What's in the Water Wells of Prince William County

The Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) Offices in Virginia occasionally holds drinking water clinics for well, spring and cistern owners as part of the Virginia Household Water Quality Program. The VCE subsidizes the analysis cost for these clinics. Currently, samples are analyzed for: iron, manganese, nitrate, lead, arsenic, fluoride, sulfate, pH, total dissolved solids, hardness, sodium, copper, total coliform bacteria and E. Coli bacteria at a cost of $49 to the well owner. This is far from an exhaustive list of potential contaminants, but with one or two exceptions these are the most common contaminants that effect drinking water wells. These are mostly the naturally occurring contaminants and common sources of contamination: a poorly sealed well or a nearby leaking septic system, or indications of plumbing system corrosion. The above chart shows what we found in the private wells tested in Prince William County in 2014.

There are other contaminants that have be found in groundwater in many parts of the country, but this clinic only tested for the most common water quality problems in Prince William County and Virginia. There are also nuisance contaminants which are fairly common, but lack an approved EPA methodology for testing, iron bacteria is an example. Wells should be tested annually for bacteria and every 1-3 years for other common contaminants and at least once have a full analysis . If you install a treatment system to address a problem, testing should be more frequent. Groundwater is dynamic and can change over time, and it is important to make sure that any treatment is still appropriate and effective. Water treatment systems are not an install and forget piece of equipment, they are more systems to maintain, adjust and control to keep the water within ideal parameters. Improperly treated water can be as problematic as not treating water.

In order to determine if treatment is necessary, water test results should be compared to a standard. The standard we use is the U.S.EPA Safe Drinking Water Act , SDW, though that regulation does not apply to private well owners. The SDW act has primary and secondary drinking water standards. Primary standards are ones that can impact health and from the our tested substances include: coliform bacteria, E. coli bacteria, nitrate, lead, and arsenic.

The 2014 Prince William County water clinic, like most of the clinics in the Virginia Rural Household Water Quality Program, found that a third of the wells tested found coliform bacteria present in the water samples. Coliform bacteria are not a health threat itself, it is used to indicate other bacteria that may be present and identify that a well is not properly sealed from surface bacteria. The federal standard for coliform bacteria is zero, but the federal standard allows that up to 5% of samples can test positive for coliform during a month. Fecal coliform and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water is contaminated with human or animal wastes. Disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in these wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. These pathogens may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and those with compromised immune systems. However, people can drink water contaminated with fecal bacteria and not notice. If your water is contaminated with coliform but not fecal coliform or E. coli, then you have a nuisance bacteria problem and the source may be infiltration from the surface from rain or snow melt. Typical causes are improperly sealed well cap, failed grouting or surface drainage to the well. Shock chlorinate the well, repack the soil around the well pipe to flow away from the well and replace the well cap. Then after the next big rainstorm retest the well for coliform. If it is still present then a long-term treatment should be implemented: using UV light, ozonation, or chlorine for continuous disinfection.

If you have fecal coliform in the well or E. coli, your well is being impacted by human or animal waste and you are drinking dilute sewage. If there is not a nearby animal waste composting facility, then you are probably drinking water from a failed septic system- yours or your nearest neighbors. To solve this problem you need to either fix or replace the septic system that is causing the contamination, replace the well or install a disinfection and filtration system. Disinfection does not kill Giardia or Cryptosporidium, two microscopic parasites that can be found in groundwater that has been impacted by surface water or sewage. Both parasites produce cysts that cause illness and sometimes death.

Membrane filtration is the usual treatment for these parasites- a one micron membrane is required after disinfection and can be accomplished at home with a reverse osmosis system. The failing septic systems can often be identified by using tracer dyes. While continuous disinfection will work to protect you from fecal bacteria and E. coli, be aware that if your well is being impacted by a septic system, then the well water might also have present traces of all the chemicals and substances that get poured down the drain. Long term treatment for disinfection, and micro-filtration should be implemented: using UV light, ozonation, or chlorine for continuous disinfection, carbon filtration, and anything that is used for drinking should be further treated with a reverse osmosis systems or micro membrane system that work by using pressure to force water through a semi-permeable membrane. Large quantities of wastewater are produced by reverse osmosis systems and need to bypass the septic system or they will overwhelm that system creating more groundwater problems. Reverse osmosis systems produce water very slowly, a pressurized storage tank and special faucet needs to be installed so that water is available to meet the demand for drinking and cooking.

Nitrate can contaminate well water from fertilizer use; leaking from septic tanks, sewage and erosion of natural deposits. Only one well in our group had nitrate levels above the MCL. The MCL for nitrate is 10 mg/L the one well that tested above that level tested at 10.5 mg/L. Infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrate in excess of the MCL could become seriously ill from blue-baby syndrome and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and a blue ting to the skin common in blue-baby syndrome. The NO3 dissolves and moves easily through soil which varies seasonally and over time as plants use up the nitrate over the summer. Testing in the spring will usually produce the highest levels. Nitrate may indicate contamination from septic tanks, but do not boil the water- boiling water reduces the water and actually INCREASES the concentration of nitrates. Reverse osmosis, or ion exchange is necessary to control the nitrate.

Iron and manganese are naturally occurring elements commonly found in groundwater in this part of the country. Several of the wells tested exceeded the secondary standard, 5.1% of the wells tested exceed the iron standard and 7.7% exceeded the manganese standard. At naturally occurring levels iron and manganese do not present a health hazard. However, their presence in well water can cause unpleasant taste, staining and accumulation of mineral solids that can clog water treatment equipment and plumbing. The standard Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for iron is 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L or ppm) and 0.05 mg/L for manganese. This level of iron and manganese are easily detected by taste, smell or appearance. In addition, some types of bacteria react with soluble forms of iron and manganese and form persistent bacterial contamination in a well, water system and any treatment systems. These organisms change the iron and manganese from a soluble form into a less soluble form, thus causing precipitation and accumulation of black or reddish brown gelatinous material (slime). Masses of mucous, iron, and/or manganese can clog plumbing and water treatment equipment.

All systems of removing iron and manganese essentially involve oxidation of the soluble form or killing and removal of the iron bacteria. When the total combined iron and manganese concentration is less than 15 mg/l, an oxidizing filter is the recommended solution. An oxidizing filter supplies oxygen to convert ferrous iron into a solid form which can be filtered out of the water. Higher concentrations of iron and manganese can be treated with an aeration and filtration system. This system is not effective on water with iron/ manganese bacteria, but is very effective on soluble iron and manganese. Chemical oxidation can be used to remove high levels of dissolved or oxidized iron and manganese as well as treat the presence of iron/manganese (or even sulfur) bacteria. The system consists of a small pump that puts an oxidizing agent into the water before the pressure tank. The water will need about 20 minutes for oxidation to take place so treating before a holding tank or pressure tank is a must. After the solid particles have formed the water is filtered. The best oxidizing agents are chlorine or hydrogen peroxide. If chlorine is used, an activated carbon filter is often used to finish the water and remove the chlorine taste. The holding tank or pressure tank will have to be cleaned regularly to remove any settled particles.

The pH of water is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity. The pH is a logarithmic scale from 0 – 14 with 1 being very acidic and 14 very alkaline. Drinking water should be between 6.5 and 7.5. For reference and to put this into perspective, coffee has a pH of around 5 and salt water has a pH of around 9. Corrosive water, sometimes also called aggressive water is typically water with a low pH. (Alkaline water can also be corrosive.) Low pH water can corrode metal plumbing fixtures causing lead and copper to leach into the water and causing pitting and leaks in the plumbing system. The presence of lead or copper in water is most commonly leaching from the plumbing system rather than the groundwater. Acidic water is easily treated using an acid neutralizing filter. Typically these neutralizing filters use a granular marble, calcium carbonate or lime. If the water is very acidic a mixing tank using soda ash, sodium carbonate or sodium hydroxide can be used. The acid neutralizing filters will increase the hardness of the water because of the addition of calcium carbonate. The sodium based systems will increase the salt content in the water. Though 20.5% of the wells tested were found to have acidic water, only one well tested had a pH above 8.5 and that well also had high levels of sodium. The well owner emailed me with that information because I had stated in the clinic that high pH and elevated sodium levels were possible indications of salt water intrusion.

Water that contains high levels of dissolved minerals is commonly referred to as hard. Groundwater very slowly wears away at the rocks and minerals picking up small amounts of calcium and magnesium ions. Water containing approximately 125 mg/L can begin to have a noticeable impact and is considered hard. Concentration above 180 mg/L are considered very hard. As the mineral level climbs, bath soap combines with the minerals and forms a pasty scum that accumulates on bathtubs and sinks. You either must use more soap and detergent in washing or use specially formulated hard water soap solutions. Hard water can be just a minor annoyance with spotting and the buildup of lime scale, but once water reaches the very hard level 180 mg/L or 10.5 grains per gallon, it can become problematic, 18% of the wells had hard water exceeding that level. Hard water spots appear on everything that is washed in and around the home from dishes and silverware to the floor tiles and cars. When heated calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate are removed from the water and form a scale (lime scale) in cookware, hot water pipes, and water heaters.

