Understanding the Hidden Dangers of Oil and Gas Fracking Waste: An Interview with Industry Insiders
As the oil and gas industry continues to expand, so does the need to understand its impact on health, safety, and the environment. In this new episode of “Exposure” our hosts Jill Hunkler and Stuart Day sit down with investigative science journalist Justin Nobel and former oil industry truck driver Richard Cummings to shed light on the lesser-known dangers of fracking, especially the radioactive waste produced by oil and gas extraction. Below, we break down the key takeaways from this conversation, exploring the hazards of fracking waste, the impact on workers, and the environmental risks of deep well injection
The Reality of Radioactive Fracking Waste
One of the most shocking revelations from the discussion is the sometimes incredibly high concentration of radioactivity in oil and gas waste. When fracking extracts oil and gas from deep within the Earth, the process also brings up toxic and radioactive elements, such as radium-226, a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 1,600 years. Radium is not only carcinogenic but also accumulates in bones, where it can cause significant damage over time particularly if inhaled.
According to Justin Nobel, author of Petroleum 238, the oil and gas industry has long been aware of the risks associated with radioactive fracking waste. Despite this, fracking waste is still classified as "non-hazardous" in most contexts, sidestepping the stringent controls usually applied to radioactive materials.
One of the industry’s primary disposal methods, deep well injection, was initially intended as a short-term solution. Early EPA documents reveal that deep well injection was viewed as a temporary approach, intended to be used with extreme caution and meant to be replaced by safer, more permanent methods. More than 50 years later, however, injection wells remain a primary disposal method, raising serious concerns about leaks, contamination, and long-term environmental impact of this toxic and radioactive waste.
The Impact on Workers: Dangerous Conditions and Lack of Transparency
Richard Cummings, who worked as a brine truck driver, shared his experience navigating the health risks of handling fracking waste. Brine, a byproduct of fracking, is often marketed as "water" by the industry. However, Cummings explained that what he saw working for the industry concerned him deeply about what was actually in the water— He was hired as a “water hauler” but is he really hauling toxic chemicals, carcinogens and radioactive waste?
Cummings described how he and his colleagues often had direct contact with fracking waste without proper protective equipment or adequate training. The lack of transparency in the industry means that workers may not even know what they are handling, let alone the long-term health consequences of exposure to radioactive and toxic materials. Drivers transporting fracking waste often encounter Geiger counters to monitor radiation levels, only to be told they are "safe enough" to proceed, even when the readings suggest otherwise.
In addition to health risks, oil and gas workers are subject to low wages and job insecurity, with contractors often hiring young, inexperienced drivers for demanding and sometimes unsafe work. These workers face significant risks to their health, and as Cummings shared, some experience symptoms like persistent headaches, respiratory issues, and digestive problems. Given that many workers in the oil and gas industry operate under contract, there is little accountability for employers to ensure safe working conditions.
The Environmental Risks of Injection Wells
The environmental hazards associated with fracking waste extend beyond individual worker safety. Deep well injection is a process where companies inject fracking waste into old, unused wells. This waste includes toxic chemicals and radioactive materials. Although injection wells are typically lined to prevent leaks, these linings are far from foolproof, and many wells eventually leak, allowing contaminants to migrate through the soil and groundwater.
During the interview, Justin Nobel pointed out the staggering prevalence of injection wells across the United States. With approximately 180,000 Class II wells currently in operation—primarily used for the disposal of oil and gas production waste—this equates to around 12 injection wells for every Starbucks location in the country.
Despite the oil and gas industry claiming that injection wells are safe, research and community testimony suggest otherwise. Waste migration through soil and rock formations can lead to radioactive contamination of drinking water and other natural resources. Nobel explains that injection wells are “sweeping [the waste] under the carpet,” placing public health at risk while delaying solutions for sustainable waste management.
Regulatory Loopholes and the ‘Non-Hazardous’ Label
A major part of the problem lies in how the oil and gas industry has been able to operate with regulatory exemptions. In the 1970s and 1980s, environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were passed to protect public health and ecosystems from industrial waste. However, due to lobbying efforts, the oil and gas industry secured exemptions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), specifically through the Bentsen and Bevill Amendments. These exemptions allow the industry to classify fracking waste as 'non-hazardous,' despite the presence of toxic and radioactive substances.
This classification as 'non-hazardous' enables the oil and gas industry to avoid costly waste management practices and transport fracking waste without the labeling and handling requirements mandated for other hazardous materials. As a result, local communities, workers, and ecosystems bear the consequences of this cost-cutting measure.
The Role of Activism and Community Awareness
For people like Cummings, seeing activists protest oil and gas practices was initially met with skepticism. However, as he began to witness the health impacts on himself and colleagues and noticed red flags at waste sites, he reached out to activists for support and answers. Activists have been crucial in raising awareness of the health and environmental dangers posed by fracking waste, often at significant personal risk. In rural and conservative areas, those who speak out against the industry face community backlash and economic repercussions, yet they continue to push for reform.
What Can Be Done to Protect Communities and Workers?
The conversation between Hunkler, Day, Nobel, and Cummings emphasizes that, while there is no simple solution, steps can be taken to mitigate the impact of fracking waste:
Increased Transparency: Oil and gas companies should disclose the chemicals used in fracking and provide clear labeling for fracking waste materials.
Stricter Regulations and Enforcement: Revoking the "non-hazardous" classification for fracking waste and mandating proper handling would be a significant step in protecting both the environment and public health.
Improved Worker Protections: Workers handling fracking waste need adequate training, protective equipment, and medical monitoring to reduce exposure risks.
Community Advocacy and Legal Action: Local communities can push for better enforcement of environmental laws, and, in some cases, pursue legal action against companies that prioritize profits over safety.
Conclusion: The Path Forward in a Contaminated Landscape
The oil and gas industry’s failure to address the dangers of radioactive fracking waste is an urgent issue. As investigative journalists and whistleblowers bring these hidden dangers to light, communities and workers affected by fracking have an opportunity to demand change. By educating the public, advocating for policy reforms, and holding companies accountable, we can work towards a safer, more transparent energy future.
Additional Resources:
Ohio Valley Allies: ohiovalleylies.org
Exposure Podcast: Listen Now
Citations for claims made in episode One
The Dangers of Radioactive Waste in Oil and Gas
Injection Wells & the Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Lack of Safety Measures for Oilfield Workers
All content presented in this podcast is intended for informational and educational purposes and reflects the informed opinions, personal experiences, and perspectives of the hosts and guests. While we strive to present accurate and well-researched information, the views expressed may include personal interpretations of the topics discussed. We encourage listeners to explore further information and form their own conclusions. Any references to specific organizations, individuals, or events are based on publicly available information and/or personal anecdotes and are not intended to misrepresent or harm any entity or person. This podcast is protected under the First Amendment, and we stand by our right to engage in open, good-faith discussions on matters of public concern
Comments