http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/06/heat-epa-environmentalists-homeowners-challenge-fracking-study
[images and links in on-line article]
Heat on EPA as National Study on Fracking's Risks to Drinking Water is
Challenged
By Julie Dermansky and Sharon Kelly • Sunday, December 6, 2015 - 11:35
The Environmental Protection Agency's draft national assessment on
fracking's potential to pollute drinking water is still under review. If
it is to reflect science over policy, some dramatic changes to the
wording of the study's conclusions are needed, EPA's review panel was
told during a public comment teleconference on Thursday.
Back in 2010, when Congress first tasked EPA with investigating the
risks that hydraulic fracturing poses to American drinking water
supplies, relatively little was known about the scale and significance
of the onshore drilling rush's environmental impacts.
Over the past half decade, the pace of scientific research into fracking
has accelerated dramatically. In 2009, only a handful of peer-reviewed
studies (the gold standard for scientific research) on the environmental
risks of shale and tight gas extraction were published; by contrast,
over 150 studies were published in 2014, according to a review of the
literature by Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Health Energy.
That scientific evidence has overwhelmingly found that shale and tight
gas extraction has the potential to harm – and has harmed – air, water
and people's health, that group wrote in an analysis released this year.
For politicians seeking to keep federal regulations for the industry at
bay and for those backing an “all of the above” energy strategy, the
growing evidence of a broad range of hazards related to fracking is bad
news. In Pennsylvania alone, state regulators have documented hundreds
of cases of water contamination, making it more challenging for
supporters to argue that the industry is well-policed and operating safely.
But the final word on all of this research, as far as many federal
policy-makers are concerned, will likely be the EPA's take on fracking's
risks.
When the draft assessment was released, the door should have been closed
on a favorite industry talking point – the (oft-debunked) claim that
there has never been a documented case where fracking contaminated
underground drinking water supplies. The EPA's draft assessment reported
multiple documented instances where that precise problem occurred.
But a single phrase from the study's executive summary – saying that the
EPA “did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread,
systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States” –
managed to leave a door open. That phrase continues to be quoted in
headlines and media coverage about the report.
And policy makers, state regualors and industry supporters immediately
beganto cite that draft summary. Florida Senator Garrett Richter said
“Fracking can be accomplished without any material harm to our water
supply,” recently while defending a bill he proposed that would overturn
exisisting fracking bans in Florida.
A look back at history suggests reasons to be wary of the differences
between EPA's highlighted summaries – often heavily edited at high
levels within the agency – and the details buried in the fine print of
their reports, authored by agency scientists. Again and again, EPA
studies on the oil and gas industry's environmental impacts have been
used to justify a hands-off approach to the drilling industry.
“More than a quarter-century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators
to force the federal government to police the industry better have been
thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope and
important findings have been removed,” the New York Times reported in
2011, part of an investigative series that found that EPA's new fracking
study had already suffered from repeated cuts to research plans.
“It was like the science didn’t matter,” Carla Greathouse, the author of
a 1987 EPA study into the oil industry's toxic wastes – used to justify
an exception for drillers from hazardous waste handling laws –had told
The Times. “The industry was going to get what it wanted, and we were
not supposed to stand in the way.”
Concern that history may be repeating itself may help explain why the
summary's focus on evidence of “widespread, systemic impacts” from
fracking, seems to have struck a nerve, sparking an outpouring of
indignation from close observers, and unusually frank questioning by the
EPA's own scientific reviewers.
During a teleconference lasting over four hours on Dec. 3, the EPA's
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), charged with overseeing the agency's
fracking report, was inundated with comments challenging that finding.
Over 280 comments were submitted to the board and three dozen people
requested an opportunity to make 3 minutes comments during the EPA's
public teleconference.
Lena Moffit, a representative for the Sierra Club opened the public
comments by expressing her shock at the EPA’s oft-quoted conclusion that
the assessment failed to find evidence of widespread, systemic impacts
on drinking water resources. Despite the report’s shortcomings, she said
the report does not supports that conclusion, a complaint echoed by most
of the speakers who called in.
Sharon Wilson, Earthworks’ Gulf Regional Organizer asked the board to
add a formal remark on major data gaps in the report due to “industry
obstruction, interference, and attempts to silence people who live with
the pollution EPA intended to study.”
Wilson describing her first-hand knowledge of cases where gag orders
prohibit impacted families from speaking out. “In addition to water
pollution, industry intimidation tactics are also widespread and
systemic,” Wilson told the EPA scientists.
Andrew Chichura, a resident of Susquehanna County, PA, expressed his
support for the oil and gas industry before sharing his family’s own
experience with contaminated water. Even though the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection confirmed that the Chichuras had
methane in their water in 2011 and made the determination that Cabot Oil
and Gas, a drilling company, was responsible for the family’s water
well’s contamination, the family has still not resolved its dispute with
the company in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Chichura's time expired before
he could finish describing his family's plight, but the anguish the
situation has caused him was evident.
Scott Seagle an attorney with Bracewell Giuliani who represents natural
gas producers, was the only caller that agreed with the EPA’s statement
that there is no widespread evidence of drinking water contamination. He
repeated the claim that no cases of contamination had been proven and
urged the board not to be swayed by “anecdotal” information.
Property owners whose wells are contaminated made clear their
conclusions that fracking was to blame were based on the findings of
scientific research, not guesswork. They asked the SAB to compel the EPA
to include findings from preliminary tests the agency conducted that
determined water contamination in Parker County, TX, Dimock, PA and
Pavillion, WY was likely caused by the fracking industry. Leaving out
data from those areas creates data gaps in the report, they said.
The EPA's own scientific review board has also begun challenging the
notion that their research shows fracking poses only marginal threats.
“Of particular concern is the statement of no widespread, systemic
impacts on drinking-water resources,” the SAB wrote in a preliminary
report. “Neither the system of interest nor the definitions of
widespread, systemic or impact are clear and it is not clear how this
statement reflects the uncertainties and data limitations described in
the Report's chapters.”
The EPA's draft assessment contains case after case where fracking
caused contamination – and even evidence, buried in the study's fine
print, that the industry has at times deliberately injected fracking
chemicals into drinking water supplies.
For some who have closely followed the issue for years, the question is
no longer whether there is enough evidence that fracking is causing
problems, but simply a question of political will to hold a powerful
industry accountable.
“The truth on whether or not fracking is inherently contaminating is
not being debated here. We know that that is the case,” Josh Fox,
director of Gasland, said during his comments. “What is in question is
whether the EPA will have any creditability as an organization if the
EPA and the SAB caves to industry and political pressure.”
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel