Western State Regulators Struggling to Keep up with Radioactive Fracking and Drilling Waste: New Report

1-DSC09675
on

The question of how to handle the toxic waste from fracking and other oil and gas activities is one of the most intractable issues confronting environmental regulators. Not only because of the sheer volume of waste generated nationwide, but also because some of the radioactive materials involved have a half-life of over 1,500 years, making the consequences of decision-making today especiallyย long-lasting.

Every year, the oil and gas industry generates roughly 21 billion barrels of wastewater and millions of tons of solid waste, much of it carrying a mix of naturally occurring radioactive materials, and some of it bearing so much radioactive material that it is not safe to drink or even, on far more rare occasions, to simply have it nearย you.

But unlike most other industries, since 1988, the oil and gas industry has benefitted from an exception to national hazardous waste handling laws, which punts control of this radioactive waste from the federal government down to each individual state โ€” no matter how dangerous the waste mightย be.

Over the past decade, states have often proved ill-prepared to handle the flood of waste from the shale drilling rush, sometimes because drillers struck oil or gas in a region with little prior experience with drilling’s unique hazards, and other times because the political sway of a wealthy and well-connected industry or a lack of resources for environmental regulation left state rules vague or poorly enforced, environmentalistsย say.

Both types of problems are highlighted in a new report, published Nov. 19 by the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC), that examines how radioactive wastes are handled under various stateย laws.

โ€œ[S]tate regulatory frameworks remain sparse, where they exist at all,โ€ the report, titled No Time To Waste, concluded, after a review of rules governing radioactive waste from oil and gas operations in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, andย Wyoming.

Some of those states, like Wyoming and North Dakota, have long-established histories of intensive oil exploration, while others, like Montana and Idaho have far less drilling activity but nonetheless have found themselves grappling in recent years with radioactive waste from neighboring states and as far away asย Pennsylvania.

The report details a string of illegal dumping incidents, including the dumping of thousands of pounds of filter socks, used to filter wastewater, on a truck bed in Watford City in Feb. 2014; a 2013 incident where roughly 1,000 filter socks were illegally snuck into a municipal landfill; and the discovery in March, 2014 of over 200 trash bags stuffed with radioactive waste at an abandoned gas station in Noonan, ND, which made national headlines.

That year, an Associated Press investigation uncovered over 150 attempts to dump radioactive waste at landfills not qualified to accept it โ€” and that state regulators failed to fine or sanction anyone over the attempted illicitย dumping.

And that’s in North Dakota, which is the only state with a โ€œrelatively comprehensiveโ€ approach to regulating the drilling rush’s radioactive materials, the WORC reportย concluded.

โ€œOil and gas companies essentially handle and dispose of radioactive waste at their own discretion,โ€ said Bob LeResche, WORC Chair from Clearmont, Wyoming. โ€œSome have resorted to the cheapest option, illegally dumpingย it.โ€

Concerns about corner cutting through illegal waste disposal have grown as oil prices have plunged over the pastย year.

And while, in theory, lower prices should lead to less drilling, some operators are trying different tactics to deal with the price slump, including continuing to drill wells but waiting to perform the final steps, including fracking, in the hopes of locking in low rig prices and then starting production when prices recover. In North Dakota, for example, over 1,000 oil wells had been drilled but not yet fracked as of September, compared to 13,000 wells producing oil and gas in theย state.

Scientists warn that if this radioactive waste is dumped in regular landfills, water running off from the landfills after rainstorms could carry radioactive materials into rivers, streams and drinking water supplies, in part because companies treating wastewater collected from landfills may not know that radioactive materials areย present.

Across the U.S., cuttings are finding their ways into these local landfills. โ€œIn just the past two years, over 500,000 tons of drill cuttings and shale gas waste products have been buried in the municipal waste landfill in our county,โ€ Bill Hughes, Chairman of the Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority, said earlier thisย year.

In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a regulatory determination that, even though the waste from oil and gas exploration and production was toxic, there was no need for the nation’s hazardous waste handling laws, under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act’s Subpart C, toย apply.

But that notion has increasingly come under fire, not only in Western states, but also in theย Northeast.

