U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials went too far in touting a much-anticipated study as proof that drinking water supplies were safe from the nation's boom in natural gas drilling using hydraulic fracturing, a panel of EPA science advisers said in a final report of its review of the study.
The new EPA Science Advisory Board report firms up earlier criticisms of what had been touted by the Obama administration -- and by the oil and gas industry -- as solid proof that concerns that the increase in natural gas production in region's like West Virginia's Marcellus Shale area were unfounded.
While praising EPA's "overall approach" to its assessment of hydraulic fracturing's impacts on water resources, the science board also said it had "concerns regarding various aspects" of the agency report and that the EPA report was "lacking in several critical areas."
The 180-page report, which was made public Thursday, expressed "particular concern" with EPA's "high-level conclusion" that its study "did not find evidence" of "widespread, systematic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States."
When the EPA study was initially released in June 2015, EPA public relations officials made an even more sweeping statement, saying that the study found that "hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systematic impacts." It was an important distinction, as the press statement left out key language about EPA having not found evidence of impacts, a qualification that spoke to weaknesses in EPA's study.
"The SAB observes that the statement has been interpreted by readers and members of the public in many different ways," the news science board report said. "The SAB concludes that if the EPA retains this conclusion, the EPA should provide quantitative analysis that supports its conclusion that hydraulic fracturing has not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources."
Twenty-six of the 30 membes of the SAB panel that reviewed EPA's report concluded that the statement requires clarification and additional explanation.
Congress ordered the EPA study in 2010, as natural gas production skyrocketed amid the increased use of a combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fracking is part of the process of preparing a well for production by pumping huge volumes of water and chemicals underground to split open rock formations to loosen oil and gas flow.
While the EPA study was seized upon by the advocates of continued growth in natural gas production, the study itself actually identified a variety of potentially serious threats to drinking water supplies, but provided no new detailed data that would help quantify the scope of any contamination that has occurred across the country. When pressed for answers about the way industry officials were promoting their study, EPA officials tried to backtrack, saying their findings were being misconstrued.
Among its other findings, the new science board report confirms that agency advisers are concerns that EPA had planned to, but did not conduct, various assessments, field studies and other research that might have provided new data and a clearer picture of the impacts.
"The goal for the prospective studies was to follow the complete development of production wells, and to collect data prior to, during, and after hydraulic fracturing at the sites. Such studies would allow EPA to carefully evaluate changes in water quality over time: throughout drilling, injection of fracturing fluids, flowback, and production," the science board report said.
The new science board report also faulted EPA for not more carefully examining and explaining that "many stresses to surface or groundwater resources ... are often localized in space and temporary in time, but nevertheless can be important and significant."
"For example, the impacts of water acquisition will predominantly be observed locally at small space and time scales," the report said. "These local-level impacts, when they occur, have the potential to be severe, and the final Assessment Report needs to better recognize the importance of local impacts."
Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kward@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-1702 or follow @kenwardjr on Twitter.