Related to natural gas development, the most frustrating part of this experience, for me, has been the lack of a fact-based review of the data. That is what you will find here - a fact based review with NO SPIN either way. I try not to make any judgments. The main goal of this evaluation is to understand the nature of the regional water quality and to provide a fact based review of the data. The results are compared to the EPA and Pennsylvania Drinking Water Standards. If no standard was available, we searched for a standard that has been established by another state or the World Health Organization.
First question is why? Because I do not have all the facts for each well for a number of reasons, which include inadequate or no baseline testing and lack of long-term information for each source. I was not on-site or part of the initial baseline testing or investigation, but I was invited on-site to witness the sampling that was conducted by the EPA. Therefore, the following is a review of this single sampling event.
The following is a summary of the water quality data that was generated by the EPA for a private water well identified as HW-3 in Dimock, Pennsylvania. The well was sampled by the EPA, DEP, and the local natural gas development company in 2012 after the natural gas drilling wells had been drilled, developed, installed, and some under production. The primary objective was to determine the presence of any residual impacts at that specific time.
A fact based review - Well by Well of the Available Well Water Data for the Dimock Area that was generated by the EPA. I was not involved with the sampling, but I was on-site during the sampling and field evaluation of one home. I was invited by the homeowner. We are still in the process of reviewing the data. The main goal of this evaluation is to understand the nature of the regional water quality and to provide a fact based review of the data. The results are compared the EPA and Pennsylvania Drinking Water Standards. If no standard was available, we searched for a standard that has been established by another state or the World Health Organization.
1. Without predrilling data, it is not possible to comment on the cause for any water quality problems. This has been a very frustrating issue for this area. In many cases, there was no to very little predrilling baseline testing conducted or the testing was inadequate and had "Zero" follow-up.
2. Where possible, I have noted situations where elevated levels of a water quality parameter exist in Pennsylvania.
3. If duplicate analysis provided, I attempted to use the highest reported value.
4. This evaluation was based on using the 2011 EPA Health Advisory (Source). For a more recent version of the EPA Health Advisory Click Here.
5. This is not about cause and effect; it is about a review of the data.
With the exception of the following parameters, the remaining values were reported as NOT Detected (U)
Anionic Surfactants– < 0.01 mg/L – the secondary drinking water standard for foaming agents is0.5 mg/L. (OK)
Barium – 0.832 mg/L – the primary drinking water standard for barium is 2.0 mg/L –– this does not suggest any specific impact and barium is typically detectable in non-saline impacted water at a level of less than 1 mg/L. (OK)
Boron – < 0.050 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available. EPA appears to have a long-term health advisory of 2.0 mg/L, but other states have limits that range from 0.6 to 1 mg/L. Therefore, this does not appear to suggest any form of impact. (OK)
Calcium- 29.7 mg/L (Total)– no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available. (OK)
Chloride –5.36 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Chromium- < 0.002 mg/L (D) and the EPA/ PADEP primary drinking water standard is < 0.100 mg/L(OK).
Copper – 0.0055 mg/L (OK)- the secondary drinking water standard is 1.0 mg/L and the primary drinking water standard is 1.3 mg/L. (OK)
Ethane – 0.930 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard (OK)
Fluoride – < 0.1 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 2 mg/L- PADEP drinking water standard is 2 mg/L.
Iron – 0.711 mg/L (Total) and < 0.1 mg/L (D) – Iron is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.3 mg/L. Therefore, the total iron content exceeds the secondary drinking water standard. Since the total value exceeds the limit and not the dissolved, this suggests that the primary recommendation would be to install a water treatment system to filter the iron colloids or particles from the water. The water probably has a reddish or brown appearance. Elevated level of iron is a common water quality problem in Northeastern Pennsylvania. Action is Recommended, because of an aesthetic issue.
Lithium – < 0.200 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but EPA has recommend a level be below 0.7 mg/L (OK)
Methane – 28 mg/L / 15mg/L– No specific drinking water standard. (Action).
The well water above the new action limit of 7 mg/L. The well will most likely require active venting, additional treatment, and protecting against the potential to ignite the gas in a confined space, i.e an electrical, fire, and health issue. It also appears that the level of methane is at or approaches saturation in water.
Magnesium - 8.16 mg/L (D)– no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available. (OK)
Manganese – 0.0726mg/L (Total) and 0.0723 (Dissolved) – Manganese is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.05 mg/L. Therefore, the total manganese content does exceed the secondary drinking water standard. (OK)
Nickel – 0.0018 mg/L (T ) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but the EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L. (OK)
Sodium –15.0 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available, but the EPA has added it to the Candidate List to provide more analysis. The EPA’s initial value of 20 mg/L has been clearly identified as not realistic. When chloride (salt is sodium chloride) is present at a concentration of over 250 mg/L, the water can have an “off” taste.At 400+ mg/L chloride, the water will definitely taste salty. (Source- Dr. Brian Redmond, Professional Geologist). (OK)
Sulfate – 4.82 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Strontium – 0.961 mg/L – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available, but it is on the EPA Candidate List. The EPA recommends that drinking water levels of nonradioactive strontium should not be more than 4 mg/L. The report limit is consistent with background levels in Northeastern Pennsylvania. If the background level was above 4 mg/L, it would be advisable to test for radiological parameters, especially alpha/beta. (OK)
Total Dissolved Solids – 158 mg/L – Total Dissolved Solids is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 500 mg/L. (OK)
Total Suspended Solids - < 10 mg/L – no standard, but would recommend retesting to obtain a lower detection limit. (OK)
Uranium – < 0.001 mg/L (Total) – Uranium is regulated as a primary drinking water standard by the EPA and PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.030 mg/L. (OK)
Zinc – 0.046 mg/L (Total) – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L. (OK)
Caprolactam- 0.000438 mg/L (J) - < 0.005 mg/L – really not technically detectable. NJ has a groundwater standard of 3.5 mg/L. (OK)
“Caprolactam is primarily used in the manufacture of synthetic fibers. Caprolactam is also used in brush bristles, textile stiffeners, film coatings, synthetic leather, plastics, plasticizers, paint vehicles, cross-linking for polyurethanes, and in the synthesis of lysine. The most probable routes of exposure to caprolactam are by dermal contact and inhalation of workers involved in the manufacture and use of this compound. Caprolactam may be released to the environment in emissions and effluents from its manufacturing and use facilities. Caprolactam has been detected in water. Small segments of the general population may be exposed by the ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Caprolactam is a white, hygroscopic, crystalline solid or leaflets that are very soluble in water. Caprolactam has a, unpleasant odor; the odor threshold has not been established.” (Learn More - link to our pdf library - caprolactam.pdf)
Carbon disulfide – 0.00009 mg/L, there is no drinking water standard set by the EPA and PADEP, but the California's Science Advisory Panel has set a limit of 0.16 mg/L. (OK)
“Carbon disulfide is a colorless liquid that evaporates readily at room temperature and has as weet ether-like odor. In nature, small amounts of carbon disulfide are found in gases emitted from marshes and volcanoes and certain soil microorganisms. Carbon disulfide will rapidly evaporate from surface waters, and in air will break down into simpler substances within days to a few weeks. The primary commercial use of carbon disulfide is in the viscose rayon industry where it isused as a critical component in the manufacture of synthetic fibers. Carbon disulfide also is used in the production of cellophane and carbon tetrachloride and in a variety of other industrial processes, including vulcanization of rubber, production of resins, plywood, metal recovery from waste water, and brightening metals in electroplating. The action level for carbon disulfide in drinking water is therefore suggested as 160 ug/L. The primary basis for OEHHA's recommendation of an action level of 160 ug/L for carbon disulfide is to provide protection from neurological damage. Human data suggest that low-level chronic exposure to carbon disulfide can diminish nerve conduction velocity in the peripheral nervous system. At higher exposures, human data show that increased nerve damage of the peripheral nervous system can occur. At such levels, there is also the potential of increased cardiovascular disease, including atherosclerotic changes, and a potential decrease in reproductive capability. (Source)”
Methyl ethyl ketone – 0.00008 mg/L (J) - < 0.002 mg/L- really not detectable (2-Butanone)
Methyl ethyl ketone is a colorless volatile liquid that is soluble in water. The odor threshold for methyl ethyl ketone is 5.4 parts per million (ppm), with an acetone-like odor reported. Methyl ethyl ketone is also referred to as 2-butanone. The EPA and PADEP has not set a drinking water standard, but it appears that Massachusetts has set a level of 4 mg/L.
Ethylene glycol – the reported value is < 10 mg/L – there is no standard, but the EPA has a guidance limit of < 7 mg/L. Other states have lower and higher standards:
New Jersey 0.300 mg/L (300 ppb)
Arizona 5.5 mg/L (5500 ppb)
New Hampshire 7.0 mg/L (7000 ppb)
Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota14.0 mg/L (14,000 ppb)
At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene glycol and other glycol compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.
1. Methane is elevated and correction action including active venting and possibly other treatment is needed. The value for methane ranged from 15 to 28 mg/L. The methane to ethane ratio 16 to
30, which suggests a Thermogenic source for the methane gas.
There are two main types of methane found in rock formations and groundwater. The types are based on a difference in origin, not composition:
Thermogenic methane, which is formed from buried organic matter at considerable depths where the rocks are compressed and heated; this includes the methane found in coal, gas from some Devonian sandstones/shales, and gas from the Marcellus and Utica Formations. Methane is produced by the inorganic breakdown of organic matter (heat and pressure).
Microbial (previous term biogenic or bacterial methane) forms closer to the surface by the action of bacteria (methanogens- “bacteria that produce methane and cannot live in an environment with oxygen). This would include methane generated in landfills, lake sediments, wetlands/swamps, organic-rich glacial deposits, other recently buried organic deposits, and other carbon rich environments that are without oxygen. Microbial methane gas typically contains 20 percent to 30 percent less methane than is found in thermogenic natural gas.
As a guide, it may be possible to use a ratio to suggest the source of the gas- “ if the ratio of methane to ethane is 25, the source is thermogenic, but if the ratio is over 2500, then it is microbial" (Mr. Bob Pirkle, President of Microseeps, Inc.), but between 25 and 2500 this is where isotopic analysis and gas composition analysis critical.
2. No major problem, but follow-up testing should include the organic parameters that were suggested to be present at just at or near the detection limit for the method.
3. Retesting for glycols and total suspended solids using a more sensitive technique is recommended. The sample has a total iron and manganese content that exceed the
secondary drinking water standards set by the EPA and PADEP. These limits were set for aesthetic reasons.
4. Recommend testing the well water for forever chemicals (PFOA and PFOS).
For a thorough Observational Self Test of your water, check out the KnowYourH2O™ Self Test Web App.
Certified Baseline Testing Natural Gas Development - Submit a Request for Consultation with the KnowYourH20 Team. Contact Us
