Wunz Associates, LLC 

Protecting the Water Environment

76 Heatherbloom Drive Lewisburg, PA 17837 | 814/574-6695 | chuck@wunz.com

August 20, 2015

William J. Hall, CPG, Director

Shale Gas Innovation and Commercialization Center

Ben Franklin Technology Partners

200 Innovation Blvd, State College, PA 16803

RE: Shale Gas Development-Summary of Shale Gas Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

 In Pennsylvania 2014

Dear Mr. Hall:

Thank you for this opportunity to update my 2012 report on shale gas wastewater production and 

treatment with data from 2014. I found the effort to be very interesting and informative.

In 2014, about 1.8 billion gallons, 42,919,000 barrels, of wastewater was produced. That is about the 

same amount as was produced in 2011. Most of this was “produced” water, the water that comes from 

wells after they are put into production. In 2011 the greater fraction was “frac” water. 

The investigations I conducted in completing this report lead me to conclude that the effort made in the 

2008-2010 time frame by both regulators and the industry to recycle and not discharge shale gas 

wastewaters was amazingly successful. Now, five years after adoption of the 25 PA Code 95.10 

regulations, almost no wastewater is being discharged to surface waters, only about 1.1 percent, and 

very little is being disposed of by underground injection wells, about 7.9 percent. So, the industry, much 

to its credit, is recycling about 91 percent of the wastewater it produces. Much credit also goes to the 

members of the Water Resources Advisory Committee and the Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Water Standards staff who in 2009 worked diligently with the industry to craft the regulations 

that have been so successful in promoting reuse.

I hope you will find this report satisfactory for your needs. I will be glad to answer any questions you

might have.

Best wishes.

Very truly yours,

Wunz Associates, LLC

E. Charles Wunz, P.E., BCEE
Shale Gas Development

Summary of Shale Gas Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

In

Pennsylvania

2014

E. Charles Wunz, P.E., BCEE

August 20, 2015
Page 1 of 23 August 20, 2015 

Introduction

This report updates the author’s May 2012 report entitled “Marcellus Shale Gas Development-A Summary of 

Marcellus Wastewater Treatment and Disposal” which described the generators, sources, volumes, treatment, 

recycling, and ultimate fate of waters produced as a result of Marcellus Shale development. The 2012 Report 

utilized data from 2011. This report utilizes 2014 data.

In 2014 shale gas production activities in Pennsylvania resulted in a reported 42,919,000 barrels (1,802,598,000

gallons), said another way, 1.8 billion gallons of wastewater. Over one half of the volume, about sixty-seven

percent (67%) was what is called produced water and about twenty-nine percent (29%) was frac water. By far 

the largest amount of this wastewater, to the credit of the industry, was recycled for reuse in fracing activities.

In the original report, the content was exclusively focused on Marcellus shale development. Since 2011 Utica 

Shale has also been drilled in western Pennsylvania. Because the process of well development is similar 

between the Utica and Marcellus formations1, they are considered to be similar in producing wastewater. 

Therefore, the reference to “Marcellus” in the previous version of this report has been removed in this update 

in favor of the words “shale”, “horizontal”, and “unconventional” which describe drilling in tight shale 

formations.

The 2012 report also focused on the hot issue of the time, frac water, the water that flows back after a well is 

fraced. This report is more focused on all the wastewater produced from the drilling, fracing, and operation of 

shale gas wells and it addresses the trend that produced water will inevitably become a larger and larger 

component of the total amount of water produced as frac water becomes proportionately less and less.

Recycling Rules!

Of the 1.8 billion gallons of wastewater reported to be produced, about 91 percent is recycled or stored for 

future recycling. Only about 162 million gallons are injected into deep geologic strata or discharged to surface 

waters. Only 7.9 percent is discharged to underground injection and a much smaller amount, only about 1.1 

percent is discharged to surface water. This may be the industry’s best state wide recycling effort anywhere in 

the country. 

Trends

Reported wastewater production is static or slightly declining between 2011 and 2014. Much more water is 

being produced from operating wells (produced fluid or water) and less from fracing (frac fluid or water). The 

then-developing 2004 to 2009 business model for wastewater treatment has moved away from surface 

discharge which is no longer practiced except at two Pennsylvania locations and one each in West Virginia and 

Ohio and toward recycling. Recycling is accomplished through the reuse of the frac water in the next frac. Data 

 

1

Technical details are different, but for this report they can be considered to be the same in the production of 

wastewater.
Page 2 of 23 August 20, 2015 

show that the hauling of western Pennsylvania wastewater to permitted disposal wells in Ohio for disposal is a 

common practice, but a distant second choice to recycling. 

In the future as the number of producing wells increase without a matching proportional increase in frac water 

needs, recycling treated wastewater to the next frac job will become more difficult. Recycling requires the 

demand for water, but the ratio of water demand to water production will be static or will decrease when 

proportionately fewer wells are being fraced and more wells are in production. This assumes an alternative use 

of the water cannot be developed. Alternatives to recycling, whether increased transport to Ohio’s disposal 

wells, development of disposal wells in Pennsylvania, distillation, evaporation, or treatment and surface water 

discharge will likely be implemented if recycling becomes more difficult as proportionate demand for recycled 

water drops.

Well Development2

Well stimulation using fracing techniques injects large quantities (about 4 to 10 million gallons) of water3into a 

newly drilled gas well under very high pressure, usually in a series of stages. The target zone geologic 

formation fractures (cracks open) and a “proppant” is injected with the water to keep the fractures open4. 

When the pressure is released “frac” water flows back out of the well in a volume of about 15 to 30 percent of 

the water injected into the formation and the well continues to produce “production” water over its operating 

life. Later in this report the difference between frac water and production water is explained.

Well development activities and well operations actually produce a variety of liquid and solid wastes as well as 

the aforementioned frac waters. They include wastewaters from drilling, grouting, testing, and completion

operations, production water, and from the installation of pipelines conveying the gas from the well. The liquid 

wastes, excepting pipeline waters, are collectively the subject of this report. 

These shale gas wastewaters may be mixed at the time of transport, treatment, reuse, and final disposal. All of 

these wastewaters require some level of treatment prior to reuse5, final disposal6, or discharge. This Summary 

of Shale Gas Wastewater Treatment and Disposal reports the handling of wastewaters resulting from shale gas 

development and the variety of practices employed in their handling.

For the purposes of this report, the term “wastewater” means any waste which has not been discharged to the 

atmosphere and which is not a solid waste and has been reported in the data set analyzed to be a wastewater. 

This definition includes wastewaters that are heavily laden with both dissolved and suspended solids. The 

dividing line between solid wastes and wastewater has been clarified by the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) to reflect the long established definition that solid waste passes the “paint 

 

2 Well development includes fracing for which there are several spellings. This report uses “frac” and “fracing” which is 

pronounced “fracking.”

3

In Midwestern Canada fracing using propane has been demonstrated. Volumes of water used depend in part on the 

length of the horizontal bore being fraced. Over time, the length of horizontal bores has increased.

4

Similar to timbers that support a mine shaft.

5

For some reuse, dilution with clean water is sufficient “treatment.”

6

Injection in Class 2 disposal wells may require minimal treatment.
Page 3 of 23 August 20, 2015 

filter test7” required for delivery of solid waste to a landfill. In other words, wastewater includes any wastes 

that have sufficient free water in them to fail the paint filter test. 

Shale Gas Wastewater Generation

Beginning with calendar year 2011 data, the DEP began to publish detailed summaries of the generation and 

handling of wastes generated by unconventional well drilling and operations

8

. These data are as reported by 

the wastewater producers to DEP. The DEP notes that the reliability of the data is not checked or guaranteed 

by DEP. The 2012 report analyzed data from the last six (6) months of 2011. This update examines 2014 data. 

The data are posted at: 

https://www.paoilandgasreporting.state.pa.us/publicreports/Modules/DataExports/DataExports.aspx

The data set examined for this report is the combined two 2014 data files (six months each) posted at the 

address above9. Each of the two files is an approximately 18,000 row comma delimited file with each row 

containing thirty-two (32) data cells (about 576,000 cells in each file, when combined about 1,152,000 cells 

total). Each of the approximately 36,000 rows in the two files describe a reported waste or wastewater 

transportation event which may a single partial truckload or an extended multi-truckload event all being 

delivered to the same destination. The date of such activity is not memorialized in the data set, beyond 

occurring in the calendar year. About one fifth of the DEP data files contain information on solid waste. These 

reports were deleted and not considered in this report on wastewater production. After the deletion of solid 

waste, about 30,000 rows of data remained for analysis.

With any huge self-reporting activity, some individual reports are likely to be erroneous. For example, in the 

data set one or two entries reflect delivery to facilities that are not permitted to receive wastes from

unconventional wells; a few report the delivery of wastes to landfills in terms of barrels instead of tons. These 

reporting errors are not considered to be significant except for what we note in the following paragraph.

The largest reporting errors are associated with receiving facilities that hold or held both an NPDES discharge 

permit and WMGR 123 recycling permit. In one case, over one thousand deliveries are reported to Reserved 

Environmental Services (RES) operating under an NPDES permit. RES had an NPDES permit for discharge of 

shale gas wastewaters and storm water, but never constructed the facilities required to treat the shale gas 

wastewater to required levels for discharge. It never discharged shale gas wastewaters. So, all of those

reported deliveries were made to RES, but it is operating under its WMGR permit and is recycling, not 

discharging. We corrected the data based on this understanding. Deliveries to Eureka Standing Stone and 

Eureka Williamsport likely exhibit the same confused permit reporting. We applied corrections based on 

somewhat limited additional information. But with that said, the data represent the best picture of shale gas 

 

7

EPA Method 9095B Paint Filter Liquids Test, 2004.

8

In separate files, DEP reports the production of wastewater from conventional wells.

9

At the time of writing of this report. The content of the data files may change and the website may be updated without 

notice by DEP.
Page 4 of 23 August 20, 2015 

wastewater generation in Pennsylvania and the use of this original data allows this Summary to be built on the 

actual reported data, not upon the summaries of data completed by others. With the corrections applied the 

data are believed to be very representative of wastewater movement and initial storage and treatment.

Wastes are characterized in eight (8) waste type groups in the 2015 Revision of the DEP “Oil and Gas 

Production and Waste Reporting Guide”10. They are11:

Produced Fluid: Water and/or formation fluids, including brine, recovered at the wellhead after the 

flowback period. This waste type must be reported in barrels. The Pennsylvania residual waste code for 

this waste type is 802. 

Drilling Fluid Waste: Oil and gas drilling mud and other drilling fluids (other than fracing fluid and spent 

lubricant). This waste type must be reported in Barrels. The Pennsylvania residual waste code for this 

waste type is 803. 

Fracing Fluid Waste: Oil and gas fracturing/stimulation fluid waste and/or flowback. Flowback is 

defined as the return flow of water, fracturing/stimulation fluids, and/or formation fluids recovered 

from the well bore of an oil or gas well within 30 days following:

the release of pressures induced as part of the hydraulic fracture stimulation of a target 

geologic formation, or until the well is placed into production, whichever occurs first. This 

waste type must be reported in Barrels. The Pennsylvania residual waste code for this waste 

type is 804. 

Basic Sediment: Oil and gas production storage impurities/sediment from produced oil at storage tank 

battery. This waste type must be reported in Barrels. The Pennsylvania residual waste code for this 

waste type is 807. 

Servicing Fluid: Oil and gas production well maintenance and work over fluids and/or oil/water-based 

mud and foam. This waste type must be reported in Barrels. The Pennsylvania residual waste code for 

this waste type is 808. 

Spent Lubricant: Spent oil and gas drilling lubricants and/or spent plug drilling lubricants. This waste 

type must be reported in Barrels. The Pennsylvania residual waste code for this waste type is 809. 

Wastes Reported in Tons and Not Typically Considered to be Wastewater

Flowback Fracturing Sand: Oil and gas drilling flowback fracturing sand. This waste type must be 

reported in Tons. The Pennsylvania residual waste code for this waste type is 804. 

 

10 The Guide can be found at: 

http://files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/Greenport/Userguides/Oil%20and%20Gas%20

Reporting%20Electronic%20Production%20and%20Waste%20Reporting%20Guide.pdf

11 Copied directly from the Guide.
Page 5 of 23 August 20, 2015 

Drill Cuttings: Rock cuttings and related mineral residues generated during the drilling of an oil and gas 

well. This waste type must be reported in Tons. The Pennsylvania residual waste code for this waste 

type is 810. 

Wastewater Characteristics Do Not Define Waste Type

Note that the difference between produced fluid (produced water) and fracing fluid waste (frac water) is 

time or event, but not characteristic, based. Unique water quality characteristics do not define either. Note 

also that the characterization of a waste into one of the eight (8) waste type groups does not determine its 

treatment method or its final disposal site. For example, Flowback Fracturing Sand might be saturated with 

water in which case it might not be delivered to a landfill and instead might be delivered to a WMGR 123 

permitted facility for water removal before being delivered to a landfill. The units of measurement become 

confused as the sand is reported in tons, and the products resulting from WMGR 123 treatment would be 

reported in tons for the sludge delivered to a landfill and gallons stored, discharged (with additional 

permitting), recycled, or transported to a disposal well.

For reporting purposes, the Guide also provides the additional direction when a waste is not disposed of at a 

permitted facility:

Road spreading: Select the appropriate county/municipality combination that identifies the location of 

the road spreading. 

On site disposal: If waste was disposed in pits, encapsulated, or land applied at the well site at which it 

was generated, select the appropriate on site disposal method. Revised 12/30/2013 

Reuse: If waste was reused at another well site without being processed at a permitted facility (i.e., a 

facility operating pursuant to an individual or general permit), select “REUSE WITHOUT PROCESSING AT 

A PERMITTED FACILITY”. Note that on site processing of waste pursuant to an approved “Request for 

Approval of Alternative Waste Management Practices” (form 5500-PM-OG0071) is not considered a 

permitted facility. 

Temporary storage: If waste was temporarily stored at the well site at which it was generated pending 

processing, disposal, or reuse, select “TEMP ON SITE STORAGE PENDING DISPOSAL OR REUSE”. Please 

note that final disposition of the waste will need to be reported for the reporting period in which it 

occurs. If this occurs, a double reporting of volume would result.

Wastewater Characteristics

Shale Gas Wastewater varies in characteristic truck by truck, site by site, company by company, by 

time since the well was drilled and began producing, and geographically. A typical wastewater

contains widely varying amounts of sand and gravel, oil and grease, dissolved and suspended solids 

containing multi-valence cations like iron, manganese, thorium, barium, strontium, radium, 

calcium, and magnesium, and single valence cations like sodium. 
Page 6 of 23 August 20, 2015 

One of the best and most comprehensive characterizations of wastewater exists in the 2013 and 

2014 NPDES and Clean Streams Law permit applications submitted for Eureka Resources, LLC –

Standing Stone treatment facility located in Bradford County. Standing Stone is permitted as both a 

WMGR-123 recycling facility and as an NPDES permitted facility allowed to discharge to surface 

waters, in this case, the Susquehanna River.

The Standing Stone influent data (generally an average of four samples) are reported for Pollutant 

Groups 1 through 5 as follows:
Page 7 of 23 August 20, 2015 POLLUTANT GROUP 1

AVERAGE 

CONCENTRATION POLLUTANT GROUP 2

AVERAGE 

CONCENTRATION

BOD 271 mg/l Antimony, Total not reported ug/l

COD 42575 mg/l Aresenic, Total 1 ug/l

HARDNESS 32507 mg/l Berylium, Total 0.5 ug/l

TSS 532 mg/l Cadmium, Total 0.5 ug/l

TDS 137267 mg/l Chromium III 0.78 ug/l

Ammonia as N 134 mg/l Chromium IV not reported

Nitrate-Nitrite as N 0.13 mg/l Copper, Total 4.5 ug/l

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 123 mg/l Lead, Total 0.5 ug/l

Phosphorus as P 0.29 mg/l Mercury, Total 0.2

Temperature not reported -ambient Nickel, Total 0.86 ug/l

pH not reported Selenium, total 1.1 ug/l

Color not reported Silver, Total 0.5 ug/l

Fecal Coliform not reported Thallium, total not reported ug/l

Flouride <100 mg/l Zinc, Total 22.84 ug/l

Oil and Grease 5.5 mg/l Cyanide, Total 0.005 mg/l

Bromide 712 mg/l Cyanide, Free not reported ug/l

Chlorine, Total Residual not reported Phenols, Total 0.05 mg/l

Sulfate 1380 mg/l

Sulfide 0.27 mg/l

Sulfite not reported

Surfactant 7 mg/l

Aluminum, Total 8.6 mg/l

Barium, Total 5113 mg/l

Boron, Total 3.9 mg/l

Cobalt, Total <0.5 mg/l

Iron, Total 63.3 mg/l

Iron, Dissolved not reported

Manganese, Total 10.3 mg/l

Radioactivity not reported

Total Organic Carbon 1834 mg/l

Radium, Total not reported

Magnesium 798 mg/l

Molybedenum <0.5 mg/l

Tin, Total not reported

Titanium, Total not reported
Page 8 of 23 August 20, 2015 POLLUTANT GROUP 3 POLLUTANT GROUP 5 ug/l

Acrolein <50 ug/l Acenaphthene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Acrylonitrite <50 ug/l Acenaphthylene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Benzene <5 ug/l Anthracene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Bromoform <5 ug/l Benzidine (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Carbon Tetrachloride <5 ug/l Benzo(a)Anthracene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Chlorobenzene <5 ug/l Benzo(a)Pyrene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Chlorodibromomethane <5 ug/l 3,4-Benzo-fluoranthene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Chrlroethane <5 ug/l Benzo(ghi)Perylene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether <10 ug/l Benzo(k)Fluoranthene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Chloroform <5 ug/l Bis(2-Chloro-ethoxy)Methane (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Dichlorobromomethane <5 ug/l Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether (μg/L) <26 ug/l

1,1 Dichloroethane <5 ug/l Bis(2-Chloro-isopropyl)Ether (μg/L) <26 ug/l

1,2 Dichloropropane <5 ug/l Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate (μg/L) <26 ug/l

1,3 Dichloropropylene not reported ug/l 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Ethylbenzene <5 ug/l Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Methyl Chloride not reported ug/l 2-Chloronaphthalene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Methylene Chloride not reported ug/l 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether (μg/L) <26 ug/l

1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane <5 ug/l Chrysene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Tetrachloroethylene <5 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene (μg/L) not reported

Toluene 11.1 ug/l 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (μg/L) <5 ug/l

1,2 Trans-dichloroethylene not reported ug/l 1,3- Dichlorobenzene (μg/L) <5 ug/l

1,1,1 Trichloroethane <5 ug/l 1,4- Dichlorobenzene (μg/L) <5 ug/l

1,1,2 Trichloroethane <5 ug/l 3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Trichloroethylene <5 ug/l Diethyl Phthalate (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Vinyl Chloride <5 ug/l Dimethyl Phthalate (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Di-n-Butyl Phthalate (μg/L) <26 ug/l

POLLUTANT GROUP 4 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

2-Chlorophenol (μg/L) <26 ug/l 2,6-Dinitrotoluene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

2,4-Dichlorophenol (μg/L) <26 ug/l 1,4-Dioxane (μg/L) <26 ug/l

2,4-Dimethylphenol (μg/L) <26 ug/l Di-n-Octyl Phthalate (μg/L) <26 ug/l

4,6-Dinitro-o-Cresol (μg/L) not reported 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (as Azobenzene) (μg/L) <26 ug/l

2,4-Dinitrophenol (μg/L) <52 ug/l Fluoranthene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

2-Nitrophenol (μg/L) <26 ug/l Fluorene (μg/L) not reported

4-Nitrophenol (μg/L) <52 ug/l Hexachlorobenzene (μg/L) 7.59 ug/l

P-Chloro-m-Cresol (μg/L) not reported Hexechlorobutadiene (μg/L) <53 ug/l

Pentachlorophenol (μg/L) <52 ug/l Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Phenol (μg/L) <26 ug/l Hexachloroethane (μg/L) <26 ug/l

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (μg/L) <26 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Isophorone (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Naphthalene (μg/L) 6.84 ug/l

Nitrobenzene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

N-Nitroso-di-methylamine (μg/L) <38 ug/l

N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine (μg/L) <26 ug/l

N-Nitroso-di-n-phenylamine (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Phenanthrene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

Pyrene (μg/L) <26 ug/l

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (μg/L) <5 ug/l
Page 9 of 23 August 20, 2015 

Any individual sample might yield results equal to the average reported or more or less. 

A simple summary would be to state that wastewater contains oil and grease, other organics, 

dissolved and colloidal metals, hardness, and salt as well as settleable solids like drill cuttings and 

mud, sand, and gravel. The contaminants in wastewater together with the intended fate of the 

wastewater define, in large part, the treatment steps required. Additional water quality comments 

include a typical pH of less than 7 SU, usually in the range of 6 SU and a Langelier Index less than 

1.0, making the water somewhat corrosive.

Current Treatment and Disposal Options

There are several options for treatment and disposal of wastewater including disposal in Class 2 

disposal wells12, recycling with treatment13 on site, recycling with treatment off site, distillation and 

evaporation, and treatment and discharge. Storage is frequently an important component in the postuse, prior to re-use, schedule.

The Water Treatment Service Industry

If water does not remain on site and under the control of the producer, it can be transported to wastewater

treatment facilities (WWTF’s) or disposal well. Upon inspection, the WWTF either accepts the load on a tank 

truck or rejects it. When accepted, it becomes the WWTF’s responsibility to treat it.

No wastewater received at any WWTF in Pennsylvania is presently known to be ‘piped’ in, although that is a 

likely future development, especially where a number of wells exist in close proximity. Rather, all wastewater

is delivered by truck, and perhaps via rail in the future. These facilities may also be characterized as centralized 

wastewater treatment facilities (CWT’s)14, except with the detail that the EPA definition of a CWT includes a 

discharge to surface waters and many of the WWTF’s recycle, but do not discharge. Both terms are used 

interchangeably in this report.

Treatment Requirements

In Pennsylvania, facilities which receive residual waste and have no liquid discharge are regulated in accordance 

with residual waste management regulations. Treatment and discharge facilities are primarily regulated under 

the Clean Streams Law and NPDES permit regulations. In Pennsylvania Class 2 disposal wells are regulated by 

the U.S. EPA. Regulation varies state to state. Ohio has primacy for regulation of its Class 2 disposal wells. 

Some facilities may hold both a residual waste permit and an NPDES permit.

 

12 Mostly in Ohio.

13 Treatment provided varies.

14 CWT’s are defined in U.S. EPA regulations 40 CFR 437.2 (c) 
Page 10 of 23 August 20, 2015 

Treatment requirements for wastewater vary depending on the desired characteristics of the treated 

wastewater. If the wastewater is to be discharged to a POTW or to the surface waters of the Commonwealth, 

as a new source, then 25 PA Code 95.10 (and related chapters such as 92 and 92 (a)) applies. 

If the wastewater is to be treated and then mixed with other waters to be used in the next frac job, then the 

treatment requirement is established by the gas company which might require minimal treatment or a higher 

level of treatment. If the wastewater is to be transported to Class 2 disposal wells in Ohio, then the 

wastewater must be treated to the standards established by those well operators.

The level of treatment provided to wastewater is critical not only for achieving the desired water quality, but 

also for the quality and quantity of the residuals, the sludges, produced. Higher levels of wastewater treatment 

result in the production of ever greater volumes of residuals. 

Analysis of Shale Gas Wastewater Data 2014

Analysis of the data results in the following table of waste generation. Barrels are reported in the data set. 

Barrels have been converted to gallons in the following table as well. Rounding may result in minor arithmetic 

error.

2014 REPORTED WASTEWATER GENERATION

Waste Type Barrels Gallons Daily Gallons % of Total

Basic Sediment 834 35,028.00 96 0.002%

Drilling Fluid Waste 1,663,600 69,871,200.00 191,428 3.876%

Fracing Fluid Waste 12,421,740 521,713,080.00 1,429,351 28.942%

Produced Fluid 28,817,104 1,210,318,368.00 3,315,941 67.143%

Servicing Fluid 15,615 655,830.00 1,797 0.036%

Spent Lubricant 107 4,494.00 12 0.000%

Totals 42,919,000 1,802,598,000 4,938,625
Page 11 of 23 August 20, 2015 

For comparison, the second half of 2011 data show the average daily volumes15 of the then seven (7) different 

wastes reported at that time to DEP were as follows:

Comparison of 2011 versus 2014 Data Sets

The data analyzed reports wastewater transfer events. It reflects but does not exactly define the date or dates 

that the wastewater was produced, rather when it was transported. Analysis of data over longer periods of 

time should reduce the impact of time difference between wastewater production and transport. 

The analysis of 2011 second half data to 2014 data shows that it is obvious that Produced Fluid has over taken 

and passed, in terms of volume, the amount of Fracing Fluid Waste production. This is the likely outcome over 

time with ever more wells in production and relatively fewer wells being fraced16. 

Brine, now called Produced Fluid (or Water), is 294 percent of its volume in 2011. Drilling fluid in 2011 was 

about 620 percent of what it is today. Frac fluid in 2011 was about 180 percent of what it is today. Overall, the 

four liquid waste types in 2011 summed to just over 5,000,000 gallons per day, about 102 percent of the 

current volume. The types of wastes have changed in relative volumes, but the total volume has remained 

static despite reduced drilling.

Transport of Shale Wastewaters to Other States

During 2014, shale wastewaters were disposed of at sites in three states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West 

Virginia. Solid wastes were delivered to those same states plus Utah, New York, and Michigan.

 

15 Assuming the data covered 184 days. Work day volumes would be 7/5 (no weekend work) or 7/6 (includes Saturday as a 

work day) of the results reported.

16 Especially so given lower gas prices.

Type of Waste

2011 Daily 

Volume 

Barrels

2011 Daily 

Volume 

Gallons

2011 Percent 

of Total 

Wastewater 

Generation

2014 Daily 

Volume 

Gallons

2014 Percent 

of Total 

Wastewater 

Generation

Change 

from 2011 

to 2014

Brine (Produced 

Water) 27,622 1,160,124 22.82% 3,315,941 67.14% 294%

Frac Fluid 65,298 2,742,516 53.95% 1,429,351 28.94% 54%

Spent Lubricants 9 361 0.01% 12 0.00% 3%

Servicing Fluid N/A N/A N/A 1,797 0.04% N/A

Drilling Fluids 28,089 1,179,738 23.21% 191,428 3.88% 17%

Basic Sediment 6 244 0.00% 96 0.00% 41%

Total 121,023 5,082,983 100.0% 4,938,625 100.0% 97%

Reported Waste Generation Second Half 2011 Compared to 2014
Page 12 of 23 August 20, 2015 

Centralized Wastewater Treatment Plants for Discharge

The reported facilities to which wastewater was delivered include:

1. Fairmont Brine Recycling in West Virginia 5,989 barrels. This is also a recycling facility.

2. Patriot Waste Treatment in Warren Ohio 103,747 barrels. This waste is discharged under a 

Municipal Industrial Pretreatment Program (MIPP) permit to the Warren, OH, sewage 

treatment plant. If located in Pennsylvania, it is believed that this discharge would not be 25 

PA Code 95.10 compliant.

3. Waste Treatment Corporation in Warren, Pennsylvania 228,165 barrels. The DEP reports that 

reported deliveries to this facility were for recycle, for groundwater injection at “Bear Lake” 

injection wells, and not for discharge. Further DEP reports17 that this facility no longer accepts 

wastewater from unconventional wells.

4. Three possibly incorrect reports of deliveries to Creekside, Fluid Recovery Service, Franklin, and 

the same company in Josephine, PA. These deliveries totaled 176 barrels.

5. Additional deliveries for discharge to surface water are not reported but likely occur at the 

Eureka facilities in Williamsport and Standing Stone, PA. The Williamsport discharge occurs 

through the Williamsport sewage treatment plant, is 95.10 compliant and varies averaging 

about 30,000 gallons per day18. The Standing Stone discharge is to the Susquehanna River and 

is discussed is some detail later in this report. Three Eureka facilities also hold WMGR-123 

residual waste recycling permits. That is the source of the uncertainty.

Given the uncertainties in the above, only an estimate of surface water discharge can be made. The author’s 

estimate is on the order of 460,000 barrels in 2014.

Centralized Treatment Plants for Recycle

A total of five (5) facilities fit into this category. They are located in Ohio and West Virginia, all outside of 

Pennsylvania. The total discharge is 50,576 barrels in 2014. They are:

1. Hanchin Recycling, Hopedale, OH 180 barrels.

2. Central Ohio Oil, Columbus OH 48 barrels.

3. Eureka Station Crosstex Energy, St. Mary, WV 4049 barrels.

4. Liquid Waste Solidification, Steubenville, OH 134 barrels.

5. Petrowater, Inc., Jefferson, OH 46,165 barrels.

These are out of state recycling facilities, hence, they are not regulated under WMGR-123.

Injection Wells

 

17 This is from a phone conversation with Joel Fair of DEP NWRO on June 15, 2015.

18 Confirmed in a telephone conversation with Jorgen Zimmerman of the Williamsport Sanitary Authority June 19, 2015.
Page 13 of 23 August 20, 2015 

A total of 3,392,707 barrels of wastewater was disposed of at fifty-five (55) disposal wells, almost all of which 

are located in Ohio. The two wells accepting the most wastewater were Adams No. 1, 230,942 barrels, in 

Coshocton, OH and RHOA No. 3, 243,960 barrels, in Jefferson, OH. Camp Creek Disposal in Camp Creek, WV 

received 240 barrels and the Irvin A-19 FMLY FEE A19 well in Mahaffey, PA received 147,913 barrels. These are 

the only two listed wells not located in Ohio. 

Residual Waste Recycling Facilities Permitted under WMGR-123

DEP reports that there are a total of twenty-three (23) WMGR123 facilities holding active permits. They are 

reported in the following table.
Page 14 of 23 August 20, 2015 

DEP was kind enough to provide the table which is reformatted for this report, but otherwise unchanged prior 

to complete Department review. The author’s review notes the erroneous listing of Hydro Recovery Standing 

Stone. This is likely Eureka Standing Stone. Also, Eureka notes its 2nd Street facility has a capacity of 420,000 

gpd.

A total of nineteen facilities are reported receiving a total of 11,597,000 barrels in 2014 as listed below:

VOLUME 

BARRELS

PERMIT NO.

FACILITY

7,540 WMGR 123 NC024 AQUATECH WASTE PROCESSING, LAWRENCEVILLE,TIOGA CO

420 WMGR 123 SW011 ASPEN JOHNSTOWN RESIDUAL WASTE OPERATION

37,935 WMGR 123 NW006 CAES WATER TRMT & RECYCLING FAC

4,000 WMGR 123 NW005 CARES MCKEAN WATER TRMT & RECYCLING FAC

1,040 WMGR 123 NC012 CHERRY FLATS CS CONCENTRATOR

49,230 WMGR 097 R017 CLEAN EARTH INC WILLIAMSPORT DRILLING MUD PROC FAC

310,940 WMGR 123 NC119 EUREKA RESOURCES LLC WILLIAMSPORT WATER 

TREATMENT19

275,540 WMGR 123 NC018 EUREKA RESOURCES STANDING STONE TWP FACILITY

29,740 WMGR 123 SW010 GREENE COUNTY WATER TREATMENT LLC

2,361,700 WMGR 123 NE002 HIBBARD TANK PAD

2,065,860 WMGR 123 HYDRO RECOVERY LP BLOSSBURG FACILITY

2,305,340 WMGR 123 NC010 HYDRO RECOVERY LP ANTRIM FACILITY

760,420 WMGR 123 NW009 RES WATER BUTLER

2,109,100 WMGR 123 SW005 RESERVED ENV SVC HEMPFIELD TWP RESIDUAL WASTE OPER

445,480 WMGR 123 SW001 RONCO WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY

248,990 WMGR 123 NC008 SHARER TEMP CENTRALIZED FLUIDS PROCESSING FACILITY

5,310 WMGR123NE003 SHASKAS SOUTH PAD

305,640 WMGR123NE001 SOMERSET REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES

172,990 WMGR123D001X TERRAQUA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Again, there is some uncertainty associated with the total volumes recycled. Since two of these facilities 

also hold NPDES permits, the ultimate fate of the wastewater once delivered to the facility is not known. 

Some or all may have been discharged at the two Eureka facilities. Nonetheless, that amount of 

wastewater accepted by these facilities for recycling dwarfs what could have been discharged by the two 

Eureka facilities. Conversely, the RES facility in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County is a WMGR-123 

 

19 The 2014 data export files available on the DEP website do not contain data allowing the tracking of wastewater 

deliveries to the two Eureka facilities located in Williamsport, PA. Deliveries are reported only to the South Second Street 

facility and not to the Reach Road facility. So, this table reports the sums reported deliveries to both facilities.
Page 15 of 23 August 20, 2015 

holder but is frequently listed as an NPDES facility with surface water discharge. Where misreported, 

delivery data for RES was moved over into this category of facility. The Clean Earth Inc. facility in 

Williamsport operates under WMGR 097. This is a permit granted to research and development facilities 

on a temporary basis.

The largest WMGR-123 treatment and recycling entity is Hydro Recovery, LLC which operates two facilities 

north of Williamsport near Blossburg, PA. Together, those two facilities are reported to have received 

4,771,000 barrels in 2014. They are opening another facility in Hanover Township, Washington County this 

summer.

Adjustments applied in this report result in an assumed 11,210,000 barrels treated for recycling.

Reuse without Processing at a Permitted Facility

This is the most common handling of wastewater generated from unconventional wells. It involves the storage 

and reuse of wastewater at the well site by the producer. Transportation and treatment costs are minimized. 

A total of 27,651,510 barrels of wastewater were handled in this way. 

Storage Pending Reuse

This reflects the wastewater that has been stored on site pending reuse. It amounts to 112,577 barrels in 2014.

Wastewater Handling in 2014

The data for 2014 are summarized in the following table:

Wastewater Produced from Unconventional Wells 2014

Barrels Gallons Barrels Gallons

Daily Daily

Number of Wells 6,890

Treatment 

Methods

Treatment and 

Discharge 460,000 19,320,000 1,260 52,932

Centralized Waste 

Treatment for Recycle 50,576 2,124,192 139 5,820

Injection Wells 3,392,707 142,493,694 9,295 390,394

Residual Waste Processing 

Facilities

 

11,210,300 470,832,600

30,71

3

1,289,95

2

Residual Waste Transfer 

Facility 41,397 1,738,674 113 4,763

Reuse W/O Processing at a 

Permitted 

Treatment Facility 27,651,510

1,161,363,42

0

75,75

8

3,181,81

8

Road Spreading 0 0 0 0
Page 16 of 23 August 20, 2015 

Storage Pending Disposal 

or Reuse 112,577 4,728,234 308 12,954

Totals 42,919,000 1,802,601,000 117,586 4,938,632

As stated before, the data set reports of Treatment and Discharge Facilities (NPDES and MIPP

Discharges) result in the potential greatest error in the data for several reasons. The first is that some 

deliveries are to a treatment facility20 that operates under a WMGR permit, but also holds, but does not 

use, an NPDES permit. That reporting was corrected for this report and RES discharge data was moved 

to RES WMGR-123 recycle. The reporting error for Eureka Standing Stone seems to be the reverse in 

that it actually does hold an NPDES permit and uses it, but is reported as a Residual Waste Processing 

Facility. 

Eureka Williamsport Second Street effluent is discharged to the Williamsport Sanitary Authority, but 

can also be recycled. 

These wastewater data also presume that a generator knows that his waste will be either recycled or 

discharged when he makes the waste report or that he changes his report when a decision is made to 

recycle instead of discharge, etc. Also, data set reporting ends at delivery to the first permitted facility 

and then, if additional reporting is appropriate, falls on the permitted facility to make appropriate 

reporting under its permit if the waste is then, for example, hauled to a disposal well instead of being 

recycled. This problem is always true with the waste delivered to a Residual Waste Transfer Facility. 

Its final fate is not reported in this data set, but is probably available from the data sets the Transfer 

Facility provides to DEP under its permit reporting obligations. Similarly, WMGR-123 only requires that 

the permittee maintain data regarding the fate of its treated wastewater. 

The data set also does not report on the sludge that might be generated during the treatment process 

which is then hauled to a landfill. 

In the case of Eureka Standing Stone, some reconciliation can be attempted. It is reported to have 

received 164,883.68 barrels or 6,925,128 gallons of wastewater in 2014. It discharged only 3,310,594 

gallons of wastewaters in 201421, and the difference is not reported in the data set analyzed, but may 

exist in reporting Standing Stone does to comply with its WMGR permit.

 

20 Reserved Environmental Services, LLC in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania

21 Based on analysis of EDMR’s from DEP website for NPDES Permit No. PA0232351
Page 17 of 23 August 20, 2015 

Summary of Wastewaters 2011

In contrast to 2014, in 2011, the ultimate disposal methods were:

2011 Disposal 

Method

Daily 

Volume

Units Number of Facilities

Brine or Industrial 

Wastewater 

Treatment Facility

77,304 barrels

Injection Wells 9,994 barrels 42 of which 5 were in WV, 3 

in PA, and 34 in Ohio

Landfill 2,710 tons 32 

Landfill22 8.6 barrels 4 

Publicly Owned 

Treatment Plant

69.8 tons 2

23

Stored, Ultimate 

Disposal Method 

Not Determined24

37.8 barrels Not Applicable

Reuse Other Than 

Spreading25

33,611 barrels Not Applicable

Chapter 95.10 New Source Compliant Facilities

The DEP adopted 25 PA Code 95.10 in August, 2010. It established new effluent limitations 

for new and expanding Marcellus wastewater treatment facilities planning to discharge to 

surface waters. 

Among other limitations, the maximum concentrations established under 95.10 for total dissolved 

solids are 500 mg/l and total chlorides are 250 mg/l. The removal of sodium chloride necessary to 

meet those limits requires crystallization, evaporation, and condensation (distillation), or reverse 

osmosis. The treatment needed to accomplish this is very expensive to build and operate. 

As long as wastewater recycling26 could be accomplished in new frac jobs, recycling would be less 

expensive than implementing those treatment technologies needed for new source compliance and, 

therefore, no such treatment facilities were constructed to meet the 95.10 standards. Beginning in 

2013, one facility was constructed. Eureka Resources LLC reports that it has constructed the only new 

facility compliant with the new 95.10 regulations for surface water discharge in Standing Stone 

Township, Bradford County.

 

22 It is assumed that all of this material was solidified at the landfill before final disposal, but may be misreported.

23 Reynoldsville and Johnstown

24 It is not known if any of the materials reported here were subsequently disposed of by another method and so reported.

25 Probably for the next frac.

26 With storage to meet the inevitable inequities in supply of and demand for recycled water. 
Page 18 of 23 August 20, 2015 

On October 1, 2013, Eureka became authorized through the issuance of NPDES Permit No. PA 0232351 

to discharge from its new facility located in Standing Stone Township, Bradford County, at a rate up to 

0.168 million gallons per day into the Susquehanna River . A total of twenty parameters are regulated

and/or monitored. The effluent limitations and monitoring requirements of the permit are as follows:

Total Nitrogen Report lbs Total Monthly

Total 

Phosphorus

Report lbs Total Monthly

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol

Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol

Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol

0.106 mg/L Average 

Monthly

2,4,6-

Trichlorophenol

0.155 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

2-Butanone Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

2-Butanone Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

2-Butanone 1.85 mg/L Average 

Monthly

2-Butanone 4.81 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Acetone Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Acetone Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Acetone 7.97 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Acetone 30.2 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Acetophenone Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Acetophenone Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Acetophenone 0.0562 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Acetophenone 0.114 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

AmmoniaNitrogenReport lbs/day Average 

Monthly

AmmoniaNitrogenReport lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

AmmoniaNitrogen10 mg/L Average 

Monthly

AmmoniaNitrogen20 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

BOD5 Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

BOD5 Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

BOD5 53 mg/L Average 

Monthly

BOD5 163 mg/L Daily 

Maximum
Page 19 of 

23 August 20, 2015 

Chloride Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Chloride 500 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Chloride Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Chloride 250 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Dissolved Iron7 mg/L Instantaneous 

Maximum

Flow (mgd) Report MGD Average 

Monthly

Flow (mgd) Report MGD Daily 

Maximum

o-Cresol Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

o-Cresol Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

o-Cresol 0.561 mg/L Average 

Monthly

o-Cresol 1.92 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Oil and Grease Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Oil and Grease 15 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Oil and Grease 30 mg/L Instantaneous 

Maximum

p-Cresol Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

p-Cresol Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

p-Cresol 0.205 mg/L Average 

Monthly

p-Cresol 0.698 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

pH6 S.U. Minimum

pH9 S.U. Maximum

Phenol Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Phenol Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Phenol 1.08 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Phenol 3.65 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Pyridine Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Pyridine Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Pyridine 0.182 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Pyridine 0.37 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Total Barium Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Total Barium Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum
Page 20 of 

23 August 20, 2015 

Total Barium 10 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Total Barium 20 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Total Copper Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Total Copper Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Total Copper 0.757 μg/L Average 

Monthly

Total Copper 0.865 μg/L Daily 

Maximum

Total Dissolved 

Solids

Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Total Dissolved 

Solids

500 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Total Dissolved 

Solids

Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Total Dissolved 

Solids

1000 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Total Iron 2.1 lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Total Iron 4.2 lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Total Iron 1.5 μg/L Average 

Monthly

Total Iron3 μg/L Daily 

Maximum

Total Strontium Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Total Strontium Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Total Strontium 10 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Total Strontium 20 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Total 

Suspended 

Solids

Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Total 

Suspended 

Solids

Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Total 

Suspended 

Solids

216 mg/L Daily 

Maximum

Total 

Suspended 

Solids

61.3 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Total Zinc Report lbs/day Average 

Monthly

Total Zinc 0.42 mg/L Average 

Monthly

Total Zinc Report lbs/day Daily 

Maximum

Total Zinc 0.497 mg/L Daily 

Maximum
Page 21 of 23 August 20, 2015 

The limits reflect that the discharge is into the Susquehanna River and its water quality classification, 

location of the discharge relative to water intakes, other nearby discharges, and standard NPDES 

permit writing policy.

So, the Standing Stone NPDES permit provides a measure of what is allowed in a discharge to surface 

waters. These limits can be contrasted to the much more stringent limits if the intent were to be “delisted,” that is no longer considered a waste. With de-listing the water could be stored or used without 

needing to comply with a waste management permit.

The delisting requirements are much more stringent than the discharge limits. 

The Eureka Standing Stone Design-Prototype of the Future?

With a reduction in the number of wells being drilled and fraced and an increase in the number of 

wells in production thereby producing production fluids, the ability to reuse production and frac 

fluids decreases. There will likely be a time when recycling demand is not sufficient to meet the 

need for reuse. What happens to the shale wastewaters if they cannot be reused?
Page 22 of 23 August 20, 2015 

Standing Stone addresses that question by providing additional treatment steps to the end of 

what might be termed a conventional shale wastewater treatment plant. The typical plant is 

capable of removing petroleum products, high solids materials, hardness, and metals to the point 

required for reuse. Standing Stone does the same, but also adds after that level of treatment 

mechanical vapor recompression (MVR) crystallization to produce a low total dissolved solids 

“distilled” water, an almost dry salt containing mainly sodium chloride, and a high concentration 

brine. The water fraction can be reused. The concentrated brine is discharged to an approved 

reuse or to an underground injection well. The salt might be reused or transported to an 

appropriately licensed landfill for final disposal.

An additional step then provides for treatment of the distillate, clean water, fraction in a 

membrane bioreactor (MBR) followed by reverse osmosis and discharge to surface water 

compliant with an NPDES permit.

This is not entirely new technology. Clean Streams, LLC constructed a distillation treatment facility 

in Williamsport which opened in 2011 and which used Altela, Inc. technology. MBR’s are widely 

used in municipal wastewater treatment and reverse osmosis is a standard method for removing 

ions from water. Perhaps the changing economies of “store and reuse” versus treatment and 

discharge or treatment and evaporate will bring more applications similar to Standing Stone. 

A review of the EDMR’s on the DEP website reveals that Standing Stone reports compliance with 

its NPDES permit effluent limitations. However, the discharge volumes have been considerably 

less than the design. It is not known if this is a result of recycling rather than discharging the 

wastewater or if demand has not yet grown to the point that there would need to be larger 

discharges. Discharges in June through November 2014 (December has no report) were 7,900, 

8,011, 21,120, 17,100, 18,080, and 36,500 gallons per day on average.

Insight into the Standing Stone operation is provided by a paper Eureka presented to the Society 

of Petroleum Engineers entitled, “A Sustainable Choice for Water Treatment/Recycling When 

Injection is Not an Option or Water Supply is Limited” in May 2015. The paper concludes that 

efforts to create delisted water and salt products are very difficult and highly dependent on 

control of pre-treatment processes so that a constant feed to evaporation and crystallization 

equipment is achieved.

Conclusion

In the three years since the writing of the 2012 report, produced water has passed frac water in its 

volume of production and the practice of recycling of wastewater on site without treatment at a 

permitted facility and recycling by treatment at a permitted facility have come to dominate the 

shale gas wastewater industry. Treatment and discharge occurs only at a few sites, but may 

become more important as more produced water proportionately has to be treated and less 

treated water is needed for fracing. New treatment facilities are being constructed, Hydro 
Page 23 of 23 August 20, 2015 

Recovery Antrim started operation in 2013 and Eureka Standing Stone in 2014. More facilities are 

planned. 

All of this is occurring as the amount of wastewater being produced is more or less level.