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-18 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)
Heterotrophic Bacteria – 73 colonies per 100 ml. The drinking water limit is < 500 colonies per 100 ml (OK). (Note: This is critical, even through total coliform bacterial test was Negative, there was some bacteria in the water sample. The presence of bacterial contamination of this nature may suggest that the well is improperly constructed, improperly drilled, requires maintenance, and over time the bacterial population may result in nuisance issues.
Total Coliform < 1 colony per 100 ml or ABSENT (OK)
Aluminum – 0.0346 ****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 ofaesthetic reasons. The treated water level of aluminum is < 0.030 mg/L. (OK)
Anionic Surfactants –< 0.01 mg/L – the secondary drinking water standard for foaming agents is 0.5 mg/L. (OK)
Arsenic – 0.0022 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 arsenic was 0.0021 mg/L and treated and filtered 0.0026 mg/L. (Ok – monitoring recommended)
Barium – 0.276 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. After treatment, the concentration is 0.309 mg/L. (OK)
Bromide – < 0.5 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. We might suggest that a new test be conducted with a lower limit of detection (OK)
Boron - 0.186 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).
Calcium -16.0 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available. After treatment, the level of Calcium is 18.3 mg/L.(OK)
Chloride – 2.84 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact. After treatment the reported value was 5.05 mg/L (OK).
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 0.0078 mg/L – this suggests there is some level of corrosion and leaching of copper from the plumbing for the home. (Ok- Monitor).
Ethane – < 0.0012 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard (OK)
Fluoride – 0.117 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 2 mg/L- PADEP drinking water standard is 2 mg/L. After treatment, the reported value was 0.26 mg/L (OK).
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 – 0.190 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard. The well water is below the new action limit of 7 mg/L. After treatment, the level of methane is 0.160 mg/L. (OK)
Magnesium - 2.73 mg/L– no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available. (OK) The treated water level of magnesium was 3.07 mg/L.
Manganese – 0.0062 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. After treatment the level is 0.0078 mg/L. (OK)
Nickel – < 0.001 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)
Potassium – < 2.0 mg/L (Total – no specific drinking water standard, drinking water standard is available (Ok)
Sodium –45.6 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 20mg/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). After treatment, the level was 37.0 mg/L. (OK)
Sulfate –7.53 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Strontium – 0.954 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 1.09 mg/L.
Total Dissolved Solids – 138 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 73 mg/L- this value seems to be low (OK).
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 – < 0.002 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 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)
Acetone - the reported value was < 0.002 mg/L. 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) The value in the treated water was < 0.0033 mg/L (Not sure why the detection limit changed may be interference because of the water matrix).
Bromoform – < 0.0005 mg/L – the total trihalomethane group has a limit of 0.08 mg/L, but bromoform should be less than 0.004 mg/L. (OK)
Methyl ethyl ketone – < 0.002 mg/L in the treated water and untreated water. (OK)
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. Methylethyl 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)
1. Retesting for ethylene glycol and other glycol-type compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis;
2. Retesting for total dissolved solids;
3. Monitoring arsenic, retesting bromide to a lower level of detection, and monitoring strontium;
4. Inspecting the well for any construction deficiencies the most common are lack of a sanitary well cap, well located in a pit, or well casing less than 18 inches above grade, and
5. Consider testing the well for the 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
