Building Science for Environmental Protection in the 21st Century - Science For Environmental Protection: The Road Ahead - page 120

BOX 4-2 Continued
northeast. Its production has grown from a few wells in the beginning to thou-
sands of wells over the last 5 to 10 years. How well did the agency “see” this
rapid development coming? Did it hear from its “ears to the ground” in the
regional offices and recognize the issue needed an agency-wide approach?
How quickly did it grasp both water and air implications? How quickly did it
understand the potential need to revisit both its research and regulatory activi-
ties?
Innovate: Innovation can be important in something like hydrofracking in
a number of ways. For example, assessing complex hydrogeologic systems
to understand potential groundwater contamination requires a set of ad-
vanced technical skills and familiarity with the latest technologies. At the
same time, understanding the potential biologic and ecologic effects of the
large number of chemicals being used in hydrofracking requires relatively
rapid action, necessitating a decision on the applicability and utility of tools
(potentially including life-cycle assessment, health impact assessment, and
high-throughput screening) and techniques to evaluate chemical mixtures.
How has EPA met these and other needs for innovation in this case? In addi-
tion to their own actions, how well have they brought on board the skills and
experience of other agencies and the private sector?
Take the long view: While there has been a primary focus on potential
shorter-term effects of hydrofracking, it is likely, as with many cases of poten-
tial groundwater contamination, that the full potential for contamination can
only be determined with a commitment to long-term monitoring around the
facilities. EPA has been part of a government-wide effort to coordinate hy-
drofracking activities (for example, working with the US Geological Survey on
long term ground water monitoring). But to what extent is the agency looking
at any of its relevant permitting and other authorities and considering how to
build long-term monitoring and disclosure into all actions? Such an activity
would help to build an essential long-term database.
Is collaborative : There has rarely been an issue that touches on so
many public agencies at the federal, state, and local level. The US Centers
for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, US Geological Survey, De-
partment of Energy, state and local environment and health agencies, and
many others (including the private sector) are engaged in a wide range of
testing, research, and other activities necessary to assess potential risk. How
well has the agency applied the principles and ideas described above to en-
hance its collaboration on an issue like hydrofracking? What could it do to
improve that collaboration?
Beyond these four important attributes of leading edge science, hy-
drofracking also raises a number of broader challenges related to systems
thinking that are illustrative of the need for EPA to better embrace such think-
ing in all it does. For example, to what extent should EPA be stepping back
from the near-term water-quality and air-quality issues to ask more fundamen-
tal systems questions such as: What are the life-cycle implications of natural
(Continued)