skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Thom Cmar’s Blog

Fracking Illini? New NRDC report points to issues around chemical disclosure

Thom Cmar

Posted July 26, 2012 in Curbing Pollution

Tags:
, , , , , , ,
Share | | |

NRDC is releasing a new analysis of requirements in states across the country that oil and gas companies disclose the chemicals they use in fracking.

Here in Illinois, high-volume fracking may be coming this year, but we currently have no regulations in place to require even basic safeguards like chemical disclosure.  All that an oil and gas company has to do to drill and frack a well in Illinois is file an application telling the Illinois DNR where it wants to drill and slap down $100 as a nominal fee, and then it can start drilling in a matter of days.

This leaves communities in southern Illinois completely vulnerable to the risks of this new and inherently more dangerous form of drilling.  Other states such as Colorado and Pennsylvania have experienced a wide range of negative impacts from natural gas production.  Drinking water sources have been contaminated with explosive methane, as well as other dangerous substances, such as benzene and arsenic, that can cause cancer and other serious illnesses. Toxic chemicals, as well as erosion and runoff from drilling operations, have fouled treasured fishing streams and aquatic habitat.  Leaks and spills of hazardous materials have polluted bodies of water, forests, farms, and backyards.  Farmers and ranchers report serious health symptoms in livestock near natural gas operations.  Exposure to open pits has killed countless birds and other wildlife.  Emissions from drilling rigs, well-pad equipment, storage tanks, compressor stations, and truck traffic contribute to harmful ozone levels.  There have even been incidences of serious human health threats that have led families to abandon their homes in order to preserve their children’s health.

Earlier this year, a bill partially based on ALEC language passed unanimously in the Illinois Senate, with the support of the oil and gas industry, that would require some disclosure by companies of the chemicals they use in their fracking operations. The session ended before a vote could be held on the issue in the Illinois House. Unfortunately, although the Senate bill, SB 3280, is better than nothing, it’s not better by much:

  • SB 3280 only requires post-fracking disclosure, at a point in which whatever harm might be caused by toxic chemicals in the fracking fluid has already been set in motion.  Requiring disclosure before any drilling or fracking occurs, as part of a company’s application to drill the well, is much more meaningful.  Pre-fracking disclosure helps inform baseline testing of nearby water wells, because local residents will actually know which of the over 596 chemicals that are used in fracking they should actually be testing for.  It also allows for a meaningful assessment of the risks to public health from the chemicals that are being proposed for use and for a discussion between IDNR, the company, and the public about whether there are safer alternatives.
  • Also, SB 3280 does not actually require the company to hand over records of the chemicals they are using to IDNR – they get to keep all of their records to themselves.  Instead, all companies have to do is fill out a form on the FracFocus web site that asks questions about the chemicals they are using.  Experience with FracFocus has shown that companies are highly inconsistent in how they fill out the form and in the amount of information they choose to provide.  There is no policing of the form and the state is not directly involved so it can’t ask follow-up questions.  And because there’s so little consistency among the reporting, it is very difficult to compare one well site to another or draw any meaningful conclusions from the information provided there.
  • SB 3280 allows companies to decide that virtually all of the detailed information about the chemicals they are using can be declared a trade secret and withheld from disclosure on the FracFocus form.  Although there may be some genuine need for drilling companies to seek protection of some of their chemical information as trade secrets to keep them away from their competitors, such as the specific recipes or formulas they are using, basic information about the risks that these chemicals pose to public health and safety should never be considered a trade secret.  The public has a right to know about the risks to their health posed by these chemicals.  To take the often-cited Coca-Cola example, we all agree that Coca-Cola should be able to keep its formula a secret, but we also know that Coca-Cola doesn’t have cancer-causing benzene in it or any other dangerous chemicals that pose a risk to our health. 
  • A major problem with SB 3280 is that it creates heightened requirements for anyone to challenge in court a company’s claims that its chemical information should be protected as trade secrets if they appear to be too broad.  Although the bill would allow some challenges to trade secrecy protection to be filed in the first two years after the well is drilled, the bill limits the entities that would be allowed to challenge such trade secrecy to either (1) a landowner or farm tenant who has been “directly and substantially” harmed by the hydraulic fracturing operation; or (2) a state department or agency.  Thus, under these provisions, other members of the general public – including journalists and public health researchers – would not be able to challenge the company’s trade secrecy claims or get access to the information.  And even those property owners who might be able to bring a challenge are put in a Catch 22 situation where the only way that they can get access to information about the chemicals that might have harmed them is to first already be able to prove that they’ve been harmed. 
  • SB 3280’s chemical disclosure provisions include blatantly unfair requirements that give the oil and gas industry special treatment that no other industry receives.  Every other industry in Illinois has to hand over basic health and safety information to the state rather than just posting it on an industry-approved web site.  If companies in other industries want to request that some of their information be protected as confidential trade secrets, they can do so, but only if they provide evidence to support their claims to the state so that the agency can decide for itself whether the claims are legitimate.  And if members of the general public want access to the information, they can request it from the state under the Freedom of Information Act and challenge any overbroad claims that the information should be kept confidential without any special requirement that they first prove that the company has harmed them.

There is no reason why the oil and gas industry should not play by the same set of rules as everyone else.  The protections for trade secrets that are already in Illinois law strike a fair balance between protecting legitimate business interests and allowing agencies and the public access to necessary information that is critical to protect public health and safety.

Disclosure of fracking chemicals needs to be mandated at the federal level, by closing the so-called “Halliburton loophole” in the Safe Drinking Water Act that exempts fracking from basic reporting requirements for chemicals being injected through underground sources of drinking water.  But in the absence of strong federal standards, states can and should do more. 

Here in Illinois, we have the opportunity to learn from other states’ negative experiences with fracking and get our rules right from the beginning.   Until strong safeguards are in place, there should be no new or expanded fracking in our state.

Share | | |

Comments

BSJul 26 2012 07:04 PM

I'm not against chemical disclosure or common sense regulations. However, please allow me to help you out with the facts:

Fracking is not "new". It's also not a form of drilling. Fracking has been used something like a million times since the 1940s.

Also, you allude to supposed contamination of drinking water in PA with explosive levels of methane. This myth was busted quite some time ago. The areas that have methane in their groundwater have had it since long before oil drilling came to town.

Also, the EPA has confirmed that the water in Dimock, PA is safe to drink, not contaminated by oil and gas operations:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/epa-concludes-drinking-water-is-safe-in-pa-town-that-has-become-drilling-flashpoint/2012/07/25/gJQAIYwK9W_story.html

Stick to the facts, please.

Thom CmarJul 27 2012 12:09 PM

Sticking to the facts is my preference as well, BS. Here's a link to my previous blog on fracking in Illinois, where I discussed this issue of whether fracking is or is not "new":

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/tcmar/illinois_must_address_risks_fr.html

This is a semantical argument, not a factual one. As I said in response to this same comment when it was made on that blog, you're right that fracking fluid has been used in drilling for decades, but what I am talking about here is a different animal: horizontal drilling using high-volume hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas from shale. The volumes of fluid and pressures used are dramatically different. That new and inherently more dangerous form of unconventional drilling has not yet come to Illinois -- but is likely to come very soon.

As for the Dimock situation, my colleague Kate Sinding posted a blog about it here:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ksinding/epas_water_testing_results_in.html

EPA's investigation in Dimock focused on hazardous pollutants and not the question whether the aquifer was contaminated with methane by nearby drilling activities. The EPA results do nothing to refute the fact that shoddy drilling practices of Cabot Oil & Gas contaminated these families’ drinking water with dangerous levels of explosive methane, as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection concluded. This alone presents a risk to Dimock residents’ well-being, has had a critical impact on their property values, and is enough to make many people stop drinking from their taps.

Additionally, these results do not alleviate concerns about risks to drinking water supplies nationwide from fracking. With Americans around the country continuing to report water contamination that may be related to fracking, there remain a lot of unanswered questions. We need federal rules on the books to allow us to trace the source of these problems if they arise, and safeguard our drinking water supplies from these risks in the first place.

S. Thomas BondJul 27 2012 09:42 PM

It's reasonably clear the BS guy is a gas company employee or works for some derivative business. It's like the famous Upton Sinclair quote, "it’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

"Fracking" as used by most people today does not mean what is technically designated "hydraulic fracturing,” but the whole shale drilling program including: horizontal drilling, leaks, disposal of the foul liquid that returns up the pipe from the shale, directional control of drilling, sloppy cementing of the annulus between pipes, oversize drilling rigs and drilling platforms, haul roads that dust the neighborhood, congestion on road, property depreciation, dead livestock, holding ponds big as a parking lot, fumes from those ponds and from compressor stations, pipelines through forests and farms, over hill and dale and under rivers, buying governments, need for more law enforcement, sick children, bad hunting and fishing, destruction of scenery, lying landmen and other things characteristic of shale drilling.

BSJul 27 2012 09:46 PM

"With Americans around the country continuing to report water contamination that may be related to fracking, there remain a lot of unanswered questions."

Yes, and families also reported that their kids got autism right after getting vaccines. Therefore, the vaccines caused autism. Only, they didn't.

And as you say, any problems in Dimock were caused by improper practices by an oil company, not by any inherent problem with fracking. Thank you for helping me make my point.

BSJul 27 2012 09:48 PM

Thomas,

Yes, I work in the oil and gas industry. And no, fracking does not describe the entire drilling and production process. Even the NRDC does not use the term that way.

But your hyperbole was entertaining.

BSJul 28 2012 09:27 AM

Speaking of tight oil fracking being different than traditional fracking, perhaps you should point that out to your colleagues in California. Over there, they are trying to get a moratorium on traditional fracking based purely on the supposed danger tight oil fracking.

In California, the "new" form of fracking is rarely used, if at all. Since you said you like to stick to the facts, will you please go educate your California colleagues and point out to them that their campaign to stop traditional fracking is based on a campaign of misinformation?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Stay Plugged In