New York Fracking Report Leaked to the New York Times

Extent of Marcellus Shale within the Devonian Shale of the Northeast- USGS

Last Thursday the New York Times reported that an analysis on fracking prepared in early 2012 was leaked to their paper. This analysis was prepared last year after the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s 2011 draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on drilling comment period was closed and might have been prepared in response to the comments received. The 8 pages obtained by the New York Times were characterized by the paper as containing an analysis that showed that hydraulic Fracturing, or fracking, could be safely done in New York by implementing the proper mitigation measures. The report, obtained by the New York Times from and “expert who did not believe it should be kept secret,” was characterized by State Department of Environmental Conservation, DEC, as an out of date summary that was nearly a year old and will undergo significant changes. The revised version of the Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been completed or released and the DEC’s health assessment is being reviewed by three outside experts. I think someone may have violated the terms of their consulting contract.

The report (or summary) the New York Times had seems to be in agreement with the recommendations made in the report of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board in 2011. That report had a rational approach to regulation recommending disclosure, testing, evaluation and modification of regulation and practices based on the information and data obtained. It assumes information and data will be gathered and analyzed and seems to be the accepted view, but fracking is a highly complex issue whose greatest risks are to our water resources. There needs to be much more data collected over time and analyzed. That has not being done in the past and until extensive data is collected and studied we will not truly know. The data needs to be collected on a state by state basis and provided to the US Geological Survey (USGS) and US EPA to consolidate on a national level. It is essential that the USGS be involved because of the unique expertise and research in geology and water resources.

In 2011, the EPA began a series of research projects into the impacts and potential impacts of fracking on water that are scheduled for completion in late 2014. These projects will be the basis of their actions and future regulations for oil and gas operations. Whether the EPA will regulate oil and gas exploration nationally or leave the oversight in the hands of the states is an open question. There is an argument that water resources and geology are very local phenomena and cannot be generalized over the nation and that hydraulic fracturing should remain under local oversight. According to the New York Times the leaked report rejects performing a quantitative risk assessment because such an assessment would ‘involve making a large number of assumptions about the many scenario-specific variables that influence the nature and degree of potential human exposure and toxicity.”

The EPA research projects may help with that though all the answers will not be known in 2014.  The current fracking projects at the EPA are a series of studies. Existing Data from multiple sources have been obtained for review and analysis. Well construction and hydraulic fracturing records provided by well drillers are being reviewed for 333 oil and gas wells across the United States; data within these records are being examined to assess the effectiveness of current well construction practices at containing gases and liquids before, during, and after hydraulic fracturing.

Computer models are being developed (or expanded) to identify conditions that may lead to impacts on drinking water resources from hydraulic fracturing. The EPA has created hypothetical scenarios for water acquisition, well injection, and wastewater treatment and waste disposal stages of the water cycle that they hope to have the models evaluate. Computer models are also being used to explore the possibility of subsurface gas and fluid migration from deep shale formations to overlying aquifers in different scenarios. The effectiveness of the models would be dependent on how closely the model predicts transport behavior in rock and shale and the similarity in behavior of different formations.

Laboratory studies are being performed to identifying potential impacts of inadequately treating hydraulic fracturing wastewater and discharging it to rivers. Experiments are being designed to test how well common wastewater treatment processes remove selected contaminants from hydraulic fracturing wastewater, including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants. Since wastewater treatment plants are not designed to remove more than biological waste and bacteria, any removal of fracking chemicals and contaminants would be incidental.

The EPA has identified chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids from 2005 to 2011 and chemicals found in flowback and produced water. The EPA is performing toxicity assessments based on chemical, physical, and toxicological properties for chemicals with known chemical structures and using exiting toxicology models to estimate properties in cases where information is not available. The important thing that EPA is doing is bringing together all the data and previous work to get as complete picture of what we know about how hydraulic fracturing may be impacting our water resources and that would allow a broad quantitative health risk assessment to be performed along the identified routes of exposure.  

New York placed a moratorium on drilling in the Marcellus Shale in 2010 while it assessed the effects of fracking. New York DEC’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on drilling was released in the fall of 2011 and recommended that drilling be permitted, but with conditions. The comment period was extended and the DEC began a revision to the EIS that has been going on for over a year. The leaked report indicates that the DEC is recommending lifting the ban on hydro fracking in New York, but that is not certain and fracking remains controversial for good reason.

A large swath of southwestern New York sits atop the Marcellus Shale, which is the third-largest natural gas field currently known in the world. The Marcellus Shale alone is estimated to be 500-trillion-cubic-feet of gas reserve. This resource could heat our homes for a generation or more, and power our electrical generating plants, even fuel cars either directly or through plug in hybrids. The possible impacts to our economy and environment are far reaching. The potential risks are also far reaching.

Our ability to recover natural gas buried a mile or more beneath the earth has increased. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertically drilled well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracking, the pumping of millions of gallons of chemicals and water into shale at high pressure have increased our ability to recover natural gas from shale. Hydraulic fracking while old has made tremendous advances in the past 15 years have made it possible to economically access this gas. Our knowledge of the impacts from fracking has lagged behind our ability to access the gas.

 

In hydraulic fracking on average 2-5 million gallons of chemicals and water is pumped into the shale formation at 9,000 pounds per square inch and literally cracks the shale or breaks open existing cracks and allows the trapped natural gas to flow. Each stage of the fracking water cycle is a potential area for impact to drinking water supplies especially from human error and irresponsibly and improperly handling chemicals and contaminated water and poorly managing and protecting our water resources. Water used for fracturing fluids is acquired from surface water or groundwater in the local area. Billions of gallons of water will be used in each region for fracking. Wastewaters from the hydraulic fracturing process (flowback or water produced in the well) needs to be properly treated before it is returned to the waters of the earth. The reality is all water on earth has been here for 4.5 billion years and no new water is being created. The fate of the water that flows back after fracturing has to be addressed, but not all fracturing fluids injected into the geologic formation are recovered. The EPA estimates that the fluids recovered range from 15-80% of the volume injected depending on the site. The long term fate of any residual fluid has not been studied.

