Hydraulic Fracturing 

Radiological Concerns for Ohio 

Fact Sheet Prepared for 

FreshWater Accountability 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 

Bellows Falls, VT 05101 

802-732-8008

1
Fracking Waste: Production and Disposal 

Intro 

It is a known fact that the Marcellus and Utica shale formations are radioactive, with 

concentrations of radium-226 that are up to 30 times background[1]. In the process of 

drilling and fracturing wells (fracking) in shale formations, to produce natural gas, this 

underground radioactivity is brought to the surface, but where does it go? Oil and gas 

companies, along with the State agencies they’ve bamboozled, would have you believe 

any radioactivity present in waste streams is either within regulatory limits, not within the 

jurisdiction of State governments to regulate, or non-existent. Translation 1: the radium226 in Marcellus shale inexplicably disappears when it is brought to the surface. 

Translation 2: the oil and gas industry does not want to pay the true costs of transporting, 

managing or disposing the radioactive waste they are producing. In this fact sheet, we 

want to cut through this murky haze that is settling over Ohio. We will explore the 

situation at the Patriot water treatment plant in Warren, OH, solid waste disposal in 

landfills, the potential impact of fracking near public drinking water supplies, specifically 

near the Muskingum River Watershed, the safety of transporting waste liquids and solids 

from Pennsylvania and other states to Ohio via trucks, rail and barges and the potential 

costs of proper disposal. 

Background 

The process of hydro-fracking, used to obtain natural gas and other related products from 

underground shale formations, requires a large quantity of water to complete the processover 3 million gallons of water per treatment[2]. Drillers take water from underground 

aquifers, or surface water bodies, such as Seneca Lake, which is clearly convenient and 

also serves to disguise the effects of large water withdrawals (discussed in section: Are 

there additional environmental concerns?). Drilling fluid is used to remove the rock 

cuttings from horizontal wells in the Marcellus shale formations and to transport the drill 

cuttings to the well surface[1]. The list of chemicals added to the water throughout the 

fracking process is extensive and concerning- including diesel, rust inhibitors, proppants 

and antibacterial agents. Some of the drilling fluid returns to the surface in the form of 

flowback water once the well is drilled. When the well is producing natural gas, any 

contained moisture, known as brine, is removed. Brine contains high concentrations of 

naturally occurring radioactive materials from the shale formation. To add even more 

concern to an already highly debated process, fracking operations are currently zeroing in 

on the stretch of Marcellus shale that lies at depths of 4000 to 8500 feet[3] below the 

Earth’s surface and ranges from West Virginia through eastern Ohio across Pennsylvania 

and into southern New York. The concern for the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy 

District (MWCD) is that hydraulic pressure often forces drilling fluids through weak 

sections of well casing or into abandoned wells, thereby contaminating aquifers. 

Reports have shown that Marcellus shale deposits, compared to other shale formations in 

other parts of the country, are much more radioactive. New York DEC sampled flowback 

water from vertical Marcellus shale wells and found that the liquid contained radioactive 

2
concentrations as high as 267 times the limit for discharge into the environment and 

thousands of times the limit for drinking water[4]. Brine from horizontal drilling, as being 

done throughout Pennsylvania, will be much more radioactive, quoted by New York 

DEC as high as 15,000 pCi/L[1]. Fracking not only brings this highly radioactive material 

to the Earth’s surface, but exists in the solid and liquid waste that is created as a result of 

the process. Radioactivity in oil and gas wastewaters has been found to exceed the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water limits by up to 3,600 times, 

exceeding federal industrial discharge limits set by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency by 

more than 300 times[5]. 

We discuss the impact on water treatment facilities, such as the Patriot plant in Warren, 

Ohio and the proposed GreenHunter facility located on the Ohio River in the section of 

this report titled: Treatment Facilities Under Fire. While Ohio regulations (1509.22) 

require that releases to surface waters not exceed Safe Drinking Water standards, in our 

opinion, these waste streams are not being safely managed and regulated in Ohio. Simply 

allowing waste materials to meet drinking water standards allows mixing at water 

treatment plants, that is, dilution, without adequate monitoring or measurement for 

radioactivity before or after discharge. 

Ohio law also allows spreading of radioactive brine from wells that are “not horizontal 

wells” on land and highways – thereby potentially ending up in drinking water sources, 

or being re-suspended in the air. There is no method to proving or certifying where the 

brine has actually come from, therefore making it nearly impossible to detect violations 

from spreading radioactive brine from horizontal wells on roadways. 

A management plan to deal with waste material from fracking and natural gas production 

needs to be put in place immediately and action needs to happen 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 because the State is making itself available 

as a dumping ground for the waste from other places, such as Pennsylvania and West 

Virginia. Both liquid and solid fracking waste, of radioactive nature, is trucked across 

state lines to Ohio landfills and processed to take to wastewater treatment plants for 

disposal. There is an estimated 2,000 wells scheduled to be permitted in the near 

future[58]. Many wells are already drilled, simply awaiting fracking while the 

infrastructure is being constructed. 

If fracking is encouraged throughout Ohio, the state could see more than 4,000 fracking 

wells drilled over the next ten years. Consider this: it takes between 2 and up to 8 million 

gallons of water to fracture a single Marcellus shale well one time, and each well may be 

fractured multiple times. From 5% to 35%[54] of the fluids initially stay underground in 

the well itself, while the remainder returns to the surface and must be either re-used or 

disposed of. Immediate issues associated with this process are focused on contamination 

of water resources, where this radioactive waste should be disposed of and how to 

3
properly manage it as well as the irreversible damage it may be contributing to the 

environment and human health. This will also place an exorbitant demand on the fresh

water resource in the State of Ohio. Is it worth it? Below are a few current examples of 

how waste is currently being treated in the state of Ohio and the issues associated with

the process. 

What happens to fracking waste? 

Solid Waste 

How much waste arises from a single hydro-fracked well? To consider the amount of 

solid waste that a single horizontal drilled well would produce from the drilling/soil 

removal process, we estimate that the average diameter of the well is one foot and that 

the horizontal length in which the well is drilled is a mile. This results in approximately 

4,147 cubic feet of radioactively contaminated shale rock that needs to be disposed ofsomewhere. Now, consider that Pennsylvania has drilled almost 9,000 wells for natural 

gas to date. This yields over 37 million cubic feet of waste that needs to be relocated to 

its new home. Ohio takes more than half of Pennsylvania’s waste material, indicating that 

at least 19 million cubic feet of solid material could potentially be sent to Ohio for 

disposal. Fracking waste is also coming into Ohio from West Virginia. 

Where is this solid waste disposed of in Ohio? The gas industry describes watertreatment facilities and injection wells as their methods for disposal for fracking waste. 

The waste is also being hauled to solid landfills. The solid waste generated throughout 

the hydro-fracking process is sent to municipal landfills. 

Ohio is now experiencing a huge influx of solid waste landfills for disposal and many 

more are expected. But many of these landfills are not equipped for measuring, managing 

or storing such contaminated waste. This is evident by the frequent detection of 

radioactive and hazardous materials from the small amount of landfills that are actually 

equipped with field sampling equipment at the landfill entrance. In fact, Timothy Puko[7]

with the Tribune-Review (located in western Pennsylvania) reported in May of 2013 that 

“radiation alarms went off 1,325 times in 2012, with more than 1,000 of those alerts just 

from oil and gas waste”, according to data from the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection. One example - in April 2013, a truck carrying a load of solid 

fracking waste was sent away from the MAX landfill in South Huntingdon, Pennsylvania 

after the truckload set off an alarm because its contents were so radioactive. The drill 

cutting materials in the truck had a radiation dose rate of 96 microrems per hour, caused 

by the radium-226 contents. The limit for radioactive material at the landfill is 10 

microrems per hour. The truck was first quarantined at the landfill, and then turned back 

to the fracking pad in Greene County to be re-directed to a site that can accept higher 

levels of radiation[8]. And in May 2013, two truckloads of Pennsylvania drilling wastes 

were turned away from the American Landfill in Waynesburg, Ohio after lab tests 

showed high levels of radium, 36 times the regulatory limit[9]

. 

Field testing for radioactive materials at landfills is becoming more widespread, but is

still not required. It is not known just how many landfills test materials prior to being 

4
accepted, and how many shippers have shipping manifests for the landfill operator to 

review. A proposed Ohio law would require oil and gas companies to conduct 

radioactivity tests on the tons of waste rock, dirt and drilling lubricants produced at 

drilling sites before those wastes are dumped in Ohio landfills. Officials with the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Ohio Department of Health say the new proposed requirement is intended to keep 

radioactive wastes from leaking from landfills[9]. The idea is good in theory, but details of 

the regulation are a current hot debate. Under the ODNR proposal, drilling waste 

categorized as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials 

(TENORM) could be disposed of in one of Ohio’s 39 licensed municipal solid waste 

landfills as long as it contains 5 picocuries per gram or less of waste material. TENORM 

is labeled as naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) that has been manipulated 

by man such that its radioactive content is concentrated[10]. If the waste material tests 

higher than the 5 picocurie per gram threshold, it can be diluted, or essentially “down 

blended”, by mixing it with other materials in an attempt to dilute the radioactive content 

for disposal[11]. However, because radium is highly soluble in water, rain water 

percolating throughout the landfill will allow the radioactive constituents of the material 

to leach out into the environment and potentially into aquifers or surface water for 

drinking water supplies. 

Sampling and testing of materials to be sent to landfills would yield best results if

conducted by a third disinterested party or the officials at the receiving landfill, who 

would be held liable for any radioactive materials present within the facility. The 

regulatory agency must be able to review the sampling program. Results from some

sampling of materials within landfills show radioactive amounts over the restricting 

limits of 5-10 pCi per gram are often detected, sometimes significantly[12]. The process of 

field testing for radioactive materials can also be questioned, as details related to where 

the sample is taken, how many samples need to be taken, the testing method (see 

Appendix C) and how the trucking container relates to the reading all need further 

specific field research. There are key criteria that must be constantly and consistently 

maintained, such as the calibration of the gamma readings taken by the portal monitors 

with actual laboratory measurements of radium-226. 

Disposal Costs at Landfills

There are facilities that specifically manage radioactive solids with the goal of storing the 

materials in a safe and controlled manner over a long-term period. Traditionally, lowlevel radioactive waste disposal facilities have charged waste generators a fee for each 

cubic foot of waste accepted for disposal, at costs far higher than municipal solid waste 

landfills. This volume-related fee is known as the “per cubic foot charge”

 [13]. However, 

facilities may also charge additional fees based on the characteristic of the waste, such as 

the level of radioactivity and the type of container used for housing. 

Regardless of the method of pricing, the cost of low-level waste disposal has increased 

over the past years. The Barnwell disposal facility 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 closed, the cost per cubic foot for waste disposal had increased to 

5
$220.00, with additional surcharges and fees that were also included[13] such as the type

of waste, the weight, dose rate and curies associated with the load of materials to be 

received. One example of a current low-level waste management facility is the U.S. 

Ecology waste disposal facility in Richland, Washington. This facility charges $115.50 

per cubic foot of low-level radioactive material to be managed[14]. Another example is the 

waste disposal facility in Clive, Utah, which charges $350.00 per cubic foot of “large 

component material” and $145.00 per cubic foot for “debris” [14]. Waste at the Utah 

facility is categorized and priced by size classification of received components. 

Compare the costs of properly disposing of the material at one of the proper landfills 

mentioned above versus sending the toxic material to a regular municipal landfill in Ohio 

that charges at most a fee of $44.00 per cubic yard of material, or for comparison 

purposes to the facilities mentioned above, just over $1.60 per cubic foot of material[15]. 

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 materials to Washington to be 

disposed of, $601,000 to send materials to Utah, and $6,775 to send it to the local 

municipal landfill. When considering the 19 million cubic feet of material that needs to 

be disposed of referenced previously, it is evident that environmental concerns are 

trumped by the economics beneficial to the unconventional shale drilling industry. 

When Ohio accepts fracking waste from other states, it is then responsible for properly 

disposing of this radioactive material, which currently is turning up in municipal landfills 

that are not prepared to handle this material. Ideally, this waste should be sent directly 

from the site of origination to facilities in the states of Washington, Utah and Texas, 

licensed to manage naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technologically 

enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM)[16]. 

Wastewater

The amount of wastewater created throughout the fracking process is astonishing. The 

problem of what to do with this waste byproduct is growing as the volume of wastewater 

continues to increase rapidly with the expansion of fracking in the Marcellus shale 

formation and nationwide[17]. It is estimated that the amount of waste water produced to 

just drill the vertical shaft of each well for Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania is 80,000 

gallons of wastewater[18]. The additional amount of water required for a single hydrofracking event is as much as 3.8 million gallons per well[18] and others have estimated 

much more depending on the depth and length of long laterals. It should also be noted 

that many wells are hydro-fracked more than one time. Ohio also contributes to the 

amount of wastewater to be disposed of in their own state, as Ohio now has 665 wells 

permitted for Utica shale, 332 of which are currently drilled[19]. 

Flowback water is recovered from each well, which includes drilling fluid with added 

liquids and chemicals and any produced formation brines from the drilled well. Samples 

of flowback water from vertical Marcellus shale wells show that the liquid contained 

radioactive concentrations as high as 267 times the limit for discharge into the 

environment and thousands of times the limit for drinking water[4]. Once the well is 

producing, brine that is separated from natural gas will be much more radioactive, quoted 

6
by New York DEC as high as 15,000 pCi/L[1]. The flowback water is often sent across 

state lines to Ohio for injection well disposal or to waste water treatment facilities to be 

processed for eventual release back into the environment. 

Despite the hazardous and radioactive components of this waste fluid, Ohio law allows 

county commissioners, a board of township trustees, or the legislative authority of a 

municipal corporation to approve the spraying of brine fluids on public roads to control 

dust or ice. Some states, such as Texas, even go as far as spreading this radioactive 

material on farmlands. Also known as “landfarming”, this process is a method of 

treatment of disposal of low toxicity wastes in which the wastes are spread upon, and 

mixed within soils[20]. All of this can be done without first even testing the hazardous or 

radioactive contents of the material. These materials go on to contaminate drinking water 

sources and soils in the surrounding areas, resulting in a threat to human health that is 

very serious and widespread. During the summer months, when the roads and the fields 

are dry, radium can become airborne and be inhaled. . Ohio has an opt-out provision 

regarding the spraying of waste water on road ways, where a locale can vote as a policy 

matter to prohibit brine spraying. However, the spreading of this material on roadways is 

explicitly legal unless community members and individuals mobilize and convince their 

elected officials not to do it 

Radium concentrations in bones can 

give rise to leukemia, and the actual 

symptoms from radiological exposure 

may not occur for years to come. With 

these materials persisting in place for 

decades, due to being spread on 

roadways, crop fields and surrounding 

areas, land contaminated by radium in 

produced water from Marcellus shale 

drilling can pose a threat to people 

working or living nearby for thousands 

of years[21]. 

 http://truckfax.blogspot.com/2012_01_01_archive.html

Another solution to get rid of the polluted waste-water is to create deep injection wells to 

essentially use as storage tanks to pump this water right back down underneath the 

ground. Over the past two decades, Ohio approved an average of four new storage wells a 

year. In 2011, that number jumped to 29[22]. As of 2012, Ohio had 178 active injection 

wells that had accepted almost 14 million barrels of brine and liquid waste

[5]

. And if those 

numbers don’t cause concern, then consider that 98% of Pennsylvania’s 94.2 million 

gallons of drilling wastewater in 2011 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 

majority of which was received from Pennsylvania[23]. 

Currently, Ohio has 179 injection wells used for storage of waste materials from the 

fracking process. The injection wells are different sizes, with a range of diameters and 

7
depths below the Earth’s surface. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources states that 

the wells “range to be 13,000 feet in depth”[6], while it is known that the Northstar I Class 

II injection well in Youngstown, the cause for the seismic activity that occurred in the

area late 2011, is approximately 9,000 feet deep[6]

. Estimating an average injection well 

depth of 10,000 feet and a diameter of one foot, vertical storage of a single injection well 

can hold just over 59,000 gallons of wastewater material. With the 179 current injection 

wells, that’s a total storage capacity of 10.5 million gallons of wastewater, a concerning 

value when acknowledging that in 2012 alone, Ohio’s injection wells handled 588 

million gallons of wastewater. The excess wastewater exits the injection well at the 

underground base into the substrate below surface. It remains unknown just how much 

water can be pumped into a single injection well over time. 

These wells are also classified as “Class II wells”, in which “Class IV” wells are the only 

wells designated for receiving any kind of radiological material[6]. It is also interesting to 

note that while Class I, IV and V wells are regulated by Ohio EPA, Class II and III 

injection wells are regulated by the ODNR[24]. It remains to be known just how much 

waste a single injection well can handle. It is established that injection wells were the 

contributing cause of a series of earthquakes occurring in the Youngstown area[25]. 

Seismic activity linked to injection well sites across the country as wells as fears that 

injection well could leak toxins that would seep into drinking water sources necessitate a 

more serious investigation of deep well disposal[26]. 

A third option for wastewater treatment is to send the liquid and sludge to wastewater 

facilities to be treated and properly managed. However, sometimes the gas producers 

dispose of the contaminated water by sending it to wastewater treatment plants that deal 

with sewage and water from other industrial sources[27]. Studies[28] and documents 

obtained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reveal that wastewater, which is 

sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers 

that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at concentrations far higher than the 

level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle[29]. Most of 

these facilities cannot remove enough of the radioactive material to meet federal 

drinking-water standards before discharged into rivers, sometimes just miles upstream

from drinking-water intake plants. The municipal wastewater facilities often release 

water directly into public drinking water sources after merely diluting the toxic materials, 

rather than removing it. Not only are these water treatment facilities producing water that 

is illegally passed as drinking water for the public, but these same water treatment

facilities are also not equipped to properly handle radioactive and otherwise hazardous 

material. Sometimes, a wastewater treatment plant is bypassed altogether and the 

radioactive materials are simply just dumped down the sewer[30]. Unfortunately, “there 

are business pressures” on companies to “cut corners”, said John Hanger, who stepped 

down as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in 

January of 2011. “It’s cheaper to dump wastewater than to treat it,” he added[29]. 

A main concern is that radium is in soluble form in landfills and can leach out and into 

water supplies. This leachate is also sometimes processed at wastewater treatment plants, 

again, without removing the radioactive or other hazardous components. 

8
 It also should be noted that drilling contamination is entering the environment in areas 

directly connected to the drilling site through spills, 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 where hydro-fracking fluid or waste is stored, 

according to State records

[29]. 

This toxic wastewater should be processed at a specific facility that can properly treat and 

manage the wastewater, which can then be released to a municipal wastewater treatment 

plant for further treatment and release. Even with waste treatment facilities that have been 

designed to specifically treat the wastewater from the fracking process, radiological 

components, chemicals and toxins have been released and later detected in freshwater 

sources[28]. Proper sampling methodology needs to be put into place and strictly enforced 

to ensure that water quality is minimally affected by the treatment and release of this 

wastewater. 

As far as pre-treatment, the proper disposal of filter cakes and other by-products that 

would be involved in such a process to remove radioactive components is of vital 

importance. There must be a full chain of custody and cradle-to-grave tracking of these 

radioactive waste materials with proper disposal in a licensed site to handle it. 

Disposal Costs of Wastewater 

Current estimates say that the cost to dispose of Marcellus shale fracking fluids at a 

proper wastewater management facility are roughly $3.00 per barrel to dispose 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 million gallons of water to hydro-frack a well (and a minimum of 60% 

of the liquid will return to the surface as flowback/brine), costs to dispose of wastewater 

from a single well (more than 57,000 barrels) could be as high as $740,000 apiece. 

Sending wastewater to an injection well for disposal 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 from five to ten cents on in-state waste,

and from twenty cents to $1.00 on out-of-state waste. Under new proposed costs, 

disposing of liquid waste from a single well in this manner would cost $5,700 for in-state 

waste and $57,000 for out-of-state disposal. When looking at these numbers, it becomes 

clearer why a natural gas company may try to dispose of water through the local 

environment and wastewater treatment facility rather than sending it directly to a 

specialized treatment plant or an injection well. 

The Situation in Ohio 

Treatment Facilities Under Fire: 

 

 

9
Patriot Waste Water Management Facility 

The Patriot Waste Management facility in Warren, Ohio has been at the center of

controversy since operations were permitted in 2010[50]. A private facility that processes 

wastewater from natural gas drilling operations, the management and processing methods 

associated with handling of the radioactive waste has been questioned. Patriot accepts 

“low-salinity” brine wastewater from shale gas extraction activities, which the oil and gas 

industry defines as containing less than 50,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids (TDS) [32]. 

The facility treats the wastewater to remove heavy metals and other constituents before 

the treated, still-salty, wastewater is sent to Warren’s wastewater treatment plant. There, 

it is handled just like any other sewage and is “treated” and then discharged into the 

Mahoning River. 

The proper treatment of wastewater at the Patriot facility is a question of ongoing debate. 

In 2011, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) opted not to renew Patriot’s 

brine water treatment permit due to suspicions that water was not being properly 

decontaminated, and it ordered the company to not send its treated water to the City of

Warren’s wastewater treatment plant. Opposing the cessation of operations, Patriot 

appealed the decision and overturned the original decision, following a ruling by the 

Environmental Review Appeals Commission of Ohio that Patriot be able to continue their 

operation of water treatment for fracking fluid. 

Now operating again, the Patriot waste management facility is required to present 

samples to the City on a monthly basis to satisfy the industrial user pretreatment permit. 

The permit regulates the wastewater discharge from the facility to the City’s sanitary 

sewer system. The City provides Patriot with the sampling equipment to conduct their 

sampling; Patriot conducts the sampling and then submits the samples to a lab and sends 

a copy of the lab results to the City[32]

. However, the methodology 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 own tests, without greater regulatory oversight, greatly 

reduces the confidence of results in a sampling scenario. 

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

• Patriot has conducted specific background tests for total alpha, total beta, total 

uranium and total thorium. In February 2010, Patriot did do a gamma spec, which 

should identify specific radionuclides in the uranium decay chain, such as 

bismuth-214 and lead-214, and actinium-228 and thallium-208, but surprisingly, 

these were below the lowest detection limit. Patriot did not specifically test for 

radium-226, a radionuclide that is expected in flowback water from the Marcellus 

shale formation. 

• Patriot did initial and follow-up tests for total dissolved solids (TDS) and 

chloride, which are expected to be high. 

• On a daily basis, Patriot tested for TDS and chlorides, but, as far as we can tell, 

not for gamma emitting radionuclides and not for radium-226. 

• Random sampling protocol is not outlined so it is difficult to know how samples 

are chosen. 

10
Aside from the debate about whether or not the wastewater being disposed into the 

waterways is properly treated and thus decontaminated, another question arises from the 

treatment of the toxic water filled with drilling fluid chemicals, sediments and radioactive 

materials. When brine water returns to the Earth’s surface after the fracturing process, 

small pieces of radioactive sedimentation are concentrated throughout the water. These 

total dissolved solids (TDS) are soaked in the radioactive liquid waste-water. Throughout 

the treatment process at the wastewater facility, sediment and sludge is accumulated from

the water from a separation process, however most separation technologies fail to remove 

all of the radioactive liquid from the solid contents. This material, along with filters, is 

removed from the wastewater at the Patriot waste treatment plant, and then needs to be 

disposed of. The solid waste, still coated with radioactive waste-water, is then sent to the 

municipal landfill. 

 Long after any current landfill is filled and covered at the completion of production, the 

waste cuttings will emit radiation for thousands of years. “We’re removing the metals 

like strontium, barium, iron, lead and other toxic heavy metals and organics as well as a 

little bit of oil,” said Tom Weber, owner of Wastewater Management in Cleveland, who 

designed the Patriot plant[33]. But we question whether Patriot and Warren treatment 

plants are able to remove radium in solution, and neither facility describes how this is 

done. 

GreenHunter Waste Water Management Facility 

GreenHunter waste management facility in Wheeling, West 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 much as 

19,000 barrels of tank storage. Similar to Patriot, the goal is to remove suspended solids 

from gas-field flowback that returns to the surface during fracking, and produced water 

that comes up during gas production. This waste would be disposed of in one of three 

ways. According to Green Hunter, clean brine, estimated to be 80% of the waste volume, 

would be placed on tanker trucks for re-use in other fracking operations. Dehydrated 

solid waste, estimated to be 10% of the incoming volume, would be sent to landfills. And 

concentrated liquid waste, estimated to be 10% of waste volume, would go to permitted 

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 Waste Facility in Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia. 

GreenHunter has already obtained supplemental sites, in addition to the waste 

management facility in Wheeling, two of which are located in New Matamoras and 

Racine, Ohio. Both sites have been described as storage sites and access points for the 

barge to unload materials being transported down the Ohio River that are coming from 

the Wheeling, West Virginia facility. The primary role of the GreenHunter facility in 

Racine is to store radioactive waste from the barge in injection wells on-site[55]. The 

GreenHunter website states[55] that the riverside saltwater disposal facility in Racine, 

Ohio has the potential to inject more than 3,000 barrels per day of oil field brine and also 

allow for a barge receiving terminal to be installed on the river so material can be piped 

11
directly to the disposal well from the barge cells. The facility in New Matamoras, Ohio is 

capable of holding 75,000 barrels on-site for bulk storage. At both sites, the close 

proximity of the storage tanks and injection wells to the Ohio River introduces an even

greater risk to the Ohio River watershed of seepage and pollution from radioactive brine 

materials. President of GreenHunter, Jonathan Hoopes, stated that[56], “One of our 

primary goals at GreenHunter Water is to never have to turn down a customer’s load of 

brine water for disposal.” In a current situation where public health and the local 

environment are at risk, GreenHunter has made it clear that its priorities are focused on

its income and business desires. 

John Jack, vice president of business development for GreenHunter points out holding tanks on-site that

store radioactive water in May 2013[35].

Community concerns are focused on the potential for spill or seepage at the site during all 

of the loading/unloading of materials that will be occurring, as well as the potential for 

the facility to be flooded as it lies on the banks of the Ohio River that frequently 

experience high water incidents throughout the year. The idea of putting the most 

radioactive material from the treatment process, the flowback and brine material en route 

to injection wells, on barges in the river system that is a drinking water source for 

numerous States is also of serious concern. If an accident were to occur and the material 

leaked into the Ohio River, the effects on the fresh water system could be extremely 

serious to both the environment and its role as a main source for drinking water. And 

accidents do happen. In April 2013, believed to be a result of high water, 100 barges 

broke free from moorings in the Mississippi River, 11 of which sank to the bottom of the 

river[36]. And in June 2012, a barge sank in the Ohio River, again as a result of high water 

conditions[37]

. There are numerous other examples, many due to floods causing barges to 

sink. On a waterway such as the Ohio River, which experiences high water events 

numerous times throughout a given calendar year and random floods, putting such toxic 

12
and dangerous materials on a barge for transport is asking for trouble. Transportation of 

the toxic materials via barge is currently in limbo; the Green Hunter waste management 

facility first needs approval from the U.S. Coast Guard, which has not yet occurred. 

Transportation Adds to the Risk 

GreenHunter waste management facility in Wheeling, West Virginia is of great interest to 

those living in Ohio, as the treatment plant is located on the banks of the Ohio River with 

goal of transporting radioactive materials via barge. 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 remove suspended solids from gas-field flowback that returns 

to the surface during fracking, and produced water that comes up during gas production. 

This waste would be disposed of in one of three ways. Clean brine, estimated to be 80% 

of the waste volume, would be placed on tanker trucks for re-use in other fracking 

operations. Dehydrated solid waste, estimated to be 10% of the incoming volume, would 

be sent to landfills. And concentrated liquid waste, estimated to be 10% of waste volume, 

would go to permitted injection wells via transportation of barge

[34]. This waste would be 

transported by barge to locations, in which the waste would be further transported via 

trucks to underground injection wells acquired by Green Hunter Waste Facility in 

Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia. 

Community concerns are focused on the potential for spill or seepage at the site during all 

of the loading/unloading of materials that will be occurring, as well as the potential for 

the facility to be flooded as it lies on the banks of the Ohio River that frequently 

experience high water incidents throughout the year. The idea of putting the most 

radioactive material from the treatment process, the flowback material en route to 

injection wells, on barges in the river system that is a drinking water source for numerous 

states is also extremely risky. If an accident was to occur and the material was leaked into 

the Ohio River, the effects on the fresh water system could be devastating to both the 

environment and its role as a main source for drinking water as outlined previously. Such 

toxic and dangerous materials on a barge for transport is problematic. Transportation of 

the toxic materials via barge is currently in limbo, as the Green Hunter waste 

management facility 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 Baltimore, 

Maryland that was purchased by a drilling company to provide either injection well 

storage or horizontal drilling at the location. If it weren’t for the citizen’s in Mansfield, 

Ohio passing a charter amendment, there would have been rail transport from Ohio to the 

planned injection wells there. 

Are there additional transportation concerns? 

 

Radioactive waste from hydro-fracking is currently transported by trucks, but the 

transportation of materials by barge and rail (as mentioned above) has also been proposed 

13
and is being considered. Both of these alternative modes of transport are encouraged by 

the oil and gas industry, as the options offer transport of more materials at one time for a 

less expensive shipping price. This increases the risk of public health and environmental 

exposure to toxic chemicals if an accident was to occur. The total activity in brine truck 

shipments requires that it be classified as Class 7 waste by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT). Class 7 shipments have had accidents. DOT statistics show that 

vehicles transporting class 7 in the last ten years, have had 78 rail, highway and water 

incidents[57]. No matter how this material is moved from one location to another, strict 

rules and regulations are required. 

If material that is transported is hazardous or radioactive, specific Federal rules, that 

relate to container construction, placarding and insurance, apply. Our investigation of 

Federal and State regulations show that the State of Ohio regulations are far less 

protective of public safety. Shipments involved in crossing State boundaries are 

unequivocally regulated by the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) under title 

49 of the Code of Federal Regulations[47]; these rules may also apply to intrastate 

regulations as well. 

Under Federal DOT rules, transported material that exceeds a total activity, in terms of

total Curies of radioactivity, is classed as a radioactive material. The specific limit for 

Radium-226 is 2.7x10-7 Curies[47]. Below this total activity, the material is not classed as 

radioactive by DOT; above this amount, specific Federal regulations apply regarding 

design, packaging and labeling of transportation vehicles. For placarding, the NRC has 

even stricter limits 1 x 10-7 Curies (10CFR20, App. C). 

To compare the levels of Ra-226 in brine, we assumed radioactivity ranging from 10,000 

to 15,000 pico curies per liter, according to NY Department of Environmental 

Conservation[38]. Conditions described by Green Hunter waste management facility[39]

state that a truck transporting materials from the facility will transport 100 barrels of

waste at a time, with each barrel holding 42 gallons of material. They expect 100 truck 

loads per day to move the 10,000 barrels per day (420,000 gallons per day) capacity of

toxic waste[39]. Trucks transporting brine on Pennsylvania highways are in the form of a 

single container, not individual barrels. At 10,000 to 15,000 pico curies per liter of Ra226 for brine, this results in a total radium-226 activity content of 1.589x10-4 to 

2.3835x10-4 curies per truckload, greatly exceeding the federally defining limit of 2.7x10-

7

 curies. Transportation by barge is estimated to carry 10,000 barrels of brine at a time, 

resulting in a total radium-226 activity content as high as 2.3835x10-2 Curies in a single 

barge load. Both transportation methods, by truck and by barge, result in a DOT 

classification as radioactive that requires adherence to regulations and limitations 

described for transportation of hazardous materials. 

These transportation shipping regulations can be found in chapter 49 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations in sections 173.410 and 173.411 (shown in Appendix A and B). 

Generally speaking, the regulations in place state that any package used for the 

transportation of radioactive materials must be easily handled and properly secured with a 

structurally sound lifting attachment, will have an external surface free from protruding 

14
features that can be easily decontaminated, all valves through which the package contents 

could escape will be protected against unauthorized operation and the behavior of the

packaging and contents under irradiation will be taken into account. Additionally, the 

materials qualify as a Low Specific Activity II waste, must be properly packaged in 

Industrial Packaging Type 2 (IP-2) or Industrial Packaging Type 3 (IP-3) enclosures. The 

descriptions for each of these packages are listed in Appendix B. The State of Ohio does 

not have comparable regulations for radioactive brine. 

Insurance is another requirement under DOT regulations. Under Federal regulations 

vehicles transporting hazardous substances, such as brine, must hold an insurance policy 

with a minimum level of financial responsibility 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 damage caused by processing associated with brine for 

$600,000. Most insurance policies for private cars have liability coverage greater than $1 

million. State of Ohio regulations are clearly inadequate for a hazardous material, and 

possibly illegal. 

Finally, federal DOT regulations require that hazardous and radioactive shipments be 

properly placarded. Specifically, federal DOT regulations require this notice: 

“RADIOACTIVE—LSA” or “RADIOACTIVE—SCO.” Instead, trucks we have seen 

on Pennsylvania highways are simply labeled “brine.” 

A truck marked as “radioactive” traveling on a highway near Golden, Colorado. 

(Source: http://colorspray.blogspot.com from June 2010)

 

 

15
Are there additional environmental concerns? 

Muskingum River Watershed 

Concerns of the pollution of our environment and drinking water sources are not only 

related to the management of the waste that is produced and where it is stored and 

disposed of, but also are focused on the process of fracking as a whole, long before the 

waste and natural gas is generated at the soil surface. A high density of drilling wells in 

an area essentially creates numerous holes, fractures and connected land masses 

throughout the landscape underneath the soil. Although these fractures cannot be seen 

from aboveground, an area that has been heavily hydro-fracked and drilled may more 

closely resemble a piece of swiss cheese than that of the assumed solid landscape. The 

millions of gallons of water used to fracture these wells are also taking away from freshwater drinking supplies. The Muskingum watershed in eastern Ohio is a prime example 

of this scenario. 

Draining a full fifth of the entire state and providing drinking water for thousands of 

residents, the Muskingum watershed is comprised of numerous large reservoirs as well as 

the lengthy Muskingum River. The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District 

(MWCD) is responsible for caring for the reservoirs, yet they have approved several 

controversial water sales to the fracking industry[51]. In short, this means that the MWCD 

gave the oil and gas industry permission to buy water from several of the reservoir lakes 

in the Muskingum Watershed. In June 

and July of 2013, the maximum daily 

withdrawal will be 2 million gallons 

from just the one reservoir, Seneca 

Lake, alone. Two other reservoirs, 

Piedmont and Clendening, are also 

under contract for large water sales. 

Drilling companies are charged 

varying rates of $6.00 to $8.00 per 

1,000 gallons of water from the 

reservoir

[40]. 

Not only are residents worried about 

the reduction of water in the 

reservoirs due to the sale and 

permanent removal of mass quantities 

of water to serve the oil and gas 

industry, but concerns are also 

focused on the actual drilling 

operations themselves. The MWCD 

website[41] states that, “The MWCD 

oil and gas drilling program has been 

in place for decades, today resulting 

in hundreds of wells.” However, the 

MWCD fails to point out that high 

16
volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing is not the same industrial activity as vertical 

drilling, and the process consumes much greater amounts of water and land mass. 

The image on the right depicts the placement of oil and gas wells around Seneca Lake in 

southeast Ohio, such that aquifer and reservoir water quality will almost certainly be

degraded (image source: Rubin 2012). The abandoned wells (black dots) are densely 

clustered and show the connectivity of the underground landscape (with red lines 

portraying the horizontal fractures associated with each well). Leasing this land for 

widespread oil and gas drilling can have many consequences on the surface. Professional 

hydro-geologist Paul Rubin assessed the Muskingum River watershed in great detail[48]

and warns of toxic contamination to water sources created by fracking near and 

underneath the lakes. Rubin, as well as numerous environmental support groups in the 

Ohio, have requested an immediate moratorium imposed upon hydraulic fracturing on 

MWCD lands and underneath all associated reservoirs. The Southeast Ohio Alliance to 

Save Our Water was formed to stop the conservancy district from leasing public land for 

fracking and for selling and potentially polluting millions of gallons of watershed district 

water. In addition, the FreshWater Accountability Project Ohio was formed to track those 

who profit from water sales to document liability for future water shortages and toxic 

pollution. 

The image on the left portrays the size of the Muskingum River Watershed and the inset on depicts the 

location and size of the watershed within the state of Ohio[48]. The image on the right, comparatively, 

shows the state of Ohio as well as the locations of the oil and gas fields throughout the state

[48]. The entire 

Muskingum River Watershed lies almost completely within the heart of the oil and gas drilling operation 

that is occurring.

17
As some gas and oil wells were drilled more than 50 to 100 years ago, the structural 

integrity of these wells is in question. The ability of these wells to age successfully is 

unknown; the concern is that toxic contaminants will gain access to freshwater aquifers 

and reservoirs over time. The structural integrity of the wells at locations that cut through 

aquifers is in question, not only after aging, but from the initial construction. Packed soils 

around the well support the casing material and help prevent it from rupturing, however 

areas that pass through marine environments, and thus offer less support to the well 

casing, may be at risk for weakening and eventual rupture under pressure from hydraulic 

fracturing. Toxic contaminants will leak into the environment and will move with ground 

water flow systems, eventually affecting local soils and drinking water sources. Due to 

underground placement, assessment of these situations are not conducted as routinely as 

they should be, and therefore leakage of pollution could occur for lengthy durations of 

time without any indication of the issue from the surface. The high density of wells 

drilled in the same area only increases chances of contamination to aquifers, as repeated 

hydraulic fracturing will result in interconnecting old, poorly plugged gas and oil wells, 

allowing upward contaminant migration into drinking water supplies and reservoirs. 

Rubin states in his report, “The ultimate result of extensive gas exploitation in the 

Muskingum River Watershed will be that groundwater and surface water contamination 

will occur. Such pollution is assured because (1) the durability of well sealant materials 

available today to effect zonal isolation of freshwater aquifers is poor and short-lived, and 

(2) toxic hydro-fracking fluids injected deeply into the ground will move with 

groundwater flow systems, eventually moving upward into freshwater aquifers, reservoirs 

and waterways. Permitting of horizontal gas wells proximal to reservoirs will needlessly 

jeopardize water quality.” 

The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District receives revenue from the oil gas 

industry for selling water from the reservoir for fracking operations. For instance, from 

leasing just one reservoir, Seneca Lake, the MWCD received a signing bonus 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 example of the skewed 

priorities by the MWCD to place economic interests before area property values, public 

health protections, conservation of important natural resources, and consideration of 

long-term sustainability to serve other important industries such as agriculture and 

recreation, as well as the protection of safe drinking water supplies from the impacts of 

future droughts. 

What about public health concerns? 

Communities and homeowners are already feeling the effects of hydro-fracking, pipeline 

construction and well drilling across the reaches of the Marcellus and Utica shale 

formations. Landowners are presenting symptoms, namely rashes and illnesses, believed 

to be caused by exposure to drilling fluid chemicals in their drinking water from drilling 

activities that have taken place on or near their land, as described in these recent 

articles[42, 43, 44]. One doctor was quoted as saying, “There is an epidemic of rashes 

occurring” (J. Skinner, personal communication, February 14, 2013). With the amount of 

18
acute health issues popping up throughout Pennsylvania and now Ohio, believed to be in 

response to drilling practices, we have concern this is just the tip of the iceberg when 

radium eventually migrates into source water for public drinking supplies and leaches out 

of landfills. When ingested, radium concentrates in bone and can increase the probability 

of leukemia. The serious health effects as a result of radiological exposure are not readily 

apparent as victims first endure a latency period. This means that although residents 

could be currently exposed, their symptoms may not appear until years from now. 

A hydro-fracking drilling pad and storage pond in Pennsylvania show the proximity to the homeowner’s 

house as well as the large scale of the operation. (Source: Steve White/MarcellusProtest) 

What are the current laws and/or regulations in place for 

managing fracking waste? ...Or lack thereof. 

State governments, like Ohio, say their hands are tied in regulating NORM from drilling 

operations due to the Cheney Amendment. Also known as the Halliburton Amendment, 

this loophole can be found in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This amendment exempts 

the fracking process from federal oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 

and exempts companies that are doing Marcellus shale drilling from having to meet the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act[45]. “Due to federal exemptions, drilling occurs in 

close proximity to residential zones, elementary schools, playgrounds, hospitals, and 

public places; and citizens have no recourse,” said Shane Davis, Sierra Club Rocky 

Mountain Chapter’s Oil & Gas Campaign Information & 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 fractures in shale, increases the rock surface area and the solubility of radium, 

thereby producing TENORM. While this will be a matter for the courts to decide, it is 

19
clear to us that the States can regulate TENORM and therefore this method of gas 

production. 

As of June 2013, verbiage regarding the management of TENORM was reintroduced into 

Ohio Governor’s budget bill, via the Omnibus amendment for consideration by the Ohio 

Senate. The definition of TENORM states that, “TENORM does not include drill 

cuttings, background radiation, byproduct material, or source material.” This excludes all 

fracking waste as TENORM and instead incorrectly labels the enhanced material as 

NORM, relieving the states of responsibility to regulate such materials. Changes also 

state that any natural gas well owner needs to collect and analyze samples of material, if

identified as TENORM, associated with the well to determine the concentration of

radium-226 and radium-228, but that the testing of radium levels are not required if 

material is reused on-site or transferred to another site for fracking operations, if the 

material is disposed of at an injection well, if the owner uses the material in association 

with a method of enhanced recovery, or if the material is transported out of state for 

lawful disposal. The mention of TENORM in proposed amendments is included, 

however fracking material has yet to be properly defined, and management and handling 

of such materials must still be further investigated before regulations are set into place. 

In May of 2013, Ohio state officials introduced legislation to ban Class II fracking waste 

injection wells in Ohio. The bill would prevent waste from being discharged into Ohio’s 

waterways after treatment and would make it illegal for municipalities to use the liquid 

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 promising 

jobs to Ohio workers, campaign contributions to legislators, and by providing revenue to 

regulators and royalty payments to landowners. However, we believe better protections 

should be in place before the industry ramps up production. Based on the actual 

environmental impacts in Pennsylvania, the potential impact in Ohio is not promising. 

