The Baseline Water Testing Process It is NOT Just About Getting a Sample
The Baseline Water Testing Process It is NOT Just About Getting a Sample
By Brian Oram, Professional Geologist
Carbon County Groundwater Guardians
Published in March ONG Marketplace
We have had the opportunity to witness a wide range of practices that have been called baseline testing. We have seen a team of 4 professionals working for the EPA in Dimock, Pennsylvania, take 4 to 5 hours to collect one water sample and we’ve seen a single sampler with virtually no training take 15 minutes to purge and sample a private well with no field measurements or even gloves. The potentially negative impacts of this wide variation in sampling techniques and experience is compounded by the lack of field documentation and a quest for that “single” list of parameters. This approach will make for great future lawsuits and media stories, but does little to generate the reliable data required by professionals, scientists, regulatory agencies, and the public.
The key elements to effective baseline testing should include:
a. A selection of parameters and indicators that meets the regional environmental conditions and addresses the historic and proposed activities and practices in the region and not just a simple list provided or recommended by a regulatory agency;
b. chain-of-custody practices with internal and external quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) that start and end with the certified laboratory working with a trained third-party professional;
c. field documentation, including notes, field measurements, and photos, that includes a summary of the existing condition of the private water distribution system;
d. field sampling done by third-party samplers that are either licensed professionals or specifically trained in the standard operating procedures of the certified testing laboratory, plus these individuals must have a working understanding of common water treatment systems; and
e. prior to releasing the data, the certified laboratory must validate and review the data, plus work with the third-party professional to confirm or check the reliability and validity of the results.
As part of our outreach efforts, we have been able to review baseline testing conducted by multiple entities. Here is just one example for your consideration.
The sample was collected by a non-professional, third party sampler, tested by a certified testing laboratory, and then given by a natural gas company to a private well owner. The sample was collected only a few weeks before drilling started. The well owner was given a report with the raw data, spike and recovery analysis, surrogate testing results, field data sheet, and a full listing of the methods and the laboratory certifications. When the homeowner, a royalty owner, asked if there was any problems, we provided them a list.
1. The field conductivity was reported at 250 uS/cm, but the certified laboratory data had reported a total dissolved solids of 1500 mg/L;
2. The cation and anion mass balance was out of balance by over 25 %;
3. Total metal values less than dissolved metal values; and
4. The well had arsenic at over 10 times the primary drinking water standard, but this was never flagged as a problem for the private well owner.
This data is not scientifically valid and does not make sense. It may be certified, but it is wrong and there is no time to collect another pre-drill sample.
As professionals, we have the obligation to attempt to get it right and to properly inform citizens when a problem is identified. It is critical that we implement a process to screen the water quality data before it is distributed to the community. To build trust, the data must be provided to the private well owner in a format they can understand.
Baseline testing can be a valuable tool for the environmental professional, gas drilling industry, and community. With proper planning, baseline testing can used to determine where additional documentation or monitoring is needed and to determine the location of systems or wells vulnerable to influence.
In our opinion, baseline testing is not just part of an environmental audit, but in many ways, it is an opportunity for the company and consultant to build trust in the community. At the same time, the company is attempting to mitigate risk by documenting pre-existing conditions, the data collected during this baseline assessment should be used to make critical decisions related to the use of best management practices and build trust in the community through education and outreach.
Baseline testing is a community issue. We ALL live downstream and we need to solve problems as a community. This is a great opportunity to make a positive difference in your host community. Options for informational well water testing.
Support Groundwater Education in Pennsylvania and Consider Scheduling an Education Workshop for Your Community – just email bfenviro@ptd.net
Carbon County Groundwater Guardians is a 501(c)(3) IRS approved nonprofit, volunteer organization and your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law.
Water Well Pennsylvania testing offered to residents near drilling site
http://citizensvoice.com/news/well-testing-offered-to-residents-near-drilling-site-1.738187
Well testing offered to residents near drilling site
By Elizabeth Skrapits (Staff Writer)
Published: April 21, 2010
elizabeth skrapits / the citizens’ voice Brian Oram, a hydrogeologist from Wilkes University, talks about local geology Tuesday at the Lehman Township Fire Hall.
LEHMAN TWP. – Residents near a planned natural gas well site in Lake Township were advised Tuesday to take advantage of an opportunity to have their private wells tested.
Encana Oil & Gas USA Inc., in partnership with WhitMar Exploration Co., has selected the Salansky property on Sholtis Road in Lake Township as the site of the second of three proposed exploratory natural gas wells in Luzerne County.
State regulations require natural gas drilling companies to sample drinking water wells within 1,000 feet of their drilling sites, but Encana is testing within a 1-mile radius of its proposed drilling sites.
The companies plan to start drilling at the Lake Township site in July if they can receive the required permissions, Encana Spokeswoman Wendy Wiedenbeck said. The first site to be drilled will be the Buda property behind the Ricketts Glen Hotel in Fairmount Township, in June. Although the companies have required permits to drill at a third site, the Lansberry property in Lehman Township, Wiedenbeck said she is not sure when drilling will start there.
Encana has retained Lancaster-based RETTEW Associates Inc. as a third-party firm to do the sampling, and King-of-Prussia-based TestAmerica as its independent laboratory to do the tests.
Drilling will not start until the water testing is complete, Wiedenbeck said. The reason for the water testing is to establish a baseline, or show what is in peoples’ well water before the drilling starts.
A few residents expressed concern about a similar situation like that in Dimock Township, where 14 families’ wells were invaded by methane. The state Department of Environmental Protection fined Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., made the company cap three wells, and put a stop to more drilling within a 9-square-mile radius of the township for at least a year. The problem is believed to have been caused by a faulty well casing.
Encana will follow protocols so as not to repeat the mistakes of the other well operator, according to Wiedenbeck. Differences include two well casings, the first of which will go at least 50 feet below the nearest known water source.
“I don’t know if there’s anything I can say to erase the concern from another’s mistake,” Wiedenbeck said. “We will take steps so we do not impact the water.”
On questioning, Wiedenbeck admitted Encana may have had an impact to a water source – a stream – while drilling in Colorado, but said state environmental authorities were called immediately and the company implemented a new protocol afterwards.
Although people seem to have a lot of concerns about the hydraulic fracturing process, Wiedenbeck said the biggest concern should be about the well bore instead of 7,000 feet underground: the well bore integrity will prevent fluids and gas from migrating.
If Encana did impact residents’ water, the company would be responsible to make sure they had drinkable, usable water the same as before the incident, she said.
“I think they (Encana) danced around some of the questions, but the water testing is a good idea, at least to give us a baseline,” Jeffrey Chulick, who lives near the Lake Township site, said after the meeting when asked what he thought. “I’m not sure about the natural gas drilling, though.”
After the question-and-answer session with Encana, Wilkes University hydrogeologist Brian Oram gave a presentation on what’s underground and in the water in the region.
Oram, who is not involved with the water sampling or acting as a consultant to Encana – “My role isn’t to swing somebody either way,” as he put it – did advise people to have the water sampling done.
He said in his 20 years of doing baseline water testing in Luzerne County, he found 30 percent to 50 percent of private wells were contaminated. For example, methane was discovered in wells in Tunkhannock and Columbia County even before Marcellus Shale drilling started there, Oram said.
eskrapits@citizensvoice.com, 570-821-2072