facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Fracking wastewater one step closer to moving by barge



Published: Fri, November 15, 2013 @ 12:10 a.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS NOV. 29

By Jamison Cocklin

jcocklin@vindy.com

YOUNGSTOWN

The U.S. Coast Guard is moving forward with a proposal that would allow fracking wastewater to be transported by barge on inland waterways, opening a draft policy to public comment that will end Nov. 29.

Transport companies, oil and gas producers and others working in Ohio and Pennsylvania have expressed a desire to use waterways such as the Ohio River to move wastewater by barge for recycling or disposal.

For several years, the federal government, under its powers to regulate interstate commerce, has mulled authorizing the proposal. For decades, merchants have used rivers, especially the Ohio, to ship commodities of all kinds, including steel, grain, minerals, coal, oil, gas and chemicals.

With 98 percent of all the brine generated or entering Ohio disposed of in injection wells, and few options in Pennsylvania to do the same, proponents of the proposal say it will help facilitate movement of the waste to other states and reduce the truck traffic on roads in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Patrick Creighton, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said the industry group thinks wastewater transport via barge can be done in a safe way.

“The Coast Guard is going to move forward in a way that’s responsible,” Creighton said.

James Guttman, CEO of the Guttman Group near Pittsburgh, which sources and delivers oil and gasoline to regional stations and transports the commodities by barge on the Ohio River, said his company is planning to provide comment in support of the draft policy.

“These are tank barges. They’re not open-hopper barges with coal on them; they’re completely enclosed,” he said. “After they’re built, they’re inspected by the Coast Guard, the people that transfer goods to them are licensed by the Coast Guard and the people that push the barges by boat are licensed. They’re scrutinized every step of the way by the right people.”

The Ohio Oil and Gas Association told The Vindicator in May that it supports the proposal as well.

Although it did not cite environmental hazards in its proposal, the Coast Guard did recommend a number of safeguards for workers coming in close contact with the waste, which contains light radioactive and toxic metals from its contact with underground rocks during drilling.

Erika Staaf of PennEnvironment said barge transport is no improvement on current methods.

“Transporting drilling waste by truck leads to increased air pollution, risks accidents and spills, puts undue pressure on local roads and infrastructure; transporting this waste by barge in our nation’s rivers is unnecessarily risky,” she wrote in an email.

Staaf faulted the Coast Guard proposal for not specifically mentioning environmental safeguards, since any spill on rivers such as the Ohio or Monongahela would have major cleanup costs. She also said the public should be given more time to comment, beyond the time left.

A standard barge tow running down the Ohio River averages 15 barges tied together. They carry the cargo equivalent of 1,200 tractor-trailers, according to the Columbiana County Port Authority.

Approval of the proposal could come sometime after the public commenting period concludes.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.


Comments

1glbtactivist(250 comments)posted 10 months, 1 week ago

If this doesn't spell disaster, what does? Huge quantities of very poisonous waste being hauled on a waterway that is the drinking water for millions of people? And where are they shipping the waste to? If if can be purified somewhere else, why isn't it being purified here? Why does our government keep selling us out to a few rich, greedy, businessmen? If they can't figure out a way to safely dispose of their waste, then they should not frack.

Suggest removal:

2RobX(59 comments)posted 10 months, 1 week ago

It's not "very poisonous waste." Anti-frackers make it sound like it will cause a nuclear explosion and wipe out all life for ten miles around. That's baloney.

It's less radioactive than your house's smoke alarm. You could spread it on the road in winter and not tell any difference from the effects of road salt.

The creep who dumped it into the Mahoning must be punished. But what have you heard about downstream problems in Youngstown or Lowellville or New Castle or Beaver PA or East Liverpool or further downstream? NOTHING!

Suggest removal:

376Ytown(1242 comments)posted 10 months, 1 week ago

No amount of radioactivity is "safe" and exposure is cumulative.

"Radiation levels in fracking wastewater were first addressed in a December 2011 U.S. Geological Survey report that found that millions of barrels of wastewater from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania and conventional wells in New York were 3,609 times more radioactive than the federal limit for drinking water and 300 times more radioactive than a Nuclear Regulatory Commission limit for nuclear plant discharges."
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/05/ra...

Suggest removal:

4RobX(59 comments)posted 10 months, 1 week ago

@76Ytown

"No amount of radioactivity is "safe" and exposure is cumulative."

You'll get far more radioactivity from other sources than you'd ever get from fracking waste. A commercial air flight subjects you to a significant amount of radiation. Radon in basements is another source. Concrete tends to be slightly radioactive. Google "sources of radioactivity" and see what comes up.

Are the people downstream of Lupo's dumping glowing in the dark? No. This radioactivity thing just another example of anti-fracker mountains out of molehills.

Suggest removal:

576Ytown(1242 comments)posted 10 months, 1 week ago

RobX: Yes there are other sources, but to further understand radiation go to this link:

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understa...

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/402...

Suggest removal:

6UticaShale(854 comments)posted 10 months, 1 week ago

Yeah, 76YTown is the authority on this radiation subject. Never mind he does not stand by his credentials or name. Never mind he cuts and paste. He is who we must believe, Do not beleive the Army of scientist and regulators and Global industry. Whoever YTown is, he is who we must believe in.

Suggest removal:

776Ytown(1242 comments)posted 10 months, 1 week ago

UticaShale: I gave you the link to the EPA. If you don't want to educate yourself it's not my problem.

Suggest removal:

8UticaShale(854 comments)posted 10 months, 1 week ago

I worked around nuclear ballistic missiles for two years with a top secret technical knowledge clearance, I guess you are right I need to get educated.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport