Radioactive Waste from FRACKING!

Radioactive Waste from FRACKING!

Postby Oscar » Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:13 pm

Spill site is free of radioactive waste, says Corridor Resources

[ http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/ ... z0z5lcTHHH ]

Last Updated: Monday, October 2, 2006 | 9:24 AM AT CBC News

A resource company says it has cleaned up 3,000 litres of material containing a low-level radioactive substance it spilled while drilling for natural gas in the Sussex area in August.
The material that Corridor spilled is called frac sand and is used to fill rock fissures when drilling for natural gas. Frac sand contains some low-level radioactive isotopes.
The spill occurred Aug. 23 at a drill site on land belonging to a family in Penobsquis, said Corridor president Norm Miller.
"It was cleaned up immediately under strict supervision by the Environment Department and no risk of any significance to any personnel," said Miller.
The company buried the material temporarily on another landowner's property, he said.
According to federal regulations, the frac sand must be buried under at least 30 centimetres of soil to be neutralized.

Woman says waste dumped in open pit

However, Beth Nixon, who lives nearby, said the company didn't dispose of the frac sand properly, and instead threw it into an existing open pit.
"It's not buried because I've never seen this pit any deeper," she said. "There is a little bit more sand in it at one end than there had been previously, but I can't see that there's been any substantial change."
An official with the Department of Environment said it has never had to deal with a radioactive spill before. It has handed the case over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
A spokesman for the commission said the company stated that it had disposed of the substance properly, but it hasn't verified this claim by visiting the site.

MORE:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/ ... z0z5lcTHHH ]
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8457
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Radioactive Waste from Horizontal Hydrofracking

Postby Oscar » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:52 pm

Radioactive Waste from Horizontal Hydrofracking

[ http://www.sustainableotsego.org/index. ... Itemid=77# ]

By James L. “Chip” Northrup
[ http://www.otsego2000.org/ ]

In a previous paper,1 I compared the horizontal hydrofracking of shale to a “pipe bomb.” Real bombs have been used to frack shale, including at least one nuclear device at Rulison, Colorado.2 The bomb worked, but the gas was too radioactive to be marketable. Ironically, the horizontal hydrofracking of Marcellus shale poses a similar problem – it produces radioactive waste.
The frack fluid effectively leaches radioactive radium out of the shale. When the frack water is pumped back out of the well, it is laced with radium, a potent carcinogen.3 Based on a recent article in Scientific American, the amount of radium in water from the Marcellus is 267 times the safe limit for disposal, and thousands of times the level considered safe to drink.4
In New York, municipal treatment plants filter or settle sediment out of water. Using this method to treat ‘produced’ water from fracking operations would effectively reduce the sediment in the wastewater to a radioactive sludge, which, depending on the level of contamination, would have to be disposed of as a HAZMAT waste. New York state municipal treatment plants are simply not equipped to do this. Handling the radioactive wastewater would put municipal water treatment workers at risk.
One relatively safe method of disposal would be to inject the radioactive wastewater into a seismically inert formation – such as a salt dome – via a disposal well. Texas has almost 12,000 such permitted disposal wells, all of which are in seismically inert formations. There are few areas in New York that are seismically inactive.5 And there are only 4 permitted disposal wells in New York State.6 New York State is simply not prepared to handle the billions of gallons of radioactive wastewater that the Marcellus is capable of producing. To be treated, that wastewater would have to be reduced to a slurry, by some yet-to-be-built facility, not by municipal wastewater plants. And that slurry would have to be injected into a seismically inert formation.
In theory, all of this is doable, if problematic. But the practical challenges of disposal have yet to be addressed by local governments or the NY DEC. Without appropriate disposal systems in place, radioactive waste is likely to be dumped at municipal water treatment plants, which will be left with radioactive sludge that they cannot get rid of safely. Since some of these radioactive wastes may be shipped across state lines for disposal, they present an interstate problem, which would necessitate the scrutiny of the EPA, which has regulatory authority over radioactive wastes.
Radium decays into radon, a highly carcinogenic gas and the second leading cause of lung cancer.7 Unfortunately, radon is found at elevated levels in the Marcellus shale.8 Parts of the Marcellus are particularly “wet” with propane,9 which has physical properties similar to radon. So radon gas may separate out of Marcellus gas with propane, presenting a health risk to workers who handle Marcellus source propane, and potential hazards to users of such propane, if radon contaminants are not removed prior to sale. 10 Radon contamination may pose a risk to persons that use Marcellus gas in the field, in compressors, truck engines and other equipment.
The risks posed by these radioactive wastes need to be addressed by local governments, the DEC and the EPA before horizontal hydrofracking of shale can be allowed to proceed in New York state.
- - - - - -

1 “Potential Leaks from High Pressure Hydrofracking of Shale,” September 8, 2010.

