Crossridge Landfill near Steubenville Ohio has issues

From an Article & Broadcast by Tyler Madden, WTOV News 9, Steubenville, OH, 5/19/22

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Ohio — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said it was important to visit the Crossridge Landfill in Jefferson County on Thursday as his office is still involved in litigation pertaining to the site. “I’m very troubled by what I saw,” Yost said.

Signs up and down the road leading to the landfill site underscore the longstanding tension over the site in the community. Yost was joined by officials from the Jefferson County Health Department on a tour of the site. “I’m amazed this has been pending for so long and hasn’t been cleaned up,” Yost said. “There’s a part where you can see the leachate and it looks like some kind of horror movie.”

NEWS9 cameras were not permitted to go on the tour as it is private property. But there were a number of different areas on the site highlighted on the tour, including those problem areas that have caused so many concerns from residents.

“Whether it’s dumping leachate into the water, that’s vitally important environmental issue that needs to be addressed and he’s seen them himself now firsthand,” Jefferson County Health Commissioner Andrew Henry said.

“It’s red and oily and it’s coming off of there and it looks like it’s headed down the creek into the river,” Yost said. The AG’s office is still involved in litigation involving the site and how it moves forward.

“We keep kicking the can down the road and our can is getting kicked,” Yost said. “We’ve got a hearing on (June 21). I wanted to see this for myself, and I’ve instructed my staff to do everything in their power to move this thing forward.

“I want the local folks that have been working so hard on this to know that they have a partner in the state and we’re looking to get this done and cleaned up.”

Drill Cuttings Trucked to Public Landfill

Potentially dangerous drilling byproducts are being dumped in landfills throughout the Marcellus Shale with few controls

From an Article by Jie Jenny Zou, Center for Public Integrity, June 19, 2016

<<< Drill cuttings from fracking are radioactive wastes like the truckload shown here in West Virginia. — Photo Courtesy of Bill Hughes >>>

The Marcellus Shale has transformed the Appalachian Basin into an energy juggernaut. Even amid a recent drilling slowdown, regional daily production averages enough natural gas to power more than 200,000 U.S. homes for a year.

But the rise of hydraulic fracturing over the past decade has created another boom: tons of radioactive materials experts call an “orphan” waste stream. No federal agency fully regulates oil and gas drilling byproducts — which include brine, sludge, rock and soiled equipment — leaving tracking and handling to states that may be reluctant to alienate energy interests.

“Nobody can say how much of any type of waste is being produced, what it is, and where it’s ending up,” said Nadia Steinzor of the environmental group Earthworks, who co-wrote a report on shale waste. (Earthworks has received funding from The Heinz Endowments, as has the Center for Public Integrity).

The group is among several suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate drilling waste under a federal system that tracks hazardous materials from creation to final disposal, or “cradle to grave.” The EPA declined to comment on the lawsuit but is scheduled to file a response in court by early July.

Geologists have long known soil and rock contain naturally occurring radioactive materials that can become concentrated through activities like fracking, in which sand and chemicals are pumped thousands of feet underground to release oil and gas from tight rock. But concerns about fracking largely have focused on injection wells and seismic activity, with less attention paid to “hot” waste that arrives at landfills and sets off radiation alarms.

An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity shows that states are struggling to keep pace with this waste stream, relying largely on industry to self-report and self-regulate. States have also been slow to assess and curb risks from exposure to the waste, which can remain radioactive for millennia. Excessive radiation exposure can increase cancer risks; radon gas, for example, has been tied to lung cancer.

The four states in the Marcellus are taking different approaches to the problem; none has it under control. Pennsylvania has increasingly restricted disposal of drilling waste, while West Virginia allows some landfills to take unlimited amounts. Ohio has yet to formalize waste rules, despite starting the process in 2013. New York, which banned fracking, accepts drilling waste with little oversight.

Inconsistencies have raised concerns among regulators and activists that waste is being “shopped around” by companies seeking the path of least resistance, or unsafely reused. In March, Kentucky’s attorney general opened an investigation into two landfills he alleged illegally accepted radioactive drilling waste from West Virginia. A separate investigation is ongoing at the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, where officials exchanged emails about whether landfill workers and schoolchildren might have been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation.

