Hydrofracking Chemicals and Water - Part 2

I was talking with a friend of mine about fracking and water issues and he put it just right, “You know there are many alternative forms of energy, but no alternative forms of water.” I thought that certainly puts things in perspective – how in this beautiful geography, where water is so abundant, it can easily become something we take for granted. But, once it is threatened, scarce, or unusable, we realize what an important substance it is.

In my column last week I summarized the findings of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce which revealed the many known and possible carcinogens that are mixed with water and injected under great pressure to fracture deep deposits of shale to release trapped gas. This week I want to discuss what this practice has meant for a town in Wyoming, and what it could mean for us locally.

The town of Pavillion is an area that hasbeen extensively fracked. For years, many residents have complained that their water had turned black and smelled like gasoline. Last year, the EPA warned residents not to drink or cook with their water, to ventilate their homes when they showered, and to avoid ignition sources in closed rooms where water is running. The EPA drilled monitoring wells to get a more precise picture of the contamination and eventually collected samples from 41 locations and had the samples analyzed by four different laboratories. The EPA’s analysis indicated high levels of petroleum compounds such as benzene, xylene, methylcyclo-hexane, naphthalene, and phenol.As reported in Scientific American, what EPA also found was, “a solvent called 2-Butoxyethanol, widely used in the process of hydraulic fracturing. The agency said it had not found contaminants such as nitrates and fertilizers that would have signaled that agricultural activities were to blame…. The wells also contained benzene at 50 times the level that is considered safe for people, as well as phenols- another dangerous carcinogen – acetone, toluene, naphthalene, and traces of diesel fuel….The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy. The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground.Gas production is the only industrial activity in Pavillion A community based health survey found that,Since the development of the oil and gas resources in the area, Pavillion residents have reported contamination and health impacts that they suspect are coming from Encana's Pavillion/Muddy Ridge gas-field….residents' symptoms have ranged from rashes and headaches to neurological disorders and cancers. The survey found 94% of participants reported health impacts that are known effects of chemicals identified last year [the EPA study] in drinking water wells. The residents of Pavillion received water from eight groundwater wells until fracking started. Now many residents  drink bottled water supplied to them by Encana.

The Village of Alfred, Alfred University, Alfred State College, Tinkertown, parts of the Town of Alfred along Rte. 244, the Alfred-Almond Central School and the Village of Almond all get their water from two wells on Shaw Road that draw from one unfiltered aquifer. In the Alfred area, during the school calendar it is estimated that on any given weekday between 8-9,000 people depend on the water this aquifer provides. When the colleges are in session 650,000 gallons are pumped per day and when the students are gone about 250,000 gallons. This aquifer is fed by the nearby Kanakadea Creek and other underground sources, leaving it vulnerable to spills, leaks and other unanticipated effects of the fracturing process both below ground and on the surface. Because fracking extends thousands of feet horizontally underground, activities that are only visible far from the actual wells on Shaw Road have the potential to pollute them. This would be an unprecedented calamity for our community and certainly for the enrollment of the Colleges. I recently reread the comprehensive plan for the Town and Village from 2004 and found the section on water quality planning and management fascinating. This was a study prepared in 1993 by the Southern Tier West Regional Planning and Development Board. The document was created well before hydrofracking was a potential threat, but the issues it articulates makes this study even more relevant today. Here are some fragments from that report…

“A high-quality, plentiful water supply is an economic advantage in the recruitment of industry, business and residents.”
“We urge local officials to look at long-term environmental and groundwater protection, and not just short-term economic gain.”
“Use an aquifer-wide groundwater protection approach”
“Improperly closed, abandoned gas and oil wells are known to be common in Allegany Co. and pose threats to groundwater."
"Groundwater protection efforts are most effective when done on a more regional level as aquifers and their recharge areas do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries.”
“A quick survey of remediation costs for contaminated groundwater supplies will show that prevention is well worth the effort. Corrective measures can rapidly escalate into the millions of dollars, not to mention yielding substantial inconveniences to those dependent on the contaminated water supply. There is really no such thing as being overly protective when it comes to groundwater protection, especially when it is a community’s only source of drinking water. While many of the suggestions… may seem politically unpopular in the short-term, having contaminated groundwater would be even more unpopular. It is far easier to address threats and prevent contamination than to deal with the costs and other problems associated with crisis type situations.”

The water report clarified for me just how delicate the water system is and how on this level, the town and village are intimately connected.

Certain phrases in the water report stayed with me, “There is still much that is not known [my emphasis] about the recharge areas of the aquifer beneath the Town and Village of Alfred. Despite a lack of definitive knowledge [my emphasis] about recharge areas…” I think what these phrases imply is significant, that there are processes at work, that are larger than us, that we don’t fully understand, and can’t be controlled, and because of that, need to be respected. These phrases from the water report reminded me of one of my favorite authors, the farmer/writer Wendell Berry. In an essay entitled, Letter to Wes Jackson, Berry discusses unseen patterns in agriculture – but one could read his comments also in relationship to fracking and water supplies and how we just do not know everything.

“To call the unknown by it’s right name, “mystery,” is to suggest that we had better respect the possibility of a larger, unseen pattern that can be damaged or destroyed and, with it, the smaller patterns…” This was, “understood as evil or hubris. Both the Greeks and the Hebrews told us to watch out for humans who assume that they make all the patterns.”

Last week, at the end of a walk through the woods, my wife and I were coming back through the fields near our house on our usual path. We came upon something that amazed us; a bubbling spring had spontaneously sprouted out of the earth where we had never seen one before. A six-inch high vertical column of crystal clear water was being pushing up from the depths, pulsing continuously into the air. What we saw was only the visible portion of a much larger system at work. I came back into the house and poured myself a glass of water from our spring and thought that the tragedy of hydrofracking is how something as wonderfully simple as a clear glass of water has been transformed in many communities into something full of anxiety, fear, and anger.

Hydrofracking Chemicals and Water - Part #1

Hydrofracking is a relatively new method of retrieving natural gas that involves drilling thousands of feet vertically, passing through the water table, and then horizontally thousands of feet through shale where gas is trapped in tiny pockets. Millions of gallons of water are mixed with chemicals and are pumped underground at high pressure to fracture the shale, releasing the gas. The Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted gas companies from the oversight of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act and despite their claims that the chemicals used in the fracking process are safe, companies have consistently refused to make public comprehensive lists of the chemicals used.

In 2011 the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce asked 14 Oil and Gas companies to provide information on the names and volumes of products used over a five year period (2005-2009). For each fracturing product reported, the companies were also asked to provide the MSDS (material safety and data sheet) that OSHA  (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) requires. Under OSHA rules, chemical manufacturers can withhold the identity of chemical components that they deem to be “trade secrets”. This proprietary information belongs to the manufacturers, not the users of the chemicals, thus gas companies have only limited information about the products they purchase from vendors, mix with other products, and pump underground.

A report entitled, “Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing”

is a result of this federal study. It is the first comprehensive national inventory of the chemical products used by gas companies during the fracking process in over thirteen states. Here is the link to read the original committee report.

It is an eye opener!

Below is a summary of the findings of the Committee:

“In the five year period studied, the 14 leading oil and gas service companies used more than 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products, not including water (my emphasis) added at the well site. Overall, the companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 different chemicals and other components. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants”

“The components used in the hydraulic fracturing products ranged from generally harmless to extremely toxic substances, such as benzene and lead.”

“29 of the chemicals are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for their risks to human health, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”

“The BTEX compounds – Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene,  – are SDWA contaminants and hazardous air pollutants. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. Chronic exposure to toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylenes can damage the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys. BTEX compounds appeared in 60 hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009 and were used

in 11.4 million gallons of products of fracturing fluids.”

“Fracturing Companies injected more than 30 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states. In a 2004 report, EPA stated that the  ‘use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids poses the greatest threat to underground sources of drinking water’.

“Methanol, [ read for yourself the health effects of this poison] which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, was the most widely used chemical. The substance is hazardous and is on the candidate list for potential regulation under SDWA. Isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol [commonly used in anti-freeze, de-icing solutions, and brake fluid] were the other most widely used chemicals.”

Many of the hydraulic fracturing fluids purchased by the gas companies contain chemical components that are listed as “proprietary” or “trade secret.” 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. In these cases, it appears that the companies are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to human health and the environment. (My emphasis)

Upon release of the report, Chairman of the Committee, Henry Waxman said, “This report shows that these companies are injecting millions of gallons of products that contain potentially hazardous chemicals, including known carcinogens. “ 

Diana Degette a member of the committee from Colorado stated, “It is deeply disturbing to discover the content and quantity of toxic chemicals, like benzene and lead, being injected into the ground without the knowledge of the communities whose health could be affected.”

Ian Urbina reporting in The New York Times on the release of the report stated…. “The use of these chemicals has been a source of concern to regulators and environmentalists who worry that some of them could find their way out of a well bore — because of above-ground spills, underground failures of well casing or migration through layers of rock — and into nearby sources of drinking water.”

End of Part 1 … to be continued next week.

Bans and Moratoria update: The number of towns that have invoked home rule by passing moratoriums, bans, or have legislation pending stands at 134. When the towns within the New York City and Syracuse watersheds that are protected by the DEC watershed protection provisions are added the total to date is 206!  This last week Niagara Falls passed a citywide ban on fracking and accepting fracking wastewater in their water treatment facility, thus protecting a huge amount of the planets fresh water by stopping residual fracking wastewater from being discharged into the Niagara River and Lake Ontario! They also passed a resolution to Governor Cuomo stating fracking should be banned in all of New York State.

Interview with Daryl Jones, Town of Jerusalem

As of 3/3/12 there are 81 towns in New York State that are asserting home-rule authority by enacting a moratorium or a ban on high volume, slickwater, horizontal hydrofracking from within their jurisdictions. There are 45 more municipalities with legislation that is pending and awaits a final vote.

The town of Alfred has so far enacted a moratorium only. I thought it would be interesting to find out more about a town that started with a moratorium but went on to enact a ban. I was curious about their process, so having read that the town of Jerusalem, in Yates country, at the north end of Keuka lake, had recently moved from a moratorium to a ban, I called up Daryl Jones, Town Supervisor and asked if I could interview him.

On Monday Feb. 17, I met with Supervisor Jones in the town offices. Daryl, a soft-spoken man in his early sixties, was eager to share his experience. He was quick to point out that the whole effort was the collective hard work of many people. As he spoke he struck me as thoughtful, logical, and unemotional, that is, until the subject of water came up, then his face reddened and he spoke with passion and concern.

GM: Please tell me something about your background.

DJ: I have lived in Yates County all my life and Jerusalem almost 40 years. I was away for four years in the Air Force and was happy to return. I retired from the County Sheriff’s office and have been on the town board since 1998 and Supervisor since 2004.

GM: How would you describe your town?

DJ: We have a population of about four thousand. We’re the largest town in the county running from Penn Yan to a half mile south of Branchport. We have twenty miles of lake frontage, Keuka College, lots of grapes, dairy farms, not a lot of industry – just a tight knit community.

GM: When did you first become aware of hydrofracking?

DJ: A concerned group in the community attended a town board meeting about a year and half ago, and asked us to look into it.

GM: What happened next?

DJ: We formed a committee. The committee was made up of town volunteers, representatives from the zoning, planning, and town boards, and myself. We did a lot of research… weighed the options, pro and con. We contacted anybody and everybody who knew something about this issue. I was getting daily e-mails. Some of our committee members took it upon themselves to go to Dimock, Pa. [where, because of hydrofracking, many homeowners now have polluted water wells and receive water deliveries from the EPA] and other towns. A few officials from Torrey [Yates Co.] took a guided tour in Pa. from Chesapeake Gas [a major gas corporation currently drilling in Pa.] but they only show you what they want you to see on those tours and don’t give you the whole story. My doctor’s family lives near Williamsport, Pa. and they are just in turmoil. The roads are clogged with heavy truck traffic, truck after truck after truck and the roads are all tore up and it will be this way for years.

GM: How did you move from a moratorium to a ban?

DJ: The committee met two to three times a month and had informational meetings with the public. One at Keuka College was packed beyond capacity. We had three speakers…Tony Ingraffea [a Cornell geologist and one of the developers of the modern hydrofracking process who, nevertheless speaks out against it.] Steve Coffman [author and founder of The Committee to Preserve the Finger Lakes] and Scott Cline [spokesman for the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York.] [Go to You Tube and type in any of their names to watch various lectures.] After the presentations we handed out a short written survey our committee had created. Then it was clear how people felt. Over 95 % were against fracking. Helen and David Slottje [lawyers who worked with the Alfred planning board to draft the moratorium] were then brought on, pro-bono, to help us revise our zoning ordinances. We also got comments from several attorneys who live in the community. We met with the Mennonite community, they are large landowners, and addressed their concerns. We also sent some questions and a copy of the zoning draft to the Association of Towns. At that point I decided it was time to bring it to the town board for a vote.

GM: At this point I would like to tell my readers that before the actual vote you made the following statement: “Most important to me was the research… that presented facts that fracking as it is currently done is not safe. It’s not safe for the waters we drink. It is not safe for the crops we grow and the produce we eat. It is not safe for the livestock we raise. And it is not safe for the waters of Keuka Lake in which our children and grandchildren swim, fish, and play. Research proved without a doubt that property values, agriculture and tourism would suffer if fracking came to our town… This research and the strong preference of our residents, our taxpayers, the people who elected me to office bring me to a clear conclusion: Hydrofracking drilling…is not worth the risk in the town of Jerusalem.” And then what happened?

DJ: We had a vote and it was 4 to 1 to adopt the new zoning law.

GM: You could have taken a wait and see attitude and left it up to the DEC to protect you. But I gather the town board didn’t trust them to do that.

DJ: [Daryl paused, hesitated, sighed. It seemed he didn’t care to comment] The town has the ability to home rule. As far as I am concerned home rule is the deciding factor.

GM: I understand the complexities of this issue; many of us struggle to pay our taxes and leasing can be an attractive proposition to some in both our towns. What do you say to the people who see fracking as their economic salvation?

DJ: You are going to maintain your property at the expense of the town? If we allow it and it pollutes your neighbor’s water, or our lake, your property will not be worth anything along with everybody else’s…it won’t be worth a darn thing.

GM: Once you had educated yourself about hydrofracking was there one thing that you found the most threatening?

DJ: It’s the danger to the water. The noise is going to last till the drillers leave, the roads can be rebuilt and repaved… it all comes down to the water! Where would we be without the water? We wouldn’t exist without it! They are using millions of gallons per well and what are they mixing with it that they don’t have to divulge! What guarantee is there that the water will be safe when it goes back to our water source? Right now it’s a big experiment! I can’t imagine what would happen to this town and this county if our lake is polluted.[He groaned.] We would basically be a ghost town!

At this point we concluded the interview. Daryl gave me copies of their survey and amended zoning law to bring back to the Alfred Town Board.

Driving home to Alfred, through Pulteney, I took a route that took me high in the hills overlooking beautiful Keuka Lake. I passed a flat farm field with a truck parked by the side of the road and some men standing together in the field. On the side of the truck the sign said Chesapeake Gas.

                                Daryl Jones, Town Supervisor, Town of Jerusalem, New York

Moratoria and Ban update:

This week: St. Johnsville (Montgomery Co), Manheim (Herkimer Co.), Springwater (Livingston Co.), Starkey (Yates Co.); all have enacted one-year moratoriums.

Minden (Montgomery Co), Palatine (Montgomery Co.), Dolgeville (Herkimer Co.) Italy (Yates Co.); all have formal action pending towards a moratorium or a ban.