Graphic courtesy Energy Tomorrow
Seven years ago, Benjamin Grumbles was the assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency who oversaw the commission that wrote a
report on the technique of hydraulic fracturing—an underground injection of a slurry of water, sand and chemicals known colloquially as "fracking." It is used to free natural gas from shale formations and coal-bed methane deposits. The report found "no confirmed cases" of contamination in any of the thousands of wells into which hydraulic fluids are injected every year and concluded that the technique "poses little or no threat" to underground sources of drinking water. The report was sharply criticized for being slanted in favor of industry. And since it was released the criticism from experts and eco-advocates alike has become fierce.
So far, there's been no relief. That's because Congress in 2005 used the commission's report for evidence to support a permanent exemption of fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Grumbles now says a flat-out, permanent exemption was never the intent of commission. The report, he told interviewers at the investigative web site ProPublica, was just:
...a snapshot in time. It was a thorough review describing the issues. Whether it's hydraulic fracturing or any other type of practice that can have an impact on the environment, one single report shouldn't be the basis for a perpetual, never-ending policy decision.
It wasn't meant to be a bill of health saying 'well, this practice is fine. Exempt it in all respects from any regulation.' I'm sure that wasn't the intent of the panel of experts, and EPA never viewed it that way. That's one reason why we were urging Congress to say "look, if you are going to issue an exemption, ensure that it is not perpetual."
Grumbles said he was disappointed at losing both the authority to regulate fracking and to revisit the issue in the future. Once the exemption was passed, the message to EPA was "focus on some other priorities," he said.
Contrary to the views of many critics, Grumbles said he did not think there was undue pressure from the White House for EPA staff to take a particular stance on the issue. As is typical with an issue of this sort, he said, the Department of Energy, Office of Management and Budget and the White House were all involved in coordinating the process of working with Congress. "I know the office of the vice president [Dick Cheney] was involved, but I honestly did not see much involvement at all," Grumbles said. Foes of fracking call the exemption the "Halliburton Loophole," and many of them lay the regulatory exemption at the feet of Cheney, who was chairman and CEO of Halliburton for five years before he became vice president.
Since then, reports of problems with fracking, including drinking water contamination, have flowed in a steady stream. ProPublica has published a number of stories on the subject over the past year. For a good layman's-language rundown on fracking and one of its possible bad effects, see Translator's Sunday diary.
As a consequence of these reports, the U.S. Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette (CO-01) in the House of Representatives and Sen. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania in Senate in 2009. The bill died in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Q: The EPA's 2004 report did find that diesel fluid in fracturing presented a risk to groundwater. How was this addressed?
[Grumbles]: The former administrator [of water] Tracy Mehan recognized that under current law the agency was not regulating or prohibiting diesel fluids from being used in the hydraulic fracturing process, so he signed, on behalf of the EPA, an MOU [memo of understanding] with major companies that have a major stake in this, voluntarily getting them to commit not to use diesel fluids for the hydraulic fracturing process.
Based on current law and what tools we had, I felt this was a positive step. And it was a sincere step forward for us to make sure that we were engaged with the industry and engaged in the sense that they knew we were watching this and knew that it could be a problem if they used this sort of a process.
Q: And now we learn from some members of Congress that diesel use continued despite those efforts ...
[Grumbles]: It's disappointing, and the agency needs to follow up and ensure that the industry is providing accurate and timely information.
I think if the information is true that industry withheld information or misled regulators or the policy makers, then that is serious, and they need to provide all the relevant information they have.
But on this score the industry has thumbed its nose at regulators and the public, refusing to say what chemicals make up the hydraulic fluid. Knowing its composition is key to understanding its effects, experts say. Thus, after lengthy efforts to get voluntary compliance under the 2004 memo of understanding, on Tuesday the EPA sued over the intransigence of one company heavily involved in fracking. Just in case you haven't already guessed, that company is Halliburton.