkable.”

He said she was one of the first people he remembers raising concerns with the Washington Works plant in Parkersburg; a few years later, these concerns led to a mid-2000s high-profile lawsuit against chemical company DuPont, a lawsuit which linked the factory’s hazardous chemical pollution to diseases like kidney and testicular cancer.

Those chemicals are now often grouped with a broader group of cancerous, man-made concoctions called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. And PFAS, from both past and present polluters, continue to concern Crookshanks.

His house, between Ravenswood and the unincorporated town of Murraysville, is about 25 miles down the Ohio River from Washington Works. Crookshanks said his wife, Tammy, worries often about what invisible chemicals are present in the water from their well. “She brought it up probably in the last couple of weeks, wanting to get the water tested,” Crookshanks said.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it had reached a deal under the Clean Water Act for the plant, now owned by the Chemours Company, to address PFAS pollution. But the so-called “forever chemicals” have already been found in drinking water systems around the state.

While state lawmakers passed a bill in March to take steps toward identifying and contemplating action for affected public water systems, the bill does not require the state’s Department of Environmental Protection or any other group to remove the chemicals from drinking water yet. As a consequence, experts believe it could be years before many West Virginians can drink tap water and be assured that it won’t increase their risk of diseases like cancer.

“Why do you need another year or two years to figure that out when that’s been known for 22 years?” said Robert Bilott, an attorney with Taft Stettinius & Hollister who has led many lawsuits related to the chemicals.

Some monitoring, and some prolonged unknowns ~ Although there is scientific consensus that they increase health risks, PFAS are still used ubiquitously by manufacturing companies. The chemicals are effective at keeping liquids from seeping through material, and they are commonly used in products like candy bar wrappers and waterproof clothes.

When manufacturing plants use PFAS in their products, they can release them into the soil, water and air. All three methods risk contaminating people’s drinking sources, as chemicals released into the air can be absorbed by rain clouds and solid waste can seep into groundwater.

While the amount of PFAS in water is often highest at sites near polluting factories, it’s not uncommon for the chemicals to contaminate places far from the original source, meaning even West Virginians who live away from factories could still have the chemicals in their water.

“The thing about these forever chemicals is that they don’t break down,” said Angie Rosser, the executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition. “They accumulate in our bodies and accumulate in the food chain.”

The state’s new PFAS Protection Act intends to focus on contamination identified by a 2022 U.S. Geological Survey study of the state’s water treatment facilities. That study found nearly half of the facilities, many along the Ohio River or in the Eastern Panhandle, had at least one hazardous chemical above the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s recently-proposed regulations in their untreated water.

For the sites with documented contamination, the bill tasks the DEP with coming up with action plans that identify the source of the pollution and propose ways to limit West Virginians’ exposure. It also lays out plans for the government agency to test the sites’ water after treatment.

To combat future pollution, the bill requires West Virginia factories that discharge any PFAS into surface water to report that action to the DEP. It will limit the factories’ amount of pollution to the standards set by the federal government, and no more stringent, once they’re proposed and finalized.

While the Legislature did not designate money for the effort, DEP Deputy Director for External Affairs Scott Mandirola said the department is applying for federal grants, like funds from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to develop the action plans. “Our focus is on doing what the Legislature is telling us to do,” Mandirola said.

In the present, the bill doesn’t mandate any cleanup of PFAS in public drinking water. Some of that will likely come in the next two years, after the federal government finalizes its first-ever standards for the chemical under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Rosser worries about whether the action plans will prepare the WV-DEP to enforce the EPA’s future PFAS limits, but she thinks the bill will generate crucial data. “I would characterize it as a measured step,” she said.

Others are concerned the step is too measured, missing key information about the ways in which PFAS can endanger West Virginians’ drinking water. While the bill will provide more information about public water sources, it won’t monitor private wells that many, like Crookshanks, depend on. In an email, bill lead sponsor Clay Riley, R-Harrison, said if the state was to test private water, it would have required an additional bill that involved the Department of Health and Human Resources.

For Dr. Alan Ducatman, a WVU professor emeritus who has spent decades studying PFAS, that’s a big omission, as it’s how hundreds of thousands of West Virginians access water in their homes. “It’s hard to be confident that you know what’s going on if you’re worried about your personal water supply and can’t find that information,” Ducatman said.

Aileen Curfman lives in Berkeley County and also uses well water in her home. As the co-chair of the Sierra Club’s Eastern Panhandle group, she’s aware of the impacts PFAS can have and of the high levels recorded near her. As such, Curfman recently paid hundreds of dollars to test her water for the poisons. “There would be a lot of folks who could not afford it,” Curfman said.

It came back free from the hazardous chemicals. But if it hadn’t, she thinks she would have had to pay around $5,000 for a filter — something she thinks would have been necessary to ensure her water was safe to drink.

‘Getting the stuff out of the water’ ~ From Rosser’s understanding, the earliest that maximum PFAS drinking water contaminant levels would be enforced is 2025, meaning many West Virginians’ water will likely continue to be hazardous for the time being.

Bilott, the attorney who has litigated many PFAS-related cases, believes West Virginia’s continued-prolonging of any chemical cleanup to be unnecessary and inhumane. “DEP was notified that these chemicals were getting into drinking water supplies 22 years ago,” he said. “They should already have been doing this.”

Harry Deitzler, another attorney who has represented West Virginians harmed by PFAS, was dismayed that the state’s new oversight is limited to PFAS discharged directly into rivers and streams. From his experience in lawsuits he’s litigated, a major way the chemicals enter people’s drinking water is when they’re released into the air and enter the water cycle.

Riley didn’t answer why the PFAS Protection Act didn’t address airborne pollution, instead responding that most air regulation comes from the federal government.

When asked what state residents should do until enforcement takes effect, he said the “EPA is still trying to understand the science and impact related to PFAS. I recommend people educate themselves about the topic.”

Bilott rejected the premise that the EPA is still trying to figure out the health impact of the chemicals, and he pointed to their health guidelines released last summer as evidence. He thinks rather than calling for West Virginians to educate themselves, the onus should be on the companies that caused the health hazards. “It shouldn’t be the burden of the impacted community to address that contamination,” Bilott said.

To Ducatman, the professor emeritus with the WVU School of Public Health, there are many more steps both the WV-DEP and the state Legislature could take to protect residents’ health. Those include creating a robust effort to test private wells, prohibiting factories in the state from using PFAS unless the chemicals are essential and monitoring industrial pollution beyond self-reporting.

Ducatman realizes that this type of effort could be costly, time-consuming and resource-intensive. But, from a public health standpoint, he sees it as crucial for West Virginians. “People’s health will improve,” Ducatman said. “Have no doubt about that. Getting the stuff out of the water is good for people.”

Support Mountain State Spotlight ~ We are a nonprofit investigative newsroom that exists to give West Virginians the information they need to make our state a better place. As a nonprofit, we rely on your help to power our journalism. We are committed to lifting up voices that aren’t always heard and spotlighting solutions that are making a difference.

>>>>>>>#######>>>>>>>#######>>>>>>>>

See Also: US EPA Takes Unprecedented Action to Tackle PFAS Water Pollution, Tom Perkins, The Guardian, May 6, 2023

EPA has ordered chemical company Chemours to stop discharging high levels of toxic PFAS into the Ohio River at Parkersburg

The most complete compilation of evidence on drilling & fracking

From an Article by EcoWatch, May 11, 2021

What is fracking? — Fracking is a process of blasting water, chemicals and frac sand deep into the earth to break up sedimentary rock and access natural gas and crude oil deposits. The fracking industry, which has sought to promote the practice as safe and controlled, has preferred the term “hydraulic fracturing.”

Fracking emerged as an unconventional, “relatively new” and extremely popular technique only about 20 years ago in the U.S., after advances in technology gave it an unprecedented ability to identify and extract massive amounts of resources efficiently.

Fracking is one of the most important environmental issues today, and it’s a prime example of how a new technology that offers immediate economic and political benefits can outpace (often less obvious) environmental and health concerns.

Why is fracking so controversial? — Modern fracking emerged so quickly, faster than its impacts were understood. Just as importantly, once scientists, health experts and the public started to object with evidence of harm it was causing, business and government succeeded in perpetuating a message of uncertainty, that more research was necessary, further enabling the “full speed ahead” fracking juggernaut.

How does fracking impact the environment? — Fracking’s supporters have pushed an environmental angle, insisting that natural gas can be a “bridge fuel,” a cheaper, cleaner option than coal before we have a large-scale transition to renewable energy. This claim has some merit, as natural gas does emit much less carbon dioxide than coal or oil. However, it is still a fossil fuel, adding harmful emissions while the climate crisis worsens. Moreover, fracking wells leak methane, a greenhouse gas more than 25 times more potent than CO2.

Water — In order to break up rock formations one to two miles deep, a fracking operation requires millions of gallons amount of water. After it’s used, the resulting wastewater, which contains chemicals is pumped back into injection wells, sent to treatment plants, or can be dangerously dumped or spilled.

In 2016 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report skewed friendly to industry in its language: Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States. The EPA acknowledged that drinking water contamination was possible, but ultimately came to this conclusion: “Data gaps and uncertainties limited EPA’s ability to fully assess the potential impacts on drinking water resources locally and nationally.”

Earthquakes — According to the U.S. Geologic Survey, disposal of wastewater has caused an increase in earthquakes in the central U.S. Seismologists have reported that fracking’s initial blasting process can trigger earthquakes.

Air Pollution — In addition to methane, fracking releases many toxic contaminants into the air. EPA has acknowledged the public health threat, but a lack of urgent political pressure has sidelined the agency into advising on ways to control and reduce, rather than eliminate, the danger.

Toxic Chemicals — Fracking fluids contain unknown chemicals and known carcinogens such as benzene. Fracking companies haven’t been required to disclose their proprietary formulas, however. This is yet another example of how uncertainty serves as an enabling force. The EPA has identified more than 1,000 different chemicals used in fracking fluid.

Wildlife — Fracking can destroy wildlife habitats, pollute rivers and fisheries, poison birds, and use up water supplies that animals need to survive.

How does fracking affect the economy? — The fracking boom made the U.S. the world’s largest producer of oil and gas, reducing its energy imports from 26% to less than 4%. It has lowered oil and gas prices and created thousands of industry jobs. While fracking companies profited greatly at first, as prices dropped their margins collapsed. Many are now going bankrupt.

How is fracking regulated? — Congress has enabled the oil and gas industry to be exempt from such regulations as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Fracking surged during the Obama administration, which moved to protect water from fracking on federal lands in 2015. Subsequently, the Trump administration sought to roll back protections and expand fracking on federal lands.

Key Examples of Fracking in the United States

Pennsylvania — Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale is the source for about 40% of shale gas production in the U.S.

New York — While the Marcellus Shale also runs through New York, the state has banned fracking.

Texas — Texas produces more crude oil than any other state.

North Dakota — The Bakken Shale in North Dakota has been one of the main sites for the fracking boom and subsequent bust, leaving behind extensive environmental damage.

A recent report found that all 50 states could provide 100% (or even greater) in-state renewable energy.

Other Countries — Outside the U.S., only Canada, China and Argentina have commercial fracking operations. A UN report in 2018 said that other countries were “highly unlikely” to produce at such a large scale as the U.S., due to political and cultural factors, and existing infrastructure.

The Future of Fracking — While renewables were considered a solution for “peak oil” only a decade ago, fracking changed the terms of the debate, with a new focus from environmentalists to “keep it in the ground” starting in 2015.

The Biden administration now stands at a pivotal moment in the climate crisis. Biden’s stance on fracking is not yet entirely clear, but he has rejoined the Paris agreement and appears to take climate seriously. At the same time, he is sympathetic to workers in fossil fuel industries, was vice president during the fracking boom years under Obama, and may be more inclined to seek a gradual transition than one fast enough to help solve the crisis.

>>>>>>>>……………………>>>>>>>>……………………>>>>>>>>

See also: Fracking 101 from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Melissa Denchak, April 19, 2019

Hydraulic fracturing has upended the global energy landscape and made fossil fuels big business in the United States. Mounting evidence shows that it poses serious threats to our health, environment, and climate future. Here’s a look at the fracking boom and its increasing risks.

Virtual Tour of Upper Delaware River now available (below)

From an Article by Zola Teirstein, Grist Magazine, March 3, 2021

Fracking got banned in parts of four states, and the industry is livid.

The Delaware River Basin, a 13,539-square-mile area bisected by a sparkling river that stretches from New York’s Catskill Mountains to the Delaware Bay, is officially closed to fracking. Last week, a little-known but powerful interstate commission called the Delaware River Basin Commission, or DRBC, voted 4-0 to make a 2010 de facto ban on fracking in the basin permanent.

The ban, which outlaws fracking in Marcellus Shale gas deposits in the parts of the four states that fall within the basin’s boundaries, is the result of more than a decade of work by regional environmental groups and growing public opposition to fracking. It may be the biggest anti-fracking milestone in the Northeast to date.

Vermont, Maryland, and New York state permanently banned fracking in 2012, 2017, and 2020, respectively, but Vermont doesn’t have any natural gas to speak of, while Maryland and New York have small reserves.

Seven Pennsylvania counties within the Delaware River Basin sit over the northeast’s Marcellus Shale rock formation, which holds trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Natural gas is extracted from the shale via a process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which typically involves shooting pressurized water mixed with sand and chemicals — some of which, like methanol, are hazardous to human health — into the shale to crack it open. Those chemicals can seep into the surrounding environment and have been found in drinking water supplies.

“This is a really important win both for the environment, for the Delaware River Basin and for all the groups who have been fighting this for so long,” Wes Gillingham, associate director of Catskill Mountainkeeper, one of the environmental groups that has been pushing the DRBC to adopt a permanent fracking ban, told Grist. “To see the whole basin protected, the whole watershed, this whole ecosystem which is one of the most pristine ecosystems on the East Coast, it’s a wonderful thing to be part of.”

The official ban on fracking in the basin has been a long time coming. The DRBC, made up of the governors of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware along with the northeastern division head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, started kicking around the idea of regulating hydraulic fracturing in 2008 in response to Pennsylvania’s shale boom and stopped approving new drilling in the basin in 2010 while it figured out what kind of permanent regulations to adopt. The commission faced pushback from a group of landowners in gas-rich Wayne County, Pennsylvania, in 2016, who sued the DRBC in federal court, arguing that the commission didn’t have jurisdiction over their land. That lawsuit was thrown out, and in 2017, the commission proposed a permanent ban on fracking that was finally officially adopted last Thursday.

The Wayne County lawsuit, however, was brought back from the dead on appeal in 2018 and is still ongoing today. That lawsuit will play out in Pennsylvania over the coming months or maybe even years, but it’s clear that the landowners don’t have the support of their Democratic governor. In a statement read aloud at the DRBC hearing approving the fracking ban last week, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf said he was “proud to join with other DRBC commissioners in preserving the water resources of this unique region for generations to come.”

Natural gas groups are livid about the DRBC’s decision and the federal government’s role, or lack thereof, in the vote. The Army Corps of Engineers representative abstained from voting for or against the fracking ban last week, saying that the Biden administration was still undergoing a period of transition and didn’t give the corps a direct command on how to vote. “This vote defies common sense, sound science, and is a grave blow to constitutionally protected private property rights,” David Callahan, the president of an industry group called the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said in a statement. “We were hopeful that President Biden would keep his vague commitment to not ban fracking, as he told Pennsylvania voters over and over.” Biden has not banned fracking — he can’t do that without congressional approval — but he has imposed a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on public lands.

Environmental groups aren’t totally happy with the ban, either. It doesn’t prohibit the export of water from the Delaware River to areas outside of the watershed for fracking projects, nor does it ban the import of fracking wastewater from outside projects. However, the DRBC voted 5-0 to approve a resolution to start the rulemaking process for imports and exports of water for and from fracking. “Hopefully we can extend the fracking ban farther and farther,” Gillingham said. “Every day, there’s more science that comes out that shows this is really not safe, and that’s not even mentioning what it’s doing to our climate.”

>>>>>>>>………………>>>>>>>…………………>>>>>>>

Virtual Tour – Upper Delaware Scenic & Recreational River (U.S. National Park Service), December 9, 2020

Created for the National Park Service Centennial celebration, the Upper Delaware Virtual Tour, in five separate modules, is an interactive reference guide to the outstandingly remarkable values of the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. Click on any modules below to explore the 73 miles of Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River which preserves and protects one of America’s most important wild and scenic rivers.

https://www.nps.gov/upde/learn/virtual-tour.htm

A most unusual legislative session comes to an end

From: West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Kathleen Tyner, ktyner@wvrivers.org

Location: Charleston, WV — Date: April 8, 2021

Ready for some good news? The dangerous bill that would exempt certain oil & gas storage tanks from the Aboveground Storage Tank Act appears to have been defeated!

Yesterday, 4/8, was the last meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where HB 2598 was sitting. The bill was on the agenda on 4/7, then late that evening it got pulled off and never came back. Because the Committee did not advance the bill before the deadline, it “died” in the committee. This means over 880 oil and gas storage tanks will remain under the protection of the Aboveground Storage Tank Act!

This victory demonstrates the power of persistent citizen advocacy. Over the course of the legislative session, more than 20,800 messages were sent to members of the WV Legislature on the dangers of this bill.

Defeat of this bill is a good reminder that every email and every call makes a difference. Thank you for your dedication to clean, fresh, safe water in West Virginia!

WEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION
3501 MacCorkle Ave SE #129 | Charleston, West Virginia 25304
304-637-7201 | wvrivers@wvrivers.org

Injection wells operated at high pressure are an accident waiting to happen

Announcement from Ryan Clover, Halt the Harm Network, March 8, 2021

Are you concerned about injection wells? Want to meet other people working to prevent them?

Not sure if you’ve seen this yet – but FracTracker put together a report about disposal wells in PA and Matt Kelso will join us this Friday at our weekly live event.

Matt is the Manager of Data and Technology at FracTracker, so I’m sure we’ll have lots to discuss. I look forward to seeing what comments or questions you bring to the conversation on Friday.

§§§. MARCH 12, 2021 @ 2 PM
Coffee Break with FracTracker Alliance –
Pennsylvania’s Waste Disposal Wells –
A Tale of Two Datasets

Coffee Break is a weekly live-stream discussion to talk about the latest with researchers, leaders, community organizers, filmmakers, and artists standing up to fracking and the oil & gas industry.

This week’s guest is Matt Kelso, Manager of Data and Technology at FracTracker Alliance. Stop by to meet Matt and learn about the work they’re doing to map the industry.

​Register here via Crowdcast​.

Thanks! — Ryan Clover,
Halt the Harm Network

Bottled water transported regularly

From an Article by Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 2, 2020

The Woodlands community in Butler County PA has dealt with water woes for a decade.

On a steamy Monday evening in July, just as they have done every other Monday for too long, Janet and Fred McIntyre unlock the double side doors of the White Oak Springs Presbyterian Church and wait for the first SUV or pickup truck to back into the short driveway.

Soon a line of vehicles forms along Shannon Road. They come for the water. They are residents of the Woodlands, an unincorporated, isolated rural community in Connoquenessing Township, Butler County, 35 miles north of Pittsburgh where 50 or 60 of the 200 homes have been without potable water for nearly a decade.

Their well water turned orange or brown or cloudy or contaminated in 2011, shortly after State College-based Rex Energy began drilling and fracking multiple gas wells into the Marcellus Shale.

Danielle Griffin has lived in the Woodlands for all of her 36 years and stopped by the church to pick up water for her family of six. As the gallon plastic water jugs, six to a box, were loaded into her vehicle, she said her family’s well water still has “particles” suspended in it.

“I just don’t trust it, and it gets old,” Ms. Griffin said. “We’re stuck in a hard place. We’ve had our animals get sick drinking the water and our pet hamsters developed tumors. It’s not a good situation. A lot of people are tired of it.”

Ms. McIntyre said the church’s “Water for the Woodlands” program, which for the last eight years has bought and distributed 400-500 gallons of water each week with few exceptions, has been a godsend for her community. But she and many others wonder why a permanent fix for the Woodlands’ water problems can’t seem to find traction.

“The county has received millions of dollars in impact fees from gas drilling over the years,” Ms. McIntyre said. “Why couldn’t some of that go to put public water in our homes? But it never happens. We just keep getting put off to the side, put on a back burner.”

The McIntyres were one of nine Woodlands families to file a lawsuit alleging Rex ruined their water wells, and the company settled their claims in April 2018 for $159,000. Each family received between $16,250-$27,125, according to spending disclosures Rex was required to make when it filed for bankruptcy in May 2018.

The money is nice, but it doesn’t solve the bigger problem. “We just want to turn on our faucet and have good water come out,” she said. “We’ve lived through enough.”

Since 2011, when the state first began collecting impact fees for each shale gas well drilled, the Public Utility Commission has collected almost $1.5 billion. It has distributed $16.8 million of that to Butler County, including $2.1 million last month. Connoquenessing Township has received about $1.8 million over the past nine years, including $209,511 in July.

But none of that money has found its way to solving the water problems of the Woodlands, a 100-acre swath of forests, fields and mostly unpaved roads originally established more than 50 years ago by Pittsburghers as a hunting and fishing retreat.

When that venture went belly up, the land was divided into smaller parcels and sold at a sheriff’s sale. The new property owners, mostly working poor, built houses or moved in double-wide trailers and dug water wells of varying depths.

Residents say the well water was good until the shale gas drilling started. Beginning in 2009, Rex Energy drilled 32 wells on 12 pads within 2 miles of the Woodlands and had permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection to drill 32 more.

Woodlands residents complained that the well drilling and fracking caused severe nosebleeds, skin rashes and respiratory problems, and that the water was unusable for drinking, cooking and bathing. But water quality tests by Rex Energy and the PA-DEP were inconclusive in establishing a connection between the drilling and the bad water.

