Fracking rumbles California

California is one of the largest oil and gas producing states in the US. As the Golden State cashes in on the boom, the oil and gas industry is increasingly using fracking.

Last year about a quarter of all the oil and gas wells drilled in California were fracked and with no regulation in place, companies are rushing to dig some more. California is prone to droughts and earthquakes, leaving residents worried about how fracking could affect their water supply and the potential for an earth shaking disaster.

Southern California is known for its pristine coastline, but just a few miles away from the ocean lays a one-thousand acre oil field, right in the middle of Los Angeles.

“I didn’t buy here thinking this was going to happen in my backyard. I would have had second thoughts about living here,” said Gary Gless, a Los Angeles resident who lives just a few miles from the Inglewood Oil Field.

Gless and his neighbors are seeing their dream homes crack before their eyes and they blame the increased production at the oil fields next door.

When homeowners moved in, they say they were assured the wells were dry. Following recent methane leaks, however, residents found out that drilling picked up, and that the exploration company, PXP, is actually using fracking to extract oil.

“Fracking is happening completely unregulated in the state of California,” said Brenna Norton, an organizer with Food and Water Watch. “Oil and gas companies don’t have to say where they frack or what chemicals they are injecting into water, possibly close to your drinking water,” Norton added.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of pumping high-pressure water, chemicals and solids into the ground to fracture the rock, and extract fuel that would otherwise be unavailable.

PXP, which operates the largest urban oil field in America, is conducting its own study as to what sort of effects fracking will have on this neighborhoodBut neighbors here are worried they will never have true answers about what is really happening underneath their homes.

“Wastewater injection from fracking is linked to earthquakes and property damage. The US geological survey linked wastewater wells from fracking to earthquakes,” said Norton.

The concern over seismic activity is especially high in the Los Angeles area because of the oil field’s proximity to the Newport-Inglewood fault, which according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has the potential of a 7.4 magnitude earthquake.

“In many places where you have large amounts of water injected in broken rock, it tends to move either on the surface or in depth,” said Dr. Tom Williams, a retired geologist and oil industry insider.

That movement, experts say, could pose a danger to an area all too familiar with disaster.

In 1963, the Baldwin Hills Reservoir collapsed, killing five people and destroying 60 homes. Geologists concluded that decades of extraction in the neighboring oil field led to the rupture in the dam.

Today, cracked foundations and buckling roadways have neighbors worried about losing their homes.

“The foundation, I don’t know what is going on under my house. If we do get an earthquake, I’m sure that with all these cracks it will probably rip it all open,” said Los Angeles resident Rosa Tatum.

“The state couldn’t afford any type of damage, not just from the earthquakes but the millions of gallons of contaminated water that they’ll be pumping into the ground,” said Gless.

The oil and gas industry has launched a public relations campaign claiming fracking is safe since it has been happening for decades.

“1.2 million times that fracking has occurred in this country there has not been a single incident of reported of water contamination,” said Dave Quast, from Energy in Depth, an advocacy group for the oil and gas industry.

Quast’s claims come after US Environmental Protection Agency report in Wyoming, in which federal regulators said fracking was the probable cause of tainted water supplies.

The industry has also launched an offensive to confront regulation and criticism.

“These fossil fuel giants influence policy enormously. They spent $747 million lobbying Congress to get this Safe Water Drinking Act exemption. That is a contamination of our democracy,” said Josh Fox, director of the Oscar nominated documentary, “Gasland”

The efforts of big oil and gas have only emboldened the anti-fracking movement on the west coast of the US, as activists and community members attempt to ban the controversial drilling technique in California.

More related stories

Question: Can fracking be cleaned up?

Fracking site: Trucks at a well in Pennsylvania pump high-pressure fracking fluid down the well to free natural gas from the shale formation far below the surface.Les Stone/ Corbis

The International Energy Agency says yes, but it will take tougher regulations that force producers to apply the latest technologies.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012/By Kevin Bullis

Fracking, aka hydraulic fracturing, a process for freeing natural gas locked in shale deposits, has caused a boom in natural-gas production in the United States. But some experts worry that the practice results in contaminated drinking water and the release of methane, prompting some localities to limit shale-gas production.

A new analysis by the International Energy Agency says technologies exist—or are in development—that could largely address these concerns. If they’re adopted, fracking could be more widely accepted by governments around the world, leading to lower greenhouse-gas emissions and lower energy prices. It they’re not, governments could balk, and coal would maintain its dominant place in electricity generation.

The most well-known issue associated with fracking is concern over water use and contamination. Fracking consumes large amounts of water; roughly 20 million liters under high pressure are sent down each well to create the fractures in the rock that free the natural gas. That water use is a huge concern in places such as Texas and some areas of China that have large shale-gas resources and are prone to droughts.

Disposal of that wastewater is another concern. Fracking also has the potential to contaminate drinking water supplies and increase air pollution. And there are concerns that it could actually increase greenhouse-gas emissions due to methane leaks.

But the IEA report concludes that fracking, like many other practices in industries that involve hazardous chemicals, can be made relatively safe with regulation. The IEA estimates that the measures needed to make fracking safer would add about 7 percent to the cost of an average well.

Significant levels of methane, the main component of natural gas, have been found in drinking-water supplies near some fracking sites. Some environmentalists have suggested that the fracking process, which creates fractures in shale, could create a path for natural gas and other chemicals to reach aquifers and mix with drinking water.

But according to the IEA report, that doesn’t seem to be the problem in most cases. Fracking usually takes place hundreds of meters below aquifers, and it’s easy to stop the propagation of fractures. Cracking the rock requires high pressures. Stop applying the pressure, and the rock fracturing stops. However, some fracking sites are relatively near to the level of drinking water, and the IEA suggests it might make sense to ban the procedure at such locations.

The IEA says the contaminated water is most likely the result of producers building substandard natural-gas wells, which are lined with metal casings and cement to keep the natural gas from contaminating aquifers. But in some cases, producers have done a poor job of cementing, allowing channels for natural gas to form. “Whenever there was a gas leakage, it came out because the cement was not well done,” says Franz-Josef Ulm, a civil and environmental engineering professor at MIT. That problem could be solved by cementing properly and then carefully monitoring the well’s integrity. “When it comes to cementing, the solutions are out there. The question is whether they are being applied,” Ulm says.

New technology could greatly reduce the amount of pressure needed for fracking, making it far easier to build safe wells, Ulm says. Researchers are learning that shale is particularly fracture-resistant because of the presence of a small amount of organic material that binds together inorganic particles. Targeting these materials by applying a special solvent could weaken the shale and make it far easier to free the natural gas.

There are also opportunities to reduce water use by using fluids other than water—such as propane (which brings its own environmental challenges)—or mixing carbon dioxide or nitrogen with water to create foams. Eventually it may be possible to mix small amounts of water with solid particles designed to easily flow, Ulm says.

Another contamination fear involves the chemicals that fracking companies add to the water. The biggest concern isn’t the chemicals once they’re mixed with the water, since they’re so dilute, but rather the handling of the chemicals in concentrated form. Spills on the surface could soak into the ground and contaminate drinking water. The solution is to line the area where chemicals are handled with plastic and monitor any leaks. Researchers are also developing less-toxic chemicals, or techniques to eliminate the need for them.

Yet even if these chemicals can be dealt with, wastewater remains a challenge. The water that flows back to the surface is contaminated not only with the chemicals originally mixed in at the surface, but also with chemicals, heavy metals, and, in some cases, naturally occurring radioactive materials from deep underground.

As the water returns to the surface, natural gas and other hydrocarbons that were released by the fracking come with it. In many cases, that gas is allowed to escape into the atmosphere until the water stops flowing. The main component of natural gas—methane—is a greenhouse gas many times more powerful than carbon dioxide, so this practice could offset any greenhouse-gas emissions reductions that would come from burning natural gas rather than coal. However, simple technology exists to capture the natural gas at this stage.

Implementing these technologies will likely require regulation. “It can’t just be counting on companies to adopt best practices, because you’ll only have a certain percentage of the well operators doing it,” says Mark Boling, president of V+ Development Solutions, which is part of Southwestern Energy, a natural-gas producer. “You have to go the rest of the way and get regulations in place so that you have a level playing field and everyone is required to do the same thing.”

If done right, those regulations could drive innovation by creating a market for new technologies. Ulm recommends caps on emissions that give companies flexibility to choose the best technology. The IEA calls for a combination of such caps, and in some cases specific technology requirements. “With such regulations, you could force innovation to be implemented at a high pace. Technology is what it will take to make shale gas a sustainable resource,” Ulm says.

Definitions From Wikipedia

Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the definitions posted herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author. It is meant for further research by you the reader.

Hydraulic fracturing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

“Fracking” redirects here. For the expletive, see Frak (expletive).

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2012)

Hydraulic fracturing
Process type	Mechanical
Industrial sector(s)	Mining
Main technologies or sub-processes	Fluid pressure
Product(s)	Natural gas Petroleum
Inventor	Floyd Farris; J.B. Clark (Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation)
Year of invention	1947

Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer caused by the presence of a pressurized fluid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally, as in the case of veins or dikes, and are a means by which gas and petroleum from source rocks may migrate to reservoir rocks. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking, commonly known as fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas (including shale gas, tight gas and coal seam gas), or other substances for extraction.^[a][1] This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations.

