Saturday, April 28, 2012

Marcellus Shale Coalition Guiding Principles Document - Best Management Practices Shale Gas Development


MSC Releases First Recommended Practice for Responsible Natural Gas Development

First guidance document outlines recommendations for site planning, development and restoration
Canonsburg, PA – Since its founding in 2008, the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) has worked collaboratively with key stakeholders to achieve a set of common goals: enhance the region’s economy, responsibly develop natural gas, and advocate for increased use of this clean-burning energy source. The MSC’s Guiding Principles make this commitment clear while also committing the coalition and its members to continuous improvement and transparency across all operations, engaging in a fact-based dialogue with the community, and the implementation of state-of-the-art environmental controls at well sites and compressor stations.
It’s within that organizational structure and context that the MSC, through the work of its nearly two dozen standing committees, will release a number of recommended practices (RP) in the coming months that are designed to provide general guidance for each subject addressed. Ranging in topics from well construction to site restoration, air quality and water management, the MSC’s RPs will assist industry professionals operating in the Appalachian basin in improving their effectiveness in all stages of responsible natural gas exploration and production.

“Continuous improvement is at the core of the natural gas industry,” said MSC chair Dave Spigelmyer of Chesapeake Energy. “At the direction of our board of directors, the coalition’s staff and committee leadership set out to develop a set of recommended practices that make sense both operationally and from an environmental standpoint. These content-rich guidance documents represent a level of detail and transparency derived from many sources which will be updated and refined as development continues.”
Through months of research, stakeholder outreach, and collaboration amongst MSC member companies, the coalition today releases its first RP, which offers guidance on site planning, development and restoration. Developed by the MSC’s Land Affairs Committee, this RP lays out in detail 11 key steps – beginning with identifying the need for a new well site, compressor station or pipeline, and ending with site monitoring, maintenance and repair – in the site preparation, development and restoration process while offering detailed guidance for each step along the way.  To view the recommended practice, click HERE. To view an overview of the guidance document, click HERE.

Said MSC president Kathryn Z. Klaber, “This site planning, development and restoration RP is the culmination of countless hours of work by our land affairs committee to develop a sound document that would be useful not only to operators, but also landowners and other organizations. From site identification, to safety, communications, landowner engagement and eventual reclamation, this guidance document is the first of many that the coalition will release in the coming months – all of which are designed to increase awareness and share ideas and practices that work while continuing to raise the bar on responsible natural gas development across the region.”

A Well by Well - Review of the Data for Dimock, PA collected by EPA

Friday, April 20, 2012

Water Quality Website Reaches 1 Million Visitors



PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
Contact: Rick Grant, 570-325-2818

Water Quality Website Reaches 1 Million Visitors
Online resource is helpful to private well owners and others interested in what they drink.

WILKES-BARRE, PA—April 20, 2012—Brian Oram, a professional geologist and soil scientist and founder of B.F. Environmental Consultants, announced today that his website, www.water-research.net, has reached a milestone of one million unique visitors.

“More and more people are becoming interested in the quality of their drinking water and what steps they can take personally to improve that quality,” said Oram. “Private well owners particularly need to know that the quality of their water is something they can take control of, and I consider it my civic responsibility to provide as much help as I can through this website.”

Oram’s website is dedicated to providing free information for private well owners that is fact-based and helpful in explaining possible causes for low-quality drinking water and suggesting action items to take in caring for private wells. In addition to private well owners, the website is used by educators and teachers nationwide.

About B.F. Environmental Consultants, Inc.
B.F. Environmental Consultants, based in Northeastern Pennsylvania and the Poconos, has been providing professional geological, soils, hydrogeological, and environmental consulting services since 1985. The company specializes in the following areas: hydrogeological and wastewater evaluations for siting land-based wastewater disposal systems; soils consulting (soil scientists), environmental monitoring, overseeing the siting, exploration, and development of community/ commercial water supply sources; environmental training/ professional training courses, and other environmental services. For more information about B.F. Environmental Consultants, visit www.bfenvironmental.com and www.water-research.net.

# # #

Media Contact:
Rick Grant
Principal, RGA Public Relations
570-325-2818
rick.grant@rga-pr.com

Baseline Testing Less Common Parameters with and without Standards

Elements with or without EPA Drinking Water Standards

Antimony- The EPA primary drinking water limit of 0.006 mg/L.