That assessment didn’t change after two of the nearby shale gas wells were later discovered to have bad “casings” — the concrete sleeves that are supposed to prevent drilling and fracking fluids and gas from escaping the wells and contaminating underground aquifers.

Jenna Alexander, daughter of Janet McIntyre and a volunteer at the water distribution site, lived in the Woodlands but moved out of the area because of the water problems. She first became aware of the problems 10 years ago when she noticed an oily sheen on well water she was using to wash the baby bottles for her then 9-month-old daughter, Peyton.

“Our water went from great water to not being able to drink it,” Ms. Alexander said. “I knew that it wasn’t safe or healthy for a baby to even bathe in it, let alone drink it.”

John Stolz, a professor of biological sciences and director of the Center for Environmental Research and Education at Duquesne University, who has studied the Woodlands’ water issues, said the casing failures may have allowed escaped fluids and gas to pressurize underground formations and push around other contaminants including iron, manganese, oil and gas from shallow old and abandoned wells in the area.

“My 2015 study shows it’s not so much the fracking fluids that have contaminated the water wells, but it’s still the shale gas wells that have damaged the Woodlands’ water supply,” Mr. Stolz said.

Rex Energy went bankrupt in 2018, but its assets were purchased for $600 million by PennEnergy Resources, and Mr. Stolz said additional shale gas drilling in the area could exacerbate the Woodlands water problem.

Mr. Stolz said the county and township impact fee money should be used to extend public waterlines and connections into the Woodlands, a project that would cost approximately $1 million.

“What is the purpose of an impact fee,” he said, “if the money isn’t spent on people in the shale gas drilling fields who are impacted?”

Kevin Boozel, one of three county commissioners and the only Democrat, said there is impact fee money available to support a bond for the public waterlines in the county’s infrastructure bank fund. But the township would need to apply for it and there doesn’t seem to be a consensus for that, he said.

“There are different perspectives. Some residents living there don’t want township water,” Mr. Boozel said. “We can’t run water to some and not all. But should the municipality have interest, I guarantee we would look at it.” Although the water bank at the church has been operating for eight years now, he recognizes it isn’t a viable long-term solution. “I know this will come to a head eventually,” he said.

Every Thursday or Friday, a truck from Crystal Pure Bottled Water of Altoona, Blair County, delivers approximately 70 cardboard cases, each containing six, one-gallon plastic water jugs, to the church.

Every Monday in the morning or evening on alternating weeks, volunteers distribute between 400 to 500 gallons to Woodlands residents in amounts that vary depending on the size of their households.

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the water bank pickups at the church had to shut down in March, but the McIntyres continued to deliver water jugs to Woodlands residents’ porches. The distribution at the church reopened in late July to increased demand, likely due to more people working at home or becoming unemployed.

The Rev. Lee Dreyer, who established the water bank at the church and still heads up the Monday morning distribution, said it’s a “Band-Aid,” but a necessary one.

“What is needed is to have water piped into the Woodlands neighborhood, but that’s not happened because those folks are, by and large, the forgotten poor,” said Mr. Dreyer, who retired in June 2019. “They live without a lot of services that most people take for granted. They are in the situation they are in because they don’t carry a lot of political weight locally or with the county. They are kind of powerless.”

Rev. Dreyer said he doesn’t see the situation changing anytime soon, and so will continue to focus on collecting donations to pay for the water. That task was made a bit easier when the Water for the Woodlands program received a $13,484 grant in June through Marcellus Outreach Butler, a local environmental organization, from the Ohio River Valley COVID-19 Response Fund.

According to a news release from Marcellus Outreach Butler (MOB), the grant will allow the program to provide water for up to 60 families for 32 weeks. MOB, which opposes shale gas development, also has called on the Butler County commissioners, the Connoquenessing Township supervisors and state and federal elected officials to provide funding for a Woodlands waterline.

Michael Badges-Canning, a MOB spokesman, said the county has used impact fees for repairs to the Alameda County Park swimming pool but never finds money for the Woodlands. “So people can swim at the county park but people in the Woodlands can’t take a bath,” Mr. Badges-Canning said. “We’d like to see the drilling impact fees spent on real impacts.”

>>> Donations to the Woodlands water bank can be made by a check made out to “Water for The Woodlands,” c/​o White Oak Springs Presbyterian Church, 102 Shannon Road, Renfrew, PA 16053.

Special Report for 2019 & Look Ahead to 2020

Dear Friend of WV Rivers,

I am Angie Rosser, the executive director of West Virginia Rivers Coalition and today I want to share with you a special year-end report on WV Rivers’ programming and achievements towards cleaner water and healthier streams in West Virginia.

For 30 years, WV Rivers has been the voice of West Virginia’s rivers and streams; and this year, WV Rivers experienced more public engagement in our programming than ever before. So far, we facilitated 46,582 citizen actions on policies that affect our water.

Were you one of the citizen advocates that stood up for clean water through WV Rivers’ action alerts?

Next year, West Virginia’s water will be facing some big challenges, and we’ll need everyone to step-up and do their part to make our water safe and our streams wild and healthy.

WV Rivers depends on donations from supporters like you to move our mission forward. You can join the movement for clean, safe West Virginia water by making a year-end, tax-deductible donation.

Learn how WV Rivers will put your donation work to expand our clean water programming in 2020 here.

Thank you very much for your help at this time.

Angie Rosser, Executive Director
West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Unit # 129
3501 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
Charleston, WV 25304

Contact Info: 304-637-7201

#########################

SPECIAL REPORT from WV Rivers

Fracking wastewater (“brine”) is mainly transported by tanker trucks

From an Article by Kate Mishkin, HD Media, May 12,2019

State and federal regulators are skirting their obligations to protect West Virginia’s drinking water from the effects of fracking, a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council says.

The report, made public this week, examines the way the state Department of Environmental Protection regulates oil and gas underground injection activities, and how hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can threaten underground drinking water if operators aren’t held accountable.

By examining records from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the group detailed the times the state was inconsistent in its reporting, and found it often sidestepped the state underground injection control program, and federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.

In some cases, companies submitted reports that said they’d been injecting wastewater under an expired permit, and that wells had been abandoned without being plugged.

Companies extract natural gas by shooting water, chemicals and sand at a high pressure into wells, often generating large amounts of wastewater, which can contain contaminants such as radiation and heavy metals. Companies often dispose of the large quantities of wastewater by injecting it underground.

And as companies continue to tap into the sprawling Marcellus Shale, the amount of wastewater injected grows, too – “exacerbating the need for safe waste-management practices,” the report says.

“It is crucial that underground injection be properly designed, constructed, operated and maintained – and eventually plugged and abandoned – to ensure that they do not threaten underground sources of drinking water protected by federal and state statutes,” the report says.

In many cases, though, the state DEP allowed companies to inject without a permit, continue to operate without applying for a renewal permit before the permit expired and continuing to inject after the DEP issued an order stopping it.

The wells, the report says, “reveal a pattern of unsafe practices and lax enforcement over the years. Any improperly operated well has the potential to cause environmental problems, and potential violations should be taken seriously.”

There are currently three active disposal wells that have received Notices of Violations but haven’t been abated, said Terry Fletcher, a spokesman for the DEP. Of those, two have been abated but aren’t in the department’s database; one well isn’t injecting.

“The WVDEP acknowledges that abandoned and unplugged wells are a legitimate issue and has been working with well operators and others within the industry to find viable solutions to this issue,” Fletcher said.

He said the DEP hasn’t logged any incidents of groundwater contamination from a UIC disposal well.

The EPA declined to answer questions about the report.
“Until we’ve had a chance to read it, it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment,” a spokeswoman for the EPA said.

Amy Mall, senior policy analyst for the NRDC, said some of the failure comes from a lack of accountability. “I think there’s a combination of the fact that a lot of these sites are in rural areas, companies may think nobody’s watching them [and] nobody’s going to find out if they don’t fully comply with the law,” she said.

And in many cases, companies don’t have a reason to be deterred from breaking rules, Mall said. “Companies don’t have the incentive to comply with the law unless there’s strict enforcement and penalties, otherwise there’s no incentive for them to comply,” she said.

The report recommends the DEP establish stronger operating standards, enforce its rules and be more transparent. It asks the federal Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act in the state.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

REFERENCE: West Virginia’s Groundwater Is Not Adequately Protected from Underground Injection, Amy Mall, NRDC, April 30, 2019

SUMMARY — This paper provides an overview of how the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control program regulates oil and gas underground injection activities. It then examines aspects of the program that are out of date and ine ective at meeting the statutory goal of protecting underground sources of drinking water. In particular, the paper analyzes the status of the underground injection control program in West Virginia, where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to incorporate any state requirements under EPA authority for federal enforcement. The paper also provides recommendations for improvements in the policies of both the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and the EPA.

Well pads are purple, UIC wells are chartreuse & earthquakes are orange

From an Article by Kate Mishkin, Charleston Gazette – Mail, May 2, 2019

State and federal regulators are skirting their obligations to protect West Virginia’s drinking water from the effects of fracking, a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council says.

The report, made public this week, examines the way the state Department of Environmental Protection (WV-DEP) regulates oil and gas underground injection activities, and how hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can threaten underground drinking water if operators aren’t held accountable.

By examining records from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the group detailed the times the state was inconsistent in its reporting, and found it often sidestepped the state underground injection control program, and federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.

In some cases, companies submitted reports that said they’d been injecting wastewater under an expired permit, and that wells had been abandoned without being plugged.

Companies extract natural gas by shooting water, chemicals and sand at a high pressure into wells, often generating large amounts of wastewater, which can contain contaminants such as radiation and heavy metals. Companies often dispose of the large quantities of wastewater by injecting it underground.

And as companies continue to tap into the sprawling Marcellus Shale, the amount of wastewater injected grows, too — “exacerbating the need for safe waste-management practices,” the report says.

“It is crucial that underground injection be properly designed, constructed, operated and maintained — and eventually plugged and abandoned — to ensure that they do not threaten underground sources of drinking water protected by federal and state statutes,” the report says.

In many cases, though, the WV-DEP allowed companies to inject without a permit, continue to operate without applying for a renewal permit before the permit expired and continuing to inject after the WV-DEP issued an order stopping it.

The wells, the report says, “reveal a pattern of unsafe practices and lax enforcement over the years. Any improperly operated well has the potential to cause environmental problems, and potential violations should be taken seriously.”

There are currently three active disposal wells that have received Notices of Violations but haven’t been abated, said Terry Fletcher, a spokesman for the WV-DEP. Of those, two have been abated but aren’t in the department’s database; one well isn’t injecting.

“The WVDEP acknowledges that abandoned and unplugged wells are a legitimate issue and has been working with well operators and others within the industry to find viable solutions to this issue,” Fletcher said.

He said the WV-DEP hasn’t logged any incidents of groundwater contamination from a UIC disposal well.

Amy Mall, senior policy analyst for the NRDC, said some of the failure comes from a lack of accountability.

“I think there’s a combination of the fact that a lot of these sites are in rural areas, companies may think nobody’s watching them [and] nobody’s going to find out if they don’t fully comply with the law,” she said.

And in many cases, companies don’t have a reason to be deterred from breaking rules, Mall said. “Companies don’t have the incentive to comply with the law unless there’s strict enforcement and penalties, otherwise there’s no incentive for them to comply,” she said.

The report recommends the WV-DEP establish stronger operating standards, enforce its rules and be more transparent. It asks the federal Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act in the state.

Public Meeting, Tuesday, January 8, 2019, Charleston, WV

Public Advisory from the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC), January 3, 2019

Contacts: Robin Blakeman, OVEC, 304-522-0246, robin@ohvec.org
Angie Rosser, WVRC, 304-437-1274, arosser@wvrivers.org
Janet Keating, CCM, 304-360-4201, keatingjanet49@gmail.com

What: On the eve on the fifth anniversary of the 2014 water crisis, community members are invited to gather for “WATER: A sacred gift, a human right, and our stewardship role”

When: 6 – 8 p.m. Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Where: Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 1600 Kanawha Blvd E, Charleston, WV 25311

More what: Community leaders will:
– Examine West Virginia water justice issues through a moral and faith-based lens
– Discuss current and legacy water pollution issues our community faces and ways West Virginia residents can be proactive in protecting safe drinking water
– Hold a candlelight vigil on the banks of the Kanawha River to mark the fifth anniversary of the West Virginia water crisis.

This event is free and open to the public. Light refreshments served.

Who: Invited speakers include: Delegates Barbara Fleischauer and Mike Pushkin

Confirmed speakers include: Angie Rosser (West Virginia Rivers Coalition), Genevieve and Karan Ireland, Robin Blakeman, (OVEC–Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition), Janet Keating (Creation Justice Ministries), Fr. Brian O-Donnell (West Virginia Council of Churches), Rev. Rose Edington (West Virginia Interfaith Power and Light), Gary Zuckett (West Virginia Citizen Action Group)

Co-sponsoring groups: OVEC–Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition / West Virginia Rivers Coalition / Creation Justice Ministries / West Virginia Citizen Action Group / West Virginia Council of Churches / West Virginia Interfaith Power and Light / Christians for the Mountains / CARE–Call to Action for Racial Equality

###
SOURCE: The Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, PO Box 6753, Huntington, WV 25773-6753. Email: info@ohvec.org Phone: 304-522-0246