On
December 13, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a
lengthy study on hydraulic fracturing and released a final report entitled,
Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources
in the United States. The content of this final report was the subject of an earlier Shale Law in the Spotlight article.
This article will review the extensive history of EPA actions that led to the
issuance of the final report in order to provide context for a better
understanding of the substance of the final report.
The
perceived need for the hydraulic fracturing study was influenced largely by the
absence of regulation specifically addressing hydraulic fracturing and its potential
consequences to the environment. In June 2009, legislation was introduced to
repeal the Hydraulic Fracturing Exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act,
which highlighted the desire of some within Congress to regulate the injection
of hydraulic fracturing fluids in oil and gas operations. As part of this
continuing effort, Congressman Maurice Hinchey proposed to include in the
fiscal year 2010 EPA Appropriations Bill a provision that “urge[s] the Agency
to carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
drinking water,
using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as
well as independent sources of information.” The Appropriations Bill including
this language was approved by Congress on
October 29, 2009.
EPA
agreed to develop a comprehensive research study on the potential impact of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources on March 18, 2010. As its
first action, in the spring of 2010, EPA started a consultation process with
relevant federal and state partners
indicating its plan to assess the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
drinking water. This was soon followed by public information meetings at four locations
addressing the design and scope of the proposed study, respectively in Fort Worth, Texas; Denver,
Colorado; Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; and Binghamton, New York, that were held
through July and September 2010.
Work
on the drafting of this study formally started in early 2011 and, on February
7, 2011, EPA released a Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources.
In this Draft Plan, EPA stated that the research would focus on five
fundamental questions relating to the potential impacts of the hydraulic
fracturing water cycle on drinking water supplies. EPA also mentioned that it
would use retrospective and prospective case studies as well as generalized
scenario evaluations to further the understanding of those fundamental questions.
On
June 23, 2011, EPA announced that the prospective case studies would be
conducted in portions of the Haynesville Shale and Marcellus Shale formation
while the retrospective studies would be carried out in portions of the Bakken
Shale, Barnett Shale, Marcellus Shale and Raton Basin formations. EPA added
that “the information gathered from these case studies will be part of an
approach which includes literature review, collection of data and information
from states, industry and communities, laboratory work and computer modeling.”
On
November 3, 2011, EPA released its final study plan
and declared that “the study will be conducted by multidisciplinary teams of
EPA researchers, in collaboration with outside experts from the public and
private sector.” EPA also stated that “[it] will use existing data from
hydraulic fracturing service companies and oil and gas operators, federal and
state agencies, and other sources.”
In
December 2012, EPA issued a Progress Report
on the ongoing research and described the transdisciplinary approach used to
investigate the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water
resources. In the media release announcing the publication of the Progress
Report, EPA announced that it would seek answers from individual expert members
of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) about specific Charge Questions relating to
the Progress Report. In March 2013, the SAB informed EPA of the composition
of its Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel, which would undertake the
peer review of EPA’s draft report relating to the study of the potential
impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.
On
June 4, 2015, EPA published its Draft Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources.
Among its key findings was that EPA “did not find evidence that [hydraulic
fracturing] mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking
water resources in the United States.”
On
January 7, 2016, the SAB issued its review of the EPA’s draft assessment
and found that EPA’s research design and methodology was “appropriate and
comprehensive.” The SAB, however, expressed its concerns over “the clarity
and adequacy of support for several
major findings presented within the draft Assessment Report that seek to draw
national-level conclusions regarding the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on
drinking water resources.” More precisely, the SAB found that EPA’s statement referenced
in the above paragraph “does not clearly describe the system(s) of interest . .
. nor the definitions of “systemic,” “widespread,” or “impacts.”
Finally,
on December 13, 2016, EPA released its final
report on Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle
on Drinking Water Resources in the United States. As stated in the earlier
Shale Law in the Spotlight article, this final report largely conforms to the
preliminary findings set out in draft assessment that hydraulic fracturing
activities have some potential to impact drinking water resources, but that
impacts to date have been relatively isolated rather than pervasive.
Written
by Chloe Marie – Research Fellow
Your statistics are useful and meaningful information for me. Thank you because I want to use this data in my research work. What's another way, kind of little more easy way and little more-cooperation way try out research paper help .And I really like this decision because I can focus on more fundamental things and calculations relating to resources, instead of grammar and literary justification for the reader. Actually, this is my slightly more balanced attitude to your article.
ReplyDelete