Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter
\nPublished: Friday, November 15, 2013<\/p>\n
Unconventional oil drilling in the waters off Southern California uses
\nseveral chemicals considered hazardous, including at least one that a
\nfederal agency connects to increased cancer risk, an environmental
\ngroup said yesterday.<\/p>\n
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in a 28-page letter asked the
\nCalifornia Coastal Commission to block offshore hydraulic fracturing,
\nor fracking, and cited a list of potential perils.<\/p>\n
The green group identified chemicals used in offshore operations after
\nlooking at oil and natural gas company disclosures on FracFocus.org.<\/p>\n
“The fracking chemicals known to be used in California state waters are
\nalarming,” Emily Jeffers, Center for Biological Diversity’s staff
\nattorney, Oceans Program, wrote in the letter. “The Center’s analysis
\nof chemicals used in 12 wells and disclosed by the voluntary reporting
\nsite FracFocus reveals that almost all of the chemicals used are
\nsuspected of causing gastrointestinal, respiratory, and liver hazards,
\nas well as skin, eye, and sensory organ risks.<\/p>\n
“More than half of the chemicals are suspected of being hazardous to
\nthe kidneys, immune and cardiovascular systems, and more than one-third
\nare suspected of affecting the developmental and nervous systems,” the
\nletter added. “Between one-third and one-half of the chemicals used are
\nsuspected ecological hazards.”<\/p>\n
The green group said that the California Coastal Commission should use
\nits authority to prohibit fracking in waters off the Golden State
\nbecause it threatens coastal resources.<\/p>\n
The commission has not had the chance to review the letter that arrived
\nyesterday, said Sarah Christie, the agency’s legislative director.<\/p>\n
“The Commission staff is in the process of evaluating all of the
\navailable information on offshore fracking, and will be discussing the
\ntopic, as well as our role in the regulatory process, when the
\nCommission meets next month in San Francisco,” Christie said in an
\nemail. “The Commission is committed to protecting coast and ocean
\nresources consistent with its mandate and authority in the Coastal Act
\nand the Coastal Zone Management Act.”<\/p>\n
The commission had already planned to talk about offshore oil drilling
\nat its meeting next month, Christie said. It’s a follow-up to a meeting
\nin August, when the agency launched an investigation into how much
\nhydraulic fracturing is happening offshore and what power the
\ncommission has to control it.<\/p>\n
That followed a news report that regulators have allowed drilling using
\nfracking in the Pacific Ocean at least a dozen times since the late
\n1990s. The Associated Press unearthed the data through a Freedom of
\nInformation Act request.<\/p>\n
At that August meeting, Alison Dettmer, chief deputy head of the
\ncommission’s Energy and Ocean Resources division, said the agency lacks
\nkey data related to fracking, in which companies blast water laced with
\nsand and chemicals at high pressure to break apart rock formations and
\nrelease oil or natural gas.<\/p>\n
In waters controlled by the federal government, there are 23 platforms
\nwith outer continental shelf (OCS) plans granting approval for
\nexploration. Thirteen of those were authorized by the Coastal
\nCommission, Dettmer said in August. Of those, a dozen “have done some
\nform of fracking in the last 25 years,” she said. In addition, it has
\nbeen approved for Platform Gilda off Santa Barbara.<\/p>\n
Dettmer will review the CBD letter before next month’s meeting,
\nChristie said.<\/p>\n
Oil and natural gas industry trade group Western States Petroleum
\nAssociation did not respond to inquiries about the CBD letter and
\nclaims on chemicals used.<\/p>\n
Chemicals listed as hazardous<\/p>\n
The Center for Biological Diversity in its letter said many of the
\ndozen wells where fracking is underway use chemicals with risks.<\/p>\n
The green group lists seven chemicals that it said are most commonly
\nused in offshore wells. It said there are known health risks with those
\ncompounds.<\/p>\n
The ones listed include crystalline silica or X-Cide, which CBD’s
\nletter said is “classified as a hazardous substance under both the
\nOccupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Comprehensive
\nEnvironmental Response, Cleanup, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or
\nSuperfund).”<\/p>\n
The chemical is “harmful to skin, eyes and other sensory organs,
\nrespiratory system, immune system and kidneys; mutagen. Known human
\ncarcinogen,” the letter said. CBD drew that information from the
\nEndocrine Disruption Exchange Inc., or TEDX, which describes itself as
\nan organization “that focuses primarily on the human health and
\nenvironmental problems caused by low-dose and\/or ambient exposure to
\nchemicals that interfere with development and function, called
\nendocrine disruptors.”<\/p>\n
OSHA has issued a hazard alert on respirable crystalline silica, which
\nsaid that “hydraulic fracturing sand contains up to 99 percent silica.
\nBreathing silica can cause silicosis. Silicosis is a lung disease where
\nlung tissue around trapped silica particles reacts, causing
\ninflammation and scarring and reducing the lungs’ ability to take in
\noxygen.”<\/p>\n
The alert, which addresses the issue of worker exposures only, added
\nthat “workers who breathe silica day after day are at greater risk of
\ndeveloping silicosis. Silica can also cause lung cancer and has been
\nlinked to other diseases, such as tuberculosis, chronic obstructive
\npulmonary disease, and kidney and autoimmune disease.”<\/p>\n
CBD’s letter also said offshore wells use methanol, which the green
\ngroup quoted TEDX as saying is “harmful to skin, eyes and other sensory
\norgans, respiratory system, gastrointestinal system and liver, brain
\nand nervous system, immune system, kidneys, reproductive and
\ncardiovascular system; mutagen.”<\/p>\n
The letter also named glyoxal, sodium tetraborate, 2-butoxyethanol,
\nmethyl-4-isothiazolin and ethoxylated nonylphenol as chemicals used in
\nthe offshore wells.<\/p>\n
“The chemicals used in the fracking process are extremely dangerous,
\nbut the fate of their ultimate disposal is of even greater concern,”
\nthe letter said. “Releases of fracking fluids onshore have led to fish
\nkills in freshwater bodies. Spilling or leaking of fracking fluids,
\nflowback, or produced water is also a huge problem. Spills can occur at
\nthe surface, and there is a risk of underground migration of fluids.
\nAlso, many fluids must be transported to and\/or from the well,
\npresenting additional opportunities for spills.”<\/p>\n
Special thanks to Richard Charter<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter Published: Friday, November 15, 2013 Unconventional oil drilling in the waters off Southern California uses several chemicals considered hazardous, including at least one that a federal agency connects to increased cancer risk, an environmental group said yesterday. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in a 28-page letter asked the California … Continue reading E&E: Green group reveals offshore fracking chemicals, says many pose hazards<\/span>