1

Risk Assessment: Fracking

Madeline Alford

HSC 4210: Environmental Health

Dr. Moore

March 14, 2021

 2

Hazard Identification

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) also referred to as fracking is a process in which gas or oil (or

both), are extracted from underground reserves (natural production in Earth) by drilling into a

rock and shale (Dunlop et al., 2021, Wollin et al., 2020). The process uses high-pressure

injection of water and fracking fluids into a well that causes cracks in the rocks which allow

access to the oil or gas in the formation (Dunlop et al., 2021, Wollin et al., 2020). Over 4 million

gallons of the water/fracture fluid mixture is used in a single well (Munshi Md et al., 2020).

The United States government does not have any laws requiring companies to disclose

the chemicals used in the fracking process. While the government has no such requirements a

few states in which fracking occurs do require some disclosure and from their requirements the

EPA has been able to analyze and identify frequently reported addictive ingredients. The EPA

reports that in most oil and gas well water was used most frequently as a base fluid (more than

93%), quartz as proppant, and other additives (EPA, 2015). There were 692 unique additives

found but there were three that were identified in 65% of disclosures and those were “methanol,

hydrochloric acid, and hydrotreated light petroleum distillates” (EPA, 2015). Wells do “dry out”

as they have a limited amount of oil or gas supply which leads to a constant need to new wells.

Due to non-regulation at a federal level of fracking it has been able to cause serious

environmental and human health impacts. These impacts include but are not limited ground

water and surface water contamination, reduction of water supply, negative health impacts for

people living near a site, and negative health impacts for workers in the industry. These hazards

can occur due to living in close proximity to a site which can impact health by water scarcity,
 3

worksite hazards for those directly involved in the fracking processes, and water supply

contamination (this can impact those close and far from a site) (Apergis et al., 2019, Fryzek et

al., 2013, Munshi Md et al., 2020).

Dose-Response Assessment

When considering the assessment for fracking and its impacts on water there are two

adverse health impacts to consider, the first would be the impact of water supply. We see this

impact on people and the environment that is in closer proximity to sites. The fracking process

requires a great amount of water to extract the gas and oil from wells. A single well requires over

4 million gallons of water (mainly fresh water) and 10%-70% is recouped called the flowback

and produced water (FP) (Munshi Md et al., 2020). A 2018 study by Duke University, found FP

are hard to treat so they are usually disposed through deep injection wells, which results in a

complete loss of that water (Kondash et al., 2018). The US contributed over 21 billion barrels of

produced water in 2009, such a water loss especially in scare or drought areas directly impacts

water availability for consumption, agriculture, and normal daily use (Munshi Md et al., 2020).

The FDA’s institutional knowledge-based project CERES (Chemical Evaluation and Risk

Estimation System) found that 57% of the areas fracking occurred in was already considered

high-stress area (in terms of water availability) (2016).

Another hazard is the contamination of water due to fracking processes this affects water

supplies that can be near sites or further if contaminants reach larger supplies of water which

could expose people further away from sites. Such contamination can occur but is not limited to

leaking, spillage, inability to proper treat FP, and improper disposal of FP. Methane is a

commonly found compound in fracking, when water was studied in New York and Pennsylvania

near the sites (1km or closer to fracking wells) it was found that methane concentrations in
 4

drinking water wells increased 19.2-65 mg, which is considered an explosion hazard; in contrast

to areas with no gas wells (fracking with 1km) showed only an average of 1.1 mg of the

compound (Osborn Stephen et al., 2011). Furthermore, in 2011 The Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental protection requested that unconventional gas drillers cease transference of

wastewater to both public and private treatment facilities as they were not equipped to properly

remove contaminants from hydraulic wastewater (Abualfaraj et al., 2018). Contaminant such as

barium, bromides, chlorides, and benzene were detected in water supply from the effluent

discharge (Abualfaraj et al., 2018).

In a 2016, a study done by the National Cancer Institute and Yale University FP

contaminant were analyzed and it was determined, of 1177 potential water contaminants 111

included known human carcinogens (the other 1066 have not yet been evaluated by the

International Agency for Research on Cancer) (Elliott et al., 2017). Included in these carcinogens

there were 7 known, 3 that have been determined probable carcinogens and 7 deemed possible

carcinogens (Elliott et al., 2017). Such contamination of water is detrimental to all those exposed

to it whether it be close or far proximity.

The inhalation of fracking sad dust poses health implications for those exposed to it. We

find this exposure increasing prevalent in workers at fracking sites. Exposure to fracking sand

dust leads to exposure to respirable crystalline silica which the dust holds (Olgun et al., 2020).

Respirable Crystalline silica is a known cause of silicosis which is a cause of premature

morbidity and mortality (Olgun et al., 2020). Sample collected at sites exceeded the OSHA and

Permissible Exposure Limits 50 μg/m3 (Olgun et al., 2020). Furthermore, Olgun et al,

determined that fracking and sanding dust is toxic to roughly 264 cells where it has the potential

to cause cell death (2020).

 5

Exposure Assessment & Risk Characterization

The excessive use of water is a more difficult assessment in terms of hard numbers but there is

considerable evidence that fracking does impact and cause stress in terms of supply. In the first

year of use more water is used than we see returned in FP (Kondash et al., 2018). In areas where

there is scarcity such as California and Texas fracking has been directly associated with the

withdrawal of water a 40% higher rate than the areas are able to replenish which in 2013 directly

impacted major drought conditions in these areas (Vengosh et al., 2014). Those living in south

Texas in the Eagle Ford Play areas are experiencing 90% ground-water demand while

development of more wells is still on the rise (ceres new pg 9). This type of stress is depleting

water in the area at alarming rates and in the last few decades has reduced local water aquifer

levels by 100-300 feet (ceres new pg 9). When considering water scarcity those near sites whose

water supply is used for fracking processes will be exposed to the elevated levels of stress

induced by these practices. When gauging this severity, it is hard to provide ample data as it

needs to be studied long term and there are gaps in data measuring how much of this scarcity is

directly contributing in long term to humans in these surrounding areas.

Contamination of water exposes is a severe hazard caused by fracking processes. Routes of

exposure could be from improper disposal of FP, stray gas migration into groundwater, or

surface water contamination by either leaks or spillage, these are a few examples but there are so

many ways that the fracking process can infiltrate clean bodies of water. The contaminants that

have been found due to such routes of exposure can cause chronic and life-threatening illnesses

such as cancer in humans. High levels of carcinogens can be ingested by consuming

contaminated water, eating food that has been contaminated by water from FP, soil

contamination, exposure by bathing or showering in contaminated water, and possible well

 6

contamination by stray gas (such as high levels of methane) (Abualfaraj et al., 2018). Issues with

true contribution is again compromised by the liability held upon fracking companies by the US

government as they are not required to provide transparency in their processes.

Those exposed on a consistent basis to fracking are the workers. A main exposure for those

workers is fracking sand dust. Not only does fracking sand dusts contribute to inflammatory

responses and macrophage cytotoxicity, but it also causes genotoxicity and damage to DNA cells

(Olgun et al., 2020, para. 36). All these exposures were shown to happen in short times periods

(study was done in most cases with exposure under 24 hours) (Olgun et al., 2020). This makes

fracking workers one of the most vulnerable populations in terms of risks. Their continued

exposure puts them at high health risks, and it is important to note this is with limited knowledge

of all the toxins they are exposed to.

Risk Management

The only manner in which we can truly provide comprehensive plans for management and

prevention is by requiring fracking companies to provide a full list of all chemicals being used,

all routes of FP disposal, and true environmental hazard evaluations. With the US government

not requiring this information it is difficult to assess the true complexity of hazard that fracking

is imposing on humans.
 7

References

Abualfaraj, N., Gurian, P. L., & Olson, M. S. (2018). Assessing Residential Exposure Risk from

Spills of Flowback Water from Marcellus Shale Hydraulic Fracturing Activity10.

3390/ijerph15040727

Apergis, N., Hayat, T., & Saeed, T. (2019). Fracking and infant mortality: fresh evidence from

Oklahoma. Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 26(31), 32360-32367.

10.1007/s11356-019-06478-z

CERES. (2016, March 2). Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Stress: Water Demand by the

Numbers. https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/hydraulic-fracturing-water-stress-

water-demand-

numbers#:%7E:text=57%25%20of%20water%20used%20for,water%20used%20for%20

27%2C899%20wells.&text=The%20overall%20drop%20is%20likely,lower%20oil%20a

nd%20gas%20prices.

Dunlop, L., Atkinson, L., & Turkenburg-van Diepen, M. (2021). The environment and politics in

science education: the case of teaching fracking. Cultural Studies of Science Education,, 1.

10.1007/s11422-021-10017-z

Elliott, E. G., Trinh, P., Ma, X., Leaderer, B. P., Ward, M. H., & Deziel, N. C. (2017).

Unconventional oil and gas development and risk of childhood leukemia: Assessing the

evidence. Science of the Total Environment, 576, 138-147. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.072

Freyman, M. (2014, February). HYDRAULIC FRACTURING & WATER STRESS: Water

Demand by the Numbers. Ceres. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71364916.pdf

 8

Fryzek, J., Pastula, S., Jiang, X., & Garabrant, D. H. (2013). Childhood cancer incidence in

Pennsylvania counties in relation to living in counties with hydraulic fracturing sites.

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, WK Health.

Munshi Md, S. Y., Md, T. A., Jahan, I., & Mazumder, M. (2020). Review on the Evaluation of

the Impacts of Wastewater Disposal in Hydraulic Fracturing Industry in the United States.

Technologies, 8(67), 67. 10.3390/technologies8040067

Olgun, N. S., Morris, A. M., Stefaniak, A. B., Bowers, L. N., Knepp, A. K., Duling, M. G.,

Mercer, R. R., Kashon, M. L., Fedan, J. S., & Leonard, S. S. (2020). Biological effects of

inhaled hydraulic fracturing sand dust. III. Cytotoxicity and pro-inflammatory responses in

cultured murine macrophage cells. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 408, 115281.

10.1016/j.taap.2020.115281

Osborn Stephen, G., Avner, V., Warner Nathaniel, R., & Jackson Robert, B. (2011). Methane

contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(20),

8172-8176.

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edsjsr&AN=edsj

sr.25830023&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6281220

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Data from
the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry 1.0. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/601/R-14/003
Vengosh, A., Jackson, R. B., Warner, N., Darrah, T. H., & Kondash, A. (2014). A Critical

Review of the Risks to Water Resources from Unconventional Shale Gas Development
 9

and Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology,

48(15), 8334–8348. https://doi.org/10.1021/es405118y

Wollin, K., Damm, G., Foth, H., Freyberger, A., Gebel, T., Mangerich, A., Gundert-Remy, U.,

Partosch, F., Röhl, C., Schupp, T., & Hengstler, J. G. (2020). Critical evaluation of human

health risks due to hydraulic fracturing in natural gas and petroleum production. Archives of

Toxicology, 94(4), 967. 10.1007/s00204-020-02758-7