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