Large Spills, Leaks, Casing Failures Happen

“In praise of the science” — Too much politics in our federal agencies

From the Editorial on the Opinion Page, Morgantown Dominion Post, June 7, 2015

Another EPA study, another EPA overreaching finding. No, on Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a study that acknowledged what everyone knew. Everyone as in the gas and oil industry and its supporters, in politics and elsewhere.

One U.S. senator, who once compared the EPA to the Gestapo, described the report as “the latest in a series of failed attempts” by the Obama administration to link fracking to polluted drinking water. Never mind, that the EPA was formerly the devil’s spawn of the Obama administration, according to that senator and many in that industry.

Interestingly, that industry and its supporters are not championing another study. Also this week, a new study from University of Pittsburgh’s researchers found women living close to areas of high-density natural gas operations are more likely to have babies with lower birth weights than women living farther from such operations.

Let’s be clear. We, for one, have suspected for years that fracking posed a threat to drinking water and our water resources. However, we are willing to accept science: Fracking has not caused widespread harm to drinking water.

That study did cite instances where drinking water was affected by fracking, yet that number was small. The EPA insists that the question this study answered was not whether fracking was safe or unsafe.

Its purpose was to study “how do we best reduce vulnerabilities so we can best protect our drinking water and water resources.”

No one needs a study to know that in the past decade that the EPA has become an easy mark for criticism from across the board. But especially by some industry lobbyists, uh, rather, members of Congress and the Legislature. (We get them confused.)

Has the EPA made mistakes, implemented some misguided policies and overreached at times? Absolutely. However, since its creation, in 1972, the EPA is the primary reason for ending a range of industries’ best-worst practices.

Few who were not young adults and older then can understand how much has changed. Just think of our environment then and today in these terms: Night and day.

Still, it’s odd, how this agency is everyone’s scapegoat for everything, except when it agrees with them. Though some assert that the EPA is a tool of the Obama administration we don’t buy that.

Men and women grounded in science don’t take direction from politicians, or should not. It’s counter-intuitive to act according to politics and agendas, rather than research and data.

Science is no game where we can afford to accept or deny its results. Nor should clean water ever become a political football.

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

Range's Worstell Wastewater Impoundment (2013)

Truck driver sues Range Resources over injury claims from flow-back water

From an Article by Emily Petsko, Washington PA Observer-Reporter, May 8, 2015

A West Virginia truck driver is suing Range Resources over claims that company employees ordered him to keep working in wet clothes for hours after he was splashed with flow-back water at a Buffalo Township well site in Washington County, PA.

Russell Evans of Triadelphia (near Wheeling, WV) claimed he suffered chemical burns, blisters and rashes from the alleged incident May 21, 2013, at which time he was working for Equipment Transport LLC. The complaint was filed Wednesday in Allegheny County Court, in Pennsylvania.

Evans was transporting “reused” water a distance of about five miles to a well site in Buffalo Township, according to the complaint. During his second trip to the well site that morning, he backed his truck up to a “sloppy pond” used to store reused frack water and noticed that water was leaking from the back hatch of his tanker truck.

He claimed he was doused with water when he attempted to stop the leak and was told by a Range employee the water would not harm him. He claimed he was ordered to stay on site until he was cleared to leave, which was about two hours later.

Range employees roped off and swept the area where the spill occurred and made no attempt to examine Evans or arrange for him to take a “chemical bath,” he alleged. He claimed an employee told him to “wash the water off at a nearby McDonald’s.”

“Due to the fact that Mr. Evans was told the reused water was harmless, he remained in his wet clothes for several hours while he drove back to Equipment Transport LLC’s terminal in Dallas Pike, West Virginia,” the complaint alleged. “In total, Mr. Evans remained in these clothes for over four hours.”

Evans said he went to MedExpress when he developed a rash and blisters and claimed that physicians told him he could not be treated without knowledge of the chemicals he may have been exposed to. The complaint alleges Range “kept the chemical makeup of the fracking fluid a secret.”

He claimed he also was refused medical care at an emergency room in Wheeling a week after the alleged incident because of his inability to name the constituents of the water.

In addition to skin ailments, he claimed he suffered nausea, shortness of breath, indigestion, vertigo and headaches, as well as potentially permanent skin discoloration and permanent sensitivity to sunlight.

Evans’ wife, Karen Evans, also is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. She claims she suffered mental anguish and embarrassment and was deprived of the assistance and consortium of her husband.

Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said the company is still reviewing the complaint. He said the components of all industry materials, including reuse water, are disclosed by law.

“There are no secrets, especially when it comes to safety,” he said in an email. “Range’s commitment to safety is shared by the nearly 900 men and women who work here, and it’s ingrained in our culture. The single most important thing for us is making sure that every worker goes home safe at the end of their workday.”

George M. Kontos, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said they stand by their allegations.

“We certainly want to do all that we can to ensure that Range is held responsible for its actions in this case, and for misleading our client and the public about the harmful nature of this water,” Kontos said.

The plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages in an amount in excess of the arbitration limit, which is $35,000 in Allegheny County.