Regulatory gaps regarding toxic chemical disclosure and monitoring

There is a dearth of information on the toxic make-up of oilfield chemicals used in Colorado and other states.  The lack of information stems from the fact that no agency (local, state or federal) requires complete disclosure of all of the chemicals used in oil and gas operations.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal department tasked with ensuring the integrity and health of our environment.  When it comes to regulating emissions from oil and gas operations, EPA has largely abdicated its responsibility. 

• EPA does not regulate oil and gas emissions (i.e., release to air, water, land) under EPA's Toxics Release Inventory.  The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted in 1986. EPCRA's primary purpose is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. EPCRA Section 313 requires EPA and the States to annually collect data on releases and transfers of certain toxic chemicals from certain industrial facilities. The data are then made available to the public in the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The goal of TRI is to empower citizens, through information, to hold companies and local governments accountable in terms of how toxic chemicals are managed.  Oil and gas extraction (SIC code 13) is not on the list of industries that have eto report under the TRI. (See page 7 of EPAs publication The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Section 313, Release and Other Waste Management Reporting Requirements )
  

• "It's a Catch-22," says the remarkably frank Weston Wilson, an environmental engineer with the EPA's Denver office for the past 32 years. "If the EPA doesn't study the health impacts, then there's no proof that there's anything dangerous happening. It's irrational and corrupt. We used to investigate mysteries, and now we're not. It's sad. It's kind of like we're being paid off with our generous salaries. The American public would be shocked if they knew we [at EPA] make six figures and we basically sit around and do nothing." --"EPA to citizens: Frack you," Salon.Com by Rebecca Clarren, May 5, 2006

  EPA does not regulate drilling or completion fluids (i.e., how much and what is injected into or near aquifers) under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  In fact, in 2005, hydraulic fracturing fluids used during coalbed methane development were specifically exempted from regulation under the SDWA, despite the fact that many known toxic chemicals are used in this process.  Find out more about issues related to hydraulic fracturing.
  
• Drilling fluids, produced water, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural gas are exempt from federal hazardous waste regulations (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act).  This exemption is in effect even though in the publication Exemption of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Wastes from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations  EPA admits that "Some exempt E&P wastes might be harmful to human health and the environment, and many non-exempt wastes might not be as harmful."

At the state level in Colorado, the requirements are similarly inadequate to provide the public with a clear picture of what chemicals are being used, and the potential or actual effects that these chemicals are having on the environment and public health.

No agency (e.g., COGCC, CDPHE) requires complete listings of chemicals used during oil and gas development; or released to the environment.  What little information is reported is not easily accessible to the public; and often, information is not specific enough to be useful.

Due to the inadequacy of chemical reporting, and seeming lack of environmental monitoring data, five citizens' groups from across the state have requested that the COGCC and CDPHE clarify which agency has the ability and responsibility to regulate oilfield chemicals and monitor the release of the chemicals into the environment.  View the letter.

This page will be updated as information on state agency roles and responsibilities becomes available.

For More Information

• As shown by the inset box above, EPA employee, Weston Wilson, has been critical of EPA's failure to adequately review information on the oil and gas stimulation process known as hydraulic fracturing.  
  
  In May, 2005, the Rocky Mountain news published an article on Wes Wilson ('He's either loved or reviled - EPA whistle-blower stands up to agency," Rocky Mountain New, Todd Hartman, May 30, 2005).  The articles documents how in October 2004, Wilson sent a letter to both U.S. senators from Colorado, Republicans Wayne Allard and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, as well as U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Denver Democrat. The letter alerted the trio to an EPA study that had caused Wilson and several of his peers at EPA "great concern."
  
  According the the article, "Attached to the letter was an 18-page technical analysis titled EPA Allows Hazardous Fluids to be Injected into Ground Water.  In it, Wilson laid out an eight-point argument citing alleged flaws in the study and its conclusion that hydraulic fracturing poses no threat to groundwater."  Read the Rocky Mountain News article. 
  
  
• Find out more about hydraulic fracturing.