## Hyd r aul i c F r act u ring Radiological Concerns for Ohio

Fact Sheet Prepared for

FreshWater Accountabili ty Project Ohio PO Box 473 Grand Rapids, Ohio 43522

June 13, 2013

Melissa Belcher, M.S. and Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D. Radioactive Waste Management Associates P.O. Box 105 Bellow s Falls, VT 05101 802-732-8008

1

### Fracking Waste: Product ion and Disposal

Intro

It is a known fact that the Ma rcellus and Utica sh ale form ations are radioactive, with concentrations of radium-226 that are up to 30 tim es background [1] . In the process of drilling and fracturing wells (fr acking) in shale form ations, to produce natural gas, this underground radioactivity is brought to the surface, but where does it go? Oil and gas

com p anies, along with the State agencies they’ve bam boozled, would have you believe any radio activity p r esen t in waste s t ream s is e ith er with in reg u lato ry lim its, not with in the jurisdiction of State gov ernm ents to regulate, or non-exis tent. Translation 1: the radium

226 in Marcellus sh ale inexplicably disappe ars when it is b r ought to th e surface. Translation 2: the oil and gas industry does not want to pay th e true costs of transporting,

m a naging or disposing the radi oactive waste th ey are producing. In th is fact sheet, we want to cut through this murky haze that is settlin g over Ohio. W e will explore the situa tion a tthe Patr iot w a ter tre a tm ent pl ant in Warren, OH, solid waste disposal in landf ills, the potential impact of fracking near public drinking water supplies, specif ica lly near the Muskingum Ri ver W a tershed, the safe ty of transporting waste liquids and solids from Pennsylvania and other states to Ohio vi a trucks, rail and barg es and the potential costs of proper disposal.

Background

The process of hydro-fracking, us ed to obtain natural gas and other related products from underground shale form ations, requires a large qu antity of water to com p lete the processover 3 m illion gallons o f water per treatm e nt [2] . Drillers take water from underground aquifers, or surface water bodies, su ch as Se neca Lake, whichis clearly co nvenient an d also serves to disguise the effects of large water withdraw als (discus s ed in section: Are there additional environmental concerns? ). Drilling fluid is us ed to rem ove the rock cuttings f r o mhorizonta l wells in the Marce llu s shale form ations and to transport the drill cuttings to the well surf ace [1] . The list of chem icals adde d to the water throughout the fracking process is extensive and concerning - including diesel, rust inhibitors, proppants and antib acterial agen ts. Som e of the drilling fluid return s to th e surface in the form of flowback water once the well is drilled. Wh enthe well is producing natural gas, any contained moisture, known as brine, is rem oved. Brine contains high concentrations of naturally occurring radi oactive m a terials from the shale form ation. To add even m o re concern to an already highly debated process, fracking operations are currently zeroing in on the stretch of Marcellus shale th at lies at depths of 4000 to 8500 feet [3] below the Earth’s surface and rang es from Wes tVirgin ia through eastern Ohio across Pennsylvania and into southern New York. The concern for the Muskingum W a tershed Conservancy District (MWCD) is that hydr aulic pressure often forces drilling fluids through weak sections of well casing or into abandoned wells, thereby contam inating aquifers.

Reports have shown that Marcellus shale deposit s, com p ared to other shale for m ations in other parts of the country, are m u ch more ra dioactive. New York DEC s a m p led flowback water from vertical Marcellu s shale wells and found that th e liquid contained radioactive

2concentrations as high as 267 tim es the lim it for discharge into the environm ent and thousands of tim es the lim it for drinking water [4] . Brine from horizontal drilling, as being done throughout Pennsylvania, will be m u ch more radioactive, quoted by New York DEC as high as 15,000 pCi/L [1] . Fracking not only brings this highly radioactive m a terial to the Earth’s surface, but exis ts in th e solid and liquid waste th at is created as a resu lt of the process. Radioactivity in oil and gas wastewaters has be en found to exceed the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency’s dri nking water lim its by up to 3,600 tim e s, exceeding federal industrial d i scharge lim its set b ythe Nuclear Regulato ryAgency by more than 300 tim es [5]

.

W e discuss the im pact on water trea tm ent f acilities, such as the Patr iot plant in W a rre n, Ohio and the proposed GreenHunter facility lo cated on the Ohio River in the section of this r e port titled : Treatm ent Facilitie s Under Fire . Wh ile Ohio regulations (1509.22) require that releases to s urface waters not ex ceed Safe Drinking W a ter standards, in o ur opinion, these waste stream s are not being safe ly m a naged and regulated in Ohio. Simply allowing waste m a terials to m eet drinking water standards allows m i xing at water
treatm ent plants, that is, dilution, without adequate m onitoring or m easurem ent for radioactivity before or after discharge.

Ohio law also allows spreading of radioactiv e brine from wells that are “not horizontal wells” on land and highways – thereby potenti ally ending up in drinking water sources, or being re-suspended in the air. There is no m e thod to proving or certifying where the brine has actually com e from
, therefore m a king it nearly im possible to detect violations from spreading radioactive brine from horizontal wells on roadways.

A m a nage ment plan to deal with waste m a te rial from fracking and natural gas production needs to be put in place imm e diatel y and action needs to hap p en now.

So what does this mean for Ohio?

Even though fracking in Ohio is not yet occurring at intense levels as in other states, the State has been victim to the process especially b ecause the S t ate is m a king itself available as a dum ping ground for the waste from other places, such as Pennsylvania and W e st Virginia. Both liqu i d and solid f r ack ing waste, of radioactive nature, is trucked across state lin es to Ohio landf ills and processed to take to wast ewater treatm e nt plants for disposal. Th ere is an es tim a ted 2,000 wells sched u led to be p e rm itted in the near futu re [5 8] . Many wells are already drilled, si m p ly awaiting f r a c king while the infrastructure is being constructed.

If fracking is encouraged throughout Ohio, the state could see m o re than 4,000 fracking wells dr illed over the n e xt ten ye ars. Consid er th is: it take s be tween 2 and up to 8 m illion gallons of water to fractur e a sing le Marce llus s h ale well on e tim e, and each well m a y be f r actured m u ltip le tim e s. From 5% to 35% [5 4] of the fluids initia lly stay underground in the well its elf, while the rem a inder returns to th e s urface and must be eith er re -used or disposed of. Imm e diate issues asso ciated w ith this process are focused on contam ination of water resources, where this radioactive waste should be disposed of and how to

3properly m a nage it as well as the irreversib le dam a ge it m a y be contributing to the environm ent and hum an health. Th is will a l so pla ce an exorb i tant dem a nd on the f r esh water resource in the State of Ohio. Is it wo rth it? Below are a f

e w current exam ples of how waste is curren tly b e ing treated in the s t ate o f Ohio and the issues ass o ciated with the process.

What happens to f r acking waste?

Solid Wast e How m u ch waste arises from a single hydro-fr acked well? T o consider the am ount of solid waste that a single horizontal drilled well would produce from the drilling/soil

rem oval process, we estim ate that th e averag e diam eter of the well is one foot and that the hor izontal leng th in which the well is dr ill ed is a m ile. This resu lts in approxim a tely 4,147 cubic feet of radio actively contam inated shale rock that needs to be disposed ofsom e where. Now, consider that Pennsylvan ia has drilled alm o st 9,000 wells for natural gas to da te. This yie l ds over 37 m illion cubic f e et of waste that needs to be relo cated to its new home. Ohio takes m o re than half of Pennsylvania’s w a ste m a terial, indicating that at least 19 m illion cubic feet of solid m a terial could poten tia lly be sent to Ohio f o r disposal. F r acking waste is also com i ng into Ohio f r om W e st Virginia.

Where is this solid waste disposed of in Ohio? The gas indus try describes watertreatm ent fa cilities and injection wells as th eir methods for disposal for fracking waste. The waste is also being hauled to solid la ndfills. The solid w a ste generated throughout the hydro-fracking pro c ess is s e nt to m unicipal landfills.

Ohio is now experiencing a huge influx of solid waste landfills for disposal and m a ny more are expected. But m a ny of these landfil ls are not equipped for m easuring, m a naging or storing such contam inated waste. This is evident by the frequent detection of radioactiv e and hazardo us m a terials from th e small am ount of landfills th at are actu a lly equipped with f i eld sam p ling equ i p m ent at the landf ill en tran ce. In f act, Tim o thy Puko [7] with the Tribune-Review (located in wester n Pennsylvania) reporte d in May of 2013 that “radiation alarm s went off 1,325 ti mes in 2012, with m o re than 1,000 of those alerts just from oil and gas waste”, accord ing to data from the Pennsylv a nia Departm e nt of Environm ental Protection. One example - in April 2013, a truck carrying a load of solid fracking waste was sen taway from the MAX landfill in South Huntingdon, Pennsylvania after the truckload set off an alarm because its con t ents were s o radioactiv e. The drill cutting m a terials in the truck had a radiat ion dose rate of 96 microrem s per hour, caused by the radium -226 contents. The lim i t for ra dioactive m a terial at the landfill is 10

m i crorem s per hour. The truck was first quarantin ed at th e lan d fill, and th en turned back to the fracking pad in Greene County to be re-d irected to a site thatcan accept higher levels of radiation [8] . And in May 2013, two truckloads of Pennsylvania drilling wastes
were turn ed away f r om the Am ericanLandf ill in W a ynesburg, Ohio af ter lab te sts showed high levels of radium , 36 tim es the regulatory lim it [9 ]

. Field testing f o r radioac t ive m a teria l s at landf ills is becom i ng m o re widespread, but is still not requ ired. It is not known just how m a ny landfills test m a te rials prior to being

4accepted, an d how m a ny shippers h ave shippi ng m a nifests for the landfill operato r to review. A proposed Ohio law would requi re oil and gas com p a n ies to conduct radioa ctiv itytests on the tons of waste rock, dirt and dr illing lubricants produced at drilling sites before those wast es are dum p ed in Ohio landfil ls. Of f i cials with the Ohio Departm e nt of Natural Resources, the Ohio Environm ental Protection Agency and the Ohio Departm e nt of Health say the new proposed requirem e nt is intended to keep radioa ctiv e wastes f r om leaking f r o mlandf ills [9] . The idea is good in theory, but details of the regulation are a current hot debate . Under the ODNR proposal, drilling waste catego r ized as techno log i cally enhan ced naturally occurring ra dioa ctiv e m a terials (TENORM) could be disposed of in one of Ohio’s 39 licensed m unicipal solid waste landfills as long as it contains 5 picocuries per gram or less of waste m a terial. TENORM is lab e led a s natura lly oc curring rad i oactiv e m a terial (NORM) that has been m a nipulated by m a n such that its radioac tiv e content is conce n tra t ed [10] . If the waste m a terial tes t s higher than the 5 picocurie per gram thres hold, it can be diluted, or essentially “down blended”, by m i xing it w ith other m a terials in an a ttem p t to dilute the radio activ e conte n t for disposal [ 11] . However, because radium is highl y soluble in water, rain water percolating throughout the landfil l will allow th e radioactiv e c onstituents of the m a terial to leach out into the environm ent and potenti ally into aquifers or surface w a ter for drinking water supplies.

Sam p ling an d testing of m a terials to be sentto landf ills would yield be st results if conducted b ya third dis i nteres ted party or the officials at the receiving landfill, who would be held liable for any radio active m a terials presen t within the facility. The regulatory agency m u st be able to review the sampling program

. Results from som e

sam p ling of m a terials within landf ills showradioa ctive am ounts over the r e str i cting lim its of 5-10 pCi per gram are often detected, som e ti m e s significantly [12] . The process of field tes ting for radioactive m a terials can also be questioned, as deta ils related to whe r e the sam p le is taken, howm a ny sam p l e s need to be taken, the testing m e thod (see Appendix C) and how the trucking container re la tes to the r e a d ing all nee d f

urther specific field research. There ar e key criteria that m u st be constantly and consistently

m a intained, such as the c a lib ration of the ga mm a readings taken by the portal m onitors with actual laboratory measurem ents of radium -226.

Disposal Costs at Landfills There are facilities that s p ecifi cally m a nage radioactive solids with the goal of storing the

m a terials in a safe and controlled m a nne r over a long-termperiod. Traditionally, lowlevel radio a ctive was t e disposal f a c i lities hav e charged waste generators a fee for each cubic foot of waste accepted for disposal, at costs far higher than m unicipal solid waste landf ills. This volum e-re lated f ee is k nown as the “per cub i c foot charg e ” [13] . However, facilities m a y also charge additional fees based o nthe characteris tic of the waste, such as the level of radioactivity and the ty pe of container used for housing.

Regardless of the m e thod of pricing, the costof low-level waste disposal has increased over the past years. The Barnwell disposal f acility in South Carolina, which is no longer operating, had a base disposal price of $13.20 per cubic foot of waste in 1983. In 1994, when the facility clo s ed, the cos tper cubi c foot for waste dispos al had increased to

5$220.00, with additional surcharges and fees that were also included [13] such as the typ e of waste, the weight, dose rate and curies a ssociated with the load of m a terials to be

rece ived. One exam ple of a current low-level wa ste m a nagem e nt f acilityis the U.S. Ecology waste disposal facility in Richland, W a shington. This facility charges $115.50 per cubic foot of low-level radi oactive m a terial to be m a nage d [14] . Another exam ple is the waste disposal facility in Clive, Utah, which charges $350.00 per cubic foot of “large

com ponent m a terial” and $145.00 per cubic foot for “debris” [14] . W a ste at the Utah facility is categorized and priced by si ze classification of received com p onents.

Com p are the costs of properly disposing of th e m a terial at one of the proper landfills

m e ntioned above versus sending th e toxic m a teri al to a regular m unicipal landfill in Oh io that charges at m o st a fee of $44.00 per c ubic yard of m a terial, or for comparison purposes to the facilities m e ntioned above, just over $1.60 per cubic foot of m a terial [1 5]

. To dispose of the roughly 4150 cubic feet of waste solids generated from drilling one natural gas well, it would cost $479,000 to send the m a terials to W a shington to be disposed of, $601,000 to send m a terials to Utah, and $6,775 to se nd it to the local municipal landf ill. Wh en consider ing the 19 m illion cubic f e e tof m a teria l that ne eds to be disposed of referenced previously, it is eviden t that enviro nm ental con cerns are trum ped by the econom ics beneficial to th e unconventional shal e drilling industry.

When Ohio accepts fracking waste from other states, it is then responsib le for properly disposing of this r a dioa c tive m a terial, which curr ently is turning up in m u nicipa l landf ills that are not prepared to handl e this m a terial. Ideally, this waste should be sent directly from the site of origination to facilities in the states of W a shington, Utah and Texas, licensed to m a nage naturally occurring radioa ctive m a terial (NORM) and technologically enhanced naturally occurring rad i oac t ive m a teria l (TENORM) [16]

.

Wastewate r The am ount of wastewater cr eated throughout the fracking pr ocess is astonishing. The problem of what to do with th is waste byproduct is growing as the volum e of wastewater continues to increase rapidl y with the expansion of frack ing in the Marcellus shale for m ation and nationwide [1 7] . It is estim ated that the am ount of waste water produced to just drill the vertical shaf t of each well for Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania is 80,000 gallons of wastewater [18] . The additional am ount of water required for a single hydrofracking event is as m u ch as 3.8 m illion gallons per well [1 8] and others have estim a ted much m o re depending on the depth and length of long laterals. It should also be noted that m a ny wells are hyd ro-fracked more thanon e tim e. Ohio also con t rib u tes to the

am ount of wastewater to be di sposed of in their own stat e, as Ohio now has 665 wells
perm itted for Utica sh ale, 332 of whi c h are currently drilled [1 9]

.

Flowback water is recov e red from each well, which includ es drilling fluid with added liquids and chem icals and any produced form a tion brines f r o mthe drilled well. Sam p les of flowback water from vert ical Marcellu s shale wells s how that the liquid contained radioactive concentrations as high as 267 tim es the lim it for discharge into the environm ent and thousands of tim es the lim it for drinking water [4] . Once the well is producing, b r ine that is s e parated fro mnatura l gas will be m u ch m o re radioactiv e, quo ted

6by New Yor k DEC as high as 15,000 pCi/L [1] . The flowback water is often sent across state lin es to Ohio f o r injection we ll disposal o r to waste water tr eatm e nt f a cilities to be processed fo r eventu al release b ack into the env i ronm ent.

Despite the hazardous and radioactive com pone nt s of this w a ste fluid, O h io law allo ws county comm issioners, a board of township tr ustees, or the legisl ative authority of a municipal corporation to approve the spraying of brine fluids on public roads to control dust or ice. Som e states, such as Tex a s, ev en go as far as spreading this radioactive

m a terial on farm lands. Also known as “la ndfarm i ng”, this process is a m e thod of
treatm ent of disposal of low toxicity wast es in w h ich the wastes are spread upon, and

m i xed within soils [20] . All of this can be done without first ev en testing th e hazardou s or radioactiv e contents of the m a terial. These m a terials go on to contam inate drinking water sources and soils in the surrounding areas, resulti ng in a threat to hum an health that is very serious and widespread. During the summ er months, when the roads and the fields are dry, radium can becom e airborne and be inhaled. . Ohio has an opt-out provision regarding the spraying of waste water on road ways, where a locale can vo te as a po licy

m a tter to prohibit brine spraying. H o wever, the spreading of this m a terial on roadways is explicitly legal unless comm unity m e mbers and individuals m obili ze and convince their elec ted of f i cials no t to d o it

Radium concentrations in bones can give rise to leukem i a, and the actual
sym p tom s fr om radiological exposure

m a y not occur for years to com e . W i th these m a terials per s is tin g in plac e f o r decades, due to being sp read on roadways, crop fields and surrounding areas, land contam inated by radium in produced water from Marcellus shale drilling can pose a threat to people working or living nearby for thousands of years [2 1]

.

http://truckfax.bl o gspot.co m /2012_0 1_01 _archive.ht m l
Another solution to get rid of the polluted waste- water is to crea te deep injection wells to essentially use as storage tanks to pump this water right back down underneath the ground. Over the past tw o decades, Ohio approv ed an averag e of four new storage w e lls a year. In 2011, that num ber jum p ed to 29 [22] . As of 2012, Ohio had 178 active injection wells th at ha d accepted a l m o st 14 m illion barre ls of brine and liquid was t e [5 ] . And if those

num b ers don’t caus e co ncern, th en consider that 98% of Pennsylvania’s 94.2 m illio n gallons of drilling wastewater in 201 1 was sent to, and stored in, Ohio [ 22] . And just a year later in 2012, Ohio injection wells handled 588 million gallons of wastewater, the

m a jority of which was received fro mPennsylvania [23]

. Currently, Ohio has 179 injection wells used for storage of waste m a terials from the fracking pro cess. The in jection wells are diffe rent sizes, with a range of diam eters and

7depths belo w the Earth ’ s surface. T h e Ohio De partm e nt of Natural Resour ces s t ates th at the wells “range to be 13,000 feet in depth” [6] , while it is kno wn that the Northstar I Class II in jec tion well in Youngstown, the cause f o r th e seism i c activity that o c curred in the area late 2011, is approxim ately 9,000 feet deep [6 ] . Estim ating an averag e injection well depth of 10,000 feet and a diam eter of one foot, vertical storage of a single injection well can hold just over 59,000 gallons of wastewater m a terial. W ith the 179 current injection wells, th at’s a total sto r age capacity of 10.5 m illion gallons o f wastewater, a concern i ng value when acknowledging that in 2012 al one, Ohio’s injection wells handled 588

m illion gallons of wastewater. The e x cess wa ste w ater ex its the inje ction well at the underground base into the substrate below surface. It rem a ins unknown just how m u ch water can b e pum p ed into a si ngle injection well over tim e

.

These wells are also clas sified as “Class II we lls”
, in which “ C lass IV” wells are the o n ly wells designated for receiving any kind of radiological m a terial [6] . It is a l so inte res tin g to note that while Class I, IV and V wells ar e regulated by Ohio EP A, Class II and III injec tion we lls ar e regulated by the ODNR [24] . It rem a ins to be known just how m u ch waste a sing le in jection well can han d le. I tis e s ta blished that injec tion we lls were the contributing cause of a series of earthquakes occurring in the Youngstown area [25]

. Seism i c activity linked to injec tion well sites across the coun try as wells as fears th at injec tion we ll cou l d leak toxins that would seep into drinki ng water sources necessitate a more serious investigation of deep well disposal [2 6]

. A third option for wastewater treatment is to send the liquid and sludge to wastewater facilities to be treated and properly m a na ged. However, sometim es the gas producers dispose of the contam inated water by sending it to wastewate r tre a tm ent plants that d e al with sewage and water from other industrial sources [2 7] . Studies [28] and docum ents obtained by the Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA) rev eal th at wastewater, which is

som e ti m e s hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, c ontains radioactivity at concen trations far h i g h er than the level that federal regulator s say is safe for these treatm e nt plants to handle [29] . Most of these facilities cannot rem ove enough of the radioactive m a terial to m eet federal drinking-water standards before discharged in to r i vers, som e tim e s just m iles upstr eam from drinking-water intake plants. The m unicipal wastewater facilities often release water directly into public drinking water sources after m e rely diluting the toxic m a terials, rather than rem oving it. Not only are these wate r trea tm ent f a cilities prod ucing wate r that is illega lly p a ssed as d r inking water f o r the public, but these sa me w a t e r tre a t me n t facilities are also not equ i ppe d to properly handle radioa ctive and otherw ise hazardous

m a terial. Som e ti m e s, a wastewater treatm e nt plant is bypassed altogether and the radioactiv e m a terials are sim p ly just dum p ed down the sewer [3 0] . Unfortunately, “there are busin ess pressures” o ncom p anies to “cu t corn ers”, said Jo hn Hanger, who stepped down as secretary of the Pennsylvania Depa rtm e nt of Environm ental Protection in January of 2011. “It’s cheaper to dump wastewater than to treat it,” he added [2 9]

.

