Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources (Appendices of the External Review Draft) Appendices


SEPA
External Review Draft | EPA/600/R-15/047b | June 2015 | www.epa.gov/hfstudy
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Assessment of the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
for Oil and Gas on Drinking
Water Resources
Appendices
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C.

-------
DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
United States
MpMIl Environmental Protection
^1 JF * Agency
EPA/600/R-15/047b
External Review Draft
June 2015
www, epa. gov /h fstu dy
Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water
Resources
(Appendices A - J)
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT IS AN EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT, for review purposes only. It has not
been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to
represent any Agency determination or policy.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendices A-J
DISCLAIMER
This document is an external review draft. This information is distributed solely for the purpose of
pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been
formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any
Agency determination or policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	i	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendices A-J
Contents: Appendices
Appendix A. Chemicals Identified in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids and/or Flowback and
Produced Water
A.l. Supplemental Tables and Information A-l
Table A-l. Description of sources used to create lists of chemicals used in fracturing fluids or
detected in flowback or produced water A-l
Table A-2. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids A-4
Table A-3. List of generic names of chemicals reportedly used in hydraulic fracturing fluids A-46
Table A-4. Chemicals detected in flowback or produced water A-58
A.2. References for Appendix A A-63
Appendix B. Water Acquisition Tables B-l
B.l. Supplemental Tables B-l
Table B-l. Annual average hydraulic fracturing water use and consumption in 2011 and 2012
compared to total annual water use and consumption in 2010 by state B-l
Table B-2. Annual average hydraulic fracturing water use and consumption in 2011 and 2012
compared to total annual water use and consumption in 2010 by county B-3
Table B-3. Comparison of water use per well estimates from the EPA's project database of
disclosures to FracFocus 1.0 (U.S. EPA, 2015c) and literature sources B-20
Table B-4. Comparison of well counts from the EPA's project database of disclosures to FracFocus
1.0 (U.S. EPA, 2015c) and state databases for North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia B-21
Table B-5. Water use per hydraulically fractured well as reported in the EPA's project database of
disclosures to FracFocus 1.0 (U.S. EPA, 2015c) by state and basin B-22
Table B-6. Estimated percent domestic use water from ground water and self-supplied by county.
B-26
Table B-7. Projected hydraulic fracturing water use by Texas counties between 2015 and 2060,
expressed as a percentage of 2010 total county water use B-40
B.2. References for Appendix B B-52
Appendix C. Chemical Mixing Supplemental Tables and Information C-l
C.l. Supplemental Tables and Information C-l
Table C-l. Chemicals reported to FracFocus in 10% or more of disclosures for gas-producing wells,
with the number of disclosures where chemical is reported, percentage of disclosures,
and the median maximum concentration (% by mass) of that chemical in hydraulic
fracturing fluid C-l
Table C-2. Chemicals reported to FracFocus in 10% or more of disclosures for oil-producing wells,
with the number of disclosures where chemical is reported, percentage of disclosures,
and the median maximum concentration (% by mass) of that chemical in hydraulic
fracturing fluid C-3
Table C-3a. Top chemicals reported to FracFocus for each state and number (and percentage) of
disclosures where a chemical is reported for that state, Alabama to Montana (U.S.
EPA, 2015c) C-5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 i DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendices A-J
Table C-3b. Top chemicals reported to FracFocus for each state and number (and percentage) of
disclosures where a chemical is reported for that state, New Mexico to Wyoming (U.S.
EPA, 2015c) C-12
Table C-4. Estimated mean, median, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile volumes in gallons for
chemicals reported to FracFocus in 100 or more disclosures, where density
information was available C-20
Table C-5. Estimated mean, median, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile volumes in liters for
chemicals reported to FracFocus in 100 or more disclosures, where density
information was available C-23
Table C-6. Calculated mean, median, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile chemical masses reported
to FracFocus in 100 or more disclosures, where density information was available... C-26
Table C-7. Associated chemical densities and references used to calculate chemical mass and
estimate chemical volume C-29
Table C-8. Selected physicochemical properties of chemicals reported as used in hydraulic
fracturing fluids C-32
C.2. References for Appendix C C-76
Appendix D. Designing, Constructing, and Testing Wells for Integrity D-l
D.l. Design Goals for Well Construction D-l
D.2. Well Components D-l
Text Box D-l. Selected Industry-Developed Specifications and Recommended Practices for Well
Construction in North America D-2
D.2.1. Casing D-2
D.2.2. Cement D-3
Figure D-l. A typical staged cementing process D-8
D.3. Well Completions D-9
Figure D-2. Examples of well completion types D-9
D.4. Mechanical Integrity Testing D-10
D.4.1. Internal Mechanical Integrity D-ll
D.4.2. External Mechanical Integrity D-12
D.5. References for Appendix D D-13
Appendix E. Flowback and Produced Water Supplemental Tables and Information E-l
E.l. Flowback and Long-Term Produced Water Volumes E-l
Table E-l. Flowback and long-term produced water characteristics for wells in unconventional
formations, formation-level data E-2
E.2. Produced Water Content E-6
E.2.1. Introduction E-6
E.2.2. General Water Quality Parameters E-6
Table E-2. Reported concentrations of general water quality parameters in produced water for
unconventional shale and tight formations, presented as: average
(minimum-maximum) or median (minimum-maximum) E-7
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 ii DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendices A-J
Table E-3. Reported concentrations of general water quality parameters in produced water for
unconventional coalbed basins, presented as: average (minimum-maximum)	E-10
E.2.3. Salinity and Inorganics	E-ll
Table E-4. Reported concentrations (mg/L) of inorganic constituents contributing to salinity in
unconventional shale and tight formations produced water, presented as: average
(minimum-maximum) or median (minimum-maximum)	E-12
Table E-5. Reported concentrations (mg/L) of inorganic constituents contributing to salinity in
produced water for unconventional CBM basins, presented as: average
(minimum-maximum)	E-14
E.2.4. Metals and Metalloids	E-14
Table E-6. Reported concentrations (mg/L) of metals and metalloids from unconventional shale
and tight formation produced water, presented as: average (minimum-maximum) or
median (minimum-maximum)	E-15
Table E-7. Reported concentrations (mg/L) of metals and metalloids from unconventional coalbed
produced water, presented as: average (minimum-maximum)	E-18
E.2.5. Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) and Technically Enhanced Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM)	E-20
Table E-8. Reported concentrations (in pCi/L) of radioactive constituents in unconventional shale
and sandstone produced water, presented as: average (minimum-maximum) or
median (minimum-maximum)	E-22
E.2.6. Organics	E-24
Table E-9. Concentrations of select organic parameters from unconventional shale, a tight
formation, and coalbed produced water, presented as: average (minimum-maximum)
or median (minimum-maximum)	E-25
Table E-10. Reported concentrations (ng/L) of organic constituents in produced water for two
unconventional shale formations, presented as: average (minimum-maximum) or
median (minimum-maximum)	E-28
Table E-ll. Reported concentrations of organic constituents in 65 samples of produced water
from the Black Warrior CBM Basin, presented as average (minimum-maximum)	E-30
E.2.7. Chemical Reactions	E-31
E.2.8. Microbial Community Processes and Content	E-32
E.3. Produced Water Content Spatial Trends	E-34
E.3.1. Variability between Plays of the Same Rock Type	E-34
E.3.2. Local Variability	E-36
E.4. Example Calculation for Roadway Transport	E-36
E.4.1. Estimation of Transport Distance	E-36
E.4.2. Estimation of Wastewater Volumes	E-37
E.4.3. Estimation of Roadway Accidents	E-37
Table E-12. Combination truck crashes in 2012 for the 2,469,094 registered combination trucks,
which traveled 163,458 million miles (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012).a... E-37
Table E-13. Large truck crashes in 2012 (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012).a	E-38
E.4.4. Estimation of Material Release Rates in Crashes	E-38
E.4.5. Estimation of Volume Released in Accidents	E-38
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015	iii	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendices A-J
Table E-14. Estimate of total truck-travel miles per well in the Susquehanna River Basin based on
the transport analysis performed by Gilmore et al. (2013) E-39
E.5. References for Appendix E E-39
Appendix F. Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal Supplemental Information F-l
F.l. Estimates of Wastewater Production in Regions where Hydraulic Fracturing is Occurring F-l
Table F-l. Estimated volumes (millions of gallons) of wastewater based on state data for selected
years and numbers of wells producing fluid F-2
F.2. Overview of Treatment Processes for Treating Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater F-6
F.2.1. Basic Treatment F-6
Figure F-l. Electrocoagulation unit F-7
F.2.2. Advanced Treatment F-8
Figure F-2. Photograph of reverse osmosis system F-9
Figure F-3. Picture of mobile electrodialysis units in Wyoming F-10
Figure F-4. Picture of a mechanical vapor recompression unit near Decatur, Texas F-ll
Figure F-5. Mechanical vapor recompression process design - Maggie Spain Facility F-12
Figure F-6. Picture of a compressed bed ion exchange unit F-13
Figure F-7. Discharge water process used in the Pinedale Anticline field F-14
F.3. Treatment Technology Removal Capabilities F-14
Table F-2. Removal efficiency of different hydraulic fracturing wastewater constituents using
various wastewater treatment technologies.3 F-15
Table F-3. Treatment processes for hydraulic fracturing wastewater organic constituents F-18
Table F-4. Estimated effluent concentrations for example constituents based on treatment
process removal efficiencies F-20
F.4. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities and Waste Management Options F-23
F.4.1. Discharge Options for CWTs F-23
F.5. Water Quality for Reuse F-24
Table F-5. Water quality requirements for reuse F-24
Figure F-8. Diagram of treatment for reuse of flowback and produced water F-26
F.6. Hydraulic Fracturing Impacts on POTWs F-27
F.6.1. Potential Impacts on Treatment Processes F-27
F.7. Hydraulic Fracturing and DBPs F-27
F.8. References for Appendix F F-28
Appendix G. Identification and Hazard Evaluation of Chemicals across the Hydraulic Fracturing
Water Cycle Supplemental Tables and Information G-l
G.l. Criteria for Selection and Inclusion of Reference Value (RfV) and Oral Slope Factor (OSF) Data Sources
G-l
G.l.l. Included Sources G-3
G.1.2. Excluded Sources G-3
G.2. Glossary of Toxicity Value Terminology G-4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 iv DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendices A-J
G.3. Tables G-9
Table G-la. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, with available federal
chronic RfVs and OSFs G-9
Table G-lb. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, with available state
chronic RfVs and OSFs G-18
Table G-lc. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, with available
international chronic RfVs and OSFs G-19
Table G-ld. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, with available less-than-
chronic RfVs and OSFs G-20
Table G-2a. Chemicals reported to be detected in flowback or produced water, with available
federal chronic RfVs and OSFs G-23
Table G-2b. Chemicals reported to be detected in flowback or produced water, with available
state chronic RfVs and OSFs G-31
Table G-2c. Chemicals reported to be detected in flowback or produced water, with available
international chronic RfVs and OSFs G-33
Table G-2d. Chemicals reported to be detected in flowback or produced water, with available less-
than-chronic RfVs and OSFs G-34
G.4. References for Appendix G G-36
Appendix H. Description of EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Publications Cited in This Assessment H-l
Table H-l. Titles, descriptions, and citations for EPA hydraulic fracturing study publications cited
in this assessment H-l
Appendix I. Unit Conversions 1-1
Appendix J. Glossary J-l
J.l. Glossary Terms and Definitions J-l
J.2. References for Appendix J J-17
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 v DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Appendix A
Chemicals Identified in Hydraulic Fracturing
Fluids and/or Flowback and Produced Water
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Appendix A. Chemicals Identified in Hydraulic
Fracturing Fluids and/or Flowback and Produced
Water
A.l. Supplemental Tables and Information
The EPA identified authoritative sources for information on hydraulic fracturing chemicals and, to
the extent possible, verified the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids and detected in
flowback and produced water of hydraulically fractured wells. The EPA used 10 sources to identify
the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids or detected in flowback or produced water. Seven
sources are government entities (Congressional, federal, or state) that obtained the data directly
from industry. The remaining three represent collaborations between state, non-profit, academic,
and industry groups. FracFocus is the result of a collaboration between the Ground Water
Protection Council (a non-profit coalition of state ground water protection agencies) and
the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (a multi-state government agency). The Marcellus
Shale Coalition is a drilling industry trade group. Colborn et al. (2 is a peer-reviewed journal
article. Most of the listed chemicals were cited by multiple sources.
Seven of the ten sources obtained information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing
fluids from material safety data sheets (MSDSs) provided by chemical manufacturers for the
products they sell, as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The
MSDSs must list all hazardous ingredients if they comprise at least 1% of the product; for
carcinogens, the reporting threshold is 0.1%. However, chemical manufacturers may withhold
information (e.g., chemical name, concentration of the substance in a mixture) about a hazardous
substance from MSDSs if it is claimed as confidential business information (CBI), provided that
certain conditions are met fOSHA. 20131.
Table A-l. Description of sources used to create lists of chemicals used in fracturing fluids or
detected in flowback or produced water.
The number next to each citation in the reference column corresponds to numbers in the reference
columns found in Table A-2, Table A-3, and Table A-4.
Description / Content
Reference
Chemicals and other components used by 14 hydraulic fracturing service
companies from 2005 to 2009 as reported to the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce. For each hydraulic fracturing product reported, companies
also provided an MSDS with information about the product's chemical
components.
House of Representatives
(201118 (1)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 A-l DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Description / Content
Reference
Chemicals used during natural gas operations with some potential health
effects. The list of chemicals was compiled from MSDSs from several sources,
including the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, state agencies,
and industry.
Colborn et al. (2011)a (2)
Chemicals used or proposed for use in hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus
Shale in New York based on product composition disclosures and MSDSs
submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC). Also includes data provided separately to NYSDEC by well operators
on analytical results of flowback water samples from Marcellus Shale
operations in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
NYSDEC (2011)a'b (3)
Chemicals reported to be used by nine hydraulic fracturing service companies
from 2005 to 2010. Companies provided the chemical names in MSDSs,
product bulletins, and formulation sheets.
U.S. EPA (2013a!a (4)
MSDSs provided to the EPA during on-site visits to hydraulically fractured oil
and gas wells in Oklahoma and Colorado.
Sheets
Characteristics of undiluted chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluids
associated with coalbed methane production, based on MSDSs, literature
searches, reviews of relevant MSDSs provided by service companies, and
discussions with field engineers, service company chemists, and state and
federal employees.
U.S. EPA (2004)a (6)
Chemicals used in Pennsylvania for hydraulic fracturing activities based on
MSDSs provided by industry.
PA DEP (2010)a (7)
Chemical records entered in FracFocus by oil and gas operators for individual
wells from January 1, 2011, through February 28, 2013. FracFocus is a publicly
accessible hydraulic fracturing chemical registry developed by the Ground
Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
Chemicals claimed as confidential business information (CBI) do not have to be
reported in FracFocus.
U.S. EPA (2015c)a (8)
Chemicals detected in flowback from 19 hydraulically fractured shale gas wells
in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, based on analyses conducted by 17
Marcellus Shale Coalition member companies.
Haves (2009lb (9)
Chemicals reportedly detected in flowback and produced water from 81 wells
provided to the EPA by nine well operating companies.
U.S. EPA (2011blb (10)
a Sources used to identify chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
bSources used to identify chemicals detected in flowback and produced water.
1 Once it had identified chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals detected in
2 flowback/produced water, the EPA conducted an initial review of the chemicals for preliminary
3 validation of provided chemical name and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN)
4 combinations. A CASRN is a unique numeric identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service
5 (CAS) to a chemical substance when it enters the CAS Registry Database. The EPA Office of Research
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 A-2 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
and Development's National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) provided the final formal
validation and verification of the listed chemicals.
The EPA first compared the hydraulic fracturing chemical CASRNs and names with chemicals listed
in NCCT's Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity Database network (DSSTox) database (U.S.
EPA. 2013b). For the CASRNs and chemical names that did not appear in the DSSTox database, the
EPA's Substance Registry Services database and the U.S. National Library of Medicine ChemID
database were used to verify accurate chemical name and CASRN pairing (NLM. 2014: U.S. EPA.
2014c). The EPA also identified cases where CASRN/name combinations could not be verified by
use of selected public sources and flagged those cases for resolution by NCCT.
NCCT then verified all of the CASRN and chemical names for the chemical lists generated by the EPA
in accordance with NCCT DSSTox Chemical Information Quality Review Procedures
(http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/ChemicalInfOAProcedures.html). The process included QA/QC
on the identification and validation of CASRN/chemical name combinations and resolution of
inconsistencies and problems including duplications, CASRN errors, and CASRN/chemical name
mismatches.
The general methodology for resolving conflicts between CASRN/chemical name combinations and
other chemical identification issues differed slightly depending on the data provided by each
source. To resolve chemical/CASRN conflict in data provided by the nine service companies, the
EPA worked with each company to verify the CASRN/chemical combinations proposed by NCCT. In
cases of CASRN/chemical name mismatches in data provided by FracFocus, chemical names were
considered primary to the CASRN (i.e., the name overrode the CASRN). When the chemical name
was non-specific and the CASRN was valid, then the CASRN was considered primary to the chemical
name, and the correct specific chemical name from DSST ox was assigned to the CASRN. For all other
sources, the CASRN was considered primary unless it was invalid or missing. In such cases, the
chemical name was primary. All Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) CBI chemical lists were
managed in accordance with TSCA CBI procedures.
Chemicals with verified CASRNs that are used in hydraulic fracturing fluids are presented in Table
A-2. Generic chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids are presented in Table A-3. Chemicals
with verified CASRNs that have been detected in flowback or produced water are presented in
Table A-4. Chemicals found in both fracturing fluids (see Table A-2) and flowback and produced
water (see Table A-4) are italicized in each table.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 A-3 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Table A-2. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
An "X" indicates the availability of physicochemical properties from EPI Suite™ (see Appendix C) and
selected toxicity reference values (see Appendix G). An empty cell indicates no information was
available from the sources we consulted. Reference number corresponds to the citations in Table A-l.
Italicized chemicals are found in both fracturing fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
(13Z)-N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-methyldocos-
13-en-l-aminium chloride
120086-58-0
X

1
(2,3-dihydroxypropyl)trimethylammonium
chloride
34004-36-9
X

8
(E)-Crotonaldehyde
123-73-9
X
X
1,4
[Nitrilotris(methylene)]tris-phosphonic acid
pentasodium salt
2235-43-0
X

1
l-(l-Naphthylmethyl)quinolinium chloride
65322-65-8
X

1
l-(Alkyl* amino)-3-aminopropane *(42%C12,
26%C18, 15%C14, 8%C16, 5%C10, 4%C8)
68155-37-3
X

8
l-(Phenylmethyl)pyridinium Et Me derivs.,
chlorides
68909-18-2
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
526-73-8
X

1,4
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
95-63-6
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
l,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one
2634-33-5
X

1, 3,4
l,2-Dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane
35691-65-7
X

1,4
1,2-Dimethylbenzene
95-47-6
X

4
1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with 2-
methyloxirane
25214-63-5


8
1,2-Ethanediaminium, N,N'-bis[2-[bis(2-
hydroxyethyl)methylammonio]ethyl]-N,N'-
bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N,N'-dimethyl-,
tetrachloride
138879-94-4
X

1,4
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 8
1,2-Propylene oxide
75-56-9
X
X
1,4
1,3,5-Triazine
290-87-9
X

8
1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol
4719-04-4
X

1,4
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
108-67-8
X

1,4
1,3-Butadiene
106-99-0
X
X
8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-4	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
1,3-Dichloropropene
542-75-6
X
X
8
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
X
X
2, 3,4
1.4-Dioxane-2,5-dione,	3,6-dimethyl-, (3R,6R)-,
polymer with (3S,6S)-3,6-dimethyl-l,4-dioxane-
2.5-dione	and (3R,6S)-rel-3,6-dimethyl-l,4-
dioxane-2,5-dione
9051-89-2


1, 4,8
1,6-Hexanediamine
124-09-4
X

1,2
1,6-Hexanediamine dihydrochloride
6055-52-3
X

1
l-[2-(2-Methoxy-l-methylethoxy)-l-
methylethoxy]-2-propanol
20324-33-8
X

4
l-Amino-2-propanol
78-96-6
X

8
1-Benzylquinolinium chloride
15619-48-4
X

1, 3,4
1-Butanol
71-36-3
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 7
l-Butoxy-2-propanol
5131-66-8
X

8
1-Decanol
112-30-1
X

1,4
l-Dodecyl-2-pyrrolidinone
2687-96-9
X

1,4
1-Eicosene
3452-07-1
X

3
l-Ethyl-2-methylbenzene
611-14-3
X

4
1-Hexadecene
629-73-2
X

3
1-Hexanol
111-27-3
X

1, 4,8
1-Hexanol, 2-ethyl-, manuf. of, by products
from, distn. residues
68909-68-7


4
lH-lmidazole-l-ethanamine, 4,5-dihydro-, 2-
nortall-oil alkyl derivs.
68442-97-7


2,4
l-Methoxy-2-propanol
107-98-2
X

1, 2, 3, 4
1-Octadecanamine, acetate (1:1)
2190-04-7
X

8
1-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-
124-28-7
X

1, 3,4
1-Octadecene
112-88-9
X

3
1-Octanol
111-87-5
X

1,4
1-Pentanol
71-41-0
X

8
1-Propanaminium, 3-amino-N-(carboxymethyl)-
N,N-dimethyl-, N-coco acyl derivs., chlorides,
sodium salts
61789-39-7


1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-5	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
1-Propanaminium, 3-amino-N-(carboxymethyl)-
N,N-dimethyl-, N-coco acyl derivs., inner salts
61789-40-0


1, 2, 3, 4
1-Propanaminium, 3-chloro-2-hydroxy-N,N,N-
trimethyl-, chloride
3327-22-8
X

8
1-Propanaminium, N-(3-aminopropyl)-2-
hydroxy-N,N-dimethyl-3-sulfo-, N-coco acyl
derivs., inner salts
68139-30-0


1, 3,4
1-Propanaminium, N-(carboxymethyl)-N,N-
dimethyl-3-[(l-oxooctyl)amino]-, inner salt
73772-46-0


8
1-Propanesulfonic acid
5284-66-2
X

3
1-Propanol
71-23-8
X

1, 2, 4, 5
1-Propanol, zirconium(4+) salt
23519-77-9


1, 4,8
1-Propene
115-07-1
X

2
l-tert-Butoxy-2-propanol
57018-52-7
X

8
1-Tetradecene
1120-36-1
X

3
1-Tridecanol
112-70-9
X

1,4
1-Undecanol
112-42-5
X

2
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol
112-34-5
X
X
2,4
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)ethanol
111-90-0
X
X
1,4
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)ethyl acetate
112-15-2
X

1,4
2-(Dibutylamino)ethanol
102-81-8
X

1,4
2-(Hydroxymethylamino)ethanol
34375-28-5
X

1,4
2-(Thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole
21564-17-0
X
X
2
2,2'-(diazene-l,2-diyldiethane-l, l-diyl)bis-4,5-
dihydro-lH-imidazole dihydrochloride
27776-21-2
X

3
2,2'-(Octadecylimino)diethanol
10213-78-2
X

1
2,2'-[Ethane-l,2-diylbis(oxy)]diethanamine
929-59-9
X

1,4
2,2'-Azobis(2-amidinopropane) dihydrochloride
2997-92-4
X

1,4
2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
7,8
2,2-Dibromopropanediamide
73003-80-2
X

3
2,4-Hexadienoic acid, potassium salt, (2E,4E)-
24634-61-5
X

3
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-6	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
2,6,8-Trimethyl-4-nonanol
123-17-1
X

8
2-Acrylamide - 2-propanesulfonic acid and N,N-
dimethylacrylamide copolymer
NOCAS_51252


2
2-Acrylamido -2-methylpropanesulfonic acid
copolymer
NOCAS_51255


8
2-Acrylamido-2-methyl-l-propanesulfonic acid
15214-89-8
X

1,3
2-Amino-2-methylpropan-l-ol
124-68-5
X

8
2-Aminoethanol ester with boric acid (H3B03)
(1:1)
10377-81-8


8
2-Aminoethanol hydrochloride
2002-24-6
X

4,8
2-Bromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
1113-55-9
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2-Butanone oxime
96-29-7
X

1
2-Butenediamide, (2E)-, N,N'-bis[2-(4,5-dihydro-
2-nortall-oil alkyl-lH-imidazol-l-yl)ethyl] derivs.
68442-77-3


3, 8
2-Butoxy-l-propanol
15821-83-7
X

8
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
7,8
2-Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid- n-(2-
aminoethyl)ethane-l,2-diamine(l:l)
40139-72-8
X

8
2-Ethoxyethanol
110-80-5
X
X
6
2-Ethoxynaphthalene
93-18-5
X

3
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
104-76-7
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2-Ethyl-2-hexenal
645-62-5
X

2
2-Ethylhexyl benzoate
5444-75-7
X

4
2-Hydroxyethyl acrylate
818-61-1
X

1,4
2-Hydroxyethylammonium hydrogen sulphite
13427-63-9
X

1
2-Hydroxy-N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-
methylethanaminium chloride
7006-59-9
X

8
2-Mercaptoethanol
60-24-2
X

1,4
2-Methoxyethanol
109-86-4
X
X
4
2-Methyl-l-propanol
78-83-1
X
X
1, 2,4
2-Methyl-2,4-pentanediol
107-41-5
X

1, 2,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-7	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone
2682-20-4
X

1, 2,4
2-Methyl-3-butyn-2-ol
115-19-5
X

3
2-Methylbutane
78-78-4
X

2
2-Methylquinoline hydrochloride
62763-89-7
X

3
2-Phosphono-l,2,4-butanetricarboxylic acid
37971-36-1
X

1,4
2-Phosphonobutane-l,2,4-tricarboxylic acid,
potassium salt (l:x)
93858-78-7
X

1
2-Propanol, aluminum salt
555-31-7


1
2-Propen-l-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-
propenyl-, chloride, homopolymer
26062-79-3


3
2-Propenamide, homopolymer
25038-45-3


8
2-Propenoic acid, 2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl
ester
13533-05-6
X

4
2-Propenoic acid, 2-ethylhexyl ester, polymer
with 2-hydroxyethyl 2-propenoate
36089-45-9


8
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with 2-
propenoic acid, sodium salt
28205-96-1


8
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
sodium 2-methyl-2-[(l-oxo-2-propen-l-
yl)amino]-l-propanesulfonate (1:1)
136793-29-8


8
2-Propenoic acid, ethyl ester, polymer with
ethenyl acetate and 2,5-furandione, hydrolyzed
113221-69-5


4,8
2-Propenoic acid, ethyl ester, polymer with
ethenyl acetate and 2,5-furandione,
hydrolyzed, sodium salt
111560-38-4


8
2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2-propenamide,
sodium salt
25987-30-8


3, 4,8
2-Propenoic acid, polymer with ethene, zinc salt
28208-80-2


8
2-Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenylbenzene
25085-34-1


8
2-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium
ethanesulfonate, peroxydisulfuric acid,
disodium salt- initiated, reaction products with
tetrasodium ethenylidenebis (phosphonata)
397256-50-7


8
2-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium
phosphinate (1:1), sodium salt
129898-01-7


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-8	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
2-Propenoic acid, sodium salt (1:1), polymer
with sodium 2-methyl-2-((l-oxo-2-propen-l-
yl)amino)-l-propanesulfonate (1:1)
37350-42-8


1
2-Propenoic acid, telomer with sodium 4-
ethenylbenzenesulfonate (1:1), sodium 2-
methyl-2-[(l-oxo-2-propen-l-yl)amino]-l-
propanesulfonate (1:1) and sodium sulfite (1:1),
sodium salt
151006-66-5


4
2-Propenoic, polymer with sodium phosphinate
71050-62-9


3,4
3-(Dimethylamino)propylamine
109-55-7
X

8
3,4,4-Trimethyloxazolidine
75673-43-7
X

8
3,5,7-Triazatricyclo(3.3.1.13,7)decane, l-(3-
chloro-2-propenyl)-, chloride, (Z)-
51229-78-8
X

3
3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadienal
5392-40-5
X

3
3-Hydroxybutanal
107-89-1
X

1, 2,4
3-Methoxypropylamine
5332-73-0
X

8
3-Phenylprop-2-enal
104-55-2
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7
4,4-Dimethyloxazolidine
51200-87-4
X

8
4,6-Dimethyl-2-heptanone
19549-80-5
X

8
4-[Abieta-8,ll,13-trien-18-yl(3-oxo-3-
phenylpropyl)amino]butan-2-one hydrochloride
143106-84-7
X

1,4
4-Ethyloct-l-yn-3-ol
5877-42-9
X

1, 2, 3, 4
4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde
121-33-5
X

3
4-Methoxybenzyl formate
122-91-8
X

3
4-Methoxyphenol
150-76-5
X

4
4-Methyl-2-pentanol
108-11-2
X

1,4
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
X

5
4-Nonylphenol
104-40-5
X

8
4-Nonylphenol polyethoxylate
68412-54-4


2, 3,4
5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone
26172-55-4
X

1, 2,4
Acetaldehyde
75-07-0
X

1,4
Acetic acid
64-19-7
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7,8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-9	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethenol
25213-24-5


1,4
Acetic acid, C6-8-branched alkyl esters
90438-79-2
X

4
Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with
triethanolamine
68442-62-6
X

3
Acetic acid, mercapto-, monoammonium salt
5421-46-5
X

2,8
Acetic anhydride
108-24-7
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Acetone
67-64-1
X
X
1, 3, 4, 6
Acetonitrile, 2,2',2"-nitrilotris-
7327-60-8
X

1,4
Acetophenone
98-86-2
X
X
1
Acetyltriethyl citrate
77-89-4
X

1,4
Acrolein
107-02-8
X
X
2
Acrylamide
79-06-1
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4
Acrylamide/ sodium acrylate copolymer
25085-02-3


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Acrylamide-sodium-2-acrylamido-2-
methlypropane sulfonate copolymer
38193-60-1


1, 2, 3, 4
Acrylic acid
79-10-7
X
X
2,4
Acrylic acid, with sodium-2-acrylamido-2-
methyl-l-propanesulfonate and sodium
phosphinate
110224-99-2
X

8
Alcohols (C13-C15), ethoxylated
64425-86-1


8
Alcohols, C10-12, ethoxylated
67254-71-1
X

3
Alcohols, C10-14, ethoxylated
66455-15-0


3
Alcohols, Cll-14-iso-, C13-rich
68526-86-3
X

3
Alcohols, Cll-14-iso-, C13-rich, butoxylated
ethoxylated
228414-35-5


1
Alcohols, Cll-14-iso-, C13-rich, ethoxylated
78330-21-9
X

3, 4,8
Alcohols, C12-13, ethoxylated
66455-14-9
X

4
Alcohols, C12-14, ethoxylated
68439-50-9


2, 3, 4, 8
Alcohols, C12-14, ethoxylated propoxylated
68439-51-0
X

1, 3, 4, 8
Alcohols, C12-14-secondary
126950-60-5
X

1, 3,4
Alcohols, C12-14-secondary, ethoxylated
84133-50-6


3, 4,8
Alcohols, C12-15, ethoxylated
68131-39-5


3,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-10	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Alcohols, C12-16, ethoxylated
68551-12-2
X

3, 4,8
Alcohols, C14-15, ethoxylated
68951-67-7
X

3, 4,8
Alcohols, C6-12, ethoxylated
68439-45-2
X

3, 4,8
Alcohols, C7-9-iso-, C8-rich, ethoxylated
78330-19-5
X

2, 4,8
Alcohols, C8-10, ethoxylated propoxylated
68603-25-8


3
Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated
68439-46-3
X

3,4
Alcohols, C9-ll-iso-, ClO-rich, ethoxylated
78330-20-8
X

1, 2, 4, 8
Alkanes C10-16-branched and linear
90622-52-9


4
Alkanes, CIO-14
93924-07-3


1
Alkanes, C12-14-iso-
68551-19-9
X

2, 4,8
Alkanes, C13-16-iso-
68551-20-2
X

1,4
Alkenes, C>10 .alpha.-
64743-02-8
X

1, 3, 4, 8
Alkenes, C>8
68411-00-7


1
Alkenes, C24-25 alpha-, polymers with maleic
anhydride, docosyl esters
68607-07-8


8
Alkyl quaternary ammonium with bentonite
71011-24-0


4
Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium
chloride *(50%C12, 30%C14,17%C16, 3%C18)
85409-23-0_l
X

8
Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium
chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C12, 5%C18)
68956-79-6
X

8
Alkylbenzenesulfonate, linear
42615-29-2
X

1, 4,6
Almandite and pyrope garnet
1302-62-1


1,4
alpha-[3.5-dimethyl-l-(2-methylpropyl)hexyl]-
omega-hydroxy-poly(oxy-l,2-ethandiyl)
60828-78-6


3
alpha-Amylase
9000-90-2


4
alpha-Lactose monohydrate
5989-81-1
X

8
alpha-Terpineol
98-55-5
X

3
Alumina
1344-28-1


1, 2,4
Aluminatesilicate
1327-36-2


8
Aluminum
7429-90-5

X
1,4,6
Aluminum calcium oxide (AI2Ca04)
12042-68-1


2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-ll	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Aluminum chloride
7446-70-0


1,4
Aluminum chloride hydroxide sulfate
39290-78-3


8
Aluminum chloride, basic
1327-41-9


3,4
Aluminum oxide (AI203)
90669-62-8


8
Aluminum oxide silicate
12068-56-3


1, 2,4
Aluminum silicate
12141-46-7


1, 2,4
Aluminum sulfate
10043-01-3


1,4
Amaranth
915-67-3
X

4
Amides, C8-18 and C18-unsatd., N,N-
bis(hydroxyethyl)
68155-07-7


3
Amides, coco, N-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]
68140-01-2


1,4
Amides, coco, N-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl],
alkylation products with chloroacetic acid,
sodium salts
70851-07-9


1,4
Amides, coco, N-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl],
alkylation products with sodium 3-chloro-2-
hydroxypropanesulfonate
70851-08-0


8
Amides, coco, N-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl], N-
oxides
68155-09-9


1, 3,4
Amides, from C16-22 fatty acids and
diethylenetriamine
68876-82-4


3
Amides, tall-oil fatty, N,N-bis(hydroxyethyl)
68155-20-4


3,4
Amides, tallow, N-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl],N-
oxides
68647-77-8


1,4
Amine oxides, cocoalkyldimethyl
61788-90-7


8
Amines, C14-18; C16-18-unsaturated, alkyl,
ethoxylated
68155-39-5


1
Amines, C8-18 and C18-unsatd. alkyl
68037-94-5


5
Amines, coco alkyl
61788-46-3


4
Amines, coco alkyl, acetates
61790-57-6


1,4
Amines, coco alkyl, ethoxylated
61791-14-8


8
Amines, coco alkyldimethyl
61788-93-0


8
Amines, dicoco alkyl
61789-76-2


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-12	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Amines, dicoco alkylmethyl
61788-62-3


8
Amines, ditallow alkyl, acetates
71011-03-5


8
Amines, hydrogenated tallow alkyl, acetates
61790-59-8


4
Amines, N-tallow alkyltrimethylenedi-,
ethoxylated
61790-85-0


8
Amines, polyethylenepoly-, ethoxylated,
phosphonomethylated
68966-36-9


1,4
Amines, polyethylenepoly-, reaction products
with benzyl chloride
68603-67-8


1
Amines, tallow alkyl
61790-33-8


8
Amines, tallow alkyl, ethoxylated, acetates
(salts)
68551-33-7


1, 3,4
Amines, tallow alkyl, ethoxylated, phosphates
68308-48-5


4
Aminotrimethylene phosphonic acid
6419-19-8
X

1, 4,8
Ammonia
7664-41-7


1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Ammonium (lauryloxypolyethoxy)ethyl sulfate
32612-48-9


4
Ammonium acetate
631-61-8
X

1, 3, 4, 5, 8
Ammonium acrylate
10604-69-0
X

8
Ammonium acrylate-acrylamide polymer
26100-47-0


2, 4,8
Ammonium bisulfate
7803-63-6


2
Ammonium bisulfite
10192-30-0


1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Ammonium chloride
12125-02-9


1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 8
Ammonium citrate (1:1)
7632-50-0
X

3
Ammonium citrate (2:1)
3012-65-5
X

8
Ammonium dodecyl sulfate
2235-54-3
X

1
Ammonium fluoride
12125-01-8


1,4
Ammonium hydrogen carbonate
1066-33-7
X

1,4
Ammonium hydrogen difluoride
1341-49-7


1, 3, 4, 7
Ammonium hydrogen phosphonate
13446-12-3


4
Ammonium hydroxide
1336-21-6


1, 3,4
Ammonium lactate
515-98-0
X

8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-13	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Ammonium ligninsulfonate
8061-53-8


2
Ammonium nitrate
6484-52-2


1, 2,3
Ammonium phosphate
7722-76-1

X
1,4
Ammonium sulfate
7783-20-2


1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Ammonium thiosulfate
7783-18-8


8
Amorphous silica
99439-28-8


1,7
Anethole
104-46-1
X

3
Aniline
62-53-3
X
X
2,4
Antimony pentoxide
1314-60-9


1,4
Antimony trichloride
10025-91-9

X
1,4
Antimony trioxide
1309-64-4

X
8
Arsenic
7440-38-2

X
4
Ashes, residues
68131-74-8


4
Asphalt, sulfonated, sodium salt
68201-32-1


2
Attapulgite
12174-11-7


2,3
Aziridine, polymer with 2-methyloxirane
31974-35-3


4,8
Barium sulfate
7727-43-7


1, 2,4
Bauxite
1318-16-7


1, 2,4
Benactyzine hydrochloride
57-37-4
X

8
Bentonite
1302-78-9


1, 2, 4, 6
Bentonite, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)
dimethylammonium stearate complex
121888-68-4


3,4
Benzamorf
12068-08-5
X

1,4
Benzene
71-43-2
X
X
1,3,4
Benzene, l,l'-oxybis-, sec-hexyl derivs.,
sulfonated, sodium salts
147732-60-3


8
Benzene, l,l'-oxybis-, tetrapropylene derivs.,
sulfonated
119345-03-8


8
Benzene, l,l'-oxybis-, tetrapropylene derivs.,
sulfonated, sodium salts
119345-04-9


3, 4,8
Benzene, C10-16-alkyl derivs.
68648-87-3
X

1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-14	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Benzene, ethenyl-, polymer with 2-methyl-l,3-
butadiene, hydrogenated
68648-89-5


8
Benzenemethanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-(2-
((l-oxo-2-propen-l-yl)oxy)ethyl)-, chloride
(1:1), polymer with 2-propenamide
74153-51-8


3
Benzenesulfonic acid
98-11-3
X

2
Benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-,
37953-05-2
X

4
Benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-,
ammonium salt
37475-88-0
X

3,4
Benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-, sodium
salt
28348-53-0
X

8
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivs.
68584-22-5

X
1,4
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivs.,
compds. with cyclohexylamine
255043-08-4
X

1
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivs.,
compds. with triethanolamine
68584-25-8
X

8
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivs.,
potassium salts
68584-27-0
X

1, 4,8
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, branched,
compds. with 2-propanamine
90218-35-2
X

4
Benzenesulfonic acid, mono-C10-16 alkyl
derivs., compds. with 2-propanamine
68648-81-7


1,4
Benzenesulfonic acid, mono-C10-16-alkyl
derivs., sodium salts
68081-81-2
X

8
Benzoic acid
65-85-0
X
X
1, 4,7
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
X
X
1, 2, 4, 8
Benzyldimethyldodecylammonium chloride
139-07-1
X

2,8
Benzylhexadecyldimethylammonium chloride
122-18-9
X

8
Benzyltrimethylammonium chloride
56-93-9
X

8
Bicine
150-25-4
X

1,4
Bio-Perge
55965-84-9


8
Bis(l-methylethyl)naphthalenesulfonic acid,
cyclohexylamine salt
68425-61-6
X

1
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
111-44-4
X
X
8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-15	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Bisphenol A
80-05-7
X
X
4
Bisphenol A/ Epichlorohydrin resin
25068-38-6


1, 2,4
Bisphenol A/ Novolac epoxy resin
28906-96-9


1,4
Blast furnace slag
65996-69-2


2,3
Borax
1303-96-4


1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Boric acid
10043-35-3


1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
Boric acid (H3B03), compd. with 2-
aminoethanol (l:x)
26038-87-9


8
Boric oxide
1303-86-2


1, 2, 3, 4
Boron potassium oxide (B4K207)
1332-77-0


8
Boron potassium oxide (B4K207), tetrahydrate
12045-78-2


8
Boron potassium oxide (B5K08)
11128-29-3


1
Boron sodium oxide
1330-43-4


1, 2,4
Boron sodium oxide pentahydrate
12179-04-3


8
Bronopol
52-51-7
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Butane
106-97-8
X

2,5
Butanedioic acid, sulfa-, l,4-bis(l,3-
dimethylbutyl) ester, sodium salt
2373-38-8
X

1
Butene
25167-67-3
X

8
Butyl glycidyl ether
2426-08-6
X

1,4
Butyl lactate
138-22-7
X

1,4
Butyryl trihexyl citrate
82469-79-2
X

8
C.I. Acid Red 1
3734-67-6
X

4
C.I. Acid violet 12, disodium salt
6625-46-3
X

4
C.I. Pigment Red 5
6410-41-9
X

4
C.I. Solvent Red 26
4477-79-6
X

4
CIO-16-Alkyldimethylamines oxides
70592-80-2
X

4
C10-C16 ethoxylated alcohol
68002-97-1
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Cll-15-Secondary alcohols ethoxylated
68131-40-8


1, 2,8
C12-14 tert-alkyl ethoxylated amines
73138-27-9
X

3
C8-10 Alcohols
85566-12-7


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-16	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Calcined bauxite
66402-68-4


2,8
Calcium aluminate
12042-78-3


2
Calcium bromide
7789-41-5


4
Calcium carbide (CaC2)
75-20-7


8
Calcium chloride
10043-52-4


1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Calcium dichloride dihydrate
10035-04-8


1,4
Calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate
26264-06-2
X

4
Calcium fluoride
7789-75-5


1,4
Calcium hydroxide
1305-62-0


1, 2, 3, 4
Calcium hypochlorite
7778-54-3


1, 2,4
Calcium magnesium hydroxide oxide
58398-71-3


4
Calcium oxide
1305-78-8


1, 2, 4, 7
Calcium peroxide
1305-79-9


1, 3, 4, 8
Calcium sulfate
7778-18-9


1, 2,4
Calcium sulfate dihydrate
10101-41-4


2
Camphor
76-22-2
X

3
Canola oil
120962-03-0


8
Carbon black
1333-86-4


1, 2,4
Carbon dioxide
124-38-9
X

1, 3, 4, 6
Carbonic acid calcium salt (1:1)
471-34-1


1, 2,4
Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt
584-08-7
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Carboxymethyl guar gum, sodium salt
39346-76-4


1, 2,4
Castor oil
8001-79-4


8
Cedarwood oil
8000-27-9


3
Cellophane
9005-81-6


1,4
Cellulose
9004-34-6


1, 2, 3, 4
Chloride
16887-00-6


4,8
Chlorine
7782-50-5

X
2
Chlorine dioxide
10049-04-4

X
1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Choline bicarbonate
78-73-9
X

3, 8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-17	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Choline chloride
67-48-1
X

1, 3, 4, 7, 8
Chromium (III)
16065-83-1

X
2,6
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9

X
6
Chromium acetate, basic
39430-51-8


2
Chromium(lll) acetate
1066-30-4


1,2
Citric acid
77-92-9
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Citronella oil
8000-29-1


3
Citronellol
106-22-9
X

3
Citrus extract
94266-47-4


1, 3, 4, 8
Coal, granular
50815-10-6


1, 2,4
Cobalt(ll) acetate
71-48-7


1,4
Coco-betaine
68424-94-2


3
Coconut oil
8001-31-8


8
Coconut oil acid/Diethanolamine condensate
(2:1)
68603-42-9


1
Coconut trimethylammonium chloride
61789-18-2
X

1,8
Copper
7440-50-8

X
1,4
Copper sulfate
7758-98-7


1, 4,8
Copper(l) chloride
7758-89-6


1,4
Copper(l) iodide
7681-65-4

X
1, 2, 4, 6
Copper(ll) chloride
7447-39-4


1, 3,4
Copper(ll) sulfate, pentahydrate
7758-99-8


8
Corn flour
68525-86-0


4
Corn sugar gum
11138-66-2


1, 2,4
Corundum (Aluminum oxide)
1302-74-5


4,8
Cottonseed, flour
68308-87-2


2,4
Coumarin
91-64-5
X

3
Cremophor(R) EL
61791-12-6


1,3
Cristobalite
14464-46-1


1, 2,4
Crystalline silica, tridymite
15468-32-3


1, 2,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-18	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Cumene
98-82-8
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4
Cupric chloride dihydrate
10125-13-0


1, 4,7
Cyclohexane
110-82-7
X

1,7
Cyclohexanol
108-93-0
X

8
Cyclohexanone
108-94-1
X
X
1,4
Cyclohexylamine sulfate
19834-02-7
X

8
D&C Red 28
18472-87-2
X

4
D&C Red No. 33
3567-66-6
X

8
Daidzein
486-66-8
X

8
Dapsone
80-08-0
X

1,4
Dazomet
533-74-4
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane
541-02-6


8
Decyldimethylamine
1120-24-7
X

3,4
Deuterium oxide
7789-20-0


8
D-Glucitol
50-70-4
X

1, 3,4
D-Gluconic acid
526-95-4
X

1,4
D-Glucopyranoside, methyl
3149-68-6
X

2
D-Glucose
50-99-7
X

1,4
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
X
X
1,4
Diammonium peroxydisulfate
7727-54-0


1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
7,8
Diatomaceous earth
68855-54-9


2,4
Diatomaceous earth, calcined
91053-39-3


1, 2,4
Dibromoacetonitrile
3252-43-5
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Dicalcium silicate
10034-77-2


1, 2,4
Dichloromethane
75-09-2
X
X
8
Didecyldimethylammonium chloride
7173-51-5
X
X
1, 2, 4, 8
Diethanolamine
111-42-2
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Diethylbenzene
25340-17-4
X

1, 3,4
Diethylene glycol
111-46-6
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-19	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether
111-77-3
X

1, 2,4
Diethylenetriamine
111-40-0
X

1, 2, 4, 5
Diethylenetriamine reaction product with fatty
acid dimers
68647-57-4


2
Diisobutyl ketone
108-83-8
X

8
Diisopropanolamine
110-97-4
X

8
Diisopropylnaphthalene
38640-62-9
X

3,4
Dimethyl adipate
627-93-0
X

8
Dimethyl glutarate
1119-40-0
X

1,4
Dimethyl polysiloxane
63148-62-9


1, 2,4
Dimethyl succinate
106-65-0
X

8
Dimethylaminoethanol
108-01-0
X

2,4
Dimethyldiallylammonium chloride
7398-69-8
X

3,4
Diphenyl oxide
101-84-8
X

3
Dipotassium monohydrogen phosphate
7758-11-4


5
Dipropylene glycol
25265-71-8
X

1, 3,4
Di-sec-butylphenol
31291-60-8
X

1
Disodium dodecyl(sulphonatophenoxy)
benzenesulphonate
28519-02-0
X

1
Disodium ethylenediaminediacetate
38011-25-5
X

1,4
Disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate
dihydrate
6381-92-6
X

1
Disodium octaborate
12008-41-2


4,8
Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate
12280-03-4


1,4
Disodium sulfide
1313-82-2


8
Distillates, petroleum, catalytic reformer
fractionator residue, low-boiling
68477-31-6


1,4
Distillates, petroleum, heavy arom.
67891-79-6


1,4
Distillates, petroleum, hydrodesulfurized light
catalytic cracked
68333-25-5


1
Distillates, petroleum, hydrodesulfurized
middle
64742-80-9


1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-20	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated heavy
naphthenic
64742-52-5


1, 2, 3, 4
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated heavy
paraffinic
64742-54-7


1, 2,4
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light
64742-47-8


1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
7,8
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light
naphthenic
64742-53-6


1, 2,8
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light
paraffinic
64742-55-8


8
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated middle
64742-46-7


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Distillates, petroleum, light catalytic cracked
64741-59-9


1,4
Distillates, petroleum, light hydrocracked
64741-77-1


3
Distillates, petroleum, solvent-dewaxed heavy
paraffinic
64742-65-0


1
Distillates, petroleum, solvent-refined heavy
naphthenic
64741-96-4


1,4
Distillates, petroleum, steam-cracked
64742-91-2


1,4
Distillates, petroleum, straight-run middle
64741-44-2


1, 2,4
Distillates, petroleum, sweetened middle
64741-86-2


1,4
Ditallow alkyl ethoxylated amines
71011-04-6


3
D-Lactic acid
10326-41-7
X

1,4
D-Limonene
5989-27-5
X
X
1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
Docusate sodium
577-11-7
X

1
Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane
540-97-6


8
Dodecane
112-40-3
X

8
Dodecylbenzene
123-01-3
X

3,4
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid
27176-87-0
X
X
2, 3, 4, 8
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid,
monoethanolamine salt
26836-07-7
X

1,4
Edifas B
9004-32-4


2, 3,4
EDTA, copper salt
12276-01-6


1, 5,6
Endo-1,4-. beta.-mannanase
37288-54-3


3, 8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-21	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Epichlorohydrin
106-89-8
X
X
1, 4,8
Epoxy resin
25085-99-8


1, 4,8
Erucic amidopropyl dimethyl betaine
149879-98-1


1,3
Ethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-2-[(l-oxo-2-
propenyl)oxy]-, chloride
44992-01-0
X

3
Ethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-2-[(l-oxo-2-
propenyl)oxy]-,chloride, polymer with 2-
propenamide
69418-26-4


1, 3,4
Ethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-2-[(2-methyl-l-
oxo-2-propen-l-yl)oxy]-, chloride (1:1), polymer
with 2-propenamide
35429-19-7


8
Ethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-2-[(2-methyl-l-
oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]-, methyl sulfate,
homopolymer
27103-90-8


8
Ethane
74-84-0
X

2,5
Ethanol
64-17-5
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 8
Ethanol, 2,2',2"-nitrilotris-, tris(dihydrogen
phosphate) (ester), sodium salt
68171-29-9
X

4
Ethanol, 2,2'-iminobis-, N-coco alkyl derivs., N-
oxides
61791-47-7


1
Ethanol, 2,2'-iminobis-, N-tallow alkyl derivs.
61791-44-4


1
Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, reaction products with
ammonia, morpholine derivs. residues
68909-77-3


4,8
Ethanol, 2,2-oxybis-, reaction products with
ammonia, morpholine derivs. residues, acetates
(salts)
68877-16-7


4
Ethanol, 2,2-oxybis-, reaction products with
ammonia, morpholine derivs. residues, reaction
products with sulfur dioxide
102424-23-7


4
Ethanol, 2-[2-[2-(tridecyloxy)ethoxy]ethoxy]-,
hydrogen sulfate, sodium salt
25446-78-0
X

1,4
Ethanol, 2-amino-, polymer with formaldehyde
34411-42-2


4
Ethanol, 2-amino-, reaction products with
ammonia, by-products from,
phosphonomethylated
68649-44-5


4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-22	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Ethanolamine
141-43-5
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Ethoxylated dodecyl alcohol
9002-92-0
X

4
Ethoxylated hydrogenated tallow alkylamines
61790-82-7


4
Ethoxylated, propoxylated trimethylolpropane
52624-57-4


3
Ethyl acetate
141-78-6
X
X
1, 4,7
Ethyl acetoacetate
141-97-9
X

1,4
Ethyl benzoate
93-89-0
X

3
Ethyl lactate
97-64-3
X

3
Ethyl salicylate
118-61-6
X

3
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Ethylcellulose
9004-57-3


2
Ethylene
74-85-1
X

8
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
7,8
Ethylene oxide
75-21-8
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4
Ethylenediamine
107-15-3
X
X
2,4
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
60-00-4
X

1, 2,4
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tetrasodium
salt
64-02-8
X

1, 2, 3, 4
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, diammonium
copper salt
67989-88-2


4
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, disodium salt
139-33-3
X

1, 3, 4, 8
Ethyne
74-86-2
X

7
Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable,
hydrogenated
68334-28-1


8
Fatty acid, tall oil, hexa esters with sorbitol,
ethoxylated
61790-90-7


1,4
Fatty acids, C 8-18 and C18-unsaturated
compounds with diethanolamine
68604-35-3


3
Fatty acids, C14-18 and C16-18-unsatd., distn.
residues
70321-73-2


2
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers
61788-89-4
X

2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-23	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, compds. with
ethoxylated tall-oil fatty acid-
polyethylenepolyamine reaction products
68132-59-2


8
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, ethoxylated
propoxylated
68308-89-4


8
Fatty acids, coco, ethoxylated
61791-29-5


3
Fatty acids, coco, reaction products with
diethylenetriamine and soya fatty acids,
ethoxylated, chloromethane-quaternized
68604-75-1


8
Fatty acids, coco, reaction products with
ethanolamine, ethoxylated
61791-08-0


3
Fatty acids, tall oil, reaction products with
acetophenone, formaldehyde and thiourea
68188-40-9


3
Fatty acids, tall-oil
61790-12-3


1, 2, 3, 4
Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with
diethylenetriamine
61790-69-0


1,4
Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with
diethylenetriamine, maleic anhydride,
tetraethylenepentamine and
triethylenetetramine
68990-47-6


8
Fatty acids, tallow, sodium salts
8052-48-0


1,3
Fatty acids, vegetable-oil, reaction products
with diethylenetriamine
68153-72-0


3
Fatty quaternary ammonium chloride
61789-68-2


1,4
FD&C Blue no. 1
3844-45-9
X

1,4
FD&C Yellow 5
1934-21-0
X

8
FD&C Yellow 6
2783-94-0
X

8
Ferric chloride
7705-08-0


1, 3,4
Ferric sulfate
10028-22-5


1,4
Ferrous sulfate monohydrate
17375-41-6


2
Ferumoxytol
1309-38-2


8
Fiberglass
65997-17-3


2, 3,4
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-24	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Formaldehyde polymer with 4,1,1-
(dimethylethyl)phenol and methyloxirane
29316-47-0


3
Formaldehyde polymer with methyl oxirane, 4-
nonylphenol and oxirane
63428-92-2


4,8
Formaldehyde, polymer with 4-(l,l-
dimethylethyl)phenol, 2-methyloxirane and
oxirane
30704-64-4


1, 2, 4, 8
Formaldehyde, polymer with 4-(l,l-
dimethylethyl)phenol, 2-methyloxirane, 4-
nonylphenol and oxirane
68188-99-8


8
Formaldehyde, polymer with 4-nonylphenol
and oxirane
30846-35-6


1,4
Formaldehyde, polymer with 4-nonylphenol
and phenol
40404-63-5


8
Formaldehyde, polymer with ammonia and
phenol
35297-54-2


1,4
Formaldehyde, polymer with bisphenol A
25085-75-0


4
Formaldehyde, polymer with Nl-(2-
aminoethyl)-l,2-ethanediamine, benzylated
70750-07-1


8
Formaldehyde, polymer with nonylphenol and
oxirane
55845-06-2


4
Formaldehyde, polymers with branched 4-
nonylphenol, oxirane and 2-methyloxirane
153795-76-7


13
Formaldehyde/ amine
50-00-0_3


1, 2, 3, 4
Formamide
75-12-7
X

1, 2, 3, 4
Formic acid
64-18-6
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
Formic acid, potassium salt
590-29-4
X

1, 3,4
Frits, chemicals
65997-18-4


8
Fuel oil, no. 2
68476-30-2


1,2
Fuels, diesel
68334-30-5


2
Fuels, diesel, no. 2
68476-34-6


2, 4,8
Fuller's earth
8031-18-3


2
Fumaric acid
110-17-8
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Fumes, silica
69012-64-2


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-25	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Furfural
98-01-1
X
X
1,4
Furfuryl alcohol
98-00-0
X

1,4
Galantamine hydrobromide
69353-21-5
X

8
Gas oils, petroleum, straight-run
64741-43-1


1,4
Gelatin
9000-70-8


1,4
Gilsonite
12002-43-6


1, 2,4
Gluconic acid
133-42-6
X

7
Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Glycerides, C14-18 and C16-18-unsatd. mono-
and di-
67701-32-0


8
Glycerol
56-81-5
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)-N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-
, disodium salt
135-37-5
X

1
Glycine, N-(hydroxymethyl)-, monosodium salt
70161-44-3
X

8
Glycine, N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-, trisodium salt
5064-31-3
X

1, 2, 3, 4
Glycine, N-[2-[bis(carboxymethyl)amino]ethyl]-
N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-, trisodium salt
139-89-9
X

1
Glycolic acid
79-14-1
X

1, 3,4
Glycolic acid sodium salt
2836-32-0
X

1, 3,4
Glyoxal
107-22-2
X
X
1, 2,4
Glyoxylic acid
298-12-4
X

1
Goethite (Fe(OH)O)
1310-14-1


8
Guar gum
9000-30-0


1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
Guar gum, carboxymethyl 2-hydroxypropyl
ether, sodium salt
68130-15-4


1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Gypsum (Ca(S04).2H20)
13397-24-5


2,4
Hematite
1317-60-8


1, 2,4
Hemicellulase
9012-54-8


1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Hemicellulase enzyme concentrate
9025-56-3


3,4
Heptane
142-82-5
X

1,2
Heptene, hydroformylation products, high-
boiling
68526-88-5


1,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-26	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide
57-09-0
X

1
Hexane
110-54-3
X
X
5
Hexanedioic acid
124-04-9
X
X
1, 2, 4, 6
Humic acids, commercial grade
1415-93-6


2
Hydrazine
302-01-2

X
8
Hydrocarbons, terpene processing by-products
68956-56-9


1, 3,4
Hydrochloric acid
7647-01-0


1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7,8
Hydrogen fluoride
7664-39-3


1, 2,4
Hydrogen peroxide
7722-84-1


1, 3,4
Hydrogen sulfide
7783-06-4


1,2
Hydroxyethylcellulose
9004-62-0


1, 2, 3, 4
Hydroxylamine hydrochloride
5470-11-1


1, 3,4
Hydroxylamine sulfate (2:1)
10039-54-0


4
Hydroxypropyl cellulose
9004-64-2


2,4
Hydroxypropyl guar gum
39421-75-5


1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
Hydroxyvalerenic acid
1619-16-5
X

8
Hypochlorous acid
7790-92-3


8
lllite
12173-60-3


8
llmenite (FeTiCh), conc.
98072-94-7


8
Indole
120-72-9
X

2
Inulin, carboxymethyl ether, sodium salt
430439-54-6


1,4
Iridium oxide
12030-49-8


8
Iron
7439-89-6

X
2,4
Iron oxide
1332-37-2


1,4
Iron oxide (FesCU)
1317-61-9


4
Iron(ll) sulfate
7720-78-7


2
Iron(ll) sulfate heptahydrate
7782-63-0


1, 2, 3, 4
Iron(lll) oxide
1309-37-1


1, 2,4
Isoascorbic acid
89-65-6
X

1, 3,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-27	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Isobutane
75-28-5
X

2
Isobutene
115-11-7
X

8
Isooctanol
26952-21-6
X

1, 4,5
Isopentyl alcohol
123-51-3
X

1,4
Isopropanol
67-63-0
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
Isopropanolamine dodecylbenzene
42504-46-1
X

1, 3,4
Isopropylamine
75-31-0
X

1,4
Isoquinoline
119-65-3
X

8
Isoquinoline, reaction products with benzyl
chloride and quinoline
68909-80-8
X

3
Isoquinolinium, 2-(phenylmethyl)-, chloride
35674-56-7
X

3
Isotridecanol, ethoxylated
9043-30-5


1, 3, 4, 8
Kaolin
1332-58-7


1, 2,4
Kerosine, petroleum, hydrodesulfurized
64742-81-0


1, 2,4
Kieselguhr
61790-53-2


1, 2,4
Kyanite
1302-76-7


1, 2,4
Lactic acid
50-21-5
X

1, 4,8
Lactose
63-42-3
X

3
Latex 2000 TM
9003-55-8


2,4
Lauryl hydroxysultaine
13197-76-7
X

1
Lavandula hybrida abrial herb oil
8022-15-9


3
L-Dilactide
4511-42-6
X

1,4
Lead
7439-92-1

X
1,4
Lecithin
8002-43-5


4
L-Glutamic acid
56-86-0
X

8
Lignite
129521-66-0


2
Lignosulfuric acid
8062-15-5


2
Ligroine
8032-32-4


8
Limestone
1317-65-3


1, 2, 3, 4
Linseed oil
8001-26-1


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-28	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
L-Lactic acid
79-33-4
X

1, 4,8
Magnesium carbonate (1:1)
7757-69-9


8
Magnesium carbonate (l:x)
546-93-0


1, 3,4
Magnesium chloride
7786-30-3


1, 2,4
Magnesium chloride hexahydrate
7791-18-6


4
Magnesium hydroxide
1309-42-8


1,4
Magnesium iron silicate
19086-72-7


1,4
Magnesium nitrate
10377-60-3


1, 2,4
Magnesium oxide
1309-48-4


1, 2, 3, 4
Magnesium peroxide
14452-57-4


1,4
Magnesium phosphide
12057-74-8


1
Magnesium silicate
1343-88-0


1,4
Magnesium sulfate
7487-88-9


8
Maleicacid homopolymer
26099-09-2


8
Methanamine-N-methyl polymer with
chloromethyl oxirane
25988-97-0


4
Methane
74-82-8
X

2,5
Methanol
67-56-1
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7,8
Methenamine
100-97-0
X

1, 2,4
Methoxyacetic acid
625-45-6
X

8
Methyl cellulose
9004-67-5


8
Methyl salicylate
119-36-8
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Methyl vinyl ketone
78-94-4
X

1,4
Methylcyclohexane
108-87-2
X

1
Methylene bis(thiocyanate)
6317-18-6
X

2
Methylenebis(5-methyloxazolidine)
66204-44-2
X

2
Methyloxirane polymer with oxirane, mono
(nonylphenol) ether, branched
68891-11-2


3
Mica
12001-26-2


1, 2, 4, 6
Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil
8012-95-1

X
4,8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-29	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Mineral spirits
64475-85-0


2
Mono- and di- potassium salts of phosphorous
acid
13492-26-7


8
Montmorillonite
1318-93-0


2
Morpholine
110-91-8
X

1, 2,4
Morpholinium, 4-ethyl-4-hexadecyl-, ethyl
sulfate
78-21-7
X

8
MT 6
76-31-3


8
Mullite
1302-93-8


1,2, 4, 8
N-(2-Acryloyloxyethyl)-N-benzyl-N,N-
dimethylammonium chloride
46830-22-2
X

3
N-(3-Chloroallyl)hexaminium chloride
4080-31-3
X

8
N,N,N-Trimethyl-2[l-oxo-2-propenyl]oxy
ethanaminimum chloride, homopolymer
54076-97-0


3
N,N,N-Trimethyl-3-((l-oxooctadecyl)amino)-l-
propanaminium methyl sulfate
19277-88-4
X

1
N,N,N-Trimethyloctadecan-l-aminium chloride
112-03-8
X

1, 3,4
N,N'-Dibutylthiourea
109-46-6
X

1,4
N,N-Dimethyldecylamine oxide
2605-79-0
X

1, 3,4
N,N-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
X
X
1, 2, 4, 5, 8
N,N-Dimethylmethanamine hydrochloride
593-81-7
X

1, 4, 5, 7
N,N-Dimethyl-methanamine-N-oxide
1184-78-7
X

3
N,N-dimethyloctadecylamine hydrochloride
1613-17-8
X

1,4
N,N'-Methylenebisacrylamide
110-26-9
X

1,4
Naphtha, petroleum, heavy catalytic reformed
64741-68-0


1, 2, 3, 4
Naphtha, petroleum, hydrotreated heavy
64742-48-9


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Naphthalene
91-20-3
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, bis(l-methylethyl)-
28757-00-8
X

1, 3,4
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, polymer with
formaldehyde, sodium salt
9084-06-4


2
Naphthalenesulphonic acid, bis (1-methylethyl)-
methyl derivatives
99811-86-6
X

1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-30	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Naphthenic acid ethoxylate
68410-62-8
X

4
Navy fuels JP-5
8008-20-6_2


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Nickel sulfate
7786-81-4


2
Nickel(ll) sulfate hexahydrate
10101-97-0


1,4
Nitriles, tallow, hydrogenated
61790-29-2


4
Nitrilotriacetamide
4862-18-4
X

1, 4,7
Nitrilotriacetic acid
139-13-9
X
X
1,4
Nitrilotriacetic acid trisodium monohydrate
18662-53-8
X
X
1,4
Nitrogen
7727-37-9


1, 2, 3, 4, 6
N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone
872-50-4
X
X
1,4
N-Methyldiethanolamine
105-59-9
X

2, 4,8
N-Methylethanolamine
109-83-1
X

4
N-Methyl-N-hydroxyethyl-N-
hydroxyethoxyethylamine
68213-98-9
X

4
N-Oleyl diethanolamide
13127-82-7
X

1,4
Nonyl nonoxynol-10
9014-93-1


4
Nonylphenol (mixed)
25154-52-3


1,4
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane
556-67-2


8
Octoxynol-9
9036-19-5


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Oil of eucalyptus
8000-48-4


3
Oil of lemongrass
8007-02-1


3
Oil of rosemary
8000-25-7


3
Oleic acid
112-80-1
X

2,4
Olivine-group minerals
1317-71-1


4
Orange terpenes
8028-48-6


4
Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether
with (chloromethyl) oxirane polymer with 4,4 -
(1-methylidene) bis[phenol]
68036-95-3


8
Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane,
mono(2-ethylhexyl) ether
64366-70-7


8
Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane,
monodecyl ether
37251-67-5


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-31	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono-
C10-16-alkyl ethers, phosphates
68649-29-6


