![]() The EPA launched separate investigations into each of those areas but later abandoned the research. The EPA's scientific advisers questioned why the EPA would release a study detailing fracking's effect on drinking water yet leave out three communities that reported problems with their water. Parker County, Texas and Pavillion, Wyoming. The final EPA report also detailed problems in three communities that had not been included in the draft report, Dimock, Pa. Decisions like this amplify the public's frustrations with Washington." "The agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical reports and peer reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry practices, industry trends, and regulatory programs protect water resources at every step of the hydraulic fracturing process. ![]() "It is beyond absurd for the administration to reverse course on its way out the door," said Erik Milito, upstream director for the American Petroleum Institute. Officials representing the oil and gas industry say the EPA distorted the science. Industry lobbyists and spokespeople have long maintained that fracking has not led to any water contamination. Several countries are also considering the drilling technique, which requires a high pressure mixture of water, chemicals and sand into the ground to free up oil and natural gas deposits. New York and Maryland have bans in place. The oil and gas industry, which has been actively lobbying to keep the phrase in the report will now have to defend the controversial drilling technique as it pushed to expand fracking both in the United States and across the globe. "Scientists put that language in the draft report and scientists made the decision not to include it in the final report," he said. ![]() EPA officials never commented on who inserted the phrase in the study or why they did it.īurke said EPA officials met with President Obama's key advisers in 2015 prior to the draft report's release but the decision to insert the language was based on the available science. Earlier drafts of the executive summary also strongly suggested fracking has led to water contamination in some places. An APM Reports/Marketplace investigation revealed that top officials in the EPA inserted the no "widespread, systemic impacts" phrase in the eleventh hour of the study. It's the latest change to a research project that resulted in pushback from the industry and last second wordsmithing by top level EPA officials. Last month, the head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, said at the National Press Club that the scientific board advising the EPA was split on the phrasing issue. After reviewing the information, Burke said the EPA opted to remove the phrase because it "could not be quantitatively supported" and it "showed that sentence did not clearly communicate the findings of the report." He said EPA scientists opted to include the sentence in the 2015 draft report but opted to remove it after feedback from the EPA's Science Advisory Board and the public. In a conference call with reporters today, Burke defended the initial use of the "no widespread systemic impacts" phrase and the agency's decision to remove it. But environmentalists and several scientists questioned how the EPA could come to that conclusion since the report itself listed several vulnerabilities associated with fracking and included cases of actual contamination.ĮPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Deputy Administrator Tom Burke ![]() In June 2015, when the EPA's main conclusion was that it found no "widespread, systemic impacts," the oil and gas industry praised the conclusion saying it was validation of the controversial drilling practice. Those problems include poor well construction, spills of wastewater that contains fracking fluid and water withdrawals from areas that have low water resources. But he said it has caused some problems in local communities. "We found scientific evidence of impacts to drinking water resources at each stage of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle," he said.īurke also said there are uncertainties and gaps in the data that prevented the study from making a national conclusion on fracking's impact on drinking water. Key among them was that fracking has caused contamination to drinking water resources. Tom Burke, EPA Deputy Administrator, said the study still produced significant findings. EPA Releases Final Report on Impacts from Hydraulic Fracturing Activities on Drinking Water ResourcesĮPA's report concludes that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances and identifies factors that influence these impacts
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |