EPA Finalizes Fracking Report


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its scientific report on the impacts of fracking on drinking water resources on Tuesday. The report is intended to provide states and other entities the scientific foundation to better protect drinking water resources in areas where fracking is occurring or being considered.

The report was requested by Congress and provides scientific evidence that fracking activities can impact drinking water resources. EPA identified conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe.

The report also identifies uncertainties and data gaps. These uncertainties and data gaps limited EPA’s ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally. The oil and gas industry is, of course, highlighting these data gaps in it’s response to the report.

These final conclusions are based upon the EPA’s review of over 1,200 cited scientific sources; feedback from an independent peer review conducted by EPA’s Science Advisory Board; input from engaged stakeholders; and new research conducted as part of the study.

“The value of high quality science has never been more important in helping to guide decisions around our nation’s fragile water resources. EPA’s assessment provides the scientific foundation for local decision makers, industry, and communities that are looking to protect public health and drinking water resources and make more informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing activities,” said Dr. Thomas A. Burke, EPA’s Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “This assessment is the most complete compilation to date of national scientific data on the relationship of drinking water resources and hydraulic fracturing.”

EPA identified cases of impacts on drinking water at each stage in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. Impacts cited in the report generally occurred near hydraulically fractured oil and gas production wells. Impacts included contamination that made private drinking water wells unusable.

As part of the report, EPA identified certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe, including:

  • Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
  • Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
  • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
  • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
  • Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and
  • Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.

For a copy of the study, visit www.epa.gov/hfstudy.

Donate to CACC’s Seed Library Campaign, help us gain an extra $400 in funding!

Gladwin, MI Community Garden
Gladwin, MI Community Garden

We are racing to raise $600 for our NEW Seed Library initiative! Campaign begins November 15th, 2016 at 12:00, and ends December 15th. Help us empower Michigan gardeners and protect our planet by donating to our campaign!

We are VERY excited to share this project with you. The seed library will allow gardeners and community gardens in Michigan to “borrow” heirloom and open pollinated seeds to plant in the spring, and to return seeds for future gardeners in the fall.

Food and seed sovereignty are key to reducing energy consumption, water contamination, soil biome loss, and emissions. We hope you will consider supporting and sharing our campaign, and of course, join us as a seed library member this spring!

Support our campaign here: https://www.seedmoney.org/campaign/478/cacc-community-seed-library

Monroe, Michigan left unprotected by lack of emergency planning

 

Site of a near catastrophic meltdown in 1966, the Fermi plant has a notorious history. New findings indicate emergency and evacuation planning for the surrounding community are dangerously inadequate.

FERMI nuke plant Monroe, MI
MONROE, MI — Emergency and evacuation planning related to radiological incidents at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station (Fermi Plant) located in Frenchtown Charter Township, Michigan are dangerously inadequate, according to an investigation by Disaster Accountability Project (DAP). The Fermi Plant is less than 50 miles from both Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio.

Federal regulations require “emergency planning zones” or EPZs within 10 miles of U.S. nuclear power plants. Jurisdictions located in EPZs must develop evacuation protocols for responding to radiological incidents and provide residents living within these zones annual information on protective actions for radiological emergencies.

Outside the 10-mile zones, local governments are not required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to plan for radiological emergency evacuations, or to educate the general public on what to do in the event of a radiological emergency.

The 10-mile guidelines remain unchanged after the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster, where Japan evacuated residents within a 19-mile radius and the NRC recommended a 50-mile evacuation zone for American citizens.

In the event of an emergency, many residents living beyond the 10-mile “emergency planning zone” of the Fermi Plant are likely to voluntarily evacuate. According to a 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, without planning and regular public information, such voluntary “shadow evacuations” can complicate the evacuation of people most immediately in danger, for instance, by putting additional traffic on roadways. In response, the NRC claimed that additional planning is unnecessary, emphasizing that “[s]tate and local authorities have a robust capacity to effectively evacuate the public in response to life-threatening emergencies.”

fermi-evac

In August 2015, DAP contacted 22 jurisdictions within a 50-mile radius of the Fermi Plant, seeking documents and information related to radiological preparedness, including evacuation planning. Only 19 of these jurisdictions provided any kind of a response. The 22 jurisdictions DAP contacted are: in Michigan, Monroe County, Lenawee County, Washtenaw County, City of Detroit, Wayne County, City of Dearborn, City of Livonia, City of Ann Arbor, Oakland County, Macomb County, Warren County, Livingston County, and Sterling Heights; in Ohio, Lucas County, City of Toledo, Ottawa County, Wood County, Sandusky County, Fulton County, Erie County, Henry County, and Seneca County.

Key findings include:

The only jurisdiction within 10 miles of the Fermi Plant and 1 out of 21 jurisdictions between 10-50 miles of the Fermi Plant reported providing educational materials or plans to residents regarding how to respond to a radiological incident at that plant.

8 out of 22 (36%) of the jurisdictions provided all-hazard emergency plans and/or evacuation plans.

Only 1 out of 22 (5%) of the jurisdictions provided emergency plans specific to radiological incidents at the Fermi Plant.

No jurisdiction furnished a shadow evacuation plan or study.

DAP agrees with the GAO report’s conclusion that further study is required to understand the level of public knowledge and the likely public reaction to a nuclear plant emergency, beyond the current 10-mile emergency planning zone.

Since the NRC recommended a 50-mile evacuation zone around the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, a radiation spill at the Fermi Plant would likely result in a “shadow evacuation” of citizens beyond a 10-mile radius, for which citizens and disaster response teams are unprepared.

“Most communities situated ten or more miles from nuclear power plants do not plan for radiological emergencies simply because Washington doesn’t require it,” said Ben Smilowitz, Executive Director, Disaster Accountability Project. “Most people who live 20, 30, or 40 miles away from plants do not realize that their communities are only adhering to bare-minimum standards for radiological emergency preparedness.”

“This report’s findings should serve as a wake-up call to local communities that if Washington is not going to demand emergency planning, residents should demand it themselves. We hope residents of these communities will call on their local governments to do more, regardless of any mandate from Washington,” Smilowitz said.

“We should learn the lessons of past disasters and not repeat them. In the five years since Fukushima, we had an opportunity to prepare communities for the unexpected. Over 100 million Americans are at greater risk because of a failure to plan.”

After Fukushima
After Fukushima

 

After an earthquake and tsunami severely damaged the Japanese Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in 2011, over 150,000 Japanese citizens were evacuated within 19 miles of the stricken plant due to the presence of radiological plumes. The NRC recommended that U.S. citizens evacuate from as far as 50 miles of the plant. This distance exceeds the current mandatory planning zone of 10-miles, and the NRC has not satisfactorily reconciled this disparity between current planning and real-world guidance.

DAP’s series of reports on U.S. radiological evacuation planning can be found at http://disasteraccountability.org/news-media/reports/.

The nonprofit Disaster Accountability Project saves lives and reduces suffering after disasters by maximizing the impact of preparedness, response and relief through citizen oversight and engagement, policy research and advocacy, and public education. Connect with Disaster Accountability Project at http://www.disasteraccountability.org.