An independent scientific panel, assembled to advise the US Environmental Protection Agency on its study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water, disputed Thursday a key finding in the draft report on that study.
In a 133-page report issued to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy the Science Advisory Board called into question whether there were "no widespread, systemic impacts" to groundwater from fracking, the most significant finding in the draft report on the study, which the EPA released in June.
The panel's report also urged the EPA to release its findings on studies into incidences of groundwater contamination in Dimock, Pennsylvania; Pavillion, Wyoming; and Parker County, Texas; where some members of the public had pointed to the fracking of nearby wells as the source of the pollution.
While the panel found the EPA's overall approach to assess the potential impacts of fracking on drinking water supplies "appropriate and comprehensive," it said several findings in the executive summary of the draft report are "inconsistent with the observations, data and levels of uncertainty presented and discussed in the body [of the draft document]."
Concerning the EPA's finding on groundwater, the SAB's report said the statement "does not reflect the uncertainties and data limitations described in the body of the report associated with such impacts."
The scientists added that while the EPA report focused on the impacts of fracking nationally, most potential impacts from fracking are experienced by residents on the local level.
"These local-level hydraulic fracturing impacts can be severe, and the draft assessment report needs to do a better job of recognizing the importance of local impacts," the SAB found.
ADVISORY BOARD SAYS STUDY CAN BE IMPROVED
In addition to criticizing the EPA draft report, the SAB also provided suggestions as to how the final report could be improved.
For example, while the draft report looked at how the use by the oil and gas industry of water for fracking could impact water supplies, the scientists suggested the EPA concentrate "on areas with high hydraulic fracturing water use, low water availability and frequent drought."
The SAB report also said the EPA should "clearly describe the probability and risk associated with hydraulic fracturing well injection-related failure," and should provide additional detail on the impacts of surface spills and releases of flowback and produced water.
In addition, the scientists called on the EPA in the final version of its study to provide more comprehensive information on the toxicological effects of the chemicals used in fracking fluid.
The SAB report criticized the "agency's lack of breadth in its analysis of most likely exposure scenarios and hazards associated with hydraulic fracturing activities."
INDUSTRY SAYS EPA REPORT MATCHES SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
The findings in this week's report by the SAB reflected those found in a preliminary report the panel issued last month in response to questions posed to the scientists by the EPA.
In response to that preliminary report, a coalition of oil and gas industry associations disputed the SAB's challenge to the EPA's finding of no "widespread, systemic impacts."
In a December 11 letter to McCarthy, Lee Fuller, executive vice president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, contended that the SAB "may be considering a revision to its finding, based not on science, but rather pressure from special interest groups."
The letter, endorsed by 43 state-based industry groups, said that "EPA's draft report is very much in line with the scientific consensus on hydraulic fracturing."
