January 31, 2013
Mr. Michael
Brune
Executive
Director
Sierra Club
85 Second Street,
2nd Floor
San Francisco,
CA 94105
Dear Michael:
The reason for
our letter is to express our concerns about the hydraulic fracturing crisis in
our country and in Colorado where we live, and the Club’s Oil and Gas Policy,
as revised February 2012.
As you know, the
impacts from hydraulic fracturing are both an environmental and a public health
issue that crosses political lines, especially in communities that are being
impacted from hydraulic fracturing operations. People from around the country
are coming together to ask why their local, state, and federal governments are
not helping to protect their communities from water contamination, air and
noise pollution, public health issues, wildlife ecosystem destruction, and
more.
The most
powerless feeling for families is that they are unable to protect their health
and that of their children from what’s happening in their own backyards when
the oil and gas industry conducts hydraulic fracturing operations. This
violates two key civil rights issues – the rights to safety and the rights to
protection under the Civil Rights Act.
In addition,
families cannot even protect the homes they live in if an energy company wants to
exercise its mineral rights by drilling under a families’ property due to the
Split Estate Law in Colorado. This law also impacts families’ ability to
protect the surface rights that they own with their homes. The question is: Who
is protecting the property rights of innocent families?
We believe that the environmental and
public health impacts from hydraulic fracturing are a crisis of historic
proportions in our country, a crisis that undermines our environmental laws,
and the entire philosophy upon which the Sierra Club was founded.
As a result, we are asking the Club to
take a leadership role in calling for a nationwide ban on mining that uses
hydraulic fracturing.
Hydraulic
fracturing is destroying our land, our air, our water, wildlife ecosystems, and
public health. Additionally, it has a significant negative impact on the
climate crisis. The following sample data and arguments supports our
assertions:
Impacts on Water
We would like to
discuss how hydraulic fracturing impacts our water quantity and quality:
In the National
Wildlife Federation’s report from 2011 entitled: “No More Hydraulic Fracturing in the Dark: Exposing the Hazards of
Natural Gas Production and Protecting America’s Drinking Water and Wildlife
Habitat,” the following was reported under “Impacts on Water Quality and Supply:” (http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Energy-and-Climate/Drilling-and-Mining/Natural-Gas-Hydraulic
fracturing.aspx)
“Each time that a well is hydraulically
fractured, hundreds of thousands of gallons of water are required. As this
procedure may be carried out many times, each well may therefore require
several million gallons of water for hydraulic fracturing operations. This
water normally must be withdrawn from nearby wells, lakes, rivers, or
industrial or municipal water systems. Large-scale water withdrawals may result
in reducing the flow of streams below levels acceptable for fish (such as brook
trout) and other wildlife.”
Currently,
hydraulic fracturing occurs in 34 states. Can we really afford for the oil and
gas industry to have access to so much freshwater that should instead be
protected for drinking water, ecosystem health, and growing our food? In the
arid Intermountain West, many oil and gas companies are outbidding farmers for
water. With the devastating drought that Colorado experienced last summer, and
with predictions for continued drought due to the climate crisis, we really
need to ask ourselves what the most beneficial use of our water really should
be. We must also make it a priority to protect the health of our aquifers.
In Colorado, Initiatives
3 and 45 will be reintroduced in 2013, and were:
“Born
out of the need to protect and provide for better access to Colorado’s water
and preserve this precious resource now and into the future.
The initiatives codifies the Public Trust
Doctrine in Colorado’s Constitution and reaffirms the public’s ownership of
Colorado’s water and the state as steward of the peoples’ property and is
charged with its protection and enforcement of the public’s interest.” (http://protectcoloradowater.org)
Water Contamination
We are also very
concerned about reports of water contamination from hydraulic fracturing
operations. The following information was also reported in the National
Wildlife Federation’s report referenced above, but there have also been many other
documented reports of groundwater contamination from around the country:
“The process of releasing natural gas
from layers of rock through hydraulic fracturing is believed to potentially
lead to the migration of gases into other geological layers, including
aquifers.”
“Groundwater near drilling wells has in
fact been contaminated with methane, the main component of natural gas. This
can pose a fire and explosion hazard; the health risks of drinking
methane-contaminated water remain unknown. While some cases of methane in water
may be due to other causes, a peer-reviewed study by researchers from Duke
University found that water from wells closer to active natural gas drilling
sites had higher concentrations of methane. The researchers sampled water from
wells and found that “Methane concentrations were 17-times higher on average…in
shallow wells from active drilling and extraction areas than in wells from
nonactive areas.”
According
to StateImpact, (http://stateimpact.npr.org), a project of National Public Radio, state
environmental regulators in Pennsylvania blame methane migration for contaminated water wells in Dimock,
Susquehanna County. They also found that:
“Migrating
gas is also the prime suspect for two problems that sprang up in May and June
2012: in Tioga County, a 30-foot geyser
appeared along a road in Union Township, Tioga County. Private water
wells also began overflowing, and gas puddles were discovered in a nearby
creek. Similar problems surfaced 13 miles away in Leroy Township, Bradford
County, where flammable puddles were
discovered
near a well drilled by Chesapeake Energy.”
Clean Water
Action and the Poudre Canyon Group of the Sierra Club, based in Fort Collins,
Colorado discovered the following data on water contamination for neighboring
Weld County, Colorado: (http://www.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/co/SC-CWA-to-COGA-2-27-2012.pdf)
From
August 2003 - January 2012, 1,000 “Incident Spill Reports” for oil and gas
drilling and hydraulic fracturing were reported to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC). Please note: the
COGCC website only lists the 1,000 of the most recent reports. These publicly searchable reports, (http://cogcc.state.co.us/), reveal the following:
·
43%
of spills have contaminated groundwater
·
3.1%
of spills have contaminated surface water
·
43%
of spills have resulted in, or been caused by, berm failures
A sampling of 60 of
the 1,000 “Incident Spill Reports” reflects the following estimate of fluid
contamination:
·
Up
to 824,600 gallons of oil have been spilled and “unrecovered” in Weld County
·
Up
to 383,600 gallons of produced water have been spilled and “unrecovered” in
Weld County
·
Up
to 547,400 gallons of “Other” fluid have been spilled and “unrecovered” in Weld
County. (“Other” may include hydraulic fracturing fluids.)
These alarming
results are for Weld County alone and do not reflect spills and groundwater
contamination in the 41 other Colorado
counties in which oil and gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing occurs. In addition, surface spills under 210 US
gallons do not have to be reported to the COGCC, unless they affect “waters of
the state.” Aren’t they all waters of the state, considering it’s all a part of
the hydrological cycle and in need of our protection?
Produced Water
What happens to flowback
and produced water (toxic liquid waste water) from hydraulic fracturing
operations is shocking.
In Colorado,
produced water that contains hydraulic fracturing fluids may be permitted for
discharge into streams and surfaces, and can be sprayed on dirt roads to reduce
dust. According to the EPA, “pollutants
are discharged into surface waters such as rivers, lakes or streams where they
can directly impact aquatic life and drinking water sources.” This is the result of some water treatment
plants not having the ability to treat this type of wastewater. This data is
referenced below:
According to
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s (COGCC) website,
“About 60% of the produced water in
Colorado goes into deep and closely-regulated waste injection wells, 20%
evaporates from lined pits and 20% is discharged as usable surface water under
permits from the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission.”
“Evaporation is a common disposal method in the Piceance Basin, while surface discharges are common in the Raton Basin, where coal bed methane is produced, water production is significant, and the water meets or can be treated to meet surface discharge standards.”
“Produced water can also be sprayed on dirt roads to reduce dust, if authorized by the surface owner outside sensitive areas. It should not result in pooling or runoff and is supposed to meet allowable concentrations in Table 910-1. (COGCC Rule 907.c.2.D)”
“Evaporation is a common disposal method in the Piceance Basin, while surface discharges are common in the Raton Basin, where coal bed methane is produced, water production is significant, and the water meets or can be treated to meet surface discharge standards.”
“Produced water can also be sprayed on dirt roads to reduce dust, if authorized by the surface owner outside sensitive areas. It should not result in pooling or runoff and is supposed to meet allowable concentrations in Table 910-1. (COGCC Rule 907.c.2.D)”
According to the
EPA, “Shale Gas Extraction – Industrial Effluent Guidelines – Fact Sheet dated
October 2011:”
“Based on data provided by industry, it is evident that a portion of the injected fracturing fluid will return to the surface as “flowback,” sometimes called “produced water.” Up to one million gallons of shale gas wastewater may be produced from a single well within the first 30 days following fracturing.”
