Herald Standard
Friday, May 27, 2016
Welcome!
||
Not you?||
Logout|dashboard

So who is in charge, anyway?

Posted: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:05 am | Updated: 11:19 am, Wed Mar 4, 2015.

With new evidence pointing to potentially dangerous levels of radiation in fracking wastewater, questions arise over just who regulates this stuff.

Subscription Required

Thank you for reading the Herald-Standard.

A subscription is required to access this premium local content.

If you are already a Herald-Standard print or digital subscriber, please log in below.

If you are not currently a subscriber, try us now with our introductory $4.99 offer for the first month by clicking the subscribe button.

Or try our 24 hour day pass, commitment-free, for $2.99 today!

You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have a subscription?

Login now

Need a subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Online services

    Welcome to the discussion.

    1 comment:

      A subscription service is required to post comments.

    • Luigie posted at 7:27 pm on Tue, May 27, 2014.

      Luigie Posts: 1653

      Until the Bush Administration and Congress passed the 2005 Energy Policy Act the Fracking Industry was under the regulatory supervision of the Environmental Protection Agency. Plus it was bound to the jurisdiction of three laws; The Clean Water ACT of 1972, The Safe Drinking Act of 1974, and The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. After the 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed there was no protective agency or direct law to protect ones land, water, or sovereignty rights of land ownership against the power of these corporations.

      In 1997 the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta concluded that wells used for the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids must be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Then in 2004 an EPA report stated; “injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into coal bed methane wells poses little or no threat to drinking water and supplies and does not justify additional study at this time”. This is the study that Representative Bill Shuster uses to state that fracking is safe. However almost immediately after the study was presented an investigation was started by the then EPA Inspector General into mishandling and fraud used to produce the fracking study. Then in 2005 the Inspector general stopped the investigation stating that the fraudulent study was no longer relevant after Congress passed the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This act is better known as “the Haliburton Loophole”. The section of the Energy Policy Act that exempts oversight by the EPA and jurisdiction by the three laws mentioned above must be repealed to insure the safety and land rights of all citizens.

      If Fracking is as safe as Representative Shuster and the fracking industry proclaims it to be then why do they need exemptions from protective laws and EPA oversight?

      I am not stating that fracking be stopped just that our land, water, and sovereignty of property be protected by a strong governmental hand.

       
    Weather brought to you by:

    Online Poll

    Loading…
    Featured Stories

    Get complete access to our website, apps, e-edition and Roku channel, plus delivery of the Sunday paper, just $4.99 for the first month. Subscribe now.