Penn State Master Well Owner volunteer training opportunities in 2012
Penn State Extension will be offering several training workshops for new Master Well Owner Volunteers in 2012. The six week online course will begin on February 6, 2012. Two Saturday training workshops will also be offered this spring in McKean and Butler Counties. More details on these training workshops, including a link to the online application, are provided below.
Upcoming Training Opportunities for New Master Well Owner Volunteers Pennsylvania is home to over one million private water wells and springs but it is one of the few states that do not provide statewide regulations to protect these rural drinking water supplies. In 2004, Penn State Cooperative Extension and several partner agencies created the Master Well Owner Network (MWON), a group of trained volunteers who are dedicated to promoting the proper construction, testing, and maintenance of private water wells, springs and cisterns throughout Pennsylvania. Since its inception, hundreds of MWON volunteers have been trained in 64 counties throughout Pennsylvania. These volunteers have, in turn, educated tens of thousands of private water system owners across the state.
In 2012, persons interested in becoming a trained Master Well Owner volunteer will have three opportunities.
1) Online MWON volunteer training will occur between February 6, 2012 and March 19, 2012. Volunteers in the online training receive weekly emails containing links to relevant reading in the MWON handbook (A Guide to Private Water Systems in Pennsylvania), a 45-minute video presentation for each chapter, and a short online exam. Participants in online training will largely be able to determine their own training schedule. Volunteers with questions can attend one optional live online meeting at the end of the course. Participants must score a cumulative 70% on all of the online exams to be certified as a MWON volunteer.
2) A standard, Saturday MWON volunteer training workshop will be offered in Butler County (location TBA) on March 24, 2012 from 9 AM until 3:30 PM. Participants will hear presentations from Penn State water specialists, well drillers and other experts. As with the online course, volunteers at the Saturday workshops must score at least 70% on a final exam to be certified.
3) Another standard, Saturday MWON volunteer training workshop will be offered in Smethport, PA (McKean County) on April 21, 2012 from 9 AM to 3:30 PM.
Volunteers who successfully complete any of these training courses and pass the exam(s) will receive a free copy of the 80 page publication – A Guide to Private Water Systems in Pennsylvania, a coupon good for a 10% discount on water testing through the Penn State water testing lab, and access to various MWON educational materials. In return, MWON volunteers are asked to pass along what they have learned to other private water supply owners and submit an annual report of their educational accomplishments.
Prospective volunteers need to submit an application and be accepted into the program. Applications for the online course will only be accepted through January 31, 2012. Applications for the Saturday workshops will be accepted up to one week before the workshop. To be eligible for any MWON training, applicants must not be affiliated with any business that works directly with private water system owners such as employees of water well drilling companies, water testing laboratories or water treatment businesses.
To learn more and the Master Well Owner Network, visit
http://extension.psu.edu/water/mwon
To complete an application to participate in one of the MWON volunteer trainings listed above, visit
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/mwon_application
Note From Carbon County Groundwater Guardians – Consider coming back and helping our efforts – Looking for Volunteers Statewide.
For your information, we wanted to point out a few other resources
1. Mail Order Water Testing Kits or consider using a local water testing laboratory. The mail order testing is done by a Nationally Certified Laboratory and a portion of the proceeds that help support this organization.
2. New Education Guide for Private Well Owners in PA – What do the numbers mean and Insights into Baseline Water Testing? (Proceeds Benefit this Organization- free online read only version)
3. Our Online FREE Library of Pdf, videos, powerpoint presenations for private well owners.
4. Our New Flier
Penn State water-well expert testifies before state House committee
live.psu.edu/story/57083
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Bryan Swistock, senior water resources extension associate at Penn State, testified before the House Consumer Affairs Committee on problems with Pennsylvania water wells.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A Penn State Extension water specialist told a House committee on Jan. 10 that research has shown that about 40 percent of all water wells in the state fail to meet at least one safe-drinking-water standard.
Bryan Swistock, senior water resources extension associate at Penn State, testified before the House Consumer Affairs Committee in a hearing on House Bill 1855, which would create standards for water-well construction. Pennsylvania is currently one of just a few states that do not have statewide requirements for the construction of private water wells.
“While proper well construction does not completely eliminate water-quality problems, it clearly plays a role in preventing surface contaminants from getting into wells,” he said. “Our research has shown that inadequate water-well construction is a contributing factor to the failure of some private wells to meet safe-drinking-water standards.”
Swistock noted that for the past 23 years he has conducted both research and outreach programs offered by Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences related to private water wells in Pennsylvania.
“We recognize that private water wells are a critical part of the water infrastructure in Pennsylvania, providing drinking water to millions of residents in rural homes, farms and businesses,” he testified.
“In the absence of both regulatory protections and unbiased assistance, Penn State has devoted considerable research and extension efforts to meet the demands of private well owners interested in properly constructing and managing their drinking water supply.”
Over the past three decades, Swistock pointed out, the university has conducted numerous research projects on various aspects of water quality that have included thousands of private water wells.
“Our research has consistently found that approximately 40 percent of private water wells in Pennsylvania fail to meet at least one safe-drinking-water standard,” he said. “The most frequently detected pollutant with a potential health effect is coliform bacteria, which occurred in about one third of the water wells tested in our research.
“The presence of these bacteria indicates the potential for disease-causing bacteria to occur in drinking water. E. coli bacteria, which originate from either animal or human wastes and thus represent a more serious health risk, were found in 14 percent of the water wells in our recent study.”
While these bacteria can be related to various land uses near water wells, they also can occur from surface water, insects or small mammals entering poorly constructed wells, Swistock explained. This surface contamination often can be prevented by extending a properly sized well casing above the ground surface, installing a cement-like grout seal around the casing, and fitting the top of the casing with a vermin-proof or “sanitary” well cap.
According to Swistock, recent Penn State research found that many water wells lack at least one of these water well features. “More importantly, this same research showed a statistical correlation between water-well construction and the occurrence of both coliform bacteria and E. coli bacteria in the well water,” he said.
“Bacterial contamination rates in water wells with sanitary construction were about half of the rates found in water wells that lacked any sanitary construction components.”
An earlier, small-scale Penn State study found that some bacterial contamination in water wells could be removed simply by having a water-well professional disinfect the well and replace loosely fitted well caps with a sealed, sanitary well cap.
Unfortunately, many rural residents are unaware of water-quality problems, Swistock told the committee. Most bacteria problems and similar problems with health-related pollutants in water wells often are discovered only after proper testing by a state-accredited laboratory and interpretation of these water-test records.
“Several of our research projects have shown that homeowners with water wells that fail at least one health-based drinking water standard are typically unaware that their water is unsafe,” he said. “Just as one example, of the 203 water wells that contained unsafe levels of coliform bacteria in our 2006 study, only 11 percent were aware of this problem before our study.
“We have found that about one-third of water-well owners have never had their water tested properly by a state-accredited laboratory, and many who have done testing don’t understand the meaning of the results.”
Inadequate water well construction and the lack of awareness of water-quality problems by well owners represent significant potential health risks among the millions of rural residents, farmers and businesses that access the shared groundwater resource, Swistock concluded.
Webinar to look at the impacts of Marcellus gas play on Pa. forestland
live.psu.edu/story/56772#nw69
Friday, December 9, 2011
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A Web-based seminar sponsored by Penn State Extension and the College of Agricultural Sciences will examine how Marcellus Shale natural-gas development is affecting forestland in Pennsylvania.
The 75-minute webinar will begin at 1 p.m. on Dec. 15. Presenters will be Ellen Shultzabarger, chief of the Forest Resources Planning Section of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Tony Quadro, forester and assistant district manager for the Westmoreland County Conservation District.
