WASHINGTON, Dec. 15, 2016 - Correcting what it considers a
misreading of its 2015 draft report on hydraulic fracking, EPA released a thick
final report Tuesday that it says “provides scientific evidence that hydraulic
fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources in the United States
under some circumstances.”
EPA’s June 2015 draft report included one sentence highlighted
ever since by the petroleum industry: “We did not find evidence that these
mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources
in the United States.”
Releasing the new report, Thomas Burke, EPA science adviser and
deputy assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development,
said the agency took into account extensive public comments, peer reviews,
stakeholder views and the scientific literature to reach its conclusion that
fracking has impacted drinking water in certain cases. He noted that the
report’s findings are limited by data gaps and uncertainties.
Burke emphasized that the report also provides states, tribes and
other communities with “the scientific foundation to better protect drinking
water resources in areas where hydraulic fracturing is occurring or being
considered.”
The American Petroleum Institute blasted what it
said was the EPA’s “abandonment of science” in revising the conclusions to its
earlier assessment report.
“It is beyond absurd for the administration to reverse course on its way out the
door,” said API Upstream Director Erik Milito. “The agency has walked away from
nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical
reports and peer reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry
practices, industry trends, and regulatory programs protect water resources at
every step of the hydraulic fracturing process. Decisions like this amplify the
public’s frustrations with Washington.
“Fortunately, the science and data clearly demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing
does not lead to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources.
Unfortunately, consumers have witnessed five years and millions of dollars
expended only to see conclusion based in science changed to a conclusion based
in political ambiguity. We look forward to working with the new administration
in order to instill fact-based science back into the public policy process.”
API also pointed out that the report had concluded
that the number of contamination cases was small compared to the large number
of wells fracked nationwide.
Hydraulic fracturing injects a mixture of water, sand and
chemicals at high pressure to fracture tight rock formations deep underground
to release more oil and natural gas. First developed by the U.S. Department of
Energy, fracking has become controversial because of cases where it has been
blamed for contaminated water supplies and others where it has been linked to
increased seismic activity. Despite the controversy, the oil industry’s use of
hydraulic fracking has increased dramatically and is considered a major factor
in today’s oversupply and low oil and natural gas prices.
As part of the fracking report requested by Congress, EPA
identifies conditions that can lead to more frequent or severe impacts from
fracking. Saying that critical water-resource decisions should
be based on science to protect public health and drinking water, Burke called
the report “the most complete compilation to date of national scientific data
on the relationship of drinking water resources and hydraulic fracturing.”
Burke noted that the report covers all five stages of the fracking
process that can threaten drinking water:
-
Acquiring water
to be used for hydraulic fracturing;
- Mixing
the water with chemical additives to make hydraulic fracturing fluids;
- Injecting
hydraulic fracturing fluids into the production well to create and grow
fractures in the targeted production zone;
- Collecting
the wastewater that returns through the well after injection, and
- Managing
the wastewater through disposal or reuse methods.
The report states that “EPA identified cases of impacts on
drinking water at each stage in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle” and that
these impacts “generally occurred near hydraulically fractured oil and gas
production wells,” Burke said.
Proven impacts “ranged in severity, from temporary changes in
water quality, to contamination that made private drinking water wells unusable,”
the report says.
In its guidance for states, tribes or communities where fracking
is taking place or being considered, EPA points to six parts of the fracking
process that pose the greatest risk of more frequent or severe impacts:
-
Water
withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water
availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater
resources;
-
Spills
during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or
produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of
chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
-
Injection
of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical
integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
-
Injection
of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
-
Discharge
of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water
resources, and
-
Disposal
or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting
in contamination of groundwater resources.
Promising to continue work to reduce data gaps and uncertainties,
EPA notes that current understanding is limited because “comprehensive
information on the location of activities in the hydraulic fracturing water
cycle is lacking, either because it is not collected, not publicly available,
or prohibitively difficult to aggregate.” EPA cautions that because this
information is incomplete, “it was not possible to fully characterize the
severity of impacts, nor was it possible to calculate or estimate the national
frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the
hydraulic fracturing water cycle.”
EPA’s bottom line is that fracking has impacted water supplies in
certain cases – and that there are best practices for avoiding or at least
limiting these impacts. The report and related documents are available on EPA’s Hydraulic
Fracturing page.
#30
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com
