EPA study does NOT say Fracking is "safe"

Five days ago, that would be Thursday, June 4, the EPA released its "Draft Assessment on the Potential Impacts to Drinking Water Resources from Hydraulic Fracturing Activities". [You can download the complete study - nearly 1,000 pages of it - here.]

This is what some  pro-drilling interests picked up from the press release: "Assessment shows hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources and identifies important vulnerabilities to drinking water resources." They would like to believe that the EPA study shows that fracking is "safe".  In fact, "no proven contamination" has been their motto for years.

Unfortunately, early media reports simply parroted what they saw at the top of the EPA press release without reading the details or delving into the executive summary.

Dive in a bit deeper and you learn what the EPA study really says: there are cases in which fracking has impacted drinking water resources, but it is not "widespread and systematic" yet. 

The EPA study found that fracking activities have the potential to impact our drinking water in these ways:

• fracking directly into underground water resources
• withdrawing water in areas affected by droughts or periods of low water availability
• spills
• below-ground migration of liquids and gases
• inadequate treatment and discharge of waste fluids

 The EPA study found “specific instances” where fracking-related activities contaminated drinking water, including water wells. They didn't find it everywhere, but they only studied a handful of communities. EPA admits that their study is limited by the lack of pre- and post-drilling water quality data. They say their study is limited by the lack of long-term systematic studies. They also say that certain information on fracking was not made accessible to them.

If you need a visual image to help you, check out this map that William Huston pulled together from data in Pennsylvania's Marcellus shale region.

Map: (C) 2015 WilliamAHuston@gmail.com Share: CC-BY-NC -- All other rights reserved.

This map shows 313 cases where families in the north eastern part of the state reported water contamination. Just six counties. The red areas indicate where the most reports came from. 

Three hundred thirteen might not seem "widespread and systematic", but it demonstrates part of the problem with how the EPA study is interpreted. The impacts are localized. But they are systematic, when you compare where the pollution is with where the drilling occurs.

Further reading:

•  EPA finds drinking water vulnerable to fracking 
• EPA says new study doesn’t show fracking is safe
• Fracking Does Cause ‘Widespread, Systemic’ Contamination of American’s Drinking Water

 

EPA investigators said that they did find “above and below ground mechanisms” through which various stages of what they called “fracking activities” can “have the potential to impact drinking water resources.”
Among those mechanisms: Fracking directly into underground water resources, water withdrawals in areas with or in times of low water availability, spills of various fluids used in or produced by fracking processes, below-ground migration of liquids and gases, and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
EPA said its investigators found “specific instances” where one or more mechanisms affected drinking water, including contamination of wells. The agency report said the number of identified cases “was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells,” but conceded it wasn’t sure why.
“This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors,” the EPA said. “These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.”
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150607/GZ01/150609432#sthash.kYK3RUTA.dpuf

EPA investigators said that they did find “above and below ground mechanisms” through which various stages of what they called “fracking activities” can “have the potential to impact drinking water resources.”
Among those mechanisms: Fracking directly into underground water resources, water withdrawals in areas with or in times of low water availability, spills of various fluids used in or produced by fracking processes, below-ground migration of liquids and gases, and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
EPA said its investigators found “specific instances” where one or more mechanisms affected drinking water, including contamination of wells. The agency report said the number of identified cases “was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells,” but conceded it wasn’t sure why.
“This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors,” the EPA said. “These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.”
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150607/GZ01/150609432#sthash.kYK3RUTA.dpuf

EPA investigators said that they did find “above and below ground mechanisms” through which various stages of what they called “fracking activities” can “have the potential to impact drinking water resources.”
Among those mechanisms: Fracking directly into underground water resources, water withdrawals in areas with or in times of low water availability, spills of various fluids used in or produced by fracking processes, below-ground migration of liquids and gases, and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
EPA said its investigators found “specific instances” where one or more mechanisms affected drinking water, including contamination of wells. The agency report said the number of identified cases “was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells,” but conceded it wasn’t sure why.
“This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors,” the EPA said. “These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.”
- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150607/GZ01/150609432#sthash.kYK3RUTA.dpuf

EPA releases update on Hydrofracking Study

Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report that highlights the progress made on its national study to understand the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. This is not a conclusive study - the results are expected to be released in a draft for public and peer review in 2014. 

