 New research will fuel protests against fracking |
Regulatory bodies including local
authorities are ill equipped to properly assess the public health risks posed
by fracking according to new research published this week.
The research from Stirling University
explores existing evidence looking at regulation and industry practice from a
public health perspective. Its findings raise a serious question mark over
Government claims that regulators such as the Environment Agency, HSE and local
government will be able to ensure the safety of fracking.
First joint co-author of the report and head of occupational and
environmental health at Stirling, Professor Andrew Watterson, said: ‘A constant
refrain from a number of UK inquiries into fracking and from the industry
itself is that everything will be fine as long as there is robust regulation
and good industry practice. The evidence to support this view from our analysis is remarkably thin
and nor is it supported in any way by Westminster’s current de-regulatory
regime.’
In particular Prof Watterson questions whether the resources available
to local government are sufficient for the potential task ahead.
‘Our
focus is very much public health so the environmental health aspect is strongly
in the report when looking at air pollution, water pollution, noise and dust so
all the things EHOs deal with,’ points out Prof Watterson.
‘We believe there is a major issue about
regulators understanding fracking so they can control or even identify the
problems and there are big issues from our point of view about the capacity of
regulators to check the development and for monitoring and inspection to
occur.’
The review looks at scientific and academic papers along with
professional, government agency, industry and industry funded reports. Each
case study is examined from the perspective of public health and regulation.
The review warns: ‘These reports
frequently fail to draw on independent expertise in the fields of public
health, fail to adequately explore different regulatory systems and their
drivers, and do not deal with evidence of industry malpractice. These are all
areas that should be essential to any rigorous assessment of past and future
fracking activity.’
Gary McFarlane, director of CIEH Northern
Ireland, said: ‘The point made in this report concerning the capacity and
resources within regulatory agencies in the UK is a fundamental and salutary
one and something that CIEH has been warning government on for some time,’
It also looks at experiences in America arguing
that the conventional view that regulatory standards in the USA are generally weak
is false. The report highlights comparatively high public health standards
covering fracking set out by a number of federal health and safety bodies
including the USA Environmental Protection Agency. This undermines the Government
argument that fracking will be much more tightly controlled in the UK.
The review is likely to fuel protests about
last week’s decision by communities secretary Sajid Javid to overturn
Lancashire County Council’s decision to reject Cuadrilla’s application to drill
and hydraulically fracture four wells at Preston New Road in the Fylde area.
Responding to the Stirling University
review a Health and Safety Executive spokesperson said: ‘HSE has
sufficient resource to enforce the current stage of unconventional gas
exploration. We have recently recruited new wells specialists and will continue
to review resource demands should the industry start to develop further.
‘HSE has also been allocated an extra £500k per year to 2020 to help
meet the demands of the initial phase of unconventional gas exploration. This
is being used to upskill existing specialist inspectors, so increasing the
number available for us to respond to associated demands and to increase engagement
with communities near potential well sites.’
An Environment Agency spokesperson said: ‘We take the
environmental risks associated with oil and gas exploration and production very
seriously, including hydraulic fracturing for shale gas. We are committed to
ensuring that people and the environment are protected.
‘Our regulatory controls are in place to protect people and the
environment. If the activity poses an unacceptable risk to the environment, the
activity will not be permitted.’
The CIEH has been calling for regulatory
services to be adequately resourced with the independence and expertise
necessary to ensure public safety, public health and public confidence.
‘The bottom line is that that ultimately
requires appropriately qualified and competent professionals which our members
are,’ said McFarlane.
‘The reality is that current environmental
health capacity within many English Local Authorities in particular have
already been significantly reduced through central government funding cuts. They
are already struggling to deliver an effective system of public protection. The
same is true in other central government health protection services.’
The Stirling university research is titled A rapid evidence assessment of regulation
and regulatory practices involved in fracking and it public health implications.
The review's conclusions:
- The evidence base
for robust regulation and good industry practice is currently absent. There are
multiple serious challenges surrounding location, scale, monitoring and data
deficits facing regulators overseeing onshore UGE and fracking in the UK.
- The evidence from
peer-reviewed papers suggests fracking in the UK will not be effectively
regulated. It is highly likely that regulatory agencies may lack the staffing
and resources necessary to monitor and enforce effective regulation of the
industry;
- US and UK peer-reviewed analyses and EU law identify
both the precautionary principle and prevention as keys to dealing with
fracking. This is underpinned by findings from the peer-reviewed public health
literature that already identifies significant hazards and major potential
risks from the industry.