Hydraulic fracturing or fracking of shale rock is conducted by first drilling a vertical bore 

down to the Marcellus shale horizon, where high radioactivity and total organic content is 

reached. After lining the vertical hole part way down with cement casing, drillers move 

horizontally through shale rock, then subject shale to high hydraulic pressure to create 

additional fractures using hydraulic pressures of approximately 10,000 psi, explosives 

and millions of gallons of water. 

This process in its entirety has been known to contaminate air and drinking water 

supplies. In numerous instances in Pennsylvania, the drilling fluid has escaped the cement 

casing, which is weakest at aquifer intersections. Contaminated aquifers and private 

water wells have caused skin rashes to residents, and infertility and death to livestock. 

20
Following fracking, residual drilling fluid and radium-laced saline water is brought back 

to the surface as flowback water. During gas production, more radium-contaminated 

water is separated from natural gas, with even higher saline and radioactive 

concentrations. Millions of gallons of radium-contaminated flowback water and brine 

must be disposed. Much of this brackish liquid is transported to Ohio for “treatment” and 

disposal. The Patriot treatment plant in Warren, OH, the proposed GreenHunter 

processing plant in Wheeling, WV, on the banks of the Ohio River, would separate the 

liquids and solids. The proposed GreenHunter storage facility in New Matamoras, Ohio 

and deep well disposal operations in Racine, Ohio and elsewhere would receive fracking 

waste via barge from Wheeling, West Virginia. The solids presently go to municipal 

landfills; the liquids are either disposed in deep Class II non-hazardous injection wells, 

are directly dumped in surface waters (example D&L in Youngstown, OH), or spread on 

highways as a de-icer. Spreading brine on roads in Ohio can cause detrimental health 

impacts to residents, as this radium-contaminated water will be airborne during dry days 

and be inhaled. Inhaled radium will concentrate in bones and increase the likelihood of

leukemia. 

We also find that the chemical treatment methods at Patriot and GreenHunter cannot 

remove radium in solution and the testing methods cannot detect radium. The operators 

at the Patriot plant claim that the radioactivity present is background, nothing more. The 

landfill operators, with some exceptions, claim the radioactivity is near background. We

are dealing here with magicians. The industry would have us believe that radioactivity 

below ground in the Marcellus shale disappears when it is brought to the surface. 

Testing methods need to be improved; the State of Ohio needs to step up its regulatory 

program. Solids containing radium should be disposed in a low-level radioactive waste 

disposal facility and not in a municipal landfill, where the radium can eventually leach 

out into surface waters or be piped for inadequate processing at municipal water 

treatment plants[53]. Drillers have an economic incentive to use municipal landfills. Our 

research shows that the cost of disposal in a municipal landfill is a fraction of the burial 

cost in a low-level radioactive landfill, and the transportation distances and costs are also 

far less. This industry savings, however, could ultimately be at the cost of public health. 

Two additional issues need to carefully examined: the impact of fracking on the 

Muskingum watershed by the active participation and promotion of industry for profit by 

the MWCD, and the transportation of liquid and solids to Ohio and to processing and 

waste disposal facilities. Fracking requires millions of gallons of water for each well. 

Waters, such as the Seneca Lake, are a convenient resource for drillers. But we fear the 

matter which is plaguing Pennsylvania will also affect the MWCD, once fracking begins. 

High hydraulic pressure will force drilling fluids into aquifers through faulty casing and 

old wells, potentially contaminating reservoirs needed for recreation, agriculture and 

drinking water supplies. The area around the MWCD is pockmarked 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 GreenHunter plant is proposing. Our research finds 

21
that the State of Ohio is not properly regulating this radioactive material. Under Federal 

DOT regulations, produced (brine) and flowback water are considered radioactive 

material; the activity is much higher than the minimum threshold. 

Ohio must upgrade its packaging and transportation regulations to meet Federal 

standards. Ohio’s insurance regulations for brine-carrying trucks are less than what most 

drivers have on personal cars. Federal regulations require $5 million coverage, while 

Ohio requires $600,000. Further, Federal regulations requires placarding, to label trucks 

as carrying radioactive material, but Ohio has no such requirement. This puts unaware 

local emergency responders at risk in case of an accident. 

All this in combination with the disposal of radioactive waste materials in non-hazardous 

Class II injection wells that leak and solid waste disposal sites not classified to handle the 

material will lead to radioactive leachate, as well as the potential contamination of

reservoirs and aquifers due to migration of residual frack fluids from deep underground. 

Further, accidental and deliberate dumping and brine spreading on roads will combine to 

threaten the health and safety of Ohio residents. If current regulatory, transportation and 

disposal practices continue, the cost to future Ohioans will be large and remediation may 

not be possible. Clearly, now is the time to address these important issues. Legislators, 

regulators and public officials such as the MWCD Board and Conservancy Court are 

certain to be held accountable in the future for the huge cost of remediation, the loss of

valuable freshwater supplies, and the negative impacts to public health that are certain to 

occur in the future. 

22
References 

 

1 Resnikoff, Marvin, Ekaterina Alexandrova, and Jackie Travers. "Radioactivity in 

Marcellus Shale." Report Prepared for Residents of for the Preservation of 

Lowman and Chemung (RFPLC). (2010) 

2 Harper, J A. "The Marcellus Shale - an old "new" gas reservoir." Pennsylvania 

Geology: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 38.1 

(2008) 

3 "Marcellus Shale Hydraulic Fracturing." Chesapeake Energy. Chesapeake Energy. Web. 

21 May 2013. <http://www.chk.com/media/educational-library/factsheets/marcellus 

4 Davies, Peter J., 2009. “Radioactivity: A Description of its Nature, Dangers, Presence 

in the Marcellus Shale and Recommendations by the Town Of Dryden to The 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for Handling and 

Disposal of such Radioactive Materials.” Cornell University. 

http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/Radioactivity%20from%20Gas%20Drilling%20

SGEIS%20Comments%20by%20Peter%20Davies.pdf

5 "Ohio Legislation Introduced to Ban Fracking Waste Injection Wells." Eco Watch. Eco 

Watch. Web. 21 May 2013. <http://ecowatch.com/2013/ohio-legislation-banfracking-waste-injection-wells/>. 

6 "Underground Injection Control (UIC)." Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Oil and Gas Resources. Ohio DNR. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov/industry/underground-injection-control>. 

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

Business. Trib Live. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://triblive.com/business/headlines/3945499-74/gas-radiation-radioactivity 

23
8 McMahon, Jeff. "Fracking Truck Sets Off Radiation Alarm at Landfill." Forbes. Forbes, 

24 Apr 2013. Web. 23 May 2013. 

<http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/24/fracking-truck-sets-offradiation-alarm-at-landfill/>. 

9 Hunt, Spencer. "Ohio seeks radioactivity testing on drilling wastes." The Columbus 

Dispatch. The Columbus Dispatch, Hunt Feb 2013. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/02/13/ohio-seeksradioactivity-testing-on-drilling-wastes.html>. 

10 United States Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. EPA. About TENORM. 2012. 

Print. <http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/about.html>. 

11 Shaner, Jack. "Landfills are not the places to dump radioactive waste from drilling." 

Crain's Cleveland Business. Crain's Cleveland Business, 23 May 2013. Web. 23 

May 2013. 

<http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20130517/ENERGY/130519832/1241/n

ewsletter04>. 

12 Ingram, Dustin. "Multiple Samples Fail Radiation Test at Landfill." Williston Herald. 

Williston Herald. Web. 21 May 2012. 

<http://www.willistonherald.com/news/multiple-samples-fail-radiation-test-atlandfill/article_58426dcc-41f7-11e1-aba7-001871e3ce6c.html>. 

13 Fentiman, Audeen, Matthew Jorat, and Ronald Veley. "Factors that affect the cost of 

low-level radioactive waste disposal." The Ohio State University Factsheet. The 

Ohio State University Extension Research. Web. 23 May 2013. 

<http://ohioline.osu.edu/rer-fact/rer_66.html>. 

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

Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities." 

NUREG-1307, Revision 15. Draft. (2012): 1-127. Print. 

24
15 "SWACO Rates and Charges." Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio. Southern Waste 

Authority of Central Ohio. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://www.swaco.org/Uploads/Documents/landfill/Landfill-Rates-2012.pdf>. 

16 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Key Issues." Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear Energy 

Institute. Web. 24 May 2013. <http://www.nei.org/KeyIssues/nuclearwastedisposal/Low-Level-Radioactive-Waste>. 

17 Hammer, Rebecca, and Jeanne VanBriesen. Natural Resources Defense Council. In 

Fracking's Wake: New Rules are Needed to Protect Our Health and Environment 

from Contaminated Wastewater. 2012. Print. 

18 Veil, John. Prepared for: United States Department of Energy. Water Management 

Technologies Used by Marcellus Shale Gas Producers. 2010. Print. 

19 "Marcellus and Utica Shale Play in Ohio." Akron Beacon Journal Online. Akron 

Beacon Journal Online, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013. 

<http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/maps>. 

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

Record-Chronicle. Denton Record-Chronicle. Web. 22 May 2013. 

<http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/special-projects/gas-well-drillingheadlines/20110331-practice-lays-waste-to-land.ece>. 

21 "Surface Applications of Brine by Local Governments." Ohio Laws and Rules. 

LAWriter Ohio Laws and Rules, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013. 

<http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1509.226>. 

22 Niquette, Mark. "Flacking Fluid Soaks Ohio." Bloomsberg Businessweek: Politics and 

Policy. Bloomber Businessweek. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/fracking-fluid-soaks-ohio>. 

25
23 "Injection Wells - Supported by Oil and Gas Industry but Athens Supports State-Wide 

Ban." L County Fracking. L County Fracking, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013. 

<http://www.lcountyfracking.org/archives/1771>. 

24 "The Underground Injection Control Program." Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency. Ohio EPA. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://www.epa.ohio.gov/ddagw/uic.asp&xgt;. 

25 Funk, John. "Waste-water injection well caused 12 earthquakes in Ohio, investigation 

shows." The Plain Dealer. The Plain Dealer, Northeast Ohio, n.d. Web. 28 May 

2013. 

<http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/shale_gas_drilling_cause

d_smal.html>. 

26 Lustgarten, Abrahm. "Injection Wells: The Poison Beneath Us." ProPublica. 

ProPublica, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013. <http://www.propublica.org/article/injectionwells-the-poison-beneath-us>. 

27 Leigh, Boerner. "Sewage Plants Struggle to Treat Wastewater Produced by Fracking 

Operations." Chemical and Engineering News. Chemical and Engineering News. 

Web. 21 May 2013. <http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/03/Sewage-PlantsStruggle-Treat-Wastewater.html>. 

28 Ferrar, Kyle J., Drew R. Michanowicz, Charles L. Christen, Ned Mulcahy, Samantha 

L. Malone, and Ravi K. Sharma. "Assessment of Effluent Contaminants from

Three Facilities Discharging Marcellus Shale Wastewater to Surface Waters 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 Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers." The New 

York Times. 26-02-2011. Web. 23 Apr 2013. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

26
30 Morgan, Rachel. "Officials admit communication breakdown." Shale Reporter. 01-04-

2013. Web. 23 Apr 2013. 

http://www.shalereporter.com/government/article_094f7242-9add-11e2-858e0019bb30f31a.html

31 Schaefer, Keith. "Fracking and Water: A New Way to Profit from the Industry’s 

Biggest Problem." Oil Price. Oil Price. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Fracking-and-Water-A-New-WayTo-Profit-from-the-Industrys-Biggest-Problem.html>. 

32 Davison, Jenny. "Warren Pollution Control - Pretreatment Program." U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 Clean Water Act Compliance 

Sampling Inspection Report. 2011. 

33 Scott, Michael. "Fracking fluid from gas well drilling being treated at Ohio wastewater 

treatment plant." Cleveland Real Time News. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/fracking_fluid_being_treated_a.html>. 

34 Kasey, Pam. "Amid protest, GreenHunter pursues Wheeling frack fluid plant." The 

State Journal. The State Journal. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://www.statejournal.com/story/22154925/amid-protest-greenhunter-pursueswheeling-frack-fluid-plant>. 

35 Junkins, Casey. "GreenHunter Water Reveals Its Plans." Shale Play. Shale Play, 15 

May 2013. Web. 23 May 2013. 

<http://www.shaleplayohiovalley.com/page/content.detail/id/500628/GreenHunte

r-Water-Reveals-Its-Plans.html?nav=5024>. 

36 "Barges Sink on Mississippi River." Ozarks First. Ozarks First. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=796342>. 

37 Conley, Casey. "Barge sinks in Ohio River after cable parts following pushboat." 

Professional Mariner. Professional Mariner. Web. 21 May 2013. 

27
<http://www.professionalmariner.com/September-2011/Barge-sinks-in-OhioRiver-after-cable-parts-following-pushboats-collision-with-a-pier/>. 

38 "An Investigation of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Oil and 

Gas Wells in New York State." New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, n.d. 

Web. 24 May 2013. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials minerals 

pdf/normrpt.pdf >. 

39 "Green Hunter Water Company Profile." Green Hunter Water. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<www.greenhunterenergy.com>. 

40 Downing , Bob. "MWCD approves sale of water from two Ohio lakes for Utica shale 

drillers." Guernsey Soil and Water Conservation District. Guernsey Soil and 

Water Conservation District, n.d. Web. 29 May 2013. 

<http://guernseysoil.blogspot.com/2013/04/district-approves-sale-of-waterfrom.html>. 

41 "Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District." Muskingum Watershed Conservancy 

District. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013. 

<http://www.mwcd.org/>. 

42 Peeples, Lynne. "Fracking Pollution Sickens Pennsylvania Families, Environmental 

Group Says." Huffington Post. 18-10-2012. Web. 23 Apr 2013. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/fracking-pollutionpennsylvania_n_1982320.html

43 Corrado, Katie. "Pennsylvania farmers blame fracking for illness, rashes." CNY 

Central. 20-11-2012. Web. 23 Apr 2013. 

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=827905

28
44 Petracca, Lauren. "Fracking's RealiLife Victims." Rolling Stone. Web. 23-Apr-2013.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/frackings-real-life-victims20130123

45 Phillips, Susan. "Burning Question: What would life be like without the Halliburton 

Loophole?." State Impact. 05-12-2011. Web. 23 Apr 2013. 

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/12/05/burning-question-whatwould-life-be-like-without-the-halliburton-loophole/

46 Swain, Lauren. "Oil and Gas Mythbusters." Sierra Club. Sierra Club Rocky Mountain 

Chapter, 01 May 2012. Web. 23 Apr 2013. 

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/ENewsletters/Misc_CHP_CO_May2012OilGasMythbusters.html

47 "49 CFR 173.436 - Exempt Material Activity Concentrations and Exempt Consignment 

Activity Limits for Radionuclides." U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. 

Government Printing Office. Web. 21 May 2013. 

<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title49-vol2/CFR-2011-title49-

vol2-sec173-436/content-detail.html>. 

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

River Watershed, Eastern Ohio." Prepared by HydroQuest for Southeastern Ohio 

Alliance to Save Our Water. 2012. 

49 "Ohio and Fracking." Source Watch. Source Watch, n.d. Web. 28 May 2013. 

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ohio_and_fracking 

50 Downing, Bob. "Patriot Water Treatment files suit against Ohio state agency." Akron 

Beacon Journal Online. Akron Beacon Journal Online, n.d. Web. 29 May 2013. 

<http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/patriot-watertreatment-files-suit-against-ohio-state-agency-1.347729>. 

29
51 "MWCD sets 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 Seneca Lake lease from MWCD." Akron Beacon 

Journal Online. Akron Beacon Journal Online, n.d. Web. 29 May 2013. 

<http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/press-release-onseneca-lake-lease-from-mwcd-1.373545>. 

53 "Canton Rep." Landfill Proposes Pipeline to Canton Treatment Plant. CantonRep, n.d. 

Web. 29 May 2013. <http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1233656302/Landfillproposes-pipeline-to-Canton-treatment-plan>. 

54 Hayes, Tom. "Characterization of Marcellus Shale and Barnett Shale Flowback Waters 

and Technology Development for Water Reuse."Gas Technology Institute, 2011. 

Print. 

55 "GreenHunter Water: News Release." GreenHunter Water. GreenHunter Waster, 30 

May 2013. Web. 30 May 2013. <http://phx.corporateir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=219127&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1825316&highlight=>. 

56 "GreenHunter Announces Commencement of Operations at Ohio River Barge 

Transloading and Bulk Storage Facility." Business Wire. Business Wire, n.d. 

Web. 30 May 2013. 

<http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120717005460/en/GreenHunterWater-Announces-Commencement-Operations-Ohio-River>. 

57 "Hazardous Materials Information System." U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1 Jun 2010. Web. 31 May 2013. 

<http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/tenyr_ra

m.pdf>. 

30
58 Bradwell, Michael. "Title town in transit." Washington County Energy Capital of the 

East. Washington County Energy Capital of the East, 3 Jun 2012. Web. 6 Jun 

2013. <http://www.energycapitalonline.com/news/article.php?aid=95>. 

31
Appendix A.

49 CFR 173.410 - General design requirements. 

§ 173.410

General design requirements. 

In addition to the requirements of subparts A and B of this part, each package used for the 

shipment of Class 7 (radioactive) materials must be designed so that— 

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

transport. 

(b) Each lifting attachment that is a structural part of the package must be designed with a 

minimum safety factor of three against yielding when used to lift the package in the 

intended manner, and it must be designed so that failure of any lifting attachment under 

excessive load would not impair the ability of the package to meet other requirements of 

this subpart. Any other structural part of the package which could be used to lift the 

package must be capable of being rendered inoperable for lifting the package during 

transport or must be designed with strength equivalent to that required for lifting 

attachments. 

(c) The external surface, as far as practicable, will be free from protruding features and 

will be easily decontaminated. 

(d) The outer layer of packaging will avoid, as far as practicable, pockets or crevices 

where water might collect. 

(e) Each feature that is added to the package will not reduce the safety of the package. 

(f) The package will be capable of withstanding the effects of any acceleration, vibration 

or vibration resonance that may arise under normal conditions of transport without any 

deterioration in the effectiveness of the closing devices on the various receptacles or in 

the integrity of the package as a whole and without loosening or unintentionally releasing 

the nuts, bolts, or other securing devices even after repeated use (see §§ 173.24, 173.24a, 

and 173.24b ). 

(g) The materials of construction of the packaging and any components or structure will 

be physically and chemically compatible with each other and with the package contents. 

The behavior of the packaging and the package contents under irradiation will be taken 

into account. 

(h) All valves through which the package contents could escape will be protected against 

unauthorized operation. 

32
(i) For transport by air— 

(1) The temperature of the accessible surfaces of the package will not exceed 50 °C (122 

°F) at an ambient temperature of 38 °C (100 °F) with no account taken for insulation; 

(2) The integrity of containment will not be impaired if the package is exposed to 

ambient temperatures ranging from −40 °C (−40 °F) to 55 °C (131 °F); and 

(3) Packages containing liquid contents will be capable of withstanding, without leakage, 

an internal pressure that produces a pressure differential of not less than 95 kPa (13.8 

lb/in 2 ). 

[Amdt. 173-244, 60 FR 50307, Sept. 28, 1995, as amended by Amdt. 173-244, 61 FR 

20750, May 8, 1996; 64 FR 51919, Sept. 27, 1999] 

33
Appendix B. 

49 CFR 173.410 - General design requirements. 

§ 173.411

Industrial packagings. 

(a) General. Each industrial packaging must comply with the requirements of this section 

which specifies packaging tests, and record retention applicable to Industrial Packaging 

Type 1 (IP-1), Industrial Packaging Type 2 (IP-2), and Industrial Packaging Type 3 (IP3). 

(b) Industrial packaging certification and tests. (1) Each IP-1 must meet the general 

design requirements prescribed in § 173.410. 

(2) Each IP-2 must meet the general design requirements prescribed in § 173.410 and 

when subjected to the tests specified in § 173.465(c) and (d) or evaluated against these 

tests by any of the methods authorized by § 173.461(a), must prevent: 

(i) Loss or dispersal of the radioactive contents; and 

(ii) A significant increase in the radiation levels recorded or calculated at the external 

surfaces for the condition before the test. 

(3) Each IP-3 packaging must meet the requirements for an IP-1 and an IP-2, and must 

meet the requirements specified in § 173.412(a) through (j). 

(4) Tank containers may be used as Industrial package Types 2 or 3 (Type IP-2 or Type 

IP-3) provided that: 

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

(ii) They are designed to conform to the standards prescribed in Chapter 6.7, of the 

United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, (IBR, see § 

171.7 of this subchapter), “Requirements for the Design, Construction, Inspection and 

Testing of Portable Tanks and Multiple-Element Gas Containers (MEGCs),” or other 

requirements at least equivalent to those standards; 

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

(iv) They are designed so that any additional shielding which is provided shall be capable 

of withstanding the static and dynamic stresses resulting from handling and routine 

conditions of transport and of preventing a loss of shielding integrity which would result 

in more than a 20% increase in the radiation level at any external surface of the tank 

containers. 

34
(5) Tanks, other than tank containers, including DOT Specification IM 101 or IM 102 

steel portable tanks, may be used as Industrial package Types 2 or 3 (Type IP-2) or (Type 

IP-3) for transporting LSA-I and LSA-II liquids 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 Industrial packages Types 2 or 3 (Type IP-2) or 

(Type IP-3) provided that: 

(i) The radioactive contents are restricted to solid materials; 

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

(iii) They are designed to conform to the standards prescribed in the International 

Organization for Standardization document ISO 1496-1: “Series 1 Freight Containers—

Specifications and Testing— Part 1: General Cargo Containers; excluding dimensions 

and ratings (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). They shall be designed such that if 

subjected to the tests prescribed in that document and the accelerations occurring during 

routine conditions of transport they would prevent: 

(A) Loss or dispersal of the radioactive contents; and 

(B) Loss of shielding integrity which would result in more than a 20% increase in the 

radiation level at any external surface of the freight containers. 

(7) Metal intermediate bulk containers may also be used as Industrial package Type 2 or 

3 (Type IP-2 or Type IP-3), provided that: 

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

(ii) They are designed to conform to the standards prescribed in Chapter 6.5 of the United 

Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, (IBR, see § 171.7 of 

this subchapter), “Requirements for the Construction and Testing of Intermediate Bulk 

Containers,” for Packing Group I or II, and if they were subjected to the tests prescribed 

in that document, but with the drop test conducted in the most damaging orientation, they 

would prevent: 

(A) Loss or dispersal of the radioactive contents; and 

(B) Loss of shielding integrity which would result in more than a 20% increase in the 

radiation level at any external surface of the intermediate bulk containers. 

(c) Except for IP-1 packagings, each offeror of an industrial package must maintain on 

file for at least one year after the latest shipment, and shall provide to the Associate 

Administrator on request, complete documentation of tests and an engineering evaluation 

35
or comparative data showing that the construction methods, packaging design, and 

materials of construction comply with that specification. 

[Amdt. 173-244, 60 FR 50307, Sept. 28, 1995, as amended by Amdt. 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] 

36
Appendix C 

Testing Methods for Radium-226 

The measurement of gamma emitting radionuclides at a landfill is customarily done with 

portal monitors or hand held detectors. Ra-226 decays to radon gas, Rn-222 and 

subsequently to bismuth-214, whose gamma emission can be detected. Hand held 

detectors generally measure total gamma, which includes potassium-40 and other 

radionuclides. But portal monitors can detect different energy gamma emissions and 

thereby distinguish Bi-214 (a decay product of Ra-226) and therefore Ra-226 from other 

radionuclides. Because of the larger detector area, portal monitors are more sensitive 

than hand-held detectors. We used the software Microshield to determine the dose rate 3 

inches from the side of a truck carrying soil. To read 5 pCi/g in rock cuttings, assuming 

truck walls 1/8 inch thick, you would need to read a dose rate of 15 microrems/hr above 

background (generally 10 microrems/hr), which portal detectors can easily do. 

However, it is important to calibrate the portal monitor with the truck Ra-226 content. 

To do this, a representative sample of rock cuttings should be sent to a laboratory for 

specific analysis of Ra-226, using EPA protocols1

. This EPA protocol requires a detailed 

chemical separation of Ra-226 from the rock matrix, followed by the standard method for 

detecting Ra-226 in a liquid, EPA testing protocol 903.1. 

EPA protocol 903.1 generally takes about 21 days in a laboratory, from acceptance of a 

sample to quality assurance and the final report. Without going into great detail, radium 

is chemically separated from other elements and placed in a closed system. In four days, 

total alpha emissions build up to 4 times the alpha emissions from radium-226 and can be 

measured in a photomultiplier tube, where light emissions from alpha production can be 

measured. Though four days is the minimum, generally the holding period is longer, 

about 14 days. 

For the measurement of Bi-214 in water, assuming that Bi-214 and Radium are in 

equilibrium: 1 pCi/L of Bi-214 would give rise to a dose rate of 0.0011 microrems/hour. 

Therefore, considering a load of brine water, with radioactive concentration of 10,000 

pCi/L, Microshield estimates a dose rate of 10.91 microrems/hr- which could be detected 

in the field from a portal monitor. However, Ra-226 concentrations of 1,000 pCi/L 

yielding a dose rate of 1.1 microrems/hr would not be detected in a background dose rate 

of 10 microrems/hr. 

 

1 EPA-600-R-12-635, www.epa.gov/narel, August 2012, Revision 0, “Rapid Method for Radium in Soil 

Incorporating the Fusion of Soil and Soil-Related Matrices with the Radioanalytical Counting Method for 

Environmental Remediation Following Radiological Incidents”

37