This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The following sourced information was removed from this web page and was edited in a POV manner, and/or replaced with unsourced PR material, or buried at the end of the article. Will try to reinsert. For other editors' info, the altered content was:
...The Philadelphia Water Department's lack of attention to the potential impact of Marcellus Shale gas drilling ( hydraulic fracturing) has been criticized. [1] [2] [3] The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the Philadelphia Water Department have been investigating the impact of hydraulic fracturing wastewater on water quality and radionuclide levels in Pennsylvania waterways, [4] [5]. The PADEP has resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for access to this data. [6]"
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found elevated iodine-131 (I-131) levels in Philadelphia's drinking water several times since 2007 during routine quarterly monitoring. [7] [8] Iodine-131 is used to diagnose and treat thyroid cancer, is produced via nuclear fission, is a byproduct of nuclear power and weapons testing, [9] and is a tracer used in hydraulic fracturing. [10] [11] Iodine-131 is also used in annual tests for leaks in injection wells containing waste. [12] Originally the elevated levels were suspected to be related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster or medical waste. [13] By March 2012 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection had ruled out the nuclear disaster, local nuclear energy production, or hospitals as sources and concluded by process of elimination that the episodically elevated levels were probably caused by patients receiving iodine therapy for the treatment of thyroid cancer. [11]
From April 2011 to April 2012 the PWD, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the US EPA conducted an intensive surveillance program to characterize I-131 in source water and determine its origins. Weekly monitoring produced 151 treated drinking water and 445 source water samples. Most readings from the Queens Lane and Belmont facilities were low (< 1pCi/L), but samples with measurable (> 1pCi/L) I-131 were found. [5] Spikes were detected in the Schuylkill, downstream of Reading, Norristown and Pottstown. [14] Spikes of 684 and 285 pCi/L were measured downstream of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and one spike from an upstream WWTP effluent contained 1080 pCi/L. [5] The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is 3.00 pCi/L. [15] The Philadelphia Water Department, the EPA, and Water Research Foundation suggested that wastewater effluent was one possible source. [14] [11] The PWD said that the water was safe to drink and posed no immediate risk of harm. [14]
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection strongly resisted providing the AP and other news organizations with information about complaints related to drilling. [2] In December 2011 Radium-228, a technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials ( TENORM) found in hydraulic fracturing wastewater, was detected at levels within the risk range in Philadelphia's drinking water for the first time during EPA's routine annual monitoring. [16] At that time the EPA stopped posting Philadelphia's levels of Radium-226 and Radium-228, both radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing, on EPA's Envirofacts web site. [17] The PADEP is required to collect data on "potential radiation exposure to workers, the public and the environment resulting from certain materials generated by gas and oil exploration and production activities," but has refused to share this information. PA's Office of Open Records ruled that the public was entitled to access data from the PADEP’s study of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material, or TENORM, associated with gas and oil extraction, but courts ruled that the sample data is exempt from disclosure to the public under the state's Right-To-Know law because it constituted records of a noncriminal investigation. [6]
Experts convened to discuss the issue were uncertain regarding the significance of the elevated I-131 levels. They identified gaps in the understanding of the phenomena, including the number and geographic distribution of drinking water plants with Iodine-131 in their source water, the levels of Iodine-131 in those areas, and the effectiveness of removal processes in typical water and wastewater treatment plants. They reported that more information is needed regarding the frequency of I-131 treatments in the catchment areas of water treatment plant source waters and the locations where patients may be expected to discharge I-131 to sewers. Their report indicated that more information is also needed regarding the potential contributions of sources such as veterinary treatments, septic systems, Sanitary Sewer Overflows, Combined Sewer Overflows, and hydro-fracturing, and of the impact of I-131 to the ecology of receiving waters. [11] The report noted that at this time there are no "off-the-shelf" large scale drinking water treatment options for I-131 available, little research to provide a basis for developing new water treatment approaches, and that known treatment options are costly. [11]
In October, 2012 EPA's Rad Net's periodic Iodine-131 drinking water readings were elevated to 5.46 pCi/L (the highest reading in the US) at the Belmont facility and to 3.28 pCi/L at Queens Lane. EPA's July readings were 2.83 pCi/L and 3.65 pCi/L respectively. [18] The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is 3.00 pCi/L. [15] David Allard, Director of the Bureau of Radiation Protection for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), [19] responded that the elevated levels do not pose a health issue. [18] Joanne Dahme of the Philadelphia Water Department explained that whereas many towns get their drinking water from groundwater, Philadelphia's water intakes are on the Schuylkill River, which is fed by streams whose sources include treated effluent from sewage plants. October was a dry month, so much of the river water may have consisted of effluent, which could include excreted Iodine-131. [18] The October 2012 readings were deleted from the web site in February 2013 and reposted in March 2013. No quarterly readings have been posted since October 2012. [15]
Also problematic may be the high levels of Bromide released into the rivers. The Bromide in the water combines with chlorine, which is used to disinfect drinking water at water treatment plants, and forms trihalomethanes (THMs). [20] The levels of THMs detected in Philadelphia's water have fluctuated. In 2011 the average readings were between 39-42ppb, with a range of 17-87ppb. The EPA MCL for THMs is 80ppb. Long term exposure to trihalomethanes increases the risk cancer, especially bladder cancer. [20]
The Philadelphia Water Department officials' lack of assertive action in addressing the potential impact of Marcellus Shale gas drilling on Philadelphia's drinking water has been criticized. [1] [3] The bulk of waste from hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania is disposed of or used within the state. [3] Not all companies submit reports on production or waste. [3] Council members have been lobbied to oppose gas development, due to concerns that hydraulic fracturing threatens the city's water. [21] The first Marcellus exploratory wells in the Delaware basin were drilled in 2010 in Wayne County, approximately 180 miles upstream from Philadelphia's drinking water intakes. [21] There are also drilling waste processing facilities upstream, including Waste Recovery Solutions, Inc., about 80 miles upstream in Myerstown, Pennsylvania. [22] [23] Officials say that although they are concerned about the negative environmental effects of drilling in the Upper Delaware River, gas drilling is only one of many potential threats with which they must deal, such as agricultural runoff, chemicals, spilled fuel, and treated waste water. [21] Any spills from the wells in Wayne County would take about three days to work their way down to the drinking water intakes. Officials said they would monitor the spills in the same manner as they do the dozen or so other spills occurring each year. [21]
"The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection strongly resisted providing the AP and other news organizations with information about complaints related to drilling. [2] In December 2011 Radium-228, a technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials ( TENORM) found in hydraulic fracturing wastewater, was detected at levels within the risk range in Philadelphia's drinking water for the first time during EPA's routine annual monitoring. [16] At that time the EPA stopped posting Philadelphia's levels of Radium-226 and Radium-228, both radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing, on EPA's Envirofacts web site. [17] The PADEP is required to collect data on "potential radiation exposure to workers, the public and the environment resulting from certain materials generated by gas and oil exploration and production activities," but has refused to share this information. PA's Office of Open Records ruled that the public was entitled to access data from the PADEP’s study of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material, or TENORM, associated with gas and oil extraction, but courts ruled that the sample data is exempt from disclosure to the public under the state's Right-To-Know law because it constituted records of a noncriminal investigation. [6]"
"As noted above, the RadNet results for Philadelphia's drinking water indicated that iodine-131 levels were nearly twice EPA's MCL. In response to recent data, the department reviewed the RadNet database in consult with EPA and PADEP and developed a Radionuclides Joint Action Plan in April 2011. As mentioned above, Philadelphia Water is conducting a multi-phased watershed sampling and assessment program for I-131 with the goal of characterizing I-131 levels in the Schuylkill River watershed.
Through the RadNet sampling program, EPA detected levels of I-131 in a number of drinking water samples before and since the Japanese nuclear incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The EPA sample results for I-131 published in the April 2012 RadNet posting are unrelated to radiation from Japan and other nuclear-power sources in the Philadelphia area. [24] [25]" Smm201`0 ( talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A new editor has added material whose source is almost exclusively the PWD website and watersheds site. This information should ideally be verified by more citations from reliable sources such as news reports, independent research studies, etc. The PWD and PADEP have a history about not being forthcoming with the public (see above). This appears to be more of the same. I have reinserted information that was changed in a POV manner (white-washed). Smm201`0 ( talk) 13:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. As we have both taken interest in the Philadelphia Water page, I noticed you have detailed a large section on Iodine 131. All sources I have found on this topic say that experts assure there is no threat from Iodine 131 in the water and it is not listed as one of the department's main issues. For this reason, I feel it does not need such a large summary on the Philadelphia Water page. If you want I can share my sources here, and we can collaborate on how to restructure this section to an appropriate length that indicates the department's involvement with this topic. Let me know what you think or if you have other ideas. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleanwaterguru24 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear CWG24, It is great that Philadelphia is trying to do something to turn things around. You wrote that, "Forbe's reference to Philadelphia being the most toxic city was widely disputed. 3/5 sources that the writer used were from Sperling's Best Places which advises users not to assume the content on the site is without errors." Just because something was disputed or there were different perspectives doesn't mean that it should be omitted altogether. It means that there is not agreement. In cases like this when reliable sources conflict, it is best to present both sides, citing all sources of information. The data used by the Forbes article was from the EPA, EWG, and Sperlings...and was described in Forbes, a reliable source. In addition, sometimes the headline of an article will state one thing to get readers' attention, but the contents of the article will present a different picture. It is good to read the article thoroughly. If the information in the Forbe's article was disputed, please cite the reliable sources that disputed it as well. Smm201`0 ( talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Philadelphia Water Department. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
EPA radiation
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rad Net
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Iodine-131 also is a byproduct of nuclear power plants. But officials have ruled out the Limerick nuclear power plant, located on the Schuylkill south of Pottstown, and any of the region's medical, research, or pharmaceutical firms as the source of the iodine-131. By excluding everything else, they settled on the patients themselves as the likely source.Cite error: The named reference "Bauer2012" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The following sourced information was removed from this web page and was edited in a POV manner, and/or replaced with unsourced PR material, or buried at the end of the article. Will try to reinsert. For other editors' info, the altered content was:
...The Philadelphia Water Department's lack of attention to the potential impact of Marcellus Shale gas drilling ( hydraulic fracturing) has been criticized. [1] [2] [3] The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the Philadelphia Water Department have been investigating the impact of hydraulic fracturing wastewater on water quality and radionuclide levels in Pennsylvania waterways, [4] [5]. The PADEP has resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for access to this data. [6]"
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found elevated iodine-131 (I-131) levels in Philadelphia's drinking water several times since 2007 during routine quarterly monitoring. [7] [8] Iodine-131 is used to diagnose and treat thyroid cancer, is produced via nuclear fission, is a byproduct of nuclear power and weapons testing, [9] and is a tracer used in hydraulic fracturing. [10] [11] Iodine-131 is also used in annual tests for leaks in injection wells containing waste. [12] Originally the elevated levels were suspected to be related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster or medical waste. [13] By March 2012 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection had ruled out the nuclear disaster, local nuclear energy production, or hospitals as sources and concluded by process of elimination that the episodically elevated levels were probably caused by patients receiving iodine therapy for the treatment of thyroid cancer. [11]
From April 2011 to April 2012 the PWD, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and the US EPA conducted an intensive surveillance program to characterize I-131 in source water and determine its origins. Weekly monitoring produced 151 treated drinking water and 445 source water samples. Most readings from the Queens Lane and Belmont facilities were low (< 1pCi/L), but samples with measurable (> 1pCi/L) I-131 were found. [5] Spikes were detected in the Schuylkill, downstream of Reading, Norristown and Pottstown. [14] Spikes of 684 and 285 pCi/L were measured downstream of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and one spike from an upstream WWTP effluent contained 1080 pCi/L. [5] The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is 3.00 pCi/L. [15] The Philadelphia Water Department, the EPA, and Water Research Foundation suggested that wastewater effluent was one possible source. [14] [11] The PWD said that the water was safe to drink and posed no immediate risk of harm. [14]
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection strongly resisted providing the AP and other news organizations with information about complaints related to drilling. [2] In December 2011 Radium-228, a technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials ( TENORM) found in hydraulic fracturing wastewater, was detected at levels within the risk range in Philadelphia's drinking water for the first time during EPA's routine annual monitoring. [16] At that time the EPA stopped posting Philadelphia's levels of Radium-226 and Radium-228, both radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing, on EPA's Envirofacts web site. [17] The PADEP is required to collect data on "potential radiation exposure to workers, the public and the environment resulting from certain materials generated by gas and oil exploration and production activities," but has refused to share this information. PA's Office of Open Records ruled that the public was entitled to access data from the PADEP’s study of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material, or TENORM, associated with gas and oil extraction, but courts ruled that the sample data is exempt from disclosure to the public under the state's Right-To-Know law because it constituted records of a noncriminal investigation. [6]
Experts convened to discuss the issue were uncertain regarding the significance of the elevated I-131 levels. They identified gaps in the understanding of the phenomena, including the number and geographic distribution of drinking water plants with Iodine-131 in their source water, the levels of Iodine-131 in those areas, and the effectiveness of removal processes in typical water and wastewater treatment plants. They reported that more information is needed regarding the frequency of I-131 treatments in the catchment areas of water treatment plant source waters and the locations where patients may be expected to discharge I-131 to sewers. Their report indicated that more information is also needed regarding the potential contributions of sources such as veterinary treatments, septic systems, Sanitary Sewer Overflows, Combined Sewer Overflows, and hydro-fracturing, and of the impact of I-131 to the ecology of receiving waters. [11] The report noted that at this time there are no "off-the-shelf" large scale drinking water treatment options for I-131 available, little research to provide a basis for developing new water treatment approaches, and that known treatment options are costly. [11]
In October, 2012 EPA's Rad Net's periodic Iodine-131 drinking water readings were elevated to 5.46 pCi/L (the highest reading in the US) at the Belmont facility and to 3.28 pCi/L at Queens Lane. EPA's July readings were 2.83 pCi/L and 3.65 pCi/L respectively. [18] The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is 3.00 pCi/L. [15] David Allard, Director of the Bureau of Radiation Protection for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), [19] responded that the elevated levels do not pose a health issue. [18] Joanne Dahme of the Philadelphia Water Department explained that whereas many towns get their drinking water from groundwater, Philadelphia's water intakes are on the Schuylkill River, which is fed by streams whose sources include treated effluent from sewage plants. October was a dry month, so much of the river water may have consisted of effluent, which could include excreted Iodine-131. [18] The October 2012 readings were deleted from the web site in February 2013 and reposted in March 2013. No quarterly readings have been posted since October 2012. [15]
Also problematic may be the high levels of Bromide released into the rivers. The Bromide in the water combines with chlorine, which is used to disinfect drinking water at water treatment plants, and forms trihalomethanes (THMs). [20] The levels of THMs detected in Philadelphia's water have fluctuated. In 2011 the average readings were between 39-42ppb, with a range of 17-87ppb. The EPA MCL for THMs is 80ppb. Long term exposure to trihalomethanes increases the risk cancer, especially bladder cancer. [20]
The Philadelphia Water Department officials' lack of assertive action in addressing the potential impact of Marcellus Shale gas drilling on Philadelphia's drinking water has been criticized. [1] [3] The bulk of waste from hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania is disposed of or used within the state. [3] Not all companies submit reports on production or waste. [3] Council members have been lobbied to oppose gas development, due to concerns that hydraulic fracturing threatens the city's water. [21] The first Marcellus exploratory wells in the Delaware basin were drilled in 2010 in Wayne County, approximately 180 miles upstream from Philadelphia's drinking water intakes. [21] There are also drilling waste processing facilities upstream, including Waste Recovery Solutions, Inc., about 80 miles upstream in Myerstown, Pennsylvania. [22] [23] Officials say that although they are concerned about the negative environmental effects of drilling in the Upper Delaware River, gas drilling is only one of many potential threats with which they must deal, such as agricultural runoff, chemicals, spilled fuel, and treated waste water. [21] Any spills from the wells in Wayne County would take about three days to work their way down to the drinking water intakes. Officials said they would monitor the spills in the same manner as they do the dozen or so other spills occurring each year. [21]
"The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection strongly resisted providing the AP and other news organizations with information about complaints related to drilling. [2] In December 2011 Radium-228, a technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials ( TENORM) found in hydraulic fracturing wastewater, was detected at levels within the risk range in Philadelphia's drinking water for the first time during EPA's routine annual monitoring. [16] At that time the EPA stopped posting Philadelphia's levels of Radium-226 and Radium-228, both radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing, on EPA's Envirofacts web site. [17] The PADEP is required to collect data on "potential radiation exposure to workers, the public and the environment resulting from certain materials generated by gas and oil exploration and production activities," but has refused to share this information. PA's Office of Open Records ruled that the public was entitled to access data from the PADEP’s study of technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material, or TENORM, associated with gas and oil extraction, but courts ruled that the sample data is exempt from disclosure to the public under the state's Right-To-Know law because it constituted records of a noncriminal investigation. [6]"
"As noted above, the RadNet results for Philadelphia's drinking water indicated that iodine-131 levels were nearly twice EPA's MCL. In response to recent data, the department reviewed the RadNet database in consult with EPA and PADEP and developed a Radionuclides Joint Action Plan in April 2011. As mentioned above, Philadelphia Water is conducting a multi-phased watershed sampling and assessment program for I-131 with the goal of characterizing I-131 levels in the Schuylkill River watershed.
Through the RadNet sampling program, EPA detected levels of I-131 in a number of drinking water samples before and since the Japanese nuclear incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The EPA sample results for I-131 published in the April 2012 RadNet posting are unrelated to radiation from Japan and other nuclear-power sources in the Philadelphia area. [24] [25]" Smm201`0 ( talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A new editor has added material whose source is almost exclusively the PWD website and watersheds site. This information should ideally be verified by more citations from reliable sources such as news reports, independent research studies, etc. The PWD and PADEP have a history about not being forthcoming with the public (see above). This appears to be more of the same. I have reinserted information that was changed in a POV manner (white-washed). Smm201`0 ( talk) 13:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. As we have both taken interest in the Philadelphia Water page, I noticed you have detailed a large section on Iodine 131. All sources I have found on this topic say that experts assure there is no threat from Iodine 131 in the water and it is not listed as one of the department's main issues. For this reason, I feel it does not need such a large summary on the Philadelphia Water page. If you want I can share my sources here, and we can collaborate on how to restructure this section to an appropriate length that indicates the department's involvement with this topic. Let me know what you think or if you have other ideas. Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleanwaterguru24 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear CWG24, It is great that Philadelphia is trying to do something to turn things around. You wrote that, "Forbe's reference to Philadelphia being the most toxic city was widely disputed. 3/5 sources that the writer used were from Sperling's Best Places which advises users not to assume the content on the site is without errors." Just because something was disputed or there were different perspectives doesn't mean that it should be omitted altogether. It means that there is not agreement. In cases like this when reliable sources conflict, it is best to present both sides, citing all sources of information. The data used by the Forbes article was from the EPA, EWG, and Sperlings...and was described in Forbes, a reliable source. In addition, sometimes the headline of an article will state one thing to get readers' attention, but the contents of the article will present a different picture. It is good to read the article thoroughly. If the information in the Forbe's article was disputed, please cite the reliable sources that disputed it as well. Smm201`0 ( talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Philadelphia Water Department. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
EPA radiation
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rad Net
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Iodine-131 also is a byproduct of nuclear power plants. But officials have ruled out the Limerick nuclear power plant, located on the Schuylkill south of Pottstown, and any of the region's medical, research, or pharmaceutical firms as the source of the iodine-131. By excluding everything else, they settled on the patients themselves as the likely source.Cite error: The named reference "Bauer2012" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)