Office of Research and Development

Draft Plan to Study the Potential 

Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on 

Drinking Water Resources 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

June 28, 2011
2

Public Concerns

• Ground and surface water contamination

• Air pollution

• Ecosystem impacts

• Seismic risks

• Public safety

• Occupational risks
3

Purpose of the Study Plan

• Best available science

• Independent sources of information

• Transparent, peer-reviewed process

• Consultation with others 

In its FY 2010 Appropriations Committee 

Conference Report, Congress directed EPA to 

study the relationship between hydraulic 

fracturing and drinking water, using:
4

Purpose of EPA’s Study

• To assess the potential impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources

• To identify the driving factors that affect the 

severity and frequency of any impacts

This study is not intended to determine or 

evaluate best management practices.
5

Study Plan Development

• Science Advisory Board recommendations

– Scoping document review (April 2010)

– Draft study plan review (March-May 2011)

– Full committee review (July 5, 2011)

• Stakeholder input

• Literature review

• Internal EPA review 

• External federal agency review

EPA’s draft study plan focuses on the water 

cycle in hydraulic fracturing.
6

Past Stakeholder Input

• State and tribal consultations

– Included interstate agencies (IOGCC, GWPC and others)

• Sector-specific meetings

– Industry and non-governmental organizations

– Federal agencies

• Informational public meetings

– Held in Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas

– Total attendance exceeded 3,500

• Technical workshops

– Chemical and Analytical Methods (Feb. 24-25)

– Well Construction and Operations (March 10-11)

– Fate and Transport (March 28-29)

– Water Resources Management (March 29-30)
7

Current and Future

Stakeholder Input

• Review of the draft study plan

– Interagency comments

– Comments from the SAB

– Stakeholder comments received by the SAB

• Potential partners for research implementation

– Federal partners – DOE, USGS, EPA Regional Offices

– State partners – oil and gas commissions, environmental 

agencies, interstate agencies

– Local partners – cities, landowners, residents

– Industry

– Environmental groups
8

Hydraulic Fracturing
9

HF Water Cycle

Water Treatment and

Waste Disposal

Water Acquisition

Chemical Mixing

Flowback and

Produced Water

Well Injection

How might large volume water withdrawals from ground 

and surface water impact drinking water resources?

What are the possible impacts of releases of flowback 

and produced water on drinking water resources?

What are the possible impacts of the injection and 

fracturing process on drinking water resources?

What are the possible impacts of releases of hydraulic 

fracturing fluids on drinking water resources?

What are the possible impacts of inadequate treatment of 

hydraulic fracturing wastewaters on drinking

water resources?

Water Use in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations Fundamental Research Questions
10

Research Approaches

• Gather and analyze existing data

• Case studies

• Scenario evaluations

• Laboratory studies

• Toxicological assessments

Water Acquisition Chemical Mixing Well Injection

Flowback and Produced Water Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal
11

Qualitative Risk-Based

Approach to Prioritize Research

• Relevance: Only work that may directly inform an 

assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources was considered. 

• Timing: Work that needs to be completed before other 

work can be initiated received a higher priority.

• Unique contribution: Work already underway by 

others received a lower priority for investment by EPA.

• Leverage: Work that EPA can leverage with coinvestigators received a higher priority.

• Funding: Work that is valuable but not affordable with 

the current budget was identified for consideration in 

later years.
12

Analysis of Existing Data

• Peer-reviewed literature

• Federal agencies – USGS, DOE, ACE

• State regulatory agencies – DEPs, DEQs

• Industry – HF service companies

• Other public sources 

Sources of Existing Data

These data will be used to inform other research 

activities and to provide current 

information on hydraulic fracturing operations.

Water Acquisition Chemical Mixing Well Injection

Flowback and Produced Water Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal
13

Case Studies

• Opportunity to evaluate hydraulic fracturing in different parts of 

the U.S.

• Retrospective and prospective

• Identification and selection

– Stakeholder suggestions

• 4 public meetings

• EPA website input

• Webinars

• Conferences (e.g., GWPC, IOGCC)

• Face-to-face meetings with state agencies, affected homeowners,

and non-governmental organizations 

• EPA regional office input 

More than 40 locations for potential case studies

have been brought to our attention.

Water Acquisition Chemical Mixing Well Injection

Flowback and Produced Water Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal
14

Case Studies 

Nomination/Prioritization Criteria

• Geographic, land use variations

• Geologic diversity

• Proximity to populations potentially at risk

• Magnitude/Intensity of HF activity

• Impairment evidence (retrospective)

• Health and environmental concerns

• Available existing data

• Site access

• Potential to collaborate with others

• Ability to fill knowledge gap on HF and drinking water
15

Case Study Locations

Prospective Case Studies

Haynesville Shale – DeSoto County, LA

Marcellus Shale – Washington County, PA

Retrospective Case Studies

Bakken Shale – Killdeer, Dunn County, ND

Barnett Shale – Wise and Denton Counties, TX

Marcellus Shale – Bradford and Susquehanna Counties, PA

Marcellus Shale – Washington County, PA

Raton Basin – Las Animas County, CO

Case studies will use existing data and will

include environmental field sampling, modeling, and/or

parallel laboratory investigations.
16

Retrospective Case Studies

Location Key Issues / Impacts

Bakken Shale (oil)

Killdeer, Dunn Co., ND

• Production well failure during horizontal fracturing

• Potential contamination of USDW, adjoining streams, soils

Barnett Shale (gas)

Wise and Denton Cos., TX

• Spills, impoundment leaks, degraded water quality in 

private wells

• Potential contamination of USDW (private wells)

Marcellus Shale (gas) 

Bradford and Susquehanna 

Cos., PA

• Spills, leaks, methane in private wells

• Potential contamination of USDW, streams, soils

Marcellus Shale (gas)

Washington Co., PA

• Impoundment leaks, spills

• Potential contamination of USDW, streams, soils

Raton Basin (CBM)

Las Animas Co., CO

• Degraded water quality in private wells

• Potential contamination of USDW
17

Scenario Evaluations

• Explore potential cumulative impacts from water 

withdrawals in a humid region and a semi-arid region

• Model various failure scenarios to determine the 

conditions under which subsurface contaminant migration 

may occur

– Improper or inadequate well construction

– Fractures reaching pre-existing wells or existing faults/fractures 

near the HF site

– Fractures reaching ground water aquifers or permeable formations 

that communicate with ground water resources

• Explore potential cumulative impacts from surface water 

disposal of treated HF wastewater

Water Acquisition Chemical Mixing Well Injection

Flowback and Produced Water Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal
18

Laboratory Studies

Laboratory studies will be targeted studies

to investigate the ultimate fate and transport

of chemical contaminants of concern. 

Water Acquisition Chemical Mixing Well Injection

Flowback and Produced Water Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal

• Pilot-scale studies of HF wastewater treatability via 

conventional wastewater treatment technologies

• Explore reactions between HF fluid chemical additives 

and relevant environmental media (e.g., shale, soil)

• Modify existing analytical methods to support case 

study field monitoring activities
19

Toxicological Assessments

Water Acquisition Chemical Mixing Well Injection

Flowback and Produced Water Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal

Where necessary, EPA may pursue additional toxicological 

studies (e.g., QSAR, ToxCast) to assess the

toxicity associated with chemical contaminants of concern.

Examples of

HF Fluid Additives

Examples of

Naturally Occurring Substances

Brine

Methane

Hydrogen sulfide

Lead

Arsenic

Radium

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Hydrochloric acid

Polyacrylamide

Isopropanol

Potassium chloride

Guar

Ethylene glycol

Glutaraldehyde

• Assess toxicity using existing data on chemical, 

physical and toxicological properties
20

Draft SAB Panel Report

• EPA’s use of the water lifecycle is an appropriate 

framework to characterize hydraulic fracturing and 

to identify potential impacts on drinking water 

resources

• Recommended clarifications of the proposed 

research identified for each stage of the water 

lifecycle

• Generally found EPA’s research approach to be 

appropriate and comprehensive

The full SAB will be reviewing the Panel’s report on July 5, 2011.
21

Timing

• 2011: Finalize study plan and conduct research

• 2012: Report of Results

– Analysis of existing data

– Retrospective case studies

– Scenario evaluations

– Laboratory studies

• 2014: Report of Results

– Analysis of existing data

– Retrospective and prospective case studies

– Scenario evaluations

– Laboratory studies

– Toxicological studies
22

Conclusions

• This study will assess the potential impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources by answering:

Water Acquisition

Chemical Mixing

Well Injection

How might large volume water withdrawals from ground 

and surface water impact drinking water resources?

What are the possible impacts of the injection and 

fracturing process on drinking water resources?

What are the possible impacts of releases of hydraulic 

fracturing fluids on drinking water resources?

Water Use in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations Fundamental Research Questions
23

Conclusions

Water Use in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations Fundamental Research Questions

Water Treatment and

Waste Disposal

Flowback and

Produced Water

What are the possible impacts of releases of flowback 

and produced water on drinking water resources?

What are the possible impacts of inadequate treatment of 

hydraulic fracturing wastewaters on drinking

water resources?

• This study will identify the driving factors that affect the 

severity and frequency of any impacts
24

Additional Information

• EPA’s Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of 

Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources

– http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

• SAB review of the draft study plan

– http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21ef8525

6eba00436459/d3483ab445ae61418525775900603e79!OpenDocu

ment&TableRow=2.2#2.