Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer by a pressurized fluid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally certain veins or dikes are examples—and can create conduits along which gas and petroleum from source rocks may migrate to reservoir rocks. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracturing, commonly known as fracing, fraccing, or fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas (including shale gas, tight gas, and coal seam gas), or other substances for extraction. This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations.
The first use of hydraulic fracturing was in 1947. However, it was only in 1998 that modern fracturing technology, referred to as horizontal slickwater fracturing, made possible the economical extraction of shale gas; this new technology was first used in the Barnett Shale in Texas. The energy from the injection of a highly pressurized hydraulic fracturing fluid creates new channels in the rock, which can increase the extraction rates and ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons.
Proponents of hydraulic fracturing point to the economic benefits from vast amounts of formerly inaccessible hydrocarbons the process can extract. Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flowback and the health effects of these. For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or banning it.
Fracturing as a method to stimulate shallow, hard rock oil wells dates back to the 1860s. It was applied by oil producers in the US states of Pennsylvania, New York, Kentucky, and West Virginia by using liquid and later also solidified nitroglycerin. Later, the same method was applied to water and gas wells. The idea to use acid as a nonexplosive fluid for well stimulation was introduced in the 1930s. Due to acid etching, fractures would not close completely and therefore productivity was enhanced. The same phenomenon was discovered with water injection and squeeze cementing operations.
The relationship between well performance and treatment pressures was studied by Floyd Farris of Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation. This study became a basis of the first hydraulic fracturing experiment, which was conducted in 1947 at the Hugoton gas field in Grant County of southwestern Kansas by Stanolind. For the well treatment 1,000 US gallons (3,800 l; 830 imp gal) of gelled gasoline and sand from the Arkansas River was injected into the gas-producing limestone formation at 2,400 feet (730 m).
The experiment was not very successful as deliverability of the well did not change appreciably. The process was further described by J.B. Clark of Stanolind in his paper published in 1948. A patent on this process was issued in 1949 and an exclusive license was granted to the Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company. On March 17, 1949, Halliburton performed the first two commercial hydraulic fracturing treatments in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and Archer County, Texas.[15] Since then, hydraulic fracturing has been used to stimulate approximately a million oil and gas wells.
In the Soviet Union, the first hydraulic proppant fracturing was carried out in 1952. In Western Europe in 1977–1985, hydraulic fracturing was conducted at Rotliegend and Carboniferous gas-bearing sandstones in Germany, Netherlands onshore and offshore gas fields, and the United Kingdoms sector of the North Sea. Other countries in Europe and Northern Africa included Norway, the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Tunisia, and Algeria.
Due to shale’s high porosity and low permeability, technology research, development and demonstration were necessary before hydraulic fracturing could be commercially applied to shale gas deposits. In the 1970s the United States government initiated the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public-private hydraulic fracturing pilot demonstration projects. During the same period, the Gas Research Institute, a gas industry research consortium, received approval for research and funding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
In 1977, the Department of Energy pioneered massive hydraulic fracturing in tight sandstone formations. In 1997, based on earlier techniques used by Union Pacific Resources, now part of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Mitchell Energy, now part of Devon Energy, developed the hydraulic fracturing technique known as “slickwater fracturing” which involves adding chemicals to water to increase the fluid flow, that made the shale gas extraction economical.
Method A hydraulic fracture is formed by pumping the fracturing fluid into the wellbore at a rate sufficient to increase pressure downhole to exceed that of the fracture gradient (pressure gradient) of the rock. The fracture gradient is defined as the pressure increase per unit of the depth due to its density and it is usually measured in pounds per square inch per foot or bars per meter. The rock cracks and the fracture fluid continues further into the rock, extending the crack still further, and so on.
Operators typically try to maintain “fracture width”, or slow its decline, following treatment by introducing into the injected fluid a proppant – a material such as grains of sand, ceramic, or other particulates, that prevent the fractures from closing when the injection is stopped and the pressure of the fluid is reduced. Consideration of proppant strengths and prevention of proppant failure becomes more important at greater depths where pressure and stresses on fractures are higher. The propped fracture is permeable enough to allow the flow of formation fluids to the well. Formation fluids include gas, oil, salt water, fresh water and fluids introduced to the formation during completion of the well during fracturing.
During the process fracturing fluid leakoff, loss of fracturing fluid from the fracture channel into the surrounding permeable rock occurs. If not controlled properly, it can exceed 70% of the injected volume. This may result in formation matrix damage, adverse formation fluid interactions, or altered fracture geometry and thereby decreased production efficiency.
The location of one or more fractures along the length of the borehole is strictly controlled by various methods that create or seal off holes in the side of the wellbore. Typically, hydraulic fracturing is performed in cased wellbores and the zones to be fractured are accessed by perforating the casing at those locations.
Hydraulic-fracturing equipment used in oil and natural gas fields usually consists of a slurry blender, one or more high-pressure, high-volume fracturing pumps (typically powerful triplex or quintuplex pumps) and a monitoring unit. Associated equipment includes fracturing tanks, one or more units for storage and handling of proppant, high-pressure treating iron, a chemical additive unit (used to accurately monitor chemical addition), low-pressure flexible hoses, and many gauges and meters for flow rate, fluid density, and treating pressure. Fracturing equipment operates over a range of pressures and injection rates, and can reach up to 100 megapascals (15,000 psi) and 265 litres per second (9.4 cu ft/s) (100 barrels per minute).
Fracturing fluids.
Proppants and fracking fluids and List of additives for hydraulic fracturing
High-pressure fracture fluid is injected into the wellbore, with the pressure above the fracture gradient of the rock. The two main purposes of fracturing fluid is to extend fractures and to carry proppant into the formation, the purpose of which is to stay there without damaging the formation or production of the well. Two methods of transporting the proppant in the fluid are used – high-rate and high-viscosity. High-viscosity fracturing tends to cause large dominant fractures, while high-rate (slickwater) fracturing causes small spread-out micro-fractures.
This fracture fluid contains water-soluble gelling agents (such as guar gum) which increase viscosity and efficiently deliver the proppant into the formation.
The fluid injected into the rock is typically a slurry of water, proppants, and chemical additives. Additionally, gels, foams, and compressed gases, including nitrogen, carbon dioxide and air can be injected. Typically, of the fracturing fluid 90% is water and 9.5% is sand with the chemical additives accounting to about 0.5%.
A proppant is a material that will keep an induced hydraulic fracture open, during or following a fracturing treatment, and can be gel, foam, or slickwater-based. Fluids make tradeoffs in such material properties as viscosity, where more viscous fluids can carry more concentrated proppant; the energy or pressure demands to maintain a certain flux pump rate (flow velocity) that will conduct the proppant appropriately; pH, various rheological factors, among others. Types of proppant include silica sand, resin-coated sand, and man-made ceramics.
These vary depending on the type of permeability or grain strength needed. The most commonly used proppant is silica sand, though proppants of uniform size and shape, such as a ceramic proppant, is believed to be more effective. Due to a higher porosity within the fracture, a greater amount of oil and natural gas is liberated.
The fracturing fluid varies in composition depending on the type of fracturing used, the conditions of the specific well being fractured, and the water characteristics. A typical fracture treatment uses between 3 and 12 additive chemicals. Although there may be unconventional fracturing fluids, the typical used chemical additives are:
•Acids—hydrochloric acid (usually 28%-5%), or acetic acid is used in the pre-fracturing stage for cleaning the perforations and initiating fissure in the near-wellbore rock.
•Sodium chloride (salt)—delays breakdown of the gel polymer chains.
•Polyacrylamide and other friction reducers—minimizes the friction between fluid and pipe, thus allowing the pumps to pump at a higher rate without having greater pressure on the surface. Polyacrylamide are good suspension agents ensuring the proppant does not fall out.
• Ethylene glycol—prevents formation of scale deposits in the pipe.
•Borate salts—used for maintaining fluid viscosity during the temperature increase.
•Sodium and potassium carbonates—used for maintaining effectiveness of crosslinkers.
•Glutaraldehyde—used as disinfectant of the water (bacteria elimination).
•Guar gum and other water-soluble gelling agents—increases viscosity of the fracturing fluid to deliver more efficiently the proppant into the formation.
•Citric acid—used for corrosion prevention.
•Isopropanol—increases the viscosity of the fracture fluid.
The most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 2005–2009 was methanol, while some other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.
Typical fluid types.
• Conventional linear gels. These gels are cellulose derivatives (carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl hydroxyl ethyl cellulose), guar or its derivatives (hydroxypropyl guar, carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar) based, with other chemicals providing the necessary chemistry for the desired results.
•Borate-crosslinked fluids. These are guar-based fluids cross-linked with boron ions (from aqueous borax/boric acid solution). These gels have higher viscosity at pH 9 onwards and are used to carry proppants. After the fracturing job the pH is reduced to 3–4 so that the cross-links are broken and the gel is less viscous and can be pumped out.
•Organometallic-crosslinked fluids zirconium, chromium, antimony, titanium salts are known to crosslink the guar based gels. The crosslinking mechanism is not reversible. So once the proppant is pumped down along with the cross-linked gel, the fracturing part is done. The gels are broken down with appropriate breakers.
•Aluminium phosphate-ester oil gels. Aluminium phosphate and ester oils are slurried to form cross-linked gel. These are one of the first known gelling systems.
For slickwater it is common to include sweeps or a reduction in the proppant concentration temporarily to ensure the well is not overwhelmed with proppant causing a screen-off. As the fracturing process proceeds, viscosity reducing agents such as oxidizers and enzyme breakers are sometimes then added to the fracturing fluid to deactivate the gelling agents and encourage flowback. The oxidizer reacts with the gel to break it down, reducing the fluid’s viscosity and ensuring that no proppant is pulled from the formation.
An enzyme acts as a catalyst for the breaking down of the gel. Sometimes pH modifiers are used to break down the crosslink at the end of a hydraulic fracturing job, since many require a pH buffer system to stay viscous. At the end of the job the well is commonly flushed with water (sometimes blended with a friction reducing chemical) under pressure.
Injected fluid is to some degree recovered and is managed by several methods, such as underground injection control, treatment and discharge, recycling, or temporary storage in pits or containers while new technology is being continually being developed and improved to better handle waste water and improve re-usability.
WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide. We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson
Castle Rock’s Plum Creek water treatment facility will be the first in town to switch to chloramine for treatment of the town’s drinking water. Eventually, all of the town’s drinking water will be treated by chloramine instead of chlorine.
The Castle Rock Plum Creek water treatment plant will be the first to treat the town’s drinking water with chloramine, after years of treating water with chlorine.
The plant is making the switch because Plum Creek will be the first water treatment facility in Castle Rock to treat surface water, part of the town’s effort to transition its water source to renewable water, said Mark Marlowe, utilities director.
“Surface water has higher levels of natural organics than well water,” Marlowe said. “Chlorine can react with the organics; chloramine does not react as much.”
Chloramine is formed when ammonia is added to chlorine to treat drinking water, according to the EPA. When it makes the switch, Castle Rock will join Denver, Aurora, Centennial and Englewood, which are among the municipalities that use chloramine to treat drinking water.
At present, Castle Rock consumers get most their water from non-renewable sources through the town’s underground wells. The town aims to transition to consuming 75 percent of its water from renewable sources by 2065, when Castle Rock is expected to reach its population build-out.
The Plum Creek water treatment facility is the first of the town’s facilities to cull from a surface source and is expected to get the town nearly halfway to its goal, treating 35 percent of the town’s water from renewable sources, according to the Town of Castle Rock.
While chloramines are expected to enhance the water’s taste and smell, chloramine-treated water cannot be used for kidney dialysis treatment, for fish, reptile and amphibian tanks or for industries that rely on highly processed water.
The town notified its water customers about the switch in the May water bill and in the first week of May distributed a letter among businesses that might be impacted by the switch, such as pet stores and medical offices.
“We’re following a treatment that works, is effective and helps us make the transition to renewable water,” Marlowe said. “It’s very safe.” During the transition, the town will have to flush the water system, which could result in water flushing in the streets and through select fire hydrants. Where possible, the town will flush water into town parks and open space, Marlowe said. Flushing of the water system is expected to take place in mid-May. For more information about chloramine treatment, visit www.crgov.com/chloramines. For more information about the Plum Creek water treatment facility and the town’s long-term water plan, visit www.crgov.com/legacywater.
More about chloramines from the EPA
• What are chloramines?
Chloramines are disinfectants used to treat drinking water. Chloramines are most commonly formed when ammonia is added to chlorine to treat drinking water.
• How long has monochloramine been used as a drinking water disinfectant?
Monochloramine has been used as a drinking water disinfectant for more than 90 years.
• How many people/water utilities use monochloramine?
More than one in five Americans use drinking water treated with monochloramine.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Basic Information About Chloramines, 2009.
More than one in five Americans are drinking tap water that’s been treated with a derivative of chlorine known as chloramine. It is formed by mixing chlorine with ammonia. Chloramine is sometimes used alongside chlorine as a “secondary” disinfectant designed to remain in your water longer as it travels through the water system.
Water treated with monochloramine (the most common form of chloramine used to disinfect drinking water) may contain higher concentrations of unregulated disinfection byproducts (DBPs) – the risks of which are conclusively unknown as of 12/15/2012.
When chlorine is replaced with chloramines in drinking water, it raises the amount of lead that leaches into water from lead pipes.
No scientific studies on chloramine’s effects on your skin or respiratory tract via inhalation (such as exposure during a shower or bath) have been concluded. Chloramine is toxic to amphibians, reptiles, fish and other aquatic and marine life.
Chloramine is a less effective disinfectant than chlorine, but it is longer lasting and stays in the water system as it moves through the pipes that transport it to your home (a process that can take three or four days).
For this reason, chloramine is often used alongside chlorine as a “secondary” disinfectant designed to remain in your water longer – but is it safe?
Chloramines may raise your water’s level of toxic unregulated disinfection byproducts.
If you receive municipal water that is treated with chlorine or chloramines, toxic disinfection byproducts (DBPs) form when these disinfectants react with natural organic matter like decaying vegetation in the source water.
DBPs are over 10,000 times more toxic than chlorine, and out of all the other toxins and contaminants present in your water, such as fluoride and miscellaneous pharmaceutical drugs, DBPs are likely the absolute worst of the bunch.
Already, it’s known that trihalomethanes (THMs), one of the most common DBPs, are Cancer Group B carcinogens, meaning they’ve been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. They’ve also been linked to reproductive problems in both animals and humans, such as spontaneous abortion, stillbirths, and congenital malformations, even at lower levels. These types of DBPs can also:
Weaken your immune system
Disrupt your central nervous system
Damage your cardiovascular system
Disrupt your renal system and cause respiratory problems
One of the benefits often touted about chloramines is that they produce lower levels of regulated DBPs, such as THMs, compared to chlorine. They still produce them, just at lower levels. In 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule, which required water treatment systems to reduce the formation of DBPs. This has led to an increasing number of treatment plants switching from chlorine to chloramine1 …
Many believe this makes chloramine the superior choice in terms of safety, but what is less publicized is that compared to chlorine, water treated with monochloramine (the most common form of chloramine used to disinfect drinking water) may contain higher concentrations of unregulated disinfection byproducts – the risks of which are unknown. Considering that many water utilities treat their water with both chlorine and chloramine, you may be getting the most of both regulated and unregulated DBPs in your drinking water, shower and bath (the DBPs that enter your body through your skin during showering or bathing also go directly into your bloodstream). There are, in fact, as many as 600 different toxic DBPs that have been identified, and to which you may be exposed through treated water.
There are other issues with chloramine in your water that you should be aware of, like its potential to extract lead from old water pipes. For example, when you combine chloramines with the fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) added to most of the U.S. water supply, they become very effective at extracting lead from old plumbing systems—essentially, together, they promote the accumulation of lead in the water supply!
“In fact the two of them have been combined, and I believe patented to be put together so that they could extract lead,” said fluoride activist Jeff Green. Lead, a known toxin to your brain and nervous system, is so toxic that it has been banned in gasoline and children’s toys, and lead paint hasn’t been in use since 1978. But even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledges that when chlorine is replaced with chloramines in drinking water, it raises not only the amount of lead that leaches into water, but the blood lead levels of children who consume it!
“When the free chlorine was replaced with chloramines, the transformed highly insoluble lead scale minerals were no longer stable and dissolved. Therefore, a substantial level of lead was released from the lead service lines into drinking water at the tap. CDC reviewed the relationship between BLLs [blood lead levels] in children, the presence of a lead service line, and water disinfection practices in DC during 1998–2006. The study reported that the presence of a lead service line was associated with higher BLLs in children. This relationship was most pronounced during 2001 through June 2004, when chloramines were used to disinfect the drinking water without adequate corrosion control.
An observational study in which the BLLs of children were matched to population-based data of water lead levels during periods when water disinfection practices changed in DC concluded that the increase in water lead levels was associated with an increase in the BLLs of children.” An analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives also found that introducing chloramines may increase the lead in drinking water, and pointed out that although anti-corrosive agents added during the treatment process are supposed to mitigate this risk, they aren’t always effective:
“Several recent studies provided evidence that the introduction of chloramines to water systems with lead-containing pipes, fixtures, or solder may increase the amount of dissolved lead in water because of changes in water chemistry; interactions with additives such as coagulants or fluoridation agents may remove lead dioxide scales originally formed during decades of chlorine-based disinfection. This leaching might be managed to some extent by the addition of anticorrosivity agents during the water treatment process; however, the details of all the related environmental chemistry are not fully understood and are highly dependent on the particular chemical interactions found in each water treatment and distribution system.”
Many residents voice concerns over chloramines, safety studies seriously lacking.
Residents across the United States from California and Oklahoma to Vermont have voiced concerns over chloramine safety, wondering whether it’s truly as safe as water utilities would like you to believe. At the very least, the chemical has been linked to skin irritations and rashes, noted Robert Howd of the California EPA:
“ …chloramines, like chlorine, can irritate sensitive mucus membranes, and could potentially cause skin irritation. When some utilities have switched to chloramine, there have been user reports of bad-tasting water, a bad feel of the water on the skin, skin irritation, and other symptoms.”
Furthermore, according to the EPA, no scientific studies on chloramine’s effects on your skin or respiratory tract via inhalation have been conducted. And while some cancer studies have been, they are so limited that they are not able to conclusively determine if chloramine might, in fact, cause cancer.
This is concerning, since exposure to chloramine in your indoor air while bathing and showering may represent your greatest route of exposure, even more so than drinking it. Also the cancer studies on chloramine itself are so limited that they cannot be used to determine if chloramine is a carcinogen, and its environmental effects are worrisome. Chloramine is toxic to frogs and other amphibians, reptiles, fish and other aquatic and marine life, to the extent that you cannot use chloramine-treated water to fill up a fish tank or backyard fish pond. As the water runs into streams, rivers and other marine areas, it could be disastrous for the marine life.
So while water utilities stand to save money by cutting chlorine costs with chloramine, the benefits to the public are far less clear. Other potential concerns include:
Because of chloramine’s corrosive nature, it has been linked to pinhole pitting in copper water pipes, which can lead to small water leaks and mold growth in your home.
Chloramine also corrodes rubber toilet flappers and gaskets, rubber hoses, and rubber fittings in dishwashers and water heaters, leading to costly home repairs.
Chloramine de-elasticizes PVC pipes, making them brittle and accelerating the leaching of possible carcinogens from the plastic into drinking water.
