Porterville incident map
Karen Edelstein

Mysterious leak near Porterville Compressor Station, NY

/by

Last month, FracTracker Alliance featured a blog entry and map exploring the controversy around National Fuel’s proposed Northern Access Pipeline (NAPL) project, shown in the map below. The proposed project, which has already received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), is still awaiting another decision by April 7, 2017 — Section 401 Water Quality Certification. By that date, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) must give either final approval, or else deny the project.

Northern Access Pipeline Map

View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

The NAPL project includes the construction of 97-mile-long pipeline to bring fracked Marcellus gas through New York State, and into Canada. The project also involves construction of a variety of related major infrastructure projects, including a gas dehydration facility, and a ten-fold expansion of the capacity of the Porterville Compressor Station located at the northern terminus of the proposed pipeline, in Erie County, NY.

On three consecutive days in early February, 2017, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) held hearings in Western New York to gather input about the NAPL project. On February 7th, the day of the first meeting at Saint Bonaventure University in Allegany County, NY, an alarming — and yet to be fully reported — incident widely considered to be a gas leak, occurred at, or near, the Porterville Compressor Station (also known locally as the “Elma Compressor Station”). The incident is thought to be connected to the planned upgrades to the facility, but was not even mentioned as a concern during the public meetings relating to the Northern Access Pipeline in the subsequent hours and days.

What follows is a story of poor communication between the utility company, first responders, and local residents, resulting in confusion and even panic, and has yet to be conclusively explained to the general public.

Incident Description

Area of incident

Area of incident in NY State

We know that a little past 10 AM on February 7th, people in the villages of Elma and East Aurora, within about a mile of the Porterville Compressor Station, reported strong odors of gas. They filed complaints with the local gas utility (National Fuel), and the local 911 center, which referred the calls to the local Elma Fire Department. The fire department went to the Porterville Compressor station to investigate, remembering a similar incident from a few years earlier. At the compressor station, representatives from National Fuel, the operator of the compressor station, assured the fire company that they were conducting a routine flushing of an odorant line, and the situation was under control, so the fire company departed.

Residents in the area became more alarmed when they noticed that the odor was stronger outside their buildings than inside them. National Fuel then ordered many residents to evacuate their homes. The East Aurora police facilitated the evacuation and instructed residents to gather in the East Aurora Library not far from those homes. Nearby businesses, such as Fisher Price, headquartered in East Aurora, chose to send their employees home for the day, due to the offensive odor and perceived risks.

Around 11:30 in the morning, up to 200 clients at Suburban Adult Services, Inc. (SASi), were evacuated to the Jamison Road Fire Station, where they remained until around 3 PM that afternoon. Over 200 reports were received, some from as far away as Orchard Park, eight miles down-wind of the compressor station.

After East Aurora elementary and middle schools placed complaints, National Fuel told them to evacuate students and staff from their buildings. Realizing that the smell was stronger outside than inside the building, school leaders revised their plans, and started to get buses ready to transport student to the high school, where there had not been reports of the odor. Before the buses could load, however, the police department notified the school that the gas leak had been repaired, and that there was no need to evacuate. School officials then activated the school’s air circulation system to rid the building of the fumes.

Perplexingly, according to one report, National Fuel’s Communications Manager Karen Merkel said “that the company did not reach out into the community to tell people what was going on because the company cannot discourage anyone from making an emergency gas call.”

Merkel noted further, “You never know if the smell being reported is related to work we are doing or another gas leak,” she said. “This wouldn’t be determined until we investigate it.”

That smell…

Some background on gas leaks & odorant additives

Ethyl mercaptan molecule

Ethyl mercaptan molecule

An odorant, such as ethyl mercaptan, is often added to natural gas in order to serve as an “early warning system” in the event of a leak from the system. Odorants like mercaptan are especially effective because the humans can smell very low concentrations of it in the air. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, “The level of distinct odor awareness (LOA) for ethyl mercaptan odorant is 1.4 x10-4 ppm,” or 0.00014 parts per million. That translates to 0.000000014 percent by volume.

Not all natural gas is odorized, however. According to Chevron Phillips, “mercaptans are required (by state and federal regulations) to be added to the gas stream near points of consumption as well as in pipelines that are near areas with certain population density requirements, per Department of Transportation regulations… Not all gas is odorized, though; large industrial users served by transmission lines away from everyday consumers might not be required to use odorized gas.” Also, because odorants tend to degrade or oxidize when gas is travelling a long distance through transmission lines, they are not always added to larger pipeline systems.

The explosion and flammability concentration limit for natural gas refers to the percentage range at which a gas will explode. At very low concentrations, the gas will not ignite. If the concentration is too high, not enough oxygen is present, and the gas is also stable. This is why gas in non-leaky pipelines does not explode, but when it mixes with air, and a spark is present, the result can be disastrous. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, has a lower explosive level (LEL) of 4.4% and an upper explosive limit (UEL) (above which it will not ignite) of 16.4%. Nonetheless, levels above 1% are still worrisome, and may still be good cause for evacuation.

Therefore, the margin of safety between when natural gas is detectable with an odorant present, and when it may explode, is very broad. This may help to explain why the smell of gas was detected over such a broad distance, but no explosion (very fortunately) took place.

Local memories of gas explosion in East Aurora

Many East Aurora residents have had first-hand experience with the dangers posed by gas lines in their community. Less than 25 years ago, in  September 1994, a high-pressure pipeline owned by National Fuel ruptured in an uninhabited area between East Aurora and South Wales along Olean Rd. The blast left a 10-foot-deep, 20-foot-wide crater, and tree limbs and vegetation were burned as far as 50 feet away.

Porterville first-hand accounts and inquiries

FracTracker spoke extensively with one resident of East Aurora, Jennifer Marmion, about her experiences, and efforts to understand what had actually happened the day of this incident.

When personnel from the Jamison Fire Company — who are assumed to be first responders to emergencies of this sort — arrived at the Porterville Compressor Station, they were told by National Fuel that there was no hazard and that their services were not needed. Consequently, these crews left the site. The East Aurora Police Department was given a different explanation by National Fuel; there was a valve malfunction somewhere along Two Rod Road in Marilla. Still later, National Fuel indicated that the pipeline changeover occurred closer to the compressor station itself. The closest distance between anywhere on Two Rod Road and the compressor station, itself, is a mile and a half. And Ms. Marmion was given a still different story by a National Fuel engineer: that the odor, indeed, resulted during the replacement of a 100-foot-long section of aging pipeline at the Porterville (“Elma”) Compressor Station.

Key locations in incident report

Key locations in incident report

Some reports indicated an alternate explanation: that the odor originated at the East Aurora Town Hall (J. Marmion, pers. comm., via Channel 7 News), or a leaky valve along a pipeline near Marilla (J. Marmion, pers. comm, via East Aurora Police Department dispatcher). A member of the East Aurora Fire Department surmised that the leak might have been closer to Olean Road, south of the village, where there was a history of other leaks. The day after the incident, National Fuel indicated that the odor originated from the compressor station, and was the result of a routine, scheduled “blowdown” by National Fuel — wherein gas lines at the compressor station are cleared as part of routine maintenance. However, when pressed for more details, they did not provide them.

In need of follow up

More than six weeks have passed since the incident, and there is still no definitive explanation available. Clearly, there was considerable confusion about what the correct, and safe, procedure needed to be, as well as how this information needed to flow to the public. Ultimately, a representative from National Fuel’s Government Affairs office agreed that he would alert the local towns and fire departments when maintenance activities would be occurring. It is surprising that this was not already standard practice.

