Resident suggests Perry Township put moratorium on hydraulic fracturing
Perry Township resident Daniel Guild asked supervisors on Tuesday to look into the possibility of placing a modified five-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing because of recent hazard alerts.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health identified exposure to airborne silica as a health hazard to workers conducting some fracking operations during recent field studies, Guild said.
Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”involves pumping large volumes of water and sand into a well at high pressure to fracture Marcellus shale and other tight formations, allowing oil and gas to flow into the well.
“OSHA has already released an alert about the drilling process,” Guild said. “There have been deaths and illnesses reported near these sites. They have tested 11 wells, and exposure has been identified. The levels of airborne silica are 100 times the legal limit.”
A total of 659 chemicals are used during the fracking process, according to Guild.
“These chemicals are known carcinogens,” Guild said. “It will be a number of years before government regulations and legislation catch up to the fracking process.”
Chairman A.J. Boni said the supervisors will look into possible options.
Guild said State College recently place a moratorium on fracking. Pittsburgh also placed one but decided to allow fracking near the airport, according to Guild.
Cindy Ekas is a freelance writer.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.