April 2011

CONCEPTS
'Fracing,' PEs, and Advocacy

BY ANTHONY R. INGRAFFEA, P.E.

Kathy Caldwell, president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, wrote recently, "The profession of civil engineering involves more than engineering practice. It also involves, in part, thoughtful consideration of issues affecting the health and safety of the public." This assertion is consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics' first canon: to "hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public." These statements are coming into play in many areas of the country where a major engineering project is underway—unconventional natural gas development from shale formations using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or "fracing."

A recent poll by the Civil Society Institute found that 45% of Americans are already very or somewhat aware of controversies about fracing. For some professional engineers, "thoughtful consideration" of this issue might evolve into advocacy.

However, advocacy can be misused. There is a crucial, ethical distinction between science-based advocacy and advocacy-based science. In the former, an engineer advocates publicly for or against an engineering project based on peer-reviewed science that has quantified the risks to human health. In the latter, an engineer, perhaps swayed by outside interests or by ideology, advocates for a position based on non-peer-reviewed and biased reports, or on an unbalanced assessment of the pros and cons. How can responsible policymakers, regulators, and administrators know when engineer advocates are practicing science-based advocacy or its unacceptable opposite?

Let's use shale gas development, a major industrial operation, to illustrate this danger. In the northeastern U.S., the Marcellus shale deposit is touted by industry as potentially producing hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of gas—many years' supply for the nation—as well as high income from leasing and royalties for many landowners, jobs, energy security, and perhaps income for needy state treasuries. But doing so might require hundreds of thousands of wells, tens of thousands of well-pad sites, each requiring clearing; road, pipeline, and compressor infrastructure; and millions of heavy truck and equipment trips to and from these sites.

Each well will be fraced with millions of gallons of water and chemicals, much of which returns to the surface containing some of those chemicals, as well as salts, heavy metals, and naturally occurring radioactive materials picked up from the shale. Wide-area landscape impacts; negative impacts to air, water, and climate; the risks of heavy industrial activity without zoning restrictions; and a large-scale waste management problem are all possibilities that can have a cumulative effect over decades. It begs for good science to be done first—before starting such development, and certainly before a professional engineer should advocate for or against.

So, how might PEs be useful and ethical advocates on what might be the energy, environment, and health issue of our time? A list of best practices appeared in a recent paper in Frontiers in Ecology & Environment ("Above the din but in the fray: environmental scientists as effective advocates," by J. L. Meyer, P. C. Frujmhoff, S. P. Hamburg, and C. de la Rosa). Here are some of those practices with application examples:

• "Accurately characterize the best available, policy relevant science." Do your homework, read the peer-reviewed literature in your area of expertise, summarize its findings, and attempt to transform these into workable actions for legislators and administrators. Which technical difficulties associated with shale gas development and production might require new or different reg-ulations and enforcement, and why?
• "Clearly and thoroughly present the argument." This includes framing the problem accurately. In this case, "hydrofracing: yes or no" is not the correct problem framing. Fracing is one necessary step, but the complete problem is better framed as, "What are the societal costs and benefits to system-wide, long-term development of shale gas using unconventional means?"
• "Accurately characterize scientific uncertainty, avoid guesswork." PEs never say "it's safe," and never say "it will never work." Policy should result from rational weighing of costs and benefits, none of which can be forecast with certainty. The public, legislators, and administrators will need your help to understand principles of probability and risk. Is a reliability factor of 99.9% sufficient when there are hundreds of thousands of fracing events?
• "Avoid hyperbole." Statements like "in 60 years and a million gas wells, there has never been a case of fracing harming a freshwater aquifer" or "during fracing, 596 hazardous chemicals are blasted into the shale" inflame emotion, but do not inform policy.
• "Clearly acknowledge when expressing a personal opinion or making policy recommendations on issues that lie beyond the bounds of one's technical expertise." No single engineer can be expert in areas from geology to green-house gases. Responsible science-based advocacy requires prudence and humility, as in "I am not expert in that area."

Still hesitant about being a science-driven advocate? Remember, when communicating today with responsible legislators or administrators on such a large-scale economic, environmental, and human health issue, one is advocating not just for the present stakeholders but for generations to come.

Anthony R. Ingraffea, P.E., (ari1@cornell.edu) is the Dwight C. Baum Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University with a background in rock fracture mechanics and hydraulic fracturing. He is also a founding board member of Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Sustainable and Healthy Energy Inc.