In August, a coaliton of environmental groups announced their intention to sue the EPA to force it to issue regulations for the industry’s toxic and radioactiveย waste.

โ€œThirty years ago the Environmental Protection Agency exempted oil and gas waste from federal classification as hazardous, not because the waste isnโ€™t hazardous, but because EPA determined state oversight was adequate,โ€ Earthworksโ€™ Eastern Program Coordinator Nadia Steinzor, said in a statement when a study detailing the failures to control this waste in the Northeast’s Marcellus shale was released earlier this year. โ€œBut our analysis shows that states arenโ€™t keeping track of this waste or disposing of itย properly.โ€

Similarly, Western states have struggled to keep up with radioactive waste from drilling. โ€œThough North Dakota has occupied much of the spotlight on this issue, other states have begun to see a rising tide of radioactive waste, as well,โ€ the WORC reportย concluded.

โ€œAmong New Western states, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana lack formal regulations, and only Montana has begun to address radioactive oil and gas waste. Idaho has several regulations in place, but no statewide disposal limit. Further east, South Dakota has a radioactivity limit for solid waste disposal, but after that regulations run out,โ€ WORCย wrote.

The report criticized the way that Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) calculates whether the industry’s waste is dangerous enough to require regulation. โ€œContrary to the DEQโ€™s conclusion, then, Wyomingโ€™s TENORM waste products may actually have radioactivity concentrations that are on par withโ€”or even higher thanโ€”those of neighboring states, because those wastes are emerging from soils that have higher concentrations already,โ€ the researchersย reported.

In Idaho, despite the relatively small presence of the drilling industry, radioactivity is a concern because it’s home to one of the nation’s largest commercial disposal sites for radioactive waste, including fracking waste. โ€œThe facilityโ€™s limit for radioactivity concentration is 1,500 picocuries per gram of radiumโ€”more than 30 times the limit deemed safe by Argonneโ€™s North Dakota study,โ€ WORC wrote. โ€œThis limit dwarfs the levels accepted in nearby states. As a result, Idaho receives wastes from all over the country, sometimes from as far away as the Pennsylvania shaleย fields.โ€

Montana, which similarly has relatively little fracking, has been inundated with waste from neighboring North Dakota’s Bakkenย shale.

โ€œMontana has a radioactivity limit of 30 picocuries per gram, meaning that it can accommodate many of the oilfield wastes that exceed North Dakotaโ€™s limit of 5 picocuries per gram; as a result, North Dakota generators and waste transporters have quickly flocked to this new facility,โ€ WORCย wrote.

North Dakota is in the process of updating its rules for radioactive waste, but while many of the rules under consideration are tougher than existing state laws, the state plans to raise its maximum limits to above Montana’s cap, making it 10 times less strict than before theย update.

โ€œWithout thorough, rigorous, and consistent oversight from the state, especially in the face of a higher radioactivity limit,โ€ Larry Heilmann, a retired biochemist from Fargo, N.D., said in a WORC statement on the report, โ€œit is doubtful that the new rules will result in improvements on theย ground.โ€

Photo Credit:ย Tom Reichner | Tom Reichner / Shutterstock.com“>Shutterstock.com
ย 

1-DSC09675
Sharon Kelly is an attorney and investigative reporter based in Pennsylvania. She was previously a senior correspondent at The Capitol Forum and, prior to that, she reported for The New York Times, The Guardian, The Nation, Earth Island Journal, and a variety of other print and online publications.

Related Posts

on

Meet those aiming to capitalize on Trump's re-election by slashing climate action, from Koch network fixtures to Project 2025 and beyond.

Meet those aiming to capitalize on Trump's re-election by slashing climate action, from Koch network fixtures to Project 2025 and beyond.
on

The elite agency has been going all out to win positive press for the hosts of the UN climate talks.

The elite agency has been going all out to win positive press for the hosts of the UN climate talks.
on

One of the sponsors of the UK pavilion has worked with major polluters to help them extract more oil and gas.

One of the sponsors of the UK pavilion has worked with major polluters to help them extract more oil and gas.
on

The Heritage Foundationโ€™s Project 2025 blueprint proposes sweeping anti-climate policies.

The Heritage Foundationโ€™s Project 2025 blueprint proposes sweeping anti-climate policies.