UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD 

June 24, 2010 

 

EPA-SAB-10-009 

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

 Subject: Advisory on EPA’s Research Scoping Document Related to Hydraulic 

 Fracturing 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) requested that the Science Advisory 

Board (SAB) review the Agency’s draft research scoping document related to hydraulic 

fracturing. ORD developed this approach in response to the U.S. House of Representatives 

Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriation Conference Committee Directive to EPA that urged the Agency 

to conduct a study of hydraulic fracturing and its relationship to drinking water resources. ORD 

requested that SAB comment on: a) the scope of the research program; b) proposed research 

categories and topic areas, and processes for prioritizing research needs; and c) design of a 

stakeholder process that provides for balanced input. In response to ORD’s advisory request, the 

SAB Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) and additional members of the SAB met on 

April 7-8, 2010 to provide advice to ORD about this research plan and program. The Chartered 

SAB conducted a quality review of this document and approved the report on June 16, 2010 by 

teleconference. The enclosed advisory report (Enclosure C) provides the advice and 

recommendations of the Committee. 

 In general, the SAB found ORD’s overall approach and scope for the hydraulic fracturing 

research plan and program appropriate and comprehensive. The systems and lifecycle 

perspectives described in the ORD research plan for study of the environmental impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing are appropriate. The SAB recommends that initial research be directed to 

study sources and pathways of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water resources, 

especially potential drinking water sources, and that investigations eventually occur on the 

impact on water resources more generally. To support this effort, ORD should consider 

performing in-depth case studies at five to ten different locations selected to represent the full 

range of regional variability of hydraulic fracturing across the nation. The SAB also 

1
recommends that ORD emphasize human health and environmental concerns specific to or 

significantly influenced by hydraulic fracturing rather than on concerns common to all oil and 

gas production activities. 

 Finally, the SAB recommends developing a balanced, collaborative advisory group of 

stakeholders representing a broad range of perspectives, and engaging with this stakeholder 

group throughout the research process. ORD should carefully design and clearly communicate 

the objectives and process for stakeholder engagement with the research. 

 The SAB appreciates the opportunity to provide EPA with advice on this important 

subject. We look forward to receiving the Agency’s response and potential future discussions 

with the Agency. 

 Sincerely, 

/Signed/ /Signed/ 

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, Chair Dr. David A. Dzombak, Chair 

EPA Science Advisory Board SAB Environmental Engineering Committee 

Enclosures: 

A) Roster: SAB Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) Augmented for the 

 Advisory on EPA’s Research Scoping Document Related to Hydraulic 

 Fracturing 

B) Roster: EPA Science Advisory Board 

 C) Advisory Report on EPA’s Research Scoping Document Related to Hydraulic 

 Fracturing 

2
NOTICE 

This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory Board, a public 

advisory committee providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator 

and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to provide 

balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This 

report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the contents of this report 

do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor 

of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade 

names or commercial products constitute a recommendation for use. Reports of the EPA 

Science Advisory Board are posted on the EPA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab. 

3
Enclosure A 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board 

SAB Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) Augmented for the 

Evaluation and Comment on EPA’s Proposed Research Approach for 

Studying the Potential Relationships Between Hydraulic Fracturing and 

Drinking Water Resources 

CHAIR 

Dr. David A. Dzombak, Walter J. Blenko Sr. Professor of Environmental Engineering, 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 

Pittsburgh, PA 

EEC MEMBERS 

Dr. Viney Aneja, Professor, Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, School of 

Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 

Dr. Robin L. Autenrieth, Associate Dean for Graduate Programs and Professor, College of 

Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 

Dr. John P. Connolly, Senior Technical Advisor and Principal Engineer, Anchor QEA, LLC, 

Montvale, NJ 

Dr. Herschel Elliott, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Penn 

State University, University Park, PA 

Dr. Arpad Horvath, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 

University of California, Berkeley, CA 

Dr. Cindy M. Lee, Professor, Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, 

Clemson University, Anderson, SC 

Dr. Earthea Nance, Assistant Professor of Environmental Planning and Hazard Mitigation, 

Department of Planning and Urban Studies, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 

Dr. Catherine Peters, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental 

Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 

Dr. Danny Reible, Professor, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental 

Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX 

4
Dr. Sujoy Roy, Director, Research and Development, Tetra Tech Inc., Lafayette, CA 

Dr. Mark A. Shannon, Professor, and Director, the WaterCAMPWS Center, Department of 

Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 

Dr. Paul Westerhoff, Professor and Director of the School of Sustainable Engineering and The 

Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Dr. Thomas M. Young, Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, 

University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 

OTHER SAB MEMBERS 

Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths, Associate Professor, Department of Public Health and Community 

Medicine, School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA 

Dr. Susan Korrick, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and 

Women's Hospital, Channing Laboratory, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 

Dr. Duncan Patten, Research Professor, Hydroecology Research Program, Land Resources and 

Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 

Dr. James Shortle, Professor, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State 

University, University Park, PA 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF 

Mr. Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Science Advisory Board Staff, Washington, DC 

5
Enclosure B 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board 

CHAIR 

Dr. Deborah L. Swackhamer, Professor and Charles M. Denny, Jr., Chair in Science, 

Technology and Public Policy and Co-Director of the Water Resources Center, Hubert H. 

Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 

SAB MEMBERS 

Dr. David T. Allen, Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas, 

Austin, TX 

Dr. Claudia Benitez-Nelson, Associate Professor, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences and 

Marine Science Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 

Dr. Timothy Buckley, Associate Professor and Chair, Division of Environmental Health 

Sciences, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

Dr. Thomas Burke, Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins 

Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 

Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta, Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, School of 

Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 

Dr. Terry Daniel, Professor of Psychology and Natural Resources, Department of Psychology, 

School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 

Dr. George Daston, Victor Mills Society Research Fellow, Product Safety and Regulatory 

Affairs, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH 

Dr. Costel Denson, Managing Member, Costech Technologies, LLC, Newark, DE 

Dr. Otto C. Doering III, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 

W. Lafayette, IN 

Dr. David A. Dzombak, Walter J. Blenko Sr. Professor of Environmental Engineering , 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon 

University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Dr. T. Taylor Eighmy, Vice President for Research, Office of the Vice President for Research, 

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 

6
Dr. Elaine Faustman, Professor, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health 

Sciences, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, 

WA 

Dr. John P. Giesy, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Veterinary Biomedical Sciences and 

Toxicology Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada 

Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths, Associate Professor, Department of Public Health and Community 

Medicine, School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA 

Dr. James K. Hammitt, Professor, Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard University, Boston, MA 

Dr. Rogene Henderson, Senior Scientist Emeritus, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, 

Albuquerque, NM 

Dr. Bernd Kahn, Professor Emeritus and Associate Director, Environmental Radiation Center, 

School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 

Dr. Agnes Kane, Professor and Chair, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 

Brown University, Providence, RI 

Dr. Nancy K. Kim, Senior Executive, New York State Department of Health, Troy, NY 

Dr. Catherine Kling, Professor, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 

Dr. Kai Lee, Program Officer, Conservation and Science Program, David & Lucile Packard 

Foundation, Los Altos, CA (Organizational affiliation provided for identification purposes only) 

Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing, President, Cecil Lue-Hing & Assoc. Inc., Burr Ridge, IL 

Dr. Floyd Malveaux, Executive Director, Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc., Washington, 

DC 

Dr. Lee D. McMullen, Water Resources Practice Leader, Snyder & Associates, Inc., Ankeny, 

IA 

Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus, Odum School of Ecology, 

University of Georgia, Lopez Island, WA 

Dr. Jana Milford, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado, 

Boulder, CO 

Dr. Christine Moe, Eugene J. Gangarosa Professor, Hubert Department of Global Health, 

Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 

7
Dr. Eileen Murphy, Manager, Division of Water Supply, New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ 

Dr. Duncan Patten, Research Professor, Hydroecology Research Program , Department of Land 

Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 

Dr. Stephen Polasky, Fesler-Lampert Professor of Ecological/Environmental Economics, 

Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 

Dr. Stephen M. Roberts, Professor, Department of Physiological Sciences, Director, Center for 

Environmental and Human Toxicology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

Dr. Amanda Rodewald, Associate Professor, School of Environment and Natural Resources, 

The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

Dr. Joan B. Rose, Professor and Homer Nowlin Chair for Water Research, Department of 

Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 

Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Professor and Flora L. Thornton Chair, Department of Preventive 

Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 

Dr. James Sanders, Director and Professor, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Savannah, 

GA 

Dr. Jerald Schnoor, Allen S. Henry Chair Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental 

Engineering, Co-Director, Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, University 

of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 

Dr. Kathleen Segerson, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, 

CT 

Dr. V. Kerry Smith, W.P. Carey Professor of Economics , Department of Economics , W.P 

Carey School of Business , Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Dr. Herman Taylor, Director, Principal Investigator, Jackson Heart Study, Jackson, MS 

Dr. Barton H. (Buzz) Thompson, Jr., Robert E. Paradise Professor of Natural Resources Law 

at the Stanford Law School and Perry L. McCarty Director, Woods Institute for the 

Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 

Dr. Paige Tolbert, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of 

Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 

Dr. Thomas S. Wallsten, Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology, University of 

Maryland, College Park, MD 

8
Dr. Robert Watts, Professor of Mechanical Engineering Emeritus, Tulane University, 

Annapolis, MD 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF 

Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

1400F, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-343-9981, Fax: 202-233-0643, (nugent.angela@epa.gov) 

9
Enclosure C 

Advisory Report on EPA’s Research Scoping Document 

Related to Hydraulic Fracturing 

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) has developed a proposed approach 

for a policy-relevant research program related to hydraulic fracturing. The purpose of this 

research program is to ensure drinking water protection and address related public health and 

environmental issues over the lifecycle of hydraulic fracturing, specifically as it pertains to the 

extraction of oil and gas from geologic formations. ORD developed this approach in response to 

the U.S. House of Representatives Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriation Conference Committee 

Directive to EPA that urged the Agency to conduct a study of hydraulic fracturing and its 

relationship to drinking water. 

In response to a request from ORD, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) convened 

the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) with additional members of the SAB to 

conduct a review of ORD’s research scoping document related to hydraulic fracturing. The SAB 

Committee held a public meeting on April 7-8, 2010, to provide advice to ORD about this 

research plan and program. The Chartered SAB conducted a quality review of this document 

and approved the report on June 16, 2010 by teleconference. 

Specifically the SAB was asked to comment on the following three areas: 

• Scope of the research program; 

• Proposed research categories and topic areas, and process for prioritizing research 

needs given the Congressional request and a desire by the Agency to complete initial 

research products by the end of calendar year 2012; and 

• Design of a stakeholder process that provides for balanced input. 

In general, the SAB found ORD’s overall approach and scope for the hydraulic fracturing 

research plan and program appropriate and comprehensive. Several areas, however, can be 

enhanced and focused, given the limited funding, resources and time associated with this effort. 

While a more detailed description of the technical recommendations is contained in the report, 

the key points and recommendations are highlighted below. 

 The SAB discussed the hydraulic fracturing topic on two levels: (1) broad, long-term 

research goals (e.g., within five to ten years or longer), and (2) more focused, short-term research 

needs (e.g., within one to three years). The SAB concluded that hydraulic fracturing potentially 

affects water resources and drinking water supplies and has potential to pose human health and 

environmental risks. While there is potential for other environmental impacts and human 

exposure routes for contaminants associated with hydraulic fracturing, such as air emissions and 

occupational exposures to fracturing fluids or wastes, considering the Congressional request and 

a desire by the Agency to complete initial research products by the end of calendar year 2012, 

the SAB recommends that initial, short-term research be directed to study sources and pathways 

10
of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water resources, especially potential drinking 

water sources. While current and potential impacts on human health and drinking water sources 

are a recommended starting point/priority for ORD research, investigations should eventually 

occur on the impact on water resources more generally and their aquatic ecosystems and ability 

to support fishing and recreation. 

 The systems and lifecycle perspectives described in the ORD research plan for study of 

the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing are appropriate. Considering the limited time, 

funding and resources available for the initial study by ORD, the SAB recommends using a 

lifecycle framework, without actually performing a formal lifecycle assessment, as an organizing 

tool that will facilitate identifying the most important research questions to address in the initial 

study. Questions pertaining to the impacts of the various stages of the hydraulic fracturing 

lifecycle on drinking water sources will be of primary importance and consistent with the 

research request from Congress. 

 ORD should identify knowledge gaps by outlining the hydraulic fracturing lifecycle and 

considering which components of the lifecycle pose potential risk to water resources and should 

be included in ORD’s research efforts. The SAB recommends that ORD should emphasize 

human health and environmental concerns that are specific to or significantly influenced by 

hydraulic fracturing rather than concerns that are common to all oil and gas production activities. 