A m a in concern is that radium is in soluble f o rm in landf ills and can leach out and into water supplies. This leachate is also som e tim es processed at wastewater treatm ent plants, again, witho u t rem oving the rad i oactive or other h azardous co mponents.

8It also should be noted that drilling contam inatio n is entering the environm ent in area s directly connected to the drilling site through sp ills, too. In the past three years, at least 16 wells whose records showed high levels of radioactivity in their wastewater also reported spills, leaks or failures of pits wh ere hydro-fracking fluid or waste is stored, accord ing to State record s [29]

. This toxic wastewater should be processed at a sp ecific facility that can properly treat and

m a nage the wastewater, which can then be re leas ed to a m unicipal was t ewater treatment plant for further treatm e nt and release. Even w ith waste treatm e nt facilities that hav e been designed to specifically treat the was t ewater from the fracking pr ocess, radiological

com ponents, chem icals and toxins have been released and later detected in freshwater

sources [28] . Proper sam p ling m e thodology needs to be put into place and strictly enforced to ensure tha twater qu ality is m i nim a lly a ffected by the treatm e nt and release of this
wastewater.

As far as pre-treatm ent, the proper disposal of filter cakes and other by-products that would be involved in such a process to re m ove radioactive com ponents is of vital im portance. There m u st be a full chain of cu stody and cradle-to-gr ave tracking of these radioactiv e waste m a terials with p r o p er di spos al in a licensed site to handle it.

Disposal Costs of Wa stewate r Current es tim a tes say that the cost to dis pose of Marcellus shale fracking fluids at a proper wastewater m a nagem e nt facility are r ough ly $3.00 per barrel to d i s pose of it, and $7.00 to $10.00 for it to be hauled away [31] . That equals between $10.00 and $13.00 for the disposal of a single barrel, which holds 42 gallons of wastewater. Now considering that it requires 4 m illion gallons of water to hydro

- frack a well (and a m i nimum of 60% of

the liquid will r e turn to the surf ace as f l owback/brin e ), cos t s to dispos e of wastewater from a single well (m ore than 57,000 barrels) cou l d be as h i ghas $740,000 apiece. Sending wastewater to an injection well for disp osal is less expensive, as Ohio charges an injection well disposal fee of five cents per barrel on Ohio brine, and twenty cents per barrel for waste originating out-of-state [49] . In 2012, new energy policy proposals were put forth [49] that would raise brine disposal fees fro m f

i ve to te n cents on in -sta te waste, and from twenty cents to $1.00 on out-of-st ate waste. Under new proposed costs, disposing of liquid waste from a single well in this m a nner would cost $5,700 for in-state waste and $57,000 for out-of-state disposal. Wh en looking at these num bers, it becom e s clearer why a natural gas com p any may tr y to dispose of wa ter through the local environm ent and wastewater treatm ent facil ity r a ther than sen d ing it d i re ctly to a specialized treatm e nt plan t or an inje ction well.

The Situation in Ohio

Tre a tment Fa cili ties Un de r Fire:

9Patriot Wa ste Water Manag ement Fa cility The Patrio t W a ste Mana gem e nt f acility in W a rre n, Ohio has been at the c e nter of controversy since operations were perm itted in 2010 [50] . A private facility that p r ocess e s wastewater from natural gas drilling operations, the m a nage ment and processing m e thods associated w ith handling of the radioactiv e was t e has been qu estion e d. Patriot accep ts “low-salinity” brine was t ewater from shale ga s extra c tion a c tiv ities, which the o il and gas industry defines as containing less than 50,000 m g /L of total dissolved solids (TDS) [32]

. The f acility trea ts th e wastewate r to r e m ove heavy m e tals and other constituents before the treated, s till-s a lty, wa stewate r is s e nt to W a rren’s wastewater treatm ent plant. There, it is handled just like any other sewage and is “treated” and then discharg ed into the Mahoning River.

The proper treatm e nt of wastewat er at the Patriot facility is a question of ongoing debate. In 2011, the Ohio Environm ental Protection Agen cy (OEPA) opted not to renew Patriot’s brine water treatm e nt perm it due to suspic ions th at wate r wa s not being properly decontam inated, and it ordered the company to not send its treated water to the City of Warren’s w a stewater treatm ent plant. O pposing the cessation of operations, Patriot appealed the decision and ove rturned the original decision, following a ruling by the Environm ental Review Appeals Commission of Ohio that P a tr iot be ab le to continu e their operation of water treatment for fracking fluid.

Now operating again, th e Patr iot wa ste m a nagem e nt f acilityis requ ired to present

sam p les to the City on a monthly basis to satis fy the industrial user pretreatm e nt perm i t

. The perm it regulates the wastewater discharg e f r o m the f acility to th e City’s sanitary sewer system. The City provides Patriot with the sam p ling equipm ent to conduct their

sam p ling; Patriot conducts the sam p ling and th en subm its the sam p les to a lab and sends a copy of the lab results to the City [32 ] . However, the m e thodology behind the collection of these samples is unclear. The level of confidence in the sampling process should be high, but having a facility take its ow n tests, without greater regulatory oversight, greatly reduces the confidence of resu lts in a sam p ling scenar io.

We question several aspects of Patriot’ s testing program for radioactivity:

• Patriot has conducted specific background test s for total alpha, total beta, total uranium and total thorium. In February 2010, Patriot did do a gamm a spec, which should iden tify specific radionuclides inthe ur anium decay chain, such as bism uth-214 and lead-214, and actiniu m

- 228 and thallium

- 208, but surprisingly, these wer e b e low the lo west dete ction lim it. Patrio t did no t specif i ca lly test f o r radium -226, a radionuclide that is expected in flowback water from the Marcellus shale form ation.

• Patriot did initial and follow-up tests for total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride, which are expected to be high.

• On a daily b a sis, Patrio t tested f o r TDS and chlorides, but, as far as we can tell, not for gamm a e m itting radionuclides and not for radium -226.

• Random sampling protocol is no t o u tlin ed so it is difficult to know how sam p les are chos en.

10Aside from t h e debate about whether or notth e wastewater bei ng disposed into the waterways is properly treated and thus decont am inated, another question arises from the
trea tm ent of the tox i c wa ter f i lled with dril ling fluid chem icals, sedim e nts and radioactive

m a terials. When brine w a ter returns to the Earth’s surface after the fracturing process,

sm all pieces of radioactive sedim e ntation ar e co ncentrated throughout the water. Th ese total dissolved solid s (T DS) are soaked in the radioact ive liquid waste-w a ter. Throughout the treatm e nt process at the wastewater facil ity, sedim e nt and sludge is accum u lated from the water from a separation process, however m o st separation technol ogies fail to remove all of the radioactive liquid fr om the solid contents. This m a terial, along w ith filters, is

rem oved f r om the waste w ater a tthe Patrio t wa ste treatm ent plant, and th en needs to be disposed of. The solid w a ste, still coated withradioactive waste-water, is then sen tto the municipal landf ill.

Long after any current landfill is filled and covered at th e co mpletion of production, the waste cuttin gs will em it radiation for thousands o f years. “W e ’re rem oving the m e tals like strontium, barium , i r on, lead and other toxic heavy m e tals and organics as well as a little bit of oil,” said Tom W e ber, owner of W a s t ewater Managem e nt in Cleveland, who designed the Patriot plant [3 3] . But we question whether Patr iot and W a rren trea tm ent plants are able to rem ove radium in soluti on, and neither facility de scribes how this is done.

GreenHunter Waste Water Management Facility GreenHunter waste m a nagem e nt fac ility in Wh eeling, W e st Virginia is not currently operating its full facility, but hopes to do so in the near future. This wastewater processing facility would treat 10,000 barrels of waste fluids a day and has as m u ch as 19,000 barrels of tank storage. Sim ilar to Patrio t, the goal is to rem ove suspended solids from gas-field flowback that returns to the surface during fracking, and produced water that com e s up during gas production. This waste would be disposed of in one of three ways. According to Green Hunter, clean brine, estim ated to be 80% of the waste volum e, would be placed on tank er tru c ks for re-u se in other fracking operations. Dehydrated solid waste, estim ated to be 10% of the inco m i ng volum e, would be sent to landfills. And concentrated liquid was t e , estim ated to be 10% of waste volum e, would go to perm itted injection wells via transportation by barge [34] . This waste would be transported by barge to different locations along the Ohio River, in which the waste would then be stored onsite at a second facility or further transported via trucks to underground injection wells acquired by Green Hunter W a ste Facility in Kentucky, Ohio and W e st Virginia.

GreenHunter has already obtained supplem en tal s ites, in addition to th e waste

m a nage m e ntfacility in Wheeling, two of which are located in New Matam o ras and Racine, Ohio. Both sites have been d e scrib e d as s t orage s i tes and acces s p o ints for th e barge to unload m a terials being transporte d down the Ohio River that are com i ng from the Wh eeling, W e st Virginia f acility. The prim ary role of the GreenHunter facility in Racine is to store radio a ctive was t e fr om the barge in in jectio n wells on-s i te [55] . The GreenHunter website states [55] that th e riversid e s a ltwater disposal facility in Racine, Ohio has the potential to inject m o re than 3,000 barrels per day of o il field brine and also allow for a b a rge receiv i ng term inal to be inst alled on the river so m a terial can be piped

11directly to the disposal well from the barge ce lls. The f acility in New Matam o ras, Ohio is capable of holding 75,000 barrels on-site for bulk storage. At bot h sites, the close proxim ity of the storage tanks and injection we lls to the Ohio River in trod uces an even greater risk to the Ohio River watershed of seepage and pollution from radioactive brine

m a terials. Presiden t of GreenHunt er, Jonathan Hoopes, stated that [56] , “One of our prim ary goals at GreenHunter W a ter is to neve r have to turn down a custom er’s load of brine water for disposal.” In a current s ituation where public h ealth and the local environm ent are at risk, GreenHunter has m a de it clear th at its priorities are focused o n its incom e and business desires.

