OIL AND GAS:

Republicans unmoved by EPA report linking fracking, water pollution

Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter Published: Thursday, December 8, 2011 EPA's finding today that hydraulic fracturing fluid contaminated drinking water near a small Wyoming town was seized on as a victory by environmental groups that have long ridiculed industry admissions that such contamination is impossible. But it barely dented the wall of opposition erected by Republicans to increased federal regulation of oil and gas drilling. And solid GOP support would likely doom any effort to remove fracturing's controversial exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Republicans responded to the announcement by attacking the methods EPA scientists used and said that the investigation should be handled by the state. "The people of Pavillion deserve more definitive conclusions about the source of the problem with the groundwater in their community," said a spokeswoman for Sen. John Barrasso (RWyo.). "Senator Barrasso believes that the best way to get those answers is through a broader investigation as requested by Governor [Matt] Mead." Mead went further, calling the results of the study "scientifically questionable" and warning that the announcement could harm the oil and gas industry, a major part of the state's economy. "We believe that the draft study could have a critical impact on the energy industry and on the country so it is imperative that we not make conclusions based on only four data points," the Republican governor said in a statement that offered a detailed critique of the science. Democrats who have led the fight to remove the Safe Drinking Water Act exemption said that the results conflict with the oft-cited defense of industry and its supporters that there has never been a single instance of fracturing causing water contamination. "Today's report from the Environmental Protection Agency answers that false rhetoric with real facts," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who has led the fight to block drilling from coming to his state, at least until a comprehensive environmental study is done. "Hydraulic fracturing poses a serious and direct threat to drinking water and should not hold a special exemption from our nation's basic environmental laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act." Hinchey is a sponsor, with Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and others, of legislation that would reverse the exemption from permitting requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The

legislation would also require public disclosure of the chemicals mixed into the millions of gallons of water used to blast rock formations and release gas. The legislation is called the "Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act," or "FRAC Act." That bill stalled in committee without getting a hearing when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress. When Republicans took over the House in 2010, the chances of it passing declined even further. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) got his criticism of the study out before EPA put out its email announcement around midday. He had spoken in the morning with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and then criticized it during a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where he is the ranking Republican. That committee has jurisdiction over EPA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. "Its findings are premature, given that the agency has not gone through the necessary peerreview process, and there are still serious outstanding questions regarding EPA's data and methodology," Inhofe said.

Call for more water sampling

EPA's conclusions are straightforward in the report, which is still considered a draft awaiting public comments and peer review. "The explanation best fitting the data for the deep monitoring wells is that constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have been released into the Wind River drinking water aquifer at depths above the current production zone," the report says. The report says it took other explanations into account and explains why EPA officials did not feel that they were supported. The study's conclusions also sought to flip another common industry response on its head, regarding methane in drinking water. In responding to the argument that there has always been methane gas in water wells in the area, the report brushes it off by saying "no baseline data exists" for a proper comparison. Mead's statement detailed his criticism of the EPA's study. Specifically, Mead's office said in a statement that Wyoming state officials and other members of the Pavillion Working Group have raised questions about the lack of replication of testing (typically findings from only two sampling events suggest that more sampling is needed before conclusions can be drawn). Members of the working group also have questions about the compound 2-BE, which was found in one sample out of four that were taken, and why it was only found in results from one lab, while other labs tested the exact same water sample and did not find it.

"More sampling is needed to rule out surface contamination or the process of building these test wells as the source of the concerning results," said Tom Doll, Wyoming oil and gas supervisor and a member of the Pavillion Working Group.