DR CONRAD VOLZ Contaminants from Brine Water going into creek& streams

[Senec...@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/6/2011 11:52:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, artcal...@gmail.com writes:

From another list-serve.  Some of the highlights are mine.  I high-lighted bladder cancer because that is what Sandra Steingraber has.
--------

Subject: Fw: Contaminants in Brine Water going into regional creeks and streams from sewage plants and even "treatment" plants; it's far worse than just radium

Dr Conrad Volz sent this to a lot of individuals but not to most of the listserves in this area. It deserves wider attention because he has focused on the concentration and pass through of bromides, chlorides, barium, strontium, 2BE and other compounds in addition to the radionucleotides into and through waste water treatment plants leading to probable eventual wide spread health problems with the contamination of creeks, streams and rivers.

 

Here is a link to a video of one of his presentations in PA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmiePoWfjvA

 

I asked him to come over to NYS to speak but he says he's going to be tied up with EPA workshops and hearings and his other activities on this subject. He has been an activist as well as an Assistant Professor in Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh and a researcher on this issue for a while now. He is also founder of The Center for Health Environments and Communities and Fractrackers.

 

Peter

 

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:27 AM

Subject: Contaminants in Brine Water going into regional creeks and streams from sewage plants and even "treatment" plants; it's far worse than just radium

I am ringing the public health alarm bell as loudly as I can regarding contaminants going into streams and rivers in NY-OH-PA-WV and MD from Marcellus and Utica shale gas extraction. I'm sure you have all seen the NY Times series by Ian Urbana that highlighted radium problems last Sunday?

 

Frankly our problems go far beyond radioisotopes in surface water- which certainly is a threat ( and radiation gets attention while some things more toxic might not) but we know now and my group has direct evidence that extremely high levels of bromide-chloride-strontium-barium and even the glycol either called 2-butoxyethanol (added to frac fluid as a solvent and emulsifer) are being directly discharged to surface water from these facilities--at incredible volumes and in high concentrations. So I'm going to be presenting these results first at the EPA workshop on fate and transport of contaminants related to HF at the end of the month-but CHEC is working right now to inform the ATSDR-EPA-all Departments of Health and DEP's of this problem.

 

What is important here is to realize that we are at public health risk from ALL the contaminants in flowback and produced water that are going into local waterways and some of these are entering our waterways AT KNOWN AND MEASURED HIGH LEVELS.

 

Particularly disturbing are the releases of bromide and chloride and bromide in particular. Bromide can form with organic compounds in water-especially during water purification procedures many different halogenated hydrocarbons which are carcinogenic-mutagenic--and even teratogenic. At the end of this email Ive attached an abstract of a review paper on some of these compounds.

 

The Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC) has sampled effluent from three plants that take this flowback/produced or brine water from both conventional and unconventional drilling. At the McKeesport POTW Plant, which receives wastewater from oil and gas operation and then runs the load all at once through their primary and secondary treatment process one can see the slug of bromide come out--it goes from about a 250ppb background up to 900 ppb quickly and then decays gradually over time, Strontium another fingerprint chemical of shale gas drilling shows the same type curve here as Br--Strontium replaces calcium in bone and is particularly something you want to not have children drink.

 

Please take a look at the ppt I've attached [not attached because of list-serv prohibitions] that shows some results from McKeesport POTW, a POTW in Greene County and from the PA Brine Treatment Facility at Josephine operated by Hart Resources----actually most disturbing of all are the levels of contaminants that are coming out of the "real treatment facility"--they are even much much worse than from the sewage treatment plants we studied. Levels of Barium are at 35 ppm--Strontium must not be taken out well as it is coming out at 3000 ppm (this is whopping) and we are finding 2 butoxyethanol coming into the stream from the plant in the mid 50 ppm level---2-BE is also able to penetrate the skin and we have evidence that kids swim in this area and we know it is a stocked trout stream--now this problem probably predates Marcellus as this plant has been getting conventional wastewater from area oil and gas operations for years!

 Now this Josephine facility empties into the Allegheny ultimately and then of course is used as a drinking water source for Pittsburgh--but upstream there are many water intakes such as Freeport--Oakmont etc etc.

 

I send this out widely because I know this wastewater is being disposed of in all the states I outlined above--we could use some help identifing plants that take this water in your state-neighborhood--we would like to expand this study to a more multi-site and multi-state approach

 

Now to the really disturbing issue---the Josephine facility is permitted by PA DEP to be releasing many of the contaminants found at these high levels---Yes it is permissible to discharge under their permit--over 100000 ppm of dissolved solids and Cl and high heavy metals----what we are now looking into is that we looked at things other than those they are permitted for like 2-BE and I think there is a case to shut them down.

 

In the end the only way to guarantee safe drinking water for all residents in all these states is to insist that no wastewater be taken to POTW's or facilities like this Josephine one---and what that really means is that there is not enough wastewater capacity for all the liquids released from the process---so as a public health preventive step all states must limit drilling permits to match wastewater treatment realities. It's the only way to do this--if we have to sample for all these compounds in river water and intake water and finished water --at intervals of from daily to weekly---it will cost tens of millions of dollars yearly for SW PA as a region-----AND FOR PA-WV-MD AND oh we will have a potential 100 million dollar market.

AND IF THIS BECOMES THE STRATEGY-I'M GOING TO LEAVE ACADEMIA IMMEDIATELY AND REENTER THE CONSULTING FIELD SO THAT I CAN INSURE MY HEIRS AND THEIR HEIRS NEVER HAVE TO WORK A DAY IN THEIR LIVES

--of course I'm joking---half joking maybe

 

Dan

 

Mutat Res. 2007 Nov-Dec;636(1-3):178-242. Epub 2007 Sep 12.

Occurrence, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of regulated and emerging disinfection by-products in drinking water: a review and roadmap for research.

Richardson SD, Plewa MJ, Wagner ED, Schoeny R, Demarini DM.

National Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA 30605, USA. richards...@epa.gov

Abstract

Disinfection by-products (DBPs) are formed when disinfectants (chlorine, ozone, chlorine dioxide, or chloramines) react with naturally occurring organic matter, anthropogenic contaminants, bromide, and iodide during the production of drinking water. Here we review 30 years of research on the occurrence, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of 85 DBPs, 11 of which are currently regulated by the U.S., and 74 of which are considered emerging DBPs due to their moderate occurrence levels and/or toxicological properties. These 74 include halonitromethanes, iodo-acids and other unregulated halo-acids, iodo-trihalomethanes (THMs), and other unregulated halomethanes, halofuranones (MX [3-chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone] and brominated MX DBPs), haloamides, haloacetonitriles, tribromopyrrole, aldehydes, and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and other nitrosamines.

Alternative disinfection practices result in drinking water from which extracted organic material is less mutagenic than extracts of chlorinated water. However, the levels of many emerging DBPs are increased by alternative disinfectants (primarily ozone or chloramines) compared to chlorination, and many emerging DBPs are more genotoxic than some of the regulated DBPs. Our analysis identified three categories of DBPs of particular interest. Category 1 contains eight DBPs with some or all of the toxicologic characteristics of human carcinogens: four regulated (bromodichloromethane, dichloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, and bromate) and four unregulated DBPs (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, MX, and NDMA). Categories 2 and 3 contain 43 emerging DBPs that are present at moderate levels (sub- to low-mug/L): category 2 contains 29 of these that are genotoxic (including chloral hydrate and chloroacetaldehyde, which are also a rodent carcinogens); category 3 contains the remaining 14 for which little or no toxicological data are available. In general, the brominated DBPs are both more genotoxic and carcinogenic than are chlorinated compounds, and iodinated DBPs were the most genotoxic of all but have not been tested for carcinogenicity. There were toxicological data gaps for even some of the 11 regulated DBPs, as well as for most of the 74 emerging DBPs. A systematic assessment of DBPs for genotoxicity has been performed for approximately 60 DBPs for DNA damage in mammalian cells and 16 for mutagenicity in Salmonella.

 

A recent epidemiologic study found that much of the risk for bladder cancer associated with drinking water was associated with three factors: THM levels, showering/bathing/swimming (i.e., dermal/inhalation exposure), and genotype (having the GSTT1-1 gene). This finding, along with mechanistic studies, highlights the emerging importance of dermal/inhalation exposure to the THMs, or possibly other DBPs, and the role of genotype for risk for drinking-water-associated bladder cancer. More than 50% of the total organic halogen (TOX) formed by chlorination and more than 50% of the assimilable organic carbon (AOC) formed by ozonation has not been identified chemically. The potential interactions among the 600 identified DBPs in the complex mixture of drinking water to which we are exposed by various routes is not reflected in any of the toxicology studies of individual DBPs. The categories of DBPs described here, the identified data gaps, and the emerging role of dermal/inhalation exposure provide guidance for drinking water and public health research.

Conrad Daniel Volz DrPH, MPH