Frack! Hydraulic Fracturing Concerns to the Public

Frack! Hydraulic Fracturing Concerns to the Public

Aaron D. Sweazy

Concordia University- Nebraska

Health Policy and Management

MPH525

Dr. Joseph Costa, DHSc., PA-C

June 14, 2014

Table of Contents

Understanding Fracking 1

Hypothetical Fracking Incident 2

Global Warming and Fracking 3

Communicating With the Public 3

Preventing Widespread Fear and Chaos 4

National Communication 5

Making the Message Clear 6

Measuring Compliance/Understanding 7

Persuasion Theory 8

Cultivation Theory of Mass Media 9

Mass Communication Theory 9

Recommendations 10

Summary 11

References 12

FRACK! HYDRAULIC FRACTURING CONCERNS TO THE PUBLIC 11

Frack! Hydraulic Fracturing Concerns to the Public

Understanding Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is what some may say is an environmental nightmare of a procedure to retrieve gas and oil from shale rock. According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, “The fracking process is created to increase production to approximately 90 percent in all oil and gas wells in the United States.” (West, n.d.). During the course of fracking absurd amounts of the water are transported and used in the process. Fracking creates significant and costly environmental damage through the release of carcinogenic chemicals which contaminate ground water, and by the creation of small tremors in sensitive ground (BBC, 2013).

From an etiological standpoint, the use of sand in fracking is dangerous because it contains Crystalline Silica which is an ingredient that is found in concrete. By inhaling the Crystalline Silica over a set time continuously, a person has the increased potential of cancer among other ailments. (Worstall, 2013)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Interior (DOI) all have obeyed the laws set forth by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Subcommittee on Natural Gas (even if the government is on shutdown). These groups together are trying to create preventative measures, follow safe practices, reduce energy imports and create unique gas resources. By showing responsibility and these safe practices as well as creating a reduction of energy imports when it comes to Fracking, this grouping of entities attempts to address the peak problems and as safe as possible create unique shale gas resources. (Majumdar, Hayes, Perciasepe, 2012)

Nationally, many individuals are not too pleased with how well things are going with several of these aforementioned groups which are collaborating in the Fracking industry. There is a failure to ensure environmental safety as ways around the system are being established.Companies Using gas to frack-drill has exemptions from adhering to the rules of the Underground Injection Control Program (UIC) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. (SDWA). Money seems to be what leads in talks, so citizen welfare takes a rear seat. (Clean Water Action, 2013)

Hypothetical Fracking Incident

When trying to increase the flow of oil for manufacturing purposes, a company erroneously contaminates the local water supply. The company doing the fracking, immediately realizing their mistake calls the local water company and the water supply is shut off to the community. There is an immediate concern about the highly toxic effects of the contaminate drinking water because it may contain Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and cause cancer in humans (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005). Before the water could be shut off, a small portion of the community had ingested the water. Grievances were made of the water supply having a foul taste and an unpleasant odor to it, and there was additional complaint of people having trouble breathing the air when outside. Within the span of 12 hours, roughly nine adults and six children were sent to the hospital with severe stomach ailments, nausea and complaints of joint pain. Lab results showed uncharacteristically high amounts of radium in the patients who had consumed the water and were complaining of bone pain, since it is used as calcium by the body and is then placed in bones (Grossman, 2012).

Global Warming and Fracking

In every situation there seems to be a pro and con or a heads and tails; fracking it appears may have both traits in relation to how it reacts with global warming. If raining uncharacteristically becomes the norm, and the ground becomes saturated to the brink of not being able to contain all the water, all life forms could be in grave trouble. This aforementioned rain could then lead to flooding drilling sites and cause poisonous compounds and particle emission from fracking supplies to seep into the overall water supply (Catskill Mountainkeeper, n.d.). While negatives are commonly present with many in regards to fracking, some think it can be helpful to our environment. A Climate Chiefs within the United Nations in April of 2014 came up with the conclusion fracking could be the key to decelerating the spread of global warming due to proportions of carbon increasing becoming lower(Gosden, 2014).

Communicating With the Public

In the immediate aftermath of the contamination caused by the fracking, it is important to disseminate facts from fiction to the community. In this situation it would be best to utilize the Emergency Alert System (EAS) which is often used by local authorities to distribute vital emergency material over television and radio, such as AMBER alerts and weather information directed to precise regions(Federal Communications Commision: Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, n.d.). Additionally, social media has a huge impact on lives, thus taking the message to Twitter, Facebook, and even the local community’s respective pages for those sites would help in making sure as many eyes see the information. It would be essential to communicate with folks which have younger children as well. Personal knowledge shows many schools and colleges (such as Concordia) have systems in place to send out text messages to everyone that is a student or employee, or deliver a phone message to alert possibilities of inclement weather, hostile threats, or other random incidents that may need immediate attention (loss of power for example). By sending out a mass phone message or text there is a higher likelihood more families and individuals are reached as well. Earning the trust of the local community is the key during this very sensitive process as emotions could be high. If trust is absent in the community the potential for rebellious individuals could happen, and result in a higher abundance of safety being breached. A website should immediately be created through a Community Involvement Branch (CIB) with frequently asked questions section explaining the severity of the potential harms one may endure from fracking. The CIB would allow for citizens to feel connected to the incident and value their opinion. Videos explaining things in greater detail and a 24-hour online support should be available to answer any additional questions as well.

Preventing Widespread Fear and Chaos

Before any of the pertinent information aforementioned goes to the public, there would need to be a collection of experts from various backgrounds with knowledge of the potential harms of the fracking contamination. The complete story of what happened needs to be told to the public with no sugar-coating the situation. Sticking to the facts through the obtaining of information in the areas which pose immediate danger or have already become contaminated and presenting it to the public is a must. Additionally, samples should be taken to see if there is an impact on flora or fauna in the area as well as the potential long term effects in the surrounding eco-system. An immediate plan for community action should be made with the aid of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). creating a town forum with a daily set time and location would allow for the providing agency to disseminate the facts to the public and answer any arising concerns. Status updates would be given and contact information dispersed for citizens with concerns of health, personal property that may be affected, and veterinary services in case of a domestic or farm animal falls ill. All meetings should be video recorded and also have transcripts of it at completion. The town meetings should be attached to social and local news media, as well as the local community’s website for viewing by those who may have been absent or are incapable of leaving their homes due to clean up or handicaps. A modified transcript of the meeting with just the important details should be submitted for review to local newspaper outlets for publication in the following morning paper. The transcripts should also have the potential of being translated if asked for by non-English speaking individuals who wish to be informed of the overall situation as it stands.

National Communication

The immediate area is of concern, but national resources familiar with the situation would warrant a welcome addition to help local and state administrations. The help is beneficial; especially in case of contamination getting downstream or if nearby farm animals became infected from drinking tainted water and then were packaged for human consumption. In the case of tainted meat, poultry or eggs being potentially supplied to consumers, a recall would be conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through their Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) branch (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would need to be contacted about the situation, so in turn they could utilize their Office of Communications to spread the word about the potential dangers of illness that could occur from exposure to the residue in the ground or water, and from fumes that may pollute the air. Due to the amount of chemical seepage into the ground water, which could be infecting local flora and fauna, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be called upon for their Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The ATSDR’s purpose is to aid the public by utilizing the top science available, taking approachable public health movements, and contributing important health information to help people avoid detrimental exposures and sicknesses linked to toxic elements (Centers for Disease Control, 2014). If the exposure gets out of hand and the security of the nation is definitely at risk. Then the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could swoop in to inform the public of safety concerns and with the aid of the EAS, notify the citizens of the country of up to the minute changes which could directly or indirectly be affected by the domino effect of the fracking mishap.

Making the Message Clear

In the event of any high stressed event one has to realize the mind frame of those immediately effected by the situation and act accordingly. Among key elements after garnering the trust and proving credibility to those relying on you, giving those in disbelief the assertion everything will be taken care of to ensure safety is maintained by all. Whether the message is one-on-one, through social media, or in a town hall forum, it is vital to make sure the most basic form of the English language is used. Plain language is important in the standpoint of education of those in danger of contamination so everyone can understand the issue. If technical jargon is used frequently it does no good if the “Average Joe” has no idea what is being said. Keep in mind also some individuals may not speak English, so keeping it simple is the best and furthermore keeping language plain as possible. The plain language recommendation comes via way of the DHS as a result of confusion with technical terms used in the aftermath of such disasters like the 9-11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina (Harwood, 2009). Furthermore, the DHS has told first responding agencies they would not get funding through DHS grants if they didn’t abide by the simple request.

Outside the realm of plain language, it is essential to get communication across agencies and first responders using language which is direct and in the moment. One should state who or what agency they represent, what purpose they are in the area for and how they will serve. Stated in reverse, it seems like work has been completed and the community which is struggling has no personal say in the matter at hand. Showing an active tone engages ears! In order for the message to truly be understood, compassion for those in the communities must be present, and those serving the communities as first responders and other agencies should become listeners to get the full scope of the incident and to incorporate the component of human emotions into the puzzle (Agency for Toxic Substances & Diseases Registry, 2005).

Measuring Compliance/Understanding

Measuring compliance versus communication with the public could be identified in a few ways. The first way in my opinion is simply by comparison as when approaching someone on the street and greeting them: “I'm lost can you help me find the grocery store?” How well do they cooperate in a give and take scenario? Do they reply by saying, “take that left and then head straight 3 blocks and turn right you will find the grocery store you are looking for”? They fulfilled your expectations by giving you directions to finding the destination you were seeking. If you ask the same questions and you run into people who just turn their nose up and walk away, they are non-compliant. If you ask for directions and they don't care to help you because that's not what their current task or job is, it is non-compliant. In relation to the fracking incident, imagine if the ATSDR tells everyone that when the water comes back on it will need rationed. Water additionally should be boiled for consumption and lawns are not allowed to be watered? If a citizen decides to water his lawn and a fails to follow the directive of not doing so, he or she is in non-compliance and they should have to face financial penalties and potential jail time for endangerment of the local eco-system and not abiding by policy passed down from the ATSDR. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can hold the oil company in non-compliance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The EPA observes compliance with core TSCA necessities through records examination as well as on-site investigations. Mobile response units could monitor compliance to the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act on a regular basis. By having the units available, the EPA helps assure protection of human health, and the surrounding landscape isn’t damaged (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).