 There have been documented cases of seepage into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells.  An ongoing monitoring and data collection program needs to be part of the permitting process. Potential impacts to our water supply from hydraulic fracking needs to be studied over time and regulations modified to better protect our water supplies and natural resources as fracking expands in the region. Our water resources are sacred and irreplaceable. The gas will be there when we know how to access it safely.  The least risky course might be to delay lifting the moratorium until the US EPA finishes its research in late 2014 and then slowly allow a limited number of wells that will include monitoring over decades of the groundwater resources in the area with all the data given to the USGS for analysis.  Any area in consideration for fracking should have several years of quarterly groundwater testing and analysis before fracking begins to establish a base line for groundwater study. Now would be a good time to start developing groundwater monitoring programs.    

Maintaining 24/7 Water in America

From the American Water Works Association 2011

In most of our communities and cities we inherited the water infrastructure which was built by previous generations. This water storage, treatment, and distribution system delivers as much water as we want whenever we want it (under most circumstances). This amazing infrastructure to deliver 24/7 water was built beginning in the late 19th century and throughout much of the 20th century. We have barely thought twice about our water and have taken for granted the capital investment made by those previous generations. The water bill that most pay barely covers the cost of delivering the water and some repairs.  No infrastructure lasts forever and we have failed to properly maintain and plan for the orderly replacement of the water distribution systems. In the United States we have never experienced the need for pipe replacement on a large scale and have taken for granted what we were given. However, in our cities water mains are failing at an ever increasing rate.

The water distribution systems in most of our big cities have reached the end of their useful life. As documented by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Needs Survey and Assessment 2007  and the American Water Works Association, AWWA, report: “Buried No Longer:Confronting America ’s Water Infrastructure Challenge” a large proportion of US water infrastructure is approaching, or has already reached, the end of its useful life. The need to replace or rebuild the pipe networks that deliver water comes on top of other water investment needs, such as the need to replace water treatment plants, upgrade treatment technology to respond to emerging contaminants in our raw water supplies, replace storage tanks and on-going monitoring and compliance costs. The investment needs for our wastewater and stormwater systems will also have to be addressed for those systems are old as well.

According to the AWWA, restoring existing water systems as they reach the end of their useful lives and expanding them to serve a growing population will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 25 years in 2010 dollars, if we plan to maintain 24 hours per day on demand of water service for our country. The AWWA analysis includes investments that will be necessary to meet projected population growth, regional population shifts, and service area growth over that period. The EPA estimates that the twenty-year capital improvement needs for infrastructure investments necessary from 2007, through 2026, for the existing water systems to continue to provide safe drinking water to the public to be $335 billion assuming no growth in service area and no population shift. EPA’s “Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis,” actually estimated drinking water systems’ 20-year capital needs in the range of $204 billion to $590 billion with a point estimate of $335 billion, the always cited cost. The EPA costs exclude maintenance and replacement of dams and reservoirs because they are excluded from the EPA’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, DWSRF, funding. The smallest systems actually have the highest cost per person for pipe replacement because the residences are more spread out- there are more feet of pipe main per residence and the EPA’s data may be weakest in that category.

The EPA estimate for total national need of $335 billion in 2007 is comparable to the 2003 estimate of $331 billion (as adjusted to 2007 dollars). Indicating that no progress has been made in the long term replacement and during the period 2003-2007 only repairs seem to have been made.  Both the 2003 and 2007 EPA Assessments and the AWWA assessment clearly point to the nation’s water systems having entered a “rehabilitation and replacement era in which much of water utilities’ existing infrastructure has reached or is approaching the end of its useful life.” It is to be noted that no real progress has been made in water infrastructure replacement since 2007.

We are living with aging drinking water infrastructure, with increasing incidence of unplanned failures. We can continue to respond to water emergencies or, we can carefully prioritize and undertake drinking water infrastructure renewal investments to ensure that our water utilities can continue to reliably and cost-effectively support the public health, safety, and economic vitality of our communities. The choice is ours and will be made community by community. According to the EPA, water utilities in the United States is highly fragmented with approximately 52,000 water systems with 56% of that number serving populations of 500 or less. The large number of relatively small systems may not have the expertise to analyze a system and develop a replacement plan and may not have the financial capability to raise capital independently. However, smaller systems can more easily vote for capital surcharges and may be eligible under the DWSRF. The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the DWSRF to make funds available to drinking water systems to finance infrastructure improvements. The program emphasizes providing funds to small and disadvantaged communities and to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water.

How will all this money be spent?  Transmission and distribution pipes, pumps and valves represent about 60% of the projected cost of replacement and rehabilitation. Although the least visible component of a water system, the buried pipes of a transmission and distribution network generally represent most of a system’s capital value. Even small rural systems may have several hundred miles of pipe. In larger cities, replacement or rehabilitation of even small segments of the extensive underground networks of water supply pipes can be very costly, due not only to the cost of construction but also the costs related to disruption to the city’s traffic and business. Replacement projects for water mains, valves and pumps present such challenges that they are typically only undertaken after failure driven by a utility’s need to continue providing potable water to its customers while preventing contamination of the water prior to delivery.

The rate at which water mains fail varies greatly by type of pipe, age of the pipe, water characteristics, soil characteristics, weather conditions, and construction methods. Some pipe materials have been found to degrade prematurely; galvanized pipe has turned out to be particularly susceptible to corrosion in certain soils, and unlined cast iron pipe is susceptible to internal corrosion. Asbestos cement pipe presents challenges to protect workers during pipe repairs. Currently, many water systems are using ductile iron or polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) for construction and replacement now. It remains to be seen how long this infrastructure will last.

The EPA estimates that 22% of the costs of water infrastructure rehabilitation will have to be spent on treatment and compliance.  Treatment facilities vary across systems depending on the quality of their source water and type of contamination present. Treatment systems can range from a simple chlorination for disinfection to a complete conventional treatment system with coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, laboratory facilities with computer automated monitoring and control devices. This also includes projects to remove contaminants that affect the taste, odor, and color of drinking water, but are otherwise harmless (or almost so). These costs may increase due to deterioration of source water quality.

Source water infrastructure is estimated at about 6%. This includes constructing or rehabilitating surface water intake pumps and pipes, drilled wells, and spring collectors. Drinking water comes from either ground water or surface water sources. Wells deliver groundwater. Rivers, lakes, and wells in karst terrain under the direct influence of surface water are considered surface water sources. A high-quality water supply can minimize the possibility of microbial or chemical contamination and may not require extensive treatment facilities. Many of the source water needs involve construction of new surface water intake structures or drilling new wells to obtain higher quality raw water to minimize the treatment costs.