Although Ms. Marmion is continuing to be a determined citizen activist, she has been met with a frustrating array of ambiguous and often conflicting descriptions, phone calls that go un-answered, voice mailboxes at offices that are either full or not set up to receive messages. Furthermore, although National Fuel has told Marmion that there is an Action Plan to be followed in the event of an emergency, they have been unable to provide her with a written or electronic version of this document, because “the action plan is just known.”

National Fuel points to the weather

National Fuel maintains that the only factor that was out of the ordinary was that during the event, a combination of unusual weather factors caused the released gas to travel in an unusual manner and also not dissipate as quickly as expected. National Fuel also indicated that the strong odor (created by the additive mercaptan) was a benefit to the local community, added to natural gas so that residents would be alerted to problems. It’s important to note that the largest gas transmissions pipelines, like the nearby 26” diameter Tennessee Gas Pipeline to the east of Elma and East Aurora, as well other pipelines that will run to the greatly expanded Porterville Compressor Station as part of the Northern Access Pipeline project, will be without the odorant.

Here’s what FracTracker could verify, based on National Weather Service, and Weather Underground historical data. In the morning and afternoon of February 7th, the wind was uncharacteristically blowing from the east/northeast — atypical for western New York, when winds normally come from the west. Wind speeds were recorded between 10-15 mph. Humidity was also uncharacteristically high for February — topping out at 93% that day. Warm air aloft, combined with freezing rain, created a temperature inversion. The moist air then trapped the odor, which lingered across the region.

weather_feb72017

feb72017_wind-data

Screen captures of weather statistics on February 7, 2017 (Source: wunderground.com). Note dominant wind direction from ENE, as well as high humidity, during morning and early afternoon, when incident took place.

Who monitors air quality in Western New York?

Calls by FracTracker for clarification from the New York State DEC’s Division of Air Resources have gone unanswered. The only station at which the DEC monitors methane is located more than 275 miles away to the southeast, in the Bronx. In Erie County, where the incident took place, there are only four permanent ambient air pollution monitoring stations. These include stations in:

  • Amherst: Continuous monitoring of ozone, NO2. Manual monitoring of PM5, acid deposition.
  • Buffalo: Continuous monitoring of SO2, NOx, NO, NO2, NOy, CO, CPM5. Manual monitoring of PM2.5, PM10, toxics
  • Brookside Terrace/Tonawanda: Continuous monitoring of SO2, CPM5. Manual monitoring of toxics and carbonyls
  • Grand Island (special purpose only): Continuous monitoring of CPM5. Manual monitoring of toxics and carbonyls

“PM” refers to particulate matter diameter. PM5, for example, denotes particulate matter 5 microns in diameter, and smaller.

The East Aurora and Elma fire departments lack the appropriate air quality detection instruments to make their own judgements on the explosive nature of these gas plumes. Instead, small towns rely on the expertise of National Fuel to arrive on the scene after a call has been made, so that National Fuel can take measurements and then respond to the community. Some residents waited over three hours for an assessment, but by this time the plume had drifted away two hours ago.

National Fuel, however, has not disclosed any of the air quality data measurements they made on February 7th when they responded to this complicated incident. Ms. Marmion and others still want to know what levels of methane were measured in the communities involved in this incident, or the specific quantity of gas that entered the air that day.

What’s next?

While National Fuel did not notify the residents or the school district administration in advance of the scheduled “blowdown,” their Government Affairs Representative indicated that in the future, town governments, community leaders, and the local fire companies would be alerted to the upcoming releases and maintenance work. Nonetheless, weeks after the odor incident, National Fuel has neither contacted the local community leaders, nor local law enforcement, to provide complete and detailed answers as to what actually happened on February 7th.

By Karen Edelstein, Eastern Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance. Special thanks to East Aurora resident Jennifer Marmion, for her insights and comments. 

Re-imagine Beaver County meeting - Photo by Sophie Riedel
FracTracker Alliance

Mapping a new vision in PA: Alternatives to petrochemical development

/by

At a Re-Imagine Beaver County gathering in Pennsylvania earlier this month, static maps became dynamic in the hands of those who live in and around the region depicted. Residents of this area in the greater Pittsburgh region gathered to depict a new vision for Beaver County, PA. This county is currently faced with the proposal of a massive Shell-owned petrochemical facility – also called a “cracker” – and further build-out that could render the area a northern version of Louisiana’s “Chemical Corridor.” Participants at this event, from Beaver County and beyond, were encouraged to collectively envision a future based on sustainable development. The picture they created was one that welcomes change – but requires it to be sustainable and for the benefit of the community that makes it happen.

Re-Imagine Beaver County Group Mapping - by Sophie Riedel

Figure 1: Participants study a map of Beaver County. Photo credit: Sophie Riedel.

Re-Imagine Beaver County Participants

Panelists from municipal government, organic agriculture, and leaders and entrepreneurs of sustainable initiatives started off the event, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and endorsed by the Beaver County Marcellus Awareness Committee. After an hour, the room of 60 or so participants dove into the lively de- and re-construction of large format maps of the area. They were invited to markup the maps, created by Carnegie Mellon University graduate student of the School of Architecture, Sophie Riedel. Each table worked from a different base map of the same area – centering on the confluence of the Ohio and Beaver rivers, including the already heavily-industrialized riverside and the site of Shell’s proposed petrochemical facility.

Massive shell processing plant under construction in Beaver County PA and across the Ohio River from the town of Beaver. This massive processing plant, near residential areas, schools and hospitals, will be a serious threat to the health of the those living in the region.

Figure 2: The site of the proposed petrochemical facility in Beaver County (on left) and the Ohio River that participants hope to see reinvented as a recreational waterway buttressed by public parks. Photo credit: Garth Lenz, iLCP.

Much more than a thought exercise, the gathering represented a timely response to a growing grassroots effort around the proposed petrochemical inundation. Changes are already underway at the site, and those who live in this region have the right to give input. This right is especially salient when considering the risks associated with the petrochemical industry – including detrimental health impacts on babies before they are even born, asthma exacerbation, and increased cancer rates.

Charting a new vision

The re-invented Beaver County would be one of increased connectivity and mobility, well-equipped to provide for local needs with local means.

Many ideas included on the maps reflected a longing for transportation options independent of personal vehicles – including better, safer, more connected bike trails and walking paths, use of existing rail lines for local travel, and even the inventive suggestion of a water taxi. These inherently lower-impact means of transport coincide with preferences of millennials, according to several of the panelists, who want more walkable, bikeable communities. Ushering in such sustainable suggestions would welcome more young families to an area with an aging population. More than just about moving people, transportation ideas also included ways to get locally grown foods to those who need it, such as the elderly.

sophie-riedel-visioning-map-close-up

Figure 3: Participants modify maps to reflect a new vision. Photo credit: Sophie Riedel.

The value of beauty was a subtheme in many of the ideas to connect and mobilize the population and goods, ideas which often held a dual aim of protecting open space, creating new parks, and offering recreation possibilities. Participants ambitiously reimagined their river, the Ohio, from its current status as a closed-off corridor for industrial usage and waste, to a recreational resource for kayaking and fishing walleye.

Participants marked up the maps to show the resources that help sustain this community, and voiced a strong desire for development that would enable additional self-reliance. These forward-thinking changes included increased agriculture and use of permaculture techniques, and community gardens for growing food near the people who currently lack access. Ideas for powering the region abounded, like harnessing wind power and putting solar panels on every new building.

Participants were firm on local sourcing for another key resource: the labor required for these efforts, they insisted, must come from the local populace. Educational programs designed to channel learners into workers for sustainability might include training to rebuild homes to “greener” standards, and programs aimed at bringing a new generation of farmers to the fields. Perhaps a nod to the world-wide plastic glut that a petrochemical facility would add to, suggestions even included local ways of dealing with waste, like starting a composting program and establishing more recycling centers.

Whose vision?

Who is a part of this vision, both in creating it and living it out? Inevitably, the selection of panelists and the interests of the audience members themselves influenced the vision this group crafted. The question of inclusion and representation found articulation among many participants, and the hosts of the event welcomed suggestions on reaching a broader audience moving forward. Looking around the room, one man asked, “Where are all the young people, and families with kids?” Indeed, only several members of this demographic were present. Though indicative of the racial makeup of Beaver County, the audience appeared to be primarily white, meaning that the racially diverse communities in the region where not represented. Others pointed out that going forward, the audience should also include those residents struggling with un- and underemployment, who have a major stake in whatever vision of Beaver County comes to fruition. Another said he would like to see more elected officials and leaders present. Notably, Potter Township Board of Supervisors Chairperson, Rebecca Matsco, who is a strong advocate for the proposed petrochemical project in her township, was present for the first half of the event.

Local means for meeting local needs

People who welcome petrochemical development in Beaver County might believe that those who voice concerns about the proposed Shell plant aren’t forward-thinking, or simply oppose change. Quite in contrast, participants at Re-Imagine Beaver County went to work reinventing their community with optimism and enthusiasm. They didn’t seem to be resisting change, but instead, wanting to participate in the process of change and to ultimately see benefits to their community. For example, discussion of solar power generated substantial excitement. According to panel speaker Hal Saville, however, the biggest challenge is making it affordable for everyone, which suggests that the estimated $1.6 billion in tax breaks going to Shell for the petrochemical plant could be better allocated.

A key narrative from supporters of the ethane cracker centers on the pressing need for jobs in this area, though some locals have expressed concern about how many of Shell’s promised jobs would go to residents. Whoever gets hired, these jobs come with serious dangers to workers. Participants at this event proposed alternative initiatives – both ambitious and small – for creating jobs within the community, like providing “sprout funds” to encourage new business start-ups, and launching a coordinated effort to rehab aging housing stock. These ideas suggest that the people of this region feel their energy and ingenuity would be best spent making Beaver County a better place to live and work, in contrast to producing disposable petrochemical products for export around the world. The fact that so many participants emphasized local means for meeting their needs in no way downplays the need for good jobs. Rather, it points to the fact that people want jobs that are good for them and for the future of their community.

Moving the vision forward

Where do we go from here? Can the momentum of this event draw in greater representation from the region to have a voice in this process? Will these visions become animated and guide the creation of a new reality? Broader and deeper planning is in order; participants and panelists alike pointed to tools like comprehensive community plans and cleaner, “greener” industrial policies. More than anything, the group articulated a need for more deliberation and participation. As panelist and farm co-owner Don Kretschmann put it, when it comes to change, we need to “think it through before we go ahead and do it.”

The maps themselves, bearing the inspirations scrawled out during the event, have not reached the end of the road. From here, these maps will accompany an upcoming exhibition of the artworks in Petrochemical America, which locals hope to bring to the greater Pittsburgh area in the coming months. League of Women Voters, for their part, continue to move the vision forward, inviting input from all on next steps, with an emphasis on pulling in a broader cross-section of the community.

To voice your vision, and to stay in the loop on future Re-Imagine Beaver County events, contact reimaginelwvpa@gmail.com.

Many thanks to Sophie Riedel for sharing photographs from the event, and to the International League of Conservation Photographers and the Environmental Integrity Project for sharing the aerial photograph of the Shell site from their joint project, “The Human Cost of Energy Production.”

By Leann Leiter, Environmental Health Fellow

 

34 states with active drilling activity in US map
FracTracker Alliance

34 states have active oil & gas activity in U.S. based on 2016 analysis

/by

Each year, FracTracker Alliance compiles a national well file to try to assess how many wells have been drilled in the U.S. We do this by extracting data from the various state regulatory agencies that oversee drilling in oil and gas producing states. We’re a little late posting the results of our 2016 analysis, but here it is.

Based on data from 2014-2015, 34 states * saw drilling activity, amounting to approximately 1.2 million facilities across the U.S. – from active production wells, to natural gas compressor stations, to processing plants.

The process we used to count these wells and related facilities for the 2016 analysis changed a bit this time around, which obviously impacts the total number of wells in the dataset. 2016’s compilation was created in consultation with Earthworks, for the purpose of informing the Oil and Gas Threat Map project. The scope was more restrictive than previous editions (see our 2014 and 2015 analyses), focusing only on wells that we were reasonably confident were actively producing oil and gas wells, thus excluding wells with inactive or uncertain statuses, as well salt water disposal (SWD) and other Class II injection (INJ) well types.

There are facilities included in this dataset that we don’t normally tally, as well (See Table 1 below). Earthworks was able to determine the latitude and longitude coordinates of a number of compressors and other processing plants, which are included in the dataset below and final map.

In all, the facility counts are reduced from about 1.7 million in 2015 to about 1.2 million in 2016, but this is more a reflection of the definition than substantial changes in the active well inventory in the U.S. You can explore this information by state, and additional results of this project, using Earthworks’ Threats Maps. Additionally, the national well file is available to download below.

Download 2016 National Well File Data

* The zip file separates out TX wells from the rest of the states due to the significant number of TX facilities.

You’ll notice that we don’t refer to the wells in this analysis as “fracked” wells. The primary reason for not using such terminology is because no one common definition exists across those states for what constitutes a hydraulically fractured well. In PA, for example, such wells are considered “unconventional” because drilling occurs in an unconventional formation and usually involves some sort of well stimulation. Contrastingly, in CA, often drillers use “acidizing” not fracking – a similar process that breaks up the ground using acidic injected fluids instead of the high pressure seen in traditional fracking. As such, we included all active oil and gas production instead of trying to limit the analysis to just wells that have been stimulated. We will likely continue to use this process until a federal or national definition of what constitutes a “fracked” well is determined.

Table 1. Facilities by State and Type

State Count of Facilities by Type Grand Total
Compressor Processor Well
AK 7 3,356 3,363
AL 17 7,016 7,033
AR 231 8 13,789 14,028
AZ 40 40
CA 7 21 92,737 92,765
CO 426 49 50,881 51,356
FL 2 102 104
ID 6 6
IL 5 48,748 48,753
IN 7,374 7,374
KS 9 90,526 90,535
KY 5 11,769 11,774
LA 6,486 94 2,555 9,135
MI 19 16,525 16,544
MO 2 687 689
MS 6 4,556 4,562
MT 5 9,768 9,773
ND 19 13,024 13,043
NE 1 16,202 16,203
NM 902 37 57,839 58,778
NV 176 176
NY 12,244 12,244
OH 29 10 90,288 90,327
OK 856 96 29,042 29,994
OR 56 56
PA 452 11 103,680 104,143
SD 408 408
TN 15,956 15,956
TX 758 315 397,776 398,849
UT 18 20,608 20,626
VA 9,888 9,888
WI 1 1
WV 20 16,118 16,138
WY 325 48 38,538 38,911
Grand Total 10,472 825 1,182,278 1,193,575
* NC facilities are not included because the state did not respond to multiple requests for the data. This exclusion likely does not significantly affect the total number of wells in the table, as historically NC only had 2 oil and gas wells.
For schools and hospitals analysis, 2017
Ted Auch, PhD

How close are schools and hospitals to drilling activity in West Virginia and Ohio?

/by

A review of WV and OH drilling activity and its proximity to schools and medical facilities

Schools and hospitals represent places where vulnerable populations may be put at risk if they are located close to oil and gas activity. Piggybacking on some elegant work from PennEnvironment (2013) and Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers (PSE) Healthy Energy (PDF) in Pennsylvania, below is an in-depth look at the proximity of unconventional oil and gas (O&G) activity to schools and hospitals in Ohio and West Virginia.

Ohio Schools and Medical Facilities

In Ohio, presently there are 13 schools or medical facilities within a half-mile of a Utica and/or Class II injection well and an additional 344 within 2 miles (Table 1 and map below). This number increases to 1,221 schools or medical facilities when you consider those within four miles of O&G related activity.

Map of OH Drilling and Disposal Activity Near Schools, Medical Facilities


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work
Explore the data used to make this map in the “Data Downloads” section at the end of this article.

Table 1. Number of OH schools and hospitals within certain distances from Utica wells

Utica Class II Injection
Well Distance (Miles) Schools Medical Facilities Schools Medical Facilities
0.5 3 1 9 0
0.5-1 19 (22) 9 (10) 16 (25) 13 (13)
1-2 79 (101)  41 (51) 88 (113) 79 (92)
2-3 84 (185) 49 (100) 165 (278) 122 (214)
3-4 85 (270) 79 (179) 168 (446) 112 (326)
4-5 92 (362) 63 (242) 196 (642) 166 (492)
5-10 388 (750) 338 (580) 796 (1,438) 584 (1,076)

Ohio’s rate of Utica lateral permitting has jumped from an average of 39 per month all-time to 66 per month in the last year. OH’s drilling activity has also begun to spread to outlying counties[1]. As such, we thought a proactive analysis should include a broader geographic area, which is why we quantified the number of schools and medical facilities within 5 and 10 miles of Utica and Class II activity (Figures 1 and 2). To this end we found that ≥50% of Ohio’s schools, both public and private, are within 10 miles of this industry. Similarly 50% of the state’s medical facilities are within 10 miles of Utica permits or Class II wells.

Footnote 1: Eleven counties in Ohio are currently home to >10 Utica permits, while 23 are home to at least 1 Utica permit.

Ohio’s oil production in 2011
Ohio’s oil production in 2011
Ohio’s oil production in Q3-2014
Ohio’s oil production in Q3-2014

Figures 1, 2a, 2b (above). Click to expand.

Grade Level Comparisons

With respect to grade level, the majority of the schools in question are elementary schools, with 40-50 elementary schools within 2-5 miles of Ohio Utica wells. This number spikes to 216 elementary schools within ten miles of Utica permits along with an additional 153 middle or high Schools (Figure 3). Naturally, public schools constitute most of the aforementioned schools; there are approximately 75 within five miles of Utica permits and 284 within ten miles of Utica activity (Figure 4).

Ohio schools by grade level
Ohio schools by grade level
Ohio schools across school type
Ohio schools across school type

Figures 3 and 4 (above). Click to expand.

Public Schools in Ohio

We also found that ~4% of Ohio’s public school students attend a school within 2 miles of the state’s Utica and/or Class II Injection wells (i.e., 76,955 students) (Table 2). An additional 315,362 students or 16% of the total public school student population, live within five miles of O&G activity.

Table 2. Number of students in OH’s public schools within certain distances from Utica and Class II Injection wells

Utica Class II Injection
Well Distance (Miles) # Schools # Students Avg # Schools # Students Avg
0.5 3 1,360 453 7 3,312 473
<1 21 7,910 377 19 7,984 420
<2 96 35,390 376 90 41,565 462
<3 169 67,713 401 215 104,752 487
<4 241 97,448 404 350 176,067 503
<5 317 137,911 435 505 254,406 504
<10 600 280,330 467 1,126 569,343 506

(Note: Ohio’s population currently stands at 11.59 million people; 2,007,667 total students).

The broadest extent of our study indicates that 42% of Ohio students attend school within ten miles of a Utica or Class II Injection well (Figure 5). As the Ohio Utica region expands from the original 11 county core to include upwards of 23-25 counties, we expect these 5-10 mile zones to be more indicative of the type of student-Utica Shale interaction we can expect to see in the near future.

Softball field and Injection well
Softball field and Injection well
Guernsey County Schools and Utica/Injection wells
Guernsey County Schools and Utica/Injection wells
Ed Lyons Class II SWD WEll and baseball field
Ed Lyons Class II SWD WEll and baseball field

Photos of drilling activity near schools, and Figure 5 (above). Click to expand.

Private Schools in Ohio

At the present time, less than one percent of Ohio’s private school students attend a school within 2 miles of Utica and/or Class II Injection wells (specifically, 208 students). An additional 11,873 students or 11% of the total student population live within five miles. When you broaden the extent, 26% of Ohio’s private primary and secondary school students attend school daily within ten miles of a Utica or Class II Injection well. Additionally, the average size of schools in the immediate vicinity of Utica production and waste activity ranges between 11 and 21 students, while those within 2-10 miles is 112-159 students. Explore Table 3 for more details.

Table 3. Number of students in Ohio’s private schools within certain distances from Utica and Class II Injection.

Utica Class II Injection
Distance from Well (Miles) # Schools # Students Avg # Schools # Students Avg
0.5 . . . 1 . .
<1 . . . 2 25 13
<2 2 22 11 9 186 21
<3 7 874 125 30 4,460 149
<4 12 1,912 159 45 6,303 140
<5 21 2,471 118 61 9,610 158
<10 60 6,727 112 135 20,836 154

West Virginia Schools and Students

Twenty-eight percent (81,979) of West Virginia’s primary and secondary school students travel to a school every day that is within two miles of the state’s Marcellus and/or Class II Injection wells.

Map of WV Marcellus Activity and Schools


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work
Explore the data used to make this map in the “Data Downloads” section at the end of this article.

Compared with Ohio, 5,024 more WV students live near this industry (Table 4). An additional 97,114 students, or 34% of the West Virginia student population, live within 5 miles of O&G related wells. The broadest extent of our study indicates that more than 90% of West Virginia students attend school daily within 10 miles of a Marcellus and/or Class II Injection well.

figure6

Figure 6. West Virginia primary and secondary schools, Marcellus Shale wells, and Class II Injection wells (Note: Schools that have not reported enrollment figures to the WV Department of Education are highlighted in blue). Click image to expand.

It is worth noting that 248 private schools of 959 total schools do not report attendance to the West Virginia Department of Education, which means there are potentially an additional 69-77,000 students in private/parochial or vocational technology institutions unaccounted for in this analysis (Figure 6). Finally, we were not able to perform an analysis of West Virginia’s medical facility inventory relative to Marcellus activity because the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources admittedly did not have an analogous, or remotely complete, list of their facilities. The WV DHHR was only able to provide a list of Medicaid providers and the only list we were able to find was not verifiable and was limited to hospitals only.

Table 4. Number of students in WV schools within certain distances from Shale and Class II Injection wells

Marcellus Class II Injection
Distance from Well (Miles) # Sum Avg # Sum Avg
0.5 19 5,674 299 1 . .
<1 52 (71) 16,992 (22,666) 319 5 (6) 1,544 257
<2 169 (240) 52,737 (75,403) 314 16 (22) 5,032 (6,576) 299
<3 133 (373) 36,112 (111,515) 299 18 (40) 6,132 (12,708) 318
<4 88 (461) 25,037 (136,552) 296 21 (61) 5,235 (17,943) 294
<5 56 (517) 15,685 (152,237) 295 26 (87) 8,913 (26,856) 309
<10 118 (635) 37,131 (189,368) 298 228 (315) 69,339 (96,195) 305
Note: West Virginia population currently stands at 1.85 million people; 289,700 total students with 248 private schools of 959 total schools not reporting attendance, which means there are likely an additional 69-77,000 students in Private/Parochial or Vocational Technology institutions unaccounted for in this analysis.

Conclusion

A Trump White House will likely mean an expansion of unconventional oil and gas activity and concomitant changes in fracking waste production, transport, and disposal. As such, it seems likely that more complex and broad issues related to watershed security and/or resilience, as well as related environmental concerns, will be disproportionately forced on Central Appalachian communities throughout Ohio and West Virginia.

Will young and vulnerable populations be monitored, protected, and educated or will a Pruitt-lead EPA pursue more laissez-faire tactics with respect to environmental monitoring? Stay Tuned!

Analysis Methods

The radii we used to conduct this assessment ranged between ≤ 0.5 and 5-10 miles from a Utica or Marcellus lateral. This range is larger than the aforementioned studies. The point of using larger radii was to attempt to determine how many schools and students, as well as medical facilities, may find themselves in a more concentrated shale activity zone due to increased permitting. Another important, related issue is the fact that shale O&G exploration is proving to be more diffuse, with the industry exploring the fringes of the Utica and Marcellus shale plays. An additional difference between our analysis and that of PennEnvironment and PSE Healthy Energy is that we looked at identical radii around each state’s Class II Injection well inventory. We included these wells given the safety concerns regarding:

  1. their role in induced seismicity,
  2. potential water and air quality issues, and
  3. concomitant increases in truck volumes and speeds.

Data Downloads for Maps Above

By Ted Auch, Great Lakes Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Kyle Ferrar, MPH

Oil and Gas Wastes are Radioactive – and Lack Regulatory Oversight

/by

Highlighting the maps of radioactive oil and gas exploration and production wastes created in collaboration with the Western Organization of Research Councils

By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
Scott Skokos, Western Organization of Research Councils

Oil and gas waste can be radioactive, but it is not considered “hazardous,” at least according to the federal government. In this article, we summarize several of the hazardous risks resulting from the current federal policy that fails to regulate this massive waste stream, and the gaps left by states. Of the six states mapped in this assessment, only the state of Montana has initiated any type of rule-making process to manage the waste.

When it comes to unconventional oil and gas waste streams:

Nobody can say how much of any type of waste is being produced, what it is, and where it’s ending up. – Nadia Steinzor, Earthworks

To address some of these gaps, FracTracker Alliance has been working with the Western Organization of Resources Councils (WORC) to map out exactly where radioactive oil and wastes are being dumped, stored, and injected into the ground for disposal. The work is an extension to WORC’s comprehensive No Time to Waste report.

Why is accurate waste data so hard to come by? The Earthworks report, Wasting Away explains that the U.S. EPA intentionally exempted oil and gas exploration and production wastes from the federal regulations known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) despite concluding that such wastes “contain a wide variety of hazardous constituents.” As a result, there is very little waste tracking and reporting of oil and gas waste data nationally.

State Waste Management Maps

Some data is available at the state level, so we at FracTracker have compiled, cleaned, and mapped what little data we could find.

State-specific maps have been created for Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, and Wyoming – see below:

mt-radioactive-featureMontana – View map fullscreen

ND Radioactive Waste mapNorth Dakota – View map fullscreen

co-radioactive-featureColorado – View map fullscreen

WY Radioactive Waste mapWyoming – View map fullscreen

Sources of Radioactivity

When we hear about “radioactive waste” associated with the energy industry, nuclear power stations and fission reactors are usually what come to mind. But, as the EPA explains, fracking has transformed the nature of the oil and gas waste stream. Components of fracking waste differ from conventional oil and gas exploration and production wastes in a number of ways:

  • In general, the waste stream has additional hazardous components, and that transformation includes increased radioactivity.
  • Fracking has allowed for more intrusive drilling, penetrating deep sedimentary formations using millions of gallons of fluid.
  • Drilling deeper produces more drill cuttings.
  • The process of hydraulic fracking introduces millions more gallons of fluid into the ground that then return to the surface. These returns are ultimately contaminated and require disposal.
  • The formations targeted for unconventional development are mostly ancient seabeds still filled with salty “brines” known as “formation waters.”
  • In addition to the hazardous chemicals in the fracking fluid pumped into the wells for fracking, these unconventional formations contain larger amounts of heavy metals, carcinogens and other toxics. This also includes more radioisotopes such as Uranium, Thorium, Radium, Potassium-40, Lead-210, and Polonium-210 than the conventional formations that have supplied the majority of oil and gas prior to the shale boom.

A variety of waste products make up the waste stream of oil and gas development, and each is enhanced with naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). This waste stream must be treated and disposed of properly. All the oil and gas equipment – such as production equipment, processing equipment, produced water handing equipment, and waste management equipment – also need to be considered as sources of radioactive exposure.

Figure 1 below explains where the waste from fracking goes after it leaves the well pad.

Radioactive Oil and Gas Pathway Life Cycle

Figure 1. Breakdown of the radioactive oil and gas waste life-cycle

Three facets of the waste stream particularly enhanced with NORMs by fracking include scales, produced waters, and sludges.

A. Scales

When injected into the ground, fracking fluid mixes with formation waters, dissolving metals, radioisotopes and other inorganic compounds. Additionally the fracking liquids are often supplemented with strong acids to reduce “scaling” from precipitate build up (to prevent clogging up the well). Regardless, each oil well generates approximately 100 tons of radioactive scale annually. As each oil and gas reservoir is drained, the amount of scale increases. The EPA reports that lead-210 and polonium-210 are commonly found in scales along with their decay product radon at concentrations estimated to be anywhere from 480 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) to 400,000 pCi/g). Scale can be disposed of as a solid waste, or dissolved using “scale inhibitors.” These radioactive elements then end up in the liquid waste portion of the waste stream, known as produced waters.

B. Produced Waters

In California, strong acids are used to further dissolve formations to stimulate additional oil production. Acidic liquids are able to dissolve more inorganic elements and compounds such as radioisotopes. While uranium and thorium are not soluble in water, their radioactive decay products such as radium dissolve in the brines. The brines return to the surface as “produced water.” As the oil and gas in the formation are removed, much of what is pumped to the surface is formation water.

Consequently, declining oil and gas fields generate more produced water. The ratio of produced water to oil in conventional well was approximately 10 barrels of produced water per barrel of oil. According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), more than 18 billion barrels of waste fluids from oil and gas production are generated annually in the United States. There are several options for managing the liquid waste stream. The waste could be treated using waste treatment facilities, reinjected into other wells to enhance production (a cheaper option), or injected for disposal. Before disposal of the liquid portion, all the solids in the solution must be removed, resulting in a “sludge.”

C. Sludges

The U.S. EPA reports that conventional oil production alone produces 230,000 million tons – or five million ft3 (141 cubic meters) – of TENORM sludge each year. Unconventional processes produce much more sludge waste than conventional processes. The average concentration of radium in sludges is estimated to be 75 pCi/g, while the concentration of lead-210 can be over 27,000 pCi/g. Sludges present a high risk to the environment and a higher risk of exposure for people and other receptors in those environments because sludges are typically very water soluble.

Federal Exemptions

According to the EPA, “because the extraction process concentrates the naturally occurring radionuclides and exposes them to the surface environment and human contact, these wastes are classified as Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM).” Despite the conclusions that oil and gas TENORM pose a risk to the environment and humans, the EPA exempts oil and gas exploration and production wastes from the definition of “hazardous” under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) law. In fact, most wastes from all of the U.S. fossil fuel energy industry, including coal-burning and natural gas, are exempt from the disposal standards that hazardous waste normally requires.

The Center for Public Integrity calls this radioactive waste stream “orphan waste,” because no single government agency is fully managing it.

Fortunately, the EPA has acknowledged that federal regulations are currently inadequate, though this is nothing new. A U.S. EPA report from the 1980’s reported as much, and gave explicit recommendations to address the issue. For 30 years nothing happened! Then in August, 2015, a coalition of environmental groups (including the Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice) filed a lawsuit against the EPA, and has since reached a settlement.

Just last month (January 10, 2017) the U.S. EPA agreed to review federal regulations of oil and gas waste – a process they were meant to do every 3 years for the last 30 years. The EPA has until March 15, 2019, to determine whether or not regulatory changes are warranted for “wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy.” With the recent freeze on all U.S. EPA grants, however, it is not clear whether these regulations will receive the review they need.

State Regulations

Regulation of this waste stream is left up to the states, but most states do not require operators to manage the radioactivity in oil and gas wastes, either. Because of the federal RCRA exemptions most state policies ignore the radioactive issue altogether. Operators are free to dispose of the waste at any landfill facility, unless the landfill tells them otherwise. For detailed analyses of state policies, see pages 10-45 of the No Time to Waste report. FracTracker has also covered these issues in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Another issue that screams for federal consideration of this waste stream is that states do not have the authority to determine whether or not the wastes can cross their borders. States also do not have the jurisdiction to decide whether or not facilities in their state can accept waste from across state lines. That determination is reserved for federal jurisdiction, and there are not any federal laws regulating such wastes. In fact, these wastes are strategically exempt from federal regulation for just these reasons.

Why can’t the waste be treated?

This type of industrial waste actually cannot be treated, at least not entirely. Unlike organic pollutants that can be broken down, inorganic constituents of the waste cannot be simply disintegrated out of existence. Inorganic components include heavy metals like arsenic and bromides, as well as radioactive isotopes of radium, lead, and uranium. Such elements will continue to emit radiation for hundreds-to-thousands of years. The best option available is to find a location to “isolate” and dispose of these wastes – a sacrifice zone.

Current management practices do their best to separate the liquid portions from the solid portions, but that’s about it. Each portion can then be disposed independently of each other. Liquids are injected into the ground, which is the cheapest option where it is available. If enough of the dissolved components (heavy metals, salts, and radioisotopes) can be removed, wastewaters are discharged into surface waters. The compounds and elements that are removed from the liquid waste stream are hyper-concentrated in the solid portion of the waste, described as “sludge” in the graphic above. This hazardous material can be disposed of in municipal or solid waste landfills if the state regulators do not require the radioactivity or toxicity of this material to be a consideration for disposal. There are not federal requirements, so unless there is a specific state policy regarding the disposal, it can end up almost anywhere with little oversight. These chemicals do not magically disappear. They never disappear.

Risks

There are multiple pathways for contamination from facilities that are not qualified to manage radioactive and hazardous wastes. At least seven different environmental pathways provide potential risks for human exposure. They include:

  1. Radon inhalation,
  2. External gamma exposure,
  3. Groundwater ingestion,
  4. Surface water ingestion,
  5. Dust inhalation,
  6. Food ingestion, and
  7. Skin beta exposure from particles containing the radioisotopes.

According to the EPA, the low-level radioactive materials in drilling waste present a definitive risk to those exposed. High risk examples include dust suppression and leaching. If dust is not continuously suppressed, radioactive materials in dust pose a risk to people at these facilities or those receptors or secondary pathways located downwind of the facilities. Radioactive leachate entering surface waters and groundwaters is also a significant threat. A major consideration is that radioactive waste can last in these landfills far longer than the engineered lifespans of landfills, particularly those that are not designed to retain hazardous wastes.

Cases of Contamination

North Dakota

In North Dakota, the epicenter of the Bakken Oil Fields, regulators were not ready for the massive waste streams that came from the fast growing oil fields. This  allowed thousands of wastewater disposal wells be drilled to dispose of salty wastewater without much oversight, and no places in state for companies to dispose of radioactive solid waste. Many of the wastewater disposal wells were drilled haphazardly, and as a result many contaminated surrounding farmland with wastewater. With regard to radioactive solid waste, the state until recently had a de facto ban on solid radioactive waste disposal due to their radioactivity limit being 5 picocuries per gram. The result of this de facto ban made it so companies either had to make one of two decisions: 1. Haul their radioactive solid waste above the limit out of state to facilities in Idaho or Colorado; or 2. Risk getting caught illegally dumping waste in municipal landfills or just plain illegal dumping in roadsides, buildings, or farmland.

In 2014, a massive illegal dumping site was discovered in Noonan, ND when North Dakota regulators found a gas station full of radioactive waste and filter socks (the socks used to filter out solid waste from wastewater, which contain high levels of radioactivity). Following the Noonan, ND incident North Dakota regulators and politicians began discussions regarding the need for new regulations to address radioactive solid waste.

In 2015, North Dakota moved to create rules for the disposal of solid radioactive waste. Its new regulations increase the radioactivity limit from 5 picocuries per gram to 50 picocuries per gram, and sets up new requirements for the permitting of waste facilities accepting radioactive waste and the disposal of radioactive waste in the waste facilities. Dakota Resource Council, a member group of WORC, challenged the rules in the courts, arguing the rules are not protective enough and that the agency responsible for the rules pushed through the rules without following the proper procedures. Currently the rules are not in effect until the litigation is settled.

Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, the hotbed of activity for Marcellus Shale gas extraction, the regulatory body was ill equipped and uninformed for dealing with the new massive waste stream when it first arrived on scene. Through 2013, the majority of wastewater was disposed of in commercial and municipal wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to surface waters. Numerous facilities engaged in this practice without amending their federal discharge permits to include this new waste stream.

Waste treatment facilities in Pennsylvania tried to make the waste streams less innocuous by diluting the concentrations of these hazardous pollutants. They did this by mixing the fracking wastes with other waste streams, including industrial discharges and municipal waste. Other specialized facilities also tried to remove these dissolved inorganic elements and filter them from the discharge stream.

As a result of site assessments by yours-truly and additional academic research, these facilities realized that such hazardous compounds do not simply dilute into receiving waters such as the Allegheny, Monongahela, and Ohio rivers. Instead, they partition (settle) into sediments where they are hyper-concentrated. As a result of the lawsuits that followed the research, entire river bottoms in Pennsylvania had to be entirely dug up, removed, and disposed of in hazardous waste landfills.

Action Plans Needed

Massive amounts of solid and liquid wastes are still generated during drilling exploration and production from the Marcellus Shale. There is so much waste, operators don’t know what to do with it. In Pennsylvania, there is not much they can do with it, but it is not just Pennsylvania. Throughout the Ohio River Valley, operators struggle to dispose of this incredibly large waste stream.

Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania have all learned that this waste should not be allowed to be discharged to surface waters even after treatment. So it goes to other states – those without production or the regulatory framework to manage the wastes. Like every phase of production in the oil and gas industry, operators (drillers) shop around for the lowest disposal costs. In Estill County, Kentucky, the State Energy and Environment Department just recently cited the disposal company Advance Disposal Services Blue Ridge Landfill for illegally dumping hydraulic fracturing waste. The waste had traveled from West Virginia Marcellus wells, and ended up at an ignorant or willfully negligent waste facility.

In summary, there is inadequate federal oversight of potentially hazardous waste coming from the oil and gas industry, and there are serious regulatory gaps within and between states. Data management practices, too, are lacking. How then, is the public health community supposed to assess the risk that the waste stream poses to people? Obviously, a more thorough action plan is needed to address this issue.

Feature image: Drill cuttings being prepared to be hauled away from the well pad. Photo by Bill Hughes, OVEC

Koontz Class II Injection Well, Trumbull County, Ohio, (41.22806065, -80.87669281) with 260,278 barrels (10,020,704 gallons) of fracking waste having been processed between Q3-2010 and Q3-2012 (Note: Q1-2016 volumes have yet to be reported!).
Ted Auch, PhD

Ohio Shale Activity, Waste Disposal, and Public Water Supplies

/by

Ohio is unique relative to its Appalachian neighbors in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Basins in that The Buckeye State chose to “diversify” when it came to planning for the hydraulic fracturing revolution. One of the first things financial advisers tell their clients is to “diversify, diversify, diversify.” However, this strategy is usually meant to buffer investors when certain sectors of the economy underperform. Columbus legislators took this strategy to mean that we should drill and hydraulically fracture our geology to extract oil and gas (O&G), as well as taking in vast quantities of liquid and solid O&G waste from Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Accepting significant quantities of out-of-state waste raises several critical questions, however. How will these materials will be contained? Will such volumes require more and larger waste landfills? And will the injection of liquid brine waste into our geology (photo below) make Ohio the “Oklahoma of Appalachia” with respect to induced seismicity?


Above: Example Class II salt water disposal (SWD) wells in Ohio

Risks to Public Water Supplies

There are also mounting concerns about public water supply (PWS) security, quality, and resilience. These concerns stem from the growing uncertainty surrounding the containment of hydraulically fractured and Class II injection wells.

To begin to assess the risks involved in locating these wells near PWS’s, we compiled and incorporated as many of the state’s PWS’s into our primary Ohio maps. In this post, we explore PWS proximity to Utica drilling activity and Class II salt water disposal (SWD) wells in Ohio.

Waste Disposal & Drilling Near PWS’s

Public water chartJust how close are public water supplies to Class II waste disposal wells and permitted Utica wells? As of January 15, 2017, there are 13 PWS’s within a half-mile of Ohio’s Class II SWD wells, and 18 within a half-mile of permitted Utica wells. These facilities serve approximately 2,000 Ohioans each, with an average of 112-153 people per PWS (Tables 1 and 5). Within one mile from these wells there are 64 to 66 PWSs serving 18 to 61 thousand Ohioans. That’s an average of 285-925 residents.

Above: Photos of SWD wells from the sky

While PWSs on the 5-mile perimeter of our analysis don’t immediately conjure up water quality/quantity concerns, they may in the future; the rate of Utica and Class II permitting is likely to accelerate under a new White House administration more friendly to industry and averse to enforcing or enhancing regulatory hurdles.

A total of 960 and 699 PWSs are currently within five miles of Ohio Class II and Utica wells. These facilities service roughly 1.5 million and one-half million Ohioans each day, which is ~13% and 4% of the state, respectively. The average PWS within range of Class II wells is 37% to 330 times the average PWS within range of Utica wells.

Roland Marily Kemble Class II Salt Water Disposal Well, Muskingum County, Ohio, Muskingum River Watershed, 39.975, -81.845, 1,984,787 Barrels of Waste Disposed Between 2010 and Q3-2016

Roland Marily Kemble Class II Salt Water Disposal Well, Muskingum County, Ohio, Muskingum River Watershed, 39.975, -81.845, 1,984,787 Barrels of Waste Disposed Between 2010 and Q3-2016

Fifty-eight (58%) to 69% of the PWSs within range of Class II wells are what the Ohio EPA calls Transient Non-Community (TNC) (Table 2). TNC’s are defined by the OH EPA and OH Department of Agriculture as serving[1]:

…at least 25 different persons over 60 days per year. Examples include campgrounds, restaurants and gas stations. In addition, drinking water systems associated with agricultural migrant labor camps, as defined by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, are regulated even though they may not meet the minimum number of people or service connections.

Meanwhile 60-89% of PWS’s in the shadow of Ohio’s permitted Utica wells are of the TNC variety. Even larger percentages of these PWS’s are either Groundwater or Purchased Groundwater types. Most of the PWS’s within the range gradient we looked at are privately owned, with only handful owned by federal or state agencies (Table 6).

Above: Example Class II salt water disposal (SWD) wells in Ohio

Of the 24 hydrologic unit codes (HUCs)/watersheds that contain Class II SWD wells, the lion’s share of PWS’s within the shadow of injection wells are the Tuscarawas, Mahoning, and Walhonding (Table 3). Even the Cuyahoga River, which feeds directly in the Great Lakes, is home to up to 138 PWS’s within 5 miles of Class II SWD wells. Conversely, only 13 HUCs currently contain Ohio’s Utica wells. Like Class II-affected HUCs, we see that the Mahoning, Tuscarawas, and Cuyahoga PSW’s contain most of the PWSs of interest (Table 7).

Conclusion

Watershed security/resilience concerns are growing in Eastern Ohio. Residential and agricultural water demands are increasingly coming into conflict with the drilling industry’s growing freshwater demand. Additionally, as oil and gas drilling uses more water, we will see more brine produced (Figures 1 and 2).

This, in turn, will create more demand – on top of an already exponential trend (Figure 3) – for Ohio’s existing Class II wells from across Northern Appalachia, stretching from Southeast Ohio and West Virginia to North Central Pennsylvania.

An understanding of the links between watershed security, O&G freshwater demand, brine production, and frack waste disposal is even more critical in areas like Southeast Ohio’s Muskingum River Watershed (Figure 4).

A Dynamic Model of Water Demand Between 2000 and 2020 within the Muskingum River Watershed, Southeast Ohio, Kurtz, E. 2015

Figure 4. A Dynamic Model of Water Demand Between 2000 and 2020 within the Muskingum River Watershed, Southeast Ohio, Kurtz and Auch 2015

This is a region of the state where we have seen new water withdrawal agreements like the one below between the Muskingum River Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) and Antero described in last week’s Caldwell Journal-Leader, Noble County, Ohio:

The [MWCD], which oversees 10 lakes in east central Ohio, approved a second short-term water sale from Seneca Lake last week. The deal, with Antero Resources, Inc., could net the district up to $9,000 a day over about a three month period, and allows Antero to draw up to 1.5 million gallons of water a day during the months of August, September and October for a total of 135 million gallons; less than one percent of the lake’s estimated volume of 14.2 billion gallons. Antero plans to use the water in its fracking operations in the area and will pay $6 per 1000 gallons drawn.

Consol Energy's Cowgill Road Impoundment, Sarahsville, Wills Creek, Noble County, Ohio, 39.8212, -81.4061

Consol Energy’s Cowgill Road Impoundment, Sarahsville, Wills Creek, Muskingum River Watershed, Noble County, Ohio, 39.8212, -81.4061

This agreement will mean an increase in new Class II SWD permits and/or discussion about converting Ohio’s thousands of other Class II wells into SWD wells. What does this change means for communities that have already seen the industry extract the equivalent of nearly 14% – and even 25-80% in several counties – of residential water from their watersheds, only to inject it 6,000+ feet into the state’s geology is unknown? (Figure 5)

It is critical that we establish and frequently revisit the spatial relationship between oil and gas infrastructure the water supplies of Appalachian Ohio. The state of national politics, federal agency oversight and administrations, growing concerns around climate change, and the fact that Southeast Ohio is experiencing more intense and infrequent precipitation events are testaments to that fact. We will be tracking these changes to Ohio’s landscape as they develop. Stay tuned.

Kleese Disposal Class II Salt Water Disposal Well, Trumbull County, Shenango/Mahoning River, 41.244, -80.641, 3,548,104 Barrels of Waste Disposed Between 2010 and Q3-2016

Kleese Disposal Class II Salt Water Disposal well from the sky, Trumbull County, Shenango/Mahoning River, 41.244, -80.641. Data suggest 3,548,104 barrels of waste have been disposed of there between 2010 and Q3-2016.

Supplemental Tables

Public Water and Class II Wells

Table 1. Number of Ohio public water supplies and population served at several intervals from Class II Injection wells

Well Distance (Miles) # Total Population Ave Served Per Well Max People Per Well
0.5 13 1,992 153 (±120) 446
<1 66 60,539 917 (±4,702) 37,456
<2 198 278,402 1,406 (±4,374) 37,456
<3 426 681,969 1,601(±8,187) 148,000
<4 681 1,086,463 1,596 (±8,284) 148,000
<5 960 1,450,865 1,511 (±7,529) 148,000

 

Table 2. Ohio public water supplies by system type, source, and ownership at several intervals from Class II Injection wells

 

Well Distance (Miles)

 System Type† Source†† Ownership
 

NTNC

  

TNC

  

C

  

G

  

GP

  

S

  

SP

  

Private

  

Local

  

Fed

  

State
0.5 3 9 1 13 13
<1 11 47 8 65 1 61 5
<2 30 118 50 177 16 5 164 34
<3 76 245 105 385 32 8 351 75
<4 122 392 167 628 40 12 574 106 1
<5 162 564 234 878 30 32 19 823 135 1 1

† NTNC = Non-Transient Non-Community; TNC = Transient Non-Community; C = Community

†† G = Groundwater; GP = Purchased Groundwater; S = Surface Water; SP = Purchased Surface Water

 

Table 3. Ohio public water supplies by hydrologic unit code (HUC) at several intervals from Class II Injection wells

 

HUC Name

 Well Distance (Miles)
0.5 <1 <2 <3 <4 <5
Ashtabula-Chagrin, 799 1 5 18 18 22
Black-Rocky, 859 1 1 2 2 9
Cuyahoga, 832 1 8 20 92 92 138
Grand, 811 12 30 71 71 81
Hocking, 1081 4 18 18 22
Licking, 1010 1 2 17 17 29
Little Muskingum-Middle Island, 1062 1 2 2 6
Lower Maumee, 856 2 2 4
Lower Scioto, 1091 6 6 9
Mahoning, 831 9 17 48 129 129 161
Mohican, 919 1 3 3 4
Muskingum, 1006 1 3 15 15 33
Raccoon-Symmes, 1128 1
Sandusky, 862 3 19 19 27
Shenango, 815 1 2 6 10 10 11
St. Mary’s, 934 3 5 5 7
Tiffin, 837 4 4 7
Tuscarawas, 889 1 9 76 147 147 213
Upper Ohio, 901 3 15 15 23
Upper Ohio-Shade, 1120 4 8 8 9
Upper Ohio-Wheeling, 984 1 1 4 4 5
Upper Scioto, 959 5 13 13 23
Walhonding, 906 1 11 26 69 69 101
Wills, 1009 2 3 12 12 14

 

Table 4. Ohio public water supplies by county at several intervals from Class II Injection wells

 

County

 Well Distance (Miles)
0.5 <1 <2 <3 <4 <5
Ashtabula 4 9 16 19 22
Athens 1 2 2 3
Auglaize 3 5 5 7
Belmont 1 4 5 6
Carroll 2 9 20
Columbiana 1 2 6 13 20 32
Coshocton 7 8 10 13
Crawford 1
Cuyahoga 1
Delaware 1
Fairfield 4
Franklin 1 3 7
Fulton 2 4 8
Gallia 1
Geauga 8 19 33 60 71
Guernsey 2 4 10 11 11
Harrison 1 1
Henry 2 3 3
Henry 2 3
Hocking 3 10 11 13
Holmes 1 11 34 25 38 47
Jefferson 1 3 3 5
Knox 2 6 8 9
Lake 1 4 7 17 18
Licking 1 2 10 14 26
Lorain 1 4
Mahoning 3 4 13 25 37 48
Medina 1 1 1 2 5
Meigs 4 5 6 7
Morgan 1 1 1 6 17
Morrow 3 8 11 11
Muskingum 3 8 15
Noble 1 2 2 3
Perry 5 6 8
Pickaway 2 3 7 10
Portage 3 12 41 62 90 113
Seneca 1 12 17 21
Stark 1 4 20 52 121 161
Summit 2 12 26 51
Trumbull 3 7 24 32 45 61
Tuscarawas 6 10 22 24 26
Washington 1 2 4 9
Wayne 1 1 9 18 24 54
Wyandot 2 2 2 3

Public Water and Hydraulically Fractured Wells

Table 5. The number of Ohio public water supplies and population served at several intervals from hydraulically fractured Utica Wells

Well Distance (Miles) # Total Population Ave Served Per Well Max People Per Well
0.5 18 2,010 112 (±72) 31
<1 64 17,879 279 (±456) 2,598
<2 235 116,682 497 (±1,237) 8,728
<3 433 257,292 594 (±2,086) 29,787
<4 572 380,939 666 (±2,404) 29,787
<5 699 496,740 711 (±2,862) 47,348

 

Table 6. Ohio public water supplies by system type, source, and ownership at several intervals from hydraulically fractured Utica Wells

 

Well Distance (Miles)

 System Type† Source†† Ownership
 

NTNC

  

TNC

  

C

  

G

  

GP

  

S

  

SP

  

Private

  

Local

  

Fed

  

State
0.5 1 16 1 17 1 18
<1 9 45 10 59 3 1 1 58 6
<2 50 137 48 216 6 3 10 206 29
<3 83 265 85 400 14 5 14 381 51 1
<4 109 352 111 534 16 7 15 504 67 1
<5 141 421 137 652 19 9 18 621 77 1

† NTNC = Non-Transient Non-Community; TNC = Transient Non-Community; C = Community

†† G = Groundwater; GP = Purchased Groundwater; S = Surface Water; SP = Purchased Surface Water

 

 

Table 7. Ohio public water supplies by hydrologic unit code (HUC) at several intervals from hydraulically fractured Utica wells

 

HUC Name

 Well Distance (Miles)
0.5 <1 <2 <3 <4 <5
Black-Rocky, 859 1 4 4 4
Cuyahoga, 832 2 12 31 54 82
Grand, 811 1 15 18 23
Licking, 1010 2 2 3 3
Little Muskingum-Middle Island, 1062 2 5 10 11 11
Mahoning, 831 2 5 48 105 142 175
Muskingum, 1006 3 7 9 11
Shenango, 815 2 5 10 13 14
Tuscarawas, 889 8 28 87 140 178 220
Upper Ohio, 901 7 20 45 66 72 73
Upper Ohio-Wheeling, 984 1 13 23 27 28
Walhonding, 906 10 15 34 47
Wills, 1009 2 3 5 7 8

 

 

Table 8. Ohio public water supplies by county at several intervals from hydraulically fractured Utica wells

 

County

 Well Distance (Miles)
0.5 <1 <2 <3 <4 <5
Ashtabula 1 1
Belmont 1 2 7 14 15 16
Carroll 6 20 36 43 43 43
Columbiana 4 15 45 72 80 81
Coshocton 7 10 10
Geauga 14 20 25
Guernsey 1 1 2 4 5
Harrison 2 6 16 16 16 16
Holmes 5 13 31 43
Jefferson 2 3 11 22 25 25
Knox 1 1 2 2
Licking 1 1 1 1
Mahoning 2 10 32 44 55
Medina 1 4 5 7
Monroe 2 4 6 6 6
Muskingum 1 1 1 2 3
Noble 2 2 2 2
Portage 2 8 25 49 84
Stark 2 5 40 85 110 122
Summit 6 10
Trumbull 3 23 36 53 65
Tuscarawas 1 2 15 22 28 43
Washington 3 10 12 13
Wayne 5 5 7 21

Footnote

  1. Community (C) = serve at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serve at least 25 year-round residents. Examples include cities, mobile home parks and nursing homes; Non-Transient, Non-Community (NTNC) = serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. Examples include schools, hospitals and factories.

By Ted Auch, Great Lakes Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance