[Add your own pictures here]

Wastewater Characteristics from Marcellus Shale Gas Development in Pennsylvania

Managing the Risks of Shale Gas Development Resources for the Future Washington, DC

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Purpose of this from shale gaswork development • Statistically analyze characteristics of flowback, produced water, and drilling fluid waste sent to wastewater treatment facilities in PA, 2008-2011. • If recycling, treatment, and disposal options involve exposure to the environment/human health, knowledge of wastewater constituents helps quantify risks. • Results may be useful in: • Evaluating current and future wastewater treatment technologies, infrastructure capacity, and siting. • Understanding potential impacts of treated wastewater on rivers and streams. • Setting effluent standards 2

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Comparison withdevelopment Other Analyses from shale gas • Marcellus Shale Water Characterization funded by Marcellus Shale Coalition and ASWCMC Consortia. • Consistent sampling from 19 locations, analysis performed by a single lab, flowback samples at 0, 1, 5, 14, 90 days.

• GE also has a database (data from various shales).

• Data in our analysis are publicly available, focus on waste sent to treatment facilities (rather than recycling, deep injection), include drilling fluid waste and other categories.

3

RFF Source: project focuses on environmental risks Data Form 26R, submitted from shaleby gas development to PADEP “residual waste” generators • Generator information • Waste description (pH range, physical state, appearance) • Chemical analysis attachments • Process description, schematic diagrams • Management of residual waste – location information for processing/disposal facilities, information about beneficial use

• Certification

4

414 415 416

Ceramic Waste Linoleum Wastes Thermal Insulation Wastes (Cellulose, Glass, Wool) Wiring, Conduit, Electrical Insulation Sawdust, Wood Shavings/Turnings Empty Containers (Metallic, Non-Metallic Drums, Pails) Process Wastewaters (Non-Haz) (Do Not Report Sanitary Sewage Or Uncontaminated NonAContact company Cooling that Water)generates > 2200 Contaminated Non-Contact waste Cooling Waters pounds of residual from a Oil/Water Emulsions, Oily Wastewaters Landfill Leachatelocation” in a single “generating Treated Wood, Railroad Ties month during the Wastewater calendarTreatment year Food Waste (Excluding Sludge)file a Form26R by March 1 of must Resins the following year. Polymers (Other Than 407, 409) Vinyl (Sheet, Upholstery) Spent Filters (Air/Gas) Spent Filters (Aqueous)industrial waste Non-hazardous Spent Filters (Non-Haz Fuel, Oil, Solvent) Paint Filters, Other Cloth/Paper Filters, Supersacs Individual chemical analysis Grease Refractory (Furnace, Boiler) (Other Than required for each waste type103) (DEP Carbon/Graphite Residue/Scrap waste codes) Baghouse Dust (Other Than 105, 106) Blasting Abrasive/Residue (Other Than 109) Gypsum Plaster Molds, Drywall Other Generic Waste

Tanks Scrap From Maintenance And Product Turnaround Batteries (Non-Haz) Grinding Wheels, Sanding Disks, Polishing Belts, Welding Rods, Broken Tools Plant Trash Other Maintenance Waste

RFF project focuses on environmental risks When is a Form 26R required? from shale gas development

417 418 419 420

• 421 422 423 424 430 440 450 460 470 471 • 472 473

• 474 480 481 482 483 484 499

SPECIAL HANDLING WASTES 501

Asbestos Containing Waste (insulation, brake lining, etc.)

702 703 704 710 799

NON-COAL MINING, OIL AND GAS, AND OTHER WELL DRILLING WASTES 801

802 803

804

807

808

809 810

Drilling Fluids, Residuals (other than those under 802-810; includes drill cuttings from monitoring well and drinking water well construction) Brine (natural salt water separated at oil and gas wells) Drilling Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling mud, other drilling fluids other than fracing fluid and spent lubricant) Fracing Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling fracturing fluid, flow-back fracturing fluid, flowback fracturing sand) Basic Sediment (oil and gas production storage impurities, sediment from produced oil at storage tank battery) Servicing Fluid (oil and gas production well maintenance/work over fluids, oil/water-based mud and foam) Spent Lubricant Waste (spent oil and gas drilling lubricants, spent plug drilling lubricants) Drill Cuttings (oil and gas drill cuttings)

MISCELLANEOUS 901 902

5 Auto Shredder Fluff Non-Hazardous Residue From Treatment Of

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Form 26R Required Analytes for from shale gas development Marcellus Shale or Other Gas Wells Chemical Oxygen Demand Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) Chlorides Acidity

Magnesium

Silver

Manganese

Sodium

Aluminum

Chromium

MBAS (Surfactants)

Specific Conductance

Ammonia Nitrogen

Cobalt

Mercury

Strontium

Arsenic

Copper

Molybdenum

Sulfates

Barium

Ethylene Glycol

Nickel

Thorium

Benzene

Gross Alpha

Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen Toluene

Beryllium Biochemical Oxygen Demand Boron

Gross Beta Hardness (Total as CaCO3) Iron – Dissolved

Oil & Grease

Total Dissolved Solids

pH

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Phenolics (Total)

Total Suspended Solids

Bromide

Iron – Total

Radium 226

Uranium

Cadmium

Lead

Radium 228

Zinc

Calcium

Lithium

Selenium

Additional constituents that are expected or known to be present in the wastewater. 6

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Data Collection from shale gas development

N = 11 N = 85

N=8

N = 74

N: number of laboratory reports in our database

7

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Dataset Summary from shale gas development Variable laboratory report company well well with location info. wastewater treatment facilities

wastewater treatment facilities with location info. Sample year

Count 178 22 104 95 37

21 Freq.

2009 2010 2011 NA

75 77 18 8

Total

178

8

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Categories of Chemicals from shale gas development • Lab samples are tested for a total of 432 different analytes that we are able to identify in the data, in the following categories: • • • • •

General chemicals Organics Pesticides Metals Radioactive Materials

• Only 198 of these analytes are actually measured in one or more samples (many NAs, NDs, BDLs). 9

RFF projectoffocuses environmental risks Comparison Generalon Chemicals gas development in from Brineshale and Fracking Fluid Waste

10

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Comparison of Metals in from shale gas development Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste

11

RFF projectoffocuses on environmental risks Comparison Organics gas development infrom Brineshale and Fracking Fluid Waste

12

RFF projectoffocuses onOccurring environmental risks Comparison Naturally Radioactive from shale gas development Materials in Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste

13

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Waste Shipments: Cl- Concentrations from shale gas development at Wells and Treatment Facilities

14

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Preliminary Conclusions from shale gas development • High chemical concentrations are observed pretreatment, emphasizing need for effective treatment. • When barium is detected (92% of samples), median concentration is > 40 times Pennsylvania’s wastewater effluent standard and > 200 times the SDWA maximum contaminant level for barium. • Concentrations of chloride, TDS, bromide, radium-228 and strontium in pretreatment wastewater are also far higher than either wastewater effluent standards or drinking water standards.

• Wastewater composition is highly variable over the course of the shale gas extraction process -- a challenge for effective treatment and management. • Form26 filed once/year/waste type/generating location – constituent concentrations could vary even within this temporal/spatial window. 15

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Preliminary Conclusions, cont. from shale gas development • Produced water has very different composition than flowback, typically having higher chloride, TDS and radium-228 concentrations. Obviously more difficult to recycle, requiring different technology/higher costs. • Many constituents may be effectively removed by chemical waste treatment facilities currently treating this waste (e.g., metals); others may not (e.g., salts). • Further research on potential risks from wastewater treatment and release to rivers and streams is warranted. 16

Thank you!

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Life Cycle of Water from shale gas development Drilling fluid additives

Sampling location

Onsite treatment

Clean water Chemicals Wastewater

Drilling

Recycling

Pound/ tank

Mixing tank

Surface water fracing fluid additives

Groundwater

Chemicals Onsite treatment

Deep well injection

Flowback water Pound/ Hydraulic fracturing tank

Surface discharge

Produced water

Pound/ tank

Offsite WWTF Chemicals

Other high value reuse

18

landfill

RFF project on environmental Fracing Fluidfocuses Waste (Flowback) and risks from shale gas development Brine (Produced Water) Fracing Fluid Waste (Flowback)

Complete fracking

The length of flowback can be from 2 weeks to one month or longer. It varies by developer.

Brine (Produced Water)

Connect wellhead to gas pipe to start production

Some reports don’t distinguish them using above method, but call them all flowback and distinguish them by days after fracing completion. For example, completion day 0, 1, 3, 5, 14, 30 and 90. We use 30 days as a cut off to assign waste type and code for these reports. 19

RFF project focuses on environmental risks Compare Form 26R and MSC Results from shale gas development F26R_802 F26R_804 Produced

MSC Study Parameter pH Alkalinity TDS TSS TOC BOD Oil & Grease Sodium Calcium Magnesium Iron Barium Chloride

Influent 7.2 52.5 334 9.6 3.8 149 31

5-Day Flowback 6.6 138 67300 99 62.8 2.8