1,4
Oxygen
7782-44-7


4
Ozone
10028-15-6


8
Paraffin waxes and Hydrocarbon waxes
8002-74-2


1
Paraformaldehyde
30525-89-4


2
PEG-10 Hydrogenated tallow amine
61791-26-2


1,3
Pentaethylenehexamine
4067-16-7
X

4
Pentane
109-66-0
X

2,5
Pentyl acetate
628-63-7
X

3
Pentyl butyrate
540-18-1
X

3
Peracetic acid
79-21-0
X

8
Perboric acid, sodium salt, monohydrate
10332-33-9


1,8
Perlite
93763-70-3


4
Petrolatum, petroleum, oxidized
64743-01-7


3
Petroleum
8002-05-9


1,2
Petroleum distillate hydrotreated light
6742-47-8


8
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
X

6
Phenol
108-95-2
X
X
1,2,4
Phenol, 4,4'-(l-methylethylidene)bis-, polymer
with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane, 2-methyloxirane
and oxirane
68123-18-2


8
Phenol-formaldehyde resin
9003-35-4


1, 2, 4, 7
Phosphine
7803-51-2

X
1,4
Phosphonic acid
13598-36-2


1,4
Phosphonic acid (dimethylamino(methylene))
29712-30-9
X

1
Phosphonic acid, (((2-[(2-
hydroxyethyl)(phosphonomethyl)amino)ethyl)i
mino]bis(methylene))bis-, compd. with 2-
aminoethanol
129828-36-0
X

1
Phosphonic acid, (l-hydroxyethylidene)bis-,
potassium salt
67953-76-8
X

4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-32	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Phosphonic acid, (l-hydroxyethylidene)bis-,
tetrasodium salt
3794-83-0
X

1,4
Phosphonic acid,
[[(phosphonomethyl)imino]bis[2,l-
ethanediylnitrilobis(methylene)]]tetrakis-
15827-60-8
X

1, 2,4
Phosphonic acid,
[[(phosphonomethyl)imino]bis[2,l-
ethanediylnitrilobis(methylene)]]tetrakis-,
ammonium salt (l:x)
70714-66-8
X

3
Phosphonic acid,
[[(phosphonomethyl)imino]bis[2,l-
ethanediylnitrilobis(methylene)]]tetrakis-,
sodium salt
22042-96-2
X

3
Phosphonic acid,
[[(phosphonomethyl)imino]bis[6,l-
hexanediylnitrilobis(methylene)]]tetrakis-
34690-00-1
X

1, 4,8
Phosphoric acid
7664-38-2

X
1, 2,4
Phosphoric acid, aluminium sodium salt
7785-88-8

X
1,2
Phosphoric acid, ammonium salt (1:3)
10361-65-6


8
Phosphoric acid, diammonium salt
7783-28-0

X
2
Phosphoric acid, mixed decyl and Et and octyl
esters
68412-60-2


1
Phosphorous acid
10294-56-1


1
Phthalic anhydride
85-44-9
X
X
1,4
Pine oils
8002-09-3


1, 2,4
Pluronic F-127
9003-11-6


1, 3, 4, 8
Policapram (Nylon 6)
25038-54-4


1,4
Poly (acrylamide-co-acrylic acid), partial sodium
salt
62649-23-4


3,4
Poly(acrylamide-co-acrylic acid)
9003-06-9


4,8
Poly(lactide)
26680-10-4


1
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), .alpha.-(nonylphenyl)-
.omega.-hydroxy-, phosphate
51811-79-1


1,4
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), .alpha.-(octylphenyl)-
.omega.-hydroxy-, branched
68987-90-6
X

1,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-33	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), .alpha.alpha.'-[[(9Z)-
9-octadecenylimino]di-2,l-
ethanediyl]bis[.omega.-hydro xy-
26635-93-8


1,4
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), .alpha.-[(9Z)-l-oxo-9-
octadecenyl]-.omega.-hydroxy-
9004-96-0


8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), .alpha.-hydro-
.omega.-hydroxy-, mono-C10-14-alkyl ethers,
phosphates
68585-36-4


8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), .alpha.-hydro-
.omega.-hydroxy-, mono-C8-10-alkyl ethers,
phosphates
68130-47-2


8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), .alpha.-isodecyl-
.omega.-hydroxy-
61827-42-7


8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), .alpha.-sulfo-.omega.-
hydroxy-, C10-16-alkyl ethers, sodium salts
68585-34-2


8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), .alpha.-sulfo-.omega.-
hydroxy-, C12-14-alkyl ethers, sodium salts
68891-38-3


1,4
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(2,3,4,5-
tetramethylnonyl)-omega-hydroxy
68015-67-8


1
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(nonylphenyl)-
omega-hydroxy-,branched, phosphates
68412-53-3


1
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-hexyl-omega-
hydroxy
31726-34-8


3, 8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-hydro-omega-
hydroxy-, (9Z)-9-octadecenoate
56449-46-8


3
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-hydro-omega-
hydroxy-, ether with alpha-fluoro-omega-(2-
hydroxyethyl)poly(difluoromethylene) (1:1)
65545-80-4


1
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-hydro-omega-
hydroxy-, ether with D-glucitol (2:1), tetra-(9Z)-
9-octadecenoate
61723-83-9


8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-
(decyloxy)-, ammonium salt (1:1)
52286-19-8


4
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-
(hexyloxy)-, ammonium salt (1:1)
63428-86-4


1, 3,4
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-
(hexyloxy)-, C6-10-alkyl ethers, ammonium salts
68037-05-8


3,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-34	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-
(nonylphenoxy)-
9081-17-8


4
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-
(octyloxy)-, ammonium salt (1:1)
52286-18-7


4
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-
hydroxy-, C10-12-alkyl ethers, ammonium salts
68890-88-0


8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-tridecyl-omega-
hydroxy-
24938-91-8


1, 3,4
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl), alpha-undecyl-omega-
hydroxy-, branched and linear
127036-24-2


1
Poly-(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl)-alpha-undecyl-
omega-hydroxy
34398-01-1


1, 3, 4, 8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl)-nonylphenyl-hydroxy
branched
127087-87-0


1, 2, 3, 4
Poly(sodium-p-styrenesulfonate)
25704-18-1


1,4
Poly(tetrafluoroethylene)
9002-84-0


8
Poly [imino(l,6-dioxo-1,6-hexanediyl)imino-1,6-
hexanediyl]
32131-17-2


2
Polyacrylamide
9003-05-8


1, 2, 4, 6
Polyacrylate/ polyacrylamide blend
NOCAS_51256


2
Polyacrylic acid, sodium bisulfite terminated
66019-18-9


3
Polyethylene glycol
25322-68-3


1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
Polyethylene glycol (9Z)-9-octadecenyl ether
9004-98-2


8
Polyethylene glycol ester with tall oil fatty acid
68187-85-9


1
Polyethylene glycol monobutyl ether
9004-77-7


1,4
Polyethylene glycol mono-C8-10-alkyl ether
sulfate ammonium
68891-29-2


1, 3,4
Polyethylene glycol nonylphenyl ether
9016-45-9


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Polyethylene glycol tridecyl ether phosphate
9046-01-9


1, 3,4
Polyethyleneimine
9002-98-6


4
Polyglycerol
25618-55-7


2
Poly-L-aspartic acid sodium salt
34345-47-6


8
Polyoxyethylene sorbitan trioleate
9005-70-3


3
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-35	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Polyoxyethylene(10)nonylphenyl ether
26027-38-3


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Polyoxyl 15 hydroxystearate
70142-34-6


8
Polyoxypropylenediamine
9046-10-0


1
Polyphosphoric acids, esters with
triethanolamine, sodium salts
68131-72-6


1
Polyphosphoric acids, sodium salts
68915-31-1

X
1,4
Polypropylene glycol
25322-69-4


1, 2,4
Polypropylene glycol glycerol triether,
epichlorohydrin, bisphenol A polymer
68683-13-6


1
Polyquaternium 5
26006-22-4


1,4
Polysorbate 20
9005-64-5


8
Polysorbate 60
9005-67-8


3,4
Polysorbate 80
9005-65-6


3,4
Polyvinyl acetate copolymer
9003-20-7


2
Polyvinyl acetate, partially hydrolyzed
304443-60-5


8
Polyvinyl alcohol
9002-89-5


1, 2,4
Polyvinyl alcohol/polyvinyl acetate copolymer
NOCAS_50147


2
Polyvinylidene chloride
9002-85-1


8
Polyvinylpyrrolidone
9003-39-8


8
Portland cement
65997-15-1


2,4
Potassium acetate
127-08-2
X

1, 3,4
Potassium aluminum silicate
1327-44-2


5
Potassium antimonate
29638-69-5


1,4
Potassium bisulfate
7646-93-7


8
Potassium borate
12712-38-8


3
Potassium borate (l:x)
20786-60-1


1,3
Potassium carbonate sesquihydrate
6381-79-9


5
Potassium chloride
7447-40-7


1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6,7
Potassium dichromate
7778-50-9


4
Potassium hydroxide
1310-58-3


1, 2, 3, 4, 6
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-36	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Potassium iodide
7681-11-0

X
1,4
Potassium metaborate
13709-94-9


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Potassium oleate
143-18-0
X

4
Potassium oxide
12136-45-7


1,4
Potassium persulfate
7727-21-1


1, 2,4
Potassium phosphate, tribasic
7778-53-2

X
8
Potassium sulfate
7778-80-5


2
Propane
74-98-6
X

2,5
Propanol, l(or 2)-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)-
34590-94-8
X

1, 2, 3, 4
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7,8
Propylene carbonate
108-32-7
X

1,4
Propylene pentamer
15220-87-8
X

1
p-Xylene
106-42-3
X

1,4
Pyridine, alkyl derivs.
68391-11-7


1,4
Pyridinium, l-(phenylmethyl)-, alkyl derivs.,
chlorides
100765-57-9


4,8
Pyridinium, l-(phenylmethyl)-, C7-8-alkyl
derivs., chlorides
70914-44-2


6
Pyrimidine
289-95-2
X

2
Pyrrole
109-97-7
X

2
Quartz-alpha (Si02)
14808-60-7


1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 8
Quaternary ammonium compounds (2-
ethylhexyl) hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl,
methyl sulfates
308074-31-9


8
Quaternary ammonium compounds, (oxydi-2,1-
ethanediyl)bis[coco alkyldimethyl, dichlorides
68607-28-3


2, 3, 4, 8
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl,
bis(hydrogenated tallow
alkyl)dimethylammonium salt with bentonite
71011-25-1


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-37	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl,
salts with bentonite
68153-30-0


2, 5,6
Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl-
C10-16-alkyldimethyl, chlorides
68989-00-4


1,4
Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl-
C12-16-alkyldimethyl, chlorides
68424-85-1

X
1, 2, 4, 8
Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl-
C12-18-alkyldimethyl, chlorides
68391-01-5


8
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts
with bentonite
68953-58-2


2, 3, 4, 8
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, salts
with hectorite
71011-27-3


2
Quaternary ammonium compounds, di-C8-10-
alkyldimethyl, chlorides
68424-95-3
X

2
Quaternary ammonium compounds, dicoco
alkyldimethyl, chlorides
61789-77-3


1
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
pentamethyltallow alkyltrimethylenedi-,
dichlorides
68607-29-4


4
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
trimethyltallow alkyl, chlorides
8030-78-2


1,4
Quinaldine
91-63-4
X

8
Quinoline
91-22-5
X
X
2,4
Raffinates (petroleum)
68514-29-4


5
Raffinates, petroleum, sorption process
64741-85-1


1, 2, 4, 8
Residual oils, petroleum, solvent-refined
64742-01-4


5
Residues, petroleum, catalytic reformer
fractionator
64741-67-9


1, 4,8
Rhodamine B
81-88-9
X

4
Rosin
8050-09-7


1,4
Rutile titanium dioxide
1317-80-2


8
Sand
308075-07-2


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-38	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Scandium oxide
12060-08-1


8
Sepiolite
63800-37-3


2
Silane, dichlorodimethyl-, reaction products
with silica
68611-44-9


2,4
Silica
7631-86-9


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
silica gel, cryst. -free
112926-00-8


3,4
Silica, amorphous, fumed, cryst.-free
112945-52-5


1, 3,4
Silica, vitreous
60676-86-0


1, 4,8
Silicic acid, aluminum potassium sodium salt
12736-96-8


4
Siloxanes (Polysiloxane)
9011-19-2


4
Siloxanes and Silicones, di-Me, 3-hydroxypropyl
Me, ethoxylated propoxylated
68937-55-3


8
Siloxanes and Silicones, di-Me, Me hydrogen
68037-59-2


8
Siloxanes and silicones, di-Me, polymers with
Me silsesquioxanes
68037-74-1


4
Siloxanes and Silicones, di-Me, reaction
products with silica
67762-90-7


4
Siloxanes and silicones, dimethyl,
63148-52-7


4
Silwet L77
27306-78-1


1
Sodium 1-octanesulfonate
5324-84-5
X

3
Sodium 2-mercaptobenzothiolate
2492-26-4
X

2
Sodium acetate
127-09-3
X

1, 3,4
Sodium aluminate
1302-42-7


2,4
Sodium benzoate
532-32-1
X

3
Sodium bicarbonate
144-55-8
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Sodium bis(tridecyl) sulfobutanedioate
2673-22-5
X

4
Sodium bisulfite
7631-90-5


1, 3,4
Sodium borate
1333-73-9


1, 4, 6, 7
Sodium bromate
7789-38-0


1, 2,4
Sodium bromide
7647-15-6


1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Sodium bromosulfamate
1004542-84-0


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-39	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Sodium C14-16 alpha-olefin sulfonate
68439-57-6
X

1, 3,4
Sodium caprylamphopropionate
68610-44-6
X

4
Sodium carbonate
497-19-8
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Sodium chlorate
7775-09-9

X
1,4
Sodium chloride
7647-14-5


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8
Sodium chlorite
7758-19-2

X
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8
Sodium chloroacetate
3926-62-3
X

3
Sodium cocaminopropionate
68608-68-4


1
Sodium decyl sulfate
142-87-0
X

1
Sodium D-gluconate
527-07-1
X

4
Sodium diacetate
126-96-5
X

1,4
Sodium dichloroisocyanurate
2893-78-9
X

2
Sodium dl-lactate
72-17-3
X

8
Sodium dodecyl sulfate
151-21-3
X

8
Sodium erythorbate (1:1)
6381-77-7
X

1, 3, 4, 8
Sodium ethasulfate
126-92-1
X

1
Sodium formate
141-53-7
X

2,8
Sodium hydrogen sulfate
7681-38-1


4
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2


1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
Sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate
870-72-4
X

8
Sodium hypochlorite
7681-52-9


1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Sodium iodide
7681-82-5

X
4
Sodium ligninsulfonate
8061-51-6


2
Sodium l-lactate
867-56-1
X

8
Sodium maleate (l:x)
18016-19-8
X

8
Sodium metabisulfite
7681-57-4


1
Sodium metaborate
7775-19-1


3,4
Sodium metaborate dihydrate
16800-11-6


1,4
Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate
10555-76-7


1, 4,8
Sodium metasilicate
6834-92-0


1, 2,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-40	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Sodium molybdate(VI)
7631-95-0


8
Sodium nitrate
7631-99-4


2
Sodium nitrite
7632-00-0


1, 2,4
Sodium N-methyl-N-oleoyltaurate
137-20-2
X

4
Sodium octyl sulfate
142-31-4
X

1
Sodium oxide
1313-59-3


1
Sodium perborate
11138-47-9


4
Sodium perborate tetrahydrate
10486-00-7


1, 4, 5, 8
Sodium peroxoborate
7632-04-4


1
Sodium persulfate
7775-27-1


1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
Sodium phosphate
7632-05-5


1,4
Sodium polyacrylate
9003-04-7


1, 2, 3, 4
Sodium pyrophosphate
7758-16-9

X
1, 2,4
Sodium salicylate
54-21-7
X

1,4
Sodium sesquicarbonate
533-96-0
X

1,2
Sodium silicate
1344-09-8


1, 2,4
Sodium starch glycolate
9063-38-1


2
Sodium sulfate
7757-82-6


1, 2, 3, 4
Sodium sulfite
7757-83-7


2, 4,8
Sodium thiocyanate
540-72-7
X

1,4
Sodium thiosulfate
7772-98-7


1, 2, 3, 4
Sodium thiosulfate, pentahydrate
10102-17-7


1,4
Sodium trichloroacetate
650-51-1
X

1,4
Sodium trimetaphosphate
7785-84-4

X
8
Sodium xylenesulfonate
1300-72-7
X

1, 3,4
Sodium zirconium lactate
15529-67-6


8
Sodium zirconium lactic acid (4:4:1)
10377-98-7


1,4
Solvent naphtha, petroleum, heavy aliph.
64742-96-7


2, 4,8
Solvent naphtha, petroleum, heavy arom.
64742-94-5


1, 2, 4, 5, 8
Solvent naphtha, petroleum, light aliph.
64742-89-8


8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-41	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Solvent naphtha, petroleum, light arom.
64742-95-6


1, 2,4
Sorbic acid
110-44-1
X

8
Sorbitan sesquioleate
8007-43-0
X

4
Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
1338-43-8
X

1, 2, 3, 4
Sorbitan, monooctadecanoate
1338-41-6
X

8
Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
26266-58-0
X

8
Spirit of ammonia, aromatic
8013-59-0


8
Stannous chloride dihydrate
10025-69-1


1,4
Starch
9005-25-8


1, 2,4
Steam cracked distillate, cyclodiene dimer,
dicyclopentadiene polymer
68131-87-3


1
Stoddard solvent
8052-41-3


1, 3,4
Stoddard solvent IIC
64742-88-7


1, 2,4
Strontium chloride
10476-85-4

X
4
Styrene
100-42-5
X
X
2
Subtilisin
9014-01-1


8
Sucrose
57-50-1
X

1, 2, 3, 4
Sulfamic acid
5329-14-6


1,4
Sulfan blue
129-17-9
X

8
Sulfate
14808-79-8


1,4
Sulfo NHS Biotin
119616-38-5


8
Sulfomethylated quebracho
68201-64-9


2
Sulfonic acids, C10-16-alkane, sodium salts
68608-21-9


6
Sulfonic acids, petroleum
61789-85-3


1
Sulfonic acids, petroleum, sodium salts
68608-26-4


3
Sulfur dioxide
7446-09-5


2, 4,8
Sulfuric acid
7664-93-9


1, 2, 4, 7
Sulfuric acid, mono-C12-18-alkyl esters, sodium
salts
68955-19-1
X

4
Sulfuric acid, mono-C6-10-alkyl esters,
ammonium salts
68187-17-7
X

1, 4,8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-42	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Symclosene
87-90-1
X

2
Talc
14807-96-6


1, 3, 4, 6, 7
Tall oil
8002-26-4


4,8
Tall oil imidazoline
61791-36-4


4
Tall oil, compound with diethanolamine
68092-28-4


1
Tall oil, ethoxylated
65071-95-6


4,8
Tall-oil pitch
8016-81-7


4
Tallow alkyl amines acetate
61790-60-1


8
Tar bases, quinoline derivatives, benzyl
chloride-quaternized
72480-70-7


1, 3,4
Tegin M
8043-29-6


8
Terpenes and Terpenoids, sweet orange-oil
68647-72-3


1, 3, 4, 8
Terpineol
8000-41-7


1,3
tert-Butyl hydroperoxide
75-91-2
X

1,4
tert-Butyl perbenzoate
614-45-9
X

1
Tetra-calcium-alumino-ferrite
12068-35-8


1, 2,4
Tetradecane
629-59-4
X

8
Tetradecyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride
139-08-2
X

1, 4,8
Tetraethylene glycol
112-60-7
X

1,4
Tetraethylenepentamine
112-57-2
X

1,4
Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate
55566-30-8
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Tetramethyl orthosilicate
681-84-5


1
Tetramethylammonium chloride
75-57-0
X

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
Tetrasodium pyrophosphate
7722-88-5

X
8
Thiamine hydrochloride
67-03-8
X

8
Thiocyanic acid, ammonium salt
1762-95-4
X

2, 3,4
Thioglycolic acid
68-11-1
X

1, 2, 3, 4
Thiourea
62-56-6
X
X
1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Thiourea, polymer with formaldehyde and 1-
phenylethanone
68527-49-1


1, 4,8
Thuja plicata donn ex. D. don leaf oil
68917-35-1


3
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-43	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Tin(ll) chloride
7772-99-8


1
Titanium dioxide
13463-67-7


1, 2,4
Titanium(4+) 2-[bis(2-
hydroxyethyl)amino]ethanolate propan-2-olate
(1:2:2)
36673-16-2


1
Titanium, isopropoxy (triethanolaminate)
74665-17-1


1,4
Toluene
108-88-3
X
X
1,3,4
Tributyl phosphate
126-73-8
X
X
1, 2,4
Tributyltetradecylphosphonium chloride
81741-28-8
X

1, 3,4
Tricalcium phosphate
7758-87-4

X
1,4
Tricalcium silicate
12168-85-3


1, 2,4
Tridecane
629-50-5
X

8
Triethanolamine
102-71-6
X

1, 2,4
Triethanolamine hydrochloride
637-39-8
X

8
Triethanolamine hydroxyacetate
68299-02-5
X

3
Triethanolamine polyphosphate ester
68131-71-5


1, 4,8
Triethyl citrate
77-93-0
X

1,4
Triethyl phosphate
78-40-0
X

1,4
Triethylene glycol
112-27-6
X

1, 2,3
Triethylenetetramine
112-24-3
X

4
Triisopropanolamine
122-20-3
X

1,4
Trimethanolamine
14002-32-5
X

3
Trimethyl borate
121-43-7


8
Trimethylamine
75-50-3
X

8
Trimethylamine quaternized
polyepichlorohydrin
51838-31-4


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8
Trimethylbenzene
25551-13-7


1, 2,4
Triphosphoric acid, pentasodium salt
7758-29-4

X
1,4
Tripoli
1317-95-9


4
Tripotassium citrate monohydrate
6100-05-6
X

4
Tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether
25498-49-1
X

2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-44	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Trisodium citrate
68-04-2
X

3
Trisodium citrate dihydrate
6132-04-3
X

1,4
Trisodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate
150-38-9
X

1,3
Trisodium ethylenediaminetriacetate
19019-43-3
X

1, 4,8
Trisodium phosphate
7601-54-9

X
1, 2,4
Trisodium phosphate dodecahydrate
10101-89-0


1
Tritan R (X-100)
92046-34-9


8
Triton X-100
9002-93-1


1, 3,4
Tromethamine
77-86-1
X

3,4
Tryptone
73049-73-7


8
Ulexite
1319-33-1


1, 2, 3, 8
Undecane
1120-21-4
X

3, 8
Undecanol, branched and linear
128973-77-3


8
Urea
57-13-6
X

1, 2, 4, 8
Vermiculite
1318-00-9


2
Vinyl acetate ethylene copolymer
24937-78-8


1,4
Vinylidene chloride/methylacrylate copolymer
25038-72-6


4
Water
7732-18-5


2, 4,8
White mineral oil, petroleum
8042-47-5


1, 2,4
Xylenes
1330-20-7
X
X
1,2,4
Yeast extract
8013-01-2


8
Zeolites
1318-02-1


8
Zinc
7440-66-6

X
2
Zinc carbonate
3486-35-9


2
Zinc chloride
7646-85-7


1,2
Zinc oxide
1314-13-2


1,4
Zinc sulfate monohydrate
7446-19-7


8
Zirconium nitrate
13746-89-9


2,6
Zirconium oxide sulfate
62010-10-0


1,4
Zirconium oxychloride
7699-43-6


1, 2,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-45	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Zirconium(IV) chloride tetrahydrofuran complex
21959-01-3


5
Zirconium(IV) sulfate
14644-61-2


2,6
Zirconium, l,l'-((2-((2-hydroxyethyl)(2-
hydroxypropyl)amino)ethyl)imino)bis(2-
propanol) complexes
197980-53-3


4
Zirconium, acetate lactate oxo ammonium
complexes
68909-34-2


4,8
Zirconium, chloro hydroxy lactate oxo sodium
complexes
174206-15-6


4
Zirconium, hydroxylactate sodium complexes
113184-20-6


1,4
Zirconium, tetrakis[2-[bis(2-
hydroxyethyl)amino-kN]ethanolato-kO]-
101033-44-7


1, 2, 4, 5
Table A-3. List of generic names of chemicals reportedly used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
In some cases, the generic chemical name masks a specific chemical name and CASRN provided to the
EPA and claimed as CBI by one or more of the nine hydraulic fracturing service companies.
Generic chemical name
Reference
2-Substituted aromatic amine salt
1,4
Acetylenic alcohol
1
Acrylamide acrylate copolymer
4
Acrylamide copolymer
1,4
Acrylamide modified polymer
4
Acrylamide-sodium acrylate copolymer
4
Acrylate copolymer
1
Acrylic copolymer
1
Acrylic polymer
1,4
Acrylic resin
4
Acyclic hydrocarbon blend
1,4
Acylbenzylpyridinium choride
8
Alcohol alkoxylate
1,4
Alcohol and fatty acid blend
2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-46	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Alcohol ethoxylates
4
Alcohols
1,4
Alcohols, C9-C22
1,4
Aldehydes
1, 4,5
Alfa-alumina
1,4
Aliphatic acids
1, 2, 3, 4
Aliphatic alcohol
2
Aliphatic alcohol glycol ether
3,4
Aliphatic alcohols, ethoxylated
2
Aliphatic amine derivative
1
Aliphatic carboxylic acid
4
Alkaline bromide salts
1,4
Alkaline metal oxide
4
Alkanes/alkenes
4
Alkanolamine derivative
2
Alkanolamine/aldehyde condensate
1, 2,4
Alkenes
1,4
Alklaryl sulfonic acid
1,4
Alkoxylated alcohols
1
Alkoxylated amines
1,4
Alkyaryl sulfonate
1, 2, 3, 4
Alkyl alkoxylate
1,4
Alkyl amide
4
Alkyl amine
1,4
Alkyl amine blend in a metal salt solution
1,4
Alkyl aryl amine sulfonate
4
Alkyl aryl polyethoxy ethanol
3,4
Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride
4
Alkyl esters
1,4
Alkyl ether phosphate
4
Alkyl hexanol
1,4
Alkyl ortho phosphate ester
1,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-47	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Alkyl phosphate ester
1,4
Alkyl phosphonate
4
Alkyl pyridines
2
Alkyl quaternary ammonium chlorides
1,4
Alkyl quaternary ammonium salt
4
Alkylamine alkylaryl sulfonate
4
Alkylamine salts
2
Alkylaryl sulfonate
1,4
Alkylated quaternary chloride
1, 2,4
Alkylated sodium naphthalenesulphonate
2
Alkylbenzenesulfonate
2
Alkylbenzenesulfonic acid
1, 4,5
Alkylethoammonium sulfates
1
Alkylphenol ethoxylates
1,4
Alkylpyridinium quaternary
4
Alphatic alcohol polyglycol ether
2
Aluminum oxide
1,4
Amide
4
Amidoamine
1,4
Amine
1,4
Amine compound
4
Amine oxides
1,4
Amine phosphonate
1,4
Amine salt
1
Amino compounds
1,4
Amino methylene phosphonic acid salt
1,4
Ammonium alcohol ether sulfate
1,4
Ammonium salt
1,4
Ammonium salt of ethoxylated alcohol sulfate
1,4
Amorphous silica
4
Amphoteric surfactant
2
Anionic acrylic polymer
2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-48	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Anionic copolymer
1,4
Anionic polyacrylamide
1, 2,4
Anionic polyacrylamide copolymer
1, 4,6
Anionic polymer
1, 3,4
Anionic surfactants
2, 4,6
Antifoulant
1,4
Antimonate salt
1,4
Aqueous emulsion of diethylpolysiloxane
2
Aromatic alcohol glycol ether
1
Aromatic aldehyde
1,4
Aromatic hydrocarbons
3,4
Aromatic ketones
1, 2, 3, 4
Aromatic polyglycol ether
1
Arsenic compounds
4
Ashes, residues
4
Bentone clay
4
Biocide
4
Biocide component
1,4
Bis-quaternary methacrylamide monomer
4
Blast furnace slag
4
Borate salts
1, 2,4
Cadmium compounds
4
Carbohydrates
1, 2,4
Carboxylmethyl hydroxypropyl guar
4
Cationic polyacrylamide
4
Cationic polymer
2,4
Cedar fiber, processed
2
Cellulase enzyme
1
Cellulose derivative
1, 2,4
Cellulose ether
2
Cellulosic polymer
2
Ceramic
4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-49	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Chlorous ion solution
1
Chromates
1,4
Chrome-free lignosulfonate compound
2
Citrus rutaceae extract
4
Common white
4
Complex alkylaryl polyo-ester
1
Complex aluminum salt
1,4
Complex carbohydrate
2
Complex organometallic salt
1
Complex polyamine salt
7
Complex substituted keto-amine
1
Complex substituted keto-amine hydrochloride
1
Copper compounds
6
Coric oxide
4
Cotton dust (raw)
2
Cottonseed hulls
2
Cured acrylic resin
1,4
Cured resin
1, 4,5
Cured urethane resin
1,4
Cyclic alkanes
1,4
Defoamer
4
Dibasic ester
4
Dicarboxylic acid
1,4
Diesel
1, 4,6
Dimethyl silicone
1,4
Dispersing agent
1
Emulsifier
4
Enzyme
4
Epoxy
4
Epoxy resin
1,4
Essential oils
1,4
Ester Salt
2,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-50	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Esters
2,4
Ether compound
4
Ether salt
4
Ethoxylated alcohol blend
4
Ethoxylated alcohol/ester mixture
4
Ethoxylated alcohols
1, 2, 4, 5, 7
Ethoxylated alkyl amines
1,4
Ethoxylated amine blend
4
Ethoxylated amines
1,4
Ethoxylated fatty acid
4
Ethoxylated fatty acid ester
1,4
Ethoxylated nonionic surfactant
1,4
Ethoxylated nonylphenol
1, 2,4
Ethoxylated sorbitol esters
1,4
Ethylene oxide-nonylphenol polymer
4
Fatty acid amine salt mixture
4
Fatty acid ester
1, 2,4
Fatty acid tall oil
1,4
Fatty acid, ethoxylate
4
Fatty acids
1
Fatty alcohol alkoxylate
1,4
Fatty alkyl amine salt
1,4
Fatty amine carboxylates
1,4
Fatty imidazoline
4
Fluoroaliphatic polymeric esters
1,4
Formaldehyde polymer
1
Glass fiber
1,4
Glyceride esters
2
Glycol
4
Glycol blend
2
Glycol ethers
1, 4,7
Ground cedar
2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-51	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Ground paper
2
Guar derivative
1,4
Guar gum
4
Haloalkyl heteropolycycle salt
1,4
Hexanes
1
High molecular weight polymer
2
High pH conventional enzymes
2
Hydrocarbons
1
Hydrogen solvent
4
Hydrotreated and hydrocracked base oil
1,4
Hydrotreated distillate, light C9-16
4
Hydrotreated heavy naphthalene
5
Hydrotreated light distillate
2,4
Hydrotreated light petroleum distillate
4
Hydroxyalkyl imino carboxylic sodium salt
2
Hydroxycellulose
6
Hydroxyethyl cellulose
1, 2,4
Imidazolium compound
4
Inner salt of alkyl amines
1,4
Inorganic borate
1,4
Inorganic chemical
4
Inorganic particulate
1,4
Inorganic salt
2,4
Iso-alkanes/n-alkanes
1,4
Isomeric aromatic ammonium salt
1,4
Latex
2,4
Lead compounds
4
Low toxicity base oils
1,4
Lubra-Beads course
4
Maghemite
1,4
Magnetite
1,4
Metal salt
1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-52	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Metal salt solution
1
Mineral
1,4
Mineral fiber
2
Mineral filler
1
Mineral oil
4
Mixed titanium ortho ester complexes
1,4
Modified acrylamide copolymer
2,4
Modified acrylate polymer
4
Modified alkane
1,4
Modified bentonite
4
Modified cycloaliphatic amine adduct
1,4
Modified lignosulfonate
2,4
Naphthalene derivatives
1,4
Neutralized alkylated napthalene sulfonate
4
Nickel chelate catalyst
4
Nonionic surfactant
1
N-tallowalkyltrimethylenediamines
4
Nuisance particulates
1, 2,4
Nylon
4
Olefinic sulfonate
1,4
Olefins
1,4
Organic acid salt
1,4
Organic acids
1,4
Organic alkyl amines
4
Organic chloride
4
Organic modified bentonite clay
4
Organic phosphonate
1,4
Organic phosphonate salts
1,4
Organic phosphonic acid salts
1,4
Organic polymer
4
Organic polyol
4
Organic salt
1,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-53	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Organic sulfur compound
1,4
Organic surfactants
1
Organic titanate
1,4
Organo amino silane
4
Organo phosphonic acid
4
Organo phosphonic acid salt
4
Organometallic ammonium complex
1
Organophilic clay
4
Oxidized tall oil
2
Oxoaliphatic acid
2
Oxyalkylated alcohol
1,4
Oxyalkylated alkyl alcohol
2,4
Oxyalkylated alkylphenol
1, 2, 3, 4
Oxyalkylated fatty acid
1,4
Oxyalkylated fatty alcohol salt
2
Oxyalkylated phenol
1,4
Oxyalkylated phenolic resin
4
Oxyalkylated polyamine
1
Oxyalkylated tallow diamine
2
Oxyethylated alcohol
2
Oxylated alcohol
1,4
P/F resin
4
Paraffin inhibitor
4
Paraffinic naphthenic solvent
1
Paraffinic solvent
1,4
Paraffins
1
Pecan shell
2
Petroleum distallate blend
2, 3,4
Petroleum gas oils
1
Petroleum hydrocarbons
4
Petroleum solvent
2
Phosphate ester
1,4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-54	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Phosphonate
2
Phosphonic acid
1,4
Phosphoric acid, mixed polyoxyalkylene aryl and alkyl esters
4
Plasticizer
1,2
Polyacrylamide copolymer
4
Polyacrylamides
1
Polyacrylate
1,4
Polyactide resin
4
Polyalkylene esters
4
Polyaminated fatty acid
2
Polyaminated fatty acid surfactants
2
Polyamine
1,4
Polyamine polymer
4
Polyanionic cellulose
1
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
6
Polycyclic organic matter
6
Polyelectrolyte
4
Polyether polyol
2
Polyethoxylated alkanol
2, 3,4
Polyethylene copolymer
4
Polyethylene glycols
4
Polyethylene wax
4
Polyglycerols
2
Polyglycol
2
Polyglycol ether
6
Polylactide resin
4
Polymer
2,4
Polymeric hydrocarbons
3,4
Polymerized alcohol
4
Polymethacrylate polymer
4
Polyol phosphate ester
2
Polyoxyalkylene phosphate
2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-55	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Polyoxyalkylene sulfate
2
Polyoxyalkylenes
1, 4,7
Polyphenylene ether
4
Polyphosphate
4
Polypropylene glycols
2
Polyquaternary amine
4
Polysaccaride polymers in suspension
2
Polysaccharide
4
Polysaccharide blend
4
Polyvinylalcohol/polyvinylactetate copolymer
4
Potassium chloride substitute
4
Quarternized heterocyclic amines
4
Quaternary amine
2,4
Quaternary amine salt
4
Quaternary ammonium chloride
4
Quaternary ammonium compound
1, 2,4
Quaternary ammonium salts
1, 2,4
Quaternary compound
1,4
Quaternary salt
1,4
Quaternized alkyl nitrogenated compd
4
Red dye
4
Refined mineral oil
2
Resin
4
Salt of amine-carbonyl condensate
3,4
Salt of fatty acid/polyamine reaction product
3,4
Salt of phosphate ester
1
Salt of phosphono-methylated diamine
1,4
Salts
4
Salts of oxyalkylated fatty amines
4
Sand
4
Sand, AZ silica
4
Sand, brown
4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-56	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Sand, sacked
4
Sand, white
4
Secondary alcohol
1,4
Silica sand, 100 mesh, sacked
4
Silicone emulsion
1
Silicone ester
4
Sodium acid pyrophosphate
4
Sodium calcium magnesium polyphosphate
4
Sodium phosphate
4
Sodium salt of aliphatic amine acid
2
Sodium xylene sulfonate
4
Softwood dust
2
Starch blends
6
Substituted alcohol
1, 2,4
Substituted alkene
1
Substituted alklyamine
1,4
Substituted alkyne
4
Sulfate
4
Sulfomethylated tannin
2,5
Sulfonate
4
Sulfonate acids
1
Sulfonate surfactants
1
Sulfonated asphalt
2
Sulfonic acid salts
1,4
Sulfur compound
1,4
Sulphonic amphoterics
4
Sulphonic amphoterics blend
4
Surfactant blend
3,4
Surfactants
1, 2,4
Synthetic copolymer
2
Synthetic polymer
4
Tallow soap
4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-57	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Generic chemical name
Reference
Telomer
4
Terpenes
1,4
Titanium complex
4
Triethanolamine zirconium chelate
14
Triterpanes
4
Vanadium compounds
4
Wall material
1
Walnut hulls
1, 2,4
Zirconium complex
2,4
Zirconium salt
4
Table A-4. Chemicals detected in flowback or produced water.
An "X" indicates the availability of physicochemical properties from EPI Suite™ and selected toxicity
reference values (see Appendix G). An empty cell indicates no information was available from the
sources we consulted. Reference number corresponds to the citations in Table A-l. Italicized
chemicals are found in both fracturing fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
87-61-6
X
X
3,9
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
X
X
9
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
95-63-6
X

3, 9, 10
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6
X
X
3,9
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
108-67-8
X

3, 9, 10
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
X
X
9, 10
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
X
X
3, 9, 10
2,6-Dichlorophenol
87-65-0
X

3,9
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
X
X
3, 9, 10
2-Methylpropanoic acid
79-31-2
X

10
2-Methylpyridine
109-06-8
X

3,9
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
57-97-6
X
X
3,9
Acetic acid
64-19-7
X

3, 9, 10
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-58	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Acetone
67-64-1
X
X
3, 9, 10
Acetophenone
98-86-2
X
X
3,9
Acrolein
107-02-8
X
X
9
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
X
X
3,9
Aldrin
309-00-2
X
X
3,9
Aluminum
7429-90-5

X
3, 9, 10
Ammonia
7664-41-7


3, 9, 10
Antimony
7440-36-0

X
3, 9, 10
Aroclor 1248
12672-29-6
X

3,9
Arsenic
7440-38-2

X
3, 9, 10
Barium
7440-39-3

X
3, 9, 10
Benzene
71-43-2
X
X
3, 9, 10
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
X
X
3,9
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
X
X
3,9
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
X

3, 9, 10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
X
X
3,9
Benzyl alcohol
100-51-6
X
X
3, 9, 10
Beryllium
7440-41-7

X
3, 9, 10
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
319-85-7
X
X
3,9
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
111-44-4
X
X
3,9
Boron
7440-42-8

X
3, 9, 10
Bromide
24959-67-9


3, 9, 10
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
X
X
3
Bromoform
75-25-2
X
X
3, 9, 10
Butanoic acid
107-92-6
X

9, 10
Butylbenzene
104-51-8
X
X
9, 10
Cadmium
7440-43-9

X
3, 9, 10
Caesium-137
10045-97-3


3
Calcium
7440-70-2


3, 9, 10
Carbon dioxide
124-38-9
X

3, 9, 10
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-59	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
X
X
3,9
Chloride
16887-00-6


3, 9, 10
Chlorine
7782-50-5

X
3, 10
Chlorodibromomethane
124-48-1
X
X
3
Chloroform
67-66-3
X
X
3, 9, 10
Chloromethane
74-87-3
X

3, 10
Chromium
7440-47-3


3, 9, 10
Chromium (III)
16065-83-1

X
3
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9

X
3, 10
Cobalt
7440-48-4

X
3, 9, 10
Copper
7440-50-8

X
3, 9, 10
Cumene
98-82-8
X
X
3,9
Cyanide
57-12-5
X
X
3, 9, 10
delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
319-86-8
X

9
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
X
X
3, 9, 10
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
X
X
3,9
Dibutyl phthalate
84-74-2
X
X
3, 9, 10
Dichloromethane
75-09-2
X
X
9, 10
Dieldrin
60-57-1
X
X
9
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
X
X
9
Dioctyl phthalate
117-84-0
X
X
9, 10
Diphenylamine
122-39-4
X
X
3,9
Endosulfan 1
959-98-8
X

3,9
Endosulfan II
33213-65-9
X

3,9
Endrin aldehyde
7421-93-4
X

3,9
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
X
3, 9, 10
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
X
X
3,9
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
X
X
3,9
Fluorene
86-73-7
X
X
3, 9, 10
Fluoride
16984-48-8


3, 9, 10
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-60	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Formic acid
64-18-6
X
X
10
Heptachlor
76-44-8
X
X
3,9
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
X
X
3,9
Heptanoic acid
111-14-8
X

10
Hexanoic acid
142-62-1
X

10
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
193-39-5
X
X
3,9
Iron
7439-89-6

X
3, 9, 10
Isopropanol
67-63-0
X

3,9
Isovaleric acid
503-74-2
X

10
Lead
7439-92-1

X
3, 9, 10
Lindane
58-89-9
X
X
3,9
Lithium
7439-93-2

X
3, 9, 10
Magnesium
7439-95-4


3, 9, 10
Manganese
7439-96-5

X
3, 9, 10
m-Cresol
108-39-4
X
X
3, 9, 10
Mercury
7439-97-6

X
3, 9, 10
Methanol
67-56-1
X
X
3,9
Methyl bromide
74-83-9
X
X
3,9
Methyl ethyl ketone
78-93-3
X
X
3, 9, 10
Molybdenum
7439-98-7

X
3, 9, 10
Naphthalene
91-20-3
X
X
3, 9, 10
Nickel
7440-02-0


3, 9, 10
Nitrate
14797-55-8

X
3, 9, 10
Nitrite
14797-65-0

X
3, 9, 10
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
X
X
3,9
o-Cresol
95-48-7
X
X
3, 9, 10
p,p'-DDE
72-55-9
X
X
3,9
p-Cresol
106-44-5
X
X
3, 9, 10
p-Cymene
99-87-6
X

9, 10
Pentanoic acid
109-52-4
X

10
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-61	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
X

3, 9, 10
Phenol
108-95-2
X
X
3, 9, 10
Phorate
298-02-2
X
X
9
Phosphorus
7723-14-0

X
3,9
Potassium
7440-09-7


3, 9, 10
Propionic acid
79-09-4
X

10
Propylbenzene
103-65-1
X

9
Pyrene
129-00-0
X
X
9, 10
Pyridine
110-86-1
X
X
3, 9, 10
Radium
7440-14-4


3
Radium-226
13982-63-3


3, 10
Radium-228
15262-20-1


3, 10
Safrole
94-59-7
X
X
3,9
sec-Butylbenzene
135-98-8
X

9
Selenium
7782-49-2

X
3, 9, 10
Silica
7631-86-9


10
Silicon
7440-21-3


10
Silver
7440-22-4

X
3, 9, 10
Sodium
7440-23-5


3, 9, 10
Strontium
7440-24-6

X
3, 9, 10
Sulfate
14808-79-8


3, 9, 10
Sulfite
14265-45-3


3
Tetrachloroethylene
127-18-4
X
X
3,9
Thallium
7440-28-0


3, 9, 10
Tin
7440-31-5

X
9, 10
Titanium
7440-32-6


3, 9, 10
Toluene
108-88-3
X
X
3, 9, 10
Vanadium
7440-62-2

X
3, 10
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-62	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
Chemical name
CASRN
Physico-
chemical
properties
Selected
toxicity
reference
value
Reference
Xylenes
1330-20-7
X
X
3, 9, 10
Zinc
7440-66-6

X
3, 9, 10
Zirconium
7440-67-7

3
A.2. References for Appendix A
Colborn, T: Kwiatkowski, C: Schultz, K: Bachran, M, (2011). Natural gas operations from a public health
perspective. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 17:1039-1056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2011.6Q5662
Hayes. T. (2009). Sampling and analysis of water streams associated with the development of Marcellus shale
gas. Des Plaines, IL: Marcellus Shale Coalition, http: / /eidmarcellus.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/ll/MSCommission-Report,pdf
House of Representatives (U.S. House of Representatives). (2011). Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Minority Staff.
http //t iemQcrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/defauIt/files/dQcumeiits/Hydraulic-Fracturing-
Chemicals-2011-4-18.pdf
NLM (National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine). (2014). ChemID plus advanced. Available
online at http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/
NYSDEC (NewYorkState Department of Environmental Conservation). (2011). Revised draft supplemental
generic environmental impact statement (SGEIS) on the oil, gas and solution mining regulatory program:
Well permit issuance for horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing to develop the Marcellus
shale and other low-permeability gas reservoirs. Albany, NY: NY SDEC.
http: / / www.dec.ny.gov/energy/ 7537O.html
OSHA. Title 29 - Department of Labor. Subpart z Toxic and hazardous substances, hazard communication. §
1910.1200 (2013). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/CFR-2013-title29-voI6/xml/CFR-2013-title29-vol6-
sec!910-12 OO.xml
PA PEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). (2010). Chemicals used by hydraulic
fracturing companies in Pennsylvania for surface and hydraulic fracturing activities. Harrisburg, PA:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP).
http://files.dep.state.pa.us/0ilGas/B0GM/B0GMPortalFiles/MarcellusShale/Frac%201ist%206-3Q-
2010.pdf.
Sheets. MSP, (a) Encana/Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.: Duncan, Oklahoma. Provided by Halliburton
Energy Services during an onsite visit by the EPA on May 10, 2010; (b) Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc.:
Denver, Colorado. Provided to US EPA Region 8. Material Safety Data Sheets.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2004). Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of
drinking water by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs. (EPA/816/R-04/003). Washington,
DC.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 A-63 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix A
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2011b). Sampling data for flowback and produced water
provided to EPA by nine oil and gas well operators (non-confidential business information). US
Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www,regulations,gov/#idocketDetail:rpp=100:so=DESC:sb=docId:po=0:D=EPA-HO-ORD-2010-
0674
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2013a). Data received from oil and gas exploration and
production companies, including hydraulic fracturing service companies 2011 to 2013. Non-confidential
business information source documents are located in Federal Docket ID: EPA-HQ-ORD2010-0674.
Available at http://www.reguIations.gov.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2013b). Distributed structure-searchable toxicity
(DSSTOX) database network. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/index.htmI
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	A-64	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Appendix B
Water Acquisition Tables
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Appendix B. Water Acquisition Tables
B.l. Supplemental Tables
Table B-l. Annual average hydraulic fracturing water use and consumption in 2011 and 2012
compared to total annual water use and consumption in 2010 by state.
Hydraulic fracturing water use data from the EPA's project database of disclosures to FracFocus 1.0
(U.S. EPA, 2015c). Annual total water use data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Census
(Maupin et al,, 2.014). Estimates of consumptions derived from hydraulic fracturing water use and total
water use data. States listed in descending order by the volume of hydraulic fracturing water use.
State
Total annual water
use in 2010
(millions of gal)ab
Annual average
hydraulic fracturing
water use in 2011
and 2012
(millions of gal)c
Hydraulic fracturing
water use compared
to total water use
(%)d
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)de
Texas
9,052,000
19,942
0.2
0.7
Pennsylvania
2,967,450
5,105
0.2
1.4
Arkansas
4,124,500
3,676
0.1
0.1
Colorado
4,015,000
3,277
0.1
0.1
Oklahoma
1,157,050
2,949
0.3
0.8
Louisiana
3,117,100
2,462
0.1
0.4
North Dakota
419,750
2,181
0.5
2.9
West Virginia
1,288,450
657
0.1
0.5
Wyoming
1,715,500
538
<0.1
<0.1
New Mexico
1,153,400
371
<0.1
<0.1
Ohio
3,445,600
273
<0.1
0.1
Utah
1,627,900
251
<0.1
<0.1
Montana
2,792,250
155
<0.1
<0.1
Kansas
1,460,000
66
<0.1
<0.1
California
13,870,000
44
<0.1
<0.1
Michigan
3,942,000
28
<0.1
<0.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-l	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
Total annual water
use in 2010
(millions of gal)ab
Annual average
hydraulic fracturing
water use in 2011
and 2012
(millions of gal)c
Hydraulic fracturing
water use compared
to total water use
(%)d
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)de
Mississippi
1,434,450
18
<0.1
<0.1
Alaska'
397,850
7
<0.1
<0.1
Virginia
2,792,250
1
<0.1
<0.1
Alabama
3,635,400
1
<0.1
<0.1
TOTAL for all 20 states
64,407,900
42,001
0.1
0.2
a Texas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah all made some degree of reporting to FracFocus
mandatory rather than voluntary during this time period analyzed, January 1, 2011, to February 28, 2013. Three other states
started requiring disclosure to either FracFocus or the state (Louisiana, Montana, and Ohio), and five states required or began
requiring disclosure to the state (Arkansas, Michigan, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wyoming). Alabama, Alaska, California,
Kansas, Mississippi, and Virginia did not have reporting requirements during the period of time studied (U.S. EPA, 2015a).
b State-level data accessed from the USGS website (http://water.uses.gov/watuse/data/2010/) on January 27, 2015. Total
water withdrawals per day (located in downloaded Table 1) were multiplied by 365 days to estimate total water use for the
year (Maupin et al., 2014).
c Average of water used for hydraulic fracturing in 2011 and 2012 as reported to FracFocus (U.S. EPA, 2015c).
d Percentages were calculated by averaging annual water use for hydraulic fracturing reported in FracFocus in 2011 and 2012
for a given state (U.S. EPA, 2015c), and then dividing by 2010 USGS hydraulic fracturing water use (Maupin et al., 2014) and
multiplying by 100. Note that the annual hydraulic fracturing water use reported in FracFocus (the numerator) was not added
to the 2010 total USGS water use value in the denominator, and the percentage is simply calculated as by dividing annual
hydraulic fracturing use by 2010 total water use or consumption. This was done because of the difference in years between
the two datasets, and because the USGS 2010 Census (Maupin et al., 2014) already included an estimate of hydraulic
fracturing water use in its mining category. This approach is also consistent with that of other literature on this topic; see
Nicot and Scanlon (2012).
e Consumption values were calculated with use-specific consumption rates predominantly from the USGS, including 19.2% for
public supply, 19.2% for domestic use, 60.7% for irrigation, 60.7% for livestock, 14.8% for industrial uses, 14.8% for mining
(Sollev et al., 1998), and 2.7% for thermoelectric power (USGS, 2014). We used a rate of 71.6% for aquaculture (from
Verdegem and Bosma, 2009) (evaporation per kg fish + infiltration per kg)/(total water use per kg) *100. These rates were
multiplied by each USGS water use value (Maupin et al., 2014) to yield a total water consumption estimate. To calculate a
consumption amount for hydraulic fracturing, we used a consumption rate of 82.5%. This was calculated by taking the median
value for all reported produced water/injected water percentages in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 of this assessment and then
subtracting from 100%. If a range of values was given, the midpoint was used. Note that this is likely a low estimate of
consumption since much of this return water is not subsequently treated and reused, but rather disposed of in underground
injection wells—see Chapter 8.
f All reported hydraulic fracturing disclosures for Alaska passed state locational quality assurance methods, but not county
methods (U.S. EPA, 2015c). Thus, only state-level cumulative values were reported here, and no county-level data are
provided in subsequent tables.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 B-2 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Table B-2. Annual average hydraulic fracturing water use and consumption in 2011 and 2012
compared to total annual water use and consumption in 2010 by county.
Counties listed contained wells used for hydraulic fracturing according to the EPA's project database of
disclosures to FracFocus 1.0 (U.S. EPA, 2015c). Annual total water use data from the USGS Water
Census (Maupin et al,, 2014). Estimates of consumption derived from hydraulic fracturing water use
and total water use data.
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Alabama
Jefferson
29,685.5
0.6
<0.1
<0.1

Tuscaloosa
14,319.0
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
Arkansas
Cleburne
9,471.8
740.9
7.8
32.9

Conway
10,643.4
798.1
7.5
21.2

Faulkner
3,204.7
284.0
8.9
13.7

Independence
57,195.5
80.3
0.1
0.3

Logan
1,525.7
2.4
0.2
0.3

Sebastian
1,365.1
0.6
<0.1
<0.1

Van Buren
1,587.8
899.6
56.7
168.8

White
32,131.0
869.8
2.7
4.7

Yell
1,507.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
California
Colusa
304,782.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Glenn
221,420.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Kern
788,359.9
41.7
<0.1
<0.1

Los Angeles
1,118,363.7
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Sutter
263,511.8
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Ventura
262,610.2
1.8
<0.1
<0.1
Colorado
Adams
84,285.8
3.2
<0.1
<0.1

Arapahoe
68,255.0
4.0
<0.1
<0.1

Boulder
84,537.7
4.1
<0.1
<0.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-3	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Colorado,
cont.
Broomfield
2,336.0
4.5
0.2
0.4
Delta
131,221.2
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
Dolores
2,040.4
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
El Paso
42,380.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Elbert
5,040.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Fremont
53,366.7
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
Garfield
95,436.6
1,804.2
1.9
2.7
Jackson
126,968.9
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
La Plata
122,873.6
3.5
<0.1
<0.1
Larimer
150,690.3
5.4
<0.1
<0.1
Las Animas
26,911.5
7.9
<0.1
<0.1
Mesa
275,476.5
122.1
<0.1
0.1
Moffat
62,093.8
14.5
<0.1
<0.1
Morgan
67,901.0
3.9
<0.1
<0.1
Phillips
21,509.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
Rio Blanco
97,513.4
147.3
0.2
0.2
Routt
74,460.0
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
San Miguel
13,848.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
Weld
168,677.5
1,149.4
0.7
1.0
Yuma
80,595.7
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
Kansas
Barber
2,164.5
9.9
0.5
0.7
Clark
1,898.0
0.8
<0.1
0.1
Comanche
3,011.3
25.6
0.9
1.2
Finney
102,685.5
2.4
<0.1
<0.1
Grant
47,128.8
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-4	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Kansas, cont.
Gray
69,379.2
3.3
<0.1
<0.1

Harper
1,357.8
17.3
1.3
2.0

Haskell
72,496.3
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Hodgeman
8,460.7
2.7
<0.1
<0.1

Kearny
64,134.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Lane
5,628.3
0.8
<0.1
<0.1

Meade
55,958.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Morton
17,403.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Ness
1,478.3
1.6
0.1
0.2

Seward
57,443.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Sheridan
26,393.2
0.7
<0.1
<0.1

Stanton
41,420.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Stevens
72,124.0
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Sumner
3,442.0
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
Louisiana
Allen
8,942.5
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Beauregard
10,161.6
2.3
<0.1
0.1

Bienville
4,810.7
108.9
2.3
10.0

Bossier
5,599.1
110.1
2.0
4.9

Caddo
53,644.1
153.6
0.3
1.7

Calcasieu
81,621.3
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Caldwell
1,398.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Claiborne
952.7
3.8
0.4
1.1

De Soto
13,373.6
1,085.9
8.1
47.4

East Feliciana
1,350.5
3.7
0.3
0.7

Jackson
1,456.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-5	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Louisiana,
cont.
Lincoln
3,000.3
3.3
0.1
0.3
Natchitoches
12,530.5
12.7
0.1
0.2
Rapides
199,976.2
1.7
<0.1
<0.1
Red River
1,606.0
569.6
35.5
83.2
Sabine
1,522.1
395.2
26.0
76.6
Tangipahoa
7,329.2
1.9
<0.1
0.1
Union
1,481.9
4.9
0.3
1.0
Webster
2,664.5
1.2
<0.1
0.1
West Feliciana
15,191.3
2.3
<0.1
0.1
Winn
846.8
1.1
0.1
0.4
Michigan
Cheboygan
2,777.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Gladwin
850.5
1.1
0.1
0.4
Kalkaska
1,233.7
24.0
1.9
3.7
Missaukee
1,423.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Ogemaw
1,179.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Roscommon
1,000.1
2.4
0.2
0.9
Mississippi
Amite
792.1
14.4
1.8
3.8
Wilkinson
1,270.2
3.2
0.3
0.4
Montana
Daniels
1,408.9
0.6
<0.1
0.1
Garfield
1,631.6
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
Glacier
46,760.2
5.1
<0.1
<0.1
Musselshell
26,827.5
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
Richland
94,797.8
83.5
0.1
0.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-6	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Montana,
cont.
Roosevelt
31,539.7
52.1
0.2
0.2
Rosebud
71,412.3
3.5
<0.1
<0.1
Sheridan
7,354.8
9.7
0.1
0.2
New Mexico
Chaves
88,078.2
2.8
<0.1
<0.1
Colfax
17,450.7
0.7
<0.1
<0.1
Eddy
70,612.9
225.6
0.3
0.5
Harding
1,168.0
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Lea
64,057.5
113.7
0.2
0.3
Rio Arriba
39,080.6
16.5
<0.1
0.1
Roosevelt
63,367.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
San Juan
125,432.3
11.6
<0.1
<0.1
Sandoval
23,922.1
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
North Dakota
Billings
762.9
44.4
5.8
16.2
Bottineau
1,164.4
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Burke
394.2
63.6
16.1
40.8
Divide
806.7
102.2
12.7
18.6
Dunn
1,076.8
309.5
28.7
43.1
Golden Valley
208.1
4.6
2.2
3.8
Mckenzie
13,753.2
588.4
4.3
6.2
Mclean
7,873.1
12.2
0.2
0.4
Mountrail
1,248.3
449.4
36.0
98.3
Stark
1,168.0
48.0
4.1
8.5
Williams
7,705.2
558.5
7.2
11.3
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-7	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Ohio
Ashland
2,033.1
1.5
0.1
0.2

Belmont
65,528.5
1.9
<0.1
0.1

Carroll
1,127.9
152.7
13.5
37.3

Columbiana
3,763.2
30.7
0.8
2.2

Coshocton
53,775.5
5.4
<0.1
0.1

Guernsey
2,379.8
8.4
0.4
0.7

Harrison
481.8
16.5
3.4
7.3

Jefferson
632,917.3
26.2
<0.1
0.1

Knox
3,270.4
1.1
<0.1
0.1

Medina
3,540.5
1.3
<0.1
0.1

Muskingum
6,018.9
5.1
0.1
0.3

Noble
478.2
8.3
1.7
3.4

Portage
18,414.3
3.2
<0.1
0.1

Stark
16,479.8
2.4
<0.1
<0.1

Tuscarawas
14,165.7
6.7
<0.1
0.2

Wayne
6,051.7
1.7
<0.1
0.1
Oklahoma
Alfalfa
2,996.7
182.7
6.1
12.0

Beaver
15,341.0
23.1
0.2
0.3

Beckham
4,099.0
108.0
2.6
4.7

Blaine
3,763.2
203.3
5.4
9.3

Bryan
5,062.6
10.3
0.2
0.4

Caddo
24,064.5
25.4
0.1
0.3

Canadian
5,584.5
441.9
7.9
15.6

Carter
159,906.5
161.9
0.1
0.5

Coal
1,193.6
85.9
7.2
21.5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-8	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Oklahoma,
cont.
Custer
3,281.4
19.0
0.6
1.2
Dewey
10,953.7
162.6
1.5
6.2
Ellis
8,486.3
184.3
2.2
3.2
Garvin
16,279.0
15.0
0.1
0.4
Grady
13,537.9
111.5
0.8
2.3
Grant
5,569.9
77.8
1.4
5.2
Harper
3,266.8
8.8
0.3
0.4
Hughes
3,394.5
30.5
0.9
2.2
Jefferson
4,496.8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Johnston
1,671.7
32.9
2.0
4.7
Kay
16,957.9
17.3
0.1
0.4
Kingfisher
3,744.9
10.2
0.3
0.5
Kiowa
5,022.4
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Latimer
1,062.2
0.6
0.1
0.1
Le Flore
8,635.9
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
Logan
4,077.1
4.2
0.1
0.3
Love
2,011.2
4.4
0.2
0.5
Major
6,321.8
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
Marshall
2,613.4
98.4
3.8
7.2
McClain
2,952.9
2.1
0.1
0.2
Noble
12,990.4
25.3
0.2
1.8
Oklahoma
47,836.9
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
Osage
6,971.5
3.8
0.1
0.2
Pawnee
4,839.9
15.7
0.3
1.4
Payne
4,332.6
9.9
0.2
0.6
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-9	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Oklahoma,
cont.
Pittsburg
6,314.5
349.0
5.5
16.0

Roger Mills
2,847.0
235.5
8.3
12.6

Seminole
124,837.3
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Stephens
49,990.4
27.7
0.1
0.3

Texas
110,208.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Washita
3,310.6
102.1
3.1
5.4

Woods
4,139.1
155.1
3.7
10.9
Pennsylvania
Allegheny
234,140.2
13.6
<0.1
<0.1

Armstrong
65,853.3
55.7
0.1
1.8

Beaver
157,793.2
30.5
<0.1
0.2

Blair
8,303.8
5.9
0.1
0.2

Bradford
4,354.5
1,059.4
24.3
78.2

Butler
5,730.5
121.8
2.1
6.0

Cameron
292.0
6.6
2.3
4.1

Centre
16,560.1
38.5
0.2
0.5

Clarion
1,843.3
8.1
0.4
1.4

Clearfield
111,051.3
111.5
0.1
2.3

Clinton
6,161.2
94.4
1.5
3.0

Columbia
3,810.6
5.6
0.1
0.4

Crawford
5,091.8
2.4
<0.1
0.1

Elk
7,876.7
37.5
0.5
1.9

Fayette
16,465.2
120.2
0.7
2.7

Forest
744.6
7.7
1.0
1.6

Greene
13,023.2
359.0
2.8
24.7

Huntingdon
5,121.0
2.7
0.1
0.2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-10	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Pennsylvania,
cont.
Indiana
21,819.7
16.2
0.1
0.7
Jefferson
1,730.1
13.8
0.8
1.7
Lawrence
36,598.6
27.0
0.1
1.0
Lycoming
5,854.6
704.6
12.0
33.8
McKean
4,723.1
60.5
1.3
4.9
Potter
2,281.3
16.5
0.7
1.0
Somerset
10,833.2
5.8
0.1
0.2
Sullivan
222.7
66.5
29.9
79.8
Susquehanna
1,617.0
751.3
46.5
123.4
Tioga
2,909.1
566.3
19.5
47.3
Venango
2,989.4
2.4
0.1
0.3
Warren
5,099.1
2.3
<0.1
0.2
Washington
130,535.0
433.7
0.3
4.6
Westmoreland
14,607.3
207.0
1.4
3.8
Wyoming
4,788.8
150.0
3.1
15.2
Texas
Andrews
23,363.7
236.2
1.0
2.7
Angelina
5,540.7
0.8
<0.1
<0.1
Archer
2,536.8
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Atascosa
15,038.0
327.3
2.2
4.0
Austin
2,555.0
2.1
0.1
0.1
Bee
3,087.9
20.0
0.6
1.1
Borden
2,427.3
8.0
0.3
1.0
Bosque
3,544.2
0.7
<0.1
<0.1
Brazos
24,790.8
7.7
<0.1
0.1
Brooks
1,204.5
1.5
0.1
0.3
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-ll	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Texas, cont.
Burleson
10,694.5
3.0
<0.1
<0.1

Cherokee
24,845.6
0.5
<0.1
<0.1

Clay
1,963.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Cochran
24,035.3
3.0
<0.1
<0.1

Coke
12,713.0
0.3
<0.1
<0.1

Colorado
52,465.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Concho
2,832.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Cooke
4,533.3
454.3
10.0
29.9

Cottle
733.7
0.3
<0.1
0.1

Crane
8,566.6
92.3
1.1
5.7

Crockett
4,281.5
279.0
6.5
29.5

Crosby
27,261.9
1.3
<0.1
<0.1

Culberson
14,311.7
37.7
0.3
0.4

Dallas
112,204.7
5.6
<0.1
<0.1

Dawson
28,842.3
17.5
0.1
0.1

DeWitt
2,394.4
546.6
22.8
48.6

Denton
60,684.9
455.0
0.7
2.3

Dimmit
4,073.4
1,794.2
44.0
81.3

Ector
21,958.4
226.5
1.0
4.6

Edwards
332.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Ellis
8,530.1
4.2
<0.1
0.1

Erath
5,876.5
0.8
<0.1
<0.1

Fayette
9,008.2
13.7
0.2
1.2

Fisher
2,854.3
1.8
0.1
0.1

Franklin
1,956.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-12	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Texas, cont.
Freestone
297,861.9
53.9
<0.1
0.5

Frio
20,589.7
127.5
0.6
0.9

Gaines
121,778.6
21.6
<0.1
<0.1

Garza
5,234.1
0.6
<0.1
<0.1

Glasscock
20,680.9
598.1
2.9
4.2

Goliad
142,963.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Gonzales
7,121.2
577.9
8.1
17.6

Grayson
8,143.2
9.3
0.1
0.3

Gregg
33,010.6
9.4
<0.1
0.2

Grimes
112,500.3
15.5
<0.1
0.3

Hansford
43,643.1
2.9
<0.1
<0.1

Hardeman
2,230.2
0.4
<0.1
<0.1

Hardin
2,376.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Harrison
11,869.8
141.6
1.2
6.0

Hartley
113,555.2
1.9
<0.1
<0.1

Haskell
12,143.6
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Hemphill
3,150.0
263.9
8.4
16.3

Hidalgo
171,630.3
8.0
<0.1
<0.1

Hockley
46,314.9
3.0
<0.1
<0.1

Hood
9,351.3
76.0
0.8
2.2

Houston
3,686.5
8.6
0.2
0.6

Howard
10,811.3
97.6
0.9
2.7

Hutchinson
34,437.8
0.3
<0.1
<0.1

Irion
1,335.9
411.4
30.8
74.5

Jack
2,241.1
14.0
0.6
2.2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-13	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Texas, cont.
Jefferson
88,585.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Jim Hogg
306.6
0.1
<0.1
0.1

Johnson
9,241.8
582.0
6.3
18.5

Jones
5,679.4
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Karnes
1,861.5
1,055.2
56.7
120.1

Kenedy
456.3
0.2
0.1
0.1

Kent
6,132.0
0.4
<0.1
<0.1

King
1,485.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Kleberg
1,171.7
3.4
0.3
0.5

Knox
9,800.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

La Salle
2,474.7
1,288.7
52.1
93.7

Lavaca
3,763.2
45.0
1.2
2.0

Lee
3,120.8
1.2
<0.1
0.1

Leon
2,171.8
56.2
2.6
6.6

Liberty
20,662.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Limestone
11,158.1
10.7
0.1
0.9

Lipscomb
11,015.7
89.0
0.8
1.1

Live Oak
1,916.3
294.0
15.3
40.1

Loving
781.1
138.4
17.7
94.1

Lynn
19,892.5
1.1
<0.1
<0.1

Madison
1,554.9
45.3
2.9
8.2

Marion
3,606.2
5.9
0.2
0.9

Martin
14,063.5
432.0
3.1
4.7

Maverick
20,498.4
52.4
0.3
0.4

McMullen
657.0
745.9
113.5
350.4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-14	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Texas, cont.
Medina
19,228.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Menard
1,014.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Midland
12,891.8
307.4
2.4
3.7

Milam
16,665.9
4.9
<0.1
0.1

Mitchell
6,559.1
11.0
0.2
0.3

Montague
3,989.5
925.3
23.2
77.8

Montgomery
32,565.3
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Moore
57,075.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Nacogdoches
5,891.1
271.7
4.6
12.5

Navarro
18,699.0
4.8
<0.1
0.1

Newton
2,263.0
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Nolan
4,124.5
4.5
0.1
0.2

Nueces
85,767.7
1.0
<0.1
<0.1

Ochiltree
21,348.9
33.3
0.2
0.2

Oldham
2,124.3
1.3
0.1
0.1

Orange
150,128.2
0.3
<0.1
<0.1

Palo Pinto
18,403.3
9.6
0.1
0.3

Panola
6,365.6
346.5
5.4
20.7

Parker
8,241.7
261.7
3.2
9.8

Pecos
52,954.2
8.2
<0.1
<0.1

Polk
204,009.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Potter
2,029.4
0.4
<0.1
<0.1

Reagan
9,333.1
410.5
4.4
7.8

Reeves
20,772.2
164.2
0.8
1.1

Roberts
7,690.6
38.2
0.5
1.2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-15	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Texas, cont.
Robertson
158,344.3
45.4
<0.1
0.2

Runnels
2,847.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Rusk
582,134.9
65.8
<0.1
0.3

Sabine
799.4
31.1
3.9
13.9

San Augustine
1,131.5
182.1
16.1
50.8

San Patricio
4,172.0
1.1
<0.1
<0.1

Schleicher
967.3
27.0
2.8
5.0

Scurry
14,187.6
1.1
<0.1
<0.1

Shelby
4,920.2
133.6
2.7
8.2

Sherman
78,073.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Smith
11,231.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Somervell
746,005.3
4.8
<0.1
<0.1

Starr
9,552.1
5.0
0.1
0.1

Stephens
13,446.6
2.6
<0.1
0.1

Sterling
719.1
36.6
5.1
11.9

Stonewall
923.5
0.9
0.1
0.3

Sutton
1,153.4
1.6
0.1
0.3

Tarrant
104,430.2
1,443.0
1.4
3.9

Terrell
543.9
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Terry
48,362.5
7.5
<0.1
<0.1

Tyler
1,872.5
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Upshur
8,610.4
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Upton
7,975.3
462.6
5.8
14.2

Van Zandt
4,139.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Walker
4,478.6
3.4
0.1
0.2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-16	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Texas, cont.
Waller
9,829.5
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Ward
6,909.5
107.3
1.6
4.6

Washington
2,430.9
2.2
0.1
0.2

Webb
15,862.9
1,117.8
7.0
18.2

Wharton
81,606.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Wheeler
6,522.6
858.0
13.2
21.5

Wichita
25,936.9
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Wilbarger
12,683.8
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Willacy
15,209.6
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Wilson
7,843.9
84.5
1.1
1.7

Winkler
5,274.3
7.7
0.1
0.5

Wise
24,966.0
529.7
2.1
8.9

Wood
19,334.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1

Yoakum
77,325.3
7.5
<0.1
<0.1

Young
21,162.7
0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Zapata
2,697.4
1.1
<0.1
0.1

Zavala
14,410.2
130.0
0.9
1.3
Utah
Carbon
15,067.2
7.3
<0.1
0.1

Duchesne
119,811.3
85.5
0.1
0.1

San Juan
10,632.5
0.3
<0.1
<0.1

Sevier
52,512.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Uintah
100,229.0
157.5
0.2
0.2
Virginia
Buchanan
313.9
0.6
0.2
0.3

Dickenson
1,741.1
0.8
<0.1
0.2

Wise
1,927.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-17	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
West Virginia
Barbour
773.8
19.9
2.6
6.9

Brooke
4,551.6
54.8
1.2
5.1

Doddridge
405.2
78.5
19.4
69.4

Hancock
28,718.2
1.2
<0.1
<0.1

Harrison
20,232.0
40.2
0.2
1.9

Lewis
901.6
2.4
0.3
0.8

Marion
5,982.4
70.1
1.2
4.9

Marshall
158,358.9
84.5
0.1
0.7

Monongalia
42,102.8
6.8
<0.1
0.1

Ohio
3,825.2
116.5
3.0
10.4

Pleasants
24,703.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1

Preston
2,890.8
8.4
0.3
1.4

Ritchie
587.7
2.8
0.5
1.7

Taylor
824.9
52.9
6.4
17.6

Tyler
4,934.8
2.1
<0.1
0.2

Upshur
1,814.1
34.9
1.9
6.8

Webster
1,292.1
2.3
0.2
0.3

Wetzel
1,467.3
78.2
5.3
11.9
Wyoming
Big Horn
143,368.4
2.9
<0.1
<0.1

Campbell
44,318.3
11.7
<0.1
0.1

Carbon
137,130.5
4.5
<0.1
<0.1

Converse
56,972.9
106.8
0.2
0.3

Fremont
186,150.0
28.2
<0.1
<0.1

Goshen
144,248.0
5.8
<0.1
<0.1

Hot Springs
28,572.2
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-18	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Total annual
water use in 2010
(millions of gal)a
Annual average
hydraulic
fracturing water
use in 2011 and
2012 (millions of
gal)b
Hydraulic
fracturing water
use compared to
total water use
(% r
Hydraulic fracturing
water consumption
compared to total
water consumption
(%)cd
Wyoming,
cont.
Johnson
43,205.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Laramie
86,297.0
18.3
<0.1
<0.1
Lincoln
74,562.2
0.8
<0.1
<0.1
Natrona
62,885.9
1.8
<0.1
<0.1
Niobrara
25,148.5
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Park
111,317.7
0.9
<0.1
<0.1
Sublette
61,006.1
314.8
0.5
0.7
Sweetwater
61,699.6
39.4
0.1
0.1
Uinta
79,518.9
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
Washakie
60,400.2
1.1
<0.1
<0.1
a County-level data accessed from the USGS website (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2010/) on November 11, 2014. Total
daily water withdrawals were multiplied by 365 days to estimate total water use for the year (Maupin et al.. 2014).
b Average of water used for hydraulic fracturing in 2011 and 2012, as reported to FracFocus (U.S. EPA, 2015c).
c Percentages were calculated by averaging annual water use for hydraulic fracturing reported in FracFocus in 2011 and 2012
for a given county (U.S. EPA. 2015c). and then dividing by 2010 USGS total water use for that county (Maupin et al.. 2014) and
multiplying by 100.
d Consumption values were calculated with use-specific consumption rates predominantly from the USGS, including 19.2% for
public supply, 19.2% for domestic use, 60.7% for irrigation, 60.7% for livestock, 14.8% for industrial uses, 14.8% for mining
(Sollev et al.. 1998). and 2.7% for thermoelectric power (USGS. 2014). We used a rate of 71.6% for aquaculture (from
Verdegem and Bosma, 2009) (evaporation per kg fish + infiltration per kg)/(total water use per kg)*100. These rates were
multiplied by each USGS water use value (Maupin et al., 2014) to yield a total water consumption estimate. To calculate a
consumption amount for hydraulic fracturing, we used a consumption rate of 82.5%. This was calculated by taking the median
value for all reported produced water/injected water percentages in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 of this assessment and then
subtracting from 100%. If a range of values was given, the midpoint was used. Note that this is likely a low estimate of
consumption since much of this return water is not subsequently treated and reused, but rather disposed of in underground
injection wells—see Chapter 8.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-19	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Table B-3. Comparison of water use per well estimates from the EPA's project database of
disclosures to FracFocus 1.0 (U.S. EPA, 2015c) and literature sources.
Source: (U.S. EPA, 2015c)
State
Basin3
Water use per well (gal) -
FracFocus estimate13
Water use per well (gal) -
Literature estimate1^
FracFocus estimate as
a percentage of
literature estimate (%)
Colorado
Denver
403,686
2,900,000
14
North Dakota

2,140,842
2,200,000
97
Oklahoma

2,591,778
3,000,000
86
Pennsylvaniad

4,301,701
4,450,000
97
Texas
Fort Worth
3,881,220
4,500,000
86
Texas
Salt
3,139,980
4,000,000
78
Texas
Western Gulf
3,777,648
4,600,000
82
Average6

77
Median6

86
a In cases where a basin is not specified, estimates were for the entire state and not specific to a particular basin. Basin
boundaries for the FracFocus estimates were determined from data from the U.S. EIA (see U.S. EPA, 2015b).
bThe type of literature estimate determined the specific comparison with FracFocus. If averages were given in the literature
(as for North Dakota and Pennsylvania), those values were compared with FracFocus averages; where medians were given in
the literature (as for Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas), they were compared with FracFocus medians.
c Literature estimates were from the following sources: Colorado (Goodwin et al.. 2014), North Dakota (North Dakota State
Water Commission, 2014), Pennsylvania (Mitchell et al., 2013), and Texas (Nicot et al., 2012)—see far right-column and
footnotes in Table B-5 for details on literature estimates. Where the literature provided a range, the mid-point was used. Only
literature estimates that were not directly derived from FracFocus were included.
d The results from Mitchell et al. (2013) were used for Pennsylvania since they were derived from Pennsylvania Department of
Environment Protection records. Estimates from Hansen et al. (2013) were not included here because they were based on
FracFocus.
e Average and median percentage calculations were not weighted by the number of wells for a given estimate.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 B-20 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Table B-4. Comparison of well counts from the EPA's project database of disclosures to FracFocus 1.0 (U.S. EPA, 2015c) and state
databases for North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
State
FracFocus well counts3
State database well counts
FracFocus counts as a percentage
of state database counts
2011
2012
Total
2011
2012
Total
2011
2012
Total
North Dakotab
613
1,458
2,071
1,225
1,740
2,965
50%
84%
70%
Pennsylvania0
1,137
1,257
2,394
1,963
1,347
3,310
58%
93%
72%
West Virginiad
93
176
269
214
251
465
43%
70%
58%
Average

50%
82%
67%
a FracFocus disclosures from U.S. EPA (2015c).
b For North Dakota state well counts, we used a North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources online database containing a list of horizontal wells completed in the Bakken
Formation. Data for North Dakota were accessed on July 9, 2014 at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oileas/bakkenwells.asp.
c For Pennsylvania state well counts, we used completed horizontal wells as a proxy for hydraulically fractured wells in the state. The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection has online databases of permitted and spudded wells, which differentiate between conventional and unconventional wells and can generate
summary statistics at both the county and state scale. The number of spudded wells (i.e., wells drilled) provided a better comparison with the number of hydraulically
fractured wells in FracFocus than that of permitted wells. The number of permitted wells was nearly double that of spudded in 2011 and 2012, indicating that almost half of
the wells permitted were not drilled in that same year. Therefore, we used spudded wells here. Data for Pennsylvania were accessed on February 11, 2014 from
http://www.depreportingservices.state.pa.us/ReportServer/Patses/ReportViewer.aspx7/Oil Gas/Spud External Data.
d For West Virginia state well counts, data on the number of hydraulically fractured wells per year were received from the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection on February 25, 2014.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 B-21 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Table B-5. Water use per hydraulically fractured well as reported in the EPA's project database of disclosures to FracFocus 1.0
(U.S. EPA, 2015c) by state and basin.
Souce: (U.S. EPA, 2015c)
Other literature estimates are also included where available. NA indicates other literature estimates were not available. All FracFocus estimates
were limited to disclosures with valid state, county, and volume information. States listed in order addressed in Chapter 4.
State
Basin/totala
Number of
disclosu res
Mean
(gal)
Median
(gal)
10th percentile
(gal)
90th percentile
(gal)
Literature estimates
Texas
Permian
8,419
1,068,511
841,134
40,090
1,814,633
Many formations reported15
Western Gulf
4,549
3,915,540
3,777,648
173,832
6,786,052
4.5-4.7 million gal (median, Eagle
Ford play)b
Fort Worth
2,564
3,880,724
3,881,220
923,381
6,649,406
4.5 million gal (median, Barnett play)b
TX-LA-MS Salt
626
4,261,363
3,139,980
193,768
10,010,707
6-7.5 million gal (median, Texas-
Haynesville play) and 0.5-1 million
gallons (median, Cotton Valley play)b
Anadarko
604
4,128,702
3,341,310
492,421
8,292,996
Many formations reported15
Other
120
1,601,897
184,239
21,470
5,678,588
NA
Total
16,882
2,494,452
1,420,613
58,709
6,115,195
Not reported by stateb
Colorado
Denver
3,166
753,887
403,686
143,715
2,588,946
2.9 million gal (median, Wattenberg
field of Niobrara play)0
Uinta-Piceance
1,520
2,739,523
1,798,414
840,778
5,066,380
NA
Raton
146
108,003
95,974
24,917
211,526
NA
Other
66
605,740
183,408
34,412
601,816
NA
Total
4,898
1,348,842
463,462
147,353
3,092,024
NA
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-22	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B


Number of
Mean
Median
10th percentile
90th percentile

State
Basin/totala
disclosu res
(gal)
(gal)
(gal)
(gal)
Literature estimates
Wyoming
Greater Green River
861
841,702
752,979
147,020
1,493,266
NA

Powder River
351
739,129
5,927
5,353
2,863,182
NA

Other
193
613,618
41,664
22,105
1,818,606
NA

Total
1,405
784,746
322,793
5,727
1,837,602
NA
Pennsylvania
Appalachian
2,445
4,301,701
4,184,936
2,313,649
6,615,981
4.2-4.6 million gal (average, Marcellus
play, Susquehanna River Basin)d

Total
2,445
4,301,701
4,184,936
2,313,649
6,615,981
4.1-4.5d and 4.3-4.6e million gal
(average)
West Virginia
Appalachian
273
5,034,217
5,012,238
3,170,210
7,297,080
NA

Total
273
5,034,217
5,012,238
3,170,210
7,297,080
4.7-6 million gal (average)d
Ohio
Appalachian
146
4,206,955
3,887,499
2,885,568
5,571,027
NA

Total
146
4,206,955
3,887,499
2,885,568
5,571,027
NA
North Dakota
Williston
2,109
2,140,842
2,022,380
969,380
3,313,482
NA

Total
2,109
2,140,842
2,022,380
969,380
3,313,482
2.2 million gal (average)'
Montana
Williston
187
1,640,085
1,552,596
375,864
3,037,398
NA

Other
20
945,541
1,017,701
157,639
1,575,197
NA

Total
207
1,572,979
1,455,757
367,326
2,997,552
NA
Oklahoma
Anadarko
935
3,742,703
3,259,774
1,211,700
6,972,652
Many formations reported8

Arkoma
158
6,323,750
6,655,929
172,375
9,589,554
Many formations reported8

Ardmore
98
6,637,332
8,021,559
81,894
8,835,842
Many formations reported8

Other
592
1,963,480
1,866,144
1,319,247
2,785,352
NA

Total
1,783
3,539,775
2,591,778
1,260,906
7,402,230
3 million gal (median)8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-23	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B


Number of
Mean
Median
10th percentile
90th percentile

State
Basin/totala
disclosu res
(gal)
(gal)
(gal)
(gal)
Literature estimates
Kansas
Total
121
1,135,973
1,453,788
10,836
2,227,926
NA
Arkansas
Arkoma
1,423
5,190,254
5,259,965
3,234,963
7,121,249
NA

Total
1,423
5,190,254
5,259,965
3,234,963
7,121,249
NA
Louisiana
TX-LA-MS Salt
939
5,289,100
5,116,650
2,851,654
7,984,838
NA

Other
27
896,899
232,464
87,003
3,562,400
NA

Total
966
5,166,337
5,077,863
1,812,099
7,945,630
NA
Utah
Uinta-Piceance
1,396
375,852
304,105
77,166
770,699
NA

Other
10
58,874
56,245
28,745
97,871
NA

Total
1,406
373,597
302,075
76,286
769,360
NA
New Mexico
Permian
732
991,369
426,258
89,895
2,502,923
NA

San Juan
363
159,680
97,734
27,217
313,919
NA

Other
50
33,787
8,358
1,100
98,841
NA

Total
1,145
685,882
175,241
35,638
1,871,666
NA
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-24	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B

Number of
Mean
Median
10th percentile
90th percentile

State
Basin/totala
disclosu res
(gal)
(gal)
(gal)
(gal)
Literature estimates
California
San Joaquin
677
131,653
77,238
22,100
285,029
NA

Other
34
132,391
36,099
13,768
361,192
NA

Total
711
131,689
76,818
21,462
285,306
130,000 gallon
(average)h
a Basin boundaries for the FracFocus estimates were determined from data from the U.S. EIA (see U.S. EPA, 2015b).
b Literature estimates for Texas were from Nicot et al. (2012), using proprietary data from IHS. In most cases, Nicot et al. reported at the play scale or smaller, rather than the
EIA basin scale used for FracFocus. We reference 2011 and 2012 (partial year) for Nicot et al. where possible to overlap with the period of study for FracFocus, though more
years were available for most formations. A range is reported for some medians because median water use was different for the two years. There were five formations
reported for the Permian Basin (Wolfberry, Wolfcamp, Canyon, Clearfork, and San Andres-Greyburg). The most active area in the Permian Basin in 2011-2012 was the
Wolfberry, which reported a median of 1 to 1.1 million gallons per well—these were mostly vertical wells. For the TX-LA-MS Salt Basin, Nicot et al. reported two formations
(TX-Haynesville and Cotton Valley), with similar levels of activity in 2011-2012. Wells in TX-Haynesville were predominantly horizontal, while those in Cotton Valley were
predominantly vertical (though horizontal wells in Cotton Valley were also reported). There were three fields reported in the Anadarko Basin (Granite Wash, Cleveland, and
Marmaton). The most active area in the Anadarko Basin in 2011-2012 was the Granite Wash, which reported a median of 3.3 to 5.2 million gallons per well and where wells
were mostly horizontal.
c Literature estimates for the Denver Basin were from Goodwin et al. (2014). Goodwin et al. assessed 200 randomly sampled wells in the Wattenberg Field of the Denver Basin
(Niobrara Play), using industry data for wells operated by Noble Energy, drilled between January 1, 2010, and July 1, 2013. Water consumption is reported rather than water
use, but Goodwin et al. assume, based on Noble Energy practices, that water use and water consumption were identical because none of the flowback or produced water is
reused for hydraulic fracturing. Goodwin et al. reported drilling water consumed, hydraulic fracturing water consumed, and total water consumed. We present hydraulic
fracturing water consumption here (hydraulic fracturing water consumption was approximately 95% of the total).
d Hansen et al. (2013), using data from FracFocus via Skytruth. For the Susquehanna River Basin portion of the Marcellus play, and for Pennsylvania as a whole, the range of
annual averages is reported for 2011 and 2012. Similarly, for West Virginia, the range of annual averages is reported for 2011 and 2012 (partial year).
e Mitchell et al. (2013), using data reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Mitchell et al. reported water use in the Ohio River Basin for 2011
and 2012 (partial year) for horizontal and vertical wells. Here we report results for horizontal wells, which made up the majority of wells over the two-year period (i.e., 93%,
1,191 horizontal wells versus 96 vertical wells). A range is reported as before because the average water use differed between the two years.
' Literature estimates for North Dakota were from an informational bulletin from the North Dakota State Water Commission (2014). No further information was available.
5 Murray (2013), who assessed water use for oil and gas operations from 2000-2010 for eight formations in Oklahoma using data from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
It is not possible to extract an estimate corresponding to 2011-2012 from Murray without the raw data, because medians were presented for the 10-year period rather than
separated by year.
h Literature estimates for California were from a California Council on Science and Technology report using data from FracFocus (CCST, 2014).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 B-25 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Table B-6. Estimated percent domestic use water from ground water and self-supplied by
county.
Counties listed contained hydraulically fractured wells with valid state, county, and volume
information (U.S. EPA, 2015c).
Data estimated from the USGS Water Census (Maupin et al,, 2014).
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera,b
Percent domestic use
water self suppliedac
Alabama
Jefferson
11.9
0.8

Tuscaloosa
10.7
6.1
Arkansas
Cleburne
0.0
0.0

Conway
8.6
8.6

Faulkner
48.0
3.5

Independence
20.5
9.4

Logan
0.0
0.0

Sebastian
0.0
0.0

Van Buren
6.4
6.4

White
0.4
0.0

Yell
1.8
1.8
California
Colusa
97.9
10.3

Glenn
96.5
21.6

Kern
74.5
1.7

Los Angeles
45.0
4.2

Sutter
19.4
4.6

Ventura
30.9
3.9
Colorado
Adams
18.1
2.8

Arapahoe
19.3
1.3

Boulder
1.7
1.5

Broomfield
0.0
0.0

Delta
59.6
28.4

Dolores
55.2
51.4

El Paso
19.6
5.1

Elbert
100.0
75.2

Fremont
15.6
15.6
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-26	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Colorado, cont.
Garfield
36.7
28.5

Jackson
84.4
40.7

La Plata
24.4
11.3

Larimer
2.3
0.8

Las Animas
26.3
16.0

Mesa
7.3
6.2

Moffat
36.4
25.8

Morgan
57.9
4.9

Phillips
100.0
25.3

Rio Blanco
60.2
32.5

Routt
22.6
5.9

San Miguel
71.4
32.5

Weld
4.7
0.7

Yuma
100.0
38.1
Kansas
Barber
100.0
19.0

Clark
100.0
24.2

Comanche
100.0
19.2

Finney
100.0
2.1

Grant
100.0
23.8

Gray
100.0
36.4

Harper
100.0
10.3

Haskell
100.0
35.2

Hodgeman
100.0
42.3

Kearny
100.0
14.6

Lane
100.0
24.1

Meade
100.0
25.4

Morton
100.0
21.7

Ness
100.0
24.2

Seward
100.0
15.7
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-27	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Kansas, cont.
Sheridan
100.0
44.9

Stanton
100.0
29.8

Stevens
100.0
25.9

Sumner
51.3
0.0
Louisiana
Allen
100.0
7.5

Beauregard
100.0
20.6

Bienville
100.0
16.8

Bossier
29.4
14.6

Caddo
12.2
8.8

Calcasieu
98.3
12.7

Caldwell
100.0
6.5

Claiborne
100.0
10.4

De Soto
55.8
21.8

East Feliciana
100.0
11.8

Jackson
100.0
13.8

Lincoln
100.0
4.2

Natchitoches
23.2
11.4

Rapides
100.0
3.3

Red River
83.2
27.6

Sabine
67.5
36.2

Tangipahoa
100.0
26.9

Union
100.0
11.2

Webster
100.0
11.3

West Feliciana
100.0
2.4

Winn
100.0
16.4
Michigan
Cheboygan
100.0
76.4

Gladwin
100.0
84.5

Kalkaska
100.0
89.0

Missaukee
100.0
90.6

Ogemaw
100.0
90.8

Roscommon
100.0
91.9
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-28	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Mississippi
Amite
100.0
26.0

Wilkinson
100.0
11.1
Montana
Daniels
100.0
29.4

Garfield
100.0
70.0

Glacier
62.1
17.7

Musselshell
89.9
54.5

Richland
100.0
30.8

Roosevelt
84.2
20.9

Rosebud
51.3
10.3

Sheridan
100.0
31.0
New Mexico
Chaves
100.0
11.8

Colfax
30.7
2.6

Eddy
100.0
2.2

Harding
100.0
25.0

Lea
100.0
17.4

Rio Arriba
84.0
42.3

Roosevelt
100.0
8.9

San Juan
14.6
12.9

Sandoval
98.9
23.2
North Dakota
Billings
NA
33.3

Bottineau
100.0
13.7

Burke
100.0
12.5

Divide
100.0
12.5

Dunn
100.0
21.4

Golden Valley
100.0
7.7

Mckenzie
75.8
15.7

Mclean
12.5
9.9

Mountrail
65.7
11.5

Stark
NA
5.7

Williams
27.4
7.3
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-29	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Ohio
Ashland
98.8
57.4

Belmont
76.4
8.9

Carroll
96.4
76.4

Columbiana
63.2
43.2

Coshocton
99.3
34.9

Guernsey
37.6
9.5

Harrison
65.6
45.9

Jefferson
33.1
10.2

Knox
99.2
41.1

Medina
98.4
83.1

Muskingum
93.4
17.0

Noble
8.0
8.0

Portage
32.6
18.3

Stark
91.2
30.9

Tuscarawas
94.0
23.5

Wayne
99.1
49.0
Oklahoma
Alfalfa
100.0
14.6

Beaver
100.0
47.9

Beckham
100.0
10.6

Blaine
100.0
8.8

Bryan
26.0
7.8

Caddo
45.4
35.1

Canadian
100.0
0.0

Carter
17.5
0.5

Coal
31.5
27.5

Custer
70.8
13.2

Dewey
100.0
22.5

Ellis
100.0
31.4

Garvin
41.3
15.8

Grady
100.0
34.2

Grant
100.0
13.2

Harper
100.0
22.6
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-30	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Oklahoma, cont.
Hughes
23.6
6.7

Jefferson
13.5
1.8

Johnston
53.4
1.1

Kay
39.2
4.6

Kingfisher
100.0
28.3

Kiowa
10.3
0.0

Latimer
12.6
12.6

Le Flore
14.3
13.1

Logan
61.1
34.6

Love
100.0
3.8

Major
100.0
28.1

Marshall
20.1
4.4

Mcclain
95.9
23.9

Noble
23.3
14.3

Oklahoma
22.0
2.5

Osage
18.0
14.9

Pawnee
38.2
27.7

Payne
47.9
12.6

Pittsburg
0.6
0.0

Roger Mills
80.1
19.4

Seminole
78.8
16.1

Stephens
99.2
14.9

Texas
100.0
10.9

Washita
53.9
18.2

Woods
100.0
14.7
Pennsylvania
Allegheny
15.7
15.3

Armstrong
45.3
36.8

Beaver
54.7
26.8

Blair
34.9
24.0

Bradford
100.0
65.2

Butler
51.8
42.8

Cameron
29.0
29.0
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-31	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Pennsylvania, cont.
Centre
93.1
21.3

Clarion
61.5
55.8

Clearfield
38.4
22.7

Clinton
48.4
38.1

Columbia
77.5
56.7

Crawford
97.7
66.0

Elk
25.3
15.6

Fayette
19.2
16.1

Forest
100.0
78.3

Greene
31.9
31.9

Huntingdon
73.2
57.8

Indiana
52.2
49.1

Jefferson
60.7
46.1

Lawrence
40.5
38.8

Lycoming
60.0
29.3

McKean
56.6
33.3

Potter
93.7
58.1

Somerset
42.6
33.5

Sullivan
100.0
76.9

Susquehanna
79.9
74.7

Tioga
81.3
58.3

Venango
95.9
32.7

Warren
96.9
49.4

Washington
21.6
21.5

Westmoreland
21.3
19.8

Wyoming
100.0
70.6
Texas
Andrews
100.0
23.4

Angelina
100.0
9.8

Archer
16.9
16.9

Atascosa
100.0
16.3

Austin
100.0
55.6

Bee
100.0
52.5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-32	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Texas, cont.
Borden
100.0
71.4

Bosque
88.7
30.3

Brazos
100.0
2.1

Brooks
100.0
35.3

Burleson
100.0
42.9

Cherokee
87.5
26.1

Clay
44.6
36.7

Cochran
100.0
23.3

Coke
29.0
28.9

Colorado
100.0
45.4

Concho
96.8
5.0

Cooke
75.5
8.9

Cottle
100.0
21.4

Crane
100.0
14.3

Crockett
100.0
42.5

Crosby
35.6
19.0

Culberson
100.0
13.8

Dallas
1.0
0.7

Dawson
100.0
33.8

DeWitt
100.0
42.3

Denton
9.0
3.6

Dimmit
100.0
30.5

Ector
100.0
28.3

Edwards
100.0
42.1

Ellis
32.2
7.9

Erath
100.0
43.3

Fayette
100.0
27.6

Fisher
NA
36.8

Franklin
0.9
0.0

Freestone
100.0
31.2

Frio
100.0
20.4

Gaines
100.0
45.5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-33	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Texas, cont.
Garza
20.1
17.2

Glasscock
NA
100.0

Goliad
NA
66.7

Gonzales
96.8
15.9

Grayson
56.0
4.2

Gregg
20.8
14.1

Grimes
100.0
26.0

Hansford
100.0
16.4

Hardeman
87.6
13.3

Hardin
100.0
29.5

Harrison
43.8
24.8

Hartley
100.0
39.7

Haskell
100.0
15.7

Hemphill
100.0
27.5

Hidalgo
9.2
1.6

Hockley
100.0
27.4

Hood
70.8
39.8

Houston
79.7
36.6

Howard
100.0
19.8

Hutchinson
27.3
14.9

Irion
100.0
50.0

Jack
46.7
43.8

Jefferson
25.0
5.8

Jim Hogg
NA
25.0

Johnson
34.9
6.8

Jones
60.5
60.5

Karnes
100.0
17.6

Kenedy
100.0
25.0

Kent
100.0
37.5

King
100.0
33.3

Kleberg
100.0
1.9

Knox
86.2
24.2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-34	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Texas, cont.
La Salle
100.0
43.3

Lavaca
100.0
56.0

Lee
100.0
15.9

Leon
100.0
41.4

Liberty
98.5
42.5

Limestone
46.5
32.5

Lipscomb
100.0
23.5

Live Oak
32.8
32.1

Loving
NA
0.0

Lynn
64.1
32.2

Madison
100.0
66.9

Marion
13.7
8.4

Martin
100.0
48.9

Maverick
27.6
27.6

McMullen
100.0
40.0

Medina
98.0
23.6

Menard
36.4
36.4

Midland
100.0
22.1

Milam
82.5
41.1

Mitchell
100.0
14.7

Montague
57.1
49.7

Montgomery
100.0
26.6

Moore
100.0
8.1

Nacogdoches
55.6
21.6

Navarro
22.0
22.0

Newton
100.0
63.7

Nolan
100.0
17.6

Nueces
5.6
5.6

Ochiltree
100.0
16.8

Oldham
100.0
58.8

Orange
99.1
41.2

Palo Pinto
11.7
11.7
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-35	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Texas, cont.
Panola
96.6
58.7

Parker
63.5
41.1

Pecos
100.0
31.3

Polk
41.9
41.7

Potter
100.0
12.6

Reagan
100.0
16.2

Reeves
100.0
31.1

Roberts
100.0
33.3

Robertson
97.1
22.5

Runnels
13.5
13.5

Rusk
90.7
41.8

Sabine
76.2
69.0

San Augustine
78.0
74.4

San Patricio
88.8
21.8

Schleicher
100.0
40.0

Scurry
32.5
27.7

Shelby
66.2
58.2

Sherman
100.0
33.3

Smith
48.0
13.7

Somervell
87.7
69.3

Starr
23.2
23.2

Stephens
13.5
13.5

Sterling
NA
18.8

Stonewall
NA
40.0

Sutton
100.0
26.7

Tarrant
3.7
1.3

Terrell
100.0
25.0

Terry
100.0
16.7

Tyler
100.0
73.6

Upshur
54.1
23.2

Upton
100.0
15.2

Van Zandt
65.7
39.0
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-36	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Texas, cont.
Walker
57.7
30.6

Waller
100.0
37.2

Ward
100.0
4.5

Washington
48.2
36.0

Webb
99.4
0.5

Wharton
100.0
45.9

Wheeler
100.0
31.3

Wichita
8.8
2.9

Wilbarger
100.0
11.5

Willacy
28.4
28.4

Wilson
100.0
6.9

Winkler
100.0
3.8

Wise
51.3
50.4

Wood
21.3
12.9

Yoakum
100.0
36.0

Young
19.3
18.9

Zapata
13.9
13.9

Zavala
100.0
15.2
Utah
Carbon
50.0
1.2

Duchesne
57.1
10.4

San Juan
68.3
47.5

Sevier
100.0
10.0

Uintah
87.7
3.1
Virginia
Buchanan
NA
27.6

Dickenson
2.5
2.5

Wise
5.9
2.3
West Virginia
Barbour
24.1
24.8

Brooke
33.4
6.8

Doddridge
60.6
62.1

Hancock
67.7
6.9

Harrison
8.8
8.9

Lewis
29.5
30.3
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-37	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
West Virginia, cont.
Marion
5.8
4.9