[ http://63.134.196.109/documents/Northru ... -12-10.pdf ]

2 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulison ]

3 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium ]

4 [ http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... wastewater ]

5 [ http://63.134.196.109/documents/HydroQu ... igures.pdf ]

6 [ http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/29856.html ]

7 [ http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html ]

8 [ http://ny-radon.info/NY_general.html ]

9 [ http://www.pipelineandgastechnology.com ... m67443.php ]

10 [ http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rsftyndthn ... 01-eng.pdf ]
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8457
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

(2006) Corridor Resources BJ Services radioactive frac fluid

Postby Oscar » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:13 pm

(2006) Corridor Resources BJ Services radioactive frac fluid spill - Penobsquis, NB (article below)

In 2006 there was a Frack spill in Penobsquis, with radio active tracer. The following links will connect you to the PDF’s of the document that Corridor Resources put in the mailboxes of local Landowners and concerned Community members:

[ http://www.penobsquis.ca/wp-content/upl ... rst101.pdf ]

[ http://www.penobsquis.ca/wp-content/upl ... ond101.pdf ]

[ http://www.penobsquis.ca/wp-content/upl ... d10pgs.pdf ]

[ http://www.penobsquis.ca/wp-content/upl ... pages1.pdf ]


- Concerned Citizens of Penobsquis, New Brunswick

a few key quotes from the company documents linked above:

"On August 23, 2006, Corridor had an accidental release of frac fluid (water, methanol, and small amounts of various environmentally friendly chemicals) and sand that included trace amounts of low level, short half-life radioactive material...."

"...the Protechnics engineer who works with this radioactive material for a living is exposed to less radiation than an individual who smokes 11/2 packs of cigarettes per day. It is also important to note that the engineer requires no additional protection clothing...."

"...there is no chance of contamination of any fluids, including groundwater." - in my view, that is mighty arrogant, and impossible for anyone to truthfully claim, even a frac'er

"The BJ Services frac'ing equipment was in the final stages of the stimulation operation when a washout of a segment of the frac iron occurred (piping between the pump trucks and the wellhead - see attached pictures)."

"There were no RA tracer beads found outside the lease area." - ah, but did they look, and if they did, how did they look? the radioactive material is tiny, and would not be easy to find. did the company use looking techniques to ensure not finding any? That seems to be the Frac'ing Way.

"It was estimated that 2-4 m3 of frac fluid and 600 - 1200 kg (200 - 400 litres) frac sand was released...." - estimated, and by the company no less.

"The main cause for the incident was the erosion of the "Y" on the frac iron at the point of high velocity and a change in direction of the sand laden fluid stream. The root cause for the failure of this piece of equipment was the frequency of inspection on this equipment."

below from
[ http://www.ratracer.ca/frac_sand.htm ]

HANDLING OF RADIOACTIVE FRAC SAND REGULATIONS

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulations for disposal of sand labeled with a radioactive prescribed substance are as follows:
“Contaminated sand to be buried at the worksite under at least 30 centimeters of soil provided that the specific activity is less than 370 kBq per kilogram of sand.”
“Any other waste disposal method will require specific written approval to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.”
INTERPRETATION
The above regulation refers to “370 kBq of activity” which is the equivalent of 10 microcuries (uCi) of Iridium 192, Scandium 46 and Antimony 124 per kilogram of frac sand. This amount translates into 10 millicuries per tonne of sand which is considerably higher than the amount injected per tonne (1 mCi/Tonne).

CONTAMINATION MONITORING

Returned sand can be assumed to be contaminated and buried as per instructions below under “Burial of Sand”
R.A. Tracer will return to the location to monitor returned frac sand, prepare a contamination survey report and provide instructions on the steps that must be followed to safely satisfy regulation requirements. An additional fee will apply for this service.
All monitoring performed by R,A, Tracer will be with the use of a Ludlum pancake monitor. The following calculations have been made for this specific instrument to correspond with necessary actions that need to be taken. The recorded level and action required are as follows:
LEVEL RECORDED ACTION REQUIRED
0-200 counts per minute Normal disposal method
200-15000 counts per minute Burial of sand on lease
Over 15000 counts per minute R. A. Tracer will contact C.N.S.C. for instructions

BURIAL OF SAND

Once the sand has been recovered in it’s entirety, the oil company must request that R.A. Tracer monitor the returns to establish the level of contamination and supervise the cleanup to satisfy CNSC regulations.
The following actions should be taken to limit the amount of hydrocarbons in the sand to be buried:
Pump a sufficient amount of water into the tank to displace the hydrocarbons out of the sand.
With the use of a vacuum truck , skim the hydrocarbons out of the tank. Care should be taken to ensure that none of the sand is inadvertently picked up.
Dispose of the hydrocarbons in normal fashion.
The sand/water mixture can now be removed from the tank and buried on the lease. The pit for burial should be excavated first and be deep enough to allow a minimum of 30 cm. of soil cover. The sand can be removed with the use of a vacuum truck or manually shovelled into a pit. The following safety tips should be adhered to during this operation:

During clean-out:
Wear protective clothing (gloves, coveralls and boots).
Cover all open skin, abrasions and cuts.
Keep hands away from mouth and nose (no smoking/eating).
Avoid spreading contaminated sand around lease.
Following clean-out:
a. Rinse tools used in clean-out with water.
b. Dispose of gloves used in clean-out.
c. Wash hands in warm soapy water.

(2006) UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE CONTAMINATED SAND BE TAKEN TO A RECYCLING FACILITY.

(2006) Spill site is free of radioactive waste, says Corridor Resources

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-bruns ... spill.html ]

Last Updated: Monday, October 2, 2006 | 9:24 AM AT CBC News
QUOTE: “A spokesman for the commission said the company stated that it had disposed of the substance properly, but it hasn't verified this claim by visiting the site.”
A resource company says it has cleaned up 3,000 litres of material containing a low-level radioactive substance it spilled while drilling for natural gas in the Sussex area in August.
The material that Corridor spilled is called frac sand and is used to fill rock fissures when drilling for natural gas. Frac sand contains some low-level radioactive isotopes.
The spill occurred Aug. 23 at a drill site on land belonging to a family in Penobsquis, said Corridor president Norm Miller.
"It was cleaned up immediately under strict supervision by the Environment Department and no risk of any significance to any personnel," said Miller.
The company buried the material temporarily on another landowner's property, he said.
According to federal regulations, the frac sand must be buried under at least 30 centimetres of soil to be neutralized.
Woman says waste dumped in open pit
However, Beth Nixon, who lives nearby, said the company didn't dispose of the frac sand properly, and instead threw it into an existing open pit. "It's not buried because I've never seen this pit any deeper," she said. "There is a little bit more sand in it at one end than there had been previously, but I can't see that there's been any substantial change."
An official with the Department of Environment said it has never had to deal with a radioactive spill before. It has handed the case over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
A spokesman for the commission said the company stated that it had disposed of the substance properly, but it hasn't verified this claim by visiting the site.
- - - - -
WELCOME TO CORRIDOR RESOURCES INC.
[ http://www.corridor.ca/ ]

Corridor Resources Inc. is a junior resource company engaged in the exploration for and development and production of petroleum and natural gas onshore in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Québec and offshore in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Corridor currently has natural gas reserves and production in the McCully Field near Sussex, New Brunswick and discovered crude oil reserves in the Caledonia Field, near Sussex, New Brunswick in 2008.
In addition, Corridor has contingent resources and discovered shale gas resources in Elgin, New Brunswick.
Corridor's common shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange (the "TSX"), under the symbol "CDH".

= = = = = =
Last edited by Oscar on Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8457
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Fracking linked to radioactive river water in Pennsylvania

Postby Oscar » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:57 am

Fracking linked to radioactive river water in Pennsylvania

[ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... a/2904829/ ]

by Wendy Koch, USA Today, October 2, 2013
[ http://tinyurl.com/ld5jxff ]

Has fracking contaminated water supplies? A Duke University study says its wastewater wasn't adequately treated before being released into a Pennsylvania river, causing elevated levels of radioactivity.

River water in western Pennsylvania has elevated levels of radioactivity, some of it from fluids discharged after natural gas extraction, says a Duke University study today that's likely to stir more controversy over the booming business of "fracking."

Radium levels were about 200 times greater in sediment from a creek where wastewater was discharged from a treatment plant than in sediment upstream, according to the peer-reviewed study in the Environmental Science & Technology journal. The amount exceeded thresholds for safe disposal of radioactive waste.

"We were surprised by the magnitude of radioactivity," says co-author Avner Vengosh, geochemistry professor at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment. "It's unusual to find this level," he says, urging that other sites be investigated and that such water not discharged.

Treatment plants can remove much of the radioactivity and chemicals -- but not all, the Duke study says. Between August 2010 and November 2012, researchers sampled sediment from Blacklick Creek, where wastewater was discharged by the Josephine Brine Treatment Facility about an hour east of Pittsburgh, and compared it with stream water above and below the disposal site. It found that some of the effluent came from Marcellus Shale fluids, which are naturally high in salinity and radioactivity.

The study is the latest in a bevy of research into the environmental impacts -- both water and the air -- of hydraulic fracturing or fracking. In this process, which has contributed to a surge in U.S. natural gas production, water mixed with sand and potentially toxic chemicals is blasted underground to break apart shale rock and release the gas.

An earlier Duke study, released in June by some of the same authors, found that drinking water wells near fracking sites in northeastern Pennsylvania were six times more likely to be contaminated than other wells. Other research has linked earthquakes to wells where fracking's wastewater is injected deep underground.

But other research has found little harm from fracking. Duke and federal scientists, in a study released earlier this year, found no evidence that shale gas production in Arkansas caused groundwater contamination. A Department of Energy study this year also found no proof that fracking chemicals tainted drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site.

Scientists attribute the mixed research results to varying geology and industry practices nationwide. Fracking fluids are sometimes reused or disposed of in deep injection wells, but in some cases, they are treated and released into public waterways.

Years of such disposal have created "potential environmental risks for thousands of years to come," says Vengosh, adding that the water will need to be cleaned.

MORE:

[ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... a/2904829/ ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8457
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm


Return to FRACKING

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron