Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government

EPA Approved Toxic Chemicals For Fracking a Decade Ago, New Files Show (nytimes.com) 137

Posted by BeauHD from the environmentally-unfriendly dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: For much of the past decade, oil companies engaged in drilling and fracking have been allowed to pump into the ground chemicals that, over time, can break down into toxic substances known as PFAS -- a class of long-lasting compounds known to pose a threat to people and wildlife -- according to internal documents from the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. in 2011 approved the use of these chemicals, used to ease the flow of oil from the ground, despite the agency's own grave concerns about their toxicity, according to the documents, which were reviewed by The New York Times. The E.P.A.'s approval of the three chemicals wasn't previously publicly known. The records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by a nonprofit group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, are among the first public indications that PFAS, long-lasting compounds also known as "forever chemicals," may be present in the fluids used during drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

In a consent order issued for the three chemicals on Oct. 26, 2011, E.P.A. scientists pointed to preliminary evidence that, under some conditions, the chemicals could "degrade in the environment" into substances akin to PFOA, a kind of PFAS chemical, and could "persist in the environment" and "be toxic to people, wild mammals, and birds." The E.P.A. scientists recommended additional testing. Those tests were not mandatory and there is no indication that they were carried out. "The E.P.A. identified serious health risks associated with chemicals proposed for use in oil and gas extraction, and yet allowed those chemicals to be used commercially with very lax regulation," said Dusty Horwitt, researcher at Physicians for Social Responsibility. [...] There is no public data that details where the E.P.A.-approved chemicals have been used. But the FracFocus database, which tracks chemicals used in fracking, shows that about 120 companies used PFAS -- or chemicals that can break down into PFAS; the most common of which was "nonionic fluorosurfactant" and various misspellings -- in more than 1,000 wells between 2012 and 2020 in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Because not all states require companies to report chemicals to the database, the number of wells could be higher. Nine of those wells were in Carter County, Okla., within the boundaries of Chickasaw Nation. "This isn't something I was aware of," said Tony Choate, a Chickasaw Nation spokesman. [...] The findings underscore how, for decades, the nation's laws governing various chemicals have allowed thousands of substances to go into commercial use with relatively little testing. The E.P.A.'s assessment was carried out under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which authorizes the agency to review and regulate new chemicals before they are manufactured or distributed. "[T]he Toxic Substances Control Act grandfathered in thousands of chemicals already in commercial use, including many PFAS chemicals," the report says. "In 2016, Congress strengthened the law, bolstering the E.P.A.'s authority to order health testing, among other measures. The Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, still identifies the Toxic Substances Control Act as a program with one of the highest risks of abuse and mismanagement." According to a recent report from the Intercept, "the E.P.A. office in charge of reviewing toxic chemicals tampered with the assessments of dozens of chemicals to make them appear safer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA Approved Toxic Chemicals For Fracking a Decade Ago, New Files Show More

EPA Approved Toxic Chemicals For Fracking a Decade Ago, New Files Show

Comments Filter:

  • So, this will likely poison our grandchildren, but since when has this been a concern to big business. The responsibility of US management is by every possible legal means to increase shareholder value. Indeed, they can be in trouble for not doing so, as this is judged to be an abrogation of their obligation to protect shareholder rights. The Friedman doctrine is one of the two dominant influences on the behaviour of US executives (the other being personal financial interest).

    Who knows? Maybe science will d

    • Probabilities (Score:2, Informative)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      So, this will likely poison our grandchildren, but since when has this been a concern to big business.

      FTA:

      "under some conditions, the chemicals *could* "degrade in the environment" into substances akin to PFOA, a kind of PFAS chemical, and *could* "persist in the environment" and "be toxic to people, wild mammals, and birds."

      So, in some cases, the substances *could* degrade into a chemical similar to another chemical that might persist in the environment and might possibly be dangerous.

      From that, it's going to poison children? OK...

    • Oh, gollies. Someone realized that chemicals can cause problems. Geeze. Someone ring the genius bell. Go knock back a few tablespoons of table salt. Solve one problem.

  • Americans the worse, ./ cries politics (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Wow. ./ has really just become political tribalism for everything?

    Jeezus, people, who gives a $#!+ who was in the administration. The point here are the PFAs and what they're going to be doing to us humans.

    And for the DuPont-loving-trolls out there, congratulations on further denial of the effects of "C8".

  • Why so divisive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @01:47AM (#61577271)

    I don't see why this has to be about politics but basically all the comments are spewing divisive party propaganda.

    The take away is the EPA lacked the authority to push for further studies. We need to know how often PFAs are being formed in the process. What are the risk factors and how does it relate to other aspects regarding the environment of the well.

    Do I like fracking? No. Is it poisoning our children and animals? We don't know and we should but it's hyperbole to say so right now.

    This is why China is going to eat our lunch. We, as Americans, are ignorant bigots. Are they doing better at environmental protection? No but when the decision is made based on an informed scientific prospective, they probably will and they sure as fuck won't bicker over party lines because there is one party and that brings a certain unity that the divided USA has forgotten. If half these types got there way we would kick off WWE because it's literally the only way we can challenge the growth China is seeing as a world power.

    It's disgustingly juvenile from my countrymen who through their pride brag about having the longest democratic constitution... grow the fuck up guys and let's hope for more of a push to see the lasting effects of the usage of these chemicals in fracking.

    • You might have had a point if you didn't bring China into this. They've poisoned over 20% of their arable land with heavy metals. You think that decision was made based on "an informed scientific position"?

    • Re:Why so divisive? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @06:01AM (#61577485) Homepage Journal

      Is it poisoning our children and animals? We don't know and we should but it's hyperbole to say so right now.

      This is the wrong question. We should be asking what is the least risky option for meeting our energy needs. As you say we don't know and you would think that if these guys were confident they would be paying for the studies themselves, but for some reason are reluctant to even find out.

      We should be doing everything we can to make fracking economically non-viable by offering cheaper alternatives.

      This is why China is going to eat our lunch. We, as Americans, are ignorant bigots. Are they doing better at environmental protection?

      Disagree. There are plenty of Americans who understand the problems, but politics makes actually fixing them very difficult. And by politics I mean money, since the fracking industry has more political buying power than most of the groups opposing them.

      Also, China is arguably doing better. They installed more wind energy than the rest of the world combined over the last few years, have decent public transport systems and are leading in electric vehicle development and sales. More over they are on track to peak much lower than the US in terms of per-capita emissions. They are on the up-side of the curve but what matters is how high the peak is and how soon it comes.

      • Your critical of a worthy question is fair and on point. As you agreed though we need to know the risks associated here to find the least risky option. Likewise I almost added that the reluctance of the companies to be forth coming means they probably did some preliminary studies and found it wasn't positive light they wanted to share.

        If enough Americans really understood the problem, I think we could give a better fight to deal with politics and the corruption in it from lobbying. Americans can be stubborn

    • Re:Why so divisive? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @07:48AM (#61577615)

      Welcome to 2020. ${BAD_THING} happened. We need to identify ${PERPETRATOR}, and above all we need to make sure that ${PERPETRATOR} == ${OTHER_TEAM}. Because we all know ${MY_TEAM} is perfect and better suited to run the country. You do want the best possible country right, or do you instead hope we turn into ${COUNTRY_WE_HATE_DU_JOUR}

      • It's a bingo.

        It gets tiring though and the whole black and white blame game is really a pedantic way to view all human actions.

        • As if totalitarian government and totalitarian business were not essentially the same thing.

          Both are contrary to liberty, justice, and rule of law.

          But those of us who do consistently do believe in those things have no home in politics. Not here in the U.S., and not in most of the rest of the world either.

          There just aren't frackin' enough of us.

          • Right. I mean besides my perspective of what kind of politics will work in the modern world with climate change, I have pretty much decided my political leanings have no place. So going to a country where I basically have no political say wasn't a big deal -- it didn't seem like I was losing a lot, which again isn't to discuss the potential gains of a political system where the vast majority have no say given the average level a democractic citizen is both informed and well educated.

    • Do I like fracking? No. Is it poisoning our children and animals? We don't know and we should but it's hyperbole to say so right now.

      Could you expand on that? Why exactly don't you like fracking? Is it because it might be causing environmental problems and we don't know? Or because we ought to be using less carbon-based fuels so anything which makes them cheaper should be avoided? Or something else?

      I'm honestly curious. To clarify, I take the pragmatic perspective. Fracked oil and natural gas lets us avoid using coal and tar sand oil, and it gets us less involved in foreign energy supplies with all the political entanglements that create

      • I had to do some follow-up to verify the downsides I was thinking of.

        The big ones I consider is potential to contaminate water sources, total water usage, and the release of methane. In all these cases, a well-designed, maintained, and researched well can avoid these potentials. The industry doesn't seem very responsible in these regards though. So maybe my issue is that there needs to be more oversight.

        Your point of avoiding the foreign energy suppliers is a big deal though because of the political entangl

  • New Files...from a decade ago.

    Wow, I'd not want to know the old files from a millennia ago, give or take an eon or two...

    Make sense, fracking new files.

    JoshK.

  • If Greenpeace had picked Fluoride instead of Chlorine tor a blanket ban they would have been spot on. PFAS put PCBs to shame persistence wise.

    It's hard to find an use for fluoridle chemistry not putting significant amounts of super-persistent pollutants into the environment. Leave that shit locked up in minerals ffs.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by smap77 ( 1022907 )

      If Greenpeace had picked Fluoride instead of Chlorine tor a blanket ban they would have been spot on.

      That's a false dichotomy if I ever heard one.

  • Funny though: the first thought on reading the headline was "Who was President?"

    This shows that really it is all about the profit. Whichever government is in power, it is big business that runs the show one way or another. Money is the power behind the scenes whichever talking head happens to be in power.

    Maybe the way to approach an election is to look deeper than the candidates and try to see who and which companies are lending support and what their interests are.

    And that's something the media really s

  • It doesn't matter what political system you have. The EPA is owned by Big Energy. In Australia they are very obvious about it https://gisera.csiro.au/ [csiro.au]

  • Toxic chemicals? (Score:4, Informative)

    by skogula ( 931230 ) on Tuesday July 13, 2021 @08:21AM (#61577683)
    I wish people would stop saying "toxic chemicals". Toxicity is a property of dose, not something a substance is or is not. At the volume used in fracking, you could call water toxic, so using toxic as a descriptor is misleading.
    • Toxic Dihydrogen monoxide.

    • I wish people would stop saying "toxic chemicals". Toxicity is a property of dose, not something a substance is or is not.

      TFA was very light on actual numbers and specifics, such as "how toxic?", "how deep might the PFAS form?", "do we have any evidence the chemicals make it to the surface or groundwater supplies?", "they could form but do we have any evidence they actually do?", and so forth.

      I mean c'mon, we're talking petroleum. That's pretty toxic stuff just by itself and it's a "forever chemical" too, having been hanging out in the rocks for 100 million years. You'll have to work harder than that to convince me the relativ

  • This is just loaded with red flags. The EPA says that "under certain conditions" some of the chemicals used "could" break down into something "akin to" a kind of PFAS. That's pretty weak, but it still doesn't sit well with the wording, "120 companies used PFAS -- or chemicals that can break down into PFAS". Nobody is actually pointing to anyone using PFAS, or chemicals that actually break down to it - just chemicals that might, under certain conditions, break down into something like a kind of PFAS.

    So,

    • We don't know what companies used them because that information has never been made public. We don't know for sure what happens to the chemicals because, even though the EPA scientists recommended additional testing, those tests were either never done or never reported. We didn't even learn the chemicals had been approved until just now, 10 years after it happened. And we still wouldn't know if it weren't for a nonprofit using the Freedom of Information Act to discover things the government chose not to

  • ... was this before or after Obama made the oceans recede?

  • Here's a link to the stuff fracking/oil and gas are exempted from:
    https://www.nrdc.org/sites/def... [nrdc.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close