By David E. Hess, Former Secretary Department of Environmental Protection

The information submitted to DEP’s Bureau of Waste Management from eight conventional oil and gas companies to justify allowing them to dispose of millions of gallons of wastewater by spreading it on dirt roads fails to meet the requirements of DEP’s 25 Pa Code Chapter 287.8 which outlines the evaluations needed for a waste to qualify as a product-- or “coproduct” as defined in DEP’s Residual Waste regulations.

Failing to meet DEP’s 25 Pa Code Chapter 287.8 means they have been road spreading conventional oil and gas wastewater illegally and are subject to enforcement actions.

In response to questions about the status of the Coproduct Determination reviews, a spokesperson for DEP said, “DEP agrees that the submissions are inadequate and continues to review, and will take enforcement actions as needed.”

Copies of the 8 submissions received by DEP were obtained by the Better Path Coalition in a Right To Know Act request to the Department of Environmental Protection. 

A total of 17 companies were identified by DEP as reporting they were spreading their wastewater on roads in 2020, but only 8 companies responded to DEP’s request for their Coproduct Determinations. [Read more here]

A total of 29 companies were later identified in a separate review as spreading their wastewater on roads in 2018, 2019 and 2020, according to a review of DEP’s Oil & Gas Waste database by the Better Path Coalition.

From 2018 to 2020, all conventional oil and gas operators reported disposing of 54,327 barrels (nearly 2.3 million gallons) of wastewater by road spreading, according to DEP’s oil and gas waste reporting database.

These reports raise the question of whether the companies had the Coproduct Determination documentation in place when they did this road spreading over the last three years.

Chemical sample results in the submissions also document the fact that conventional oil and gas wastewater being spread on dirt roads far exceeds the water quality standards adopted this year by DEP in General Permit WMGR123 covering the processing and beneficial use of oil and gas liquid waste.

These standards represent DEP’s latest thinking on what the chemical and physical limits should be for oil and gas wastewater.

In addition, the submissions document the fact the dust suppressant for dirt roads distributed by Seneca Mineral Company and known as LS-25 comes from oil and gas wells permitted and inspected by DEP’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, and has a worse chemical composition than the wastewater from companies making the submissions and far, far exceeds the water quality standards adopted this year by DEP in General Permit WMGR123 covering the processing and beneficial use of oil and gas liquid waste.

Conventional oil and gas companies are required to report the amount of waste they generate and generally where it goes for disposal or treatment once a year, but there is no manifest system that allows tracking that waste from “cradle to grave.”

It is nearly impossible to connect the dots from the waste generator, waste hauler to a specific treatment or disposal facility or in this case to a specific road where wastewater is being disposed of because neither the road-- nor the waste generator-- is required to file reports with that information.

DEP’s Oil and Gas Program banned the practice of disposing of unconventional (shale) drilling wastewater by road spreading in regulations adopted in 2016.

As a result of a 2018 settlement of an Environmental Hearing Board appeal, DEP’s Oil and Gas Program halted the practice of approving plans for road spreading conventional wastewater.  [Read more here]

However, DEP’s Bureau of Waste Management still allows the practice under the Coproduct Determination process outlined in 25 Pa Code Chapter 287.8.

This in spite of the fact wastewater from both unconventional and conventional drilling companies have very similar chemical contamination and physical characteristics and both types of wells use fracking to increase natural gas production.

A growing body of recent scientific studies within the last four years by Penn State University, Temple  and others have confirmed that many of the chemicals present in conventional oil and gas wastewater, in particular arsenic, lead, nickel, radioactive radium [Read more here], bromine, barium, strontium, chromium, cadmium, copper, benzine, iodine, ammonia, Diesel-Range organics and Gasoline-range organics [Read more here] and more are potentially harmful to public health and the environment when the wastewater is spread on dirt and gravel roads.

The preliminary results of a new Penn State research study released in November by a team led by Dr. Nathaniel Warner found road spreading of conventional oil and gas drilling wastewater results in increased cancer risks for people living along those roads who are repeatedly exposed to multiple applications of wastewater, especially children. [Read more here]

The typical road spreading of oil and gas wastewater on dirt roads involves a vac truck making three or more passes on each section of road using a combination of an open value on the back of the truck and then a blanket pass with a homemade spreader bar that offers no control on the amount of brine spread.

See Photos Here - Read more here.  See Photos Here - Read more here.

Better Path Coalition: How To Fix Wastewater Loophole & Waste Reporting

On December 13, the Better Path Coalition released a related report about the Coproduct Determination “loophole” that allows conventional oil and gas companies to spread their wastewater on dirt and gravel roads with no controls.

The report also highlights significant problems with DEP’s oil and gas waste reporting database that is supposed to track how conventional and unconventional oil and gas waste is disposed of.

Click Here to read more and for a copy of the report.

Initial 17 Companies Road Spreading Drilling Wastewater

In October, DEP identified 17 conventional oil and gas operators who reported road spreading their wastewater in annual waste disposal reports in 2020, but only eight submitted the Coproduct Determination documentation requested by DEP to comply with 25 Pa Code Chapter 287.8.  [Read more here]

Cameron Energy Company, DJR Well Services Inc., Howard Drilling, Inc., JMG Energy LLC, LHS Prod LLC (a.k.a. Glenn Weaver & Son LLC), McComb Oil Inc., Pennfield Energy and Vista OPR Inc. provided what DEP said was their Coproduct Determination documentation in response to the DEP request.

Here are the remaining 10 companies that did not respond or said they didn’t have the Coproduct Determination or were preparing it and didn’t have it or responded they were not road spreading in 2020 as of December 8.

These companies reported road spreading conventional oil and gas wastewater from 596 wells in reports to DEP catalogued in its Oil & Gas Waste database-- 

-- CRS Energy LLC [reported road spreading wastewater from 87 wells, according to DEP’s Oil & Gas Waste database, ultimately submitted only its wastewater chemical analysis as a Coproduct Determination];

-- Energy Resources of America, Inc. [reported road spreading from 47 wells to DEP, no response to DEP’s request];

-- Heiter Robert & Carol [reported road spreading from 1 well to DEP, but responded to DEP’s request saying they had no road spreading in 2020];

-- L & B Energy LLP [reported road spreading from 1 well to DEP, but responded to DEP’s request saying they had no road spreading in 2020];

-- Pembrooke Oil & Gas, Inc. [reported road spreading from 236 wells to DEP, but responded to DEP’s request saying they didn’t have the Coproduct Determination but wanted additional time to respond];

-- Elder Oil & Gas Company [reported road spreading wastewater from 19 wells to DEP, no response to DEP’s request];

-- G & G Gas, Inc. [reported road spreading wastewater from 67 wells to DEP, responded to DEP’s request saying they had no Coproduct Determination, but is working on it];

-- LT Oil Company, LLC [reported road spreading wastewater from 74 wells to DEP, no response to DEP’s request];

-- Stedman Energy, Inc. [reported road spreading wastewater from 1 well to DEP, no response to DEP’s request]; and 

-- River Ridge Gravel Company [reported road spreading waste from 110 wells to DEP, no response to DEP’s request.]

In a follow up letter from the Governor’s Office Of General Counsel on November 24 to the Better Path Coalition’s Right To Know request, DEP said the eight companies represents “all documentation submitted to the Department by Oil and Gas Operators between January 1, 2018 through October 8, 2021 concerning use of a portion of their oil and gas produced fluid as a dust suppressant for road application had been provided to the requester [the Coalition] through the Department’s [DEP] final response to her RTKL request.”

The letter further explains, “Some of Oil and Gas Operators from which DEP sought documentation supporting coproduct determinations did not respond and some responded that none of their oil and gas produced fluids were being applied to roads as a dust suppressant.”

29 Companies Road Spread Wastewater Over Last 3 Years

In a subsequent search of DEP's public oil and gas waste reporting database, Better Path Coalition identified a total of 29 conventional oil and gas companies reporting they spread their wastewater on dirt roads in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

The companies, in addition to the 17 as identified by DEP: Bobcat Well & Pipeline LLC, CRS Energy LLC, Diversified Oil & Gas LLC, Elder Oil & Gas Company, Empire Energy E&P LLC, Energy Resources of America, Inc., Enervest OPR LLC, G&G Gas, Inc., GASP Investment LLC, Gloria J & Roger S. Wenzel, Heiter Robert & Carol, L & B Energy LLP, LT Oil Company LLC, Metzler Jeffery A, Millennium Oil & Gas, Inc., Missing Moon Oil, Inc, Pembrook Oil & Gas, Inc., River Ridge Gravel Company, Savko John A, Stedman Energy, Inc., Victory Oil & Gas Company and WB Prod Mgmt. Company.

From 2018 to 2020, all conventional oil and gas operators reported disposing of 54,327 barrels (nearly 2.3 million gallons) of wastewater by road spreading, according to DEP’s oil and gas waste reporting database.

One of these companies that reported they spread their wastewater on roads-- Diversified Oil & Gas LLC-- owns about 23,000 wells in Pennsylvania, but DEP’s Oil & Gas Waste database shows waste reports for fewer than 250 wells in 2020.

