[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55249-55251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21946]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7269-3]


Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program; Hydraulic Fracturing 
of Coalbed Methane (CBM) Wells Report--Notice

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft report and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed a 
draft report titled, ``Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of 
Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs'' 
EPA 816-D-02-006. The draft report contains the preliminary results of 
Phase I of an investigation undertaken by EPA to evaluate the impacts 
to underground sources of drinking water (USDW) by hydraulic fracturing 
of coalbed methane wells (herein known as hydraulic fracturing). Based 
on the information collected, EPA has preliminarily found that the 
potential threats to public health posed by hydraulic fracturing of CBM 
wells appear to be small and do not appear to justify additional study. 
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the availability 
of the draft report for review and to seek public comment on the draft 
report.

DATES: EPA must receive public comment, in writing, on the draft report 
by October 28, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or 
through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as 
provided in section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Cronkhite, Ground Water Protection 
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4606M, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, PH: 
(202) 564-3878. E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of the Draft Report, ``Evaluation of Impacts to 
Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of 
Coalbed Methane Reservoirs'' and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. W-01-09-II. The official public docket 
consists of the Draft Report, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground 
Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane 
Reservoirs, documents referenced in this action, any public comments 
received, and other information related to this action. The official 
public docket is the collection of materials that is available for 
public viewing beginning August 27, 2002 at EPA's Water Docket at 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Room B135, Washington, DC 20004. The OW Docket 
is closed from August 12 through August 26, 2002, for relocation. This 
Docket Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 566-
2426.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access draft report, ``Evaluation of Impacts to Underground 
Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane 
Reservoirs,'' access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are 
available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then 
key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all 
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access 
any of the publicly available docket

[[Page 55250]]

materials through the docket facility identified in section I.A.1.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. W-01-09-II. The official public docket is the collection 
of project-specific materials. You may submit comments electronically, 
by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. The Agency would prefer that 
commenters cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or sections in the 
report or documents to which each comment refers. Commenters should use 
a separate paragraph for each issue discussed. To ensure proper receipt 
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the 
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically
    If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA 
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail 
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also 
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM 
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. 
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment 
and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance 
of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, 
and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a 
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public 
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic copies must be submitted as an ASCII, 
WP5.1, WP6.1 or WP8 file avoiding the use of special characters and 
form of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by the 
docket number W-01-09-II. Comments will also be accepted on disks in WP 
5.1 or higher, or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this notice 
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
    a. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. W-
01-09-II. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA 
will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    b. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. W-01-09-II. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    c. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that 
you mail to the mailing address identified in section I.A.1. These 
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail
    Send your comments to: EPA's Water Docket, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mail Code 4101, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Attention Docket ID No. W-01-09-II.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
    OW's Docket is closed for relocation from August 12 through August 
26, 2002. It will re-open August 27, 2002. Deliver your comments to: 
Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Room B135, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 
W-01-09-II, anytime after August 26, 2002. For access to docket 
materials, please call (202) 566-2426 to schedule an appointment. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays.

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation to your comments.

II. Hydraulic Fracturing Study Information

    Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used to improve the flow of oil 
and gas to production wells. In high-permeability formations, oil and 
gas flows into the wellbore in response to pumping. In low-permeability 
formations, however, oil and gas flow rates may be low. Hydraulic 
fracturing can create a permeable pathway deep

[[Page 55251]]

into the formation, that allows hydrocarbons to move toward the well at 
a faster rate. Hydraulic fracturing is widely used in the oil and gas 
industry, and is an important tool for exploiting alternative 
hydrocarbon resources, such as coalbed methane, that might be 
unavailable through conventional drilling practices.
    In order to hydraulically fracture the rock formation, water 
mixtures are injected into the well at high pressure for a few hours, 
creating a linear fracture in the formation rocks. ``Proppants'' such 
as sand or plastic beads are emplaced into the fracture to hold it open 
and to create a permeable pathway into the well. After the fracturing 
process concludes, the well is pumped for production. In most cases the 
resulting fracture is a flat, planar feature oriented vertically along 
the wellbore, extending from 70 to 500 feet from the well bore.
    Prior to 1997, EPA had not considered regulating hydraulic 
fracturing because the Agency believed that this well production 
stimulation process did not fall within the Underground Injection 
Control (UIC) program's regulatory authority under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act (SDWA). In 1994, the Legal Environmental Assistance 
Foundation (LEAF) challenged that interpretation by petitioning EPA to 
withdraw Alabama's EPA-approved section 1425 (SDWA) UIC program because 
LEAF believed the State should regulate hydraulic fracturing for CBM 
development as underground injection. EPA rejected LEAF's petition. 
LEAF challenged EPA's decision and in 1997, the Eleventh Circuit Court 
of Appeals held that hydraulic fracturing of coalbeds fit within the 
SDWA definition of underground injection, LEAF v. EPA, 118 F.3d 1467, 
1478 (11th Cir. 1997). In response to this decision, Alabama modified 
its UIC program to regulate hydraulic fracturing of coalbeds. In 
December 1999, EPA approved the revisions to Alabama's Class II UIC 
program.
    Following the Court's decision, and in response to concerns voiced 
by individuals who may be affected by CBM development, EPA initiated a 
study to assess the potential for hydraulic fracturing of CBM wells to 
endanger USDWs. A draft report has been completed and EPA is now 
accepting comments on the draft report.
    The hydraulic fracturing study is narrowly focused to address 
hydraulic fracturing of CBM wells. It does not address all hydraulic 
fracturing practices, because (1) CBM wells tend to be shallower and 
therefore, closer to USDWs than conventional oil and gas production 
wells (1,000s of feet below ground surface (bgs) rather than 10,000s of 
feet bgs); (2) EPA has not received complaints from citizens regarding 
any other type of hydraulic fracturing; and (3) the Eleventh Circuit 
litigation concerned hydraulic fracturing in connection with CBM 
production. The study also does not address other potential impacts of 
CBM production, such as ground water removal or production water 
discharge.
    Given the enormous variation in geology among and within coalbed 
basins in the U.S., any evaluation of potential impacts from hydraulic 
fracturing related to CBM production at a national level must 
necessarily be broadly focused. In order to best utilize resources in 
investigating this issue, EPA divided the study into three possible 
phases, narrowing its focus from general to more specific as findings 
warrant. Phase I of the study is a limited-scope assessment designed to 
determine if an in-depth study, including collection of new data, is 
needed. This draft report summarizes the study's Phase I efforts and 
findings. Phase I did not include a risk assessment or an evaluation of 
existing regulations; those steps would be conducted in Phases II and 
III, if EPA decides to move forward with the study.
    The goal of EPA's hydraulic fracturing Phase I study is to 
determine if a threat to public health as a result of USDW 
contamination from CBM hydraulic fracturing exists, and if so, if that 
threat is great enough to warrant further study. The threat to public 
health from USDW contamination was measured by the presence or absence 
of documented drinking water well contamination cases caused by CBM 
hydraulic fracturing, or by a clear and immediate contamination threat 
to drinking water wells.
    EPA's approach for evaluating the threat to public health was to 
review alleged incidents of drinking water well contamination, as well 
as evaluate the theoretical potential for hydraulic fracturing to 
impact drinking water wells. EPA reviewed over 200 peer-reviewed 
publications, interviewed 50 employees from industry and State or local 
government agencies, and communicated with approximately 40 citizens 
and groups who are concerned that CBM production impacted their 
drinking water wells. We evaluated two potential mechanisms by which 
hydraulic fracturing may threaten USDWs: (1) The injection of 
fracturing fluids directly into a USDW, and (2) the creation of a 
hydraulic communication through a confining layer between the target 
coalbed formation and adjacent USDWs located either above or below.
    Based on the information collected and reviewed, EPA preliminarily 
believes the potential threats to public health posed by hydraulic 
fracturing of CBM wells appear to be small, and do not justify 
additional study. To EPA's knowledge, this study is the most thorough 
effort ever conducted to examine impacts to public health from 
hydraulic fracturing. If threats to USDWs from hydraulic fracturing of 
coalbed methane wells were significant, EPA would expect to have found 
confirmed instances of water well contamination from the practice. 
Instead, despite the fact that thousands of coalbed methane wells are 
fractured annually, EPA did not find persuasive evidence that any 
drinking water wells had been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing 
related to CBM production.
    EPA did find that the use of diesel fuel in some CBM fracturing 
fluids runs the risk of introducing hazardous chemicals into USDWs. Our 
analysis indicates that the injection concentrations of some of these 
hazardous chemicals may exceed drinking water standards. However, the 
health risk posed by introduction of these chemicals is reduced 
significantly by the fact that coalbed methane production is dependent 
upon the removal of large quantities of ground water (and injected 
fracture fluids) soon after a well has been hydraulically fractured. 
EPA believes that this ground water production, combined with the 
dilution effect from natural formation ground water beyond the outer 
reaches of the fracture, should minimize the possibility that chemicals 
included in the fracturing fluids would adversely impact drinking water 
wells or public health.
    Regarding the second potential pathway for contaminants to enter a 
USDW, coalbed studies to date have found no observed breach of 
confining (shale) layers from hydraulically-created fractures. This is 
consistent with the generally understood nature of fracturing behavior.
    EPA invites your comment on the draft report.

    Dated: August 19, 2002.
G. Tracy Mehan, III,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 02-21946 Filed 8-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P