The broad question of possible problems in having 20 separate federal departments and agencies evaluate a breakthrough oil and gas exploration and production technology has become specific.
Republican leaders of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee expressed concerns on Nov. 30 that a Department of US Health and Human Services (HHS) agency's director may be bringing prejudices to the federal Interagency Working Group studying hydraulic fracturing and other shale gas activities.
Recent shale gas discoveries and the development of new energy production technologies have led the US into an energy renaissance, Chairman Fred Upton (Mich.) and four other top Republicans on the committee said in a letter to HHS Sec. Kathleen Sibelius.
"Your department could play a key role in deliberations of the Interagency Working Group, but we are quite concerned by recent actions taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and statements made by CDC officials related to shale gas development," they said.
Noting that CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) plans to broadly study potential health impacts from shale gas development activities, the federal lawmakers said ATSDR's director, Christopher Portier, "has a public record on shale gas development that calls into question whether a study under his leadership can be objectively and validly conducted."
They quoted Portier as saying in September 2011 that shale gas development "has been a disaster in some communities" and "anecdotal evidence of environmental illness has been sufficient to warrant a more serious and systematic approach to studying it."
In January, they continued, Portier said fracing fluid contained "potentially hazardous chemical classes" and suggested that "site-by-site" work nearly well pads "is turning up data of concern."
'Already deviated'
ASTDR is conducting, or plans to conduct, at least three health consultations related to oil and gas activities, the letter continued. It urged the agency to apply a rigorous, scientific approach and work within guidelines contained in its own public health assessment manual. "However, it appears that ASTDR has already deviated from that manual," it said.
Specifically, the letter said ASTDR classified substances that occur naturally in groundwater as contaminants, and reviewed data from a single sample event instead of all the available information. It also urged the agency to apply appropriate peer review to its studies and designate them highly influential scientific assessments.
The committee's staff requested a CDC briefing on Sept. 12 but has yet to hear back from the agency, Upton and the four other Republicans told Sibelius.
"We are reviewing the letter and plan to respond directly to the committee," an HHS spokesperson said on Dec. 3 in response to OGJ's inquiry.