Image: NETL.gov
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The EPA took another step toward tightening oversight of hydraulic fracturing today, announcing it would initiate a process to set national rules for treating wastewater discharged from gas drilling operations.
Until now, the agency has largely left it to states to police wastewater discharges. Some have allowed drillers to pump waste through sewage treatment plants that aren't equipped to remove many of the contaminants, leading to pollution in some rivers and to problems at drinking water facilities.
Cynthia Dougherty, EPA's director of ground water and drinking water, told a Senate panel today that the agency has an important role to play in bolstering state standards.
"I wouldn't say they're inadequate," she said of states' regulations, "but they could use the help."
When drillers frack a gas well, they inject thousands of gallons of chemicals, some of which are highly toxic even at low concentrations. When the fluid comes back up, it carries extremely salty water that can contain heavy metals and radioactive elements.
In Western states, most drilling wastewater is injected deep underground for permanent storage. There are fewer injection wells in the East, however, so much of the waste from drilling in the Marcellus Shale was initially discharged into surface waters.
The EPA has the authority to issue permits for such discharges, but current rules allow shale gas drillers to pass their waste through public sewage plants even if those plants are not equipped to remove pollutants. (There are currently no rules covering wastewater from coalbed methane drilling, a type of gas production that drills into coal seams, so those wastes can be discharged without treatment.)
For years, Pennsylvania allowed growing volumes of wastewater to flow into the state's rivers. As ProPublica reported two years ago, the water's high salt and mineral content was believed to have elevated pollutant levels in some streams. It also may have clogged industrial equipment, killed fish and caused contamination in drinking water.
In March, the EPA sent a letter to environmental officials in Pennsylvania expressing alarm at high pollutant levels in the wastewater that was being discharged into the state's waterways. The agency urged the state to increase monitoring. The next month, the state asked drillers to stop discharging waste unless it was properly treated. By June, state officials said that no waste was being discharged without full treatment.
In an email to ProPublica, the EPA said that concerns about releases in Pennsylvania and "other information" led the agency to initiate the process to set new national rules. The agency said about 22 billion gallons of wastewater from coalbed methane drilling go into surface waters across the country each year. The EPA does not have data on how much shale gas wastewater is being discharged nationwide.
"This is just a really good opportunity to be able to track the amount and the content of the waste at these wells," said Jason Pitt, a spokesman for the Sierra Club. "You really can't treat these chemicals as they come up without really knowing what's in them."
The Independent Petroleum Association of America issued a statement today saying it would work with the EPA to develop new standards and noted that drillers are increasingly cleaning and reusing their wastewater. Officials in Pennsylvania and at the EPA have said that increased recycling has been an important factor in reducing wastewater discharges.
The EPA said it would propose wastewater rules for coalbed methane drilling in 2013. Similar rules covering shale gas will come a year later, after the agency gathers more data on discharges.
The plan is one of several recent moves to increase federal oversight of fracking. Earlier this year, the EPA proposed rules that would limit air emissions from fracking operations. The Interior Department, which regulates drilling on federal lands, has said it will issue rules covering fracking within the month.
From ProPublica.org (find the original story here); reprinted with permission.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentAll of this drilling from wells and mines that is causing the waste water pollution should be shut down and not allowed to continue and no new permits issued until the EPA has these rules in place. It doesn't make sense to wait a hundred years before regulating these dangerous polluting companies. Them dragging their heels as long as they have have cost many lives and ego systems. A job is not worth that many human and animal lives or endangering human health. They can wait until the EPA has these rules in place and when these companies disregard these rules, like they do in West Virginia, there should be at least a $50 to $100 million dollar fine or every rule they break or disreguard. I bet they will follow the rules then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe EPA will be extinct shortly. The current congress has made it a mission to destroy the EPA and any other regulatory commission in place and because they hold the purse strings it will happen either overtly or covertly by simply not funding it. Meanwhile Republicans shed crocodile tears over the long overdue reduction of NASA which might actually cause jobs and allow for new and creative manufacturing in both vacuum and microgravity environments not to mention a possible venture in sharing space with the public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA lot of that will depend on us getting off our butts and start to use Carbon for more than burning and that included CH4. Two Nobel prizes were awarded for graphene and now quasi-crystals have taken another one. What else is happening but very under the radar is the growth of nanotubes, diamond seeding (creating 2K diamonds from small seeds in high pressure carbon rich atmospheres) and the use of carbon composites as both metallic type materials and ceramics that are more malleable and yet harder than steel, titanium etc.
There was an article in Dec 2010 describing the creation of H2 and O2 at rates of 3000 times the input and in a just in time type of production based on knowledge that was presented in 1993. What was new is that the process is on demand, prolific and sustainable. The upside is that both products burn and oxidizing H2 creates water as the waste product.
Artificial leaves are being developed using Si which is interesting but again Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Iron and Sulfur are abundant, cheap and could create fuels that burn clean, materials that are lighter, conductive, semi-conductive and non-conductive with the current materials science we have developed using nano tubes and graphine.
Will this get funded? Probably not because the political system is bought and paid for by big oil, pharmaceuticals, Wall Street and not by the people that are doing this research. There was some very interesting science being done by MIT where viruses were being custom tipped to create all kind of materials that had the above qualities and the only known use I have heard of to date was the military using them for batteries.
We have real science that is in the works and in some cases mature but will the EPA and other regulatory sectors will be starved to allow the crap to continue.
So excuse my pessimism, but I am trying to save enough quarters to buy a congressman.
I know, David; it is a shame that we have all this science and the republicans are killing it all. You forgot to mention the nuclear auto that GM killed...GM is controlled by the republicans. That car could get over 300,000 miles on 8 grams of thorium. 100 or a 1,000 grams of thorium could power your house or business, probably, forever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is great hopes for graphine batteries, but again it is being underfunded by the republicans.
I have a whole jar of quarters if you want them.
Maybe, just maybe we should stop relying on the federal government to fix locally fixable problems and elect civil SERVANTS who will actually do their jobs for the pay they receive. Companies need to do the same and are much more easily controlled and FORCED to do business correctly, morally, ethically and monetarily feasible. The EPA is in way over their heads and in need of being controlled to enforce rules and gers already in place. They are not here to take over price fixing and negotiating FOR unions so the Federal Government may covertly rule through back-door politics and smile while stealing your empowerment that can and will develop the new technologies for peace and prosperity belonging to the many, not the few legal thieves in corporate dominance and political back-door payoffs scandals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are several problems with your line of reasoning. First, these shale fields extend over the area of several states. In order to compete with one another, states will face significant pressure to lower environmental standards. Second, the pollution caused by this practice, if allowed to continue in its current form, will continue to cross state lines as it contaminates entire river systems and watersheds. Finally, these fields, and the resources they contain, are arguably matters of national security as the represent large portion of our current reserves. Given these arguments alone, we're faced with issues that are clearly in the federal domain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerica has a big problem. Republicans refuse to acknowledge the environmental, and especially climatic damage done by US industries. They are just plain lazy and egoistical, expecting that God will take the necessary measures in their place. God only helps those that helps themselves, not those that help themselves to other people's ressources.... It may well result in UN embargos on american exports....The world will not clear up the mess in their place!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about requiring all U.S. Senators and Congressmen to pass a basic, high-school level science exam before they can take their oath of office. They can pick their science: biology, chemistry, physics, geology. Doesn't really matter. We don't need them all to be scientists. Just familiar with the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Howley
http://www.HowleyGreenEnergy.com
You have nailed the issue better than the other wouldn't it be nice remarks. It is a Federal Issue and the problem is we have a congress that is clearly at odds with the role of the EPA and if they manage to elect a Republican President the EPA will probably be DOA. As it is the purse strings are controlled by congress and they can simply not fund the organization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I keep seeing that scares me is the commercials on the tube that show how safe this practice is and very little on people who have tap water that you could run your car on. One area that is methane rich is the Gulf of Mexico with the molecule in a frozen state. Has there been any studies on capturing this and marketing it. The C of the CH4 has a lot of potential in the new technologies of nano tubes, graphine and diamond seeding so there may be a win win solution if we could direct some solid research in that area. The science is real and it beats the crap our of exasperating the issue by burning CH4 or letting nature take its course. What I mean is that at some point the Gulf may warm enough to release the CH4 naturally and the fallout would be devastating considering the green house effect of methane over CO2.
But expecting legislators to take science test when a majority of them are creationist or expecting civil servants to do something without a mandate are not viable answers. We cannot expect a Utopian answer but if we can develop a market based solution with some government subsidizing we could move away from fracking and actually develop a solution that kills several birds at one.
I say multiple answers (birds) in that the ocean is the other sink for CO2 after the forest and as we add Carbon to the oceans we are creating a nightmare for shell fish and for coral reefs. Unfortunately I think we won't see any movement until everyone can cook with the water out of the faucet. I can imagine the look on a firefighters face when he goes to douse the home with hydrant water and it explodes.
We need to ween from burning carbon and hydro carbon and the sooner the better for this country.
When at a Republican debate and the candidates are asked if they believe in creationism and all raise their hand yes. What science would you think they would be good at. I remember the following story during the good old GWB days "Health Organizations and AIDS Organizations Denounce Sen. Frist's Inaccurate and Harmful Comments about HIV Transmission, Condom Effectiveness For Immediate Release: December 10, 2004" where he claimed that aids could be transmitted by tears.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate to think of the work peoples work currently being conducted where amendments that support life begins at conception and the implication of birth control or mother's health being pushed aside by a party that preaches less intrusive government. It is intrusive with the individual but when it comes to EPA, USDA and SEC regulations the current congress and to be honest almost all politician except maybe Bernie Sanders are bought and paid for.
The bottom line is that if there was a test that dealt with science that was required it would be something like the following:
1) Is fire hot? a) True b) False c) None of the above (pick a silly)
Science has more separation from state than religion in this country. I would hope that the World Court might have some say because some of the effects of fracking may cross international borders but then if I remember right under the Bush administration we put in place a finding that if a US citizen was arrested or detained in a foreign country for any crime the US government would have the right to put boots on the ground and force-ably take said citizen back.
Look at the evidence. Frakking has been going on for many years and environmental effects are small–compared to the energy produced–and manageable. It probably has less environmental effect than coal mines and some conventional gas fields.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet wind farms kill thousands of birds every year–many of them endangered–and do not produce a reliable supply of energy. But many people think wind power is wonderful. Even though carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming and the world is almost certainly starting to cool.
It is all about balancing the advantages against the disadvantages not about ruling something out because it has a few disadvantages. Many of the people who oppose freaking realize that it will reduce electricity prices and make their solar farms and wind farms even more uneconomic. That will also reduce electricity prices to the poor unfortunate consumer, is not something they consider.
I cannot argue with the folly of wind farms and the damage caused by bird migration. It is also a problem related with sky scrapers and I doubt we will stop building them. We may find some offensive fermons or ultra sonic sound that may direct the bird away from said structure but I remember working in a glass building and about once a day we would hear the smash and crash.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that is side stepping the issue and fracking is starting to show serious effects with the auguifiers because of the depth that the fracking is taking place. Another method for squeezing the last drop of fuel be it gas or oil is to pump CO2 or water into a known source and causing the oil to rise to the top. Oil is still lighter than water.
We have not exploited tidal marshes anywhere near what is available and using a ratchet type sprocket we can control the in and out flows of the water. We currently are sitting on a huge dead zone of the LA coast and the area around NYC is also home to a plethora of polluted water that could be manipulated as it moves in and out of the pools. If done right we could undo a lot of damage, recreate some of the tidal pools as we clean the areas and provided both a safe harbor for the birds and power that is reliable, predictable and full of things that we could reprocess.
Phosphate, Nitrates, Oil come to mind as some of the by products that could be captured, packaged and sold while taking advantage of the free power provided by the tidal zones. Geothermal also has potential in the right areas and again by using convection we could create self sustaining fields that require little is any additional fuel.
The biggest disappointment I have at this point is an article in SCIAM posted 12/2010 described cyanobacterium that poops O2 and H2 prolifically and is very sustainable producing some 3,000 times more output than the fuel it eats (chlorophyll). For the brave of heart please read the posting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-production-comes-natu&posted=1 and think of just in time delivery of O2 and H2 which which are both clean fuels. The beauty of oxidizing H2 is the out put pure water. But the sad part is the science was first examined in 1993 and at last look about 5 people have posted on this site. I plead guilty to three of them.
I like the birds too but that is not what this subject is about it is about fuel and how to find it in a clean sustainable method. Why do we keep falling into line with Big Oil?
Human activities need to default to "First, do no harm."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not how life works. It is very opportunistic and will proliferate until it hits a brick wall or a competitor that it cannot overcome. What is sad is that we claim to be intelligent and better than all the other forms of life because of said intelligence. Yet the more we say we are not like the other animals the more we prove we are not necessarily the most intelligent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say that because we are very aware of how the feedback systems work and are intertwined. We know what migration paths mean and what fracturing them does. We know that the species needs the healthiest to survive is it is to thrive yet when we hunt (and call it culling) we deplete the best of the species as our prize. And for any ecosystem to thrive it is vital to keep the predator and prey systems balanced yet we have managed to remove most predator systems except our selves. And we continue to sprawl into existing systems and complain and destroy the previous top of the chain animals when they try to continue their part of the feed back systems.
We are now looking at how to exploit the fact that we have succeeded in removing the polar ice sheet for both transportation and for resource exploitation that will have international consequences with no regulatory systems in place. This kind of action has a strong possibility of leading to war and pollution effecting parties that are not even benefiting from said exploitation.
While Americans find excuses to not step up and take the lead we may be surprised when China does. I don't think based on the politics running Russia will do much more than try to move back to the days of the Soviet Union and I wonder if people remember the shape of Eastern Europe after the fall of the first Soviet Union. It was an ecological disaster which actually made the west look like an angel.
What may amaze us is the next world war may be between Russia, China and India at the cost of Europe, Africa and the Middle East. But the idea of do no harm goes against everything life is about even at the cost of extinction. And what is amusing with that statement is that even bacteria and viruses will mutate to let their victim survive and carry not by intelligence but by evolution.
Iuanwe I love your thought but I have never seen any form of life not take advantage of the niche and we appear blind to what is brightly lit in front of our face. Keep saying it but the damage has been done and I think we are only here to see the results.