Allegheny River Headwaters Watershed Conservation Plan

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Allegheny River Headwaters Conservation Plan Chapter 3. Water Resources Several steps exist in the Marcellus shale drilling process that allow radionuclides, particularly Radium-226 (please see Chapter 2 for more details), to concentrate in liquid wastewater. Drilling fluids that include various chemical additives are artificially introduced into the borehole by high pressure injection to cool and lubricate the drill bit, to prevent the well hole from caving in, and to circulate drill cuttings to the well surface. Formation water, or natural brine, contained within the pore spaces and fractures of the rock can mix with the drilling fluid and be circulated to the well surface. The formation water can be contained in the rock formations for centuries and can contain extremely high levels of water-soluble radionuclides. In addition to mixing with brine, the drilling fluid may also become contaminated when it comes in contact with the NORM in Marcellus shales discussed prior (Resnikoff, Alexandrova, & Travers, 2010). As mentioned prior in Chapter 2, the reuse of recycled water can decrease costs to the drilling companies and reduce the amount of water being withdrawn from area streams. Although drilling fluid has potential to be reused many times, so does radium have the potential to progressively concentrate in it after each reuse. Publicly-owned water treatment works have been identified as not being currently capable to properly treat industry wastewater (Resnikoff, et al, 2010). New technologies for treating Marcellus wastewater are currently an area of intense research. Most involve evaporation and crystallization of salts and mobile evaporator units. Advantages of this kind of advanced treatment option include the effluent meeting new state standards and direct reusability of the treated water in fracking other wells. However, disadvantages include production of a large solid waste residue (salts) and high costs. In Lycoming County, one of the first facilities for treating flowback and produced water in the Marcellus shale area became operational in April 2010. As of September 2010, the facility had treated and returned 12 million gallons of water to clients for reuse in fracking. An additional facility is planned for Tioga County and two for Bradford County. If expanded, this process should reduce the need for future water withdrawal permits (Abdalla et al., 2011b). The major water resource concerns surrounding the Marcellus shale gas extraction include the volume of water required to extract the gas and the impacts the irretrievable wastewater might cause to nearby aquifers. Drilling and fracking water and wastewater is also increasingly being transferred between river basins, further complicating permitting and big-picture water management (Abdalla, Drohan, & Becker, 2010). Precedent among concerns for pollution of nearby aquifers is its potential effect on human drinking water. The Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act includes language to protect drinking water supplies near gas wells, including a requirement that gas well drilling operators restore or replace any water supply determined by DEP to be polluted as a result of nearby gas well drilling, defined as being within 1,000 feet. The gas well operator is presumed responsible for pollution of any public or private drinking water supply only if it occurs within six months after completion of drilling or alteration of the gas well. During the six-month period, the gas well operators can use any one of five defenses to prove they are not responsible for water contamination: the pollution existed prior to the drilling; the landowner or water supplier refused to allow the operator access to conduct a pre-drilling water test; the water supply is not within 1,000 feet of the gas well; the pollution occurred more than six months after completion of gas well drilling; or the pollution occurred as the result of some cause other than gas well drilling (Abdalla, Drohan, Swistock, & Boser, 2011a). New regulations, including many oil and gas well construction standards that the industry must follow to prevent methane gas migration, became effective on February 5, 2011 in response to recent incidents in some parts of Pennsylvania where gas had migrated into drinking water supplies or homes, posing health and safety threats. The regulations also require drillers to detail the chemicals found in flowback water, and to electronically report production and waste volume data (Abdalla et al., 2011b). 3-21
Allegheny River Headwaters Conservation Plan Chapter 3. Water Resources An Ohio River Basin Commission Some regions of the state are protected by quantitative threats to water by the presence of river basin commissions. Commissions such as the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) and Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) are granted extensive authority over allocation of basin water. They review both surface and groundwater withdrawals that may have a “substantial effect” on basin waters. Commissions are also concerned with the lowering of groundwater levels, water quality degradation, and any loss of aquifer storage capacity or major impact of flow and play a vital role in regulating such parameters (The Pennsylvania State University, 2009b). With the exception of state laws regulating the withdrawal of surface water by public water supply agencies, Pennsylvania has no statewide regulatory program mandating the acquisition of permits for withdrawing surface or ground waters. Basin level regulatory programs of the SRBC and DRBC have largely displaced the courts as the authority of water rights issues in the eastern two-thirds of the Commonwealth. Due to the water consumption requirements where commissions are present, gas companies may not begin gas well construction, drilling, or fracking without commission approval. This requirement has allowed the commission to regulate individual and cumulative impacts of the gas industry on water resources, playing an important role in the development of the industry in Pennsylvania (Abdalla et al., 2011a). The Ohio River basin is currently without a basin commission, raising a number of issues about justice and consistent permit requirements in this gap of authority coverage. Many stakeholders have suggested that the Ohio River basin would benefit from creation of a water quantity–focused river basin commission with powers similar to those of the SRBC and DRBC. Benefits of river basin commission established in the Ohio river basin would be countless. River basin commissions take a regional view and can work across state jurisdictional boundaries to settle disputes before they escalate. The interstate compact process gives states the ability to address mutual problems through consensus building rather than legal action. An important strength of the river basin approach stems from their flexibility to deal with changing situations, such as those presented by shale gas extraction. The Army Corps of Engineers in Pittsburgh, along with three other Corps districts and the 15 Ohio river basin states, is participating in the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Reconnaissance Study. Among other objectives, an official water quantity–focused commission for the basin is one ultimate goal of the study (Abdalla et al., 2010). Water Quality Trading Water quality trading is an innovative approach to reduce the overall impact of a particular pollutant. It is achieved when one entity purchases the right to pollute from another entity in the form of credits, or units of pollution reduction beyond federal or state required levels (PSU, 2006). This method is only effective when there is reason to decrease the amount of pollution being generated through a TMDL or NPDES permit, and if there is a difference in treatment cost and opportunities. In order for water quality trading to be effective, there must be consensus among stakeholders and regulatory agencies to try innovative approaches and to engage in trading design and implementation. All trading should be conducted with legal, regulatory framework, such as the NPDES Program, which requires point source polluters to obtain permits to discharge pollution in waterways of the U.S. and comply with the requirements of the CWA. 3-22
Page 2 and 3:
Allegheny Regional Office 159 Main
Page 4 and 5:
Allegheny River Headwaters Conserva
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37: Allegheny River Headwaters Conserva
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
show all

Allegheny River Headwaters Watershed Conservation Plan

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?