New fuel for coal vs. gas debate
www.timesleader.com/news/New_fuel_for_coal_vs__gas_debate_12-27-2011.html
December 27, 2011
By Steve Mocarsky smocarsky@timesleader.com
Wilkes-based group finds natural gas has smaller greenhouse footprint.
A research group based at Wilkes University recently revised its position on whether burning coal or natural gas has a worse impact on the environment and global warming.
Based on several new studies, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research of Northeastern Pennsylvania concluded that, contrary to findings in an April study by researchers at Cornell University, natural gas produced from Marcellus Shale wells has a lower greenhouse footprint than coal.
According to the institute essay, the use of natural gas and the other fossil fuels for energy releases greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Those gases are thought to increase global temperatures.
Studies conducted between 2000 and 2007 suggested that natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gases than coal, especially when used to generate electricity.
But a study by a team of researchers at Cornell University published in April found that extracting natural gas from shale released large quantities of methane – a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The researchers concluded that when the full life-cycle of energy extraction, delivery and use is considered, shale gas produces up to twice the greenhouse gas emissions compared to burning coal or oil – especially when viewed over a 20-year time span.
However, seven analyses released in the summer and fall of 2011 came to a different conclusion than the Cornell study. All seven found that natural gas produces 20 percent to 60 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions, especially when used for electrical generation and when viewed over a 100-year time span.
The discrepancies between the Cornell and subsequent studies appear to result primarily from the different time frames used (20-year time frame versus 100-year).
Kenneth Klemow
Wilkes professor Kenneth Klemow, one of the authors of the institute essay, was hesitant to rank as more credible either the Cornell study or a study by Carnegie-Mellon University researchers that the energy industry said disputed the Cornell study when the Carnegie-Mellon study came out in August.
Klemow had said the Carnegie-Mellon study tipped the balance more in favor of natural gas, but only “by a little bit.” While the gas industry had claimed the CMU study slam-dunked the Cornell study, Klemow said he wasn’t so sure about that.
He was sure that more research was needed and researchers needed to take more field measurements rather than rely on data from previous studies.
Klemow said last week that because of several new articles and reports that have come out in the past three months, researchers at the institute found it necessary to issue an update on the original position.
“The main message is that seven independent studies now agree that shale gas has a lower greenhouse footprint than coal. That conclusion largely contradicts the findings by a team of researchers at Cornell who published a paper last April that argued shale gas has a higher footprint than coal due to inadvertent releases of methane at gas wells,” Klemow said.
In addition to incorporating the findings of the recent studies, the institute included some graphics to illustrate key trends that have been observed. And in addition to summarizing the research to date, they say they provide “our own synthesis – especially relating to future research needs.”
“Scientists are becoming increasingly convinced that burning fossil fuels releases gases that affect our climate,” Klemow said. “Therefore, studies comparing emissions of natural gas against coal are vital if we want to have informed discussions and make wise choices.”
“While recent analyses generally show natural gas has a lower footprint than coal, the science is far from settled. More studies of methane leakage near Marcellus wells and pipelines are critically needed to give us a more accurate picture,” he said.
Pa. issues air pollution rules for gas drilling
www.timesleader.com/news/Pa-issues-air-pollution-rules-for-gas-drilling.html
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania state environmental regulators will follow new guidelines endorsed by a natural gas industry group for deciding how to group together facilities such as wells, dehydrators and compressors when enforcing air pollution standards.
The Department of Environmental Protection issued the new guidelines Wednesday and opened them up for public comment until Nov. 21.
The Citizens Voice of Wilkes-Barre reports (http://bit.ly/q4a4KE) that the industry group, Marcellus Shale Coalition, last year urged the state not to group air pollution sources that are not contiguous or adjacent, even if they’re connected by pipelines.
Instead, it recommended a quarter-mile rule that several other states follow and which the Pennsylvania DEP wants to follow.
The new guidelines take effect immediately, but are considered interim for now.
EPA hearing focuses on reducing gas drilling air pollution
http://www.timesleader.com/news/EPA_hearing_focuses_on_reducing_gas_drilling_air_pollution_09-28-2011.html
September 28, 2011
By KEVIN BEGOS
PITTSBURGH — A public hearing Tuesday on proposed rules to reduce air pollution from oil and gas drilling operations found at least some points of agreement between industry and environmental groups.
Howard Feldman, the director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, was the first speaker at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hearing in Pittsburgh.
Feldman asked the EPA to extend the public comment period and give companies a one-year extension to comply with the new rules. The current EPA timeline would see the rules take effect in the spring of 2012.
But Feldman told The Associated Press that industry isn’t opposed to the basic concept of the EPA proposal, which would apply new pollution control standards to about 25,000 gas wells that are hydraulically fractured, or fracked, each year. The fracking process blasts large amounts of water deep into the earth to break up dense shale and allow natural gas to escape.
“We think EPA has done a good job on the rule. We think it’s pretty reasonable,” Feldman said. “We just need a few more accommodations to make this work smoothly.”
The technology to implement the proposed rule allows drillers to capture and sell gas that would normally go to waste. EPA estimates that the rule would actually save the industry about $30 million each year.
“A lot of companies are doing that already,” Feldman said of the capture process.
But some said the issues in Pennsylvania require more time to review.
Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said her group thinks there’s “a lot more work to do” on the proposed rules, which could place a heavy burden on industry.
But citizens and environmental groups said there should be no delays in implementing the rules, because there are already problems.
New air rules to curb pollution from gas wells
http://standardspeaker.com/news/new-air-rules-to-curb-pollution-from-gas-wells-1.1181579#axzz1TUpEddKL
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: July 29, 2011
In an effort to curb smog and airborne chemicals linked to oil and gas production, federal environmental regulators moved Thursday to place new controls on air pollution caused by the drilling, processing and transmission of the fuels.
The proposed rules released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would for the first time require “green completions” at nearly all hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells in the country – a way of capturing and sending to market gas that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere.
The new requirements would also stem pollution from some compressors, valves, dehydrators and processing plants, as well as the storage tanks that hold the hydrocarbon liquids associated with “wet” forms of gas.
The rules aim to curb smog-causing chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as air toxics, such as benzene, that are known or suspected to cause cancer. Although the rules do not directly target the leakage of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, the proposals to limit the VOCs and air toxics will also reduce the amount of methane escaping into the atmosphere by about 26 percent, the agency said.
The EPA characterized the rules as “extremely cost-effective” and estimated the requirements will save the industry nearly $30 million a year above the $754 million annually it will cost to meet the requirements. The agency said the rules will mandate practices already used voluntarily by some companies and required by some states.
“Reducing these emissions will help cut toxic pollution that can increase cancer risks and smog that can cause asthma attacks and premature death – all while giving these operators additional product to bring to market,” said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation.
Environmental groups who sued the EPA to update its standards by a court-ordered deadline Thursday welcomed the proposals.
Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director of New Mexico-based WildEarth Guardians, said the “woefully outdated” current rules allowed the buildup of ground-level ozone in rural, heavily drilled parts of Wyoming so the smog there rivaled that in Los Angeles.
The proposed rules offer benefits to the industry and the environment, he said.
“The solution to clearing the air more often than not means keeping more product in the pipeline,” he said.
Rules mandating green completions may prove difficult at first for operators in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, where pipeline infrastructure is still catching up to the pace at which new gas wells are drilled.
“Certainly it’s easier to capture methane when a gas field is a little more mature because the pipeline infrastructure is in place that allows you to capture it,” said former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection secretary John Hanger.
He said the proposed rules “can help maximize the environmental benefits that using more natural gas in our society offers.”
In its response to the proposed rules, the Pennsylvania-based industry group the Marcellus Shale Coalition pointed to three short-term state air monitoring studies near Marcellus wells that did not find any compounds in concentrations “that would likely trigger air-related health issues.”
“This sweeping set of potentially unworkable regulations represents an overreach that could, ironically, undercut the production of American natural gas, an abundant energy resource that is critical to strengthening our nation’s air quality,” coalition president Kathryn Klaber said.
The EPA will have a public comment period on the proposed rules and three public hearings in the Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colo. and Pittsburgh areas, for which details have not yet been announced.
The agency is under a court order to take final action on the rules by Feb. 28, 2012.
llegere@timesshamrock.com
EPA Reduces Smokestack Pollution
EPA Reduces Smokestack Pollution, Protecting Americans’ Health from Soot and Smog
Clean Air Act protections will cut dangerous pollution in communities that are home to 240 million Americans
WASHINGTON – Building on the Obama Administration’s strong record of protecting the public’s health through common-sense clean air standards – including proposed standards to reduce emissions of mercury and other air toxics, as well as air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today finalized additional Clean Air Act protections that will slash hundreds of thousands of tons of smokestack emissions that travel long distances through the air leading to soot and smog, threatening the health of hundreds of millions of Americans living downwind. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will protect communities that are home to 240 million Americans from smog and soot pollution, preventing up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million sick days a year beginning in 2014 – achieving up to $280 billion in annual health benefits. Twenty seven states in the eastern half of the country will work with power plants to cut air pollution under the rule, which leverages widely available, proven and cost-effective control technologies. Ensuring flexibility, EPA will work with states to help develop the most appropriate path forward to deliver significant reductions in harmful emissions while minimizing costs for utilities and consumers.
“No community should have to bear the burden of another community’s polluters, or be powerless to prevent air pollution that leads to asthma, heart attacks and other harmful illnesses. These Clean Air Act safeguards will help protect the health of millions of Americans and save lives by preventing smog and soot pollution from traveling hundreds of miles and contaminating the air they breathe,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “By maximizing flexibility and leveraging existing technology, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will help ensure that American families aren’t suffering the consequences of pollution generated far from home, while allowing states to decide how best to decrease dangerous air pollution in the most cost effective way.”
Carried long distances across the country by wind and weather, power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) continually travel across state lines. As the pollution is transported, it reacts in the atmosphere and contributes to harmful levels of smog (ground-level ozone) and soot (fine particles), which are scientifically linked to widespread illnesses and premature deaths and prevent many cities and communities from enjoying healthy air quality.
The rule will improve air quality by cutting SO2 and NOx emissions that contribute to pollution problems in other states. By 2014, the rule and other state and EPA actions will reduce SO2 emissions by 73 percent from 2005 levels. NOx emissions will drop by 54 percent. Following the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” mandate to limit interstate air pollution, the rule will help states that are struggling to protect air quality from pollution emitted outside their borders, and it uses an approach that can be applied in the future to help areas continue to meet and maintain air quality health standards.
The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule replaces and strengthens the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered EPA to revise in 2008. The court allowed CAIR to remain in place temporarily while EPA worked to finalize today’s replacement rule.
The rule will protect over 240 million Americans living in the eastern half of the country, resulting in up to $280 billion in annual benefits. The benefits far outweigh the $800 million projected to be spent annually on this rule in 2014 and the roughly $1.6 billion per year in capital investments already underway as a result of CAIR. EPA expects pollution reductions to occur quickly without large expenditures by the power industry. Many power plants covered by the rule have already made substantial investments in clean air technologies to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions. The rule will level the playing field for power plants that are already controlling these emissions by requiring more facilities to do the same. In the states where investments in control technology are required, health and environmental benefits will be substantial.
The rule will also help improve visibility in state and national parks while better protecting sensitive ecosystems, including Appalachian streams, Adirondack lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and forests. In a supplemental rulemaking based on further review and analysis of air quality information, EPA is also proposing to require sources in Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin to reduce NOX emissions during the summertime ozone season. The proposal would increase the total number of states covered by the rule from 27 to 28. Five of these six states are covered for other pollutants under the rule. The proposal is open for public review and comment for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.
More information: http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/
CONTACT:
Enesta Jones
jones.enesta@epa.gov
202-564-7873
202-564-4355
Agency action would cut transport of air pollutants from Pa. power plant
EPA Proposes to Grant Clean Air Act Petition to Improve Air Quality in New Jersey
WASHINGTON (March 31, 2011) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposed to grant a petition submitted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to limit sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant that are adversely impacting air quality in four New Jersey counties. The proposed rule, when final, would require the Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, Pa. to reduce its SO2 emissions by 81 percent over a three-year period. Exposure to SO2 can aggravate asthma and cause other respiratory difficulties. People with asthma, children, and the elderly are especially vulnerable to these effects.
