Energy & Environmental Law Blog : Energy & Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease Law Firm : Oil, Gas & Green Technology

U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is seeking public recommendations of technical experts to assist in reviewing EPA's hydraulic fracturing study plan.  "Selection criteria to be used for Panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; and (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and, for the Panel as a whole, (f) diversity of expertise and viewpoints. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to increase diversity, we seek nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups."

Nominations are due August 10, 2010.

• Email This
• Print

We've reported previously on U.S. EPA's plans to conduct a study on the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on the environment (see here, e.g.).  EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was asked to review and make recommendations on the proposed scope of the study.  It has now published those recommendations here (see Final Report(s)).  Not surprisingly, it concludes that the overall approach and scope for the research plan was "appropriate and comprehensive."  Its suggestion:

[T]hat initial research be directed to study sources and pathways of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water resources, especially potential drinking water sources, and that investigations eventually occur on the impact on water resources more generally. To support this effort, ORD should consider performing in-depth case studies at five to ten different locations selected to represent the full range of regional variability of hydraulic fracturing across the nation. The SAB also recommends that ORD emphasize human health and environmental concerns specific to or significantly influenced by hydraulic fracturing rather than on concerns common to all oil and gas production activities.  (Emphasis is ours.)

Wonder which locations they are thinking of?

• Email This
• Print

We posted earlier on the hydraulic fracturing study that U.S. EPA plans to do (see here, e.g.).  EPA has announced that it will be holding four public meetings around the country to gather further input (including one on July 22 from 6 p.m. at the Hilton Garden Inn in Canonsburg, Pa.).

• Email This
• Print

Hydraulic fracturing has seen several legislative initiatives lately.  For example, the Kerry-Lieberman climate legislation introduced earlier this month (at just under 1,000 pages) contains the following 36-word provision:  "A hydraulic fracturing service company shall disclose all chemical constituents used in a hydraulic fracturing operation to the public on the Internet in order to provide adequate information for the public and State and local authorities."  See here (NYT article on legislation generally); here (Senator Kerry's website); here (text of bill itself).

Also, Representative DeGette (D-Colo.) planned last week to introduce an amendment to the Assistance, Quality and Affordability Act in the House Energy and Commerce Committee designed to accomplish the same thing, i.e., require public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.  See here (from the Dallas Morning News).  The NYT has reported that Rep. DeGette withdrew that amendment after considering the possibility of a compromise with industry.

Don't think it won't come up again ...

• Email This
• Print

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell Oil Co., have proposed language for climate change legislation that would prohibit federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, which is currently regulated by the states.  Among other things, "[t]he document recommends that states adopt standards for disclosing the contents of hydraulic fracturing chemicals 'to health professionals or state agencies' in order to protect health or environmental safety but maintain 'the confidentiality of trade secret information' in the fluids."

• Email This
• Print

U.S. EPA has announced that it intends to conduct a comprehensive study of hydraulic fracturing and its potential adverse impacts on the environment.  From the news release:  "The agency is proposing the process begin with (1) defining research questions and identifying data gaps; (2) conducting a robust process for stakeholder input and research prioritization; (3) with this input, developing a detailed study design that will undergo external peer-review, leading to (4) implementing the planned research studies."

An EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) meeting has been scheduled for April 7th and 8th to evaluate and comment on the proposed approach.

• Email This
• Print

The Charleston Daily Mail is reporting that legislation to require reporting on source water and disposal plans related to hydraulic fracturing, as well as the additives used in the frac fluids, has cleared the Senate Natural Resources Committee.  Next stop:  the Senate Energy, Industry and Mining Committee.

• Email This
• Print

On December 28, 2009, U.S. EPA issued a Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (74 Fed. Reg. 68599) (see here) and asked for comments on both its preliminary 2010 Plan and on its 2009 review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, including comments on industrial categories not currently regulated by effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.  See Docket No. EPA-821-R-09-006 at www.regulations.gov.

Comments were submitted by both industry and environmental groups on the appropriateness of effluent guidelines for the oil and gas industry.  Earthjustice, for example, submitted comments urging U.S. EPA to expand its study of CBM operations "to include all techniques that may result in contamination of surface water or groundwater, including hydraulic fracturing in all formations."  See here.  The American Petroleum Institute filed comments, on the other hand, noting that CBM operations should not be subject to national effluent limitations guidelines and objecting to an expansion of U.S. EPA's study of CBM extraction to oil and gas operations more generally.

• Email This
• Print

The Oklahoman is reporting that the House Energy and Commerce Committee will be investigating the environmental risks allegedly posed by hydraulic fracturing operations used to produce natural gas from many of our country's shale reservoirs.

[Update:  For a good summary, see this article from the NYT.]

• Email This
• Print

The WSJ is reporting that the Director of U.S. EPA's Drinking Water Protection Division believes that states are doing a good job of regulating hydraulic fracturing:  "'I have no information that states aren't doing a good job already,' Steve Heare*** said on the sidelines of a [NARUC] conference here. He also said despite claims by environmental organizations, he hadn't seen any documented cases that the hydro-fracking process was contaminating water supplies."

Interesting.  (Note:  Subscription required.)

• Email This
• Print

The deadline is fast approaching for filing comments on the NY rulemaking proposal regarding hydraulic fracturing (December 31, 2009).  There have been a number of articles on the comments that have been filed to date, including this one from the Albany Times Union.  For more on the issue generally, see here (NYDEC website).

• Email This
• Print

The NYT has an article on the growing debate surrounding the use of hydraulic fracturing to produce shale plays.  The hook - After noting the benefits of lower prices and "global warming" emissions, it asks, "What the drilling push will do to local environments is another matter."  And yet, the article acknowledges:  "So far, the evidence of groundwater pollution is thin."  Read and enjoy.

• Email This
• Print

We have reported several times on the conflict between environmentalists looking for greater disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and the service companies looking for protection for their trade secrets.  According to a NYT report, based on a few industry statements, "The natural gas industry is moving to disclose information about chemicals used in controversial extraction technologies in the wake of spills at drilling sites in Pennsylvania and as New York is proposing new regulations."

• Email This
• Print

Companion bills were introduced yesterday in both the U.S. House and Senate to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act and to require the disclosure of chemical constituents used in frac fluids (the "FRAC ACT" - Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act).  More information can be found here.  Copies of the legislation can be found here (Senate - S. 1215) and here (House - H.R. 2766).

[Update:  For more, see here (article from WSJ, subscription required); and here (from the Wayne Independent).]

• Email This
• Print

This article in the Fort Worth Business Press points out one of the major issues presented by recent efforts to more-strictly regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas development - who should have jurisdiction, the federal government or state oil and gas commissions?  Not a bad article.

• Email This
• Print

In earlier posts we have noted concerns regarding the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells and the potential for its regulation.  Legislation has been introduced in Congress to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing under the SWDA, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.  More from the Star-Telegram:  "A study by the Environmental Protection Agency determined that hydraulic fracturing posed little risk to water. Environmentalists say that the study is flawed and that the exemption poses health risks."  Not a bad article overall.

• Email This
• Print

Concerns over the impact of hydraulic fracturing have been raised with increasing frequency over the last several years.  This article from Scientific American is just one example of the kind of reporting we are seeing, challenging the exemption for frac water contained in the SWDA and a producer's community-right-to-know obligations.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks