The site of one of Canada-based Gastem USA's wells in Otsego County, N.Y., in 2009. The well produced far less wastewater than most Marcellus Shale wells will, but it still took the drillers more than a year to get permission to drill it, because they couldn't find a place to dispose of the water.
Image: Joaquin Sapien/ProPublica
-
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 »
New York's emerging plan to regulate natural gas drilling in the gas-rich Marcellus Shale needs to go further to safeguard drinking water, environmentally sensitive areas and gas industry workers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has informed state officials.
The EPA's comments, in a series of letters this week to the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, are significant because they suggest the agency will be watching closely as states in the Northeast and Midwest embrace new drilling technologies to tap vast reserves of shale gas.
New York is in the forefront of the shale gas boom and has been working on regulations for more than three years. Judith Enck, the EPA regional administrator who issued the agency comments, noted that New York "will help set the pace for improved safeguards across the country."
The EPA's comments are among 20,000 the state has received on its proposed plan to regulate the environmental effects of drilling. Many of the EPA's comments focus on how the state DEC will handle the chemically tainted wastewater from the drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
To free the gas trapped in the Marcellus and other shale formations, drillers pump millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals deep underground under pressure. The wastewater can get into drinking water by being disposed of at sewage treatment plants, the EPA wrote.
As ProPublica first reported in 2009, these plants don't typically have the equipment necessary to detect and treat the chemicals in drilling wastewater. Plant operators who accept drilling wastewater simply dilute it with regular sewage and then discharge it into water bodies. DEC wastewater samples had levels of radioactive elements thousands of times higher than drinking water limits, ProPublica reported.
In its comments, the EPA pointed out that New York's current permitting system for water treatment plants doesn't include limits on pollutants frequently contained in drilling wastewater, such as radionuclides, which can cause cancer at high levels.
The EPA said it needs to be more closely involved in analyzing and approving any treatment plant's application to accept drilling wastewater. And while the DEC's proposed rules suggest limits on radioactive elements such as radium, the EPA said it's not clear who would be "responsible for addressing the potential health and safety issues" related to radiation exposure.
The EPA also flagged health risks to workers close to wastewater and other potentially radioactive materials, like the large amounts of soil and mud unearthed by drilling. "At a minimum, the human health risks to the site workers from radon and its decay products should be assessed along with the associated treatment technologies such as aeration systems or holding for decay," the agency wrote.
The EPA raised concerns about the sheer amount of wastewater. To deal with the excess water, the DEC listed a number of out-of-state treatment plants as potential recipients, but the EPA warned that several of the plants probably don't have the capacity to handle more wastewater.
ProPublica reported that neighboring Pennsylvania became overwhelmed by drilling wastewater after the state embraced the industry. The Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people, became contaminated with drilling salts and minerals.
The EPA letters are the latest in a series of federal moves to tighten oversight of gas drilling. In December, the agency scientifically linked underground water pollution to hydraulic fracturing for the first time. Last August, the EPA announced that it would develop its own rules on wastewater disposal instead of leaving it up to states.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentHydrofracking should be outlawed; it is many times more dangerous than a nuclear power plant and there are going to be a lot of long term causalities if it is allowed to continue. We do not need that gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf water has to be used in the process, why can't the same water be re-used over and over again. It has to be processed to be discharged, So process and reuse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter yet, lets develop better renewable alternate energy sources. After-all it only took 10 years to put a man on the moon. We should be able to solve the energy problem quickly also.
"If water has to be used in the process, why can't the same water be re-used over and over again. It has to be processed to be discharged, So process and reuse."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat would cut into their profits, and if we start valuing people's health over corporate profits, then we're a bunch of Socialists. Or at least that's what the knee-jerk reactionaries (brought to you by fossil fuel profits) would have us believe. This is Exhibit A as to how corporate greed corrupts our political system and allows this kind of destruction to occur.
typical republican logic Shoshin - if you disagree with us making extreme profits, then you must be some kind of child molester/terrorist/murderer - I'm recognising this style now as standard republican argument - can't defeat the facts, resort to personal insults ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnbelievable! "there is nothing inherently wrong with fraccing." You must me right; there is nothing wrong with polluting the water to a degree that will kill, over time, thousands of humans, and kill hundreds of thousands of animals, fish and birds, poison our atmosphere to the point that birds just magically drop from the sky dead, and to turn our foundations and homes to rubble, and render our land worthless. Yeah! There can't be anything wrong with that...how silly of me to even think so???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"ultimobo", is correct. You republicans are like demonic trolls...sucking the life out of everything you come across. How do you sleep at night knowing that your agenda of death, destruction, poverty, and war is killing the very planet you are so dependent on for your survival?
Well at least your arguments prove one thing.... the discussion has nothing to do with science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's all about your politics.
Actually, I sleep very well knowing that my house is warm, and my children fed. How do you sleep knowing that your actions would strip those basic human rights to millions or billions through your sheer ideological blindness? Time to face facts: If the eco-movement gets its way billions WILL die. But that is typical of what happens when people hitch up to a one trick pony.
On a side note, I had a good chuckle at the inherent naivete and hypocrisy of the eco-movement recently. I saw a local aging hippy/baby-boomer/OWS protester parked at the local ski hill. He had his massive full size Toyota Tundra Crew Cab 4X4 with the camper on it parked in the parking lot. The propane BBQ was hanging off the back and the food was sizzling. Some sort of strange wood burning incense burner was also set up which smoked and stank the hell out of the area. Also hanging from the back of the truck camper were signs protesting the a a coal mine and the Keystone pipeline.
Quite hilarious. Without the Keystone pipeline he wouldn't be able to get the 10mpg his 400+ HP truck, or run his BBQ, and the coal mine produces metallurgical coal that is shipped to Japan to build the steel for his truck. His wood fired incense/Ganja burner or what the hell it was created enough soot and smoke to ensure that we had to move our vehicle upwind because my asthmatic wife was getting choked out..... but hey... it was all natural from Mother Gaia.
It made for a great learning experience for my kids on hypocrisy, ignorance, myopic views and wastefulness.
The eco-movement lost its way long ago and is no longer the friend of society. It is time for the eco-movement to present data and studies to prove that it's impacts on society are positive. Time for environmental impact assessments FROM the eco-movement. Or do they have a hidden agenda and are they afraid that they couldn't stand up to the scrutiny?
Shoshin : Please supply refereed evidence to support your claims. If you are lieing, go and swear before a judge and you will be sent to prison for perjury if you have no evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure what you refer to. Do you mean the the co-movement does not need to prove that it provides a meaningful service to society?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting hypocritical views that you have; you have the right to judge everyone but no one has the right to judge you.
Typical.
Or maybe you want to have me declared an eco-terrorist and jailed indefinitely without trial? President Obama gave himself that right, and I'm sure that the eco-movement is licking it's chops looking for it's first victim to try out it's new power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about the fact that we don't have lead in our gasoline anymore, or that rivers don't periodically catch on fire from all the crud floating in them, or the fact that we've lowered acid rain by %50 or so, or the fact that we stopped making compounds that eat the ozone layer, or the fact that smog levels in major metropolitan areas have dropped dramatically since catalytic converters were mandated. How about the fact that the Clean Air Act alone has saved $1 Trillion in healthcare costs, reduced worker productivity and premature deaths since it was introduced? How much proof do you need that reducing pollution helps people live better lives?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that we have better and cheaper alternatives (when ALL costs are accounted for...no sweeping those negative externalities for fossil fuels under the rug), it is immoral to NOT do as much as we can to clean up our act.
Eco-Steve: I stand corrected. According to Wikipedia, food production increases since 1948 due to mechanization and fertilizers actually account for my assertion that 2 of 3 people would die if the eco-corporations have their way. My math was incorrect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the increases in productivity between 1900 and 1948, if we reverted back to the Dystopian "carbon free lifestyle" of pre 1900, the number would likely be 4 of 5 people dying.
My original calculations underestimated the abject lunacy and depravity of the eco-movement goals. The zero carbon goals of the eco-movement would prefer to see the deaths of 80% of the people on the planet, not 66%. Please accept this erratum.
noting Shoshin's continued (standard republican) preference for personal insults in reply to factual arguments ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPut away your straw man, Shoshin. I haven't seen any commenters here advocating to a dystopian return to a "carbon free lifestyle" of pre-1900 that would cause 80% of the world's population to die.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey simply don't recklessly close their eyes to the possible negative externalities which inflict a huge cost on our society and not paid for by the profit-takers.