The EPA’s “poor and sloppy” process for groundwater testing near hydraulic fracturing sites is replete with flaws, and contaminants the agency found do not show up in additional testing data, the American Petroleum Institute (API) said on Oct. 18.

API analyzed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data collected from tests sites the EPA examined in Pavillion, Wyo. The USGS did not find some contaminants ? including those deemed dangerous to public health ? that the EPA reported in a 2011 draft.

The EPA, which has drawn fire from the oil and gas industry for tying groundwater pollutants to fracing, had said that the USGS results backed up its findings.

“We’re here to tell you that it does not,” Erik Milito, API upstream director, said in a conference call.

At stake is a national EPA drinking water study that could shape future shale energy development and its potential to help boost domestic jobs, economic recovery and energy security, Milito said.

API doesn’t oppose EPA’s testing. But Milito said using the same flawed methods and making the same missteps could be magnified and lead to public policy decisions based on corrupted data.

Shortly after API’s criticism the EPA’s responded to Hart Energy questions, saying that the USGS’s data is “generally consistent” with the EPA’s draft report.

Milito said the EPA needs to “start from scratch” in Wyoming and abandon the two wells used for testing.

“It does not appear the EPA is using proven and scientific test practices” for well construction, well sampling and analysis, he said.

The EPA report said its data indicated “high concentrations” of organics associated with gasoline byproducts, diesel and other substances. Combined with other evidence, the agency said that “data indicates likely impact to groundwater that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing.”

API dissected the USGS data and found several discrepancies. For instance, USGS found levels of organics, metals, radionuclides and other materials did not exceed the EPA’s primary health-based drinking-water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).

In others cases, the USGS did not turn up the chemical compounds EPA identified at all, API’s analysis claimed.

USGS didn’t detect the presence of key chemical compounds, notably glycols and 2-butoxyethanol. In acute exposures, glycols can cause severe liver and kidney damage, while 2-butoxyethanol can induce vomiting, affect the nervous system and lead to blood in urine, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

USGS data also contradicts EPA’s findings that compounds such as xylene, toluene, isopropanol and others are present in groundwater, according to API.

Other problems API indentified include:

- Inadequate well construction. One well could not yield enough water for a representative groundwater sample, leaving the USGS unable to take a sample.
- Quality Control: EPA overlooked proper testing and Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC) procedures, failed to collect representative groundwater samples from one well and didn’t abide by standard analytical testing methods.
- EPA may have influenced USGS sampling efforts. The USGS was unable to collect samples at a well because of EPA limits on access and time.
- When USGS declined to take samples because a well didn’t meet standards, EPA did and sent those samples for analyses.
- Paint used on carbon steel casing for construction could have contained a variety of organic and metal compounds and, by scientific standards, shouldn’t be used for environmental monitoring.

Milito said API has tried to assist the EPA, noting that API standards are utilized around the world.

“We have been knocking on the door repeatedly,” he said. “We’ve met with quite a bit of resistance along the way.

The EPA did not respond to a Hart Energy question about cooperation with industry players.

In a Q&A posted on the EPA’s website, agency scientist Jeanne Briskin, a study coordinator, said that the agency would use state-of-the-art science, including the most up-to-date analytical chemistry methods in water sampling.

“We are making sure we get input from technical experts from industry all over the country, so that we have a really good technical appreciation for the technology,” she said. She added that results would be peer reviewed by the EPA science Advisory Board, an independent group of national experts.

Milito said EPA did not follow a transparent, peer-reviewed process that might have helped steer the agency away from bad methods.

The EPA initially conducted the Pavillion tests in March 2009 and April 2011 after complaints about the taste and smell of drinking water.

Other problems identified in EPA testing include improper monitoring of well construction and development; possible cross-contamination of groundwater during EPA monitoring well drilling, development and sampling; and misrepresentation of monitoring well depths in relation to drinking water well depths in the area.