As Fracking Booms, Growing Concerns About Wastewater by roger real drouin, February 18, 2014, e360.yale.edu
But tracking where the fracking wastewater from Washington County and sites across the United States ends up — and how much pollution it causes — is exceedingly difficult. In a study conducted last year, researchers from the environmental consulting firm, Downstream Strategies, attempted to trace fracking water — from water withdrawal to wastewater disposal — at several wells in the Marcellus Shale formation in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. “We just couldn’t do it,” said Downstream Strategies staff scientist Meghan Betcher, citing a lack of good data and the wide range of disposal methods used by the industry. What the study did find was that gas companies use up to 4.3 million gallons of clean water to frack a single well in Pennsylvania, and that more than half of the wastewater is treated and discharged into surface waters such as rivers and streams.
…
The vast volume of water needed to extract that natural gas, and the large amounts of wastewater generated during the process, is causing increasing concern among geochemists, biologists, engineers, and toxicologists. Initially, worries about fracking and water pollution focused largely on leaks of drilling fluids and other contaminants from well casings, which could potentially pollute groundwater supplies. But with engineering improvements that have reinforced well casings and reduced pollution from that source, experts now say fracking’s real pollution danger comes from wastewater. “I am more worried about wastewater management — handling, storing it, driving across the countryside with it,” said Monika Freyman, a senior manager of the water program at Ceres, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to foster sustainable practices in business and industry. Freyman spent months studying the effect of the industry on water resources. “It’s complicated,” she said. “There are a lot of different pathways wastewater can go.”
A Duke University study conducted last year showed that some of the Marcellus Shale wastewater, tainted by high levels of radioactivity, flows downstream into water sources for Pittsburgh and other cities, with uncertain health consequences. The huge amount of fresh water used by the industry is also a concern. The Downstream Strategies report, funded by the Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation, said that more than 80 percent of the water used in hydraulic fracturing in West Virginia is pulled directly from rivers and streams. Ninety-two percent of that water and drilling fluids remains deep underground, “completely removed from the hydraulic cycle,” the report said.
Only 8 percent of those fluids are recaptured, and Betcher’s research team found that because of inadequate state reporting requirements, the fate of 62 percent of that fracking waste is unknown.
…
Freyman said that the oil and gas industry’s “social license” to use groundwater without limit in Texas is no longer a given, adding, “When there are restrictions put on homeowners, there is a bit more resentment at the industry’s use of groundwater.” [And what of home owners with no water because of hydraulic fracturing?]
…
According to Betcher, millions of gallons of wastewater used in fracking comes back to the surface in three different forms: flowback fluid returns to the surface for up to a month after the mix of water, sand, and chemicals is forced into porous shale rock; brine continues to come back up after 30 days; and throughout the process drilling debris and fluids are mixed in with the wastewater.
Raina Rippel, director of the nonprofit Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project in Washington County — which has the second highest number of shale gas wells in Pennsylvania — worries most about the wastewater and potential health impacts from fracking compounds such as arsenic and chloride, as well as naturally-occurring radioactive elements, such as radium, loosened during the fracking process. Rippel points to instances where homes are sited downhill from impoundment ponds. “In some cases, the [Pennsylvania] DEP [Department of Environmental Protection] has been made aware of contamination,” Ripple said. “There are certainly more cases we don’t know of.” Ripple is also worried about the ability of newer, closed-container systems to securely store millions of gallons of wastewater. “It’s inevitable that a closed system can only hold so much,” she said.
…
Wastewater storage, treatment and disposal, however, remains one of the Pennsylvania DEP’s “more significant environmental concerns” when it comes to fracking, Perry said. … David Brown, a toxicologist at the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project, said the close proximity of some wastewater sites to homes and schools is cause for concern, especially given the presence of radium and other pollutants in fracking wastewater. According to Brown, more than 50 families have called the center, or were referred by doctors, after experiencing rashes, gastrointestinal conditions, or other health concerns. After ruling out pre-existing conditions or symptoms triggered by other causes, Brown said, the center’s medical staff concluded that 17 of the 50 cases may have been caused by exposure to pollutants.
…
But while there have been improvements in storage and treatment technology, there hasn’t been “an overall industry solution for flowback in Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said Anthony Ingraffea, an engineering professor at Cornell University. “In Pennsylvania, disposal of wastewater has been and will remain a chronic problem because they produce it in very large quantities,” Ingraffea said. Violations issued in Washington County, show the scale of the problem. In the last 12 months, Pennsylvania DEP’s Office of Oil and Gas Management found 27 violations in the county, of which 10 involved improper treatment or storage of fracking wastewater.
During testing from 2010 to 2012, Jackson and fellow Duke scientists made an alarming discovery at the Josephine Brine Treatment Facility, a disposal site on Blacklick Creek, which feeds into water sources for Pittsburgh and other cities. The researchers found that the facility did a poor job of filtering chloride and that levels of radium 200 times higher than normal were present in the sediment downstream, Jackson said. The plant had contributed about four-fifths of the downstream chloride content, and bromide was also found downstream, posing a possible health risk for drinking water, Jackson said. [Emphasis added]