Duke study finds radioactive hot spots in PA tributaries Levels below shale discharge 200 X above background

Radioactive waste discharged into rivers from shale gas operations in Pennsylvania exceed regulatory thresholds and pose an environmental risk, according to a study released today by Duke University.

The peer-reviewed study, published in Environmental Science and Technology, found that radium levels of sediment samples collected in Blacklick Creek downstream from a treatment plant in Western Pennsylvania were 200 times greater than samples upstream and background sediments. The levels exceed thresholds for radioactive waste disposal and pose “potential environmental risks of radium bioaccumulation in localized areas of shale gas wastewater disposal.” The samples were collected downstream from discharges from the Josephine Brine Treatment Facility, in Indiana County, which treats wastewater from oil and gas drilling.

Waste from oil and gas drilling is exempt from both federal hazardous waste handling and disposal regulations and the Safe Drining Water Act. Oversight is left up to states, including New York and Pennsylvania, which have no standards or protocol to test drilling waste for radio-active material. The Duke study is sure to heat up a debate in both states over health risks from extracting shale gas through high volume hydraulic fracturing. Researchers attempting to clarify the issues face a tall task due to a lack of public records and disclosure about chemicals used and waste produced. The Duke study is one in a small but growing field attempting to quantifying environmental hazards of shale gas development -- a key requisite for gauging health risks. It will likely take years if not decades for answers that carry the weight of science, and even those will likely be debatable without mandatory disclosure requirements for the industry.

Currently, at least five landfills in upstate New York accept drilling waste from Pennsylvania drilling operators: Hyland in Angelica, the Hakes Landfill in Painted Post, the Chemung Landfill near Elmira, Seneca Meadows Landfill in Waterloo, and the Allied/BFI Waste Systems landfill in Niagara Falls. Landfill waste includes cuttings and mud from well drilling. Although it’s different from the effluent discharged into streams, it also tends to include high levels of radium.

The Pennsylvania DEP tested water downstream of some wastewater treatment plants in late 2010, and found levels to be at or below background. Tests by the Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority also showed no  excessive readings at intakes to its treatment plant on the Allegheny River near Aspinwall. But other studies, including one by the USGS, showed that radio-active levels tend to correspond with shale gas waste, and that tends to fluctuates depending on operators production and disposal schedules.

As a follow-up, the DEP announced earlier this year a plan to sample and analyze the naturally occurring radioactivity levels in flowback waters, treatment solids and drill cuttings, as well as associated matters such as the transportation, storage and disposal of drilling wastes “at dozens of sites.” DEP spokeswoman Colleen Connolly said today that results of the study, which is underway, will likely be available early next year.

The following is from a SGR post on Feb. 2, 2013, which is relevant in light of the Duke study:

Reports about radioactive production waste from the Marcellus Shale have been circulating for years, but in the absence of public oversight and testing protocols, they are hard to gauge. A report by the USGS in 2011 found that high radium levels correspond with saltiness and total dissolved solids (TDS), all of which are characteristic properties of waste from Devonian shales, including the Marcellus and Utica formations underlying parts of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland. TDS is a measure of concentration of salts and other impurities dissolved in water. They are not visible to the naked eye, and they are flags for water problems apart from radioactivity. 

Concerns over hot fracking waste are not new, and they are not limited to Pennsylvania. While reporting for Gannett, I uncovered a 2008 memo from the New York State Department of Health to the Department of Environmental Conservation warning of the dangers of radio-active flowback. The memo, unreleased to the public, referenced an analysis of wastewater samples by state health officials that found levels of radium-226, and related alpha and beta radiation up to 10,000 times higher than drinking water standards. Based on that finding, the Health Department urged the DEC to design a testing protocol to ensure hot drilling waste is handled and disposed of properly. "The issues raised are not trivial but are also not insurmountable," the memo concluded. "Many can be addressed using common engineering controls and industry best practices."

That is reassuring, to a degree. But what are “best practices,” exactly, and how effective are they if they are optional? For now, they are left to the discretion of operators who assure us that all is being handled properly, and to private waste plant operators who echo these reassurances.

NY fracking policy review expected “in a couple of weeks” DEC Chief’s 11th hour testimony puts onus on health dept.

The last piece to New York’s four and a half year policy review of fracking will be completed in “a couple of weeks,” the state’s top regulator told lawmakers this week. And then what?

Martens at hearing

DEC Commissioner Joseph Martens gave a few clues but no clear answers as he responded to questions in a legislative budget hearing Monday in Albany after delivering a 14-minute summary of the Department of Environmental Conseravation’s notable activities in 2012. Speaking in front of legislators and a gallery filled with hundreds of anti-fracking activists who drew repeated admonishments from finance committee Chair John DeFrancisco to pipe down or face a prolonged recess, Martens read a prepared statement covering issues ranging from restoring coastal frontage after hurricane Sandy to land acquisition and outdoor recreation. Remarkably, his statement lacked any reference to the most controversial environmental issue facing the state: whether, when, or how to allow shale gas development to proceed. Martens left it to lawmakers to bring that subject up during the question and answer period. Although Martens answers tended to be vague, nearly two hours of questioning yielded these informational nuggets:

• The Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS), the exhaustive policy overhaul aimed at regulating high volume hydraulic fracturing, cost “several million” dollars.

• Before finalizing the SGEIS, officials are awaiting an amendment from the Department of Health Commissioner Nirav Shah that assesses whether the DEC’s policy sufficiently covers health impacts. More information will be available after that piece is completed in “a couple of weeks,” Martens said.

• Martens said he has no idea what the Health Department amendment says, to what degree it will influence the final outcome of the DEC’s policy proposal, or whether the state will even proceed with the plan it has been working on for nearly five years.

• There are no funds in Cuomo's proposed budget for the fiscal year that starts in April to deal with fracking or the increased regulatory burden of permitting and overseeing shale gas wells.

• There has been broad anticipation that the state will release the SGEIS next week to meet a Feb. 27 deadline to finalize a set of regulations that are being developed concurrently with the SGEIS. Martens did not know whether the state would meet the deadline.

Protesters at hearing

This is where the sequence of events gets unwieldy. The regs cannot be finalized without the SGEIS. And the SGEIS cannot be complete without the health department’s assessment of the risks. The health review -- added to the overall process late last year on an ad-hoc basis in an attempt to satisfy criticism -- now takes on critical importance and political complexity.

If anything was clear in Martens testimony, it was the importance of the Department of Health in deciding the fate of New York’s fracking policy. Responding to questions about why nothing had been budgeted this year to oversee fracking, Martens again referred to the pending health department amendment: “It is really up in the air,” he said. “It was premature to include funds when we weren’t at the end of the process.” Other answers to other questions repeatedly lead him back to the health review “… It all depends on what the health review says. If it recommends additional measures, it will be difficult to get the regs finalized … We’ll have it in a few weeks and then decide where we’ll go from there ... I have to get the health report before we make any decisions about whether we move forward or not…”

But what exactly is the health review? It lacks a public scoping component, procedural outline, and any clear definition of its objective that has been publically vetted. This is a sore spot for activists. An hour and 45 minutes into the hearing, Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton complained that the scope and contents of the health study were being kept secret, and she inquired whether it would be open to public hearings before it was finalized with the SGEIS.

Lifton: .. Is the public going to have an opportunity for public comment and review..?

Martens: (smiling and repeating an earlier quip): I’m sure the public will comment on this...

Lifton: ... I’m asking you a serious question … Is there going to be legal, formal public comment on this document ..?

Martens: “I don’t know at this stage. I haven’t seen the report yet. The report could include a whole range of things. From one end of the spectrum, -- no we’re not convinced you’ve done enough [to mitigate health risks]. They could be convinced that you’ve done enough and conclude it shouldn’t happen in New York. That’s one possibility. Until I’ve seen that I’m not drawing any conclusions. There may be no need for public comment, depending on what Dr. Shah says.“

An audio file of this exchange, edited by Matt Richmond of WSKG Radio, is below.



Martens vagueness – along with his remarkable claim that he has no idea what the report might say after earlier testifying he has been working with the Department of Health on these questions for years – reflects a more general opaqueness from the Cuomo administration about the fate of fracking in New York. It is an approach that has frustrated and angered people on both sides of the issue, but anti-fracking activist have reacted most visibly.

That anger reached a boiling point just prior to Martens’ testimony. As hundreds of activists filed into the assembly hall, and officials, law makers, staffers, and media milled around the floor, Sandra Steingraber, an Ithaca College biologist, environmental health specialist, and high-profile leader of the anti-fracking movement, sought out Martens and began pressing him for information. Martens turned away and one of his staff stepped in, prompting Steingraber to raise her voice to an oratory pitch echoing through the auditorium. “We are going to open this process up because secrecy cannot protect public health. I have tried to have a conversation with you, but you don’t answer any letters, so I’m using my voice, in front of the people of New York to say we are not standing for a secret health study…” Steingraber’s continued her impromptu stumping for a full minute with no signs of stopping before she was cut short by a burly official who demanded she take a seat or be arrested. Steingraber stood her ground, continuing her castigation long enough to illustrate the organization, gumption, and leadership of a grass roots network that will surely be challenging the DEC if fracking is allowed. (Video, posted by Colleen Boland on You Tube, is embeded below)



Beyond that, anybody trying to pull any definitive information about fracking from this scene or the ensuing hearings had slim pickings. Where does this leave residents evenly divided for and against fracking (according to a recent poll), and the 20 percent who haven’t made up their mind?

First, it’s important to remember that the decision to proceed with fracking, or not, extends well beyond the bureaucratic mechanism of the review process. Ultimately, it will be made above Martens and Shah and probably by Cuomo himself, given the governor’s political stake in the game. I have written before about Cuomo’s ambivalence about fracking, and Monday’s hearing once again shows, if anything, his contimued lack of commitment.

Missing the Feb. 13 deadlines suggests the DEC will not be issuing the regs by the end of the month and the agency will have to reopen that process while enduring the groundswell of protests that go along with each hearing. But it’s critical to remember that the permitting process can begin once the SGEIS is finished, even without the regs finalized.

This gives Cuomo a lot of options. Depending on which way the political winds blow (and the status of natural gas prices) New York could release the SGEIS before or after Wednesday’s deadline. Because permitting can begin without regulations, the release of the SGEIS, whenever it comes, would technically open the path of shale gas development in New York, although it would be a rocky, narrow path along the northern Marcellus frontier. This path will be fraught with strident anti-drilling resistance, protests, legal challenges, and a bottleneck of applications handled by an understaffed agency. For established operators, it certainly would be a much less attractive route than the permitting boulevard that has accelerated drilling and fracking in Pennsylvania. But it very well could appeal to a certain breed of prospectors, speculators, innovators, and exploration companies working with relatively large swaths of unleased land and willing to take the chances to stake out and prove up new territory.

Cuomo can also hold off, given the low prices of natural gas, the lack of the political push from the pro-gassers to offset the uprising from the antis, split poles, etc. With the SGEIS pieces pretty much in place, his lack of commitment is hard to read. Certainly, as a politician, he is inclined to weigh monumental political issues against other monumental political issues, and looking at the state’s energy needs goes beyond fracking. In action and rhetoric, the governor has supported closing Indian Point and discouraging coal-burning plants. Can he place himself to the left of President Obama on energy and still maintain mainstream presidential aspirations?

At the end of Martens’ testimony Monday, the protesters stood and chanted "Not one well!" before heading to the Capitol for a rally with Steingraber and celebrities that included actor Mark Rufalo and film-maker Josh Fox. They were also joined by Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who sign a "pledge of resistance" to fracking and is training protesters in civil disobedience if shale gas development is permitted.

That story is taking shape and we will soon know whether or how it will unfold.

After 5 years, water remains focus of drilling debate Transparency issues still hamper knowledge base

When Marcellus production ramped up in Pennsylvania five years ago, questions arose about the volume, contents, and endpoint of the waste it produced and its impact on water supplies.

If we knew then, what we know now….

We still wouldn’t have known much. Despite advances in public awareness of the risks and rewards of drilling, what a land play looks like, the sums of money at stake, the role of shale gas in domestic energy production, and technical aspects of high volume hydraulic fracturing, precisely tracking the shale gas waste stream and determining its impact on water supplies remains a politically complicated task. And it’s a task hampered by an inconclusive, and often conflicting body of science and policy initiatives.

So the work continues. Last week, news on several fronts demonstrated both the level of commitment to assess and address problems, and the amount of work still to be done by scientists and policy makers. Here’s a summary:

BROMIDES IN THE WATERSHED: High concentrations of bromides, one of the many constituents of drilling waste, are often a signal of larger water quality problems related to Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), a unit that generically quantifies concentrations of all soluble material in a given water sample. These include various constituents of drilling waste, including brines and metals.

With the onset of the Pennsylvania Shale Gas Boom from 2008 through 2010, TDS levels spiked in major Pennsylvania watersheds, including the Monongahela and Allegheny river systems. The spikes coincided with the disposal of drilling waste to municipal treatment plants that were not equipped to treat it. After TDS levels hit crises levels in the Mon, the Pennsylvania DEP drafted new rules, under Chapter 95 of Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Laws, to discourage the disposal of drilling waste at treatment plants by setting TDS ceilings for incoming shipments. But many plants ended up grandfathered into the old standard, and the industry found other ways around the new rule, and the problem persisted.(More on tha here) After repeated calls for the industry to voluntarily stop taking drilling waste to plants ill equipped to handle it, TDS levels have recently dropped dramatically in the Mon River. (See Friday's Associated Press report here.) But they remain a problem in the Alleghany. See the Trib Live report here. The picture is complicated by other factors – including mine drainage -- that influence TDS pollution.

EPA STUDY: With the presidential election decided and the future leadership and direction of the EPA no longer an uncertainty, a leading agency official provided an update Friday on a critical federal study to assess the impact of fracking on groundwater. EPA Science Advisor Glenn Paulson reported that a progress report on the study would be released on schedule by the end of this year (within seven weeks). The final study will be submitted for peer review in 2014.

The EPA endeavor includes analysis of data from 21 research projects in several drilling states to determine if and how the country’s natural gas boom and fracking in particular is affecting drinking water. Paulson gave the update at the University of Pittsburgh’s annual conference on the health effects of shale drilling. Trib Live’s Timothy Puko reported that Paulson told a crowd of about 150 people that the EPA effort “has the promise to be pretty close to definitive on the drinking water/fracturing issue ... as anything else that’s going on.”

AP’s Kevin Begos also covered the conference, where Paulson built high expectations for the study’s significance. Begos reports:

Paulson said the study of fracking and drinking water “is one of the most aggressive public outreach programs in EPA history.” He said the progress report will show the “range and depth” of what EPA is looking at, and will be open to public comment.

“It will really be a lot for experts to chew on in their particular fields,” Paulson said, noting that EPA is reaching out to geologists, academic experts, the industry, environmental groups, and even Indian tribes.

The EPA study was commissioned in 2010 by members of Congress, who challenged the industry’s exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act. The exemption, known as the Halliburton Loophole, was granted under the Bush/Cheney administration to help encourage shale gas development.

While the EPA”s work is reportedly progressing on schedule, the agency may not be able to complete its wish list of objectives, according to Puko’s report. Specifically, Paulson told the Pittsburgh audience that officials have been unable to get industry cooperation for access to well fields in Washington County or other areas to conduct a series of controlled tests to gather localized water quality data before and after drilling.

DEP TESTING PROTOCOL: Earlier this month, Pennsylvania State Rep. Jesse White called on state and local authorities to investigate the DEP for fraud and misconduct – charges stemming from allegations that the agency manipulated water quality data in reports to residents in drilling districts.

The DEP has a long-standing policy of releasing results that are filtered through agency officials rather than a complete set of raw data, according to agency Secretary Michael Krancer. Officials have defended this practice as a tool to screen relevant data from noise.

White sees the practice as an easy and convenient tool to manipulate data. He cited an example stemming from testimony of a state official in a lawsuit brought by homeowners against Range Resources and the DEP. DEP Bureau of Laboratories technical director Taru Upadhyay testified that agency employees use a ‘Suite Code’ that limits information coming back from the lab to the field office, and ultimately to the property owner. For example,. Suite Code 942 reports results for only eight of 24 metals in the test: barium, calcium, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, sodium and strontium. It doesn’t report results for silver, aluminum, beryllium, cadium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, silicon, lithium, molybdenum, tin, titanium, vandium, zinc and boron.

Authorities defend the practice as a long-standing and sound method to filter noise from relevant data. Although metals excluded from the report might be byproducts of drilling, the DEP does not consider them to be prevalent and typical markers of a drilling-related problem. According to Krancer, “Professional staff, trained in evaluating water complaints, utilize the relevant data and information to inform their conclusions. Although other results are generated by the lab tests, such results would not contribute to answering the question at hand--determining whether there is a connection between the gas well activities and the water supply.

Critics argue that the fields blocked by the suite code are useful indicators of drilling contamination and other problems. Moreover, homeowners have a right to all results of water quality tests that can flag health risks.

Looking for a non-partisan voice in this, I will offer the reflections of John Hanger. Hanger is the former DEP Secretary who often comes to the defense of shale gas development and the DEP’s handling of regulations. But not this time. He has called on the agency to release comprehensive test results as a matter of policy. He told Rachel Morgan of Time On Line:

My view is that the (DEP) should release all the test results of any substances found,” he said. “It’s just better to release all the substances to the owner of where the water was taken, whether or not the pollutant of substances (found) are relevant to an investigatory purpose. It would concern me if the department found a high (concentration) of a substance that posed a threat to the health of the owner and would not release it.

The questions of bromide levels in rivers, the status of the EPA study, and the controversy over the DEP testing protocol represent just a few of the dynamics in the matrix of developing science/policy/politics that will shape long-term viability and economics of shale gas development. It’s been a long and grueling process. Don’t expect it to end anytime soon.