Ramia 1

Zoe Ramia
Government 5
Mr. Rogers
23 October 2015
Fracking
What the frack is going on with all these toxic chemicals used in fracking?
Hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, is the process of drilling and injecting
fluid into the ground at a high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural
gas inside (What Goes In & Out of Hydraulic Fracking). Fracking fluid is usually
water-based containing various chemicals that promote the effectiveness of the fracturing
including buffers, stabilizers, fluid-loss additives, bactericides, and surfactants. Fracking
uses millions of gallons of water and more than 80% is lost underground or cant be used
again (Bambrick). While fracking produces a lot of useable energy, it also produces a lot
of harmful waste. The chemicals used in fracking fluid can leech into groundwater while
the whole process pollutes the air. The water recovered from the drilling process is
contaminated and cant be returned to the water cycle. This bill is not calling for a total
recall on fracking, but it is calling for a ban on some harmful chemicals to make the
process safer and less harmful to the environment. The Limited Chemical Solutions Act
of 2017 would involve the monitoring and regulation of the chemicals used in hydraulic
fracking by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). This bill should become a law
because the fracking industry needs to be limited on its use of toxic chemicals, the
workers are put at high risk for disease, and the wells and drilling sites have the potential
to contaminate dinking water.

Ramia 2
Currently, the fracking industry is able to use many toxic chemicals because they
arent being closely regulated. These chemicals used could have harmful effects on
human health and the environment. Some molecules used in fracking include: polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons, radium, uranium, mercury, lead, methanol, formaldehyde,
ethylene glycol, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide (Hydraulic Fracturing 101).
According to a study done by Cornell University, these chemicals can cause health effects
in the skin, eye and sensory organ, respiratory, gastrointestinal and liver, brain and
nervous system, immune, kidney, cardiovascular and blood, cancer, mutagenic, to
endocrine disruption (Colborn, Kwiatkowski, Schultz, Bachran). This can be avoided if
those chemicals were put on a banned list and other safer chemicals were used in their
place. The fracking fluid is of high concern as it is what is pumped underground near
aquifers and groundwater that are used for human consumption. Chemicals linked to
breast cancer along with endocrine-disrupting compounds can be found in fracking fluid
(Air & Water Exposures). The possibility of cancer causing agents in fluid that is going
near drinking water isnt something to be taken lightly. Carcinogens should not be used in
fracking fluid. With this bill in place, chemicals linked to cancers would be banned as to
not put any more residents at harm. But its not just the residents who live nearby
fracking sites that are in harms way.
There are many workers involved in the extraction and manufacturing processes
and they are put at the most risk for fracking related health hazards. According to NIOSH
(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) Science Blog, exposure to
crystalline silica was identified as the most significant health hazard to workers during
initial hazard assessments done in a study (Worker Exposure to Crystalline Silica During

Ramia 3
Hydraulic Fracturing). This means that the approximated 435,000 employees who work
in the US oil and gas extraction industry are being put at risk for poor health. Crystalline
silica is a sort of sand type substance that can cause detrimental health effects, yet
workers are exposed to it on the job everyday. Again, NIOSH states that, Inhalation of
fine dusts of respirable crystalline silica can cause silicosis. Silicosis is an incurable but
preventable lung disease, (Worker Exposure to Crystalline Silica During Hydraulic
Fracturing). Silicosis can result in poor gas exchange, making it difficult to breathe, and
ultimately leading to death in serious cases (Crystalline Silica). Workers at fracking
sites are constantly exposed to the frac sand containing crystalline silica. This bill can
stop these employees from risking their health at work. Many people arent even aware of
the danger placed on the workersmost of the concern is about water contamination.
Many drilling sites are located near wells and natural aquifers, with the toxic
fracking fluid, many residents are worried about water contamination. If wells have
problems with the concrete used to seal the space between the well pipe and the
surrounding earth, then methane from the fracking fluid can leach into the well
(Schrope). Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that is thought to contribute to climate
changeit is not something that is wanted leaking out of fracking sites. If wells are older,
this could easily happen since they werent made with the idea in mind that toxic
chemicals would come in close contact with it underground. There have been reported
cases where fracking is the believed source for water contamination. One specific
example is in Bradford County, Pennsylvania. In samples taken from water that was
piped into homes, a drilling chemical known to cause tumors in rodents, 2-BE, was found
(Hydraulic Fracturing 101). Its a potential carcinogen and it was being piped into

Ramia 4
peoples homes to drink, bathe in, and use for cooking! Another worry associated with
fracking is the disposal of the wastewater. Wastewater is usually stored in impoundments
that are lined with plastic sheeting. But this system isnt perfect because the sheeting can
tear and leach and the contaminated water can leech into the ground (Brown). This bill
would take away many residents fears of becoming ill due to their close proximity to a
fracking site. It would also help many people focus on the positives associated with
fracking like being a cleaner energy source.
It is understandable that some people are against putting a limit on frackingit
generates lots of energy and can be used in the United States. In fact, the United States
has been producing more gas than ever since the rise of fracking (Gold 33). But just
because it is a good source for now, doesnt mean its a sustainable source. The fact that it
is producing so much gas also means that it is producing a good amount of waste.
Supporters of fracking might argue that it allows us to become more energy independent
from foreign countries (Gold 6). But with the fracking happening in the United States, the
waste and harm to the environment also happen on our home turf. Fracking produces
natural gas as an energy source, which is considered more climate-friendly than coal
since it burns cleaner (Magill). Additionally, there are carbon dioxide and ash emissions
when natural gas is burned versus coal (Golden). The natural gas produced is not the
problem; its how it is extracted using dangerous chemicals. There are many positives to
fracking, which is why this bill isnt calling for fracking to be completely banned, its just
asking for a limit on the dangerous chemicals used during the process.
The Limited Chemical Solutions Act of 2015 should be passed because it canhelp
takeawayhealthhazardsbybanningtoxinsandcarcinogens,itcouldprotectworkers

Ramia 5
whoarehighlysusceptibletodiseaseatfrackingsites,anditcanhelpputacaponthe
drinkingwatercontamination.Thiswillhelptake away all potential health hazards
related to fracking, create a safer working environment for employees, and give citizens a
peace of mind knowing there isnt a possibility of carcinogens leaching into their
groundwater from the operation. Fracking is a beneficial energy source that should not go
wasted. People should vote for this bill because it provides citizens with a piece of mind
knowing their water isnt being contaminated by fracking.

Ramia 6

Works Cited
"Air & Water Exposures." Air & Water Exposures. Breast Cancer Fund, n.d. Web. 01
Nov. 2015. <http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/environmental-breastcancer-links/air-water/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F>.
Bambrick, Gail. "Fracking: Pro and Con." Tufts Now. N.p., 11 Dec. 2012. Web.
<http://now.tufts.edu/articles/fracking-pro-and-con>.
Brown, Valerie J. "Radionuclides in Fracking Wastewater: Managing a Toxic Blend."
Environmental Health Perspectives. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
<http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a50/>.
Colborn, Theo, Carol Kwiatkowski, Kim Schultz, and Mary Bachran. "Natural Gas
Operations from a Public Health Perspective." Hazard Assessment Articles
(2011): n. pag. Web.
<http://www2.cce.cornell.edu/naturalgasdev/documents/pdfs/fracking
%20chemicals%20from%20a%20public%20health%20perspective.pdf>.
"Crystalline Silica." Hazardous Chemicals Requiring Health Monitoring (n.d.): n. pag.
Web.
<http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/
797/Crystalline%20Silica.pdf>.
Gold, Russell. The Boom: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and
Changed the World. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Golden, Mark. "Stanford-led Study Assesses the Environmental Costs and Benefits of
Fracking." Stanford News. Stanford University, n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.

Ramia 7
<http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/fracking-costs-benefits091214.html>.
"Hydraulic Fracturing 101." EARTHWORKS. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
<https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#.VjBB
KjdpvjQ>.
Magill, Bobby. "Water Use Rises as Fracking Expands." Scientific American Global RSS.
N.p., 1 July 2015. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/water-use-rises-as-frackingexpands/>.
Schrope, Mark. "Fracking Outpaces Science on Its Impact." Environment Yale. N.p., n.d.
Web. <http://environment.yale.edu/envy/stories/fracking-outpaces-science-on-itsimpact>.
"What Goes In & Out of Hydraulic Fracking." Dangers of Fracking. N.p., n.d. Web. 01
Nov. 2015. <http://www.dangersoffracking.com/>.
"Worker Exposure to Crystalline Silica During Hydraulic Fracturing." CDC. N.p., 23
May 2012. Web. <http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2012/05/23/silicafracking/>.