Water softening systems are used to address the problem are basically an ion exchange system. The water softening system consists of a mineral tank and a brine tank. The water supply pipe is connected to the mineral tank so that water coming into the house must pass through the tank before it can be used. The mineral tank holds small beads of resin that have a negative electrical charge. The calcium and magnesium ions are positively charged and are attracted to the negatively charged beads. This attraction makes the minerals stick to the beads as the hard water passes through the mineral tank. Sodium is often used to charge the resin beads. As the water is softened, the sodium ions are replaced and small quantities of sodium are released into the softened water, thus the salty taste of softened water. When the water softening system is recharged the excess sodium solution carrying the calcium and magnesium is flushed to the septic system which may shorten the life of the drain field.

At the present time the EPA guidance level for sodium in drinking water is 20 mg/L. This level was developed for those restricted to a total sodium intake of 500 mg/day and does not necessarily represent a necessary level for the rest of the population. Based on taste of the water levels of sodium should be below 30 to 60 mg/L based on individual taste. Water softening systems add sodium. Reverse osmosis systems and distillation systems remove sodium and are safe for household use, but addressing hard water by using vinegar to descale pots and dishwashers, regularly draining hot water heaters, and using detergents formulated for hard water might be a better solution for you.

Test a Well for Chemical and Bacterial Contamination Before You Buy a Home

Picture from Moen Website

If your home or a home that you are considering buying has a drinking water well that is contaminated, it could significantly impact your health and the value of the property. Never buy a home with a contaminated or failing well. Testing a well is a very important part of a real estate transaction, and only by fully testing the water can you be certain that it is not contaminated. When buying a home with private water well you need to understand at a minimum the basics about groundwater, the age of the well, the local geology, water quality, and water quantity.  Most single family homes transactions only test a well for coliform bacteria contamination, nothing more. Total coliform bacteria is always present in manure and sewage, but is also present in soil and vegetation and surface water. The presence of coliform bacteria may indicate that the well has been impacted by a nearby septic system or manure composting; it can also mean that surface water is getting into the well either directly through a failing casing or grouting or improper construction or well cap or by other means. Absence of coliform bacteria only means that water is not contaminated by septic and surface runoff, but the water might be contaminated from other sources.

In a world not subject to chemical contamination of the aquifer (from pesticides, herbicides, solvents and fuels present in stormwater runoff) or high natural concentrations of arsenic or metals, a coliform bacteria test is a fairly decent test to determine potential outside impact to a well and sound construction. If you do not test for it you will not find it. Water contains a variety of impurities beyond the simply H2O molecules. Not all of the impurities and contaminants are bad, some make water taste good.  The US EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act does not protect private wells; however, the limits for the primary and secondary contaminants are a good standard to compare water to when testing a well.

Due to its protected location underground, most groundwater is naturally clean and free from pollution. Typically, the deeper the well the less likely is it to be contaminated from nearby industrial operations. However there are a number of threats to drinking water: improperly disposed of chemicals; animal wastes; pesticides; human wastes; wastes injected deep underground; and naturally-occurring substances can all contaminate drinking water and make it unsuitable for drinking or make the water unpleasant to drink. It is important to know the land history of a site. Homes built on former disposal sites- farm dumps, landfills or former military operations are particularly susceptible to contamination. Former agricultural properties should be tested for pesticides, fuels and solvents because farmers often have fuel tanks and repaired farm equipment with solvent that were improperly disposed of over the years.

The nightmare scenario is what happened in Sterling, Virginia as documented by Rosemary Stephen in her article “Trichloroethylene(TCE) Water Contamination.”  The short story is that for twenty or thirty years homeowners in a community in Sterling, Virginia (a community in Loudoun County) were drinking water contaminated with TCE and its degradation products. The homes had been built on and old landfill and back in 1988 the Loudoun County Department of Health and the EPA had found traces of TCE, its degradation products and pesticides in three residential wells, but because the contamination was below the regulated maximum contaminant level (MCL) no further investigation was performed. Apparently, the oddity of finding a solvent in groundwater in a residential community did not immediately prompt further investigation. The water was within safe limits and thus was fine.

However, the water in the neighborhood was not fine. In 2005, 68 more wells (in the community) were tested by the Health Department. “Forty-five wells tested positive for TCE; 17 of these wells contained concentration of TCE above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 micrograms per liter (mcg/L) while 28 wells contained TCE, but below the MCL.”  The site was declared a CERCLA (Superfund) site in 2008. Between 1988 and 2005 no testing was done on the individual homeowner wells. The water was consumed by the young and old and the homes were bought and sold. If your home had been declared within a Superfund site, it is very likely that the value of the home would be impacted.

