Showing posts with label ethane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethane. Show all posts

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Dimock Well Water HW-9 Acetone, Arsenic, Barium, Copper, Lead, Lithium, ethane, methane, glycols Pennsylvania


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

Well – HW-9 (2/3/2012)
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)

Arsenic – 0.001 mg/L – drinking water standard is <  0.010 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact and arsenic is a common problem in NEPA – about 6 % of private wells have arsenic above 0.010 mg/L. 

Barium – 0.106 mg/L – the primary drinking water standard for barium is 2.0 mg/L –– this does not suggest any specific impact and barium is typically detectable in non-saline impacted water at a level of less than 1 mg/L. (OK)

Boron –< 0.050 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available. EPA appears to have a long-term health advisory of 2.0 mg/L, but other states have limits that range from 0.6 to 1 mg/L.   Therefore, this does not appear to suggest any form of impact.  (OK)

Calcium- 23.4 mg/L (Total)– no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK) – the value seems low.

Chloride –13.8 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

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

Copper – 0.00375 mg/L (OK)- the secondary drinking water standard is 1.0 mg/L and the primary drinking water standard is 1.3 mg/L. (OK)

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

Fluoride – < 0.1 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 2 mg/L- PADEP drinking water standard is 2 mg/L.

Iron – < 0.100 mg/L (Total)) – Iron is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.3 mg/L.  Therefore, the total iron content does not exceed the secondary drinking water standard.  (OK)

Lead – 0.0016 mg/L (Total) - Lead is regulated as a primary standard (EPA and PA) at 0.015 mg/L, but the action level in PA for source water is 0.005 mg/L. Because of the hits for copper and lead, it is possible that the nuisance bacteria may be causing some corrosion related problems  (MIC) and it may be worth conducting a first flush analysis of the water. MIC – Microbiologically Induced Corrosion – Problem recommend inspection of the well, camera survey, shock disinfection, and retesting.  This is a common problem in NEPA.  (OK) = Level below all action limits, but monitoring recommended.

Lithium – < 0.200 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but EPA has recommend a level be below 0.7 mg/L    (OK)

Methane –  0.0043 mg/L (J-actually below the detection limit for the method)  – No specific drinking water standard. (OK). The well water  is not above the new action limit of 7 mg/L. For more details, go to http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm

Magnesium-4.00 mg/L– no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Manganese– 0.0013 mg/L (Total) – Manganese is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.05 mg/L.  Therefore, the total manganese content does NOT exceed the secondary drinking water standard.   (OK)

Nickel – 0.0014 mg/L  – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard
is available, but the EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L.   (OK)

Sodium –8.48  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)

Sulfate –18. 7 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Strontium – < 0.200 mg/L   – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but it is on the EPA Candidate List.  The EPA recommends that drinking water levels of nonradioactive strontium should not be more than 4 mg/L.  The report limit is consistent with background levels in Northeastern Pennsylvania.  If the background level was above 4 mg/L, it would be advisable to test for radiological parameters, especially alpha/beta.  (OK)

Total Dissolved Solids  – 110 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. 

Total Suspended Solids - < 10 mg/L – no standard, but would recommend retesting to obtain a lower detection limit.

Uranium –0.0021 mg/L (Total) – Uranium is regulated as a primary drinking water standard by the EPA and PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.030 mg/L.  (OK)

Zinc  –0.0206 mg/L – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L.  (OK)

Nitrate+Nitrite- N – 2.41 mg/L, this is well below the EPA / PADEP drinking water limit of 10mg N/L for nitrate-N and would also be below the limit of 1.0 mg N/L for nitrite-N. (OK)

Acetone - the reported value was 0.0031 mg/L (J- actually below the actual water limit of  < 0.002 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)

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 and glycol-type compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.

1. No major problems
2. Recommend additional testing for nitrite.
3. Arsenic was detected.
4. Copper, lead, and zinc detected this could suggest a corrosion related problem. This is a common problem in NEPA

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

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Dimock HW-17 arsenic, barium, methane, uranium, thermogenic gasEPA Findings


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-17

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

Barium – 0.239 mg/L – the primary drinking water standard for barium is 2.0 mg/L –– this does not suggest any specific impact and barium is typically detectable in non-saline impacted water at a level of less than 1 mg/L. (OK)

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

Chloride – 7.12 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Copper – 0.0035 mg/L (OK)- the secondary drinking water standard is 1.0 mg/L and the primary drinking water standard is 1.3 mg/L. (OK)

Ethane –0.040 mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard (OK)

Methane – 3.3 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, but the level of methane is at a level were passive venting is recommended.   For more details, go to http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm

The methane/ethane ratio is (2.0/ 0.011) – 82.5

Magnesium- 6.64 mg/L (Total)– no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Manganese– 0.040 mg/L (Total)– Manganese is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.05 mg/L.  Therefore, the total manganese content does not exceed the secondary drinking water standard.   (OK)

Nickel - 0.0012 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but the EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L.   (OK)

Nitrate+Nitrite- N – 0.707 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)

Sodium –12.1 (Total) – 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 – 0.835 mg/L (Total)  – 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)

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

Total Dissolved Solids  – 52 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. 

Uranium – 0.0037 mg/L (Total) – Uranium is regulated as a primary drinking water standard by the EPA and PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.030 mg/L.  (OK)

Zinc  – 0.0065 mg/L (Total) – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L.  (OK)

Arsenic – 0.0027 mg/L (Total) – 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.  It would be advisable to monitor the arsenic level of the well on an annual basis.
  
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.

1. No major problem.

2. Arsenic was detected, but not above a drinking water standard, but annual monitoring recommended.

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, but at the action level of 2 mg/L were passive venting is recommended.
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 !

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

Friday, April 6, 2012

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Methane Gas Migration and Your Water Well- A Pennsylvania Perspective and Action Plan

Final Draft - Post for final review and comment

This is a free resource that is being provided by Mr. Brian Oram, Professional Geologist and owner of B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. and the Water-Research Center.  This fact sheet is part of our on-going education program for private well homeowners, i.e.,  as The Homeowner Outreach Program.  B.F. Environmental Consultants, Inc. and Mr. Brian Oram support the Citizens Groundwater/Surfacewater Database, which is a grassroots effort to compile the water quality data for Northeastern Pennsylvania.  To learn more, please contact the Water-Research Center- http://www.water-research.net.



Introduction

Methane gas has been a “hidden” problem in Northeastern Pennsylvania.  The gas is typically associated with wetlands, bogs, landfills, coal-producing formations, natural saline seeps, some glacial deposits, and gas storage areas.  Because of the development of the Marcellus Shale, the presence of methane gas and the potential for methane gas migration is a growing concern.   Methane is a colorless, odorless gas that is lighter than air.   Natural gas is mostly methane (70 – 90 % CH4), carbon dioxide (0 to 8 % CO2), plus other gases.  The other gases may include ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8), butane (C4H10), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) as well as small amounts of helium.

Methane gas is highly flammable between a lower explosion limit (LEL) of 5.53 percent by volume in air and an upper explosion limit (UEL) of 15 percent.  The minimum concentration level at which the gas has the potential to explode is called the lower explosive limit (LEL); below the LEL level there is not enough gas to cause an explosion.  Above the UEL, there is inadequate oxygen to fuel combustion, but if the space is vented and the gas concentration drops below the UEL, the gas can explode.  Methane is not considered toxic, but it is an asphyxiant at a concentration of over 50 percent in air (it displaces oxygen).  Therefore, the primary risks for methane would be asphyxiation in a confined or poorly vented area or a potential explosion hazard.   As a safety measure, the natural gas industry adds mercaptans to the produced methane gas that enters the pipeline and your home. The mercaptans produce a very pungent odor so that gas leaks will be noticed, but unprocessed methane gas tends to have NO ODOR.  It is critical to note that some unprocessed methane gas may contain long chain hydrocarbon molecules that can create an odor.

From the available data in the Citizen Groundwater/Surfacewater Database, it would appear that the natural background level of methane in private wells in Northeastern Pennsylvania ranges from not detectable or trace levels to over 28 mg/L.  You may suspect the presence of methane gas in your water if you hear a “gurgling noise”, sputtering at the tap, the water has a lot of gas bubbles, is effervescent or fizzy.  

Note: If the pumping level of water in your well starts to fall below your pump intake, ordinary air may mix with the water and produce similar symptoms. When in doubt, contact a professional to determine the nature of the observed gas.

Water hammer or pressure surge is another potential sign of a methane or entrapped gas-related problem. These conditions do not necessarily mean you have a methane problem but it does suggest that additional water testing and possibly more aggressive venting would be needed.  Methane gas typically out-gases very quickly from water.  Therefore, if it takes over 2 minutes for the gas and water to separate, it is most likely carbon dioxide.   If you have a lot of gas and the methane content of the water is low, it may be a mixture of carbon dioxide or air entrapment within the system.   If there is a strong odor and the level of methane is low, you may want to test for sulfur (hydrogen sulfide; odor of rotten eggs) or propane.  Testing for propane would be advisable if you or your neighbors use propane gas.

Note:  Some articles suggest that you should try to collect the water and allow the gas to outgas in a sealed container and then attempt to light the accumulated gas – we do not recommend this practice. This practice is not safe, especially if you do not know the level of methane gas in the water, your home, or under the wellhead.  This may make a great “YouTube” video or “Facebook” post, but it is safer to purchase a small methane gas or flammable gas detector.

There are two main types of methane found in rock formations and groundwater.  The types are based on a difference in origin, not composition:

1. Thermogenic methane, which is formed from buried organic matter at considerable depths where the rocks are compressed and heated; this includes the methane found in coal, gas from some Devonian sandstones/shales, and gas from the Marcellus and Utica Formations.  Methane is produced by the inorganic breakdown of organic matter (heat and pressure). 

2. Biogenic or bacterial methane which formed closer to the surface by the action of bacteria (methanogens- “bacteria that produce methane and cannot live in an environment with oxygen).  This would include methane generated in landfills, lake sediments, wetlands/swamps, organic-rich glacial deposits, other recently buried organic deposits, and other carbon rich environments that are without oxygen.

Natural gas formed by thermogenic processes contains small amounts of ethane and propane and may contain very small amounts of butane and pentane as well as methane. Some coals, like from the anthracite region, contain thermogenic gas, but some coal bed methane could be either biogenic or thermogenic gas. When bacteria generate “biogenic” gas, they create mainly methane.

The source of the natural gas can to some extent be determined by the relative proportion of methane, ethane and propane within the gas, i.e., gas fingerprinting.  Even very small amounts of ethane and propane may be important in helping to identify the source of the gas, i.e., gas composition analysis. Unfortunately, gas composition analysis is expensive, requires an expert, may require large volumes of sample, and a reference sample.   The primary difficulty with the analysis and interpretation of methane by either composition or isotope ratios is that after the gas is created it can be altered during the migration process.  This alteration affects the relative proportions and isotopic composition of the gases, thus making it more difficult to distinguish and identify a specific source.  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.


Methane Gas Concerns and Concentrations

Just like radon gas, methane gas migrates naturally up through the soil, geological materials, and through the groundwater and into your home or well.  Some gas naturally enters houses through the foundation, which is why some homes can have a radon problem if the gas entering the home happens to have a relatively high concentration of radon.  When your water well is pumped, the drop in the level of the water in the wellbore reduces the pressure within the formation and permits more gas to migrate toward the wellbore.  If the well is not properly vented and there happens to be substantial amounts of methane, the gas could accumulate under the well cap near the electrical connections for your well or the methane could enter with the well water and outgas in your home.   The US Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, suggests that when the level of methane gas in the water is less than 10 mg/L it is safe, but monitoring is required at 10 to 28 mg/L, and immediate action is needed above 28 mg/L.  At a level of 28 mg/L, the water is fully saturated with methane and it is likely that any air space in the well is at or approaching the LEL.  The air and out-gassing methane, not the water, is now flammable.

Based on a review of regulations and guidance from other states, the following are our professional recommendations related to suggested actions for your well depending on the level of methane gas detected in the water:


u < 2 mg/L – Make sure your well is fitted with a passive venting system using a vented sanitary well cap.

u > 2 to 7 mg/L – Monitor quarterly for one year and install a passive venting system using a vented pipe and vented sanitary well cap.

u > 7 mg/L to < 10 mg/L – Corrective Action is Needed! – Seek help from a professional.
Install active venting and monitor quarterly for one year. Consider Isotopic Analysis – “Like fingerprinting the source of the gas.” Remove ignition sources - if the well is in a well pit or basement, corrective action is needed and you should seek guidance from a licensed professional.

u > 10 mg/L to < 20 mg/L –  Corrective Action and Additional Testing are Needed! – Seek help from a professional.

Install active venting system, an in-home methane detection system, and a gas shroud on the pump.  If the well is very deep or deeper than the surrounding wells, it may be advisable to consider cementing the lower portions of the well (which could be another problem if most of the water in the well is entering the well from its lower section).  Monitoring and Testing - isotopic analysis with monitoring is recommended and the gases and gas concentrations should be tested multiple times during a year with at least one test under conditions when the greatest out-gassing is anticipated.  If there is natural gas development in your area, contact the PADEP and the local Natural Gas Company.  Seek help from a licensed professional !

u  > 20 mg/L – Immediate Corrective Action is Needed! – Seek help from a professional.

Install active venting and active point-of-entry treatment system, remove ignition sources, install a gas shroud on the pump, consider raising the pump,        and consider cementing the lower portions of the well.   Monitoring and Testing – there should be real-time monitoring in the home and a treatment system, regular monitoring of the untreated water and treated water from the system, and isotopic analysis.

It would be advisable to test for methane, ethane, and propane by a certified testing laboratory.  With respect to baseline testing, it would be wise to test for all three gases but if you’re on a budget at least test for methane and ethane and seek guidance from a professional. 

Note: Corrective action is recommended if the well is in a well pit or in the basement and the initial methane in water concentration is above 2 mg/L. 

When to Test for Methane?

This is a common question and to be honest all we can say is that the level of methane in well water is controlled by many factors and conditions and it can be highly variable. If you want to test under the conditions most favorable to methane gas migration or leakage, it would be advisable to conduct testing when one or more of the following conditions exist:
a. barometric pressure is low and soils are saturated;
b. when snow cover is just beginning to melt;

c. the ground is frozen or ice covered; or

d. under long-term pumping conditions for the well when the well is experiencing the lowest dynamic water level and greatest drawdown.


The variability in methane gas concentrations may require you to sample the well three to four times per year to establish a realistic baseline and provide some insight into background levels of methane gas.  You can visually monitor the quality of the water, if the amount of dissolved gases increase, i.e., if there are more bubbles and fizz, maybe it is time to check the water.   If you see a foam, you would probably want to test the water for surfactants.

Taking Action – Based on Your Level of Methane

Level 1- Passive Venting: Methane Levels < 2 mg/L
Passive venting could simply include checking the electrical connections at the top of the well and installing a vented sanitary well cap.  Wells should not be vented to a well pit, inside the home, or within any structure, but vented to the outside atmosphere. The well casing should extend at least 3 feet above the local flood stage for your area.  

Level 2 – Monitoring, Source Identification, and Passive Venting: Methane Levels 2 to
< 7 mg/L


At this stage, a passive venting system should be installed.  At this level, the venting system would consist of a vented well cap using a vented piping approach.  The vent piping should have an inside diameter of 0.5 inches , extend 6 to 12 inches below the sanitary well cap, at least 12 inches above the well cap, and the end of the pipe that extends above grade should be turned down and fitted with a corrosion resistant fine screen.  The screen should have a mesh size of  25 mesh or less. The vent piping should use watertight connections that extend above flood level and local ignition sources. A screen is added so insects cannot enter or clog the pipe and the pipe is turned down to prevent precipitation from directly entering the well.   The well casing should extend at least 3 feet above the local flood stage for your area.  


Level 3 – Active Venting, Removing Ignition Sources, and Seasonal Monitoring: Methane Level 7 to < 10 mg/L

Because the level of methane gas in the well water will fluctuate as the water level in the well changes, it would be advisable to conduct seasonal monitoring to better understand the variation in the gas concentration.  In addition, this level of action would also include installing additional monitoring devices, an active venting system on the well, and an evaluation of the well to determine if a modification to the well would reduce the level of methane gas.  The main goals are to attempt to understand the natural variation in methane levels, provide a venting system that will ensure your family and home is safe, and to proactively manage the potential risk. At this concentration, the venting system should vent the gas above local ignition sources, above flood level, and above a human exposure level, i.e., at least 6 feet or more.
At this time, it may be advisable to conduct an isotopic analysis to determine the likely source of the methane gas.  Isotopic analysis can determine if the source of the methane gas is from a landfill gas, sewer gas, biogenic gas, or thermogenic gas.  Isotopic analysis is a specialty test and costs approximately $ 450.00 to $ 500.00 per sample.  The primary reason for testing the gas at this point is not just to document the concentration, but also to obtain some information related to the source of the methane gas. 

Note:  Any time the level of methane is at or greater than 7 mg/L - Contact- PADEP and the Local Natural Gas Company in Your Area – Under Oil and Gas Law- Section 78.89 – “When an operator or owner is notified of or otherwise made aware of a POTENTIAL natural gas migration incident, the operator shall immediately conduct an investigation of the incident”.

Level 4 – Aggressive, Potentially Long-Term Treatment: Methane Levels > 10 mg/L to
< 20 mg/L.


At this level, it is most likely that a treatment system will be needed and it would be necessary to install intrinsically safe equipment, i.e., switches, pumps, fixtures, etc.  Intrinsic safety is a requirement that applies to devices that are being operated in areas with flammable gases or fuels. It means that the device is incapable of igniting those gases. In short, an intrinsically safe piece of equipment won't ignite flammable gases even if the unit is in a flammable environment.   Additional real-time monitoring equipment and a gas shroud should be installed around the pump. 

Before installing the treatment system, it would be advisable to complete a baseline analysis of the source, plus conduct additional water quality and wellbore analysis to evaluate the potential for modifying the well and aid in the design of the water treatment system.  Aeration or degasification is the primary way to eliminate the problem of methane gas in water.  There are a number of methods for venting the methane, which includes a vented tank, an air release valve, and an air separator.  Because elevated levels of methane gas may be associated with other water quality problems and atmospheric venting may introduce or facilitate bacterial growth it may be necessary to first vent the gas and then install secondary treatment systems.  In some cases, this may mean the treatment system may need to include some form of disinfection.  To maintain the removal efficiency of the methane reduction system and because of our cold climate, it may be necessary to put the treatment system in a climate-controlled space.  

Level 5 – Immediate Action – Aggressive Response, Mitigation and Long-Term Treatment: Methane Levels > 20 mg/L.

An immediate response and action is needed.  At this level, it is likely the water has a number of aesthetic and safety issues and concerns and it may be advisable check if the water is also influenced by elevated levels of pH, ORP (oxidation/reduction potential), barium, strontium, chloride, iron, manganese, bromide, total dissolved solids, and other elements associated with saline water.    Your first response should be to contact the PADEP and the local Natural Gas Company so they can conduct an investigation and seek the advice of a licensed professional.

Because a response at this level of methane gas is very site-specific, the following should only be used as a guide.

1.      Seek advice from a licensed professional.

2.      Conduct an assessment of the methane level in the water, space under the well cap, and methane level in the air in your home or other confined spaces.

3.      Mitigate any immediate hazards that could result in an explosion.

4.      If possible, modify the wellhead to properly vent the gas and upgrade electrical connections to reduce the level of methane in the water to less than 7 mg/L.

5.      This modification may include raising the well pump, installing a pump shroud, installing an active venting system, cement sealing a portion of the well, and any other modifications to make sure the well is properly and safely vented.

6.      Conduct biological and chemical analysis to determine the source of the methane gas and general quality of the water.

7.      If necessary, install a long-term treatment system.  This should include some type of aeration and degasing system.  Special precautions and additional testing will be needed if disinfection will be a component of the system. 

If the water is saturated with methane, i.e., > 28 mg/L, it may be advisable to retest the water/air using the IsoBag sampling method recommended by Isotech Laboratories, Inc. and conducting an isotropic analysis of the gas/water and seek the assistance of a professional.


Well/ System Modifications

The Gas Shroud - In some cases, well contractors have reduced or eliminated methane or other gas problems in the well by installing a gas “shroud” on a submersible pump. This involves placing a pipe or tube, often a thin-walled plastic pipe, from the top of the submersible pump motor, a distance of 10 or more feet above the pump. This method only works with 6-inch or larger diameter wells with standard well pumps, and wells that pump relatively small quantities of water at one time.  Because the gas shroud may interfere with cooling the motor, this modification to your system should be done under the supervision of a licensed professional.

Cementing – If the source of the methane gas is from a formation near the base of the well, it may be advisable to consider abandoning a portion of the well.  To make this decision, it would be advisable to have a copy of the well drillers log, so you have some idea of the type of rock units and location of water bearing zones; you don’t want to seal off the source of most of your well water.  For this option, it may be necessary to camera survey the well and use other tools to evaluate the change in water quality with depth in the well.

Raise the Pump – If the well is deep and the pump is set near the base of the well, it may be advisable to raise the level of the pump.  Do not raise the pump intake above its pumping level because you will then start to pump air along with the water (air bubbles in the water). 

Install a Dole Flow Control Valve- This modification has been successful in preventing gas locking in submersible pumps.  This modification would include the installation of a number of dole flow control valves to divert 1/3 of the pumped water back to the well. The bypass should be located at a point where the water will cascade back to the well.

Maintenance and Monitoring

After you have taken the necessary corrective action, it will be necessary to maintain the equipment and monitor your drinking water quality.  If you hire a water treatment specialist, you may want to consider a licensed or approved contractor who is certified by the Water Quality Association (WQA) and someone that is using an NSF Approved Process or components.  For water quality monitoring, there is some self-monitoring equipment for this task.  You should also conduct an annual water analysis and annual assessment of your system.

For more information, please do not hesitate to contact the Water-Research Center at bfenviro@ptd.net, http://www.water-research.net , http://www.bfenvironmental.com or 570-335-1947. 

Related Tags: methane, ethane, propane, aeration, ventilation, disinfection, radon, baseline testing, water treatment, well water, biogenic gas, water treatment,  thermogenic gas, methane gas migration, methane in drinking water private wells

Special Recognition

We want to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Brian Redmond, Professional Geologist at Wilkes University; Mr. Burt Waite, Professional Geologist at Moody and Associates, Inc., Mr. Bob Pirkle, President of Microseeps, Inc.; Mr. Tom Reilly, Jr. , Reilly Associates for providing a technical review of this factsheet.

Our company accepts no liability for the content of this document, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided.  This document is being provided as an educational and informational tool, but before you take action you should seek advice from a professional.

© 2011 by B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc., but the document may be reproduced in whole, without modification, for an educational purposes.