Groups Petition U.S. EPA for Public Reporting of Chemical Releases from Fracking and Other Oil and Gas Operations
The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), along with 16 other local, regional and national organizations petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today to require the oil and gas extraction industry—including companies engaged in fracking—to report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The oil and gas extraction industry has long used and released large amounts of TRI-listed toxic chemicals, and this has dramatically increased in the last decade with the rapid spread of horizontal hydraulic fracturing.
Today’s petition would finally make this information available for the first time to citizens, communities and lawmakers.
Joining EIP on the petition are the Natural Resources Defense Council, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, CitizenShale, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Earthworks, Elected Officials to Protect New York, Environmental Advocates of New York, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, OMB Watch, PennEnvironment, Powder River Basin Resource Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club and Texas Campaign for the Environment.
“The Toxics Release Inventory brings daylight to dark corners, by requiring companies to quantify and report their pollution to a public data base for everyone to see,” said Environmental Integrity Project Director Eric Schaeffer. “That makes it easier for communities to measure the environmental impact of local industries, motivates companies to reduce their emissions and gives all of us insight into how well our environmental laws are working. The U.S. EPA estimates the oil and gas industry releases 127,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants every year, second only to power plants and more than any of the other industries already reporting to TRI. Why shouldn’t oil and gas companies be required to report these toxic releases under our Right-to-Know laws, like so many other industries already do?”
The oil and gas extraction industry is a vast and growing industrial sector, operating in most states across the U.S. Oil and gas industry processes extend from well exploration to production and processing up to the point at which the natural gas is ready for transport to market or oil is ready for transport to a refinery. The advent of fracking has allowed the industry to grow even more rapidly in the last decade, but with the addition of greater amounts and volumes of toxic chemicals, more wastes and a much bigger environmental footprint.
“As a mother, wife, community member and individual suffering health issues caused by breathing toxic emissions, such as benzene, from a natural gas compressor site, I am very concerned about the impact the oil and gas industry is having on human life and the environment,” said Pam Judy, a resident of Carmichaels, Pennsylvania. “I am dismayed that there is not an adequate federal disclosure requirement that would provide individuals with the information necessary to make decisions regarding their health and safety.”
Data on the oil and gas industry (including fracking) points to a large toxic footprint. The U.S. EPA has estimated that the industry emits 127,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants every year, including benzene, xylenes, and hydrogen sulfide—more than any other TRI industry except electric utilities. And EPA investigations of natural gas development in Pavillion, Wyoming, and Dimock, Pennsylvania, found toxic chemicals and methane present in groundwater and drinking water wells. In fact, a Congressional report based on industry data found that the industry regularly uses products containing at least 45 TRI-listed toxic chemicals, the most common of which are: methanol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.
“I don’t just work with Powder River Basin Resource Council members in Pavillion, Deaver and Clark, Wyoming, who are severely impacted by contamination from oil and gas development. I also live with it,” said Deb Thomas, Powder River Basin Resource Council organizer and resident of Clark, Wyoming. “For those of us who fear our health is being affected by this industry, disclosure of the chemicals and constituents used during development is extremely important. We need to know what we’re being exposed to so that physicians can diagnose and treat our health problems and we can make informed decisions about staying in the communities we live in. It is a human right to know what toxic materials are being stored and used where we live and work.”
In spite of these significant quantities of toxic chemicals used and released, the industry is one of the few energy or extraction sectors that do not report to the TRI. For example, electric utilities, coal mining and metal mining have all reported to the TRI for nearly fifteen years. The oil and gas extraction industry is also uniquely exempt from many key provisions of our major environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
“Western Maryland currently has the highest targeted amount of shale gas within the state, and development activities will likely be centered in rural communities like Garrett County. Unfortunately, the county does not have the information or ability to address the storage of large volumes of chemicals, which may appeal to companies looking to stage drilling and processing activities within Maryland,” said Eric Robison, CitizenShale president and resident of Garrett County, Maryland. “The reporting provided by the TRI would allow a community like Garrett County to, first, be informed and, second, be prepared.”
Today’s petition requests that the industry’s facilities report their releases of toxic chemicals to the TRI, as electric utilities and coal mining already do. The reporting requirement is annual, procedural, and simply requires disclosure. These reports would provide a valuable resource to communities, lawmakers and the companies themselves. For example, if a gas company were to propose a facility in a municipality, a community member or local decision maker could pull up the company’s past TRI reports and judge whether the facility would be a good neighbor. Or the company itself could compare its releases against other facilities and determine whether it is in line with the industry standard. Above all, the petition would serve a fully informed public and industry responsibility.
The TRI was enacted in 1986 as Congress’s response to the Bhopal disaster that exposed hundreds of thousands of people to toxic chemicals. The TRI requires each industrial facility to report annually on its releases of more than 650 TRI-listed toxic chemicals to the air, land, water, landfills, treatment plants and other sites. The reports published in the Inventory are available online, providing basic but essential information about the environmental “footprint” of facilities.
Statements of Petitioners
Lynn Thorp, national campaigns director, Clean Water Action: “Inclusion of oil and gas sector pollution data in the Toxics Release Inventory is long overdue, and will provide people the information they need to protect their health, their drinking water, and their communities.”
Bruce Baizel, senior staff attorney, Earthworks: “Industry claims oil and gas development is safe. Yet it blocks access to the information the public needs to judge for themselves. EPA can and should stop the oil and gas industry from talking out both sides of its mouth, and require it to report its chemical releases to the Toxics Release Inventory.”
Amy Mall, senior policy analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council: “The oil and gas industry has enjoyed exemptions from our most important environmental laws for far too long. EPA has a responsibility to look out for the best interests of Americans’ health and environment—not polluters. It’s time for the fracking industry to report the chemicals they release into our communities, just like other businesses must.”
Sean Moulton, director of Federal Information Policy, OMB Watch: “No state is requiring enough upfront collection of baseline data and ongoing monitoring to adequately protect local water supplies and public health. Citizens need adequate information to evaluate the potential risks of allowing fracking in their communities. At the federal level, the EPA should add the oil and gas extraction industry to the Toxics Release Inventory program to help fill the information gap that currently exists.”
Deb Nardone, Beyond Natural Gas Campaign director, Sierra Club: “People have the right to know when the oil and gas industry dumps toxic pollution into our air and water, and it's high time the gas industry started playing by the same rules as everyone else. We strongly urge the Environmental Protection Agency to require mandatory reporting and tracking of all the toxic chemicals that the gas industry uses and releases into our communities.”
Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum: “Communities are already suffering from the environmental and health impacts of the shale gas industry’s use of hundreds of chemicals in the drilling and fracking of thousands of wells, with no idea of which chemicals are responsible for these impacts. Industry cannot truthfully claim that fracking is safe while refusing to disclose what toxics it puts into drilling muds and fracking fluids and what toxics come out of its wells. Our right to know what is contaminating our water, air, and soil so we can take the necessary steps to protect our families, communities, and the ecosystems on which we all depend fundamentally outweighs the industry’s interests in keeping its toxic cocktails secret.”
Guy Alsentzer, staff attorney, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper: “The TRI petition is a logical and important step toward better, safer regulation of a polluting industry. Inclusion of the oil and gas industry within the TRI will increase public knowledge and create a meaningful mechanism for better tracking and reducing the use and release of toxic chemicals in our air, waterways and lands, tasks especially important as natural gas hydrofracking operations continue apace.”
David Masur, director, PennEnvironment: “The ‘Right-to-Know’ principle is the cornerstone of making environmental decisions—and every basic decision in a democratic society. Without having the facts, we hinder the ability of every-day Americans from making thoughtful decisions for their own good and good of the public. The ‘Right-to-Know’ principle gives Americans access to crucial information in order to make informed decisions.”
Katherine Nadeau, Water & Natural Resources Program director, Environmental Advocates of New York: “As Governor Cuomo contemplates permitting the dirty gas drilling technique known as ‘fracking,’ New Yorkers along with our state and federal leaders need to protect what matters most—our public health, communities, and natural environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can require the gas industry to report the harmful chemicals it uses and toxic wastes it produces, and the agency should act now to provide decision-makers and citizens nationwide with this critical information.”
Dominic Frongillo, Deputy Town Supervisor of Caroline, New York, and Founder of Elected Officials to Protect New York: “Over 450 elected officials from across New York are calling for continuing the state's moratorium on fracking until the drilling method is proven safe. Requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals is the common-sense first step. We need the federal government to be a leader and advocate for our citizens.”
Diana Dascalu-Joffe, senior general counsel, Chesapeake Climate Action Network: “On behalf of our more than 60,000 supporters in Maryland and Virginia, we’re calling on the EPA to hold the oil and gas industry accountable to the same standards as other industries and tell the truth about the toxic chemicals that they spill into the environment. Communities in Maryland and Virginia where the industry wants to frack deserve to know what dangerous toxins are already impacting communities on the front lines of fracking in neighboring states. This is especially important because rural regions of Maryland and Virginia have little access to expert emergency services trained to deal with toxic chemical spills or releases.”
Eric Robison, president, CitizenShale: “Western Maryland currently has the highest targeted amount of shale gas within the state, and development activities will likely be centered in rural communities like Garrett County. Unfortunately, the county does not have the information or ability to address the storage of large volumes of chemicals, which may appeal to companies looking to stage drilling and processing activities within Maryland. The reporting provided by the TRI would allow a community like Garrett County to (1) be informed and (2) be prepared.”
Dan Randolph, executive director, San Juan Citizens Alliance: "The San Juan Basin of Colorado and New Mexico has over 33,000 oil and gas wells. It is critically important that the public knows the risks to public health from this tremendous amount of activity. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Toxic Release Inventory, must include oil and gas extraction if our communities are to be able to assess and cope with the impacts associated with this development.”
Deb Thomas, organizer, Powder River Basin Resource Council and Clark Resource Council: “I don’t just work with Powder River Basin Resource Council members in Pavillion, Deaver, and Clark, Wyoming, who are severely impacted by contamination from oil and gas development. I also live with it. For those of us who fear our health is being affected by this industry, disclosure of the chemicals and constituents used during development is extremely important. We need to know what we’re being exposed to so that physicians can diagnose and treat our health problems and we can make informed decisions about staying in the communities we live in. It is a human right to know what toxic materials are being stored and used where we live and work.”
Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
Yet another former Trump administration staffer has come out with an endorsement for former Vice President Joe Biden, this time in response to President Donald Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
- Trump Denies CDC Director's 2021 Timeline for Coronavirus Vaccine ›
- Trump Orders Hospitals to Stop Sending COVID-19 Data to CDC ... ›
- Two White House Staffers Test Positive for Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Admin to Disband Coronavirus Task Force - EcoWatch ›
- Pence Offers 'Prayers' as Hurricane Laura Hits Gulf Coast While ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Every September for the past 11 years, non-profit the Climate Group has hosted Climate Week NYC, a chance for business, government, activist and community leaders to come together and discuss solutions to the climate crisis.
- Covering the 2020 Elections as a Climate Story - EcoWatch ›
- Coronavirus Delays 2020 Earth Overshoot Day by Three Weeks ... ›
By Elliot Douglas
The coronavirus pandemic has altered economic priorities for governments around the world. But as wildfires tear up the west coast of the United States and Europe reels after one of its hottest summers on record, tackling climate change remains at the forefront of economic policy.
- German Business Leaders Call for Climate Action With COVID-19 ... ›
- Climate Activists Protest Germany's New Datteln 4 Coal Power Plant ... ›
By D. André Green II
One of nature's epic events is underway: Monarch butterflies' fall migration. Departing from all across the United States and Canada, the butterflies travel up to 2,500 miles to cluster at the same locations in Mexico or along the Pacific Coast where their great-grandparents spent the previous winter.
Millions of People Care About Monarchs<p>I will never forget the sights and sounds the first time I visited monarchs' overwintering sites in Mexico. Our guide pointed in the distance to what looked like hanging branches covered with dead leaves. But then I saw the leaves flash orange every so often, revealing what were actually thousands of tightly packed butterflies. The monarchs made their most striking sounds in the Sun, when they burst from the trees in massive fluttering plumes or landed on the ground in the tussle of mating.</p><p>Decades of educational outreach by teachers, researchers and hobbyists has cultivated a generation of monarch admirers who want to help preserve this phenomenon. This global network has helped restore not only monarchs' summer breeding habitat by planting milkweed, but also general pollinator habitat by planting nectaring flowers across North America.</p><p>Scientists have calculated that restoring the monarch population to a stable level of about 120 million butterflies will require <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12198" target="_blank">planting 1.6 billion new milkweed stems</a>. And they need them fast. This is too large a target to achieve through grassroots efforts alone. A <a href="https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/CCAA.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">new plan</a>, announced in the spring of 2020, is designed to help fill the gap.</p>
Pros and Cons of Regulation<p>The top-down strategy for saving monarchs gained energy in 2014, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/petition/monarch.pdf" target="_blank">proposed</a> listing them as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. A decision is expected in December 2020.</p><p>Listing a species as endangered or threatened <a href="https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf" target="_blank">triggers restrictions</a> on "taking" (hunting, collecting or killing), transporting or selling it, and on activities that negatively affect its habitat. Listing monarchs would impose restrictions on landowners in areas where monarchs are found, over vast swaths of land in the U.S.</p><p>In my opinion, this is not a reason to avoid a listing. However, a "threatened" listing might inadvertently threaten one of the best conservation tools that we have: public education.</p><p>It would severely restrict common practices, such as rearing monarchs in classrooms and back yards, as well as scientific research. Anyone who wants to take monarchs and milkweed for these purposes would have to apply for special permits. But these efforts have had a multigenerational educational impact, and they should be protected. Few public campaigns have been more successful at raising awareness of conservation issues.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="91165203d4ec0efc30e4632a00fdf57d"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KilPRvjbMrA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
The Rescue Attempt<p>To preempt the need for this kind of regulation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a <a href="https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/pdfs/Monarch%20CCAA-CCA%20Public%20Comment%20Documents/Monarch-Nationwide_CCAA-CCA_Draft.pdf" target="_blank">Nationwide Candidate Conservation Agreement for Monarch Butterflies</a>. Under this plan, "rights-of-way" landowners – energy and transportation companies and private owners – commit to restoring and creating millions of acres of pollinator habitat that have been decimated by land development and herbicide use in the past half-century.</p><p>The agreement was spearheaded by the <a href="http://rightofway.erc.uic.edu/" target="_blank">Rights-of-Way Habitat Working Group</a>, a collaboration between the University of Illinois Chicago's <a href="https://erc.uic.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Energy Resources Center</a>, the Fish and Wildlife Service and over 40 organizations from the energy and transportation sectors. These sectors control "rights-of-way" corridors such as lands near power lines, oil pipelines, railroad tracks and interstates, all valuable to monarch habitat restoration.</p><p>Under the plan, partners voluntarily agree to commit a percentage of their land to host protected monarch habitat. In exchange, general operations on their land that might directly harm monarchs or destroy milkweed will not be subject to the enhanced regulation of the Endangered Species Act – protection that would last for 25 years if monarchs are listed as threatened. The agreement is expected to create up to 2.3 million acres of new protected habitat, which ideally would avoid the need for a "threatened" listing.</p>
A Model for Collaboration<p>This agreement could be one of the few specific interventions that is big enough to allow researchers to quantify its impact on the size of the monarch population. Even if the agreement produces only 20% of its 2.3 million acre goal, this would still yield nearly half a million acres of new protected habitat. This would provide a powerful test of the role of declining breeding and nectaring habitat compared to other challenges to monarchs, such as climate change or pollution.</p><p>Scientists hope that data from this agreement will be made publicly available, like projects in the <a href="https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/MCD.html" target="_blank">Monarch Conservation Database</a>, which has tracked smaller on-the-ground conservation efforts since 2014. With this information we can continue to develop powerful new models with better accuracy for determining how different habitat factors, such as the number of milkweed stems or nectaring flowers on a landscape scale, affect the monarch population.</p><p>North America's monarch butterfly migration is one of the most awe-inspiring feats in the natural world. If this rescue plan succeeds, it could become a model for bridging different interests to achieve a common conservation goal.</p>
The annual Ig Nobel prizes were awarded Thursday by the science humor magazine Annals of Improbable Research for scientific experiments that seem somewhat absurd, but are also thought-provoking. This was the 30th year the awards have been presented, but the first time they were not presented at Harvard University. Instead, they were delivered in a 75-minute pre-recorded ceremony.