The remaining 12% of water infrastructure needs are attributed to storage and miscellaneous other projects. Storage includes projects to construct, rehabilitate, or cover water storage tanks, but it excludes dams and raw water reservoirs because they are specifically excluded from DWSRF funding. A water utility cannot function without sufficient storage to provide adequate supplies of treated water to the public, particularly during periods of peak demand. This storage allows the systems to maintain the minimum positive pressure required throughout the distribution system to prevent the intrusion of contaminants into the (deteriorating) distribution networks which are not “water tight.”

EPA Gathering Data on Emerging Contaminants in Our Drinking Water

The Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA, is the Federal law that protects the public from drinking water contaminants that pose a known health concern. Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, more than 80,000 chemicals are used within the United States. Not every drinking water contaminant with health consequence gets regulated because they may not be widely present in source waters. And not every regulated contaminant has health consequence. Some contaminants are regulated to control taste and odor. Though the SDWA was adopted in 1974, it has had significant amendments in 1986 and 1996 that added explicit health goals, risk management approaches and methods of gathering data to allow the SDWA to continue to evolve and ensure the public water supply systems in the United States remains among the safest in the world.

The 1996 amendments to the SDWA created the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, UCMR. This is the tool the EPA uses to determine if there are contaminants likely to pose a risk to the health of the nation. A contaminant is identified as being of a possible health concern in drinking water, by states, water systems, scientists or other sources.  Health information is collected and if deemed appropriate, occurrence and exposure information are collected using the UCMR data collection program for preliminary risk assessment then a determination is then made on whether there exists an opportunity to reduce public health risks by regulation and the contaminant is then added to the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments require that once every five years, EPA issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems. The national sampling program provides the EPA with a scientifically valid database on the occurrence of these emerging contaminants in drinking water supplies.

The third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule list (UCMR 3) from the EPA was finalized and signed on April 16, 2012. The final version of the UCMR 3 requires public water systems, PWSs, serving more than 100,000 people to monitor their source and finished water for 30 contaminants using EPA approved analytical methods during 2013-2015 and provide the data to the EPA. Some smaller systems will be required to perform testing also, but EPA will pay for the analysis of all samples from systems serving 10,000 or fewer people and provide some technical assistance for sampling. In addition, EPA will select 800 representative PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer people that do not disinfect. These PWSs with wells that are located in areas of karst or fractured bedrock, will participate in monitoring for the 2 viruses during a 12-month period from January 2013 through December 2015. (This might be of particular interest to those in Raspberry Falls and Evergreen areas of Loudoun and Prince William Counties.) In all approximately 6,000 PWSs will collect data for a 12 months period creating a very powerful database so that overall exposure can be assessed.

EPA anticipates spending $20 million to subsidize the sampling and analysis in the small water systems, but the bulk of the sampling and analysis will be paid for by the large PWSs and ultimately by their rate payers. In this largest of systems, the anticipated cost of $50,000-$100,000 is not a significant burden, but on the mid-size systems the cost is noticeable. UCMR 2 cost Fairfax Water $50,000 in analysis and was entirely non-detect for all substances, but nationally, the nitrosamines were detected in 25% of the water systems tested. The levels detected ranged from 0.002-0.630 parts per billionwith an average of 0.009 ppb and might result in a regulatory standard for NDMAor all the nitrosamines. The only other UCMR 2 contaminants to appear at more than two of the 1,200 sample locations was the appearance of acetanilide pesticide degradation products in less than 5% of water systems testing. The levels found were up to 4 ppb and averaged less than 2 ppb. This is the only way EPA can gather data and determine if the population as a whole is being exposed to these substances and the levels of exposure. This is a primary data source for the EPA uses to make regulatory decisions for emerging contaminants. EPA has just opened nominations for the next list, UCMR 4. 

No actions have yet been taken as a result of the finding of UCMR 2, but N-nitorsodimethylamine, NDMA, may now be listed on the Drinking Water Contaminate Candidate List for potential regulatory action, but when I called the EPA to verify, they asked I submit my questions by email (which I did) and simply sent links to the Federal Register announcing the UCMR 3 which states “guide the

conduct of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) process and support the Administrator in making regulatory decisions for contaminants in the interest of protecting public health, as required under SDWA.” That was a frustrating waste of effort.  NDMA is a carcinogen known to be present in various foods and industrial products. The EPA hasestablished a 10(-6) cancer risk level for NDMA of 0.7 ng/l. NDMA has been found in the effluents of various water and wastewater plants, but its formation mechanism is not fully understood.  As I understand it from other sources there is consideration of regulation on all nitrosamines.

EPA selected the contaminants by first reviewing the agency’s lists of contaminants that need additional research to support future drinking water protections, from states monitoring programs and recommendations from public hearings and comments. The contaminants selected are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems or were selected based on current occurrence research and health-risk factors. Hexavalent chromium was the last addition, added to the list after comments to the proposed list strongly supported its inclusion. This final list includes 6 heavy metals, 7 volatile organic compounds, 7 hormones, 6 perflorinated compounds, 2 viruses, chlorate and 1,4 dioxane. The complete list can be viewed on the EPA website. These contaminants that are not regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; are anticipated to occur at public water systems; and may warrant regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA is using the UCMR 3 to determine if these substances are present in drinking water supplies throughout the nation and what levels. In the past 15 years, concerns have been raised about the fate and effects of these emerging contaminants of concern being released into watersheds through upland runoff from both urban and agricultural lands, sewage discharges, and industrial releases. Many of these routes of release are almost constant at very low levels and without widespread sampling and appropriate analysis it is impossible to know what substances might be a real threat to human health.  

Chemicals are everywhere in our modern world, they exist in pharmaceuticals, household products, personal care products, plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, human and animal waste; they are in short, all around us. These chemicals include organics, inorganic, polymers, complex reaction products, and biological materials. The technology used for chemical analysis has advanced to the point that it is possible to detect and quantify nearly any compound known to human kind down to less than a nanogram per liter or parts per trillion (1/1,000,000,000,000). This enhanced analytical ability has allowed scientists to discover that trace levels of pharmaceuticals, potential endocrine disrupting compounds (EDC) and other emerging contaminants exist in surface water, have appeared in some groundwater and may to persist in the water through conventional and some advanced treatment trains to appear in our finished drinking water. What we don’t know is how prevalent these contaminants are and if these traces of compounds are a health concern.  

The emerging contaminants lack human health standards so the first step is to identify what substances are present at what levels in the environment. EPA has begun with water not only because there exists a way to mandate the data is collected on a national scale, but everyone drinks and bathes in water. Using the UCMR list to identify substances with widespread exposure through drinking water is the best way to prioritize contaminants. The next step would be to identify the acceptable human exposure level and need for regulation based on presence in the environment. Much of the environmental work in the past has been done on what are called the persistent priority pollutants, such as trace metals, pesticides, PCBs and PAHs, substances that persist in the environment.  Many of the emerging contaminants are environmentally non-persistent, but still may have health impacts. A non-persistent chemical breaks down and these breakdown products may be widely present in the environment.

Fracking and Groundwater We Still Don’t Know

A study based on a computer model was created by Tom Myers, PhD, commissioned by the Catskill Mountainkeeper a Youngsville, NY Environmental group and The Park Foundation in Ithaca, NY and recently released. The model was commissioned after the NY New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NY DEC) initial finding in 2009 that hydraulic fracturing could not impact groundwater. The NY DEC went on to commission an environmental impact statement (EIS) on drilling that was released for public comment in September 2011. The EIS recommends that drilling be permitted, but with conditions. The comment period for the EIS closed on January 11, 2012 and the DEC is now developing regulations.

Dr. Myers’ model is being submitted too late to be part of the public comment period, and the model did not use sampling or case histories to build the relationships that project  contamination risks. Rather, Dr. Myers, a PhD in hydrology and a consultant in Reno, NV; built a computer model designed to predict how fracking fluids would move over time. I have not seen the model and do not know how simulations account for the natural fractures and faults in the underground rock formations and fluid flow in the underground, the permeability and stress dependent permeability, and fracture porosity changes. The model simulations have not been tested in field studies.

The Myers model predicts that fracking will dramatically speed up the movement of chemicals injected into the ground. Fluids in his simulation traveled distances within 100 years that would take tens of thousands of years under natural conditions. When the model factored in the Marcellus’ natural faults and fractures and an assumed shale permeability, fluids could move into an aquifer region an order of magnitude faster than that- in as little as three years. Terry Engelder, PhD geology at Pennsylvania State University an expert on the Marcellus Shale and considered by some to be an advocate for hydraulic fracturing has reviewed the model. In a recent interview Dr. Engelder questions the permeability of rock that Dr. Myers assumed in his model. I do not feel I am qualified to judge this work.  

Dr. Myers work is in conflict with other studies done on the topic, but that does not prove him wrong, only actual field studies over a number of years can actually prove him right or wrong. At present there is little or no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing of shale at normal depths. In Pavillion, Wyoming, were groundwater has been contaminated they used hydro fracking within the water table near drinking water wells. EPA initially announced that the glycols, alcohols, methane and benzene found in a test well the EPA drilled to the drinking water aquifer in Wyoming were likely due to fracking and then back peddled on that stating now the results were inconclusive and is performing additional testing. In an interesting coincidence or not, NRDC, the Wyoming Outdoor Council, Sierra Club and the Oil and Gas Accountability Project commissioned the same Tom Myers to review EPA’s draft report and Dr. Myers found “… the evidence presented in the EPA report …it is clear that hydraulic fracturing … has caused pollution of the Wind River formation and aquifer.” I did not find the evidence quite as compelling and agreed with the EPA that additional testing needs to be done. Dr. Myers continues with: “Three factors combine to make Pavillion-area aquifers especially vulnerable to vertical contaminant transport from the gas production zone or the gas wells – the geology, the well design, and the well construction.” True.

Dr. Myers current study deals with the Marcellus Shale. The model appears to assume that fluid migration will be away from the well. According to a research summary at the University of Texas at Austin, in the long term after fracturing is completed, the fluid flow is toward (not away from) the well as gas enters the well bore during production. Some with concerns about fracking allege while there may be a relatively small risk to water supplies from any individual hydraulic fracturing, a large number of wells within a formation like the Marcellus shale has a higher likelihood of negative impacts. However, the impact on a shale formation of a group of fracturing wells has not been studied. Fracking has outpaced our knowledge of the consequences.

In hydraulicfracking on average 2-5 million gallons of chemicals (< 1%), propping agent(<4.5%)  and water (>94.5%) are pumped into the shale formation at 9,000 pounds per square inch and literally cracks the shale or breaks open existing cracks and allows the trapped naturalgas to flow. After hydraulic fracturing a shale gas well, the fluid pressure is relieved and a portion of the injected fluid returns to the well bore as "flowback" water to the surface for treatment, recycling, and/or disposal. The amount of injected fluid returned as flowback ranges widely from 20% to 80%  due to factors that are not well understood by scientists, regulators or industry. It is not known whether the fracking fluids are absorbed into shale formation or instead migrate.  The route of escape may be through propagation of the induced fractures out of the target zone and into the aquifers, or intersection of induced fractures with natural fracture zones that lead toaquifers. The fracking fluid does not just disappear. No evidence of chemicals from hydraulic fracturing fluid has been found in aquifers as a result of fracturing operations, but impacts of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater have not been carefully monitored over a period of years.

 It is essential to determine the vertical and horizontal separation that is necessary to protect the drinking water aquifers from fracking and what impact new rounds of hydraulic fracturing can have on previous developed areas with old abandoned wells or currently producing wells before watersheds are damaged or destroyed. Building dueling computer models based variously on Hookes’ Law, and Darcy’s law or classical theory is not the way to determine this. The fate of the unrecovered fracking fluid needs to be found. It is believed by many geologists and engineers that the intervening layers of rock would prevent a fissure from extending thousands of feet to the water table this assumption needs to be tested in the real world, and the long term impact of fracking, deep well injection and fluid disposal has on watersheds needs to be studied and monitored and a safe separation distances from aquifers need to be determined. Then increased oversight needs to be implemented to ensure that this separation is maintained (despite inevitable requests for waivers), improve well-design requirements and ensure their consistent implementation and require the appropriate treatment and recycling of drilling waste water. Use of waste water treatment plants that were designed to address biological solids to treat millions of gallons of water used for hydraulic fracturing or ponding the waste is short sighted and imprudent. The deep well injection commonly used in Texas may have consequences beyond small earthquakes. 

