PA Regulators Falling Short on their Duty to Protect the Public from Fracking Risks

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is a process that blasts bedrock to create fractures for natural gas to escape form the bedrock. Fracking is used in unconventional wells that are extended horizontally from an initial vertical borehole. The process is used in Pennsylvania to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale Formation, which is encountered as depths as great as 8,000 to 10,000 feet below ground in the northern and western parts of the state.

Hydraulic fracturing of an unconventional gas well.

( http://www.nt.gov.au/d/Minerals_Energy/?header=How%20do%20we%20access%20Unconventional%20Gas)

I am not anti-fracking. As a geologist, I understand how fracking is supposed to work, and I think it’s a viable means of extracting natural gas from deep formations in which conventional drilling is not practicable. But I also think that Pennsylvania has done a horrendous job of overseeing how the energy companies operating in PA drill for natural gas and manage their drilling wastes.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette does a great job covering Marcellus Shale gas drilling issues in PA, including reporting on negative environmental aspects of bringing this natural resource to market. Last week the Post-Gazette ran a great editorial piece that cited data they obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) about compromised water supplies related to oil and gas operations. The editorial also criticized PADEP for issues with public access to information related to water supplies contaminated by oil or gas drilling activities. Many of the chemicals used in the fracking process are claimed by drillers to be trade secrets. And PADEP will not release information about those chemicals. So the public and their advocates have no opportunity to evaluate the risks they may be facing from fracking fluid contamination. 

When the reports about methane in residential water wells near Marcellus gas wells in northern PA first started hitting the media five or six years ago, the red flags should have been clear to anyone familiar with drilling. The drillers were swearing that there was no way methane from their target formation at 8,000 feet below ground could have contaminated the shallow aquifer only 100 to 150 feet bellow ground where most domestic wells are built. And, if the wells were constructed properly, that should be true. But the drilling boom came upon PADEP too quickly. The DEP had neither the field inspectors nor the funding to hire enough field inspectors to be able to ensure that gas wells were being constructed properly.  

Steel casing is supposed to be cemented into the surrounding bedrock to a depth far below the drinking water aquifer. The cement slurry, a mixture of cement and bentonite clay, effectively seals the annular space around the outside of the steel casing to prevent any drilling fluids or gas from leaking around the casing and getting into the aquifer. And a good annular seal also prevents surface runoff water from seeping down along the outside of the casing and tainting the underlying drinking water aquifer. That is assuming the wells are being properly sealed.

In my job, I have overseen drillers installing hundreds of groundwater monitoring wells or remediation wells designed to delineate or treat petroleum, solvents or metals contamination in groundwater. There have been many times I have given the driller my construction specifications and, when they thought I wasn’t looking, caught them cutting corners. Most often the corner getting cut involved how they were grouting the well materials in the borehole. And that's exactly what I think happened in the majority of instances in which methane was documented in domestic wells in close proximity to an unconventional gas well.

If the cement used to seal the steel casing into the borehole is mixed with too much water, the cement will shrink as it cures and will pull away from the borehole walls. If not enough bentonite is mixed with the concrete, if it is not mixed uniformly or if it is pumped too quickly down the borehole, there may be pockets of concrete that do not seal completely to the borehole walls. These are the conditions that PADEP inspectors should have been on hand to look for during well drilling. Presumably, at this point in the drilling boom, something as basic as proper well grouting has been rectified between drillers and PADEP.

Fracking fluid impoundment in western PA.

(photo credit: Observer-Reporter.com)

Assuming that gas wells are now being properly constructed, spills of drilling fluid are probably the biggest on-going concern for public health. Spills of drilling fluids are a largely preventable threat to groundwater and surface water resources. A different Post-Gazette editorial published earlier this week cited the disturbing frequency of drilling companies failing to detect or report spills on their drilling sites. Half of the drilling fluid spills for which PADEP fined drillers through 2012 were not reported to PADEP by drillers as required by law. Instead, they were reported by drilling site land owners or neighboring property owners or observed by PADEP inspectors or other officials.

