Millions of gallons of conventional oil and gas drilling wastewater is being dumped indiscriminately on Pennsylvania’s dirt and gravel roads
PA Environment Digest Blog, October 21, 2021

---

In 1996, the Department of Environmental Protection issued a report on the road “spreading” of wastewater from conventional oil and gas drilling to control dust.

It concluded this practice does have the potential to result in environmental impacts to ground and surface water quality because of the contaminants it contains.

It went on to recommend a series of additional restrictions on road “spreading” to prevent those impacts, however, none of these restrictions are being implemented today by DEP’s Bureau of Waste Management under its Co-Product Determination process that allows the road dumping of drilling wastewater.  Read more here.

The DEP Bureau of Oil and Gas Management is prohibited by a 2018 Environmental Hearing Board settlement from granting approvals of road dumping conventional drilling wastewater.  Read more here.

While the 1996 DEP study has many limitations and doesn’t look at key issues like radioactivity and a broader range of wastewater contaminants, it is one of the first studies to attempt to gather information in one place on the environmental and health impacts of drilling wastewater.

1980s Guidance

The 27-page report– started in 1992– was designed to “examine ground and surface water impacts from spreading brine on unpaved roads” under the DEP guidelines at the time.

The scope of road “spreading” was significant and continues to be.

In 1994, the report said 4,000,000 gallons of drilling wastewater was used for dust control on unpaved roads.

Later reports found from 1991 to 2017 over 240.4 million gallons of conventional drilling wastewater was dumped on dirt and gravel roads– over 235.4 million gallons in Pennsylvania alone or an average of 9,000,000 gallons a year.  Read more here.

The 1996 report said in the early 1980s, DEP developed guidelines covering the use of drilling wastewater to suppress dust on unpaved roads.  They were designed to “prevent adverse environmental impacts” from the practice.

The guidelines were administered by DEP under the Clean Streams Law, Solid Waste Management Act and the Oil and Gas Act.  This is in contrast to today where there is a division of responsibility between the Bureaus of Oil and Gas Management and the Bureau of Waste Management.

Any person planning to “spread” wastewater had to receive approval from DEP before “spreading” and obtain signed authorizations from the municipality, owner of the road or service company.

Approval was received by submitting a yearly plan to DEP that contained the road name and section they intend to spread, locations of wastewater storage areas, intended frequency and application rates and descriptions of operating procedures for spreading the wastewater.

The plan also had to contain a chemical analysis of the wastewater and the geologic formations from which the wastewater was produced.

The guidelines included limits on the frequency and rate of wastewater application.  There was a limit of 1 gallon per square yard of road surface and it could not be spread within 150 feet of a body of water, on a road with a grade exceeding 10 percent or on wet roads.

Wastewater “spreaders” also had to submit a monthly report to DEP indicating the county, township and roads where wastewater was spread as well as the volumes of wastewater spread, length of road treated and dates on which “spreading” occurred.

There were no public notice requirements when plans were submitted to DEP referenced in the report.

The Study

The 1996 study involved monitoring groundwater, surface water and the concentration of brine-related contaminants from roadbed material at seven different road locations in Armstrong, Clearfield, Crawford, Erie and Warren counties.

It also involved a literature search for information on the environmental impacts and effectiveness of using conventional drilling wastewater as a dust palliative and summarized DEP’s discussions with municipalities, wastewater spreading operators and treatment plants.

Conclusions

“The results of this project show that there is a potential for brine to migrate from the roadway and impact ground or surface water quality.

“However, by controlling the frequency and application rates and complying with the other provisions of the DEP guidelines, impacts to ground and surface waters can be minimized while still meeting the road maintenance objective.

“In some situations, it may be necessary to use a dust palliative other than brine.”

Recommendations

The report recommended fundamental changes to DEP’s guidance covering road “spreading,” including–

— Decrease Application Rate: Maximum application rate should be decreased from 1 gallon per square yard to one-half gallon per square yard;

— Set A Frequency Of Application: The frequency of application should be one-half gallon per square yard in the spring and then spread no more than once per month thereafter at up to one-third of a gallon per square yard;

— Use Treated Wastewater: Treated drilling wastewater should be used when possible since heavy metals, oil and grease have been reduced, but calcium and magnesium chloride, which are the constituents in brine primarily responsible for controlling dust and stabilizing unpaved roads, are retained;

— Exclude Free Oil: Untreated wastewater used for spreading should be better managed to exclude free oil;

— Monthly Review Of Reports: Wastewater spreading reports should be reviewed by the Department on a monthly or bimonthly basis to determine abuses of spreading rates or frequencies.

— Standardize Spreading Reports: Monthly wastewater spreading reports should be standardized and coordinated with waste transporter reports.

“The application rate and frequency of spreading are some of the most important parts of a brine spreading operation.  It must be remembered that road spreading of brine is not a disposal method, but a means to use brine beneficially. (emphasis added)

“Rates and frequencies should be controlled to minimize infiltration to groundwater and to prevent brine from flowing or running off into roadside ditches, streams or bodies of water.”

“The results from this project indicate a need to balance the beneficial aspects of spreading brine on unpaved roads against the potential impacts to ground and surface water.

“The rate and frequency has to be established on a site specific basis based on weather conditions, type of brine and traffic volume.”

“Since brine contains contaminants which may adversely affect groundwater or surface water quality, it is important to determine if the practice of spreading brine for dust control and road stabilization is having an environmental effect.”

1998 Guidance

On October 31, 1998, the Department of Environmental Protection finalized updated technical guidance on granting approvals for the road “spreading” of conventional drilling wastewater that incorporated the recommendations made in the 1996 study and carried forward the general requirements of the 1980s guidelines.

The guidance also included these provisions–

— Operators must control the rate and frequency of application to prevent wastewater from running into ditches, streams, creeks, lakes or infiltrating into groundwater;

— Only producing wastewater or treated wastewater may be used;

— The use of drilling, fracking or plugging fluids or production wastewaters mixed with well servicing or treatment fluids, except surfactants, is prohibited; and

— Required the notification of DEP at least 24 hours before any specific road spreading occurs, including specific road sections or locations and dates it will occur.

A February 2013 DEP fact sheet describes the plan approval process.

A process like this was in place administered by DEP’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management until the 2018 Environmental Hearing Board settlement that prohibited the Bureau from granting approvals of road dumping conventional drilling wastewater.  Read more here.

Was It Followed?

On-the-ground observers who lived in areas where road dumping of conventional drilling wastewater was happening reported repeated incidents of the guidance not being followed– over-application of wastewater, wastewater pooling in roadside ditches and running off into streams, people becoming ill and more.

In fact, these conditions led to the appeal of DEP’s “approval” of a road “spreading” plan to the Environmental Hearing Board in 2017 and the ultimately the settlement in 2018 prohibiting the Bureau of Oil and Gas Management from issuing road “spreading” approvals.

Click Here to read the story behind the appeal.

Co-Product Determinations

On a completely separate track, DEP began the process of amending its Residual Waste Regulations in January 1998 to, among other things, incorporate a Co-Product Determination process [Chapter 287.8] that allows companies to self-certify that a waste they are generating has the same physical and chemical characteristics as an intentionally manufactured product or raw material and can be used in its place.

The Preamble of the proposed regulation says the Co-Product Determination process was based on a technical guidance document that was in place since 1994.

The regulation was finalized and put into place in 2001.

The provision applies to all residual waste generators and the conventional oil and gas drilling industry took advantage of the provision to continue the road “spreading” of their drilling wastewater.

The Co-Product Determination requires no pre-approval of the use of waste in place of a commercial product.

While various chemical analyses and evaluations are required by the regulation to self-certify under the program, this information is not required to be submitted to DEP, but they must have it available and submit it to DEP upon request.

DEP recently requested the self-determination evaluations of drilling wastewater under the Co-Product Determination process for 17 conventional oil and gas drilling companies.

DEP’s evaluations of those self-determinations are not yet complete.  Read more here.

No Restrictions

Under the Co-Product Determination process there are no restrictions of any kind on the use of the wastewater like those that were in place in the 1980s through 2018.

There are no restrictions even though the 1996 study concluded–

“The results of this project show that there is a potential for brine to migrate from the roadway and impact ground or surface water quality.

“However, by controlling the frequency and application rates and complying with the other provisions of the DEP guidelines, impacts to ground and surface waters can be minimized while still meeting the road maintenance objective.

“In some situations, it may be necessary to use a dust palliative other than brine.”

And, as noted, the study went on to make very specific recommendations on additional restrictions on road “spreading” that were adopted into a 1998 technical guidance.

2016 Conventional Regulations

In 2016, a four year effort to update DEP’s conventional oil and gas drilling regulations and put in place regulations for unconventional drilling concluded with the Environmental Quality Board finalizing the regulations in February of that year.

The conventional regulations included specific provisions putting restrictions on the road “spreading” of drilling wastewater taken from the 1980s guidance and the 1998 updated guidance  influenced by the 1996 study.  [Chapter 78.70, page 86]

These provisions included pre-approval of road “spreading” by DEP, monthly reports and 24 hour notification before “spreading” occurred, etc.

The regulation also included restrictions on the use of drilling wastewater as an anti-icing and de-icing material, including a similar pre-approval process, 24 hour notice, setting specific limits on the amount of chloride, sodium, barium, lead, benzene, toluene, xylene and other chemicals and limits on how much could be spread.  [page 90]

Individuals who followed these requirements were considered to have a Residual Waste “permit-by-rule” which would have overridden the Co-Product Determination process.

Regulations Die

In June 2016, the Senate and House passed legislation to kill the conventional oil and gas drilling regulations, but allow the regulations covering unconventional drilling to proceed.

Gov. Wolf signed the legislation into law as Act 52 of 2016.  Read more here.

Some say the main driver behind the conventional drilling industry’s opposition to DEP’s regulations was the provision regulating road “spreading” of their wastewater.

The industry has identified the issue of dealing with its wastewater as critical for decades.  They have eagerly promoted road “spreading” because it allowed them to dispose of their wastewater for free.

This legislation ended another effort to put restrictions on the road “spreading” of conventional drilling wastewater.

Permanently Kill Regulations

The Senate and House are continuing their effort to legalize the road “spreading” of conventional drilling wastewater through legislation.

In November of 2020, Gov. Wolf vetoed legislation that would have rolled back regulation of conventional oil and gas wells to 1984.  Read more here.

As passed, it did not have a provision legalizing the road dumping of drilling wastewater because it was removed after significant pressure was brought by wildlife, environmental and many other groups.

In May of 2021, the House did pass a bill to “regulate” conventional oil and gas wells that specifically makes road dumping legal.  Read more here.

That bill– House Bill 1144 (Causer-R-Cameron) and a Senate companion Senate Bill 534 (Hutchinson-R-Venango)– are both awaiting action in the Senate.

New Regs No Road “Spreading” Provisions

DEP is now working to develop a new set of regulations covering conventional oil and gas drilling, but as of now it has no provisions related to the road “spreading” of drilling wastewater.

DEP has been working on the regulations with the DCED PA Grade Crude [Oil] Development Council as directed by Act 52 of 2016.

The Council got the first draft of the conventional regulations in August of 2020.

DEP told the Council they plan to have a final draft of proposed regulations available in time for their December 16 meeting.

New Studies

DEP commissioned two new studies of road “spreading” by Penn State in 2016.

The results of one of those Penn State studies was released in August showing conventional oil and gas drilling wastewater has little value as a dust suppressant and in fact is three times LESS effective than commercial products it was tested against.  Read more here.

This and other studies blow holes in the argument that drilling wastewater is just like a commercial product under DEP’s Co-Product Determination process.

Importantly, the study also includes references to other research completed on road “spreading” which almost uniformly raises concerns about its environmental impact.

A second Penn State study is due out in December on the environmental impact of road “spreading.”

Return To The Future

This record clearly shows the conventional oil and gas industry successfully worked to eliminate regulations on the disposal of millions of gallons of drilling wastewater.

None of the restrictions on the road “spreading” of conventional drilling wastewater that were in place in 1996 are in place now.

The free-for-all now going on Pennsylvania’s dirt and gravel roads with road “spreading” without any restrictions under DEP’s Co-Product Determination process should be unacceptable to everyone.

The significant environmental and health issues raised by research after 1996, and especially recently, should also be cause for concern.

DEP has said it will let science guide the next steps it takes on regulating or banning road “spreading.”

But it is also clear, DEP needs to get a better understanding of the frequency and rate of road “spreading” going on right now in the real world.

It is pervasive… sloppy… and in short a mess, and it’s increasing.

It is also being shielded effectively from any interference by House and Senate members representing these areas.

Millions of gallons of conventional oil and gas drilling wastewater is being dumped indiscriminately on Pennsylvania’s dirt and gravel roads.

Shouldn’t someone regulate that?