November 30, 2015 02:19 PM UTC

EPA's Board of Scientists Questions EPA Fracking Study

• 1 Comments
• by: PKolbenschlag

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released findings that the agency found no examples of “widespread and systemic” contamination of groundwater from fracking the news was widely reported.

It was actually often misreported, including by several former professional journalists cum industry spokespeople, as “fracking shown to be safe” and “does not contaminate water.”

It should be noted that the EPA study did not itself make such sweeping claims. Nonetheless these apparently purposeful overstatements were repeated by oil and gas lobby groups like the Colorado Oil and Gas Assoc., Western Energy Alliance, Vital for Colorado, Protect Colorado, CRED.org etc. across the twitterverse, blogosphere, and in media circulars.

Less covered, one might even say nearly missing, from the reportage at least so far is the follow up.

The EPA’s own science advisory board is questioning that study. Here is one article from Power Source (“Energy News In Context” an industry-oriented website sponsored by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from the land of the Marcelleus shale play):

Board questions EPA draft report on fracking

Water supply issues focus of concern

A review by an EPA advisory board says that a draft report on hydraulic fracturing did not support the conclusion that shale gas fracking hasn’t caused significant damage to the nation’s water supplies.

The draft report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board raises questions about research, the lack of robust data and some of the language of the EPA’s fracking study draft, ordered by Congress to assess the risks to water supplies from hydraulic fracturing. Congress directed the EPA to create the advisory board in 1978 to review the quality and relevance of science the agency used to craft policy and regulations.

According to the peer-reviewed document by the 30-member Science Advisory Board, the EPA’s primary conclusion to its June draft study — that fracking has not caused “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States” — isn’t supported by the cited data, which has gaps and deficiencies.

“Of particular concern is the statement of no widespread, systemic impacts on drinking-water resources,” the October advisory board report says. “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 advisory committee suggested revisions to make the conclusion “more precise and specific,” and to “clearly draw” from the report.

In addition to an industry-oriented blog from Pittsburgh, the news is not readily found online in Colorado outlets. The issue must seem unimportant to Coloradans seeking to understand potential impacts from industrial oil and gas activity in their midst, even as state regulators consider new rules.

There are only a handful of articles to be found in a Google News search. Most of the others are found in environmental media like Inside Climate News:

EPA Finding on Fracking’s Water Pollution Disputed by Its Own Scientists

An Environmental Protection Agency panel of independent scientific advisers has challenged core conclusions of a major study the agency issued in June that minimized the potential risks to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing.

The panel, known as the Science Advisory Board (SAB), particularly criticized the EPA’s central finding that fracking has not led to “to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.” The oil and gas industry has seized on the conclusion to argue that broad concerns about fracking’s impact on drinking water are overblown.

The SAB’s 30 members, from academia, industry and federal agencies, said this and other conclusions drawn in the executive summary were ambiguous or inconsistent “with the observations/data presented in the body of the report.”

In overstating the findings of the original EPA study, oil and gas lobby groups were already shucking off dubious claims before with sweeping promises of “everything proven safe” with much of the media going along for the ride.

But now the study itself is being called into question in the peer-review process, as the Inside Climate article continues:

“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 panel said that the EPA erred by not focusing more on the local consequences of hydraulic fracturing. “Potential impacts on drinking-water resources are site specific, and the importance of local impacts needs more emphasis in the Report. While national-level generalizations are desirable, these generalizations must be cautiously made…A conclusion made for one site may not apply to another site.”

The EPA also should have discussed in far greater depth its own investigations into residents’ complaints of water contamination in Dimock, Pa., Parker County, Texas and Pavillion, Wyo., the panel said. In each case, EPA scientists and consultants found early evidence of contamination but the agency ended the investigations before further monitoring or testing could be done.

The SAB’s assessment is part of the peer review of the nearly 1,000-page draft assessment issued by the EPA to address public fears about the possible effects of fracking on drinking water.

So, will the Colorado oil and gas spokespeople correct the record?  Will Colorado media cover the news that the much touted EPA study of groundwater contamination from unconventional oil and gas development may be flawed? Are local communities deserving of that basic level of respect?