Jo hn Jack, v i ce pr esid en t of bu sin e ss dev e l o p m en t f o r Gr een H un ter po in ts ou t ho ld i n g tan k s on- site th at
store ra dioactive water i nMay 2013 [35]

.

Community concerns are f o cused on the poten tia l f o r spill o r s eepage a tth e site during all of the loading/unloading of m a te rials that will be occurring, as well as the potential for the facility to be flooded as it lies on the banks of the Oh io River that frequently experience h i gh water in cidents thro ughout th e y ear. The id ea of putting the m o st radioa ctiv e m a terial f r o mthe trea tment proc e ss, the flowback and brine m a terial en route to injection wells, on barges in the r i ver system that is a drinking water source for

num e rous States is also of se rious concern. If an accident we re to occur an d the m a terial leaked into the Ohio River, the effects on the fresh water system could be extrem ely serious to bo th the env i ro nm ent and its role as a main source for drinking water. And acciden t s do happen. In April 2013, believ e d to be a resu lt o f high water, 100 barges broke free from m oorings in th e Mississippi River, 11 of which sank to the bottom of t h e river [3 6] . And in June 2012, a barge sank in the O h io River, again as a result of high water conditions [37 ] . There are num e rous other exam ples, m a ny due to floods causing barges to sink. On a waterway such as the Ohio River, which experiences high water events

num e rous tim e s throughout a given calendar year and rando m floods, putting su ch to xic

12and dangerous m a terials on a barge f o r trans port is asking for trouble. Transportation of the tox i c m a terials v i a barge is curren tly in lim bo; the Green Hunter waste m a nage m e nt facility first needs appro v al from the U.S. Coast Guard, which has not yet occurred.

T r a n spo rta tio n Adds to th e Ris k

GreenHunter waste m a nagem e nt fac ility in Wh ee ling, W e st Virginia is of great interest to those living in Ohio, as the treatm ent plant is located on the banks of the Ohio River with goal of transporting radi oactiv e m a terials via b a rge. This waste-water processing facility would treat 10,000 barrels of waste fluids a day and have as much as 19,000 barrels of tank storage. The goal is to rem ove suspended solids from gas-field flowback that returns to the surface during fracking, and produced water that com e s up during gas production. This waste would be disposed of in one of three ways. Clean brine, es tim ated to b e 8 0 % of the waste volum e, would be placed on tanker trucks for re-use in other fracking operations. Dehydrated solid waste, estim ated to be 10% of the incom i ng volum e, would be sent to landf ills. And concentrated liquid wa s t e , estim ated to be 10% of waste volum e, would go to perm itted in jection wells via transportation of bar g e [3 4] . This waste would be transpo rted by barge to location s , in which the waste would be further transported via trucks to underground inject ion wells acquired by Green Hunter W a ste Facility in Kentucky, Ohio and W e s tVirginia.

Community concerns are f o cused on the poten tia l f o r spill o r s eepage a tth e site during all of the loading/unloading of m a te rials that will be occurring, as well as the potential for the facility to be flooded as it lies on the banks of the Oh io River that frequently experience h i gh water in cidents thro ughout th e y ear. The id ea of putting the m o st radioa ctiv e m a terial f r o mthe trea tment proc ess, the flowback m a terial en route to injec tion we lls, on barge s in the river system that is a drinki ng water source for num e rous states is also extrem ely risky. If an accident was to occur and the m a terial was leaked into the Ohio River, the effects on th e fresh wate r system could be devastating to both the environm ent and its role as a m a in source f o r dr inking water a s outlin ed pr eviously. Su ch toxic and dangerous m a terials on a barge for transport is problem a tic. Transportation of the toxic m a terials via barge is currently in lim bo, as the Green Hunter waste

m a nage m e ntfacility first needs approval from the U.S. Coast Guard, which has not yet occurred.

Transportation of fracking waste via rail has been proposed, but is currently not occurring in Ohio. There is a 5,000 acre facility next to the CSX railyard in North Baltim ore, Maryland th at was purch ased by a drilling com p a ny to provi d e eith er in je ction well storage or horizontal drilling at the location. If it weren’t fo r the citizen’s in Mansfield, Ohio passin g a charter am endment, there would have been rail transport from Ohio to the planned injection wells there.

Are there additional transport a tion concer ns?

Radioactive waste from hydro-fracking is currently transported by trucks, but the transpo rta tio n of m a terials by barge and rail (as m e ntioned ab ove) has also been proposed

13and is being considered. Both of these altern ative m odes of transport are encouraged by the oil and gas industry, as the options offer tr ansport of m o re m a terials at one tim e for a less expensive shipping price. This increases the risk of public health and environm ental exposure to toxic chem i cals if an accident was to occur. Th e total activity in brine truck shipm e nts requires that it be classified as Class 7 waste by the U.S. Departm e nt of Transportation (DOT). Class 7 ship m e nts have had accid e nts. DOT statistics show that vehicles transporting class 7 inthe last ten years, have had 78 rail, highway and water incidents [57] . No m a tter h o w this m a teria l is m oved from one location to another, strict rules and regulations are required.

If m a terial that is transporte d is hazardous or radioactive, specific Federal rules, that relate to container construc tion, placarding and insurance, apply. Our investigation of Federal and State regulations show th at the S t ate of Ohio regulations are far less protective of public safety. Shipm e nt s involved in crossing S t ate boundaries are unequivocally regulated by the Federal Departm e nt of Transportation (D OT) under title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations [47] ; thes e r u les m a y also apply to in tras tate regulations as well.

Under Feder a l DOT rule s, transpo rte d m a teria l th at exce eds a tota l activity
, in te rm s of
tota l Curies of radioactiv ity, is cla sse d as a rad i oa ctive m a ter i al. The spec if ic lim it f o r Radium -226 is 2.7x10 -7 Curies [47] . Below this total a c tiv ity, the m a teria l is not c l ass e d as radioactive by DOT; above this am ount, spec ific Federal regulations apply regarding design, packaging and labeling of transportation vehicles. For plac arding, the NRC has even stricter lim its 1 x 10 -7 Curies (10CFR20, App. C).

To com p are the levels of Ra-226 in brine, we assum e d radioactivity ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 pico curies per liter, accordi ng to NY Departm e nt of Environm e n tal Conservation [38] . Conditions described by Green H unter waste m a nage m e nt facility [39] state tha ta truck tr anspo rting m a terials f r om the f acility will transpo rt 10 0 barre ls of waste at a tim e , with each barrel holding 42 ga llons of m a terial. They expect 100 truck loads per day to m ove the 10,000 barrels per day (420,000 gallons per day) capacity of toxic waste [3 9] . Trucks transporting brine on Pennsylvan ia highways are in the form of a single container, not indivi dual barrels. At 10,000 to 15,000 pico curies per liter of Ra226 for brine, this results in a to tal radium -226 activity content of 1.589x10 -4 to 2.3835x10 -4 curies p e r truckload, greatly ex ceedi ng the federally defin i ng lim it of 2.7x10 - 7 curies. Transportation by barge is estim ated to carry 10,000 barrels of brine at a tim e, resulting in a total radium -226 activity content as high as 2.3835x10 -2 Curies in a single barge load. Both transportation m e thods, by truck and by barge, result in a DOT class i ficatio n as radio active that requ ires adherence to regulations and limitations describ e d for tran sportation of hazardous m a terials.

These transportation sh ipping regulations can be found inchapter 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations in sections 173.410 and 173.411 (shown in Appendix A and B). Generally sp eaking, th e regulations in place state that any p a ckage used for the transpo rta tio n of radioactive m a teria l s m u st be easily handled and properly secured with a structurally sound lifting atta chm e nt, will have an extern al surface free from protruding

14features that can be easily decontam inated, a ll valves through which the package contents could esc ap e will be p r o t ected again s t unautho rized opera tio n and the be havior of the packaging and contents under irrad i ation wi ll be taken in to account. Addition a lly, the

m a terials qu alify as a Lo w Specific Activity II waste, m u st be properly packaged in Industrial Packaging Type 2 (IP -2) or Industrial Packaging Ty pe 3 (IP-3) enclosures. The descrip tion s for each of these packag es are lis ted in AppendixB. The State of Ohio does not have comparable regulati ons for radioactive brine.

Insurance is another requirem ent under DOT regulations. Under Federal regulations vehicles transporting hazardous substances, suchas brine, m u st hold an insurance policy with a m i nimum level of financial res ponsibility of $5,000,000. The state of Ohio requires each transporter of brine to hold a liability insurance policy that would cover both bodily injury and property dam a ge caused by processing associated with brine for $600,000. Most insurance policies for private cars have liability cove rage greater than $1

m illion. State of Ohio regulations are clea rly inadequate for a hazardou s m a terial, an d possibly illegal.

Finally, federal DOT regulations require that hazardous and radioactive shipm e nts be properly placarded. Specifically, federal DOT regulations requi re this no tice : “RADIOAC T IVE—LS A” or “RADIOACTIVE —SCO .” Instead, trucks we have seen on Pennsylvania highways are sim p ly labeled “brine.”

A truc k m a rked as “ra d ioacti v e” trav eling on a highway ne ar Gol d en, Col o ra do. ( S our ce: h ttp ://co l orspray.b l og spo t .co m f

r o m Ju n e 201 0)

15Are there additional en vironmental concerns?

Muskingum River Wat e rshed Concerns of the pollution of our environm ent and drinking water sources are not only related to the m a nage m e nt of the waste th at is produced and where it is stored and disposed of, but also are focused on the pro cess of fracking as a whole, long before the waste and n a tural gas is generated at the soil surf ace. A hi gh density of drilling wells in an area essentially creates num erous hol es, fractures and conn ected land m a sses throughout the landscape underneath the soil . Although these fractures cannot be seen from aboveground, an area that has been h eavily hydro-fracked a nd drilled m a y m o re closely res e mble a piece of swiss cheese th an th at of the ass u m e d solid landscape. T h e

m illions of gallons of water used to f r actur e thes e wells ar e als o taking awayf r om f

r eshwater drinking supplies. The Muskingum waters hed in eas ter nOhio is a p r im e exam ple of this scenario.

Draining a f u ll fifth of the entire s t ate and providing drinking water for thousands of residen t s, th e Muskingum watershed is com p rise d of num e rous large re servoirs as well as the lengthy Muskingum River. The Musk ingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) is responsible for caring for the re servoirs, yet they have approved several controversial water sales to the fracking industry [5 1] . In short, this m eans that the MWCD gave the oil and gas industry perm ission to buy water from several of the reservoir lakes in the Muskingum W a tershed. In June and July of 2013, the maxim u m daily withdrawal will be 2 m illion ga llons from just the one reservoir, Seneca Lake, alone. Two other reservoirs, Piedm ont and Clendening, are also under contract for la rge water sales. Drilling co mpanies are charged varying rates of $6.00 to $8.00 per 1,000 gallons of water from the

reservo i r [4 0]

. Not only are residents w o rried about the redu ctio n of water in the

reservo i rs d u e to the sale and
perm anent rem oval of mass quantities of water to serve the oil and gas industry, but concerns are also focused on the actual drilling operations them selves. The M W CD website [41] states that, “The M W CD oil and gas drilling program has been in place for decades, tod a y resulting in hundreds of wells.” However, the M W CD fails to point out that high

16volum e horizontal hydraulic fracturing is not the sam e industrial activity as vertical drilling, and the process consum es much greater am ounts of wa ter and land m a ss.

The im age on the right d e picts the p l acem ent of oil and gas wells aroun d Seneca Lake in southeas t Ohio, such th a taquif e r and reservo i r w a ter qu ality will a l m o st certainly b e degraded (im a ge source: Rubin 2012). The abandoned wells (black dots) are densely clustered and show the c onnectivity of the underground landscape (with red lines portray ing the horizon tal fractur es as sociated with each well). Leasing th is land for widespread oil and gas drilling can have m a ny consequences on the surface. Professio n al hydro-geologist Paul Rubin assessed the Mu skingum River watershed in great detail [ 48] and warns of toxic contam ination to wa ter sources created by fracking near and underneath the lakes. Rubin, as well as num erous environm ental support groups in the Ohio, have requested an imm e diate morato rium im posed upon hydraulic fracturing on MW CD lands and underneath all as s o ciated re s e rvoirs. The S outheas t Ohio Alliance to Save Our Water was form ed to stop the conservancy district from leasing public land for f r acking and f

o r selling and potentially polluti ng m illions of gallons of watershed d i s t r i ct water. In addition, the F r eshW at er Accountability Project Ohio was formed to track those who profit from water sales to docum ent liab ility for future water sho rtag e s and tox i c pollution.

The im age on t h e left portrays th e size of the Muski n gum River W a ters he d and th e i n set o ndepi ct s t h e lo catio n andsi ze of th e watersh e dwit h int h e state o f Oh io [4 8] . The im age on the right, c o m p aratively, shows the state of Ohi o as wel l as the l o cations of th e oi l an d gas fi el ds t h r o u g h o u t th e st at e [48] . The enti re Mu sk i n gu m Ri v e r W a tersh e d lies al m o st com p le tely with inth e h e art o f t

h e o il and g a s dr illin g op eratio n th at is o c cu rring

.

17As som e gas and oil wells were drilled m o re than 50 to 100 years ago, the structural integ r ity of these wells is in question. The ability of these wells to age suc c e ssf ully is unknown; the concern is that toxic co ntam inants will gain access to fresh w ater aqu i fers and reservoirs over tim e. The stru c tur al in tegr ity o f the wells a tloca tions that cut throu gh aquifers is in question, not onl y after aging, but from the initial construction. Packed soils around the well support the casing m a terial and help prevent it from rupturing, however areas that pass through m a rine environm ents, and thus offer less support to the well casing, m a y be at risk for weakening and even tual rupture under pressure f r om hydraulic fracturing. Toxic contaminants will leak into the environm en t and will m ove with ground water flow system s, eventually affecting lo cal soils and drinking water sources. Due to underground placem ent, assessm ent of these situ ations are no t conducted as routinely as they should be, and therefore leakage of po llution could occur for lengthy durations of tim e without any indication of the issue from the surface. The high density of wells drilled in the sam e area only increases chances of contam ination to aquifers, as repeated hydraulic fracturing will resultin interconnecting old, poorly plugged gas and oil wells, allowing upward contam inant m i gration into drinking water supplies and reservoirs. Rubin states in his report, “The ultimate re sult of extensive gas exploitation in the Muskingum River W a tershed will b e that groundwater and surf ace water contam ination will occur. S u ch pollutio n is assured because (1) the durabilityof well sealant m a teria l s available today to effect zonal isolation of freshwat er aquifers is poor and short-lived, and (2) tox i c hy dro-f r ack ing f l uids injected deeply in to the g r oun d will m ove with groundwater flow systems, even tually m oving upward into freshwater aquifers, reservoirs and waterway s. Perm ittin g of horizontal ga s wells proxim a l to reservo i rs will need les s ly jeopardize water quality.”

The Muskingum W a tershed Conservancy Distri ct receives revenue from t h e oil gas industry for selling water from the reservoi r for fracking operations. For instance, from leasing just one reservoir, Seneca Lake , the MWCD received a signing b onus of $6,200 per acre of land for 6,500 acres and a share of 20% of the royalties on gross revenues of oil and gas produced from its property [52] . This serves as an exam ple of the skewed priorities by the MW CD to place eco nom i c interests before area pr operty values, public health protections, conservati on of important natural resour ces, and consideration of long-term sustainability to serve other im portant industries such as agriculture and recreation, as well as the prot ection of safe drinking water supplies from the im pacts of future droughts.

W hat about public healt h concer ns?

Communities and hom eowners are already feelin g the effects of hydro-fracking, pipeline construction and well drilling acros s the r each es o f the Marcellus and Utica shale for m ations. Landowners are presenting sym p toms , nam e ly rashes and illnesses, believed to be caus e d by exposure to drilling fluid ch em icals in th eir drinking water from drillin g activ ities th at have taken place on o r near th eir land, as described in these recen t articles [42, 43, 44] . One doctor was quoted as saying, “There is an epidem ic of rashes occurring” (J. Skinner, personal communicati on, February 14, 2013). W ith the am ount of

18acute health issues popping up throughout Pennsylvania and no w Ohio, believed to be in response to drilling practices, we have concern this is just the tip of the iceberg when radium eventually m i grates in to source wate r for public d r ink i ng supplies and leach es out of landfills. When ingested, radium concentrat es in bone and can increase the probability of leukem i a. The serious health effects as a result of radiological e xposure are not readily apparent as victim s first endure a latency period. This m eans that although residents could be currently expos ed, their sy mptom s m a y not appear until y ears f r om now.

A h y d r o-frack i n g drillin g p a d an d storag e pon d in Penn sylvan ia sh ow t h e p r ox imity to th e ho m e o w n e r’s house as well as the large scale of the oper ati o n. (Source: St eve Wh ite/Marcellu sPro test)

W hat ar e the current laws and/ or regulations in place for

m a naging fr acking w a ste? ...Or lack t hereof.

State governm e nts, like Ohio, say their hands are tied in regulating NORM from drilling operations d u e to the Ch eney Am endm ent. Also known as the Halliburto n Am endm e n t, this loophole can be found in the Energy Po licy Act of 2005. This am endm ent exe m pts the fracking process from federal oversightunder the Safe Drinking W a ter Act of 1974 and exem pts com p anies that are doin g Marce llus shale drilling from having to m e et the requirem e nts of the Clean W a ter Act [45] . “Due to federal exemp tions, drilling occurs in close proxim ity to residential zones, el em entary schools, playgrounds, hospitals, and public places; and citizens have no recourse ,” said Shane Davis, Sierra Club Rocky Mountain C h apter’s Oil & Gas Campaign Inform ation & Research Manager [46]

. However, State governments can regulate technically-enhanced NORM, also known as TENORM. Recycling is such a process that enhances NORM. Fracking itself, the process of creating f r actur es in s h ale, in creas e s the ro ck s urface are aand the solub ility of radium , thereby p r od ucing TENORM. Wh ile this will b e a m a tter f o r the courts to decide, it is

19clear to us that the S t ates can regulate TENORM and therefore this m e thod of gas production.

As of June 2013, verbiage regarding the m anage ment of TENORM was reintroduced into Ohio Governor’s budget bill, v i a th e Omnibus am endment for consideration by th e Ohio Senate. The definition of TENORM states that, “TENORM does not include drill cuttings, background radiation, byproduct m a terial , or source m a terial.” T h is excludes all fracking waste as TENORM and instead inco rre c tly labels the enhanced mater i al as NORM, relieving the states of responsibility to regulate such m a terials. C h anges also state tha tany natura l gas well owner needs to co llect and an al yze sam p les of m a terial, if identified as TENORM, associated w ith th e well to determ ine the concen tr ation of radium -226 and radium -228, but that the testi ng of radium levels are not required if

m a terial is reused on-site or transferred to another site for fracking operations, if the

m a terial is d i sposed of at an inje ction well, if the owner uses the m a terial in associatio n with a m e thod of enhanced recovery, or if th e m a terial is transpor ted out of state for lawful disposal. The m e ntion of TENORM in proposed am e n dm ents is included, however fracking m a terial has yet to be pr operly defined, and m a nagem e nt and handling of such m a terials m u st still be further invest igated before regulations are set into place.

In May of 2013, Ohio state officials introduced legislation to ban Class II fracking waste injec tion we lls in Ohio. The bill wou l d preven t waste f r om being disch a rg ed into Ohio ’s waterways after treatm e nt and would m a ke it illegal f o r m unicipa lities to use the liqu i d waste from oil and gas operations for dust and ice control on roadways [5]

.

Conclusion

The natural gas industry is eager to develop the Marcellus and Utica shales, and has been successfully deploying this relatively new and highly unregulated process by prom ising jobs to Ohio workers, campaign contributions to legislators, and by providing revenue to regulators and royalty paym ents to landowners. However, we believe better protections should be in place before the indu stryram p s up production. Based on th e actual environm ental im pacts in Pennsylvania, the po tential im pact in Ohio is not prom ising.

Hydraulic fracturing or f r acking of shale rock is conducted by first dr illing a vertical bore down to the Marcellus shale horiz on, where high radi oa ctiv ity and tota l o r ganic conte n t is reached. After lining the vertical ho le part way d o wn with cem ent casing, drillers m o ve horizontally through shale rock, then subject shale to high hy draulic pressure to create additional fractures using hydraulic pressure s of approxim a tely 10,000 psi, explosives and m illions of gallons o f water.

This process in its entirety has been known to contam inate air and drinking water supplies. In num e rous instances in P e nnsylva nia, the drilling fluid has escaped the cem ent casing, which is weakest at aquifer intersec tions. Contam inated aquifers and private water wells have caused skin rashes to reside nts, and infertility and death to livestock.

20Following fracking, resid u al drilling fluid and radium -laced saline water is brought back to the surface as flowback water. Duri ng gas production, m o re radium -contam inated water is sep a rated f r om natura l gas, w ith even higher saline and radioactive concentrations. Millions of gallons of radium -contam inated flowback water and brine must be disposed. Much of this brackish liqui d is transported to Oh io for “treatm e nt” and disposal. T h e Patriot treatm e nt plant in W a rren, OH, the proposed GreenHunter processing plant in Wh ee ling, W V , on the banks of the Ohio River, would separate the liquids and solids. The proposed GreenHunter storage facility in New Matam o ras, Ohio and deep well disposal operations in Racine , Ohio and elsew h ere would receive fracking waste via barge from Wheeling, W e st Virgin ia. The solids presently go to m unicipal landfills; the liquids are eitherdisposed in deep C l ass II non-hazardous injection wells, are directly dum p ed in surface waters (exa m p le D&L in Youngstown, OH), or spread on highways as a de-icer. S p reading brine on ro ads in Ohio can cause de trim ental h ealth im pacts to residents, as this radium -contam in ated water will be airborne during dry days and be inhaled. Inhaled radium will concen trate in bones and increase th e likelihood o f leukem i a.

We also find that the chem ical treatment m e thods at Patriot and GreenHunter cannot

rem ove radium in solution and the testing m e thods cannot detect radium. The operators at the Patriot plant claim that the radioac tivity present is background, nothing m o re. The landfill op erators, with s o m e exceptions, claim t h e radio activity is n ear background. W e are dealing here with m a gicians. T h e industry would have us believ e that radioactivity below groun d in the Marcellu s shale disappe ars when it is b r ought to th e surface.

Testing m e thods need to be im proved; the Stat e of Ohio needs to step up its regulatory
program . Solids containing radium should be disposed in a low-level radioactive waste disposal f a c i lity and not in a m unicipal landf ill, w h ere th e rad i um can eventually lea c h out into s urface waters o r be piped fo r inadequ a te process i ng at m unicipal water
trea tm ent plants [53] . Drillers have an econom ic incen tive to use m unicipal landfills. Our research shows that the cost of disposal in a m unicipal landf ill is a f r ac tion of the buria l cost in a low

- leve l rad i oa ctive landf ill, and the transportation distan ces an d costs are also far less. This industry savings, however, could ultim ately be at the cost of public health.

Two additio nal issu es ne ed to caref u lly exam ined: the im pact of f

r acking on the Muskingum watershed by the active participation and prom otion of industry for profit by the MW CD, and the transportation of liquid and solids to Ohio and to processing and waste dispos al facilities. Fr acking re quires m illio ns of gallons of water for each well. Waters, such as the Sen eca Lake, are a conveni ent resour ce f o r drillers. But we fear the

m a tter which is plaguing Pennsylvania will al so affect the MW CD, once fracking begins. High hydrau lic p r essure will force d r illing flui ds into aqu i fers through faulty casing an d old wells, potentially contam inating reservoi rs needed for recreation, agriculture and drinking water supplies. The area around the MW CD is pockm arked with old wells. Like the New York City watershed, this area should be avoided for fracking.

The second issue involves the transportation of flowback water and brine in Ohio, either by rail, truck or even barge, as the GreenHunt er plant is proposing. Our research finds

21that the Sta t e of Ohio is notproperly regulating this radioa ctive m a terial. Under Federal DOT regulations, produced (brine) and flowback water are considered radioactive

m a terial; the activ ity is much higher than the m i nim u m thres hold.

Ohio m u st upgrade its packaging and tran sportation regulations to m eet Federal standard s. Ohio’s insurance re gulations for brine-carrying trucks are less than what most driver s have on personal cars. Fede r a l regu lation s require $5 m illion cove rage, while Ohio requires $600,000. Further, Federal regulati ons requires placardi ng, to label trucks as carrying radioactive m a terial, but Ohio has no such requirem e nt. This puts unaware local em ergency respon ders at risk in case of an acciden t

.

All this in com b ination with the disposal of radioactive waste m a te rials in non-hazardous Class II inje ction wells that le ak and solid wast e disposal sites not cl assified to handle the

m a terial will lead to radioactiv e lea c h ate, as we ll as the po ten tia l contam ination of reservoirs and aquifers due to m i gration of residual frack fluids from dee p underground. Further, a ccidental and d e libe r ate dumping and brine sp read ing on roads will com b ine to threa t en th e health and s a f e ty of Ohio resi den t s. If curren tre gul atory, transportation and disposal p r a c tic es continue, the cos tto f u ture Ohioans will b e large and re m e diation may not be possible. Clearly, now is the tim e to address these im portan t issues. Legislators, regulators and public of ficials such as th e MW CD Board and Conservancy Court are certain to be held accountable in the f u ture for the huge cost of re m e diation, the loss of valuable freshwater sup p lies, a nd the negative impacts to public health that are certain to occur in the f u ture.

22References

1 Resnikoff, Marvin, Ekaterina Alexandrova, and Jackie T r avers. "Radioactivity in

Marcellus S h ale." Repo rt Prepared for Residen t s of for the Preservation o f

Lowm an and Che m ung (RFPLC). (2010)

2 Harper, J A. "The Marcellu s Shale - anold "new" gas reservoir." Pennsylvania Geology: Pennsylvania Departm e nt of Conservation and Natural Resources. 38.1 (2008)

3 "Marcellus Shale Hydraulic F r acturing." Chesa p eake Energy . Chesapeake Energy. Web. 21 May 2013. <http ://w ww.chk.com/m ed ia/educational- library/factsheets / m a rcellus

4 Davies, Peter J., 2009. “Radioactivity: A Desc ription of its N a ture, Dangers, Presence in the Marcellus Shale and Recommendations by the Town Of Dryden to The

New York S t ate Departm e nt of Env i r onm ental Conservation for Handling and Disposal of such Radioactive Materials.” Cornell University. http://www.tcgasm ap.org/m e dia/Radio activity%20fro m % 20G as%20Drilling%20

SGEIS%20Comm e nts % 20by%20Peter%20Davies.pdf

5 "Ohio Legislation Introduced to Ban Fracking Waste Injection W e lls." Eco Watch . Eco

Watch. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http://ecowat ch.com/2013/ohio-legislation-banf r acking-wa ste- inje ction

- wells />.

6 "Underground Injectio n Control (U IC)." Ohio Department of Natural R e sources Division of Oil and Gas Resources . Ohio DNR. Web. 21 May 2013. <http ://o ilan dgas.ohiodnr.gov/indus try/underg ro und-injectio n-contro l>.

7 Puko, Timothy. "Radioactive fracking debris triggers worries at dum p sites." Trib Live:

Business . Trib Live. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http://triblive.com / busine ss/headlines/3945499-74/gas-ra diation-radioactivity

238 McMahon, Jeff. "Fracking Truck S e ts Off Radi ation Alarm at Landfill. " Forbes . Forbes, 24 Apr 2013. W e b. 23 May 2013. <http ://ww w .forbes.com / sites/jeffm c m ahon/2013/04/24/fracking-truck

- sets -offradia tion

- alarm

- at-landf ill/>.

9 Hunt, Spencer. "Ohio seeks radioac tivity testing on drilling wastes." The Columbus Dispatch . T h e Colum b us Dispatch, Hunt Feb 2013. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http ://ww w .dispatch.com /content/stories/local/2013/02/13/ohio-seek sradioa ctiv ity -tes ting

- on- drilling

- wastes.htm l >.

10 United States Environm ental Protection Agency. U.S. EPA. About TENORM . 2012. Print. <http://www.epa.gov/radi ation/tenorm / about.htm l >.

11 Shaner, Jack. "Landfills are not the places to dump radioa ctive waste fro mdrilling."

Crain's Cleveland Business . Crain' s Cleveland B u siness, 23 May 2013. Web. 23 May 2013. <http ://ww w .crainsclev e land.com /article/20130 517/ENERGY/130519832/1241/n

ewsletter04 >

.

12 Ingram , Dustin. " M ultiple Sam p les Fail Radia t ion Test at L a ndf ill." Williston Hera ld

. W illiston Herald. W e b. 21 May 2012. <http ://ww w .willisto nh erald. com /news/m ultiple-sam ples-f ail- radiation

- test-a tlandfill/article_58426dcc-41f7-11e1- aba7-001871e3ce6c.htm l >.

13 Fentim an, Audeen, Matthew Jorat, and Ronald Veley. "Factors that affect the cost of low-level radioactive waste dispo s al. " The Ohio State Univ er sity Fac tshe e t . The Ohio State University E x tension Research. W e b. 23 May 2013. <http ://oh i oline.osu.edu /rer-fact/rer_ 66.htm l >.

14 Gastelum , Jason, and Steven Short. "Report on W a ste Burial Charges: Changes in

Decomm issioning W a ste Disposal C o sts at Low-Level W a ste Burial Facilities."
NUREG-1307, Revision 15 . Draft. (2012): 1-127. Print.

2415 "SWACO Rates and C h arges." Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio . Southern Waste Authority of Central Ohio. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http ://ww w .swaco.org/Uploads/Do cum e nt s/lan d fill/Landfill-Rates-201 2.pdf>.

16 "Low-Level Radioactive W a ste: K e y Issues." Nuclear Ene r gy Institu te

. Nuclear En ergy Institute. Web. 24 May 2013. <http://www.nei.org/KeyIssues /nuclearwasted isp o sal/Low-Level-Radio active-W a ste>.

17 Hammer, Rebecca, an d Jeanne VanBriesen. N a tural Resour ces Defense Council. In Fracking's Wake: New Rules are N eeded to Protect Our Health and Environment from Contaminated Wastewater . 2012. Print.

18 Veil, John. Prepared f o r: United States Departm e nt of Energy. Water Management Technologies Used by Marcellus Shale Gas Producers . 2010. Print.

19 "Marcellu s and Utica Shale Play in Ohio." Akron Beacon Journal Online . Akron
Beacon Journal Online, n.d. W e b. 28 May 2013. <http ://ww w .ohio.com /b logs/drillin g/m aps>.

20 Johnson, Spike, and Peggy Heinkel-W o lfe. "Practice lays waste to land." Denton

Record-Chronicle . Denton Record-Chronicle. Web. 22 May 2013. <http ://ww w .dentonrc. com /local-n ews/sp ecial- p rojec t s/g a s- well-dr illing

headlines/20110331-practice-lays-waste-to-land.ece>.

21 "Surface Applications of Br ine by Local Governm e nts." Ohio Laws and Rules

. LAWr iter Ohio Laws and Rules, n.d. W e b. 28 May 2013. <http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1509.226>.

22 Niquette, Mark. "Flacki ng Fluid S o aks Ohio." Bloomsberg Businessweek: Politics and Policy . Bloomber Businessweek. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http ://ww w .businessweek.com /articles / 2012-0 3 -22/frack i n g -fluid-soak s -ohio>.

2523 "Injection Wells - Supported by Oil and Gas Industry but A t hens Supports State-W i de

Ban." L County Fracking . L County Fracking, n.d. W e b. 28 May 2013. <http ://ww w .lcountyfracking.org / archives /1771 >.

24 "The Underground Injection Control Program ." Ohio Environmental P rotection Agency . Ohio EPA. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http ://ww w .epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/uic.asp &xgt;.

25 Funk, John. "W aste-water injection well cause d 12 earthquakes in Ohio, investigation

shows." The Plain Dealer . The Plain Dealer, Northeast Ohio, n.d. W e b. 28 May

2013. <http ://ww w .cleveland. com / business/index.s sf/2012/03/shale_gas_drillin g_cause d_sm a l.ht m l >.

26 Lustgarten, Abrahm . "I njection W e lls: The Poison Beneath Us." ProPublica

. ProPublica, n.d. W e b. 28 May 2013. <http ://w w w .propublica.org/article/injection

wells-the-poison-beneath-us>.

27 Leigh, Boerner. "Sewage Plants Struggle to Treat W a stewater Produced by Fracking Operations." Chemical and Engineering News . Chem ical and Engineering News. Web. 21 May 2013. <http://cen.acs.org/art icles/91/web/2013/03/Sewage-PlantsStruggle-Treat-W a stewater.htm l >.

28 Ferrar, Kyle J., Drew R. Michanowicz, Ch arles L. Christen, Ned Mulcahy, Sam a nt ha
L. Malone, and Ravi K. Sharm a . "As s e ssm ent of Effluent Contam inants from

Three Facilities Dis c harging Marcellus Sh ale W a stewater to Surface W a t e rs in Pennsylvania." Environmental Science and Technology . 47.7 (2013): 3472-3481. Web. 21 May. 2013. <http://pubs.acs.org/ doi/abs/10.1021/es301411q?source=cen>.

29 Urbina , Ian. "Regulation Lax as Gas W e lls ' Tainted W a ter Hits Riv e rs." The Ne w
York Tim e s. 26-02-2011. W e b. 23 Apr 2013. http://www.nytim es.com /2011/02/27/us/27gas.h t m l ? p agewanted=all&_ r=0

2630 Morgan, Rachel. "Officials adm it communi cation breakdown." Shale Reporter. 01-04-

2013. W e b. 23 Apr 2013. http://www.shalereporter.com / govern m e nt/article_094f7242-9add-11e2-858e0019bb30f31a.htm l

31 Schaefer, Keith. "Fracking and W a ter: A New Way to Profit from the Industry’s Biggest Problem

. " Oil Price . Oil Price. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http ://o ilp r i ce.com / Energy/Energy

- G ener al/Fra cking-and

- W a ter-A-Ne w -W ayTo-Profit-from

- the-Indu stry s-Biggest-Problem .htm l >.

32 Davison, Jenny. "W arren Pollution Control - Pretreatm e nt Program ." U.S.

Environmental Protectio n Agency Re gion 5 Clean Water Act Compliance Sampling Inspection Report . 2011.

33 Scott, Michael. "Fracking fluid from gas well d r illing be ing trea ted a tOhio wastewa t er

trea tm ent plant." Cleveland Real Time News . Web. 21 May 2013. <http ://b log. cleveland.co m / m etro/2011/05/fr ack ing_fluid_being_treated_ a .htm l >.

34 Kasey, Pam. "Am i d protest, GreenHunter pursues Wh eeling frack fluid plant." The

State Journal . The State Journal. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http ://ww w .statejourn a l.com / story/ 22154925/am id-protest-greenhunter-pursueswheeling-frack-fluid-plant>.

35 Junkins, C a sey. "GreenHunter W a ter Reveals Its Plans." Shale Play . Shale Play, 15 May 2013. Web. 23 May 2013. <http ://ww w .shaleplay ohiovalley.com /pag e/co ntent.detail/id/500628/GreenHunte

r-W ater-Reveals-Its-Pl ans.htm l ? n av=5024>.

36 "Barges S i nk on Mississippi River." Ozarks First . Ozarks First. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http ://o zarksfirst.com / fulltext? nxd_ id=796342>

.

37 Conley, Casey. "Barge sinks in Ohio Ri ver after cable parts following pushboat." Professional Mariner . P r ofessional Mariner. W e b. 21 May 2013.

27<http ://ww w .professionalm ariner.com /S eptem b er-2011/Barge-sinks -in

- OhioRiver-after-cable-parts-f ollowing-pu shboats-collision-with-a-pier/>.

38 "An Investigation of Naturally Occurring Ra d i o activ e Mater i als (NORM) in Oil and

Gas W e lls in New York State." New York State Department of Environm ental

Conservatio n . New Yor k State Departm e nt of Environm ental Conservation, n.d. Web. 24 May 2013. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/m aterials m i nerals pdf/normr pt.pdf >.

39 "Green H unter W a ter Com p any Pr ofile." Green Hunter Water . W e b. 21 May 2013. <www.greenhunterenergy.com >.

40 Downing , Bob. "M WCD approves sale of wate r from two Ohio lakes for Utica shale

drillers." Guernsey Soil and Water C onservation District . Guernsey Soil and

Water Conservation Dist rict, n.d. Web. 29 May 2013. <http ://gu e rnseysoil.b l o g spot.com /2013/04/district-app roves

- sale-of-waterfrom .ht m l >.

41 "Muskingum W a tershed Conservancy District." Muskingum Watershed Conservancy

District . Muskingum W a tershed Conservancy District, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013. <http ://ww w .mwcd.org/>.

42 Peeples, L ynne. "Fracking Pollution Sicken s Pennsylvania Fam ilies, Environm ental Group Says." Huffington Post. 18-10-2012. W e b. 23 Apr 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com / 2012/10/18/fracking-pollutionpennsylvania_n_1982320.htm l

43 Corrado, Katie. "Penn s ylvania farm ers bla m e fracking for illn ess, rash es." CNY Central. 20-11-2012. Web. 23 Apr 2013. http://www.cnycentral.co m /news/story.aspx? id=827905

2844 Petracca, Lauren. "Fracki ng' s RealiLife Victim s." Rolling S t one. W e b. 23-Apr-2013. http://www.rollingstone.com /politics/pi ctures/frackings-real-life-victim s20130123

45 Phillips, S u san. "Burning Question : Wh at w oul d life be like without th e Halliburton Loophole? ." State Im pac t . 05-12-201 1. W e b. 23 Apr 2013. http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvani a/2011/12/05/burning-question-whatwould-life-b e -like-witho u t-th e-hallib urton-looph ole/

46 Swain, Lauren. "Oil and Gas Mythbusters." Sierra Club. S i erra Club R o cky Mountain Chapter, 01 May 2012. Web. 23 Apr 2013. http://action.sierraclub.or g/site/PageN avigator/ENewsletters/Misc_CHP_CO_M ay2012OilGasMythbusters.htm l

47 "49 CFR 173.436 - Exem pt Material Activity C oncentrations and Exempt Consignm ent Activity Lim its for Radionuclides." U.S. Government Printin g Office . U.S.

Governm e ntPrinting Office. W e b. 21 May 2013. <http ://ww w .gpo.gov/fdsys/granu l e/CFR-2011-title49-vol2 / CFR-2011-title49

- vol2-sec173-436/content-detail.htm l >.

48 Rubin, Paul. "Hydrogeologic Concerns Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing: Muskingum

River W a tershed, Eastern Ohio." Prepared by HydroQuest for Southeastern Ohio

Allianc e to Sa ve Our Water . 2012.

49 "Ohio and Fracking." Source Watch . Source Watch, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013. <http ://ww w .sourcewatch.org/inde x .php?title=O hio_and_fracking

50 Downing, Bob. "Patriot W a ter Treatm ent files suit against O h io state agency." Akron

Beacon Journal Online . Akron Beacon Journal Online, n.d. Web. 29 May 2013. <http ://ww w .ohio.com /b logs/drillin g/ohi o-utica-shale-1.291 290/patriot-watertreatm ent-files-suit-against -ohio-state-agency-1.347729>.

2951 "MW C D s e ts new policy on water sales for fracking." CantonRep . CantonRep, n.d. Web. 29 May 2013. <http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1884768864/MWCDsets-new-policy-on-water- sales-for-fracking>.

52 Downing, Bob. "Press Release on Se neca Lake lease from M W CD." Akron Beacon

Journal Online . Akron Beacon Journal Online, n.d. W e b. 29 May 2013. <http ://ww w .ohio.com /b logs/drillin g/ohio- utica-shale-1.291 290/press -release-onseneca-lake-lease-from

- m wcd-1.373545>.

53 "Canton R e p." Landfill Proposes Pipeline to Canton Treatm ent Plant . C a ntonRep, n.d. Web. 29 May 2013. <http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1233656302/Landfillproposes-pipeline-to-Cant on-treatm e n t-plan>.

54 Hayes, Tom. "Characterizati on of Marcellus S h ale and Barnett Shale Flowback W a ters and Technology Developm ent for Water Reuse."Gas Technology Institute, 2011.

Print.

55 "GreenHunter W a ter: News Release." GreenH unter Wa ter . GreenHunter W a ster, 30 May 2013. Web. 30 May 2013. <http://phx. corp orateir.net/phoenix.zhtm l ? c =219127&p=irol-new sArticle&ID=1825316&highlight=>.

56 "GreenHunter Announces Comme ncem ent of Operations at Ohio River Barge

Transload i n g and Bulk Storage Fac i lity. " Business Wire . Business W i re, n.d. Web. 30 May 2013. <http ://ww w .businesswire.com /news/hom e/20120717005460/en/Green HunterWater-Announces-Comm e nce m ent-Operations-Ohio-River>.

57 "Hazardo us Materials Inform ation System ." U.S. Department of Transportation . U.S. Departm e nt of Transporta tion, 1 Jun 2010. W e b. 31 May 2013. <http ://ww w .phm s a.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMS A/DownloadableFiles/Files /teny r_ra m.pdf>.

3058 Bradwell, Michae l. "Title town in transit." Washington County Energy Capital of the

East . W a shington County Energy Capital of the East, 3 Jun 2012. W e b. 6 Jun 2013. <http://www.energycapitalonline. com /news/article.php? aid=95>.

31Appendix A.

49 CFR 173.410 - General design requirements.

§ 173.410 General design requirements. In addition to the requ irem ents of subparts A and B of this part, each pack age used for the shipm e nt of Class 7 (radioactive) m a terials m u st be designed so that—

(a) The package can be easily handled and properly secured in or on a conveyance during transpo rt.

(b) Each lif ting atta chm e nt that is a structural part of the package m u st be designed with a

m i ni m u m safety factor of three against yiel ding when used to lift the p a ckage in th e intended m a nner, and it must be designed so tha tf a ilure of any lif ting attachm e nt under excessive load would not im pair the ability of the package to m eet other requirem e nts of this subpart. Any other structur al part of the package whic h could be used to lift the package m u st be capable of being rendere d inoperable for lif ting the package during transport or must be designed with strengt h equ i v a lent to tha trequired for lifting
atta chm e nts.

(c) The external surface, as far as practicable, will be free fro mprotrudin g features an d will be e a sily decontam inated.

(d) The outer layer of packaging will avoid, as far as practicable, pockets or crevices where water m i ght collect.

(e) Each feature that is added to the package will not reduce the safety of the packag e.
(f) The pack age will b e capable of withstand i ng the effects of any acceleration, v i bration or vibration resonance that m a y arise under norm a l conditions of transport without any deter i ora tion in the ef f ectiveness of th e clos ing devices on the various receptacles or in the in tegr ity of the packa g e as a whole and without loosenin g or unintentionally releasing the nuts, bo lts, or oth e r s ecuring d e vices even after rep eated use (see §§ 173.24
, 173.24a
, and 173.24b ).

(g) The m a terials of construction of the pack aging and any components or structure will be physically and chem ically com p a tible with each other and with the package contents. The behavio r of the pack aging and th e packag e c ontents und e r ir radiation will be take n into account.

(h) All valves through w h ich the p a ckage conten ts could escape will be p r otected against unauthorized operation.

32(i) For transport by air—

(1) The temperatur e of the acces sible surfaces of the packag e will not exc eed 50 °C (1 22 °F) at an am bient tem p erature of 38 ° C (100 °F) with no acco unt taken for insula tion ;
(2) The integrity of containm ent will not be im paired if the package is exp o sed to

am bient temperatures ranging from

− 40 °C (

− 40 °F) to 55 °C (131 °F); and

(3) Packages containing liquid contents will b e capable of withstand i ng, without leak age, an internal pressure that produces a pressu re differential of not less than 95 kPa (13.8 lb/in 2 ).

[Amdt. 173-244, 60 FR 50307 , Sept. 28, 1995, as am ended by Am dt. 173-244, 61 FR 20750 , May 8, 1996; 64 FR 51919 , Sept. 27, 1999]

33Appendix B.

49 CFR 173.410 - General design requirements.

§ 173.411 Industrial packagings.

(a) General. Each industrial packaging m u st comply with the requirem e nts of this section which specif i es packaging tests, and record retention applicable to Industrial Packaging Type 1 (IP-1), Industrial Packaging T ype 2 (IP-2), and Industrial Packaging Type 3 (IP

3).

(b) Industrial packaging certification and tests. (1) Each IP-1 must m eet the general design requirem ents prescribed in § 173.410

. (2) Each IP-2 m u st m eet the general de sign requirem ents prescribed in § 173.410 and when subjec ted to the te s t s spec if ied in § 173.465(c) and (d) or evaluated against these tests by any of the m e thods authorized by § 173.461(a) , m u st prevent:

(i) Loss or d i spers a l of the radio active conten ts; and

(ii) A signif i cant in crea s e in the radiation levels record ed or calcu lated at the external surfaces for the conditio n before the test.

(3) Each IP-3 packaging must m eet the require ments for an IP-1 and an IP-2, and m u st

m eet the req u irem ents sp ecified in § 173.412(a) through (j).

(4) Tank containers m a y be used as Industrial package Types 2 or 3 (Type IP-2 or Type IP-3) prov id ed that:

(i) They satisfy the requirem e nts for Type IP-1 specified in paragraph (b)(1);

(ii) They are designed to confor m to the sta ndards prescribed in Chapter 6.7, of the United Nations Recomm endations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter), “Requirem e nts for the Design, Construction, Inspection and Testing of Portable Tanks and Multiple-Elem e nt Gas Containers (MEGCs),” or other requirem e nts at least equiva lent to those standards;

(iii) They are capable of withstanding a te st pressure of 265 kPa (37.1 psig); and

(iv) They ar e designed s o that any a ddition a l sh ielding whic h is provid e d shall b e ca pable of withstand i ng the s t atic and dynam i c stresses resulting from handling an d routin e conditions of transport and of preventing a lo ss of shielding integrity which would result in m o re than a 20% increase in the radiat ion level at any ex ternal surface o f the tank containers.

34(5) Tanks, other than tank containers, incl uding DOT Specification IM 101 or IM 102 steel portable tanks, m a y be used as Industria l package Types 2 or 3 (Type IP-2) or (T ype IP-3) for tran sporting L S A-I and LSA-II liqui ds and gases as prescribed in Table 6, provided that they conform to standards at least equivalent to those prescribed in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.

(6) Freight containers may be used as Industr ial packages Types 2 or 3 (T ype IP-2) or (Type IP-3) provided that:

(i) The radio activ e contents are res t ricted to solid m a terials;

(ii) They satisfy the requirem ents for Type IP-1 specified in paragraph (b)(1); and

(iii) They are designed to confor m to the standards prescribed in the Inte rnational Organization for Standardization docum ent ISO 1496-1: “Serie s 1 Freight Containers— Specifications and Testing— Part 1 : General Cargo Containers ; excluding dim e nsions and ratings (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). They shall be designed such that if subjec ted to the te sts p r e s cribed in th at docum ent and the accelerations occurring during routine conditions of tran sport they would prevent:

(A) Loss or dispersal of the rad i oactive conten ts; and

(B) Loss of shielding integrity which would resu lt in m o re thana 20% inc r ease in the radiation level at any external surface of the freight containers.

(7) Metal interm ediate bulk containers m a y also be used as Industrial package Type 2 or 3 (Type IP-2 or Type IP-3), provided that:

(i) They satisfy the requirem e nts for Type IP-1 specified in paragraph (b)(1); and

(ii) They are designed to confor m to the standard s prescribed in Chapter 6. 5 of the United Nations Recomm endations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter), “Requirem e nts for the Cons truction and Testing of Interm ediate Bulk Containers,” for Packing Group I or II, and if they were subjected to the tests prescribed in that docum ent, but with the drop test c onducted in the m o st dam a ging orientation, they would prevent:

(A) Loss or dispersal of the rad i oactive conten ts; and

(B) Loss of shielding integrity which would resu lt in m o re thana 20% inc r ease in the radiation level at any external surfac e of the interm ediate bulk containers.

(c) Except for IP-1 packagings, each offeror of a nindustrial package m u st m a intain on f ile f o r at le ast one ye ar af ter the late st shipm e nt, and shall provide to the Associate Adm i nistrator on request, com p lete docum entati on of tests and an e ngineering evaluation

35or com p arative data showing that the construction m e thods, packaging design, and

m a terials of construc tion com p ly with that sp ecif i cation.

[Amdt. 173-244, 60 FR 50307 , Sept. 28, 1995, as am ended by Am dt. 173-244, 61 FR 20750 , May 8, 1996; 66 FR 45379, 45383 , Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 75747 , Dec. 31, 2003; 69 FR 3673 , Jan. 26, 2004; 69 FR 55117 , Sept. 13, 2004; 69 FR 58843 , Oct. 1, 2004; 72 FR 55693 , Oct. 1, 2007]

36Appendix C

Testing Methods for Radium-226

The m easurem ent of ga mma e m ittin g radionuclide s at a land fill is custo m arily done with portal m onitors or hand held detecto r s. Ra-226 decays to radon gas, Rn-222 and subsequently to bism uth-214, whose gamma e m i ssion can be detected. Hand held detectors generally m easure total gamma , which includes potassium -40 and other radionuclides. But portal m onitors can dete ct dif f erent energy gamma em issions and thereby d i stinguish Bi-2 14 (a decay product of Ra-226) and therefore Ra-226 from other radionuclides. Because of the larger detector area, portal m o nitors are m o re sensitive than hand-held detectors. W e used the software Microshield to determ ine the dose rate 3 inches from the side of a truck carrying soil. To read 5 pCi/g in rock cuttings, assum i ng truck walls 1/8 inch thick, you would need to read a dose rate of 15 m i crorem s/hr above background (generally 10 m i crorem s/hr), which portal detectors can easily do. However, it is im portant to calibra te the por ta l m o nitor with th e truck Ra -2 26 content. To do this, a representative sam p le of rock cuttings should be sent to a laboratory for specific analysis of Ra-226, using EPA protocols 1 . This EPA protocol requires a detailed chem ical separation of Ra-226 from the rock m a trix, followed by the standard m e thod for detecting Ra-226 in a liqui d, EPA testing protocol 903.1.

EPA protocol 903.1 gen e rally tak e s about 21 days in a laboratory, from acceptance of a

sam p le to quality assurance and the final repo rt. W ithout going into great detail, radium is chem ically separated from other elem ents and placed in a closed sys t em. In four days, total alpha em issions build up to 4 tim es the alpha em issions from radium-226 and can be

m easured in a photom ultiplier tube, w h ere lightem issions from alphapro duction can be

m easured. Though four days is the m i ni m u m, generally the holdi ng period is longer, about 14 days.

For the m easurem ent of Bi-214 in water, assum i ng that Bi-214 and Radium are in equilibrium : 1 pCi/L of Bi-214 would give rise to a dose rate of 0.0011 microrem s/hour. Therefore, considering a load of brine wa ter, with radioactive concentration of 10,000 pCi/L, Microshield estim ates a dose rate of 10.91 m i crorem s/hr- which could be detected in the field from a portal m onitor. Ho wever, Ra-226 concentrations of 1,000 pCi/L yielding a dose rate of 1.1 m i crorem s/hr woul d not be detected in a background dose rate of 10 m i crorem s/hr.

1 EPA- 600

- R

- 1 2

- 63 5, www.e pa.gov/narel , A ugu st 2012
, Rev i sio n0, “R ap idMet h od fo r Rad i u m inSo il In co rpo r ating t h e Fu si o nof So il andSo il-RelatedMatr ices with th e Rad i oan a lytical Co un tin g Metho d fo r En vi ro nm ent a l R e m e di ati on Fol l o wi n g R a d i ol ogi cal Inci d e nt s”

37