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-11 in Dimock, Pennsylvania. The well was sampled by the EPA, DEP, and the local natural gas development company in February 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 is 0.5 mg/L. (OK)
Arsenic – < 0.001 mg/L – drinking water standard is < 0.010 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact and arsenic is a common problem in NEPA – about 6 % of private wells have arsenic above 0.010 mg/L.
Barium – 0.164 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 innon-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 - 35.5 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available. (OK)
Chloride – 7.24 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 – < 0.002 mg/L (Untreated) - the secondary drinking water standard is 1.0 mg/L and the primary drinking water standard is 1.3 mg/L. (OK)
Ethane – 0.320 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 – < 0.100 mg/L (Total)) – 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 does not exceed the secondary drinking water standard. (OK)
Lead – < 0.001 mg/L ****(Total) - Lead is regulated as a primary standard (EPA and PA) at 0.015 mg/L, but the action level in PA for source water is 0.005 mg/L. (OK)
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 – 22 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard. (Action is needed). The well water is above the new action limit of 7 mg/L - The well should be actively vented, but it may be advisable to evaluate a structural modification to the well and changing the pumping system.
Magnesium - 8.13 mg/L– no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available. (OK) Manganese – 0.0457 mg/L (Total) – 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 Not exceed the secondary drinking water standard, but it is approaching the value. Some intermittent problems with discolored water may occur – additional monitoring recommended. (OK)
Nickel – 0.0014 mg/L – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard
is available, but the EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L. (OK)
Sodium – 8.48 mg/L – 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 – 13. 7 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Strontium – 0.469 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 – 110 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.
Total Suspended Solids - < 10 mg/L – no standard, but would recommend retesting to obtain a lower detection limit.
Uranium – 0.0021 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 – 0.0042 mg/L – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L. (OK)
Nitrate+Nitrite- N – 0.162 mg/L, this is well below the EPA / PADEP drinking water limit of10mg N/L for nitrate-N and would also be below the limit of 1.0 mg N/L for nitrite-N. (OK)
Acetone - the reported value was 0.0057 mg/L (J/P -actually below the actual water limit of < 0.002 mg/L - Treated Water - the untreated water had a reported value of <0.002 mg/L) and no trigger limit is reported, but PADEP has a Medium Specific Concentration (MSC) for aquifers with a TDS of < 2500 mg/L of 33.0 mg/L and Massachusetts appears to have a drinking water standard of 6.3 mg/L. (OK)
Methyl ethyl ketone – 0.0014 mg/L (J/P - the sample is following the treatment system and below the detection limit for the method) – the untreated water had a value of < 0.002 mg/L ) – therefore the result is not actually detectable.
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. (OK- but additional monitoring advisable)
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)
The EPA also collected a treated water sample. After treatment, the following was documented:
Ethane – From 0.320 mg/L to < 0.0012 mg/L
Methane – From 22.00 mg/L to 0.026 mg/L
Chloride – From 7.24 mg/L to 7.01 mg/L
Sulfate – From 13.74 mg/L to 13.3 mg/L
Barium – From 0.164 mg/L to 0.164 mg/L
Copper – From < 0.002 mg/L to 0.0045 mg/L – suggest corrosion within plumbing of home, the result is still below the action limit.
Sodium – From 9.35 mg/L to 11.8 mg/L
Strontium – From 0.469 mg/L to 0.513 mg/L
Uranium – From 0.0019 mg/L to 0.0019 mg/L
Zinc – 0.0042 mg/L to 0.012 mg/L - suggest corrosion within plumbing of the home,the result is still below the action limit.
Acetone - < 0.002 mg/L to 0.0057 mg/L (J) – the detect is below the reported detection limit for the method.
Methyl ethyl ketone - < 0.002 mg/L to 0.0014 mg/L – a suspected detect following treatment.
At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene glycol other and glycol-type compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.
1. Methane was present at a level that is above the action limit of 7 mg/L and approaching a saturated level. Action is needed. Since the ratio of methane/ethane is 68 – this would suggest that the gas is of Thermogenic origin.
Biogenic formation of methane: methane produced by biological activity most typically in anoxic (without oxygen) settings via methanogenic bacteria.
Thermogenic formation of methane: the formation of methane is caused or associated with a chemical reaction combined with heat and pressure without the need for microbes.
There are two main types of methane found in rock formations and groundwater. The types are based on a difference in origin, not composition:
a. 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).
b. 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. Methyl ethyl ketone and Acetone hits were suggested, but the reported values were actually below the method detection limit. This suggests that additional monitoring may be advisable.
3. Detects for ketone and acetone after treatment suggest that this may be related to recent repairs or changes in the plumbing for the home.
4.Manganese is just below the secondary drinking water standard – continued monitoring is advisable.
5. 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
