Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 2:05 PM
Subject: Washington Post: EPA’s own science advisors discredit EPA’s claims of fracking safety
Years in the making, EPA’s
report on fracking claims:
“We did not find … widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.”
But EPA’s own science advisory panel asks:
“that the report be revised to include ‘quantitative analysis that supports its conclusion’ — if, indeed, this central conclusion can be defended.”
The scientists also note that EPA:
“did not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater, surface water), the scale of impacts (i.e., local or regional), nor the definitions of ‘systemic’ and ‘widespread.’”
Hailing those scientists for having “called out” the agency, the Sierra Club adds:
“Instead of blindly allowing destructive fracking to continue in our communities, we should extend statewide fracking bans and moratoriums that will keep dirty, climate-polluting fossil fuels like fracked gas in the ground.”
— All the above quotes are from “EPA’s science advisers challenge agency report on the safety of fracking,” by Chris Mooney, Steven Mufson, and Brady Dennis at this August 12, 2016 Washington Post site:
$ $ $ $ $
“For too long we have been focused on a
false choice: between the health of our
children and the health of our economy.”
— Gina McCarthy, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
# # #
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:28 AM
Subject: Audio of my speech to EPA Science Advisory Board on Arlington fracking risks/playn NG stock mrkt on Global Warming
Collin thank you for being responsive prior to my speech to verify that the city does NOT test storm water trapped at the padsites that go into our storm water runoff and increases the Total Maximum Daily Load to treat water…but I did not have time to talk about that and the colloidal heavy metal risk in the soil at these padsites.
My name is Kim Feil from Arlington TX I live by the ATT Cowboys Stadium.
I blog on BarnettShaleHell.wordpress.com & post my email communications to public officials so that I have evidence they were forewarned of the risks we have undertaken in this huge and fast built out of high impact industrial mining in urban Arlington where we have an average of 3.5 gas wells per sq mile.
In the agenda for trenchless digging to replace water piping, I asked council to test the soil to see if benzene was leaching from unregulated HDPE piping of produced water from Ft Worth padsites being piped to the Brentwood Injection Well as the litmus test before allowing trenchless digging that (HDPE piping) is not Benzene resistant. Arlington has about 60 padsites and in addition has known EPA Brownfield sites granted the right to NOT be remediated under the TCEQ MSD program.
I spoke on the risk to selling water & waste water bonds when our drinking water source, Lake Arlington, (which has already had a Quicksilver 2010 work over spill that ran from a storage tank overnight in our lake).
I mentioned how our lake is at repeated flooding risk and how we have many padsites on the FT Worth side of the lake as well as over 100 casing laterals underneath it. I reminded them that our rain charged Lake Arlington could be a commodity if more ground water sources start showing contamination as WFAA local news reporter, Brett Shipp, has recently reported twice on Chisholm Springs Texas north of Ft Worth having at least 200 homes affected with contaminated water (high in chlorine, metals & minerals) in “that” heavily drilled area. In the WFAA comments
people south of the Metroplex came forward with water contamination reports (in Waxahachie, & Mansfield, as well as reports from Henderson County/birth defect, & Tarrant County). There was also a complaint of salty tasting water in Boyd TX.
I have blogged about how the EPA allows state regulators to decide what effluents to test for before releasing or selling recycled produced waste water west of the 98th meridian. I am shocked that radionuclides is NOT on the list. I also see the risk of recycling waste water become more popular to mitigate the ever growing risk in injection well induced frack quakes. Businesses are popping up to recycle produced water into useful products such as firefighting, road/spraying for dust or ice, agriculture and for drought watering (like in mud farming which they don’t test for NORM there either).
Currently, in Texas injection wells is still the preference for fracking related waste disposal and yet the lower level of regulation in the class of the injection wells are in my opinion inappropriately designated with the least amount of TXDOT oversight in trucking. If only we can redesignate produced water hauling as TENORM, then the truck drivers have to account for the volumes that they leave the frack sites with and those quantities must match up when they arrive at the injection wells.
Flooding of the Texas drill sites has been the rave of social media lately and the Elpaso area has been posting pictures of flooded Texas drill sites with hydrocarbons visibly spilled off in the flood waters…this should be on the SAB’s main radar as climate change serves to worsen the boom and bust of rain cycles.
Last I spoke before the SAB I ran out of time to report on a Colleyville home who had well water degradation after nearby fracking. I encourage the SAB to contact the City of Collyville who sanctioned numerous pre and post nearby well water testing. Alarmingly two water wells stopped working after the drilling and could not get post test results and were NOT included in the summary statistics. Overall I found that the general change in water quality supports UTA Clear’s reporting that the closer the drilling to ground water wells, the more changes seen.
In closing, I also encourage the SAB to seek out mainstream media water contamination stories and to please read the comments…you will find more relevant “testimonies”…recently I saw one for the Eagle Mountain Azle area where a commentor said his water well went bad after fracking came in.
I recently sued Chesapeake Energy in small claims court for nuisance when their odors came into my closed home over 1400 ft away during well completion. This took a year of my life which has changed since fracking and I thank you for listening to my comments.
Got fracked up water?
Know someone who has fracked up water?
Studied fracked water & have vital info?
Just plain mad that this study is ten years after the frack?
to hear one of the prior teleconferences.
—comment by mail or teleconference!!——
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2016 /
[FR Doc. 2016–10393 Filed 5–2–16; 8:45 am]
Notification of a Public Meeting and
Public Teleconference of the Chartered
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board
(SAB) Staff Office announces a public
meeting and a public teleconference of
the chartered SAB to conduct a quality
review of a draft SAB report on an
assessment of potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
resources and to receive briefings on
topics of interest for possible future SAB
DATES: The public meeting will be held
on Tuesday, June 14, 2016, from 8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, June
15, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
The teleconference, if needed to
accommodate registered public
speakers, will be held on June 8, 2016
from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Westin Alexandria, 400 Courthouse
Square, Alexandria, VA 22314.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any
member of the public who wants further
information concerning the meeting
may contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA
Science Advisory Board (1400R), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail
(202) 564–4885, or email at
information concerning the SAB can be
found on the EPA Web site at http://
Technical Contact for EPA’s Draft
Report: Any technical questions
concerning EPA’s draft report,
Assessment of the Potential Impacts of
Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on
Drinking Water Resources (May 2015
External Review Draft, EPA/600/R–15/
047), should be directed to Dr. Jeffrey
Frithsen, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail
Code 8601P, Washington, DC 20460,
telephone (703) 347–8623 or via email
established pursuant to the
Environmental Research, Development,
and Demonstration Authorization Act
(ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365,
to provide independent scientific and
technical advice to the Administrator on
the scientific and technical basis for
Agency positions and regulations. The
SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App.
2. The SAB will comply with the
provisions of FACA and all appropriate
SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy,
notice is hereby given that the SAB will
hold a public meeting to discuss and
deliberate on the topics below.
(1) Quality review of the SAB Draft 4–
26–16 Review of EPA’s draft Assessment
of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking
Water Resources. The EPA’s Office of
Research and Development (ORD)
requested the SAB to conduct a peer
review of the draft assessment report
concerning the relationship between
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water
in the United States. The purpose of the
report, Assessment of the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil
and Gas on Drinking Water Resources
(May 2015 External Review Draft, EPA/
600/R–15/047), is to synthesize
available scientific literature and data to
assess the potential for hydraulic
fracturing for oil and gas to impact the
quality or quantity of drinking water
resources, and identify factors affecting
the frequency or severity of any
The SAB Hydraulic Fracturing
Research Advisory Panel conducted a
peer review of the EPA draft assessment
and the chartered SAB will conduct a
quality review of the panel’s draft
report. Quality review is a key function
of the chartered SAB. Draft reports
prepared by SAB committees, panels, or
work groups must be reviewed and
approved by the chartered SAB before
transmittal to the EPA Administrator.
Consistent with FACA, the chartered
SAB makes a determination in a public
meeting about each draft report and
determines whether the report is ready
to be transmitted to the EPA
Background on the current advisory
activity, Assessment of the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil
and Gas on Drinking Water Resources,
can be found on the SAB Web site at
(2) Briefings from representatives of
the EPA and other EPA advisory
Committees on topics of interest for
possible future SAB advice.
If the SAB Staff Office determines that
there will be insufficient time during
the June 14–15, 2016 meeting to
accommodate the members of the public
who registered in advance to provide
oral public comments, the
teleconference will be held on June 8,
2016 to provide additional time for oral
Availability of Meeting Materials: A
meeting agenda and other materials for
the meeting will be placed on the SAB
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:53 May 02, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MYN1.SGM 03MYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26552 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2016 / Notices
Procedures for Providing Public Input:
Public comment for consideration by
EPA’s federal advisory committees and
panels has a different purpose from
public comment provided to EPA
program offices. Therefore, the process
for submitting comments to a federal
advisory committee is different from the
process used to submit comments to an
Federal advisory committees and
panels, including scientific advisory
committees, provide independent
advice to the EPA. Members of the
public can submit relevant comments
pertaining to the EPA’s charge, meeting
materials, or the group providing
advice. Input from the public to the SAB
will have the most impact if it provides
specific scientific or technical
information or analysis for the SAB to
consider or if it relates to the clarity or
accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to
provide comment should contact the
Oral Statements: In general,
individuals or groups requesting an oral
presentation at a public meeting will be
limited to five minutes. Persons
interested in providing oral statements
at the June 14–15, 2016 meeting should
contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, in
writing (preferably via email)
(202) 564–4885, or email at
by June 1, 2016 to be placed on the list of
registered speakers. Written Statements:
Written statements for the June 14–15,
2016 meeting should be received in the
SAB Staff Office by June 7, 2016 so that
the information can be made available
to the SAB for its consideration prior to
the meeting. Written statements should
be supplied to the DFO at the contact
information above via email (preferred)
or in hard copy with original signature.
Submitters are requested to provide a
signed and unsigned version of each
document because the SAB Staff Office
does not publish documents with
signatures on its Web sites. Members of
the public should be aware that their
personal contact information, if
included in any written comments, may
be posted to the SAB Web site.
Copyrighted material will not be posted
without explicit permission of the
Accessibility: For information on
access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Mr.
Carpenter at the phone number or email
address noted above, preferably at least
ten days prior to the meeting, to give the
EPA as much time as possible to process
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board
[FR Doc. 2016–10392 Filed 5–2–16; 8:45 am]
- Please participate in telling the EPA Science Advisory Board your stories of shale hell….sign up for a June 2016 5 minute speaking spot via teleconference….. https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/epa-sab-comment-time-again-on-fracking-water-risk-to-americans/ If you have no story BUT WANT TO HELP, I have more than my minutes worth so contact me and let me know if you want to read my comments that may never make it to the board….. they involve:
- 1) a water contamination case in Colleyville
- 2) unintended water issues in recycling waste water creating frack on crack
- 3) how Texas does not test for radionuclides when releasing oil & gas waters to the 98th Meridian
- 4) how frack sand under heated conditions has HCN implications that can risk water in its fallout
- 5) a water contamination case alleged in Azle TX (interview needed with 85 year old Edith)
- 6) flooding issues with oil & gas risking water
- 7) whats really in the stagnant water re Chesapeake caught in a gross misrepresentation of source/location of odorous waters near Cowboys Stadium and how this could further risk recycling water (frack on crack).
- 8) The formaldehyde issues with the lift compressors and how we have no dedicated testing for it risking our drinking water…4 example the timing of the addition of two lift compressors near my home introduced 526 lbs/yr into my environment which correlated with the start of my chronic nosebleeds…if its in the air…isn’t it falling out into water sources?
I have more ideas for what the SAB needs to hear, but this is only a start. My full time devotion to the fracking related risks need people communicating these issues to help me have them heard so they do not conclude that fracking does NOT cause widespread harm. Just yesterday I pulled a weed that grew out the side in the center of my cement steps…..think about how impervious cement really is….do we trust that cement will be the ideal barrier protecting our ground water from frack waste?