[Add your own pictures here]
Wastewater Characteristics from Marcellus
Shale Gas Development in Pennsylvania
Managing the Risks of Shale Gas Development
Resources for the Future
Washington, DC
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Purpose
of this
from shale
gaswork
development
• Statistically analyze characteristics of flowback,
produced water, and drilling fluid waste sent to
wastewater treatment facilities in PA, 2008-2011.
• If recycling, treatment, and disposal options involve
exposure to the environment/human health, knowledge
of wastewater constituents helps quantify risks.
• Results may be useful in:
• Evaluating current and future wastewater treatment
technologies, infrastructure capacity, and siting.
• Understanding potential impacts of treated wastewater on rivers
and streams.
• Setting effluent standards
2
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Comparison
withdevelopment
Other Analyses
from shale gas
• Marcellus Shale Water Characterization funded by
Marcellus Shale Coalition and ASWCMC Consortia.
• Consistent sampling from 19 locations, analysis performed by a
single lab, flowback samples at 0, 1, 5, 14, 90 days.
• GE also has a database (data from various shales).
• Data in our analysis are publicly available, focus on
waste sent to treatment facilities (rather than recycling,
deep injection), include drilling fluid waste and other
categories.
3
RFF Source:
project focuses
on environmental
risks
Data
Form 26R,
submitted
from
shaleby
gas
development
to
PADEP
“residual
waste” generators
• Generator information
• Waste description (pH range, physical
state, appearance)
• Chemical analysis attachments
• Process description, schematic diagrams
• Management of residual waste – location
information for processing/disposal
facilities, information about beneficial use
• Certification
4
414
415
416
Ceramic Waste
Linoleum Wastes
Thermal Insulation Wastes (Cellulose, Glass,
Wool)
Wiring, Conduit, Electrical Insulation
Sawdust, Wood Shavings/Turnings
Empty Containers (Metallic, Non-Metallic Drums,
Pails)
Process Wastewaters (Non-Haz) (Do Not Report
Sanitary Sewage Or Uncontaminated NonAContact
company
Cooling that
Water)generates > 2200
Contaminated
Non-Contact waste
Cooling Waters
pounds
of
residual
from a
Oil/Water Emulsions, Oily Wastewaters
Landfill Leachatelocation” in a single
“generating
Treated Wood, Railroad Ties
month
during
the Wastewater
calendarTreatment
year
Food Waste
(Excluding
Sludge)file a Form26R by March 1 of
must
Resins
the
following
year.
Polymers
(Other Than
407, 409)
Vinyl (Sheet, Upholstery)
Spent Filters (Air/Gas)
Spent Filters (Aqueous)industrial waste
Non-hazardous
Spent Filters (Non-Haz Fuel, Oil, Solvent)
Paint Filters, Other Cloth/Paper Filters,
Supersacs
Individual
chemical analysis
Grease
Refractory (Furnace,
Boiler)
(Other Than
required
for each
waste
type103)
(DEP
Carbon/Graphite Residue/Scrap
waste
codes)
Baghouse
Dust (Other Than 105, 106)
Blasting Abrasive/Residue (Other Than 109)
Gypsum Plaster Molds, Drywall
Other Generic Waste
Tanks
Scrap From Maintenance And Product
Turnaround
Batteries (Non-Haz)
Grinding Wheels, Sanding Disks, Polishing
Belts, Welding Rods, Broken Tools
Plant Trash
Other Maintenance Waste
RFF project
focuses
on environmental risks
When
is a Form
26R required?
from shale gas development
417
418
419
420
•
421
422
423
424
430
440
450
460
470
471
•
472
473
•
474
480
481
482
483
484
499
SPECIAL HANDLING WASTES
501
Asbestos Containing Waste (insulation, brake
lining, etc.)
702
703
704
710
799
NON-COAL MINING, OIL AND GAS, AND OTHER
WELL DRILLING WASTES
801
802
803
804
807
808
809
810
Drilling Fluids, Residuals (other than those
under 802-810; includes drill cuttings from
monitoring well and drinking water well
construction)
Brine (natural salt water separated at oil and gas
wells)
Drilling Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling mud,
other drilling fluids other than fracing fluid and
spent lubricant)
Fracing Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling
fracturing fluid, flow-back fracturing fluid, flowback fracturing sand)
Basic Sediment (oil and gas production storage
impurities, sediment from produced oil at
storage tank battery)
Servicing Fluid (oil and gas production well
maintenance/work over fluids, oil/water-based
mud and foam)
Spent Lubricant Waste (spent oil and gas drilling
lubricants, spent plug drilling lubricants)
Drill Cuttings (oil and gas drill cuttings)
MISCELLANEOUS
901
902
5
Auto Shredder Fluff
Non-Hazardous Residue From Treatment Of
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Form 26R Required Analytes for
from shale gas development
Marcellus Shale or Other Gas Wells
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) Chlorides
Acidity
Magnesium
Silver
Manganese
Sodium
Aluminum
Chromium
MBAS (Surfactants)
Specific Conductance
Ammonia Nitrogen
Cobalt
Mercury
Strontium
Arsenic
Copper
Molybdenum
Sulfates
Barium
Ethylene Glycol
Nickel
Thorium
Benzene
Gross Alpha
Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen Toluene
Beryllium
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Boron
Gross Beta
Hardness (Total as
CaCO3)
Iron – Dissolved
Oil & Grease
Total Dissolved Solids
pH
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Phenolics (Total)
Total Suspended Solids
Bromide
Iron – Total
Radium 226
Uranium
Cadmium
Lead
Radium 228
Zinc
Calcium
Lithium
Selenium
Additional constituents that are expected or known to be present in the wastewater.
6
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Data Collection
from shale gas development
N = 11
N = 85
N=8
N = 74
N: number of laboratory reports in our database
7
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Dataset Summary
from shale gas development
Variable
laboratory report
company
well
well with location info.
wastewater treatment facilities
wastewater treatment facilities with location info.
Sample year
Count
178
22
104
95
37
21
Freq.
2009
2010
2011
NA
75
77
18
8
Total
178
8
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Categories of Chemicals
from shale gas development
• Lab samples are tested for a total of 432 different
analytes that we are able to identify in the data, in
the following categories:
•
•
•
•
•
General chemicals
Organics
Pesticides
Metals
Radioactive Materials
• Only 198 of these analytes are actually measured
in one or more samples (many NAs, NDs, BDLs).
9
RFF projectoffocuses
environmental risks
Comparison
Generalon
Chemicals
gas development
in from
Brineshale
and Fracking
Fluid Waste
10
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Comparison of Metals in
from shale gas development
Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste
11
RFF projectoffocuses
on environmental risks
Comparison
Organics
gas development
infrom
Brineshale
and Fracking
Fluid Waste
12
RFF projectoffocuses
onOccurring
environmental
risks
Comparison
Naturally
Radioactive
from shale
gas development
Materials
in Brine
and Fracking Fluid Waste
13
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Waste Shipments: Cl- Concentrations
from shale gas development
at Wells and Treatment Facilities
14
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Preliminary Conclusions
from shale gas development
• High chemical concentrations are observed pretreatment, emphasizing need for effective treatment.
• When barium is detected (92% of samples), median concentration is
> 40 times Pennsylvania’s wastewater effluent standard and > 200
times the SDWA maximum contaminant level for barium.
• Concentrations of chloride, TDS, bromide, radium-228 and strontium
in pretreatment wastewater are also far higher than either
wastewater effluent standards or drinking water standards.
• Wastewater composition is highly variable over the
course of the shale gas extraction process -- a
challenge for effective treatment and management.
• Form26 filed once/year/waste type/generating location – constituent
concentrations could vary even within this temporal/spatial window.
15
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Preliminary Conclusions, cont.
from shale gas development
• Produced water has very different composition than
flowback, typically having higher chloride, TDS and
radium-228 concentrations. Obviously more difficult to
recycle, requiring different technology/higher costs.
• Many constituents may be effectively removed by
chemical waste treatment facilities currently treating this
waste (e.g., metals); others may not (e.g., salts).
• Further research on potential risks from wastewater
treatment and release to rivers and streams is
warranted.
16
Thank you!
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Life Cycle of Water
from shale gas development
Drilling fluid
additives
Sampling location
Onsite
treatment
Clean water
Chemicals
Wastewater
Drilling
Recycling
Pound/
tank
Mixing tank
Surface
water
fracing
fluid
additives
Groundwater
Chemicals
Onsite
treatment
Deep well
injection
Flowback
water Pound/
Hydraulic
fracturing
tank
Surface
discharge
Produced
water
Pound/
tank
Offsite
WWTF
Chemicals
Other high
value reuse
18
landfill
RFF project
on environmental
Fracing
Fluidfocuses
Waste (Flowback)
and risks
from shale
gas development
Brine
(Produced
Water)
Fracing Fluid Waste (Flowback)
Complete
fracking
The length of
flowback can be
from 2 weeks to
one month or
longer. It varies
by developer.
Brine (Produced Water)
Connect wellhead
to gas pipe to
start production
Some reports don’t distinguish them using above method, but call
them all flowback and distinguish them by days after fracing
completion. For example, completion day 0, 1, 3, 5, 14, 30 and 90.
We use 30 days as a cut off to assign waste type and code for
these reports.
19
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Compare Form 26R and MSC Results
from shale gas development
F26R_802
F26R_804 Produced
MSC Study
Parameter
pH
Alkalinity
TDS
TSS
TOC
BOD
Oil & Grease
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Iron
Barium
Chloride
Influent
7.2
52.5
334
9.6
3.8
149
31
5-Day Flowback
6.6
138
67300
99
62.8
2.8
<5
67.8
32.9
6.7
1.2
0.4
42.3
18000
4950
559
39
686
41850
14-Day Flowback
6.2
85.2
120000
209
38.7
2.8
7.4
Flowback
6.9
1819.7
60156.5
387.5
79.8
595.4
NA
Water
5.8
2521.9
182948.6
205.7
1928.5
855.6
NA
16383
4982
491.6
41.9
1025.8
40462.5
35887.7
15003.6
1412.4
106.5
84328.8
99711.8
20
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Compare Concentrations to Standards/Criteria
from shale gas development
Primary environmental public health concerns:
Median
Standard
Parameter
NOB
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Barium
159
651
2
Barium
159
651
10
Strontium
156
1275
4
Strontium
Benzene
156
44
1275
0.05
10
0.005
Note
EPA MCL
PA wastewater effluent standards
monthly average
EPA recommended limit for finished
municipal drinking water
PA wastewater effluent standards
monthly average
EPA MCL
Ecological and secondary drinking water concerns:
Chlorides
Magnesium
154
152
53250
581
250
0.05
TDS
Sulfate
156
78
87150
86
500
250
EPA SMCL, PA wastewater effluent
standards
EPA SMCL
EPA SMCL, PA wastewater effluent
standards
EPA SMCL
21
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Previous Data Sampling and Analysis of
from shale gas development
Flowback Water
Marcellus Shale Water Characterization
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Funded by MSC and ASWCMC Consortia
Sampling from 19 locations
Includes general chemistry and detailed analysis of constituents of interests
Lists of constituents of interest provided by the PADEP
Over 250 determinations performed on samples
Samples taken at 0, 1, 5, 14 and 90 days following the frac job at each
location
Sampling at Day 0: raw water without additives; raw water with chemical
additives before sand addition
Uniformity of sampling and analysis:
• Standardized Plans
• Sampling performed by URS
• Analyses performed by one lab (Test America)
GE also maintains a database, including data from various
shales.
22
RFF project focuses on environmental risks
Wastewater Streams Considered
from shale gas development
Code Description
801
802
803
804
Drilling Fluids, Residuals (Other than those under
802-810; includes drill cuttings from monitoring Well
and drinking water well construction)
Brine (natural salt water separated at oil and gas
wells)
Drilling Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling mud, other
drilling fluids other than fracing fluid and spent
lubricant)
Fracing Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling fracturing
fluid, flow-back fracturing fluid, flow-back fracturing
sand)
23