Marshall
96.5
12.0

Monongalia
5.3
5.5

Ohio
5.4
3.4

Pleasants
100.0
27.9

Preston
66.1
41.0

Ritchie
45.2
46.4

Taylor
14.9
14.9

Tyler
44.4
39.2

Upshur
27.3
27.8

Webster
41.9
43.2

Wetzel
96.3
28.6
Wyoming
Big Horn
79.4
11.3

Campbell
100.0
0.6

Carbon
63.8
6.7

Converse
96.5
17.0

Fremont
49.3
23.7

Goshen
100.0
21.1

Hot Springs
31.9
8.2

Johnson
40.8
35.4

Laramie
38.1
13.0

Lincoln
82.4
9.0

Natrona
69.0
6.6

Niobrara
100.0
16.3

Park
18.9
13.7
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-38	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
State
County
Percent domestic use water
from ground watera b
Percent domestic use
water self supplieda c
Wyoming, cont.
Sublette
54.6
22.1
Sweetwater
3.5
0.4
Uinta
19.5
11.5
Washakie
100.0
16.0
a Data accessed from the USGS website (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2010/) on November 11, 2014. Domestic water
use is water used for indoor household purposes such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes and dishes,
flushing toilets, and outdoor purposes such as watering lawns and gardens (Maupin et al.. 2014).
b Percent domestic water use from ground water estimated with the following equation: (Domestic public supply volume from
ground water + Domestic self-supplied volume from ground water)/ Domestic total water use volume * 100. Domestic public
supply volume from ground water was estimated by multiplying the volume of domestic water from public supply by the ratio
of public supply volume from ground water to total public supply volume.
c Percent domestic water use self-supplied estimated by dividing the volume of domestic water self-supplied by total domestic
water use volume.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-39	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Table B-7. Projected hydraulic fracturing water use by Texas counties between 2015 and 2060, expressed as a percentage of 2010
total county water use.
Hydraulic fracturing water use data from Nicot et al, (2012). Total water use data from 2010 from the USGS Water Census (Maupin et al,, 2014). All
254 Texas counties are listed by descending order of percentages in 2030.
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
McMullen
126.2
137.0
152.1
165.1
176.7
164.0
145.3
126.6
108.0
89.3
Irion
36.1
59.2
70.5
63.7
53.4
43.1
32.8
22.4
12.1
5.4
La Salle
58.4
58.3
59.7
60.8
61.9
54.6
45.3
36.0
26.7
17.4
San Augustine
60.2
56.2
52.2
48.2
44.2
40.2
36.2
32.1
28.1
24.1
Sterling
12.0
32.0
39.9
40.5
41.0
34.7
28.3
21.9
15.6
10.7
Dimmit
38.2
38.1
38.9
39.0
38.7
33.9
27.9
22.0
16.0
10.1
Sabine
9.6
19.2
28.7
38.3
35.1
31.9
28.7
25.6
22.3
19.2
Leon
9.9
19.3
27.0
34.6
32.9
29.0
25.1
21.2
17.3
13.5
Karnes
48.1
43.0
37.9
32.6
27.2
21.8
16.4
11.0
5.6
0.2
Loving
13.1
17.4
23.4
29.4
28.8
26.2
23.6
20.9
18.3
15.7
Shackelford
0.0
7.9
15.7
23.6
21.2
18.9
16.5
14.1
11.8
9.4
Madison
5.5
11.8
15.7
19.7
17.4
15.2
13.0
10.9
8.7
6.5
Schleicher
10.5
15.8
19.1
19.7
17.1
14.5
11.9
9.3
6.7
4.7
Sutton
0.0
11.0
15.1
19.1
23.2
20.6
18.1
15.5
12.9
10.3
Shelby
11.0
20.4
19.4
18.4
17.4
15.7
14.1
12.5
10.9
9.3
DeWitt
26.9
24.1
21.4
18.4
15.4
12.3
9.3
6.3
3.2
0.2
Hemphill
25.7
23.1
20.5
17.8
15.2
12.6
10.0
7.3
4.7
2.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-40	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Terrell
0.0
9.7
13.2
16.8
20.4
18.2
15.9
13.6
11.3
9.0
Coryell
7.0
24.4
22.8
16.5
10.1
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Montague
28.6
24.5
20.4
16.3
12.2
8.2
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Crockett
7.6
12.5
14.8
13.4
11.2
9.1
6.9
4.7
2.5
1.1
Upton
12.1
15.2
14.1
12.9
11.7
9.8
7.9
5.9
4.0
2.7
Borden
3.1
8.6
12.0
12.1
12.2
10.3
8.4
6.4
4.5
3.1
Live Oak
13.3
12.4
11.5
11.8
12.2
12.7
13.2
11.7
9.8
7.8
Reagan
11.2
14.0
12.7
11.3
9.9
8.1
6.4
4.6
2.8
1.6
Clay
3.2
5.9
8.6
11.3
10.3
9.4
8.4
7.5
6.6
5.6
Wheeler
17.6
15.3
13.1
10.8
8.6
6.3
4.1
1.8
0.0
0.0
Lavaca
7.9
13.2
12.0
10.7
9.4
8.1
6.7
5.4
4.0
2.7
Washington
0.0
6.7
11.8
10.7
9.6
8.6
7.5
6.4
5.3
4.3
Nacogdoches
7.9
11.4
10.7
10.0
9.2
8.3
7.5
6.6
5.7
4.9
Hill
17.1
14.7
12.2
9.8
7.3
4.9
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Jack
3.5
5.3
7.1
8.8
7.9
7.1
6.2
5.3
4.4
3.5
Panola
7.2
10.2
9.2
8.5
7.7
7.0
6.3
5.5
4.8
4.0
Jim Hogg
4.8
6.4
8.0
8.0
6.9
6.0
4.9
3.9
2.9
1.8
Howard
4.4
7.1
8.5
8.0
6.8
5.6
4.4
3.2
2.1
1.3
Parker
3.7
5.0
6.3
7.6
6.8
6.1
5.3
4.5
3.8
3.0
Hamilton
8.8
10.7
8.9
7.1
5.3
3.5
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Johnson
14.2
11.9
9.5
7.1
4.7
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Midland
6.7
8.3
7.7
7.1
6.2
5.2
4.1
3.0
2.0
1.2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-41	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Kenedy
4.1
5.4
6.8
6.8
5.9
5.1
4.1
3.3
2.4
1.6
Fayette
3.9
8.4
7.6
6.6
5.5
4.4
3.4
2.3
1.2
0.2
Lee
2.1
4.1
5.3
6.5
5.8
5.1
4.3
3.6
2.9
2.1
Winkler
2.9
3.8
5.1
6.3
6.0
5.4
4.7
4.1
3.4
2.8
Wilson
6.7
7.7
7.0
6.2
5.4
4.6
3.9
3.1
2.3
1.5
Martin
5.7
7.1
6.5
6.0
5.3
4.4
3.5
2.6
1.8
1.2
Burleson
1.0
2.9
4.3
5.7
5.1
4.5
3.9
3.3
2.6
2.0
Atascosa
6.3
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.0
4.2
3.4
2.7
Bosque
1.8
3.0
4.3
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.8
Webb
7.5
7.1
6.3
5.4
4.6
3.8
3.1
2.3
1.4
0.5
Gonzales
8.0
7.1
6.2
5.3
4.4
3.6
2.7
1.8
0.9
0.0
Marion
1.1
2.4
3.8
5.1
5.2
4.7
4.2
3.7
3.2
2.7
Harrison
4.3
6.1
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.2
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.4
Eastland
0.0
3.9
5.9
5.0
4.2
3.3
2.5
1.7
0.8
0.0
Archer
1.0
2.4
3.6
4.9
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.5
Zavala
4.7
5.5
5.2
4.9
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.4
2.7
2.0
Roberts
6.9
6.0
5.1
4.2
3.4
2.5
1.6
0.7
0.0
0.0
Maverick
2.5
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.8
4.5
4.0
3.6
3.1
2.6
Cooke
11.9
9.3
6.7
4.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ward
2.7
3.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.6
3.2
2.7
2.3
1.9
Austin
0.0
1.2
2.5
3.7
3.4
3.0
2.6
2.2
1.9
1.5
Reeves
1.4
1.8
2.7
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.3
3.0
2.6
2.3
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-42	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Glasscock
3.1
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.1
2.6
2.1
1.5
1.0
0.7
Tyler
1.9
2.6
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.1
0.7
Hood
1.4
2.0
2.6
3.2
2.9
2.6
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.3
Garza
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.2
Andrews
2.3
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.1
Crane
1.3
1.7
2.1
2.6
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.7
Erath
0.9
1.4
1.9
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Wise
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
Upshur
0.2
0.9
1.7
2.4
2.9
2.6
2.3
2.1
1.8
1.5
Mitchell
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.2
0.9
Ector
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.0
Culberson
0.3
0.4
1.3
2.2
2.9
2.6
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.6
Lipscomb
1.7
3.0
2.6
2.1
1.7
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
Angelina
0.4
0.9
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Houston
2.1
2.7
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
Frio
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.2
0.9
Newton
1.8
2.3
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
Kleberg
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Brooks
1.0
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Brazos
0.4
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.5
Comanche
0.4
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.5
Ochiltree
0.6
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-43	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Palo Pinto
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Limestone
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
Duval
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
Stephens
0.1
0.4
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
Dawson
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.3
Scurry
0.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
Bee
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.1
Val Verde
0.0
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
Colorado
<0.1
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
Tarrant
2.1
1.7
1.3
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Zapata
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Ellis
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Jim Wells
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
Lynn
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Henderson
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
Hansford
0.0
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Gaines
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
Gregg
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
Refugio
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Caldwell
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Pecos
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
Anderson
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-44	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Young
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
San Patricio
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Smith
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
Cherokee
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
McLennan
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
Terry
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
Starr
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
Cochran
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
Jasper
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
Dallas
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Robertson
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Grimes
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Yoakum
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Freestone
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Cass
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Hutchinson
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
Rusk
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
Willacy
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Victoria
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Sherman
0.0
0.0
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Calhoun
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Lubbock
0.0
0.0
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-45	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Jackson
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Matagorda
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Polk
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Wharton
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Nueces
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Hidalgo
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Cameron
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Somervell
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Goliad
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Brazoria
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Fort Bend
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Aransas
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Armstrong
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bailey
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bandera
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bastrop
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Baylor
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bell
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bexar
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Blanco
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bowie
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Brewster
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-46	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Briscoe
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Brown
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Burnet
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Callahan
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Camp
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Carson
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Castro
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Chambers
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Childress
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Coke
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Coleman
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Collin
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Collingsworth
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Comal
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Concho
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cottle
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Crosby
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dallam
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Deaf Smith
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Delta
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Denton
1.7
1.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dickens
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-47	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Donley
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Edwards
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
El Paso
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Falls
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Fannin
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Fisher
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Floyd
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Foard
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Franklin
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Galveston
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gillespie
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gray
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Grayson
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Guadalupe
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hale
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hall
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hardeman
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hardin
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Harris
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hartley
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Haskell
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hays
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-48	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Hockley
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hopkins
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hudspeth
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hunt
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Jeff Davis
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Jefferson
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Jones
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Kaufman
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Kendall
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Kent
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Kerr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Kimble
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
King
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Kinney
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Knox
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lamar
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lamb
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lampasas
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Liberty
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Llano
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
McCulloch
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mason
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-49	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Medina
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Menard
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Milam
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mills
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Montgomery
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Moore
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Morris
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Motley
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Navarro
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Nolan
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Oldham
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Orange
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Parmer
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Potter
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Presidio
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rains
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Randall
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Real
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Red River
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Rockwall
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Runnels
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
San Jacinto
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-50	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
Texas county
Projected hydraulic fracturing water use as a percentage of 2010 total water usea b
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
San Saba
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Stonewall
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swisher
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Taylor
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Throckmorton
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Titus
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tom Green
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Travis
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Trinity
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Uvalde
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Van Zandt
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Walker
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Waller
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Wichita
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Wilbarger
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Williamson
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Wood
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
a Total water use data accessed from the USGS website (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2010/) on April 21, 2015. Data from Nicot et al. (2012) transcribed.
b Percentages calculated by dividing projected hydraulic fracturing water use volumes from Nicot et al. (2012) by 2010 total water use from the USGS and multiplying by 100.
Percentages less than 0.1 were not rounded and simply noted as "<0.1", but where the percentage was actually zero because there was no projected hydraulic fracturing
water use we noted that as "0.0".
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-51	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix B
B.2. References for Appendix B
CCS'F (California Council on Science and Technology). (2014). Advanced well stimulation technologies in
California: An independent review of scientific and technical information. Sacramento, CA.
http: / / ccst.us/publications/2 014/2 014wst,pdf
Goodwin, S; Carlson, K; Knox, K; Douglas, C; Rein, L. (2014). Water intensity assessment of shale gas resources
in the Wattenberg field in northeastern Colorado. Environ Sci Technol 48: 5991-5995.
hti	ioi org/10.102 l/es40467Sh
Hansen, E: Mulvanev, D: Betcher, M, (2013). Water resource reporting and water footprint from Marcellus
Shale development in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Durango, CO: Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability
Project, http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/dpcuments/reports pttblication/marcellus wv pa.pdf
Maupin, MA: Kenny, IF: Hutson, SS: Lovelace, IK: Barber, NL: Linsev, KS, (2014). Estimated use of water in the
United States in 2010. (USGS Circular 1405). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
hti	ioi.org/10.3133/cirl405
Mitchell, AL: Small, M: Casman, EA, (2013). Surface water withdrawals for Marcellus Shale gas development:
performance of alternative regulatory approaches in the Upper Ohio River Basin. Environ Sci Technol 47:
12669-12678. http://dx.doi.org/10,102l/es403S37z
Murray, KE, (2013). State-scale perspective on water use and production associated with oil and gas
operations, Oklahoma, U.S. Environ Sci Technol 47: 4918-4925. http://dx.doi.org/lQ.lQ21/es40QQ593
Nicot, IP: Reedy, RC: Costley, RA: Huang, Y, (2012). Oil & gas water use in Texas: Update to the 2011 mining
water use report Nicot, JP; Reedy, RC; Costley, RA; Huang, Y.
http://'www,twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/contracted reports/doc/0904830939 2012Update M
iningWaterUse.pdf
Nicot, IP; Scanlon, BR, (2012). Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, U.S. Environ Sci Technol 46: 3580-
3586. http: //dx.doi.org/10.102l/es204602t
North Dakota State Water Commission, (2014). Facts about North Dakota fracking and water use. Bismarck,
ND. http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dlin:	1/GetContentPDF/PB-2419/Fact%20Sheetpdf
Sollev, WB: Pierce, RR: Perlman, HA, (1998). Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. (USGS
Circular: 1200). U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs,er.usgs.gov/publication/cirl200
II.S, EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015a). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from the
FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0 [EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/003). Washington, D.C.: Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudv/analysis-hydraulic-fracturing-fluid-data-fracfocus-chemical-disclosure-
registrv-l-pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015b). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from the
FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0: Data management and quality assessment report [EPA
Report], (EPA/601/R-14/006). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, http: //www2,epa,gov/sites/production/files/ 2015-
03/documents/fracfocus data management report final 032015 508.pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015c). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from the
FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0: Project database [EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/003).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/epa-prQject-database-developed-fracfocus-l-disclQsures
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (2014). Withdrawal and consumption of water by thermoelectric power plants
in the United States, 2010. (Scientific Investigations Report 20145184). Reston, VA.
hti	ioi.org/10.3133/sir20145184
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-52	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment	Appendix B
VerdegemvMCJ:..Bosm (2009). Water withdrawal for brackish and inland aquaculture, and options to
produce more fish in ponds with present water use. Water Policy 11: 52-68.
<' / dx.doi.org/'l 0.2166/wp.2 009.003
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	B-53	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Appendix C
Chemical Mixing Supplemental Tables and
Information
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Appendix C. Chemical Mixing Supplemental Tables and
Information
C.l. Supplemental Tables and Information
Table C-l. Chemicals reported to FracFocus in 10% or more of disclosures for gas-producing
wells, with the number of disclosures where chemical is reported, percentage of
disclosures, and the median maximum concentration (% by mass) of that chemical
in hydraulic fracturing fluid.
Chemicals ranked by frequency of occurrence (U.S. EPA, 2015c).
Chemical name
CASRN
Number of
disclosures
Percentage of
disclosures
Median maximum
concentration in
hydraulic fracturing
fluid (% by mass)
Hydrochloric acid
7647-01-0
12,351
72.8%
15%
Methanol
67-56-1
12,269
72.3%
30%
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light
64742-47-8
11,897
70.1%
30%
Isopropanol
67-63-0
8,008
47.2%
30%
Water
7732-18-5
7,998
47.1%
63%
Ethanol
64-17-5
6,325
37.3%
5%
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
5,811
34.2%
10%
Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8
5,635
33.2%
30%
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
5,493
32.4%
35%
Citric acid
77-92-9
4,832
28.5%
60%
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2
4,656
27.4%
5%
Peroxydisulfuric acid, diammonium salt
7727-54-0
4,618
27.2%
100%
Quartz
14808-60-7
3,758
22.1%
10%
2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2
3,668
21.6%
100%
Sodium chloride
7647-14-5
3,608
21.3%
30%
Guar gum
9000-30-0
3,586
21.1%
60%
Acetic acid
64-19-7
3,563
21.0%
50%
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
3,325
19.6%
10%
Naphthalene
91-20-3
3,294
19.4%
5%
Solvent naphtha, petroleum, heavy arom.
64742-94-5
3,287
19.4%
30%
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
benzyl-C12-16-alkyldimethyl, chlorides
68424-85-1
3,259
19.2%
7%
Potassium hydroxide
1310-58-3
2,843
16.8%
15%
Ammonium chloride
12125-02-9
2,483
14.6%
10%
Choline chloride
67-48-1
2,477
14.6%
75%
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-l	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Number of
disclosures
Percentage of
disclosures
Median maximum
concentration in
hydraulic fracturing
fluid (% by mass)
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl)-nonylphenyl-
hydroxy (mixture)
127087-87-0
2,455
14.5%
5%
Sodium chlorite
7758-19-2
2,372
14.0%
10%
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
2,229
13.1%
1%
Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt
584-08-7
2,154
12.7%
60%
Methenamine
100-97-0
2,134
12.6%
1%
Formic acid
64-18-6
2,118
12.5%
60%
Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride
7173-51-5
2,063
12.2%
10%
N,N-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
1,892
11.2%
13%
Phenolic resin
9003-35-4
1,852
10.9%
5%
Thiourea polymer
68527-49-1
1,702
10.0%
30%
Polyethylene glycol
25322-68-3
1,696
10.0%
60%
Note: Analysis considered 17,035 disclosures and 291,363 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria,
including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1,
2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria
(1,587) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-2	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Table C-2. Chemicals reported to FracFocus in 10% or more of disclosures for oil-producing
wells, with the number of disclosures where chemical is reported, percentage of
disclosures, and the median maximum concentration (% by mass) of that chemical
in hydraulic fracturing fluid.
Chemicals ranked by frequency of occurrence (U.S. EPA, 2015c).
Chemical name
CASRN
Number of
disclosures
Percentage of
disclosures
Median maximum
concentration in
hydraulic fracturing
fluid (% by mass)
Methanol
67-56-1
12,484
71.8%
30%
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light
64742-47-8
10,566
60.8%
40%
Peroxydisulfuric acid, diammonium salt
7727-54-0
10,350
59.6%
100%
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
10,307
59.3%
30%
Hydrochloric acid
7647-01-0
10,029
57.7%
15%
Guar gum
9000-30-0
9,110
52.4%
50%
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2
8,609
49.5%
10%
Quartz
14808-60-7
8,577
49.4%
2%
Water
7732-18-5
8,538
49.1%
67%
Isopropanol
67-63-0
8,031
46.2%
15%
Potassium hydroxide
1310-58-3
7,206
41.5%
15%
Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8
5,927
34.1%
15%
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
5,599
32.2%
5%
Acetic acid
64-19-7
4,623
26.6%
30%
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
4,022
23.1%
10%
Solvent naphtha, petroleum, heavy arom.
64742-94-5
3,821
22.0%
5%
Sodium chloride
7647-14-5
3,692
21.2%
25%
Ethanol
64-17-5
3,536
20.3%
45%
Citric acid
77-92-9
3,310
19.0%
60%
Phenolic resin
9003-35-4
3,109
17.9%
5%
Naphthalene
91-20-3
3,060
17.6%
5%
Nonyl phenol ethoxylate
9016-45-9
2,829
16.3%
20%
Diatomaceous earth, calcined
91053-39-3
2,655
15.3%
100%
Methenamine
100-97-0
2,559
14.7%
1%
Tetramethylammonium chloride
75-57-0
2,428
14.0%
1%
Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt
584-08-7
2,402
13.8%
60%
Ethoxylated propoxylated C12-14 alcohols
68439-51-0
2,342
13.5%
2%
Choline chloride
67-48-1
2,264
13.0%
75%
Boron sodium oxide
1330-43-4
2,228
12.8%
30%
Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate
55566-30-8
2,130
12.3%
50%
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
2,118
12.2%
1%
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-3	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Number of
disclosures
Percentage of
disclosures
Median maximum
concentration in
hydraulic fracturing
fluid (% by mass)
Boric acid
10043-35-3
2,070
11.9%
25%
Polyethylene glycol
25322-68-3
2,025
11.7%
5%
2-Mercaptoethanol
60-24-2
2,012
11.6%
100%
2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2
1,988
11.4%
98%
Formic acid
64-18-6
1,948
11.2%
60%
Sodium persulfate
7775-27-1
1,914
11.0%
100%
Phosphonic acid
13598-36-2
1,865
10.7%
1%
Sodium tetraborate decahydrate
1303-96-4
1,862
10.7%
30%
Potassium metaborate
13709-94-9
1,682
9.7%
60%
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tetrasodium
salt hydrate
64-02-8
1,676
9.6%
0%
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl)-nonylphenyl-hydroxy
(mixture)
127087-87-0
1,668
9.6%
5%
Note: Analysis considered 17,640 disclosures and 385,013 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria,
including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1,
2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet quality assurance criteria
(2,268) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-4	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Table C-3a. Top chemicals reported to FracFocus for each state and number (and percentage) of disclosures where a chemical is
reported for that state, Alabama to Montana (U.S. EPA, 2015c).
Source: (U.S. EPA, 2015c). The top 20 most frequent chemicals were identified for the 20 states that reported to FracFocus, resulting in a total of
93 chemicals. The chemicals were ranked by counting the number of states where that chemical was in the top 20; chemicals used most widely
among the most states come first. For example, methanol is reported in 19 of 20 states, so methanol is ranked first.
Chemical name
CASRN
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi Montana
Methanol
67-56-1
55
(100%)

1333
(99.7%)
228
(39.0%)
2883
(63.3%)
77
(79.4%)
596
(59.2%)
13
(92.9%)
3
(75%)
121
(62.7%)
Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light
64742-47-8

9
(45%)
743
(55.6%)
322
(55.0%)
3358
(73.7%)
87
(89.7%)
844
(83.9%)
14
(100%)
4
(100%)
115
(59.6%)
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
55
(100%)
20
(100%)
291
(21.8%)
350
(59.8%)

61
(62.9%)
341
(33.9%)
10
(71.4%)
3
(75%)
95
(49.2%)
Isopropanol
67-63-0
55
(100%)
13
(65%)
586
(43.9%)

2586
(56.8%)
24
(24.7%)
515
(51.2%)
11
(78.6%)

123
(63.7%)
Quartz
14808-60-7

20
(100%)

519
(88.7%)
1048
(23.0%)
22
(22.7%)
377
(37.5%)

2
(50%)
124
(64.2%)
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2

20
(100%)
285
(21.3%)
403
(68.9%)
996
(21.9%)
27
(27.8%)
535
(53.2%)

2
(50%)
105
(54.4%)
Ethanol
64-17-5


603
(45.1%)

2258
(49.6%)
78
(80.4%)
420
(41.7%)

4
(100%)

Guar gum
9000-30-0

10
(50%)

545
(93.2%)


494
(49.1%)

2
(50%)
83
(43.0%)
Hydrochloric acid
7647-01-0
55
(100%)

1330
(99.5%)

2408
(52.9%)
82
(84.5%)
569
(56.6%)


45
(23.3%)
Peroxydisulfuric acid,
diammonium salt
7727-54-0

10
(50%)

484
(82.7%)

21
(21.6%)
273
(27.2%)
8
(57.1%)

119
(61.7%)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-5	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi Montana
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7


813
(60.8%)


69
(71.1%)
299
(29.7%)
5
(35.7%)


Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8


737
(55.1%)


73
(75.3%)
364
(36.3%)

2
(50%)

Naphthalene
91-20-3
55
(100%)



1363
(29.9%)
41
(42.3%)
293
(29.2%)
12
(85.7%)

95
(49.2%)
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
55
(100%)
20
(100%)





11
(78.6%)


Citric acid
77-92-9





45
(46.4%)




Saline
7647-14-5




1574
(34.5%)

408
(40.6%)

2
(50%)

Solvent naphtha,
petroleum, heavy arom.
64742-94-5




1507
(33.1%)
42
(43.3%)



135
(70.0%)
Quaternary ammonium
compounds, benzyl-C12-
16-alkyldimethyl, chlorides
68424-85-1


375
(28.0%)


52
(53.6%)


2
(50%)

2,2-Dibromo-3-
nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2
55
(100%)



2215
(48.6%)


10
(71.4%)

70
(36.3%)
Potassium hydroxide
1310-58-3






340
(33.8%)

4
(100%)
115
(59.6%)
Choline chloride
67-48-1




1235
(27.1%)





Polyethylene glycol
25322-68-3
55
(100%)






7
(50%)

69
(35.8%)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6




1211
(26.63%)
39
(40.2%)




This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-6	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi Montana
Ammonium chloride
12125-02-9


277
(20.7%)

1280
(28.0%)





Diatomaceous earth,
calcined
91053-39-3

20
(100%)

417
(71.3%)






Didecyl dimethyl
ammonium chloride
7173-51-5


317
(23.7%)





2
(50%)

Sodium chlorite
7758-19-2






352
(35.0%)

4
(100%)

Sodium erythorbate
6381-77-7


435
(32.5%)


29
(29.9%)




N,N-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2










Nonyl phenol ethoxylate
9016-45-9










Poly(oxy-l,2-
ethanediyl)-
nonylphenyl-hydroxy
(mixture)
127087-87-
0



1150
(25.2%)
39
(40.2%)





Sodium persulfate
7775-27-1








4
(100%)

Tetramethylammonium
chloride
75-57-0









85
(44.0%)
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6







10
(71.4%)


5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-
isothiazolone
26172-55-4

20
(100%)

389
(66.5%)






Acetic acid
64-19-7




959
(21.0%)

284
(28.2%)



Ammonium acetate
631-61-8








2
(50%)

This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-7	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi Montana
Boric acid
10043-35-3

3
(15%)








Carbonic acid, dipotassium
salt
584-08-7




1159
(25.4%)





Cristobalite
14464-46-1

20
(100%)

389
(66.5%)






Formic acid
64-18-6
55
(100%)





293
(29.1%)



Hemicellulase enzyme
9012-54-8










Hemicellulase enzyme
concentrate
9025-56-3



395
(67.5%)






Iron(ll) sulfate
heptahydrate
7782-63-0







7 (50%)


Magnesium chloride
7786-30-3

20
(100%)

389
(66.5%)






Magnesium nitrate
10377-60-3

20
(100%)

389
(66.5%)






Phenolic resin
9003-35-4










Sodium hypochlorite
7681-52-9




1046
(23.0%)





Sodium tetraborate
decahydrate
1303-96-4

14
(70%)








Solvent naphtha,
petroleum, heavy aliph.
64742-96-7







7
(50%)
2
(50%)

l-Butoxy-2-propanol
5131-66-8



315
(53.8%)






This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-8	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi Montana
1-Propanol
71-23-8




1232
(27.0%)





1,2-Ethanediaminium, N,
N'-bis[2-[bis(2-hydroxyeth
yl)methylammonio]ethyl]-
N,N'bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-
N,N'-dimethyl-,tetrachl
oride
138879-94-4


343
(58.6%)







2-bromo-3-
nitrilopropionamide
1113-55-9










2-Ethylhexanol
104-76-7









83
(43.0052%
)
2-Methyl-3(2H)-
isothiazolone
2682-20-4

20
(100%)

389
(66.5%)






2-Propenoic acid, polymer
with 2-propenamide
9003-06-9










Alkenes, C>10 .alpha.-
64743-02-8


241
(18.0%)







Benzene, l,l'-oxybis-,
tetrapropylene derivs.,
sulfonated
119345-03-8









50
(25.9%)
Benzenesulfonic acid,
dodecyl-, compd. with Nl-
(2-aminoethyl)-l,2-
ethanediamine (1:?)
40139-72-8









48
(24.9%)
Benzyldimethyldodecylam
monium chloride
139-07-1


268
(20.0%)







This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-9	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi Montana
Benzylhexadecyldimethyla
mmonium chloride
122-18-9


268
(20.0%)







Boron sodium oxide
1330-43-4



361
(61.7%)






C10-C16 ethoxylated
alcohol
68002-97-1

3
(15%)








Calcium chloride
10043-52-4

20
(100%)








Carbon dioxide
124-38-9







7
(50%)


Cinnamaldehyde (3-
phenyl-2-propenal)
104-55-2
55
(100%)









Diethylene glycol
111-46-6










Diethylene glycol
monobutyl ether
112-34-5







7
(50%)


Diethylenetriamine
111-40-0









55
(28.5%)
Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light
paraffinic
64742-55-8



314
(53.7%)






Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated middle
64742-46-7

3
(15%)








Ethoxylated C12-16
alcohols
68551-12-2










Ethoxylated C14-15
alcohols
68951-67-7


241
(18.0%)







Formic acid, potassium
salt
590-29-4










This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-10	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi Montana
Glycerin, natural
56-81-5







7
(50%)


Isotridecanol, ethoxylated
9043-30-5



312
(53.3%)






Methenamine
100-97-0






298
(29.6%)



Naphtha, petroleum,
hydrotreated heavy
64742-48-9










Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl),
.alpha.,.alpha. '-[[(9Z)-9-
octadecenylimino]di-2,l-
ethanediyl] bis[. omega.-
hydroxy-
26635-93-8







9
(64.3%)


Potassium chloride
7447-40-7







7
(50%)


Sodium bromate
7789-38-0







7
(50%)


Sodium perborate
tetrahydrate
10486-00-7










Sulfamic acid
5329-14-6








2
(50%)

Terpenes and Terpenoids,
sweet orange-oil
68647-72-3








2
(50%)

Tetradecyl dimethyl
benzyl ammonium
chloride
139-08-2


268
(20.0%)







Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)p
hosphonium sulfate
55566-30-8










This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-ll	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi Montana
Thiourea polymer
68527-49-1


384
(28.7%)







Tri-n-butyl tetradecyl
phosphonium chloride
81741-28-8










Trisodium phosphate
7601-54-9





19
(19.6%)




Note for Table C-3a and C-3b: Analysis considered 34,675 disclosures and 676,376 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed;
unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures
that did not meet quality assurance criteria (3,855) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.
Table C-3b. Top chemicals reported to FracFocus for each state and number (and percentage) of disclosures where a chemical is
reported for that state, New Mexico to Wyoming (U.S. EPA, 2015c).
Source: (U.S. EPA, 2015c). The top 20 most frequent chemicals were identified for the 20 states that reported to FracFocus, resulting in a total of
93 chemicals. The chemicals were ranked by counting the number of states where that chemical was in the top 20; chemicals used most widely
among the most states come first. For example, methanol is reported in 19 of 20 states, so methanol is ranked first.
Chemical name
CASRN
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West
Virginia
Wyoming
Methanol
67-56-1
1012
(90.8%)
1059
(53.3%)
76
(52.1%)
1270
(70.3%)
1633
(68.6%)
12664
(78.5%)
984
(78.5%)
48
(60.8%)
153
(64.0%)
460
(38.4%)
Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light
64742-47-8
699
(62.7%)
943
(47.5%)
122
(83.6%)
1270
(70.3%)
1434
(60.2%)
10677
(66.1%)
934
(74.5%)

196
(82.0%)
612
(51.1%)
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
503
(45.1%)
724
(36.4%)
83
(56.8%)
843
(46.7%)
807
(33.9%)
9591
(59.4%)
1065
(85.0%)
22
(27.8%)
141
(59.0%)

Isopropanol
67-63-0
695
(62.3%)
739
(37.2%)
71
(48.6%)
764
(42.28%)
735
(30.9%)
7731
(47.9%)
661
(52.8%)
43 (54.4%)
74
(31.0%)
516
(43.1%)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-12	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West
Virginia
Wyoming
Quartz
14808-60-7
762
(68.3%)
920
(46.3%)
66
(45.2%)
491
(27.2%)

6869
(42.6%)
503
(40.1%)

53
(22.2%)
356
(29.7%)
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2
329
(29.5%)
1028
(51.7%)

490
(27.1%)
406
(17.0%)
7371
(45.7%)
466
(37.2%)


688
(57.4%)
Ethanol
64-17-5
529
(47.4%)
545
(27.4%)
87
(59.6%)
838
(46.4%)
388
(16.3%)
3439
(21.3%)

50
(63.3%)
130
(54.3%)
298
(24.9%)
Guar gum
9000-30-0
702
(63.0%)
1094
(55.1%)
74
(50.7%)
457
(25.3%)
538
(22.6%)
6863
(42.5%)
538
(42.9%)

55
(23.0%)
823
(68.7%)
Hydrochloric acid
7647-01-0
880
(78.9%)

145
(99.3%)
1372
(75.9%)
2279
(95.7%)
11424
(70.8%)
1064
(84.9%)
68
(86.1%)
229
(95.8%)

Peroxydisulfuric acid,
diammonium salt
7727-54-0
836
(75.0%)
1089
(54.8%)
93
(63.7%)
713
(39.5%)

8666
(53.7%)
483
(38.5%)

128
(53.6%)
771
(64.4%)
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
760
(68.2%)

72
(49.3%)
732
(40.5%)
1371
(57.6%)
6269
(38.8%)
456
(36.4%)
22
(27.8%)
138
(57.7%)

Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8
632
(56.7%)

105
(71.9%)
989
(54.7%)
819
(34.4%)
6470
(40.1%)


169
(70.7%)
260
(21.7%)
Naphthalene
91-20-3

864
(43.5%)

448
(24.8%)


478
(38.1%)
7
(8.9%)


2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
412
(37.0%)



498
(20.9%)
3898
(24.1%)
663
(52.9%)
70
(88.6%)
62
(25.9%)

Citric acid
77-92-9
447
(40.1%)

96
(65.8%)
644
(35.6%)
701
(29.4%)
3820
(23.7%)
992
(79.2%)
63
(79.8%)
98
(41.0%)

Saline
7647-14-5

491
(24.7%)



3462
(21.4%)

7
(8.9%)
53
(22.2%)
274
(22.9%)
Solvent naphtha,
petroleum, heavy arom.
64742-94-5

981
(49.4%)

557
(30.8%)

2751
(17.0%)

7
(8.9%)

415
(34.6%)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-13	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West
Virginia
Wyoming
Quaternary ammonium
compounds, benzyl-C12-
16-alkyldimethyl, chlorides
68424-85-1


54
(37.0%)
597
(33.0%)
373
(15.7%)



53
(22.2%)

2,2-Dibromo-3-
nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2




804
(33.8%)


22
(27.8%)


Potassium hydroxide
1310-58-3

1176
(59.2%)
106
(72.6%)


6369
(39.5%)




Choline chloride
67-48-1
384
(34.4%)

55
(37.7%)



649
(51.8%)
45
(57.0%)


Polyethylene glycol
25322-68-3

567
(28.5%)


688
(28.9%)





1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6

496
(25.0%)





7
(8.9%)


Ammonium chloride
12125-02-9




732
(30.7%)



50
(20.9%)

Diatomaceous earth,
calcined
91053-39-3
419
(37.6%)





435
(34.7%)



Didecyl dimethyl
ammonium chloride
7173-51-5


46
(31.6%)





49
(20.5%)

Sodium chlorite
7758-19-2

482
(24.3%)







271
(22.6%)
Sodium erythorbate
6381-77-7







10
(12.7%)
76
(31.8%)

N,N-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2


68
(46.6%)
355
(19.6%)


410
(32.7%)



Nonyl phenol ethoxylate
9016-45-9
333
(29.9%)





447
(35.7%)
25
(31.6%)


This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-14	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West
Virginia
Wyoming
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl)-
nonylphenyl-hydroxy
(mixture)
127087-87-0







7
(8.9%)


Sodium persulfate
7775-27-1




373
(15.7%)




308
(25.7%)
Tetramethylammonium
chloride
75-57-0

579
(29.1%)







315
(26.3%)
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6







22
(27.8%)


5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-
isothiazolone
26172-55-4










Acetic acid
64-19-7










Ammonium acetate
631-61-8









323
(27.0%)
Boric acid
10043-35-3


82
(56.2%)







Carbonic acid, dipotassium
salt
584-08-7

482
(24.2%)








Cristobalite
14464-46-1










Formic acid
64-18-6










Hemicellulase enzyme
9012-54-8




367
(15.4%)


11
(13.9%)


Hemicellulase enzyme
concentrate
9025-56-3
331
(29.7%)









Iron(ll) sulfate
heptahydrate
7782-63-0







22
(27.8%)


Magnesium chloride
7786-30-3










This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-15	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West
Virginia
Wyoming
Magnesium nitrate
10377-60-3










Phenolic resin
9003-35-4
419
(37.6%)




2903
(18.0%)




Sodium hypochlorite
7681-52-9









282
(23.5%)
Sodium tetraborate
decahydrate
1303-96-4









265
(22.1%)
Solvent naphtha,
petroleum, heavy aliph.
64742-96-7










l-Butoxy-2-propanol
5131-66-8










1-Propanol
71-23-8










1,2-Ethanediaminium, N,
N'-bis[2-[bis(2-hydroxy
ethyl) methylammonio]
ethyl]-N,N'bis(2-
hydroxyethyl)-N,N'-
dimethyl-, tetrachloride
138879-94-4










2-Bromo-3-
nitrilopropionamide
1113-55-9







11
(13.9%)


2-Ethylhexanol
104-76-7










2-Methyl-3(2H)-
isothiazolone
2682-20-4










2-Propenoic acid, polymer
with 2-propenamide
9003-06-9






486
(38.8%)



Alkenes, C>10 .alpha.-
64743-02-8










This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-16	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West
Virginia
Wyoming
Benzene, l,l'-oxybis-,
tetrapropylene derivs.,
sulfonated
119345-03-8










Benzenesulfonic acid,
dodecyl-, compd. with Nl-
(2-aminoethyl)-l,2-
ethanediamine (1:?)
40139-72-8










Benzyldimethyldodecylam
monium chloride
139-07-1










Benzylhexadecyldimethyla
mmonium chloride
122-18-9










Boron sodium oxide
1330-43-4










C10-C16 ethoxylated
alcohol
68002-97-1










Calcium chloride
10043-52-4










Carbon dioxide
124-38-9










Cinnamaldehyde (3-
phenyl-2-propenal)
104-55-2










Diethylene glycol
111-46-6


45
(30.8%)







Diethylene glycol
monobutyl ether
112-34-5










Diethylenetriamine
111-40-0










Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated light
paraffinic
64742-55-8










This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-17	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West
Virginia
Wyoming
Distillates, petroleum,
hydrotreated middle
64742-46-7










Ethoxylated C12-16
alcohols
68551-12-2








57
(23.8%)

Ethoxylated C14-15
alcohols
68951-67-7










Formic acid, potassium
salt
590-29-4









361
(30.1%)
Glycerin, natural
56-81-5










Isotridecanol, ethoxylated
9043-30-5










Methenamine
100-97-0










Naphtha, petroleum,
hydrotreated heavy
64742-48-9









384
(32.1%)
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl),
.alpha.,.alpha. '-[[(9Z)-9-
octadecenylimino]di-2,l-
ethanediyl] bis[. omega.-
hydroxy-
26635-93-8










Potassium chloride
7447-40-7










Sodium bromate
7789-38-0










Sodium perborate
tetrahydrate
10486-00-7



351
(19.4%)






Sulfamic acid
5329-14-6










Terpenes and terpenoids,
sweet orange-oil
68647-72-3










This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-18	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
New
Mexico
North
Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West
Virginia
Wyoming
Tetradecyl dimethyl
benzyl ammonium
chloride
139-08-2










Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)p
hosphonium sulfate
55566-30-8






945
(75.4%)



Thiourea polymer
68527-49-1










Tri-n-butyl tetradecyl
phosphonium chloride
81741-28-8




350
(14.7%)