“These produced waters generally contain elevated salt content (often expressed as total dissolved solids, or TDS), many times higher than that contained in sea water, conventional pollutants, organics, metals, and NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material). Additional data show that flowback waters contain concentrations of some of the fracturing fluid additives.”
“While some of the shale gas wastewater is re‐used or re‐injected, a significant amount still requires disposal. Some shale gas wastewater is transported to public and private treatment plants, many of which are not properly equipped to treat this type of wastewater. As a result, pollutants are discharged into surface waters such as rivers, lakes or streams where they can directly impact aquatic life and drinking water sources…. EPA plans to propose new standards for public comment in 2014.”
Radioactive Tracers
Man-made radioactive
tracers, along with the
other substances found in hydraulic-fracturing fluid, combined with naturally occurring radioactive
materials (NORM) from shale deposits, return to the surface as produced water.
When NORM is concentrated or exposed by human activities, such as
hydraulic fracturing, it is classified as TENORM (technologically enhanced
naturally occurring radioactive material).
“Many of the materials
that are technically TENORM have only trace amounts of radiation and are part
of our everyday landscape. However, some TENORM has very high concentration of
radionuclides that can result in elevated exposures to radiation.”
“EPA is working to understand the problem and to develop
effective ways to protect humans and the environment from harmful exposure to the
radiation in these materials. Because TENORM is produced by many industries in
varying amounts and occurs in a wide variety of products, it is a particularly
challenging problem in the U.S. Although EPA and others working on the problem
already have learned a good deal about TENORM, we still do not understand fully
all of the potential radiation exposure risks it presents to humans and the
environment.”
Class
II Injection Wells
According to the
EPA’s website, (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/), there are approximately 144,000 Class
II injection wells in the United States that inject over 2 billion gallons of
brine every day. Colorado currently has 698 Class II liquid industrial waste
injection sites.
“When oil and gas are
extracted, large amounts of brine are typically brought to the surface. Often
saltier than seawater, this brine can also contain toxic metals and radioactive
substances. It can be very damaging to the environment and public health if it
is discharged to surface water or the land surface. By injecting the brine deep
underground, Class II wells prevent surface contamination of soil and water.”
According to an
investigative report published December 28, 2012 in the Fort Collins Coloradoan, the following was reported:
“Over the past 13 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has exempted only the oil and gas industry from the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act to allow the disposal of waste brine and
hydrocarbon-containing fluids into drinking water aquifers deep underground.
The injections are occurring east of Fort Collins in northern Weld County…”
“A ProPublica
investigation showed that the EPA has not kept track of how many aquifer
exemptions have been issued nationwide, and records the agency provided
ProPublica showed that many were issued in conflict with the EPA’s requirement
to protect water that could be used for drinking. ProPublica found that about
1,100 aquifer exemptions have been approved by the EPA’s Underground Injection
Control Program in its Rocky Mountain regional office in Denver.”
“In most cases, the EPA granted companies permission to
pollute drinking water aquifers saying that they
are not “reasonably expected” to be used for drinking water because they are
too deep and too expensive to tap, making such an operation “technically
impractical.”
“But Colorado may be
forced to look deep underground for new water sources as shallower aquifers are
depleted and water becomes more scarce as the climate changes, said Mark
Williams, a hydrologist at the University of Colorado-Boulder.”
“The plan Colorado
currently uses to calculate its water needs and supply through 2050 was last
updated in 2012; it says very little about underground sources of water and
even less about the how climate change could potentially affect the state’s
water supply.”
(The
Surface Water Supply Index) “SWSI ignored climate change entirely because
the state didn’t have enough money to address such a complex issue, the report
says. But considering the impacts of climate change is critical when
determining the harm oil and gas wastewater injections are doing to deep
drinking water aquifers,” Williams said.
“We’re sacrificing
those aquifers. In 50 or 100 years, we may actually like to have that water,
and it will not be available. That’s a water quantity issue. The region’s water
supply experts who say the drinking water lurking 8,000 feet or deeper
underground can’t be tapped today also say the future may demand it.”
In
addition, Colorado’s largest aquifer, the Ogallala, was
contaminated by an EPA known frack fluid and thermogenic gas from a mining
operation that uses fracking processes. For more information, please visit: http://www.fractivist.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html
Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing
The
House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Report: “Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing,”
(http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov), details over 750
chemicals and other components used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Some
of these chemicals are classified as carcinogenic and hazardous air pollutants.
Given this, how can we, in good conscience, allow
the use of these chemicals in our environment, communities, and neighborhoods?
Also, according
to federal laws, the oil and gas industry does not have to disclose the
chemicals they use in their proprietary hydraulic fracturing fluids. How these
fluids and their effects are exempt from laws such as the Clean Water Drinking
Act, the Safe Water Drinking Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
is unacceptable. These laws were enacted to protect our environment and our
citizens. Allowing the oil and gas industry exemptions under the Halliburton
Loophole undermines our most important environmental and public health laws,
and consequently collides with Sierra Club’s mission statement. Isn’t it time
these outrageous, unlawful exemptions are eliminated?
Below are some
highlights from the Executive Summary of the report referenced above:
“Between
2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500
hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components.
Overall, these companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing
products – not including water added at the well site – between 2005 and 2009.”
“Some
of the components used in the hydraulic fracturing products were common and generally
harmless, such as salt and citric acid. Some were unexpected, such as instant
coffee and walnut hulls. And some were extremely toxic, such as benzene and
lead.”
“Between
2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing
products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human
carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to
human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air
Act. These 29 chemicals were components of more than 650 different products
used in hydraulic fracturing.”
“The
BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – appeared in 60 of
the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Each BTEX
compound is a regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and a
hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Benzene also is a known human
carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of
products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five year period.”
“In
many instances, the oil and gas service companies were unable to provide the Committee
with a complete chemical makeup of the hydraulic fracturing fluids they used.
Between 2005 and 2009, the companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products
that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed
proprietary or a trade secret. Committee staff requested that these companies
disclose this proprietary information.”
“Some
of these chemicals, if not disposed of safely or allowed to leach into the
drinking water supply, could damage the environment or pose a risk to human
health. During hydraulic fracturing, fluids containing chemicals are injected
deep underground, where their migration is not entirely predictable. Well
failures, such as the use of insufficient well casing, could lead to their
release at shallower depths, closer to drinking water supplies.” Although some
fracturing fluids are removed from the well at the end of the fracturing
process, a substantial amount remains underground.”
“While
most underground injections of chemicals are subject to the protections of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Congress in 2005 modified the law to exclude
“the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels)
pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal
production activities” from the Act’s protections. Unless oil and gas service
companies use diesel in the hydraulic fracturing process, the permanent
underground injection of chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing is not
regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”
“Hydraulic
fracturing companies used 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE) as a foaming agent or surfactant
in 126 products. According to EPA scientists, 2-BE is easily absorbed and
rapidly distributed in humans following inhalation, ingestion, or dermal
exposure. Studies have shown that exposure to 2-BE can cause hemolysis
(destruction of red blood cells) and damage to the spleen, liver, and bone
marrow. The hydraulic fracturing
companies injected 21.9 million gallons of products containing 2-BE between
2005 and 2009. They used the highest volume of products containing 2-BE in
Texas, which accounted for more than half of the volume used. EPA recently
found this chemical in drinking water wells tested in Pavillion, Wyoming.”
States with the Highest Volume of Hydraulic Fracturing
Fluids Containing 2-Butoxyethanol (2005-2009):
State
|
Fluid
Volume (gallons)
|
Texas
|
12,031,734
|
Oklahoma
|
2,186,613
|
New Mexico
|
1,871,501
|
Colorado
|
1,147,614
|
Louisiana
|
890,068
|
Pennsylvania
|
747,416
|
West Virginia
|
464,231
|
Utah
|
382,874
|
Montana
|
362,497
|
Arkansas
|
348,959
|
Total
|
20,433,507
|
We are aware
of the FRAC Act to repeal the Halliburton Loophole that was introduced in 2008
and reintroduced in 2011 by Representatives Diana DeGette and
Jared Polis, both Colorado Democrats who also sponsored the original bill. The question we must ask is: Will repealing
the Halliburton Loophole require the oil and gas industry to disclose the
chemicals used in their proprietary hydraulic fracturing fluids? Disclosure is
not enough.
