EPA Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel Public Teleconference December 3, 2015 Oral Statement by Jeff Zimmerman From: John Zimmerman Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 12:57 PM To: Docket OEI <[email protected]>; Hanlon, Edward <[email protected]>; Subject: EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA 2015-0245;Comments to SAB HF Study Panel 12-3- 2015 Dear Mssrs. Hanlon and Frithsen, and Dr. Dzombak; Attached is a copy of my comments presented to the Advisory Panel during yesterday’s conference call. Also, I have attached to this message a copy of the Third Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction) published by Concerned Health Professionals of New York and Physicians for Social Responsibility on October 14, 2015. During the public comments yesterday, I and several other speakers referenced this document. The water contamination entries in the Compendium appear on pages 26 through 52. We would ask that this entire document be posted to the Panel’s website as an addendum to my comments and specifically sent to each member of the Panel. For website posting here is a link to the study: http://concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PSR-CHPNY-Compendium-3.0.pdf Thank you, Jeff Zimmerman Jeff Zimmerman Zimmerman & Associates Potomac, MD 20854 Zimmerman & Associates Environmental Litigation, Mediation, Enforcement & Compliance, Counseling December 3, 2015 EPA Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel December 3, 2015 Teleconference Public Comments by Jeff Zimmerman on Behalf of Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, NYH2O and Citizens for Water Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The draft Assessment report and this panel’s draft response laments that there are major gaps in data and information on several issues. EPA has created this problem for itself by restricting its investigation only to peer reviewed materials. Like Oedipus Rex, EPA has blinded itself and this panel to extensive information about impacts of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle on drinking water resources. For example, this includes state information finding contamination of water supply wells in proximity to oil or gas wells. The Pennsylvania DEP has issued hundreds of “positive determination letters” finding that oil or gas wells have contaminated drinking water resources. In the draft assessment report EPA acknowledges the existence of these letters but then states that EPA did not investigate or review these cases any further. Why not? Isn’t this what this whole study is about? This brings me to my final point today. In many situations, individuals who have had their water supplies adversely impacted by oil or gas development. Often at their own expense, they have obtained contamination data from their wells and submitted this to federal or state agencies or both. This is a perfectly reasonable course of action given the responsibility of these agencies to protect human health and the environment. The fact that this information was not generated and reported through a peer reviewed publication process does not render this information irrelevant to this assessment. While the agency may want to examine the methodology by which the information was produced, the information itself deserves investigation and response. In the “early days” (2012 and earlier) agency personnel often went out to visit these sites and conducted some sampling for itself. Then, almost simultaneously, the federal EPA dropped several key site investigations and left any further response to the state agencies. In each instance the state agency also suspended any further action. More recently, in too many situations the default response by regulatory agencies has been silence. But the underlying issue remains. Data related to contamination should be considered and evaluated in each case. The 3rd Compendium by Concerned Health Professionals of NY is Zimmerman & Associates Environmental Litigation, Mediation, Enforcement & Compliance, Counseling another example of multiple cases which address the issues that should be considered in this study. With due respect, we would urge this panel to object to any and all generalizations or characterization in the EPA Assessment Report of linkage or lack thereof between the hydraulic fracturing water cycle and drinking water resources. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I would be happy to address any questions. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ J. J. Zimmerman Jeff Zimmerman Zimmerman & Associates Potomac, MD 20854 Counsel for Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, NYH2O and Citizens for Water COMPENDIUM OF SCIENTIFIC, MEDICAL, AND MEDIA FINDINGS DEMONSTRATING RISKS AND HARMS OF FRACKING (UNCONVENTIONAL GAS AND OIL EXTRACTION) Third Edition October 14, 2015 1 Foreword to the Third Edition The Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (the Compendium) is a fully referenced compilation of the evidence outlining the risks and harms of fracking. Bringing together findings from the scientific and medical literature, government and industry reports, and journalistic investigation, it is a public, open-access document that is housed on the websites of Concerned Health Professionals of New York (www.concernedhealthny.org) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (www.psr.org). Since its original release on July 9, 2014, by Concerned Health Professionals of New York, the Compendium has been used and referenced all over the world. It has been independently translated into Spanish and adopted for use in the European Union, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The release of the first edition of the Compendium coincided with a meteoric rise in the publication of new scientific studies about the risks and impacts of fracking. Hence, a second edition was released five months later, on December 11, 2014, and included dozens of new investigative reports and just-published research papers that further clarified, corroborated, and explicated the recurrent problems, data gaps, and ongoing uncertainties that natural gas and oil extraction via hydraulic fracturing brings with it. Almost concurrently, on December 17, 2014, the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) released its own long-awaited review of the health impacts of fracking. This 186-page document served as the foundation for a statewide ban on high volume hydraulic fracturing, announced by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo on the same day. The conclusions of the NYS DOH public health review largely aligned with our own. In the words of New York State Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker: [T]he overall weight of the evidence from the cumulative body of information contained in this Public Health Review demonstrates that there are significant uncertainties about the kinds of adverse health outcomes that may be associated with HVHF [high volume hydraulic fracturing], the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse health outcomes, and the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures in reducing or preventing environmental impacts which could adversely affect public health…. [I]t is clear from the existing literature and experience that HVHF activity has resulted in environmental impacts that are potentially adverse to public health. Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from HVHF and whether the risks can be adequately managed, HVHF should not proceed in New York State. (See footnote 282.) This third edition of the Compendium, which was created as a joint effort with Physicians for Social Responsibility, continues to exist in a moving stream of data. More than 100 new studies on the impacts of fracking have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature since public health 2 concerns so famously led to a ban on high volume fracking in New York—and since the second version of this document was released nine months ago. Our knowledge base is very young. The study citation database maintained by PSE Healthy Energy shows that over half of the available studies on the adverse impacts of shale and tight gas development have been published since January 2014. In 2014, 192 peer-reviewed studies on these impacts were published. In the first six months of 2015, 103 studies appeared.* The vast majority of these studies reveal problems. Specifically, as demonstrated by PSE’s statistical analysis, 69 percent of original research studies on water quality found potential for, or actual evidence of, water contamination; 88 percent of original research studies on air quality found elevated air pollutant emissions; and 84 percent of original research studies on human health risks found signs of harm or indication of potential harm.** Since the release of our second edition, in addition to this surge of peer-reviewed papers, four multi-volume government reports on the impacts of fracking were issued in the United States: one from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that focuses on water; two from California that examine a wide array of impacts; and, from New York, the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Findings Statement that—together with the final environmental impact statement on fracking—implements New York’s ban and incorporates the NYS DOH public health review into a larger analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of fracking. As a response to this proliferating evidence for the problems and