Showing posts with label water quality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water quality. Show all posts

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Natural Gas Development in Michigan Study by University of Michigan

University of Michigan Study Finds Michigan Will Not Have Shale Development in the Near Future

"On September 3, 2013, the University of Michigan released a comprehensive study on shale development in Michigan, which concluded that large scale development is not likely to occur in Michigan in the near future.  The study analyzed the technical, economic, geologic, hydrogeologic, environmental, public health, and legal aspects of hydraulic fracturing in the state.  The technical aspect of the study noted that Eastern Michigan's Utica and Collingwood shale formations are very deep and that no commercial development has occurred in either formation. The study concluded that the market price for natural gas would need to approach $6-$8/MCF for operators to be able to profit from high-volume hydraulic fracturing of the deep shale, while the current price of natural gas has peaked around $4/MCF."
The study may be found at: University of Michigan Study

Technology. In view of the current low price of natural gas, the high cost of drilling deep shale formations and the absence of new oil discoveries, it is unlikely that there will be significant growth of the oil and gas industry in Michigan in the near-term future. However, considerable reserves of natural gas are believed to exist in deep shale formations such as the Utica-Collingwood, which underlies much of Michigan and eastern Lake Huron and extends into Ontario, Canada.

The technical reports are now available, and comments to help inform the Integrated Assessment are being accepted until 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on October 7, 2013.

Monday, April 1, 2013

The Carbon County Groundwater Guardians Volunteer Groundwater Group in Pennsylvania

The Carbon County Groundwater Guardians (CCGG) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, volunteer, environmental education organization which provides homeowners with information on private wells, water quality and quantity, and septic systems. We are dedicated to protecting private well owners from illnesses caused by our drinking water. We advance good groundwater stewardship by raising awareness on a variety of groundwater issues that affects everyone with a private water supply. We can help you get your water tested at the lab of your choice and explain the test results.

We seek new people at all skill levels for a variety of programs. One thing that everyone can do is attend meetings to share ideas on improving CCGG, enabling us to better understand and address the concerns of well owners.


Everything we do began with an idea.

We realize your time is precious and the world is hectic. CCGG’s volunteers do only what they’re comfortable with. It can be a little or a lot.

For more information, please go to CCGG’s About Page .
Carbon County Groundwater Guardians is a 501(c)(3) IRS approved nonprofit, volunteer organization and your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law.
Carbon County Groundwater Guardians on Facebook







Saturday, January 26, 2013

Energy Conservation & Sustainability Strategies in Northeast Pennsylvania

Energy Conservation & Sustainability Strategies, Tuesday, 6 pm January 29, 2013

Green Field Energy Solutions will present information on conducting home energy audits to help identify opportunities to increase energy efficiency. Participants will learn about the many strategies they can implement to reduce energy consumption and energy costs. They will also present information on Solar Energy – the benefits and the steps involved in helping participants get off the grid.
Green Field Energy Solutions was founded on the principles of education and providing sustainable alternatives to energy that accommodates any budget or energy production goal. The GFES team is highly passionate about what we do. Our team brings over 16 years of engineering, construction, and project management experience as well a depth of education. Our technical and administrative staff makes the GFES experience easy for our clients.

Download a Pdf - http://www.kceei.keystone.edu/CoursesWorkshop/FinalProof2013.pdf


other key websites   Clean Drinking Water for Private Well Owners - http://www.water-research.net Energy Related Products for Home and Office - http://astore.amazon.com/saferliving-20
 

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Outreach, Training Events, and Presentations Brian Oram 2011 2012


Recently Completed Lehigh valley Clean Water Summit -- Sourcewater Protection - Maintaining the Balance (9/2011) (1 mb)

Recently Completed PA State Nursing Association - Marcellus Shale - Unearthing Environmental Health Issues for Nurses(pdf of event)- "Getting the Waters Tested - The Marcellus Shale Factor - October 7, 2011- Link to Event.  Notes for Nurses - Final Presentation.

Recently Completed  - Wayne County Task Force 11/18/2011- Methane Gas Migration - Link to Local Story.

Recently Completed- New Getting the Waters Tested - The Marcellus Shale Factor - An Industry Perspective. November 4, 2011 - 9:00 - Noon - Hosted by Wilkes University - Webinar Will Be Available.

Recently Completed - November 14 and November 15, 2011 - 2011 Private Well Symposium - The importance for Fixing Private Wells in Pennsylvania - The Marcellus Shale Factor-Concurrent Session 3: Hydrofracturing and Its Impact on Groundwater (November 14, 2011 - 3:30 to 5:00 pm)- pdf version of presentation

Recently Completed - "Getting the Waters Tested- Working as a Community" - Dimock PA - Feb. 2, 2012 - - 6:00 - 8:00 pm- Host Enough is EnoughPresentation Video (Q/A Session)-    Presentation Video

Recently Completed - "Getting the Waters Tested - An Industry Perspective" - PIOGA Winter Conference - Feb. 8, 2012.

Recently Completed -  Getting the Waters Tested - The Marcellus Shale Factor - An Industry Perspective and How to Work With Private Well Owners and the Community. March 9, 2012- 9:00 - Noon - Hosted by Wilkes University  (Webinar may be available).

Recently Completed Presentation - PWEA Conference on Marcellus Shale - March 16, 2012.
Groundwater / Private Well Owner Education Events in Lackawanna County, PA - Event 1,
Event 2 (March 20, 2012), and Event 3 (April 24, 2012)

Recently Completed -Marcellus Shale for Young Adults (pdf) - Presentation for DCNR (March 2012)

Recently Completed -Marcellus Shale 201 -Lackawanna College- Outreach to Citizens and Private Well Owners - April 2012

Recently Completed -Fact Based Presentation for Girl Scouts in Carbon County, PA and Carbon County Groundwater Guardians- Marcellus Shale - Water Issues, Groundwater Quality, and Private Wells (May 2012)

Recently Completed -Nature Abounds - Meeting, QA Session, and Dialogue about Private Wells, Marcellus Shale Drilling, Toured a Local Well Site and More- The Forest Summit.

Internal Project -ON-GOING- A Fact Based Well by Well Review of the EPA Data for Dimock, PA.
Recently Completed - Franklin Forks, PA - Introduction to Groundwater, Private Wells, Groundwater Quality, The Citizens Database, and Methane Gas Migration - Working as a Community to Make Positive Change, June 2012.

NEW - Certified Sampler Training Program - July 28, 2012, Cleveland, Ohio - Register by
June 29, 2012- Flier.  To register, contact Marianne Metzger 800-458-3330 or mmetazger@ntllabls.com.


August 5, 2012 - Presentation on Black Shale Unconventional Gas in Lithuania - Lessons Learned in the United States - Presented to Simonas Satunas - Deputy Chief of Mission and Evaldas Stankevicius - First Lithuanian Cultural Attache to the United States, Scranton Chamber, and Local Watershed Groups.   The event ended with a tour of natural gas drilling and development activities in Susquehanna County, PA.

Monday, April 2, 2012

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.


Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Dimock Well – HW-02 January 25, 2012 - a review of the data


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-02

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

Total Coliform – Two samples  - (82 colonies per 100 ml and 1 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.  If this was a regulated water source, it would be classified as not-potable, and disinfection would be required.  As stated, this is a common problem with private wells in PA and the significant variation in the two testing results could suggest induced contamination by the field samplers.  Retesting Recommended

Ethylene glycol –  the reported value is < 10 mg/L – there is no standard set by EPA or PA, 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 using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.

Chloride – 3.9 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Sulfate – 8.9 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Arsenic – 0.004 mg/L (Total) and 0.0026 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.  It would be advisable to monitor the arsenic level of the well on an annual basis. (OK)

Barium - 0.275mg/L (Total) and 0.263 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)

Boron – 0.050 mg/L (Total) and 0.0588 mg/L (D) – 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- 31.7 mg/L (Total) and 32.1 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Copper – 0.0035 mg/L (Total) and 0.0025 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)

Iron – 1.62mg/L (Total) and 0.140 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.  Since the total value exceeds the limit and not the dissolved, this suggests that the primary recommendation would be to install a water treatment system to filter the iron colloids or particles from the water.  Because of the high bacterial issue, it is also possible that iron bacteria may be present in the water causing discolored and smelly water.  The water probably has a reddish or brown appearance. Elevated level of iron is a common water quality problem in Northeastern PennsylvaniaAction is Recommended, because of an aesthetic issue.
Lead – 0.0019 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. 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)

Magnesium- 5.73 mg/L (Total) and 5.75 mg/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.  (photos of iron bacteria on the website)

Sodium – 15.9 mg/L (Total) and 16.2 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 0.661mg/L (Total) and 0.677 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)

Thallium- < 0.001 mg/L (Total) and < 0.001 mg/L (D)  – Thallium is regulated as a primary drinking water standard by the EPA and PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.002 mg/L.  (OK)

Uranium 0.004 mg/L (Total) and 0.0039 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  < 0.002  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)

Ethane 0.57  mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard (OK)

Methane 18  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 31 to 36.  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  95  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)

Acenaphthylene – the reported level was  0.00001 mg/L. Acenaphtylene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon – PAHs are created when products like coal, oil, gas, and garbage are burned but the burning process is not complete. Acenaphthylene is a component of crude oil, coal tar and a product of combustion which may be produced and released to the environment during natural fires. Very little information is available on the document that was released and the report indicates that one sample had a detected at   0.00001 mg/L and the other sample was  non-detected.  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.

“Note: PAHs have been detected in surface waters of the United States. In an assessment of STORET data covering the period 1980-82, Staples et al. (1985) reported median concentrations in ambient water of less than 0.010 mg/L for 15 PAHs (acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benz[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, benzo[a]pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene).

It appears that Arizona and Missouri recommended a limit of < 0.003 ug/L or <0.000003 mg/L.”

Retesting is Recommend -During retesting, it is critical to check for airborne sources of contamination during sampling and it would be advisable to attempt to use a method with a lower detection limit.  At this point, I am not sure if a certified method can detect acenaphthylene to the recommended level of 0.000003 mg/L – still researching.


Anthracene the reported level was  0.00023 mg/L (0.23 ug/L).  This  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.

Retesting Recommended - 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 this reference.  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).


Benzo(a)pyrene – the reported level was 0.00020 mg/L (0.00016 to 0.0002 mg/L).   The EPA and PADEP have a primary drinking water standard of 0.0002 mg/L.  The value is at the maximum contaminant level for a regulated water source.  The primary recommendation would be to continue to monitor this source and make sure to monitor the source following a recharge event.

4-Bromopheyl-Phenyl Ether – the reported level was 0.00018 mg/L – there does not appear to be a federal drinking water standard but Florida does appear to have an upper limit of 0.0010 mg/L.   (OK)

Butyl benzyl phthalate – the reported level was 0.00035 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)


Carbazole (Diphenylenimine)was reported at a level of 0.29 ug/L or 0.00029 mg/L. Carbazole is released to the atmosphere in emissions from waste incineration, tobacco smoke, aluminum manufacturing, and rubber, petroleum, coal, and wood combustion. If released to the atmosphere, vapor-phase carbazole is rapidly degraded by photochemically produced hydroxyl radicals (estimated half-life of 3 hr). In the particulate phase, the rate of degradation depends upon the adsorbing substrate.   The EPA does not have a regulated drinking water limit, but it appears Florida has set a standard of 0.0075 mg/L.   (OK)

Source: USEPA/Office of Water; Federal-State Toxicology and Risk Analysis Committee (FSTRAC).

4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether was reported at a level of 0.10 ug/L or 0.0001 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)

Dibenzofuran (Dixons) was reported at a level of 0.04 ug/L or 0.00004 mg/L. Dibenzofuran is used as an insecticide, to make other chemicals, and is a by-product of combustion. It is made from coal tar and has been found in coke dust, grate ash, fly ash, and flame soot.  In addition, it can be found in tobacco and as a combustion product, dibenzofuran may be released from the incomplete combustion of coal biomass, refuse, diesel fuel and residual oil, as well as from tobacco smoke.

Based on the available information, the primary recommendation would be to conduct a more detailed site-specific evaluation and conduct confirmation testing.  Since this well appears to be susceptible to near surface impacts, it may be possible to eliminate exposure by improving control at the wellhead to reduce vulnerability to contamination.  No clear standard, but follow-up testing and on-site evaluation is recommended.  Note: The aerobic decomposition in an aerobic and anaerobic environment is < 28 days to over 112 days.
Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference by By John H. Montgomery (Google Books)

Note: Dibenzofuran was qualitatively identified in drinking water collected from Cincinnati,
Ohio in October 1978 and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in February 1976. 

Retesting –should also include breakdown products.
Comment  = the presence of the partially combusted material and the bacterial contamination is making me believe there is a local source of contamination, i.e., old burn pit, burn barrels, etc.  This is not a judgment, but it makes me very interested in seeing this site and the condition of the well and surrounding area.

Lucas SV; GC/MS Analysis of Organics in Drinking Water Concentrates and Advanced Waste Treatment Concentrates: Vol 1. EPA-600/1-84-020a p. 45,147 (1984)

Fluoranthene (Benzo(j, k)fluorene) was reported at a level of 0.27 ug/L or 0.00027 mg/L and there is a trigger level reported at 0.63 mg/L.  It has been suggested that the EPA has set for total PAHs of 0.2 ug/L or 0.0002 mg/L and I can not find an EPA reference that confirms this statement, but Florida has a health advisory level  of 0.5 ug/L or 0.0005 mg/L for benzo(k)fluorene

Note: “Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a group of chemicals that occur naturally in coal, crude oil, and gasoline. PAHs are also present in products made from fossil fuels, such as coal-tar pitch, creosote, and asphalt.  Fluoranthene adsorbs strongly to soil and would be expected to remain in the upper layers of soil. However, it has been detected in groundwater samples which demonstrates that it can be transported there by some process(es). It slowly degrades in soil (half-life ca 5 mo to 2 yr).”  Based on the reported trigger level and the standard used for Florida, this value does not appear to violate a trigger level, but monitoring is advisable. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/community/health-advisory/HAL_list.pdf

Benzo(k)fluoranthene was reported at 0.32 ug/L or 0.00032 mg/L and the reported EPA trigger level is 0.029 mg/L.    Florida has a health advisory at 0.0005 mg/L. (OK)  Still researching

Benzo(b)fluoranthene was reported at 0.15 ug/L or 0.00015 mg/L and the reported EPA trigger level is 0.0056 mg/L. Florida has a health advisory at 0.0005 mg/L.  (OK) Still researching

Fluorene was reported at 0.10 ug/L or 0.0001 mg/L and the reported EPA trigger level is 0.220 mg/L, but has a DWEL of 1.00 mg/L.  Florida  has a health advisory at 0.500 mg/L. (OK)
Still researching- “Fluorene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) released from the incomplete combustion of fuels including oil, gasoline, coal and wood, as well as waste materials; it is an intermediate in production of dyes and other chemicals”- The reported health based standard was 0.3 mg/L or 300 ug/L.
http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/chemical-contaminants?file=contaminant&contamcode=2264

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) - was reported at 0.22 ug/L or 0.00022 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)

Ortho Nitroaniline (2-Nitroaniline)- the reported value was 0.00007 mg/L and the EPA indicates a “Trigger Level” of 0.15 mg/L.  The NY Regulations suggest a limit of 0.005 mg/L is the principle organic standard. (OK)

3-Nitroaniline -the reported value was 0.00012 mg/L and the EPA indicates that there is no “Trigger Level”.  The NY Regulations suggest a limit of 0.005 mg/L is the principle organic standard. (OK)
http://www.bnl.gov/gpg/files/Annual_Reports/2001pdf/Table1-03.PDF

4- Nitrobenzenamine - the reported value was 0.00014 mg/L and the EPA indicates that there is a “Trigger Level” at 0.061 mg/L.  The NY Regulations suggest a limit of 0.005 mg/L is the principle organic standard. (OK)

4-Nitrophenol - the reported value was 0.00017 mg/L and the EPA indicates that there is no “Trigger Level”.  The NY Regulations suggest a limit of 0.001 mg/L is the standard for the total amount of phenolic compounds. (OK)

n-Nitrosodimethylamine  (NDMA) - the reported value was < 0.005 mg/L and the EPA indicates that there is  “Trigger Level” at 0.00004 mg/L.     It appears this could be a by-product of chlorination.  NDMA can be produced and released from industrial sources through chemical reactions, such as those that involve alkylamines with nitrogen oxides, nitrous acid, or nitrite salts. Potential industrial sources include byproducts from tanneries, pesticide and rocket fuel manufacturing plants, rubber and tire manufacturers, alkylamine manufacture and use sites, fish processing facilities, foundries, and  dye manufacturers (ATSDR 1989).  In 2011, Health Canada established a drinking water guideline at a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of 0.00004 mg/L, based on an assessment by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water (CDW). EPA has a 10-4 Cancer Risk of 0.00007 mg/L.
Therefore, the primary recommendation would be to resample and use a method with a lower detection limit.   

Note: 10-4 Cancer Risk: The concentration of a chemical in drinking water corresponding to an excess estimated lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 10,000.

n-Nitrosodiphenylamine-- the reported value was 0.00017 mg/L and the EPA indicates that there is a “Trigger Level” at 1.0 mg/L. 

It dissolves in water, but it binds to soil and does not move quickly through soil. It breaks down in air, water, and soil within several weeks. For drinking water, the EPA has suggested trigger limits that range from 0.070 to 0.70 mg/L.
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0178.htm  Looks Ok – but may want to monitor.

Pentachlorophenol – the reported value was <  0.005 mg/L, but the EPA/ PADEP MCL is < 0.001 mg/L.   The NY Regulations suggest a limit of 0.001 mg/L is the standard for the total amount of phenolic compounds. The EPA has a DWEL of 0.2 mg/L.
 Looks OK, but retesting using a method with a lower detection limit may be advisable.

benzo(ghi)perylene– the reported value was <  0.0021 mg/L, but the there is no MCL or trigger limit.  Like most PAHs, benzo(g,h,i)perylene is used to make dyes, plastics, pesticides, explosives and drugs. It has also been used to make bile acids, cholesterol and steroids. It has been suggested that the EPA has set for total PAHs of 0.2 ug/L or 0.0002 mg/L and I can not find an EPA reference that confirms this statement, but Florida has a health advisory level of 0.210 mg/L for benzo(ghi)perylene
(OK)

phenanthrene– the reported value was <  0.0023 mg/L, but the there is no MCL or trigger limit. Florida has a health advisory level of 0.210 mg/L for phenanthrene
(OK)

dimethyl phthalate – the reported value was 0.00015 mg/L and the reported trigger limit is 1.4 mg/L. Florida has a health advisory level of 70 mg/L for dimethyl phthalate. 
(OK)

di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP)- the reported value was 0.00028 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 0.00026 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)

indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pryene- the reported value was 0.00021 mg/L and the reported trigger limit is 0.003 mg/L. It is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH).  (Source for standard not available). (OK)

This sample seems to have as series of detects for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), plus is positive for bacterial contamination.

 “Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of over 100 different chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances like tobacco or charbroiled meat. PAHs are usually found as a mixture containing two or more of these compounds, such as soot. “

Again – I have not been to the site, but I am just wondering if the because the well is vulnerable to bacterial contamination is it also vulnerable to air-borne or local contamination related to the burning of materials.   I have recommended the following:
a. an evaluation of the well – including a shock disinfection.
b. local wellhead survey to attempt to identify local sources of potential contamination.
c. Recommended retesting for a number of parameters to either monitor or to use a different method with a lower detection limit.  This should include monitoring following a recharge event.
d. Methane above the action limit – recommend venting and other modifications to the well and regular monitoring. http://www.water-research.net/methanegas.htm  The gas appears to have a thermogenic origin, but additional analysis is recommended.
e. Retesting for glycol using a more sensitive method.
f. Iron and manganese exceeds secondary drinking water limits that were set for aesthetic reasons.
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 !

Friday, March 23, 2012

Well – HW-12 Dimock 1/26/2012 A Review


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.  This is based on my professional experience and other published data.
3. Where appropriate I made recommendations.

Well – HW-12

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

Chloride – 3.64 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Sulfate – 5.20 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is <  250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.

Arsenic – 0.006 mg/L (Total) and 0.0058 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.  It would be advisable to monitor the arsenic level of the well on an annual basis.

Barium - 0.707mg/L (Total) and 0.716 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)

Boron – 0.0538 mg/L (Total) and 0.0522 mg/L (D) – 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.   Minnesota is the state with the lowest standard of 0.600 mg/L.  Therefore, this does not appear to suggest any form of impact.  (OK)

Calcium- 28.5 mg/L (Total) and 28.1 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Iron – 1.24 mg/L (Total) and < 0.1 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.  Since the total value exceeds the limit and not the dissolved, this suggests that the primary recommendation would be to install a water treatment system to filter the iron colloids or particles from the water.  The water probably has a reddish or brown appearance. Elevated level of iron is a common water quality problem in Northeastern Pennsylvania.  Action is Recommended, because of an aesthetic issue. 

Magnesium- 4.77 mg/L (Total) and 4.67 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available.  (OK)

Manganese– 0.12 mg/L (Total) and 0.139 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 Pennsylvania.  Action is Recommended, because of an aesthetic issue. 

Nickel - 0.0012 mg/L (Total) and 0.001 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 – 19.3 mg/L (Total) and 19.3 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 0.629 mg/L (Total) and 0.618 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)

Uranium 0.0018 mg/L (Total) and 0.0016 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  0.0054  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)

Ethane 2.00  mg/L  – No specific drinking water standard (OK)

Methane 52  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.  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  67  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)

Chloroethane – 0.0002 mg/L – there does not appear to be a drinking water standard and the primary route of entry into the body is inhalation.  Chloroethane can be smelled at a level of 0.02 mg/L in water.  “In groundwater, chloroethane changes slowly to ethanol and a chloride salt as a result of reaction with water and chloroethane can be formed through chlorination.”    There does not appear to be an aesthetic issue, but Additional Monitoring Would be Advisable.  No specific health concern, but monitoring recommended.

Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane)– 0.0006 mg/L – there does not appear to be a drinking water standard that is regulated by the EPA or PADEP.  It appears that water companies throughout the country have reported detection of chloromethane in the water. It appears the EPA has provided a recommended lifetime health based exposure risk non-cancer for chloromethane of 0.030 mg/L.  “ Most (99%) of the chloromethane in the environment comes from natural sources.” (OK)


Bromide – In freshwater, bromide is typically less than 0.05 mg/L. Therefore, it would be advisable to retest using a method with a lower detection limit. If an ozone-based water treatment system is proposed, it may be best to have the bromide level of less than 0.0063 mg/L to prevent the formation of bromates.    Additional Sampling at a lower detection limit – no health concern (OK).

Additional Comments
Lithium - was reported at < 200 ppb or 0.2 mg/L.  There are no current federal standards for lithium in drinking water. To protect human health, EPA estimated that a lithium concentration in a potable water supply should not exceed 700 Î¼g/l or 0.7 mg/L.

Methane gas appears to have a thermogenic origin.

Other References
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 !



Saturday, October 29, 2011

Citizen Science and the Citizen Groundwater/ Surfacewater Database

Citizen Science and the Citizen Groundwater/ Surfacewater Database
The Concept- The Need- The Purpose

The Private Well Owner Outreach Program in Pennsylvania

by Mr. Brian Oram, PGFor the past 20+ years, I have been conducting water quality analysis, baseline tesint, and conducting education programs for the citizens of Pennsylvania. Even though our groundwater resources are one of our most important assets, there is limited data on the quality and quantity of regional groundwater. While working at Wilkes University, I held establish the formation of a "Citizen" Groundwater and Surfacewater Database. Even though I no longer work full-time at Wilkes University, I am working with Dr. Brian Redmond and Dr. Sid Halsor on the development, formation, and creation of this community tool. This regional water quality database is an unbiased warehouse of water quality data that is supported by fellow "Citizens" of this Commonwealth. After reviewing this information, I would hope you will take action and support the Citizens Groundwater and Surfacewater Database.

The database will provide information about the current state of groundwater and surface water quality and serve as a basis for monitoring impacts related to Marcellus gas drilling and other activity in our region. The database initiative is the first of its kind in northeast Pennsylvania and the initial database targeted private wells in Luzerne and Columbia Counties, but we are reaching out to build partnerships throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania so the database can include other counties in the area, i.e., Bradford, Carbon, Columbia, Luzerne, Lackawanna, Monroe, Pike, Schuylkill, Susquehanna, Sullivan, Wayne, and Wyoming (Resource: Initial Press Release dated –August 17, 2010).

The purpose of our database is twofold. We will use it to help us better understand the current and future groundwater and surface water quality for the region. The database will also be used to generate educational materials relating to regional water quality. The database is for research and education purposes, and will not be sold or used for any commercial purpose. The database is managed by representatives of the Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences Department at Wilkes University, i.e., Dr. Brian Redmond and Dr. Sid Halsor.

To protect your privacy, the research database file will only include the testing results, zip code, general information on well or water source, and the latitude and longitude of the sampling site. Your name, address, or other contact information will NOT be included within the database.

This is what citizens are saying about this service and community resource:

"WOW! I can’t thank you enough. My only regret is that you are not here to do the rest of the tests for my community. If all this drilling wasn’t coming here, I would be begging you to bring the family here." (Darlington, Pa)
"KUDOs to Brian and others for putting the concept together" (Wayne County, PA)
"Thank you for a most informative discussion last night. I think it may have opened many eyes and minds to well contamination issues already in the community" (Regional Task Force, PA).


II. More Information or Host a Community Event
If you have not conducted baseline analysis and have questions about the testing process and suggested parameters please go to Submit Your Questions or Request for Assistance. Send a copy of your water quality data or host a community meeting where the water quality data could be compiled. To request a community meeting - email brian.oram@wilkes.edu or bfenviro@ptd.net. Please put Citizen Database in Subject.
III. Guidelines for Data Submission (Data Qualifications)


For your data to be included in the database, it will need to meet the following criteria.
1. For inclusion in the water quality database, the water sample must have been collected using an independent third party for the sample collection and following the chain-of-custody process.
2. The testing must have been conducted by a certified laboratory which provided you with a copy of the certified results including a listing of methods, method detection limits, and reporting limits.
3. The field survey must include the GPS position of the well or you must grant permission for us to visit your property to document the GPS position of your well.

4. The field survey should include the static water level in the well prior to purging the system or you must grant permission for us to visit your property to determine if the static water level can be documented.

5. The water sample must be collected ahead of any water treatment system.
6. If the sample was collected after natural gas drilling within 1000 feet of the well – this should be stated on the information request sheet.

Terms:

Chain-of-Custody – Is typically a document that tracks the sample from the time of collection to delivery to the certified laboratory and any subsequent releases of the sample to other laboratories for analysis.
Certified Laboratory – a laboratory that has been approved and certified by the Pennsylvania Laboratory Accreditation Program for the specific testing parameters and methods of analysis.

III. My Data Qualifies – What Do I Need To Do? - ACT NOW - Get the Forms you NEED!
In order to participate in this process, please do the following:
1. Information Document about the Program (Please Keep for Your Reference).
2. Download a copy of the Consent Form and Return/Signed.
3. Send a copy of your certified laboratory testing results with Chain-of-Custody Documents. (Download Data Qualification Requirements)

4. Mail this information to:
Mr. Brian Oram, PG
Citizen Outreach Program
15 Hillcrest Drive
Dallas, PA 18612

Questions - call (570) 335-1947
or send a pdf version by email to brian.oram@wilkes.edu or bfenviro@ptd.net.

5. Schedule a Community Event - This includes a presentation on the database, suggestions for baseline testing, discuss on Methane Gas Migration, initial review of the data, and then submitting individual summaries of the results to the citizens.
6. Participate in the PA Private Well Owner and Watershed Survey

To Learn More - Go Here NOW.

Thanks







Brian Oram, PG

Citizen of Pennsylvania



Web Portals



Looking for Free Information on Water Quality- Try the Water-Research.net

Our Facebook Sites - B.F. Environmental Consultants - Water Research Center

Monday, July 4, 2011

The Best Way to Make Ice

Article - Submitted by: jacob@water-softener-reviews.org
First of all, you can make ice cubes from water produced by RO Systems. In fact, ice made from reverse osmosis, or RO, water produces cleaner, clearer and better tasting ice cubes because most of the bacterias are removed from the water. So, just because water is purified by a certain procedure, (in this case, reverse osmosis), has no bearing on whether we can make ice. I prefer “clean ice” – in many cases it is perfectly see through, except for a little bubble in the center of the ice cube. Also the benefit is that the cube is more frozen and melts less rapidly. Almost all people enjoy that as well.

So, why would an ice maker technician tell someone that RO water will not function on an ice machine? I can’t help but to suspect that through his experience, he has witnessed many situations where he is summoned on a service job and noticed that when the RO Treatment Systems was turned off and the ice-maker was connected directly to the natural supply, it functioned. This however does not mean that a Reverse Osmosis Treatment Systems will not make ice cubes. When one supplies a considerable volume of water at an adequate pressure, any ice-maker will produce wonderful ice-cubes through reverse osmosis.

The challenge with a RO Systems on ice-makers, especially the bar style ice-makers, is that those types of ice machines use a tremendous supply of water. Believe it or not, some of those makers can use 80-90 gallons of water a day! Unless you have a high volume RO Systems, it is futile to try and generate Reverse osmosis water to that genre of ice-maker.

Another challenge is pressure. Many newer model ice machines need 30-40 PSI (pounds per square inch) to function properly. A home RO Systems drops the incoming pressure by 30-35% if you are starting out with 70-80 pounds per square inch, that is ok, but if the incoming water pressure is 40-60 pounds per square inch, there may be an obstacle. Volume and pressure are separate obstacles. You may have adequate pressure to operate an ice machine, but not sufficient volume and it’s not as simple as installing another tank with enough of volume and minuet pressure.

measuring a RO Treatment Systems is substantial when you have a few water outlets, especially if some of them are an under-the-counter ice-maker. Most in home reverse osmosis systems are 24 to 50 gallons per day, or GPD, which is not nearly adequate enough for such an ice-maker. Also, creation is decreased whenever the water temperature is less than 77 degrees F, and whenever the pressure is below 60 Pounds per square inch. In our world, a 50 GPD RO Treatment Systems in the Midwest will likely produce 20-25 GPD, when the demand can be up to 150 GPD.

There are many simple answers, and the awesome news is that they do not have to be considerably costly. One strategy is to install a bigger system, such as a 300 gallons per day reverse osmosis systems or a high production system, such as GE’s Merlin system, which produces 1/2 GPM of Reverse Osmosis water. Another idea is to super charge the pressure coming in with a booster pump or turbo charging the reverse osmosis system pressure to 80 pounds per Square Inch with a Demand Delivery Pump. This type of system will supply plenty of excellent, great-tasting RO Systems water, without ever running out! So, you can use RO Systems water on ice makers, and businesses, such as ours can even install RO Treatment Systems on very large non-residential machines. If we are able to do that, your residential ice machine will be simple} to [clean up and supercharge to Reverse Osmosis Treatment Systems ice. The key is properly sizing the RO Treatment Systems and pressure needed to glorify output. Look for a company that will do just that, and relax with a cold beverage and fresh ice.

For More Information about Reverse Osmosis and Water Softeners

other water treatment systems and informational water testing services

Saturday, March 5, 2011

House Bill No. 895 Introduced by Tina Pickett 110 Legislative District Pennsylvania

As with all blogs this is a living document that is always being edited and updated.

" House Bill 895 - An Act amending the act of December 19, 1984 (P.L.1140, No.223), entitled "An act relating to the development of oil and gas and coal; imposing duties and powers on the Department of Environmental Resources; imposing notification requirements to protect landowners; and providing for definitions, for various requirements to regulate the drilling and operation of oil and gas wells, for gas storage reservoirs, for various reporting requirements, including certain requirements concerning the operation of coal mines, for well permits, for well registration, for distance requirements, for well casing requirements, for safety device requirements, for storage reservoir obligations, for well bonding requirements, for a Well Plugging Restricted Revenue Account to enforce oil and gas well plugging requirements, for the creation of an Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board, for oil and gas well inspections, for enforcement and for penalties," in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions; and, in general requirements, further providing for protection of water supplies- submitted March 2011".


The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows:

Section 1. Section 103 of the act of December 19, 1984 (P.L.1140, No.223), known as the Oil and Gas Act, is amended by adding a definition to read:

Section 103. Definitions.

The following words and phrases when used in this act shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

* * *

"Unconventional well." A bore hole drilled or being drilled for the purpose of or to be used for producing oil or gas from a geologic formation existing below the base of the Elk Sandstone or its geologic equivalent stratigraphic interval where oil or gas generally cannot be produced at economic flow rates or in economic volumes except by wells stimulated by hydraulic fracture treatments, a horizontal well bore or by using multilateral well bores or other techniques to expose more of the formation of the well bore.

* * *

Section 2. Section 208(d) of the act is amended and the section is amended by adding subsections to read:

Section 208. Protection of water supplies.

* * *

(c.1) In the instance where the well is an unconventional well, unless rebutted by one of the five defenses established in subsection (d), it shall be presumed that a well operator is responsible for the pollution of a water supply that is within 2,500 feet of the oil or gas well, where the pollution occurred within 24 months after the completion of drilling or alteration of such well.

(d) In order to rebut the presumption of liability established in subsection (c), the well operator must affirmatively prove one of the following five defenses:

(1) The pollution existed prior to the drilling or alteration activity as determined by a predrilling or prealteration survey.

(2) The landowner or water purveyor refused to allow the operator access to conduct a predrilling or prealteration survey.

(3) The water supply is not within 1,000 feet of the well or, in the case of an unconventional well, not within 2,500 feet of the well.

(4) The pollution occurred more than six months after completion of drilling or alteration activities or, in the case of an unconventional well, the pollution occurred more than 24 months after the completion of drilling or alteration activities.

(5) The pollution occurred as the result of some cause other than the drilling or alteration activity.

* * *

(e.1) (1) At least 30 days prior to commencing a well drilling operation, the unconventional well operator shall survey, sample and analyze the quality and flow of water from any wells, springs or other water sources located within 2,500 feet of the proposed oil or gas well. The water well, spring or other water source to be tested shall be a supply that is utilized by a landowner or water purveyor for human consumption, domestic animals or other general use.

(2) The unconventional well operator shall utilize a laboratory approved by the department to perform the water supply analysis.

(3) The unconventional well operator shall within five days of receipt of the test results provide this information in writing to the landowner or water purveyor.

(4) In the event the landowner or water purveyor rejects the offer to have the water supply tested or denies access to the landowner's or water purveyor's property for the test to be conducted, the unconventional well operator shall not be required to meet the provisions of this subsection.

(5) The performance or excused performance of a water supply test under this subsection shall in no way prohibit the unconventional well operator from commencing drilling operations, provided the appropriate permit approvals are obtained.

(e.2) (1) Upon the completion of drilling activities and for a period of 24 months thereafter, the unconventional well operator, upon written request of the landowner or water purveyor, shall conduct a follow-up survey and analysis of the quality and flow of water from any wells, springs or other water sources initially tested by the well operator under subsection (e.1). The unconventional well operator shall not be required to conduct such follow-up test more than once in a 12-month period. The unconventional well operator's duty to conduct follow-up testing shall end 24 months after the completion of drilling activities.

(2) The unconventional well operator shall provide written notice to the landowner or water purveyor of the right to request follow-up tests.

(3) The unconventional well operator shall obtain and analyze the water samples in accordance with methods established by the department. All follow-up tests shall be conducted by a laboratory certified by the department to perform such testing.

(4) The unconventional well operator shall, within five days of receipt of the test results, provide this information in writing to the landowner or water purveyor.

(5) In the event the landowner or water purveyor rejects the offer to have a follow-up water supply test or denies access to the landowner's or water purveyor's property for the test to be conducted, the unconventional well operator shall not be required to meet the provisions of this subsection.

(6) The performance or excused performance of a follow-up water supply test under this subsection shall in no way prohibit the unconventional well operator from proceeding with a drilling operation, provided the appropriate permit approvals are obtained."

Comment
1. The selection of the target formation for this new legislation may not be clear - it may be wise to a more generalized description of the target area, vertical and formation targets, and regional target.  By selecting this target, it appears that the legislation would require more baseline testing for unconventional oil and gas development below a shallow gas deposit in parts of Pennsylvania.   I think this may be short cited.   I believe it may be wise to clarify the intent of the legislation and target - such as Upper Devonian. 

2. I believe that this legislation should apply to both shallow and deep wells and it appears that this does not address the issues related to coal bed methane gas.

3. Shallow vertical wells are hydrofractured and it would be my opinion that shallow vertical wells that are closer to the freshwater aquifer that are more likely to impact the freshwater aquifer, cause saline water to migrate vertically, or to cause methane gas to migrate along casing or more abundant shallow near vertical fractures.

4. It is my understanding that hydraulic fracturing may temporarily open existing fractures to a distance of about 1500 feet.   Therefore, a 1500 feet to 2000 feet would be reasonable.

5. Since it takes about 500 to 1000 feet to turn from a vertical to horizontal well, a distance of at least 2500 feet from each horizontal boring appears reasonable. 

6. Timing - I like the 2 year window.

7. I am a little concerned that we seem to forget we have a host of surface activities that are not related to natural gas development that may impact a private well, such as: other private wells, gasoline stations, pipelines, surface spills, industrial sites, old landfills, landfills, "improper disposal of household hazards, and much more. 

8. I am a little concerned that we also seem to forget that in many cases private wells already have poor water quality that is natural.  To be honest - it appears that some of the reported problems with discolored water, iron, manganese, and other contaminants is related to natural changes in groundwater quality or induced changes because of nuisance related bacteria because of poor private well construction and placement.

9.  Conventional well distance should be increased to at least 1500 feet and unconventional well extended to 2500 feet (2yrs) and 3000 feet (6 months).  To be honest - many drilling companies are conducting baseline testing at 4000 to 5250 feet.

10.  The 30 days prior to drilling requirement could be interpreted to mean only data collected within this time frame is valid.  Since many private well owners may want to conduct their own baseline analysis, this may create a burden to private well owners if data they collect as a baseline is more than 30 days prior to drilling.  Private well owners can not control drilling schedules.  This provision may also prevent or discourage drilling companies from conducting larger regional baseline testing - some companies are conducting baseline testing at 4000 to 5250 feet, but in most cases this is over 30 days prior to drilling.  I would say that baseline testing is more likely conducted within 6 months of drilling the well.  (Wording does not appear to be clear).

11. The well operator, in all cases, will you a laboratory certified by the state to conduct analysis using approved methods and chain-of-custody documentation. 

12.  The provision for access has been abused - in some cases I had heard rumors that some private wellowners would given virtually no notice of intent to sample.  This may not be the common practice, but it appears to be occurring.  Also, this appears to ignore that are region consist of a large number of seasonal dwellings with individuals living in either other states or other parts of the Commonwealth.

13. Some provisions should apply to both conventional and unconventional wells.  The drilling company should be required to conduct a detailed predrilling and post-drilling baseline survey and then every 6 months be required to conduct a "screening test".  The screening test would be for general water quality.  Prior to the end of the 2 year period, a detailed post drilling test would be required.  With respect to the screening test, this could be the baseline parameters recommended by the PADEP, plus specific parameters associated with that region.

14.  Private well owners have the right to report potential well problems and complaints to PADEP.  The homeowner should not be required to contact the drilling company, the homeowner or well owner should notify PADEP.  This will ensure that problems are identified and corrected.  In addition, PADEP can then charge the well drilling company for the cost of conducting the testing and field evaluation or use the funds posted by a bond.

15. Bonding - the company should post a bond to cover the cost of the post testing, including manpower, if they fail to perform this work.

16. The provisions do not seem to address springs, watercourses, etc.  Please remember our groundwater and surfacewater resources are connected.

17. The natural gas company working a region should help fund and support a watershed based real-time water quality monitoring network for surfacewater systems and it may be advisable for the company.

Note:
The natural gas companies should be required to provide the homeowners results in the following formats hardcopy, pdf file, and electronic copy.

Please support the Wilkes University Citizen Groundwater and Surfacewater Database
http://www.wilkes.edu/water

Please support the Pocono Northeast RC&D Council - Private Well Owner Improvement and Rehabiliation Program - New Program being tested in 10 county area of PA.  If succcessful this should be expanded throughout PA.
http://www.pnercd.org/


Just my thoughts

Thanks

Brian Oram, Professional Geologist

Direct access to HB 895