“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” Why ask for regulations knowing frac problems & harms can’t be repaired with regulations, not even “best in the world,” and everywhere they’re fracing, or planning to, regulators are madly deregulating?

Briefing: FRACKING POLLUTION: HOW TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM FRACKING COULD AFFECT WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE IN THE UK AND EU by Dr Michael Warhurst and Gwen Buck, June 2015, CHEMTrust

Click on cover to access complete report.

…

Our key recommendations are:

1) All chemicals used in fracking must be disclosed, with no provision for commercial confidentiality.

2) Stronger EU regulation of fracking is required, ensuring that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) are required for all sites, chemical use is controlled and transparent, effective monitoring is obligatory and wastewater management is safe, including an absolute ban on disposal of wastewater by re-injection into the ground.

3) Regulations must protect the environment and people even when fracking wells are no longer used, including financial bonds to cover clean-up costs.

4) Effective monitoring and enforcement is essential to ensure that regulatory controls are followed. This means that regulators must have the resources to carry out these functions; this is a particular concern in the UK where the Environment Agency (EA) is experiencing substantial budget cuts.

In CHEM Trust’s view there should be an EU-wide moratorium on fracking until all our recommendations (see end of briefing) are in place. …

[Why are so many wrongly defining fracing?] 

High-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ is a way of releasing oil or gas resources that are trapped in shale rocks, coal seams and deposits.

[“Fracking” or high volume hydraulic fracturing causing significant contamination and harm is also done on slant, deviated and vertical wells] …

…

[All the more reason to follow France and New York State]

…

Chemical disclosure
• There must be full public disclosure of all the chemicals used, with adequate
data on their hazard profiles, and clear, publicly available, assessment
of all the potential health and environmental effects. There should be no
opportunity for industry to withhold chemical identities based on claimed
commercial confidentiality.

• Manufacturers and distributers of chemicals must produce and communicate
human and environmental exposure scenarios for fracking substances. These exposure scenarios should be publicly available, and must make clear what are the assumptions made in calculating adequate control, for example, with respect to the storage and fate of flowback. …

Regulators
• The regulation and monitoring of a large number of fracking wells will be a
challenge for regulators. There must be sufficient staff and resources to do
this job effectively. This is a particular concern in the UK, where the staffing
of regulators such as the EA has been reducing in recent years.

• It is also vital that regulators have sufficient expertise in the full range of
issues relevant to fracking, including, for example, the safety of wells. [ Why ask for regulation and monitoring  when the EU and UK are deregulating as fast as they can to accommodate industry’s demands of legally immune, unaccountable, “no duty of care,” frac-harm-loaded free-for-all?]

Location
• The vulnerability of ground waters to pollution from fracking should be
recognised and there should be no operations in groundwater source
protection zones. 

… [Emphasis added]

Chemicals from fracking could cause significant pollution and damage to wildlife by Michael Warhurst, June 20, 2015, ChemTrust.org.uk

Fracking poses ‘significant’ risk to humans, A major scientific study says the process uses toxic and carcinogenic chemicals by Andy Rowell, June 20, 2015, The Independent
A major new scientific study has concluded that the controversial gas extraction technique known as fracking poses a “significant” risk to human health and British wildlife, and that an EU-wide moratorium should be implemented until widespread regulatory reform is undertaken.

The damning report by the CHEM Trust, the British charity that investigates the harm chemicals cause humans and wildlife, highlights serious shortcomings in the UK’s regulatory regime, which the report says will only get worse as the Government makes further budget cuts.

It also warns of severe risks to human health if the new Conservative government tries to fast-track fracking [Is there any place where frac’ing isn’t deregulated and “fast-tracked?” It’s as if companies, corrupt politicians and regulators know communities will yell “No! Stop!” when they find out how severely they are being poisoned. And once the truth is out, intelligent courageous jurisdictions like New York State and France will ban fracing. Thus, they have to frac fast, before people find out the truth] of shale gas across the UK. The “scale of commercial fracking” unleashed by the Government’s eagerness to exploit the technique “should not be underestimated”, it cautions. [Just look to Australia, USA, Canada for examples of that horrendous scale]

The report is due to be published tomorrow – in the week that Lancashire county council votes on two highly contentious planning applications to frack in the county by the company Cuadrilla. If approved, they will be the first commercial fracking sites in the UK. Last week, council planning officers recommended approval of fracking at one site, Preston New Road, but opposed a second site, Roseacre Wood, but only on traffic concerns, not pollution from fracking itself.

The charity says it will send copies of the report to the Lancashire councillors before they vote.

Late last year, New York became the first US state with significant shale gas reserves to ban fracking for health reasons. Howard Zucker, New York’s acting health commissioner, said he had identified “significant” public health risks and the state’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, compared fracking to passive smoking, a practice that wasn’t understood as a health risk for many years.

The CHEM Trust report also focuses on the potential health effects of the hundreds of chemicals, along with sand and water, that fracking companies use to prise open rocks. It warns of “significant” pollution to air, groundwater and surface waters and threats to wildlife. Some of these toxic chemicals have been linked to breast, prostate and testicular cancer in humans as well as coronary heart disease, the report says. It outlines how 38 fracking chemicals are “acutely toxic for humans” and a further 20 are mutagenic, or known or possible carcinogens.

The report gives specific examples of hazardous materials used in fracking, including chemicals “associated with leukaemia in humans” and “toxic to sperm production in males”. The trust warns it is “particularly concerned about the use of hormone-disrupting chemicals”.

It is also asking for full disclosure of the chemicals that will be used in the fracking process. Many of the chemicals used in the process remain secret. In the US, nearly 300 products used in fracking fluids contain at least one secret chemical.

The report warns of concerns about “the current regulation of fracking” in the UK, which has “weak points”. Since the passage of the Infrastructure Bill last year, “it is no longer clear how well groundwaters will be protected”. It is particularly concerned that “ongoing cuts in regulatory authorities” will only make matters worse, especially any cuts to the regulator, the Environment Agency, which lost 15 per cent of its staff last year. [Deregulation – all the better to frac the UK with. Companies can’t profit from fracing with regulations in place and enforced, thus the massive deregulation everywhere fracing is taking place, or planned.]

Specific issues about fracking in Lancashire are raised, including the suggestion that fracking could harm wildlife in the Wyre estuary, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, home to 11 wading bird species of international importance and three of national importance, as well as important orchids and insects. “There is clear potential for fracking to cause serious pollution incidents with major impacts on the UK especially areas of recognised wildlife interest” the study concludes. [Then why ask for regulation!?]

The report makes numerous recommendations to protect health, groundwater and the British countryside. These include no fracking operations near drinking water aquifers, the undertaking of environmental impact assessments for all fracking sites, and effective monitoring even after fracking operations have stopped. [Who will pay for that? Companies? Regulators? Greedy, bankrupt, corrupt, cover-up governments? The families harmed by fracing?]

Dr Michael Warhurst, the executive director of CHEM Trust, said: “Our investigation has identified key problems with the way fracking is regulated and monitored. Given the potential for pollution and damage to ecosystems, CHEM Trust is calling for a moratorium on fracking in Europe until our recommendations are in place”.

A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said: “We take the environmental risks associated with oil and gas exploration and production very seriously, including hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, and are committed to ensuring that people and the environment are protected. [Being committed means nothing. Promises of commitment and “best in the world” does not translate into regulation, enforcement, appropriate data collection/monitoring (ask Dr. John Cherry) or protection]

“Our regulatory controls are in place to protect people and the environment.” [Really?  What about the massive deregulation by Cameron, with lots more deregulation and rights decimation planned? [Emphasis added]

[Refer also to:

Studies Overwhelmingly Show Public Health Hazards and Risks

Health Professionals Urge Governor Cuomo to Enact 3-5 Year Moratorium on Fracking given Scientific Studies and Trends

2014 12: The first is a new working paper analysis from the energy science organization, PSE Healthy Energy. Covering a wide range of outcomes—air pollution, water contamination, and public health—the PSE Healthy Energy analysis is a statistical evaluation of the approximately 400 peer-reviewed studies to date on the impacts of fracking.

Among the key findings:

• 96% of all studies published on health impacts indicate potential risks or adverse health outcomes.
• 87% of original research studies published on health outcomes indicate potential risks or adverse health outcomes.
• 95% of all original research studies on air quality indicate elevated concentrations of air pollutants.
• 72% of original research studies on water quality indicate potential, positive association, or actual incidence of water contamination.
• There is an ongoing explosion in the number of peer-reviewed publications on the impacts of shale or tight gas developments: approximately 73% of all available scientific peer-reviewed papers have been published in the past 24 months, with a current average of one paper published each day.

Anthony Ingraffea, PhD, Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering, Cornell University, said, “In 2008*, when New York State first declared a moratorium on fracking, only six peer-reviewed papers on the health and environmental impacts had been published. Now there are more than 400, and the vast majority show a clear and present danger. What’s more, many problems are unfixable by regulations of any kind. …”

[Emphasis added, as of June 21, 2015, there are now over 550  peer-reviewed papers published, still with most showing a “clear and present danger.”]

2015 06 01: Who do Caleb Behn and Council of Canadians represent? One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Call for Federal Fracking Regulation Flies in the Face of Call for a Ban

…