Chloramine is difficult to remove from your water, but it can be done.
Chloramine cannot be removed by quick boiling your water or letting it sit out in an open container (as is sometimes recommended for chlorine). A carbon filter can remove the chemical from your drinking water, but that leaves your shower and bath – a significant route of exposure — without protection. It would be helpful to take as cold a shower as possible as heat will convert more of the chemicals to a toxic gas. Additionally shorter showers will also obviously further limit your exposure.
Because of the high flow rate and large volume of water passing through your shower, there is no showerhead filter on the market that will effectively remove all chloramine. A whole-house filtration system is therefore your best choice to remove chlorine, chloramine, ammonia, DBPs and other contaminants from all of your water sources (bath, shower and tap).
WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide. We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson
Any donation no matter how small assists Save the Water™ in researching and publishing educational articles. Your support is appreciated as STW™ relies on your assistance to continue each day providing this information. Click here to help support Save the Water™
Supporting the water research and education programs of Save the Water™
is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed today.
OPPOSITION to fracking has been considerable, if not unanimous, in the global green community, and in Europe in particular. France and Bulgaria, countries with the largest shale-gas reserves in Europe, have already banned fracking. Protesters are blocking potential drilling sites in Poland and England. Opposition to fracking has entered popular culture with the release of “The Promised Land,” starring Matt Damon. Even the Rolling Stones have weighed in with a reference to fracking in their new single, “Doom and Gloom.”
Do the facts on fracking support this opposition?
There is no doubt that natural gas extraction does sometimes have negative consequences for the local environment in which it takes place, as does all fossil fuel extraction. And because fracking allows us to put a previously inaccessible reservoir of carbon from beneath our feet into the atmosphere, it also contributes to global climate change.
But as we assess the pros and cons, decisions should be based on existing empirical evidence and fracking should be evaluated relative to other available energy sources.
What exactly is fracking, or more formally hydraulic fracturing?
Many sandstones, limestones and shales far below ground contain natural gas, which was formed as dead organisms in the rock decomposed. This gas is released, and can be captured at the surface for our use, when the rocks in which it is trapped are drilled. To increase the flow of released gas, the rocks can be broken apart, or fractured. Early drillers sometimes detonated small explosions in the wells to increase flow. Starting in the 1940s, oil and gas drilling companies began fracking rock by pumping pressurized water into it.
Approximately one million American wells have been fracked since the 1940s. Most of these are vertical wells that tap into porous sandstone or limestone. Since the 1990s, however, gas companies have been able to harvest the gas still stuck in the original shale source. Fracking shale is accomplished by drilling horizontal wells that extend from their vertical well shafts along thin, horizontal shale layers.
This horizontal drilling has enabled engineers to inject millions of gallons of high-pressure water directly into layers of shale to create the fractures that release the gas. Chemicals added to the water dissolve minerals, kill bacteria that might plug up the well, and insert sand to prop open the fractures.
Most opponents of fracking focus on potential local environmental consequences. Some of these are specific to the new fracking technology, while others apply more generally to natural gas extraction.
The fracking cocktail includes acids, detergents and poisons that are not regulated by federal laws but can be problematic if they seep into drinking water. Fracking since the 1990s has used greater volumes of cocktail-laden water, injected at higher pressures. Methane gas can escape into the environment out of any gas well, creating the real though remote possibility of dangerous explosions. Water from all gas wells often returns to the surface containing extremely low but measurable concentrations of radioactive elements and huge concentrations of salt. This brine can be detrimental if not disposed of properly. Injection of brine into deep wells for disposal has in rare cases triggered small earthquakes.
In addition to these local effects, natural gas extraction has global environmental consequences, because the methane gas that is accessed through extraction and the carbon dioxide released during methane burning are both greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change. New fracking technologies allow for the extraction of more gas, thus contributing more to climate change than previous natural gas extraction.
As politicians in Europe and the United States consider whether, and under what conditions, fracking should be allowed, the experience of Pennsylvania is instructive. Pennsylvania has seen rapid development of the Marcellus shale, a geological formation that could contain nearly 500 trillion cubic feet of gas — enough to power all American homes for 50 years at recent rates of residential use.
Some of the local effects of drilling and fracking have gotten a lot of press but caused few problems, while others are more serious. For example, of the tens of thousands of deep injection wells in use by the energy industry across the United States, only about eight locations have experienced injection-induced earthquakes, most too weak to feel and none causing significant damage.
The Pennsylvania experience with water contamination is also instructive. In Pennsylvania, shale gas is accessed at depths of thousands of feet while drinking water is extracted from depths of only hundreds of feet. Nowhere in the state have fracking compounds injected at depth been shown to contaminate drinking water.
In one study of 200 private water wells in the fracking regions of Pennsylvania, water quality was the same before and soon after drilling in all wells except one. The only surprise from that study was that many of the wells failed drinking water regulations before drilling started. But trucking and storage accidents have spilled fracking fluids and brines, leading to contamination of water and soils that had to be cleaned up. The fact that gas companies do not always disclose the composition of all fracking and drilling compounds makes it difficult to monitor for injected chemicals in streams and groundwater.
Pennsylvania has also seen instances of methane leaking into aquifers in regions where shale-gas drilling is ongoing. Some of this gas is “drift gas” that forms naturally in deposits left behind by the last glaciation. But sometimes methane leaks out of gas wells because, in 1 to 2 percent of the wells, casings are not structurally sound. The casings can be fixed to address these minor leaks, and the risk of such methane leaks could further decrease if casings were designed specifically for each geological location.
The disposal of shale gas brine was initially addressed in Pennsylvania by allowing the industry to use municipal water treatment plants that were not equipped to handle the unhealthy components. Since new regulations in 2011, however, Pennsylvania companies now recycle 90 percent of this briny water by using it to frack more shale.
In sum, the experience of fracking in Pennsylvania has led to industry practices that mitigate the effect of drilling and fracking on the local environment.
And while the natural gas produced by fracking does add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through leakage during gas extraction and carbon dioxide release during burning, it in fact holds a significant environmental advantage over coal mining. Shale gas emits half the carbon dioxide per unit of energy as does coal, and coal burning also emits metals such as mercury into the atmosphere that eventually settle back into our soils and waters.
Europe is currently increasing its reliance on coal while discouraging or banning fracking. If we are going to get our energy from hydrocarbons, blocking fracking while relying on coal looks like a bad trade-off for the environment.
So, should the United States and Europe encourage fracking or ban it? Short-run economic interests support fracking. In the experience of Pennsylvania, natural gas prices fall and jobs are created both directly in the gas industry and indirectly as regional and national economies benefit from lower energy costs. Europe can benefit from lessons learned in Pennsylvania, minimizing damage to the local environment.
The geopolitical shift that would result from decreasing reliance on oil, and more specifically on Russian oil and gas, is one that European politicians might not want to ignore. And if natural gas displaces coal, then fracking is good not only for the economy but also for the global environment.
But if fracked gas merely displaces efforts to develop cleaner, non-carbon, energy sources without decreasing reliance on coal, the doom and gloom of more rapid global climate change will be realized.
Susan Brantley is distinguished professor of geosciences and director of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Anna Meyendorff is a faculty associate at the International Policy Center of the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, and a manager at Analysis Group.
Natural gas export plans stir debate A domestic natural gas boom already has lowered U.S. energy prices while stoking fears of environmental disaster. Now U.S. producers are poised to ship vast quantities of gas overseas as energy companies seek permits for proposed export projects that could set off a renewed frenzy of fracking. Continue reading
Port should pursue jobs from solar park
I was disappointed to read the port commissioners’ answer to citizens who are opposing using our port to bring in fracking materials for use in extracting oil in North Dakota. People need jobs, but they should be good jobs; not jobs that pollute water supplies and add to the already overloaded air we breath. Continue reading
RCW Energy Services Introduces H2OmniView:
World’s First Cloud-Based Frac Water Transfer Management System
RCW Energy Services today announced H2OmniView, the world’s most advanced water transfer management system for fracking and other oilfield operations. Continue reading
LATEST NEWS:SYRACUSE, N.Y.
(AP) — New York’s five-year moratorium on shale gas development promised to be a blessing for many landowners eager to end leases they signed before anyone outside of the oil and gas industry had heard of fracking. Continue reading
EPA report further fractures fracking camps
EPA report further fractures fracking camps Does the recent boom help, or hurt, the fight against climate change? The Environmental Protection Agency has dramatically lowered its estimate of how much of a potent heat-trapping gas leaks during natural gas production, in a shift with major implications for a debate that has divided environmentalists. Continue reading
Fracking debris triggers worry
By Timothy Puko, Pittsburgh Tribune-ReviewWhen a garbage truck from a shale gas well set off radiation detectors at a South Huntingdon landfill on April 19, it drew attention from township officials. Continue reading
WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide. We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson
STW™ anniversary edition: Water education resource and news article directory
Save the Water™ is committed to the education of present and future generations to insure the protection and conservation of water. Without clean drinking water, no species plant, animal or human can be saved. We must insure that the water is not contaminated to the point where we can no longer drink it.
You will find 5,450 links to organizations that provide valuable information about water science, research, education and sanitation. The educational resource is extensive, it has been divided into categories listed below so you can navigate to pertinent information according to your needs. (Click on header or image to navigate). Below the education resource section is a directory to the complete STW™ site for research and teaching purposes. Whether you use these resources for research or education, we hope that you become part of the solution that will bring clean healthy water for all people regardless of their social or economic status.
Present and future generations must be educated in water sustainability issues. With proper funding Save the Water™ will provide that extensive instruction.
We respect the right of every individual to have access to safe and clean drinking water. Your financial support and generosity is needed help support our mission.
Please make your check payable to Save the Water, Inc.
and mail to:
Save the Water Inc
500 SW 69th Terr.
Hollywood Florida 33023
To Donate A Gift-In-Kind Please Contact Us
“Because if we keep these trees alive, I’m gonna stay alive, if they die, I think I’m gonna die, too.”
Juan Guadian is like thousands of water users who were told last month that they’ll only get 20% of the water they bought and paid for from the federal government this year. “I’ve basically shut down my row crop operation since 2009 because of lack of water. We just shut that down, it just went away.”
Sean Coburn Farms 3,500 acres in Merced, Madera, and Fresno County. He buys water from three different sources, and pumps ground water, too. “Since the 70s there’s been an increased social priority placed on the environment, and that’s neither right or wrong, it just is.” Aubrey Bettencourt heads up the California Water Alliance. “We now have what I call a third new water user, and that new water user is the environment… now is using and utilizing water developed thru an infrastructure that was designed to meet only two water users’ needs.”
California water is captured, stored, and distributed by a complex system of 22 dams and reservoirs, 11 power plants, hundreds of miles of canals, and locks and gates and pumps. It worked well for everybody until October, 1992 when the central valley project improvement act was passed. “It said that a co-equal purpose of the project was not just municipal and industrial water, not just generate farm and agricultural water.”
“But an equal purpose.”
“Is going to be protecting the environment, doubling the fish populations.” Retired judge Oliver Wanger issued scores of important rulings during his 20 years on the federal bench, including the controversial 2008 decision which mandated that the huge federal pumps near Tracy must be turned off at critical times to protect the delta smelt, an endangered species within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta. (estuary). But that ruling ignored the many other threats to the delta. “You have more than a thousand riparian pumpers on the San Joaquin river delta, invasive foreign species.”
“You also have a waste-water treatment facility, Sacramento is pumping ammonia into that delta, so what you have is essentially, a toilet bowl.”
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that if pumping millions of gallons of sewage, and striped bass are at an all time high, maybe you should think about those other factors.”Digital Daily – subscribe to our daily newsletter
Officials identify cause of Fruitland area water contamination.
Wicomico CO., Md. – Septage dumping, the outdated practice of getting rid of septic waste on a farm field in the Fruitland area is believed to have happened from 1952 through the mid 1980s. That’s how Maryland officials say TCE got into the groundwater, but residents who turned out to Tuesday night’s meeting appeared less concerned with how it got there, and more concerned with what happens now.
Susan Megargee, a realtor, is afraid of how this could effect her business, “we have a property there that has been rented, the owner knows it’s gonna be very unlikely because of their inability to state the actual effect that you could get another tenet in there.” With the contamination so extensive, officials say cleaning up the 4,000 foot long contamination area isn’t feasible. An engineering consultant for the city of Fruitland developed an $8 million project to connect the effected neighborhood to the city water supply.
The project would install 38,780 feet of water main piping in a loop around the area, require a 500,000 gallon capacity elevated water storage tank, serve 256 existing residents, and 16 undeveloped lots. According to officials, the funding just isn’t there. According to a report from MDE, the organization can only provide up to $1.5 million in grant money, leaving the a $6 million funding gap. Officials don’t know where they’ll find the remainder of the funds.
Health concerns were also a major topic of discussion at Tuesday’s meeting. Prolonged exposure to TCE can cause cancer. “We do worry,” says Dr. Clifford Mitchell with the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, “the reason that we set a very low level for drinking water is because of the long term cancer risk in the population. Other than that, I would not expect any significant health effects.”
Carbon filters have been placed on 38 of the 284 homes tested, to make the water safe for drinking and bathing, which the EPA has agreed to pay for upkeep until the end of this November. Then MDE will have to take over the nearly $1,200 per filter per year cost. Officials hope to know within the next few months how much the state of Maryland and other government bodies will be able to contribute to that $8 million proposal. Another community meeting will likely be scheduled sometime later in 2013.
Toxic waste in Severn wells investigated.
Groundwater contamination missed in factory cleanup.
Groundwater contamination from toxic waste dumped decades ago at a nearby factory in the Severn area has prompted widespread testing of residential wells and put eight homes on bottled water, state officials said.
The eight households have been notified that they have unsafe levels of industrial solvents in their wells, according to the Maryland Department of the Environment, and two other homes have been found to have levels below those deemed to pose health risks. State officials said they are anxious to complete testing for the chemicals — including possible carcinogens — at dozens of other homes that had yet to respond to requests to check their wells.
“We don’t know how long it’s been in the wells,” James R. Carroll, manager of the state’s land restoration program, said of the contamination. State officials say the source of the contamination is an idled factory three-quarters of a mile away in Hanover, where high levels of the solvents have been found moving underground in the direction of the neighborhood. From the late 1960s until recently, the plant fashioned metal components for electric power transmission lines.
The land has had several owners but now is occupied by Kop-Flex Inc., a subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co., a multinational manufacturer based in St. Louis. The company is supplying bottled water to the eight homes. Emerson said in a statement that the company is still investigating whether it is responsible for the groundwater contamination.
“If the investigation results demonstrate that the Kop-Flex site is the source of the contamination, Emerson will offer to connect their homes to public water supplies, if available,” the company said. Chris Nidel, a lawyer who said he represents occupants of four of the homes on bottled water, criticized the pace of the state’s investigation and the treatment of his clients and others in the neighborhood. After the first off-site well found contamination last year, he said, “it was months before they came back in the neighborhood and started testing wells and told residents in January that they were drinking poison.”
Nidel questioned why the company and state regulators are limiting the extension of public water to the eight homes with unsafe wells and not talking about cleaning up the contaminated groundwater. Long-term exposure to the three chemicals found in the greatest concentrations in the residential wells can cause liver, kidney, lung or nervous system damage, according to a fact sheet prepared by the Department of the Environment.
One of the three, dioxane, is deemed likely to cause cancer, while another, 1,1-Dichloroethene, or DCE, is considered a possible carcinogen. Levels of DCE in the eight homes are up to 32 times the threshold considered safeby federal health authorities. Residents say they are worried and upset — and still have many questions. “I’ve been drinking the water for 50 years,” said Phillip Hinkle, 51, who said he grew up and raised his children in three of the homes identified with contaminated wells. “I’ve been in three of those chemical holes all my life.”
Jack Hinkle, his 64-year-old brother, said he has lived in one of the houses with a contaminated well since 1981. He said he’s more concerned about his two grandchildren than himself. Though the household now uses bottled water for drinking and cooking, he said they are still bathing and showering in the tainted water and he worries that they might be inhaling toxic chemicals. Health officials “said taking a bath or shower, as long as it was fast, wasn’t real harmful,” he said. “You try to get a kid to take a fast shower.”
Authorities have known about contamination at the Kop-Flex plant for decades, but did not realize that it was fouling the Severn wells until about four months ago. Seven of the contaminated wells are on Twin Oaks Road and one on Old Camp Meade Road. Tests of more than 170 wells in the neighborhood have found no hazardous chemicals. The 25-acre tract was listed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1988 as a potential candidate for cleanup under the federal Superfund law.
Sampling in the mid-1990s found contamination in the soil and groundwater that was linked to the use of degreasing solvents and the disposal of industrial wastewater into a drainage field on the property from the late 1960s through the mid-1980s. Elevated levels of seven hazardous chemicals were found at the time. Emerson bought the plant in 1996, three years after the facility stopped using the primary solvent found in the groundwater, said Robert Amberg, a spokesman for Emerson. Manufacturing continued there using different chemicals, he said, but stopped about a year and a half ago.
The state approved the company’s plans for cleaning up the site in 2001 under its “brownfields” redevelopment program, which tries to streamline regulatory requirements so contaminated property can be more quickly reused. The company’s plans included excavating soil and installing pumps to treat groundwater. At the time, Carroll said, officials believed the contamination was limited to soil and groundwater relatively near the surface, and that a layer of clay underground was keeping the chemicals from sinking deeper to other aquifers.
But after several years of pumping and treating and seeing no reduction in the chemicals found in the near-surface groundwater, the MDE official said, the company made new inquiries and found that there also had been a “dry well,” a pit used to drain liquid out of wastes, on the property. Further investigation revealed that the clay layer supposedly shielding deeper aquifers from contamination had holes in it, Carroll said.
Deeper test wells were drilled last year, which found more contamination, and a well sunk last fall showed it had spread beyond the plant’s boundaries. Three of the first 15 homes tested on Twin Oaks Road in December were found to be “impacted” by the chemicals and were promptly provided with bottled water. Carroll said Emerson had exercised due diligence when it bought the plant. Edward J. Bouwer, a professor of environmental engineering at the Johns Hopkins University, said that a layer of clay sometimes does not prevent contamination from spreading. Clay can be breached, he said. “You have to look at all aquifers,” said Bouwer, whose research specialty includes groundwater contamination. “You can’t rely on just one location to do the analysis, especially when you have these multiple layers.”
The EPA left oversight of the cleanup to the state, said Roy Seneca, a spokesman for the agency’s mid-Atlantic regional office in Philadelphia. Federal regulators did inspect the site in 2010 and consulted with the state on the need for more investigation, he said. Carroll said the company has been directed to drill other monitoring wells to try to pin down the extent of the underground contamination. The company is not being required to hook up or provide bottled water to homes with relatively little or no contamination in their wells, he said, as their water is deemed safe to drink. The two wells with low levels of contamination will be checked every few months.
“We don’t know whether they were higher or not in the past,” Carroll said, “and what we will do is continue to track the situation going forward.” If new contamination is discovered, he said, those homes would get bottled water as well while authorities work to find alternative water for them. Matt Diehl, a spokesman for the Anne Arundel Department of Public Works, said the county is working with an engineer for the company to extend a water line to serve the affected homes. He could not say when that would occur. As for other residents in the area who might want to hook up for reassurance, he said they would have to pay the usual hookup fee and other charges, which can run into thousands of dollars.
Jim Swingle lives across Twin Oaks Road from homes with badly contaminated wells, but said he’s been told his well was clean when tested, apparently because it wasn’t drilled into the deeper aquifer. He still has concerns. “Now we’re sitting on a groundwater contamination that’s going to impact the sale of our homes,” he said.
WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide. We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson
ANN ARBOR, Mich., May 7, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — High levels of hazardous chemicals were found in garden hoses for the second year in a row. Researchers at the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center found phthalates and the toxic chemical BPA in the water of a new hose that had been sitting outside in the sun for just two days. Findings include BPA levels of 0.34 to 0.91 ppm in the hose water, a level that is 3 to 9 times higher than safe drinking water standards. The phthalate DEHP was found at concentrations of 0.017 to 0.011 ppm in the hose water, which is 2 times higher than federal drinking water standards. This experiment was part of a recent Ecology Center study examining toxic chemicals in garden hoses.
The study is a follow-up to a 2012 study that tested 90 garden water hoses. This year, 21 garden hoses were tested for lead, cadmium, bromine (associated with brominated flame retardants), chlorine (indicating the presence of polyvinyl chloride or PVC), phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). These chemicals have been linked to birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, premature births and early puberty in laboratory animals, among other serious health problems. Results were released today at www.healthystuff.org.
21 new garden hoses were purchased from Lowe’s, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Target and Kmart. These hoses are widely available and top selling brands.
Of the 21 garden hoses tested, 33% contained high levels of one or more chemicals of concern, 67% were made of PVC, 4.5% contained brominated flame retardants, 29% contained organic tin stabilizers and 52% contained antimony.
5 hoses were tested for phthalate content, and the results ranged from 11% to 18% by weight. Phthalates are not chemically bound to the material and can be released to the air and water.
100% of the PVC hoses tested for phthalates contained one or more of the phthalates banned by CPSC for use in children’s products.
The percentage of hoses with greater than 100 ppm lead declined from 50% in 2012 to 14% in 2013.
Lead is found in the brass fixtures at the mouth of gardening hoses and, out of the of 90 garden hoses screened, 33 percent of products contained levels of lead that exceeded those considered safe for children.
Garden hoses are not regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which monitors the nation’s public drinking supply. The study’s findings showed that levels of lead in water coming from garden hoses they tested exceeded legal safe levels 100 percent of the time.
But lead wasn’t the only dangerous material found in the water. According to the study, the water also contained plastic additives including phthalates —or plasticizers — and bisphenol A (BPA) that were “found to migrate out of the hose material into water contained in the hose.”
The Food and Drug Administration defines BPA as an industrial chemical used to make hard, clear plastic. According to the FDA website, the National Institutes of Health is concerned with the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.
The study found levels of BPA at 20 times higher than those of safe drinking water levels.
High amounts of lead, phthalates and the toxic chemical BPA were all found in the water of a new hose after sitting outside in the sun for just a few days, according to researchers at the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center, who just completed a large study of toxic chemicals in gardening products.
Nearly 200 hoses, gloves, kneeling pads and tools were tested for lead, cadmium, bromine (associated with brominated flame retardants), chlorine (indicating the presence of polyvinyl chloride, or PVC), phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). Such chemicals have been linked to birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, premature births and early puberty in laboratory animals, among other serious health problems.
“Even if you are an organic gardener, doing everything you can to avoid pesticides and fertilizers, you still may be introducing hazardous substances into your soil by using these products,” said Jeff Gearhart, research director at the Ecology Center. “The good news is that healthier choices are out there. Polyurethane or natural rubber water hoses, and non-PVC tools and work gloves, are all better choices.”
Highlights of findings:
HealthyStuff.org screened 179 common garden products, including garden hoses (90); garden gloves (53); kneeling pads (13) and garden tools (23).
Two-thirds (70.4 percent) of these products had chemical levels of “high concern.”
30 percent of all products contained over 100 ppm lead in one or more component. 100 ppm is the Consumer Product Safety Commission Standard (CPSC) for lead in children’ products.
All of the garden hoses sampled for phthalates contained four phthalate plasticizers which are currently banned in children’s products.
Water sampled from one hose contained 0.280 mg/l (ppm) lead. This is 18-times higher than the federal drinking water standard of 0.015 mg/l.
BPA levels of 2.3 ppm was found in the hose water. This level is 20-times higher than the 0.100 ppm safe drinking water level used by NSF to verify that consumers are not being exposed to levels of a chemical that exceed regulated levels.
The phthalate DEHP was found at 0.025 ppm in the hose water. This level is 4-times higher than federal drinking water standards. EPA and FDA regulate DEHP in water at 0.006 mg/l (ppm).
What you can do:
Read the labels: Avoid hoses with a California Prop 65 warning that says “this product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm.”
Buy hoses that are “drinking water safe” and “lead-free.”
Let it run: Always let your hose run for a few seconds before using, since the water that’s been sitting in the hose will have the highest levels of chemicals.
Avoid the sun: Store your hose in the shade. The heat from the sun can increase the leaching of chemicals from the PVC into the water.
Don’t drink water from a hose: Unless you know for sure that your hose is drinking water safe, don’t drink from it. Even low levels of lead may cause health problems.
Buy a PVC-free hose: Polyurethane or natural rubber hoses are better choices. Visit HealthyStuff.org for sample products.
“Gardening products, including water hoses, are completely unregulated and often fail to meet drinking water standards that apply to other products, yet again demonstrating the complete failure of our federal chemicals regulatory system,” said Gearhart. “Our children will never be safe until we reform our laws to ensure products are safe before they arrive on store shelves.”
For more details on what the Ecology Center researchers found, and what you can do to avoid toxic chemicals this gardening season, visit HealthyStuff.org.
Since 2007 researchers at the Ecology Center have performed over 20,000 tests for toxic chemicals on over 7,000 consumer products, including pet products, vehicles, women’s handbags, jewelry, back-to-school products, children’s toys, building products and children’s car seats. All of this information can be found at HealthyStuff.org.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans’ drinking water.Under SDWA, EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.
SDWA was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water wells. (SDWA does not regulate private wells which serve fewer than 25 individuals.) For more information see:
Links to our partners – Connect with federal, state and other partner organizations that also work to ensure Americans enjoy safe water.
Drinking Water Strategy – Almost one year ago, U.S. Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced the Agency’s Drinking Water Strategy (DWS) to strengthen public health protection from contaminants in drinking water. An update on the goals set and accomplishments is now available.
SDWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. US EPA, states, and water systems then work together to make sure that these standards are met.
Standards and Risk Management – Learn about current and proposed drinking water regulations, basic information about drinking water contaminants, the regulatory process, and more.
Primacy – States and Indian Tribes are given primary enforcement responsibility (e.g. primacy) for public water systems in their State if they meet certain requirements.
Millions of Americans receive high quality drinking water every day from their public water systems, (which may be publicly or privately owned). Nonetheless, drinking water safety cannot be taken for granted. SDWA applies to every public water system in the United States. There are currently more than 160,000 public water systems providing water to almost all Americans at some time in their lives.
There are a number of threats to drinking water: improperly disposed of chemicals; animal wastes; pesticides; human wastes; wastes injected deep underground; and naturally-occurring substances can all contaminate drinking water. Likewise, drinking water that is not properly treated or disinfected, or which travels through an improperly maintained distribution system, may also pose a health risk.
Originally, SDWA focused primarily on treatment as the means of providing safe drinking water at the tap. The 1996 amendments greatly enhanced the existing law by recognizing source water protection, operator training, funding for water system improvements, and public information as important components of safe drinking water. This approach ensures the quality of drinking water by protecting it from source to tap.
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program is responsible for regulating the construction, operation, permitting, and closure of injection wells that place fluids underground for storage or disposal. Also, geologic sequestration (GS), which is the process of injecting carbon dioxide (CO2) from a source through a well into the deep subsurface, has been the subject of regulatory action. This process will with proper site selection and management, this new class of well could play a major role reducing emissions of CO2.
SDWA Fact Sheets
The following fact sheets provide basic information about various aspects of SDWA:
Original January 2010 update available in PDF (52KB).
Overview
Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical that has been present in many hard plastic bottles and metal-based food and beverage cans since the 1960s.
Studies employing standardized toxicity tests have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA. However, on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children. In cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research is carrying out in-depth studies to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties about the risks of BPA.
In the interim:
FDA is taking reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. These steps include:
supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market;
facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans; and
supporting efforts to replace BPA or minimize BPA levels in other food can linings.
FDA is supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA.
FDA is seeking further public comment and external input on the science surrounding BPA.
FDA is also supporting recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services for infant feeding and food preparation to reduce exposure to BPA.
FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk from BPA exposure.
Background
BPA is an industrial chemical used to make a hard, clear plastic known as polycarbonate, which has been used in many consumer products, including reusable water bottles. BPA is also found in epoxy resins, which act as a protective lining on the inside of metal-based food and beverage cans. These uses of BPA are subject to premarket approval by FDA as indirect food additives or food contact substances. The original approvals were issued under FDA’s food additive regulations and date from the 1960s.
Studies employing standardized toxicity tests used globally for regulatory decision making thus far have supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.[1] However, results of recent studies using novel approaches and different endpoints describe BPA effects in laboratory animals at very low doses corresponding to some estimated human exposures.[2] Many of these new studies evaluated developmental or behavioral effects that are not typically assessed in standardized tests.
The National Toxicology Program Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, part of the National Institutes of Health, completed a review of BPA in September 2008.[3] The National Toxicology Program uses five different terms to describe its level of concern about the different effects of chemicals: negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern, and serious concern.[4]
In its report on BPA, the National Toxicology Program expressed “some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A.”[5] The Program also expressed “minimal concern for effects on the mammary gland and an earlier age for puberty for females in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A” and “negligible concern” for other outcomes.[6]
The National Toxicology Program does not make regulatory recommendations. With respect to neurological and developmental outcomes of BPA, the Program stated that “additional research is needed to more fully assess the functional, long-term impacts of exposures to bisphenol A on the developing brain and behavior.”[7] The Program also stated:
Overall, the current literature cannot yet be fully interpreted for biological or experimental consistency or for relevance to human health. Part of the difficulty for evaluating consistency lies in reconciling findings of different studies that use different experimental designs and different specific behavioral tests to measure the same dimension of behavior.[8]
In August 2008, prior to the release of the final National Toxicology Program report, FDA released a document entitled Draft Assessment of Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications.[9] This draft assessment was then reviewed by a Subcommittee of FDA’s Science Board, which released its report at the end of October 2008.[10]
Since that time, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) within FDA has reviewed additional studies of low-dose toxicity cited by the National Toxicology Program and the Science Board Subcommittee as well as other such studies that have become available. The Center then prepared a document entitled Bisphenol A (CAS RN. 80-05): Review of Low Dose Studies,dated August 31, 2009. In the fall of 2009, FDA’s Acting Chief Scientist asked five expert scientists from across the federal government to provide independent scientific evaluations of this document. In April 2010, FDA made the CFSAN documents available for public comment, and also made public the independent scientific evaluations.
FDA is continuing to consider the low dose toxicity studies of BPA as well as other recent peer-reviewed studies related to BPA. At this stage, FDA is explaining its current perspective on BPA, its support for further studies, its establishment of a public docket for its assessment of BPA use in food contact applications, its interim public health recommendations, its view of the appropriate regulatory framework for BPA use in food contact applications, and our collaborations with international partners.
FDA’s Current Perspective on BPA
At this interim stage, FDA shares the perspective of the National Toxicology Program that recent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. FDA also recognizes substantial uncertainties with respect to the overall interpretation of these studies and their potential implications for human health effects of BPA exposure. These uncertainties relate to issues such as the routes of exposure employed, the lack of consistency among some of the measured endpoints or results between studies, the relevance of some animal models to human health, differences in the metabolism (and detoxification) of and responses to BPA both at different ages and in different species, and limited or absent dose response information for some studies.
FDA is pursuing additional studies to address the uncertainties in the findings, seeking public input and input from other expert agencies, and supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA to be able to respond quickly, if necessary, to protect the public.
In addition, FDA is supporting reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA, including actions by industry and recommendations to consumers on food preparation. At this time, FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk of BPA exposure.
Additional Studies
FDA supports additional studies, by both governmental and non-governmental entities, to provide additional information and address uncertainties about the safety of BPA.
FDA’s Studies. FDA’s CFSAN and FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research has been and continues to pursue a set of studies on the exposure to dietary BPA and the safety of low doses of BPA, including assessment of the novel endpoints where concerns have been raised. These include studies pursued in collaboration with the National Toxicology Program and with support and input from the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.
Recent evaluation by the FDA’s CFSAN has:
Determined that exposure to dietary BPA for infants, the population of most potential concern, is less than previously estimated. The initial FDA exposure estimates were 0.185 micrograms/kg-bw/day for adults and 2.42 micrograms/kg bw/day for infants. The new estimate of average dietary exposure, based on increased data collection, is 0.2-0.4 micrograms/kw-bw/day for infants and 0.1-0.2 micrograms/kg-bw/day for children and adults.
Recent research studies pursued by FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research have[11-17]:
Found evidence in rodent studies that the level of the active form of BPA passed from expectant mothers to their unborn offspring, following oral exposure, is so low it could not be measured. The study orally dosed pregnant rodents with 100-1000 times more BPA than people are exposed to through food, and could not detect the active form of BPA in the fetus 8 hours after the mother’s exposure.
Demonstrated that oral BPA administration results in rapid metabolism of BPA to an inactive form. This results in much lower internal exposure of aglycone BPA (i.e., the active form) than what occurs from other routes of exposure such as injection. Primates of all ages were also found to effectively metabolize BPA to its inactive form and excrete it much more rapidly and efficiently than rodents, thus reducing concerns about results from some rodent studies using oral and, particularly, non-oral exposures which result in higher actual internal exposures of rodents than of primates, including humans, exposed to the same dose.
Developed a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model which can be used to predict the level of internal exposure to the active and inactive forms of BPA. This model allows comparisons of internal exposure across different ages and routes of exposure (e.g., oral and intravenous routes). Based on the effects of metabolism, internal exposures to aglycone BPA following oral administration are predicted to be below 1% or less of the total BPA level administered.
The FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Researchis continuing with additional studies, including:
Rodent subchronic studies which are in progress to characterize potential effects, and, where observed, the dose-response relationship in the prostate and mammary glands for orally administered BPA. In addition, these studies will explore other issues including potential effects of BPA on metabolic changes and cardiovascular endpoints. These studies will include an in utero phase, mimic bottle feeding in neonates, and employ a dose range that will cover the low doses where effects have been previously reported in some animal studies, as well as higher doses where estrogenic effects have been measured in guideline oral studies. Results from this study are expected to be available to FDA to inform the agency’s decision making starting in 2012.
Rodent behavioral/neuroanatomical pilot studies which are also already in progress as part of the sub-chronic study to characterize dose levels at which behavioral, neuroanatomical, neurochemical and hormonal endpoints may be affected by developmental exposure to BPA. These data are intended to evaluate possible effects of exposure to BPA during development that have been reported in some published studies on sexually dimorphic behavioral endpoints such as anxiety, as well as on standard developmental neurotoxicity tests. Results from these studies are expected to be available to FDA to inform the agency’s decision making starting in 2012.
Other Studies. Other studies on the safety of BPA are also underway. For example, the National Toxicology Program/Food and Drug Administration (NTP/FDA) will conduct a long-term toxicity study of BPA in rodents to assess a variety of endpoints including novel endpoints where concerns have been raised. NTP/FDA will collaborate with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences by providing animals and tissues to a consortium of researchers with interest in studying a variety of additional toxicological areas.
Public Comment and Next Steps for FDA’s Assessment of BPA
On April 5, 2010 the FDA opened a public docket (FDA-2010-N-0100) for comment on BPA. The docket contains the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s review of the low dose toxicity studies and recently published studies, the five expert reviews, other relevant material, and public comments.
FDA will also continue to consult with other expert agencies in the federal government, including the National Institutes of Health (and National Toxicology Program), Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Based on this outside input and the results of new studies, FDA will update its assessment of BPA and will be prepared to take additional action if warranted. As the scientific field is evolving rapidly, FDA anticipates providing further updates on BPA to the public as significant new information becomes available.
Interim Public Health Recommendations
At this interim stage, FDA supports reasonable steps to reduce exposure of infants to BPA in the food supply. In addition, FDA will work with industry to support and evaluate manufacturing practices and alternative substances that could reduce exposure to other populations.
Given that these are preliminary steps being taken as a precaution, it is important that no harmful changes be made in food packaging or consumption, whether by industry or consumers, that could jeopardize either food safety or reduce access to and intake of food needed to provide good nutrition, particularly for infants.
Infants. Infants are a potentially sensitive population for BPA because (1) their neurological and endocrine systems are developing; and (2) their hepatic system for detoxification and elimination of such substances as BPA may be immature.
FDA is supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market. FDA understands that the major manufacturers of these products have stopped selling new BPA-containing bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market. Glass and polypropylene bottles and plastic disposable “bag” liners have long been alternatives to polycarbonate nursing bottles.
FDA is facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans. FDA has already noted increased interest on the part of infant formula manufacturers to explore alternatives to BPA-containing can linings, and has received notifications for alternative packaging. The agency is supporting efforts to develop and use alternatives by (1) working with manufacturers regarding the regulatory status and safety of alternative liners; (2) giving technical assistance to those wishing to prepare applications for approval of alternatives; and (3) expeditiously reviewing any such new applications for alternatives. Because reliable can lining materials are a critical factor in ensuring the quality of heat processed liquid infant formula, safe replacement of such materials requires not only that they both be safe for food contact but also allow for processing that is fully functional in protecting the safety and quality of the infant formula itself.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and other health authorities recommend breastfeeding as the optimal nutrition for infants. Infant formula, including infant formula packaged in cans, is a safe and acceptable alternative that provides known nutritional benefits and prevents life-threatening nutritional deficiencies.
FDA is not recommending that families change the use of infant formula or foods, as the benefit of a stable source of good nutrition outweighs the potential risk of BPA exposure.
Other Populations. With respect to uses of BPA in packaging of food intended for other populations, FDA will support changes in food can linings and manufacturing to replace BPA or minimize BPA levels where the changes can be accomplished while still protecting food safety and quality. FDA will support efforts to develop alternatives for other can lining applications similar to those which are already being tested for liquid infant formula packaging. Reliable can lining materials are a critical factor in ensuring the quality of heat processed foods. Therefore, FDA will work to encourage and facilitate changes that minimize exposure to BPA and avoid other adverse impacts on food safety or quality.
Other Advice. FDA is supporting recommendations by the Department of Health and Human Services for infant feeding and food preparation to reduce exposure to BPA.
The Regulatory Framework for BPA
Current BPA food contact uses were approved under food additive regulations issued more than 40 years ago. This regulatory structure limits the oversight and flexibility of FDA. Once a food additive is approved, any manufacturer of food or food packaging may use the food additive in accordance with the regulation. There is no requirement to notify FDA of that use. For example, today there exist hundreds of different formulations for BPA-containing epoxy linings, which have varying characteristics. As currently regulated, manufacturers are not required to disclose to FDA the existence or nature of these formulations. Furthermore, if FDA were to decide to revoke one or more approved uses, FDA would need to undertake what could be a lengthy process of rulemaking to accomplish this goal.
Since 2000, FDA has regulated new food contact substances through the Food Contact Notification Program. Under this program:
FDA receives notification from each manufacturer of the basis for the safe use of a food contact substance, detailing the conditions of the substance’s use, allowing the agency and public to know how much is being used, and for what applications;
FDA can work with individual manufacturers to minimize exposure if a potential or actual safety concern is identified after approval;
FDA can require the submission of additional safety and exposure data from individual manufacturers to address a significant safety concern;
FDA can require additional studies by individual manufacturers to address a significant safety concern; and
If FDA were to reach a conclusion that revocation of one or more approved uses is justified, FDA could quickly protect the public by revoking the use through a notice published in the Federal Register.
Given concern about BPA, and the ongoing evaluation of and studies on its safety, FDA believes that the more modern framework is more robust and appropriate for oversight of BPA than the current one.
FDA will encourage manufacturers to voluntarily submit a food contact notification for their currently marketed uses of BPA-containing materials.
In addition, FDA will explore additional options to regulate BPA under the more modern framework.
Collaboration with International Partners
FDA will continue to participate in discussions with our international regulatory and public health counterparts who have also been engaged in assessing the safety of BPA.
For example, FDA has participated with Health Canada in encouraging industry efforts to refine their manufacturing methods for the production of infant formula can linings to minimize migration of BPA into the formula.
In addition, FDA actively supported and participated in the Expert Consultation on BPA convened by World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on November 2-5, 2010, in Ottawa, Canada. Information about this expert consultation and the report of the meeting is available from the WHO web site.
[2]See, e.g. vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Belcher SM et al. Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure, Reproductive Toxicology 2007;24:131-8.
[3]NTP-CERHR Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Bisphenol A, NIH Publication No. 08-5994, September 2008.
[11]Doerge D.R., Twaddle N.C., Woodling K.A., Fisher J.W. Pharmacokinetics of bisphenol A in neonatal and adult rhesus monkeys, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2010; 248: 1–11.
[12]Doerge D.R., Twaddle N.C., Vanlandingham M., Fisher J.W. Pharmacokinetics of Bisphenol A in neonatal and adult CD-1 mice: Inter-species comparisons with Sprague-Dawley rats and rhesus monkeys, Toxicology Letters 2011; 207: 298– 305.
[13]Doerge D.R., Twaddle N.C., Vanlandingham M., Brown R.P., Fisher J.W. Distribution of bisphenol A into tissues of adult, neonatal, and fetal Sprague–Dawley rats, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2011; 255: 261–270.
[14]Doerge D.R., Vanlandingham M., Twaddle N.C., Delclos K.B. Lactational transfer of bisphenol A in Sprague–Dawley rats, Toxicology Letters 2010; 199: 372–376.
[15]Twaddle N.C., Churchwell M.I., Vanlandingham M., Doerge D.R. Quantification of deuterated bisphenol A in serum, tissues, and excreta from adult Sprague Dawley rats using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry, Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 2010; 24: 3011–3020.
[16]Doerge D.R., Twaddle N.C., Vanlandingham M., Fisher J.W. Pharmacokinetics of bisphenol A in neonatal and adult Sprague-Dawley rats, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2010; 247: 158–165.
[17]Fisher J.W., Twaddle N.C., Vanlandingham M., Doerge D.R. Pharmacokinetic Modeling: Prediction and Evaluation of Route Dependent Dosimetry of Bisphenol A in Monkeys with Extrapolation to Humans, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2011; 257; 122-136.
WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide. We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson
Maryland environmental officials concluded a farm’s use of untreated human waste as fertilizer decades ago tainted residents’ drinking supply in Coulbourne Woods and Morris Mill subdivisions. Not so, local experts say. Jennifer Shutt / delmarvanow.com
SALISBURY — During the past 30 years, a substantial amount of farmland has been converted into residential subdivisions.
While concerns about lost agriculture land tend to focus on environmental effects of suburban sprawl and runoff from more paved surfaces, groundwater contamination in one Wicomico County community highlights another potential problem.
Last week, residents in the Morris Mill and Coulbourne Woods subdivisions were told the groundwater underneath their homes was tainted with an industrial solvent pre-1980, when the farm it was on used untreated human refuse as fertilizer.
Maryland Department of the Environment officials said they believe trichloroethylene was used in or dumped into a septic system that was later pumped and disposed of on the farm.
The theory is “circumstantial,” according to Art O’Connell, from MDE’s land management division, who told homeowners about the hypothesis.
Since the meeting, Wicomico County officials and farmers have voiced differences with the theory, saying they haven’t heard of using human refuse as fertilizer.
Wicomico officials also say the theory is different from what MDE officials told them previously.
“That comment Tuesday night basically shocked all of us,” said Wicomico County Director of Administration Wayne Strausburg. “We reached out to the farm community to determine if it was actually correct and we haven’t found anyone in the farming community who’s familiar with the practice.”
“It doesn’t add up to me”
Wicomico County Director of Environmental Health Dennis DiCintio said the state previously told county officials they believed septage was dumped in open pits on the property.
Because there weren’t many environmental regulations during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, it’s possible TCE was dumped into those pits as well with no real understanding of the consequences. A lack of permitting for septage disposal during the same time frame means tracing who may have used the former farm as a disposal site or what was disposed of has proven difficult.
The investigation into TCE in the water supply and search for long-term solutions began last summer when a homeowner, concerned about the quality of his water, hired a private company to test his well.
The nonflammable, colorless liquid is primarily used as a solvent to remove grease from metal, but can be used in paint removers and adhesives. It does not occur naturally in the environment, but has been found in underground water sources because of disposal, use or manufacturing.
Land records show the farm was purchased by Grover and Nellie Jones in October of 1935, before being subdivided and sold to Daniel and Genevieve Jones in October of 1986 as well as Elton and Florence Pusey in February of 1985.
The properties throughout much of the subdivision then passed to Edgar Causey, Norma Brown and John Causey in 1987.
The Causeys developed much of the housing complex in the late 1980s, before selling houses to individual home owners.
The Causeys’ niece, Susan Megargee, moved into the neighborhood around 1988. She said by the late 1980s the community had transitioned to housing and wasn’t farmland anymore.
After the meeting last week, Megargee said she still has questions about the pollution and doesn’t believe all of what she heard.
“I just don’t think that it’s a good thing to throw out these things about septic pumping on the ground,” she said. “It’s an oversimplification and it doesn’t add up to me.”
Megargee heard MDE officials say they reached their conclusion after it was mentioned in a few interviews, but said without names she isn’t convinced the information is entirely accurate.
Horacio Tablada, director of MDE’s land management division, believes the septage may have come from an auto shop that disposed of the TCE in its septic system. When it was pumped out and disposed of, he said, it could have seeped into the groundwater.
He also said the chemical could have been disposed of in household septic systems after being used to degrease an oven.
“It’s not unusual you would find those levels back then,” he said.
MDE spokesman Jay Apperson said officials reached their conclusion after a few people mentioned during interviews they saw septage spread on the fields and O’Connell found some information using human refuse as fertilizer may have been a “common practice.”
But MDE has not released who saw the practice, when they witnessed it or how they knew the manure being spread over the farm was septage and not fertilizer from animal sources.
Farmers question dumping theory
Wicomico County Farm Bureau President Lee Richardson said while pumping out cesspools or the old metal septic tanks wasn’t regulated half a century ago, he doesn’t remember farmers using septage on their fields.
“Over here, I just don’t remember anything like that,” he said.
Richardson’s father was a farmer before him and also doesn’t remember anyone using septage as fertilizer.
Worcester County farmer Virgil Shockley has been farming for more than four decades. He hasn’t used septage on his fields or heard of anyone who would have before the practice became illegal.
Shockley said it wouldn’t have made sense for a farmer to use fertilizer from human septage because animal fertilizers are more beneficial. The higher amount of nitrogen in animal waste helps to replenish nitrogen levels in the soil and can produce faster-growing plants.
He also said leftover manure from chicken houses was common and often given away for free.
“I started farming back in 1970, and the only thing I used was animal waste and the majority of that was chicken manure,” he said. “You would only be spreading it to get rid of it, because the nitrogen in human waste was not that big a percentage.”
Shockley said it’s more plausible to him that a chemical on the farm was accidentally spilled — especially in the 1950s and 1960s, before anyone understood the effect certain chemicals have on people, animals and the environment.
He said during those decades, chemicals were also kept in metal cans and containers which could corrode.
“If you look at what we didn’t know back then versus what we know today, I think the more likely scenario is that something got spilled,” he said.
Considering the large amount of acres converted from farmland to residential subdivisions during the past half century, Strausburg said, the confusion surrounding different scenarios isn’t helping.
“I think for MDE to surprise the City of Fruitland and Wicomico County in the manner they did that evening was very inappropriate,” he said.
If pits were used to dispose of untreated septage or the practice of spreading septage in fields to dispose of it were as common as MDE expressed, the question becomes should home-owners whose property used to be farmland be concerned.
Other contamination sites?
Could chemicals like TCE be in other residential well water?
Between 1973 and 2010, Wicomico County went from having 8,500 acres of residential land to 35,500 acres.
Growth has continued steadily during much of the last decade with a loss of about 2,000 acres of agriculture land and an increase of 2,700 acres of residential between 2002 and 2010, according to the Maryland Department of Planning.
DiCintio said because officials don’t believe the practice of spreading human refuse over fields was that common, they aren’t extremely concerned about the other neighborhoods being affected.
The way hydrology in the neighborhood works, health officials know the contamination cannot spread to surrounding houses.
“We have looked at water samples in the surrounding areas that have shown no contamination at all,” he said.
The contaminated groundwater also filters itself before it reaches the surface, which means there isn’t any concern about TCE getting into any of those waterways.
But, depending on when and where officials can extend public water and who may or may not have to hook up to it, the chemical could continue to impact the community for decades.
Leon Rickards lives in Morris Mill and his well has been tested twice. Neither time has TCE been found in traceable amounts.
The pollution of his neighbors’ water, though, does affect him.
“Eventually it’s going to effect everybody in the community, whether you have clean water or not,” he said. “The long-term solution is going to have to be done, and if anybody wants to sell their house they are going to have to disclose an EPA problem in the subdivision. It may affect sales and real estate values.” Top of page
WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide. We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson
Screven County textile processor King America Finishing revealed last week its employees have been drinking bottled water for about six months.
“The company has been providing bottled water to the employees for some time because it has been in the process of testing its wells and will be drilling new wells, which also require testing,” said attorney Meaghan Goodwin Boyd in an email Thursday. “Until all the wells are tested for drinking water standards, the EPD has recommended bottled water.”
EPD director Jud Turner said the EPD made no such recommendation and that the decision to use bottled water was the company’s alone.
The use of bottled water was reported to EPD in December. The company’s own tests revealed cadmium and phenanthrene above acceptable levels in two groundwater samples at the site, Turner said.
EPD testing last summer of a dozen wells all within two miles of the factory, including 10 wells serving 12 residences downstream, revealed “no problems,” Turner said.
King America Finishing’s soil and ground water sampling was conducted “as part of activities associated with a potential transaction involving the owner of the ste (sic),” according to documents filed with EPD.
Upcoming hearing
King America’s revelation came just days before a scheduled public hearing on a controversial pollution permit for the company’s fire retardant line.
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division will hold a hearing to accept comment on that draft permit at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Effingham County High School. The hearing is one of the last steps in finalizing the pollution permit.
Such hearings, many of them marked by anger and frustration, have become almost routine, with at least eight related ones held over the past 20 months.
At the last hearing in March, also at Effingham High School, about 150 people showed up, most outraged at what they deemed an insufficient and off-target punishment of King America prescribed by a $1 million consent agreement. That document has not been finalized.
The permit being considered Tuesday is about seven years overdue.
In May 2011, the Ogeechee was the site of a fish kill that left 38,000 fish dead; the 70-mile kill zone began just below King America Finishing’s discharge pipe. EPD’s follow-up investigation officially linked the dead fish to a bacterial infection but also revealed the company’s fire retardant processing line had been operating without a pollution permit since its inception in 2006.
The EPD also issued a letter that July informing the company it could restart the line under specified conditions while a permit was being developed.
It was fined $1 million in a consent order that has yet to be finalized.
Last August a discharge permit was issued, but it was revoked about two months later after the Ogeechee Riverkeeper challenged it as incomplete because it lacked a required analysis of whether lowering water quality is necessary to accommodate the economic development the plant supports.
The so-called anti-degradation analysis, commissioned by King America Finishing and released in March, implies that without the fire retardant line the plant would likely move, taking its 575 employees with it. Those employees, the analysis reports, take home a median salary between $25,000 and $30,000, which it characterizes as “well paying.”
Plant shutdown
Many of those employees were not working or getting paid last week.
“The plant is shut down this week for inventory adjustment, and normal operations will resume Monday,” said King America’s attorney and spokesman Lee DeHihns in an email Thursday. “As the company has done each of the last several years, another planned shut down will occur in July.”
The shutdown has nothing to do with the groundwater issue, said EPD spokesman Kevin Chambers.
Some employees may be eligible for unemployment benefits for the lost wages.
“As is standard for any company with hourly employees, not all employees are being paid during this week,” Boyd said. “Those who are working on maintenance and other ongoing matters are being paid; others are taking accrued vacation days; and others are likely eligible for unemployment benefits. When such shutdowns occur, King America makes every effort to minimize the impact on its employees.”
Ogeechee Riverkeeper executive director Emily Markesteyn is urging citizens to attend Tuesday’s hearing.
Among her concerns with the proposed permits are its failure to limit or adequately monitor for the flame retardant chemical THCP and its lax limits on nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous.
“I’m seeing nutrient overloading in the river with both living and dead algae,” she said.
ATTEND THE PERMIT HEARING
EPD will hold a public hearing to solicit comments on the draft wastewater permit for King America Finishing at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Effingham County High School, 1589 Highway 119 South, Springfield.
HOW TO COMMENT
EPD will accept written comments on the draft permit up until the close of business on May 15. Comments may be mailed to the Environmental Protection Division at 4220 International Parkway, Suite 101, Atlanta, GA 30354, Attention: Jane Hendricks, or sent via email to EPDcomments@dnr.state.ga.us, with the words “NPDES permit reissuance King America Finishing (Dover Screven County)” in the subject line.
Copies of the permit fact sheet, draft permit, and antidegradation analysis are available on EPD’s website at www.georgiaepd.org in the What’s New section.
WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide. We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson
Wyoming and other Western states need to better track the amount of groundwater that’s depleted by hydraulic fracturing, according to a new report by a regional land-use organization.
If the states don’t do so, there may not be water left for municipal and agricultural uses, according to the report by the Billings, Mont.-based Western Organization of Resource Councils, which represents smaller, grassroots land-use groups.
“Little notice is given to what in the long term may become a more serious threat,” Bob LeResche, a Clearmont rancher and board member of the Billings organization and the Sheridan-based Powder River Basin Resource Council, said during a Thursday teleconference to promote the report.
“This water, once it’s used, is gone for good,” said Pat Wilson, a land and mineral owner from Bainville, Mont., and member of the Northern Plains Resource Council. “Unlike any other human use that I can think of, it’s extracted from the hydrological cycle, never to return.”
In most parts of the United States, groundwater is owned and regulated by the states, except in places such as the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota, where resident Theodora Bird Bear said the regulator, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, doesn’t focus on water depletion, despite the oil boom in the Bakken formation.
To do hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, companies drill sometimes 10,000 feet deep or more and roughly a mile or more horizontally, LeResche said. They pump in millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure to split open rock and release oil and gas.
After fracking, the water has chemicals and salt in it.
Some of the water stays deep in the formation. Most flows back to the top and is usually disposed of in a separate well that goes into a deep formation of water that has a poor quality and cannot be used by humans or animals, LeResche said.
At least one company, Devon Energy, has reused the water in multiple wells, the report noted.
The Powder River Basin Resource Council would like to see more such recycling.
In fact, in January, it released the “Seven Point Plan to Protect Groundwater” that recommended the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources work with the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Wyoming Water Development Commission to help the energy industry with water recycling.
Shawn Reese, Gov. Matt Mead’s policy director, said the seven points will be addressed in the governor’s energy strategy, which will be unveiled in the coming weeks.
The 2013 version of the energy strategy, which will be amended each year, will call for a review of oil and gas regulations by a group representing diverse interests, including environmental groups and industry. “Embedded in that review, we will be taking a close look at produced water to make sure we’re incorporating the best practices,” Reese said.
WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide. We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson
The state’s fracking board put off voting on a chemical disclosure standard Friday in response to objections from energy conglomerate Halliburton and top officials within the state’s environmental agency.
The last-minute delay follows disclosures this week that Halliburton had privately expressed concerns to state officials about North Carolina’s proposed standard on fracking chemicals. The disclosure of chemicals is considered one of the most important rules governing fracking, which involves pumping water and chemicals underground to break up shale rock and flush out natural gas trapped inside.
The N.C. Mining & Energy Commission had set out to write the nation’s strictest safety standards governing shale gas exploration, or fracking. After more than six months of preliminary meetings, the commission was finally set to vote on the chemical rule as the first of more than 120 rules it expects to consider in the coming year.
Instead, commission Chairman James Womack sought to assure his fellow commissioners that Halliburton is not running the show here, and added that the commission is committed to protecting public safety.
“No company stops what this commission is doing,” Womack said. “And no individual in the legislative body does, either.
“This is an independent body.”
Womack said he has been involved in private discussions with Halliburton officials, and is confident the commission can deal with the company’s concerns without compromising public safety.
The commissioners agreed Friday to send the chemical disclosure back for revisions, but only after a soul-searching discussion about their obligations to the public. The commission is one of the state’s most closely watched boards as it develops environmental safeguards for fracking, which is currently under moratorium in North Carolina.
“I’m just discouraged that information wasn’t brought forward while the committee was deliberating,” said commissioner Charlotte Mitchell, a Raleigh lawyer. “We spent hours deliberating.”
But commissioner Vik Rao, a former chief technology officer at Halliburton, was unperturbed.
“In the end the public should judge us by the results, not by the method or by the appearance,” he said.
Halliburton, which makes fracking fluid for the energy industry, and state environmental regulators are concerned that the standard would have required drilling operators to disclose corporate trade secrets in fracking fluid formulations to the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, potentially inviting freedom-of-information lawsuits from competitors, critics and others.
The proposed rule also would have required the state legislature to change the law to allow the agency to determine what information qualifies as a trade secret, and to withhold that information from public disclosure.
Fracking fluids contain chemicals found in food additives as well as industrial toxins and carcinogens. The chemical cocktails help maintain fluid consistency and prevent well corrosion.
Womack said the commission instead will develop a chemical rule that will allow energy companies to disclose ingredients without revealing precise amounts.
“We won’t know if it’s one pound of salt or 100 pounds of salt,” he said. “You’ll just know there’s salt in there.”
Therese Vick, an organizer with the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, chastised the commission for the sinister appearance of its dealings with Halliburton.
“The fact remains that these rules on chemical disclosure were debated, talked about and publicly commented on over months, and where was the industry then?” Vick said Friday. “Why did they not come to this podium and speak for three minutes or less?”
WHOLE WORLD Water seeks to prove that economic, social, and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive. Developed to end the global water and sanitation crisis, WHOLE WORLD Water works to engage the hospitality and tourism industry to filter, bottle, and sell its own water, and contribute 10% of the proceeds to the WHOLE WORLD Water Fund. 100% of the proceeds will go directly to clean and safe water initiatives worldwide. We believe that everyone should have access to clean and safe water. Visit Sir Richard Branson