As a priority, ORD should develop a preliminary risk-based research prioritization approach that 

would provide the scientific knowledge necessary for characterizing the risk of human and 

ecological exposure to hydraulic fracturing fluids and products. This approach would be 

adjusted after sources and pathways of possible exposure are much better understood. 

 Regarding potential relationships of hydraulic fracturing to drinking water sources, the 

SAB recommends that ORD carefully compile and review available data and knowledge on 

hydraulic fracturing and interaction with drinking water sources in peer-reviewed literature, in 

industry, in professional and non-governmental organizations, and in government agencies at the 

beginning of the research study. It is important to realize that the open peer-reviewed literature 

in this field is limited and other literature must be carefully critiqued regarding its limitations and 

appropriateness for addressing ORD’s specific research needs. These efforts will help ensure 

accurate identification of data and knowledge gaps, maximize use of existing information, and 

optimize use of limited research funds. Considering the range of potential environmental 

impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing and the range of geographic/geologic regions and 

site-specific conditions in which hydraulic fracturing may be implemented, the SAB 

recommends that ORD consider performing in-depth case studies at five to ten different 

locations selected to represent the full range of regional variability of hydraulic fracturing across 

the nation. In order to define relationships between hydraulic fracturing processes and drinking 

water sources, significantly improved data and information are needed on the occurrence, 

volume, composition, treatability and/or disposal of hydraulic fracturing source fluids, flowback 

water, and produced water that is co-mingled with the flowback water, and the sources of the 

constituents (i.e., additive, reaction product, or leaching product) throughout different phases of 

the hydraulic fracturing lifecycle. 

11
 Regarding potential health and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing, 

EPA can only assess and characterize such potential risks after sources and pathways of possible 

exposure are much better understood. Several activities must occur before such potential risks 

are assessed, including: a) characterization of the composition and variability of the source 

fluids, flowback water and produced water that is co-mingled with the flowback water; b) 

assessment of possible synergistic effects of mixtures of chemicals in fracturing fluids as well as 

synergistic effects of chemical mixtures interacting with materials in the fractured injection zone; 

c) evaluation of potential pathways to human and ecosystem exposure under a range of hydraulic 

fracturing process conditions relative to different geological formations and conditions; d) 

analysis of the existence and formation of hydraulic fracturing injection and product fluid 

transport pathways as a result of hydraulic fracturing; and e) identification of the conditions most 

likely to lead to impacts on drinking water resources. Another important factor to assess is the 

effect of hydraulic fracturing processes on water quantity, since changes in water quantity in 

groundwater or surface water can have significant influences on human and ecosystem health. 

Also, potential secondary effects associated with hydraulic fracturing should be considered (e.g., 

arsenic mobilization in groundwater and aquifers due to enhanced methane transport and 

resulting changes in redox conditions). 

 Knowledge of the characteristics of the injected fluids, flowback water, and produced 

water that is co-mingled with the flowback water, the reactions that occur in the injection zone, 

the characteristics of the fluids leaving the injected zone, and the pathways for the fluids leaving 

the injection zone will be needed for assessing the likelihood of impacts on human health and 

drinking water sources, exposure of humans and ecosystems to hydraulic fracturing fluids and 

products, and the associated uncertainties involved in the assessment. 

 To help ORD prioritize the lists of possible specific research questions given in the 

scoping document, the SAB recommends that ORD identify a few overarching, fundamental 

questions which can then be placed in order of priority before revising the research plan. 

Examples of such questions would be: what are the fundamental physical and chemical waterrelated processes for each phase of the hydraulic fracturing lifecycle and what are the quality and 

quantity of source fluids, flowback water and produced water co-mingled with the flowback 

water. The SAB developed additional examples which are presented in the report. 

 The SAB recommends developing a balanced, collaborative advisory group of 

stakeholders representing a broad range of perspectives. In addition to providing information to 

ORD, the stakeholder group would be engaged throughout the research process. ORD should 

carefully design and clearly communicate the objectives and process for stakeholder engagement 

with the research. One important objective for engagement with stakeholders should be to gain 

access to and leverage the existing knowledge base on hydraulic fracturing and its environmental 

impacts. There is a wealth of data and experience in industry, advocacy groups, state agencies, 

and other groups for ORD to draw upon in the research effort. It will also be important for ORD 

to engage with other federal agencies to share data, collaborate, leverage expertise, and align 

research priorities for optimal use of limited resources. 

12
B. EPA’s CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE 

Background 

In its Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriation Conference Committee Directive to EPA, the U.S. House 

of Representatives urged the Agency to conduct a study of hydraulic fracturing and its 

relationship to drinking water, specifically: 

 “The conferees urge the Agency to carry out a study on the relationship between 

hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the 

best available science, as well as independent sources of information. The conferees 

expect the study to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that 

will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. The Agency shall consult with other 

Federal agencies as well as appropriate State and interstate regulatory agencies in 

carrying out the study, which should be prepared in accordance with the Agency's 

quality assurance principles.“

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) is a well stimulation technique used by gas producers to explore and 

produce natural gas from sources such as coalbed methane and shale gas formations. The gas 

extraction process includes: site exploration, selection and preparation; equipment mobilizationdemobilization; well construction and development; mixing and injecting fracturing fluids; 

hydraulic fracturing of the formation; produced water and waste management, transport, 

treatment, and/or disposal; gas production (infrastructure for storage and transportation); and site 

closure. 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) prepared the “Scoping Materials for Initial 

Design of EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Research Study” document, and requested that the Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) review this document and 

generate ideas/suggestions on ORD’s proposed approach for developing a policy-relevant 

research program related to hydraulic fracturing. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the 

relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. ORD noted that socio-economic 

factors may also play a role in understanding how to address potential health and environmental 

concerns. To ensure that meaningful results are produced in a timely manner, ORD recognized 

the importance of clarifying the overall scope of the study, defining explicit short-term and longterm goals, and considering the types of information that might be needed to inform policy 

decisions. ORD is currently engaged in compiling available information; identifying data gaps 

and research needs; defining and prioritizing study objectives; and developing a timeline to 

implement the study. An important part of this effort will be stakeholder involvement. 

Specific Request 

ORD has requested that the SAB Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC), as augmented 

for the hydraulic fracturing review, generate ideas/suggestions and comments on the overall 

approach that will be used to frame the hydraulic fracturing study design and the areas that will 

be addressed by research. ORD is seeking specific advice on the development of the scope of 

the study, the approach to analyze data gaps and research needs, the stakeholder process, and the 

13
identification of the critical research questions. SAB feedback will be used to guide the 

development of a scientifically sound study to establish the relationship between drinking water 

resources and hydraulic fracturing as it pertains to the extraction of oil and gas from geologic 

formations. 

Charge to SAB 

1. Proposed Scope of Study: 

 Congress urged EPA to carry out a study on “the relationship between hydraulic 

fracturing and drinking water.” Key to determining the scope of the study is understanding 

whether or not the scope of the study should be narrowly focused or broadly focused, taking into 

account water resources and related public health and environmental issues over the lifecycle of 

hydraulic fracturing. 

Charge Question 1: What recommendations does the SAB EEC have regarding this 

question of scope? 

2. Proposed Research Topics: 

ORD has identified the following proposed research categories relevant to hydraulic 

fracturing pertaining to extraction of oil and gas from geologic formations and its 

relationship to drinking water: 

• Characterization of the Hydraulic Fracturing Lifecycle 

• Potential Relationships to Drinking Water Resources 

• Potential Health and Environmental Risks. 

Charge Question 2A: What recommendations does the SAB EEC have regarding these 

proposed research categories and the related questions in the scoping paper? 

Charge Question 2B: What process does the SAB EEC suggest for prioritizing research 

needs given the Congressional request and a desire by the Agency to complete initial research 

products by the end of calendar year 2012? 

3. Stakeholder Process: 

It will be critical to engage the stakeholder community in the planning process to 

establish a research program that is reflective of diverse interests and viewpoints. 

Charge Question 3: What advice does the SAB EEC offer for designing a stakeholder 

process that provides for balanced input in developing a sound scientific approach for the 

overall research strategy? 

14
C. RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE 

 The EEC reviewed the Scoping Materials document and background materials provided 

by ORD, and considered public comments and oral statements that were received. The cover 

letter highlights the outcome of the SAB’s deliberations and the recommendations, and the 

following Response to the Charge Questions provides details regarding these recommendations. 

Charge Question 1: What recommendations does the EPA EEC have regarding the 

question of scope? 

 The SAB generally supports ORD’s approach for this research, and recommends that 

ORD should follow a systems perspective, use a lifecycle framework, and address science issues 

before conducting detailed economic analyses. SAB also has several recommendations for 

adjusting the scope of ORD’s research program, including the development of plans that address 

both short-term and long-term research needs and goals, use a lifecycle framework without 

actually performing a lifecycle assessment, and focus on fundamental topics that will be relevant 

to policy formulation and on environmental concerns related to hydraulic fracturing rather than 

on concerns common to all oil and gas production activities. 

 The SAB discussed the hydraulic fracturing topic on two levels: (1) broad, long-term 

research needs/ideals (e.g., within five to ten years or longer), and (2) more focused, short-term 

research goals (e.g., within one to three years). The SAB concluded that hydraulic fracturing 

potentially affects water resources and drinking water supplies, and has potential to pose human 

health and environmental risks. Considering the Congressional request and a desire by the 

Agency to complete initial research products by the end of calendar year 2012, the SAB 

recommends that initial, short-term research be directed to study sources and pathways of 

potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water resources, especially drinking water sources. 

While current and potential human health and drinking water sources are a recommended 

starting point/priority for ORD research, investigations should eventually occur on the impact on 

water resources more generally, and their aquatic ecosystems and ability to support fishing and 

recreation. Regarding long-term research goals, since the behavior of hydraulic fractures in 

geologic formations is not well understood, EPA should plan for the potential of a long term 

involvement in this research program. 

 ORD has interpreted the charge to investigate “the relationship between hydraulic 

fracturing and drinking water” with a systems perspective, and developed a research plan with a 

related broad scope. The SAB EEC supports the systems perspective reflected in the ORD 

research plan. Environmental science has been moving toward analysis that encompasses largerscale systems, such as at watershed scale, in order to account for the inter-relationships that 

ultimately determine ecosystem health and hence the health of human communities that depend 

on these ecosystems. There is now widespread recognition that focusing too narrowly in 

assessing impacts of activities can lead to incomplete understanding of ecosystem interrelationships and health. 

15
 The use of a lifecycle framework to plan a research study on the potential human health 

and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing is appropriate. However, a formal lifecycle 

assessment does not necessarily need to be undertaken. It would be useful to develop initially a 

lifecycle framework analysis (LCF) that is a detailed outline of the components of the hydraulic 

fracturing lifecycle. The LCF would identify the components that would be included in a 

lifecycle assessment and would help identify critical knowledge gaps and topics for priority 

investigation. Considering the time and resources available for the initial study by ORD, the 

SAB recommends use of a lifecycle framework, without actually performing a lifecycle 

assessment, to identify the most important research questions to address in the initial study. 

Questions pertaining to the impacts of the various stages of the hydraulic fracturing lifecycle on 

drinking water sources will be of primary importance and consistent with the research request 

from Congress. 

 Economic analyses such as cost-benefit analysis are not included in the ORD research 

plan. The SAB supports the omission of such analysis from the ORD research plan for this 

initial study. There are a number of first-order science issues that need to be addressed first. 

 The ORD research plan has been formulated in part by the goal of conducting policyrelevant research. While it is difficult to predict which scientific results will be of greatest use to 

EPA and other government agencies when they establish policies and regulations in the future, 

the SAB believes that the research plan includes topics that will be relevant to policy 

formulation. 

 The SAB believes that ORD should emphasize human health and environmental concerns 

that are specific to or significantly influenced by hydraulic fracturing rather than on concerns that 

are common to all oil and gas production activities. For example, management of produced 

water is a concern of all oil and gas production activities but hydraulic fracturing may influence 

the quantity and quality of produced water and the ORD research plan should address those 

influences. 

Charge Question 2A: What recommendations does the SAB EEC have regarding these 

proposed research categories and the related questions in the scoping paper? 

 SAB has several recommendations regarding ORD’s proposed research categories. 

