Oil and Gas Drilling Matters More Than Your Kids, Says EPA

Clean Air Kids

By Olka Forster

The U.S. EPA is under attack from the inside and, unfortunately, that means so is the health and welfare of the American people. While the Paris Agreement has been getting most of the headlines, another action by EPA head Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump will have a much more immediate impact on our lives: the freezing of Obama-era methane regulations on oil and gas drilling.

Methane is a potent climate disrupting gas that is about 86 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The Obama-era regulations would have required the oil and gas drilling industry to have leak detection and repair (“LDAR”) programs to make sure that their drill sites were not leaking methane. Leaking oil and gas equipment is not only one of the country’s biggest sources of methane pollution, often times the leaking equipment is releasing smog and soot-forming volatile organic compounds and carcinogenic toxins like formaldehyde and benzene.

Now, in the era of Trump, Scott Pruitt is proposing a two-year delay on the methane regulations despite an EPA assessment that found that unchecked methane emissions had a particularly negative effect on children.

Contrast this to what the Obama Administration said about the impact on children's health of the pollution that would be reduced by the standards:

“[T]he EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on children. Accordingly, the Agency has evaluated the environmental health and welfare effects of climate change on children.

Greenhouse gases including methane contribute to climate change and are emitted in significant quantities by the oil and gas sector. The EPA believes that the GHG emission reductions resulting from implementation of these final rules will further improve children's health.

The assessment literature cited in the EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding concluded that certain populations and life stages, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to climate-related health effects. The assessment literature since 2009 strengthens these conclusions by providing more detailed findings regarding these groups' vulnerabilities and the projected impacts they may experience.

These assessments describe how children's unique physiological and developmental factors contribute to making them particularly vulnerable to climate change. Impacts to children are expected from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health effects resulting from extreme weather events. In addition, children are among those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as well as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and floods. Additional health concerns may arise in low income households, especially those with children, if climate change reduces food availability and increases prices, leading to food insecurity within households.” (Source: Federal Register, pp. 35893-35894)

In Texas, specifically, there are more than 5,000 wells that would “benefit” from not having to do pesky things like having a leak detection and repair program in place. The EPA estimates that the oil and gas industry could save $173 million as a result of delaying the methane rule. Here’s a link to a map that our good friends at Environmental Defense Fund did that shows all the wells in Texas (4,500) and beyond that will no longer be subject to regular inspections if Pruitt’s proposed stay is not rescinded. https://edfmaps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=085893e8b19b43e9bf18a7a29d3230e3

Unfortunately for Scott Pruitt, his attempt to give enormous savings to his buddies in the oil and gas industry is not only awful it is unlawful. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can only delay the rule if during its public comment period a petitioning party had no opportunity to identify some centrally relevant aspect of the rule. It is on that basis that the Sierra Club and allies are suing  the Trump administration on behalf of our neighbors who live near these facilities and bear the brunt of the rollback of common-sense environmental regulations. And, we fully intend to win.

A Despicable Disregard For Human Health

In its proposal to pause the methane rules for two years, the EPA issued the following statement (and it’s absolutely horrific):

EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. The basis for this determination can be found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35893). However, because this action merely proposes to delay the 2016 Rule, this action will not change any impacts of the 2016 Rule after the stay. Any impacts on children’s health caused by the delay in the rule will be limited, because the length of the proposed stay is limited.”

Essentially, Pruitt’s EPA is saying that letting babies and children suffer for two years (plus the 180-day duration of the other two stays) from the illnesses caused by oil and gas pollution is no big deal because it is "merely" a "delay." After all, what's 2 1/2 years in the life of a toddler? This is the clearest statement we've seen from the Trump EPA of its despicable disregard for human health when protecting people gets in the way of oil and gas profits.

What can you do? If you live in a city near oil and gas drilling, call, write, or visit your city council and your representative and tell them to join the Sierra Club in opposing the proposal by the EPA. And look for a future email from Sierra Club on how you can make direct comments to the EPA on this awful proposal! (The direct link on the proposal can be found here https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/06/16/2017-12698/oil-and-natural-gas-sector-emission-standards-for-new-reconstructed-and-modified-sources-stay-of).