“We’ll cover the impacts of gas activity on state forestlands and what we’ve done to reduce and minimize the effects of the Marcellus play on our forests,” Shultzabarger said. “Avoid, minimize, mitigate and monitor — that’s our approach.”
Shultzabarger said the session will highlight the policies and management practices the department follows to decrease the fragmentation and impact to state forestlands. “We’ll also discuss the lessons we have learned and practices we recommend for use in communities and on private lands.”
Quadro will focus on the impacts of Marcellus gas drilling on private forestlands and the issues affecting private forestland owners.
“The main topics of discussion will include factors that will impact your forest- management plan, such as the siting of pads, pipelines, waterlines and access roads on your property,” he said.
“I also will cover expectations for payment for standing timber, services of a professional consulting forester, Clean and Green Law status, timing of timber harvests, selling logs, and Marcellus gas development’s longterm impacts on private forestland.”
The webinar is part of a monthly series of online workshops addressing opportunities and challenges related to the state’s Marcellus Shale gas boom. Information about how to register for the session is available on the webinar page of Penn State Extension’s natural-gas website at http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas/webinars.
Future webinars will center on seismic testing, transportation patterns and impacts from Marcellus development, and municipalities’ roles related to water use and protection.”
Previous webinars, publications and information on topics such as air pollution from gas development; the gas boom’s effect on landfills; water use and quality; zoning; gas-leasing considerations for landowners; implications for local communities; gas pipelines and right-of-way issues; and legal issues surrounding gas development also are available on the Penn State Extension natural-gas website (http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas).
For more information, contact John Turack, extension educator based in Westmoreland County, at 724-837-1402 or by email at jdt15@psu.edu.
The Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research
The Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research (MCOR) is Penn State’s education and research initiative on unconventional gas plays. We serve state agencies, elected and appointed officials, communities, landowners, industry, environmental groups and other stakeholders. We are committed to expanding research capabilities on technical aspects of developing this resource and to providing science-based programming while protecting the Commonwealth’s water resources, forests and transportation infrastructure. MCOR is internally funded by the College of Agricultural Sciences, the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Penn State Institutes of Energy and the Environment and Penn State Outreach.
Maps
Publications
News & Announcements
The Co-Directors
Contact
About
Researchers: Pa. gas drilling study had error
www.timesleader.com/news/Researchers__Pa__gas_drilling_study_had_error_12-02-2011.html
December 2, 2011
Far less evidence of well contamination by bromides than first suggested.
PITTSBURGH — A recently released study on natural gas drilling and contamination of water wells, contentious issues as drillers swarm to a lucrative shale formation beneath Pennsylvania, had an error, according to researchers from Penn State University.
The researchers reported that there is far less evidence of well contamination by bromides, salty mineral compounds that can combine with other elements to cause health problems, than first suggested.
The researchers are reviewing the entire study, released in October, after discovering that results from an independent water testing lab contained the error.
One water well, not seven, showed increased bromide levels after drilling, the researchers said in a statement issued last week by The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a state-funded agency that first released the study.
One of the Penn State University researchers, Bryan Swistock, said in an email that the study didn’t go through an independent scientific peer review process because of a Center for Rural Pennsylvania policy that reports must first go to the General Assembly before outside publication.
The study is now being submitted for outside review, he said.
Patrick Creighton, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a gas industry group, said in an email that the error was “small” and that the key point is still that nearly 40 percent of the wells tested failed at least one water quality standard even before natural gas drilling started, along with nearly 20 percent that showed traces of methane before drilling.
The researchers said a corrected version of the study will be issued.
A gas drilling procedure called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves blasting chemical-laced water into the ground, has been studied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others as drillers flock to the Marcellus Shale region primarily beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio. Pennsylvania is the center of activity, with more than 3,000 wells drilled in the past three years and thousands more planned.
Environmentalists and other critics say fracking could poison water supplies, but the natural gas industry says it’s been used safely for decades.
