Web Date: March 18, 2013
Sewage Plants Struggle To Treat Wastewater Produced By Fracking Operations
News Channels: Environmental SCENE
Keywords: hydraulic fracturing, fracking, water quality, natural gas, wastewater treatment
When energy companies extract natural gas trapped deep underground, they’re left with water containing high levels of pollutants, including benzene and barium. Sometimes the gas producers dispose of this contaminated water by sending it to wastewater treatment plants that deal with sewage and water from other industrial sources. But a new study suggests that the plants can’t handle this water’s high levels of contaminants: Water flowing out of the plants into the environment still has elevated levels of the chemicals from natural gas production (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es301411q).
In 2010, about 23% of U.S. natural gas production involved a process called hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Workers inject high volumes of water at high pressures into the ground to break shale rock formations and to release trapped natural gas. Up to 80% of that injected water returns to the surface, where it’s collected as wastewater.
Currently, companies deal with this leftover water by reusing it, injecting it into deep storage wells, or sending it through sewage treatment plants.
However, in May, 2011, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection asked that the state’s treatment plants voluntarily stop processing fracking wastewater. The request came in response to public concern over elevated bromide levels in the Pennsylvania Monongahela River watershed—an area with facilities that treat water from natural gas production. Scientists hadn’t definitively pinpointed fracking waste as the source of this pollution. In general, researchers haven’t studied how fracking wastewater affects the quality of water leaving sewage plants.
To learn more, Kyle J. Ferrar, a graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh, and his colleagues analyzed water from treatment facilities that initially processed fracking water and then later complied with the state’s recommendation. They took water samples from one private and two public facilities in Pennsylvania that treated water from the nearby Marcellus Shale region, the largest shale basin in the U.S. They collected samples both before and after the department’s request.
Using a variety of spectroscopic techniques, the team measured levels of chemicals found in gas production waste but aren’t typically present in other industrial wastewaters. Although levels of these chemicals varied widely among the three treatment plants, in general, concentrations dropped significantly after the plants stopped taking the fracking waste, Ferrar says. For example, at a municipal plant in Greene County, average barium concentrations fell from 5.99 to 0.14 mg/L.
But when the plants still handled the waste, levels of several of the chemicals exceeded drinking water standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. At the Greene County plant, the levels of barium and strontium, two toxic metals found in fracking wastewater, were on average 5.99 and 48.3 mg/L, respectively. EPA drinking water standards for these metals are 2 and 4 mg/L, respectively.
Carl Kirby, a professor of geology at Bucknell University who studies the environmental impact of Marcellus Shale gas production, says the human health impact of elevated contaminant levels from processed fracking water is unclear, because the water the team sampled is not used directly as drinking water. However, he points out that fracking contaminants eventually could reach larger water systems used for drinking water, albeit at significantly diluted levels.
Ferrar agrees that there is no immediate public health concern over the pollutant levels. But he does worry about how the elevated levels affect aquatic ecosystems receiving water from treatment plants. He hopes researchers will study further the impact of disposing of produced waters via wastewater treatment plants.
- Chemical & Engineering News
- ISSN 0009-2347
- Copyright © American Chemical Society

For more information read www.saltwaterdisposalinstitute.blogspot.com
--3,000 wells @ 8,000,000 gallons per well = 2.4x10^10 gallons (assumes single HVHF stimulation, conference proceedings indicated up to 18 stimulation can be completed)
a) 5% flowback (lower range)= 1.2x10^9 gallons/9,900 tankers = 121,000 loads
b) 13% flowback (Excelsior 1-25 HD1) = 3.1x10^10 gallons/9,900 tankers = 315,000 loads
c)50% flowback (upper range) = 1.2x10^10 gallons/9,900 tankers = 1,200,000 loads
Seems to be an excellent investment opportunity but not so wonderful for the communities around the 1,460 aging class II disposal wells here in Michigan. This also discounts that this water is no longer a component of our hydrologic cycle.
If the multiple well stimulations were taken to current end ranges, the total water needs could reach 4.3x10^11 gallons of water or 5.6 billion gallons of flowback (13%). The water use would be equivalent to 78 years of water for the City of Ann Arbor at the current municipal use rate of 15 MGD per day.
Also I wouldn't trust the validity or Independence of such results from a biased researcher.
Water is contaminated with chemicals before it goes into the ground as frac fluids and as it returns to the surface it picks up more contamination from the shale including radioactivity. Flow-back water has no business in municipal water treatment plants as the outflow cannot be made safe by such methods. Deep salt water disposal, done at a rate that does not stimulate earthquakes is the way to go.
The frac water is best injected into deep injection wells. For more information read
www.saltwaterdisposalinstitute.blogspot.cm
The high barium levels mentioned would thus not be due to the barium sulfate, but to other aspects of the fracking operation - possible reduction of the barium sulfate itself during the operation, or release of more soluble barium salts found in the geology.
I have been aware of hazards for over 15 years. Now with proposal to use on streets, and highways for snow melt only shows the utter ignorance of those in Leadership roles.
Thank you again
If natural gas production were required to include all waste treatment within their business plans and resulting cost structures, what would that (full accounted) cost be, and what would the resulting market price be? A useful, if approximate, answer should be easy to calculate; construction cost of an appropriately sized and equipped waste-water treatment center, plus the cost of transporting spent fracking fluid to that site.
See Radioactivity in the Marcellus Shale by Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D, Ekaterina Alexandrova, Jackie Travers May 19, 2010
- <a href="http://www.cannonwater.com/">CannonWater.com</a>
The companies are recycling and some water is going to deep well injection and not POTW.
Additional Sources
The other sources
1. Other natural brine discharges or saline seeps into the water ways the one in Susquehanna County has a bromide level of a few hundred mg/L
2. other industrial discharges directly into wastewater treatment plants from other industrial wastewater sources in the collection area.
3. Maybe related to geology
4. Bromides in fertilizers and pesticides
5. Emissions of 1,2 dibromethane
6. I think it is still used as an anti-knock in jet fuel.
7. Comment below - "It is equally possible the majority of the pollution is being caused by wastewater discharges from coal-fired power plants". (Source: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/drillers-back-end-of-dumping-brine-into-rivers-1.1137200)(Different article by same researcher team).
More Spin - where is the Science?
I agree Marcellus and Utica flowback and brine should not go to conventional treatment plants and it is not. This water should be recycled and reused and that is what is being done. Some amount is being deep well injected - it should be reused. Again facts in the article a little dated and lacking details.
Chemistry of flowback water and brines - go to http://www.bfenvironmental.com and NO I do not work for any gas companies.
Second thing: in Ohio, Lupo with D & L, just recently admitted to dumping fracking chemicals directly into a storm drain. This apparently occurred over quite some time. He and his company have recently been indicted. Of importance, the ODNR, who is in charge of regulatory affairs in that area viewed the dumping, but what they found was the chemicals migrated into the Mahoning River, which water directly feeds the Beaver River and Beaver Valleys water supply. Neither the ODNR, nor the Ohio EPA saw fit to warn the Beaver community or the Beaver Falls Municipal Water Authority.
Municipal Water Authorities do not routinely check for any type of fracking chemicals when water is tested and deemed safe for consumption. According to the Environmental Working Group, who has done very extensive testing of municipal water supplies, it appears that a good majority of municipal water supply sources are not safe for drinking.
Who is making the determination of what is safe?
It seems that one remedy to solve the problem has been and continues to be, to raise the levels of acceptable chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, fertilizers and known carcinogens in public water supplies. It appears that radiation has been added to this list. See: Whitehouse approves radical radiation rollback.