Bill Kennedy, a radiation expert at the consulting firm Dade Moeller, called radioactive drilling waste “virtually unregulated” and said consistent standards are needed to “protect workers, protect the general public, protect the environment.” Kennedy co-chairs a committee working with regulators and industry to develop guidelines and recommendations for states. “You can’t rely on industry to go it alone and self-regulate,” he said.

While radiation emitted from fracking waste may pale in comparison to that from nuclear power plant waste, Steinzor said regulators don’t know the cumulative impacts of landfilling the loads over time. “There’s been such a push to expand the industry and to drill as much as possible,” she said. “No one has had the desire or political will to slow the industry down long enough to figure out what the risks truly are.

Race to the bottom

Trucks rolling into West Virginia landfills grind to a near halt as they pass fixed poles — monitors — that detect radiation above a set threshold. If the monitors go off, drivers reverse and pass through them again. After a second alarm, landfill staff members check drivers and trucks with hand-held detectors.

An emergency state law required landfills to install the monitors in 2015 and submit reports detailing any alarms to West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Health and Human Resources within 24 hours.

More than 70 alarms have been reported since, but what happened to the waste after they were set off is unclear. The reports routinely lack basic information, such as whether the waste was accepted or rejected, where it came from and how much of it there was.

One report, for example, shows the landfill in Wetzel County, West Virginia, took in 14 tons of industrial bag filters from an unknown source in April 2015. The filters weren’t labeled as drilling waste but contained radium 226, an isotope associated with fracking.

Landfills must reject waste that exceeds state radium limits, yet the amount of radium in the filters was left blank on that form and every other alarm report generated in 2015. Radium 226 remains radioactive for thousands of years, breaking down into gases such as radon.

After the Center contacted the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection about inconsistent or missing information in the reports, officials reviewed the records and acknowledged “discrepancies.” They said they plan to work with state health officials to overhaul the reporting process, including revising the single-page form so it captures more useful information. Such efforts seem warranted: The health department, as a matter of practice, said it has been throwing away the reports it receives. A spokesman declined to comment further.

Scott Mandirola, waste director at the Department of Environmental Protection, said West Virginia regulators are doing their best to keep up with the fracking industry by collaborating with their counterparts in Ohio and Pennsylvania. “Everybody’s dealing with it differently,” he said, pointing out widely held concerns that one state will become the preferred dumping ground. “It was obvious there was waste being shopped around.”

Bill Hughes, who sits on the Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority, doubts the state will enact or enforce rules that burden industry. “West Virginia is not going to do anything that Pennsylvania and Ohio are not required to do,” he said.

Last year, the Department of Environmental Protection conducted its first environmental analysis of potential impacts from landfilling drill cuttings. The report, which was mandated by the state Legislature, looked at the threat of groundwater pollution from the leaching of radioactive materials through soil and found “little concern.”

Hughes said it was the first time state legislators had openly acknowledged that drilling waste was more than just dirt and rock and could pose a radiation hazard. The report noted that before the waste was hauled to landfills, oil and gas companies simply buried it in pits on well-pad sites.

Twisting in the wind

On windy days, grit gathers on Toni Bazala’s home in South Huntingdon Township, 40 miles south of Pittsburgh, staining her white shutters black. A chain-link fence separates her property from the Yukon landfill 200 feet away.

“We look like we’re in a desert,” said Bazala, 74. The black dust from the landfill, she said, is like “an acid that goes down your throat.”

Max Environmental Technologies, Inc., which runs Yukon and another nearby site, has footed the bills for annual cleanings of her house’s exterior and paid for a new air conditioner, she said.

The company recently surprised Bazala and her husband with a legal waiver restricting them from speaking publicly about the cleanings in court, or to state and federal regulators. “What it amounted to was, ‘If you don’t sign this paper, you don’t get your house pressure-washed.’”

The retired couple refused to sign and has no plans to leave. “I wouldn’t even dream of selling my house,” Bazala said. “We don’t have much, but what we have is ours.”

Former township supervisor Mel Cornell said relocation isn’t an option many can afford. He spent years inspecting Yukon, often raising concerns about radiation measured on site, but quit and retired early to Florida last year. “They can’t clean people’s bodies when they breathe that in,” Cornell said of the dust. On at least one occasion, he said, he vomited while inspecting the landfill because the stench was so overpowering.

