18.1 C
Byron Shire
October 27, 2021

EPA investigates spill at former Metgasco site

Latest News

Other News

End of Days

Sometimes life would be a lot simpler if I could just believe in God. If I could believe that...

COVID-19 update: 5 new cases in the NNSWLHD

Northern NSW Local Health District, Acting Chief Executive, Lynne Weir, says there were five new cases of COVID-19 reported for the District to 8pm last night, 21 October.

NSW – bad to worse

While Gladys has left the building and we have a new religious fanatic in the top job, things are...

No Ballina commemoration for 11 November

Speaking on behalf of the Ballina RSL sub-branch, Dick Wills BEM has announced that there will be no public commemoration service in Ballina for Remembrance Day next month.

Rancho Relaxo

Although Jane Boniface says that everything she does is ‘a mistake’, she seems to have the knack of turning...

NSW Legislative Council expresses concerns over push to burn native forests for power

The NSW Legislative Council unanimously passed a motion expressing its concerns over the growing push by industry to burn NSW native forests for electricity and hydrogen production.

The overturned tank at Metgasco's decommissioned Corella well at Dobies Bight, facing downhill towards a dam. Photo Alan Roberts
The overturned tank at Metgasco’s decommissioned Corella well at Dobies Bight, facing downhill towards a dam. Photo Alan Roberts

Chris Dobney

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has commenced investigations into a suspected spill of contaminated water from a storage tank at Metgasco’s decommissioned Corella exploration well near Dobies Bight.

But the authority told Echonetdaily yesterday it is ‘satisfied that the site does not pose any immediate pollution threat’ despite not having received back all the results from samples it took at the site last week.

North coast environmentalist and scientist Alan Roberts, who took samples of his own at the site before alerting the EPA last week, says his tests are ‘demonstrably repeatable’ and is accusing the authority of ‘facilitating environmental damage.’

The Corella test well was decommissioned in June 2013 and on November 6 that year Metgasco submitted a statutory declaration that the site had been rehabilitated.

On November 28 the landowner, Mark McCaughey, confirmed to the department of resources and energy that the rehabilitation had been conducted to his satisfaction.

But a large plastic tank that is thought to have contained fluids associated with the CSG test well was left at the site.

Early last month nearby residents noticed that it had tipped over, apparently leaking its contents in the direction of a nearby dam.

Following a closer examination, including taking radiation readings and other tests of his own, Mr Roberts alerted the EPA last week.

In a letter to chief environmental regulator Mark Gifford, dated May 25, Mr Roberts wrote, ‘I recently revisited the location and found that a 10,000-litre plastic tank that I had seen being used in the decommissioning process had been tipped on its side and apparently allowed to drain substantially into the environment.

Mr Roberts photographed the tank during the decommissioning process, at which time it was still standing, and he believes considerable force would have been needed to dislodge it.

One photo he took on May 8 he says shows ‘the depression left by the force used to roll the tank clockwise.’

‘The tank is only about 10m directly uphill from a farm dam and also uphill of tributaries to Dyraaba Creek,’ he added.

The overturned tank at Metgasco's decomissioned Corella  well at Dobies Bight with a geiger counter checking radiation levels. Photo Alan Roberts
The overturned tank at Metgasco’s decommissioned Corella well at Dobies Bight with a geiger counter checking radiation levels. Photo Alan Roberts

Radioactivity

‘The remaining waste in the tank has since solidified, and analysis of the remnants suggests that it is a caustic substance with apparently elevated levels of radioactivity,’ Mr Roberts wrote.

He told the EPA his own testing found a dried material still in the tank which was both caustic (pH 9.85) and radioactive (2.6 times background nuclear radiation).

Mr Roberts said the mixture in the tank was ‘heterogeneous’ with some components more radioactive than others.

‘Most radioactive… is a soft grey mudstone which is sliceable like cheese and has readings 2.6x background. Least radioactive is the darker components… and dirt-like material. The brick-like material is less radioactive at 2.1x background.’

Testing commenced

An EPA spokesperson told Echonetdaily the authority had ‘received a report from a member of the public about a potential pollution incident associated with the Metgasco Corella E17 site at Dobies Bight, near Casino, on Monday May 25 via the EPA’s Environment Line.’

‘EPA officers inspected the site on Tuesday May 26 and collected samples for testing,’ the spokesperson added.

‘No elevated radiation has been detected in the samples collected at the site.  The EPA is waiting on other results from sample analysis.’

Despite not having all the test results, the spokesperson added, ‘the EPA is satisfied that the site does not pose any immediate pollution threat.’

The EPA said it would ‘provide the results of its investigation once complete.’

