(MintPress) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its latest findings Wednesday in the ongoing debate over hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Researchers found elevated levels of carcinogenic chemicals at two fracking wells in rural Wyoming. However, the numbers were not given further analysis, nor is there any determination as to whether these levels pose a risk to human health.
The lack of detail, many believe, is due to political pressure exerted upon the agency. The EPA, many contend, has become the battleground institution in the fight over hydraulic fracturing, a controversial method of natural gas drilling. While the research and recommendations of the EPA are limited due to limiting Congressional legislation, the reports by the EPA will play a major role in determining how lawmakers and the public adjudicate the issue.
Ambiguous findings in Wyoming
The latest study builds upon previous samplings conducted by the EPA on the same Wyoming drilling site last year. However, the latest round of testing was a collaborative project carried out by the EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the State of Wyoming and two American Indian tribes.
The new multi-organizational approach was in response to Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead’s complaints about lack of transparency in previous EPA testing.
A spokesperson for the governor commented on the new testing method, saying, “Gov. Mead felt that this process was an improvement on how the first draft report from the EPA was done. It was more transparent. The team had input throughout the process.”
Previous EPA testing in Wyoming “theorized” a causal link between fracking and groundwater contamination, an assertion that drew heavy criticism from oil and gas companies. The findings released Wednesday showed measurable levels of methane, ethane, diesel compounds, phenol and other known carcinogens.
However, the levels of these compounds were not given any further analysis by researchers. The scientists involved in the project have yet to release an explanation as to what the readings mean for future hydraulic fracturing projects or whether these levels pose a hazard to human health.
The lack of a clear analysis by the EPA indicates the gravity of a ruling by the environmental regulatory agency, one that could fundamentally alter the legality of fracking and debate surrounding the issue.
Additionally, the request by Gov. Mead shows the malleability of EPA testing, an oversight agency that is designed to function as an independent environmental research group but is often subject to the pressure from politicians and corporate interests.
Political interference
Richard Nixon created the EPA through executive order in December 1970 as a regulatory mechanism for conducting environmental research and determining health and safety standards. As a federal agency monitoring the health and safety of air, land and water, the EPA is tasked with monitoring legislation in Washington to make sure that bills adhere to previous environmental standards including, most importantly, the Clean Air and Water Acts.
While the recommendations of the EPA remain integral in public debate on environmental issues, the strength of the agency has been watered down by subsequent legislation.
In 2005, the Bush Administration helped Congress pass The Energy Bill, a piece of legislation that exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Clean Water Act of 1972. The loophole, referred to by some as the “Halliburton Loophole,” opened the door to widespread fracking, a drilling method practiced in limited forms since the 1950s.
The coercive influence exerted by politicians and corporate special interests has limited the ability of the EPA and other affiliated organizations to conduct impartial research. A report by the Center for American Progress and the OMB Watch for The Citizens for Sensible Safeguards Coalition, titled “The Bush Administration and the Dismantling of Public Safeguards,” posits that:
“Special interests have launched a sweeping assault on protections for public health, safety, the environment and corporate responsibility – and unfortunately the Bush administration has given way. Crucial safeguards have been swept aside or watered down; emerging problems are being ignored; and enforcement efforts have been curtailed, threatening to render existing standards meaningless.”
This point is underscored by a 2008 survey finding nearly two-thirds of the more than 1,600 EPA employees surveyed in a non-partisan poll believed that their work was being interfered with by superiors and politicians.
EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar rebuffed the findings, saying that employee discontent stems from the “passion” that EPA scientists have for their work. Shradar added that he takes the findings of EPA researchers with the utmost seriousness.
However, Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Scientific Integrity Program, was deeply concerned by the findings, saying they were an indication of an “agency in crisis.” Grifo elaborated, saying, “The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations.”
Some politicians have gone so far as to call for an elimination of the EPA and all environmental oversight. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a former Republican presidential hopeful, is among a growing number of politicians who would like the see the EPA significantly reformed or disbanded altogether.
While the EPA continues to be a battleground for political influence, some anti-fracking groups have shifted their attention to other environmental agencies — a sign that EPA gridlock could shift public attention on this issue. Many environmental groups point to a 2011 scientific study published by the U.S. House of Representatives as good reason to oppose fracking.
The independent investigation published April 2011 by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee On Energy and Commerce, found:
“The oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of 652 different products used in hydraulic fracturing.”