Building a Groundwater Quality Database for NY

(photo provided by Project SWIFT)

This summer, two graduate students from Syracuse University dropped by to collect water samples from my well. They were collecting data for Project SWIFT: Shale-Water Interaction Forensic Tools. My well was one of about 145 wells they tested between 2012 – 2013.

The goal of the project is to develop a geochemical tool that can “unambiguously identify contamination of surface water and groundwater” due to activities related to energy production using hydraulic fracturing. Step one is to create a database of groundwater quality data before fracking begins.

Some of the things they tested were methane, conductivity, metals (including barium and strontium), chloride, and volatile organic chemicals. Our water quality reflected the average in Tioga County in the Southern Tier of NY: very low amounts of most things – with methane being nearly undetectable.

Because they want as broad a picture of groundwater quality as possible, the Syracuse researchers placed a grid over a map of the five counties they planned to sample. The grid broke the counties into squares measuring 7 kilometers by 7 kilometers. Then they randomly selected three wells in each grid as potential test sites and sent letters to the homeowners. They only considered wells that were at least a mile from any horizontally fracked gas well.

The sampling teams collected water in a variety of plastic bottles and glass vials at each location. Methane samples needed to be analyzed quickly – so they were packed up at the end of the day and shipped overnight to the lab in Rochester. Other samples waited until the field team returned to Syracuse.

Back at the lab, some samples were analyzed using ion chromatography to analyze dissolved ions. Other tests were analyzed in a mass spectrometer; that’s good for identifying halogens such as chlorine and bromine, and metals such as lead and iron. The team also used gas chromatography to identify volatile organic chemicals and semi-volatiles including propane, ethylene, ethane and propylene.

Project SWIFT data is now available online in an “open-access, geospatially-referencedwater quality database”. Just click on a well and a pop-up shows water quality information.

The Community Science Institute in Ithaca has been conducting pre-drilling groundwater baseline testing for landowners. In a couple months they’ll have their data online in a searchable database. More on that later, but you can check out their surface water databases here.

You can read my longer article about Project Swift here.

Environmental Groups Demand Reform for PA DEP

Twenty-five organizations are asking PA Governor Tom Corbett to take immediate action to reform the PA Department of Environmental Protection’s well water testing and notification policies. According to a letter sent today, the DEP’s policies are outdated, lack transparency, and do not adequately protect residents and drinking water from pollution caused by gas drilling

The organizations request three things:

(1) That DEP report all data from households where well water was sampled due to suspected pollution from gas and oil operations. A court deposition of the technical director of DEP's Bureau of Laboratories indicated that DEP routinely omits data on 16 of 24 heavy metals for which it conducts water analyses from the final reports provided to well owners. Some of the omitted metals have serious health impacts and have been found in drilling flowback and produced water. DEP should revise its testing protocol to include all potential contaminants so the agency can accurately evaluate drinking water impacts and affected residents can make informed decisions about their water supplies.

(2) That DEP revoke the new policy requiring administrators in Harrisburg to approve any positive notices of water contamination before public notification is made. In response to previously made requests in this regard, Secretary Krancer claimed DEP was fully transparent. In light of the revelations of Kiskadden vs. PADEP, the groups reasoned that the data used by DEP and provided to the public is neither complete nor accurate, and should not be the basis of determining whether pollution has occurred. Notification of contaminated water should be made without delay and bureaucratic red tape eliminated due to the potential harmful health impacts on residents waiting for testing results.

(3) That the missing results from all well water tests ordered by the DEP should be provided immediately to well owners. This includes all tests using special reporting codes that omit from reports data that is necessary for accurate determinations by DEP of whether pollution occurred and whether residents’ health and water supplies are being harmed. Determinations by DEP based on partial data must be questioned.  

“One the biggest fears for people living near drilling is the possibility of having your drinking water supply impacted,” says Steve Hvozdovich, Marcellus Shale Policy Associate with Clean Water Action.  People trust the DEP to safeguard the public, but DEP’s policies and actions have eroded that trust.

 Residents living in gas drilling areas turn to DEP to help them find answers, says Nadia Steinzor, with Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project – “not limit the very information on which those answers depend.”

Many people feel that the regulatory agency has held back critical information from those who need it. “Pennsylvania residents in fracked communities have complained for years that DEP has protected the industry instead of protecting their water, air, land and health,” says Iris Marie Bloom, director of Protecting Our Waters. “Withholding information from impacted homeowners endangers public health and is inexcusable.”  

You can read a copy of their letter here. Read more about the problems with DEP’s water quality testing here.

Volunteers Monitor Watershed Before Drilling Begins

Measuring temperature of Catatonk Creek

For the past year or so, volunteers have braved icy waters and slippery rocks to collect samples of the streams in the Cayuta-Catatonk watershed. Their purpose: to develop a baseline study of water quality for local streams before large scale unconventional drilling moves into the Southern Tier of NY.

No one can say with certainty how hydraulic – or any other kind of fracturing – might impact local waters. But everyone, from industry to cooperative extension, recommends obtaining a baseline study.

Measuring pH and jotting notes on data sheet

So every month, members of the Cayuta-Catatonk Water Watch calibrate their instruments, don rubber boots, and head out to their testing sites. The teams note physical characteristics of the streams: water level, flow rate, temperature and other observations. They also measure pH (acidity), conductivity, hardness and dissolved oxygen. These serve as the best “red flag” indicators of potential problems resulting from drilling accidents.

In addition to the physical and chemical tests, some volunteers are keeping tabs on the Benthic Macroinvertebrates (BMI) – the caddis flies, stoneflies, beetles and other small organisms that live at the bottom of streams.

Some insects, such as stoneflies, are more sensitive to pollutants. So their presence or absence is a useful indicator of stream health. As with the chemical testing, BMI sampling doesn’t take long and is something that people of all ages can do. After recording the physical characteristics of the stream and measuring flow rate (easy to do with a length of rope, an orange and a stopwatch) they “kick and pick”. One person kicks at the stones and gravel, stirring up the river bottom while his partner stands just downstream with a large net to collects benthic insects, snails, pebbles and debris. That’s the “kicking” part. The “picking” comes when they empty the contents into a bin and pick small insects off the net to make sure they get included in the sample.

BMI monitors check the net at Cayuta Creek

Recruiting Volunteers

Over the next couple months the Community Science Institute (the lab overseeing volunteers) is recruiting volunteers in Broome, Tioga, Chemung, Steuben and Schuyler Counties. Cornell Cooperative Extension is collaborating on a series of introductory meetings. One is happening this Tuesday, April 10 in Owego at 6pm in the Tioga County Office Building Hubbard Auditorium, 56 Main Street, Owego.

There are more scheduled over the coming weeks. If you would like to get involved please contact Becky Bowen at becky@communityscience.org or call 607-257-6606.

EPA Tests Dimock Water Despite Industry Criticism

photo provided; EPA mobile lab in Dimock, PA

As promised, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is testing water in Dimock homes. As expected, the gas industry is fighting back, claiming whatever is in that water was already there. And to further complicate the picture, Cabot Oil and Gas CEO Dan Dingles is accusing the EPA of undercutting President Barack Obama’s “commitment” to developing the nation’s shale gas reserves.

If it weren’t in the news you’d assume this was the plot of a soon-to-be-released midwinter movie.

This week two teams of scientists began sampling well water from homes in Dimock, PA – or at least the homes they’ve been given access to. Of the 66 homeowners they contacted, EPA has received permission from 55 to conduct sampling.

EPA determined that further testing was warranted after reviewing results from testing Cabot conducted last fall. Although Cabot’s tests indicated methane may no longer be an issue, the results raised the Agency’s concern about the potential health threats posed by other contaminants in the water: arsenic, barium, a plasticizer known as DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, sodium and others. EPA admits that some of these occur naturally, but notes that all of them are associated with gas drilling.

So why aren’t the other 11 homeowners getting their water tested? For free by scientists with no ties to the oil and gas industry?

Peer pressure, say some Dimock residents. Email and Facebook comments mention intimidation and pressure from both gas industry representatives and other residents. And while industry criticism against EPA for what they consider “meddling” is to be expected, the outcry by fellow residents against their neighbors illustrates just how deeply gas drilling can divide a community.

There are residents who support Cabot’s drilling and who, either because they already have leases or are hoping to cash in on future activities, criticize the continued attention on water problems as “baseless” and “hyped-up allegations”. These are the same folks who were outraged that the PA Department of Environmental Protection ordered Cabot to build a water line to bring fresh water to Dimock – even though Cabot would foot the bill.

Apparently nixing the water line was not enough for Enough is Enough. Their most recent campaign is “Dimock Proud”, featuring signs proclaiming that “the water IS clean and the people are friendly.”

Industry-backed Energy in Depth has been posting up a storm, claiming that the water’s safe and the testing is nothing more than politics – a “decision by EPA to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying water to people who don’t need it.”

But, hey – didn’t the President of the United States just say, in his State of the Union address, that we should drill for more gas? Apparently that was the take-away message for Cabot CEO Dan Dinges. In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Dinges cited Obama’s support for domestic natural gas. He criticized EPA’s water testing in Dimock as an action that threatened to “undercut the President’s stated commitment to this important resource”.

Dinges later released another statement to the press, calling EPA’s work in Dimock “more of an attempt to advance a political agenda hostile to shale gas development rather than a principled effort to address environmental concerns in the area.”

But with a file full of Pavillion, WY tests to back them up, EPA responded that its actions are based solely on science – and the law.

As for that State of the Union comment? Anyone who was listening knows that the President emphasized that any drilling would be limited by “developing this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”

Study on Marcellus Drilling Impacts on Drinking Water

Penn State scientists just released a report on water quality in private water wells in rural PA before and after drilling of nearby Marcellus Shale gas wells. Although the study didn’t find significant contamination of drinking water wells, researchers caution that there needs to be more intensive study. 

They also noted unexpected high levels of bromide after drilling, and expressed concern for health impacts. In addition to testing water, the study also documented the enforcement of existing regulations and the extent of voluntary testing by homeowners.

The study, which took place in 2010 and 2011 focused on 233 water wells located in close proximity to Marcellus gas well pads. Phase I of the study (2010) tested 48 water wells within 2500 feet of a well pad both pre- and post-drilling. Phase II tested an additional 185 wells located within 5000 feet of a Marcellus gas well pad post-drilling.

A statistical analysis of pre- and post-drilling water chemistry did not find significant differences due to drilling or hydro-fracking when considering the pollutants “most prominent in drilling waste fluids.” Unlike the Duke study, this study found no significant increase in methane after drilling, and no significant correlations with distance from the well pad.

But, the researchers pointed out, this lack of data could be due to the lack of testing beyond 1000 feet. According to PA law the industry is presumed responsible for pollution of water supplies within 1000 feet of a well pad for six months after drilling. So, few people pay for testing beyond that distance.

One thing the scientists did find was increased levels of bromide in water wells after drilling and/or fracking. “These increases may suggest more subtle impacts to groundwater and the need for more research,” they write. Increased bromide levels were often accompanied by increased levels of sediment and metals in the water. These increased levels were observed within 3000 feet of the gas well pads – suggesting that 3000 feet is a more reasonable distance for testing than the current 1000 feet.

Bromide is rarely tested as part of the industry-sponsored pre-drilling baseline sampling. The PSU researchers selected bromide as a parameter for their study because it is typically not found in detectable concentrations in undisturbed groundwater and because it is found in relatively high concentrations in drilling gas wastes. For those reasons it serves as a good indicator of the influence of gas drilling on groundwater.

In the pre-drilling samples bromide levels were always well below detection levels (0.1 ppm). But in seven wells bromide was detected in measurable concentrations. Those wells were located within 1670 feet of five different Marcellus well pads that were operated by three separate companies.

While bromide does not present a health hazard by itself, it combines with disinfection agents to create a carcinogenic byproduct - and that concerns the researchers. They suggest two potential sources of the bromide: drilling mud and flowback fluids.

You can read more of their findings at

http://www.rural.palegislature.us/documents/reports/Marcellus_and_drinking_water_2011_rev.pdf