Right now there is an excess of natural gas and the price is still well below $3 per million BTU which is the estimated cost of shale gas from fracked wells in the Marcellus Shale. This is a great time to intensely study the environmental impacts from fracking- when we aren’t desperate for the natural gas and EPA has just released a set of air release rules and draft water permitting rules addressing fracking and is about to release a set of regulations for fracking on Federal land. The Department of the Interior estimates that over 3,000 wells are fracked on Federal and Tribal land each year. Sounds like a good number of test sites. Though it would help to baseline the water quality (or at least reduce the costs for analysis) to know the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracking water before not after the frack. However, since long term monitoring is needed it should not make much of a difference in analytical costs. 

Your Tax Bill, Property Rights and the Virginia’s Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan

On March 30th Virginia submitted the final version of the Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan, WIP, to the US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The Commonwealth had initially hoped to meet the EPA mandated TMDL goals on an overall state basis, but that approach was rejected by EPA who required that each segment of the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Watershed that had been assigned a TMDL meet that target and that Virginia submit 2017 and 2025 input “decks” so that EPA may assess the strategies within the WIP using the Chesapeake Bay computer model to do this. Meeting the TMDL on a statewide basis might have allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to implement the most cost effective best management practices regardless of location, and it might have moved the compliance with the EPA mandate up to the state level from the local budgets. The Phase II WIP commits our local communities and property owners to implementing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs), that will increase our taxes, determine the future allowed use of land within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the costs of our septic systems, and the level of regulation within the Commonwealth. This document was submitted to the EPA without disclosure of the details of the “deck” to the public so that we will understand what the costs will be in terms of taxes and requirements to install BMPs on private land.

About half of the land area of Virginia is drained by the creeks, streams and rivers that comprise the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and two-thirds of the state's population lives within the watershed. Chesapeake Bay pollution diet, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment was mandated by the EPA to the six Chesapeake Bay Watershed states (Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) and the District of the Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) Phase I and II are designed to ensure that all pollution control measures needed to fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025, with at least 60 % of the BMPs completed by 2017. While it will take years after 2025 for the Bay and its tributaries to fully heal, EPA expects and their computer model predicts that once the required BMPs are in place there will be gradual and continued improvement in water quality as BMPs reduce the nutrient and sediment run off and better control storm water so that the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem can heal itself.

The TMDL sets a total Chesapeake Bay watershed limit for the six states and Washington DC of 185.9 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorus and 6.45 billion pounds of sediment per year which is a 25% reduction in nitrogen, 24% reduction in phosphorus and 20 % reduction in sediment from the current levels. The pollution limits are then partitioned to the various jurisdictions and river basins based on the Chesapeake Bay computer modeling tools and monitoring data. Fundamentally, complying with the EPA mandate and the Virginia WIP is about spending enough money, putting in enough BMPs to have the Chesapeake Bay Model say that we meet our TMDL. The WIPs identify nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reduction actions from all major sources, including sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities, suburban and urban areas, agriculture, forestry and septic systems.

BPMs are not always easy to see to the untrained eye. They are a list of techniques to manage storm water to reduce runoff of nutrients and soil from urban, suburban and rural areas. Examples are BMPs like nitrogen reducing alternative septic systems, increasing annual septic pump outs, pervious pavement, developing and maintaining urban nutrient management, bio-retention ponds and swales. The Phase II WIP Appendix A summary lists converting 200,000 acres of agricultural land to forest and grass buffers, doubling the agricultural conservation land acres and nutrient management acres, and many more BMPs for the agricultural sector. For urban and suburban locations the WIP lists over half a million acres of nutrient management, reductions in impervious surfaces, stream bank restoration, and others. EPA has a long list of acceptable BMPs at various costs and assigned effectiveness under the computer model that can be used by communities to meet the requirements of the TMDL under the WIP and Virginia developed computer tool to allow local staff to test various strategies to meet the TMDL within EPA’s computer model. Government by computer model. The farmers, homeowners, property owners and residents of Virginia will have to pay for this plan. The challenge for developing the Phase II WIP was determining what needs to be done to get the computer models to say that we have met the EPA mandated TMDL. The challenge for the Commonwealth is to engage the public and bring them into the process.

As part of the Phase II WIP Virginia had the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) staff subdivide the TMDL allocation from the 39 segments to the local government (county and town level) and the staff created a computer input data “deck” with BMP implementation levels and nutrient loadings to meet the TMDL. This “deck” was not disclosed as part of the Phase II WIP posted by DCR. The public has no indications what the cost of these BMP will be, but with all of the computer data inputs and models there might be estimates of costs on a local basis. Counties and residents will be required to install the BMPs (often on private land) that were submitted to the EPA and raise the property taxes, storm water fees, waste water charges, septic fees to pay for and maintain the BMPs. Reducing the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment runoff by about a quarter is not going to happen by increasing regulation on future construction and developers, and the WIP II does not suggest it. Without public engagement in the process but based on surveys that indicate we want a clean and a restored Chesapeake Bay, we are about to be required to install BMPs at our homes, businesses, farms and private land and pay for the public improvement. A clean and restored Chesapeake Bay is good, but the price in terms of dollars, taxes and regulations must be known and disclosed.

On April 1st 2012, Virginia opened a 60 day comment period for the Phase II WIP and said that they will have public hearings. Though no public hearings are yet scheduled, it is important that you understand what meeting the EPA mandated TMDL through the Virginia Phase II WIP will mean to your property rights and pocketbook. The local governments had not had the opportunity to approve the potentially expensive BMP strategies and commitments made to the EPA within the WIP (which may be enforceable at least as it relates to the stormwater BMPs). A small example and just one little portion of the Phase II WIP, Fairfax County staff has estimated that the stormwater fee on all property owners (within their county) will have to increase to a “nickel” which is $250 on a $500,000 home to meet the Phase II WIP stormwater requirements. The current rate is 1.5 cents or $75 on a $500,000 home. Waste water fees which have increased significantly in the past few years will continue to have to rise to pay for the improvements to the wastewater treatment plants. The written plan that is available for viewing on the DEQ website does not specify what BMPs were used for each county to meet the goal, but sight unseen you will pay for it. We should find out what the costs will be and how we will be paying for them and what new restrictions and requirements will be placed on us.

National Groundwater Week

It is National Groundwater Awareness Week March 11-17, 2012, and apparently Awareness Week is in its second decade of existence. Who knew, and that’s the problem, most people are unaware of groundwater despite its importance and impact on our lives. Recently, the US Geological Survey, USGS, reported that in 2007 105 million people, about a third of the population receive their drinking water from one of the 140,000 public water systems across the United States that use groundwater as their source. In addition, 15% of the population obtains their water directly from groundwater using private drinking water wells. Groundwater is also used for irrigation. Groundwater is an important natural resource, especially in those parts of the country that don't have ample surface-water sources, such as the arid West. Groundwater is a renewable resource, but not unlimited. Groundwater recharges at various rates from precipitation and other sources of infiltration.

Unlike other natural resources or raw materials, groundwater is present throughout the world varying from place to place, depending on rainfall conditions and the distribution of aquifers (rock and sand layers in whose pore spaces the groundwater sits). Precipitation and soil type determines how much the shallower groundwater is recharged annually. However the volume of water that can be stored is controlled by the reservoir characteristics of the subsurface rocks. Generally, groundwater is renewed only during a part of each year through precipitation, but can be abstracted year-round providing a reliable and clean source of drinking water to much of the population provided there is adequate replenishment, and it is protected from pollution. We need to be aware of the source of our groundwater it’s natural recharge rate and protect our aquifers from over use and contamination.

Groundwater is usually cleaner than surface water and as source water for drinking water supplies it is often superior to surface water. Groundwater is typically protected against contamination from the surface by the soils and rock layers covering the aquifer. This water is the only available clean drinking water in many areas. However, rising population, changes in land use, agriculture and industrialization increasingly place groundwater in jeopardy of contamination. Once contaminated, groundwater is very difficult to clean and often after removal of contaminated plumes only long term abandonment of use to allow for natural attenuation is the only possible course of action. Precious groundwater resources increasingly need to be protected from contamination and well managed to allow for sustainable long-term use.

Though the water quality of the public water supply systems is regulated by the US EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), drinking water supplies are only tested for slightly over 90 contaminants (many of them natural impurities) when there are over 80,000 chemicals known in the United States. In addition, the US EPA only regulates the finished water delivered to consumer through public water supply systems. The underlying groundwater quality often has not been tracked by the US EPA. In their study of the quality of groundwater sources in the United States, the USGS found trace levels of pesticide compounds (not regulated under the SCWA) or VOCs in 64% of the groundwater samples taken from public water supply wells. Three-quarters of the organic-contaminants contained an herbicide (atrazine or simazine) or an herbicide degradate (deethylatrazine), and about 40% contained the solvents perchlorethene or trichloroethene. Pesticides and VOCs were detected in a significantly greater proportion of samples from unconfined aquifers than in samples from confined aquifers. The groundwater with the greatest number of contaminants was consistently from shallower unconfined aquifers demonstrating the natural protection provided by a confining geological layer.

Groundwater typically contains geological trace elements such as arsenic, manganese, strontium, iron, and boron and radionuclides (radon, radium, and gross alpha-particle radioactivity). These contaminants originate from the rocks and sediments that contain the aquifers and are entirely natural, but there are health related maximum contaminant level standards for these elements within the SDWA. For groundwater supplies, the concentration of these geological contaminants does not change quickly over time and remains rather constant in any given region. What is changing is the appearance of modern pesticides and herbicides, substances atrazine or simazine and their breakdown products in groundwater. These chemicals slowly percolate into groundwater from land application of pesticides and herbicides used for greener lawns and gardens or for agriculture. They appear in shallower groundwater supplies. Another source of contamination of groundwater is our septic systems. It is estimated by various sources that 25-35% of all US homes use septic systems.

There are many different types of septic system designs. The most common type used for single family homes consists of a septic tank and leach field. A septic tank can be an anaerobic (without air) tank or an aerobic tank (with air). The anaerobic system is a single chamber tank that receives the toilet and drain waste from the house and allows the solids to settle down to the bottom of the tank where the anaerobic bacteria that live in the tank digest the organic materials while the effluent (water around all that stuff) flows out to the leach field to be purified by passing through soil until it reaches the groundwater. The final finishing for septic waste is the leach field or other soil absorption system, where it percolates into the soil, which provides final treatment by removing harmful bacteria, viruses, and nutrients. This is a natural process requiring suitable soil for successful waste water treatment, but even with the most suitable soil septic systems cannot remove chemicals from the water. Household cleaners, fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and personal care products will just pass through the system and begin to appear in the recharge to the groundwater.

As our homes are filled with ever more powerful and chemical laden cleaners, antibacterial soaps, pesticides, herbicides, paints, petroleum products, insecticides and drugs-all the wonders of modern life, these things find their way into our waters. Through stormwater runoff and waste water treatment plants these things easily find their way to our surface waters. Waste water treatment plants are no more equipped to treat waste water for these chemicals than a septic system is and quite frankly none of these public supplies of water are routinely tested for these substances. Waste water treatment plants do not have chemical removal processes. Through our septic systems, and gardens and yards these contaminants are appearing in our groundwater. Although each septic system and yard can make an insignificant contribution to ground water contamination, the sheer number of such systems and their wide spread use of pesticides and herbicides in every area make them serious contamination sources. What goes down the drain or is sprayed and spread in the garden goes into the groundwater. To make a difference we all need to protect our groundwater.

The following actions to protect groundwater from contamination and are based on recommendations from the National Groundwater Association:
1. Properly store hazardous household substances like paints, paint thinners, petroleum products, fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and cleaning products in secure containers
2. Mix hazardous household substances over concrete or asphalt where they can be cleaned up or absorbed onto disposable media like paper towels and then properly disposed of with hazardous material waste.
3. Dispose of hazardous household wastes at an appropriate waste disposal facility or drop-off. Most landfills and city trash programs have these drop-offs.
4. Do not put hazardous household wastes down the drain or in the toilet ever,
5. Do not put any wastes down a dry or abandoned well or use sinkholes as waste disposal holes.
6. Service your septic system regularly at a minimum service it according to local health department recommendations
7. Check your private drinking water well annually to make sure the sanitary seals are intact.
8. Decommission abandoned wells on your property using a qualified water well contractor
9. Fix or replace any leaking aboveground or underground tanks storing hazardous substances. All underground storage tanks should have secondary containment to prevent contamination of the subsurface. All tanks will eventually fail.

EPA Mercury Air Standards and Electrical Power in the United States

On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 the U.S. EPA released the final regulation for controlling mercury, and other toxic emissions from coal fired power plants. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulates mercury, arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide. The standards will slash emissions of these pollutants primarily from coal fired electrical generation plants. This should not be confused with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which requires reductions of sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions in 23 Eastern and Midwestern states beginning next year, as well as seasonal ozone reductions in 28 states. Combined these two rules will have a significant impact on the future cost and availability of electrical power in the United States and should be part of a careful and well thought out and communicated environmental and energy plan for the nation.

According to the EPA it will cost $9.6 billion annually to comply with the MATS regulations and Industry analysts believe that 10% to 20% of U.S. coal-fired generating capacity will be shut down by 2016. According to the EPA, the two rules together are estimated to prevent up to 46,000 premature deaths, 540,000 asthma attacks among children, 24,500 emergency room visits and hospital admissions. “The two programs are an investment in public health that will provide a total of up to $380 billion in return to American families in the form of longer, healthier lives and reduced health care costs. “The EPA did not give an estimated combined cost of the two rules; however, the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group, claims the combined new rules will cost utilities up to $129 billion and eliminate one-fifth of America's coal electrical generating capacity.

In 2010 coal was used to product 45 % of electricity while oil was used to generate less than 1% of electricity, so the MSTS rule is intended for coal plants. The nation's coal-fired power plants were built as the nation grew and industrialized in the first half of the 20th century when coal was the most abundant and cheapest available fuel. With the existing power plants in place coal is still much cheaper than natural gas for generating electricity, but the tightening of regulations by EPA under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (even with recent modifications) will decrease that financial advantage because coal burns dirtier than natural gas. In addition, the recent availability of shale gas has lowered the cost of natural gas and provided a potentially reliable supply.

These new regulations will require existing plants to meet emission standards that are at least as stringent as the top 12% best-performing coal facilities and may force some plants to convert to natural gas fuel or to shut down entirely. The generating capacity will have to be replaced with new plants that burn cleaner fuels and produce less pollution, but the cost of power will increase. Several state utility commissioners say they fear the agency's recent rules will push up electricity prices or could even hurt electric-system reliability if too many power plants are shut down. That is countered by the EPA who states that less than 1% of the national generating capacity will be lost.
According to EPA there are about 600 power plants covered by these standards. They emit harmful pollutants including mercury, non-mercury metallic toxics, acid gases, and organic air toxics including dioxin.

Our modern society requires power - that is not going to change. The cost of power is a key factor in determining the cost of production, and the cost of living. In the U.S. in 2010 over 90% of electrical power was produced by steam turbines powered by coal, oil, gas, and bio fuels. Wind and water may be used to spin the turbines as well. Coal produced 45 % of electricity, nuclear power generated 20% of the electricity used, natural gas generated 24 % the electricity used, hydroelectric generated 6%, wind 1% and oil, wood, biomass, geothermal solar and other generated the rest. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will reshape the industry reducing coal fired plants, but some fuel will need to be used to spin the turbines. In all probability natural gas will be substituted for coal. There will be economic impacts to the reduction in demand for coal in the United States, the cost to convert, replace and upgrade power plants, and increasing the demand for natural gas.

Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. Burning natural gas in the place of coal emits fewer harmful pollutants, but methane, the principle component of natural gas, is itself a potent greenhouse gas. Methane has an ability to trap heat almost 21 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. This past year researchers at Carnegie Mellon University compared greenhouse gas emissions from the Marcellus Shale region with emissions from coal used for electricity generation. The authors found that natural gas from the Marcellus shale had lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal for production of electricity by 20–50% depending upon plant efficiencies and natural gas emissions variability. Shale sourced natural gas could provide a reliable source of natural gas for our nation in this century and might make the conversion of some power generation worthwhile. However, before we push a significant portion of our electrical generating capacity from coal to natural gas, we should ensure that we will have the natural gas supplies available at the time and location that it is needed to produce a reliable electrical grid.

Fracking in Ohio

The U.S. Forest Service has withdrawn more than 3,200 acres of forest land from a federal oil and gas lease sale scheduled for Wednesday, December 7, 2011. The acreage in Athens, Gallia, and Perry counties was to be included in a broader sale of leases for 20,949 acres of federal land in Ohio, Mississippi and Louisiana. This land was to be auctioned for Hydraulic Fracturing. The Buckeye Forest Council, an environmental coalition, opposed the sale stating that the environmental statement was outdated because it did not mention hydraulic fracturing. In addition, they feel that Ohio does not have the regulatory framework to deal safely with fracking. The auction plan is on hold pending the review of the environmental impact statement which could take up to six months and lead to required revisions in the 2006 environmental impact statement which could delay the auction further. The 3,200 acres currently have nearly 1,300 shallow gas wells.

Our ability to recover natural gas buried a mile or more beneath the earth has increased. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertically drilled well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracking, the pumping of millions of gallons of water and laced with thousands of gallons of chemicals into shale at high pressure have increased our ability to recover natural gas from shale. Hydraulic fracking is a technology that was unknown 60 years ago. Until recently there was no economically feasible way to extract this gas.

Thought industry executives say fracking has been widely used for decades without problems, hydraulic fracturing has changed, the type of hydraulic fracturing the industry executives are talking about is coal bed formation fracturing. The volume of water needed for hydraulic fracturing varies by site and type of formation. Fifty thousand to 350,000 gallons of water may be required to fracture one well in a coal bed formation while two to five million gallons of water may be necessary to fracture one horizontal well in a shale formation. Water used for fracturing fluids is acquired from surface water or groundwater in the local area. Wastewaters from the hydraulic fracturing process must be disposed of and several ways have been used. Several of the techniques tried have been to dispose of the water underground using injection wells, discharged to surface waters after treatment in a waste water treatment plant designed to remove only solids and biological contaminants, or applied to land surfaces where it can seep into the water table.

The millions of gallons of water used for fracking shale contain up to 15,000 gallons of chemical additives. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow. Determining the proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants is essential. The deep well injection of the waste in Texas is believed by scientists to have triggered the earthquakes near the Dallas airport. The impact of so much waste water on our water resources must be measured and monitored. Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the industry itself as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads and placed on concrete pads.

There are many possible routes to contamination from fracking. Errors in natural gas well construction or spills during injection can occur and lead to drinking water contamination. Drinking water wells contaminated by methane and potassium chloride have been reported. In Pennsylvania, flammable levels of methane in drinking water wells and potassium chloride levels high enough to salinize a drinking water aquifer have been reported in the vicinity of some gas wells. Fracking fluids can spill before they are injected and fluids recovered from fracturing can contaminate surface waters. The EPA estimates that 15-80% of the volume of fracking fluids injected will be recovered. The amount of fluid recovered depends on the site geology. Additionally, drilling into the subsurface through the water table can create pathways for fracking fluids or natural gas to find its way into water supplies and wells, if grouting isn’t properly done and the gas well properly constructed. The horizontal sections of the wells are not cased in cement and, introduce a potential point where fracking fluids can reach the outside of the grouting during flowback.

Hydraulic fracturing should continue slowly. A limited number of wells should be installed with careful monitoring of local and regional groundwater supplies as well as verification of proper well construction and wastewater recycling. Limiting fracking to a small area of the federal and state forest lands would allow the development of experience, knowledge and data, and could ensure careful restoration of the area. Instead of leaving unwary homeowners to the “land men” and their leases written entirely to favor and protect the drilling and gas companies, allow the state governments to develop standard language for the gas leases and the federal government to collect real time data in a secluded area away from residential impact.

Currently, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is studying the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water resources, but they are only focusing on the potential to directly pollute the drinking aquifer, not looking at potential changes in the groundwater hydrology. The geological impact of Hydraulic Fracturing should be examined by the U.S. Geological Survey. No one has ever looked at what the long term implications are for the hydraulic balance when fracking occurs. The removal of millions of gallons of water, the fracturing of the geological formations, and the injection of contaminants even at low concentrations into the subsurface could cause significant changes in groundwater flow and quality.

The current regulatory framework concerning hydraulic fracturing has a number of gaps that need to be addressed before unlimited fracking takes place. There were several recommendations made in the report of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. The report had a rational approach to regulation recommending disclosure, testing, evaluation and modification of regulation and practices based on the information and data obtained. It assumes information and data will be gathered and analyzed. That is not yet being done. The data needs to be collected on a state level and provided to the US Geological Survey and US EPA to consolidate on a national level.

In the past decade the advances in drilling and fracking technology have been adapted to exploit gas in the Barnett shale in the Fort Worth Basin in Texas and applied to a series of major shale gas deposits that could not have been viable without the advances in drilling and fracking. The Fayetteville shale, the Haynesville shale, the Marcellus shale reserves all in the United States and the Horn River shale reserves in Canada are now accessible. At the current rate of natural gas consumption North America is reported to have a 100-year supply of proven, producible reserves and even with expanded use of natural gas, there is more than a generation of currently accessible reserves. We need to treat both the earth and its resources with respect.

In truth we have no viable option to hydrocarbon fuel. When the oil and gas is gone it will be a poorer future without airplanes, freighters and trucks. Sailing ships will not transport raw materials and finished goods around the earth. Solar and wind power will produce unreliable power supplies and mankind will adapt (not happily) or discover new sources of fuel. Before that future world arrives, the shale gas and oil sands and whatever else is discovered will be exploited. There is no urgency, but you cannot permanently stop that trend. These deposits will become more valuable over time as the world becomes more desperate for energy. Now is the time to carefully develop and study the methods to exploit these resources without destroying or further damaging the earth.

EPA Inspector General Questions Process Not Conclusions

Last Wednesday the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the US EPA issued a report on the procedure EPA used to make the Carbon Dioxide Endangerment Finding. The review by the OIG was requested by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a republican member of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. The OIG has found that the EPA had not followed their established policy and procedures in the development of the endangerment finding for carbon dioxide, including the processes for ensuring information quality. EPA has disagreed with the conclusions and did not agree to take any corrective actions in response to the OIG report. The strength of our system of government is the checks and balances built into the system. The procedures must be followed to maintain the integrity of our system of government, even if the conclusions seem obvious.

Back in April 2007, in a suit filed by Massachusetts against the US EPA the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The case was brought to force the US EPA to determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which endangers public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

Two years later in April 2009, the EPA Administrator signed a proposed endangerment and a cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. EPA held a 60-day public comment period, which ended June 23, 2009. If you will recall at the end of the comment period Alan Carlin and John Davidson of the US EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics detailed their concerns about the science underpinning the agency's "endangerment finding" for carbon dioxide. The two said the US EPA accepted findings reached by outside groups, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, "without a careful and critical examination of their own conclusions and documentation." The EPA dismissed these concerns and barred the two from working in this area in the future. More importantly, the US EPA is required to make its own evaluation of the underlying science not depend on the findings of others for its Endangerment Determination and must that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health. Now the OIG has supported their claims with its finding and the EPA once more has chosen to disagree.

On December 7, 2009, EPA Administrator Jackson signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
Endangerment Finding:
The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding:
The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixedgreenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle enginescontribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health andwelfare.

Although the EPA could have delayed until March 2010 the announcement of findings, in picking that time the administration chose to signal the US’s dismissal of any questions raised by the disclosure of emails hack from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) a collaborator with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Administration chose the first day of the United Nations global warming conference in Copenhagen as a way to signal full US acceptance of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determinations and as a demonstration that the U.S. is committed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions either through legislation or regulation.

I close with the press release from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the US EPA “We concluded that the technical support document that accompanied EPA’s endangerment finding is a highly influential scientific assessment and thus required a more rigorous EPA peer review than occurred. EPA did not certify whether it complied with OMB’s or its own peer review policies in either the proposed or final endangerment findings as required. While it may be debatable what impact, if any, this had on EPA’s finding, it is clear that EPA did not follow all required steps for a highly influential scientific assessment. We also noted that documentation of events and analyses could be improved.”