User:Lkashef/sandbox

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24861028?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00303779

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Costello/publication/6990589_Coral_reefs_and_the_global_network_of_Marine_Protected_Areas._Science/links/09e414fd1fb4bddc81000000.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17442.short

The article that I am amending is “Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing”. The first issue that I will be addressing is that there no actual policies are mentioned throughout this article. In the introduction, there is a brief overview how bans have come and gone, yet no specific policies have been mentioned. Furthermore, this article also failed to mention in the introduction that along with being exempt from the United States’ Safe Drinking Water Act, it is also exempt from the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NRDC) With the Clean Air Act, there has been slight governance in 2012 when it was ruled that there must be a limit to the emissions of air pollutants from fracking.

This article was clearly written before the EPA resealed their 2014 study on fracking, and needs to be updated to contain this information. This study highlights the most environmentally harmful practices involved in fracking, which mainly include spills, improper dumping, and ground water contamination (EPA). The recommendations of this study were to be mindful of low water availability, increase spill management, and to cease injecting chemicals directly into ground water ensure no further water contamination. These recommendations could shape future policies and should be included as well. These updates should be added to the Risk-based approach section as an update.

Finally, in the last section, Institutional discourse and the public I would expand on the final sentence where it discusses the Fracking Rule. This law has since been removed from the website as the Trump Administration has taken over.

Overall, there is a lack of mention of policies that are being discussed and decided on today, as well as outdated information. A current and proposed policy section should be added into this article to highlight what is being done to improve upon fracking and the environment, as well as state regulations.

ALL EDITS AND CHANGES ARE IN BOLD

Federal
Hydraulic fracturing has known impacts on the environment and potential unknown direct or indirect impacts on the environment and human health. It is therefore part of the EPA's area of regulation. The EPA assures surveillance of the issuance of drilling permits when hydraulic fracturing companies employ diesel fuel. This is its main regulatory activity but it has been importantly reduced in its scope by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that excluded hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control’s regulation, except when diesel is used. This has raised concerns about the efficiency of permit issuance control. In addition to this mission, the EPA works with states to provide safe disposal of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing, has partnerships with other administrations and companies to reduce the air emissions from hydraulic fracturing, particularly from methane employed in the process, and tries to ensure both compliance to regulatory standards and transparency for all stakeholders implied in the implementation process of hydraulic fracturing.

On August 7, 1997, the Eleventh Circuit Court ordered the United States Environmental Protection Agency to reevaluate its stance on hydraulic fracturing based on a lawsuit brought by the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation. Until that decision, the EPA deemed that hydraulic fracturing did not fall under the rules in the Safe Drinking Water Act. While the impact of this decision was localized to Alabama, it forced the EPA to evaluate its oversight responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act for hydraulic fracturing. In 2004, the EPA released a study that concluded the threat to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing was “minimal”. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress exempted fractured wells from being re-classified as injection wells, which fall under a part of the Safe Drinking Water Act that was originally intended to regulate disposal wells. The act did not exempt hydraulic fracturing wells that include diesel fuel in the fracturing fluid. Some US House members have petitioned the EPA to interpret "diesel fuel" broadly to increase the agency's regulatory power over hydraulic fracturing. They argue that the current limitation is intended not to prevent the use of a small subset of diesel compounds, but rather as a safety measure to decrease the probability of accidental groundwater contamination with toxic BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes) that are present in diesel compounds. Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The FRAC Act, introduced in June 2009, would eliminate the exemption and might allow producing wells to be reclassified as injection wells placing them under federal jurisdiction in states without approved UIC programs.

In November 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was considering to study a potential link between fracturing and drinking water contamination. Republican House energy leaders advised Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to be cautious in the study. They argued the study, if not properly done, could hinder job growth. They worried that the study could label naturally occurring substances in groundwater as contaminants, that the CDC would limit hydraulic fracturing in the interest of public health, and that the "scientific objectivity of the [HHS] [wa]s being subverted" as the CDC was considering whether to study the question.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said the EPA would use its power to protect residents if drillers endangered water supplies and state and local authorities did not take action.

In March 2015, Democrats in Congress reintroduced a series of regulations known as the "Frack Pack." These regulations were imposed on the domestic petroleum industry. The package would regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act and require chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid to be disclosed to the public. It would require pollution tests of water sources before and during petroleum development. It would require oil and gas producers to hold permits in order to increase stormwater runoff. New regulations set safety standards for how used chemicals are stored around well sites and necessitate companies to submit information on their well geology to the Bureau of Land Management, which is a section of the Interior Department. The "Frack Pack" has received criticism, especially from The Western Energy Alliance petroleum industry group, for duplicating state regulations that already exist.

On January 22, 2016 the Obama administration announced new regulations for emissions from oil and gas on federal lands to be regulated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)  to decrease impacts made on global warming and climate change. This became known as the “BLM fracking rule”, and would take effect on March 31 extending into Federal, Indian, and Public lands. This rule would apply to more than 750 million areas of Federal and Indian lands and regulated chemical disclosure, well integrity, and flowback water management. '''This rule would require companies to identify the chemicals being used in hydraulic fracturing and their purpose. This requirement would only extend to chemicals used after, not before, fracking to protect company chemical mix recipes. But, not knowing the chemicals beforehand eliminates the government's ability to test the water for a baseline reading to know if the process is contaminating water sources or not. Well integrity is vital to ensure that oil, gas, and other fracking chemicals are not being leached into direct drinking water sources. The rule would require operators to submit a cement bond log to ensure that drinking water has been properly isolated from the water that will be used. Finally, the BLM requires companies to provide their estimated waste water totals along with a disposal plan. The fracking rule was met with critiques for not requiring more transparency from corporations on chemicals being used before drilling into wells.'''

On March 2, 2017 the EPA announced that they were withdrawing their request that operators in the oil and natural gas industry provide information on equipment and emissions until further data is collected that this information is necessary.

Colorado

Future ballot initiatives
There are currently two ballot initiatives in Colorado that deal directly with fracking policy. Initiative 75 which seeks to give communities power to regulate oil and gas development and Initiative 78 imposes a 2500-foot mandatory distance between fracking sites and residential homes, schools, and hospitals both of these initiatives failed to make the ballot this November after they failed to reach the requisite number of votes this decision by the governor's office is currently being challenged by the environmental organizations who brought these ballot measures to light and who believe that they had collected the requisite amount of signatures to allow voting on the measures to take place in November. Individuals can report a health concern by: filing out our self-referral form found at Colorado Oil & Gas Health Information and Response Program or calling the CO HELP line at 303-389-1687. Additional complaint forms can be found at the Colorado Government website.

'''Colorado has five types of local governments that are able to regulate fracking: home rule counties, statutory counties, home rule municipalities, statutory municipalities, and special districts. Some have narrower powers than others, yet all work in tandem to regulate oil an gas exploration'''. '''On January 26, 2017 CO HB1124, known as the Local Government Liable Fracking Ban Oil and Gas Moratorium, was introduced into the House. This bill would ban hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas regardless of the interest of the owner. Furthermore, the local government would be able to enact a moratorium on oil and gas activities that would compensate the losses that the operators would encounter on behalf of enacting the moratorium. The bill was rejected on February 22, 2017.'''

Ohio
According to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, approximately 80,000 oil and gas wells in Ohio have been hydraulically fractured since 1951. Ohio does not allow frac flowback or produced brine to be disposed of to surface streams; 98 percent of produced water is injected into Class II disposal wells, the remaining 2 percent is used for dust and ice control on roads, subject to local ordinances.

On May 24, 2012, House of Representatives of Ohio passed Senate Bill 315 regulating oil and gas drilling, including hydraulic fracturing. The bill requires companies to test water wells within 1,500 feet (460 m) of proposed drill sites and to report the fluids and chemicals used while drilling and fracking, except for those considered proprietary. Companies will also be required to track wastewater injected into disposal wells. According to John Funk of The Plain Dealer, the bill does not require complete disclosure of all chemicals used during drilling and hydraulic fracturing, and only requires any disclosure of chemicals after the well is already drilled. Proprietary formulas are protected. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is allowed up to 60 days after drilling to post the chemicals on its website. Opponents had wanted the bill to require chemicals to be disclosed before drilling so that citizens could have their wells tested for baseline levels of contaminants. The Ohio Senate also removed the requirement for disclosure of drilling lubricants in the space below the local water table but above its final depth. The bill does not give the public the right to appeal a drilling permit, and does not require public notices of permits. The bill allows doctors to reveal the formula only to the patient, family and other doctors solely for the purpose of treatment, not in legal or other proceedings.

In May 2013, the Youngstown, Ohio city council turned down a proposed ban on fracking within city limits. The Niles, Ohio city council passed a fracking ban in August 2013, but unanimously rescinded the ban the following month, after testimony from labor union representatives.

'''On February 14, 2017 there was a bill put into motion in the House to amend and revise OH SB50 (Prohibit deep well injection of brine and conversion of wells). If this bill is passed, the multiple definitions such as: waste, drilling unit, oil, gas, and more will be amended. Additionally, the manner in which brine would be disposed would no longer need an application or permit by the chief to use an approved method.'''

Wyoming
'''Wyoming has very strict regulations compared to any other US state, and was one of the first states to have regulations against fracking. This was majorly accredited to former Governor Freudenthal and his environmental enthusiasm, creating the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Wyoming's current regulations allows fracking to thrive but in a safe and environmentally conscious manner, ensuring that the economic benefits are not disrupted.'''

On June 8, 2010 the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission voted to require full disclosure of the hydraulic fracturing fluids used in natural gas exploration.

Non-profit and local organizations

'''Regulation and laws for fracking are more difficult to pass than other laws due to the struggle between politics, economics, and the environment. Therefore nonprofit and local organizations are taking it upon themselves to participate in the regulation process.'''

Center for Responsible Shale Development

'''The Center for Responsible Shale Development is a non-profit organization that has dedicated itself to bridging the gap between environmental protection and shale development practices. To do this, they have created a certification process so that communities know that the shale developers are working under a high environmental standard. Through this organization companies can receive certifications in either Air and Climate, Waste and Water, or both. These third-party auditors aim to help shale producers to gain the trust of the public and differentiate themselves through attaining high levels environmental conservation. This accreditation is not to be in lieu of regulations, but to strengthen and compliment current policies. Furthermore, unlike state and federal regulations the burden of cost falls on the shale and oil companies themselves. The accreditation is good for three years and annual audits occur throughout this time. This organization has been gaining international and national popularity as large shell organizations are looking to accredit themselves to further their ability to drill in communities who may have been previously resistant.'''