The township has repeatedly sued Max Environmental for producing a strong odor Cornell called “burnt cement,” which began in 2013 when Yukon started accepting drilling waste. The company has tried masking the odor with a bubblegum-scented deodorizer and paid a $10,000 fine to the township in monthly $25 installments.

Township residents say penalties have failed to spur lasting improvements or quash Yukon’s expansion plans. Yukon has been inspected more than 200 times for solid waste issues since March 2013, racking up more than $200,000 in fines. The company admitted to odor and other violations in an August consent decree with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

Max Environmental’s Carl Spadaro, who previously worked for the department, declined to be interviewed but wrote in an email to the Center that the company has “shown time and time again that we strive to operate in compliance.” Homes have been pressure-cleaned “for many years to remove pollen, mildew and staining,” he wrote. When asked about the waiver Bazala refused to sign, Spadaro added, “We suggested to a neighbor that to continue this service, an acknowledgement of the reason for the service would be appropriate.”

Pennsylvania regulators have increasingly restricted disposal of radioactive waste, instituting monthly intake limits on landfills. But the rules keep changing. Sludge, which is left over from drilling waste processed by treatment plants, is considered highly concentrated and radioactive. But the state has gone back and forth on exactly how much of it landfills can take from one year to the next.

In a panel discussion last year, Spadaro called Pennsylvania’s protocols “rather stringent,” saying they force landfills like Yukon to scale back the waste it takes. Landfills in the state maxed out monthly radioactive waste caps at least 87 times last year, often forcing haulers to try elsewhere.

But some haulers can be persistent. In January, a driver was caught trying to dispose of the same load from a northeastern Pennsylvania well pad three times at the same landfill in one day.

Gregg Macey, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, reviewed hundreds of Department of Environmental Protection emails and other documents obtained in an open-records request by Earthjustice, an environmental law group. His report highlighted the agency’s growing confusion over increasing numbers of radiation alarms at landfills and mislabeled waste.

Emails from 2010 to 2013 show regulators reviewed records and found waste taken by landfills that should have gone to out-of-state facilities equipped to handle low-level radioactive debris. Officials also expressed concern that landfill operators didn’t fully grasp how to handle the new waste stream.

“We need a statewide guidance on the handling, sampling and protocol and we need it yesterday not a year from now,” a state employee wrote in the fall of 2012, signing his email, “frustrated in the field.” In 2013, an employee commenting on a backlog of waste awaiting state review, wrote, “We need to find a solution for this and it sure isn’t allowing the boxes to pile up.”

None of these concerns was mentioned in a highly anticipated report by the Department of Environmental Protection last year that found “little potential for harm to workers or the public from radiation exposure due to oil and gas development.” The study was quickly championed by energy interests.

Some, however, have questioned the study’s methodology and the impartiality of its author, Perma-Fix Environmental Services, a nuclear waste contractor. The state works closely with Perma-Fix to assess landfill radiation risks 1,000 years in the future.

“We have evolved since 2013,” said state waste and radiation director Ken Reisinger, insisting there is “plenty of space” in Pennsylvania for drilling waste. “We have continued to refine our science and we continued to question ourselves on the protocols.”

Steinzor, with Earthworks, said that without a federal tracking system, states have no reliable way of ensuring waste isn’t being illegally dumped. Pennsylvania regulators were able to pinpoint final burial locations for a third of nearly 300 loads rejected in 2015, but two-thirds remain unaccounted for.

Critic under fire

Bill Hughes has sat on the Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority in West Virginia for 15 years — five as chairman — but he has a feeling this year will be his last. A staunch fracking critic, Hughes has spoken out against the dumping of radioactive drilling waste alongside household trash in municipal landfills.

Located at the base of West Virginia’s Northern Panhandle, Wetzel County has become a prime destination for out-of-state drilling waste. Hughes, 71, concedes that he’s “made a lot of noise” about the dumping of such waste in the county’s 238-acre landfill; since 2012 it’s outpaced the intake of all other garbage combined.

In February Hughes, a retired electrician who belongs to the Heinz-funded FracTracker Alliance, was sued by the landfill’s operator, Lackawanna Transport Company. Lackawanna is seeking damages that “could be in excess of $1 million,” claiming Hughes illegally invoked his chairmanship of the waste authority to temporarily block the company from building a separate, lined surface pit for drilling waste in 2013.

Nearly 100 public commenters raised concerns about the pit — known as a cell — which would allow Wetzel to accept an unlimited amount of drilling waste. West Virginia does not count such waste as part of Wetzel’s monthly cap of 9,999 tons, which is meant to conserve space and limit the life of the landfill. Wetzel has already taken 650,000 tons of drilling waste since 2013.

Further south, in Harrison County, Meadowfill Landfill sought approval for a similar cell in 2013 and won easy approval. That landfill has gone on to become the state’s top disposer of drilling waste, taking in nearly 900,000 tons since 2013, including loads deemed too radioactive for Pennsylvania.

News of the million-dollar lawsuit against Hughes rattled the Wetzel authority’s volunteer members, who had bickered with him about mounting legal costs associated with fighting the proposed cell. In March, they told the authority’s lawyers to withdraw official opposition to it, and a state commission approved it a short time later.

Authority members are unpaid, but the authority itself and its popular county recycling program are funded largely by landfill fees, creating potential conflicts of interest, Hughes said. His term on the authority expires in July.

In 2015, Ohio officials shut down an illegal waste facility operated by Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. More than 20 tanks were found on site, which stored mud and other wastes from fracking.

‘Wild West’ in Ohio

Rachelle Quigg and her son had a rude awakening one summer night in 2014 when a neighbor’s property in Hammondsville, Ohio, was invaded by large yellow tanks and humming trucks.

“It was like the most bizarre thing ever,” Quigg said, describing trucks noisily pulling in and out at all hours of the night. She said the Ohio Department of Natural Resources sent an inspector in February 2015 only after she and others complained to a television news crew. “It seemed like they had too much to deal with; they couldn’t bother.”

A month later, officials ordered the company responsible, Anchor Drilling Fluids USA Inc., to shut down and clean up the property, which it did in July 2015. The company was not penalized outside of being ordered to close the site.

In lieu of issuing permits, the state has allowed more than 40 facilities to handle and treat drilling waste under a temporary authorization process since 2014. Some applications were approved the same day they were submitted — unlike permits, which require public comment and various stages of review.

Department of Natural Resources spokesman Eric Heis said companies consult with state engineers prior to filing applications, which shortens review times. Temporary authorizations are granted without public comment.

Under Gov. John Kasich, the department has drawn criticism for being deferential to industry. A 2012 memo detailed joint plans by the department and Kasich’s office to rally support for fracking by undercutting “environmental-activist opponents, who are skilled propagandists.” The memo singled out opponents, including the Sierra Club and Democratic legislators, and potential allies such as Halliburton and other energy and business interests. The plans were never carried out.

Melanie Houston of the Ohio Environmental Council said rulemaking efforts have moved at a snail’s pace, creating a “Wild West” milieu. Proposed guidelines would require landfill operators to install radiation monitors and report alarms to health officials and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, which shares authority with the Department of Natural Resources.

The Ohio EPA began the rulemaking process in 2013, but has yet to approve any rules. Statewide, six landfills reported accepting 583,000 tons of drilling waste in 2013. In 2014, eight landfills reported taking in nearly double that amount.

Emails obtained by the Center through an open-records request show state officials struggled to coordinate response to an alarm last July triggered by drilling “filter socks” in East Sparta that were emitting roughly 200 times the state’s radiation limit. The socks, which separate liquid and solid drilling waste, were picked up unknowingly by a residential garbage truck. The waste was shipped to a Utah nuclear waste site in October, since it was too radioactive for a much closer facility in Michigan.

Filter socks, which are used to separate liquid and solid materials during fracking, have set off radiation alarms at municipal landfills. Some are ultimately shipped to special facilities out-of-state that handle low-level radioactive waste from nuclear

Dumping in New York

Like Ohio, New York is mulling new rules. In February, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced proposed regulations requiring landfills to install radiation monitors and lower the radioactivity of disposed waste. The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation is accepting public comments through the summer.

The proposals come a year after an Environmental Advocates of New York report claimed thousands of tons of fracking waste were being landfilled upstate. “There were a lot of residents pretty outraged,” said report author Elizabeth Moran.

When the state’s fracking ban took effect in 2014, Cuomo cited health officials who called potential risks, such as water contamination from radioactive waste, “too great” to bear.

But data show seven New York landfills have accepted at least 460,000 tons of solid fracking waste since 2010, according to Moran. The numbers, based on self-reported estimates from oil and gas companies operating in Pennsylvania, are incomplete.

They don’t reflect, for example, Pennsylvania fracking waste that was processed by a New Jersey landfill and later sent to Staten Island in New York City. Records obtained by Delaware Riverkeeper in 2014 showed the treated drilling waste was used in 2011 to cover the Brookfield Avenue Landfill, an illegal dumping ground that was shuttered in the 1980s and is undergoing a $240 million cleanup.

Lacking confidence in the state, several New York counties have banned fracking waste disposal, while a bill outlawing the dumping, use or sale of all fracking byproducts is being considered by the New York City Council.

Moran suspects many New Yorkers don’t know that radioactive waste is being scattered in the state. “We banned fracking,” she said, “so people don’t think we’re part of this dirty process.”

This story was produced in collaboration with the Ohio Valley ReSource, a public media partnership covering Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.

See also the various stories on the hot mess being created by hydraulic fracturing.

“Examination of Leachate, Drill Cuttings and Related Environmental, Economic and Technical Aspects Associated with Solid Waste Facilities in West Virginia,” Prepared by: Marshall University Center for Environmental, Geotechnical and Applied Sciences; and Glenville State College. Submitted to: WV Department of Environmental Protection: July 1, 2015

Report Review by William J. Hughes, Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority, New Martinsville, WV, July 10, 2015

Introduction: (All page numbers are referenced to the PDF version of the 195 page report to the WV-DEP)

Any formal report comprised of 195 pages generated by a reputable school like Marshall University with additional input from Glenville State College, which is supported by over 2300 pages of semi-raw data and graphs and charts and tables, requires some serious investigation prior to making comprehensive and final conclusions. However, some initial observations are needed to provide an independent perspective and to aid reflection on how sections of this report might be interpreted.

The overarching perspective that must be kept in mind is that the complete study was first limited by exactly what the WV Legislature told the WV Department of Environmental Protection (WV-DEP) to do. Second, then the WV-DEP added other research guidelines and determined exactly what needed to be in the study and what did not belong. There were also budget and time constraints.  And finally, the most constricting factor was the large body of existing data within the possession of the WV-DEP which was provided to the researchers and report writers. Because of the time restrictions, only a small amount of additional raw data could be added.

And most importantly, similar to the WVU Water Research Institute (WVU WRI) report from two years ago, it must be kept in mind that these types of studies, initiated by those elected to our well-lobbied legislature and funded and overseen by a state agency do not occur in a political power vacuum. It was surely anticipated that the completed report might have the ability to affect the growing, natural gas industry which is supported by most of the people in the political administration. Therefore we must be cautious here. The presence and influence of political and economic factors must be considered also. And for universities to receive research contracts and government paid study requests, the focus must include keeping the customer satisfied.

Simplified Summary Statements — (All page numbers are referenced to the PDF version of the 195 page report to the WV-DEP)

1. Marcellus shale cuttings are radioactive: 17/195; 139/195; 142/195; 154/195
2. We do not know if there is a long term problem:  19/195; 96/195
3. About 30 million tons of waste expected in next few decades: 176/195
4. Landfill liners leak:  20/195
5. Owning and operating their own landfill would be expensive and risky for the gas companies: 186/195; it appears that citizens might have to bear the environmental and financial risks related to new landfills.
6. Gas well drill cuttings are toxic to plants:  97/195
7. Landfill leachate is toxic to plants and invertebrates: 97/195
8. If all systems at landfills work as designed, leachate might not affect ground water: 41/195
9. Other landfills also have radioactive waste: 14-15/195
10. We have no idea if this will get worse: 154/195
11. This has not been done before: 78/195

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Three categories of comments will be included here on various aspects of the total 195 pages of the Marshall University Report recently provided to the WV Department of Environmental Protection: Good — Positive aspects, good suggestions, or important observations; General – General comments; Flawed –  Problems, flaws, limitations, etc.

+++++++++++++

Comment  ONE —Water Quality:  EPA test protocols and data sets.

General –  It is obvious that a very smart and well trained set of researchers put a lot of long, detailed thought into analyzing all the available data. There must be tens of thousands of data points. Meticulous attention was put into how to assemble all the existing years’ worth of leachate chemical and radiological information.

Good — There is an elaborate and detailed discussion of how to best analyze everything and how to utilize the best statistical methods and generate a uniform and integrated report. This was made difficult with non-uniform time intervals, some “non-detect” values and some missing items.  The researchers used a credible process, explaining how they applied the various appropriate statistical analysis methods to all the data. They provided some trends and observations and drew some conclusions.

Flawed – However, the most glaring flaw and the greatest limitation is the nature of the very data set provided to the researchers from the WV-DEP. It is to the commendable credit of the WV-DEP that the leachate at landfills receiving black shale drill cuttings from the Marcellus and other shale formations were, from the beginning,  required to start bi-monthly testing of leachate samples at landfills that were burying drill waste products. And in general, when compared to on-site disposal as done for conventional wells, it was initially a good requirement to have the drill cuttings put into some type of landfill.  That way we could keep track of where the drill cuttings are when there are future problems.

To the best of my knowledge, until the black shale industry required it, regulatory agencies (in other states also) have never knowingly deposited large quantities of industrial waste products which were known for decades by geologists and radiochemists to be radioactive, into generic municipal waste landfills. We just have not done it. We knew better.   Therefore, it is very understandable that we might not know how to best solve the problems of this particular waste product.  This was and still is new territory.

Now we are a little better informed. We are slow, but learning.  But three years ago, given the unfamiliarity of regulatory agencies with the uniqueness of this waste problem we chose the wrong test protocol to use when having all the leachate samples tested. We stipulated the commonly used and familiar clean drinking water test procedure.  So now we have a massive set of test results all derived from using the wrong test protocol for the radiologicals.  Fortunately most of the chemistry test results should still be accurate and useful .

At first, three years ago, this was understandable and possibly not an intentional error. But now, it is widely known by hydrogeologists and radiochemists, at least at the PhD level, that the plain EPA 900 series of test methods for determining the radioactivity of contaminated liquids do not work on liquids with high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Method 900.0 is designed for low solid samples like drinking water supplies. There is general consensus on this now. And almost a year ago authoritative studies containing  this information was provided directly to the WV-DEP.

Despite this major and significant limitation, the effort by Marshall University still has some utility. For example, doing comparisons between and among the various landfills accepting drill waste might provide some interesting observations and correlations.   But it is clearly known now that the protocols that were used for all samples all along when testing for Gross Alpha, Gross Beta and Radium 226 and Radium 228 in leachate, can only result in very inaccurate, under-reported data. Therefore, it is not possible to draw any valid conclusions on quite a few of some very important topics. These topics of concern include: surface water quality; potential ground water contamination; exposure levels at landfills; and public health implications; as well as policy and regulations considerations.

Leachate test samples over all the years were processed using what is called the clean drinking water test protocols, also referred to as the EPA 900 series. Laboratories certified to test for radiological compounds and elements are very familiar with the 900 series of EPA test procedures.  They use them regularly, and they have been widely used for years. They are intended to be used on clean drinking water.  They are not intended to be used on “sludgy” waters or liquids contaminated with high dissolved solids like all the many liquid wastes from black shale operations including flowback and produced water or brines and leachate. Using the incorrect  lab process for sample preparation and testing will guarantee that the results will continue to be incorrect.

It seems that the best suggestion so far to test liquids similar to leachate would be to use what is referred to as Gamma-ray Spectrometry with a high purity germanium detector with at least a 21 day (30 days are better) hold period. The sample is sealed then counted for at least 16 hours. Many of the old leachate test results indicate high uncertainties which might be attributed to short hold times and short counting times. This procedure is referred to as the 901.1 M (modified).  If the sample is sealed, the sample will reach about 99% equilibrium after 30 days. The Radon 222 must not be allowed to escape. The proper test instrument, recently calibrated and also designed for the specific sample is crucial to get useable test results from which conclusions can be drawn and policy enacted.

So far, in no place in the final 195 page report have I seen any discussion of exactly which EPA test protocol was used and why was it used. It has also not yet been seen in the 2,300 plus pages of supportive statistical and analytical results either.  The fact that the wrong protocol was used three years ago is very understandable.  However this conventional EPA 900 series was still being used on the additional very recent, (done in fall of 2014) new samples that were included in the final report. The researchers, without any justification or discussion or explanations continued to use the wrong test protocol. It might have been justifiable to also use the clean drinking water procedures along with the 901.1M (gamma spec) process, for comparison.

It is understandable that for the new data to be consistent with the very large existing data set that a case could be made for sticking with the incorrect protocol. But there should have been a detailed discussion of what and why any test method was being used. That type of discussion is usually one of the first topics investigated and explained.  Having that type of discussion and justification would be appropriate to the basic science method and accepted research process. And that omission is a serious flaw.

The section of the report on “potential environmental impacts to water quality” seems to demonstrate that if you do not want to find out something, that there are always justifiable options to avoid some inconvenient facts. Given the very narrow scope as defined, some of the Marshall University folks did not seem to have the option to stray into important fundamental scientific aspects and for the most part, just had to work with the stale data sets given them. All of which, as we have known for close to a year now, have used the wrong test protocol. Therefore we have incorrect results.

Note: Comments Two thru Six will appear tomorrow.

Lineup of Marcellus Waste Trucks

“Landfill Drill Waste Unlikely to Get in Water”

From Shale Play, Wheeling Intelligencer, July 2, 2015

Charleston, WV (AP) – A study by state regulators says it’s unlikely that significant amounts of untreated natural gas drilling waste in landfills will impact groundwater or surface water.

In the event that the waste’s runoff did hit nearby water untreated, however, the material would likely exceed chemical limits for drinking water and be toxic to plants and invertebrate life, the study concludes.

In a report released Wednesday, the Department of Environmental Protection looked into the runoff from drill cuttings dumped into landfills. The report studied four of the six West Virginia landfills that accept drilling waste, and compared them to two others that don’t.

The report says most groundwater near the studied landfills isn’t used for public water supplies, but is likely used for some private water supplies.

Radioactive levels in landfills that accept the drilling waste sometimes exceeded state limits for radioactivity in waterways. Treatment facilities that took in the drilling material had radioactive discharges similar to ones that didn’t handle its treatment.

The study says a new landfill for the material could take five or more years to build and cost the oil and gas industry $80 million. At least two new landfills would be needed to ensure drill operators didn’t have to drive further to dump their material than they currently do, the report says.

The study outlined some risks of the material ending up in waterways untreated: heavy precipitation events, overflow of piping systems connecting landfills to treatment facilities, cracks in piping systems handling the fluids, treatment system failures and landfill liner failures.

“It cannot be determined if or when landfill leachate might impact groundwater in the long-term,” the report says. The report found that the drill cuttings were not suitable for road building, or capping of brownfield sites.

But it also says parts of the material could potentially be used in a mix to fill abandoned underground mines and keep them from collapsing, or to fill other unused structures, including underground storage tanks, sewers or abandoned basements.

Environmental officials collaborated on the report with the state Division of Highways, branches of Marshall University and Glenville State University, and Research Environmental & Industrial Consultants.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Editorial RE:  WV-DEP — Facts flow down hill

From an Editorial, Morgantown Dominion Post, Sunday, July 5, 2015

Landfill leachate from natural gas drilling waste may poison your water, but words never seem to hurt regulators. However, after reading the summary of a 200-page study released this past week on drill cuttings dumped into landfills, we have some words for the Department of Environmental Protection (WV-DEP).

Rarely do we engage in name calling, but this report leads us to believe WV-DEP actually stands for the Department of Environmental Prevarication. No, not in the sense the DEP is lying to us in this study, but it appears to deviate from the truth.

That doesn’t shock us. The idea of avoiding telling the truth by not directly answering a question is not some foreign concept to agencies. But this study does deflate some of our growing confidence in the safe operation of shale-gas drilling.

Only a month ago, an exhaustive, five-year, more than $30 million report by the US Environmental Protection Agency determined shale-gas drilling had caused no widespread harm to drinking water. Then, just about a week ago, drilling got under way on a “science well” and two other (Marcellus gas wells) along the Monongahela River that are under a bevy of researchers’ microscopes, so to speak.

But now it appears after taking two steps forward, we’re about to take one back. To its credit, this report doesn’t give inferences or suppositions any credence. Rather, it hinges on probabilities and deductive reasoning. Yet, it fails to estimate these probabilities and the end-result of the reasoning holds out little comfort.

For instance, it asserts it’s unlikely these cuttings in landfills will affect groundwater or surface water. Also, most groundwater near the landfills it studied isn’t used for public water supplies. But then it reports if this runoff hit nearby water untreated, it would likely exceed chemical limits for drinking water and would be toxic to invertebrate life. That toxicity might not apply to humans, too, but it sounds risky, at best.

The report also noted groundwater near these landfills is likely used for private water supplies. The study also noted how the material could end up in waterways untreated: Heavy precipitation events. Downpours? Cracks in piping systems linking landfills to treatment facilities ranked high. Treatment system and landfill liner failures were also outlined.

Then in a brilliant stroke the report concludes, “It cannot be determined if or when landfill leachate might impact groundwater in the long-term.”

Through the years, we suspect, the WV-DEP has often ignored its own findings or warnings, probably at the behest of industry or politics. However, it’s apparent many of this report’s words spell out a world of potential harm.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NOTE:  See the report here:  ”Final Report on the Examination of Drill Cuttings and Related Environmental, Economic, and Technical Aspects Associated with Solid Waste Facilities in West Virginia,”  W. V. Department of Environmental Protection, July 1, 2015.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Fracking Waste Disposal Still A Question

Article by Glynis Board and Ashton Marra, WV Public Broadcasting, March 10, 2014

The House and Senate have spent weeks working on House Bill 4411 dealing with the disposal of hydraulic fracturing drill cuttings in land fills. Earlier in the session, the House of Delegates held a public hearing on the issue. But members could not agree on the terms of the bill and late Saturday evening it ended up in a conference committee.

The conference agreement came down to this: landfills who want to accept drill cuttings from fracking sites must apply for permits from the Department of Environmental Protection and the Public Service Commission. So far, seven are in the process of doing so.

Those seven would be the only landfills allowed to apply for the permits for two years. They must put radon detectors at their front gates to test trucks, cannot mix the drill cuttings with municipal waste and must charge a $1 fee per ton they accept. The first $750 thousand collected will go toward a study on the waste due to the Joint Committee on Government and Finance next year.

That agreement, however, did not make it to the clerks’ desks in time to be put to a vote and the bill died, leaving no legislative restrictions on these cuttings and their disposal.

See also the very informative Video Clip in this Article.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

W.Va. bill to regulate gas drilling waste on hold

From an Article of the Associated Press (Charleston Gazette), March 10, 2014

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A bill to regulate the disposal of waste produced by gas-well drilling will likely be introduced by West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin in a special session. Lawmakers who negotiated a version both sides could agree on were unable to get the measure passed before midnight Saturday, the deadline for the regular session.

The bill would allow only seven landfills in West Virginia that have already applied to do so to create a separate area on their properties where they could store the waste. Those landfills are located in the Northern Panhandle and Northwest portion of the state.

Sen. Herb Snyder, D-Jefferson, said the bill is a huge environmental protection for the state. As it stands, the measure calls for drillings to be separated from other waste and monitored for radioactivity. “By September of this year, the waste cannot be mixed with other trash and must be put in a separate cell, and radioactivity monitors add a tremendous amount of protection over what is being done today,” said Snyder. “We have learned a lot by looking at what was done in Pennsylvania and looking at the problems they were having.’ Snyder said the studies will examine what types of metals are in the waste in addition to their level of radioactivity.

Currently, in depth studies on drilling waste have not been conducted in West Virginia. Snyder said some Department of Environmental Protection studies were conducted after the Natural Gas Horizontal Well Act; however, the Legislature determined these studies were incomplete and not sufficient, he said.