Regarding characterization of the hydraulic fracturing lifecycle, the SAB concluded that the use 

of a lifecycle framework is appropriate as an organizing tool which will facilitate identifying the 

most important research questions to address in the initial study. SAB recommends that ORD 

identify appropriate boundaries for the assessment, and focus initially on human health and 

ecological drinking water issues before eventually investigating the impact on water resources 

more generally. Regarding potential relationships to human health and drinking water sources, 

SAB recommends that ORD consider performing case studies at five to ten different locations 

selected to represent the full range of regional variability across the nation. Improved data and 

information are also needed on hydraulic fracturing source fluids, flowback water and produced 

water that is co-mingled with the flowback water. After compiling and reviewing available data 

and knowledge, ORD should identify how to best address any potential problems identified 

through this effort, such as water treatability issues, applicability of emerging treatment 

16
technologies, methods for recycling flowback water, and accidental releases. Potential health 

and environmental risks should only be assessed after sources and pathways of possible exposure 

are much better understood. ORD should consider the cumulative impacts that additional uses of 

water resources have on water quality and quantity in water resource systems where hydraulic 

fracturing activities are occurring or are being considered before identifying the exposure routes 

likely to pose the greatest human health risk. 

Characterization of the Hydraulic Fracturing Lifecycle

 

 The development and use of a lifecycle framework to plan a research study on the 

environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing is appropriate as an initial step. Lifecycle 

assessment (LCA) is a formal process for which the International Organization for 

Standardization developed an international standard, ISO 14040. However, a formal LCA does 

not necessarily need to be undertaken in this case. A full LCA for the U.S. hydraulic fracturing 

industry would be a complex undertaking, consider various spatial and temporal factors 

including the different media (e.g., air, groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment) that may be 

affected by hydraulic fracturing activities, and require significant time to complete. A lifecycle 

framework (LCF) analysis would provide a detailed outline of the components of a hydraulic 

fracturing LCA, and help focus efforts towards critical knowledge gaps and topics for priority 

investigation. 

 The LCF should be developed after ORD carefully compiles and reviews data and 

knowledge available in the peer-reviewed literature, in industry, in professional and nongovernmental organizations, and in government agencies to ensure accurate identification of data 

gaps. It is important to realize that the open peer-reviewed literature in this field is limited and 

other literature must be carefully critiqued regarding its limitations and appropriateness for 

addressing ORD’s specific research needs. ORD should also discuss the LCA framework with 

economists to help ensure that economic factors are properly considered in the development of 

potential components of a hydraulic fracturing LCA. 

 To the extent possible, in order to avoid duplicative research and focus on the 

Congressional request, the research plan and LCF analysis should focus on issues that are 

uniquely associated with or significantly influenced by hydraulic fracturing, including both 

conventional and unconventional impacts that could occur at any point in the hydraulic 

fracturing lifecycle. However, it will be difficult to separate some issues associated with 

conventional oil and gas production in the evaluation of hydraulic fracturing and movement of 

chemicals through fissures in interconnected geological formations. 

 

 Development of a lifecycle framework for hydraulic fracturing can help EPA ORD 

prioritize knowledge gaps and decide what to study. In developing the lifecycle framework, 

ORD must identify appropriate boundaries for the assessment in order to help inform and focus 

the hydraulic fracturing research planning. An important boundary issue is where to draw the 

line between hydraulic fracturing-specific questions and questions pertaining to all oil and gas 

production operations. With definition of such boundaries, LCF can be used to separate 

conventional, well-understood issues (potentially including impacts of site development, road 

construction, and trucking) from impacts that are not well understood, such as fate of chemicals 

17
in source fluids, flowback water and produced water that is co-mingled with the flowback water 

in storage ponds. Quantitative differences should be considered as possible factors 

distinguishing unconventional oil and gas hydraulic fracturing support activities from similar 

activities with conventional oil and gas projects. LCF will be useful in identifying cumulative 

risks from both conventional and unconventional practices throughout the hydraulic fracturing 

lifecycle. Boundary definition should also be guided by considering the types of comparisons 

that EPA or others may wish to undertake in the future, such as comparison of hydraulic 

fracturing impacts with those of other gas or energy production processes. 

 In developing the LCF, it will be necessary to think about the desired functional unit 

(e.g., single well, a multi-well pad, geological unit, or a watershed), the desired time horizon, and 

the most appropriate metrics (e.g., water use per unit of gas produced, total volume of water use 

for a region or watershed, number of conventional wells avoided each meter of horizontal 

drilling, mass of additives per unit of gas produced, greenhouse gas emissions per unit of gas 

produced). When choosing boundaries, time horizons, functional units, and metrics, EPA should 

acknowledge and recognize the degree to which such choices would address certain positive and 

negative impacts of hydraulic fracturing technology in the study and the degree to which such 

choices may preclude addressing certain impacts. 

 An additional boundary ORD should consider when developing the LCF is identification 

of the major threats to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing operations. For example, if 

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), and/or some 

specific toxic compounds are identified as the most significant threats to drinking water from 

hydraulic fracturing operations, it may be useful to set short-term research priorities that focus on 

such contaminants. 

 

 While there are multiple environmental impacts that could be associated with hydraulic 

fracturing, water issues are central and are the focus of the Congressional request for the research 

study. Because drinking water may be connected to many other water sources, water resources 

should be the central theme for the lifecycle framework development. Evaluation of the lifecycle 

assessment should be aimed at identifying knowledge gaps relevant to managing impacts on 

current and potential future drinking water sources and systems, and prioritizing these 

knowledge gaps for research. Although current and potential drinking water sources are a 

recommended starting point/priority for ORD research, the impact on water resources more 

generally, and their aquatic ecosystems and ability to support fishing and recreation, should 

eventually be investigated. 

 

Potential Relationships to Drinking Water Sources

 ORD should carefully compile and review available data and knowledge on hydraulic 

fracturing and interaction with drinking water resources in the peer-reviewed literature, in 

industry, in professional and non-governmental organizations, and in government agencies at the 

beginning of the research study. The analysis of this data should appropriately consider quality 

assurance/quality control requirements associated with the data. These efforts would help ensure 

accurate identification of data and knowledge gaps, maximize use of existing information, and 

optimize use of limited research funds. When compiling information on current and potential 

18
future drinking water sources, the definition of drinking water source should be broad, because 

some surface waters and deep aquifers bodies not currently considered drinking water sources 

will likely be viewed as such in the future. For example, some water supply utilities have 

conducted aquifer storage and recovery projects in which freshwater is pumped into highly 

mineralized aquifers not currently considered drinking water sources for storage and recovered 

later. The injected freshwater “bubble” is physically separated from the mineralized water due to 

hydraulic displacement and water density differences. 

 This compilation and review of existing data and knowledge will need to be conducted 

with critical evaluation of the quality and relevance of the information. For example, some 

previous studies on hydraulic fracturing were conducted for different purposes such as 

optimizing gas extraction efficiency, and the data collected and presented in this context are not 

likely to be sufficient for understanding solute generation or migration. It is important to engage 

the current state of oil and gas engineering and science to identify and evaluate existing 

knowledge and pertinent data. It is also important to realize that the open peer-reviewed 

literature in this field is limited and other literature must be carefully critiqued regarding its 

limitations and appropriateness for addressing ORD’s specific research needs. 

 Knowledge of the characteristics of the injected fluids, flowback water, and produced 

water that is co-mingled with the flowback water (e.g., physical/chemical properties), the 

reactions that occur in the injection zone, the characteristics of the fluids leaving the injected 

zone, and the pathways for the fluids leaving the injection zone will be needed for assessing 

impacts on water resources, exposure of humans and ecosystems to hydraulic fracturing fluids 

and products, and the associated uncertainties involved in the assessment. Regarding the 

characteristics of the injected fluids, the research program should particularly identify the most 

toxic chemicals commonly used as injection fluids. 

 Considering the range of potential environmental impacts associated with hydraulic 

fracturing and the range of geographic/geologic regions and site-specific conditions in which 

hydraulic fracturing may be implemented, it will be difficult to study hydraulic fracturing with 

sufficient depth and breadth for the allotted time and budget of the research study. ORD should 

identify reasonable short term goals and accomplishments (e.g., within one to three years) and 

long term goals and accomplishments (e.g., within five to ten years or longer) for this research. 

The research planning team should consider performance of in-depth case studies at five 

to ten different locations selected to represent the full range of regional variability across the 

nation. ORD has used the in-depth case study approach successfully in other multi-objective 

research programs, such as in the Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program and in 

the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program. The in-depth case study approach is 

an efficient way to conduct research on groups of systems that exhibit significant variability 

between systems. Through careful design, the case-study approach can yield in-depth process 

understanding with some degree of generalization. This approach can provide a valuable basis 

for exchange of information between resource development companies (e.g., oil and gas 

industries) and interested citizen groups. Case studies offer the potential to increase our 

understanding of human and ecological exposure in relation to hydraulic fracturing activities in a 

rapid manner. Case studies can reveal those life cycle assessment parameters of significance for 

19
hydraulic fracturing analysis. Case studies can also help identify existing best management 

practices (BMPs) that favorably affect quality and quantity of source fluids, flowback water and 

produced water that is co-mingled with the flowback water. Case studies may also provide 

information on the impact of the composition and variability of source fluids on 

flowback/produced water. For example, some operators may use different source fluid additives 

that have different implications for flowback/produced water contaminants and management 

(e.g., acidic additives may enhance metal leaching from the formation into flowback/produced 

water.) 

Case studies should be carefully designed to assess the range and variability of 

environmental and exposure conditions of areas where hydraulic fracturing is and will be 

occurring and where hydraulic fracturing fluids may be released. Characterization of potential 

pathways of exposure is very site specific and the locations for case studies should be based on a 

broad view of the hydraulic fracturing activities in location and time. Also, because of the high 

cost of installing and operating hydraulic fracturing systems, it is recommended that the EPA 

partner with industries who would develop and operate the wellsites while EPA conducts 

research at the sites (e.g., to install monitoring stations, monitoring, wells, etc). This partnering 

would promote transparency and potentially avoid the need for scale-up of research data. ORD 

should also consider the benefits of using existing vs. new hydraulic fracturing sites for case 

studies conducted in partnership with industry, including whether meaningful data can be 

produced within the time constraints associated with meeting the short- and long-term goals of 

this research program. It may take many years to assess how deeper groundwater systems react 

to fracturing. 

 In order to define relationships between hydraulic fracturing processes and water sources, 

the SAB believes that significantly improved data and information are needed on the occurrence, 

volume, composition, treatability and/or disposal of hydraulic fracturing source fluids, flowback 

water and produced water that is co-mingled with the flowback water and the sources of the 

constituents (i.e., additive, reaction product, or leaching product) throughout different phases of 

the hydraulic fracturing lifecycle. The composition of hydraulic fracturing source fluids, 

flowback water and produced water that is co-mingled with the flowback water, and the sources 

of the constituents need to be understood to provide knowledge about physical-chemical 

mechanisms governing flowback and produced water chemistry and insight into ways to control 

this chemistry. For improved detection, reliable surrogate constituents should be investigated. 

The potential and desirability of introducing tracer constituents in hydraulic fracturing fluids for 

studying fate and transport in these complex fractured systems should also be investigated. 

 To help assess impacts to water sources, ORD should consider doing mass balances on 

chemicals of potential concern and water quantity in areas where hydraulic fracturing is or will 

be occurring. Also, because impacts to water quantity affect water quality, ORD should assess 

hydraulic fracturing impacts to water quantity for both surface water and groundwater. 

 After compiling and reviewing available data and knowledge on hydraulic fracturing and 

interaction with current and potential future drinking water sources at the beginning of the 

research study, ORD should identify how to best address any potential problems identified 

through this effort, such as water treatability issues and applicability of emerging treatment 

20
technologies. The research plan should include a focused effort on treatability of hydraulic 

fracturing flowback and produced water that is co-mingled with the flowback water in several 

contexts. Research should be conducted on the effectiveness of municipal wastewater treatment 

systems with respect to hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water that is co-mingled 

with the flowback water, as these waters are often being directed to Publicly Owned Treatment 

Works (POTWs). There are new methods emerging for treatment of very high TDS waters, such 

as membrane distillation. The potential for these technologies to be effective in treating 

hydraulic fracturing process waters should be systematically investigated. Research should be 

also conducted to determine the effectiveness of existing drinking water treatment technology, 

including public water treatment and point of use technology, for removing hydraulic fracturing 

flowback and produced water constituents that become introduced to water supply sources. Such 

constituents might be introduced into drinking water sources through inadequate treatment in 

POTWs or through pathways such as stormwater runoff. In addition, Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) should be identified for treating wastewater generated during hydraulic 

fracturing options, including how to dispose of brine reject waters following treatment or solid 

salt products in some cases. 

 In developing the research study plan, specific potential uses of the results should be 

considered. If one potential outcome is to develop scientific information to facilitate assessment 

of risk at particular sites, development of site assessment methodologies and related data 

requirements and acquisition methodologies is needed. 

Potential Health and Environmental Risks

 Health and environmental risk associated with hydraulic fracturing can only be assessed 

after sources and pathways of possible exposure are much better understood. Several activities 

must occur before such potential risks are assessed, including: a) characterization of the 

composition and variability of the source fluids, flowback water and produced water that is comingled with the flowback water; b) assessment of possible synergistic effects of mixtures of 

chemicals in fracturing fluids as well as synergistic effects of chemical mixtures interacting with 

materials in the fractured injection zone; c) evaluation of potential pathways to human and 

ecosystem exposure under a range of hydraulic fracturing process conditions relative to different 

geological formations and conditions; d) analysis of the existence and formation of hydraulic 

fracturing injection and product fluid transport pathways as a result of hydraulic fracturing; and 

e) identification of the conditions most likely to lead to impacts on drinking water resources. 

Regarding the characterization of the composition and variability of the source fluids, 

flowback water and produced water that is co-mingled with the flowback water, ORD should 

consider initially focusing its research efforts towards chemicals of potential concern that are 

likely to pose the greatest human health risk and have the greatest potential for possible exposure 

to humans and ecological receptors. ORD should include naturally occurring radioactive 

materials (NORM) among the chemicals it initially focuses its research efforts towards. 

 ORD should apply current EPA guidance and scientifically sound methods for evaluating 

the potential health and environmental risks associated with human and ecosystem exposure to 

hydraulic fracturing operations. The SAB recognizes the difficulties in assessing possible 

21
synergistic effects of mixtures of chemicals in fracturing fluids as well as synergistic effects of 

chemical mixtures interacting with materials in the fractured injection zone. ORD should 

consider the current science associated with assessing the effects of chemical mixtures. EPA’s 

Risk Assessment Forum produced a document which may be useful to review: Supplementary 

Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (2000), available at the 

following Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/CHEM_MIX_08_2001.PDF. 

Also, EPA’s research strategies for an integrated, technology-based toxicological and chemical 

evaluation of complex mixtures of drinking water disinfection byproducts (available at the 

following Web Site: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=56836) may also be 

useful to review. 

 As discussed above under Potential Relationships to Drinking Water Sources, another 

important factor to assess is the effect of hydraulic fracturing processes on water quantity. 

Changes in water quantity in groundwater or surface water can have significant influences on 

human and ecosystem health. Also, potential secondary effects associated with hydraulic 

fracturing should be considered (e.g., arsenic mobilization in groundwater and aquifers due to 

enhanced methane transport and resulting changes in redox conditions). It would be helpful to 

evaluate the cumulative impacts that additional uses of water resources have on water quality and 

quantity in water resource systems where hydraulic fracturing activities are occurring or are 

being considered (e.g., pumping of water for agriculture and urban/industrial uses). After these 

efforts have been conducted, an initial analysis should be conducted that identifies the exposure 

routes likely to pose the greatest human health risk. 

 The SAB strongly recommends that the research planning team consider use of 

Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping with overlays of hydraulic fracturing activities 

and locations of human populations and ecological receptors in order to provide initial insights 

into potentially exposed populations and ecosystems and assist with the design of future health 

and ecosystem studies. GIS mapping may also assist in determining preferred locations for 

conducting the case-studies, and will serve as an initial step for subsequent studies at larger 

scales such as at the basin-wide, watershed, or regional level. 

 Occupational exposure information and data for hydraulic fracturing processes could be a 

potential source of information to guide initial evaluations. Such information could, for 

example, give some initial information on the potential health effects of mixtures of chemicals 

present in hydraulic fracturing fluids. 

 The EPA and U.S. Department of Energy are developing risk assessment approaches and 

data for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. Knowledge, tools, and data are being 

developed through these efforts that are applicable to risk assessment for hydraulic fracturing. 

The SAB encourages ORD to make use of the ongoing research and expertise pertaining to 

geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. 

 Regardless of which topics are ultimately selected for investigation, ORD should invest 

in and develop effective strategies for communicating and defending the chosen research topics 

of focus. 

22
Charge Question 2B: What process does the SAB EEC suggest for prioritizing research 

needs given the Congressional request and a desire by the Agency to complete initial 

research products by the end of calendar year 2012? 

 The SAB suggests that ORD’s initial research efforts should include compiling and 

reviewing available data and knowledge on hydraulic fracturing and interaction with drinking 

water resources. SAB recommends that ORD develop a better understanding of the 

characteristics of the injected fluids, the reactions that occur in the injection zone, the 

characteristics of the fluids leaving the injected zone, and the pathways for the fluids leaving the 

injection zone. ORD should also develop a preliminary risk-based research prioritization 

approach to characterize the risk of conditions that can lead to human and ecological exposure to 

hydraulic fracturing fluids and products. ORD should also prioritize research towards the 

reactions and transport of hydraulic fracturing fluids in the complex subsurface environment. 

Further, SAB suggests that ORD develop several overarching, fundamental questions to be 

answered in its research, and then place these questions in order of priority. 

Priorities

 As discussed under Charge Question 2A, the Committee believes ORD should carefully 

compile and review available data and knowledge on hydraulic fracturing and interaction with 

current and potential future drinking water sources at the beginning of the research study. 

 Knowledge of the characteristics of the injected fluids, the reactions that occur in the 

injection zone, the characteristics of the fluids leaving the injected zone (e.g., physical/chemical 

properties), and the pathways for the fluids leaving the injection zone will be needed for 

assessing impacts on water resources, exposure of humans and ecosystems to hydraulic 

fracturing fluids and products, and the associated uncertainties involved in the assessment. As a 

priority, ORD should develop a preliminary risk-based research prioritization approach that 

would provide the scientific knowledge necessary for characterizing the risk of conditions that 

can lead to human and ecological exposure to hydraulic fracturing fluids and products at levels 

that impart health risks. This approach would be adjusted after an initial analysis is conducted to 

identify the exposure routes likely to pose the greatest human health risk, and sources and 

pathways of possible exposure are much better understood. ORD should also prioritize research 

towards the reactions and transport of hydraulic fracturing fluids in the complex subsurface 

environment, because experience with reservoir engineering and subsurface remediation makes 

clear that there is much to learn on developing basic scientific understanding of these processes. 

 The ORD research plan provides several lists of possible specific research questions. To 

help identify priority topics for research, ORD should develop several overarching, fundamental 

questions, perhaps through grouping the many questions suggested by ORD. These overarching 

questions can then be placed in order of priority. The SAB recommends that ORD conduct such 

an exercise before revising the research plan. The SAB discussed some suggested fundamental 

questions noted below, but did not undertake to prioritize them. These are examples, and ORD 

should consider and update this list as appropriate before revising the research plan. 

Fundamental Questions

23
• What are the fundamental physical and chemical water-related processes for each phase 

of the hydraulic fracturing lifecycle (below ground and above ground in treatment 

processes and surface water)? 

• What is the quality and quantity of injected fluids, flowback water and produced water 

that is co-mingled with the flowback water? 

• How does the specific composition of TDS vary among flowback and produced waters? 

• What do field case studies tell us about the effects of hydraulic fracturing on the 

reactions, fate, and transport of injected constituents, and the fate and transport of 

potential contaminants in particular regions and geologic regimes? 

• What do field data convey about region-specific issues related to hydraulic fracturing and 

its environmental impacts? 

• In what way does hydraulic fracturing, at one or multiple sites, alter existing surface and 

subsurface flow paths? 

• What are existing best management practices (BMPs) that affect quality and quantity of 

flowback and produced water? 

• What are opportunities to develop technologies that could lead to green additives or 

improved approaches to managing process waters or waters impacted by hydraulic 

fracturing? 

• What are the mass balances for water and constituents of potential concern at a hydraulic 

fracturing site? 

• What are the scale- and magnitude-dependent long-term consequences of bore hole 

drilling, aquitard penetration, hydraulic fracturing, and post-fracturing solute 

communication between geologic formations (e.g., shales) and overlying aquifers, 

especially around transport of methane and TDS? 

To develop its research priorities regarding hydraulic fracturing, ORD should consider use of 

decision analysis techniques. Such techniques are discussed in a recent EPA Board of Scientific 

Counselors (BOSC) report: Proceedings of the EPA - BOSC Decision Analysis: Supporting 

Environmental Decision Makers Workshop (March 30-April 1, 2009), available at the following 

Web Site: 

http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/pdf/deci1005proc.pdf.

Charge Question 3: What advice does the SAB EEC offer for designing a stakeholder 

process that provides for balanced input in developing a sound scientific approach for the 

overall research strategy? 

 The SAB recommends that ORD should develop a balanced, collaborative advisory 

group of stakeholders representing a broad range of perspectives and a plan for engagement with 

these stakeholders throughout the research process. Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas 

development affects ecosystems and communities directly and is a topic of significant public 

interest. The technology also has the potential to vastly increase U.S. gas production and is of 

great interest for energy security and economic development. Early formation of an advisory 

group of stakeholders for the research effort will help inform the research, including helping the 

research teams to become aware of data and expertise that can benefit the research. To ensure 

that the stakeholder process is inclusive, collaborative, transparent, and legitimate, ORD should 

strive for broad representation on the advisory group. 

24
 The group could be comprised of representatives of industry, environmental groups, 

affected residents, state regulators, academia, EPA headquarters, regional and laboratory 

scientists and engineers, and other individuals. ORD should also consider how the stakeholder 

process and case study approach can be integrated, including whether it would be appropriate to 

include representation on the stakeholder group from the areas represented by the various case 

studies. This group could assist ORD in developing its research priorities, in accessing data held 

by the various groups, and in establishing stakeholder-based evaluation criteria. The group 

should comprise people of varying backgrounds, including representatives who can inform the 

research by providing multidisciplinary science and engineering perspectives such as in porous 

medium flow and reservoir engineering. At the conclusion of the research period, this group 

could assist other units of EPA in the transition from research results to policy recommendations. 

The group could also be used to help develop a community-based participatory research 

component that would develop technical capacity in affected communities. One approach would 

be to establish community-based sampling and testing centers in partnership with pro bono

scientists and engineers, environmental groups, universities, and residents. Household water, 

private well water, and stream samples could be tested to provide screening level information. 

Hot spots could be identified for further, more comprehensive testing. 

 EPA needs to first set clear, realistic goals, expectations and objectives for hydraulic 

fracturing stakeholder engagement and communication. Prior to developing the stakeholder 

group, ORD should decide what it desires from a stakeholder process. ORD should consider 

bringing together a small group of experts in participatory research to develop a stakeholder 

involvement process that will accomplish the results ORD desires. EPA should then develop and 

undertake various approaches for stakeholder engagement with regard to the hydraulic fracturing 

issue. The stakeholder group should be engaged throughout the research process. With respect 

to stakeholder engagement for informing hydraulic fracturing research, the needs and 

responsibilities of ORD vs. other offices within EPA need to be considered. The SAB 

recommends that ORD’s objectives and process for stakeholder engagement with the research 

should be carefully designed based on best available social science. This will help determine the 

appropriate composition and charge for the advisory group of stakeholders that will provide 

advice and information on hydraulic fracturing research activities. In addition, activities 

associated with the stakeholder group should be designed so that they do not adversely affect the 

Agency’s regulatory mandates associated with review of permit applications for hydraulic 

fracturing operations in conjunction with the states. 

 Based on submitted written and oral public comments to the draft ORD hydraulic 

fracturing research plan, it is clear that there is a wealth of data and experience in industry, in 

professional and non-governmental organizations, in state agencies, and in other groups for ORD 

to draw upon in the research effort. One important objective for engagement with stakeholders 

should be to gain access to and leverage the existing knowledge base on hydraulic fracturing and 

its environmental impacts. 

 There are many technological development activities and development and study of best 

management practices with respect to hydraulic fracturing that are ongoing in the states. It 

would be helpful if EPA engaged with relevant states to inventory and conduct performance 

25
26

evaluations of the effectiveness of state hydraulic fracturing regulatory, technological 

development and BMP activities. Among other benefits of such an endeavor, the SAB expects 

that opportunities for collaborative EPA and state research efforts will be identified through 

serious engagement with the states. 

 Through the discussions with stakeholder groups and the engagement with states, the 

SAB strongly recommends that the research planning team explore opportunities to leverage 

ongoing or planned community-based sampling and testing, with appropriate consideration of 

quality assurance/quality control requirements and utilizing community resources for meaningful 

contributions to meeting research objectives. There may be particular opportunities to engage 

community resources at case-study sites, if ORD decides to pursue case studies as a component 

of the research effort. 

 It will also be important for ORD to engage with other federal agencies to share data, 

collaborate, leverage expertise, and align research priorities for optimal use of limited resources. 

The other federal agencies who could be engaged with include but are not limited to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Department of Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In particular, the U.S. Geological 

Survey has had a number of research programs tied to fractured bedrock biogeochemistry, solute 

transport in fractures, borehole-fracture reactive transport, and other related fields that may 

provide useful opportunities for collaboration and engagement. 

 In addition, the SAB recommends that ORD develop a public communication plan that 

would explain the research prioritization efforts and research outcomes as they become available. 

The stakeholder group may be able to assist in the development of the public communication 

plan.