{"id":12225,"date":"2016-02-05T10:19:41","date_gmt":"2016-02-05T16:19:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=12225"},"modified":"2017-03-01T16:59:44","modified_gmt":"2017-03-01T21:59:44","slug":"what-epa-should-consider-on-their-final-fracking-assessment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2016\/02\/05\/what-epa-should-consider-on-their-final-fracking-assessment\/","title":{"rendered":"What EPA Should Consider on Their Final \u201cFracking\u201d Assessment"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"iStock_000058110200_LargeQuestions about if and how hydraulic fracturing activities (or \u201cfracking\u201d to some) can contaminate drinking water have been top-of-mind for many since the practice started getting widespread public attention about a decade ago. Recognizing the validity of those concerns, EPA undertook a study to see how the full \u2018hydraulic fracturing water cycle\u2019 \u2013 which includes water withdrawals, chemical use and mixing, well injection, waste water management and disposal — could potentially impact our drinking water resources. In a EPA draft assessment<\/a> released last fall, the agency summarized its results, saying researchers \u201cdid not find evidence that [fracking] mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.\u201d<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s draft assessment synthesized valuable information and explored a number of key areas of concern. But EDF didn\u2019t agree<\/a> with the way EPA summarized its findings. And it turns out, after hearing from EDF and other experts across the country, neither do EPA\u2019s advising scientists<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Now, through ongoing review by the Science Advisory Board, the agency is getting feedback, yet again, from dozens of concerned parties (including EDF<\/a>) with vested interest in making sure EPA gets this assessment right.\u00a0 Here are three things to keep in mind.
\n<\/p>\n

\u201cNo evidence\u201d does not mean no problem<\/strong><\/p>\n

The error of EPA\u2019s main takeaway is it attempts to reach a uniform conclusion about a set of activities and impacts that are far from uniform.<\/p>\n

Impacts that are not \u201cwidespread\u201d or \u201csystemic\u201d are still impacts \u2013 even if they are outliers, infrequent, rare, localized, or poorly understood.\u00a0 These impacts matter, and they should not be ignored even if they do not happen at every site and do not happen all the time.<\/p>\n

In attempting to reach a broad conclusion, the Agency has developed a message that is unclear at best and misleading at worst.\u00a0 The statement must be modified \u2013 or it risks supporting the notion that these practices are conclusively and inherently \u201csafe\u201d \u2013 drowning out 1,000 pages of research and years of work, and discounting a number of confirmed and potential impacts cited in the new report.\u00a0 No interests are served by translating years of work into a one-sentence summary that does little to advance our understanding of today\u2019s operations and their potential impacts on communities.<\/p>\n

Expose data gaps—so we can close them<\/strong><\/p>\n

We can\u2019t expect one report to answer every question about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing activities, and the agency should not let this report be the final word on the matter. A lot of additional research is clearly needed, and EPA should use this assessment \u2013 and what the agency learned in compiling it \u2013 to emphasize priority research needs that could support more definitive answers in the future.<\/p>\n

Burying uncertainties, limitations, and unknowns deep in the pages of this report isn\u2019t helpful.\u00a0 EPA is in a powerful position to use this experience, and its authority, to develop and recommend a research agenda that can have a real impact on the way we understand and address risks from hydraulic fracturing activities in the future. We need the agency to clearly explain what the important research needs are as well\u00a0as the key questions that must be answered to allow for a better review in the future.<\/p>\n

An honest answer is the best answer<\/strong><\/p>\n

The public is looking for a straight answer from EPA on what to worry about, what not to worry about, and why \u2013 and the current message has done little to address that need.<\/p>\n

EPA should send a clear and direct message about the key takeaways from their research:<\/p>\n