Erosion: An Underestimated Environmental Impact

Erosion: An Underestimated Environmental Impact
Prepared by Julie Bowen [julie@palatino.org] - minor additions by Mr. Brian Oram

2013 has seen a number of exciting, pro-active environmental projects arrive in various communities across the country, from the Blue Mountain treeplanting project on the Appalachian Trail in Pennsylvania to the recent “National Protect Your Groundwater Day” held on Sept 10. With a focus on engaging direct public participation, these events aim to demonstrate how diligent involvement from the community can play a crucial role in protecting and preserving the quality of groundwater. Projects such as tree-planting are especially productive, with the great lungs of the earth performing several vital functions: filtering air quality, improving the integrity of the soil, and protecting against erosion – one of the most destructive environmental problems which regions across the US currently face, and a surprisingly major factor in contaminating water.

Webinar - 10/08/2013: LIVE INTERACTIVE WEBINAR, Intro to Environmental Impact Statements, Tuesday, October 8, 2013, 1pm-4pm EST

The Nature of Erosion

Undeniably, erosion is a natural process which has helped to carve out the beautiful eccentricities of our planet, shaping the complex networks of rivers, lakes and oceans and contributing to the myriad of biodiversity which has enthralled geologists and biologists for centuries. Yet it is because of the natural force powering erosion which makes it such a devastating consequence when human action comes into play; in a recent report by the Environmental Working Group (EWA), soil losses in Iowa alone amounted to twice the sustainable level for the land, increasing yearly. Inevitably leading to substantial losses for farmers, it’s also important to calculate how it impacts the surrounding eco-system, working its way into our well and through our faucets.

Sediment Deposition

Since the 1970’s, stormwater runoff and soil erosion has been identified as one of the primary causes of water pollution, according to the North Dakota Department of Health’s reporton the “Environmental Effects of Erosion on Water Quality”. Particularly after a violent storm, rock and soil sediments are carried by the wind and rain and deposited into lakes, rivers, and other water sources. While fast-flowing water is better able to clear away these particles, the relatively still waters of lakes and ponds allow the sediments a place to grow, producing a high quantity of algae-promoting nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen (called eutrophication). Large amounts of algae prevent light from nurturing the water, reducing the amount of photosynthesis and decreasing oxygen which is essential for aquatic life. Algae growth – especially the fatal algae blooms – and wildlife decay contribute to the amount of pollution in the water, but this natural process isn’t nearly as harmful as sediments which have been carried over from construction sites.

Impact on Public Health
When erosion scours construction sites, chemicals from debris, paint and concrete are carried to nearby sewer systems and rivers, disrupting the cleanliness of the water, interfering with the ecosystems, and placing pressure on filtration plants to manage the excess of pollutants. Just like the distribution of grease, oil, metals, pesticides (as well as genetically-modified particles) and other toxins which also seep into the system, proper monitoring is essential for keeping track of the content in the water to prevent the spread of water-related diseases like giardia, norovirus, and others. Equally problematic is the over-compensation of filtration processes such as chlorination and fluoridation of the water, which also results in several health complications and has fueled heavy public involvement in the public water system, including extensive research projects funded by governments and charities. The wealth of information available to the public is made ready by various authoritative sources regarding the complexity of pathogens and other illnesses which are present in polluted water, as part of the growing movement in environmental and health awareness.

Measures to Prevent Erosion and Protect Water
Just as the Blue Mountain tree planting project is a pro-active step which will directly involve the community’s role in environmental awareness and carries the direct impact of filtering water, air and soil as well as acting as a buffer against wind and stormwater run-off, there are several other effective means to counter erosion. While recognizing erosion as a natural process, the proper monitoring and maintenance of construction sites, regulated deforestation and conscientious farming, sustainable industries (particularly tourism) and a careful nurturing of the land are just a few of the ways in which people can benefit economically as well as ecologically. First and foremost, educating the public and encouraging their involvement as well as offering a multitude of resources like the ones provided by Carbon County Groundwater Guardian is key to taking measures which ensure the safety and purity of our most precious resource and has encourage the implementation of a Sustainable Design Approach.

Training
Go Green and Sustainability Training Programs

New Training Course in Executive Leadership and Management

Competition is Fierce. Get in the Game with Superior Leadership Skills – 100% Online.

 

These days it is not enough to be good. You need to be great. Give yourself the advantage of being the go-to guy or gal by gaining and improving your leadership and management skills with  Executive Certificate in Leadership and Management.  In just a few weeks, you can acquire new skills you can begin using immediately, whether on the job or looking for a new one.  The Certificate is designed to focus on a wide variety of leadership and management issues that are relevant to the design and construction industry. The Certificate consists of 19 courses making up 38 hours.

The course covers

A Manager's Guide to Performance Appraisals (1 hour)

ABCs of Time, Goals & Purpose: The Big Picture (3 hours)

Coaching for Better Performance (1 hour)

Developing & Managing a Project Budget (4 hours)

Finance & Accounting for the Non-Financial Manager (4 hours)

From Project Manager to Principal 1: Foundations of Management (1 hour)

Leadership Challenge Part 1: What Leaders Do (1 hour)

Leadership Challenge Part 2: Model the Way (2 hours)

Leadership Challenge Part 3: Inspire a Shared Vision (1 hour)

Leadership Challenge Part 4: Challenge the Process (2 hours)

Leadership Challenge Part 5: Enable Others to Act (2 hours)

Leadership Challenge Part 6: Encourage the Heart (2 hours)

Managing Generation X  (1 hour)

Motivating and Mentoring - A Profit Center (1 hour)

Project Management Basics (4 hours)

Rewards, Recognition & Motivation (1 hour)

Tactical Time Management: An Advanced Course (3 hours)

Team Building: Introduction (1 hour)

The Art & Science of Delegation (3 hours)

Learn More about this Course and other Leadership Training Courses.

Roundtable focuses on climate change in Pike and Wayne County and the Upper Delaware Region

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: roundtable@upperdelaware.com

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Roundtable focuses on climate change

NARROWSBURG, NY — The Upper Delaware Roundtable meeting on October 3, from 1 to 4:30 p.m. at the Tusten Town Hall on Bridge Street, will focus on the impact of climate change on the Upper Delaware region. The centerpiece will be a presentation by Susan Beecher of the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, project leader for a study called "Adapting to a Changing Climate - Risks & Opportunities for the Upper Delaware Region.” The study, which is still ongoing, is a collaboration between the Common Waters Partnership, the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, and the Model Forest Policy Program Climate Solutions University. It aims to detail the probable impacts of climate change on local resources and communities in our region, and to develop strategies that can be used to adapt to them.

There will also be a presentation on the NACL Theatre’s year-long Weather Project, a community arts and science project designed to bring residents, artists, and scientists together around the subject of the weather and climate science; and an update on the Sullivan County Climate Action Plan.

Heather Jacksy of the Sullivan County Planning Department will also give a presentation on the latest developments in the Sullivan County Waterfront Revitalization Program.

As always at Roundtable meetings, there will be ample opportunity for participants to join in the conversation with questions and ideas, and to develop action plans related to the presentations, and a lunch. RSVP to roundtable@upperdelaware.com.
The Roundtable is a bi-monthly networking opportunity of regional stakeholders to enhance the future of the Upper Delaware River Valley through collaboration and communication.

My Thoughts

I think that discussions like this are critical, but we have to make sure that we consider the following:
1. The forested lands in these ares are owned for the most part by private citizens.
2. These lands support local, regional, and national businesses that create jobs that help to maintain the rural character of the region and local govt and municipalities.
3. The area can benefit from carbon and nutrient credits, but rural landowners must be permitted to manage their businesses without stringent environmental regulations and policies that may be designed to benefit the unsustainable downgradient users or tourists.
4. If the rural landowner is going to help to sustain our "unsustainable" urban centers - then the urban centers need to provide financial support for our rural areas,  a portion of the tourism revenue should support are rural landowners, and a potion of any consumptive water fees should be reinvested in these rural areas to protect private wells and the groundwater quality for the region.

Just my thoughts

Brian Oram, PG

Catholic Social Teaching and Energy Policy: Fracking, Tar Sands, Climate Justice

The McGowan Center for Ethics and Social Responsibility was established to be a visible, dynamic expression of the commitment of King's College to offer students intellectual, moral, and spiritual preparation for satisfying and purposeful lives. That commitment has its origins in the understanding of education distinctive to the tradition of the Congregation of Holy Cross. In the words of the College's founding president, King's teaches students "not only how to make a living, but how to live" (Father James Connerton, C.S.C., 1946). Education is accordingly a work of both instructing minds and cultivating hearts.

2013 Feast of Saint Francis Lecture

Catholic Social Teaching and Energy Policy," Dave Andrews, C.S.C.David Andrews, C.S.C., Senior Representative, Food and Water Watch, and former Executive Director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference

Thursday, October 3, 7:00 pm, Burke Auditorium, McGowan School of Business

Most recent articles

In global fight against fracking, faith community should lead

"Given those dangers, there is good cause for caution and responsible oversight before further fracking proceeds (currently, more than 30 states permit fracking). The Catholic Rural Life Conference has pushed for an infusion of ethical analysis into the fracking debate, like what has occurred in other issues, from agriculture and labor, to energy, water and other natural resources." 

Another article

http://ncronline.org/blogs/eco-catholic/br-david-andrews-morality-fracking

Just providing notice - it is important to attend events of this nature. 

Holy Cross Br. David Andrews is a senior representative at Food and Water Watch, a consumer group based in Washington. He is former director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. The Rural Life Council -http://www.ncrlc.com/

Article from their website - a little more balanced than Dave Andrews- - http://www.ncrlc.com/news.aspx?ID=348

•"Rev. Peter Sawtell, Executive Director of Eco-Justice Ministries, argues that there needs to be much more in-depth debate about fracking, and much more stringent controls. “Local communities need to have more voice about what happens inside their town,” he strongly urges.

If fracking is to continue, then we need far better systems to store, clean and reuse fracking water. Sawtell does not call for an outright ban, but he is clear that a more cautionary approach is needed. “The polar choice between blessing and curse is far too simplistic, because there are some aspects of each. The very large and very real dangers of fracking, though, must be addressed more quickly and clearly than we see in current policies.”

Hopefully, most will agree we must not lose sight of the real goal in energy development: transition to renewable energy. That requires steadfast will among politicians and the public for a more comprehensive, long-term energy policy beyond fracking "

Important Note Brothers of the Congregation of Holy Cross Valatie, New York

The Brothers of the Congregation of Holy Cross owned 450 acres of land in Valatie, New York, when Brother David Andrews arrived in 1976 to create a Retreat and Conference Center. Brother David developed a local board of directors including people from the Diocese of Albany. Contacts within the New York State Assembly Committee on Food, Farm and Nutrition Policy, especially Mabel Gil, encouraged the Brothers to develop programs on "alternative agriculture". http://www.crystalspring.org/html/religlandsstoriessvalat.html

Natural Gas Development in Michigan Study by University of Michigan

University of Michigan Study Finds Michigan Will Not Have Shale Development in the Near Future

"On September 3, 2013, the University of Michigan released a comprehensive study on shale development in Michigan, which concluded that large scale development is not likely to occur in Michigan in the near future.  The study analyzed the technical, economic, geologic, hydrogeologic, environmental, public health, and legal aspects of hydraulic fracturing in the state.  The technical aspect of the study noted that Eastern Michigan's Utica and Collingwood shale formations are very deep and that no commercial development has occurred in either formation. The study concluded that the market price for natural gas would need to approach $6-$8/MCF for operators to be able to profit from high-volume hydraulic fracturing of the deep shale, while the current price of natural gas has peaked around $4/MCF."

The study may be found at: University of Michigan Study

The Main Conclusions

Technology. In view of the current low price of natural gas, the high cost of drilling deep shale formations and the absence of new oil discoveries, it is unlikely that there will be significant growth of the oil and gas industry in Michigan in the near-term future. However, considerable reserves of natural gas are believed to exist in deep shale formations such as the Utica-Collingwood, which underlies much of Michigan and eastern Lake Huron and extends into Ontario, Canada.

The technical reports are now available, and comments to help inform the Integrated Assessment are being accepted until 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on October 7, 2013.

Talking Points for the Assessment

Presentation 
Private Well Owner Education Outreach Programs

Update to Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Laws

"Pennsylvania Drillers May Soon Face Tightened Environmental Regulations

By Scott Bent on September 5, 2013Posted in Disposal Wells, EPA Issues, Fracking, Groundwater, Hydraulic Fracturing, Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania, Pipeline, WaterNot our work but we added comments

Oil and gas drillers in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale formation may soon find themselves subject to more stringent environmental protection standards under regulations proposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“the Department”).  The Department announced on August 27, 2013 that the proposed regulations were approved by the state’s Environmental Quality Board.  The proposal now moves to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office and the Office of General Counsel, followed by a public comment period.

The proposed regulations address four general issues: 1) protection of public lands and resources; 2) orphan and abandoned well identification; 3) pollution containment practices; and 4) protection of water resources.

Protection of Public Resources  (Our Comment - "Excellent)"

Under the proposed regulations, applicants for well permits must notify the appropriate public resource agency (such as the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources or the Pennsylvania Game Commission) if a well site is within a certain distance of public lands or resources.  For example, notice is required if a site is within 200 feet of a national natural landmark or within 1,000 feet of a water well, surface water intake, reservoir, or other water source used by a water purveyor.

The resource agency has an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations to the Department and the well operator.  The Department makes the final determination on the permit application, and it may add conditions to the well permit to mitigate potential impact to public resources.

Concerns

1. Timing of the notice.
2. Form of the notice.3. This should also include all community and non-community water supplies, bulk haulers, or industries relying on groundwater. 

Orphan and Abandoned Well Identification

According to some estimates, Pennsylvania is home to over 250,000 “orphaned or abandoned wells,” which were not properly plugged after drilling operations ceased.  Under the proposed regulations, oil and gas operators must identify orphaned or abandoned wells within 1,000 feet of the vertical and horizontal well bores prior to hydraulic fracturing.  Operators must visually monitor the identified orphan or abandoned wells that are likely to have penetrated the formation intended to be hydraulically fractured.  Operators must also plug orphaned or abandoned wells altered by their fracturing processes.

Comments

1. We should fund a public private partnership to help identify and locate abandon wells. I good start might be working with individuals from Save our Streams in partnership with some local educational colleges and universities.
2. Give them the funds to do some of the visual assessments or at least review and compile historic documents.
This may be something for the Act 13 Funds.

Pollution Containment Practices

The proposed regulations include provisions for temporary and long-term storage of fracking materials, freshwater impoundments, and secondary containment.  Open pits may only be used for temporary storage of fracking materials, and they must comply with thickness, fencing, and testing requirements.  Additionally, modular storage must be approved by the Department, and tank valves and access lids must be locked to prevent unauthorized access.

Regarding long-term storage, open top structures may not be used to store produced water, and underground tanks may not be used to store brine unless approved by the Department.  All long-term storage tanks must be protected from the unauthorized acts of third parties.

Freshwater impoundments must be constructed with a synthetic impervious liner, and they must be registered with the Department.  Impoundments must also be fenced, and they must be restored, unless approved by the landowner.

Operators must use secondary containment—such as liners or double-walled tanks—at hydraulic fracturing well sites.  Operators must inspect their secondary containment systems at least weekly to ensure integrity.  Secondary containment systems may utilize subsurface units.

Comments

1. I do not like open pits for any hydraulic fracturing flowback water. If we are going to have - we must have secondary containment.

2. Secondary containment should be around all concentrated chemicals.

Protection of Water Resources

Under the proposed regulations, pipeline construction companies must develop Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency Plans when performing horizontal directional drilling under a waterway to minimize the impact in the case of an inadvertent return.  The regulations provide rules for operator response to spills and releases, and they require remediation in accordance with statutory standards.  Operators must also restore their well sites—by, for instance, filling pits and removing drilling equipment—within 9 months of completing drilling.

The Department acknowledges that the proposed regulations would increase costs for drilling operators, especially those operating hydraulic fracturing wells.  Examples of such costs include: 1) consultant fees; 2) additional safety measures; 3) labor for inspections and testing; 4) additional reporting and record-keeping requirements.  The Department points out, however, that because most operators of hydraulic fracturing wells subcontract their work, the additional costs will benefit small businesses like environmental consultants and equipment and supply companies.

Comment

Nice addition assuming adequate baseline testing of surfacewater, groundwater, and soil conditions with a monitoring program.

The North America Shale Blog will continue to track and report on these proposed regulations as they make their way through the administrative process."

Bills to amend Pennsylvania endangered species law trigger debate House Bill 1576

"Bills to amend Pennsylvania endangered species law trigger debate

Legislature wants oversight on state commissions' findings; environmentalists say agencies need independent authority.

By Steve Esack, Call Harrisburg Bureau
12:29 AM EDT, August 26, 2013

HARRISBURG — For 42 years, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has had sole discretion in state government to determine when mammals and birds that live or roam in Pennsylvania's wilds are endangered or threatened. For nearly the same amount of time, the state Fish and Boat Commission has done the environmental policing for the fish, reptiles and amphibians."

Summary

1. Bill generates Legislative oversight of the process and commission for external review that will include economic impacts.    I think this is critical - changes in stream classification directly impact multiple land-use and permitting issues, zoning, land-development and a significant number of other issues in the state.  Decisions should not be made in a vacuum.
2. Create a centralized database.
3. Process to updated the database in a timely manner or reflect changes in Endangered Species Act.
4. It is thought the current internal review and only allowing 30 days comment is not enough.  From history with other PA state programs - I would agree.
5. There is a concern over lost Federal Monies.


The public will get a chance to hear the pros and cons at a public hearing the House Game and Fisheries Committee plans to at 2 p.m. Monday in Pottsville.   (By the way - comments may have ended) = This is one reason for more or an external review process.

Original Article -
Link to House Bill 1576

Asbestos Contamination in Water

Asbestos Contamination in Water

In 2012, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Association (ADAO) released a statement informing the public that workers in Houston, Texas who repaired the city’s water mains were directly exposed to asbestos. According to the Scientific Analytical Institute, the water pipes had 35% asbestos, and uninformed workers were directly at risk. Unfortunately, the dangers of asbestos in water is a nationwide problem, and if ingested for prolonged periods, people may run the possibility of developing serious health problems.

Health Problems Related to Asbestos in Water

Fortunately, the risk of developing health problems related to asbestos in water is rare, as someone would have to ingest an exorbitant amount for problems to occur. If high amounts of ingestion occur, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the risk of developing intestinal polyps increases.

In addition, the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) performed a study that suggest that those who drink water with a high amount of asbestos are at risk for cancer-related deaths. However, the studies also indicated that other factors, such as smoking, may play a part in the results.

Most health problems happen after long-term exposure to asbestos. In other words, it’s much less likely to develop health problems when only a glass of tap water with asbestos was consumed as opposed to drinking several gallons per day over a long period of time. In addition, the risk reduces significantly if the water is under the maximum contaminant level (MCL).

Safe Drinking Water Act

In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed, which mandates that the EPA monitor and figure out the safest levels of chemicals in tap water. As a result, the EPA set the MCL at 7 million asbestos fibers per liter of water for fibers greater than 10 microns. The EPA determined this level to be the safest level that will not cause any health issues and diseases. If the levels of asbestos should rise above 7 million, water companies will work to reduce the amount of contaminants.

Asbestos Released Through Water

The Toxics Release Inventory states that between 1987-1993, 9 million pounds of asbestos was released into both water and land. The top five states that were affected were:

·        Pennsylvania

·        Louisiana

·        Texas

·        Arkansas

These numbers have decreased as many of the ways that asbestos was released, such as through roofing materials, are no longer used. However, old cement mains still pose a risk to drinking water if they become corroded. Once they are corroded, asbestos fibers can slip through and enter into water.

Legal Information and Options  

If you think you’ve been exposed to asbestos or if you’ve already been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, it’s important to understand your legal rights. For more information, visit Mesothelioma Lawyer Center,  a comprehensive resource on asbestos and asbestos-related diseases with extensive information on mesothelioma law firms and attorneys. 

NotesHow to remove asbestos ?
The following water treatment method(s) have proven to be effective for removing asbestos to below 7 MFL: coagulation/filtration, direct  filtration, and corrosion control.

Pennsylvania Energy Games A Conservation Message Was Delivered

B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. attended and participated in the PA Energy Games at the request of the Keystone Clean Water Team.  The Keystone Clean Water Team is a statewide effort to provide education outreach that is fact based to the citizens of Pennsylvania on a number of key water, lifestyle, and environmental issues in PA that has grown out of the Carbon County Groundwater Guardian Program.   It was our primary goal to deliver a conservation message and we did.

The PA Energy Games in many ways was similar to the Energy Expos we spearheaded in Luzerne County, PA in 2009 and 2010, but with much more of a family friendly and entertainment approach.  The event was free and when I spoke to the guests that stopped by our booth- they seem to really be enjoying themselves. During this event, our booth contained information on the following:.

Alternative and Renewable Energy

Solar - We had information available from Greenfield Energy Solutions

Conservation - We provide some information on energy vampires, but recommended homesowners to get an energy audit completed.

Wind - We provide basic information on wind energy systems and some information on local installers.

Geothermal - We provide information from two local vendors (Greg Sorber Well Drilling and Duane Moyer Well Drilling).  We believe that groundsource heating and cooling systems are a long-term key approach for energy resource management in Pennsylvania.  These systems can have an efficiency well over 300%, but it is critical to have a good design and control energy loss or waste in the home.

Biomass - this was a huge success.  We had the Pocono Northeast RC&D Council show off a video of their pelletizing  system to convert grass into a fuel and Mr.Bob Thomas from the Renewable Energy Center to provide information this efficient and local homegrown energy solution to large landowners, farmers, homeowners, royalty owners, and the industry.  The system can be used to produce material that not only can be burned as a fuel, but used for equine bedding, erosion control measures, and much more.

Training
We had information on career options in energy audits, alternative energy, and professional training programs -Alternative Energy, Sustainability, and Green Building Training Opportunities

Water Quality and Conservation
Groundwater and Water Quality - The Carbon County Groundwater Guardians gave out Free Copies of Pennsylvania Water Quality - A Private Well Owners Guide and we discussed issues of baseline testing, low cost informational water testing, potential health concerns, and potential routes of environmental impact.


We did not get the opportunity to listen to the music or watch the competitions, but I was told they were fabulous.

Dangers of Asbestos in Water

Dangers of Asbestos in Water 
by Kaitlin Wilson

Asbestos, a dangerous mineral associated with cancerous diseases such as asbestos cancer and asbestosis, is typically known to cause cancer after prolonged exposure to its fibers while working at a jobsite that has asbestos-containing materials (ACM). However, asbestos also poses a danger in water. Although it’s not as well-known as the most common ways people are exposed, asbestos in water still remains a danger to the public.

How Asbestos Gets Into Water 
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cement water mains that have started to decay is one of the primary reasons asbestos gets into water. As water moves through cement pipes that contain asbestos, the corroded cement can release the harmful fibers which then enters into the water.

Asbestos fibers can also come from rainwater collected from roofing and pipes, and from erosion of fibers from the bedrock that contain asbestos mineral fibers. In addition, water sources may contain asbestos naturally and filtration may be unable to completely remove it.

Steps to Eliminate Asbestos in Water

The EPA is well-aware of the potential of asbestos getting into water systems. In fact, the EPA requires regular monitoring and testing for asbestos fibers in tap water. If the maximum contaminant level (MCL) is higher than it should be, the company or municipality responsible for supplying your water must immediately take steps to reduce the asbestos levels until they are lower than the MCL level, which according to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Diseases Registry is 7 million fibers per each liter of drinking water.

Keep in mind that asbestos cannot be detected by seeing, feeling, or smelling it in water. In order to get more information on asbestos levels in your water, you’ll need to contact your local water supplier. For well water, you’ll need to contact your local health department or ground water company and get the water tested and treated.

Getting Legal Help

Unfortunately, there are instances when people drank asbestos-filled water and in turn, developed an asbestos-related disease. Although the chances of this happening are rare, if you or a loved one have been victim to an asbestos related disease, there are federal and state laws in place to protect you. For more information, visit Mesothelioma Lawyer Center, a comprehensive resource on asbestos and asbestos-related diseases. State specific information, such as in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Washington is discussed in depth.


Blog Owner Addition.

Getting your Drinking Water Tested - we can help. This asbestos testing is conducted at a special request(put Asbestos in Subject). If you have a water treatment system, we typically recommend testing before and after the treatment system.  For a full list of water testing options and water treatment options.  Another issue may be radon.

Interesting Link - Where is Asbestos Found?

Press Release - B.F. Environmental Consultants Complete SafeLandUSA Training

B.F. Environmental Consultants official announces that the principle for the company, Mr. Brian Oram, recently completed the Basic Orientation safety awareness course includes both SalfGulf and SafeLandUSA..  Basic was designed to take the place of multiple Operator orientations and to give each student a general idea of life and safety issues in the oil and gas industry, upstream, downstream, onshore or offshore. This one-day program meets API RP 75 & API RP T-1 requirements and provides a basic understanding at an awareness level of certain general safety information that an employee should know before entering a company facility and while performing their assigned work duties. Over 25 of the leading oil and gas operators accept this orientation as it meets their requirements. Upon successful completion of course, each student is issued a picture ID with a unique barcode. The student information is then stored in an online database. This orientation has become the standard program for the industry and certifies a student at awareness level for the following:

• SafeGulf Certification
• SafeLand Certification
• Confined Space
• Rigging
• Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
• Lockout/Tag-out
• Fall Protection
• Hazmat (HM 126)
• Hazardous communications
• Personal Protective Equipment
• Hearing Conservation
• Emergency Response
• Process Safety Management
• Welding Safety
• Defensive Driving
• Hazwoper (Oper.)
• Fire Protection
• Medical Records
• Forklift Safety
• Respiratory Protection
• Electrical Safety
• Terrorism Response Awareness Program (TRAP)
• Back Safety
• Alcohol and substance abuse awareness
• Offshore Transportation (Departure, Helicopter, Boat, Arrival, etc.)
• Offshore Safety (Swing Ropes / Personnel Baskets, Water Safety, etc.)

For more about B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc - please visit http://www.bfenvironmental.com.  If you are looking for online training, please visit Our Safety Training Site

Risks of contamination of aquifers due to shale gas in Ukraine

Risks of contamination of aquifers due to shale gas - published in Ukrainian

Translated from Ukrainian

This document was translated from Ukrainian -some typos and spelling issues.

Contamination of groundwater by hydrocarbons and chemicals used for drilling and performhydraulic fracturing , is perhaps the greatest environmental risk in the extraction of shale gas .Cause groundwater pollution can be natural vertical fractures in the rock strata, changing hydrological regime due to pumping large quantities of water, the integrity of the winding and obsadky wells, fracturing fluid spills or cuttings to the surface and so on.

The main types of potential groundwater contamination due to shale gas - a penetration of gaseous hydrocarbons (methane, ethane, propane) in aquifers, groundwater pollution to hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface as a result of spills or technological errors during hydraulic fracturing, the penetration of contaminants (salts , heavy metals) from the deep layers of the aquifers.

Contamination of groundwater with methane and other hydrocarbons

Representatives of the oil and gas industry have repeatedly stated that there is no proven link between cases of pollution of groundwater and conducting hydraulic fracturing operations.However, many American familiesdeclare the contamination of their water wells methane as a result of shale gas.

The most publicized cases of water contamination have become methane residents Dimok (Pennsylvania) and Pavillion (Wyoming).

January 1, 2009 in the town Dimok exploded drinking water wells located in the yard of one of the apartments. The locals have linked the explosion of shale gas. 15 families who thought their water contaminated with methane,filed a lawsuit against the company Cabot Oil and GasThat led shale gas near. The trial lasted several years, during which the company paid fines and time supplying drinking water Dimoka residents. In December 2010, was signed the next version of the settlement in which Cabot Oil and Gas has not accepted his guilt, but agreed to pay compensation to residents of the double value of their property and to install water filters from methane. Some families refused to install filters, considering them unreliable, and continued fighting. In December 2011, Cabot Oil and Gas has stopped water supply to the affected families.From January to June 2012 Agency of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency examined the quality of drinking water in the town and DimokconcludedThat despite not exceeded for certain contaminants in individual wells, cleaning equipment can bring water quality to an acceptable level and the situation with water supply requires no further intervention agency or provision of alternative water supplies. However, in August 2013There are new calls to resume the investigation caused by publishing internal presentation of one of the employees of the agency, which contains information about the elevated levels of methane in water Dimok town that was not properly reflected in the conclusions of the Agency for Environmental Protection.

Residents of the town of Pavillion appealed to the Agency for the U.S. Environmental Protectionwith complaints about the quality of drinking water in the spring of 2008. Specialists Agency selected water samples from 39 wells in March 2009 and a further 23 wells in January 2010. In addition, water samples were taken in areas of shale gas and two specially drilled for water quality monitoring deep wells. In December 2011, the agency published an initial report on drinking water quality study to collect stakeholder comments. Term collecting comments repeatedly postponed because more research has splysty water and at the end of September 2013. The next step will be an independent peer review report. Bythe initial reportfrom private wells for water supply was confirmed by the presence of thermogenic methane origin, and its concentration generally increased with decreasing distance to the gas producing wells. In addition, the study confirmed groundwater contamination with organic substances in wells near the barns for storing cuttings and return waters.

There are several scientific studies that demonstrate the link elevated levels of methane in groundwater and extraction of shale gas.

In 2011 was published study Scientists from the University of Duke (Duke University). The researchers said they were able to document the contamination of drinking water by methane as a result of shale gas. Water samples were selected from 68 private wells for water depths ranging from 36 to 190 meters in the states of Pennsylvania and New York. The water was analyzed for dissolved salts, hydrogen and oxygen isotopes ( 18 O and 2 H) and carbon isotopes, radium and barium. 60 out of 68 wells and tested for dissolved methane and more complex hydrocarbons and isotope ratios of carbon and hydrogen in methane molecules. Methane was detected in water samples from 50 wells (85% of all wells surveyed). Methane concentration was on average 17 times higher in wells that are located within less than 1 km from the shale gas than in boreholes around which there was no gas production (within 1 km). Average methane concentration in water were respectively 19.2 mg / L and 1.1 mg / l. The maximum concentration of methane in selected samples was 64 mg / l. Content analysis of isotopes of carbon and hydrogen in a molecule of methane and analyzes the content of higher hydrocarbons (ethane, propane, butane) confirmed that methane in water wells are located near places of extraction of natural gas, has a thermogenic origin from deep horizons, while methane from wells around which did not occur in shale gas, had biological or mixed origin. However, the study found no evidence for contamination of groundwater occurrence of deep water with a high salt content or liquids for hydraulic fracturing. Among the possible mechanisms for getting methane in water horizons researchers call the integrity obsadky wells and natural cracks in underground rock, which may be exacerbated as a result of hydraulic fracturing operations.

In 2013 was published supplemented by scientific researchhigh concentration of methane in drinking water in shale gas Marsellus. This time the tests were done drinking water from 81 wells at a depth of 60-90 meters north-east of Pennsylvania and will provide preliminary data analyzes 60 wells. Methane content was recorded in 82% of all water wells (115 wells with 141). The content of methane in water from wells that are located within a radius of 1 kilometer from the wells where shale gas is extracted, was 6 times higher than in water from wells that are located further from gas production sites. The content of ethane in these groups differed in the wells 23 times. Analysis of heavy isotopes of carbon and hydrogen in the molecules of methane, ethane and propane indicates the predominant thermogenic origin of gaseous hydrocarbons in water from wells located near the site of production of natural gas. PROBABLE CAUSE penetration of thermogenic methane from deep levels in aquifers researchers call damaged steel obsadky wells and the integrity of the winding cement wells.

In both studies, draws attention to the need for further study of contamination of aquifers in the extraction of shale gas. It is important to have a basic tracking of content and composition of gaseous hydrocarbons in water, and disclosure of the chemical composition of shale gas produced and isotope ratios of its key components.

Contamination of groundwater elements for hydraulic fluid

Study on cases of groundwater contamination from chemicals fracturing fluid is more limited and is usually associated with emergency situations in the extraction of hydrocarbons.

In 2011, the Council for the Conservation of Energy Resources Alberta (Alberta Energy Resource Conservation Board) investigated the contamination of drinking waterdue to hydraulic fracturing wells Caltex, which was made in violation of rules. Crew Energy Company due to an error in September 2011 had perforated wells and hydraulic fracturing operation above the safety zone aquifer at a depth of 136 meters. It was used 20 tons of sand and 130 cubic meters of condensed propane (used as a material for hydraulic fracturing). To monitor groundwater contamination was drilled two wells to collect water depth 81 (depth of water intake for water) and 137 (depth of fracturing) meters 50 meters from the well where fracturing was conducted.Propane and izopropanolamin, used for hydraulic fracturing were found in a deep hole, but traces of their penetration into the upper levels were recorded. As a result, Commission concluded that the risk of contamination of drinking water as a result of the incident is insignificant. Water quality monitoring program in the incident will continue.

Most cases of potential groundwater contamination due to spills of substances for hydraulic fracturing wastewaters or drill cuttings to the surface areas of extraction of natural gas.However, such emergency situationshave a local character and can lead to contamination of soil or located near surface waters and less likely - to contamination of underground aquifers.

For example, in April 2011 explosion at the well of Chesapeake Energy Corp. In the state of Pennsylvania. The explosion of used hydraulic fluid flowed from the well to the surface for more than 12 hours until emergency crews who flew up from Texas, did not stop the leak. After the explosion in selected wells of local residents water sampleswere foundelevated concentrations of barium, strontium, iron and chloride. In water samples from five monitoring wells was detected content of chlorides, metals, and ethanol. Their content, however, was named one that is generally consistent with local water quality and is quite small. It was concluded that due to the saturation of soil moisture used in hydraulic fracturing fluid has not penetrated into the lower layers of soil and aquifers soiled. The company Chesapeake Energy Corp. wasliable to pay over 250 thousand dollars of fines and compensation due to the incident.

Contamination of groundwater due to infiltration of pollutants from deep horizons

If confirmed and documented groundwater contamination due to migration of contaminants (salts, heavy metals, etc.) in deep layers, where the fracturing, the aquifer is currently for sale.This can be explained by a significant migration potential of such duration and complexity of installation due to a high content of heavy metals in water and conduct hydraulic fracturing.

The specialists of the University of Texas in July 2013 published researchdrinking water wells near shale gas field Barnett. Chemical analysis was carried out for 100 samples of water from private wells. The analysis revealed that the content of heavy metals (arsenic, selenium, strontium) in some wells that were within 3 miles of active gas wells exceeded the maximum permissible dose for drinking water. In 29% of wells was also found the contents of methanol and ethanol. ResearchersnoteThat heavy metals are still encountered in groundwater in the region, but historical data indicate that their content is so high is unusual and unnatural. Content of heavy metals in water from wells within 3 miles of which there is no natural gas was within normal limits. However, there were wells located very close to the place of extraction of natural gas, where the content of heavy metals was also within normal limits. Researchers emphasize the need for more detailed studies and noted that although there is no reason to establish a clear link between high levels of heavy metals and methanol extraction of shale gas, but the geographical distribution of problematic water samples and historical data indicate the possibility of such a relationship.

Ways to minimize the risk of groundwater pollution due to shale gas

In  study by AEA Technology plc, Commissioned by the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission, presented the following recommendations to minimize the negative impact of shale gas on groundwater quality:

• baseline monitoring and ongoing systematic monitoring of the chemical composition of water in aquifers near mining sites;
• limiting the use of hydraulic fracturing method in areas with a high risk of groundwater contamination (small depth-bearing rocks, the presence of natural fractures, etc.);
• implementation of appropriate standards and quality control procedures obsadky and cementing wells;
• Requiring building barns for ground storage of drill cuttings and return water;
• control over the process of hydraulic fracturing to prevent exit faults beyond the target horizon to prevent excess pressure and the amount of fluid to hydraulic fracturing, which is pumped into the well, avoiding spills of hazardous substances and waste and so on.

The initial step that will enable linking groundwater pollution from shale gas extraction is detailed basic tracking of drinking water before carrying out any work. Company BF Environmental Consultants Inc.Which is in charge of monitoring the quality of water resources,recommended perform basic analysis of water for at least pH, conductivity, turbidity, bacteria content, chlorides, nitrates, bromides, barium, total dissolved solids, surfactants, iron, manganese, methane, ethane and propane. Additionally it is possible to analyze the water content of magnesium, strontium, zinc nitrate, MTBE, persistent organic pollutants, radioactivity, etc.. The exact optimal set of elements for analysis, according to the head of Mr. Oram also depends on local geological conditions and previous land use.

Thus, shale gas is a significant risk factor for contamination of groundwater, and therefore requires proper regulation and monitoring of the environment and compliance with technical requirements. Documented cases of groundwater contamination confirm the possibility of penetration of methane and other gaseous hydrocarbons into water horizons, which can be characterized not only shale gas but also for conventional gas production. Contamination of groundwater chemicals used in fracturing may occur due to spills of hazardous substances on the surface of the earth or of a violation of hydraulic fracturing technology. Cases of groundwater pollution to hydraulic fracturing substances due to their vertical migration of thick shale rocks in aquifers currently for sale.

We were cited in the article - have not reviewed the article  just posted it in English.

Thanks

Brian Oram