28 November 2010


Pennsylvania Gas Drillers Dumping Radioactive Waste in New YorkPrint
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Written by Peter Mantius


Dr. Earl Robinson, a pulmonologist who lives less than a mile away, noted that people who live near landfills often have higher rates of lung and bladder cancer than those who don’t.
Dr. Earl Robinson, a pulmonologist who lives less than a mile away, noted that people who live near landfills often have higher rates of lung and bladder cancer than those who don’t.
ELMIRA, N.Y. -- Trucks hauling rock cuttings from drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania regularly cross the New York State border these days to dump in the Chemung County Landfill seven miles east of Elmira.
The Marcellus formation is characterized by unusually high readings of naturally occurring radioactive material, or NORM, so most of the cuttings are probably radioactive. The Chemung Landfill, a former gravel pit, has never been licensed to handle low-level radioactive waste.
So how can the landfill’s private operators get clearance from the county and state environmental regulators to become a regional dump for radioactive drilling wastes?
The short answer: Provide the revenue-hungry county a rich payout, exploit a legal loophole, and presto, it’s a done deal.
The longer answer: Regulations haven’t kept pace with the recent widespread use of an invasive new drilling technology used to tap the Marcellus.
“There are many aspects of this new industrial activity that outpace existing regs. Radiological regulation is just one of them,” said Anthony Ingraffea, a Cornell University geology professor who has tracked the evolution of natural gas drilling for decades.
The latest variation of hydraulic fracturing now commonly used in Marcellus shale mining in Pennsylvania has never been allowed in New York State, but it is expected to be approved soon. Ingraffea said the New York Department of Environmental Conservation will need broader legal authority and a much deeper staff to cope with its considerable side effects.
But the DEC isn’t there yet, so there are legal gray areas that provide opportunities, and Casella Waste Systems is mining them.
In 2005, Casella entered into a 25-year, $90-million contract with Chemung County to operate its landfill, which had been taking in about 80,000 tons a year of garbage and municipal waste.
In April, the company and the county agreed to certain amendments to the deal and reaffirmed their goal of eventually increasing the landfill’s capacity to 417,000 tons per year.
“It’s been a great partnership,” said Larry Shilling, regional vice president for Casella, which has a pending application with the DEC for authority to boost capacity to 180,000 tons.
The DEC hasn’t raised major objections to the latest application. Nor did it object when it learned in January 2010 that for months the company had been accepting up to 2,000 tons of Pennsylvania drilling waste a week without first asking the agency for permission.
Casella also began diverting a major portion of its Chemung County municipal waste to other landfills to leave room for the Marcellus cuttings.
The DEC still isn’t sure when the new waste stream started because a lawyer for Casella said it was hard to pin down an exact date. While the DEC has taken it all in stride, several local residents who live near the landfill are quite agitated.
Dr. Earl Robinson, a pulmonologist who lives less than a mile away, noted that people who live near landfills often have higher rates of lung and bladder cancer than those who don’t.
Before Casella arrived, the Chemung Landfill had a history of violations involving industrial hazardous waste, so it may be partly to blame for the county’s problems with lung and bladder cancer.
From 2003-2007, the county’s bladder cancer incidence rate for males was 49.5 percent higher than the state average, while the lung cancer rate was 27.0 percent higher, according to the New York State Cancer Registry. In the 1999-2002 period, Chemung County had the highest bladder cancer rate in the state for males.
Obviously, Casella’s recent acceptance of Marcellus cuttings had nothing to do with those elevated levels in the past. But the new practice adds a new level of concern, Robinson said.
“Drill cuttings contain radioactive waste that will release radon gas, a carcinogen, and this will be dispersed into the atmosphere,” he said.

It may also find its way into drinking water supplies, Robinson added, because one engineering report commissioned by the county found that part of the landfill was “approximately 500 feet horizontally from the Chemung Valley Aquifer.”
Robinson is a member of a citizens group, Residents for the Preservation of Lowman and Chemung (RFPLC), that is challenging Casella’s bid to boost capacity to 180,000 tons per year.
RFPLC’s central claim is that Marcellus drilling wastes can’t be disposed of in a landfill that isn’t licensed to handle low-level radioactive waste. Such landfills are rare, and Chemung isn’t one of them.
The group’s argument echoes a formal statement sent to the DEC last December by the New York State Conference of Environmental Health Directors, which said in part:“Under no circumstances should drill cuttings be disposed outside licensed landfills without testing to show they are not a threat to human health or the environment.”
The DEC hasn’t conducted its own radiological testing of any wastes at the Chemung Landfill. Instead, it relied on submittals from Casella that appeared to show that neither drill cuttings nor soil contaminated with brine from Marcellus wells were dangerously radioactive.
Moreover, Lisa Schwartz, a lawyer for the DEC, argued that the level of radioactivity in the wastes sent to the Chemung Landfill wasn’t even a relevant legal question in the proceeding on Casella’s application to expand capacity. Her position reflected Casella’s stance on the issue.
In September, Edward Buhrmaster, an administrative law judge for the DEC, ruled that RFPLC’s challenge to the legality of dumping potentially radioactive wastes was irrelevant. He limited the Casella proceeding to the question of whether to allow the capacity to grow to 180,000 tons per year.
The citizens' group has appealed to the acting commissioner of the DEC.Under the law, Schwartz had argued, the Chemung Landfill could accept radioactive shale drill cuttings so long as they were not “processed or concentrated.” And she argued that the Chemung wastes were not. Ingraffea, among others, disagreed. In a pro bono memo filed in support of the RFPLC, the Cornell geologist stated that rock cuttings from drilling are typically carried to the surface by “drilling mud” that has been saturated with NORM. The rock cuttings are later separated from the mud in an industrial process known as “dewatering.”
Buhrmaster, the administrative law judge, struck Ingraffea’s testimony from the record along with comments made by two other scientific experts on behalf of RFPLC.
Buhrmaster concluded that the Marcellus shale cuttings were not processed and the landfill was legally entitled to make drill cuttings its entire waste stream -- up to its capacity.
Thomas S. West, an attorney for Casella, argued that if RFPLC’s central contention had any validity, which he denied, “it is a matter of statewide applicability that should not be determined in the context of a specific application for a particular facility.”
He said RFPLC could follow other procedural avenues to pursue its claim that radioactive cuttings had to go to a landfill licensed to handle them.
In addition to serving as Casella’s attorney, West has also served as a lobbyist to Chesapeake Energy, one of the companies that has dumped Marcellus brine-contaminated soil into the Chemung Landfill.
West also argued that the citizens’ group’s concerns about potentially radioactive wastes were addressed by the fact that Casella had installed radiological monitors at the landfill to warn of loads that exceeded set limits for radioactivity.
In April, Buhrmaster had expressed enthusiasm for on-site monitoring. But Schwartz acknowledged weeks later that the DEC staff hadn’t seen details of how the monitors would be operated and said their effectiveness “cannot be confirmed.”
Photo: Tony InGraffea
Photo: Tony InGraffea
In any case, Ingraffea said the DEC’s decision not to oppose the importation of Marcellus drill cuttings from Pennsylvania to Chemung “creates a precedent for a de facto open-door policy for potentially unacceptable materials to be transported into New York State without adequate regulations in place.”
The DEC is rushing to complete its final rules for the latest brand of hydraulic fracturing in the New York Marcellus shale, and agency officials have said they expect to finish in early 2011.
The rules are spelled out in the agency’s draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which drillers plan to use to speed through the permitting process in New York. The draft has drawn thousands of critical comments.
Many of those criticisms have targeted the DEC’s approach to NORM and radioactive wastes.
When the agency tested brine from all 12 of New York State’s conventional Marcellus wells in 2008 and 2009 it found alarmingly high levels of radioactivity in more than half of them. Readings for the extremely dangerous Radium 226 were up to 260 times the limit allowed to be released into the environment.
Those readings alarmed the New York State Department of Health, which has discouraged the use of Marcellus brine as a roadway de-icer unless the radioactive materials can be removed first.
The DEC’s test findings also drew the attention of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. “These data raise serious issues for public health, particularly with disposal of both solid waste (i.e. drill cuttings and equipment) and wastewater,” the NYCDEP wrote in a hard-hitting Dec. 9, 2009 letter to the DEC.
The city’s top environmental officer, Steven W. Lawitts, wrote that the DEC was obliged to do further analysis of the issue, adding: “Such an analysis must be completed before any activity that is likely to generate radioactive waste can move forward.”The DEC, however, said it intended to wait for the results of actual drilling in New York’s Marcellus. Meeting Lawitts’ more rigorous standard became less of a legal imperative after the DEC announced in April that natural gas wells drilled in the New York City watershed could not use the SGEIS process. Instead, drillers would be required to go through the lengthy environmental impact process well-by-well, a prohibitive expense that effectively curbs the latest brand of hydraulic fracturing within the New York watershed. If the watershed was spared hydraulic fracturing of the Marcellus, the DEC was spared a legal confrontation over radiological regulation.
The DEC has also drawn criticism for its failure to draw a sharp distinction between the latest version of hydraulic fracturing and the more benign techniques used in the past.
The draft DGEIS, many critics argue, needs to be rewritten to reflect special new impacts of the latest technique, which now dominates Marcellus mining. Ingraffea calls it “high-volume, slickwater fracking from long laterals on multi-well pads.”
Translated, that means drilling horizontally for several thousand feet along a deep shale formation from a well pad that may contain eight or more wells --  using up to 5 million of gallons of water per well with sand and chemicals that reduce friction and kill bacteria.
Before it’s allowed in New York, Ingraffea said, the state should require radiation monitoring of all wastes, solid and liquid, at the drilling pad so they can be sent to proper disposal destinations.
“Let the regs catch up with technology,” he said.

Latest articles from Peter Mantius

It Begins: Fracking Spill in North Central PA

frackNewsworks is reporting that “thousands of gallons” – 13,000 to be precisely in the ballpark – of hydrofracking fluid (containing a nice cocktail of salt and toxins) have spilled from a well in North Central PA and the ground water in Lycoming County is as good as polluted. The site has already had several violations and it wasn’t until a follow-up visit that Department of Environmental Protection inspector actually found the spill. A gas valve had…been left open.
It’s currently wreaking havok on local waterways and nearby cattle.
And we’re hearing from WBNG out in Binghamton, New York, that XTO Energy (a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil), who owns the gas well pad, has hired cleanup contractor Minuteman Response to contain and “remedy” the situation, though has not offered an explanation as to why the valve was open.
DEP Northcentral Regional Director Nels Taber told PA Environment Daily: “There are also two private drinking water wells in the vicinity that will be sampled for possible impacts.”
A fence also has been installed to prevent a neighbor’s cattle from grazing in the impacted area of the pasture.
DEP inspectors have collected samples of nearby soil samples and surface water. Initial field meter readings showed elevated levels of conductivity and salinity in the spring and unnamed tributary.
Conductivity measures water’s ability to carry an electric current, while salinity measures the dissolved salt content in water. Elevated levels of both are indications that spilled fracking fluid is present.
Exxon paid $30 billion in June to merge with Texas-based XTO Energy, thus making the conglomerate the largest natural gas producer in the U.S. It has holdings throughout the Marcellus Shale and elsewhere.
Let’s review the potential damage of fracking fluid, via Nick Powell’s October 5 feature, Marcellus Shale: Jeers to Your Health:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation analyzed wastewater in several wells in the state and found insanely high levels of radium-226, thousands of times the limit that is safe to drink. Radium-226 is a highly radioactive chemical that can lead to lung and bone cancer, among other diseases. When you take into consideration that the Delaware River and Schuylkill River watersheds are both located near the Shale, these findings are even more alarming. The New York City DEP concluded that drilling the Shale “presents potential risks to public health and would be expected to compromise the City’s ability to protect the watershed and continued, cost-effective provision of a high purity water supply.”
A big hat tip to Brendan Demelle at DeSmogBlog who points out a quote in this 2009 New York Times editorial: “If hydraulic fracturing is as safe as the industry says it is, why should it fear regulation?”
And now (still with us?), let’s review Governor-Elect Corbett’s plan to regulate Marcellus Shale and/or use some tax money to pay the DEP to, you know, get to the site sooner and maybe have more than one inspector on the site so these sorts of things aren’t overlooked.
…Oh, right.

AllGov - Texas Environment Commission Changed Test Results to Hide Radiation in Water


Texas Environment Commission Changed Test Results to Hide Radiation in Water
Friday, November 26, 2010
Texas Environment Commission Changed Test Results to Hide Radiation in Water
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) spent two decades under-reporting radiation levels in local water supplies, which helped water districts avoid fines, but exposed residents to potentially harmful radioactive elements.
An investigation by KHOU news in Houston found hundreds of water providers near the Gulf Coast that delivered drinking water containing radioactive contaminants, all with the blessing of state officials, using a reporting method that came to be known as “Texas math.”
At the center of the controversy was TCEQ’s manipulation of water-testing reports from theDepartment of State Health Services. When given a range of possible radiation levels in a water supply, TCEQ officials automatically went with the lowest possible figure based on the margin of error. This practice went on until 2009, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered what TCEQ was doing and told it to stop.
Alpha particles from uranium, radium and other minerals appeared repeatedly in water-testing reports compiled by TCEQ. “The alpha particle—this is the 800-pound gorilla of radioactive particles,” Dr. David Ozonoff, an environmental health professor and chair emeritus of the Boston University School of Public Health, told KHOU. “The word that comes to my mind is ‘cover-up’.”
Approval of lower radiation figures by the state allowed water districts to avoid being cited for having too much radiation in their water. This happened to Harris County Municipal Utility District No.105 (MUD 105), which dodged fines going back as far as 1988 because of TCEQ’s actions.
For example, in 1988, MUD 105’s measurement for alpha radiation came in at 17.6 picocuries at a time when the federal legal limit was 15. Because the margin of error was 5.3, the actual level could have been as high as 22.9 or as low as 12.3. TCEQ reported the level as 12.3, implying that this was the measured level rather the real measured level of 17.6. If TCEQ had not done this, MUD 105 would have been fined for exceeding the legal radiation limit in at least 12 different years. Instead, it was not cited until 2008.
-Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky

21 November 2010

Reminder !!

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull364/36405843745.pdf


Important follow up to my previous postings about this issue.



Biological effects of low doses of ionizing radiation: A fuller picture

The two latest reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge

effects of low level radiation does not exist and will probably not be obtainable for a long time. Obtaining unequivocal evidence would require ...

Also, from the report:


Radiation Doses
The term radiation means energy propagating in the form of electromagnetic
waves or photons, or in the form of subatomic particles. Ionizing
radiation is radiation of sufficiently high energy to cause — in the medium
through which it passes — the production of pairs of ions, i.e. of atoms or
groups of atoms that have either lost or gained one or more electrons to
become positively or negatively charged, and the corresponding complementary
electrons. For biological effects, the medium in which ion pairs are
produced is biological material, more specifically cellular material.
The term radiation (absorbed) dose generally means the amount of
energy which is absorbed from ionizing radiation by a unit mass of material.
This quantity is expressed in unit energy per unit mass, that is in joules per
kilogram, which takes the special name gray (Gy); [1 Gy = 1000 milligray
(mGy)]. For radiation protection purposes, the absorbed dose is weighted to
take account of the effectiveness of different radiation types and the radiosensitivity
of various organs and tissues. The resulting quantity is termed
effective dose, and its unit sievert (Sv) [ISv = 1000 millisievert (mSv)]; for
photons in the intermediate energy range, 1 mGy is approximately equal to
1 mSv.
The term low radiation dose is used to mean a radiation dose lower than
designated levels; sometimes it is also informally used to mean a low dose
rate, i.e. low dose per unit time. In specialized radiobiological forums, low
radiation dose (and dose rate) refers to exposures for which it is very unlikely
that more than one event of energy absorption from radiation will occur in
the critical parts of a cell (and damage it) within the time during which repair
mechanisms in the cell can operate. Thus, UNSCEAR concluded that low
radiation dose refers to a total dose of less than 200 mSv and dose rates below
, 0.1 mSv per minute (which in fact is a very high dose rate of around 5000
mSv per annum).
For the non-specialized public, low radiation doses are deemed to
correspond to levels similar to those from, for instance, natural background
exposure or some very common radiation exposures such as those arising
during air travel. Natural background exposure varies widely around the
world. Some "normal" [and "elevated"] values of annual dose rates are as
follows: for cosmic rays, 0.38 mSv [2.0 mSv]; for terrestrial radiation 0.43
mSv [4.3 mSv]; and for exposure to radon, 1.2 mSv [10 mSv]; leading to an
average total of around 2.4 mSv per annum. The average annual dose for
very frequent flyers (such as aircrew) is around 2.5 mSv. These dose rate
levels of a few mSv per annum are expected to deliver, during a lifetime,
doses of above around 100 mSv, which are of the order 
of magnitude of the low radiation doses designated by UNSCEAR."

Filmmaker Describes 'Gasland'

GASLAND Trailer 2010

24 February 2009

Mobile Phones: Tomorrow Will Be Too Late

http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Pratical_Health_France_Dr_Paul_Dupont_Mobile_phones_15042008_Add_WHO_Repacholi.pdf

In spite of the dithering by the Ministry of Health and the delaying tactics of the phone operating companies, it is now becoming clear that the mobile phone is a virulent pathogen with damaging effects that we are only vaguely aware of. Recently it was scientifically proved that there is a connection between certain types of tumour and the intensive use of a mobile phone. Most in evidence are cases of acoustic neurinoma, a tumour that develops on the acoustic nerve, as well as malignant brain tumours. According to this study the risk is multiplied by two or more on the side where the phone is held. Are the health authorities worried about these results? Not in the least since, according to the official experts, the risk concerns only "intensive" phone users, and, as they add with a certain touch of cynicism, nothing proves that using a mobile phone always causes a tumour to develop. They are right, but when we know that a tumour usually takes 15-20 years to develop, it would seem logical to conclude that the appearance of tumours after 4-5 years in these intensive phone users is a sure sign of a health catastrophe to come in 10 years' time. 10 years! For those who have children, it's nothing, but for the people that sell telephones it must seem a long way off. The worst thing in this situation is that it is the younger generation that is the most in danger. It is children and teenagers who use mobile phones the most. And it is at precisely this age that the brain is the most exposed: in a child's brain almost two thirds of it are affected by the radiation while in the adult it reaches only one third of the brain, which is already far too much! Even more worrying, the radiation increases in intensity as reception becomes more difficult. So when you use the phone in a train or a car, or when you are in a zone with weaker coverage and the phone has to keep searching for new signals, the intensity of the microwaves is considerably higher. And with every day that passes we find more electromagnetic radiation in our daily surroundings: TV screens and computer monitors, cordless phones and wi-fi systems. All of which is horrifying. All this radiation is non-ionising, that's to say it is capable of upsetting the function of our cells, particularly in our DNA, and the functioning of our glands. Among these it is the pineal, the source of the sleep hormone and of the resistance to cancer, that is the most easily disturbed. We could weep over this tragedy that awaits us, which everyone sees coming and which nobody is doing anything about. But wait - there are millions of mobile phones in use nowadays. . And one day, for lack of the will to face up to this problem, we will inevitably be faced with a terrible choice: your mobile or your life! At that point we will have to give up this magic tool, resign ourselves to taking a step backwards, draw a line through all that it has brought us - will we dare? . It's at that moment that we'll see if humanity still has a will to live or not.
- Dr Paul Dupont
See also:

EMF-Omega-News 14. February 2009
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/5515485/
EMF-Omega-News 21. February 2009
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/5531617/