For immediate release on any list:
Friends, this is the biggest fracking news since the NY Ban--
First, the background:
June 5, 2015, EPA released their draft assessment on High Volume Hydrofracking,
which revealed for the first time by EPA, that fracking had in fact contaminated
June 5, 2015, EPA released their draft assessment on High Volume Hydrofracking,
which revealed for the first time by EPA, that fracking had in fact contaminated
underground sources of drinking water, something they had publicly denied
for many years.
HOWEVER-- the cover letter says that EPA had not found "widespread or systemic" evidence of water contamination from such related drilling activities.
PROBLEM-- this executive summary did not match the substance of the report.
HOWEVER-- the cover letter says that EPA had not found "widespread or systemic" evidence of water contamination from such related drilling activities.
PROBLEM-- this executive summary did not match the substance of the report.
Of course the Oil+Gas industry celebrated this, and added their own spin.
"Fracking does not produce water contamination!!!", they cried. However,
this is the exact opposite of what the body of the report stated.
http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy
October 2015, the EPA's independent Science Advisory Panel called a hearing
to review the findings of this report. Some of the people in PA who had been
impacted learned about this (I understand it was Ray Kemble), and raised the alarm.
In a short amount of time, a list technical experts and affected persons
from all over the country from key areas (Dimock PA, Parker Co TX,
and Pavilion WY) were assembled, and a list of demands were created.
Ray Kemble, John Fenton, Craig Stevens, Ron Gulla, Steve Lipsky gave absolutely
The EPA Science Advisory Board just released their draft report today.
"It's a long technical document which we are still digesting. But from
the looks of things, we got everything we were asking for!"
Here is a long link. Just start with the cover letter-- first 4 pages:
Here is a short link which directs to the above link but is easy to share:
TinyURL.com/EPASABDraftFrackingReport2016
Highlights from filmmaker Hope for Peace:
Summary on mentions of major cases: (Great work, friends)
Pg 1
The SAB has concerns regarding 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. The SAB is concerned that these major findings are presented ambiguously within the Executive Summary and are inconsistent with the observations, data, and levels of uncertainty presented and discussed in the body of the draft Assessment Report.
Of particular concern in this regard is the high-level conclusion statement on page ES-6 that "We did not find evidence that hydraulic fracturing mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States." The SAB finds that this statement does not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater, surface water) nor the definitions of "systemic," "widespread," or "impacts." The SAB is also concerned that this statement does not reflect the uncertainties and data limitations described in the body of the Report associated with such impacts. The statement is ambiguous and requires clarification and additional explanation.
Of particular concern in this regard is the high-level conclusion statement on page ES-6 that "We did not find evidence that hydraulic fracturing mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States." The SAB finds that this statement does not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater, surface water) nor the definitions of "systemic," "widespread," or "impacts." The SAB is also concerned that this statement does not reflect the uncertainties and data limitations described in the body of the Report associated with such impacts. The statement is ambiguous and requires clarification and additional explanation.
Pg 2
While the EPA appropriately aimed to develop national-level analyses and perspective, most stresses to surface or ground water resources associated with stages of the HFWC are localized. For example, the impacts of water acquisition will predominantly be felt locally at small space and time scales. 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. In this context, the SAB recommends that the agency should include and explain the status, data on potential releases, and findings if available for the EPA and state investigations conducted in Dimock, Pennsylvania, Pavillion, Wyoming, and Parker County, Texas where hydraulic fracturing activities are perceived by many members of the public to have caused significant local impacts to drinking water resources. Examination of these high-visibility cases important so that the public can understand the status of investigations in these areas, conclusions associated with the investigations, lessons learned for hydraulic fracturing practice if any, plans for remediation if any, and the degree to which information from these case studies can be extrapolated to other locations.
Pg 33
Much public interest in hydraulic fracturing in general and in this assessment in particular is generated by experiences at individual sites. Chapter 1 should acknowledge the importance of these experiences, and the needs associated with public outreach and education related to drinking water quality. The Assessment Report should include (not necessarily with all detail in Chapter 1) explicit summaries of studies that have been conducted in Dimock, Pennsylvania, Pavillion, Wyoming, and Parker County, Texas, including the status of those studies and the currently responsible government bodies associated with monitoring of hydraulic fracturing activities in these areas.
Pg 67
However, the SAB finds that the agency should include and fully explain the status, data on potential releases, and findings if available for the EPA and state investigations conducted in Dimock, Pennsylvania, Pavillion, Wyoming, and Parker County, Texas where hydraulic fracturing activities are perceived by many members of the public to have caused impacts to drinking water resources. Examination of these high-visibility cases is important so that the public can understand the status of investigations in these areas, conclusions associated with the investigations, lessons learned for hydraulic fracturing practice if any, plans for remediation if any, and the degree to which information from these case studies can be extrapolated to other locations.
Pg 122
The Synthesis (and the draft Assessment Report, more generally) fails to bring forward important findings on the relationships between the HFWC and contamination of private drinking water wells, including those in Dimock, Pennsylvania, Pavillion, Wyoming, and Parker County, Texas. Although the role of hydraulic fracturing-related activities in water-well contamination within these localities continues to be debated, these sites have a high profile and many members of the public view them as being of high potential relevance to hydraulic fracturing-related impacts to drinking water resources.
--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please enter your comment here. Spam and abusive posts will be removed.