SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Will New Chemical Law Hide the Fracking Industry's Toxic Secrets?
The makeup of hydraulic fracturing fluid--the slurry of chemicals, sand and water injected deep underground to free petroleum deposits trapped by bedrock--is a closely guarded secret of the oil and gas industry.
May 14, 2016
The makeup of hydraulic fracturing fluid--the slurry of chemicals, sand and water injected deep underground to free petroleum deposits trapped by bedrock--is a closely guarded secret of the oil and gas industry.
Fracking has contaminated drinking water and is linked to health problems in people living near drilling sites, and also to triggering earthquakes. But federal law doesn't require drillers to disclose what's in their fracking fluid. Although some states have disclosure laws--California's is the most comprehensive--most still allow some form of "trade secret" protection and don't require the generation, submission or publication of health and safety data.
"This confidentiality comes at a steep cost."
What exactly is in that toxic stew of fracking chemicals? What chemicals are used at which drill sites? What potential health risks do nearby communities face? The answers are hard to come by because of deficiencies in our federal toxics law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
First, the law does not require companies to conduct any health testing on chemicals before they are manufactured or used. Second, it permits generous confidentiality protections--allowing industry to claim just about anything is a trade secret including chemical name, company name, production volume, mixtures, likely exposures and sometimes even health and safety data. Even basic information such as how the chemical is used can be claimed as confidential.
Last month the Partnership for Policy Integrity released an expose that captures the scope of the problem. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, the organization obtained Environmental Protection Agency data on 105 different chemicals reportedly used in fracking and drilling. The report found:
- Health studies were only available for just two of the chemicals.
- EPA expressed concerns about 88 chemicals related to health effects such as skin and eye irritation, respiratory effects, neurotoxicity, kidney toxicity and development toxicity. However, EPA requested health studies for only five of the chemicals.
- Industry claimed trade secret protection on things like chemical name, product names, chemical uses, production volumes and likely exposures for 75 of the chemicals.
- Almost all of the chemicals were approved for manufacturing, despite EPA's health concerns.
This confidentiality comes at a steep cost. It keeps communities in the dark and undermines efforts by advocates seeking to better understand the toll fracking might take on both the environment and public health.
Congress has the opportunity to finally remove the shroud of secrecy surrounding fracking chemicals. Key members are currently working to reconcile two bills passed by the House and the Senate last year that would update the law.
A good final bill must allow EPA to get more health and safety data on fracking chemicals before they can be manufactured or used, would scale back trade secret protections on fracking chemicals, particularly as they relate to health and safety studies, and would fully preserve efforts by states to require disclosure.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Melanie Benesh
Melanie Benesh is EWG's Legislative Attorney. She provides a legislative and regulatory analysis of federal food, cosmetics, farm, and chemical law. At Georgetown University Law Center, she was a Cutler Salzburg Fellow and served on the Georgetown Journal of International Law. After college, Benesh worked as a research assistant studying fair trade coffee in Chiapas, Mexico, and later as a community organizer for Voces de la Frontera in Milwaukee. She currently co-teaches a course on public interest advocacy as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
The makeup of hydraulic fracturing fluid--the slurry of chemicals, sand and water injected deep underground to free petroleum deposits trapped by bedrock--is a closely guarded secret of the oil and gas industry.
Fracking has contaminated drinking water and is linked to health problems in people living near drilling sites, and also to triggering earthquakes. But federal law doesn't require drillers to disclose what's in their fracking fluid. Although some states have disclosure laws--California's is the most comprehensive--most still allow some form of "trade secret" protection and don't require the generation, submission or publication of health and safety data.
"This confidentiality comes at a steep cost."
What exactly is in that toxic stew of fracking chemicals? What chemicals are used at which drill sites? What potential health risks do nearby communities face? The answers are hard to come by because of deficiencies in our federal toxics law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
First, the law does not require companies to conduct any health testing on chemicals before they are manufactured or used. Second, it permits generous confidentiality protections--allowing industry to claim just about anything is a trade secret including chemical name, company name, production volume, mixtures, likely exposures and sometimes even health and safety data. Even basic information such as how the chemical is used can be claimed as confidential.
Last month the Partnership for Policy Integrity released an expose that captures the scope of the problem. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, the organization obtained Environmental Protection Agency data on 105 different chemicals reportedly used in fracking and drilling. The report found:
- Health studies were only available for just two of the chemicals.
- EPA expressed concerns about 88 chemicals related to health effects such as skin and eye irritation, respiratory effects, neurotoxicity, kidney toxicity and development toxicity. However, EPA requested health studies for only five of the chemicals.
- Industry claimed trade secret protection on things like chemical name, product names, chemical uses, production volumes and likely exposures for 75 of the chemicals.
- Almost all of the chemicals were approved for manufacturing, despite EPA's health concerns.
This confidentiality comes at a steep cost. It keeps communities in the dark and undermines efforts by advocates seeking to better understand the toll fracking might take on both the environment and public health.
Congress has the opportunity to finally remove the shroud of secrecy surrounding fracking chemicals. Key members are currently working to reconcile two bills passed by the House and the Senate last year that would update the law.
A good final bill must allow EPA to get more health and safety data on fracking chemicals before they can be manufactured or used, would scale back trade secret protections on fracking chemicals, particularly as they relate to health and safety studies, and would fully preserve efforts by states to require disclosure.
Melanie Benesh
Melanie Benesh is EWG's Legislative Attorney. She provides a legislative and regulatory analysis of federal food, cosmetics, farm, and chemical law. At Georgetown University Law Center, she was a Cutler Salzburg Fellow and served on the Georgetown Journal of International Law. After college, Benesh worked as a research assistant studying fair trade coffee in Chiapas, Mexico, and later as a community organizer for Voces de la Frontera in Milwaukee. She currently co-teaches a course on public interest advocacy as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
The makeup of hydraulic fracturing fluid--the slurry of chemicals, sand and water injected deep underground to free petroleum deposits trapped by bedrock--is a closely guarded secret of the oil and gas industry.
Fracking has contaminated drinking water and is linked to health problems in people living near drilling sites, and also to triggering earthquakes. But federal law doesn't require drillers to disclose what's in their fracking fluid. Although some states have disclosure laws--California's is the most comprehensive--most still allow some form of "trade secret" protection and don't require the generation, submission or publication of health and safety data.
"This confidentiality comes at a steep cost."
What exactly is in that toxic stew of fracking chemicals? What chemicals are used at which drill sites? What potential health risks do nearby communities face? The answers are hard to come by because of deficiencies in our federal toxics law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
First, the law does not require companies to conduct any health testing on chemicals before they are manufactured or used. Second, it permits generous confidentiality protections--allowing industry to claim just about anything is a trade secret including chemical name, company name, production volume, mixtures, likely exposures and sometimes even health and safety data. Even basic information such as how the chemical is used can be claimed as confidential.
Last month the Partnership for Policy Integrity released an expose that captures the scope of the problem. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, the organization obtained Environmental Protection Agency data on 105 different chemicals reportedly used in fracking and drilling. The report found:
- Health studies were only available for just two of the chemicals.
- EPA expressed concerns about 88 chemicals related to health effects such as skin and eye irritation, respiratory effects, neurotoxicity, kidney toxicity and development toxicity. However, EPA requested health studies for only five of the chemicals.
- Industry claimed trade secret protection on things like chemical name, product names, chemical uses, production volumes and likely exposures for 75 of the chemicals.
- Almost all of the chemicals were approved for manufacturing, despite EPA's health concerns.
This confidentiality comes at a steep cost. It keeps communities in the dark and undermines efforts by advocates seeking to better understand the toll fracking might take on both the environment and public health.
Congress has the opportunity to finally remove the shroud of secrecy surrounding fracking chemicals. Key members are currently working to reconcile two bills passed by the House and the Senate last year that would update the law.
A good final bill must allow EPA to get more health and safety data on fracking chemicals before they can be manufactured or used, would scale back trade secret protections on fracking chemicals, particularly as they relate to health and safety studies, and would fully preserve efforts by states to require disclosure.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.