Jump to content

Talk:Philadelphia Water Department

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sourced information removed and replaced with unsourced information. Possible COI.

[edit]

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:

From Introduction

[edit]

...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]"

Iodine-131

[edit]

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]

Lack of assertive action in addressing the potential impact of Marcellus Shale gas drilling on Philadelphia's drinking water:

[edit]

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]

Resistence to FOIA requests:

[edit]

"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]"

RadNet

[edit]

"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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Iodine 131

[edit]

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)[reply]

Hi. The reason that the Iodine section is so long is that it attempts to balance the sources that suggest that the water supply is not safe with the comments of public officials who claim it is safe. I have the same length objections to the detailed descriptions of the Green Initiatives that are largely based on the websites that the PWD controls, rather than independent sources. In that case, only one side is being presented, and yet those sections are long and detailed. Regarding the Iodine-131 issue, what is really confusing is that state officials are saying that iodine-131 levels are of no concern and that the water is safe, when the actual data shows quarterly drinking water levels nearly double the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level of 3.0 pCi/L. The most recent RAD NET drinking water level in October 2012 was 5.46 pCi/L (the highest reading in the US) at the Belmont facility and to 3.28 pCi/L at Queens Lane.[15] Elevated levels had been measured before that as well.[18] Again, the federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is 3.00 pCi/L. After that the EPA stopped reporting the levels. Readings in source waters have been even higher. During the in depth surveillance conducted by the various water agencies, spikes were detected in the Schuylkill, downstream of Reading, Norristown and Pottstown.[14][18] 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] Is that safe for aquatic life if >3.0 pCi isn't fit for humans? So basically, there are reliable sources that say that iodine-131 levels are over the 3.0 MCL and therefore not safe, and there are public employees and political appointees saying the levels are safe. The iodine-131 section just presents the information about both perspectives from the information available. I'm still puzzled why they are saying the water is safe to drink when Iodine-131 levels in drinking water are almost twice the Federal MCL, and levels in rivers and streams have been 360 times higher...and why the EPA stopped reporting the levels altogether...In addition, the PADEP won't release contaminant levels for radionuclides even when people submit FOIA requests. 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.[6] Maybe you have a source that explains this and provides current iodine-131 levels? My guess from what I've read elsewhere is that the iodine-131 contamination is at least partly from the highly protected practice of hydraulic (hydro) fracturing, so nobody in PA wants to talk about it. Smm201`0 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I will link to my sources as I address the aforementioned concerns.
While Iodine-131 is a radioactive isotope, it has an extremely short half-life, lasting only 8 days meaning it decays away from the environment completely in a matter of months. The study PWD conducted on I-131 was completed in 2012, explaining why the data trail ends there. This study was completed to determine the origin of I-131 in Philadelphia’s waterways. This origin was determined to be patients who are treated with I-131 for thyroid disease. Hence, the levels of I-131 in the waterways vary day-to-day depending on how many of these patients use wastewater facilities upstream.
The EPA has a very low requirement of 3 PCi/L that is based on a long-term average of 1-131 levels rather than a single day’s sample. This number is called the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and is developed assuming a risk factor of what would harm someone after long-term consumption for over 70 years if they drank 2 liters of this contaminated water every day, as is explained by Forbes. The EPA also states that intervention in bodies of water is not necessary until I-131 is at 81,000 pCi/L. It’s also worth noting that the EPA’s standard of 3.0 pCi/L is extremely low compared to the World Health Organization’s standard of 270 pCi/L. Also for comparison, the Canadian standard rests a great deal higher at 162 pCi/L.
The numbers for the 2012 project referenced were released by the EPA although this the data was originally given to the EPA by the Philadelphia Water Department, who pioneered the project. Current water quality data is found in Philadelphia Water’s annual water quality report. In the sourced EPA presentation, slides 23-26 address the I-131 and drinking water in specific, and conclude that Philadelphia’s drinking water is safe and is in fact unrelated to Fukushima. It was determined to be the cause of patients who are treated with I-131 for thyroid disease. The EPA also addresses in this powerpoint that the RadNet system is not used to monitor on drinking water.
As for DEP’s failure to release contaminant levels, the TENORM project was just completed and released this year in January and can be found here Prior to this January, the data was not released because it had not been interpreted and was considered raw.
It is a confusing topic, but I believe these sources aid in a better understanding of the issue.
Not really. I'd already read all of the articles and seen a version of the slideshow you presented. The issue with the TECHNORM data was that the PADEP refused to release the actual raw data. It is common to share raw data with other scientists to allow them to verify the analyses, especially considering this data was publicly funded.[1] There is no real data included in the articles you cite except for the TECHNORM report, and colleagues' attempts to get the other data with FOIA have been similarly refused. We don't live in Canada, Africa, Kuwait, Greece, etc. The US EPA uses an MCL of 3.0 pCi,[2] which is tied to statistical information from research about increases in health risks with exposure. The blog you cite as the source of the new limit of 81,000 pCi/L doesn't support your statement. Even I thought it was just written to rile people up - it is just a blog after all - so I have never cited it for that reason. I would love to see the daily data on iodine-131, but that's not available to the public either. That RADNET's multiple quarterly readings show elevated levels is concern enough. The RadNet system may not be "regulatory" but has been used to screen for radiation in drinking water for decades. RADNET stopped reporting the data publicly only recently (2012),[3] shortly after they found elevated readings. It is different from the PWD/PADEP intensive local data collection that ended in 2012.[4] Neither the data nor the report on that have been made available for the intensive surveillance.
Regarding the local intensive surveillance study,[5] the origins weren't really determined to "be patients who are treated with I-131 for thyroid disease." To do that they would have to trace the iodine up individual sewer lines and verify that someone in each household was receiving iodine-131 treatment. They didn't do that. They didn't even compare the frequency of iodine-131 treatment in the different areas served by different waste water treatment facilities. They were going to do that next.[6] The origin was often found to be waste water treatment plants. Those plants don't just receive human waste, they also receive drilling waste. Iodine-131 is one of the most commonly used radioactive tracer isotopes used to map fractures in hydraulic fracturing.[7] Despite its short half life, it is still showing up in high concentrations (which makes me wonder how much they are using), and as you point out, lingering for months. Ironically, although at high doses it can stop cancer, it lower levels, it increases cancer risk. There is also the issue of cumulative impact in the Philadelphia area, since our water contains multiple carcinogens and the ambient radiation level is high. Both urine and waste water sources are episodic and consistent with the patterns in the data.[8][9]
I would like to think that a public utility would be transparent and protective of the public good. I'd like this article to be based on RS about the complex realities we face and evidence of effectiveness of systems used to deal with them. Smm201`0 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting information from reliable sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

Even so, to introduce the "green initiatives" section with a reference to this article implies that the following programs were created as a result of the 'toxic Philly' label- which they were not.
How did you manage to not sign your post? It usually autosigns. Are you an admin? I see that you are still deleting material that reflects negatively on your company. It is very important to report information from RS in a manner that is not biased. If it is true that you have sources that refute the negative sources, cite them, don't censor the negative material. I don't delete your positive sourced material. Smm201`0 (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References (Talk page only)

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Andrew Maykuth (28 September 2010). "Philadelphia Water Department taking measured approach to fracking". Philadelphia Inquirer. Philly.com. Retrieved 27 May 2015.
  2. ^ a b c Kevin Begos (5 January 2014). "4 states confirm water pollution from drilling. Associated Press review of complaints casts doubt on industry view that it rarely happens". USA Today. Associated Press. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
  3. ^ a b c d Matt Kelso (20 August 2013). "PA Releases Unconventional Production and Waste Data". StateImpact Pennsylvania. Fractracker.org. Retrieved 19 October 2013.
  4. ^ V. J. Brown (February 2014). "Radionuclides in Fracking Wastewater: Managing a Toxic Blend". Environmental Health Perspectives. p. A50. Retrieved 27 May 2015.
  5. ^ a b c d Julie Becker, Teresa Méndez-‐Quigley, Kelly Anderson, Alison Amato, and John Consolvo (July 2014). Emerging Contaminant in Source Water from Medical Treatment: Iodine (PDF) (Report). NEHA. Retrieved 24 April 2015.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ a b c d Matt Miller (10 April 2015). "Court blocks environmental group's plea for radioactivity data on Marcellus Shale drilling". Patriot News. Retrieved 24 April 2015.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference EPA radiation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rad Net was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ "Radioisotope Brief Iodine-131" (PDF). CDC. 18 August 2005. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
  10. ^ Jack E. Whitten, Steven R. Courtemanche, Andrea R. Jones, Richard E. Penrod, and David B. Fogl (Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (June 2000). "Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Well Logging, Tracer, and Field Flood Study Licenses (NUREG-1556, Volume 14)". US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved 19 April 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ a b c d e Timothy A. Bartrand and Jeffrey S. Rosen (October 2013). Potential Impacts and Significance of Elevated 131 I on Drinking Water Sources [Project #4486]ORDER NUMBER: 4486 (PDF) (Report). Water Research Foundation. Retrieved 11 November 2013.
  12. ^ Steve Roy (14 June 2012). "Containment of Wastes Under the Land Ban Program (Migration section)". EPA. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  13. ^ Bauers, Sandy (21 July 2011). "Cancer patients' urine suspected in Wissahickon iodine-131 levels". Philadelphia inquirer, Carbon County Groundwater Guardians. Retrieved 25 February 2012.
  14. ^ a b c d Sandy Bauers (2012-03-30). "Radioactive iodine in Phila. water tied to thyroid patients". Philadelphia Inquirer. p. 2. Retrieved 2012-04-03. 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).
  15. ^ a b c d "Iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia, PA drinking water". EPA RadNet Environfacts. EPA. Retrieved 7 December 2012.
  16. ^ a b "Radium-228 levels in Philadelphia, PA drinking water". EPA RadNet Environfacts. EPA. Retrieved 9 December 2012.
  17. ^ a b "Radium-226 levels in Philadelphia, PA drinking water". EPA RadNet Environfacts. EPA. Retrieved 5 April 2013.
  18. ^ a b c d e Sandy Bauers (2012-12-07). "Spike in iodine-131 found in city water". Philadelphia Inquirer. p. 2. Retrieved 2012-12-07.
  19. ^ "Letter to USNRC re:Allard reappointment" (PDF). United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 20 April 2011. Retrieved 9 December 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  20. ^ a b Bruce Gellerman and Ann Murray (10 August 2012). "Disposal of Fracking Wastewater Polluting PA Rivers". PRI's Environmental News Magazine. Public Radio International. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
  21. ^ a b c d Andrew Maykuth (2010-09-28). "Philadelphia Water Department taking measured approach to fracking". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 2013-02-14.
  22. ^ "Frac Tracker Maps Unconventional Waste". FracTracker.org. 2012-06-30. Retrieved 2013-07-04.
  23. ^ "Waste Recovery Solutions, Inc". 2013-07-10. Retrieved 2013-07-10.
  24. ^ EPA,OAR,ORIA,RPD, US. "RadNet - US EPA". US EPA. Retrieved 30 January 2018.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  25. ^ http://www.epa.gov/japan011/rert/radnet-philadelphia-bg.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philadelphia_Water_Department&oldid=1209742943"