PADEP needs to be better funded to better police Marcellus drilling sites so that drillers will be less likely to carelessly allow preventable spills to happen and will be more diligent in policing their sites to promptly discover and act on truly accidental spills. PA’s groundwater and surface water resources depend on it.

No Party Owns the Message

My friend Ron Beitler recently announced on his FaceBook page that he has become a contributor to the website, www.smartgrowthforconservatives.com. Some of the other contributors are heavyweight Smart Growth advocates like Charles Marohn (www.strongtowns.org), Jim Bacon (Bacon's Rebellion) and Joe Minicozzi (Planetizen). In Ron’s words, Smart Growth for Conservatives provides center-right perspectives on transportation and land use issues in the United States as well as analysis of these issues from a center-right perspective with an emphasis on fiscal conservatism and market-based solutions.

I'm more center-left, but I fully embrace Smart Growth principles. So I commented on his post, kiddingly asking him whether there aren’t any liberal Smart Growth websites. Ron’s reply nailed an important distinction about Smart Growth that would probably make the concept more tangible if more people viewed it from this perspective.

Ron said, “No party owns the message! Problem is we (Republicans) have to work harder to get our base to understand that, at its core, Smart Growth is about fiscal sustainability, and that's a message conservatives of all people should flock to. Liberals don't own environmental issues either.”

Then one of Ron’s FB friends commented on Ron’s statement that liberals don't own environmental issues. Ron’s friend said, “The free market left undistorted will value clean water, air, healthy forests, proper developments, etc., and an asset that is valued, is an asset that is well taken care of.” A free-market solution to the world’s problems is certainly a traditional conservative plank.

I don’t buy the argument for a free-market solution to environmental problems. Thirty years ago I would have completely agreed that the free market could take care of the environment, but I was a naïve college student then. While many small businesses in the 21^st century have been built on a model of public responsibility, some of the biggest players pull every string available, legal or otherwise, to maximize their profits at the expense of public health. Don’t even get me started on Monsanto and their GMOs.

Freedom Industries tank farm on Elk River in Charleston. This was the

source of the chemical spill into the Elk River on January 9,2014.

(photo: AP/Steve Helber)

A very recent example of the failure of the free market to protect the environment is the spill of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM) in early January into the Elk River in West Virginia. The storage tank that leaked had not been inspected by West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection since 1991. West Virginia regulators are claiming that there was insufficient toxicological data on MCHM to require it to classified as a hazardous substance, which would required regular inspections of its storage tanks. Unfortunately, this chemical leaked into the Elk River just a mile upstream from the inlet for the public water supply for 300,000 West Virginians in nine counties. All of those who did not have a private well were forced to rely on bottled water for two weeks. Restaurants and hotels in Charleston reportedly were losing $1,000,000 in revenue per day until the public water supply was declared safe to use again. All of this disruption was the result of MCHM seemingly falling through the regulatory cracks. The free market did not protect Charleston’s businesses or its drinking water.

No one party owns this message:  Regardless of whether people lean to the right or the left, we need to strive for clean air and clean water now for the sake of our children and our children's children. As a civilized society, we have to proactively make decisions based on what is best for future generations rather than passively letting the free market decide whether our wellbeing will be adequately protected. That should be an imperative that transcends political party affiliations. Whether we are deciding if a certain chemical should be classified as a hazardous substance, thereby having tighter standards for bulk storage, or whether we are making land use decisions that could make open spaces more or less attractive to develop, there are some decisions that a properly functioning government must take the lead on for the best interests of its constituency. After the ground rules have been laid to ensure that we all have access to safe air, water and food, the free market then should be free to function without backroom deals or sweetheart regulatory intervention.

Does a Riparian Buffer Belong in a City Park?

Allentown’s Morning Call recently published an Op-Ed piece written by local blogger Michael Molovinsky, who has a passion for preserving historic structures in the city’s renowned Lehigh Parkway. Lehigh Parkway was the beneficiary of a number of Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects during the 1930s, with various massive stone bridges, fountains, walls, and stairs remaining in various states of repair.  So there are plenty of historic structures in Lehigh Parkway for residents to take pride in and care for.  In my mind though, the most prominent feature of Lehigh Parkway is the Little Lehigh Creek, which the Parkway follows for about three miles through the city.

Little Lehigh Creek in Lehigh Parkway
(photo credit:  wikipedia.org)

In his Op-Ed, Molovinsky blasted a riparian buffer restoration project planned for Lehigh Parkway and denigrated the efforts of the Wildlands Conservancy, a local non-profit engaged in ecosystem restoration and preservation.  Wildlands obtained the necessary permits and outside funding to replant riparian buffers along the Little Lehigh in the Parkway. Volunteers from the Little Lehigh Chapter of Trout Unlimited, of which I am a member, will assist with replanting the buffers.

Molovinsky implied that Wildlands is a special interest group trying to hijack Lehigh Parkway for riparian buffer experiments that would compromise the public’s view of and access to the creek. He said that the function of a riparian buffer is to filter fertilizer from rain runoff and from entering the creek and lamented that current streamside buffers are nothing more than strips of weeds that block the view of and access to the creek.  This is a shortsighted accusation, however, because riparian buffer restorations have been proven to improve the health of streams.  A healthy riparian buffer of 50 feet or greater would typically include various native plants, shrubs, and trees. They would absorb stormwater runoff to mitigate flooding, shade the summer sun to keep the spring-fed waters cool, and provide habitat for various insect species that will be a food source for both fish and birds.  A properly restored riparian buffer would indeed be aesthetically pleasing rather than the weedy eyesore envisioned by Molovinsky.

Dog in Lehigh Parkway. Most, but not all, dog owners

clean up after their pooches.

(photo credit:  http://www.delawareandlehigh.org)

The neatly mowed stream banks that Molovinsky idealizes allow sediment and pollutants, including geese and dog feces, unchecked access to the Little Lehigh, which is a drinking water source for the city of Allentown and some of the surrounding areas west of the city.  A drinking water source for well over 140,000 people, and Molovinsky is worried about a riparian buffer impairing the view of the creek?

With designated pathways mowed through the riparian buffers, the public could still access the stream, the buffers could still perform their intended functions, and the diverse ecosystem that thrives in a healthy riparian buffer could re-establish itself.  A healthy riparian buffer begets a healthy stream.

In addition to his Op-Ed stand against riparian buffer restoration, Molovinsky's blog also trashed a related effort by Wildlands Conservancy to remove two dams in Lehigh Parkway. Wildlands had obtained the necessary permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), the state body in charge of dams, to remove these two dams. They had the green light from the city’s parks department to remove these dams, which cause the water to slow down and sediment to build up behind them.  But at the 11^th hour, Molovinsky tried to block removal of one of the dams, located just 18 feet downstream from the WPA-built Robin Hood Bridge, claiming without basis that removal would cause stream-bed scour that would undermine the bridge and cause it to wash out. Just days ago, however, following a public hearing by city council, Allentown’s mayor gave his approval for the dam removals after it became clear that Wildlands had done the proper engineering due diligence to rule out any adverse effects on the Robin Hood bridge from removal of the adjacent dam.  More obsolete dams have been removed in Pennsylvania than in any other state.  Why would PADEP have approved the dam removal if the effects on any nearby structures had not been properly evaluated?

Come on, Michael.  Environmental folks and history buffs need to work together to protect special places from the effects of over-development and urbanization.  We should not be at odds unnecessarily over things like removing detrimental dams and planting protective riparian buffers.

Joggers in Lehigh Parkway (photo credit: Express Times)

Nostalgia is tricky.  It can cause us to myopically yearn for a distant, simpler, and more picturesque time.  But 21^st century scientists and anglers recognize that riparian buffers and dam removals are the key to the health of any stream.  In environmental science, just as in medical science, we are fortunate to have advanced far beyond common practices of the mid-1900s.

Maybe the Glass Really IS Half Empty

I think those of us who live in the eastern part of the U.S. don’t think about competition for water resources as often as our friends in the western states probably do.  Many of us easterners are aware that source water in northern California and in Lake Meade in southern Nevada is diverted to southern California to hydrate the sprawling populations and corporate farms found there.  I have to admit that I have usually allowed myself the luxury of focusing on conservation issues that manifest themselves closer to home here in Pennsylvania … until last week.  Suddenly, we have international competition for our local source water.

Here is the back-story.  It all started about 10 or more years ago when a former mayor of Allentown, PA, negotiated a bonehead contract with the city’s police officers.  The mayor agreed to allow pensions for retiring officers to be calculated based on the number of hours worked in the year leading up to retirement.  Well, as the local urban legend goes, many officers decided to volunteer for extra shifts in their last year before retirement.  Some of them are rumored to have even worked so many extra shifts that, with time and a half overtime pay, many were able to effectively double the pensions they would be due from the city upon retirement had their pensions been based on pay for 40-hour work weeks.  That’s pretty much what I recall about the start of the Allentown pension crisis from the local newspaper and local TV news.  But I can’t vouch for the total accuracy of this account, because I wasn’t paying really close attention … I mean, I live next to but not in Allentown, so why would their pension crisis affect me?  Right?

The abuse of the pension system by some retiring police officers coupled with allegedly generous pensions for city workers in general now have Allentown on the brink of financial disaster, with bankruptcy a real possibility in the next couple of years.  Therefore, in the hopes of raising between $150 million to $200 million in upfront cash, the City of Allentown last month announced that it was considering leasing its water and sewer system to an outside operator.  I was surprised to hear that but didn’t think much of it, because few details were reported at the time.  But then last week, the City announced that it has nine entities from as far away as Australia that have provided their resumes to the city hoping to be deemed qualified to submit bids to lease and operate Allentown’s water and sewer systems for the next 50 years.  This is not small potatoes.  Allentown owns a 30-million-gallon-per-day, modern water treatment plant that services an average daily demand of about 20 million gallons to residential and commercial customers.

Treatment Plant, Allentown Bureau of Water

 So now I’m getting uncomfortable at the thought of entities with no local ties coming in to run Allentown’s water and sewer systems.  This lease deal affects me because the quasi-public water and sewer authority serving my municipality, and most of the developed portions of our county outside of the City of Allentown, recently entered into an agreement to purchase 2 million to 7 million gallons of water per day from the city for the next 25 years.  It’s almost a given that water and sewer rates for Allentown customers will increase under a for-profit operator, because the that operator will need to turn enough of a profit to recover the up-front money that the city is expecting as part of the deal.  And since my water and sewer authority is probably one of Allentown’s biggest water and sewer customers, as an end consumer, I’m concerned about rate increases.

Little Lehigh Creek (PADEP photo)

As a conservationist, I’m also concerned about what a for-profit operator of Allentown’s water system could do to my local stream, the Little Lehigh Creek.  Allentown's source water comes from two large, local springs and two surface water sources.  The Little Lehigh Creek is the primary surface water source, and the Lehigh River is the secondary source.  The Little Lehigh is designated by the state as a High-Quality Cold Water Fishery, and it’s already under significant stress from sedimentation associated with construction and storm water runoff from over-development in our area.  We are also fearful that, under drought conditions, the limestone springs that feed the Little Lehigh could be seriously impacted as our local water authority pumps its nearby wells to ensure that their corporate customers have all the water they need.  In fact, even though we were not under official drought conditions in 2009, all residential customers of our local water authority were proactively not permitted to water lawns or wash cars so that there would be no interruptions for the major commercial customers of the authority:  Samuel Adams PA Brewery, Nestle Waters, Niagra Bottling, and Coca-Cola.  And coming next year, a brand new Ocean Spray bottling plant will be tapping into our local water authority and, thus, into the additional capacity from Allentown.  Water is big business around here.  The thought of another for-profit player entering the local water game means more competition for a finite and seasonally fickle resource.

This is a developing story.  There will certainly be more information to process before this deal is settled and a lease is awarded to one of the bidders.  One thing is clear already, however.  Just as is the case with all environmental issues anywhere, the water supply for the third largest metropolitan area in Pennsylvania is not contained by municipal boundaries.

Now I’ll leave you with one last thought:  Why does the antlered animal on the label of Deer Park Spring Water look suspiciously like an elk?

By the way, that's my tap water.