Cobalt - The PA Statewide Health Standard Guidance for Brownfields - recommends a Cobalt concentration of less than 0.011 mg/L for residential areas with a total dissolved solids of 2500 mg/L. (Source: “Pocket Guide to Statewide Health Standards, January 2011).
Additional Information on Cobalt - http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts33.pdf

Molybdenum - No specific drinking water standard, but the WHO recommends a level of less than 0.07 mg/L and in Wisconsin the standard is 0.040 mg/L.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/molybdenum.pdf
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/hlthhaz/fs/MolybdenumDrinkingWater.pdf

Nickel - EPA Suggested a Maximum Contaminant Level of 0.1 mg/L
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/ioc/tech/nickel.pdf

Silver - < 0.05 mg/L Maine  and < 0.1 mg/L (World Health Organization)

Amounts of silver in drinking water over the drinking water standard of 0.05 milligrams per liter may cause a permanent blue-gray discoloration of eyes, skin and mucous membranes.

Thallium – The EPA primary drinking water limit of 0.002 mg/L.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/thallium.cfm

Thorium The EPA has set a drinking water limit of 15 picocuries per liter (15 pCi/L) of water for gross alpha particle activity and 4 millirems per year for beta particles and photon activity (for example, gamma radiation and x-rays).
Vanadium - Action Level in California at 0.050 mg/L - inform public at 0.015 mg/L
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/pals/vanadium.html

A Well by Well - Review of the Data for Dimock, PA collected by EPA

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Marcellus Shale - Carbon County - Learn the Facts on Natural Gas Development


Carbon County Community Awareness Informational Session on “Hydraulic Fracturing
and Natural Gas Development”

What will you need to know if/when
Marcellus Shale Drilling Comes to Carbon County?

Guest Speaker: Brian Oram, Professional Geologist
B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc
Water-Research.Net
(Free Information on Water Quality)

Topic: Marcellus Shale 101 
When: April 25th, 2012 @ 7 PM
Where: Mauch Chunk Museum
41 West Broadway, Jim Thorpe
                            


Make an informed decision; learn the facts!

Please Support Your Environmental Group

Monday, April 16, 2012

Rural Job Accelerator - Partner with Your Local RC&D Council


Talking Points

 

Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Program

The purpose of the Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator challenge is to spur job creation and economic growth in distressed rural communities. This $15 million multi-agency competition is being funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Delta Regional Authority (DRA), and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC).

The Rural Jobs Accelerator Challenge is expected to give out approximately 20 awards, depending on the number of eligible applications. To be eligible for an award, projects must benefit rural communities, but the applicant is not required to be located in a rural area. Nonprofits, higher education institutions, tribes and state and local governments can collaborate to apply for funding. Although businesses are not eligible to apply directly, applicants can also partner with the private sector on implementation.

Click here for more information about this funding opportunity, information and tools for prospective applicants.


We have a website with information about this challenge which includes a recorded webinar, questions and answers, and tools and resources that can assist applicants in developing their proposals.  The website is http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/RuralJobsAccelerator.html

 Go to 



Sunday, April 15, 2012

Landscaping With a Purpose Rain gardens in Your Backyard


Homeowners in many parts of the state are catching on to rain gardens - landscaped areas planted with flowers, shrubs and other native vegetation that soak up rain water, mainly from the roof of a house or other building. These gardens fill with a few inches of water after a storm and water slowly filters into the ground rather than running off to a storm drain. They are very important in reducing storm water runoff, which can cause flooding and drainage problems in our neighborhoods.

Join Vincent Cotrone, from Penn State Cooperative Extension, for a workshop to learn how to install a rain garden in your yard!  Learn how to choose the best location, size, type of plants needed, as well as how to maintain your garden after installation. There will also be hands on component where you can help put the final touches on a newly created demonstration rain garden at Frances Slocum State Park.

Registration fee of $15.00 includes informational resources and lunch. Please dress for weather and plan to be outside for part of the workshop.

This workshop is part of the Sustainable Backyard Landscapes Education Series developed through a partnership of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Penn State Cooperative Extension and Pennsylvania Environmental Council. For more information contact the Luzerne County Cooperative Extension at 570-825-1701 or Frances Slocum State Park at 570-696-3525.

Saturday, May 12, 2012
Environmental Education Center
Frances Slocum State Park 10:00am – 2:00pm
Fee: $15.00

Make checks payable to:
Luzerne Co. Cooperative Ext.,
mail to:
*Luzerne Co.
Cooperative Extension
16 Luzerne Ave.
West Pittston, PA 18643

*Please include: Name, address, phone, email and name of program with your check payment or 


For More Green Products - Visit



Wednesday, April 11, 2012

PA American Water Company Funding Recycling and Pharmaceutical Drop OFF


Posted for my personal use and not for redistribution
"Folks flocking to recycle electronics
New federal law making it harder to dispose of such waste, official tells commissioners



Reading Eagle

More than 1,500 people have dropped off items at the Berks County Solid Waste Authority's Electronic Recycling Center since Jan. 1, leaving 168,000 pounds of computer monitors, old tube TVs and other appliances.

That's already half the amount dropped off in 2011. The site is at 1316 Hilltop Road, Bern Township.

The interest is due in part to new federal legislation that will make it more difficult to dispose of such appliances, some of which contain hazardous chemicals, Jane C. Meeks, executive director of the solid waste authority, told the Berks County commissioners Tuesday.

Meeks brought with her Terry Maenza, communications director for Pennsylvania American Water Co., which is funding for the third year the authority's pharmaceutical drop-off set for April 28 at five locations in Berks.

The local effort is part of a national effort by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to take back old or unused prescription drugs to keep them from falling into the wrong hands.

Maenza said his company's interest in helping with the pharmaceutical drug collection is to keep people from flushing the drugs down their toilets or throwing them away in their trash, which ends up in a landfill. Either way, he said, the pharmaceuticals can make their way into the local water supply whether they are processed as sewage or leach into groundwater around landfills.

Maenza presented the commissioners with a $2,500 check to help cover the cost of the disposal effort and incineration of the drugs at a licensed disposal facility
.

In other business, the commissioners announced they plan to vote for a Local Economic Revitalization Tax Assistance, or LERTA program, for a proposed industrial park along Interstate 78 at Route 501 in Bethel Township.

The township and Tulpehocken School District already have the LERTA for the industrial park.

"The tax break is on the improvements only," Commissioners Chairman Christian Y. Leinbach said. "If they buy the land for $12 million they pay tax on that from day one. But year one the improvements are tax free. Year two it is 10 percent, then 20 percent and so on until year 11 when they pay full taxes."

Thomas C. McKeon, executive director of the Berks County Industrial Development Authority, which is marketing the industrial park, said two businesses are interested in the park but only if the LERTA is approved.

Together they would invest $167 million in the facilities and add 1,000 jobs, he said."

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

HW-13 Dimock Data EPA January 30, 2012

Comment

1. Without predrilling data, it is not possible to comment on the cause for any water quality problems.
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.
5. This is not about cause and effect; it is about a review of the data.

Well – HW-13

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 is 0.5 mg/L.  (OK)

Heterotrophic Bacteria – 560 cfu/ml -the general guidance for “standard plate count” or total bacterial count is < 500 colonies per ml (OK).  This would suggest a potential bacterial issue and if there are problems with iron, manganese, discolored water, or odor, it is possible that the cause could be related to microbiologically induced corrosion and “nuisance bacteria”.

Ethane 0.024 mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard (OK)

Methane 1.30 mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard. (OK).
The well water is not above the new action limit of 7 mg/L, but the well should be fitted with a basic vented well cap.   For more details, go to http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm

There are places in PA were baseline levels of methane gas are at or above 7 mg/L. In general, I would estimate that 1 to 3 % of private wells may have elevated levels of methane.  In addition to modifying the well, it would be advisable to conduct isotopic analysis.  Based on the ratio of methane to ethane, the ratio is 54.  This suggests the gas is of thermogenic origin and isotopic analysis is critical.  No specific health concern – but action needed to properly vent gas. 

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)
Minnesota

At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene glycol other other glycol compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.
Note: I have been to this location and conducted only a field screening test for glycol - the field test is manufactured by Chematics Inc. and the result was not detectable for glycol, i.e., < 1 mg/L. 

Chloride – 8.31 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Sulfate – 10.6 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Barium - 0.225 mg/L (Total) and 0.235 mg/L (D) – drinking water standard is <  2 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. (OK)

Calcium- 31.9 mg/L (Total) and 33.1 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Iron – 2.87 mg/L (Total) and 0.33 mg/L (D) – 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 exceeds the secondary drinking water standard.  Elevated level of iron is a common water quality problem in Northeastern PennsylvaniaAction is Recommended, because of an aesthetic issue.    Check for MIC and Nuisance Bacteria.

Magnesium- 6.62 mg/L (Total) and 6.84 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Manganese– 0.031 mg/L (Total) and 0.0164 mg/L (D) – 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.   (OK)

Nickel - 0.0016 mg/L (Total) and 0.0013 mg/L (D) – – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but the EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L.   (OK)

Sodium –12.6 mg/L (Total) and 12.9 mg/L (D) – – 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 taste definitely salty. (Source- Dr. Brian Redmond, Professional Geologist). (OK)

Strontium 0.764 mg/L (Total) and 0.774 mg/L (D)  – 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)

Toluene – 0.0012 mg/L - Toluene is regulated as a primary drinking water standard by the EPA and PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit and maximum contaminant level goal is 1.0 mg/L, but over 0.0040 mg/L toluene can create odor related problems.  (OK)

Uranium 0.0003 mg/L (Total) and 0.0032 mg/L (D)  – 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  0.004  mg/L (Total) and < 0.002 mg/L (D)  – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L.  (OK)

Total Dissolved Solids  15 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.  (Question – this value seems inaccurate or a typo – This should be redone.)

Nitrate+Nitrite- N – 0.78  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)

Total Nitrogen – 1.45 mg/L (No Standard)

No major problems

1. Heterotrophic bacteria data is elevated.

2. Iron is elevated and exceeds a secondary drinking water standard.

3. Methane/Ethane Ratio could suggest the source of the methane is of thermogenic origin and the level of methane is well below the action level of 7 mg/L.
4.Total Dissolved Solids results seem inaccurate or there is a typo in the draft report.

5. Retesting for glycols using a more sensitive technique is recommended.  Note - I have used a field screening test for glycols and the level was less then 1 mg/L - Note- Not a certified or approved method.

6. Toluene detected – but not at a level above a maximum contaminant level or a level that could cause aesthetic issues. 


Annual Water Testing 

Watercheck with Pesticide Option (Order Online)- This informational testing package will check for 103 contaminants in your well water.  These contaminants include Bacteria, (19) Heavy Metals & Minerals, (6) Other Inorganic Chemicals, (5) Physical Characteristics, (4) Trihalomethanes (disinfection by-products), (47) Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs), and (20) Pesticides, Herbicides and PCBs.  This package works well for well water customers (Code 9002)- $ 206.00, plus shipping - Request information .

Add Methane (Order from us) - We can do a methane, ethane, propane - test for about $ 100.00 
( self collection)-Request information .
Document can not be copied in whole or part without the expressed written permission of Mr. Brian Oram, B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. http://www.bfenvironmental.com

Do you want to make a positive change in PA - that will cost you NO Money?
Help Support the Citizens Groundwater and Surfacewater Database and Submit Your Baseline Data !

 Free Information on Drinking Water Quality - http://www.water-research.net

Friday, April 6, 2012

HW-1 Dimock Private Well Marcellus Shale EPA Sampling January 2012


Comment

1. Without predrilling data, it is not possible to comment on the cause for any water quality problems.
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.
5. This is not about cause and effect; it is about a review of the data.


Well – HW-1

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 is 0.5 mg/L.  (OK)

Ethane 0.350  mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard (OK)

Methane 12.0 mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard. (OK).
The well water is above the new action limit of 7 mg/L and methane gas mitigation measures should be employed.  These measures not only include venting the well, but also potentially modifying the well, installing treatment, or taking other action.  For more details, go to http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm

There are places in PA were baseline levels of methane gas are at or above 7 mg/L. In general, I would estimate that 1 to 3 % of private wells may have elevated levels of methane.  In addition to modifying the well, it would be advisable to conduct isotopic analysis.  Based on the ratio of methane to ethane, the ratio is 34.  This suggests the gas is  of thermogenic origin and isotopic analysis is critical.  No specific health concern – but action needed to properly vent gas and it may be necessary to modify the well and isotopic analysis recommended.
May be advisable to check the level of other gases, such as propane.

Methane/Ethane Ratio: 34  (Thermogenic)

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)
Minnesota

At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene glycol other other glycol compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.

Chloride – 4.36 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Sulfate – 5.49 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Barium - 0.304 mg/L (Total) and 0.316 mg/L (D) – drinking water standard is <  2 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. (OK)

Calcium- 7.89 mg/L (Total) and 8.21 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Magnesium- 3.64 mg/L (Total) and 3.76 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Manganese– 0.0022 mg/L (Total) and  0.0019 mg/L (D) – Manganese is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.05 mg/L.  (OK)

Sodium –18.1 mg/L (Total) and 19.1 mg/L (D) – – 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 taste definitely salty. (Source- Dr. Brian Redmond, Professional Geologist). (OK)

Strontium 0.655 mg/L (Total) and 0.694 mg/L (D)  – 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)

Total Dissolved Solids  < 16  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.  (Question – this value seems inaccurate or a typo – This should be redone.)

No major problems

1. Heterotrophic bacteria data is not provided.
2. Methane/Ethane Ratio could suggest the source of the methane is Thermogenic and the level of methane is above the action level of 7 mg/L.
Go to: http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm
3.Total Dissolved Solids results seem inaccurate or there is a typo in the draft report.
4. Retesting for glycols using a more sensitive technique is recommended.

Document can not be copied in whole or part without the expressed written permission of Mr. Brian Oram, B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. http://www.bfenvironmental.com

Do you want to make a positive change in PA - that will cost you NO Money?
Help Support the Citizens Groundwater and Surfacewater Database and Submit Your Baseline Data !


A Well by Well - Review of the Data for Dimock, PA collected by EPA


Free Information on Drinking Water Quality - http://www.water-research.net

HW-14 EPA Dimock Data Review January 2012 Biogenic Gas


Comment

1. Without predrilling data, it is not possible to comment on the cause for any water quality problems.
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.
5. This is not about cause and effect; it is about a review of the data.


Well – HW-14

With the exception of the following parameters, the remaining values were reported as NOT Detected (U)

Anionic Surfactants – 0.03 mg/L – the secondary drinking water standard for foaming agents is 0.5 mg/L.  (OK)

Ethane 0.0029  mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard (OK)

Methane 3.8 mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard. (OK).

Methane/Ethane Ratio:131  (biogenic)

Note: Methane at the sink, possibly after treatment – 0.049 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)
Minnesota

At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene glycol other other glycol compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.

Chloride – 17.70 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Sulfate – 14.40 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Arsenic – < 0.001mg/L (Total) and < 0.001 mg/L (D) – drinking water standard is <  0.010 mg/L – OK

Barium - 0.0893 mg/L (Total) and 0.0857mg/L (D) – drinking water standard is <  2 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. (OK)

Calcium- 29.9 mg/L (Total) and 29.7 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Copper – 0.0021 mg/L (Total) and < 0.002 mg/L (D)- Copper is regulated as a primary standard (EPA and PA) and secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania.  Primary standard 1.3 mg/L and secondary standard 1.0 mg/L.   (OK)
Note- the copper appears to be higher at the kitchen sink – this could suggest some type of chemical / biological corrosion within the distribution system.

Lead – 0.001 mg/L (Total) and < 0.001 mg/L (D)- 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.   The level of lead after the treatment system and distribution system is 0.0015 mg/L.
Note- the lead is higher at the kitchen sink – this could suggest some type of chemical / biological corrosion within the distribution system.

Magnesium- 5.27 mg/L (Total) and 5.28 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Manganese– 0.0083 mg/L (Total) and  0.0078 mg/L (D) – Manganese is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.05 mg/L.  (OK)

Nickel - 0.0016 mg/L (Total) and 0.0016 mg/L (D) – – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but the EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L.   (OK)

Sodium –9.42 mg/L (Total) and 9.26 mg/L (D) – – 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 taste definitely salty. (Source- Dr. Brian Redmond, Professional Geologist). (OK)

Zinc  0.0036  mg/L (Total) and 0.005 mg/L (D)  – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L.  (OK)
Note: After treatment the Zinc content is 0.0268 mg/L – this would suggest some form of chemical or biological corrosion within the distribution system.

Total Dissolved Solids  < 10  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.  (Question – this value seems inaccurate or a typo – This should be redone.)

Nitrate+Nitrite – 1.48 mg N/L, the EPA drinking water for nitrate-N/L is 10, but the primary drinking water standard for nitrate is 1 nitrite-N/L.  It is probably be ok, but it may be advisable to test for nitrite-N.  (OK)

No major problems

1. Heterotrophic bacteria data is not provided.
2. Methane/Ethane Ratio could suggest the source of the methane is biogenic.
3.Total Dissolved Solids results seem inaccurate or there is a typo in the draft report.
4. Higher levels for select metals suggest there could be some corrosion within the distribution system, but the levels do not exceed a primary or secondary drinking water standard.
5. Nitrate-Nitrite at 1.48 mg/L – it may be advisable to check the level of nitrite in the water.
6. Retesting for glycols using a more sensitive technique is recommended.



Document can not be copied in whole or part without the expressed written permission of Mr. Brian Oram, B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. http://www.bfenvironmental.com

Do you want to make a positive change in PA - that will cost you NO Money?
Help Support the Citizens Groundwater and Surfacewater Database and Submit Your Baseline Data !

 Free Information on Drinking Water Quality - http://www.water-research.net

Monday, April 2, 2012

HW-19 EPA Water Test Dimock PA Pennsylvania Natural Gas Migration


Comment

1. Without predrilling data, it is not possible to comment on the cause for any water quality problems.
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.
5. This is not about cause and effect; it is about a review of the data.


Well – HW-19

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 is 0.5 mg/L.  (OK)

Heterotrophic Bacteria – 24 colonies per ml – the general guidance for “standard plate count” or total bacterial count is < 500 colonies per ml (OK)

Ethane < 0.0012  mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard (OK)

Methane < 0.002 mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard. (OK).

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)
Minnesota

At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene glycol other other glycol compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.

Chloride – 19.10 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Sulfate – 18.20 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Arsenic – < 0.001mg/L (Total) and 0.002 mg/L (D) – 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.  

Barium - 0.229 mg/L (Total) and 0.234 mg/L (D) – drinking water standard is <  2 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. (OK)

Calcium- 37.6 mg/L (Total) and 41.6 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK- but there is either a contaminant added during filtration or this represents lab error – Higher Filtered Sample Higher than Total)

Chromium- 0.002 mg/L (Total) and 0.0032 mg/L (D) and the EPA/ PADEP primary drinking water standard is < 0.100 mg/L (OK).

Copper – 0.0074 mg/L (Total) and < 0.069 mg/L (D)- Copper is regulated as a primary standard (EPA and PA) and secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania.  Primary standard 1.3 mg/L and secondary standard 1.0 mg/L.   (OK)

Magnesium- 7.12 mg/L (Total) and 7.72 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Manganese– 0.0082 mg/L (Total) and < 0.001 mg/L (D) – Manganese is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.05 mg/L.  (OK)

Nickel - 0.0016 mg/L (Total) and 0.0017 mg/L (D) – – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but the EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L.   (OK)

Sodium –9.03 mg/L (Total) and 10. mg/L (D) – – 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 taste definitely salty. (Source- Dr. Brian Redmond, Professional Geologist). (OK)


Zinc  0.0069  mg/L (Total) and 0.0053 mg/L (D)  – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L.  (OK)

Total Dissolved Solids  148 to 173  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.  (OK)  This is a significant range in TDS – it may be worth checking to see if the “P” sample was field contaminated or if there was an increase in the conductivity during the purging process. (OK)

Nitrate+Nitrite – 2.38 mg N/L, the EPA drinking water for nitrate-N/L is 10, but the primary drinking water standard for nitrate is 1 nitrite-N/L.  It is probably be ok, but it may be advisable to test for nitrite-N.  (OK)

No major problems

1. Heterotrophic bacteria present- but that is common in NEPA. 
2. Nitrate-Nitrite at 2.38 mg/L – it may be advisable to check the level of nitrite in the water.
3. Retesting for glycols using a more sensitive technique is recommended.
4. Water did not contain methane gas, it was not detected.



Document can not be copied in whole or part without the expressed written permission of Mr. Brian Oram, B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. http://www.bfenvironmental.com

Do you want to make a positive change in PA - that will cost you NO Money?
Help Support the Citizens Groundwater and Surfacewater Database and Submit Your Baseline Data !

 Free Information on Drinking Water Quality - http://www.water-research.net

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day


NATIONAL TAKE-BACK INITIATIVE


April 28, 2012
10:00 AM - 2:00 PM

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has scheduled another National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day which will take place on Saturday, April 28, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.  This is a great opportunity for those who missed the previous events, or who have subsequently accumulated unwanted, unused prescription drugs, to safely dispose of those medications.

Americans that participated in the DEA’s third National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day on October 29, 2011, turned in more than 377,086 pounds (188.5 tons) of unwanted or expired medications for safe and proper disposal at the 5,327 take-back sites that were available in all 50 states and U.S. territories. When the results of the three prior Take-Back Days are combined, the DEA, and its state, local, and tribal law-enforcement and community partners have removed 995,185 pounds (498.5 tons) of medication from circulation in the past 13 months.

“The amount of prescription drugs turned in by the American public during the past three Take-Back Day events speaks volumes about the need to develop a convenient way to rid homes of unwanted or expired prescription drugs,” said DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. “DEA remains hard at work to establish just such a drug disposal process, and will continue to offer take-back opportunities until the proper regulations are in place.”

“With the continued support and hard work of our more than 3,945 state, local, and tribal law enforcement and community partners, these three events have dramatically reduced the risk of prescription drug diversion and abuse, and increased awareness of this critical public health issue,” said Leonhart.

Collection Site Locator:Find a collection site near you. Check back frequently as collection sites are continuously being added.

Law Enforcement Agencies Only:For law enforcement agencies that wish to host a collection site please call the POC in your area.

Take-Back Day Partnership Toolbox:Here you will find a list of files that you can download to use for your own purposes.

General Public Inquiries:
Inquiries can be made at 1-800-882-9539.


Sunday, April 1, 2012

Dimock EPA Private Well Data HW-8 glycols, bacteria, copper, lead, methane, acetone, Anthracene



1. Without predrilling data, it is not possible to comment on the cause for any water quality problems.
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.
5. This is not about cause and effect; it is about a review of the data.



Well – HW-08a

With the exception of the following parameters, the remaining values were reported as NOT Detected (U)

Total Coliform – (54 colonies per 100 ml – since EPA collected this sample at the end of the purging process – this suggests the well is vulnerable to near surface influence and the presence of total coliform would suggest the water is not potable.  This is a very common problem in NEPA and about 30 to 50% of private wells have total coliform bacteria.  The problem could be private well construction, type of well cap, or improper well siting.   The primary recommendation would be to inspect the well, shock disinfect the well, and retest.

Note: Fecal coliform was negative.

Ethylene glycol –  the reported value is < 10 mg/L – there is not 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)
Minnesota

At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene glycol other other glycol compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.

Chloride – 4.29 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Sulfate –10.4 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Aluminum – 0.0375 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.  (OK)

Arsenic – < 0.002 mg/L (Total) and < 0.002 mg/L (D) – 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. This should be monitored annually (OK)

Barium - 0.036mg/L (Total) and 0.0379mg/L (D) – drinking water standard is <  2 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. (OK)

Calcium- 14.4 mg/L (Total) and 14.2 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Copper – 0.0113 mg/L (Total) and 0.009 mg/L (D)- Copper is regulated as a primary standard (EPA and PA) and secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania.  Primary standard 1.3 mg/L and secondary standard 1.0 mg/L.   (OK)

Lead – 0.0028 mg/L (Total) and 0.0012 mg/L (D)- 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. Because of the hits for copper and lead, it is possible that the nuisance bacteria may be causing some corrosion related problems – Call MIC – Microbiologically Induced Corrosion – Problem recommend inspection of the well, camera survey, shock disinfection, and retesting.  This is a common problem in NEPA.  (Action Needed may be a warning sign of corrosion) - OK

Magnesium- 2.79 mg/L (Total) and 2.76mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Manganese– 0.112 mg/L (Total) and 0.105 mg/L (D) – 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 exceeds the secondary drinking water standard.  Since the manganese is in a dissolved form, the water could become browner in color over time.  Because the water coming out of the well has dissolved manganese, the water treatment system would require either chemical oxidation or some type of ion exchange system. Elevated level of manganese is a common water quality problem in Northeastern PennsylvaniaAction is Recommended, because of an aesthetic issue and it could be related to Iron-Related Bacteria and MIC. 

Sodium – 2.67 mg/L (Total) and 2.60 mg/L (D) – – 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 taste definitely salty. (Source- Dr. Brian Redmond, Professional Geologist). (OK)

Zinc  0.0086  mg/L (Total) and 0.0082mg/L (D)  – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L.  (OK)

Ethane 0.350  mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard (OK)

Methane 9.2  mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard, but the level indicates supersaturated conditions.  This means the well pump is pulling in water that is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere.  The well is above the new action limit of 7 mg/L and methane gas mitigation measures should be employed.  These measures not only include venting the well, but also potentially modifying the well, installing treatment, or taking other action.  For more details, go to http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm
There are places in PA were baseline levels of methane gas are at or above 7 mg/L. In general, I would estimate that 1 to 3 % of private wells may have elevated levels of methane.  In addition to modifying the well, it would be advisable to conduct isotopic analysis.  Based on the ratio of methane to ethane, the ratio is 26.2.  Since a ratio of methane to ethane of over 1000 typically suggests a biogenic source and a value of under 100 suggests a thermogenic source, the available information would suggest a thermogenic source for the gas.  As a guide, it may be possible to use a ratio to suggest the source of the gas- “ if the ratio of methane to ethane is 25, the source is thermogenic, but if the ratio is over 2500, then it is biogenic" (Mr. Bob Pirkle, President of Microseeps, Inc.), but between 25 and 2500 this is where isotopic analysis is critical.  


No specific health concern, but a health risk associated with the potential for a flammable environment.  


Action needed to properly vent gas from the well, perhaps modifying the well, water treatment to reduce methane level in the water to < 7 mg/L or more,  and isotopic analysis recommended.

May be advisable to check the level of other gases, such as propane.

Total Dissolved Solids  62  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.  (OK)

Anthracene the reported level was  0.00006 mg/L (0.06 ug/L).  is an unregulated synthetic organic compound and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.   PAHs are created when products like coal, oil, gas, and garbage are burned but the burning process is not complete. There is no EPA or PADEP drinking water standard and the primary recommendation would be to retest the water.   During retesting, it is critical to check for airborne sources of contamination during sampling.  The EPA reports a trigger value of 1.3 mg/L, but I can not find a reference, but I did find a reference to a DWEL of 2.0 mg/L.  It appears that the health-based screening requirement in California is 2.0 mg/L and a lifetime exposure limit is 10 mg/L- based on this information (OK).


Butyl benzyl phthalate – the reported level was 0.00011 mg/L – “Benzylbutylphthalate, also called n-butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) or benzyl butyl phthalate, is a phthalate, an ester of phthalic acid, benzyl alcohol and n-butanol.”   The health based screening level appears to be 0.100 mg/L and the EPA Human Health Equivalent is 1.4 mg/L. Butyl benzylphthalate is an industrial solvent and additive used in adhesives, vinyl flooring, sealants, car-care products and some personal care products.  (OK)


4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether was reported at a level of 0.03 ug/L or 0.00003 mg/L.  The preliminary research suggests that this chemical has a relatively low solubility and would have a tendency to bind to soil and sediment.   In general, it is considered to be insoluble or have a low solubility in water.  The U.S. EPA Storet Data Base, 1,333 samples, 1.1% positive, median concentration less than 10 ug/L or 0.010 mg/L.  Because of the affinity to have only slight mobility in soil and water and because the well is vulnerable to near surface activity, it may be advisable to check the area around the well for evidence of surface contamination.

“4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether which finds use as a dielectric fluid, can be released to the environment during its manufacture, formulation, and through its use in capacitors. If released to the atmosphere, 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether should react with photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals with an estimated half-life of 1.3 days. Direct photolysis in the atmosphere should be an important fate process, as 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether has an absorption greater than 290 nm. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether should be expected to undergo biodegradation in soil and in water. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether should display slight mobility in soil, and volatilization to the atmosphere may be an important process. If released to water, 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether would be expected to adsorb to sediment and suspended material, can volatilize to the atmosphere, and should bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. Degradation by direct photolysis in surface water has been estimated to proceed with a half-life of 200-400 days. Volatilization from water to the atmosphere should be an important fate process. The estimated volatilization half-life for a model river is 6 hours, while from a model pond which takes into account adsorption processes, the estimated half-life is 40 days. Exposure to 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether should be by inhalation and dermal contact which might occur during its manufacture, formulation, or use in capacitors. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether is an anthropogenic compound, and is not known to exist in nature.”   Florida appears to have established a standard of 0.010 ug/L.   Based on the available standard, the level seems appropriate, but it would be advisable to monitor the quality of the water and inspect the area for signs of surface contamination. (OK)

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) - was reported at 0.07ug/L or 0.00007 mg/L and the reported PADEP/ EPA has a MCL of 0.001 mg/L. (OK)  Florida also has a standard of 0.001 mg/L.  (OK)

di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP)- the reported value was 0.00008 mg/L and no trigger limit is reported. Exposure to di-n-octylphthalate occurs mainly from eating food or drinking water that is stored in plastic containers.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts95.html    There does not appear to be an action limit, but it would be advisable to monitor and conduct a site-specific survey. “This type of plastic can be used for medical tubing and blood storage bags, wire and cables, carpetback coating, floor tile, and adhesives. It is also used in cosmetics and pesticides.” 

Pryene - the reported value was 0.00006 mg/L and the reported trigger limit is 0.087 mg/L. Florida has a health advisory level of 0.210 mg/L for Pryene.  (OK)

Acetone - the reported value was 0.0008 mg/L and no trigger limit is reported, but 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)

Nitrate+Nitrite – 0.19 mg/L, the drinking water standard for nitrate is 10 mg/L and nitrite is 1 mg/L.  (OK)

a. Methane above the action limit – recommend venting and other modifications to the well and regular monitoring. http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm  Gas appears to have a thermogenic origin.
b. Retesting for glycol using a more sensitive method.
c. Hits for copper, lead, zinc, and aluminum may suggest corrosive water which is common in NEPA.  These parameters were not above a drinking water standard.
d. The water was positive for total coliform bacteria, water would be classified as not potable. This would suggest that the well is vulnerable to contamination or impact and that the well could facilitate groundwater contamination.  Well system needs to be inspected and possibly repaired. 

Again – this is not about cause and effect- it is an honest review of the data.  (Period)


Document can not be copied in whole or part without the expressed written permission of Mr. Brian Oram, B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. http://www.bfenvironmental.com

Do you want to make a positive change in PA - that will cost you NO Money?
Help Support the Citizens Groundwater and Surfacewater Database and Submit Your Baseline Data !

 Free Information on Drinking Water Quality - http://www.water-research.net