So it's not the fracking, it's the drilling and casing and cementing - which
are what's done so the fracking can happen. All part of the same process.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Amanda Pitzer <amanda(a)cheat.org>
Date: Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:58 AM
Subject: EPA article
To: Deb Fulton <dfvet(a)aol.com>, Duane Nichols <Duane330(a)aol.com>, "Donald C.
Strimbeck" <dcsoinks(a)comcast.net>, Constance Miller <calm9654(a)gmail.com>,
Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com>
**
Inside EPA - 08/12/2011
DOE Panel Doubts Fracking's Groundwater Risks, Deflating EPA Rule Push
Posted: August 10, 2011
An Energy Department (DOE) advisory panel is slated to release
recommendations for mitigating environmental and safety risks associated
with hydraulic fracturing in a report expected to raise doubts that the
practice's injection process poses significant risks to groundwater,
deflating calls for EPA regulation under the drinking water law.
But the panel's report is expected to recommend expanded disclosure
practices for both chemical constituents of fracking fluid and drilling
wastewater as well as pre- and post-drilling monitoring of groundwater at
well sites, according to sources familiar with the recommendations.
The report is also expected to recommend formation of a federal interagency
effort to better analyze the greenhouse gas life cycle of shale gas
operations in comparison to coal and other fuels. That approach that could
address uncertainty of shale gas' carbon footprint in the wake of a recent
study that suggested that methane releases from fracking operations may
create a larger carbon footprint than coal.
The recommendations are contained in a draft report from the Secretary of
Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) panel, which is slated Aug. 11 to release the
report detailing immediate measures for mitigating safety and environmental
risks associated with hydraulic fracturing. The full SEAB is expected to
review the panel's draft report on Aug. 15.
A second report is due out in three months on best practices for mitigating
risks.
While the panel's report is expected to detail potential risks to
groundwater from drilling, casing and cementing the wells, one source
familiar with the report says that a "key takeaway" from the recommendations
is that the panel found that groundwater contamination risks associated with
fracking are "remote."
"Contrary to the conventional wisdom, it's the drilling, and the cementing
and the encasing process" that follows the fracking itself which poses the
groundwater risk, the source says. "We think the target is mis-aimed."
The panel's finding is likely to inflame environmentalists seeking strict
EPA regulation of the injection practice under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). A coalition of groups sent an Aug. 8 letter to President Obama
urging him to use "any legal means" to block fracking operations. And the
Environmental Working Group Aug. 3 released a report detailing one case,
documented in a 1987 EPA report to Congress, that showed groundwater
contamination from fracking injection (*Inside EPA*, Aug. 5).
The panel's conclusions on risks from the fracking process could be
significant for EPA as well as the agency is in the midst of a massive
two-year study into the drinking water risks posed by fracking operations
and is also working to craft a host of policies to address, and in some
cases, to permit fracking operations.
Fracking refers to the process of injecting water, sand and chemicals into
horizontal wells to free trapped reserves of natural gas and oil found in
deep underground shale formations. Increased use of the practice has brought
huge new supplies of natural gas to power-generation markets as a
cleaner-burning alternative to coal.
The injection process itself, which industry argues has been practiced
safely for more than 60 years, has become a flashpoint in the debate over
shale gas regulation, in large part because Congress largely exempted the
practice from EPA's SDWA regulation. But environmentalists are seeking to
restore EPA's authority, arguing that the technological advances that have
allowed the tapping of previously unattainable supplies also require
unprecedented quantities of harmful injection fluid and the horizontal
drilling techniques endanger groundwater.
Environmentalists and many Democrats have increasingly called for Congress
to restore EPA's regulatory authority by removing language contained in the
2005 energy law which prohibits EPA from regulating fracking injections
under SDWA's underground injection control program. Earlier this year, Sen.
Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced legislation that would remove the exemption and
allow EPA to regulate it.
But the legislation is unlikely to move and EPA is developing a host of
water, waste and other policies under existing authorities to address the
issue.
*The sources familiar with the DOE advisory report say that while it does
not specifically* address regulations that DOE, EPA and other agencies
should adopt, the first source notes that a number of the suggestions are
clearly "relevant" to regulators.
A second source familiar with the recommendations say they should help to
get "past rhetoric and on to problem solving."
For instance, the report is expected to suggest a broader mandate that
companies publicly disclose all chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing
fluid, which goes beyond requirements for FracFocus, the voluntary online
registry launched by the Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil
& Gas Conservation Commission.
Environmentalists have criticized FracFocus for only requiring disclosure of
chemicals that are mandated under Occupational Safety & Health
Administration workplace safety laws.
The second source says the report includes a much "broader call for
disclosure" and it goes "well beyond" FracFocus.
The panel is also recommending that broad measures be taken to ensure better
information is disclosed to the public in core areas of natural gas
operations, including the volume and chemical content of wastewater
generated during the well injection, which can contain high levels of
naturally occurring radioactive materials as well as chemical additives used
in fracking.
The issue of wastewater contamination from fracking has emerged as a
particularly hot topic in Pennsylvania, where EPA and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection have struggled to stop the practice
of municipal wastewater authorities treating shale gas wastewater.
The first source says the recommendations will include measures aimed at
better tracking what happens to wastewater after it is generated from the
well site, so that regulators can determine whether it is being delivered to
waste treatment facilities ill-equipped to treat it. The recommendations on
tracking measures, similar to hazardous waste manifests under Resource
Conservation & Recovery Act, likely stem from concerns that some
Pennsylvania drillers are continuing to ship wastewater to publicly owned
treatment works or to neighboring states that have limited ability to
dispose of it.
The draft report also carves out a greater role for the State Review of Oil
and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER), a multi-stakeholder
group created by EPA to ensure that states are doing an adequate job of
regulating oil and natural gas regulations following the agency's 1988 RCRA
hazardous waste exemption for the industry sector, the source says.
"STRONGER should be bigger," to encompass a broader look at different
aspects of environmental regulations, including the extraction process and
air emissions, and is currently underfunded, the first source says.
The source says the draft report deals with four main issues: collection and
dissemination of information, steps operators and regulators can take to
minimize impacts on water, air and land use, establishment of a broad-based
but industry led group to facilitate best practices and research and
development.
*Meanwhile, a host of environmental groups have asked President Obama *to
issue a moratorium on the fracking process "through any legal means," saying
in an Aug. 8 letter that "Despite its obvious hazards, regulation necessary
to ensure that fracking does not endanger our nation's water supply has not
kept pace with its rapid and increasing use by the oil industry." The
letter, signed by a slew of environmentalist and public health organizations
including Citizens' Environmental Coalition, Center for Biological
Diversity, Food & Water Watch and Delaware River Keeper, points to "more
than 1,000" instances of groundwater contamination associated with leaking
of fracking fluids and methane into groundwater, refuting industry and EPA
statements that a proven link between fracking and groundwater contamination
has never been substantiated.
Prior to release of the report, a group of environmental health and science
researchers from various universities reiterated calls for panel chair John
Deutch to step down from the subcommittee, saying in an Aug. 10 letter to
Energy Secretary Steven Chu that six of the seven panel members have
financial ties to the natural gas and oil industry. "The committee appears
to be performing advocacy-based science and seems to have already concluded
that hydraulic fracturing is safe," says the letter. -- *Bobby McMahon &
Bridget DiCosmo*
--
Jim Sconyers
jimscon(a)gmail.com
304.698.9628
Remember, Mother Nature bats last.
