March 7, 2011
Drilling Down
Articles in this series examine the risks of natural-gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry.
Insights to Pennsylvania Marcellus Wastewater Treatment — Natural Gas — Penn State Cooperative Extension
March 7, 2011
Insights to Pennsylvania Marcellus Wastewater Treatment
Posted: March 06, 2011
Penn State’s Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research offers insightful comments on the Marcellus wastewater issues published in the New York Times last week.
Recent articles published in the New York Times raised questions about how Pennsylvania regulates and monitors wastewater discharges associated with Marcellus Shale natural gas development. The Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR) believes that testing and monitoring of all influent waste and treated effluents from treatment facilities accepting Marcellus-derived fluids should occur routinely to ensure adequate water quality protection, and most importantly protection of human health. In addition, public water systems with surface water intakes located downstream from Marcellus fluid treatment facilities should also conduct routine monitoring to ensure that all safe drinking water standards are maintained. MCOR is conducting an independent, comprehensive analysis of the potential for flowback waters to impact the quality of water in the Commonwealth’s streams, rivers, and aquifers. This analysis will ensure that a fair and representative summary of the data can be presented in a scientific manner to the public. In the meantime, the following should be considered to put the data published by the New York Times into perspective:
~ The levels of radium-226, radium-228, gross alpha, gross beta, and benzene cited in the articles were compared to US EPA drinking water standards; however, this wastewater was not used directly for drinking water purposes, therefore this is not a representative comparison.
~ The radionuclides present in the flowback water occur naturally in the brines reservoired within the Marcellus shale and other rock formations. Radionuclides are not used as an additive in the drilling and hydraulic fracturing process.
~ The concentrations of naturally-occurring radionuclides in the flowback water vary geographically across Pennsylvania as a function of the initial concentrations of radioactive elements in the Marcellus Shale. In addition, concentrations in produced water depend on how much time the fluids have been in contact in the shale and the relative dilution by frac water added. The initial flowback water, that has only been in the shale for a short period of time, generally has lower radionuclide concentrations than the late-stage flowback waters that are less diluted and more like the in situ formation waters. The average and peak concentrations of radionuclides need to be measured for assessing treatment efficiency and potential for water quality impacts.
~The dedicated oil and gas wastewater treatment facilities generally use chemical precipitation treatment to remove the metals in the flowback water. This process is also effective at removing a large percentage of the radionuclides. The efficiency of radionuclide removal during this process and at municipal treatment plants needs to be further evaluated and quantified with laboratory testing.
~Significant dilution occurs at municipal treatment facilities as they generally are only permitted to accept 1% of their average daily flow as flowback water; therefore, concentrations of residual elements are diluted by at least a factor of 99 to 1 prior to discharge. The receiving stream or river then adds another significant level of dilution, dependent on stream flow.
~The ultimate concentrations of radionuclides in the Commonwealth’s waters depends on the initial concentrations in the flowback water, the treatment removal efficiency, and the level of dilution by the receiving stream. None of these factors were considered in these series of articles, however are crucial variables to consider when looking at the potential for any adverse water quality impacts.
~Ultimately, Pennsylvania’s regulators must determine acceptable treatment and disposal methods and regulate the industry in a manner that is protective of our environment, our drinking water,and most importantly our health.
For more information, contact David Yoxtheimer, EMS Extension Associate, Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research; day122@psu.edu; (814) 867-4324.
Radiation-fracking link sparks swift reactions-Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
March 6, 2011
Radiation-fracking link sparks swift reactions.
Radiation-fracking link sparks swift reactions
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Reports this week of high radiation levels in Marcellus Shale waste fracking fluids and weak regulation of the industry have turned on a spigot of action by federal and state officials.
U.S. Environmental Protection Administrator Lisa Jackson visited the agency’s Region III office in Philadelphia Friday to ascertain the radiation issue will be addressed in an ongoing national study on the drinking water impacts of hydraulic fracturing, an industrial process used in shale gas development.
The EPA will seek data from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the drilling industry on radioactivity in the fracking fluid “flowback” water.
In a statement released following Ms. Jackson’s meeting, the EPA said that while the national study progresses, it “will not hesitate to take any steps under the law to protect Americans whose health may be at risk,” including enforcement actions to ensure that drinking water supplies are protected.
After a well is drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand and chemical additives are pumped deep underground under high pressure to crack the shale formation and release the gas it contains. As much as 20 percent of that fracking fluid waste returns to the surface with the gas and contains a variety of radioactive minerals from the shale.
The New York Times reported that hydraulic fracturing wastewater at 116 of 179 deep gas wells in the state contained high levels of radiation and its effect on public drinking water supplies is unknown because water suppliers are required to conduct tests of radiation only sporadically.
A number of public water suppliers, including the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority and Pennsylvania American Water Co. said this week that they would voluntarily test for radiation.
State Rep. Camille Bud George, D-Clearfield, announced he will introduce legislation calling for mandatory and independent radiation testing of all public water supplies that could potentially be affected by Marcellus Shale drilling wastewater discharges, and requiring the drilling and gas companies to pay for the testing.
State Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, renewed his call for a moratorium on drilling and said he will introduce legislation to toughen state Oil and Gas Act regulations on well siting around residences and streams, and impose a severance tax on Marcellus Shale gas production. Gov. Tom Corbett opposes such a tax.
“A moratorium is the most reasonable approach, especially in light of recent revelations about serious threats to our drinking water supply,” Mr. Ferlo said. “This bill provides a framework for updating and improving regulations, as well as retaining the economic benefits of Marcellus Shale development.”
In a statement issued Thursday, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, one of the most mainstream of the state’s environmental organizations, called on Mr. Corbett to drop plans to open more of the state’s forests and parks to Marcellus gas drilling.
Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
First published on March 5, 2011 at 12:00 am
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11064/1129908-113.stm#ixzz1FpapQi3Z
E.P.A. Struggles to Regulate Natural Gas Industry – NYTimes.com
March 3, 2011
E.P.A. Struggles to Regulate Natural Gas Industry – NYTimes.com.
Politics Seen to Limit E.P.A. as It Sets Rules for Natural Gas
By IAN URBINA
Published: March 3, 2011
When Congress considered whether to regulate more closely the handling of wastes from oil and gas drilling in the 1980s, it turned to the Environmental Protection Agency to research the matter. E.P.A. researchers concluded that some of the drillers’ waste was hazardous and should be tightly controlled.
Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times
Carol M. Browner, left, the E.P.A. administrator in the first Clinton administration, has argued both for and against exemptions for the oil and gas industry.
Questions, additional information or related tips can be sent to urbina@nytimes.com.
Multimedia
Left, Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press; Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
In its efforts to oppose new federal regulations, the oil and gas industry found allies in Senator James M. Inhofe, left, and Senator Tom Coburn, Republicans from Oklahoma.
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
But that is not what Congress heard. Some of the recommendations concerning oil and gas waste were eliminated in the final report handed to lawmakers in 1987.
“It was like the science didn’t matter,” Carla Greathouse, the author of the study, said in a recent interview. “The industry was going to get what it wanted, and we were not supposed to stand in the way.”
E.P.A. officials told her, she said, that her findings were altered because of pressure from the Office of Legal Counsel of the White House under Ronald Reagan. A spokesman for the E.P.A. declined to comment.
Ms. Greathouse’s experience was not an isolated case. More than a quarter century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators to force the federal government to police the industry better have been thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope, and important findings have been removed.
For example, the agency had planned to call last year for a moratorium on the gas-drilling technique known as hydrofracking in the New York City watershed, according to internal documents, but the advice was removed from the publicly released letter sent to New York.
Now some scientists and lawyers at the E.P.A. are wondering whether history is about to repeat itself, as the agency undertakes a broad new study of natural gas drilling and its potential risks, with preliminary results scheduled to be delivered next year.
The documents show that the agency dropped some plans to model radioactivity in drilling wastewater being discharged by treatment plants into rivers upstream from drinking water intake plants. And in Congress, members from drilling states like Oklahoma have pressured the agency to keep the focus of the new study narrow.
They have been helped in their lobbying efforts by a compelling storyline: Cutting red tape helps these energy companies reduce the nation’s dependence on other countries for fuel. Natural gas is also a cleaner-burning alternative to coal and plentiful within United States borders, so it can create jobs.
But interviews with E.P.A. scientists, and confidential documents obtained by The New York Times, show long and deep divisions within the agency over whether and how to increase regulation of oil and gas drillers, and over the enforcement of existing laws that some agency officials say are clearly being violated.
Agency lawyers are in a heated debate over whether to intervene in Pennsylvania, where drilling for gas has increased sharply, to stop what some of those lawyers say is a clear violation of federal pollution laws: drilling waste discharged into rivers and streams with minimal treatment. The outcome of that dispute has the potential to halt the breakneck growth of drilling in Pennsylvania.
The E.P.A. has taken strong stands in some places, like Texas, where in December it overrode state regulators and intervened after a local driller was suspected of water contamination. Elsewhere, the agency has pulled its punches, as in New York.
Asked why the letter about hydrofracking in the New York City watershed had been revised, an agency scientist who was involved in writing it offered a one-word explanation: “politics.”
Natural gas drilling companies have major exemptions from parts of at least seven of the 15 sweeping federal environmental laws that regulate most other heavy industries and that were written to protect air and drinking water from radioactive and hazardous chemicals.
Coal mine operators that want to inject toxic wastewater into the ground must get permission from the federal authorities. But when natural gas companies want to inject chemical-laced water and sand into the ground during hydrofracking, they do not have to follow the same rules.
The air pollution from a sprawling steel plant with different buildings is added together when regulators decide whether certain strict rules will apply. At a natural gas site, the toxic fumes from various parts of it — a compressor station and a storage tank, for example — are counted separately rather than cumulatively, so many overall gas well operations are subject to looser caps on their emissions.
An Earlier Reversal
The E.P.A. also studied hydrofracking in 2004, when Congress considered whether the process should be fully regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
An early draft of the study discussed potentially dangerous levels of contamination in hydrofracking fluids and mentioned “possible evidence” of contamination of an aquifer. The final version of the report excluded these points, concluding instead that hydrofracking “poses little or no threat to drinking water.”
Shortly after the study was released, an E.P.A. whistleblower said the agency had been strongly influenced by industry and political pressure. Agency leaders at the time stood by the study’s findings.
Click on link above for rest of story.
hydrofracking Energy & Commerce hearing request.pdf (application/pdf Object)
March 3, 2011
Hydrofracking Energy & Commerce hearing request
Gas Drillers Recycle Wastewater, but Risks Remain – NYTimes.com
March 1, 2011
Gas Drillers Recycle Wastewater, but Risks Remain – NYTimes.com.
Gas Drillers Recycle Wastewater, but Risks Remain
Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times
Carl Orso, a truck driver, filled a beaker with wastewater from a natural gas drilling site for testing before unloading at Eureka Resources, a waste water treatment facility, in Williamsport, Penn.
By IAN URBINA
Published: March 1, 2011
As drilling for natural gas started to climb sharply about 10 years ago, energy companies faced mounting criticism over an extraction process that involves pumping millions of gallons of water into the ground for each well and can leave significant amounts of hazardous contaminants in the water that comes back to the surface.
Drilling Down
An Imperfect Solution
Articles in this series examine the risks of natural-gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry.
Multimedia
Related
-
Drilling Down: Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers (February 27, 2011)
Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times
Carl Orso checked the progress as he offloaded wastewater from a natural gas drilling site at Eureka Resources, a wastewater treatment facility, in Williamsport, Penn.
So, in a move hailed by industry as a major turning point, drilling companies started reusing and recycling the wastewater.
“Water recycling is a win-win,” one drilling company, Range Resources, says on its Web site. “It reduces fresh water demand and eliminates the need to dispose of the water.”
But the win-win comes with significant asterisks.
In Pennsylvania, for example, natural-gas companies recycled less than half of the wastewater they produced during the 18 months that ended in December, according to state records.
Nor has recycling eliminated environmental and health risks. Some methods can leave behind salts or sludge highly concentrated with radioactive material and other contaminants that can be dangerous to people and aquatic life if they get into waterways.
Some well operators are also selling their waste, rather than paying to dispose of it. Because it is so salty, they have found ready buyers in communities that spread it on roads for de-icing in the winter and for dust suppression in the summer. When ice melts or rain falls, the waste can run off roads and end up in the drinking supply.
Yet in Pennsylvania, where the number of drilling permits for gas wells has jumped markedly in the last several years, in part because the state sits on a large underground gas formation known as the Marcellus Shale, such waste remains exempt from federal and state oversight, even when turned into salts and spread on roads.
When Pennsylvania regulators tried to strengthen state oversight of how drilling wastewater is tracked, an industry coalition argued vehemently against it. Three of the top state officials at the meeting have since left the government — for the natural-gas industry.
One executive at a drilling wastewater recycling company said that for all the benefits of recycling, it was not a cure-all.
“No one wants to admit it, but at some point, even with reuse of this water, you have to confront the disposal question,” said Brent Halldorson, chief operating officer of Aqua-Pure/Fountain Quail Water Management, adding that the wastewater has barium, strontium and radioactive elements that need to be removed.
Mr. Halldorson emphasized that he had not seen high radioactivity readings at the plant he operates in Williamsport, Pa. He said he firmly believed in the benefits of recycling — to reduce the waste produced and water used and to help promote a shift toward natural gas, which burns cleaner than coal for producing electricity.
“But there still needs to be a candid discussion, and there needs to be accountability about where even the recycled wastewater is going,” Mr. Halldorson added.
More than 90 percent of well operators in Pennsylvania use this process, known as hydrofracking, to get wells to produce. From 10 percent to 40 percent of the water injected into each well resurfaces in the first few weeks of the process.
Many states send their drilling waste to injection wells, for storage deep underground. But because of the geological formations in Pennsylvania, there are few injection wells, and other alternatives are expensive. So natural-gas well operators in the state have turned to recycling.
“The technical breakthroughs that have allowed us to lead the nation in water recycling are complemented by a carefully orchestrated water-management system, involving a combination of on-site and off-site treatment, depending on specific geography and economics,” said Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group.
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR
March 1, 2011
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR. 3-1-11
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-01/drilling-natural-gas-rewards-and-risks
* Comments (2)
* Share
Tuesday, March 1, 2011 – 10:06 a.m.
* 10:06 a.m. (ET) Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
* 11:06 a.m. (ET) Environmental Outlook: Light Bulbs
The jack-up rig Rowan Gorilla III is loaded on to the semi-submersible heavy
lift ship Triumph in Halifax harbor Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011. The rig was drilling
on the Deep Panuke natural gas development offshore Nova Scotia.
AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Andrew Vaughan
Drilling for Natural Gas: Rewards and Risks
More sophisticated drilling techniques are unlocking this country’s enormous
reserves of natural gas. But many say environmental concerns – including
radioactive waste water – have yet to be fully addressed. Efforts to reduce the
risks of extracting natural gas.
The state of Pennsylvania is in the forefront of the current rush to extract
natural gas, and it also seems to be in the middle of an increasingly
contentious debate over related environmental risks. The process of extracting
natural gas involves forcing millions of gallons of water deep into the earth to
break up rock and release the gas. Environmentalists say that in some states,
including Pennsylvania, this waste water which is often laden with heavy salts
and naturally occurring radioactive materials is being improperly discharged
into rivers and streams. Please join us for conversation on the risks and
rewards of drilling for natural gas.
Guests
John Quigley
former secretary Pennsylvania’s Department of conservation and Natural Resourses
Ian Urbina
reporter, NY Times
Tony Ingraffea
Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering
Weiss Presidential Teaching Fellow
Cornell University
Kathryn Klaber
president, Marcellus Shale Coalition
Amy Mall
policy analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council
John Hanger
former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
—
Hinchey Press Release on SDWA 2-26-11
February 28, 2011
Washington DC – A New York Times article entitled “Regulation Is Lax for Water From Gas Wells” revealed that toxic wastewater byproducts of hydraulic fracturing, a drilling technique used to obtain natural gas, can contain radioactive contaminants at levels hundreds or even thousands of times the maximum allowed by federal standards for drinking water. In reaction, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) released the following statement. Hinchey co-authored the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act to eliminate the so-called 2005 Halliburton exemption, which prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating fracking through the Safe Drinking Water Act. The legislation would also require the disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Hinchey is also the author of language that initiated an ongoing EPA study to determine the environmental impacts of the drilling technique. “The news that radioactive waste from the hydraulic fracturing process is being sent through wastewater treatment plants unequipped to handle it and then dumped into rivers and streams that supply drinking water to millions of people is alarming and must be immediately addressed. This story shows that the risks associated with this drilling technique are far too unknown and the current regulatory framework is far too limited to protect drinking water and the general public. “Congress must take action to untie the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency, allowing it to assert proper oversight of the full life-cycle of the hydraulic fracturing process by repealing the egregious exemptions that this industry enjoys from our nation’s most important environmental safeguards. I will be introducing legislation in the near future to do just that. “The EPA should immediately begin requiring states to monitor radioactivity levels at all drinking water intakes that are in close proximity to sewage treatment plants that accept natural gas drilling wastewater. “We can’t afford to take the ‘wait and see’ approach when it comes to radioactive, carcinogenic materials contaminating drinking water. Now is the time for all those who care about the safety of America’s drinking water supplies to step up to the plate and protect it for future generations.” ### |
| February 26, 2011 |
Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers – NYTimes.com
February 27, 2011
Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers – NYTimes.com.
Drilling Down
Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers
Kevin Moloney for The New York Times
Wells for extracting natural gas, like these in Colorado, are a growing source of energy but can also pose hazards.
By IAN URBINA
Published: February 26, 2011
The American landscape is dotted with hundreds of thousands of new wells and drilling rigs, as the country scrambles to tap into this century’s gold rush — for natural gas.
Drilling Down
The Waste Problem
Articles in this series will examine the risks of natural-gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry.
Multimedia
Related
Spreadsheet: Contaminants in Samples From More Than 200 Wells (Microsoft Excel File)
Todd Heisler/The New York Times
Thousands of wells like this one outside Pittsburgh extract gas by injecting huge amounts of water.
The gas has always been there, of course, trapped deep underground in countless tiny bubbles, like frozen spills of seltzer water between thin layers of shale rock. But drilling companies have only in recent years developed techniques to unlock the enormous reserves, thought to be enough to supply the country with gas for heating buildings, generating electricity and powering vehicles for up to a hundred years.
So energy companies are clamoring to drill. And they are getting rare support from their usual sparring partners. Environmentalists say using natural gas will help slow climate change because it burns more cleanly than coal and oil. Lawmakers hail the gas as a source of jobs. They also see it as a way to wean the United States from its dependency on other countries for oil.
Click on link above for full story!
GDACC 
