Hydraulic Fracturing:

Hazard Assessment
ENVSE 450 Final Report

By: Jawad Almahasnah, Lucas Buseck, Sruthi Kakuturu, Evan Plumridge

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Hydraulic fracturing is a hotly debated issue, and for good reason. With its use

increasing heavily in the past twenty years, it is something of concern to many. Fracking is a

technology that cracks open impermeable geologic layers and sends pressurized fracking fluid to

extract oil and gas. This is an unconventional way to drill because it extracts fossil fuels from

unconnected and difficult to reach rocks. It makes available large reserves that contain more oil

and gas than were originally thought to be available in the given areas, thus providing ample

opportunity for economic progression. However, fracking comes with risks, such as threats to the

environment and human health, as well as depletion of key resources, in particular water. The

process of fracking uses millions of gallons of water as well as harsh chemicals to make the

process more efficient. The chemicals can be toxic as well as carcinogenic if consumed at certain
concentrations via contamination of peoples drinking water or the air they breathe.

Contamination can come from many sources. Methane can migrate into groundwater/surface

water due to faulty well-casing construction, drilling fluids can reach aquifers due to geologic

properties, and direct spill of fluids can permeate the ground by leaking pipes, impoundments,

spills or blowouts. There are regulations in place to better protect the environment and human

health from the potential dangers of fracking, but this does not mean that accidents do not

happen, that regulations are always followed, or that the regulations are complete or appropriate.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the hydraulic fracturing process and the

dangers that it comes with, but also the efforts that have been put in place to assess and mitigate

those dangers, as well as the future actions that must be taken if the process is to continue in a

safe manner.

INTRODUCTION

Thirst for Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels were created millions of years ago from organic matter that underwent

intense heat and pressure. There is a vast yet limited reserve of them in various forms, which

humans are constantly engineering new ways to capture. Fossil fuels are simple to complex

hydrocarbons that react with oxygen when burned to produce heat energy that is then converted

to various useful forms of energy.

Fossil fuels have made new innovations and great prosperity possible since the Industrial

Revolution. With growing nations requiring more fossil fuels for their development, like China,

and developed nations like the United States using large amounts of fossil fuels already, there is

unprecedented demand to extract the most we can, efficiently. However, environmental concerns
have risen from fossil fuel use. Some examples of these concerns are climate change,

deforestation, resource depletion, and groundwater contamination. This has caused fossil fuel

producing and consuming companies to become more environmentally conscious in their

operations.

The coal industry in the United States was once powerful and important, but

unconventional drilling has now rendered it obsolete. Working conditions within the coal

industry, though vastly improved over the years, have raised many concerns. Environmental and

health issues, such as acid mine drainage and sulfur dioxide emissions produced by mines impact

nearly all mining sites. In addition, mining companies only can mine if it is economically

lucrative. Recently, coal companies are going bankrupt because the practice is not as

economically sound as other forms of fossil fuel extraction. Drilling for natural gas and oil, for

example, is much cheaper and more environmentally friendly (Natural Gas).

From an economic perspective, it is in the United States best interests to utilize its own

fossil fuel supply, so natural gas extraction is encouraged over other fossil fuel extraction

because of the large amount available (Where our Natural Gas Comes From). From an

environmental perspective, scientists concerned about climate change suggest that burning

natural gas can be a gateway fuel source until we transition to renewable energy sources like

solar and wind. Natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal and is twice as efficient in

converting heat to electricity (Where our Natural Gas Comes From). As long as the benefits

outweigh the negative health risks, while also earning a profit, companies are going to continue

to utilize unconventional drilling practices.

Natural Gas/Oil Extraction: Hydraulic Fracturing

 The United States has significant reserves of natural gas, especially in Pennsylvania,

Wyoming, and Texas (Where are Natural Gas Comes From). The Pennsylvania area contains

the Marcellus and Utica Shale reserves. Shale rock has a very low conductivity but is also very

porous. This means that the rock pores hold high volumes of natural gas and oil, but these

volumes are hard to access since the rock must first be broken to obtain access to them. These

reserves can vary with depth and area, but most are thousands of feet below the surface.

To access this oil and gas, engineers and scientists further developed the process of

hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. This is not a new process, as fracking began during the year

of 1865 when Edward Roberts sent a torpedo down an extraction well where it was exploded.

The explosion created large cracks within the rock which allowed fluid to transfer between pores.

The connected channels allowed for the extraction of oil that was once thought to be unreachable

(Manfreda). Fracking became more popular in the 1990s when companies realized that this

process, when combined with horizontal drilling technology, could reach much more oil that was

currently being reached(Manfreda). Horizontal drilling is a process in which pressurized fluid

extends vertically away from a pipe that is then drilled horizontally (Morton). Utilizing this

technique has been calculated to increase production rates by 1200 percent (Manfreda).

Today, fracking is common all over the world and occurs frequently within the United

States. It still serves the same purpose of connecting the pores of rock to allow liquid or gas to

flow easier. However, the technology it utilizes has improved greatly. Fracking no longer uses

torpedoes to break the rocks. Instead, projectiles are shot into the casing to create fractures in the

rock (Shooters). Afterwards, a combination of water, sand, and hundreds of different

chemicals are used to disassociate the rock and ensure that the cracks stay open to create paths

for the product to flow through. The hydraulic fracturing fluid is pumped under extreme pressure
through the rocks to perform this task. This process revolutionized the method of how we drill

for gas by not only improving the chance to reach gas in new places of the world, but also

increasing the percentage of gas that is able to be reached in those places. The process of

fracking can be seen with figure 1 where it shows the vertical cracks extending from the

horizontal well, creating a path for the available fossil fuel.

Figure (1): Projectiles create vertical cracks within the shale layer. Sending water, sand, and

other chemicals to the source rock creates a stable pathway to collect the available fossil fuel.

Dangers of Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing does come with a multitude of danger and risks, however. The

process can end up contaminating underground aquifers, exposing thousands of people and

wildlife to dangerous chemicals, impacting ecosystems, and contributing to climate change

through the failing of various components of the process. In addition, even in water-scarce

regions, the process uses large amounts of water, a resource that is finite. It is estimated that 2.4

million to 7.8 million gallons of water may be used for a multi-stage hydraulic fracturing

procedure in a typical 4,000-foot lateral well (United States. New York State Department of
Conservation). The EPA, in their summary of fracking chemicals that is detailed below, cites a

slightly lesser number of 1.5 million gallons, on average, of water used per well site across the

nation.

Pumping thousands of gallons of fracking fluid comes with the risk of environmental

damage too because the fluid contains thousands of chemicals that are intended to make the

fracturing process more efficient. These chemicals, however, can be hazardous to humans and

the environment. The initial water mixture used is called produced water, and the water that

returns is called flowback or waste water. In 2014 alone, fracking created 15 billion gallons of

wastewater. (Page). Normally, fracking operators reinject the water [deep] underground,

where it can leach into drinking water sources (Page). Flowback water must be treated if it is to

be released back into the environment. The treatment process, however, can often fail to yield

water that is potable or safe. If this wastewater breaches into an aquifer, the groundwater would

be contaminated. This creates a massive economically draining, environmentally degrading

situation for the oil company to comply with and for the environment and people to live with for

years.

Besides the issues associated with water quality, fracking has the potential to affect air

quality and contribute to climate change. Methane gas, a primary component of natural gas, can

migrate into underground water supplies, or infiltrate the atmosphere through the physical

process of fracking. In addition, improperly set cement casings can allow large amounts of

methane to leak into the Earth and then to the atmosphere. These two possible ways of methane

release into the environment from fracking can impact workers and the general publics health

through ingestion or inhalation of the chemical.

 Hydraulically fracturing is controversial in todays society for these reasons. Although

the use of natural gas through fracking reduces carbon dioxide emissions by half when compared

to burning coal (Natural Gas), it can still have a negative impact on society. The risks

involved in this process affect the environment, peoples lives, and wildlife too. Potential hazards

are possible with any process and there are many preventative measures taken in order to avoid

such hazards. With fracking, the environmental concerns are severe, but its hazards should be

weighed and analyzed from every angle to determine whether the pros outweigh the cons.

CHEMICALS IN FRACTURING FLUID

A key component of hydraulic fracturing is the set of chemicals in the fracturing fluid

that is pumped into the wells. There are many different types of chemicals that can be used in

different combinations and there are many different reasons that chemicals are added to the

fracturing fluid. Each well may present different challenges to producers that require these

different types of chemicals or different concentrations of the same chemical. In general, oil and

gas producers have a large range of options when it comes to selecting chemicals for use in the

fracturing fluid. Based on a report published by the EPA that cited over 39,000 disclosures of

fluid mixtures, 692 unique ingredients were found to be used by producers in drilling wells

across the United State of America (Burden, et. al.). On average, though, only between three and

twelve chemical additives are used at each individual drilling site (Burden, et. al.). Some

additives include acids, biocides, cross-linkers, and friction reducers. The variety of additives

reported is due to different requirements stemming from different types of source rock and water

beneath the drilling site (Chemical Use). Acids are added to assist in cracking the rock that the

hydrocarbon is found in, biocides are added to prevent bacteria buildup that could lead to

corrosion, cross-linkers are added to maintain viscosity as temperatures rise, and some chemicals
are added to reduce friction between the water and the pipes (Chemical Use). In addition, some

of the chemicals used are toxic to humans. The likelihood of humans receiving exposure to the

hazardous chemicals depends on the controls and preventative measures that producers utilize in

drilling and operating their well.

As is stated by the FracFocus organization, the fluid used in fracturing is 99.2% water.

However, a large quantity of fluid is used for most drilling sites, with an average of about 1.5

million gallons of fluid used per well, per the report released by the EPA. This then means a

substantial amount of chemical is used (0.08% of 1.5 million gallons is about 120,000 gallons).

In some cases, too, the reported amount of fluid used was much greater than the average amount

used, with the range extending from 30,000 gallons to 7.2 million gallons of fluid (Burden, et.

al.).

Of all the unique chemical ingredients that were reported to be in or that were found in

the fracturing fluid, there were some chemicals that were found to be much more common than

others. Chemicals found in over fifty percent of the disclosures or analyses conducted were

methanol, petroleum distillates, peroxydisulfuric acid, ethylene glycol, hydrochloric acid, guar

gum, and sodium hydroxide. Methanol, hydrochloric acid, and petroleum distillates were found

in over 70% of the fluid used in gas production wells (Burden, et. al.).

In the EPA study that was published, methanol (CH OH) was found in 72% of samples
3

analyzed and reported by producers. This was the most prevalent chemical additive to the

fracturing fluid in oil production wells, and the second most common chemical additive in gas

production wells. Methanol made up 0.022% (by mass) of the fracturing fluid in oil production

wells, and 0.002% (by mass) in gas production wells. The engineered purpose of methanol in the
fracturing fluid is indicated as a corrosion inhibitor (Frac Focus). A corrosion inhibitor protects

the pipe from the acidic conditions of the fluids.

Methanol is a colorless liquid that is both volatile and flammable. If methanol is ingested,

it is toxic, being known to cause temporary blindness and nausea. Accumulation of vapors in a

confined space can be explosive if an ignition source is present. There are no known

carcinogenic qualities to methanol. While temporary blindness certainly is not good, the chief

concern from this chemical additive would be its flammability and potential to mix with water.

Methanol may contribute to the probability of some residents being able to light their tap water

on fire. However, methanol can be released to the ambient environment from volcanic gases,

vegetation, and microbes, so pinpointing fracturing fluid as the reason behind methanol

contamination is difficult (National Center for Biotechnology Information (CID = 887)).

Another common agent found in the fracturing fluid is hydrochloric acid. Hydrochloric

acid was the most common additive to fracturing fluid in drilling operations for natural gas,

being found in 73% of the samples, per the report published by the EPA. Hydrochloric acid is

also a common additive in the fluid used for oil drilling operations, having been found in 58% of

samples disclosed. Hydrochloric acid is, on average, significantly concentrated in the fluid used

for oil production wells, accounting for 0.29% of the mass of the fluid it was utilized in. In

natural gas production wells, it accounts for 0.078% of the mass of the fluid when it is utilized

(Burden, et. al.). Hydrochloric acids purpose in the fluid is to help dissolve minerals and initiate

cracks in the rock (Frac Focus).

Hydrochloric acid is classified as hazardous by the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). It can be corrosive to the eyes, skin, and

mucous membranes of humans. Exposure to hydrochloric acid is said to cause gastritis, lung
damage, and cause severe burns (EPA). It is not classified as a carcinogen, however (National

Center for Biotechnology Information (CID = 313)).

While hydrochloric acid is the most commonly present toxic chemical, there are also

other materials added at a less frequent intensity that are perhaps more toxic than hydrochloric

acid. In another study that can be found in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental

Epidemiology, over 200 of the additives to fracking fluid were found to be chemicals labeled as

toxic or potentially poisonous to humans. In addition, 157 of the chemicals identified in this

study had some reproductive or developmental problem associated with them. Examples of

some of these toxic substances that were found are arsenic, lead, and mercury. These are all

metals that are classified as major toxic metals with multiple effects from the material

discussed in class. Additionally, many of the chemicals that were found to be used in this study

were ones with little information in regards to their toxicities (Elliot, et. al.).

Arsenic is a class A1 carcinogen (a confirmed human carcinogen) and is also very

flammable. Lead can have serious effects on the central nervous system and is considered to

possibly be a carcinogen to humans with it being a confirmed carcinogen in some animals.

Mercury poisoning can also have neurological effects, and is also the cause of mini-mata

disease, which is characterized by the impairment of brain functions. These chemicals are very

dangerous to adults, but even more so to children, as the amount of water consumed compared to

their body weight is typically higher, and thus the poisonous chemicals are more often present at

higher concentrations in children (Groves). Since these are heavy metals, even the smallest

concentrations are unacceptable in drinking water, as seen in figure 3.

Clearly these chemicals all pose a serious threat to the health and safety of anyone that

may be exposed to them, as well as to the overall health of the environments that they may be
introduced to and the organisms that inhabit these environments. While these chemicals may

only be used very sparingly by producers and in varying concentrations, they pose a dangerous

threat to the environment and to humans if they do somehow infiltrate the external environment

outside of the well site. Figure 2 below, made by the Environmental Protection Agency,

corresponds to the concentration of chemicals found in produced water. As you can see, even

after day 30, concentrations of various substances are extremely high. For example, the number

of total dissolved solids are in the hundreds of thousands. The Safe Drinking Water Act suggests

that the maximum level of TDS is 500 milligrams per liter (Total Dissolved Solids). Other

chemicals in figure 2 can be compared to the table in figure 3, which are the maximum

acceptable levels in regulated drinking water. Flowback water exceeds these limits and so it must

be treated properly before release. If it were to find its way into groundwater it could

contaminate it to an extreme extent.

Figure 2: Concentrations (ppm) of certain chemicals in flowback water (McElreath et. al)

EPA Limits
Chemical (ppm) Chemical (ppm)

Nitrate 10 Toluene 1

Nitrite 1 Arsenic 0.01

Chlorite 1 Mercury 0.002

Chlorine 4 Lead 0.015

Benzene 0.005
Figure 3: EPAs Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs) in drinking water released from
municipal water supply ( Table of Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants).

PREVENTATIVE MEASURES

Water and Wastewater Regulations

First, it is important to discuss regulations of water quality since a large concern

associated with fracking is possible contamination of drinking water sources. The United States

is known to provide the safest water in the world, thanks to its numerous government programs

at the local, state, and federal levels. A vast majority of American people (85 percent) get their

water from municipal water supplies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the

municipal water supply by setting stringent maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). MCLs are set

for over 90 contaminants, and have multiple contaminant categories (Water Quality and

Testing). Despite all the regulations that are in place, contamination can still occur and people

may still come into contact with harmful chemicals via their drinking water. Even the water that

is regulated and tested is not tested for every harmful chemical. Additionally, some Americans do

not get their water from municipal supplies.

15 percent of Americans, or over 15 million U.S. Households, get their water from

private sources (i.e. private wells). Private well water is not regulated by the EPA, but the Center

for Disease Control (CDC) provides many resources for households to assess their water quality
and maintain their well (Private Groundwater Wells). The USGS has programs in place, such

as the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, that can provide a general overview of

source water quality in the United States, although the program does not provide information for

every aquifer or stream that households and public water supplies ultimately get water from

(Delzer). People in households near hydraulic fracturing activity should be wary of possible

contaminants. Domestic water can become contaminated not only through mishaps of fracking

that leak into produced water, but also possibly because of improper and incomplete disposal of

flowback water winding up in the wrong spots.

Fracking companies have several options for their flowback wastewater. If they choose to

inject it deep underground, it is regulated by the EPAs Underground Injection Control (UIC) act.

Flowback water can also be reused for another well after slight treatment. Reusing the

wastewater is very popular in todays fracking industry. Today, 85% of brine and wastewater is

sent to other wells to be reused as fracturing fluid (Brown et al.). At some point, fracking

companies will choose to treat the water to release back into the environment. The Clean Water

Act (CWA) of 1972 sets standards for effluent discharge from municipal and industrial

wastewater treatment plants, and the fracking industry must comply with this act. Before release,

the water can either be sent to a municipal water treatment, or fracking companies can build their

own treatment facility (Hydraulic Fracturing).

Fracking Regulations

For many years, fracking companies were not required to disclose the chemicals in their

fracturing fluid. Producers could avoid disclosure via trade secret exemptions and the 2005

Energy Policy Act excluding petroleum companies from the National Environmental Policies Act

(Brady, W. J.). The public began pressuring Congress to take action and mandate the release of
chemicals when it was claimed that the chemicals in fracturing fluid were contaminating

groundwater and the public drinking water supply. This controversy was fueled in large part by

the documentary Gasland, a film that takes a stance against fracking for possible

environmental and public safety hazards. In response to public outcry and fear, the

Environmental Protection Agency published an extensive report in March of 2015 that detailed

the different chemical additives and their respective concentrations within fracturing fluid. This

report derived its information primarily from FracFocus.Org, which gathered data from over

39,000 producers that volunteered disclosure. Frac Focus is a website run by the Groundwater

Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. This site does not take a

side on hydraulic fracturing, it simply seeks to make information available to the public in

regards to disclosures of chemicals in fracturing fluid and the potential health hazards they may

present. Chemical disclosure is only required by legislation in 28 states, including Pennsylvania

and Texas (Chemical Use). Hence, not all producers have disclosed the chemical composition

of their fluid to the FracFocus registry, so the report conducted by the EPA, it should be noted, is

not completely exhaustive of all producers.

Producers in all states are, however, required to report any significant accidental release

of potentially hazardous material that is above threshold values set by the EPA, in accordance

with the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). In some situations,

releases into groundwater or deep underground may be difficult to detect or may not fall within

the realms of that which is regulated, however. Additionally, fracking fluid also goes through

numerous cracks and it is difficult to detect where it ends up, or whether or not this may be of

concern.

Preventative Features at Well Site

 There are also many preventative measures that producers incorporate into their

operations to better mitigate risk. Pipelines employ computers, electromagnetic instruments,

and ultrasonic devices that detect and report vulnerabilities in order to proactively maintain and

repair equipment (Equipment).

Oil companies must be meticulous and precise in every single operation to ensure the

highest level of safety. One of the primary hazard controls that is in place is the use of casing

around the drill hole. This casing is essentially a hollow steel pipe that lines the surface of the

drill hole, and between each of the multiple casings are cement linings. The casing is especially

important around an aquifer, so as to isolate the groundwater from contamination from the well.

To totally isolate groundwater, a hole is drilled below the lowest area of groundwater. Surface

casing is then installed just above the bottom of this hole. Cement casing is then placed on both

sides of the surface casing and beneath it to completely cut off fracking fluids from entering

groundwater and vice-versa. Cement is used because it is relatively cheap and has a very low

permeability. The use of casing with cement liner around aquifers is mandated (Well

Construction and Groundwater Protection). Casing is also in the better economic interest of

producers as it can prevent the loss of extracted resource from uptake once they reach the well

hole.

Due to the high pressures used in the fracturing process, and sometimes simply due to

age, cracks form in the cement casing. Cement failings in general are reported to occur in two to

fifty percent of all wells (Bourgoyne et al.). The length of the hydraulic fracturing wellbore and

cement casing system vary with each site and engineers decide how far down to case their wells.

Common mistakes include not pouring enough concrete to form a case deep enough in the
ground, or faulty well construction allowing contaminants to penetrate and travel through the

casing.

HAZARD ANALYSIS

Exposure Pathways Assessment

Hydraulic fracturing fluid contains dangerous chemicals but it can only be considered a

dangerous process if the chemicals reach and affect humans at a statistically significant rate.

Examining the exposure pathway of fracking is important to understand the risks and to

determine the responses needed to limit damage. An exposure pathway is the way a hazardous

substance moves through the environment from a source to a point of contact with humans, and

it is a key step in the risk assessment of a process. It is important to know if, when, and how

hazardous substances may be in contact with people.

There are four steps to making an exposure pathway assessment. First, the source(s) of

contamination is essential to know (Chapter 6). The main object of concern with fracking is

the produced water and flowback water. The source of this water of concern is either from the

drilling well itself or from the pile/collection of flowback water. From the standpoint of a

researcher assessing a contaminated aquifer, however, it is difficult to judge whether the aquifer

has been contaminated from the drilling operation, or through natural sources, as contaminants

can occur naturally, thereby skewing our understanding of risk.

The second aspect of the exposure pathway assessment is the transport of contaminants,

or the path that contaminants take to make contact with people. This aspect involves knowledge

of how contaminants may change over time, and how that change affects or is affected by the

pathway they may take (Chapter 6). This aspect can be convoluted in a hydraulic fracking risk

assessment. Fracking fluids may leak from the well casing near groundwater, or leak from cracks
deep underground, in which case contamination may not occur for thousands of years.

Understanding underground solute travel is key to understanding this aspect of the assessment.

Certain geologic conditions must be present for contaminants to make their way up to

groundwater. Densities, pressures, hydraulic conductivities, cap rocks, viscosities, and many

other variables all are factors that may influence the contaminants travels. There are many paths

the contaminants from fracking may be able to take to reach humans.

The third aspect of exposure analysis is how humans come to the point of contact with

contaminants. Humans most likely come into contact with the hazards by drinking contaminated

groundwater or surface water or by breathing toxins in the air released by leaking boreholes or

improper waste disposal.

Finally, analyzing the route of entry into the human body, i.e oral, respiratory etc. is the

fourth step of the exposure pathway analysis. Contaminated water enters orally and may

adversely affect the body in many ways, i.e. through the digestive tract, circulatory system, etc.

Air pollutants affect the respiratory system. In addition, any fire hazards associated with

fracking encompass all routes of entry as a general safety hazard (Chapter 6).

Water Contamination

Fracking fluids contain thousands of gallons of water with hazardous concentrations of

chemicals. Therefore, the potential contamination of domestic water sources is the highest

concern. There are several pathways through which contaminated water can reach human water

sources, each having its own level of risk.

One issue here is that only 35% of the used fluids in wells will return to the surface,

meaning that many of the dangerous chemicals found in the fluid are left underground (Horn,

2009). Through time and pressure build-up, water that was injected as a disposal method, or
retained in the fracking process, can also release chemicals towards the surface, contaminating

the groundwater that may be above. Due to the high pressure the fluid is under, some scientists

believe that the retained fluid could manage to flow back upwards into aquifers, although this

may take hundreds of years. The consequences applying to today are difficult to assess (Warner).

Although there are many potential pathways for these chemicals to contaminate water

supplies, two main pathways are relevant to risk assessment affecting people. These pathways

are improper wastewater disposal and well-casing leakage. There is no clear consensus as to

which pathway is more likely, however.

Well casing failures have likely led to at least 161 groundwater contamination sites in

Pennsylvania between the years 2008 and 12 (Legere et al.). A comprehensive study of

Pennsylvania drinking water wells by Osborn et al. found that water supplies closer to shale gas

developments had more methane from a statistically significant standpoint. Jackson et al.

expanded upon this study by concluding that the vast majority of drinking wells closer to gas

extraction had six times higher concentrations of methane than those farther away. A before-and-

after study of the effects of Texas Barnett Shale gas extraction on drinking water wells found that

there were higher levels of arsenic, selenium, strontium and total dissolved solids than EPA

standards allow (Fontenot et al.). Case scenarios of contamination exist, but more studies must

be done on probability of contaminations compared to the amount of fracking activity to prove

contamination is a relevant and ever present threat.

Flowback Water Disposal

Fracking fluid interacts with geologic layers deep below the earths surface (to come back

as flowback water) containing brackish waters classified as saline (greater than 30,000 mg/L) or
hypersaline (greater than 40,000 mg/L) (Alley et al.). Treating water with such a high saline

concentration is costly and energy intensive. In fact, a study found that, even though the high

salinity of flowback water can and is treated by many facilities through reverse osmosis, the

process produces a waste (highly saline) stream that is unjustified due to its large volume (Alley

et al.). One study found that effluent from a Marcellus shale flowback water treatment facility

had much higher levels than EPA standards allow for of bromide, chloride and radium-226.

These levels were also around 200 times the natural concentration of the same chemicals in the

stream in which the wastewater was disposed (Warner et al.).

Fracturing fluid that is no longer useful and untreated is often contained in ponds or tanks

and kept open so that contaminants can evaporate. This evaporation can cause air quality hazards

as the tanks and ponds are often placed near households. Additionally, these ponds are only

sometimes protected with a liner. Even when they are, the liner has the potential to rupture and

leak, potentially contaminating groundwater and surface water in a similar fashion to landfills.

These risks are exaggerated with heavy precipitation or floods. Such events, as well as numerous

events of direct flowback water spills, have been documented to contaminate water supply and

adversely affect humans and animals (Rich et al.).

Despite regulations and protocols, there are several problems and uncertainties associated

with flowback water treatment that need to be addressed in the near future. Flowback water has

components that are not similar to the municipal waste stream that a public treatment plant is

designed to treat. If a fracking company decides to leave the treatment process all in the hands of

a municipal treatment plant, issues might arise. The flowback water can disrupt the process of

treating municipal waste itself, by inhibiting biological treatment, for instance. Chemicals in
flowback water can also accumulate in biosolids. Ultimately, the effluent water can end up being

released without specialized treatment (Hydraulic Fracturing).

Until 2011, fracking companies in Pennsylvania could send flowback water to public

wastewater treatment centers, but most companies now construct their own treatment centers to

ensure a more equipped treatment plant to handle the specific contaminants in the fluid (Brown,

et al). There is no federal mandate to build specialized treatment facilities, however. Whether

treatment is conducted by municipal or private treatment plants, an issue associated with

flowback water purification that still exists is the numerous contaminants that exist in the

flowback water that are not regulated by the EPA, or cannot be removed by current treatment

practices. Even if all households were to receive treated municipal water, there is still a

possibility that some untreated hazardous chemicals could reach drinking water and adversely

affect human health.

Also, there are some chemicals in the water supply from fracking sources that could be

treated by municipal water supply, but would not be treated for households using private wells.

Even if there are guidelines that private well owners can follow, they do not necessarily have the

resources needed to make their water as safe as that which comes from a treatment facility.

To summarize, not only does fracking produced water contain obscure and numerous

chemicals to begin with, it brings back many more in its return as flowback water. Liquids and

gases, as well as water residing in the formation, are taken to the surface. The fluids contain salts,

radionuclides, fracking chemicals, and many other contaminants (Brown, et al). Due to

regulations that are in place, fracking fluid must be collected and disposed properly, but there are

shortcomings and inconsistencies in how this is currently done.

Air Quality Hazards

 Air contamination is another issue with fracking since methane is the primary component

of natural gas. Methane is an odorless gas making detection of any gas leaks difficult. Cement

casing integrity is most often the culprit for methane leakage. Due to high pressures and the

potential corrosion from the fracking chemicals, cement casings can crack, or not be set

correctly, and introduce methane to areas where it could contaminate layers of rock and

eventually water and the air (Ridlington et al.).

Additionally, the drilling and well completion phases of the fracturing process emit

particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, NOx, carbon monoxide, and sulphur dioxide.

These chemicals can contribute to smog, global warming, and acid rain. Inhalation can also

have adverse effects on the respiratory system for humans and other animals (Ridlington et al.).

Fire Safety Hazards

Methane, other n-alkanes, and other VOCs that are flammable, are known to potentially

leak from well casings, creating not only water and air quality hazards, but also fire safety

hazards. There have been several documented cases where such VOCs, primarily methane, has

led to explosions or fires originating from natural gas extraction activities. For example, a home

in Geauga County, Cleveland, exploded due to excess methane in its tap water. Other homes in

other studies were simply drinking water with methane, whose chronic effects are not well

known yet. It is important to note that there have been many instances where households

observed excess methane in their water, but the source was natural. In some instances, it is

difficult to differentiate the root source as natural or due to fracking (DiGiulio et al. 2011).

Seismic Activity

Scientists also believe that the high pressures and deep depths at which fracking is

conducted induces high strains of tension on geologic formations. Correlations between injection
wells and earthquakes have been documented, but there is no clear evidence that proves this

connection to always be related. On December 31, 2011, an earthquake in Youngstown, Ohio

measured a 4.0 on the Richter scale (Phillips). In Youngstown, a series of tremors occurred and

researchers from Columbia Universitys Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory studied the

earthquakes and identified that the deep well caused the quake (Phillips). Researchers learned

that the limestone rock that was taking in the wastewater was not very porous. They concluded

that the pressure needed to push the water into the limestone created enough energy to trigger

an earthquake along a fault line (Phillips). The process of injecting wells does not cause

earthquakes, however, the process induces pressure on areas that, if they have fault lines in them,

can be strong enough to trigger an earthquake. There is not a definitive way to predict the

locations of these fault lines, meaning that there is no possible estimation of how much pressure

and tension the rocks can accept before a potential earthquake occurs. This indicates how hazards

of this process can be misunderstood.

BIAS & LIMITATIONS

Whether the risks of fracking outweigh the benefits is an ongoing and difficult debate that

takes many convoluted and interconnected factors into account. One factor is whether all of the

fracking steps are done with utmost quality and care. Each fracking site includes a slightly

different process with a different combination of many chemicals. Each chemical has different

properties and each wells design, construction, and fate is the ultimate decider in regards to

possible contamination. Finding out information about specific site contamination may be easy

to find. However, statistics on the likelihood of contamination given the fracking industry as a

whole, are vague and ambiguous. It is difficult to assess the forms, pathways and timescale of

contamination at statistically significant scales. For instance, due to the fact that contamination
can take years to be found in groundwater or to be noticed in peoples drinking supplies, answers

to common fracking questions cannot always be answered fully.

Regulations are limited in their effectiveness because of the little information the

government and states have on the possible degradations fracking can impose on the

environment. But regulators can also improve transparency and then write effective laws with the

needed information available to them. Considering the process of fracking, and to the extent that

it is done today, laws should be more specific toward the process of fracking. Fossil fuel

companies are often excluded from environmental regulations that apply to all other industries.

This is motivated either from corrupted monetary or political interests, or for the reason of fossil

fuel companies not fitting the framework of typical regulations due to their size and scope. For

instance, in many states, many fracking companies legally and freely release their flowback

water into municipal wastewater treatment plants that cannot treat it properly, consequentially

polluting waterways. It could be acceptable if a small industry does that, but a fracking company

is both large and impactful. This is a situation where it is the governments obligation to be

proactive and design laws in an intelligent, resourceful and balanced manner (Brady W. J.).

CONCLUSION

Radisav R. Vidic, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of

Pittsburgh says, in regards to hydraulic fracturing, The only potential pathway (for exposure) is

an accident, a spill, or a leak. But, he adds, Thats something that happens in every industry, so

theres nothing you can do about it. It has been discussed in this paper why fracking is so

controversial. The process allows for significant economic growth via utilization of natural

energy producing resources, but the same process can also be a major cause of contamination of

water and air. The benefits of fracking need to be compared with how significant the negative
 impacts can be, which will then help to determine how regulations should be improved. This

analysis is especially necessary in the United States given the significant reserves of natural gas

that the country has at its disposal.

Although a large percentage of the fluid used is water, there are also chemicals used in

the process to make it more efficient that are considered hazardous to humans. These chemicals

can contribute to climate change and can adversely affect the quality of water and air. Hence,

these chemicals are a primary reason behind many of the regulations the fracking industry must

comply with. Despite the regulations, problems associated with flow back water treatment still

exist. In response to this, the industry has adopted some preventative measures and has utilized

more wastewater treatment options to better mitigate the potential negative environmental

impacts. Fracking brings risks of contamination, but it is a magnificent process for extracting

primarily natural gas in the United States, a cleaner fossil fuel than coal. In an ideal world, better

regulations, sincere preventative measures and more statistical research could be put in place to

reduce and understand the environmental impact as much as possible, while still allowing the

process to extract gas and oil at a rate that would be beneficial to our countrys economic

prosperity.

REFERENCES
"Air & Water Exposures." Breast Cancer Fund, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.
<http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/environmental-breast-cancer-links/air-water/>
"Equipment." Oil Spill Prevention and Response. API Energy, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
<http://www.oilspillprevention.org/oil-spill-prevention/oil-spill-prevention-
equipment>./.latest_citation_text
Abualfaraj, N., Gurian, P. L., & Olson, M. S. (2014). Characterization of marcellus shale flowback
water. Environmental Engineering Science, 31(9), 514-524. doi:10.1089/ees.2014.0001
Alley B, Beebe A, Rodgers J Jr, Castle JW. 2011. Chemical and physical characterization of produced
waters from conventional and unconventional fossil fuel resources. Chemosphere 85:7482.
Bourgoyne AT Jr, Scott SL, Manowski W. 2000. A Review of Sustained Casing Pressure Occurring on
the OCS. Available: http://www.wellintegrity.net/Documents/MMS%20-%20Review%20of
%20SCP%20-%202000.pdf [accessed 15 August 2013].
Brady, W. J. (n.d.). Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation in the United States: The Laissez-Faire Approach of
the Federal Government and Varying State Regulations. GRIMSHAW & HARRING, P.C.
Retrieved from University of Denver.
Brown, Valerie J. "Radionuclides in Fracking Wastewater: Managing a Toxic Blend." National Institutes
of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Feb. 2014. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.
<http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a50/?hc_location=ufi>.
Burden, S., Dean, J., Koplos, J., Meza-Cuadra, C., Singer, A., & Tuccillo, M. (2015). Analysis of
Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid (pp. 1-38, Rep. No. EPA/601/R-14/003). Washington, DC: US EPA
Office of Research and Development.
Chapter 6: Exposure Evaluation: Evaluating Exposure Pathways. (2005, November 30). Retrieved from
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/phamanual/ch6.html#6.2.1
Chemical Use. (2016). Retrieved November 18, 2016, from http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use
Clough, E., & Bell, D. (2016). Just fracking: A distributive environmental justice analysis of
unconventional gas development in pennsylvania, USA. Environmental Research Letters, 11(2),
25001-25009. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/2/025001
Crawford, Andy. "The Shale Revolution: Whats the Big Fracking Deal?" BourbonBrainTrust. N.p., 19
Nov. 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2016. <http://www.bourbonbraintrust.com/2014/11/19/the-shale-
revolution-whats-the-big-fracking-deal/>.
Delzer, G. C. (n.d.). National Water-Quality Assessment Program Source Water-Quality Assessments.
Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/fsSWQ.pdf
DiGiulio DC, Wilken RT, Miller C, Oberley G. 2011. Draft: Investigation of Ground Water
Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming. Available: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/fil
es/documents/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf [accessed 2 July 2014].
Earthworks. Contaminated Pathways. Retrieved from
https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/contaminated_pathways#HYDRAULICFRACT
URING
Elliot, E. G., Ettinger, A. S., Leaderer, B. P., Bracken, M. B., & Diziel, N. C. (2016, January 6). A
systematic evaluation of chemicals in hydraulic-fracturinguids and wastewater for reproductive
and developmental toxicity. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.
Retrieved November 9, 2016.
Horn AD. 2009. Breakthrough Mobile Water Treatment Converts 75% of Fracturing Flowback Fluid to
Fresh Water and Lowers CO Emissions. Available: http://content.stockpr.com/esph2/files/t
2

echreports/SPE121101_Paper_March_2009.pdf [accessed 7 February 2014].

Hydrochloric Acid. (n.d.). Environmental Protection Agency
Legere L. 2013. DEP Drilling Records Reveal Water Damage. Available:
http://citizensvoice.com/news/dep-drilling-records-reveal-water-damage-1.1491985 [accessed 10
June 2013].
Manfreda, John. "The Real History Of Fracking." OilPrice.com. N.p., 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.
<http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Real-History-Of-Fracking.html>.
McBroom, M. W. (2015;2013;). The effects of induced hydraulic fracturing on the environment:
Commercial demands vs. water, wildlife, and human ecosystems. Toronto: Apple Academic
Press.
McElreath, D. (n.d.). Comparison of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Composition with Produced
Formation Water following Fracturing Implications for Fate and Transport (Chesapeake
Energy). Environmental Protection Agency.
Morton, Michael Quentin. "Unlocking the Earth - A Short History of Hydraulic Fracturing." GEO
ExPRO 2013: Volume. 10-No. 6. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Database; CID=887,
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/887 (accessed Nov. 27, 2016).
Natural Gas. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2016, from http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/
Natural Gas Extraction - Hydraulic Fracturing. (2016, August 16). Retrieved December 08, 2016, from
https://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing
Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB. 2011. Methane contamination of drinking water
accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:8172
8176; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1100682108.
Page, Samantha. "Fracking's Total Environmental Impact Is Staggering, Report Finds." ThinkProgress.
N.p., 14 Apr. 2016. Web. 28 Nov. 2016. <https://thinkprogress.org/frackings-total-
environmental-impact-is-staggering-report-finds-7cec0834c0e5#.xdf3tg6tu>.
Phillips, Susan. "Could Fracking Earthquakes Shake Pennsylvania?" State Impact. NPR, 23 Jan. 2012.
Web. 30 Nov. 2016. <https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/01/23/could-fracking-
earthquakes-shake-pennsylvania/>.
Private Ground Water Wells. (2014, December 16). Retrieved December 04, 2016, from
http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/private/wells/index.html
Rich AL, Crosby EC. 2013. Analysis of reserve pit sludge from unconventional natural gas hydraulic
fracturing and drilling operations for the presence of technologically enhanced naturally
occurring radioactive material (TENORM). New Solut 23:117135.
Ridlington, E., & Rumpler, J. (2013, October). Fracking by the Numbers. Environment America
-Research and Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EA_FrackingNumbers_scrn.
pdf
Shooters - A "Fracking" History - American Oil & Gas Historical Society. (2016). Retrieved December
08, 2016, from http://aoghs.org/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/
Stephenson, M. (2015). Shale Gas and Fracking: The Science Behind the Controversy. Saint Louis, US:
Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu
Table of Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2016, from
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-
contaminants
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS STANDARD. (2009). Retrieved December 8, 2016, from Pennsylvania
State University.
United States. New York State Department of Conservation. FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE OIL, GAS AND SOLUTION MINING
REGULATORY PROGRAM. By Eugene Left. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Print.
Warner NR, Christie CA, Jackson RB, Vengosh A. 2013a. Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on
water quality in western Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 47(20):1184911857.
Warner, Nathaniel R. "Geochemical Evidence for Possible Natural Migration of Marcellus Formation
Brine to Shallow Aquifers in Pennsylvania." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
PNAS, 10 May 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2016. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/30/11961
Water Quality and Testing. (2009, April 10). Retrieved December 04, 2016, from
http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/public/water_quality.html
Water-related Environmental Tracking. (2016, November 15). Retrieved December 04, 2016, from
http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/statistics/environmental/
Well Construction & Groundwater Protection. (2016). Retrieved December 6, 2016, from
https://fracfocus.org/hydraulic-fracturing-how-it-works/casing
Where Our Natural Gas Comes From. (2016, December 06). Retrieved December 8, 2016.