8 Companies With Coproduct Determination Submissions

The eight companies that submitted Coproduct Determinations to DEP hold 2,551 oil and gas well permits, according to DEP’s eFACTS database, and reported to DEP disposing of wastewater from 702 of those wells by road spreading in 2020, according to DEP’s Oil & Gas Well Waste Data

One of the eight companies-- Pennfield Energy-- did not report any of its waste disposal numbers to DEP in 2018, 2019 or 2020.

Another of those companies-- Glenn Weaver & Son LLC-- is a municipal and residual waste transporter and doesn’t own any oil and gas wells itself and as a result doesn’t file any reports about the wastewater it hauls or where it came from effectively shielding the waste generators.

This is typical of many companies that pick up conventional oil and gas wastewater and dispose of it by spreading it on dirt and gravel roads.

The conventional oil and gas companies that generate the wastewater are only required to report how they dispose of waste annually.  Unconventional (shale gas) companies report monthly.

Coproduct Determination Requirements

In order for a waste to qualify for use as a product-- a “coproduct” under DEP’s Residual Waste regulations--  a company must meet the requirements of 25 Pa Code Chapter 287.8 and make a formal, written and documented Coproduct Determination and have that available upon request from DEP and for customers.

A coproduct is defined in 25 Pa Code Chapter 287.1 as “A material generated by a manufacturing or production process, or a spent material, of a physical character and chemical composition that is consistently equivalent to the physical character and chemical composition of an intentionally manufactured product or produced raw material, if the use of the material presents no greater threat of harm to human health and the environment than the use of the product or raw material.”

DEP regulations at 25 Pa Code Chapter 287.8 clearly outline what is required to be included in the written Coproduct Determination--

1. Evaluation of the chemical composition of the material; and

2. Evaluation of the threat of harm to the environment; and

3. Evaluation of the threat to public health; and

4. An evaluation to determine which, if any, hazardous or toxic constituents are present in the proposed coproduct at levels exceeding those found in the material it is replacing; and

5. An evaluation of the total levels of hazardous or toxic constituents to determine whether the total levels of constituents contained in the proposed coproduct exceed the total levels found in the intentionally manufactured product; and

6. An evaluation of the levels of leaching of hazardous or toxic constituents; and

7. An evaluation of the routes of exposure to humans and ecological receptors shall be identified. These routes of exposure shall include ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact, leaching to the groundwater, plant uptake and surface runoff potential.

What Chemicals To Look For

Since these coproduct regulations potentially apply to all wastes, they do not offer specific guidance for evaluating just conventional oil and gas drilling wastewater.

However, in January 2021, DEP issued General Permit WMGR123 covering the processing and beneficial use of oil and gas liquid waste requiring operators to test for and meet standards for 39 chemical contaminants and water characteristics of concern based on drinking water and water quality standards.

This represents DEP’s latest thinking about environmentally safe levels of these chemicals when they are found in oil and gas drilling wastewater.

If the wastewater meets these requirements, it is no longer considered a waste under this general permit, just like under DEP’s Coproduct Determination process.

The parameters include standards for: aluminum, ammonia, arsenic, barium, benzene, beryllium, boron, bromide, butozyethanol, cadmium, chloride, COD (chemical oxygen demand), chromium, copper, ethylene glycol, gross alpha, gross beta, iron, lead, manganese, MBAS (surfactants), methanol, molybdenum, nickel, nitrite-nitrate nitrogen, oil and grease, pH, radioactive radium-226 + radium-228, selenium, silver, sodium, strontium, sulfate, toluene, TDS (total dissolved solids), TSS (total suspended matter), uranium and zinc.

A variety of studies within the last four years by Penn State University and others have confirmed that many of the chemicals on this list are present in conventional oil and gas wastewater, in particular arsenic, lead, nickel, radioactive radium [Read more here], bromine, barium, strontium, chromium, cadmium, copper, benzine, iodine, ammonia, Diesel-Range organics and Gasoline-range organics [Read more here] and more.

These are in addition to Total Dissolved Solids, chloride, sodium, magnesium and calcium that are also typically found in conventional drilling wastewater.

Inconsistent Waste Material

Unlike other industries that produce waste looking to use the Coproduct Determination process-- like using inert crushed glass as an aggregate or a manufacturing process that produces a consistent waste product from one location-- conventional oil and gas companies collect their wastewater from dozens - to hundreds - to thousands of oil and gas wells across multiple counties.

Those wells are drilled all over Southwest, Northwest, Northcentral and Northeast Pennsylvania into different geologic formations and aquifers with different chemical characteristics.

 As noted, one conventional company that reported disposing of their wastewater by road spreading-- Diversified Oil & Gas LLC-- owns about 23,000 wells in Pennsylvania and finding a “representative sample” of 23,000 is statistically difficult, if not impossible, but certainly very expensive if done right.

The eight companies that submitted Coproduct Determinations to DEP hold 2,551 oil and gas well permits and reported to DEP disposing of wastewater by road spreading from 702 of those wells in 2020, according to DEP’s databases.

The definition of a coproduct in DEP’s regulations-- 25 Pa Code Chapter 287.1-- requires the waste proposed as a coproduct to be “consistently equivalent” to a commercially produced product.

Proving this in a scientifically valid way represents a real challenge in determining what wells to sample and how to represent potentially thousands of wells and doing the 7 evaluations required in the Coproduct Determination process.

4 Did Not Respond To Regulations

Four of the eight submissions DEP said where made in response to their request for copies of their formal, written Coproduct Determination required by Section 287.8 were not “Determinations,” they were simply copies of lab results on the lab’s letterhead and in one case a three-sentence, one-page letter from a township.

The four companies with similar unresponsive submissions included JMG Energy LLC, DJR Well Services Inc., MCComb Oil Inc. and Vista OPR, Inc.

Here’s a quick summary--

DJR Well Services Inc.

The company has 104 oil and gas well permits in at least Lawrence, Mercer counties and Venango counties and is based in McDonald, Ohio, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

The company reported road spreading wastewater from 18 of those wells and waste disposal from an additional 11 wells in 2020, according to DEP’s Oil & Gas Well Waste Data

The submission had none of the evaluations and doesn't even describe what they want to use the wastewater for.  There was no comparison to an existing commercial product.

They only submitted laboratory results on the letterhead of FREE-COL Laboratories [2017] for calcium, magnesium, sodium, chloride and total dissolved solids with no explanation of where the samples were taken. 

All the results were way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123--

-- Magnesium: 6,290,000 ug/l (wastewater) - 10,000 ug/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Sodium: 30,000,000 ug/l (wastewater) - 25,000 ug/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Chloride: 231,000 mg/l (wastewater) - 25 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Total Dissolved Solids: 392,000 mg/l (wastewater) - 500 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

JMG Energy LLC

The company has 204 oil and gas well permits in at least Mercer and Venango counties and is based in Crawford County, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

The company reported road spreading wastewater from 40 of those wells and waste disposal from an additional 7 wells in 2020, according to DEP’s Oil & Gas Well Waste Data

The submission had none of the evaluations and doesn't even describe what they want to use the wastewater for.  There was no comparison to an existing commercial product.

They only submitted laboratory results on the letterhead of the Modern Testing Laboratory [2019] for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, silver and mercury with no explanation of where the samples were taken.

Just the reporting thresholds in the report were way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123 which skewed the sampling results.

The one result they reported was over twice the allowable limit under the General Permit, even with the high reporting threshold--

-- Barium: 4.05 mg/l (wastewater) - 2 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard).

McComb Oil Inc.

The company has 28 oil and gas well permits in at least Mercer County and is based in Mercer County, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

The company reported road spreading wastewater from 15 of those wells and waste disposal from an additional 7 wells in 2020, according to DEP’s Oil & Gas Well Waste Data

The submission had none of the evaluations and doesn't even describe what they want to use the wastewater for. There was no comparison to an existing commercial product.

They only submitted laboratory results on the letterhead of FREE-COL Laboratories [2019] showing results for total dissolved solids, sodium, calcium, magnesium and chloride. They identified the sample as coming from one well in Sandy Lake Township, Mercer County. 

However, the report failed to identify the units of measure for reporting the results.

Vista OPR, Inc.

The company has 366 oil and gas well permits in at least Butler and Mercer Counties and is based in Pittsburgh, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

The company reported road spreading wastewater from 16 of those wells and waste disposal from an additional 54 wells in 2020, according to DEP’s Oil & Gas Well Waste Data

The submission had none of the evaluations and doesn't even describe what they want to use the wastewater for. There was no comparison to an existing commercial product.

They only submitted laboratory results on the letterhead of the Modern Testing Laboratory [2020] for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, silver and mercury with no explanation of where the samples were taken or what their analytical parameters were. 

Again, the reporting thresholds in the report were way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123 which skewed the results.

The one result they reported was nearly twice the allowable limit under the General Permit, even with the high reporting threshold--

-- Barium: 3.78 mg/l (wastewater) - 2 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard).

They also included a three-sentence, one-page letter from Amity Township which said they did a Coproduct Determination and determined it “to be comparable in nature as directed in accordance with 287.7” [which is not the Coproduct section of the regulations].  There were no supporting documentation or evaluations.

Remaining 4 Submissions Had One Of Seven Required Evaluations

The remaining four companies DEP identified as submitting Coproduct Determinations were-- Cameron Energy Company, Howard Drilling, Inc., LHS Prod LLC (a.k.a. Glenn Weaver & Son LLC), and Pennfield Energy.

Here is a quick summary of their submissions--

Cameron Energy Company

The company has 1,789 oil and gas well permits in at least Forest, McKean and Warren Counties-- including in the Allegheny National Forest-- and is based in Warren County, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

The company reported road spreading wastewater from 381 of those wells and waste disposal from an additional 54 wells in 2020, according to DEP’s Oil & Gas Well Waste Data

The odd thing about the company’s waste reports in 2020 was regardless of location of the 381 wells, the company reported road spreading either 0.87 barrels or 0.41 barrels of wastewater per well.

There was the same sort of “uniformity” among reporting how waste was disposed in other disposal categories as well.

The Cameron Energy Company submission includes only one of the required seven evaluations, but that one is very incomplete. 

The Coproduct Determination submission is almost entirely a simple comparison of the chemical analysis of  what they said were “representative samples” of wastewater with a Seneca Minerals LS-25 “product.” 

The chemicals and parameters included just calcium, chloride, potassium, magnesium and sodium for the general comparison. 

The reported results for both the wastewater and the LS-25 “product” were typically way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123. 

For example, they reported these results in the summary sheet--

-- Magnesium: 9,370 mg/l (LS-25) - 1,670 mg/l (wastewater) - 10 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Sodium: 54,600 mg/l (LS-25) - 25,700 mg/l (wastewater) - 25 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Chloride: 212,000 mg/l (LS-25) - 64,300 mg/l (wastewater) - 25 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

They also included an MSDS Safety Data Sheet for LS-25.

The cover letter of the Coproduct Determinations says, “The market product, LS25, enjoys a commercial product determination from the PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). The attached Exhibit A and B are the supporting chemical analysis used in the PADEP determination [in 2010].

The definition of Coproduct in Section 287.1 of DEP’s regulations specifically prohibits the comparison of a proposed coproduct material  “to a material that is no longer determined to be waste” by the Department under Section 287.7.

Exhibit A of the submission includes Seneca Minerals sample results from 2010 on the wastewater coming from DEP permitted oil and gas well [from the Korrell Well in McKean Township, Erie County (a.k.a. DEP well # 049-20014)] that they use as LS-25.

The results are way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123.

Exhibit B of the submission includes results from the Grubb Well which, as noted above, are way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123.

Exhibit C of the submission includes the Seneca Minerals MSDS Safety Data Sheet for LS-25.

Exhibit D of the submission and Exhibit E of the submission include the same sample results for chloride, Total Dissolved Solids, calcium, magnesium and sodium for wastewater from a Harvey Brine Tank which are way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123.

For example--

-- Total Dissolved Solids: 105,000 mg/l (wastewater) - 500 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard).

Howard Drilling, Inc.

The company has 590 oil and gas well permits in at least Forest, McKean and Warren Counties-- including in the Allegheny National Forest-- and is based in Warren County, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

The company reported road spreading wastewater from 43 of those wells and waste disposal from an additional 54 of those wells in 2020, according to DEP’s Oil & Gas Well Waste Data

The Howard Drilling, Inc. submission includes only one of the required seven evaluations, but that one is very incomplete. 

The Coproduct Determination submission [2019]  and the Original Submission [2019] is almost entirely a simple comparison of the chemical analysis of  “representative samples” of wastewater with a Seneca Minerals LS-25 “product.”

The chemical analysis from “representative samples” of wastewater includes results for Total Dissolved Solids, chloride, sodium and calcium-- Attachment 1 - Brine Reports-- and compares them to the same parameters for LS-25. 

The results for both the wastewater and LS-25 are way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123.

For example--

-- Sodium: 54,600 mg/l (LS-25) - 4,247 mg/l (wastewater) - 25 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Chloride: 212,000 mg/l (LS-25) - 89,600 mg/l (wastewater) - 25 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

The Seneca LS-25 results are from the same 2010 analysis.

The submission also includes a number of endorsement letters from townships-- Attachment 2-- and the PA State Association of Township Supervisors 2019 resolution saying PSATS supports legislation to make road spreading legal -- Attachment 3-- on using drilling wastewater on dirt and gravel roads, but no evaluations as required by Section 287.8.

The submission quotes a 1996 DEP report on the road spreading of drilling wastewater and the standards developed from that report. 

Those standards no longer exist and DEP said in a 2018 settlement of an Environmental Hearing Board appeal of its Oil and Gas Program standards and road spreading approval process that “the Department cannot authorize [brine] to be disposed or beneficially used under the Solid Waste Management Act without a permit” [Read more here].

Standards in DEP’s own General Permit WMGR123 reflect current thinking of the chemicals of concern and the results of recent studies by Penn State and others outline the public health and environmental threats posed by road spreading.  [Read more here.]

Nevertheless, the submission says, “It is Howard Drilling, LLC intent to use this product and spread brine in a manner specified as appropriate by this study and subsequent updates and modifications by the PA DEP.”  

DEP presently has no standards for road spreading of drilling wastewater.   [Read more here.]

The submission then copies the Section 287.8 Coproduct Determination regulations and then responds to few of the provisions, but none of the remaining six evaluations required by the regulations were included.

The submission repeats the statement from the Cameron Energy Company submission by saying, “As discussed above the water is substantially similar to the brine water produced by Seneca Mineral, which is commercially marketed as LS-25 with DEP’s approval [referring to the 2010 DEP commercial product determination].”

As noted, the definition of Coproduct in Section 287.1 of DEP’s regulations specifically prohibits the comparison of a proposed coproduct material  “to a material that is no longer determined to be waste” by the Department under Section 287.7.

LHS Prod LLC & Glenn Weaver & Son LLC

LHS Prod LLC has 6 oil and gas well permits in at least Butler County and is based in Butler County, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

The company reported road spreading oil and gas wastewater from 1 of those wells in 2020, according to DEP’s Oil & Gas Well Waste Data.

Glenn Weaver & Son has municipal and residual waste transporter authorizations from DEP, but no oil and gas well permits. and is based in Butler County, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

The Coproduct Determination submission was submitted on behalf of Glenn Weaver & Son and says the company is a waste transporter and it obtains oil and gas well wastewater from “multiple oil and gas operators in the region” and spreads it on dirt and gravel roads. 

The company does not generate or own the waste.

The submission does not comprehensively identify the counties it works in, the well owners/operators they work with or the wells they take wastewater from. 

Oil and gas well wastewater could literally be coming from anywhere and could change from day to day, week to week and month to month.

This is typical of many companies that pick up conventional oil and gas wastewater and dispose of it by spreading it on dirt and gravel roads.

DEP regulations require conventional oil and gas companies to report once a year on generally where their waste goes. 

There is no required manifest system where they have to report on each specific load, who picked it up, the chemical composition and where they took it for disposal or treatment.

As a municipal and residual waste hauler, Glenn Weaver & Son LLC is not required to report that same information to DEP.

It is impossible to connect the dots from the waste generator, waste hauler to a specific facility or in this case to a specific road where wastewater is being disposed of because the road doesn’t file any reports.

The submission for LHS Prod LLC and Glenn Weaver & Son LLC follows the exact same format and has similar attachments to the Howard Drilling, Inc.-- Cover Letter and  Coproduct Determination Submission.

The submission includes only one of the required seven evaluations, but that one is very incomplete.

The chemical analysis from “representative samples” of wastewater from different counties includes results for the same parameters-- Total Dissolved Solids, chloride, sodium and calcium-- Attachment 1 - Brine Reports-- and compares them to the same parameters for LS-25. 

There is no explanation of how the “representative samples” were statistically identified, only that wastewater was taken from six wells or tanks in Armstrong, Butler, Clarion, Erie, Forest Mercer and Venango counties.

The results for both the wastewater and LS-25 are way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123.

For example--

-- Magnesium: 9,370 mg/l (Seneca) - 2,340 mg/l (wastewater) - 10 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Sodium: 54,600 mg/l (Seneca) - 22,500 mg/l (wastewater) - 25 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Chloride: 212,000 mg/l (Seneca) - 98,100 mg/l (wastewater) - 25 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

The Seneca LS-25 results are from the same 2010 analysis.

The submission also includes a number of endorsement letters from townships-- Attachment 2-- and the PA State Association of Township Supervisors 2019 resolution saying PSATS supports legislation to make road spreading legal -- Attachment 3-- on using drilling wastewater on dirt and gravel roads, but no evaluations as required by Section 287.8.

The submission quotes a 1996 DEP report on the road spreading of drilling wastewater and the standards developed from that report. 

Those standards no longer exist and DEP said in a 2018 settlement of an Environmental Hearing Board appeal of its Oil and Gas Program approval process that “the Department cannot authorize [brine] to be disposed or beneficially used under the Solid Waste Management Act without a permit” [Read more here].

The submission repeats the statements from the Cameron Energy Company and Howard Drilling, Inc. by saying, “As discussed above the water is substantially similar to the brine water produced by Seneca Mineral, which is commercially marketed as LS-25 with DEP’s approval [referring to the 2010 DEP commercial product determination].”

As noted, the definition of Coproduct in Section 287.1 of DEP’s regulations specifically prohibits the comparison of a proposed coproduct material  “to a material that is no longer determined to be waste” by the Department under Section 287.7.

Pennfield Energy

The company has 166 oil and gas well permits in at least Butler, Elk, Forest, Venango and Warren Counties and is based in Erie County, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

Pennfield is also a licensed municipal and residual waste transporter, according to DEP’s eFACTS database.

According to DEP’s Oil & Gas Well Waste Data, Pennfield Energy has no report on how it disposed of any of its waste from any of its oil and gas wells in 2020.  The same for 2019.  

The Coproduct Determination Submission is almost entirely just a set of laboratory results on the letterhead of Microbac Laboratories, Inc. and does not identify where the samples came from.

One set of results from 2011 might have come from Seneca's LS-25, but it isn’t clear.

The limited chemical analysis for their drilling wastewater [2018] includes chloride, calcium, magnesium potassium and sodium. 

Again, the reporting thresholds in the results were above the standards in General Permit WMGR123 which skewed the results.

Several sets of sample results were included, but the locations of where the samples were taken were not included-- Analytical #1; Analytical #2; Analytical #3; and a Preliminary Certification of the results.

The results for both the wastewater are way above the standards in General Permit WMGR123.

For example, even with the high reporting thresholds--

-- Magnesium: 9,200 mg/l (LS-25?) - 1,020 mg/l (wastewater) - 10 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Sodium: 51,800 mg/l (LS-25?) - 14,800 mg/l (wastewater) - 25 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

-- Chloride: 180,000 mg/l (LS-25?) - 60,000 mg/l (wastewater) - 25 mg/l (WMGR123 Standard)

The submission included a copy of a 2018 Penn State on the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Spreading Oil and Gas Wastewater on Roads with no explanation.

Ironically for Pennfield Energy’s Coproduct Determination, this Penn State study concluded, “Spreading O&G [oil and gas] wastewater on roads can harm aquatic life and pose health risks to humans.”  Read more here.

“... O&G wastewaters transported from the road to surface water after rain events are likely the major potential threat to aquatic toxicity.” Read more here.

“These wastewaters could require up to 1,600 times dilution to reach drinking water quality standards or approximately 100 times dilution to reduce acute toxicity to aquatic organisms,” according to the Penn State study.  Read more here.  Read more science here.

Other attachments to the submission included the Seneca Mineral Product Sheet for LS-25 and the  Seneca Mineral MSDS Safety Data Sheet for LS-25.

Comparing A Waste To A Waste?

The submissions also raise the issue of whether the fundamental comparison the conventional oil and gas companies make between the commercial “product” LS-25 by Seneca Minerals and their proposed coproduct-- their own wastewater-- is prohibited by DEP’s regulations.

Section 287.1 - Definitions - Coproduct says waste generators are prohibited from comparing their proposed coproduct “to a material that is no longer determined to be waste” by the Department.

Seneca Minerals holds DEP permits for three oil and gas wells where they say they get LS-25 by just pumping it out of the wells. 

The wells were drilled in 1994 (Pitonyak Well last inspected in 2008), 1996 (Bender Well last inspected in 2019), 1997 (Korrell Well last inspected in 2018 after a complaint) and are listed as “active” by DEP in their eFACTS database.  Click Here for names and locations.

The Cameron Energy submission includes 2010 sample results taken from the Korrell Well in McKean Township, Erie County (a.k.a. DEP well # 049-20014).   Click Here for photo of well site.

A video posted on the Seneca Mineral Facebook page in October, 2021 says, “Our pump brings LS25 from 2,100’ into the earth, to 24’ up the side of the tank, where it then gets a free fall into storage. That’s the only handling our product gets before we put it in our tankers and deliver it to our customers.”  Click Here for photo of page.

As noted, several of the submissions say, “As discussed above the water is substantially similar to the brine water produced by Seneca Mineral, which is commercially marketed as LS-25 with DEP’s approval [referring to the circa 2010 DEP commercial product determination].”

If DEP did make this determination in 2010 that wastewater pumped out of Seneca Mineral oil and gas well(s) that are still considered “active” in DEP’s eFACTS system can be “commercially marketed,” then there would seem to be a conflict with DEP’s regulations.

In addition, DEP said in a 2018 settlement of an Environmental Hearing Board appeal of its Oil and Gas Program approval process that “the Department cannot authorize [brine] to be disposed or beneficially used under the Solid Waste Management Act without a permit.” [Read more here].

Policy Conclusions

There are several conclusions to be drawn from the initial submissions by conventional oil and gas operators in an attempt to comply with Section 287.8--

-- Obviously Incomplete: They are very obviously and woefully incomplete;

-- Do Not Include Critical Evaluations: Do not include at least six of the evaluations mandated in the regulations;

-- Do Not Meet Latest Wastewater Standards: They do not take into account either DEP’s newly established standards for oil and gas wastewater;

-- No Way To Track Wastes: There is no way to track conventional oil and gas wastewater or other wastes from where they are generate to where they are disposed of or treated because there is no manifest system like there is with other wastes;

-- Does Not Include Latest Science: They do not take into account the growing body of current science about what chemicals and parameters to look for or the potential impacts to public health and the environment; and

-- Responsibilities Of Municipalities: It also raises the question of the responsibilities municipalities have who are promoting road spreading and their obligation to do their due diligence to determine if those companies spreading the wastewater are actually complying with DEP regulations.  This is especially the case when Penn State’s Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies has available training and best management practices for maintaining rural roads and has called spreading oil and gas wastewater an “environmental unsound practice.”  [Read more here.]

-- Efficacy Of Coproduct Determination Process: This case also raises the question of how other companies using the same Coproduct Determination process are complying with 25 Pa Code Chapter 287.1 and whether DEP needs to do a review of those determinations.

In an October interview, Ali Tarquino Morris, Director of  DEP’s Bureau Of Waste Management, said DEP’s compliance review consists of reviewing the self-determination documents to see if all the required evaluations were completed on the commercial product and the waste, identifying any information that is missing or incomplete and requiring that information to be submitted and then determining whether they meet the requirements of Chapter 287.8. [Read more here.]

Tarquino was very clear that the regulations require the conventional operators to evaluate the total levels of hazardous or toxic constituents.

“They must identify the routes of exposure to humans and ecological receptors on those routes of exposure [which] must include ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact, leaching to groundwater, plant uptake and surface runoff potential.”

“They perform that evaluation again to see if everything is statistically and consistently equivalent to this produced product or raw material they want to replace with waste,” said Morris.  [Read more here.]

None of the submissions to date comes close to meeting that standard as described by Morris.

Click Here for a link to a printable version of this article.

(Written by David E. Hess, former Secretary Department of Environmental Protection.  Send comments on this article to: PaEnviroDigest@gmail.com.)

Related Article This Week:

-- Better Path Coalition Report: How To Close The Loophole Allowing Uncontrolled Road Spreading Of Conventional Oil & Gas Wastewater & Fix Oil and Gas Waste Reporting System

Related Articles:

-- DCED PA Grade Crude [Oil] Development Advisory Council Meets Dec. 16 On Road Spreading Of Conventional Drilling Wastewater, Other Issues 

-- 17 Conventional Oil & Gas Drilling Operators Under Review By DEP To Determine If They Comply With Program Allowing Road Dumping Of Drilling Wastewater

-- How The Conventional Oil & Gas Drilling Industry Eliminated Any Restrictions On The Disposal Of Millions Of Gallons Of Its Wastewater On PA’s Dirt & Gravel Roads

-- A First-Hand Account Of How Repeated, Unlimited Road Dumping Of Oil & Gas Drilling Wastewater Is Tearing Apart Dirt Roads And Creating Multiple Environmental Hazards   

-- Fair Shake Environmental Legal Services, FracTracker Alliance Call On Citizens To Report Dumping Of Oil & Gas Drilling Wastewater On Dirt & Gravel Roads

-- The Science Says: Spreading Conventional Drilling Wastewater On Dirt & Gravel Roads Can Harm Aquatic Life, Poses Health Risks To Humans - And It Damages The Roads

-- Preliminary Results From New Penn State Study Find Increased Cancer, Health Risks From Road Dumping Conventional Drilling Wastewater, Especially For Children

-- New Pitt-Duquesne Study Shows Higher Exposures To Radiation In Road Dumping Of Drilling Wastewater When Appropriate Exposure Scenarios Are Used

-- Penn State Center For Dirt & Gravel Road Studies: Road Dumping Of Oil & Gas Wastewater To Control Dust Is Environmentally Unsound Practice

-- Op-Ed: The Story Behind Stopping Conventional Oil & Gas Brine Spreading On Dirt Roads

-- Op-Ed: Will Our Dirt Roads Again Be Used As Dumping Sites For Oil & Gas Well Wastewater

-- EQB Accepts Petitions For Study To Increase Oil & Gas Well Bonding; DEP Has $15 Per Well Available In Bonds To Plug Conventional Wells

[Posted: December 13, 2021]

12/20/2021