| Action | Expanding disclosure of ingredients used in well stimulation & completion & reviewing best practices |
| Stage | Proposed |
| Comment Period | Ended on 12/4/2015 |
 |
Michael Skiffington
Regulatory Coordinator
Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
1100 Bank Street, 8th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219-3402
Dear Mr. Skiffington:
On behalf of the members and directors of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (“BREDL”), I offer the following comments on the proposed changes to 4-VAC-25-150. A full version of our comments has been submitted to your email at 11:29 p.m. on Dec 4, 2015.
It is our understanding that the purpose of this regulatory action is to ensure the gas and oil regulation reflects current industry best practices and to expand disclosure of ingredients used in gas and oil well stimulation and completion on permitted gas and oil operations in the Commonwealth. It is also stated that the existing regulation will be reviewed to determine if current requirements are sufficient to properly regulate drilling in different geographical areas of the Commonwealth.
BREDL asserts that the current proposed regulations and amendments are pitifully inadequate to protect against the myriad of well-documented harmful effects occurring in other parts of the country due to hydraulic fracturing. Given the track record of the drilling industry at large (which must be taken into consideration given its expanse and influence on current practices), the continuation and expansion of fracking in the Commonwealth of Virginia would result in the degradation of human health, community, and environment. In particular, the unique geological characteristics of the Taylorsville Basin region under consideration for new gas exploration combined with the increasing risk of flooding, sea level rise, and other interweaving factors stemming from the continued greenhouse gas emissions, presents a unique threat and dangers to those living in the Virginia Coastal Plains. We resolve that this threat must be addressed comprehensively and that it cannot be adequately mitigated through the existing draft regulations.
Objections to the Fracking Process Overall
The most immediate issues that make fracking such a dangerous endeavor to communities are 1) the large volume of fresh water that is wasted in the fracking process, 2) the list of chemicals still unknown to the public that is mixed with fresh water to produce fracking fluid, and 3) the poor industry standards of practice which result in spillage, leaks, and outright dumping of chemically-laced toxic wastewater onto the immediate environment. The amendments to the regulations attempt to address the issue of chemical disclosure but do not explicitly provide for full disclosure of chemicals, solvents, nor their exact quantities for mixture at each wellhead. This information is imperative to knowing what is contaminating a community’s rivers, streams, wells, and groundwater in the common event of spills and leaks into the environment. Furthermore, the suggestion by industry representatives to use the Fracfocus website for public disclosure is akin to self-regulation, and without being subject to federal and state public information law and providing full disclosure of ingredients and site-specific quantities, this attempt at regulation has no teeth.
The Potomac Aquifer and Land Subsidence
The issue of land subsidence due to water withdrawal from underground aquifers is of particular significance to the Tidewater region, including the lands under consideration for new fracking in the Taylorsville Basin. Land subsidence consists of an ongoing settling or abrupt dropping of the Earth's surface due to underground movement of earth materials. According to the U.S. Geological Survey: “More than 80 percent of the identified subsidence in the Nation is a consequence of our exploitation of underground water, and the increasing development of land and water resources threatens to exacerbate existing land-subsidence problems and initiate new ones. “[1]
The fracking process, as explained above, uses a tremendous amount of water which is then rendered unfit for other utilization. Considering the amount of water that fracking requires, and the fact that this water would most likely be pumped from the Potomac Aquifer underneath which the Taylorsville Basin lies, would mean increased risk for an area already prone to land subsidence. The Tidewater area is under significant threat of increased sea level rise due to melting glaciers and previous land subsidence from groundwater withdrawal. A 2013 report by the US Geological Survey states that “When groundwater is pumped from an aquifer system, pressure decreases. The pressure change is reflected by water levels in wells, with water levels decreasing as aquifer-system pressure decreases. This is happening over most of the southern Chesapeake Bay region, with the greatest water-level decreases seen near the pumping centers of Franklin and West Point, Virginia. As water levels decrease, the aquifer system compacts, causing the land surface above to subside. Water levels have decreased over the entire Virginia Coastal Plain in the Potomac aquifer, which is the deepest and thickest aquifer in the southern Chesapeake Bay region and supplies about 75 percent of groundwater withdrawn from the Virginia Coastal Plain aquifer system.”[2]
BREDL shares the concerns that have been expressed by residents of the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck regarding excessive water level decline in aquifers. But the concerns do not end with land subsidence. When Mathews County passed a resolution in March of 2015 asking that the state restrict fracking operations from taking place in and near critical aquifers, many residents and local government officials expressed concern that accelerated pumping of underground aquifers could result in decreased water pressure and an increased flow of salt water from the Chesapeake Bay impact crater into fresh water aquifers. There is great concern that there will come a time in the near future when no more additional ground withdrawals can be permitted. The Service Authority, which has jurisdiction over the water/sewer system, the landfill regulators and the stormwater management plans have all demonstrated an effort to be good stewards with regards to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. They are concerned that DMME is not displaying the same regard for their only source of drinking water. BREDL shares their concerns and insists that communities who stand to be impacted by the harmful effects of fracking be allowed to prohibit it in their communities if they deem necessary.
Though identifying, publicizing and addressing the myriad of health concerns regarding chemicals used in fracking is of critical importance, it cannot and will not address the exponential damage that would be done by furthering the problem of land subsidence by withdrawing vast amounts of water to use for fracking.
Flooding/Sea Level Rise Considerations
Because the areas currently under consideration for fracking are also areas prone to flooding, there are special considerations for the potential damage that fracking would cause in the coastal region of Virginia.
Flooding in areas where fracking is taking place could be devastating to the groundwater in the surrounding area and consequently the Chesapeake Bay. According to the Center for Coastal Resources Management: “Effectively managing flooding requires that flood risk be a consideration at all levels of planning. The challenge for appropriate flood management planning is to reduce risks to people, property and ecosystems associated with existing development while managing or preventing new development in high risk areas.”
The risk of flooding is of even greater concern due to the prevalence of extreme weather and the likelihood that flooding risks will increase exponentially due to the effects of climate change. Recently it was noted that: “Hampton Roads is considered a hot spot for sea level rise, and the second most-vulnerable region in the country to rising seas, behind New Orleans. The rate of rise here is more severe in part because of land subsidence caused by glacial rebound and the loss of groundwater.”[3]
“Every year, weather-related disasters injure or kill hundreds of Americans and cause billions of dollars in damage. Many of the risks posed by extreme weather will likely increase in a warming world. Scientists have already noted increases in extreme precipitation and heat waves as global warming raises temperatures and exacerbates weather extremes.”[4]
BREDL asserts that the wise management of our water resources should be of utmost consideration. The cascading and interweaving effects of increased groundwater pumping leading to increased land subsidence, increased greenhouse gas emissions leading to increased sea level rise, and the compounding dangers that increased flooding and erosion would have on the very drilling operations in question in this region of the Commonwealth, make the question of fracking in Virginia’s Coastal Plain a scenario fraught with risk.
Existing Fracking in Virginia
While the above issues deal most directly with the unique geological conditions of the Taylorsville Basin and Virginia Coastal Plains, the broader pervasive issues of water contamination from unknown chemicals and poor industry management and regulation hold true for any region under threat from fracking. Recent reports from citizens in far Southwest Virginia, where fracking is already happening, call into question the adequacy and efficacy of current drilling regulations.
Some of these reports from residents of Buchanan and Dickenson Counties already include incidents of contaminated drinking water. Citizens reported that “Water was
murky and had oily films, black sediments, methane, and diesel odors. Individuals experienced rashes from showering. The Buchanan Citizens Action Group reported over 100 documented complaints of adverse effects of hydraulic fracturing and the Dickenson County Citizens Committee reported ground water quality deteriorated throughout the county as a result of the large number of hydraulic fracturing events.”[5]
It is of great concern that not all of the negative effects from fracking activity have been accurately documented. Sheila McClanahan from the Buchanan Citizens Action Group says that though citizens have reported more than 100 documented complaints to the state, many have “allegedly been intentionally misclassified and filed as impacts of long-wall coal mining.” Additional reports from Dickenson County Citizens Committee claim that “ground water quality has deteriorated throughout the county as a result of the large number of coalbed methane well hydraulic fracturing events. Only 40% of the county is served by public water.”[6]
Protecting the Health and Safety of our Children
We must, above all else, protect the health and well-being of our children. The EPA has established guidelines in its Final Rule regarding Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” concluding that: “The agency has evaluated the environmental health and welfare effects of climate change on children. CO2 is a potent GHG that contributes to climate change and is emitted in significant quantities by fossil fuel-fired power plants. The EPA believes that the CO2 emission reductions resulting from implementation of these final guidelines, as well as substantial ozone and PM2.5 emission reductions as a cobenefit, will further improve children’s health.”[7]
President Clinton issued Executive Order 13045 in April 1997, establishing the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children.[8] In 2010, the Obama Administration charged the Task Force with:
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency co-chair the Task Force. A senior staff steering committee coordinates interagency cooperation on Task Force priority areas. To date, these include:
The Task Force is comprised of representatives of 17 federal departments and White House offices. Each representative from this task force must be consulted and those consultations must include recommendations that must be considered before any decision is made regarding these regulations in order to accurately identify and address potential harm to children.
For example, developmental issues often occur when children or embryos are exposed to toxic industrial chemicals. According to a recent study:
“Because of the extraordinary complexity of human brain development, windows of unique susceptibility to toxic interference arise that have no counterpart in the mature brain, or in any other organ. If a developmental process in the brain is halted or inhibited, there is little potential for later repair, and the consequences can therefore be permanent.”[9]
The most heartbreaking part of this study is that it found that, according to one of the authors of the study: “The brains of our children are our most precious economic resource, and we haven’t recognized how vulnerable they are,” says Grandjean. “We must make protection of the young brain a paramount goal of public health protection. You have only one chance to develop a brain.”[10]
In order to take into account all of the substantial risks to the health and safety of our children, we must include the evidence that natural gas and the risks associated with the fracking of natural gas have a significantly harmful affect on health and well-being and construct our plan for the future of energy production accordingly. The fracking process includes a multitude of aspects that would be harmful to our children, born and unborn, and each of those aspects must be explicitly explored, addressed and mitigated in order for any such project to proceed with integrity.
Water Contamination
There are several mechanisms by which fracking can contaminate drinking water resources.[11] Among them are overland flow to nearby surface water, soil contamination and eventual transport to surface water, and infiltration and contamination of underlying ground water. In a recent study, the EPA examined 151 spills from fracking operations. Of the spills characterized in its study, fluids reached surface water in 9 percent of cases and soil in 64 percent of cases.[12] If a spill does occur, there is a 64% chance that the fluid—laced with additives that have unknown environmental impacts—will contaminate the surrounding soil.
Once a spill has occurred, the contaminants may percolate through the soil and could, ultimately, reach ground water. It may take several years, however, for spilled fluids to infiltrate soil and leach into groundwater. Therefore, it may not be immediately apparent whether a spill has reached the ground water or not. It is imperative that we continue to view groundwater contamination as a serious risk associated with hydraulic fracking.
The vast majority of incidents of water contamination are due to the inadequate cement casing of fracked wells (also called wellbores). This allows natural gas and fracking fluid to migrate into groundwater zones. In fact, a 2014 study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, done by Duke and several other universities, found that faulty well integrity—namely, poor casing and cementing—is the primary cause of drinking water contamination from shale gas extraction.
Most wells used in hydraulic fracturing operations have casings and a layer of cement to protect drinking water, however, there is an alarmingly large number of exceptions. A survey conducted by the EPA estimated that at least 3 percent of wells fractured by nine oil and gas service companies in 2009 and 2010 did not have cement casings.[13] This means that escaped fluids have fewer barriers to travel through to reach ground water resources. And while 3 percent may seem like a small fraction of wells, when the sample in question contains upwards of 20,000 wells, 3 percent amounts to 600 wells and over 600 communities at risk.
It is BREDL’s assertion that all water must be protected. It is inconceivable that fracking could proceed in the Commonwealth of Virginia without causing serious harm to our precious and irreplaceable water resources.
Summary
Natural gas carries with it an array of negative environmental, economic, health, and legal ramifications. Tenuous federal standards and surveillance make this billion-dollar industry exceedingly dangerous and detrimental to United States citizens. Every stage in the natural gas extraction process exposes the surrounding air and groundwater to dozens of deleterious pollutants. What is more, the transportation of natural gas via interstate pipelines not only causes further noise and chemical pollution, but so too does it infringe on the property rights of United States citizens. Natural gas threatens the wellbeing of the economy, the environment, and all of its inhabitants.
Countless landowners have been harmed by fracking. In addition to encroaching on property rights, gas development sites are increasingly popping up in public forestlands, once again demonstrating the corruption of power that private corporations exert over not only vulnerable communities and landowners, but also our shared commons.
The currently proposed regulations for oil and gas drilling in Virginia would not protect citizens from even the most minor effects of this hazardous practice. They would instead allow a cascading series of harmful practices to compound already existing realities of climate change, sea level rise, land subsidence, and green house gas emissions that would have game-changing effects on the state of Virginia as a whole.
BREDL acts in the public interest
The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League was founded in 1984 as a non-profit, independent non-governmental organization. The League is a 501(c)(3) corporation with members, chapters and projects in seven states: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. The organization’s mission is the protection of the natural environment and public health.
Respectfully,
Whitney Whiting
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
www.BREDL.org PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 BREDL@skybest.com (336) 982-2691
[1] http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/subsidence.html
[2] Eggleston, Jack, and Pope, Jason, 2013, Land subsidence and relative sea-level rise in the southern Chesapeake Bay region: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1392, 30 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1392
[3] http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-evg-extreme-weather-map-20151128-story.html
[4] http://environmentamerica.org/page/ame/hitting-close-home-global-warming-fueling-extreme-weather-across-us
[5] http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_frac.html
[6] http://artvoice.com/issues/v9n25/fracking
[7] Pg. 1435: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/cpp-final-rule.pdf
[8] http://www2.epa.gov/children/presidents-task-force-environmental-health-and-safety-risks-children#taskforcemembers
[9] “Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals,” by Prof P Grandjean MD and Prof PJ Landrigan MD. The Lancet, November 8, 2006- Vol. 368
[10] http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press-releases/2006-releases/press11072006.html
[11] EPA. "Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources." June 1, 2015.
[12] Ibid.
[13] EPA. "Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources." June 1, 2015. Accessed July 14, 2015.
