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-16 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)
Aluminum – 0.102 mg/L (Total) and < 0.030 mg/L (D) - drinking water standard ranges from 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L. This parameter is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard because of aesthetic reasons. The treated water level of aluminum is < 0.030 mg/L. It would be advisable to continue monitoring. (Action- monitoring)
Anionic Surfactants– 0.023 mg/L – the secondary drinking water standard for foaming agents is 0.5mg/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 NEPA – about 6 % of private wells have arsenic above 0.010 mg/L. The treated water level of arsenic was 0.0033 mg/L and treated and filtered 0.0028 mg/L. (Ok – monitoring recommended)
Barium – 2.91mg/L – the primary drinking water standard for barium is 2.0 mg/L – this is elevated and raises specific concerns related to the inter-relationship between fresh and saline water. Barium is typically detectable in non-saline impacted water at a level of less than 1 mg/L, but regionally is detected at levels of 1 to over 2 mg/L for water that are influenced by saline water. (The level is Elevated). It appears the treatment system only reduced the level of barium to 2.85 mg/L. It may be possible that the water treatment system did not take into consideration the level of barium. A water softener may be needed. (Action- Continued Monitoring - well may be influenced by saline water- it may be possible to mitigate saline water impact, but additional work is needed.)
Bromide – 0.857 mg/L - In freshwater, bromide is typically less than 0.05 mg/L. Therefore, it would be advisable to retest using a method with a lower detection limit. If an ozone-based water treatment system is proposed, it may be best to have the bromide level of less than 0.0063 mg/L to prevent the formation of bromates. Additional sampling post treatment for bromates would be advisable (Action Suggested - again this suggests the well water is influenced by saline water)
Boron – 0.0915 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- but monitoring advisable- again this suggests the well water is influenced by saline water).
Calcium - 35.0 mg/L (Total)– no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available. (OK) – The treatment system has reduced the level to 1.56 mg/L (low treated water may be more likely corrosive).
Chloride – 94.1 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) At the tap the level was 0.0035 mg/L – this suggests there is some level of corrosion and leaching of copper in the plumbing for the home.
Ethane – 0.011 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard (OK) and treated < 0.0012 mg/L.
Fluoride – < 0.1 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 2 mg/L- PADEP drinking water standard is 2 mg/L.
Iron – 0.464 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 exceed the secondary drinking water standard. (Treatment Needed) 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 water standard is available, but EPA has recommend a level be below 0.7 mg/L (OK)
Methane – 26 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. After treatment, the level of methane is 0.380 mg/L.
Note – It appears the well water is treated and the treated water methane was 0.380 mg/L. Water treatment system may be specifically designed for methane, but none specifically addressing the issue of bromide and barium.
Magnesium-10.7 mg/L– no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available. (OK) The treated water level of magnesium was 0.629 mg/L.
Manganese– 0.0648 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 < 0.001 mg/L.
Nickel – 0.0018 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) After treatment the level was 0.0015 mg/L.
Potassium – 2.1 mg/L (Total) and 2.03 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available. (Ok)
Sodium – 50.2 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) 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 –0.628 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Strontium – 1.803 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 – 258 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 239 mg/L.
Total Suspended Solids - < 10 mg/L – no standard, but would recommend retesting to obtain a lower detection limit.
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 – 0.0248 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)
Acetone - the reported value was 0.0042 mg/L - actually below the actual water limit of < 0.002 mg/L in the treated water, but < 0.002 mg/L in the untreated water and no trigger limit is reported. The 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)
Bromoform – 0.0024 mg/L – the Total Trihalomethane Group has a limit of 0.08 mg/L, but bromoform should be less than 0.004 mg/L. This is probably formed by the reaction of bromide and ozone – Assuming ozone is used in the treatment system. (Action is Needed- monitoringand additional testing for bromates).
Methyl ethyl ketone – 0.0031 mg/L in the treated water, but < 0.002 mg/L in the untreated water.
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. The likely source is the piping of the home – additional monitoring is recommended.
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 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 exceeding a limit of 20 mg/L. Action is needed. Since the ratio of methane/ethane (C1/C2) is 2600 – this would suggest that the gas is of biogenic 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:
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.
2. Barium is high, but the combination of barium, sodium, strontium, boron, and bromide would suggest the water is impacted by saline water. The existing water treatment system is not
addressing the issue with barium and bromide.
3. Iron and Manganese were elevated in the raw water, but reduce to below the drinking water standard in the treated water.
4. 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.
5. Bromoform – probably related to the reaction between bromide and ozone. Additional monitoring and adjusting treatment system for bromide-based compounds advisable.
6. Acetone and Ketone – possibly higher in the treated water- this is most likely related to the plumbing for the home and treatment system and not groundwater quality.
7. Ethylene Glycol - the testing was not sensitive enough - recommended retesting using a more sensitive method, i.e., a low level of detection or using a different method.
8. Recommend testing the well water for forever chemicals (PFOA and PFOS).
Again – this is not about cause and effect- it is an honest review of the data. (Period)
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