Endocrine Disruption
Dr. Theo
Colborn, founder and president
of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), based in Paonia, Colorado, is an
environmental health analyst, and is known for her research on the health
effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Dr. Colborn’s
website, (http://www.endocrinedisruption.com),
details the chemicals used in natural gas operations and their health
effects. Her findings are disturbing and should be alarming to all of us.
After reviewing
Dr. Colborn’s research, please consider the impacts in Colorado for a moment.
There are over 49, 000 active oil and gas wells in Colorado and approximately
18,000 are located in Weld County. Some wells are located in neighborhoods and
next to elementary schools and playgrounds.
Our own Sierra
Club members and leaders live in communities surrounded by hundreds, and even
thousands, of toxic fracking operations that use carcinogenic and endocrine
disrupting chemicals to extract natural gas. The oil and gas operators fugitively
emit and willfully release tons of volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and
hydrocarbon vapors from storage tanks, valves and nearly 900 parts and pieces
of equipment that release fugitive emissions into their neighborhoods.
These toxic
operations are close to the schools that their children attend and the
playgrounds where they play. It is unethical and morally wrong that we are
allowing this to happen when, according to Dr. Colborn’s research:
“Volatile organic compounds (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, etc.,) and fugitive natural gas (methane),
escape and mix with nitrogen oxides from the exhaust of diesel-driven, mobile
and stationary equipment to produce ground-level ozone.”
We have a
responsibility to do something about this - for the environment and for our
members. These emissions must be monitored now, not in 2015, as the COGCC
suggests.
Additional concerns regarding chemical exposure in our communities involve
the current setback rules in Colorado. Currently only 150’ setbacks are
required in rural areas and 500’ setbacks in suburban areas for oil and natural
gas wells from homes, schools, and businesses. Is this really safe, considering
our own state law has a Setback Loophole that allows re-entry and re-drilling
of any completed well regardless of its proximity
to a residential structure? In some
subdivisions, there are active and producing well sites within 50-100’ feet of
homes.
Workplace Safety
We must ask: How safe are oil and gas field workers who are exposed to
the impacts of hydraulic fracturing?
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
identified:
“Exposure to
airborne silica as a health hazard to workers conducting some hydraulic
fracturing operations during recent field studies.”
The EPA states in their Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan (2011): (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/hf_study_plan_110211_final_508.pdf)
“That the
exposure to hydraulic fracturing chemicals in an occupational setting needs to
be examined to determine the acute and chronic effects on health. The exposure
risks such as “transport, mixing, delivery, and potential accidents” have not
been properly assessed.”
Air
Pollution
Air pollution along the Front Range of Colorado is getting significantly worse and studies show that hydraulic fracturing is
contributing to this problem.
In a study dated December 5, 2012 by the Colorado
Department of Health and the Environment, we would like to call your attention
to the following information provided under Table 5:
Average, speciated non-methane organic compounds (SNMOCs) concentrations
were captured at 10 times those found in agricultural areas of higher oil and
gas well pad density than in downtown Denver. This study clearly confirms the
previous NOAA air chemistry study and Dr. Theo Colborn’s “Air Manuscript” chemical
analyses of active oil and gas well pad chemical releases. The study also
points to aggregate major point sources of pollution, which under the Clean Air
Act, the oil and gas industry’s active well pads are considered “minor
non-point sources” of pollution. This is
a critical area that needs to be immediately addressed and stopped.
From the article entitled “Hydraulic fracturing’s Dirty Air Secret”
dated November 15, 2012 on Earthjustice’s website: (http://earthjustice.org/blog/2012-november/fracking-s-dirty-air-secret)
“Oil and gas drilling is a contributor to ozone—better
known as smog—on Colorado’s Front Range. Smog is a health problem. As the American Lung Association explains,
ozone is "the most widespread pollutant in the U.S." and "is
also one of the most dangerous." Smog causes shortness of breath; chest
pain when inhaling; wheezing and coughing; asthma attacks; and increased need
for people with lung diseases to go to the hospital to get treatment. And let's
not forget death. Thousands of premature deaths occur every year due to ozone
levels above the current health standard set by the EPA.”
“Thanks in part to the hydraulic
fracturing drilling boom, smog has gotten worse in Colorado over the past
couple of years. How bad? This summer was the worst Front Range smog year since 2006
with a month of unhealthy air days. State data for 2012 also show air in
Greeley and Fort Collins north of Denver—near the heart of the hydraulic
fracturing boom—exceeding health standards and getting worse.”
“And if that’s not enough, Rocky Mountain
National Park was crowned the smoggiest national park outside of California
this year. For the first time in the decade or so that the Park Service
has records online. Can’t imagine that’s good for the tourism business, let
alone the trees, wildlife and visitors.”
In
an exploratory study of air pollution near natural gas operations conducted by
The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (peer-reviewed
and accepted for publication by Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An
International Journal on November 9, 2012), the study’s abstract described the following: (http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.air.php)
“This exploratory study was designed to
assess air quality in a rural western Colorado area where residences and gas
wells co-exist. Sampling was conducted before, during, and after drilling and
hydraulic fracturing of a new natural gas well pad. Weekly air sampling for 1
year revealed that the number of non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs) and their
concentrations were highest during the initial drilling phase and did not
increase during hydraulic fracturing in this closed-loop system. Methylene
chloride, a toxic solvent not reported in products used in drilling or
hydraulic fracturing, was detected 73% of the time; several times in high
concentrations. A literature search of the health effects of the NMHCs revealed
that many had multiple health effects, including 30 that affect the endocrine
system, which is susceptible to chemical impacts at very low concentrations,
far less than government safety standards. Selected polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) were at concentrations greater than those at which
prenatally exposed children in urban studies had lower developmental and IQ
scores. The human and environmental health impacts of the NMHCs, which are
ozone precursors, should be examined further given that the natural gas
industry is now operating in close proximity to human residences and public
lands.”
A May 2012 study by the Colorado School of Public
Health researchers discovered the following: (http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/health-impacts-of-hydraulic
fracturing-emissions.aspx)
“In a new study, researchers from the Colorado
School of Public Health have shown that air pollution caused by hydraulic
fracturing or hydraulic fracturing may contribute to acute and chronic health
problems for those living near natural gas drilling sites. The report, based on
three years of monitoring, found a number of potentially toxic petroleum
hydrocarbons in the air near the wells including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,
and xylene. Benzene has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency
as a known carcinogen.”
“…Exposure to trimethylbenzenes, aliaphatic hydrocarbons, and xylenes, all of which have neurological and/or respiratory effects, the study said. Those effects could include eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing.
"We also calculated higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells as compared to those residing further [away]," the report said. Benzene is the major contributor to lifetime excess cancer risk from both scenarios."
“…Exposure to trimethylbenzenes, aliaphatic hydrocarbons, and xylenes, all of which have neurological and/or respiratory effects, the study said. Those effects could include eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing.
"We also calculated higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells as compared to those residing further [away]," the report said. Benzene is the major contributor to lifetime excess cancer risk from both scenarios."
In April 2012,
the EPA announced updates to nationwide air quality protections to include oil and natural
gas production. In the press release
entitled, “Environmental Groups Praise
EPA’s First-Ever Clean Air Protections for Hydraulic fracturing,” (http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2012/environmental-groups-praise-epa-s-first-ever-clean-air-protections-for-fracking), it’s
important to note:
“The EPA’s New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) will benefit the health of Americans and our environment in many
ways. The updated standards will result in major reductions in emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), toxic benzene and methane, a highly potent
contributor to climate disruption. These pollutants are known to cause asthma
attacks, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, cancer and even premature
death.”
“Today’s
announcement by the EPA is a major step forward. However, the
two-and-a-half-year delay in reducing pollution from wellheads is an
unnecessary setback because industry can meet those standards now.”
At the same time, the EPA left out methane emissions and in turn the Club
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of its members against the EPA.
From the same press release, we would also like to highlight your
statement:
“EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson is taking an important first step in closing
loopholes for the natural gas industry and addressing dangerous air quality
levels in and near frack-fields across the country,” said Michael Brune,
Executive Director of the Sierra Club.
“The natural
gas industry dumps massive amounts of air pollutants into our air every day,
sickening families and children. An industry that touts its ability to
efficiently drill thousands of wells thousands of feet into the earth is crying
wolf when it claims it can’t build enough tanks to capture wellhead pollution.
It’s time we clean up the natural gas industry’s dirty and reckless practices.”
The
Climate Crisis
We are very concerned about how hydraulic fracturing is affecting the
climate crisis.
As reported in the Journal of Nature on January 2, 2013: (http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-erode-green-credentials-of-natural-gas-1.12123)
“Scientists are once again reporting alarmingly
high methane emissions from an oil and gas field, underscoring questions about
the environmental benefits of the boom in natural-gas production that is
transforming the US energy system.”
“The researchers, who hold
joint appointments with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the University of Colorado in Boulder, first sparked concern in
February 2012 with a study suggesting that up to 4% of the methane produced at
a field near Denver was escaping into the atmosphere…..”
“Industry officials and some scientists contested the claim, but at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, California, last month, the research team reported new Colorado data that support the earlier work, as well as preliminary results from a field study in the Uinta Basin of Utah suggesting even higher rates of methane leakage — an eye-popping 9% of the total production. That figure is nearly double the cumulative loss rates estimated from industry data — which are already higher in Utah than in Colorado.”
“Industry officials and some scientists contested the claim, but at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, California, last month, the research team reported new Colorado data that support the earlier work, as well as preliminary results from a field study in the Uinta Basin of Utah suggesting even higher rates of methane leakage — an eye-popping 9% of the total production. That figure is nearly double the cumulative loss rates estimated from industry data — which are already higher in Utah than in Colorado.”
And as stated on the Environmental Protection Agency website, methane
gas is defined as follows: (http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html)
“Methane (CH4) is the second most
prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities. In
2010, CH4 accounted for about 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from
human activities. Methane is emitted by natural sources such as wetlands, as
well as human activities such as leakage from natural gas systems and the
raising of livestock. Natural processes in soil and chemical reactions in the
atmosphere help remove CH4 from the atmosphere. Methane's lifetime in the
atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient
at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4
on climate crisis is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.”
In the Scientific Case for Avoiding
Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature, last revised March
23, 2012, (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1365), the following observations were made regarding
fossil fuel emissions (please note: Dr. James Hansen is one of the researchers
of this study)
“Maintaining a climate that resembles
the Holocene, the world of stable shorelines in which civilization developed,
requires rapidly reducing fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Such a scenario is
economically sensible and has multiple benefits for humanity and other species.
Yet fossil fuel extraction is expanding, including highly carbon-intensive
sources that can push the climate system beyond tipping points such that
amplifying feedbacks drive further climate change that is practically out of
humanity's control. This situation raises profound moral issues as young
people, future generations, and nature, with no possibility of protecting their
future well-being, will bear the principal consequences of actions and
inactions of today's adults.”
Many of us have
seen the film “Chasing Ice.” It’s
time for each one of us to ask a very important question: On a scale of 1 to 10,
with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest, how concerned are you about
climate crisis? Also, how concerned are
you that our daily actions impact the vast majority of the world’s population
that has not done a thing to contribute to the climate crisis – don't we have a
responsibility and moral obligation to them to change the way that we live?
Making Hydraulic Fracturing Safer
Given that many
of us depend upon oil and natural gas for our daily existence, there has been
much discussion on what things could be done to make hydraulic fracturing safer
including:
- Full enforcement of our current environmental laws by the EPA
- Disclosure of all proprietary fracking fluids
- Repealing the Halliburton Loophole
- Developing strict guidelines and imposing penalties when laws are not followed (accountability)
- Providing the necessary inspectors to ensure compliance with all environmental laws and regulations. Currently Colorado has 17 inspectors to monitor over 49,000 active, plus 81,000 inactive wells
The real
question is: Can hydraulic fracturing ever be safe for our environment and
public health?
Sierra Club’s Oil and Gas Policy
We have reviewed
the Club’s Oil and Gas Policy, as revised February 2012, and are pleased that
it clearly states the reasons the Club doesn’t support hydraulic fracturing
because of many of the points addressed in this letter.
We do want to
recognize that the policy also supports:
·
Chapter advocacy for regional or state-wide
moratoria
·
Bans in specific local environmentally
sensitive areas such as federal roadless areas, state parks and forests,
designated wildlife areas, and municipal watersheds
·
Local groups that call for a ban in their own
communities
These changes to the 2009 Oil and Gas Policy were critical. Thank
you for working towards these revisions – but we must do more.
Given the
investigative reporting that continues to provide concrete evidence of accounts
of water contamination, people becoming seriously ill who live close to well
sites that have been fracked, animals dying after exposure to hydraulic
fracturing fluids, and the unknown health issues that will surface in the
coming years, we are asking the Club to
take a leadership role in calling for a nationwide ban on mining that uses
hydraulic fracturing.
If we take a
leap of faith and call for a nationwide hydraulic fracturing ban, we will move
closer to the goal of a clean and healthy energy future, but our planet
requires that we act today. If we don’t, we will drag this issue out for an
indefinite period of time, further endangering our environment and public health,
and accelerating the climate crisis. We don’t have time to wait.
Sierra Club v. Morton 45 U.S. 727 (1972)
Sierra
Club v. Morton was one of the most important environmental lawsuits ever
pursued. Over 40 years ago, Sierra Club saw that Mineral King needed protection
from a proposed ski area development. Simply, the natural world needed a voice
and Sierra Club was there to provide it. The Club had the courage to stand up
and challenge the Interior Department’s policies on developing Mineral King. We
didn’t win but today we have another chance.
Throughout
our country today, the natural environment is being destroyed through hydraulic
fracturing operations, mountaintop removal mining, our individual and collection
actions that contribute to our climate crisis, and a host of other issues.
The natural world needs our
voice more than ever. Will the Sierra Club be courageous enough to stand up
once more and be that voice for our natural world? Are we up to the challenge?
We
think that the dissenting opinion of
Justice William O. Douglas, in Sierra Club v. Morton, foretold the future that
lies in front of us today. Below is an excerpt from his dissenting opinion:
“The critical question of
"standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we
fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated
before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object
about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where
injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for
protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of
standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This
suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.”
“Inanimate objects are
sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction
found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of
ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its
cases. The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of the
adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual,
aesthetic, or charitable causes.”
“So it should be as
respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges,
groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of
modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol
of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels,
otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are
dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The
river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.
Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water - whether it
be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger - must be able to speak
for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction.....”
“The voice of the
inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled. That does not mean that the
judiciary takes over the managerial functions from the federal agency. It
merely means that before these priceless bits of Americana (such as a valley,
an alpine meadow, a river, or a lake) are forever lost or are so transformed as
to be reduced to the eventual rubble of our urban environment, the voice of the
existing beneficiaries of these environmental wonders should be heard.”
“Perhaps they will not
win. Perhaps the bulldozers of "progress" will plow under all the
aesthetic wonders of this beautiful land. That is not the present question. The
sole question is, who has standing to be heard?”
“ Those who merely are
caught up in environmental news or propaganda and flock to defend these waters
or areas may be treated differently. That is why these environmental issues
should be tendered by the inanimate object itself. Then there will be
assurances that all of the forms of life which it represents will stand before
the court - the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the
lemmings as well as the trout in the streams. Those inarticulate members of the
ecological group cannot speak. But those people who have so frequented the
place as to know its values and wonders will be able to speak for the entire
ecological community…”
In 2008,
Ecuador’s Constitution was the first to: “Recognize that
ecosystems possess the inalienable and fundamental right to exist and flourish,
and that people possess the legal authority to enforce those rights on behalf
of ecosystems. In addition, these laws require the governments to remedy
violations of those ecosystem rights.”
Ecuador broke
new ground with the help of The
Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund that: “is
working with communities throughout the United States and in countries
worldwide to assist in crafting and adopting new laws that change the status of
natural communities and ecosystems from being regarded as property
under the law to being recognized as
rights-bearing entities.” (http://www.celdf.org)
Our planet
needs the Sierra Club’s mission in action to endure and now, more than ever, we
have the responsibility to “protect the planet” like no other time in our
lives.
We believe that the spirit to act on behalf of the natural world, and the spark to be courageous and do what’s right - not only for ourselves but for the greater good - is alive in us and in our members. This is how the Sierra Club was born.
We hope that you will have the courage to lead our country in calling for a nationwide ban on mining that uses hydraulic fracturing, regardless of the politics, and to acknowledge that the rights of our natural environment are worth fighting for. We believe that both of these things are worth the fight and we are confident that hundreds of thousands of Sierra Club’s members will stand behind you – there is no doubt.
Sincerely,
Executive
Committee
The
Poudre Canyon Group
Fort
Collins, Colorado
Shane
Davis, Chair
Caroline
Krumm, Vice Chair
John
Gascoyne
Kerry
Miller
Tyler
Wilson
cc: Sierra Club Board
of Directors
.
