I guess I should have paid more attention when I attended those webinars that EPA held regarding their Hydrofracturing Study. Their study is huge and wide-ranging. It is certainly about more than simply what underground mechanisms could transport natural gas and hydrofracturing fluid to people’s domestic water wells. And after reading the project plan and the 2012 update on research, I can see why they haven’t published a final report. This is an enormous endeavor. EPA does say though, that they are close to getting a draft report out for peer review and public review. They were supposed to have a final report at the end of 2014, but I think that was very optimistic considering the scientific studies they had planned.

In addition to looking at subsurface mechanisms for contamination of drinking water wells by hydrofracturing activities, EPA is also looking at potential routes of contamination caused by surface spills of hydrofracturing fluids and what is called flushback water. Flushback water is simply the hydrofracturing fluid coming back up the cased hole once the fracture of the oil and gas formation is completed.  It makes sense that EPA is looking at potential for contamination of drinking water aquifers from spills of flushback water. It is certainly a likely scenario if drill pads are not bermed or if fluids fill an unlined area.

And you know that hydrofracturing fluid. Well it is more than 98% water. That water has to come from somewhere, so EPA is researching impacts to available water resources in an area. This makes sense as well, since the amount of water involved is not trivial. EPA says up to 13 million gallons can be needed to conduct hydrofracturing. Of course the exact amount of water is going to be variable depending on a lot of engineering factors. It might not be a big concern say in Pennsylvania where there is a lot of water available. But think about Texas and North Dakota. Those are some pretty dry states that have serious oil and gas development. The good thing is that many oil and gas companies have gone to treating and recycling water that they use for hydrofracture, so it will be interesting to see what EPA’s final conclusions are. And in all fairness, other energy development, such as solar power, uses a lot of water in dry environments as well.

What I find really interesting though is EPA’s proposed research on treatment and disposal of hydraulic fracture wastewater. A lot of wastewater from hydrofracturing is disposed of through underground injection, a permitted activity under Underground Injection Control regulations. But a good bit of wastewater in Pennsylvania has been disposed through Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Those are your local city and county treatment plants that treat mostly sewer water. EPA will also be looking at Commercially Owned Treatment Plants where more of your industrial wastewater gets treated. Why the EPA interest, you ask? Here’s the deal. Some people are concerned that POTWs are unable to adequately treat hydrofracture wastewater. The wastewater contains a lot of chloride and bromide and what is termed NORM or naturally occurring radioactive material. NORM is not an additive. NORM comes from the formation being fractured and comes back up with the fracturing fluid. So if it is not being treated it goes out into the river at the POTWs discharge point. Downstream from the POTWs are city and county intakes for public water supply. The river water captured for water supply is treated for public consumption. EPA wants to see if the treatment plants for the public water supply are capable of treating the river water to EPA’s drinking water standards.

More about these different studies in posts to come.