A new report, produced by Battelle Memorial Institute and funded by the American Petroleum Institute and America’s Natural Gas Alliance, criticizes an EPA study plan that details a proposed agency investigation into the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.
The Batelle report calls for greater collaboration between industry and the EPA, and with the EPA’s study potentially informing federal drilling regulations, industry is keen to lend their voice. The report asserts that with the “industry’s extensive experience with production of oil and gas from unconventional reservoirs, its unique expertise in the process of hydraulic fracturing and associated technologies, and its wealth of relevant data and information available to inform this effort, it is a weakness of the study plan… that significant industry collaboration is not envisioned.”
Meanwhile, environmental groups are worried that if industry groups are given greater involvement the study will be a repeat of the 2004 EPA study that concluded that fracturing in coalbed methane formations posed “little or no threat” to aquifers—a conclusion they claimed was the result of pro-industry-bias.
When is collaboration between industry and EPA appropriate, and at what levels? What protocols would facilitate robust EPA/industry collaboration while limiting potential bias?
It is hard to imagine how the EPA can accomplish anything useful without industry cooperation, for the reasons Battelle suggests.
I agree w/ Lewis. Batelle lays out what appears to be less an effort at understanding and more a fishing trip to catch the industries involved in any infraction available. The “P” in EPA stands for “Protection”, not “Punishment”. By working with the industries involved, the EPA regulators can gain absolutely necessary technical understanding while coming to the realization that they are dealing with people, not lesser demons.
The question of undue influence will inevitably arise and must be addressed. But that point is a very long way off for the EPA.
I agree with Lewis and Joel. Regulations should be based on sound science and technical data. EPA needs input from industry early on in the regulatory process to understand the technical processes affected by the proposed rules. I would not call this collaboration, but rather information gathering. For example, industry input could help EPA design better information collection requests (ICR) that capture the data needed to describe processes (i.e. wastewater treatment). If EPA does not fully understand the operational processes, possible technical configurations, or engineering requirements related to the rule they are considering, then study plans will be inappropriately designed, ICR data not interpreted correctly, and compliance cost estimates will be inaccurate.
It will be an educational project. The above letters are corret. The EPA needs new leadership that can create an open mind on complex issues.