To be prudent and smart you need to test the well for likely sources of contamination. When I was working as an Environmental Engineer, the biggest challenge was to adequately research the history of a property and then test the soil and groundwater for contamination in the areas most likely to be contaminated. Testing is very expensive, so it is virtually impossible to fully test soil and groundwater.  In buying a single family home, you do not have any of this information or resources available to you. Neighbors can be useful or just have no understanding of environmental and groundwater issues and tell you nonsense they’ve heard. If someone asked me about groundwater in my community or my opinion about any specific well, I would tell them, but they would not know my level of expertise. While there are some good historical records available for industrial and commercial properties there is very little information available for residential properties. The department of health often has some useful information about water quality in the county and septic systems, but rarely has any water analysis data available.  Chemical analysis can be very expensive, and there is no requirement that private wells be tested at all and most health departments do not have budgets for testing water quality.  

However there are screening packages available from National Testing Laboratories that could serve to screen water wells for all the primary and secondary contaminants before you purchase a home. Their WaterCheck with pesticides package is a broad stroke test, testing the water for 103 items including Bacteria (Total Coliform and E-Coli), 19 heavy metals and minerals including lead, iron, arsenic and copper (many which are naturally occurring, but can impact health); 6 other inorganic compounds including nitrates and nitrites (can indicate fertilizer residue or animal waste); 5 physical factors including pH, hardness, alkalinity; 4 Trihalomethanes (THMs) and 47 Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) including Benzene, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Trichloroethene (TCE). The pesticide option adds 20 pesticides, herbicides and PCBs.  WaterCheck with the pesticide option costs $217. You will also have to pay overnight shipping cost ($40-$70) to return the package.   

In order to complete the analysis before you are committed to purchase a home, you will need to purchase the WaterCheck package before you put an offer on a home. Have the package ready, read the instructions and include in the purchase offer a water analysis clause that specifies that the contingency period must be long enough to allow for the analysis and the water quality must be acceptable to you. At least that is what I used; I did not specify that the water quality must be within all primary MCLs and within recommended secondary contaminant levels because some of the secondary contaminants are common minerals in groundwater and are regionally high. Make sure that you test the water before any treatment equipment that the home may have, activated carbon filters and distillation units can remove some solvent and hydrocarbons from the water. If any water treatment systems exist in a home you want to test the water before treatment and after treatment so that you understand what the water is being treated for and if the treatment is effective.  

My water tested "hard," but I was fine with that. The levels of all other secondary contaminants were within recommended limits. All primary contaminants were below the MCL and all hydrocarbons and solvents were not detected at any level. There is no good explanation for the presence of volatile organic chemicals in a drinking water well. Even extremely low levels may indicate a significant problem.  Also, be aware that a common nuisance contaminant in this part of the county is iron bacteria. Iron Bacteria can cause both unpleasant odors and taste to your water as well as cause clog screens and ultimately foul a pump. There is no EPA approved analysis for these bacteria, but there are assay tests. An easy way to see if there are iron bacteria in a home is to stick your hand in the toilet tank and feel the flapper. Iron bacteria leave slime on the flapper and you can feel it with your fingers. Of course if the tank is brown or orange there is likely an iron problem or the iron bacteria has gotten completely out of hand. Once iron bacteria are in a well, it is really hard to get rid of, but fairly easy to control with annual disinfection.  When I bought a home I wanted the water to be acceptable as it was. Water systems are dynamic and do change, and over time I discovered that slime was appearing on my toilet flappers and have had to address the iron bacteria and the annoyance of the annual treatment (which causes all the manganese and iron particles that treatment freed from the well to remain in the water supply until the well fully clears).

To ensure that you will have adequate time to test water quality before releasing all contingencies, you will need to check with the laboratory for turnaround time to make sure your contingency period is long enough. Do not let a realtor pressure you to skip this test because it could take a couple of weeks. When I bought my home in 2007 I could only negotiate a 10 day contingency period and had to pay a huge premium to have the well analysis done on a rush basis. Remember the mortgage takes longer so just include the time- fight for it; this is the most money you will ever spend. While you are at it, check when the last time the septic tank was pumped and the septic system inspected.

How to Test Your Well's Water

In Virginia 34% of the population is estimated to obtain their drinking water from private groundwater wells, more than twice the national average. If you have your own well, then the responsibility for ensuring that your family and friends are drinking safe water rests with you. Just because your water appears clear doesn’t necessarily mean it is safe to drink. You cannot taste bacterial contamination from human and animal waste, nor nitrate/ nitrite contamination. Many chemical contaminants cannot be tasted or smelled at levels that can impact your health. Since bacterial contamination cannot be detected by taste, smell, or sight, all drinking water wells should be tested at least annually for Coliform bacteria and E Coli. Testing is the only way to detect contamination in your water. Testing is not mandatory, but should be done to ensure your family’s safety.

The quality of your water will be determined of the source of the groundwater, the ability of your local geology to protect or impact your aquifer and the absence or presence of a potential local source of contamination. First of all let me say that according to the US EPA actual events of groundwater contamination have historically been rare and typically do not occur at levels likely to pose significant health concerns. This fact is the basis of the EPA and state health departments’ acceptance of private and unmonitored use of groundwater for drinking water purposes for a significant portion of the United States. However, as population density increases and we use more and more chemicals, pesticides and drugs, there are more opportunities to contaminate our groundwater. Because I am a retired environmental engineer I tend to focus on threats to the groundwater and worry about my groundwater quality more than most.

The most common sources of pollution to groundwater supplies come from two categories; naturally occurring ones and those caused by human activities. Naturally occurring contamination are produced from the underlying soil and rock geology. Microorganisms in the soil can travel into groundwater supplies through cracks, fissures, and other pathways. Nitrates and nitrites from the nitrogen compounds in the soil can also enter the groundwater. From the underlying rocks radionuclides and heavy metals can enter the groundwater. There are areas with natural occurring arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium and fluoride. While many natural contaminants such as iron, sulfate, and manganese are not considered serious health hazards, they can give drinking water an unpleasant taste, odor, or color.

Human activities can also introduce contaminants into the groundwater. Bacteria and nitrates can be caused by human and animal waste. Improperly constructed and sealed wells can allow surface contamination to enter the well. Improperly maintained septic systems containing human waste and any chemical you flush down the drain, horses, and backyard poultry can contaminate the groundwater. Leaks from underground storage tanks, surface disposal of solvents, motor oil, paint, paint thinner, or nearby or historic landfills or industrial operations can contaminate groundwater. A confining geological layer can protect groundwater from surface contaminants more effectively than a fractured rock system, and there is very limited natural protection in karst terrain. So in Virginia, where there are rich supplies of groundwater our aquifers can be very susceptible to contamination.

If you have a perceived water problem with taste or quality, have your water analyzed. Though it is cost prohibitive to test for every potential contaminant, a broad baseline analysis should be performed occasionally (every few years). The cheapest way to do this is a commercial product aimed at the private homeowner. One product I have used is the WaterCheck with Pesticides. This product covers 15 heavy metals, 5 inorganic chemicals, 5 physical factors (like hardness and pH), 4 trihalo methanes, 43 volatile organic chemicals (solvents), and 20 pesticides, herbicides and PCB’s. The product is sold by an EPA certified laboratory that is also certified in Virginia, National Testing Labs. The Minimum Detection Levels, which are the lowest levels at which the laboratory detects that contaminant are below the levels established by the Safe Drinking Water Act so this relatively affordable ($217 including shipping and handling) test will serve as a broad screen of drinking water. Though I know it is tempting to skip the full analysis, don’t. Analysis is the only way to fully know your groundwater aquifer. Once you know the characteristic of your water, they are unlikely to change quickly and you can monitory the safety of your water with the far more affordable home testing kits. Having a good analysis allows you to choose the proper treatment system or plan of treatment.

In the March 2012 Good Housekeeping magazine they had an extensive article on water. One of the things they did was to evaluate home water testing kits. To test the home contaminant-detection kits, the Good Housekeeping Research Institute worked with the Water Sciences Laboratory at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Lab researchers spiked water samples with measured concentrations of contaminants the kits claimed to be able to detect, including two herbicides, nitrate, copper, lead, and bacteria. Then after following the kit's instructions, evaluated its performance at detecting the known contaminants. They found the PurTest kit to be the most accurate and easiest to use, but the second ranked First Alert test kit was also good and significantly cheaper.

PurTest Home Water Analysis, Model P33, $40: With an overall detection accuracy of 10 of 12, it measured iron and alkalinity too high. It was also the easiest kit to use. The kit tested water for: atrazine, simazine, nitrate, nitrite, total chlorine, pH, total alkalinity, hardness, e-coli, lead, copper, iron, but inaccurately measured both iron and total alkalinity. The kit was found to be very easy to use and had duplicate test strips for everything but the bacteria tests.

First Alert Drinking Water Test, Model WT1, $17: With an overall detection accuracy of 8 of 9, it missed total chlorine. The kit claims to test for: atrazine, simazine, nitrate, nitrite, total chlorine, pH, hardness, lead, e-coli. This kit missed identifying chlorine. No duplicate strips were provided for most of the tests.

These test kits allow the home owner to inexpensively test their own water on a regular basis to make sure that they meet the most basic potability standards and monitor for any changes in water quality. If you need help in understanding your water test results you can contact the Virginia Master Well Owner Network (VAMWON), an organization of trained volunteers and extension agents dedicated to promoting the proper construction, maintenance, and management of private water systems (wells, springs, and cisterns) in Virginia. The Cooperative Extension Services in Virginia manages the program and have numerous publications and fact sheets that can help homeowners make educated decisions about their drinking water. The VAMWON volunteer or Agent can help you identify problems with the water system and provide information on suggested treatments options and other solutions. You can find your VAMWON volunteer neighbor through this link by entering your county in the search box.

Water Contamination From Fracking -Science or Politics?

In late 2010, two homeowners who lived over the Barnett Sale in Parker Texas near the drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations of Range Resources, a Fort Worth based natural gas driller, reported problems with their tap water, complaining that it was bubbling and even flammable. On Dec. 7, 2010, EPA issued an emergency administrative order to Range Resources to take immediate action to protect these homeowners. Now without explanation EPA has withdrawn the administrative order. The tale of this incident is not straightforward. The homeowners drinking water wells had been drilled in 2005 and no historical sampling beyond basic bacteria had ever been performed. However, whether or not I had been diligent in monitoring my private water supply if I suddenly discovered methane in my well, I, too, would want action, but it is possible that the appearance of the methane was not sudden. One of the families, the Lipsky family, sued Range Resources for $6,500,000 in damages.

Under the EPA order, Range Resources was required to provide drinking water to residents of two homes in Parker County whose water wells the agency said had been contaminated with methane by Range Resource’s natural gas drilling. In addition, the Emergency Order directed Range to install explosivity meters in the two houses within 48 hours, perform and submit to the EPA a survey “of all private water wells within 3,000 of each of their well and all of the Lake Country Acres public water supply system wells,” within five days along with a plan to sample air and water at those wells. In addition, Range Resources was to submit to the EPA for approval “a plan to conduct soil gas surveys and indoor air concentration in the homes within 14 days. A dramatic video on U-Tube of what appeared to be flaming water may have contributed to the EPA determination.

The Texas Railroad Commission held hearings on the incident. To those of us not familiar with the Texas regulatory structure, the Railroad Commission of Texas was established in 1891 and is the oldest regulatory agency in the state. For more than 90 years, the Commission has regulated the oil and gas industry. In addition the Railroad Commission has jurisdiction over gas utility, surface mining and pipeline industries. The Railroad Commission has both the expertise and experience to address these concerns. The Commission invited the EPA and the two domestic water well owners to present their evidence at the Commission’s January 19-20, 2011 administrative law hearing. However, neither the EPA nor the water well owners or their representatives appeared to testify.

Evidence presented during the Commission’s hearing included geochemical gas fingerprinting that demonstrated the gas in the domestic water wells came from the shallower Strawn gas field, which begins about 200 to 400 feet below the surface. The natural gas tested did not match the gas produced by Range Resources from the much deeper Barnett Shale field, which is more than 5,000 feet below the surface in that area. Range Resources also presented information to demonstrate that the two Range Resources gas wells were mechanically sound and without any leaks.

The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated to the satisfaction of the state regulators and the administrative law judge that hydraulic fracturing of gas wells in the area did not result in communication between the Barnett Shale gas field and shallow aquifers from which water wells in the area draw their water and the Railroad Commission voted unanimously to clear the company of the charges last March. Texas Railroad Commission hearing examiners issued a finding that Range Resources two Barnett Shale natural gas wells were not the source of methane-gas contamination of residential water wells in Parker County.

Meanwhile, at the conclusion of the hearing in Texas, on January 20, 2011, Range Resources filed its petition for review of the Administrative Order with the federal Court asserting that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the Emergency Order and counter sued one of the homeowners. It appears that one of the homeowners, the Lipsky’s created a dramatic video of flames coming from the well by attaching a hose to the water well's gas vent, not the water line as represented in the video and then lit the gas from the hose's nozzle. A Texas Judge found the video to be deceptive and the judge threw out the Lipskys' $6,500,000 lawsuit against Range Resources. The Judge ruled that the couple lacked legal jurisdiction to sue because the Texas Railroad Commission had determined in March that Range's gas wells were not responsible for contaminating their well.

Meanwhile, EPA countered Range Resources motion to dismiss that the endangerment determination was based on its concern that “methane in the levels found by EPA are potentially explosive or flammable, and benzene if ingested or inhaled could cause cancer, anemia, neurological impairment and other adverse health impacts and that this threat two private drinking water wells was a reasonable exercise of EPA’s authority under section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. ” The benzene levels found were below the regulatory maximum contaminant level, MCL, under the SDWA.

Though the EPA web site states: “The Safe Drinking Water Act gives EPA authority is to abate conditions in the water supply that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health. This authority is generally triggered when a contaminant present in, or likely to enter, a public water system or underground drinking water source, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health, and the state or local authority as not acted.” It is not entirely clear upon reading that the SDWA extends to groundwater beyond Underground Injection Control. Private drinking water wells are clearly not public water supplies.

Range resources’ challenge against the order was pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit when the EPA withdrew the order on last Thursday and stated that: "EPA and Range will share scientific data and conduct further well monitoring in the area, and Range will also provide useful information and access to EPA in support of EPA's scientific inquiry into the potential impacts of energy extraction on drinking water."

The EPA has also agreed with Wyoming state regulators earlier in March to conduct more tests at a site in Pavillion, where initial results found evidence that fracking contributed to water pollution. State regulators and industry officials questioned those initial results. In Wyoming where the water table is deep and the gas shallow the drinking water aquifer has been impacted. The EPA, announced last December that glycols, alcohols, methane and benzene were found in a well the EPA drilled into the drinking water aquifer in Wyoming within the Pavillion field were consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids and likely due to fracking. The oil company responsible for these wells and the state regulators claimed that the results were inconclusive because methane can naturally seep into groundwater wells that provide drinking water. This is a rare occurrence that is usually confined to deeper water wells in the coal-producing areas, but these were deeper wells in a coal producing area. Benzene could have been introduced into the water by previous generations of oil and gas development. EPA appears to be backing off from its previous stance and point of view on fracking and water contamination for the moment. Possibly EPA should deploy fewer lawyers and more scientists and really study hydraulic fracturing or allow the states to develop regulations and controls appropriate to their specific geology.

Give the US Geological Survey the Well Data

It has long been known that natural gas was trapped in the tiny pore spaces that comprise shale rock, but that knowledge was useless. Until recently there was no economically feasible way to extract this gas. However, in the past decade our ability to recover natural gas buried a mile or more beneath the earth in these shale deposits has increased. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertical well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracking, the pumping of millions of gallons of water laced with proprietary chemicals into shale at high pressure to release the natural gas stored in the pore spaces have increased our ability to recover natural gas from that shale. This combined with the increase in the price of natural gas has spurred the race to develop wells to exploit the natural gas from a series of major shale gas deposits in North America that could not have been viable without these advances in drilling and fracking. The Fayetteville shale, the Haynesville shale, the Marcellus shale reserves all in the United States and the Horn River shale in Canada are now accessible. At the current rate of natural gas consumption North America is reported to have a 100-year supply (at the current rate of use) of proven, producible reserves.

Natural gas is now seen as an abundant domestic energy resource. When it burns, natural gas emits the lowest amount of carbon dioxide per calorie of any fossil fuel and burns cleanly because of this natural gas could be the “bridge fuel” in the long-term transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy or whatever the future and science will discover. In the 1990’s natural gas, sold for $2 per million BTUs after peaking in 2005 natural gas is now about $4 per million BTUs, making the extraction of shale gas viable and profitable. The U.S. uses natural gas to produce 21 % of its electricity. Coal is used to product 48 % of electricity in the United States and is still much cheaper than natural gas for generating electricity, but new regulations by the EPA on carbon emissions could decrease that financial advantage because coal burns dirtier than natural gas. Recent ambitious plans to convert the nation to renewable energy: build nuclear plants and solar and wind farms, were made under the assumption that natural gas prices would average $7 to $9 per million BTUs. At that level, electricity prices would have been high enough to make wind and nuclear power look affordable. Now, with natural gas at $4 per million BTUs and more gas reserves announced each year, many of these projects suddenly look too expensive. Shale sourced natural gas could profoundly change the future of our nation and world we live in; however we need to remember that the gas still is a limited resource and be cautious about what other impacts fracking might have on our other resources especially the hydraulic balance.

Though there has been tremendous concern for the potential direct adverse impact that fracking may have on drinking water, geologists and engineers believe that there is little risk that the fracking “water,” a mix chemicals and water, will somehow infiltrate groundwater reserves though a fissure created by the fracking. It is believed though not documented and tested that the intervening layers of rock would prevent a fissure from extending thousands of feet to the water table. There are other risks in how we build wells and fracture the shale. Documented contamination to drinking water wells due to seepage of fracking water into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells can be controlled to some extent by recommendations made in the report of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The report had a rational approach to regulation recommending disclosure, testing, evaluation and modification of regulation and practices based on the information and data obtained. It assumes information and data will be gathered and analyzed. That is not being done.

Though the energy companies are beginning to gather baseline data for drinking water wells in the areas being fracked, the data collection is not ongoing nor broad enough. The data that is being collected is not adding to the base of knowledge, but rather I suspect to demonstrate that stray gas was a pre-existing condition of the drinking water wells. What is needed is an ongoing monitoring and data collection of the potential impacts to our water supply from hydraulic fracking. Drilling requires large amounts of water to create a circulating mud that cools the bit and carries the rock cuttings out of the borehole. After drilling, the shale formation is then stimulated by hydraulic fracking, using up to 3 million gallons of water. Data needs to be gathered on the impact to water resources of supplying water for the construction of thousands of wells per year. For gas to flow out of the shale, nearly all of the water injected into the well during fracking must be recovered and disposed of. Though less than 0.5% by volume, the proprietary chemicals are 15,000 gallons in the waste from the typical 3 million gallon hydro fracking job. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow. Determining the proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants and monitoring the impact from this disposal must also be done. The impact of so much waste water on our water resources must be measured and monitored. Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the industry itself as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads and placed on concrete pads. The watersheds must be monitored. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3032/pdf/FS2009-3032.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems. The USGS employs 10,000 scientists, technicians, and support staff that serve the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. The USGS is an amazing national resource that we have failed to fully utilize in the understanding of the impacts of hydraulic fracking. The USGS should determine the parameters that need to be monitored for a base line and on an ongoing or periodic basis and industry should provide that data in a usable format to the USGS. For once let’s develop a resource carefully and correctly without scaring the earth or damaging our water supply. We’ve lost our margin for error.

Your Water Well After the Earthquake

Surprise, Virginia just had an intra plate earthquake measuring a 5.8 on the Richter scale. It has been well documented that earthquakes can have significant effects on water wells. Hydro geologic responses to earthquakes have been known for decades, and have occurred both close to, and thousands of miles from earthquake epicenters. The US Geological Survey has a national network of monitoring wells to study the impacts of earthquakes on groundwater and water wells. An earthquake can cause water wells to become turbid, which is when the water is cloudy or more commonly dirty looking, wells have gone dry or flow has increased, discharge of ground water to streams has increased and new springs have formed, and well water quality have become degraded as a result of earthquakes. Earthquakes can affect your drinking water well. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-096-03/

Aquifers which consist of unconsolidated materials can compact, or become almost liquefied as a result of the seismic energy moving though them during the earthquake, in a process called liquefaction. This results in a compression of the soils and a loss of storage for groundwater, and subsidence on the ground’s surface. Aquifers are water-bearing subsurface soil and rock formations that can be effected by seismic activity. In bedrock formations, for instance, the well will be drilled until it hits a fracture or crevice that holds water. Earthquake shocks can increase the permeability of the aquifer rocks and cause the water level to fall with gravity through the more permeable materials and the water will fall to a lower level leaving the well dry.

The most common type of observed ground-water response is an instantaneous water-level fall or rise and can occur near or far from the epicenter of the quake without significant change to the rock formation. Recovery to the pre-earthquake water level can be so rapid as to be almost unnoticeable, or it may take as long as several days or months. Water level changes can be large enough to make a well flow to the land surface, or render a well dry. In 1998 there was an earthquake in northwestern Pennsylvania that caused about 120 local household drinking water wells to go dry within 3 months after the earthquake, they never recovered. Very large earthquakes even at great distances can also cause the water table to temporarily rise and fall when the seismic long waves pass through the state and this is the most common type of groundwater response. The 2002 earthquake in Alaska caused a 2-foot water-level rise in a well in Wisconsin, more than a thousand miles from the epicenter.

The shaking associated with an earthquake may cause sand to plug a well screen, and thus reduce the volume of water that can be pumped. Conversely, the shaking can dislodge sand plugging a well screen and cause an increase in the volume of water that can be pumped from the well. In Virginia where well casings typically extend only 50 feet below grade, the shaking or oscillation of the earth may dislodge sand or dirt within the water table that can be captured by the pump. In some cases the well returns to its normal state and the loosened particles can be flushed out of the system but in others the well needs to be serviced to restore former production volume. In an interesting report from the Geological Survey of Japan and the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) that groundwater anomalies were recorded several days before the 1946 Nankai earthquake. The reported phenomena were turbid groundwater, decreases of groundwater level or hot spring discharge.

According the US Geological Survey the exact mechanism linking hydro geologic changes and earthquakes is not fully understood. Because an earthquake can cause shifts in the earth and water bearing soil and rock formations, groundwater used for drinking and the private drinking water wells can be affected. According to David Helms of the US Geological Survey in Richmond, who is still analyzing the data, USGS monitoring wells have shown significant impact. The example he gave me was the Reston well which experienced a sudden drop in groundwater level yesterday and though it recovered by this morning, the water level was lower than the pre-event level. It is unknown if the groundwater level will recover fully. Well water can also become cloudy or take on a different color, smell and feel. The water can become contaminated with dirt, minerals and other solids, as well as bacteria due to damage to the casing and grouting. To see if your well has been impacted, you will have to empty your pressure tank and see what pumps out of the well. Turbidity could move through the system and pass in a short period or not depending on the specific geology, soil type and hydro geology. However, if there are any indications of impact the water should be tested to ensure it is still potable.