Montoya 1
Steven Montoya
Professor Moncovich
Writing 10A Section 12
October 5th, 2014
Fracturing Blows (Loop) Holes thru the Law and the Environment
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking”, is a process where highly
pressurized water, sand and toxic chemicals are blasted through the ground to receive oil and
natural gas (Iacurci). At least fifteen states, including California, New York, and Texas, use this
technique to get shale oil from below groundwater sources (Earthjustice.org). Hydraulic
fracturing has its benefits, but it makes people ask the question: does the outcome outweigh the
costs. Due to the severity of some of the consequences of fracking, should we continue or
discontinue its practice? Many studies and research such as Tom Myers work, has shown
damage to groundwater sources due to hydraulic fracturing. The cause of this is due to the
chemicals that are used in fracturing procedures which contaminate the water they come into
contact with. Air pollution is also a major concern with the use of greenhouse gases and other
toxic chemicals, they could have adhered effects to our environment and atmosphere. There has
also been sightings of abnormal increased seismic activity near the drilling sites for hydraulic
fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States is very destructive and dangerous to our
environment because of the water pollution damage done to our groundwater sources, increased
air pollution given off by pollutants in the fracturing materials, and increased seismic activity
near fracturing sites. The methods used to perform fracturing need to be changed in order to
reduce or completely absolve the negative effects caused to the environment stemming from the
Montoya 2
increased use of fractured gas. The main causes that allow fracturing effects to continue are that
fracturing companies assume the position that without proper evidence that their procedures are
the causes of the damage done, that they are not responsible, and the lax policies that make it
difficult for research and inspection to be done to gain evidence of the harmful effects of
fracturing.
Hydraulic fracturing creates large amounts of wastewater that oftentimes spill during the
shipping and handling of the fracturing materials, and during the fracturing process. For this
reason contaminates the groundwater sources that we use for drinking water and other various
other uses, such as piping for baths and washing hands. Dr. Tom Myers, a research associate of
Park Foundation and a researcher and consultant in hydrogeology and water resources, states that
there are two main ways to have groundwater contamination caused by fracturing, and those are
wastewater spillages, which happens because after the completion of fracturing all the
wastewater that is left over gets carried generally on a freshwater source and leaks into the water,
and then preferential flow through fractures. Preferential flow through fractures is the
wastewater, which is used to blast through the ground to receive the natural gas from shale beds,
being evaporated to the surface carrying the chemicals with the water, which then hits a
groundwater source above the target shale bed(5). Myers research suggests that fracturing has
more than one way to cause groundwater contamination. Although with proper planning, such as
fracturing away from known groundwater sources, contamination is avoidable, it does happen.
The biggest issue with the groundwater contamination is the lack of research of the health effects
of the contaminated groundwater that some people drink, and the lack of caution when handling
the wastewater, and the poor planning of fracturing sites. More research needs to be done to lead
Montoya 3
to solving these problems. A possible solution for the poor planning of fracturing sites may be a
thorough examination of all the possible fracturing sites before drilling, preferably from an
outside organization.
There are laws that prohibit the use of a lot of the chemicals that are being used in a
process that can get the chemicals into drinking water sources and the air we breathe, such as the
Clean Air Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which was
enacted in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996, gave the power to the EPA to regulate drinking
water contamination, and to create standards for businesses and individuals alike to follow
(Burns 8). Hydraulic fracturing fluid uses many known toxic chemicals that help expedite the
fracturing process, but are harmful chemicals that are causing groundwater and air pollution.
Table 1. Identifies the different toxic chemicals present in the fluid used to do hydraulic
fracturing. It presents the chemicals used in the fluid, the category of toxins that they are in, and
the number of products that use these for fracturing fluids. Table 1. Also uses this labeling
method to show which law has listed the chemical as toxic.
TABLE 1. Toxic chemicals found as components in the
number of products used in hydraulic fracturing fluid
Chemical
Category
No. products
Methanol
HAPa
342
Ethylene glycol
HAP
119
Diesel
HAP, SDWAb, Carcinogen 51
Naphthalene
HAP, Carcinogen
44
Xylene
HAP, SDWA
44
Hydrogen Chloride HAP
42
Montoya 4
Note
HAP, hazardous air
pollutant; SDWA, safe
drinking water act. Adapted
from “Chemicals used in
hydraulic fracturing,” by
United States House of
Representatives Committee
on Energy & Commerce
Minority Staff, 2011; p. 8.
a
Chemicals which are
Toluene
HAP, SDWA
29
Ethylbenzene
HAP, SDWA
28
Diethanolamine
HAP
14
Formaldehyde
HAP, Carcinogen
12
considered hazardous under
the Clean Air Act.
b
Chemicals which are
regulated by SDWA due to
their danger for human
health.
Although all of the chemicals listed on the chart are toxic, the oil and gas companies still use
these chemicals to fracture. Methanol, otherwise known as wood alcohol, is a toxic chemical that
is deadly if consumed, yet it helps speed the fracturing process, so companies use it, but the
effects that it can have on health can be very harmful. The Safe Drinking Water Act names
certain chemicals that are dangerous, if injected to water sources, to human health such as diesel,
xylene, toluene, and ethyl benzene, which as Table 1 states are all used in fracturing fluid.
While reviewing fracturing disclosure laws Matthew McFeely, an attorney of Vermont
Law Review and the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote “No federal law currently
requires public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals”(8). This means that the general
public will not know which company uses which chemicals and procedures. Although the
chemicals could be affecting the people living near fracturing sites, the people may not realize
they are being slowly poisoned because the fracturing companies are not issuing warnings saying
what chemicals they are using. The loophole that fracturing companies are taking advantage of is
the fact that they do not need to tell anyone if they mess up, what chemicals they are using, and
the techniques they use to get the natural gas. If the companies were forced by law to tell the
Montoya 5
public about their business, they would most likely have to change the way they do business in
order to keep public relations good with the people.
New rules were established in 2012 by the EPA, which should reduce methane and
volatile organic compound emissions from fractured natural gas. “Jeremy Nichols, Climate and
Energy Program director for the advocacy group Wild Earth Guardians says ‘But is the work
done? No, of course not. It’s a floor to build on, providing a minimal level of protection.”
(Weinhold 3) Jeremy Nichols is very excited the new policies that make fracturing companies
report to the EPA about the chemicals listed. Although the EPA will not intervene until more
research has been done, they are requiring these companies to either do the research or allow an
outside organization to do so. This is a big step forward for all environmental groups who
advocate a healthier earth. The EPA has shown that it is going to take fracturing more seriously
than before with the new laws that they have issued.
Just like with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and as stated by Nathan D. Riccardi, who is a
member of the Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, “the Clean Air Act is a
comprehensive federal statute regulating pollutant emissions from various sources.”(3).The
Clean Air Act gives the EPA the power to regulate pollutants that can have an adverse effect on
the air we breathe. This means that the chemicals which are thought to be dangerous from their
point of view should not be used in processes that are known to give off emissions to the air.
Chemicals such as methanol and formaldehyde, are highly toxic when inhaled. Methanol is in its
most toxic form when it is in its gas form, thus making it a more toxic chemical when it is mixed
in with the air that we breathe. Formaldehyde, also known as methanal, is a highly corrosive and
toxic chemical known to be a carcinogen when taken in small dosages. In relatively small
Montoya 6
amounts such as thirty milliliters, it can kill an adult human(ATSDR).
The EPA has yet to make any policies regarding the increased seismic activity related to
hydraulic fracturing, although they did assign a task force responsible to look into the issue and
make rules if they see fit. Dusty Horwitt, a senior legal counsel at the Environmental working
group states “researchers found that as the rate of drilling and the use of hydraulic fracturing
fluids increased in an area, so did the frequency of earthquakes—sometimes dramatically.” (1)
Dusty believes that the higher number of wells, increased number of uses at each well, and
increased disposal of waste water by injection into fracturing waste wells all are the major
contributing factors to the increased seismic activity. These problems greatly affect California
because of drilling on fault lines. The EPA needs to come up with limitations to limit the amount
of drilling wells, as well as limitations on the number of times performing drilling at one well;
such as making only one to three uses at each well. These limitations should be relatively easy
monitor due to them not being overly strict, and they could greatly reduce the number of
earthquakes that are caused by fracturing.
Due to all negative effects of the use of hydraulic fracturing, including the contamination
of our groundwater sources, air pollution and increased seismic activity, policies need to be made
to lessen or stop the risks to our environment. These policies include disclosure laws that will
force fracturing companies to give lists of the chemicals used in the fracturing processes to be
made available to the public, as well as policies that limit the amount of thousands of gallons of
chemicals used during the process to a lower amount. The chemicals used in fracturing fluid
must be changed so that toxic chemicals cannot pollute our air and contaminate our groundwater
sources. Companies need to research possible fracturing sites more thoroughly before they drill
Montoya 7
to reduce the chances of seismic activity and near groundwater sources close enough to be
contaminated. With the lack of research pursued on the health effects of the contaminated
groundwater sources, the government or fracturing companies, or both, should put some money
into research to reduce the damage done to the people living near fracturing sites.
Bibliography
Myers, Tom. "Potential Contaminant Pathways From Hydraulically Fractured Shale To
Aquifers." Ground Water 50.6 (2012): 872-882. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Oct. 2014
Rafferty, Margaret A., and Elena Limonik. "Is Shale Gas Drilling An Energy Solution Or Public
Health Crisis?." Public Health Nursing 30.5 (2013): 454-462.Academic Search Complete. Web.
14 Oct. 2014
Burns, Amanda, et al. "Environmental Crimes." American Criminal Law Review 50.4 (2013):
857-952. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
Riccardi, Nathan D. "Necessarily Hypocritical: The Legal Viability Of Epa's Regulation Of
Stationary Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under The Clean Air Act." Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review 39.1 (2012): 213-241.Academic Search Complete. Web. 21
Oct. 2014
"Medical Management Guidelines for Formaldehyde." ATSDR. Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2014
McFeeley, Matthew. "Falling Through The Cracks: Public Information And The Patchwork Of
Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Laws." Vermont Law Review 38.4 (2014): 849-901. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
Horwitt, Dusty, and Alex Formuzis. "Fracking Causes Seismic Instability and Earthquakes."
Fracking. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "USGS:
Recent Earthquakes 'Almost Certainly Manmade'—Report Implicates Oil and Natural Gas
Drilling." 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
Iacurci, Jenna. “The Pros and Cons of Fracking.” Environment. Nature World News, 12 Sept.
2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014
“Fracking Across the United States.” Earthjustice. Earthjustice.org, Web. 26 Sept. 2014