You can read the full report at  http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/pdfs/hf-report20121214.pdf

In addition to the progress report, EPA will be hosting a one-hour public webinar on Thursday, January 3rd, 2013 at 2:00pm EST, and again on Friday, January 4th, 2013 at 12:00pm EST. The webinar will provide project-specific updates that include research approach, status, and next steps. The webinar will also provide updates on five technical roundtables held in November 2012. To register for a public webinar, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/getinvolved.html

 For more information on the study, check the EPA Hydrofracking website.

Dimock Water Still a Concern

Remember back at the end of July when the media announced that EPA had declared Dimock water "safe to drink"? Only problem was that EPA's statement that "no further action" was needed  left out an important bit of information: that their results were going to be factored into a broader health study by ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry).
 

The ongoing ATSDR investigation is looking at longterm risks of exposures to the contaminated water in Dimock. That's because water tests found elevated levels of heavy metals - aluminum, arsenic, barium, lithium and manganese - as well as ethylene glycol, phthalates and other volatile organic compounds, things that, notes ATSDR in a report, aren't healthy for human beings.

The ATSDR study will account for risks of long-term exposures to the water through showering, drinking, bathing and washing, as well as risks that might be compounded when people are exposed to multiple toxicants. And they will look at cumulative and synergistic effects, something that's been sorely lacking in many of the studies. Not sure when the study will be done, but you can learn more about the background in Tom Wilber's recent article.

Considerations from a Fracking Expert

If you want to talk fracking, then Cornell engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea’s your guy. After all, he got his PhD in rock fracturing and conducted hydro-fracturing research with Schlumberger. So EPA has invited Ingraffea to their technical workshop focusing on the engineering aspects of drilling, fracture design and stimulation, and mechanical integrity in gas wells. The March 10 workshop is one of four that EPA is holding as part of the Hydro-fracturing Study.

For the past year or more Ingraffea has been traveling around the Marcellus region of NY and PA, sharing his insights into rocks, fracturing and the engineering of gas wells. The first thing to keep in mind, he cautions, is that unconventional wells are nothing like gas wells drilled even a decade ago. Those are vertical wells, drilled one per pad, each using about 80,000 gallons of water.

Unconventional wells in Pennsylvania currently have 8 wells per pad, Ingraffea says, with each of those wells up to 10-frack-stages in length. That means that a single well pad will use about 44 million gallons of fracking fluid.

As far as drilling in NY’s Marcellus, Ingraffea points to PSU geologist Terry Engelder’s estimates of 36,000 to 78,000 wells. With up to 10 fracks per well, that’s 360,000 to 780,000 frack stages – and each of those frack stages uses close to 500,000 gallons of fluid.

“The first one thousand gas wells unconventionally developed in NY State will use more frack fluid, and produce more waste, than all the gas wells ever drilled in the state,” says Ingraffea. “This kind of development is on a scale at least two magnitudes larger than we have ever experienced, and right now we have no regulations guiding shale gas development.”

So Ingraffea has lots of questions for the EPA. Topping his list: cement. Cement failure has been a chronic problem in the industry, Ingraffea says. He’d like to see cement logs required for each job.

Then there’s the question about how cement holds up under multiple hydro-fracks. Re-fracking is a real concern, says Ingraffea, because “each time you re-pressurize the wellbore for a frack job, it puts the cement at risk.” And, he says, the industry already knows that cement that has been stressed frequently has a higher failure rate.

Ingraffea also wants EPA to get better data on the cumulative impact of intensive drilling on neighboring wells. Pennsylvania drillers estimate that they’ll be putting in 8 to 12 wells on a pad, with the vertical wellbores spaced about 20 feet apart. “What happens to the first well when the second is drilled?” asks Ingraffea. “Do the vibrations damage the cement?”

The problem with articles in professional journals is that they always focus on impacts to a single well. But drillers in British Columbia report that wells drilled as far as 350 feet from each other can send lateral fractures into neighboring wells.

As for migration or fracking fluids and gas, “EPA needs a realistic model that gauges cumulative impact,” says Ingraffea. “If they’re not looking at it that way, they they’re missing the point.”

EPA Webinar on Frack Study Tues Feb 15

 new information below - plus you can't access on apple or mac computers:

 EPA Office of Public Engagement
langton.regina@epa.gov, (202) 566-2178
larmett.john@epa.gov, (202) 564-7842


Dear Colleague --

On Tuesday, February 15 at 2:15 PM EST, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) will be hosting a 45-minute webinar for
environmental NGOs and public health stakeholders to walk through the
Agency's draft study plan on hydraulic fracturing. This study plan is
currently under review with the Agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB).
Specific instructions for joining the conference are below.  If you are
a first-time webinar user, please be sure to sign on 15 minutes prior to
the start time in order to register and download the necessary software.

Instructions for Joining the Webinar:

Conference Link:  http://portal.epa.gov/webconference  (This link should
be used by all attendees)
Conference ID:  147032
Conference Key:  ope (This key is used with along with the unique
six-digit Conference ID)
Dial-in Number:  1-877-290-8017

1. From any browser, go to:   http://portal.epa.gov/webconference.  No
portal login will be required.

2. First time users of the web conference software will be asked to
either install or run a desktop client that supports the webinar.  This
is an automated one-time process that takes less than a minute.  Once
complete, you will be prompted for a conference id, a conference key,
and your name.  We strongly suggest that this process be started 15
minutes before the conference.

3. In the "Join Conference" box on the right side of the screen, enter
the six-digit conference ID for the specific session you wish to attend.
Enter your name where requested and the three-digit Conference Key:  ope

4. These webinars are not supported on Apple computers.  A computer with
a Windows operating system is required.

5. Users of Vista or Windows 7 operating systems should follow the
attached instructions to enable the download of the webinar client. This
is also a one-time process that takes 1-2 minutes.

On Tuesday, February 15th at 2:15 PM, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) will host a webinar for environmental groups to walk
through its draft study plan on hydraulic fracturing currently under
review with the Agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB).

Dial-in number is:           1-877-290-8017
URL to webinar portal is:        http://portal.epa.gov/webconference

A Closer Look at EPA's Proposed Frack Study

Weighing in at 140 pages, the new EPA study asks for data on everything from water acquisition through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing to the post-fracturing stage. The study also includes the management of flowback and produced fluids and its ultimate treatment and disposal.

EPA estimated that 35,000 wells in the US are fracked each year. That’s between 70 and 140 billion gallons – enough water to supply 40 to 80 small cities (population 50,000). What happens when that much water is withdrawn? According to EPA, large volume water withdrawals can lower water tables, decrease stream flow and reduce the amount of water in surface reservoirs. Lower water levels can affect the solubility and mobility of chemicals and lead to surface subsidence.

The study proposal raises questions about impacts of surface spills of hydraulic fracturing chemicals. Even though the total concentration of chemical additives to fracking fluid is small – only 0.5 to 2 percent of the total volume –that translates into 15,000 to 60,000 gallons of chemicals injected into a well, says EPA. After citing the incomplete lists of frack chemicals in their report, EPA says they need more information on the “frequency, quantity and concentration of the chemicals used, which is important when considering the toxic effects of hydraulic fracturing additives.”

The American Petroleum Institute provided a description of industry practices relating to transportation, storage and handling of chemicals. “However,” writes EPA, “the extent to which these practices are followed in the industry … is unclear.”

In addition to determining toxicity and health effects associated with the chemicals used in fracking, the study will take a closer look at the casing and cementing practices used to contain frack fluids and gases in the wellbore. EPA’s concerns include: improper well construction, abandoned wells, drinking water wells, production wells, underground injection wells, mines, and “fluid leak” through natural fractures and faults. EPA is also concerned about the impact of repeated fracturing over the lifetime of a well but, with no interested partners to help investigate, it looks as though those questions will have to be left for another time.

