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-13 in Dimock, Pennsylvania. The well was sampled by the EPA, DEP, and the local natural gas development company in January 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.
The following is a summary of the water quality data that was generated by the EPA for a private water well identified as HW-13 in Dimock, Pennsylvania. The well was sampled by the EPA, DEP, and the local natural gas development company in January 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.
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)
Heterotrophic Bacteria – 560 cfu/ml -the general guidance for “standard plate count” or total bacterial count is < 500 colonies per ml (OK). This would suggest a potential bacterial issue and if there are problems with iron, manganese, discolored water, or odor, it is possible that the cause could be related to microbiologically induced corrosion and “nuisance bacteria”.
[http://health.mo.gov/lab/heterotropicbacteria.php](http://health.mo.gov/lab/heterotropicbacteria.php)
Ethane –0.024 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard. (OK)
Methane – 1.30 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard. (OK). The well water is not above the new action limit of 7 mg/L, but the well should be fitted with a basic vented well cap There are places in PA were baseline levels of methane gas are at or above 7 mg/L. In general, I would estimate that 1 to 3 % of private wells may have elevated levels of methane. In addition to modifying the well, it would be advisable to conduct isotopic analysis. Based on the ratio of
methane to ethane, the ratio is 54. This suggests the gas is of thermogenic origin and isotopic analysis is critical. No specific health concern – but action needed to properly vent gas.
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 other other glycol compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis. Note: I have been to this location and conducted only a field screening test for glycol - the field test is manufactured by Chematics Inc. and the result was not detectable for glycol, i.e., < 1 mg/L.
Chloride – 8.31 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not
suggest any specific impact.
Sulfate – 10.6 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Barium - 0.225 mg/L (Total) and 0.235 mg/L (D) – drinking water standard is < 2 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)
Calcium - 31.9 mg/L (Total) and 33.1 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water
standard is available. (OK)
Iron – 2.87 mg/L (Total) and 0.33 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. Elevated level of iron is a common water quality problem in
Northeastern Pennsylvania. Action is Recommended, because of an aesthetic issue. Check for MIC and Nuisance Bacteria.
Magnesium - 6.62 mg/L (Total) and 6.84 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard, drinking
water standard is available. (OK)
Manganese – 0.031 mg/L (Total) and 0.0164 mg/L (D) – 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. (OK)
Nickel - 0.0016 mg/L (Total) and 0.0013 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard,
drinking water standard is available, but the EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L. (OK)
Sodium – 12.6 mg/L (Total) and 12.9 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)
Strontium – 0.764 mg/L (Total) and 0.774 mg/L (D) – 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)
Toluene – 0.0012 mg/L - Toluene is regulated as a primary drinking water standard by
the EPA and PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit and maximum contaminant level goal is 1.0 mg/L, but over 0.0040 mg/L toluene can create odor related problems. (OK)
Uranium – 0.0003 mg/L (Total) and 0.0032 mg/L (D) – 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 – 0.004 mg/L (Total) and < 0.002 mg/L (D) – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L. (OK)
Total Dissolved Solids – 15 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.
Nitrate+Nitrite - N – 0.78 mg/L, this is well below the EPA / PADEP drinking water limit of
10mg N/L for nitrate-N and would also be below the limit of 1.0 mg N/L for
nitrite-N. (OK) Total Nitrogen – 1.45 mg/L (No Standard)
1. No major problems
2. Heterotrophic bacteria data is elevated.
3. Iron is elevated and exceeds a secondary drinking water standard.
4. Methane/Ethane Ratio could suggest the source of the methane is of thermogenic origin and the level of methane is well below the action level of 7 mg/L.
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.
5. Total Dissolved Solids results seem inaccurate or there is a typo in the draft report.
6. Retesting for glycols using a more sensitive technique is recommended. Note - I have used a field screening test for glycols and the level was less then 1 mg/L - Note - Not a certified or approved method.
7. Toluene detected – but not at a level above a maximum contaminant level or a level that could cause aesthetic issues.
8. 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
