Are Fracking Companies Required To Disclose The Chemical Makeup Of The Frack Fluid Lost

Q: Are the chemicals in fracking solution protected from existence fabricated public by a law passed while Dick Cheney was vice president?

A: Aye. A 2005 police bans the federal government from requiring companies to disclose fracking chemicals. But 28 states do require disclosure of some fracking fluids.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that the chemicals in fracking solution are protected from being fabricated public by a constabulary or bill passed by Congress while Dick Cheney was in President Bush'southward cabinet? Is it true that Cheney strong-armed members in Congress to pass the pecker? Is it true that the fracking companies don't have to reveal the chemicals in fracking solution?

Total Respond

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a method used to obtain natural gas and oil from rock formations hole-and-corner. The process involves injecting water, sand and various chemicals into drilling wells at high force per unit area, releasing oil and gas that would otherwise exist difficult to think.

Fracking gained public attention afterwards the technique led to a boom in U.Southward. oil and gas production. In 2000, effectually 26,000 fracked wells produced 3.6 billion cubic feet per mean solar day of natural gas. In 2015, 300,000 fracked wells produced more than than 53 billion cubic anxiety per day, according to the Free energy Information Administration. The Eia besides shows a like increment for crude oil production over that time catamenia.

Signed into law by President George West. Bush, the Energy Policy Deed of 2005 leaves the regulation of fracking to u.s.a., most of which do crave some, but not all, chemical disclosure.

Every bit for Vice President Dick Cheney'due south office in passing the police force, he chaired the National Energy Policy Evolution Grouping, which advocated the expanded use of fracking in its 2001 final report, and he lobbied Congress to pass the 2005 law. Critics may believe that Cheney "strong-armed" Congress to pass the law, but the fact is that the bill easily passed both the House and the Senate with bipartisan support.

Why the Feds Can't Regulate Fracking

The jurisdiction to regulate fracking didn't always lie only in the hands of the states.

The Condom Drinking Water Act of 1974 did allow for the federal regulation of fracking, or more mostly all "underground injection." The human action defines this term every bit "the subsurface emplacement of fluids past well injection."

Yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency didn't see fracking equally within its jurisdiction under the Safe Drinking Water Human action for almost 20 years after the act's passage. The EPA reasoned the term only practical to wells whose "principal office" is the emplacement of fluids — i.e., information technology wouldn't utilize to natural gas wells.

But in 1997 an 11th Circuit Courtroom judge ruled that fracking did fall "within the obviously language of the statutory definition of 'underground injection'" in a case between the Legal Environmental Assist Foundation and the EPA.

Then in 2005 the Energy Policy Act amended the Rubber Drinking Water Act's definition of "undercover injection" to specifically exclude "fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels)" used during fracking operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production.

President Bush signed the bill, which passed the Senate, 74-26, and the Business firm, 275-156, with bipartisan support. Then-Sen. Barack Obama supported the beak, for example.

Yet, Obama tried, unsuccessfully, to regulate fracking through the Interior Section when he became president.

In March 2015, the department, through the Bureau of Land Management, released a last rule that aimed to "assistance protect groundwater by updating requirements for well-bore integrity, wastewater disposal and public disclosure of chemicals" related to fracking activities specifically on federal and tribal lands.

In other words, the BLM rule would have fabricated companies report some of the chemicals they utilize during fracking operations on federal and tribal lands in all l states. It would accept as well regulated how companies construct wells and dispose of fracking fluids, amidst other provisions.

But the BLM fracking rule was struck downwardly in June 2016 by U.South. District Judge Scott Skavdahl, who Obama appointed to the court in 2011. Skavdahl specifically pointed to the Free energy Policy Act of 2005 in his ruling.

"The issue before this Court" is not to decide whether fracking is "good or bad for the environment or the citizens of the U.s.a.," but to evaluate whether Congress has given the Interior Department potency to regulate fracking, he wrote in his ruling. "Given Congress' enactment of the EP Act of 2005," to conclude that it has delegated BLM authorisation to regulate fracking "lacks mutual sense," he concluded.

The Cheney Connection

In his second calendar week in office, Bush created the National Energy Policy Evolution Group, which was headed by Cheney. In its final May 2001 written report, the group recommended that the "President direct the Secretaries of Energy and the Interior to promote enhanced oil and gas recovery from existing wells through new engineering," specifically fracking.

Congress and so moved to pass an energy plan that incorporated the task force's recommendations. But the Energy Policy Act of 2002 and the Energy Policy Human activity of 2003 both failed in Bush's first term. It wasn't until his 2nd term that the Free energy Policy Act of 2005 passed.

The 2002 bill, as start introduced in the Firm, initially didn't address fracking. Simply the bill as amended by the Senate did accost it in section 610. Specifically, it imposed a iii-year freeze on regulation of fracking until a study could be washed on its bear upon on h2o quality. The amendment was inserted by Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a Democrat.

Similar to the 2005 act, the 2003 Firm nib, as introduced, and then included language (section 12201) that excluded "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil or gas production activities" from the Condom Drinking Water Human activity.

The Bush administration supported the Energy Policy Human activity of 2005, and Cheney lobbied for it. The vice president met with Rep. Joe Barton, sponsor of the bill, on April v, 2005. A press release about that meeting said, " Cheney  and Barton both agreed to work in their respective branches of the regime to pass the bill into law and aid meet America'southward irresolute energy needs."

Regulating Fracking Under Country Law

Fifty-fifty though fracking tin't be regulated past the federal government, information technology tin can under land law.

Along with other regulations related to the practise, equally of January 2016, 28 states require the disclosure of some, but non all, chemicals used during fracking. Twenty-three states use a registry chosen FracFocus, which is the most comprehensive database on fracking chemicals.

Just fracking operators don't take to study all the chemicals they utilise in part because of trade secrets laws, which too protect Coca-Cola's recipe, for example. And so what proportion of fracking chemicals do companies reveal in states with disclosure laws?

According to the EPA, fracking operators withheld eleven pct of the chemicals they reported to FracFocus between Jan 2011 and Feb 2013. As a reason for non disclosing data, companies said the information was "confidential," a "merchandise secret" or "proprietary." The EPA also institute that lxx percent of disclosures withheld one chemical or more.

But the charge per unit of withheld chemicals may take increased since then, co-ordinate to researchers at Harvard Academy.

Kate Konschnik, the policy director at Harvard'southward Environs Police force Program, and a colleague found that eighteen.ix percent of fracking chemicals reported on over 53,000 forms filed to FracFocus betwixt November 2012 and April 2015 "were intentionally withheld from public disclosure." And 92.3 per centum of these forms included "at least ane withheld ingredient," the researchers reported in their paper published in the journal Free energy Policy in Jan 2016.

Similar the EPA, the researchers found that companies didn't e'er specifically cite "trade cloak-and-dagger" as the reason for withholding chemical data: Companies besides cited "proprietary," "confidential" and "n/a" equally reasons.

Merchandise secrets have the "clearest and most rigorous legal standards," as they're "limited to information nigh a production method, process or formula … which the possessor has taken steps to protect," the researchers pointed out.

The term "confidential," on the other mitt, is mentioned in some land disclosure requirements, but it's often non defined. And there are "virtually no definitions or standards" for citing "proprietary" or "due north/a" as reasons for withholding data, the researchers said.

The study establish that fracking companies withheld chemicals citing "confidential" or "proprietary" grounds in states that only accept "trade undercover" equally an acceptable justification. For this reason, the researchers reasoned that "some companies are unaware of state-specific rules or do not expect enforcement."

Overall, "the less rigorous the standard" for justification (i.e., proprietary instead of merchandise secret), "the more probable it has been used to justify withholding data in FracFocus," the researchers concluded.

Fracking Chemicals and the Environs

But are the chemicals associated with fracking hazardous to human health and the surroundings in the showtime place? And are they reaching sources of drinking water?

The EPA attempted to answer these questions in its final report on the relationship between fracking and drinking water resources that was released in Dec 2016.

Hither's what the bureau found: There are select cases where testify suggests that fracking chemicals have reached drinking water resources and impacted human wellness and the environs. Only express data prevents the agency from making general conclusions.

For example, the EPA report cites studies that have linked fracking and the contamination of drinking h2o resources in instances where companies spilled fracking fluids, experienced equipment failure or fracked wells too close in depth to drinking water resources (i.due east., shallow fracking), for example.

The report likewise notes studies that found associations between the proximity of pregnant mothers living next to natural gas wells and increased cases of congenital heart defects and lower birth weights. Other studies cited in the report constitute an clan betwixt living closer to natural gas wells and an increase in the number of reported respiratory and skin issues. And another study found bear witness to support a link between the contamination of streams by fracking fluids and the death of fish and other aquatic animals.

Overall, "while combined evidence suggests hydraulic fracturing has the potential to impact human being health via contamination of drinking h2o resources, the actual public wellness impacts are not well understood and non well documented," the EPA concluded.

At least three factors prevented the agency from making definitive conclusions.

Kickoff, scientists haven't evaluated the potential human health and environmental toxicity of the bulk of chemicals known to exist used in fracking. But this dearth of information isn't specific to fracking – researchers have estimated that "tens of thousands of chemicals in commercial utilise" have "not undergone meaning toxicological evaluation," the EPA written report notes.

The "potential hazards" associated with chronic ingestion of the chemicals with toxicological profiles include cancer, allowed arrangement effects, changes in body weight and changes in claret chemistry. Other fracking chemicals also are known to be specifically toxic to the centre, nervous system, liver, kidneys, reproduction and development.

Second, scientists don't accept comprehensive, national information on when, where and how much of these chemicals are reaching drinking water resources and being ingested by people.

In select cases, fracking fluids have reached drinking water resources through spills, leaks and inadequate disposal, as mentioned previously. Fracking chemicals have as well been detected in drinking h2o resource at levels that could affect human health. Notwithstanding, "there is a lack of systematic studies examining bodily human exposures to these chemicals in drinking water as a result of hydraulic fracturing activity," the written report said.

Tertiary, companies don't reveal all the chemicals they apply, for the reasons described higher up. "Having a better understanding of the chemicals and formulations, including those that are [accounted confidential business concern information], along with their frequency of apply and volumes, would profoundly benefit gamble cess and hazard management decisions," the EPA report ended.

To sum upwardly, the federal government tin can't regulate fracking, including chemical disclosure, because of a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This act was preceded by a 2001 free energy policy written report that advocated for the expanded use of fracking and was released by a grouping chaired past Cheney. While 28 states do accept chemic disclosure laws on the books, companies do not disclose all the chemicals they employ and sometimes do not fully comply with the laws. In order to brand a definitive decision near the impact of these chemicals on man health and the environment nationally, scientists need to behave more research. However, there is evidence to support their impact in select cases.

Editor'due south Note: SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation.

Sources

Leafage v. EPA. No. 95-6501. U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Excursion. 7 Aug 1997.

State of Wyoming et al. v. Department of Interior et al. No. 2:I5-CV-043-SWS. U.Southward. District Court of Wyoming. 21 Jun 2016.

"Vice President Cheney Pays Visit to Rep. Barton on Capitol Loma to Discuss Energy Bill in Rep. Barton's Committee." Printing release. Federal News Service. five April 2005, accessed 7 Apr 2017 via Nexis.

Soraghan, Mike."Democrat'south energy provision harms water, activists say." Denver Post. 10 Mar 2002, accessed 7 Apr 2017 via Nexis.

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/facts-fracking-chemical-disclosure/

Posted by: linseymarban.blogspot.com

Share this post