Under the Clean Air Act, when a facility impacts air quality in another state, the affected state can petition EPA and request that the facility be required to reduce its impact. In a September 2010 petition, New Jersey asked EPA to find that the Portland power plant is impacting the state’s air quality and to require the facility to reduce its SO2 emissions. These emission reductions can be achieved using proven and widely available pollution control methods.
New Jersey conducted several air quality modeling analyses to evaluate SO2 levels in the state. These analyses show that the level of SO2 in the air is exceeding the agency’s 1-hour national air quality standard and that the Portland plant is the main source of emissions. EPA also conducted its own modeling analyses and found the same results.
Typically a mix of sources from multiple locations is responsible for air quality issues in a specific area. However, in this case, the extensive analysis shows a clear connection between the emissions from the Portland plant alone and the elevated level of SO2 in New Jersey.
EPA will accept comment on this proposal until May 27, 2011. The agency is also holding public hearing on this proposed rule on April 27, 2011 in Oxford, N.J. The hearing will provide stakeholders with the opportunity to submit written or oral comments in person. A written record of the hearing will be compiled and submitted to the docket. Any questions posed at the hearing will be replied to in a response to comment summary issued with EPA’s final response to the petition.
More information on the petition and public hearing: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html
Contacts: Terri A. White, EPA Region 3, (215) 814-5523, white.terri-a@epa.gov
Elias Rodriguez, EPA Region 2, (212) 637-3664, Rodriguez.elias@epa.gov
Scientists: Delaware River faces threats
PHILADELPHIA — Threats ranging from global warming to natural gas drilling could threaten the water quality in the Delaware River, scientists and environmental advocates said Thursday.
The state of the river got in-depth attention Thursday at a forum held by the federal Environmental Protection Agency with meetings at six locations in all four states along the river.
Many of the presentations focused on the dangers of climate change, which could cause the salt line to shift upriver and threaten drinking water supplies in Philadelphia or bring additional water-borne diseases to the region.
Delaware River Basin Commission executive director Carol Collier called drilling for natural gas “the huge gorilla” among things that could harm the river. The concern is that chemicals used to extract gas from deep underground in a process called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” could contaminate the drinking water supply.
A massive underground rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale, which stretches from Tennessee to New York and contains natural gas, is under about one-third of the land in the Delaware basin. It’s also under all the headwaters of the most pristine parts of the river. There, the commission, which monitors water quality in area around the river, is trying to maintain current water quality.
Collier’s agency is considering rules on how to regulate drilling in areas near the Delaware. Collier said Thursday that September is the earliest commissioners would vote on proposed regulations.
Drilling companies say their process is safe. They and many northeast Pennsylvania landowners also say the proposed regulations would be stifling for business in an area that could use a boost.
Environmental groups worry the regulations would be too permissive.
The public can comment on the proposed regulations until April 15.
Environmentalists have been pushing the DRBC to wait until there’s a full EPA study on the impacts of fracking in the region before issuing rules.
Collier said that decision will be made by her commission, which includes the governors of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware and a federal representative. But, she said, the final EPA report isn’t expected to be released for another three years.
MARCH 10, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP2383bce525c34f6a88282883079545d8.html
Hope remains for future of coal-to-liquid fuels project
Questions about the financing and a murky national energy policy are clouding the future of a proposed $1 billion coal-to-liquid fuels project.
Yet John W. Rich Jr. remains optimistic his plan can help break the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.
“There’s not any threat of a war over coal, but there sure is a threat of war over oil,” Rich said in an interview Thursday. “We’re continuing to pursue this whole effort. We’ve been at it for a long time. We certainly got tripped up at the federal level. … This is where the future is – making liquid transportation fuels.”
The project – planned for Mahanoy Township – has been in development for two decades. For much of that time, Rich had been counting on $100 million from the U.S. Department of Energy to help fund the project, which would convert waste coal to usable diesel fuel.
However, the federal government pulled that money from the project without explanation during the last days of the Bush administration. Read more
U.S. House Battles Over U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations
WASHINGTON, DC, February 9, 2011 (ENS) – The Republicans and Democrats massed their forces today in the House of Representatives in a fight over the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases.
A different House from the Democratic-led body that passed a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade bill in June 2009, this Republican-led body is considering a bill that would prevent the U.S. EPA from regulating the emission of greenhouse gases from stationary sources such as power plants and refineries.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee today held its first hearings on the draft discussion bill from the new chairman, Republican Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan.
The bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, states its purpose as: “To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas due to concerns regarding possible climate change, and for other purposes.”
Upton said today that his bill is designed to “to protect jobs and preserve the intent of the Clean Air Act.”
The bill would overturn the EPA’s December 2009 finding that the emission of greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare.
Along with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases are pollutants and the EPA has the duty to regulate them, this endangerment determination is the basis for EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.
Far from being an invention of the Obama administration’s EPA, the Bush-era EPA administrator also supported a positive greenhouse gas endangerment finding.
The committee’s top Democrat, Congressman Henry Waxman of California, Tuesday released a private letter that former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson wrote to President George W. Bush on January 31, 2008.
“It addresses the same issue as your legislation: whether carbon emissions endanger the public,” Waxman wrote Friday in his own letter to Upton, in which he shares the contents of Johnson’s private letter to President Bush.
“Administrator Johnson wrote: ‘the latest science of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive endangerment finding, as was agreed to at the Cabinet-level meeting in November.'”
“The latest climate change science does not permit a negative finding, nor does it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research,” Johnson wrote.
“Administrator Johnson also wrote: ‘A robust interagency policy process involving principal meetings over the past eight months has enabled me to formulate a plan that is prudent and cautious yet forward thinking. … [I]t … creates a framework for responsible, cost-effective and practical actions.'”
“He added that actions to reduce carbon emissions ‘should spur both private sector investment in developing new, cost-effective technologies and private sector deployment of these technologies at a large scale.'”
Administrator Johnson released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in July 2008, which solicited public comment on an endangerment finding. The final endangerment finding was made by the Obama admininstration’s EPA head Lisa Jackson in December 2009.
Jackson testified today before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Chairman Upton’s draft bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act.
“The bill appears to be part of a broader effort in this Congress to delay, weaken, or eliminate Clean Air Act protections of the American public,” Jackson said. “I respectfully ask the members of this Committee to keep in mind that EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe.”
“Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saved more than 160,000 American lives; avoided more than 100,000 hospital visits; prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma; enhanced American productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays; and kept American kids healthy and in school,” Jackson told the committee.
Jackson emphasized that the Clean Air Act itself creates jobs, particularly in the growing U.S. environmental technologies industry. “In 2008, that industry generated nearly 300 billion dollars in revenues and 44 billion dollars in exports,” she said.
“Yesterday,” said Jackson, “the University of Massachusetts and Ceres released an analysis finding that two of the updated Clean Air Act standards EPA is preparing to establish for mercury, soot, smog, and other harmful air pollutants from power plants will create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years.”
Chairman Upton said his bill, “allows states to continue setting climate policy as they please, but prevents those actions from being imposed or enforced nationally.”
The bill leaves in place the tailpipe standards for cars and light trucks from model years 2012 through 2016, and allows National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to continue to regulate fuel economy after 2016.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2011/2011-02-09-01.html
Pa. official defends rules on gas drilling waste
http://online.wsj.com/article/APf1a0b0069bef43808fc2f7cde2c1a7bb.html
JANUARY 4, 2011
Pa. official defends rules on gas drilling waste
Pennsylvania’s top environmental enforcement official said Tuesday that he is confident that wastewater discharged into rivers and streams by the booming natural gas industry hasn’t degraded the state’s drinking water.
At least 3.6 million barrels of the ultra-salty, chemically tainted wastewater produced by gas drilling operations were discharged into state waterways in the 12-month period that ended June 30, according to records reviewed by The Associated Press. Drinking water for hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians is drawn from those rivers and streams.