The tank, standing upright, during Metgasco's decommissioning process in 2013. Photo Alan Roberts
The tank, standing upright, during Metgasco’s decommissioning process in 2013. Photo Alan Roberts

EPA ‘demonstrably wrong’

But Mr Roberts says he believes his readings were accurate and repeatable and has called on the EPA to release its figures.

‘I’m confident in our results. They’re detailed, repeatable and well clear of statistical error. The nuclear radiation in samples of the material from within the tank was up to 2.6 times background which increases the risk of DNA damage 2.6 times more than a person only exposed to background radiation. I would like to be aware if I was to be exposed to this level. EPA cannot claim the nuclear radiation was not elevated,’ he said.

Mr Roberts added that he used nuclear radiation during his MSc research at Melbourne University.

‘I am very familiar with nuclear radiation statistics,’ he said.

‘There is no doubt that the samples from in the tank are elevated as stated in the breach report and to say that they aren’t elevated levels of nuclear radiation is demonstrably wrong.

‘I’m prepared to demonstrate that EPA is wrong in saying the nuclear radiation levels aren’t elevated.

Mr Roberts said he was also confident of his pH measurement, showing the sample as caustic.

‘If the EPA is saying it’s OK to dump a tankful of caustic (pH 9.85) material with a nuclear radioactive level 2.6 times background into dams and waterways then they should be clear about this. If this is the case then the EPA is facilitating environmental damage,’ Mr Roberts said.

Since this report was written, the EPA have clarified their position regarding there being ‘no immediate threat to the public’ to mean ‘there is no current pollution taking place requiring booms or other devices to be activated’. The spokesperson said the full results of testing would be available ‘within the week’.

 


Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.

8 COMMENTS

  1. Well done Alan! Sounds like this tank was tipped over intentionally by a machine of some kind?! Once again a case of ‘dilution is the solution!!’ It is my understanding that a pet dog that used to swim in the nearby dam had to be euthanized because of a severe cancerous skin condition. Co-incidence possibly?!!

  2. Oh really?? Holes in this story all over the place. How did the tank just happen to tip over? Interesting that Dr Roberts just happened to have taken “before and after” photographs and managed to be on private property taking samples? Did he have the landowners permission?

  3. I congratulate Mr Roberts for his initiative and subsequent investigations and look forward to seeing the publicised results of the EPA’s findings.

  4. Can’t wait to see Hendo sprinkle this muck on his breakfast cereal to prove it’s safe.

    Tremendous investigative work from Alan Roberts – now let’s hope the EPA do their job effectively.

  5. Mr S, you have posted an article about levels of radioactivity in sediment in Tamilnadu, India. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Do you think all sediment is the same? You only have to go as far as the introduction to find this sentence:

    “In addition, other parameters such as mineralogy, organic content, and geochemical composition could play an important role in the absorption of radioactive elements in the sediments.”

    And this, in the abstract:
    “Results of the study could serve as an important baseline radiometric data for future epidemiological studies and monitoring initiatives in the study area.”

    The part I would draw you to here are the words “in the study area”. In other words, this study can’t be used to say anything about sediments collected in a tank in a land with a very different geological history to Tamilnadu.

    • Its an example of how clay material is radioactive.

      Want a more generalised example?
      Here you go:

      http://ny.water.usgs.gov/projects/bgag/intro.text.html

      Note:
      “Gamma logs record the amount of natural gamma radiation emitted by the rocks surrounding the borehole. The most significant naturally occurring sources of gamma radiation are potassium-40 and daughter products of the uranium- and thorium-decay series. Clay- and shale-bearing rocks commonly emit relatively high gamma radiation because they include weathering products of potassium feldspar and mica and tend to concentrate uranium and thorium by ion absorption and exchange”

      The mud was made of hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates sourced from surrounding weathered rock….hence it was radioactive.

      What did the know-nothing EPA have to say on your claim Mr Roberts? Oh that your wrong.
      What we knew all along and why no-one takes these loony groups seriously as they have no scientific credibility.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Blue skies for Blueberry Fields

Blueberry Fields is very much a family business with father-and-son team Otto and Jasch Saeck working alongside each other on their 160-acre farm at...

Cacao wow

After ten years of wholesale trading from their small factory, Byron Bay Cacao’s stunning new retail space is now open to the public. The...

Rancho Relaxo

Although Jane Boniface says that everything she does is ‘a mistake’, she seems to have the knack of turning things to her advantage. When...

New plan to minimise flood hazard in Lismore

Lismore City Council has commenced the preparation of a new Flood Risk Management Plan that will identify the measures designed to minimise the community’s exposure to flood hazard.