COMPARING AND COMMUNICATING THE RISKS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF SHALE FOR NATURAL GAS OCTOBER 2014 GWPC ANNUAL FORUM SEATTLE, WA

Transcription

1 COMPARING AND COMMUNICATING THE RISKS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF SHALE FOR NATURAL GAS OCTOBER 2014 GWPC ANNUAL FORUM SEATTLE, WA

2 DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? Throughout the meeting, Ms. Wood and others continued pressing County Commissioner Smith about potential risks involved in fracking. Smith responded that their accusations either weren't true or were overstated. He said, There is way more risk from your septic system or spraying your crops than from hydraulic fracturing. The tension grew until the moderator cut off questions because the meeting had already run past its allotted time.

3 THERE ARE RISKS FROM HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT ALL HUMAN USES OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY HAVE RISKS TECHNICALLY ASSESSED RISK AND PERCEIVED RISK ARE OFTEN VERY DIFFERENT BOTH MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN COMPARING AND COMMUNICATING RISK IF NOT RISK COMPARISONS WILL BE INEFFECTIVE

4 RISK CAN HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS What are the risks of hydraulic fracturing? Risk refers to a range of possible negative consequences Often does not consider probability What is the risk that hydraulic fracturing will contaminate drinking water? Risk refers to the probability of a specific outcome Question often answered with a lot of science and math Is fracking risky? Risky refers to serious negative outcomes that have a substantial probability of occurrence Is it safe? Should I be worried? Implies consideration of risk management People define and communicate about risk in different ways

5 RISK IS IN THE MIND OF THE PERCEIVER FACTS CAN BE HELPLESS WHEN UP AGAINST PERCEPTION RISK = function technically assessed risk and risk perception factors Because people perceive risks in multi-attribute terms, comparing risks on one or two calculated metrics is often ineffective For example based on probability comparison There s a greater chance you will get hit by lightening than. These comparisons can be viewed as trying to persuade someone that their perception of the risk is wrong They can also be viewed as telling someone what risks are acceptable The risk assessor gets frustrated and the audience becomes mistrustful (and angry)

6 RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS (NOT ALL INCLUSIVE) LESS RISKY Voluntary Controlled by Self Fair Familiar/Non-Intimidating Human or nature caused Trustworthy Source Affects Adults Latent Risk Sensed Reversible Less media coverage MORE RISKY Involuntary Controlled by Others Unfair Complicated/Intimidating Industry or technology caused Untrustworthy Source Affects Children Immediate Risk Not Sensed Irreversible More media coverage

7 COMMISSIONER SMITH S COMPARISON REVISITED Compare risks to water from: Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas Atrazine use on crops Septic systems But compare both technically assessed risk and perceived risk

8 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS RISK = function exposure and hazard and probability 1. EXTENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE 2. NATURE OF HAZARD 3. PROBABILITY OF HAZARD 4. ABILITY TO MANAGE RISKS

9 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 1. EXTENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE

10 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 1. EXTENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE Between 60 and 80 million pounds of atrazine are used each year, mainly on corn crops.

11 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 1. EXTENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE With one-third of the U.S. population using septic systems, over 1 trillion gallons of waste per year is disposed of below the ground's surface from individual septic systems

12 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 1. EXTENT OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE

13 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 2. NATURE OF HAZARD (to water) HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR SHALE GAS Chemical additives (some undisclosed) Brine/metals/organics in wastewater Methane Leakage from casing and cement Wellhead blowout Spills Leaks from tanks and impoundments (Upward migration from shale) Localized probabilistic exposure Wide array of health endpoints Possible taste/odor impacts Explosion/fire (methane) ATRAZINE USE ON CROPS Atrazine Metabolites Spraying Leaching and runoff Widespread continuous exposure Endocrine disruptor; liver damage Pregnancy/Child concern Bacteria Virus Parasites Nitrates SEPTIC SYSTEMS Failure and discharge Leaching Surface Breakout/Runoff Widespread continuous exposure Can flourish Nitrates - blue baby syndrome Acute gastrointestinal illness Parasites

14 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 3. PROBABILITY OF HAZARD Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas General agreement - Risk is from near surface casing/cementing leaks, spills, blowouts and wastewater disposal problems From 2011 MIT study: Type of incident Number reported Percent of total Groundwater contamination by methane 20 50% On-site surface spills 14 35% Off-site disposal issues 4 10% Blowouts 2 5% No incidents are reported which conclusively demonstrate contamination of shallow water zones with fracture fluids

15 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 3. PROBABILITY OF HAZARD Atrazine Use on Crops Atrazine is commonly detected in drinking water in the United States USEPA study 14.6% of 1,300 public water supply wells contained atrazine and its metabolites Texas study detected in 36% of wells most common chemical Source: USGS 2012

16 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON METRICS 3. PROBABILITY OF HAZARD Septic Tank Systems USEPA Septic tank systems are the most frequently reported sources of groundwater contamination in the United States Between 10 and 20% of all onsite systems are not adequately treating waste (actual failure rates are unknown) Half are more than 30 years old, and more likely to malfunction Data collected by states attribute septic systems to water quality impairments in 22,909 miles of rivers and streams; 199,995 acres of lakes, reservoirs and ponds; and 72,320 acres of wetlands

17 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMPARISON TECHNICAL RISK FACTOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR SHALE GAS ATRAZINE USE ON CROPS SEPTIC SYSTEMS EXPOSURE Activity widespread Probabilistic (spills, etc.) Activity widespread Continuous Activity widespread Continuous HAZARD Acute systemic effects Uncertain Explosion/Fire Endocrine effects Uncertain PROBABILITY Relatively low frequency 15% public water supplies contain atrazine Biological effects Known Most frequently reported source of groundwater contamination in US MANAGE RISKS Highly regulated Highly monitored Highly enforced Farmers manage Monitor water not application Difficult to enforce Owners manage Difficult to monitor Difficult to enforce

18 PERCEIVED RISK RISK = function risk perception factors and information Information may be correct or incorrect Information may be complete or incomplete Information may be understood or not understood Assessment of quality and importance of information is a judgment by the perceiver

19 RISK PERCEPTION FACTOR COMPARISON WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR SHALE GAS ATRAZINE USE ON CROPS SEPTIC SYSTEMS Involuntary Involuntary Voluntary/Involuntary Controlled by others Controlled by others Controlled by self Complicated/Intimidating Familiar/Not Intimidating Familiar/Unseen Unfair Fair Fair Untrustworthy source Neutral source Trustworthy source Industry caused Human caused (sort of) Human caused Children exposure Children exposure Children exposure Latent risk Latent risk Immediate risk Not sensed Not sensed Sensed Irreversible Reversible Reversible Lots of media coverage Some media coverage Little media coverage

20 COMPARATIVE RISKS RELATIVE RISK RANKING HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR SHALE GAS ATRAZINE USE ON CROPS SEPTIC SYSTEMS TECHNICALLY ASSESSED RISK 3 rd (lowest) 2 nd 1 st (highest) NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT INCREASE RISK PERCEPTION 11 (highest) (lowest) So a comparison of technically assessed risks of these three activities is unlikely to be effective without addressing risk perception factors This is true in general for comparisons where risk perception factors are not considered, no matter how good (or true) the technical risk comparison

21 HOW CAN WE ADDRESS RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS WHEN COMMUNICATING ABOUT RISKS FROM HYDRAULIC FRACTURING? RISK PERCEPTION FACTOR Involuntary Controlled by others Complicated/Intimidating Unfair Untrustworthy source Share plans for well development ahead of drilling Solicit public comments not just notices Stakeholder participation in risk management plans Do not tell people what is acceptable risk Careful balance needed here Use scientific language sparingly, but don t talk down Relate benefits to all exposed to risks Acknowledge community impacts develop solutions with community No hit and run Acknowledge risk exists and spills occur Respect people s concerns and fears Followup on questions - Deliver on promises Have trustworthy source present and evaluate risks Health Department?

22 HOW CAN WE ADDRESS RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS WHEN COMMUNICATING ABOUT RISKS FROM HYDRAULIC FRACTURING? RISK PERCEPTION FACTOR Children may be exposed Latent/irreversible risk Not sensed High media coverage Special consideration given to potential child risks Acknowledge sensitivity (not little adults ) Explain that health endpoints are acute/subchronic Use degradable, short-lived, non-carcinogenic chemicals Explain why potential for releases is short duration and limited volume Stress monitoring and reporting required and voluntary Brine taste Methane? Don t have significant releases Rapid response if they do occur Train the messenger

23 FINAL THOUGHT PERCEPTION OF RISK CAN BE PERCEPTION OF CONTROL As with previous fossil fuel booms that left long-term impacts on the environment, there is every reason to believe that the public will be stuck with the bill for many of the impacts of fracking. Current law also does little to protect against impacts that emerge over a long period of time, have diffuse impacts over a wide area, or affect health in ways that are difficult to prove with the high standard of certainty required in legal proceedings. Source: The Cost of Fracking: The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling's Environmental Damage, Environment North Carolina Research & Policy Center

24 QUESTIONS William Rish, Ph.D. Principal Hull Risk Analysis Center