Radioactive contamination from fracking wastewater spills

A Duke University study of fracking wastewater spills in North Dakota has found high levels of selenium, lead, ammonium, and other toxic compounds. High levels of radium 226, radioactive with a half-life of 1600 years, were also found. The researchers observed that pipeline leaks were responsible for half of the spilled wastewater, with the remainder coming from valves, connections, tank leaks, and tank overflows.

“Unlike spilled oil, which starts to break down in soil, these spilled brines consist of inorganic chemicals, metals and salts that are resistant to biodegradation,” said Lauer, a Ph.D. student who was lead author of the study. “They don’t go away; they stay. This has created a legacy of radioactivity at spill sites.”

Their study concluded: "The resistance of inorganic contamination to biodegradation and its consequential persistence in the environment suggest that contamination from brine spills in North Dakota will continue to impact nearby water resources for years to come. To fully understand the impacts of brine spills in North Dakota, future research should evaluate additional spill sites, analyze organic contamination in addition to inorganic elements, assess the impacts downstream of spill sites, including risks to drinking water sources, and conduct a comprehensive assessment of long-term ecological and possible human health impacts."

http://drcinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ND-brine-spill.pdf

"Brine Spills Associated with Unconventional Oil Development in North Dakota"

Nancy E. Lauer, et al, Environmental Science and Technology journal

http://oilpatchdispatch.areavoices.com/2016/04/27/spill-contaminati...

Views: 2790

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on May 18, 2016 at 9:30am

Paul is right that produced water impoundments are problematic.  I live in PA and can only speak for my own state.  At one time I believe produced water impoundments existed here.  But today they are not used or allowed AFAIK.  I can tell you we have none where I live, though we have MANY fracked gas wells.  We do continue to have fresh water impoundments here, though.  

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on May 18, 2016 at 9:53am

Not banned in PA, but the regulation of frack wastewater impoundments is being tightened soon, I believe:

"The new standard would require thicker liners, increased bonding requirements, and more public involvement in the siting of the impoundments. … Pennsylvania has experienced problems with several operators in waste storage. The mapping website FracTracker found that of 214 recorded spills in 2014, 53 were for oil and gas wastewater. … “None of it is revolutionary—it’s stuff companies can do today if they wanted to,” Norbeck says.

The process of re-writing the new rule began with initial meetings dating back to 2011. … The DEP has a deadline to finalize the rule in Spring of 2016."

http://archive.alleghenyfront.org/story/pennsylvania-pushes-tougher...

Permalink Reply by Barry D on May 18, 2016 at 10:25am

Paul,

In other words the DEP is doing it's job and this issue does not present any wide spread concern.

And, seriously, 53 spills after thousands of wells have been drilled.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on May 18, 2016 at 10:19am

Frank,

This is another non-issue posted by Paul as part of his on going fear mongering campaign.

Spills are not common or wide spread and therefore do not present a wide spread clear and present danger. There are already regulations in place to deal with them.

The radioactivity issue is bogus since we all experience far more exposure to radioactivity each day from natural sources; it's called NORM.

As for impoundments for storage of produced water., this too is a bogus issue. Here in Ohio use is limited (temporary) and construction is highly regulated. Again, there are regulations in place and these do not present a widespread clear and present danger.

As I stated, this post is just more fear mongering.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on May 18, 2016 at 10:22am

Paul,

You chide Bob and Jack for being relevant.

The article you posted is about North Dakota, hardly relevant to our Marcellus/Utica region.

BTW, you are in correct, Bob and Jack made excellent, relevant points directly related to the issue presented in the article.

Permalink Reply by Robert Bond on May 18, 2016 at 10:43am

Thank you !

0ym9x5ag7ury2Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on May 18, 2016 at 7:05pm

Any time we change the environment around us by some means, those who plan to make the change have an obligation to evaluate how this change will affect humans, animals, plants etc.

The opportunity to make money or do something more cheaply should never outweigh the safety of those who share our Planet.

If you asked to put some of your brine water from a pond that a producer has stored on your land, on the road in the winter to melt the ice, the authorities would say no, you have to do a study of the outcome of years of use of brine on the environment. 

If the authorities come up with the idea of using brine on the road and don't do a study, it's time to speak up. Those who run the government must meet the same standards we would be held to.

I asked an EPA Rep at a meeting in 2011, how Frack Water was being processed and dumped in the Mahoning River, since he said earlier during the meeting that you can't process the harmful products out of the frack water. His answer was DILUTION.

I asked when do you know you have dumped too much Frack Water in the River. He said we watch the life in the river, such as frogs.

Then I asked who is watching the people along the River to see how the water affects them? The answer is no one.  

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on May 25, 2016 at 9:22am

Problems with radioactive fracking waste in Kentucky, also:

"Follow-up tests at a West Virginia company that prepared radioactive fracking waste to be sent to Kentucky revealed material so "hot" that it would need to go to a special landfill for disposal – not the Kentucky municipal dump where earlier shipments were sent, a Kentucky official has revealed.

The disclosure casts some doubt on prior assurances about the radioactive intensity of waste sent to Kentucky..."

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/environment/2016/...

Permalink Reply by Barry D on May 26, 2016 at 9:03am

This is not unusual news in fact it isn't news at all.

And, it isn't radioactive fracking waste.

Drill cuttings contain small amounts of "radioactive" materials. These pose no danger to humans. However, when drill cuttings are prepared for disposal the "radioactive" material may become concentrated raising the level of radioactivity. This material must be disposed of at a proper facility, not the local dump.

Even at the raised levels the material does not pose a significant health risk.

BTW, why do you think there are special disposal sites for this type of material? Because there are other industries that use materials with radioactive content. It isn't isolated to drill cuttings.

This is just more of the fear mongering campaign being conducted by Paul on this site.

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on June 23, 2016 at 4:50pm

Here's a radio story about the radioactive fracking waste in Irvine, Kentucky. The disposal site is near a high school. http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/21/radioactive-fracking-waste/

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on May 26, 2016 at 5:45am

If problematic contain it, clean it up and GO ON !

If problematic  a good reason to further develop and improve the 'Watrrless Fracturing' alternatives.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on May 26, 2016 at 9:05am

Joseph,

It is contained.

It's just more of Paul's fear mongering using misinformation.

Yes we should GO ON! Nothing to see here but hysterics.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service