EPA proposes to study all aspects of waste fluid treatment and disposal. Publicly owed treatment plants are not designed to treat hydraulic fracturing waste fluids, are not equipped to treat waste fluids containing radioactive elements and, in the process of treatment, may produce brominated byproducts that are associated with significant health concerns.

In addition to the lab and field studies, EPA proposed three to five case studies in communities with possible drinking water contamination due to fracking operations. Two of those on the short list are located in the Marcellus. EPA also plans to study two or three locations where they can conduct baseline studies prior to drilling, and then monitor key aspects of the fracturing process.

EPA releases Draft Hydro-Fracking Study Plan

photo by Frank Patterson

Last March the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would conduct a study on hydraulic fracturing that would “use the best available science, independent sources of information, a transparent, peer-reviewed process”. Today EPA submitted its draft study plan on hydraulic fracturing for review to the agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB, a group of independent scientists, plans to review the draft the first week in March.

According to an EPA press release, the scope of the proposed research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing – from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage – and includes the management of flowback and produced fluids or used water and its ultimate treatment and disposal.

Over the next few weeks the public has an opportunity to provide comments to the SAB during their review. Upon receiving comments, the EPA will revise the study plan in response to the SAB’s comments and promptly begin the study. EPA expects to make their initial research results and findings public by the end of 2012. They plan to follow-up with additional research, publishing further findings in 2014.

Learn more about hydraulic fracturing and download the pdf of the draft study plan at their website, www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

Chasing the last EPA hearing

Months ago the EPA scheduled four hearings across the country to gather public comments regarding their about-to-be-started study on hydraulic fracturing. There was a hearing in Colorado, a hearing in Texas, a hearing in Pennsylvania. The final hearing was scheduled for Binghamton, NY this Thursday - tomorrow. On Monday - just four days prior to the hearing - the EPA decided to move the venue to Syracuse.

Why? According to Carolyn Gillette, one of the many people in charge of planning, registration etc, "the last minute change to Syracuse was caused by Binghamton University taking several actions to dissuade EPA from holding the meetings at their campus, including increasing the cost from $6,000 to almost $40,000." A hefty price tag for the taxpayer, no doubt.

The change in venue - and increase in cost - may have had something to do with two rallies being planned for that same day. Environmentalists had invited some bands and speakers (congressmen, film stars and other celebrities) and planned to stage a rally in one of the parking lots. Not to be upstaged, the pro-drilling crowd pulled together their own rally. And the folks at Binghamton University started counting heads (1200 registered for hearing plus another 5,000 or so for the rallies) and they started tallying up the costs for security, and things got .... expensive.

So EPA pulled a switcheroo - moving the hearing to Syracuse. Which meant a couple extra hours of driving for some folks, re-negotiating the bus transportation for those trying to reduce their carbon footprint, canceling and making hotel reservations...... But by Monday night people were already figuring out carpooling.

"Hold the phone," said a friend when I offered to drive. "Let's wait and see if they intend to stay in Syracuse." Why wouldn't they stay, I wondered. I mean, this is the EPA, and this hearing has been scheduled for months, and they really do want public input ... don't they?

Apparently not - or at least not yet. Mid-morning Tuesday we got the news that the EPA had canceled the hearing in Syracuse. No, they weren't moving to another venue. They weren't holding it on the 12th. At all.

Surely, this was a joke. But no. Says Carolyn Gillette, "EPA was forced to cancel the August 12th meeting following a conversation this morning with the Onondaga County Executive’s office, during which concerns were raised about the ability to complete security preparations for the meeting on such short notice...... Onondaga County officials did not feel they could arrange the necessary security for protecting people and property with ongoing rallies outside the meeting site."

But don't worry, she said. We'll hold the hearing in September. On some (as of yet undisclosed) date at some(as of yet undisclosed) location. Oh - and for those of you who registered to present oral comments? well, you'll have to register again - once we set that up. Kind of unfair to those who expected to have an opportunity to speak to the EPA.

However, people who believe in all that's good in democracy sent numerous emails of protest and, a few moments ago Carolyn G. advised them that, yes, if they were already registered to speak they may retain their speaking slot. Now all that's needed is a place to meet.