The first use of hydraulic fracturing was in 1947, though the fracking technique which made the shale gas extraction economical was first used in 1997 in the Barnett Shale in Texas.^[1][2][3] The energy from the injection of a highly-pressurized fracking fluid creates new channels in the rock which can increase the extraction rates and ultimate recovery of fossil fuels.

Proponents of fracking point to the vast amounts of formerly inaccessible hydrocarbons the process can extract.^[4] Detractors 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.^[5] For these reasons hydraulic fracturing has come under scrutiny internationally, with some countries suspending or even banning it.

Geology

Mechanics

Fracturing in rocks at depth is suppressed by the confining pressure, due to the load caused by the overlying rock strata. This is particularly so in the case of ‘tensile’ (Mode 1) fractures, which require the walls of the fracture to move apart, working against this confining pressure. Hydraulic fracturing occurs when the effective stress is reduced sufficiently by an increase in the pressure of fluids within the rock, such that the minimum principal stress becomes tensile and exceeds the tensile strength of the material.^[6][7] Fractures formed in this way will typically be oriented perpendicularly to the minimum principal stress and for this reason, induced hydraulic fractures in wellbores are sometimes used to determine stress orientations.^[8] In natural examples, such as dikes or vein-filled fractures, their orientations can be used to infer past stress states.^[9]

Veins

Most vein systems are a result of repeated hydraulic fracturing during periods of relatively high pore fluid pressure. This is particularly clear in the case of ‘crack-seal’ veins, where the vein material can be seen to have been added in a series of discrete fracturing events, with extra vein material deposited on each occasion.^[10] One mechanism to explain such examples of long-lasting repeated fracturing is the effects of seismic activity, in which the stress levels rise and fall episodically and large volumes of fluid may be expelled from fluid-filled fractures during earthquakes. This process is referred to as ‘seismic pumping’.^[11]

Dikes

High-level minor intrusions such as dikes propagate through the crust in the form of fluid-filled cracks, although in this case the fluid is magma. In sedimentary rocks with a significant water content the fluid at the propagating fracture tip will be steam.^[12]

History

Fracturing as a method to stimulate shallow, hard rock oil wells dates back to the 1860s. It was applied by oil industries in 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 a well stimulation was introduced in the 1930s. Due to acid etching, created fractures would not close completely and therefore enhanced productivity. The same phenomenon was discovered with water injection and squeeze cementing operations.^[13]

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.^[13][1] 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.^[13] Since then, hydraulic fracturing has been used to stimulate approximately a million oil and gas wells.^[14]

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. ^[15]

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 federal government initiated both the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a set of dozens of public-private hydro-fracturing pilot demonstration projects, and the Gas Research Institute, a gas industry research consortium that received approval for research and funding from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.^[16] 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’ that made the shale gas extraction economical.

In 2011, France became the first nation to ban the hydraulic fracturing.^[18][19]

Predicts frack toxins can migrate to aquifers within years

Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

Study shows more immediate drilling danger

NEW YORK — A new study has raised fresh concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, concluding that fracking chemicals injected into the ground could migrate toward drinking water supplies far more quickly than experts have previously predicted, the investigative news site, ProPublica.com reports.

More than 5,000 wells were drilled in the Marcellus between mid-2009 and mid-2010, according to the study, which was published in the journal Ground Water two weeks ago. Operators inject up to 4 million gallons of fluid, under more than 10,000 pounds of pressure, to drill and frack each well.

Scientists have theorized that impermeable layers of rock would keep the fluid, which contains benzene and other dangerous chemicals, safely locked nearly a mile below water supplies. This view of the earth’s underground geology is a cornerstone of the industry’s argument that fracking poses minimal threats to the environment.

But the study, using computer modeling, concluded that natural faults and fractures in the Marcellus, exacerbated by the effects of fracking itself, could allow chemicals to reach the surface in as little as “just a few years.”

“Simply put, are not impermeable,” said the study’s author, Tom Myers, an independent hydrogeologist whose clients include the federal government and environmental groups.

“The Marcellus shale is being fracked into a very high permeability,” he said. “Fluids could move from most any injection process.”

The research for the study was paid for by Catskill Mountainkeeper and the Park Foundation, two upstate New York organizations that have opposed gas drilling and fracking in the Marcellus.

Much of the debate about the environmental risks of gas drilling has centered on the risk that spills could pollute surface water or that structural failures would cause wells to leak.

Though some scientists believed it was possible for fracking to contaminate underground water supplies, those risks have been considered secondary. The study in Ground Water is the first peer-reviewed research evaluating this possibility.

The study did not use sampling or case histories to assess contamination risks. Rather, it used software and computer modeling to predict how fracking fluids would move over time. The simulations sought to account for the natural fractures and faults in the underground rock formations and the effects of fracking.

The models predict that fracking will dramatically speed up the movement of chemicals injected into the ground. Fluids traveled distances within 100 years that would take tens of thousands of years under natural conditions. And when the models factored in the Marcellus’ natural faults and fractures, fluids could move 10 times as fast as that.

Where man-made fractures intersect with natural faults, or break out of the Marcellus layer into the stone layer above it, the study found, “contaminants could reach the surface areas in tens of years, or less.”

The study also concluded that the force that fracking exerts does not immediately let up when the process ends. It can take nearly a year to ease.

As a result, chemicals left underground are still being pushed away from the drill site long after drilling is finished. It can take five or six years before the natural balance of pressure in the underground system is fully restored, the study found.

Myers’ research focused exclusively on the Marcellus, but he said his findings may have broader relevance. Many regions where oil and gas is being drilled have more permeable underground environments than the one he analyzed, he said.

“One would have to say that the possible travel times for a similar thing in Arkansas or Northeast Texas is probably faster than what I’ve come up with,” Myers said.

Ground Water is the journal of the National Ground Water Association, a non-profit group that represents scientists, engineers and businesses in the groundwater industry.

Several scientists called Myers’ approach unsophisticated and said that the assumptions he used for his models didn’t reflect what they knew about the geology of the Marcellus Shale. If fluids could flow as quickly as Myers asserts, said Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Penn State University who has been a proponent of shale development, fracking wouldn’t be necessary to open up the gas deposits.

“This would be a huge fracture porosity,” Engelder said. “So I read this and I say, ‘Golly, does this guy really understand anything about what these shales look like?’ The concern then arises from using a model rather than observations.”

Myers likened the shale to a cracked window, saying that samples showing it didn’t contain fractures were small in size and were akin to only examining an intact section of glass, while a broader, scaled out view would capture the faults and fractures that could leak.

Both scientists agreed that direct evidence of fluid migration is needed, but little sampling has been done to analyze where fracking fluids go after being injected underground.

Myers says monitoring systems could be installed around gas well sites to measure for changes in water quality, a measure required for some gold mines, for example. Until that happens, Myers said, theoretical modeling has to substitute for hard data.

“We were trying to use the basic concepts of groundwater and hydrology and geology and say can this happen?” he said. “And that had basically never been done.”

— Abrahm Lustgarten
Editors note: View stories in the ProPublica series at www.propublica.org/series/fracking.

Water Directories To Add To Your Library

Fracking

Tribal Water Resource Directory

+ opens topic menu

- closes topic menu

Tribal Programs – Drinking Water

Tribal Programs – Drinking Water

On this page

• Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers
• Rule Monitoring Placards
• Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification
• Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information
• Drinking Water Training for Tribes and Tribal Operators
• Tribal Drinking Water Needs
• Funding Opportunities
• Regional Information
• Links
• Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs
• Tribal Source Water Protection Program

Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

Information for Tribal Public Water Suppliers

• Treatment in the Same Manner as a State for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program
  • An Overview (PDF) (12 pp, 50K)
  • Factsheet (PDF) (3 pp, 39K)
  • Frequent Questions (PDF) (3 pp, 30K)
• Building Water System Capacity: A Guide for Tribal Administrators (PDF) (6 pp, 3MB) EPA 816-K-01-006, July 2001
• Preventive Maintenance Tasks for Tribal Drinking Water Systems (booklet) (PDF) (35 pp, 78K) EPA 816-F-01-017, June 2001
• Preventive Maintenance Tasks for Tribal Drinking Water Systems (log sheets) (PDF) (96 pp, 99K) EPA 816-F-01-017, June 2001

• You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more.

Rule Monitoring Placards

Rule Monitoring Placards – check to make sure you download the correct placard for your public water system type PDF

• Total Coliform Monitoring Requirements
  • Community Water Systems Serving 1,001 – 10,000 People (PDF) (1 pp, 56K)
    EPA 816-F-08-004, January 2008
  • Community Water Systems Serving 25 – 1,000 People (PDF) (1 pp, 53K)
    EPA 816-F-08-005, January 2008
  • Noncommunity Water Systems Serving 1,001 – 10,000 People (PDF) (1 pp, 54K)
    EPA 816-F-08-006, January 2008
  • Noncommunity Water Systems Serving 25 – 1,000 People (PDF) (1 pp, 53K)
    EPA 816-F-08-007, January 2008
• Surface Water Treatment Rules Monitoring Requirements (SWTR/LT1ESWTR):
  • Systems Serving Less than 10,000 People Using Conventional or Direct Filtration (PDF) (1 pp, 40K)
    EPA 816-F-08-001, January 2008
  • Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People Using Slow Sand, Diatomaceous Earth, or Alternative Filtration (PDF) (1 pp, 40K)
    EPA 816-F-08-002, January 2008
  • Unfiltered Systems Serving Less than 10,000 people (PDF) (1 pp, 40K)
    EPA 816-F-08-003, January 2008
• Nitrate Monitoring Requirements:
  • Community and Noncommunity Water Systems (PDF) ( pp, K)
    EPA 816-F-08-008, January 2008

Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification

Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

• Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Final Guidelines:
  • Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Final Guidelines (PDF) (15 pp, 121K)
    EPA 816-R-05, May 2005
  • Federal Register Notice: Notice of Availability: Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Final Guidelines
• Tribal Operator Certification Program Draft Guidelines: March 2000 Federal Register notice of availability of the draft guidelines | Public comment draft (PDF) (20 pp, 66K)
• Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program | PDF Version (1 pp, 46 K)
  This notice announces the program details of EPA’s voluntary Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program, effective October 1, 2010. The program enables qualified drinking water operators at public water systems in Indian country to be recognized as certified operators by EPA.

• Application (PDF) (15 pp, 149K)

Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program Document (PDF) (26 pp, 198K)
EPA 816-B-09-002

Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

Tribal Drinking Water Compliance Information

Each compliance report discusses the violations at public water systems on Indian reservations; EPA’s enforcement and compliance assistance activities with respect to Tribal PWSs; and the financial assistance EPA has provided to facilitate the provision of safe drinking water to Tribes.

• EPA Annual Compliance Reports

Drinking Water Training for Tribes and Tribal Operators

Drinking Water Training for Tribes and Tribal Operators

• This website presents a list of training opportunities that may be of interest to Tribes and Tribal operators nationwide.

Tribal Drinking Water Needs

Tribal Drinking Water Needs

• >Final 2001 Report to Congress on Drinking Water Needs for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems (PDF) (47 pp, 1MB) February, 2001, EPA 816-R-01-006 excerpted from main report
• >Fact Sheet on 2001 American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water System Survey (PDF) (4 pp, 298K)
• 1997 Needs Survey Report (PDF) (7 pp, 495K)

Funding Opportunities

Funding Opportunities

Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside (DWIG TSA) Program Guidance PDF (34 pp, 98K)

Links

Links

• The American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) at EPA is responsible for overseeing many environmental programs that benefit Tribal populations.
• Native American Water Association
• The Indian Health Service also has programs that promote public health.

Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

Tribal PWSS & UIC Programs

 

History of the Tribal PWSS and UIC Programs

In 1974 the United States Congress passed legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), designed to maintain and improve the quality of the nation’s drinking waters. Two major regulatory programs were created in the SDWA: the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs.

Congress authorized EPA to delegate responsibilities to states for implementing and enforcing national standards within their jurisdiction. States must apply to EPA if they want this “primacy” responsibility and must develop PWSS or UIC programs that meet national requirements. EPA is still responsible for developing national regulations, overseeing state primacy programs and implementing programs in states without primacy.

Because of their unique status, Indian tribes were not eligible to assume primacy in the original Act. Instead EPA regions were responsible for primary enforcement authority of PWSS and UIC programs on Tribal lands. This changed in 1986 when the Amendments to the SDWA added provisions that allow federally recognized tribes to assume primacy for the PWSS and UIC programs. Section 1451 (“Indian Tribes”) of SDWA authorizes the EPA to treat Indian tribes in a manner similar to states and to assign primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) to qualified tribes.

The PWSS and UIC programs are very complex and costly to operate. For many tribes (especially those that do not have a large number of public water systems or underground injection wells), the costs and resources required to achieve and maintain a regulatory program may far exceed the benefits from achieving primacy. Due to such difficulties, currently the only tribe that has sought and obtained primacy for the PWSS program is the Navajo Nation. There are a few tribes that are pursuing primacy in the PWSS and UIC programs.

Today´s Tribal Direct Implementation Program

States and tribes that do not obtain PWSS and UIC program delegation continue to be directly implemented by the EPA region in which the State or reservation is located. All EPA regions, excluding Region III (which has no federally recognized tribes), operate tribal PWSS and UIC programs to manage public water systems or underground injection wells on Indian lands.

EPA’s 1997 inventory shows that there are nearly 1000 public water systems (740 community water systems, 90 nontransient noncommunity water systems and 130 transient noncommunity water systems) that the EPA regional offices manage on Indian lands serving a population of nearly 500,000. There are also over 5,300 injection wells (one Class I well, 4,300 Class II wells, 0 Class III wells and 1,042 Class V wells) on tribal lands that are managed by regional UIC staff.

As the primary enforcement authority for tribal public water systems, EPA regions are responsible for enforcing against those systems that do not comply with federal drinking water regulations. A formal enforcement action is taken as a last measure. EPA regions dedicate a great deal of resources to provide tribes with technical assistance to help their systems or wells comply with federal standards. Regional staff visit reservations as often as possible to provide compliance assistance on site. Many Regions also fund circuit rider programs which enable other qualified persons the opportunity to provide technical assistance and training directly to tribes.

For more information on the Tribal PWSS and UIC programs, please contact your program representative.

Source water assessment and protection programs

Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 required states to develop and implement source water assessment programs (SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the quality of the public drinking water throughout the state. Using these programs, most states have completed source water assessments for every public water system — from major metropolitan areas to the smallest towns. Even schools, restaurants, and other public facilities that have wells or surface water supplies have been assessed. A source water assessment is a study and report, unique to a water system, that provides basic information about the water used to provide drinking water. States are working with local communities and public water systems to identify protection measures to address potential threats to sources of drinking water.

• Source Water Assessment page
• Source Water Regional Contacts
  

EPA publications and resources

• Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Final Guidance (PDF) (160 pp, 486K)
  Describes the elements of an EPA-approved state Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP), as well as EPA’s recommendations for what should be included in a state Source Water Protection (SWP) Program. The document also provides an overview of how source water assessment and protection integrates with other Safe Drinking Water Act programs and efforts and how other EPA and other federal programs can assist states in developing and implementing assessment and protection programs, and vice versa.
  EPA 816-R-97-009
• Office of Inspector General Report: Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Show Initial Promise, But Obstacles Remain (PDF) (56 pp, 625K)
• Source Water Protection Training through the Drinking Water Academy
• Delineation tools
• Potential contaminant source inventory tools
• Susceptibility determination tools
• Protection tools

Wellhead protection program

Wellhead Protection Program

The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) is a pollution prevention and management program used to protect underground sources of drinking water. The national WHPP was established under section 1428 of the 1986 SDWA amendments. The law specified that certain program activities, such as delineation, contaminant source inventory, contingency planning and source management, be incorporated into state WHPPs, which are approved by EPA prior to implementation. All states have EPA-approved state WHPPs. Although section 1428 applies only to states, a number of tribes are implementing the program as well.

WHPPs provided the foundation for many of the state source water assessment programs required under the 1996 SDWA amendments. Most states also use the wellhead protection program as a foundation for assessing and protecting ground water systems. State WHPPs vary greatly. For example, some states require community water systems to develop management plans, while others rely on education and technical assistance to encourage voluntary action. Other states have mandatory requirements for wellhead protection at the local level. Guidance, publications and other resources are available on state source water web sites.

EPA publications and resources

• Citizen’s Guide To Ground Water Protection (PDF) (34 pp, 2M)
• 1995-1997 Wellhead Biennial Report (PDF) (111 pp, 231K)
• Private Wells
• Septic Systems and Source Water Protection
• Locate Wellhead Protection Case Studies from Across the Country
  

Non-EPA publications and resources

• Ground Water Foundation Workshop Guide:
  An Introduction to Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection
• U.S. Department of Agriculture: Home*A*Syst/Farm*A*Syst

State ground water protection program

State Ground Water Protection Programs

Many states have also developed programs that are focused specifically on ground water protection. Several states developed formal Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP), which were designed as a management tool for states to use to integrate all programs that affect ground water quality, thus allowing better decisions to be made. Although most states are no longer pursuing formal approval of a CSGW pp, virtually all states are pursuing at least some of the individual elements necessary for comprehensive ground water protection. Within EPA, the source water protection program is working with the underground storage tank program to address potential threats to ground water posed by leaking tanks.

Publications and resources

• Protecting the Nation’s Ground Water: EPA Strategy for the 1990s (PDF) (11 pp, 1M)
• State 305(b) reports
• National Water Quality Inventory, 1998 Report to Congress, Ground Water and Drinking Water Chapters
  Report that is the primary vehicle for informing Congress and the public about general water quality conditions in the Untied States.
  • Ground Water Protection Programs Chapter (PDF) (47 pp, 584K)
  • Complete Report (PDF) (99 pp, 2M)
  • Drinking Water Quality Programs Chapter (PDF) (11 pp, 196K)
  • Ground Water Quality Chapter (PDF) (35 pp, 730K)

Sole source aquifer protection program

Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

A sole source aquifer supplies 50 percent or more of the drinking water for a given aquifer service area for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources, should the aquifer become contaminated. Designation as a sole source aquifer protects an area’s ground water resources by requiring EPA to review any proposed projects within the designated area that are receiving federal financial assistance.

• Sole Source Aquifer page

Watershed-based protection program

Watershed-Based Protection Program

The goal of source water protection is to protect the drinking water resource by protecting and preserving the environmental quality of the watershed above the intake (or the aquifer around the well). The assessment is the first step in the process to protect the resource. Once a watershed has been assessed to determine its current condition and the extent of the threats to the system, a watershed plan can be developed and implemented.

EPA’s Office of Water has numerous programs that focus on watershed protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Act includes programs such as the Nonpoint Source Program, National Estuary Program, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Each of these programs encourage states to develop programs to promote watershed-based protection, and they have elements that support watershed-based planning and implementation. The federal programs are generally implemented at the state level.

• Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
• Nonpoint Source Pollution
• National Estuary Program
• Total Maximum Daily Loads
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

EPA,Federal /non-governmental programs

EPA, Federal / Non-governmental Programs

There is no single federal program for implementing source water protection plans and activities. However, many federal, tribal, regional, and local programs have tools and resources that can be used to focus on protecting drinking water. Source water protection can benefit, and benefit from, other EPA programs, other federal programs and non-governmental programs:

• Other programs can use source water assessments and identified protection areas to set priorities for ongoing prevention efforts.
• Identifying source water protection areas increases federal, state and local managers’ awareness of other programs where participation might increase the protection of human health.
• Protecting sources of drinking water can help various federal programs, states, organizations and communities meet other environmental and social goals, such as green space conservation, stormwater planning, management of nonpoint source pollution and brownfields redevelopment.
• The benefits that EPA and other federal programs can provide to state and local source water assessment and protection efforts are potentially very large. These include information, technical and financial resources, and communication networks and enforcement authorities.

EPA program links

• EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
• • Public Drinking Water Systems Programs
  • Underground Injection Control Program
    
• EPA’s Office of Water
• • Office of Wastewater Management
  • Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
  • Office of Science and Technology
    
• Non-Water Program Links
• • American Indian Environmental Office
  • Office of Underground Storage Tanks: Source Water Areas and Underground storage tanks
  • Office of Pesticides
  • Office of Pollution Prevention
  • Environmental Finance Program
  • Office of Smart Growth
    
• EPA program and regional offices

Other Federal Programs and Non-Governmental Organizations

• Related links: Includes links to non-EPA organizations that are related to source water protection.
• • Federal government web sites
    
  • State drinking water web sites
  • Non-governmental web sites
  • Contacts for non-EPA organizations links
  • Publications by other organizations links

Tribal programs

Tribal Programs

EPA is firmly committed to helping tribes to assess the rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers that serve as tribal public water supplies and to implement measures to protect against contamination of these water resources.

• Protecting Drinking Water: A Workbook for Tribes
  The Water Education Foundation recently completed this national water quality publication using a grant from EPA. The Workbook includes background information on the importance of protecting source water from pollution and includes a step-by-step work plan for tribes interested in developing a plan for protecting their drinking water.
• Source water protection fact sheet and EPA regional contacts for tribes (PDF) (4 pp, 80K)
  Provides more information on source water protection, how to get started, and funding available.
• Tribal drinking water programs and UIC program
  
• Other water pollution control funding sources
  Provides information on drinking water, wastewater and watershed protection funding sources.
• Nonpoint source pollution control grants to tribes
  Describes opportunities to fund projects to control polluted runoff.
  

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page.

Supporting water research and the education program’s growth of Save the Water™ is vital to our future generation’s health, your funding is needed.

How to navigate STW ™ postings:
View monthly posting’s calendar, become a subscriber or obtain RSS feed by going to the bottom index of this page.

Explanation of Index:

This Months Postings: Calendar on left displays articles and pages posted on a given day.

Current and Archived Postings: Click on the month you want to view. Most current article for the month will appear at top of screen.

RSS Links : Obtain your RSS feeds.

Subscribe: Subscribe to postings by entering your e-mail address and confirming your e-mail.

Water contamination – Fracking

What fracking is all about – Fracking defined Part 2

Save the Water™ does not represent or endorse the postings herein or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information furnished by the author.

Site Setup

Historical perspective

Hydraulic fracturing is not new. The first commercial application of hydraulic fracturing as a well treatment technology designed to stimulate the production of oil or gas likely occurred in either the Hugoton field of Kansas in 1946 or near Duncan Oklahoma in 1949. In the ensuing sixty plus years, the use of hydraulic fracturing has developed into a routine technology that is frequently used in the completion of gas wells, particularly those involved in what’s called “unconventional production,” such as production from so-called “tight shale” reservoirs. The process has been used on over 1 million producing wells. As the technology continues to develop and improve, operators now fracture as many as 35,000 wells of all types (vertical and horizontal, oil and natural gas) each year.

Hydraulic fracturing has had an enormous impact on America’s energy history, particularly in recent times.
The ability to produce more oil and natural gas from older wells and to develop new production once thought impossible has made the process valuable for US domestic energy production.
Without hydraulic fracturing, as much as 80 percent of unconventional production from such formations as gas shales would be, on a practical basis, impossible.

This technique uses a specially blended liquid which is pumped into a well under extreme pressure causing cracks in rock formations underground. These cracks in the rock then allow oil and natural gas to flow, increasing resource production.

Thank You For Your Support,

Water contamination news – Fracking

Using diesel fuel in oil and gas hydraulic fracturing.

Kansas City infoZine / Saturday, May 05, 2012 ::

More information: The EPA Offers the following information

Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act

Thank You For Your Support,

Water contamination news

New study predicts fracking fluids will seep into aquifers within years.

This story was originally published by ProPublica.

Proppants and fracking fluids

Last updated June 5th 2012 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A proppant is a material that will keep a induced hydraulic fracture open, during or following a fracturing treatment, while the fracking fluid itself varies in composition depending on the type of fracturing used, and can be gel, foam or slickwater-based.

EPA study says hydraulic fracturing likely contaminated drinking water in Wyoming town

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it suspects hydraulic fracturing in a shallow natural gas well in Wyoming contaminated a town’s drinking water. After three years of study, the agency concluded that chemicals found in the aquifer and in individual wells were consistent with those used in hydraulic fracturing.

The agency issued a report that will be open for public comment and scientific review. If it is finalized with the same conclusions, it could provide the first documented case in which “fracking” contaminated groundwater.

“Alternative explanations were carefully considered to explain individual sets of data,” the draft report says. “However, when considered together with other lines of evidence, the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing.”

Inhofe comments

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, said the agency’s findings were premature and political, while an environmental group called the study “a huge blow to the oil and gas industry.”

Hydraulic fracturing, which has been used for more than 50 years on oil and gas wells, involves pumping water, sand and a small amount of chemicals into a well to create cracks in shale formations.

The process, in tandem with horizontal drilling, has been used increasingly by the industry to produce oil and gas that was previously considered too difficult to recover. It has come under increasing scrutiny and criticism as its use has expanded, and some have charged that it poses a threat to groundwater.

Though there have been incidents in which “flowback” water used in a well was improperly handled, the industry has countered criticisms of hydraulic fracturing by saying there had not been a documented case in which the process itself caused contamination.

The EPA study in Pavillion, Wyo., began in 2008 after residents complained that their water smelled and tasted bad. The residents lived near a gas field controlled by Encana, a Canadian energy company.

According to the EPA, the agency constructed two monitoring wells to sample water in the aquifer.

“EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels,” the agency said in a statement.

Contaminants migrate

“Given the area’s complex geology and the proximity of drinking water wells to ground water contamination, EPA is concerned about the movement of contaminants within the aquifer and the safety of drinking water wells over time.”

Water in private wells tested by the EPA contained compounds “consistent with migration from areas of gas production,” the agency said.

The Environmental Protection Agency noted, however, that the fracturing in Pavillion is taking place “in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells — production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country.”

Industry experts have often said that most fracturing occurs a mile or more below the surface, while groundwater is close to the surface, and that there is no way that fracking water or gas could migrate to drinking water from those depths.

Inhofe has been of the most vocal defenders in Congress of hydraulic fracturing and has been following the EPA’s work in Pavillion and its national study of fracking. Thursday he said the EPA draft report was part of President Barack Obama’s “war on fossil fuels.”

“EPA’s conclusions are not based on sound science but rather on political science,” Inhofe said.

“Its findings are premature, given that the agency has not gone through the necessary peer-review process, and there are still serious outstanding questions regarding EPA’s data and methodology.”

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, said the draft report “illustrates the dangers of moving forward with a technology before we know the facts. It is also a huge blow to the oil and gas industry, who has continued to insist that fracking is safe.”

A 30-day peer-review process led by a panel of independent scientists also will be conducted.

via EPA study says hydraulic fracturing likely contaminated drinking water in Wyoming town | NewsOK.com.
Thank You For Your Support,

Please Contact Us

Help Save the Water™ – click here.

Water news archives. Table of contents – 150 articles – April~July 2012