196
manufacturers. Knowledge is very limited concerning the toxicology of degradation
products and the natural attenuation paths followed by many of the chemical additives used in fracking. Only a handful of NA studies have been completed to date,
and none have kept up with the constantly evolving chemical landscape associated
with fracking (i.e. Cluff et al. 2014; Kahrilas et al. 2015, 2016).
Thus, the regulators have no way of knowing the chemicals that are being used,
and what the risks might be if a spill led to a surface water or groundwater contamination event. This is a significant concern, because it is only a matter of time before
there is a release of a chemical into the environment where the toxicity and persistence are unknown. Without understanding exactly what they are dealing with, first
responders and cleanup crews may be ineffective, or might even inadvertently make
things worse.
Greener fracking can be encouraged by providing incentives and tax breaks to
operators who substitute more benign chemicals for toxic alternatives. There also
needs to be far more regulatory oversight. State agencies handle this as best they
can, but many are understaffed and underfunded and in a drilling boom, it is challenging to get inspectors out to every site. Industry should pay for this in the form
of much higher drilling permit fees that can be used to fund regulators. Permit fees
currently in the range of hundreds of dollars can be raised to tens of thousands of
dollars without unduly affecting the economics of a ten million dollar drilling program. A robust and ever-watchful regulatory program will ensure that nobody tries
to pull a fast one, and that even honest mistakes get reported and remediated
promptly. Industry can be counted on to complain loudly about “burdensome regulations,” but if they are doing everything properly as they so often claim, they should
automatically be in compliance with the regulations and have no problems.
As part of the well permitting process, state regulators should require that chemical manufacturers document every step of the NA process for new organic frack
additives and run toxicology tests on each daughter compound before bringing new
chemicals to market. Such data could be critically important in the event of a
spill. The cost of these analyses may even encourage the use of greener frack chemicals made of simpler compounds that degrade quickly into harmless byproducts.
10.3 Remediation of Damages
So what can be done to fix all this? Oppenheimer et al. (2019) reviewed the use of
expert panels by governments to help guide environmental policy and action. In
many cases, governments identify and empanel experts to deliberate and decide on
the scientific facts about problems like climate change, acid rain, ozone depletion,
sea level rise, and other complex issues. The organization and management of these
panels can affect scientific judgments, but when the scientists involved focus on the
facts and evidence, their recommendations usually lead to sound policy if implemented. That last caveat is important – all the technically-sound and scientifically
10 Mitigation and Remediation
manufacturers. Knowledge is very limited concerning the toxicology of degradation
products and the natural attenuation paths followed by many of the chemical additives used in fracking. Only a handful of NA studies have been completed to date,
and none have kept up with the constantly evolving chemical landscape associated
with fracking (i.e. Cluff et al. 2014; Kahrilas et al. 2015, 2016).
Thus, the regulators have no way of knowing the chemicals that are being used,
and what the risks might be if a spill led to a surface water or groundwater contamination event. This is a significant concern, because it is only a matter of time before
there is a release of a chemical into the environment where the toxicity and persistence are unknown. Without understanding exactly what they are dealing with, first
responders and cleanup crews may be ineffective, or might even inadvertently make
things worse.
Greener fracking can be encouraged by providing incentives and tax breaks to
operators who substitute more benign chemicals for toxic alternatives. There also
needs to be far more regulatory oversight. State agencies handle this as best they
can, but many are understaffed and underfunded and in a drilling boom, it is challenging to get inspectors out to every site. Industry should pay for this in the form
of much higher drilling permit fees that can be used to fund regulators. Permit fees
currently in the range of hundreds of dollars can be raised to tens of thousands of
dollars without unduly affecting the economics of a ten million dollar drilling program. A robust and ever-watchful regulatory program will ensure that nobody tries
to pull a fast one, and that even honest mistakes get reported and remediated
promptly. Industry can be counted on to complain loudly about “burdensome regulations,” but if they are doing everything properly as they so often claim, they should
automatically be in compliance with the regulations and have no problems.
As part of the well permitting process, state regulators should require that chemical manufacturers document every step of the NA process for new organic frack
additives and run toxicology tests on each daughter compound before bringing new
chemicals to market. Such data could be critically important in the event of a
spill. The cost of these analyses may even encourage the use of greener frack chemicals made of simpler compounds that degrade quickly into harmless byproducts.
10.3 Remediation of Damages
So what can be done to fix all this? Oppenheimer et al. (2019) reviewed the use of
expert panels by governments to help guide environmental policy and action. In
many cases, governments identify and empanel experts to deliberate and decide on
the scientific facts about problems like climate change, acid rain, ozone depletion,
sea level rise, and other complex issues. The organization and management of these
panels can affect scientific judgments, but when the scientists involved focus on the
facts and evidence, their recommendations usually lead to sound policy if implemented. That last caveat is important – all the technically-sound and scientifically
10 Mitigation and Remediation