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-5 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 exists 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)
Arsenic – 0.0053 mg/L – drinking water standard is < 0.010 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact and arsenic is a common problem in Northeastern Pennsylvania – about 6 % of private wells have arsenic above 0.010 mg/L. The treated water level of arsenicwas 0.0033 mg/L and treated and filtered 0.0028 mg/L. (Ok – monitoring recommended, but if this well was in New Jersey were the standard is 0.005 mg/L treatment would be needed)
Barium – 0.582 mg/L – the primary drinking water standard for barium is 2.0 mg/L –– this doesnot suggest any specific impact and barium is typically detectable in non-saline impacted water at a level of less than 1 mg/L. (OK) It appears the treatment system has reduced the level to0.0184 mg/L.
Boron – < 0.050 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard isavailable. EPA appears to have a long-term health advisory of 2.0 mg/L, butother states have limits that range from 0.6 to 1 mg/L. Therefore, this does not appear to suggestany form of impact. (OK)
Calcium- 31.9 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard isavailable. (OK) The treatment system has reduced the level to 1.56 mg/L, which may be too low and could be associated with potential concerns of corrosion.
Chloride –15.6 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Chromium - 0.0022 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) At the tap the level was 0.0134mg/L – this suggests there is some level of corrosion and leaching of copper in the plumbing for the home, see comment on Calcium.
Ethane – 0.130 mg/L – no specific drinking water standard. (OK)
Fluoride – < 0.1 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 2 mg/L- PADEP drinking waterstandard is 2 mg/L.
Iron – 0.109 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) After water treatment the level was < 0.100 mg/L.
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 waterstandard is available, but EPA has recommend a level be below 0.7 mg/L. (OK)
Methane – 14 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard. (Action 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.
Note – It appears the well water is treated and the treated water methane was 0.027 mg/L. (OK)
Magnesium -10.3 mg/L – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard isavailable. (OK) The treated water level of magnesium was 0.629 mg/L (Maybe Low).
Manganese - 0.160 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 exceed the secondary drinking water standard. Some intermittent problems with discolored water may occur – additional monitoring recommended. (Elevated) After treatment the level is < 0.001mg/L.
Nickel – 0.0014 mg/L – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but the EPA has suggested a MCL of 0.1 mg/L. (OK) After treatment the level was not detectable.
Sodium –16.9 mg/L – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available, butthe 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) After treatment, the level was 66.00 mg/L – this suggests that the treatment system probably includes a water softener that uses a sodium based salt.
Sulfate –3.95 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Strontium – 0.803 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) After treatment, the level is < 0.200 mg/L.
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. After treatment the level was 175 mg/L. (OK)
Total Suspended Solids - < 10 mg/L – no standard, but would recommend retesting to obtain a lower detection limit.
Uranium – 0.0012 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 – < 0.002 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 – < 0.05 mg/L, this is well below the EPA / PADEP drinking water limitof 10mg N/L for nitrate-N and would also be below the limit of 1.0 mg N/L for nitrite-N. (OK)
dimethyl phthalate – the reported value was 0.00001 mg/L (J- value - actually below the detection limit of < 0.005 mg/L-and the reported trigger limit is 1.4 mg/L. Florida has a health advisory level of 70 mg/L for dimethyl phthalate. This hit was reported on the treated water – this would suggest that it could be related to the plumbing and piping and not the well water quality. (OK) Resource - ATSDR.CDC.Factsheet on Phthalates link to pdf tfacts95.pdf
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 Minnesota 14.0 mg/L (14,000 ppb)
At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene glycol 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 limit of 20 mg/L. Action is needed. Since the ratio of methane/ethane (C1/C2) is 107 – this would suggest that the gas is of biogenic or microbiological origin and not thermogenic.
Notes:
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.
2. Dimethyl phthalate hits was suggested, but the reported values were actually below the method detection limit. This suggests that additional monitoring may be advisable.
3. Detect for dimethyl phthalate after treatment suggest that this may be related to recent repairs or changes in the plumbing for the home.
4.The house appears to have a treatment system that is likely a sodium based water softener that reduces the level of barium, strontium, calcium, magnesium, iron, and manganese. Because of the elevated level of manganese in the raw water, the system was probably installed because of the manganese.
5. The copper is higher after treatment than in the raw water, this could suggest an internal corrosion related problem in the piping of the home and this may be related to the very low hardness of the treated water.
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