Those discharges have troubled some environmentalists. Most of the big drilling companies digging thousands of new wells in Pennsylvania have committed to curtailing or ending the practice.
John Hanger, the outgoing secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, said he believes the new regulations are adequate to protect water supplies.
“The drinking water at the tap in Pennsylvania is safe. It has not been contaminated by drilling,” he said.
The state set new standards in August governing discharges by any new drilling waste treatment plants, but allowed existing operations to continue putting partially treated wastewater into rivers and streams, as long as the water body’s quality does not fall below federal drinking water standards.
Hanger said state officials have been using a network of sensors operated by his department and water supply companies to monitor for signs that rivers may have sustained a significant drop in water quality.
So far, he said, they haven’t found any.
Many researchers have been particularly concerned with how the high levels of salt and dissolved solids in drilling waste might affect rivers, especially those that have already picked up unhealthy amounts of pollution from other sources, including abandoned coal mines.
If a river’s total load of dissolved solids gets high enough, it can make the water taste bad, leave a film on dishes, corrode equipment and could give people diarrhea. Researchers, some of them working under the auspices of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, are still trying to determine if Pennsylvania’s river discharges, at their current levels, are dangerous to humans or wildlife.
Hanger said no river used for drinking water has exceeded the EPA standard for dissolved solids for an extended period, although there have been some instances of seasonal spikes that can last for a few days.
“We are watching it very closely,” he said.
Pennsylvania is rare among gas-producing states in that it allows the wastewater that flows out of natural gas wells to be disposed of in rivers.
In most states, drillers are required to send the liquid back down deep shafts so it can’t pollute surface water.
Drilling companies use about 2 million gallons of water a day in Pennsylvania to help get at the gas locked in its vast underground Marcellus Shale gas field. During a process called hydraulic fracturing, the water — mixed with sand and chemicals, some of them toxic — is forced into the wells at high pressure, shattering the shale and releasing trapped gas.
There has been a fierce debate over whether the wastewater that returns to the surface is hazardous.
It can contain high levels of some toxins, like barium, strontium and radium, but the treatment plants handling the bulk of Pennsylvania’s gas drilling waste remove most of those substances before discharging the water.
State officials and industry participants say the amount of waste put back into waterways, while significant, is also safely diluted by the massive volumes of water in the rivers, reducing both any residual toxins and the salt to safe levels.
An AP review of state records found that the state couldn’t account for the disposal method for 1.28 million barrels of drilling wastewater, about a fifth of its total, because of incomplete record keeping.
Hanger said the state is working to improve its methods for tracking wastewater, including making recent hires of additional staff.
“There’s always room for improvement,” he said.
It also found that in 2009 and part of 2010, about 44,000 barrels of drilling waste produced by the energy company Cabot Oil & Gas were improperly sent to a treatment facility in Hatfield Township, a Philadelphia suburb, despite regulations intended to keep the liquids out of the watershed. The liquids were then discharged through the town sewage plant into the Neshaminy Creek, which flows through Bucks and Montgomery counties on its way to the Delaware River. Customers in 17 municipalities get treated drinking water from that creek.
Water quality test results reviewed by the AP also showed that some public water utilities downstream from gas wastewater treatment plants have struggled to stay under the federal maximum for contaminants known as trihalomethanes, which can cause cancer if people drink tainted water for many years.
Trihalomethanes can be created during the water treatment process by dissolved solids in drilling waste, but other types of pollution are just as often to blame for the problem.
Hanger said those trihalomethane readings are “of concern,” but he couldn’t say definitively whether there was any link to gas drilling waste.
Faced with opposition to river dumping and tightening state regulations, all of the state’s biggest drillers say they are now recycling a majority of the wastewater produced by their wells in new fracturing jobs, rather than sending it to treatment plants.
Hanger said about 70 percent of the wastewater is now being recycled, which he credits to the tighter state regulations.
Still, with dozens more energy companies drawn to the Marcellus reserves — more than 2,400 wells have been drilled and work has started on 5,400 more — operators of the largest of the state’s 16 most commonly used treatment plants say they haven’t lost much business. In midwinter, records will be available to verify company claims of any major drop-off in river disposal.