Federal oversight of fracking in dispute
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey drew jeers from drillers and cheers from environmentalists last month when he launched his latest push to bring hydraulic fracturing under federal oversight.
Depending on one’s perspective, allowing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the controversial technique would either disrupt the natural gas industry and erect a new regulatory hurdle or provide baseline standards and reassure people who fear that the process can ruin underground supplies of drinking water.
“The bill is designed to make sure that we don’t have problems. I think it’s a very important precaution,” Mr. Casey, D-Pa., said during a recent interview.
Developed more than 60 years ago by oil and gas company Halliburton and used today in all Marcellus Shale wells, hydraulic fracturing is a technique that injects a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into the ground under high pressure to crack rock and allow trapped natural gas to flow.
Some of the mixture remains underground. And some of the chemicals, although added in relatively small quantities, are harmful.
That toxicity is what scares environmentalists, who wonder exactly what substances drillers are shooting into the earth, whether the fluid can foul drinking water, and if the process is being adequately regulated.
“So far, states have not stepped up to the plate to fill those shoes,” said Jessica Goad, policy fellow at The Wilderness Society.
Mr. Casey’s FRAC Act — Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals — has two components.
One would put hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” under the auspices of the EPA and remove a 2005 congressional exemption — dubbed the “Halliburton loophole” — that prevents the agency from regulating it.
The other would force drillers to reveal publicly all chemicals used in fracking, except for proprietary formulas.
Read more
Sen. Casey’s FRAC Act – full-text of the legislation
Sen. Casey’s FRAC Act – full-text of the legislation
WASHINGTON, April 2, 2011 — Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr., D-Pennsylvania has introduced the bill (S.587), legislation that would “amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing.”
The bill, introduced on March 15, was co-sponsored by Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin, D-Maryland, Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, D-New York, Frank R. Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, Bernard Sanders, I-Vermont, Charles E. Schumer, D-New York and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. It was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
A copy of the full-text of the legislation follows:
S.587
To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act’ or the ‘FRAC Act’.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
(a) Underground Injection- Section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘underground injection’ means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection.
‘(B) INCLUSION- The term ‘underground injection’ includes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations relating to oil or gas production activities.
‘(C) EXCLUSION- The term ‘underground injection’ does not include the underground injection of natural gas for the purpose of storage.’.
(b) Disclosure- Section 1421(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘(4) DISCLOSURES OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- A person conducting hydraulic fracturing operations shall disclose to the State (or to the Administrator, in any case in which the Administrator has primary enforcement responsibility in a State), by not later than such deadlines as shall be established by the State (or the Administrator)–
‘(i) before the commencement of any hydraulic fracturing operations at any lease area or a portion of a lease area, a list of chemicals intended for use in any underground injection during the operations (including identification of the chemical constituents of mixtures, Chemical Abstracts Service numbers for each chemical and constituent, material safety data sheets when available, and the anticipated volume of each chemical to be used); and
‘(ii) after the completion of hydraulic fracturing operations described in clause (i), the list of chemicals used in each underground injection during the operations (including identification of the chemical constituents of mixtures, Chemical Abstracts Service numbers for each chemical and constituent, material safety data sheets when available, and the volume of each chemical used).
‘(B) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The State (or the Administrator, as applicable) shall make available to the public the information contained in each disclosure of chemical constituents under subparagraph (A), including by posting the information on an appropriate Internet website.
‘(C) IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE IN CASE OF MEDICAL EMERGENCY-
‘(i) IN GENERAL- Subject to clause (ii), the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) shall require that, in any case in which the State (or the Administrator, as applicable) or an appropriate treating physician or nurse determines that a medical emergency exists and the proprietary chemical formula or specific chemical identity of a trade-secret chemical used in hydraulic fracturing is necessary for medical treatment, the applicable person using hydraulic fracturing shall, upon request, immediately disclose to the State (or the Administrator) or the treating physician or nurse the proprietary chemical formula or specific chemical identity of a trade-secret chemical, regardless of the existence of–
‘(I) a written statement of need; or
‘(II) a confidentiality agreement.
‘(ii) REQUIREMENT- A person using hydraulic fracturing that makes a disclosure required under clause (i) may require the execution of a written statement of need and a confidentiality agreement as soon as practicable after the determination by the State (or the Administrator) or the treating physician or nurse under that clause.
‘(D) NO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE REQUIRED- Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) authorizes a State (or the Administrator) to require the public disclosure of any proprietary chemical formula.’ For any query with respect to this article or any other content requirement, please contact Editor at htsyndication@hindustantimes.com
US Fed News
April 2, 2011
http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/news_display/1391001461.html
Frack Water Safety Debated
Bill to require drillers to disclose chemicals goes before Congress
WHEELING – Federal legislators Robert Casey and Diana DeGette believe hydraulic fracturing may contaminate drinking water during the natural gas drilling process.
But Marcellus Shale Coalition President Kathryn Klaber said Congress has no business regulating drilling via the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act.
The bill, commonly known as the FRAC Act, was introduced by U.S. Sen. Casey, D-Pa., and Congresswoman DeGette, D-Colo., in each chamber this week. The legislation is similar to a bill of the same name that died last year.
“Pennsylvanians have a right to know the chemicals used in fracking that could make their way into drinking water and other water sources,” said Casey.
“The FRAC Act takes necessary but reasonable steps to ensure our nation’s drinking water is protected, and that as fracking operations continue to expand, communities can be assured that the economic benefits of natural gas are not coming at the expense of the health of their families,” added DeGette.
The bill’s sponsors say the FRAC Act would:
• Require disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking, but not the proprietary chemical formula. This would be similar to how a soft drink producer must reveal the ingredients of their product, but not the specific formula;
• Repeal a provision added to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempting the industry from complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Some anti-fracking advocates have commonly referred to this 2005 provision as the “Halliburton Loophole.”
The act would also provide power to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to require drillers to have an employee, knowledgeable in responding to emergency situations, present at the well at all times during the exploration or drilling phase.
Klaber, though, said state officials are best equipped to regulate fracking and drilling. However, the West Virginia Legislature did not adopt proposed regulations for natural gas drilling – including chemical disclosures for fracking – in the recently concluded regular session.
“Because of tight regulations and laws in place, coupled with the commitment from industry to protect the environment, there’s never been a single case of groundwater contamination associated with fracturing …,” Klaber said.
Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth, went further than Klaber, saying the FRAC Act is “based on fundamentally incorrect information,” noting the Safe Drinking Water Act was never used to regulate fracking.
“Its backers say it’s about forcing companies to disclose the composition of the … solution that’s not water and sand, even though just about every state regulatory agency in the country will attest that such information is already available,” Fuller added.
Officials with Chesapeake Energy said about 99.5 percent of the 5.6 million gallons of fluid used to frack a typical well consists of water and sand.
However, if 0.5 percent of the 5.6 million gallons used for a normal well consists of materials other than water and sand, that means 28,000 gallons of chemicals found in products such as antifreeze, laundry detergent and deodorant are pumped deep into the ground at high pressure for each fracking job the company performs.
According to Chesapeake, the company’s most common fracking solution contains 0.5 percent worth of chemicals. These include:
• hydrochloric acid – found in swimming pool cleaner, and used to help crack the rock;
• ethylene glycol – found in antifreeze, and used to prevent scale deposits in the pipe;
• isopropanol – found in deodorant, and used to reduce surface tension;
• glutaraldehyde – found in disinfectant, and used to eliminate bacteria;
• petroleum distillate – found in cosmetics, and used to minimize friction;
• guar gum – found in common household products, and used to suspend the sand;
• ammonium persulfate – found in hair coloring, and used to delay the breakdown of guar gum;
• formamide – found in pharmaceuticals, and used to prevent corrosion of the well casing;
• borate salts – found in laundry detergent, and used to maintain fluid viscosity under high temperatures;
• citric acid – found in soft drinks, and used to prevent precipitation of metal;
• potassium chloride – found in medicine and salt substitutes, and used to prevent fluid from interacting with soil;
• sodium or potassium carbonate – found in laundry detergent, and used to balance acidic substances.
March 17, 2011 – By CASEY JUNKINS
http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/553099/Frack-Water-Safety-Debated.html?nav=515
Bill regulating fracking draws mixed reaction
Legislation introduced Tuesday by U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., to regulate aspects of natural gas drilling provoked mixed reactions from environmental groups and the industry.
The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals — or FRAC — Act “would increase disclosure and regulation of chemicals that could enter Pennsylvania’s drinking water supply,” according to a statement from the senator.
“We think the FRAC Act is a great first step,” said Jessica Ennis, legislative associate for Earthjustice, an environmental law firm. “I think it would put more accountability into the drilling process.”
Drillers, meanwhile, oppose the attempt to bring hydraulic fracturing — also known as fracking — under federal regulation.
“This is really a Washington solution in search of a problem,” said Travis Windle, spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition. “This is something the states ably, aggressively and effectively regulate every day.”
Fracking, a fundamental step in Marcellus Shale drilling, involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into the ground under high pressure to break apart rock and aid in releasing trapped natural gas.
Congress exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005.
The bill was one of three Mr. Casey introduced Tuesday pertaining to natural gas drilling. A companion bill to the FRAC Act was introduced in the House of Representatives by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
March 16, 2011
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Jonathan D. Silver: jsilver@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1962
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11075/1132238-113.stm
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Says US Should Regulate Gas Drilling
http://cbs3.com/wireapnewsnj/PA.Sen.Casey.2.1868029.html
Aug 19, 2010
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Says US Should Regulate Gas Drilling
MICHAEL RUBINKAM, Associated Press Writer
SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) ― U.S. Sen. Bob Casey said Thursday that Pennsylvania’s emerging natural gas industry has the potential to create jobs and wealth, but also carries environmental risks that must be addressed.
The Pennsylvania Democrat told a forum in Scranton that the “gas rush” taking place in the vast Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania “can create a great economic boost” in a state where nearly 600,000 people are unemployed. But he added: “We must not fail to protect our people, our land, our water and our future.”
Casey is sponsoring the FRAC Act, stalled legislation that calls for federal regulation of the drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.” Drillers inject millions of gallons of chemical-laden water deep underground to break up the shale and let natural gas escape, leaving much of the water below ground.
Because the process was exempted from federal laws by 2005 energy legislation, regulation has been left to various states.
Opponents contend fracking not only threatens the quality of groundwater but the quantity, since it requires so much water be withdrawn from area rivers.
The industry says fracking has a long track record and that it is safe, with no confirmation that the process has ever contaminated water supplies, and that other kinds of energy production use much more water.
Casey on Thursday pushed for full disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking, one of the provisions of the FRAC Act. The industry says it now does disclose those chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens, after years of claiming the chemical formulas were proprietary.
“Pennsylvanians have a right to know what is being injected into the ground at thousands of sites across the commonwealth,” he said. If fracking chemicals do not pose a threat to groundwater, drinking water or human health, he asked, “then why can’t we shine the light of full disclosure on that process?”
Industry official Kathryn Klaber, who appeared with Casey at the forum, said drillers have nothing to hide and do not object to additional types of disclosure to make the public more comfortable.
“There’s no reason not to have that data available, and clearly the public sees it as a top priority,” said Klaber, head of the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
Thursday’s forum at Marywood University examined the short- and long-term impacts of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale, a giant gas field underlying much of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Some experts believe the Marcellus Shale, with as much as 500 trillion cubic feet, could become the nation’s most productive, with enough natural gas to supply the energy-hungry East Coast for 50 years.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has conducted hearings around the country this summer, seeking input as it prepares to study the environmental issues of fracking over the next two years. While Casey has been able to attach the disclosure provisions of the FRAC Act to another energy bill that the Senate could take up this fall, legislative action on the regulatory issue is unlikely this year.
Opponents of the gas drilling process complain the industry has taken environmental and safety shortcuts in their zeal to reap the vast gas stores. Drilling companies tallied more than 1,400 violations of state laws since January 2008, according to an environmental advocacy group’s recent analysis of state data.
John Hanger, secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, expressed frustration with the industry in a newspaper interview on Thursday, vowing to stop issuing permits to frequent violators.
“The only sanction left to government and the people is to tell a company it can’t do business here any longer,” Hanger told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “We’re now to the point of really sorting through these violations and identifying companies that don’t seem yet to have gotten the message.
Hanger called out three companies in particular: Chief Oil & Gas of Dallas, Citrus Energy of Colorado and EOG Resources, the Houston-based company that had a blowout at a Clearfield County well in June.
Klaber said the industry shares Hanger’s concern and is working to reduce violations.
“We’ve go to do this right,” she said. “We need to be at a place where there are no violations, and we need to be doing that consistently to earn … trust.”