Questions and Answers about EPA's Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Related Information
Background
- Why is EPA doing this study?
- When will the study be completed?
- Will the study look at potential effects on resources other than drinking water (air, ecosystems, fish, occupational risks, etc.)?
- What research is EPA proposing to undertake, what results does EPA expect the research it conducts to provide, and when will the results be available?
- How will the 2012 report differ from the 2014 report?
- How frequently will EPA update the public on the progress of the research?
- How are drinking water resources defined in this study?
- How will the results of this study be used?
Study Plan
- How has EPA engaged stakeholders as the study plan has been developed?
- How is EPA working with other federal agencies?
- How is the final study plan different from the draft study plan?
- Did EPA expand the scope of the study?
- Did EPA incorporate all of the Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) suggestions? If not, why not?
- What is the status of EPA's work?
- What topics fall outside of this study’s scope?
- Will EPA determine specific health effects of any impacts to drinking water?
- Will this study either assess existing regulations or recommend any new regulations?
Case Studies
- Why are we doing case studies as part of the overall study?
- Where is EPA conducting case studies and how were those sites chosen?
- How will I know if my property is included in the study?
- Will EPA provide a schedule for the work to be done at each of the case study locations?
- What if citizens want to volunteer a site/property for inclusion in the study?
- What will EPA be measuring at the case study sites, and what do those measurements tell us?
- What is a retrospective case study, and how does it contribute to the greater study?
- What is a prospective case study, and how does it contribute to the greater study?
Quality Assurance Process
- How will EPA ensure that the study design and the results are not biased in any way?
- What is a quality assurance project plan (QAPP)?
- Are quality assurance project plans available for all parts of the study?
- What is EPA's review process for QAPPs?
- Will EPA provide its QAPPs for the hydraulic fracturing study to the public?
- How will EPA ensure unbiased results from the existing data analysis?
Analysis of Existing Data
- In the analysis of existing data, will EPA be considering recently published studies of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources?
- Is EPA incorporating ongoing ground water investigations, such as the ones in Pavillion, WY and Dimock, PA, into this study?
Environmental Justice
Background
Q: Why is EPA doing this study?
A: Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and the process known as hydraulic fracturing is one way of accessing this vital resource. Serious concerns have been raised by citizens and their representatives about the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water, human health and the environment. These concerns demand further study. In its FY2010 Appropriations Committee Conference Report, Congress directed EPA to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using the best available science, independent sources of information, and to conduct the study in consultation with others using a transparent, peer-reviewed process. EPA announced in March 2010 that it would conduct a research study to investigate the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.
Additionally, natural gas from hard-to-extract sources, called “unconventional” sources (such as shale), is expected to account for a growing fraction of natural gas supplies. Water is used throughout the extraction process and anecdotal evidence indicates potential adverse impacts on drinking water resources. This study is intended both to provide data where there is a lack of adequate information and to contribute to resolving scientific uncertainties.
Q: When will the study be completed?
A: A first report of results is expected by the end of 2012. However, certain portions of the work will be long-term projects that are not likely to be finished at that time. An additional report of study findings will be published in 2014 as the longer-term projects progress.
Background:The draft study plan was submitted to EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) for review in March 2011. Consistent with the operating procedures of the SAB, stakeholders and the public were asked to provide comments for the SAB to take into account during their review. EPA has taken all these comments into consideration in the final study plan, which was released on November 1, 2011. Initial study results are expected by the end of 2012. However, certain portions of the work will be long-term projects that are not likely to be finished at that time. An additional report of study findings will be published in 2014 as the longer-term projects progress.
Q: Will the study look at potential effects on resources other than drinking water (air, ecosystems, fish, occupational risks, etc.)?
A: No, the current study focuses on potential impacts to drinking water resources. However, the draft study plan identifies important areas that merit further research, including potential impacts on air, ecosystems, occupational risks and other topics.
Q: What research is EPA proposing to undertake, what results does EPA expect the research it conducts to provide, and when will the results be available?
A: By 2012, EPA expects to have results from data analysis, modeling and partial results from retrospective case studies available to inform a preliminary assessment of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.
By 2014, we will have additional results from data analysis modeling, and retrospective case studies, as well as results from laboratory work and the prospective case studies to expand our assessment of impacts of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.
While research is under way, if EPA finds results of urgent concern regarding public health or environmental impacts, particularly in evaluation of local situations, we will immediately notify the appropriate parties and begin action.
Q: How will the 2012 report differ from the 2014 report?
A: The 2012 report will include:
- analysis of data collected from multiple sources,
- results of modeling potential impacts of various aspects of hydraulic fracturing,
- studies of the formation of brominated disinfection by-products during the treatment of hydraulic fracturing waste waters,
- portions of the retrospective case studies that have undergone quality assurance and quality control review, and
- the environmental justice assessment.
Q: How frequently will EPA update the public on the progress of the research?
A: EPA is committed to updating the public as we make progress. Updates on the study will be provided quarterly and may take place in a variety of formats, including web updates, briefings via webinar, etc.
Q: How are drinking water resources defined in this study?
A: For this study, drinking water resources include any body of ground or surface water that could now or in the future be a source of public or private drinking water.
“Ground water” includes water found underground—usually in aquifers, which supply wells and springs. “Surface water” includes all water naturally open to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, impoundments, seas, estuaries, and so on.
Q: How will the results of this study be used?
A: The results of this study will inform the public and provide policymakers at all levels with sound scientific knowledge that can be used in decision-making processes.
Study Plan
Q: How has the EPA engaged stakeholders as the study plan has been developed?
A: Stakeholder input has played, and will continue to play, an important role in the hydraulic fracturing study. EPA has engaged stakeholders in the following ways:
Federal, State, and Tribal Partner Consultations. Webinars were held with state partners in May 2010, with federal partners in June 2010, and with Indian Tribes in August 2010. The state webinar included representatives from 21 states as well as representatives from the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, the Ground Water Protection Council, and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. The federal partners included the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Energy , the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park Service. There were 36 registered guests for the tribal webinar representing 25 tribal governments. In addition, a meeting with the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force was held in August 2010 and included 20 guests from the Onondaga, Mohawk, Tuscarora, Cayuga, and Tonawanda Seneca Nations. The purpose of these consultations was to discuss the study scope, data gaps, opportunities for sharing data and conducting joint studies, and current policies and practices of protecting drinking water resources.
Sector-Specific Meetings. Separate webinars were held in June 2010 with representatives from industry and from non-governmental organizations to discuss the public engagement process, the scope of the study, coordination of data sharing, and other key issues. Overall, 176 individuals from various natural gas production and service companies and industry association participated in the webinars, as well as 64 individuals from non-governmental organizations.
Informational Public Meetings. Public information meetings were held between July and September, 2010, in Fort Worth, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; and Binghamton, New York. At these meetings, EPA presented information on the Agency’s reasons for studying hydraulic fracturing, an overview of what the study might include, and how stakeholders can be involved. Opportunities to present oral or written comments were provided, and EPA particularly asked for input on the following questions:
- What should be EPA's highest priorities?
- Where are the gaps in current knowledge?
- Are there data and information EPA should know about?
- Where do you recommend EPA conduct case studies?
Total attendance for all of the information public meetings exceeded 3,500, and over 700 verbal comments were heard.
Other Opportunities to Comment. In addition to conducting the meetings listed above, EPA provided stakeholders with opportunities to submit electronic or written comments on the hydraulic fracturing study. EPA received over 5,000 comments, all of which were reviewed and taken into consideration in the draft and final study plan. You can view summaries of all the stakeholder meetings.
The draft study plan was reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) beginning in March 2011. Four separate SAB meetings (two teleconferences and two face-to-face meetings) were open to the public and provided additional opportunities for the public to provide information and comment to inform the SAB's review of the study. The final study plan was released November 1, 2011.
As research begins and progresses, EPA will engage interested parties through quarterly updates on activities related to the hydraulic fracturing study.
Q: How is EPA working with other federal agencies?
A: EPA has consulted with several key state and federal agencies regarding research related to hydraulic fracturing in a series of meetings. EPA met with representatives from Department of Energy (DOE), DOE's National Energy Technology Lab (NETL), the US Geological Survey, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission to learn about research that those agencies are involved in and to identify opportunities for collaboration and leveraging of resources. As a result of those meetings, EPA has identified work underway by others that EPA can use to inform its study. EPA continues to discuss opportunities to collaborate in information gathering and research with other agencies. The Agency plans to coordinate in particular with DOE on existing and future research projects. Additionally, regular meetings between EPA and DOE will be set up to follow each agency’s respective research on hydraulic fracturing and to exchange information among experts.
Q: How is the final study plan different from the draft study plan?
A: The core research questions and general study approach are the same in the final study plan as they were in the draft document. In the final study plan, we included more details about the research activities to improve the public’s understanding how we are carrying out the study.
Q: Did EPA expand the scope of the study?
A: No, EPA has not expanded the scope of the hydraulic fracturing study. The core research questions and general study approach are the same as they were in the draft document.
Q: Did EPA incorporate all of the Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) suggestions? If not, why not?
A:EPA appreciates the great effort made by the SAB to help improve EPA‘s hydraulic fracturing study plan. EPA incorporated most of the SAB’s suggestions. We did not incorporate suggestions that concerned issues that are not uniquely relevant to the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, are under the purview of other government entities, or require work that exceeded the scope of the study. You can view a table detailing EPA’s response to the SAB (PDF) (5 pp, 87 K). The table indicates where EPA incorporated individual suggestions, and where EPA did not, gives an explanation of why the suggestion was not incorporated.
Q: What is the status of EPA's work?
A: Please see the latest webinar presentation (PDF) (32 pp, 584K) for the most recent status update on EPA's Hydraulic Fracturing Study. In this webinar EPA provides updates on the work being done in the following areas:
- analysis of existing data
- five retrospective case study locations
- scenario evaluations
- laboratory studies
Q: What topics fall outside of this study’s scope?
A: EPA recognizes that the public has raised concerns about hydraulic fracturing that extend beyond the potential impacts on drinking water resources. Areas that fall outside of this study’s scope include, for instance: air impacts, ecological effects, seismic risks, specific health impacts, public safety, and occupational risks. For more information, see chapter 13 of the Final Study Plan.
Q: Will EPA determine specific health effects of any impacts to drinking water?
A: Not in the current study. An evaluation of dose-response relationships and comprehensive risk characterization are beyond the scope of this study. However, this study will summarize existing data regarding the toxicity and potential human health effects associated with HF-related chemicals of concern, and, using ToxCast, will screen selected chemicals for which data is lacking (learn more). Thus, while the study may point to chemicals associated with HF that could be toxic to human health, it will not specify the health effects at different levels of exposure to a certain chemical, nor specify what the added health risk to the community might be.
Q: Will this study either assess existing regulations or recommend any new regulations?
A: No. This study is being conducted by EPA’s Office of Research and Development, the scientific research arm of EPA, and thus will neither assess current nor recommend any new regulations.
Case Studies
Q: Why are we doing case studies as part of the overall study?
A: Case studies are important to help us understand what has actually happened at sites that have been hydraulically fractured. In its 2010 report, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) emphasized the importance of EPA conducting 5-10 in-depth case studies to better understand the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources." EPA has responded to SAB's recommendation by identifying seven case studies that represent a range of regional and geological variability. The information we gather from these case studies will be part of an approach which includes literature review, collection of data and information from states, industry and communities, laboratory work and computer modeling. The combination of these materials will allow us to do a more comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. Learn more about the case study locations and the criteria for selecting those locations.
Q: Where is EPA conducting case studies and how were those sites chosen?
A:EPA has selected seven case studies that the Agency believes will provide the most useful information about the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources under a variety of circumstances.
Two sites are prospective case studies where EPA will monitor key aspects of the hydraulic fracturing process at future hydraulic fracturing sites. They are located in:
- Haynesville Shale - DeSoto Parish, Louisiana
- Marcellus Shale - Washington County, Pennsylvania
The five retrospective case studies, which will investigate reported drinking water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing operations at existing sites, are located in:
- Bakken Shale - Kildeer, Dunn County, North Dakota
- Barnett Shale - Wise County, Texas
- Marcellus Shale - Bradford and Susquehanna Counties, Pennsylvania
- Marcellus Shale - Washington County, Pennsylvania
- Raton Basin - Colorado
The case studies were identified, prioritized and selected based on a rigorous set of criteria and site visits by EPA scientists who will be conducting the research. Decision criteria included proximity of population and drinking water supplies, evidence of impaired water quality (retrospective only), health and environmental concerns (retrospective only) and knowledge gaps that could be filled by the case study. Sites were prioritized based on geographic and geologic diversity, population at risk, site status (planned, active or completed), unique geological or hydrological features, characteristics of water resources, and land use.
Background: EPA invited stakeholders nationwide to nominate potential case studies through informational public meetings and the submission of electronic or written comments. Of the 48 case studies nominated, EPA selected seven for inclusion in the study. Learn more about the case study locations and the criteria for selecting those locations.
Q. How will I know if my property is included in the study?
A. EPA will inform the owners of the properties selected to be part of the study in the coming months as schedules and workplans for each of the case studies are developed.
Q. Will EPA provide a schedule for the work to be done at each of the case study locations?
A. EPA is working closely with local authorities, landowners, and other key stakeholders to determine when we can schedule access to sites that are included in the study. We are not able to provide a schedule at this time.
Q. What if citizens want to volunteer a site/property for inclusion in the study?
A. An opportunity was provided for the public to nominate sites for inclusion in the study when EPA began work on developing the study. The formal process of identifying potential study sites is now closed, and the general locations of the case studies have been determined.
If you have specific concerns about a particular site selected for the study, or have concerns about another property, please contact the tip line at 1-877-919-4372 (toll free), or email eyesondrilling@epa.gov.
Q: What will EPA be measuring at the case study sites, and what do those measurements tell us?
A: In retrospective case studies, researchers will take field samples to verify and determine the cause of reported drinking water contamination. In prospective case studies, field sampling and monitoring will be conducted to identify baseline conditions of the site prior to drilling and fracturing. Additionally, data will be collected during each step of the oil and gas drilling operation, including hydraulic fracturing of the formation and oil or gas production. This will allow us to monitor changes in drinking water resources as a result of hydraulic fracturing. See table H1 in Appendix H of the Study Plan to learn about the monitoring and measurement parameters used at case study sites.
Q: What is a retrospective case study, and how does it contribute to the greater study?
Scientists will conduct two different types of case study: the retrospective case study and the prospective case study.
Retrospective case studies occur at sites where HF has already occurred, and where contamination of drinking water resources has been reported.
Goals: Researchers will first determine whether contamination has occurred. If so, they will then identify the cause of contamination.
Contribution: Retrospective case studies may provide information about which, if any, specific geologic and HF conditions could contribute to impacts on drinking water resources by HF activities. This is important because the conditions under which HF occurs at one site may vary widely from the conditions at another site, so that the potential for impacts on drinking water resources could also be different.
Q: What is a prospective case study, and how does it contribute to the greater study?
In prospective case studies, research at the site begins before HF occurs, and then continues during and after HF activities.
Goals: Scientists will determine whether, during the limited period of the study, HF activities led to any impacts to drinking water resources. The data will also be evaluated to consider the potential for impacts to arise after the study period.
Contribution: Because baseline data can be collected, clear comparisons can be made between the conditions of drinking water resources prior to and at all stages of the HF water cycle, and for up to a year after HF occurs. Collecting samples as HF is occurring also provides the opportunity to more directly observe the behavior of HF fluids in the environment throughout the fracturing lifecycle. =
Quality Assurance Process
Q: How will EPA ensure that the study design and the results are not biased in any way?
A: The study itself will be conducted according to the SAB reviewed study plan and adhere to a rigorous application of the agency's quality assurance principles. This approach will ensure that results generated are scientifically sound.
The results of the study will be synthesized in a 2012 report and a 2014 report that will undergo a quality assurance review, a thorough peer review process, including an internal agency review, and a review by the Science Advisory Board that includes the opportunity for public comment.
Furthermore, EPA has engaged multiple stakeholder groups in the planning process in an effort to ensure that the study is conducted in an unbiased and objective manner. These stakeholder groups include the public, industry, non-governmental organizations, federal, state, interstate, and tribal agencies.
Q: What is a quality assurance project plan?
A: A quality assurance project plan (QAPP) describes procedures that ensure that only valid data are generated and used in our study. QAPPs are internal scientifically deliberative documents that describe the methods and quality assurance protocols used in our study. It is an internal planning document prepared, reviewed, and approved by agency technical and quality assurance experts. The QAPP may be updated throughout a project to document changes needed to the initial approach based on results obtained or observations made during the study.
Q: Are quality assurance project plans available for all parts of the study?
A: Quality assurance project plans are developed for all parts of the study for which research has been initiated. They are dynamic documents. Based on early outcomes in individual research projects, we may need to modify our initial plans before moving on to next steps. In all instances, any such modifications will be completely within the bounds of the study plan, both substantially and geographically, and will be subject to the same review and approval process as the initial quality assurance project plan.
Q: What is EPA’s review process for quality assurance project plans ?
A: Quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) are reviewed and approved by an independent quality assurance manager. In addition, for this study senior technical research leads also review and approve the quality assurance project plans to ensure the data generated will meet the research goals as stated in the study plan. QAPPs must be approved before work can begin. Any modified QAPP must be subjected to the same review and approval process as the initial plan.
Q: Will EPA provide its quality assurance project plans for the hydraulic fracturing study to the public?
A: Yes, the quality assurance project plans are available to view and print on our "Quality Assurance Project Plans for the Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan" page.
Q: How will EPA ensure unbiased results from the existing data analysis?
A: Analysis of existing data includes data from peer-reviewed literature, state and federal agencies, industry responses to information requests, and data obtained from various publically available databases. We will consider data that is submitted to us from a variety of sources, but will always give priority to that literature which is peer-reviewed. EPA rigorously adheres to Quality Assurance Guidelines, which qualify the source and reliability of the information analyzed.
Analysis of Existing Data
Q: In the analysis of existing data, will EPA be considering recently published studies of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources?
A: Yes, relevant, peer-reviewed studies will be considered in the report.
Q: Is EPA incorporating ongoing ground water investigations, such as the ones in Pavillion, WY and Dimock, PA, into this study?
A: Ground water investigations are distinct from the retrospective and prospective case studies conducted as a part of this study, and so they cannot be used as case studies. However, ground water investigations such as these will be considered in this study’s analysis of existing data, once they have undergone peer review.
Environmental Justice
Q: What information will the Environmental Justice screening provide, and how will those results be used?
A: The EJ screening is intended to provide an initial look in assessing whether HF occurs more often near communities with environmental justice concerns. Consistent with the framework of the study plan, the environmental justice assessment will consider the spatial locations of the activities associated with the five stages of the water lifecycle: water acquisition, chemical mixing, well injection, flowback and produced water, and wastewater treatment and waste disposal. Each stage of the water lifecycle can be categorized as either occurring onsite (chemical mixing, well injection, and flowback and produced water) or offsite (water acquisition and wastewater treatment/disposal). Because water acquisition, onsite activities and wastewater treatment/disposal generally occur in different locations, EPA has identified three secondary research questions: =
- Are large volumes of water for hydraulic fracturing being disproportionately withdrawn from drinking water resources that serve communities with environmental justice concerns?
- Are hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells disproportionately located near communities with environmental justice concerns?
- Is wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations being disproportionately treated or disposed of (via POTWs or commercial treatment systems) in or near communities with environmental justice concerns?
EPA expects the research outlined above to produce information on the demographics of communities where treatment and disposal of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations at the prospective case study sites has occurred.