Public health voice absent from fracking study

Shutting out public health perspectives is becoming common place, this time its being done by the federal government

On Monday the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s (SEAB) Natural Gas Subcommittee issued several recommendations to, “improve environmental safety and performance from extracting natural gas from shale formations.”

Initial reaction to the report is mixed and that’s no accident considering the split membership of the subcommittee. The seven-member committee is made up of scientists, researchers and experts who have ties to both the fossil fuel industry and the environmental community. But absent from the committee’s membership was someone from the public health community. This exclusion has become commonplace as communities from coast to coast try to get to the bottom of hydrofracking.

Click here to see those on the subcommittee.

This latest omission was pointed out during public conference call shortly after the report was issued.

“I find it very interesting that this report contained absolutely no input from medical professionals. But on page eight of your report it outlines that public health is one of the four areas that you are trying to address,” said one of the first callers on Monday.

Between other prepared statements from callers on both the pro-fracking and anti-fracking sides another citizen pointed to the absence of a focus on public health.

“We are concerned and I am concerned, as a health care professional, about the health impacts of this practice. Why would you let a practice like this continue without knowing what the chemicals can do once they are placed underground,” said Ernie Hernandez of West Virginia.

It seems public health is where the line is drawn when it comes to studying fracking. Earlier this year, Garfield County, Colorado, wrestled with this very same issue after elected officials refused to recognize a health impact study that the county directed $250,000 of taxpayer money towards.  The three members of the Garfield County Commissioners, who are heavily funded by the gas industry, unanimously pulled the plug on the report. The report’s findings were believed to be damning to the industry. The second draft of the executive summary stated, “The principal findings of the HIA are that health of Battlement Mesa residents will most likely be affected by chemical exposures, accidents/emergencies resulting from industry operations, and stress-related community changes.”

This was hardly the first time a professional assessment of the public health concerns associated with hydrofracking had come back to reflect poorly on the gas industry. Just before the Garfield County health scandal, Dr. Sandra Steingraber, a biologist, well-known author and Scholar in Residence at Ithaca College, reported that chemicals used in hydrofracking could be an “enormous” risk that could cause complications with pregnancies.

“Do we want introduce into the environment more chemicals for which we have demonstrable evidence can harm pregnancies. They are reproductive toxins,” said Steingraber in an interview with the Checks and Balances Project in May.

Despite these well-documented findings and reports, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s Natural Gas Subcommittee contained no voices from the public health community. This isn’t to say the board’s recommendations were entirely beneficial to the gas industry. The board’s call for the industry to disclose the toxic chemicals it injects into the ground was received well by those in the environmental community. On Monday’s call the chairman of the Natural Gas Subcommittee John Duetch said, “while our recommendations were all unanimous, I think each member of the committee would have done it very differently it were up to the individual.” Even if there were true, it’s hard to imagine public health getting more attention considering the lack of representation.

Neslin brings his message back home

The man tasked with overseeing the oil and gas industry in Colorado continues to say that groundwater contamination is not an issue when it comes to hydraulic fracturing in the state.

David Neslin (pictured), Director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) , told a federal forum this week that the COGCC has investigated hundreds of complaints about water contamination related to hydraulic fracturing, “and to date we’ve not found any instances of groundwater contamination.” Neslin reportedly did not offer any comments about the operations associated with fracking that are vital to the practice.

These operations include mixing, transporting and injecting millions of gallons of toxic fracking fluid into the ground, through aquifers via cement casings. Gas companies must also safely dispose of the wastewater produced by fracking that is laced with toxic chemicals and radioactivity.

Neslin has repeatedly omitted these essential processes from of his discussions of hydraulic fracturing and water contamination. Following his testimony at a congressional hearing in the nation’s capitol earlier this month, Neslin spoke on camera to the Checks and Balances Project and said that cracked pipe casings and leaky wastewater pit liners were not considered part of hydraulic fracturing process that he had just promoted to the senators. During the hearing, like yesterday’s BLM meeting in Golden, Colorado, Neslin repeated that the COGCC had no “verifiable evidence” that fracking has lead to ground water contamination in Colorado.

MORE:

-To see the Checks and Balances report on David Neslin’s definition of hydraulic fracturing click here.

-Read the Greeley Tribune’s report on the federal fracking forum in Colorado this week by clicking here.

-To read about Chesapeake Electric’s suspension of fracking in Pennsylvania after a fracking explosion sent chemicals into nearby waterways click here.