Pa. wants to cut off gas-drilling wastewater AP

Pa. wants to cut off gas-drilling wastewater – Yahoo! News.

Pa. wants to cut off gas-drilling wastewater

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Citing potentially unsafe drinking water, Pennsylvania called on companies drilling in the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation to stop taking wastewater to 15 treatment plants by May 19.

Tuesday’s announcement was a major change in the state’s regulation of gas drilling and came the same day that an industry group said it now believes drilling wastewater is partly at fault for rising levels of bromide being found in Pittsburgh-area rivers.

Gas drilling that uses millions of gallons of chemical-laden water has rapidly grown in the past three years in Pennsylvania.

In other major gas-drilling states, drilling wastewater is kept out of rivers largely by injecting it deep underground into disposal wells. But in Pennsylvania, some drilling wastewater is treated by sewer authorities, largely in western Pennsylvania, and discharged into rivers.

Those wastewater plants, however, are ill-equipped to remove all the pollutants, and Pennsylvania still allows hundreds of millions of gallons of the partially treated wastewater to be discharged into rivers from which communities draw drinking water.

The state Department of Environmental Protection cited elevated levels of bromide in rivers in western Pennsylvania in its announcement.

“Now is the time to take action to end this practice,” acting Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer said in a statement Tuesday.

Bromide is a salt that later reacts with the chlorine disinfectants used by drinking water systems and creates trihalomethanes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that trihalomethanes can be harmful to people who drink water with elevated levels of the chemical for many years.

Officials at Pittsburgh-area drinking water authorities in Beaver Falls and Fredericktown say their facilities have flunked tests for trihalomethanes in the past couple years.

Complicating the matter is that, in addition to gas drilling, Pennsylvania’s multitude of acid-leaching, abandoned coal mines and other industrial sources are also a major factor in the high salt levels that lead to trihalomethanes in drinking water.

Pennsylvania imposed tougher wastewater treatment standards for drilling wastewater in August, although it still allowed facilities that had been permitted to accept drilling wastewater before August to continue accepting limited amounts under the same treatment standards. Fifteen of those 27 facilities that were grandfathered under the August rules were still accepting the wastewater, the DEP said.

“While there are several possible sources for bromide other than shale drilling wastewater, we believe that if operators would stop giving wastewater to facilities that continue to accept it under the special provision, bromide concentrations would quickly and significantly decrease,” Krancer said in the statement.

Kathryn Klaber, president of the industry’s Marcellus Shale Coalition, said she would provide specifics in the coming days about actions that coalition members will take in an effort to reduce the amount of bromide that ends up in Pennsylvania rivers. Her organization came to that conclusion after seeing new research from Carnegie Mellon University and the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, Klaber said.

Local group warns Auburn on gas well water Apr. 18, 2011

AuburnPub.com

Local group warns Auburn on gas well water

Christopher Caskey / The Citizen | Posted: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:05 am

A group of local citizens concerned about natural gas drilling is calling on the city of Auburn to tighten regulations related to gas well water at its sewage treatment plant.

A letter signed by 75 people questioned how the city can trust that the companies currently dumping well water at the plant to follow the rules. They specifically pointed to a recent public notice that announced citations against six natural gas drilling companies for failing to file proper monitoring reports in 2010.

The group, which calls itself the Cayuga Anti-Fracking Alliance, wants the city to do one of two things. Either charge an “exorbitant price” to take the water and require all drilling firms to accept any future liability related to environmental or health impacts from the water, or refuse to take natural gas well water altogether.

City and state regulations currently ban any water from the controversial Marcellus shale formation and from wells that use a process known as high-volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing (or fracking, for short) from going into the city’s wastewater plant.

The firms cited in March for the reporting violations were also forced to produce certification that no water from the Marcellus Shale was discharged into the local plant.

“How do we know that this is the case apart from taking natural gas companies at their word?” the group asks in their letter to the Auburn City Council.

“Bluntly put, the natural gas industry has no incentive to tell the truth,” the letter later states.

Members of the city council say they are intrigued by the group’s concerns. Auburn Mayor Michael Quill said on Thursday that the council will hold a work session in the coming weeks to try and answer some questions and discuss issues related to processing well water at the city plant.

Quill said he is interested in studying legislation in other municipalities about processing well water and see if the city should change its own regulations. A work session on the issue would be a way to “get everyone in a room together talking to each other” about the issue, he said.

“None of us want anything (processed at the plant) that’s detrimental to the environment,” Quill said.

Councilor Gilda Brower said she’s also watching the issue closely. She said on Thursday that the city may have to do more testing of the water that comes through. Though Brower said she’s in favor of going even further, at this point.

“I would support a ban, for sure,” Brower said.

The city’s wastewater plant has accepted natural gas well water for more than a decade. But that water, and natural gas drilling, has become the focus of controversy in recent years.

The horizontal hydrofracking process is used to pull large amounts of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, a large underground formation that runs through parts of New York’s Southern Tier and Pennsylvania.

The natural gas well water processed at the Auburn plant mostly comes from wells in the Trenton Black River, Queenston, Oriskany and Oneida formations in New York state and is hauled by a handful of companies. The water is considered industrial waste, and the city must include all sources in an industrial pretreatment program filed with the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Each hauler must report the wells and formations from which the water comes.

The wastewater from the Marcellus wells contains higher levels of contaminants, radioactive materials, chlorides and dissolved solids than water from a typical gas well that uses a conventional, vertical drilling process. The water coming into the Auburn site contains lower concentrations of contaminants, according to city officials.

The state is currently in the process of finishing an environmental review for horizontal drilling in the Marcellus formation. And as that process continues, the members of the Cayuga Anti-Fracking Alliance are one of dozens of environmental groups looking to ban horizontal drilling in New York state.

Auburn resident Beth Cuddy, who helped bring the local group together, said she started focusing on the issue recently when she saw in a national media report that said Auburn accepts well water.

She described the organization as an “informal group,” though she said they plan to organize local rallies and events to raise awareness about the hydrofracking issue. This weekend they held private screenings of a documentary on the issue, and Cuddy said they are looking for other times and places to hold similar screenings.

They also plan to continue lobbying local officials and raise awareness about environmental issues surrounding hydrofracking.

“I don’t see any way it (hydrofracking) can be done where it doesn’t affect the water,” Cuddy said. “I don’t understand why anyone would want to destroy the one resource we need to survive as a human race.”

Staff writer Christopher Caskey can be reached at 282-2282 orchristopher.caskey@lee.net. Follow him on Twitter at CitizenCaskey.

Steuben County, NY May Accept Marcellus Drill Cuttings in County Landfill | Marcellus Drilling News

Steuben County, NY May Accept Marcellus Drill Cuttings in County Landfill | Marcellus Drilling News.

Bromide linked to oil/gas “brines”

Dr. Conrad Voltz, formerly of the Center for Environmental Health and Justice at U Pitt, testified in front of a Senate subcomittee today.   (4/11/11)

From a study he and his students did at a treatment plant that only handled “brine” from oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania, they found amongst 8 other effluents at levels that exceed standards:

Bromide, which forms mixed chloro-bromo byproducts in water treatment
facilities that have been linked to cancer and other health problems were found in
effluent at 10,688 times the levels generally found acceptable as a background in
surface water.

On March 7, 2011 Melody Kight at SUNY-ESF presented the initial
findings of her research on identifying flowback fluid contamination.

“It’s very difficult to distinguish” the source of elevated chlorides
in well or surface water, whether they’re from road salt, frack fluid,
or other sources of NaCl (salt).  Her studies indicate that the Na:Cl
ratio is at approximately 1:1 in all of them.  Therefore, a different
ratio must be used to “fingerprint” frack fluid contamination.

Parker in 1978 characterized Appalachian Basin formation brine.  He
found that as NaCl precipitates out of solution, bromide remains
dissolved in the brine.

Therefore, Ms. Kight rationalized, the Br:Cl ratio is the key.  Her
studies, using water samples from the PADEP and various calculating
and modeling software, showed that salty water from frack fluid and
from other sources have different Br:Cl ratios.

Bromide has a 0.01 mg/L detection limit.  Ms. Kight calculated that a
solution contaminated with as little as 0.0015% frack fluid could be
fingerprinted in this way.

http://sites.google.com/site/melodykight/home/research/abstracts

Ms. Kight is known to be a vocal supporter of natural gas drilling, but her research may prove useful.  Landowners should ensure their water, both pre- and post- drilling, has been checked for bromide.

State may limit drilling byproduct from being spread on farms – News – Daily Review

State may limit drilling byproduct from being spread on farms

bY Laura Legere (Times-Shamrock Writer)

Published: April 9, 2011

Article Tools

Share

| Font size: [A] [A] [A]

Sign Up newsletter

Pennsylvania is seeking to limit the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer on farmers’ fields if the sludge comes from sewer plants that treat wastewater from natural gas drilling.

Environmental regulators’ concerns about the sludge was highlighted in a New York Times article on Friday that described the risks of radioactive contaminants in the drilling wastewater concentrating in the sludge during treatment. The sludge, also called biosolids, is sometimes sold or given away to farmers and gardeners as fertilizer if it meets certain standards for pathogens and metals.

The Times article quotes from a transcript of a March 15 conference call between officials with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Environmental Protection about how to better regulate discharges of the wastewater that can be high in salts, metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials.

DEP is developing a guidance document about how to include new wastewater treatment standards into permits for new or expanding treatment plants that handle the drilling fluids. The new standards limit the amount of salty discharge, called total dissolved solids, that can enter state streams.

The draft guidance document would also bar treatment plants that receive untreated drilling wastewater from using their sludge for land application.

Ron Furlan, a division manager for DEP’s Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation, is quoted in the Times as saying sludge was included in the guidance document because “we don’t have a good handle on the radiological concerns right now, and in any case we don’t want people land-applying biosolids that may be contaminated to any significant level by radium 226-228 or other emitters.”

The guidance does not carry the legal weight of a regulation and would not be imposed on treatment plants unless their discharge permit is up for renewal or they apply for a new or expanded permit.

The draft guidance also proposes that treatment plants accepting untreated drilling wastewater develop radiation protection “action plans” and have monitoring requirements for radium 226 and 228, gross alpha and uranium established in their permits.

In a letter this week to the EPA, DEP Acting Secretary Michael Krancer wrote that the state has directed 14 public water supplies that draw from rivers downstream from treatment plants that accept Marcellus Shale wastewater to test the finished drinking water for radioactive contaminants and other pollutants. The state also called on 25 treatment plants that accept the wastewater to begin twice monthly testing for radioactivity in their discharges.

Tests of seven state rivers at sites downstream from wastewater treatment plants last fall showed that levels of radioactivity were at or below normal levels.

In the conference call quoted by the New York Times, environmental regulators also expressed concerns about radionuclides settling in the sediment of rivers where the incompletely treated wastewater is discharged from sewer plants.

“If you were really looking for radionuclides, that’s the first place I would look,” Furlan said.

DEP spokeswoman Katy Gresh said Friday that there are currently no plans to begin testing river sediment for radionuclides.

“We will use the results of the increased testing/monitoring to see what is being discharged before making that decision,” she said.

Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com

via State may limit drilling byproduct from being spread on farms – News – Daily Review.

Pennsylvania Calls for More Water Tests – NYTimes.com

Pennsylvania Calls for More Water Tests – NYTimes.com.

ennsylvania Calls for More Water Tests

Pennsylvania environmental regulators said Wednesday that they were calling for waste treatment plants and drinking water facilities to increase testing for radioactive pollutants and other contaminants, to see whether they are ending up in rivers because of the growth of natural gas drilling in the state.

Green

A blog about energy and the environment.

The move follows a March 7 letter that the federal Environmental Protection Agency sent to the state, instructing it to perform testing for radioactivity within 30 days and to review the permits of state treatment plants handling the wastewater.

“Over the past three years, we have taken the actions necessary to protect the environment and public health without stifling the growth of the natural gas industry,” said Michael Krancer, acting secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

He added that his office had sent letters requiring new testing to 14 public water authorities. It also contacted 25 wastewater plants, requesting that those with older permits “voluntarily” begin testing for radium, uranium and other pollutants.

The letters from federal and state regulators follow reports in The New York Times about gas industry wastewater with high levels of radioactivity being discharged into rivers and streams by sewage treatment plants that were not designed to remove radioactive materials.

The state’s letter also comes almost a month after a lengthy conference call among E.P.A. officials and state regulators, during which they discussed how to improve regulation of natural gas industry wastewater in Pennsylvania.

During the call, federal regulators raised concerns about sludge, often called biosolids, from waste treatment plants receiving drilling wastewater.

When wastewater is sent through these plants, some of the heavier contaminants settle out during the treatment process. Radioactive elements like radium may also settle and concentrate in the sludge, which is sometimes sold by treatment plants for use as fertilizer.

E.P.A. officials said they were concerned that the state had not forbidden treatment plants to distribute the sludge for such purposes. Asked by E.P.A. officials about this issue, Pennsylvania regulators said they planned to address it in a new guideline.

“It’s not really a requirement, but it’s in guidance,” said Ron Furlan, an official from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, according to a transcript of the March 15 conference call.

Mr. Furlan added that the reason for the new guidance on biosolids is that “we don’t have a good handle on the radiological concerns right now, and in any case we don’t want people land-applying biosolids that may be contaminated to any significant level by Radium 226-228 or other emitters.”

During the conference call, E.P.A. officials said they had been informed that the Johnstown Plant in western Pennsylvania was still receiving biosolids and distributing them to be spread on fields.

“I don’t know for a fact,” Mr. Furlan said, “but I’m sure that there are some P.O.T.W.’s that are accepting brine natural gas wastewater and are still land applying, but we are still trying to stop that basically.” P.O.T.W.’s refers to publicly owned treatment works, or sewage treatment plants.

A message seeking comment from officials who oversee the Johnstown plant was not responded to. On its Web site, the plant says that it “produces 20,000 tons of lime-stabilized biosolids per year.”

Documents reviewed by The Times in February indicate that the Johnstown plant has accepted wastewater with levels of alpha radioactivity roughly 2,157 times higher than the drinking water standard.

In an interview last December, an official from the Johnstown, Pa., plant said his plant usually accepted 50,00 to 100,000 gallons of drilling wastewater per day.

In Pennsylvania, waste treatment plant operators have to test sludge for a range of contaminants before they can distribute it to be used for fertilizer. The list of contaminants does not include radium, according to a 1999 report by Pennsylvania State University. State officials did not respond to questions about whether these standards had been updated.

During the conference call, E.P.A. officials pushed state regulators to consider re-evaluating all of the permits at wastewater treatment plants that are accepting drilling waste and adding stricter standards for testing of radionuclides and other contaminants.

“It’s basically out of the question,” Mr. Furlan said, rejecting the idea and explaining that “it’s too resource intensive” and that industry would push back too strongly.

Mr. Furlan also said that the real threat of radionuclides from drilling wastewater being sent through sewage treatment plants was that it would settle in the sediment at the bottom of rivers.

The letters sent this week by Pennsylvania regulators made no mention of any plans to test river sediment or to restrict applications on land of sludge from these waste treatment plants that are accepting drilling waste.

“There is no sediment testing as far as I know,” Mr. Furlan said when asked by E.P.A officials. “But if you were really looking for radionuclides, that’s the first place I would look.”

EPA BEGINS INVESTIGATION OF PENNSYLVANIA

EPA BEGINS INVESTIGATION OF PENNSYLVANIA


EPA sends letter to PA regarding drinking water.
PA has 30-days notice about waste treatment / records:
http://www.damascuscitizens.org/EPA-to-PA.pdf

Groups say facilities wrongly discharging drilling wastewater

Groups say facilities wrongly discharging drilling wastewater.

Groups say facilities wrongly discharging drilling wastewater

Organizations plan to file a lawsuit
Friday, March 11, 2011

Two municipal sewage treatment facilities that together discharge 150,000 gallons a day of Marcellus Shale wastewater into the Monongahela River watershed don’t have federal permits for such pollution discharges and should, according to two environmental organizations that say they will sue the facilities in federal court.

Clean Water Action and Three Rivers Waterkeeper on Thursday filed a “notice of intent to sue” against sewage treatment operations in McKeesport and Franklin, Greene County, claiming the facilities are in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.

The notice marks the first legal action challenging the widespread practice of discharging Marcellus wastewater through municipal treatment facilities that do not have permits to treat such waste.

The groups were critical of both the state Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to enforce existing discharge permits, which limit the facilities to treating and discharging sewage waste water. At least 11 sewage treatment facilities in the state accept and discharge Marcellus wastewater.


 


“We cannot wait any longer to rely on the state and the EPA to act,” said Myron Arnowitt, state director of Clean Water Action. “These sewage plants have been illegally discharging gas drilling wastewater into our rivers since 2008 without a permit as required by the Clean Water Act.”

Mr. Arnowitt said the treatment facilities should immediately stop accepting the gas drilling wastewater or seek permission to amend their permits so they can legally do so.

The 18-page legal notice sent to the treatment plant and municipal officials in McKeesport and Franklin is a requirement of many federal environmental laws that include citizen suit provisions. It’s the first step toward filing a lawsuit and provides 60 days to negotiate a settlement before a lawsuit can be filed.

In response to water quality concerns, the DEP in 2008 limited the Municipal Authority for the City of McKeesport’s treatment and discharge of Marcellus Shale drilling wastewater to 1 percent of its total discharge, or an average of 102,000 gallons a day going into the Monongahela River. This year the authority’s Marcellus discharge is limited to 99,700 gallons a day, based on its average daily discharge in 2010.

The Franklin Township Sewer Authority in Greene County discharges an average of 50,000 gallons a day of Marcellus drilling wastewater into the South Fork of Ten Mile Creek, a tributary of the Monongahela River. That’s equal to 5 percent of the authority’s daily discharge, and allowed under a negotiated consent agreement with the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Those state-imposed treatment and discharge limits don’t address the main claim of the environmental groups: that their existing discharge permits haven’t been changed to allow them to accept the drilling wastewater and that the discharges are having a detrimental effect on water quality in the rivers.

About 500,000 people get their drinking water from the Mon.

“Their failure to follow proper procedures for authorization to discharge oil and as wastewater renders their discharge illegal,” the notice states. “Their failure to follow the requirements pertaining to the pretreatment program also leaves them in violation of the Clean Water Act.”

Joe Ross, executive director of the McKeesport authority, and George Scott, general manager of the Franklin facility, said Thursday afternoon they hadn’t seen the notice filing or been contacted by the environmental groups, so declined to comment.

Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
First published on March 11, 2011 at 12:00 am

Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater

Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater.

Bromide: A concern in drilling wastewater
Sunday, March 13, 2011

Ballooning bromide concentrations in the region’s rivers, occurring as Marcellus Shale wastewater discharges increase, is a much bigger worry than the risk of high radiation levels, public water suppliers say.

Unlike radiation, which so far has shown up at scary levels only in Marcellus Shale hydraulic fracturing wastewater sampling done at wellheads, the spike in salty bromides in Western Pennsylvania’s rivers and creeks has already put some public water suppliers into violation of federal safe drinking water standards.

Others, like the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, haven’t exceeded those limits but have been pushed up against them. Some have had to change the way they treat water.

Bromide is a salty substance commonly found in seawater. It was once used in sedatives and headache remedies like Bromo-Seltzer until it was withdrawn because of concerns about toxicity. When it shows up at elevated levels in freshwater, it is due to human activities. The problem isn’t so much the bromide in the river but what happens when that river water is treated to become drinking water.

Bromide facilitates formation of brominated trihalomethanes, also known as THMs, when it is exposed to disinfectant processes in water treatment plants. THMs are volatile organic liquid compounds.

Studies show a link between ingestion of and exposure to THMs and several types of cancer and birth defects.

“Our biggest concerns are about bromide, which has become a problem over the last six months or so,” said Stanley States, water quality manager with the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, which draws water from the Allegheny River for its 400,000 customers. “Trihalomethanes are strictly regulated because of the health risks. We’ve seen levels that are threatening the standards.”

The federal safe drinking water standard for THMs is 80 micrograms per cubic liter, and removing them from finished drinking water is difficult. Keeping bromide levels in raw water sources low is a much easier way to address the problem.

Mr. States said the elevated bromide levels in the river could be coming from municipal sewage treatment plants and brine treatment plants handling Marcellus Shale drilling and hydrofracking wastewater or from discharges by coal-fired power plants water discharges. He said four municipal sewage facilities and four brine treatment plants are handling and discharging Marcellus Shale wastewater upriver from Pittsburgh’s drinking water intake pipe in Aspinwall.

“Something’s changed and it could possibly be related to the treating of Marcellus Shale drilling wastewater,” Mr. States said. “There will be a lot more Marcellus Shale wells operating in the region before there are a whole lot less and our concern is in providing safe drinking water. We’re not anti-Marcellus Shale. We’re anti-bromide.”

Problem through the region

Pittsburgh is not alone. The Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority issued a notice to its customers in January informing them of the bromide problem and said it was necessary to change its water treatment methods to stay in compliance with state and federal drinking water standards.

“Due to the sudden increase in bromide concentration in the Allegheny River, all water suppliers are beginning to have a problem controlling this trihalomethane formation,” the authority wrote on its Web page. “All water purveyors on the Allegheny River System are working together to try and find out the source of the elevated bromide levels.”

Mr. States said a study is under way on the Allegheny River and its tributaries to identify sources of bromide in the river.

The Department of Environmental Protection is participating in that river sampling study and another in the Monongahela River watershed.

Katy Gresh, a DEP spokeswoman, said the department plans to order the industrial brine plants, sewage treatment facilities and coal-powered power plants on the rivers to conduct sampling at their discharge pipes.

“We will get and review those results,” Ms. Gresh said. “If we can control the largest contributors, that will help solve the problem.”

Jeanne VanBriesen, a Carnegie Mellon University professor of civil and environmental engineering, said testing there showed an unusual spike in bromide levels in July and August. Although they’ve tapered a bit since then, they remain higher than normal, said Ms. VanBriesen, who has been studying water quality in the Monongahela River since fall 2009.

She said the two biggest sources of bromide in the watershed are Marcellus wastewater from sewage treatment facilities and wastewater from new smokestack scrubbers at coal-fired power plants. The plants cannot remove the bromide in wastewater.

Bromide levels vary in discharges from both sources, but bromide is generally found at higher concentrations in Marcellus wastewater.

“It’s difficult to make a definitive statement about where it’s all coming from, but we do know it’s going into our drinking water treatment plants and affecting the treatment of our water,” Ms. VanBriesen said. “The most logical way to fix that is to reduce the amount of bromide in the rivers and creeks.”

Millions of gallons

Marcellus Shale drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations use an average of 4 million gallons of water to drill and “frack” each well. The drilling industry says it recycles approximately 70 percent of the wastewater from its well fracking operations, but millions of gallons are still funneled through 11 sewage treatment facilities and five brine treatment plants, then discharged into the state’s rivers and streams.

Together, the eight facilities on the Allegheny and its tributaries are allowed to discharge an average of 1.5 million gallons of Marcellus drilling wastewater and hydraulic fracturing fluid a day, according to state Department of Environmental Protection records. Marcellus discharges from three treatment facilities on the Monongahela River total 185,000 gallons a day. Another 650,000 gallons a day flow into the Ohio and its tributaries.

Drilling companies and the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an advocacy and lobbying organization representing most of the companies doing shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania, said the industry isn’t to blame for higher bromide levels.

“When you look at the amount of Marcellus Shale wastewater that is being discharged it’s low” compared to the river flows, said Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Range Resources. “So those [bromide] increases are not an impact of Marcellus Shale.” Range Resources recycled 90 percent of its wastewater last year and has set a goal of 100 percent for 2011.

“We certainly see this as a non-Marcellus issue,” said Steve Forde, a shale coalition spokesman, who cited a 2010 U.S. Geological Survey study that noted higher bromide levels nationwide, especially in urban areas. “Road salt use has been identified as one of the culprits for that.”

Ms. VanBriesen said that’s not likely because road salt contains more chloride and little bromide, and her water testing didn’t find a corresponding spike in chloride levels. Plus the bromide spike in the rivers first occurred in the summer.

“So to implicate road salt, well, I wouldn’t buy that,” she said. “The bromide spike happened in July and August when you wouldn’t be applying road salt. So that wasn’t a factor.”

Changing treatment process

Whatever the origin of the bromide spike, Jerry Schulte, manager of source water protection for the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, said bromide is “absolutely an issue” for water treatment plants.

“We’ve identified bromide as a compound of concern,” Mr. Schulte said, adding that ORSANCO’s triennial review of pollution control standards in April will focus on developing a new, first-time standard for bromide in the watershed.

Discharges of bromides and bromide levels in rivers or streams are not now regulated by ORSANCO or by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Josephine brine treatment facility, also known as Franklin Brine, on Blacklick Creek in the Allegheny’s watershed, discharges an average of 120,000 gallons a day of Marcellus wastewater that, at peak levels, contains high concentrations of bromide, chlorides and total dissolved solids, according to sampling done by the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities.

“There’s pretty high bromide going into the creek. Certainly it is a public health threat,” said Conrad Dan Volz, director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities. “And to remove brominated THMs, that’s going to break the bank for public water systems.”

Water treatment plants can get around the bromide problem by changing their treatment methods — substituting chloramines for the chlorides they normally use in the disinfection process. That’s what the Wilkinsburg-Penn water authority did.

The chloramines produce different, less toxic, treatment byproducts, but those can produce other problems, including causing lead and copper to leach out of old water pipelines and into drinking water as happened in Washington, D.C., when it made such a switch in 2000.

Ms. VanBriesen said water utilities making such a change can add phosphate to their finished water to prevent lead from leaching out of the pipes.

Another way to avoid THMs, she said, is to change the way water utilities mix, aerate and store their finished water, and a number of suppliers are considering that.

One water treatment facility that has had problems with keeping THM concentrations in finished water below the 80 parts per billion federal standard is Beaver Falls, in Beaver County, which was required to notify its 50,000 customers in 22 municipalities of the problem for the first three quarters of 2010.

The authority changed its treatment methods, from chlorine to chloramines, which don’t form THMs, at a cost of approximately $15,000 last year. That allowed the water supplier to meet the standard for the last three months of the year, said Jim Riggio, general manager of the water system.

Although testing done by the state DEP hasn’t been able to pinpoint a cause of the higher bromide levels in the Beaver River, Mr. Riggio said they coincided with upriver discharges of treated Marcellus Shale fracking wastewater.

“We went from non-detectable levels of bromide to increased levels a couple of years ago,” Mr. Riggio said. “When I see the whole frack water thing taking off and the same time we start to have problems, well, until you can tell me different, that’s what I assume it is. And it seems like a lot of the water suppliers on the Beaver and Mon rivers had similar problems to what we did.”

 

Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
First published on March 13, 2011 at 12:00 am

Marcellus waste reports muddy – News – The Times-Tribune

Marcellus waste reports muddy – News – The Times-Tribune.

Marcellus waste reports muddy

 

Waste reports submitted by Marcellus Shale drillers for the last six months of 2010 indicate that more of the toxic wastewater that returns from their natural gas wells is being reused or recycled, but incomplete and inconsistent reporting makes it difficult to assess real changes in the waste’s fate.

According to production reports due Feb. 15 and posted last week on the Department of Environmental Protection’s Oil and Gas Electronic Reporting website, Marcellus Shale operators directly reused 6 million barrels of the 10.6 million barrels of waste fluids produced from about 1,500 different wells between July and December.

At least an additional 978,000 barrels were taken to facilities that treat the water and return it to operators for reuse.

The amount reused or recycled is about seven times larger than the 1 million barrels of wastewater Marcellus Shale drillers said they directly reused during the 12 months between July 2009 and June, the first time the drillers’ waste reports were made publicly available on the website.

But the comparison is hazy because not all of the Marcellus Shale operators met the Feb. 15 reporting deadline or included all of their waste during the previous reporting period. Major operators, including East Resources, Southwestern Energy Production Co. and Encana Oil and Gas USA, reported no waste for the most recent six-month period.

And inconsistencies in how companies report their waste make it impossible to determine a complete picture of how its treatment has changed.

“I would take all of it with a grain of salt,” said Matt Kelso, data manager for FracTracker, an online Marcellus Shale data tool developed by the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at the University of Pittsburgh.

“I wouldn’t say it accurately represents anything,” he added, “but it is the only data we have.”

He emphasized that the information is self-reported by the drillers, who have some discretion in how to categorize their waste. He pointed out one oddity – that more brine was reportedly produced in the last six months of 2010 than the entire year before that – and attributed the increase to better reporting.

The first round of reports was a “disorganized mess,” he wrote in a FracTracker blog post last year. Establishing trends from such a baseline would be difficult, if not useless.

“There may be some adjustments” in how the waste is now being handled, he said, “but they will be difficult to discern because the reporting was so bad before.”

State environmental regulators say that nearly 70 percent of the wastewater produced by Marcellus Shale wells is being reused or recycled. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, puts the number higher, saying that on average 90 percent of the water that returns to the surface is recycled.

The advances were compelled in large part by a lack of deep disposal wells in Pennsylvania and state rules, adopted last August, that limit new discharges of the wastewater to streams.

Prior to the development of the new rules, wastewater was primarily treated and disposed of through industrial wastewater plants or municipal sewer authorities that could not remove total dissolved solids, or salts, from the discharge.

Even in the most recent reports, there is still an apparent lack of uniformity in how companies report their waste.

Liquid waste is categorized as either “drilling fluid waste” – fluids, generally in a mud form, created during the drilling process – “fracing fluid waste” – the salt and metals-laden waste fluid that returns for the first 30 days or so after wells are hydraulically fractured to release the gas from the shale – and “brine” – the even saltier waste that returns more gradually over the life of a well.

Most companies reported all three types of waste, but some companies, including Chesapeake Appalachia, reported only “frac fluid” while others, including Talisman Energy USA, reported only drilling fluid and brine.

Two companies, Talisman Energy and Chief Oil and Gas, both reported producing about 280,000 barrels of hydraulic fracturing wastewater during the six-month period, even though Chief had only about a quarter as many gas wells in production as Talisman during that time.

One thing the data make clear is that a lot of waste from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale wells is being shipped out of state for treatment or disposal.

During the six-month period, more than 490,000 barrels of wastewater were sent to deep disposal wells in Ohio; 30,000 barrels of drilling fluids and brine were treated by Clean Harbors of Baltimore in Maryland; 32,000 barrels of wastewater went to recycling or treatment plants in West Virginia; 2,500 barrels of drilling fluid was treated by Lorco Petroleum Services of Elizabeth, N.J.; and 36,000 tons of drill cuttings, a solid waste, were sent to landfills in Angelica, Painted Post and Waterloo, N.Y.

Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/marcellus-waste-reports-muddy-1.1111329#ixzz1FvlF3cKi