Marcellus natural-gas presentation focuses on municipal experiences
live.psu.edu/story/56458#nw69
Friday, November 18, 2011
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A presentation detailing how municipal governments are dealing with the
The program will be offered at 12 locations across the state via video teleconference.
Marcellus Shale natural-gas boom will be offered by Penn State Extension from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Dec. 6.
“Marcellus Shale Development: The Pa. Municipal Experience to Date and Possibilities for the Future” will provide a venue for officials to share their breadth of experiences and knowledge. The registration fee for this program is $25. Preregistration is required to participate. The registration deadline is Dec. 3. To register or for more information, visit the Web at http://psu.ag/s1Nnjb or call toll-free 877-489-1398.
“By hearing about the lessons learned and actions taken by local officials, participants will be able to draw upon the experience of others when facing issues and considering decisions,” said program coordinator Neal Fogle, extension educator based in Snyder County specializing in economic and community development.
“Utilizing video teleconferencing and panels of local officials representing northcentral and southwest Pennsylvania, this program will provide insight into how select municipalities have reacted to and are planning for items such as land use, roads, budget and finance, communication needs, community cohesion and the stresses of public office.”
Program panelists include Raymond J. Stolinas Jr., Bradford County planning director; Ron Reagan, chairman, Athens Township supervisors (Bradford County); Joseph Reighard, president, Lycoming County Supervisors Association; Jim Morrison, chief administrator, municipality of Murrysville (Westmoreland County); Thomas Stull Jr., 1st vice president, Westmoreland County Supervisors Association; and Rich Ward, manager/zoning officer, Robinson Township (Washington County).
Jointly funded by Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania counties, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the program — which has been submitted to the American Planning Association for 2.5 AICP CM credits by the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Planning Association — will feature a question-and-answer session following the facilitated discussion.
“Marcellus Shale development in Pennsylvania has resulted in local municipalities having to make decisions and take actions on issues such as infrastructure, municipal services, regulatory controls and community planning,” Fogle said. “Municipalities throughout Pennsylvania have experienced various levels and stages of development as well as the community issues that result.
“These experiences have provided municipal officials with a unique perspective on how to more effectively address municipal and community needs and concerns related to natural-gas issues.”
The program will be offered at the following locations via video teleconference (contact the locations for directions):
–Beaver County: Penn State Extension, 2020 Beaver Ave., Suite 200, Monaca, 724-774-3003, http://beaver.extension.psu.edu/;
–Bradford County: Northern Tier Regional Planning and Development Commission, 312 Main Street, Towanda 888-868-8800, http:www.northerntier.org;
–Centre County: 217 Forest Resources Building, Penn State University Park campus, 814-223-9028, http://www.campusmaps.psu.edu/print/;
–Clearfield County: Penn State DuBois, College Place, DEF 202 & 204, DuBois, 800-346-7627, http://www.ds.psu.edu/Information/directions.htm?cn716;
–Lackawanna County: Penn State Worthington Scranton, Dawson 10, 120 Ridge View Drive, Dunmore, 570-963-2500, http://www.sn.psu.edu/Information/directions.htm?cn7;
–Lycoming County: Pennsylvania College of Technology, 1127 W. 4th St., Room 133, Williamsport, 570-327-4775, http://www.pct.edu/campuses/main_routes.htm;
–Potter County: Penn State Extension, 24 Maple View Lane, Suite 1, Coudersport, 814-274-8540, http://potter.extension.psu.edu;
–Somerset County: Penn State Extension, 6024 Glades Pike, Suite 101 , Somerset, 814-445-8911, Ext. 7, http://somerset.extension.psu.edu/;
–Susquehanna County: Penn State Extension, County Office Building, 81 Public Avenue, Montrose, 570-278-1158, http://susquehanna.extension.psu.edu;
–Tioga County: Penn State Extension, Courthouse Annex, 118 Main Street, Wellsboro, 570-724-9120, http://tioga.extension.psu.edu/;
–Washington County: Penn State Extension, 100 West Beau Street, Suite 601, Washington, 724-228-6881, http://washington.extension.psu.edu/;
–Westmoreland County: Penn State Extension, Donohoe Center, 214 Donohoe Road, Suite E, Greensburg, 724-837-1402, http://westmoreland.extension.psu.edu/.
For more information on Penn State Extension Marcellus Shale programs, visit Extension’s natural gas website at http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas.
Pesticide-resistant weeds closing in on Pennsylvania
live.psu.edu/story/56464#nw69
Friday, November 18, 2011
Credit: USDA Early growth stage of water-hemp, a weed that is becoming resistant to certain herbicides.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — The challenge of weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate — the active ingredient in Round-Up herbicide — has become an evolving national threat, with new challenges emerging and spreading annually. At least three glyphosate-resistant species on the horizon for Pennsylvania require new strategies to combat them, according to a specialist in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences.
Penn State Extension weed scientist Dwight Lingenfelter said several resistant species currently are approaching Pennsylvania. These weeds were controlled routinely over the years with glyphosate-based herbicide programs, but now the effectiveness of those programs is dwindling.
“There’s a species called Palmer pigweed or Palmer amaranth, which is a huge problem — especially in cotton-growing regions,” he said. “In the past, farmers were spending only maybe $20 to $30 an acre to control pigweed; now they’re up over $90 to $100 an acre, because of its resistance to a number of herbicide modes of action.
“Currently, we don’t have any major outbreaks of it in Pennsylvania, but we’re hearing reports from Delaware and Maryland that they’re starting to find Palmer pigweed, and it’s more than likely to creep into our cropping systems, especially in the southern tier of the state.”
Lingenfelter said a second resistant species slowly invading the state, water-hemp, already is creating big problems in the Midwest and South and is resistant to numerous herbicides as well.
“We had a person bring in a sample of water-hemp this summer, so we know there are some populations in our state currently,” he said. “We’re also seeing glyphosate-resistant species of horseweed or marestail spreading throughout the state — it’s very common in the mid-Atlantic region and Midwestern states.”
While it might sound like it’s losing its effectiveness, glyphosate is still vital in “burn-down” weed-control programs, which work by killing any vegetation on a treated field.
“It’s still a very effective herbicide for a number of species in our area,” he said. “It controls a number of weeds in the burn-down period and still is a foundation or backbone for many weed-control programs. We recommend using other herbicides in combination with it to control weeds that aren’t being controlled by glyphosate alone.
“We work with farmers to explain various programs that use different techniques and management options in a situation like that,” he said. “Generally, we recommend that if you’re using glyphosate in the burn-down, you also should use something such as 2-4-D or a product like Valor XLT Sharpen prior to planting soybeans. We also encourage tank-mixing herbicides or using pre-packaged products so multiple modes of action are in the weed-control program.”
The mode of action is the way an herbicide affects the weed to kill it, Lingenfelter explained. “There are about 10 different major modes of action available, and you can combine those to get control of the particular species you’re going after. We highly recommend having at least two modes of action that act on that particular weed species.”
Newer herbicide products introduced in the last five years can help control resistant species in burn-down programs. But Lingenfelter pointed out that, while “new” products are being introduced on the market, the industry hasn’t produced a formulation that employs a new mode of action in more than 15 years.
“The reality is that many companies are repackaging products and giving them different trade names so it looks like we have a lot of new herbicides when in reality we do not. And if they were to discover a new mode of action in some lab today, we wouldn’t reap the benefits of it for at least 10 years, because it takes that long to get through all of the testing phases and field trials before it would hit the market.”
Lingenfelter said the diversity and rotation of crops grown in Pennsylvania gives it an advantage over states in the Midwest and South when it comes to fighting resistant weeds. Corn, cotton and soybeans are the primary field crops in the Midwest and South, and more than 90 percent of the acres are sprayed with glyphosate, so weeds are pushed to develop resistance.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we typically rotate between corn, soybeans, alfalfa, small grains and sometimes various vegetable crops, depending on the area of the state,” he said. “Because of this, we use a variety of weed-control methods. Not only does this allow for different herbicides and a rotation of herbicide modes of action, but it allows for other weed-management techniques — such as mowing forage crops or the addition of cover crops — and other cultural tactics such as variations in planting date, seeding rate or row spacing.
“We still use a lot of Round-Up-ready corn and soybeans, but glyphosate is not the primary means of control. Also, different types of weeds are common in different crops depending on life cycles and growth habit. Our diverse rotations should hold off resistance pretty well, but we’ll have to start thinking about different techniques to handle it.”
Lingenfelter said Pennsylvania growers can learn a lesson from watching the experience of their neighbors in states to the south and west. “The majority of the resistance problem in these other regions is they were relying on a single mode of action — that being glyphosate.”
For more information, contact Dwight Lingenfelter at 814-865-2242 or dxl18@psu.edu.
Webinar to look at natural gas development’s effect on agriculture
live.psu.edu/story/56136#nw69
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A Web-based seminar sponsored by Penn State Extension will examine how Marcellus Shale natural-gas development is affecting agriculture in Pennsylvania.
The 75-minute webinar will be held at 1 p.m. on Nov. 10. Presenters will be Gary Sheppard and Mark Madden, extension educators based in Westmoreland and Sullivan counties, respectively, who have extensive experience dealing with Marcellus Shale natural-gas drilling impacts on agriculture in their regions.
Sheppard will explore the impact natural gas wells have on farms from four perspectives. “Those include financial, family, farmstead and social,” he said. “I will discuss some planning considerations for the business plan of the farm and highlight the assistance available from organizations such as USDA’s Farm Service Agency and from resources such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement and Farmland Preservation programs.”
Sheppard noted that he also will touch on how some farmers who are embracing holistic concepts of sustainability are struggling to decide how Marcellus drilling fits into their values.
Madden intends to review several case studies of farmers and farms near Marcellus gas-drilling operations.
“I want to capture some of the personal considerations and choices farmers are dealing with,” he said.
The webinar is part of a series of online workshops addressing opportunities and challenges related to the state’s Marcellus Shale gas boom. Information about how to register for the session is available on the webinar page of Penn State Extension’s natural-gas website at http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas/webinars.
Titles of upcoming monthly webinars include “Natural Gas Development’s Impact on Forestlands,” “Seismic Testing: What’s It All About?” “Transportation Patterns and Impacts from Marcellus Development,” and “Municipalities’ Roles, Water Use, and Protections.”
Previous webinars, publications and information on topics such as air pollution from gas development; the gas boom’s effect on landfills; water use and quality; zoning; gas-leasing considerations for landowners; implications for local communities; gas pipelines and right-of-way issues; and legal issues surrounding gas development also are available on the Penn State Extension natural-gas website (http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas).
For more information about the webinar, contact John Turack, extension educator based in Westmoreland County, at 724-837-1402 or by email at jdt15@psu.edu.
Critic disputes Penn State findings and thinks potential well water contamination overlooked
www.timesleader.com/news/Study__Gas_drilling_not_polluting_water_11-04-2011.html
Posted: November 4
By Steve Mocarsky smocarsky@timesleader.com
Staff Writer
Study: Gas drilling not polluting water
The natural gas industry is pointing to a Penn State University study to boost its mantra that gas drilling is not linked to pollution of water wells.
But a drilling critic says the study found increased levels of a harmful chemical in water wells after gas drilling occurred nearby. He thinks other aspects of the study overlooked potential well water contamination.
“The Impact of Marcellus Gas Drilling on Rural Drinking Water Supplies” was authored by Penn State water quality experts led by Elizabeth Boyer, associate professor of water resources, director of the Pennsylvania Water Resources Research Center and assistant director of the Penn State Institutes of Energy & Environment.
The research was sponsored by a grant from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a bipartisan legislative agency within the state General Assembly. The goal was a large-scale study of water quality in private water wells in rural Pennsylvania before and after nearby Marcellus Shale drilling.
For the study, the researchers evaluated water sampled from 233 water wells near gas wells in 2010 and 2011. The first phase focused on 48 private water wells located within 2,500 feet of a nearby shale well pad. The second phase focused on 185 private water wells located within 5,000 feet of a shale well pad.
During the first phase, researchers collected pre- and post-drilling water well samples and analyzed them for water quality. In the second phase, researchers or homeowners collected only post-drilling water well samples and analyzed them for water quality. The post-drilling analyses were compared with existing pre-drilling test records.
John Krohn, spokesman for Energy In Depth Northeast Marcellus Initiative, noted excerpts from the report that said analysis of the water tests “did not suggest major influences from gas well drilling (or hydraulic fracturing) on nearby water wells.”
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of water, sand and chemical additives deep underground to extract natural gas trapped in shale rock.
The study also found no clear link between methane migration and natural gas production, Krohn said.
Methane is a gas that some residents living near gas wells have lit on fire as it escaped from their kitchen faucets along with their well water.
Krohn also noted 40 percent of the water wells tested failed at least one safe drinking water standard, mostly for coliform bacteria, turbidity and manganese, before drilling occurred. This shows a need for uniform water well construction standards that don’t exist in Pennsylvania, as well as a need for education of water well owners.
Dr. Tom Jiunta, founder of the local Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, said study findings of increased levels of bromide and sediment/metal levels in wells after drilling/fracking were of particular concern to him.
“This finding alone shows that many wells near drilling sites are impacted by migration of underwater brines and possible drilling muds, both hazardous to drinking water supplies,” he said.
Bromide itself is not a health threat, but elevated levels “can create an indirect health issue as it may combine with other elements in water to cause carcinogenic compounds,” the report states.
Jiunta said nearly 80 percent of the water wells were not pre-tested for methane, bromide or oil/grease because well owners couldn’t afford the expensive tests. “This skews the data,” he said.
Jiunta also said the study considers only short-term changes in well water after nearby gas wells were drilled – less than three-month time periods. He said that time period is “inadequate for determining contamination,” citing a Temple University engineering professor who said most problems with underground water contamination would most likely take several years to be detected.
The Penn State study was released as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency begins a federal probe into whether hydraulic fracturing is spoiling and diminishing drinking water supplies.
The agency’s final study plan was released Thursday. The first results will be available in 2012.
Study looks at water quality in private wells near Marcellus drilling
live.psu.edu/story/55987#nw69
October 25, 2011
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A study of more than 200 drinking-water wells near Marcellus Shale natural-gas
Bryan Swistock, extension water resource specialist, led the first 'unbiased and large-scale study of water quality in private water wells .. both before and after the drilling of Marcellus gas wells nearby.'
wells in 20 counties did not find statistically significant evidence of contamination from hydraulic fracturing — a process used by gas drillers to release natural gas using a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemical additives.
The study was conducted by researchers and extension educators in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences. The research was funded by the state General Assembly’s Center for Rural Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Water Resources Research Center at Penn State. A free online seminar focusing on the study results will take place from noon to 1 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 1. Information about how to register for the live webinar can be found at http://extension.psu.edu/water/webinar-series/schedule online. A recorded version will be available for those who cannot log in for the live offering.
“This is the first project to provide an unbiased and large-scale study of water quality in private water wells used to supply drinking water to rural homes and farms both before and after the drilling of Marcellus gas wells nearby,” said project leader Bryan Swistock, water resources extension specialist.
Conducted from February 2010 to July 2011, the study found methane in about a quarter of the water wells before any drilling occurred, but the concentrations were generally below advisory levels for treatment, Swistock said. The presence of methane can be naturally occurring or related to drilling activity.
“We really didn’t see any significant changes in methane levels after drilling or hydraulic fracturing,” he added.
There is no federal drinking water standard for methane as it can be ingested without harm, but high levels can cause an explosion hazard as the dissolved methane escapes from water.
Elevated levels of dissolved bromide were measured in some water wells and appeared to be a result of the gas-well drilling process and not hydraulic fracturing.
“Bromide was not detected in any of the water wells before drilling, but it did show up in several wells after drilling, which needs to be investigated further,” Swistock said.
The study’s modest number of samples for methane and bromide and the relatively short length of the study speak to the need for additional data collection and analysis, Swistock pointed out.
“Future research should look at a broader number of water contaminants over a longer period of time,” Swistock said. “More detailed and longer-term studies are critical to ensuring that Pennsylvanians’ private water supplies are protected.”
Wells in the study were not randomly selected. Project publicity solicited participation from well owners who knew gas drilling was going to occur near them, and many responded by contacting Swistock or other project investigators working for Penn State Extension.
“Our network of Penn State Extension educators throughout the state was absolutely critical to the efficient completion of this project,” Swistock said.
The first phase of the study included 48 private water wells located within about 2,500 feet of a Marcellus well pad. These wells were tested by Penn State researchers both before and after gas-well drilling. Twenty-six of the 48 were near Marcellus wells that were drilled and fracked, 16 sites had drilling but no fracking, and six sites were controls where no drilling or fracking occurred.
These wells were tested for 18 common water-quality parameters that could occur from gas-drilling activity, including chloride, barium, sodium, iron, manganese, methane, ethane, bromide, and oil and grease.
The second phase was comprised of 185 additional private water wells located within about 5,000 feet of a Marcellus well pad. Homeowners provided water test results collected by independent, state-accredited laboratories prior to Marcellus gas-well drilling. These tests then were compared with samples collected by Penn State personnel or by homeowners trained by Penn State personnel after gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing occurred.
Phase two included 173 sites near hydraulically fractured gas wells and 12 control sites where no drilling had occurred with five miles. These wells were tested for 14 common water quality parameters — methane, ethane, bromide and oil and grease were not included due to funding and sample-collection constraints.
Separate statistical analyses of results from each phase of the project produced similar results, according to Swistock.
In addition to the increased bromide concentrations in some water wells, a small number of water wells examined in the study also appeared to be affected by disturbance due to drilling, as evidenced by sediment and/or increased levels of iron and manganese that were noticeable to the water-supply owner and confirmed by water-testing results.
“While most water wells, even within 3,000 feet of a Marcellus well, did not have changes in water quality after drilling or hydraulic fracturing, that was the distance where we did sporadically measure increased bromide, sediment or metals. This seems to be the distance that we need to focus on for future testing and research,” Swistock said.
In addition to future research directions, the study also identified critical education needs for owners of private water wells. Most water-well owners had difficulty interpreting detailed water-test reports that they received as part of pre-drilling surveys, according to the researchers.
“As a result, most homeowners with pre-drilling water-quality problems were unable to identify them even after receiving extensive water-testing reports,” Swistock said. “There is a clear need to help homeowners understand pre-drilling problems, their risks and how to solve them.”
Other investigators on this project were Elizabeth Boyer, associate professor of water resources and director of the Pennsylvania Water Resources Research Center in the School of Forest Resources; James Clark, extension educator based in McKean County; Mark Madden, extension educator based in Sullivan County; and Dana Rizzo, extension educator based in Westmoreland County.
The full initial report and executive summary of this study are available on the Center for Rural Pennsylvania’s website at http://www.rural.palegislature.us/. The investigators currently are preparing this work to submit for publication in the peer-reviewed literature.