Trisodium phosphate
7601-54-9










Note for Table C-3a and C-3b: Analysis considered 34,675 disclosures and 676,376 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria, including: completely parsed;
unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures
that did not meet quality assurance criteria (3,855) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-19	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Table C-4. Estimated mean, median, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile volumes in gallons for
chemicals reported to FracFocus in 100 or more disclosures, where density
information was available.
Chemicals are listed in alphabetical order. Density information came from Reaxys® and other sources.
All density sources are referenced in Table C-7.
Name
CASRN
Volume (gallons)
Mean
Median
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
(4R)-l-methyl-4-(prop-l-en-2-
yl)cyclohexene
5989-27-5
2,702
406
0
19,741
l-Butoxy-2-propanol
5131-66-8
167
21
5
654
1-Decanol
112-30-1
28
4
0
33
1-Octanol
111-87-5
5
4
0
10
1-Propanol
71-23-8
128
55
6
367
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6
13,105
72
4
61,071
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
38
6
0
43
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
385
26
0
1,811
2-Ethylhexanol
104-76-7
100
11
0
292
2-Mercaptoethanol
60-24-2
1,175
445
0
4,194
2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2
183
5
0
341
Acetic acid
64-19-7
646
47
0
1,042
Acetic anhydride
108-24-7
239
50
3
722
Acrylamide
79-06-1
95
3
0
57
Adipic acid
124-04-9
153
0
0
109
Aluminum chloride
7446-70-0
2
0
0
0
Ammonia
7664-41-7
44
35
2
138
Ammonium acetate
631-61-8
839
117
0
1,384
Ammonium chloride
12125-02-9
440
48
3
458
Ammonium hydroxide
1336-21-6
7
2
0
14
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
52
0
0
40
Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt
584-08-7
467
113
0
1,729
Chlorine dioxide
10049-04-4
31
11
0
28
Choline chloride
67-48-1
2,131
290
28
4,364
Cinnamaldehyde (3-phenyl-2-propenal)
104-55-2
68
3
0
697
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-20	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Name
CASRN
Volume (gallons)
Mean
Median
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Citric acid
77-92-9
163
20
1
269
Dibromoacetonitrile
3252-43-5
22
13
1
45
Diethylene glycol
111-46-6
168
16
0
102
Diethylenetriamine
111-40-0
92
21
0
207
Dodecane
112-40-3
190
31
0
151
Ethanol
64-17-5
831
121
1
2,645
Ethanolamine
141-43-5
70
30
0
283
Ethyl acetate
141-78-6
0
0
0
0
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
614
184
4
2,470
Ferric chloride
7705-08-0
0
0
0
0
Formalin
50-00-0
200
0
0
8
Formic acid
64-18-6
501
38
1
1,229
Fumaric acid
110-17-8
2
0
0
12
Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8
1,313
122
2
1,165
Glycerin, natural
56-81-5
413
109
10
911
Glycolic acid
79-14-1
38
10
4
94
Hydrochloric acid
7647-01-0
28,320
3,110
96
26,877
Isopropanol
67-63-0
2,095
55
0
1,264
Isopropylamine
75-31-0
83
121
0
172
Magnesium chloride
7786-30-3
14
0
0
2
Methanol
67-56-1
1,218
110
2
3,731
Methenamine
100-97-0
3,386
100
0
3,648
Methoxyacetic acid
625-45-6
36
4
2
115
N,N-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
119
10
0
216
Naphthalene
91-20-3
72
12
0
204
Nitrogen, liquid
7727-37-9
41,841
26,610
3,091
108,200
Ozone
10028-15-6
15,844
15,473
8,785
26,063
Peracetic acid
79-21-0
300
268
50
663
Phosphonic acid
13598-36-2
1,201
0
0
3
Phosphoric acid Divosan X-Tend
formulation
7664-38-2
13
4
0
15
Potassium acetate
127-08-2
204
1
0
974
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-21	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Name
CASRN
Volume (gallons)
Mean
Median
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
183
2
0
51
Saline
7647-14-5
876
85
0
1,544
Saturated sucrose
57-50-1
1
1
0
2
Silica, amorphous
7631-86-9
6,877
8
0
38,371
Sodium carbonate
497-19-8
228
16
0
1,319
Sodium formate
141-53-7
0
0
0
0
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2
551
38
0
1,327
Sulfur dioxide
7446-09-5
0
0
0
0
Sulfuric acid
7664-93-9
3
0
0
3
tert-Butyl hydroperoxide (70% solution in
Water)
75-91-2
156
64
0
557
Tetramethylammonium chloride
75-57-0
970
483
2
3,508
Thioglycolic acid
68-11-1
55
7
2
229
Toluene
108-88-3
18
0
0
11
Tridecane
629-50-5
190
31
0
190
Triethanolamine
102-71-6
846
60
0
2,264
Triethyl phosphate
78-40-0
55
1
0
533
Triethylene glycol
112-27-6
5,198
116
28
945
Triisopropanolamine
122-20-3
46
4
1
330
Trimethyl borate
121-43-7
83
40
4
283
Undecane
1120-21-4
273
29
0
1,641
Note: Analysis considered 34,495 disclosures and 672,358 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria,
including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1,
2011, and February 28, 2013; criteria for water volumes; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet
quality assurance criteria (4,035) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-22	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Table C-5. Estimated mean, median, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile volumes in liters for
chemicals reported to FracFocus in 100 or more disclosures, where density
information was available.
Chemicals are listed in alphabetical order. Density information came from Reaxys® and other sources.
All density sources are referenced in Table C-7.
Name
CASRN
Volume (L)
Mean
Median
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
(4R)-l-methyl-4-(prop-l-en-2-
yl)cyclohexene
5989-27-5
10,229
1,536
0
74,729
l-Butoxy-2-propanol
5131-66-8
631
80
18
2,475
1-Decanol
112-30-1
107
14
1
123
1-Octanol
111-87-5
21
14
1
39
1-Propanol
71-23-8
483
208
22
1,391
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6
49,607
274
15
231,179
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
145
24
0
165
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
1,459
98
0
6,856
2-Ethylhexanol
104-76-7
377
40
1
1,106
2-Mercaptoethanol
60-24-2
4,449
1,685
0
15,878
2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2
692
18
0
1,292
Acetic acid
64-19-7
2,446
176
0
3,945
Acetic anhydride
108-24-7
906
189
12
2,734
Acrylamide
79-06-1
361
10
0
216
Adipic acid
124-04-9
578
0
0
414
Aluminum chloride
7446-70-0
6
0
0
0
Ammonia
7664-41-7
166
134
7
523
Ammonium acetate
631-61-8
3,177
444
0
5,238
Ammonium chloride
12125-02-9
1,666
182
11
1,733
Ammonium hydroxide
1336-21-6
27
6
1
52
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
196
1
0
151
Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt
584-08-7
1,769
429
0
6,544
Chlorine dioxide
10049-04-4
117
43
1
106
Choline chloride
67-48-1
8,068
1,096
107
16,521
Cinnamaldehyde (3-phenyl-2-propenal)
104-55-2
258
12
0
2,638
Citric acid
77-92-9
618
77
5
1,019
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-23	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Name
CASRN
Volume (L)
Mean
Median
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Dibromoacetonitrile
3252-43-5
82
50
4
170
Diethylene glycol
111-46-6
636
61
1
384
Diethylenetriamine
111-40-0
347
80
0
785
Dodecane
112-40-3
719
117
0
572
Ethanol
64-17-5
3,144
458
6
10,011
Ethanolamine
141-43-5
264
112
0
1,070
Ethyl acetate
141-78-6
0
0
0
0
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
2,324
697
14
9,349
Ferric chloride
7705-08-0
0
0
0
0
Formalin
50-00-0
756
2
0
31
Formic acid
64-18-6
1,896
144
2
4,653
Fumaric acid
110-17-8
9
0
0
46
Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8
4,972
462
6
4,409
Glycerin, natural
56-81-5
1,565
412
38
3,447
Glycolic acid
79-14-1
146
39
14
356
Hydrochloric acid
7647-01-0
107,204
11,772
362
101,741
Isopropanol
67-63-0
7,932
210
1
4,786
Isopropylamine
75-31-0
314
458
0
652
Magnesium chloride
7786-30-3
52
0
0
8
Methanol
67-56-1
4,609
416
6
14,125
Methenamine
100-97-0
12,817
378
0
13,810
Methoxyacetic acid
625-45-6
136
17
8
436
N,N-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
449
38
2
819
Naphthalene
91-20-3
271
44
0
774
Nitrogen, liquid
7727-37-9
158,384
100,731
11,700
409,583
Ozone
10028-15-6
59,976
58,570
33,254
98,658
Peracetic acid
79-21-0
1,137
1,016
190
2,511
Phosphonic acid
13598-36-2
4,547
2
0
11
Phosphoric acid Divosan X-Tend
formulation
7664-38-2
51
15
0
57
Potassium acetate
127-08-2
775
3
0
3,690
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
693
9
0
193
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-24	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Name
CASRN
Volume (L)
Mean
Median
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Saline
7647-14-5
3,317
321
0
5,844
Saturated sucrose
57-50-1
5
2
0
6
Silica, amorphous
7631-86-9
26,031
32
0
145,251
Sodium carbonate
497-19-8
862
62
0
4,991
Sodium formate
141-53-7
1
1
0
1
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2
2,087
144
1
5,024
Sulfur dioxide
7446-09-5
2
0
0
0
Sulfuric acid
7664-93-9
10
0
0
12
tert-Butyl hydroperoxide (70% solution in
Water)
75-91-2
591
242
0
2,109
Tetramethylammonium chloride
75-57-0
3,672
1,830
8
13,279
Thioglycolic acid
68-11-1
208
28
6
868
Toluene
108-88-3
69
0
0
41
Tridecane
629-50-5
721
118
0
721
Triethanolamine
102-71-6
3,203
228
0
8,570
Triethyl phosphate
78-40-0
209
6
0
2,019
Triethylene glycol
112-27-6
19,676
439
106
3,579
Triisopropanolamine
122-20-3
174
16
4
1,249
Trimethyl borate
121-43-7
314
152
16
1,072
Undecane
1120-21-4
1,035
111
0
6,212
Note: Analysis considered 34,495 disclosures and 672,358 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria,
including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1,
2011, and February 28, 2013; criteria for water volumes; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet
quality assurance criteria (4,035) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-25	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Table C-6. Calculated mean, median, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile chemical masses
reported to FracFocus in 100 or more disclosures, where density information was
available.
Density information came from Reaxys® and other sources. All density sources are referenced in Table
C-7. Number of disclosures reported for each chemical is also included.
Name
CASRN
Mass (kg)
Disclosures
Mean
Median
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
(4R)-l-methyl-4-(prop-l-en-2-
yl)cyclohexene
5989-27-5
8,593
1,290
0
62,772
578
l-Butoxy-2-propanol
5131-66-8
555
71
16
2,178
773
1-Decanol
112-30-1
89
12
1
102
434
1-Octanol
111-87-5
17
12
1
32
434
1-Propanol
71-23-8
386
167
18
1,113
1,481
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6
51,095
282
15
238,114
1,023
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
126
21
0
143
3,976
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
1,313
88
0
6,170
6,778
2-Ethylhexanol
104-76-7
313
34
0
918
1,291
2-Mercaptoethanol
60-24-2
489
185
0
1,747
2,051
2,2-Dibromo-3-
nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2
1,660
44
0
3,102
4,927
Acetic acid
64-19-7
2,544
183
0
4,103
7,643
Acetic anhydride
108-24-7
969
203
12
2,925
1,377
Acrylamide
79-06-1
408
11
0
244
251
Adipic acid
124-04-9
785
0
0
564
233
Aluminum chloride
7446-70-0
15
0
0
0
122
Ammonia
7664-41-7
111
90
4
351
398
Ammonium acetate
631-61-8
3,718
520
0
6,129
1,504
Ammonium chloride
12125-02-9
2,530
277
16
2,633
3,288
Ammonium hydroxide
1336-21-6
48
11
2
94
1,173
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
214
1
0
165
1,833
Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt
584-08-7
4,298
1,042
0
15,902
4,093
Chlorine dioxide
10049-04-4
321
117
3
291
331
Choline chloride
67-48-1
9,440
1,282
125
19,329
4,241
Cinnamaldehyde (3-phenyl-2-
propenal)
104-55-2
284
13
0
2,902
1,377
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-26	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Name
CASRN
Mass (kg)
Disclosures
Mean
Median
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Citric acid
77-92-9
989
123
8
1,630
7,503
Dibromoacetonitrile
3252-43-5
193
118
11
403
272
Diethylene glycol
111-46-6
712
68
1
430
1,732
Diethylenetriamine
111-40-0
330
76
0
746
784
Dodecane
112-40-3
539
88
0
429
131
Ethanol
64-17-5
2,484
361
4
7,908
9,233
Ethanolamine
141-43-5
267
113
0
1,081
585
Ethyl acetate
141-78-6
0
0
0
0
110
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
2,557
767
15
10,283
14,767
Ferric chloride
7705-08-0
0
0
0
0
118
Formalin
50-00-0
816
2
0
34
456
Formic acid
64-18-6
2,313
176
2
5,677
3,781
Fumaric acid
110-17-8
15
0
0
75
224
Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8
4,972
462
6
4,409
10,963
Glycerin, natural
56-81-5
1,972
519
47
4,343
1,829
Glycolic acid
79-14-1
217
58
21
530
595
Hydrochloric acid
7647-01-0
107,204
11,772
362
101,741
20,996
Isopropanol
67-63-0
6,187
163
1
3,733
15,058
Isopropylamine
75-31-0
213
311
0
444
255
Magnesium chloride
7786-30-3
120
1
0
18
1,113
Methanol
67-56-1
3,641
329
5
11,159
23,225
Methenamine
100-97-0
15,380
454
0
16,572
4,412
Methoxyacetic acid
625-45-6
161
20
9
514
584
N,N-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
422
36
2
770
2,972
Naphthalene
91-20-3
220
35
0
627
5,945
Nitrogen, liquid
7727-37-9
129,875
82,599
9,594
335,858
713
Ozone
10028-15-6
129
126
71
212
209
Peracetic acid
79-21-0
1,251
1,117
209
2,762
221
Phosphonic acid
13598-36-2
7,730
3
0
18
2,216
Phosphoric acid Divosan X-Tend
formulation
7664-38-2
48
14
0
54
315
Potassium acetate
127-08-2
1,216
5
0
5,793
325
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-27	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Name
CASRN
Mass (kg)
Disclosures
Mean
Median
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
658
9
0
183
10,771
Saline
7647-14-5
7,197
696
0
12,682
6,673
Saturated sucrose
57-50-1
6
2
0
7
125
Silica, amorphous
7631-86-9
57,267
71
0
319,553
2,423
Sodium carbonate
497-19-8
2,191
158
0
12,678
396
Sodium formate
141-53-7
2
1
1
2
204
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2
4,445
306
2
10,701
12,585
Sulfur dioxide
7446-09-5
2
0
0
0
224
Sulfuric acid
7664-93-9
18
0
0
22
402
tert-Butyl hydroperoxide
(70% solution in water)
75-91-2
532
218
0
1,898
814
Tetramethylammonium chloride
75-57-0
4,296
2,141
10
15,537
3,162
Thioglycolic acid
68-11-1
277
37
8
1,155
156
Toluene
108-88-3
59
0
0
35
214
Tridecane
629-50-5
541
88
0
541
132
Triethanolamine
102-71-6
3,588
255
0
9,599
1,498
Triethyl phosphate
78-40-0
222
6
0
2,140
991
Triethylene glycol
112-27-6
22,038
491
119
4,008
528
Triisopropanolamine
122-20-3
177
17
4
1,274
251
Trimethyl borate
121-43-7
292
141
14
997
294
Undecane
1120-21-4
766
82
0
4,597
241
Note: Analysis considered 34,495 disclosures and 672,358 ingredient records that met selected quality assurance criteria,
including: completely parsed; unique combination of fracture date and API well number; fracture date between January 1,
2011, and February 28, 2013; criteria for water volumes; valid CASRN; and valid concentrations. Disclosures that did not meet
quality assurance criteria (4,035) or other, query-specific criteria were excluded from analysis.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-28	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Table C-7. Associated chemical densities and references used to calculate chemical mass and
estimate chemical volume.
Name
CASRN
Density
(g/mL)
Reference
(4R)-l-methyl-4-(prop-l-en-2-yl)cyclohexene
5989-27-5
0.84
Deioye Tanzi et al. (2012)
l-Butoxy-2-propanol
5131-66-8
0.88
Paletal, 12013)
1-Decanol
112-30-1
0.83
Faria et al. (2013)
1-Octanol
111-87-5
0.82
Dubey and Kumar (2013)
1-Propanol
71-23-8
0.8
Rani and Maken (2013)
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6
1.03
Moosavi et al. (2013)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
0.87
He et al. (2008)
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
0.9
Dhondge et al. (2010)
2-Ethylhexanol
104-76-7
0.83
Laavi et al. (2012)
2-Mercaptoethanol
60-24-2
0.11
Rawat et al. (1976)
2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2
2.4
Fels (1300)
Acetic acid
64-19-7
1.04
Chafer et al. (2010)
Acetic anhydride
108-24-7
1.07
Radwan and Hanna (1976)
Acrylamide
79-06-1
1.13
Carpenter and Davis (1957)
Adipic acid
124-04-9
1.36
Thalladi etal. (2000)
Aluminum chloride
7446-70-0
2.44
Sigma-Aldrich (2015a)
Ammonia
7664-41-7
0.67
Harlow et al. (1997)
Ammonium acetate
631-61-8
1.17
Biltz and Balz (1928)
Ammonium chloride
12125-02-9
1.519
Haynes (2014)
Ammonium hydroxide
1336-21-6
1.8
Xiao et al. (2013)
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
1.09
Sarkar et al. (2012)
Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt
584-08-7
2.43
Sigma-Aldrich (2014b)
Chlorine dioxide
10049-04-4
2.757
Haynes (2014)
Choline chloride
67-48-1
1.17
Shanley and Collin (1961)
Cinnamaldehyde (3-phenyl-2-propenal)
104-55-2
1.1
Masood et al. (1976)
Citric acid
77-92-9
1.6
Bennett and Yuill (1935)
Dibromoacetonitrile
3252-43-5
2.37
Wilt (1956)
Diethylene glycol
111-46-6
1.12
Chasib (2013)
Diethylenetriamine
111-40-0
0.95
Dubey and Kumar (2011)
Dodecane
112-40-3
0.75
Baragi et al. (2013)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-29	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Name
CASRN
Density
(g/mL)
Reference
Ethanol
64-17-5
0.79
Kiselev et al. (2012)
Ethanolamine
141-43-5
1.01
Blanco et al. (2013)
Ethyl acetate
141-78-6
0.89
Laavi et al. (2013)
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
1.1
Rodnikova et al. (2012)
Ferric chloride
7705-08-0
2.9
Haynes (2014)
Formalin
50-00-0
1.08
Alfa Aesar (2015)
Formic acid
64-18-6
1.22
Casanova et al. (1981)
Fumaric acid
110-17-8
1.64
Huffman and Fox (1938)
Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8
1
Oka (1962)
Glycerin, natural
56-81-5
1.26
Egorov et al. (2013)
Glycolic acid
79-14-1
1.49
Pijper (1971)
Hydrochloric acid
7647-01-0
1
Steinhauser et al. (1990S
Isopropanol
67-63-0
0.78
Zhang et al. (2013)
Isopropylamine
75-31-0
0.68
Sarkar and Roy (2009)
Magnesium chloride
7786-30-3
2.32
Haynes (2014)
Methanol
67-56-1
0.79
Kiselev et al. (2012)
Methenamine
100-97-0
1.2
Mak (1965)
Methoxyacetic acid
625-45-6
1.18
Haynes (2014)
N,N-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
0.94
Smirnov and Badelin (2013)
Naphthalene
91-20-3
0.81
Dyshin et al. (2008)
Nitrogen, liquid
7727-37-9
0.8
finemech (2012)
Ozone
10028-15-6
0.002144
Haynes (2014)
Peracetic acid
79-21-0
1.1
Sigma-Aldrich (2015b)
Phosphonic acid
13598-36-2
1.7
Sigma-Aldrich (2014a)
Phosphoric acid Divosan X-Tend formulation
7664-38-2
0.94
Fadeeva et al. (2004)
Potassium acetate
127-08-2
1.57
Havnes (2014)
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
0.95
Viiaya Kumar et al. (1996)
Saline
7647-14-5
2.17
Sigma-Aldrich (2010)
Saturated sucrose
57-50-1
1.13
Hagen and Kaatze (2004)
Silica, amorphous
7631-86-9
2.2
Fujino et al. (2004)
Sodium carbonate
497-19-8
2.54
Havnes (2014)
Sodium formate
141-53-7
1.97
Fuess et al. (1982)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-30	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Name
CASRN
Density
(g/mL)
Reference
Sodium hydroxide
1310-73-2
2.13
Haynes (2014)
Sulfur dioxide
7446-09-5
1.3
Sigma-Aldrich (2015c)
Sulfuric acid
7664-93-9
1.83
Sigma-Aldrich (2015d!
tert-Butyl hydroperoxide
(70% solution in water)
75-91-2
0.9
Sigma-Aldrich (2007)
Tetramethylammonium chloride
75-57-0
1.17
Haynes (2014)
Thioglycolic acid
68-11-1
1.33
Biilmann (1906)
Toluene
108-88-3
0.86
Martinez-Reina et al. (2012)
Tridecane
629-50-5
0.75
Zhang et al. (2011)
Triethanolamine
102-71-6
1.12
Blanco et al. (2013)
Triethyl phosphate
78-40-0
1.06
Krakowiak et al. (2001)
Triethylene glycol
112-27-6
1.12
Afzal et al. (2009)
Triisopropanolamine
122-20-3
1.02
IUPAC (2014)
Trimethyl borate
121-43-7
0.93
Sigma-Aldrich (2015e)
Undecane
1120-21-4
0.74
de Oliveira et al. (2011)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-31	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Table C-8. Selected physicochemical properties of chemicals reported as used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
Properties are provided for chemicals, where available from EPI Suite™ version 4.1 (U.S. EPA, 2012a).
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
(13Z)-N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-
methyldocos-13-en-l-aminium chloride
120086-58-0
4.38
-
0.3827
3.32 x 10"15
-
-
(2,3-Dihydroxypropyl)trimethyl
ammonium chloride
34004-36-9
-5.8
-
1.00 x 106
9.84 x 10"18
-
-
(E)-Crotonaldehyde
123-73-9
0.6
-
4.15 x 104
5.61 x 10"5
1.90 x 10"5
1.94 x 10"5
[Nitrilotris(methylene)]tris-phosphonic
acid pentasodium salt
2235-43-0
-5.45
-3.53
1.00 x 106
1.65 x 10"34
-
-
l-(l-Naphthylmethyl)quinolinium
chloride
65322-65-8
5.57
-
0.02454
1.16 x 10"7
-
-
l-(Alkyl* amino)-3-aminopropane
*(42%C12, 26%C18, 15%C14, 8%C16,
5%C10, 4%C8)
68155-37-3
4.74
-
23.71
6.81 x 10"8
2.39 x 10"8
-
l-(Phenylmethyl)pyridinium Et Me
derivatives, chlorides
68909-18-2
4.1
-
14.13
1.78 x 10"5
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-32	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
526-73-8
3.63
3.66
75.03
7.24 x 10"3
6.58 x 10"3
4.36 x 10"3
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
3.63
3.63
79.59
7.24 x 10"3
6.58 x 10"3
6.16 x 10"3
l,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one
2634-33-5
0.64
-
2.14 x 104
6.92 x 10"9
-
-
l,2-Dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane
35691-65-7
1.63
-
424
3.94 x 10"10
-
-
1,2-Dimethylbenzene
95-47-6
3.09
3.12
224.1
6.56 x 10"3
6.14 x 10"3
5.18 x 10"3
1,2-Ethanediaminium, N,N'-bis[2-[bis(2-
hydroxyethyl)methylammonio]ethyl]-
N,N'-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N,Nl-dimethyl-,
tetrachloride
138879-94-4
-23.19
-
1.00 x 106
2.33 x 10"35
-
-
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6
-0.78
-0.92
8.11 x 105
1.74 x 10"7
1.31 x 10"10
1.29 x 10"8
1,2-Propylene oxide
75-56-9
0.37
0.03
1.29 x 105
1.60 x 10"4
1.23 x 10"4
6.96 x 10"5
1,3,5-Triazine
290-87-9
-0.2
0.12
1.03 x 105
1.21 x 10"6
-
-
1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol
4719-04-4
-4.67
-
1.00 x 106
1.08 x 10"11
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-33	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
108-67-8
3.63
3.42
120.3
7.24 x 10"3
6.58 x 10"3
8.77 x 10"3
1,3-Butadiene
106-99-0
2.03
1.99
792.3
7.79 x 10"2
7.05 x 10"2
7.36 x 10"2
1,3-Dichloropropene
542-75-6
2.29
2.04
1,994
2.45 x 10"2
3.22 x 10"3
3.55 x 10"3
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
-0.32
-0.27
2.14 x 105
5.91 x 10"6
1.12 x 10"7
4.80 x 10"6
1,6-Hexanediamine
124-09-4
0.35
-
5.34 x 105
3.21 x 10"9
7.05 x 10"10
-
1,6-Hexanediamine dihydrochloride
6055-52-3
0.35
-
5.34 x 105
3.21 x 10"9
7.05 x 10"10
-
l-[2-(2-Methoxy-l-methylethoxy)-l-
methylethoxy]-2-propanol
20324-33-8
-0.2
-
1.96 x 105
2.36 x 10"11
4.55 x 10"13
-
l-Amino-2-propanol
78-96-6
-1.19
-0.96
1.00 x 106
4.88 x 10"10
2.34 x 10"10
-
1-Benzylquinolinium chloride
15619-48-4
4.4
-
6.02
1.19 x 10"6
-
-
1-Butanol
71-36-3
0.84
0.88
7.67 x 104
9.99 x 10"6
9.74 x 10"6
8.81 x 10"6
l-Butoxy-2-propanol
5131-66-8
0.98
-
4.21 x 104
1.30 x 10"7
4.88 x 10"8
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-34	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
1-Decanol
112-30-1
3.79
4.57
28.21
5.47 x 10"5
7.73 x 10"5
3.20 x 10"5
l-Dodecyl-2-pyrrolidinone
2687-96-9
5.3
4.2
5.862
7.12 x 10"7
-
-
1-Eicosene
3452-07-1
10.03
-
1.26 x 10"5
1.89 x 101
6.74 x 101
-
l-Ethyl-2-methylbenzene
611-14-3
3.58
3.53
96.88
8.71 x 10"3
9.52 x 10"3
5.53 x 10"3
1-Hexadecene
629-73-2
8.06
-
0.001232
6.10
1.69 x 101
-
1-Hexanol
111-27-3
1.82
2.03
6,885
1.76 x 10"5
1.94 x 10"5
1.71 x 10"5
l-Methoxy-2-propanol
107-98-2
-0.49
-
1.00 x 106
5.56 x 10"8
1.81 x 10"8
9.20 x 10"7
1-Octadecanamine, acetate (1:1)
2190-04-7
7.71
-
0.04875
9.36 x 10"4
2.18 x 10"3
-
1-Octadecanamine, N,N-dimethyl-
124-28-7
8.39
-
0.008882
4.51 x 10"3
3.88 x 10"2
-
1-Octadecene
112-88-9
9.04
-
1.256x 10"4
10.7
3.38 x 101
-
1-Octanol
111-87-5
2.81
3
814
3.10 x 10"5
3.88 x 10"5
2.45 x 10"5
1-Pentanol
71-41-0
1.33
1.51
2.09 x 104
1.33 x 10"5
1.38 x 10"5
1.30 x 10"5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-35	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
1-Propanaminium, 3-chloro-2-hydroxy-
N,N,N-trimethyl-, chloride
3327-22-8
-4.48
-
1.00 x 106
9.48 x 10"17
-
-
1-Propanesulfonic acid
5284-66-2
-1.4
-
1.00 x 106
2.22 x 10"8
-
-
1-Propanol
71-23-8
0.35
0.25
2.72 x 105
7.52 x 10"6
6.89 x 10"6
7.41 x 10"6
1-Propene
115-07-1
1.68
1.77
1,162
1.53 x 10"1
1.58 x 10"1
1.96 x 10"1
l-tert-Butoxy-2-propanol
57018-52-7
0.87
-
5.24 x 104
1.30 x 10"7
5.23 x 10"8
-
1-Tetradecene
1120-36-1
7.08
-
0.01191
3.46
8.48
-
1-Tridecanol
112-70-9
5.26
-
4.533
1.28 x 10"4
2.18 x 10"4
-
1-Undecanol
112-42-5
4.28
-
43.04
7.26 x 10"5
1.09 x 10"4
-
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol
112-34-5
0.29
0.56
7.19 x 104
1.52 x 10"9
4.45 x 10"11
7.20 x 10"9
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)ethanol
111-90-0
-0.69
-0.54
8.28 x 105
8.63 x 10"10
2.23 x 10"11
2.23 x 10"8
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)ethyl acetate
112-15-2
0.32
-
3.09 x 104
5.62 x 10"8
7.22 x 10"10
2.29 x 10"8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-36	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
2-(Dibutylamino)ethanol
102-81-8
2.01
2.65
3,297
9.70 x 10"9
1.02 x 10"8
-
2-(Hydroxymethylamino)ethanol
34375-28-5
-1.53
-
1.00 x 106
1.62 x 10"12
-
-
2-(Thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole
21564-17-0
3.12
3.3
41.67
6.49 x 10"12
-
-
2,2'-(Diazene-l,2-diyldiethane-l,l-
diyl)bis-4,5-dihydro-lH-imidazole
dihydrochloride
27776-21-2
2.12
-
193.3
3.11 x 10"14
-
-
2,2'-(Octadecylimino)diethanol
10213-78-2
6.85
-
0.08076
1.06 x 10"8
7.39 x 10"12
-
2,2'-[Ethane-l,2-
diylbis(oxy)]diethanamine
929-59-9
-2.17
-
1.00 x 106
2.50 x 10"13
8.10 x 10"16
-
2,2'-Azobis(2-amidinopropane)
dihydrochloride
2997-92-4
-3.28
-
1.00 x 106
1.21 x 10"14
-
-
2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
10222-01-2
1.01
0.82
2,841
6.16 x 10"14
-
1.91 x 10"8
2,2-Dibromopropanediamide
73003-80-2
0.37
-
1.00 x 104
3.58 x 10"14
-
-
2,4-Hexadienoic acid, potassium salt,
(2E,4E)-
24634-61-5
1.62
1.33
1.94 x 104
5.72 x 10"7
4.99 x 10"8
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-37	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
2,6,8-Trimethyl-4-nonanol
123-17-1
4.48
-
24.97
9.63 x 10"5
4.45 x 10"4
-
2-Acrylamido-2-methyl-l-propanesulfonic
acid
15214-89-8
-2.19
-
1.00 x 106
5.18 x 10"15
-
-
2-Amino-2-methylpropan-l-ol
124-68-5
-0.74
-
1.00 x 106
6.48 x 10"10
-
-
2-Aminoethanol hydrochloride
2002-24-6
-1.61
-1.31
1.00 x 106
3.68 x 10"10
9.96 x 10"11
-
2-Bromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
1113-55-9
-0.31
-
3,274
5.35 x 10"13
-
-
2-Butanone oxime
96-29-7
1.69
0.63
3.66 x 104
1.04 x 10"5
-
-
2-Butoxy-l-propanol
15821-83-7
0.98
-
4.21 x 104
1.30 x 10"7
4.88 x 10"8
-
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
0.57
0.83
6.45 x 104
9.79 x 10"8
2.08 x 10"8
1.60 x 10"6
2-Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid- N-(2-
aminoethyl)ethane-l,2-diamine(l:l)
40139-72-8
4.78
-
0.7032
6.27 x 10"8
-
-
2-Ethoxyethanol
110-80-5
-0.42
-0.32
7.55 x 105
5.56 x 10"8
1.04 x 10"8
4.70 x 10"7
2-Ethoxynaphthalene
93-18-5
3.74
-
38.32
4.13 x 10"5
4.06 x 10"4
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-38	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
104-76-7
2.73
-
1,379
3.10 x 10"5
4.66 x 10"5
2.65 x 10"5
2-Ethyl-2-hexenal
645-62-5
2.62
-
548.6
2.06 x 10"4
4.88 x 10"4
-
2-Ethylhexyl benzoate
5444-75-7
5.19
-
1.061
2.52 x 10"4
2.34 x 10"4
-
2-Hydroxyethyl acrylate
818-61-1
-0.25
-0.21
5.07 x 105
4.49 x 10"9
7.22 x 10"10
-
2-Hydroxyethylammonium hydrogen
sulphite
13427-63-9
-1.61
-1.31
1.00 x 106
3.68 x 10"10
9.96 x 10"11
-
2-Hydroxy-N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N-
methylethanaminium chloride
7006-59-9
-6.7
-
1.00 x 106
4.78 x 10"19
-
-
2-Mercaptoethanol
60-24-2
-0.2
-
1.94 x 105
1.27 x 10"7
3.38 x 10"8
1.80 x 10"7
2-Methoxyethanol
109-86-4
-0.91
-0.77
1.00 x 106
4.19 x 10"8
7.73 x 10"9
3.30 x 10"7
2-Methyl-l-propanol
78-83-1
0.77
0.76
9.71 x 104
9.99 x 10"6
1.17 x 10"5
9.78 x 10"6
2-Methyl-2,4-pentanediol
107-41-5
0.58
-
3.26 x 104
4.06 x 10"7
3.97 x 10"10
-
2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone
2682-20-4
-0.83
-
5.37 x 105
4.96 x 10"8
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-39	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
2-Methyl-3-butyn-2-ol
115-19-5
0.45
0.28
2.40 x 105
1.04 x 10"6
-
3.91 x 10"6
2-Methylbutane
78-78-4
2.72
-
184.6
1.29
1.44
1.40
2-Methylquinoline hydrochloride
62763-89-7
2.69
2.59
498.5
7.60 x 10"7
2.13 x 10"6
-
2-Phosphono-l,2,4-butanetricarboxylic
acid
37971-36-1
-1.66
-
1.00 x 106
1.17 x 10"26
-
-
2-Phosphonobutane-l,2,4-tricarboxylic
acid, potassium salt (l:x)
93858-78-7
-1.66
-
1.00 x 106
1.17 x 10"26
-
-
2-Propenoic acid, 2-(2-
hydroxyethoxy)ethyl ester
13533-05-6
-0.52
-0.3
3.99 x 105
6.98 x 10"11
1.54 x 10"12
-
3-(Dimethylamino)propylamine
109-55-7
-0.45
-
1.00 x 106
6.62 x 10"9
4.45 x 10"9
-
3,4,4-Trimethyloxazolidine
75673-43-7
0.13
-
8.22 x 105
6.63 x 10"6
-
-
3,5,7-Triazatricyclo(3.3.1.13,7))decane, 1-
(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-, chloride, (Z)-
51229-78-8
-5.92
-
1.00 x 106
1.76 x 10"8
-
-
3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadienal
5392-40-5
3.45
-
84.71
3.76 x 10"4
4.35 x 10"5
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-40	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
3-Hydroxybutanal
107-89-1
-0.72
-
1.00 x 106
4.37 x 10"9
2.28 x 10"9
-
3-Methoxypropylamine
5332-73-0
-0.42
-
1.00 x 106
1.56 x 10"7
1.94 x 10"8
-
3-Phenylprop-2-enal
104-55-2
1.82
1.9
2,150
1.60 x 10"6
3.38 x 10"7
-
4,4-Dimethyloxazolidine
51200-87-4
-0.08
-
1.00 x 106
3.02 x 10"6
-
-
4,6-Dimethyl-2-heptanone
19549-80-5
2.56
-
528.8
2.71 x 10"4
4.55 x 10"4
-
4-[Abieta-8,ll,13-trien-18-yl(3-oxo-3-
phenylpropyl)amino]butan-2-one
hydrochloride
143106-84-7
7.72
-
0.002229
2.49 x 10"12
1.20 x 10"14
-
4-Ethyloct-l-yn-3-ol
5877-42-9
2.87
-
833.9
4.27 x 10"6
-
-
4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde
121-33-5
1.05
1.21
6,875
8.27 x 10"11
2.81 x 10"9
2.15 x 10"9
4-Methoxybenzyl formate
122-91-8
1.61
-
2,679
1.15 x 10"6
2.13 x 10"6
-
4-Methoxyphenol
150-76-5
1.59
1.58
1.65 x 104
3.32 x 10"8
5.35 x 10"7
-
4-Methyl-2-pentanol
108-11-2
1.68
-
1.38 x 104
1.76 x 10"5
3.88 x 10"5
4.45 x 10"5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-41	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
1.16
1.31
8,888
1.16 x 10"4
1.34 x 10"4
1.38 x 10"4
4-Nonylphenol
104-40-5
5.99
5.76
1.57
5.97 x 10"6
1.23 x 10"5
3.40 x 10"5
5-Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone
26172-55-4
-0.34
-
1.49 x 105
3.57 x 10"8
-
-
Acetaldehyde
75-07-0
-0.17
-0.34
2.57 x 105
6.78 x 10"5
6.00 x 10"5
6.67 x 10"5
Acetic acid
64-19-7
0.09
-0.17
4.76 x 105
5.48 x 10"7
2.94 x 10"7
1.00 x 10"7
Acetic acid, C6-8-branched alkyl esters
90438-79-2
3.25
-
117.8
9.60 x 10"4
1.07 x 10"3
-
Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products
with triethanolamine
68442-62-6
-2.48
-1
1.00 x 106
4.18 x 10"12
3.38 x 10"19
7.05 x 10"13
Acetic acid, mercapto-, monoammonium
salt
5421-46-5
0.03
0.09
2.56 x 105
1.94 x 10"8
-
-
Acetic anhydride
108-24-7
-0.58
-
3.59 x 105
3.57 x 10"5
-
5.71 x 10"6
Acetone
67-64-1
-0.24
-0.24
2.20 x 105
4.96 x 10"5
3.97 x 10"5
3.50 x 10"5
Acetonitrile, 2,2',2"-nitrilotris-
7327-60-8
-1.39
-
1.00 x 106
2.61 x 10"15
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-42	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Acetophenone
98-86-2
1.67
1.58
4,484
9.81 x 10"6
1.09 x 10"5
1.04 x 10"5
Acetyltriethyl citrate
77-89-4
1.34
-
688.2
6.91 x 10"11
-
-
Acrolein
107-02-8
0.19
-0.01
1.40 x 105
3.58 x 10"5
1.94 x 10"5
1.22 x 10"4
Acrylamide
79-06-1
-0.81
-0.67
5.04 x 105
5.90 x 10"9
-
1.70 x 10"9
Acrylic acid
79-10-7
0.44
0.35
1.68 x 105
2.89 x 10"7
1.17 x 10"7
3.70 x 10"7
Acrylic acid, with sodium-2-acrylamido-2-
methyl-l-propanesulfonate and sodium
phosphinate
110224-99-2
-2.19
-
1.00 x 106
5.18 x 10"15
-
-
Alcohols, CIO-12, ethoxylated
67254-71-1
5.47
-
0.9301
1.95 x 10"2
2.03 x 10"2
-
Alcohols, Cll-14-iso-, C13-rich
68526-86-3
5.19
-
5.237
1.28 x 10"4
2.62 x 10"4
-
Alcohols, Cll-14-iso-, C13-rich,
ethoxylated
78330-21-9
4.91
-
5.237
1.25 x 10"6
7.73 x 10"7
-
Alcohols, C12-13, ethoxylated
66455-14-9
5.96
-
0.2995
2.58 x 10"2
2.87 x 10"2
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-43	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Alcohols, C12-14, ethoxylated
propoxylated
68439-51-0
6.67
-
0.02971
7.08 x 10"4
1.23 x 10"4
-
Alcohols, C12-14-secondary
126950-60-5
5.19
-
5.237
1.28 x 10"4
3.62 x 10"4
-
Alcohols, C12-16, ethoxylated
68551-12-2
6.45
-
0.09603
3.43 x 10"2
4.06 x 10"2
-
Alcohols, C14-15, ethoxylated
68951-67-7
7.43
-
0.009765
6.04 x 10"2
8.10 x 10"2
-
Alcohols, C6-12, ethoxylated
68439-45-2
4.49
-
8.832
1.10 x 10"2
1.02 x 10"2
-
Alcohols, C7-9-iso-, C8-rich, ethoxylated
78330-19-5
2.46
-
1,513
3.04 x 10"7
1.38 x 10"7
-
Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated
68439-46-3
4.98
-
2.874
1.47 x 10"2
1.44 x 10"2
-
Alcohols, C9-ll-iso-, ClO-rich,
ethoxylated
78330-20-8
4.9
-
3.321
1.47 x 10"2
2.39 x 10"2
-
Alkanes, C12-14-iso-
68551-19-9
6.65
-
0.03173
1.24 x 101
2.28 x 101
-
Alkanes, C13-16-iso-
68551-20-2
7.63
-
0.003311
2.19 x 101
4.55 x 101
-
Alkenes, C>10 alpha-
64743-02-8
8.55
-
0.0003941
8.09
2.39 x 101
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-44	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium
chloride *(50%C12, 30%C14,17%C16,
3%C18)
85409-23-0_l
3.97
-
3.23
1.11 X 10"11
-
-
Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium
chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C12,
5%C18)
68956-79-6
4.95
-
0.3172
1.96 x 10"11
-
-
Alkylbenzenesulfonate, linear
42615-29-2
4.71
-
0.8126
6.27 x 10"8
-
-
alpha-Lactose monohydrate
5989-81-1
-5.12
-
1.00 x 106
4.47 x 10"22
9.81 x 10"45
-
alpha-Terpineol
98-55-5
3.33
2.98
371.7
1.58 x 10"5
3.15 x 10"6
1.22 x 10"5
Amaranth
915-67-3
1.63
-
1.789
1.49 x 10"30
-
-
Aminotrimethylene phosphonic acid
6419-19-8
-5.45
-3.53
1.00 x 106
1.65 x 10"34
-
-
Ammonium acetate
631-61-8
0.09
-0.17
4.76 x 105
5.48 x 10"7
2.94 x 10"7
1.00 x 10"7
Ammonium acrylate
10604-69-0
0.44
0.35
1.68 x 105
2.89 x 10"7
1.17 x 10"7
3.70 x 10"7
Ammonium citrate (1:1)
7632-50-0
-1.67
-1.64
1.00 x 106
8.33 x 10"18
-
4.33 x 10"14
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-45	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Ammonium citrate (2:1)
3012-65-5
-1.67
-1.64
1.00 x 106
8.33 x 10"18
-
4.33 x 10"14
Ammonium dodecyl sulfate
2235-54-3
2.42
-
163.7
1.84 x 10"7
-
-
Ammonium hydrogen carbonate
1066-33-7
-0.46
-
8.42 x 105
6.05 x 10"9
-
-
Ammonium lactate
515-98-0
-0.65
-0.72
1.00 x 106
1.13 x 10"7
-
8.13 x 10"8
Anethole
104-46-1
3.39
-
98.68
2.56 x 10"4
2.23 x 10"3
-
Aniline
62-53-3
1.08
0.9
2.08 x 104
1.90 x 10"6
2.18 x 10"6
2.02 x 10"6
Benactyzine hydrochloride
57-37-4
2.89
-
292.1
2.07 x 10"10
-
-
Benzamorf
12068-08-5
4.71
-
0.8126
6.27 x 10"8
-
-
Benzene
71-43-2
1.99
2.13
2,000
5.39 x 10"3
5.35 x 10"3
5.55 x 10"3
Benzene, C10-16-alkyl derivatives
68648-87-3
8.43
9.36
0.0002099
1.78 x 10"1
3.97 x 10"1
-
Benzenesulfonic acid
98-11-3
-1.17
-
6.90 x 105
2.52 x 10"9
-
-
Benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-,
37953-05-2
0.29
-
2.46 x 104
4.89 x 10"9
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-46	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-,
ammonium salt
37475-88-0
0.29
-
2.46 x 104
4.89 x 10"9
-
-
Benzenesulfonic acid, (1-methylethyl)-,
sodium salt
28348-53-0
0.29
-
2.46 x 104
4.89 x 10"9
-
-
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl
derivatives, compounds with
cyclohexylamine
255043-08-4
4.71
-
0.8126
6.27 x 10"8
-
-
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl
derivatives, compounds with
triethanolamine
68584-25-8
5.2
-
0.255
8.32 x 10"8
-
-
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl
derivatives, potassium salts
68584-27-0
5.2
-
0.255
8.32 x 10"8
-
-
Benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, branched,
compounds with 2-propanamine
90218-35-2
4.49
-
1.254
6.27 x 10"8
-
-
Benzenesulfonic acid, mono-C10-16-alkyl
derivatives, sodium salts
68081-81-2
4.22
-
2.584
4.72 x 10"8
-
-
Benzoic acid
65-85-0
1.87
1.87
2,493
1.08 x 10"7
4.55 x 10"8
3.81 x 10"8
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-47	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
2.79
2.3
1,030
2.09 x 10"3
3.97 x 10"4
4.12 x 10"4
Benzyldimethyldodecylammonium
chloride
139-07-1
2.93
-
36.47
7.61 x 10"12
-
-
Benzylhexadecyldimethylammonium
chloride
122-18-9
4.89
-
0.3543
2.36 x 10"11
-
-
Benzyltrimethylammonium chloride
56-93-9
-2.47
-
1.00 x 106
3.37 x 10"13
-
-
Bicine
150-25-4
-3.27
-
3.52 x 105
1.28 x 10"14
-
-
Bis(l-methylethyl)naphthalenesulfonic
acid, cyclohexylamine salt
68425-61-6
2.92
-
43.36
9.29 x 10"10
-
-
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
111-44-4
1.56
1.29
6,435
1.89 x 10"4
4.15 x 10"7
1.70 x 10"5
Bisphenol A
80-05-7
3.64
3.32
172.7
9.16 x 10"12
-
-
Bronopol
52-51-7
-1.51
-
8.37 x 105
6.35 x 10"21
-
-
Butane
106-97-8
2.31
2.89
135.6
9.69 x 10"1
8.48 x 10"1
9.50 x 10"1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-48	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Butanedioic acid, sulfa-, l,4-bis(l,3-
dimethylbutyl) ester, sodium salt
2373-38-8
3.98
-
0.1733
1.61 x 10"12
-
-
Butene
25167-67-3
2.17
2.4
354.8
2.03 x 10"1
2.68 x 10"1
2.33 x 10"1
Butyl glycidyl ether
2426-08-6
1.08
0.63
2.66 x 104
4.37 x 10"6
5.23 x 10"7
2.47 x 10"5
Butyl lactate
138-22-7
0.8
-
5.30 x 104
8.49 x 10"5
-
1.92 x 10"6
Butyryl trihexyl citrate
82469-79-2
8.21
-
5.56 x 10"5
3.65 x 10"9
-
-
C.I. Acid Red 1
3734-67-6
0.51
-
6.157
3.73 x 10"29
-
-
C.I. Acid Violet 12, disodium salt
6625-46-3
0.59
-
3.379
2.21 x 10"30
-
-
C.I. Pigment Red 5
6410-41-9
7.65
-
4.38 x 10"5
4.36 x 10"21
-
-
C.I. Solvent Red 26
4477-79-6
9.27
-
5.68 x 10"5
5.48 x 10"13
4.66 x 10"13
-
CIO-16-Alkyldimethylamines oxides
70592-80-2
2.87
-
89.63
1.14 x 10"13
-
-
C10-C16 Ethoxylated alcohol
68002-97-1
4.99
-
4.532
1.25 x 10"6
4.66 x 10"7
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-49	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
C12-14 tert-Alkyl ethoxylated amines
73138-27-9
3.4
-
264.2
1.29 x 10"10
-
-
Calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate
26264-06-2
4.71
-
0.8126
6.27 x 10"8
-
-
Camphor
76-22-2
3.04
2.38
339.1
7.00 x 10"5
-
8.10 x 10"5
Carbon dioxide
124-38-9
0.83
0.83
2.57 x 104
1.52 x 10"2
-
1.52 x 10"2
Carbonic acid, dipotassium salt
584-08-7
-0.46
-
8.42 x 105
6.05 x 10"9
-
-
Choline bicarbonate
78-73-9
-5.16
-
1.00 x 106
2.03 x 10"16
-
-
Choline chloride
67-48-1
-5.16
-
1.00 x 106
2.03 x 10"16
-
-
Citric acid
77-92-9
-1.67
-1.64
1.00 x 106
8.33 x 10"18
-
4.33 x 10"14
Citronellol
106-22-9
3.56
3.91
105.5
5.68 x 10"5
2.13 x 10"5
-
Coconut trimethylammonium chloride
61789-18-2
1.22
-
2,816
9.42 x 10"11
-
-
Coumarin
91-64-5
1.51
1.39
5,126
6.95 x 10"6
-
9.92 x 10"8
Cumene
98-82-8
3.45
3.66
75.03
1.05 x 10"2
1.23 x 10"2
1.15 x 10"2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-50	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Cyclohexane
110-82-7
3.18
3.44
43.02
2.55 x 10"1
1.94 x 10"1
1.50 x 10"1
Cyclohexanol
108-93-0
1.64
1.23
3.37 x 104
4.90 x 10"6
3.70 x 10"6
4.40 x 10"6
Cyclohexanone
108-94-1
1.13
0.81
2.41 x 104
5.11 x 10"5
1.28 x 10"5
9.00 x 10"6
Cyclohexylamine sulfate
19834-02-7
1.63
1.49
6.40 x 104
1.38 x 10"5
-
4.16 x 10"6
D&C Red no. 28
18472-87-2
9.62
-
1.64 x 10"8
6.37 x 10"21
-
-
D&C Red no. 33
3567-66-6
0.48
-
11.87
1.15 x 10"26
-
-
Daidzein
486-66-8
2.55
-
568.4
3.91 x 10"16
-
-
Dapsone
80-08-0
0.77
0.97
3,589
3.11 x 10"14
-
-
Dazomet
533-74-4
0.94
0.63
1.94 x 104
2.84 x 10"3
-
4.98 x 10"10
Decyldimethylamine
1120-24-7
4.46
-
82.23
4.68 x 10"4
2.45 x 10"3
-
D-Glucitol
50-70-4
-3.01
-2.2
1.00 x 106
7.26 x 10"13
2.94 x 10"29
-
D-Gluconic acid
526-95-4
-1.87
-
1.00 x 106
4.74 x 10"13
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-51	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
D-Glucopyranoside, methyl
3149-68-6
-2.5
-
1.00 x 106
1.56 x 10"14
2.23 x 10"24
-
D-Glucose
50-99-7
-2.89
-3.24
1.00 x 106
9.72 x 10"15
1.62 x 10"26
-
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
8.39
7.6
0.001132
1.18 x 10"5
1.02 x 10"5
2.70 x 10"7
Dibromoacetonitrile
3252-43-5
0.47
-
9,600
4.06 x 10"7
-
-
Dichloromethane
75-09-2
1.34
1.25
1.10 x 104
9.14 x 10"3
3.01 x 10"3
3.25 x 10"3
Didecyldimethylammonium chloride
7173-51-5
4.66
-
0.9
6.85 x 10"10
-
-
Diethanolamine
111-42-2
-1.71
-1.43
1.00 x 106
3.92 x 10"11
3.46 x 10"15
3.87 x 10"11
Diethylbenzene
25340-17-4
4.07
3.72
58.86
1.16 x 10"2
1.47 x 10"2
2.61 x 10"3
Diethylene glycol
111-46-6
-1.47
-
1.00 x 106
2.03 x 10"9
1.20 x 10"13
-
Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether
111-77-3
-1.18
-
1.00 x 106
6.50 x 10"10
1.65 x 10"11
-
Diethylenetriamine
111-40-0
-2.13
-
1.00 x 106
3.10 x 10"13
1.09 x 10"14
-
Diisobutyl ketone
108-83-8
2.56
-
528.8
2.71 x 10"4
4.55 x 10"4
1.17 x 10"4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-52	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Diisopropanolamine
110-97-4
-0.88
-0.82
1.00 x 106
6.91 x 10"11
1.90 x 10"14
-
Diisopropylnaphthalene
38640-62-9
6.08
-
0.2421
1.99 x 10"3
1.94 x 10"3
-
Dimethyl adipate
627-93-0
1.39
1.03
7,749
9.77 x 10"7
1.28 x 10"7
2.31 x 10"6
Dimethyl glutarate
1119-40-0
0.9
0.62
2.02 x 104
7.36 x 10"7
9.09 x 10"8
6.43 x 10"7
Dimethyl succinate
106-65-0
0.4
0.35
3.96 x 104
5.54 x 10"7
6.43 x 10"8
-
Dimethylaminoethanol
108-01-0
-0.94
-
1.00 x 106
1.77 x 10"9
1.77 x 10"9
3.73 x 10"7
Dimethyldiallylammonium chloride
7398-69-8
-2.49
-
1.00 x 106
7.20 x 10"12
-
-
Diphenyl oxide
101-84-8
4.05
4.21
15.58
1.18 x 10"4
2.81 x 10"4
2.79 x 10"4
Dipropylene glycol
25265-71-8
-0.64
-
3.11 x 105
3.58 x 10"9
6.29 x 10"10
-
Di-sec-butylphenol
31291-60-8
5.41
-
3.723
3.74 x 10"6
6.89 x 10"6
-
Disodium
dodecyl(sulphonatophenoxy)benzenesulp
honate
28519-02-0
5.05
-
0.0353
6.40 x 10"16
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-53	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Disodium ethylenediaminediacetate
38011-25-5
-4.79
-
1.00 x 106
1.10 x 10"16
-
-
Disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate
dihydrate
6381-92-6
-3.86
-
2.28 x 105
1.17 x 10"23
-
5.77 x 10"16
D-Lactic acid
10326-41-7
-0.65
-0.72
1.00 x 106
1.13 x 10"7
-
8.13 x 10"8
D-Limonene
5989-27-5
4.83
4.57
4.581
3.80 x 10"1
-
3.19 x 10"2
Docusate sodium
577-11-7
6.1
-
0.001227
5.00 x 10"12
-
-
Dodecane
112-40-3
6.23
6.1
0.1099
9.35
1.34 x 101
8.18
Dodecylbenzene
123-01-3
7.94
8.65
0.001015
1.34 x 10"1
2.81 x 10"1
-
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid
27176-87-0
4.71
-
0.8126
6.27 x 10"8
-
-
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid,
monoethanolamine salt
26836-07-7
4.71
-
0.8126
6.27 x 10"8
-
-
Epichlorohydrin
106-89-8
0.63
0.45
5.06 x 104
5.62 x 10"5
2.62 x 10"6
3.04 x 10"5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-54	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Ethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-2-[(l-
oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]-, chloride
44992-01-0
-3.1
-
1.00 x 106
6.96 x 10"15
-
-
Ethane
74-84-0
1.32
1.81
938.6
5.50 x 10"1
4.25 x 10"1
5.00 x 10"1
Ethanol
64-17-5
-0.14
-0.31
7.92 x 105
5.67 x 10"6
4.88 x 10"6
5.00 x 10"6
Ethanol, 2,2',2"-nitrilotris-,
tris(dihydrogen phosphate) (ester),
sodium salt
68171-29-9
-3.13
-
1.00 x 106
3.08 x 10"36
-
-
Ethanol, 2-[2-[2-(tridecyloxy)
ethoxy]ethoxy]-, hydrogen sulfate,
sodium salt
25446-78-0
2.09
-
42
9.15 x 10"13
-
-
Ethanolamine
141-43-5
-1.61
-1.31
1.00 x 106
3.68 x 10"10
9.96 x 10"11
-
Ethoxylated dodecyl alcohol
9002-92-0
4.5
-
14.19
9.45 x 10"7
3.30 x 10"7
-
Ethyl acetate
141-78-6
0.86
0.73
2.99 x 104
2.33 x 10"4
1.58 x 10"4
1.34 x 10"4
Ethyl acetoacetate
141-97-9
-0.2
0.25
5.62 x 104
1.57 x 10"7
-
1.20 x 10"6
Ethyl benzoate
93-89-0
2.32
2.64
421.5
4.61 x 10"5
2.45 x 10"5
7.33 x 10"5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-55	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Ethyl lactate
97-64-3
-0.18
-
4.73 x 105
4.82 x 10"5
-
5.83 x 10"7
Ethyl salicylate
118-61-6
3.09
2.95
737.1
6.04 x 10"6
3.01 x 10"9
-
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
3.03
3.15
228.6
7.89 x 10"3
8.88 x 10"3
7.88 x 10"3
Ethylene
74-85-1
1.27
1.13
3,449
9.78 x 10"2
1.62 x 10"1
2.28 x 10"1
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
-1.2
-1.36
1.00 x 106
1.31 x 10"7
5.60 x 10"11
6.00 x 10"8
Ethylene oxide
75-21-8
-0.05
-0.3
2.37 x 105
1.20 x 10"4
5.23 x 10"5
1.48 x 10"4
Ethylenediamine
107-15-3
-1.62
-2.04
1.00 x 106
1.03 x 10"9
1.77 x 10"10
1.73 x 10"9
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
60-00-4
-3.86
-
2.28 x 105
1.17 x 10"23
-
5.77 x 10"16
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
tetrasodium salt
64-02-8
-3.86
-
2.28 x 105
1.17 x 10"23
-
5.77 x 10"16
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid,
disodium salt
139-33-3
-3.86
-
2.28 x 105
1.17 x 10"23
-
5.77 x 10"16
Ethyne
74-86-2
0.5
0.37
1.48 x 104
2.40 x 10"2
2.45 x 10"2
2.17 x 10"2
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-56	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Fatty acids, C18-unsaturated, dimers
61788-89-4
14.6
-
2.31 x 10"10
4.12 x 10"8
9.74 x 10"9
-
FD&C Blue no. 1
3844-45-9
-0.15
-
0.2205
2.25 x 10"35
-
-
FD&C Yellow no. 5
1934-21-0
-1.82
-
7.388
1.31 x 10"28
-
-
FD&C Yellow no. 6
2783-94-0
1.4
-
242.7
3.26 x 10"23
-
-
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
0.35
0.35
5.70 x 104
9.29 x 10"5
6.14 x 10"5
3.37 x 10"7
Formamide
75-12-7
-1.61
-1.51
1.00 x 106
1.53 x 10"8
-
1.39 x 10"9
Formic acid
64-18-6
-0.46
-0.54
9.55 x 105
7.50 x 10"7
5.11 x 10"7
1.67 x 10"7
Formic acid, potassium salt
590-29-4
-0.46
-0.54
9.55 x 105
7.50 x 10"7
5.11 x 10"7
1.67 x 10"7
Fumaric acid
110-17-8
0.05
-0.48
1.04 x 105
1.35 x 10"12
8.48 x 10"14
-
Furfural
98-01-1
0.83
0.41
5.36 x 104
1.34 x 10"5
-
3.77 x 10"6
Furfuryl alcohol
98-00-0
0.45
0.28
2.21 x 105
2.17 x 10"7
-
7.86 x 10"8
Galantamine hydrobromide
69353-21-5
2.29
-
1,606
1.70 x 10"13
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-57	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Gluconic acid
133-42-6
-1.87
-
1.00 x 106
4.74 x 10"13
-
-
Glutaraldehyde
111-30-8
-0.18
-
1.67 x 105
1.10 x 10"7
2.39 x 10"8
-
Glycerol
56-81-5
-1.65
-1.76
1.00 x 106
6.35 x 10"9
1.51 x 10"15
1.73 x 10"8
Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)-N-(2-
hydroxyethyl)-, disodium salt
135-37-5
-3.04
-
1.90 x 105
3.90 x 10"17
-
-
Glycine, N-(hydroxymethyl)-,
monosodium salt
70161-44-3
-3.41
-
7.82 x 105
1.80 x 10"12
-
-
Glycine, N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-,
trisodium salt
5064-31-3
-3.81
-
7.39 x 105
1.19 x 10"16
-
-
Glycine, N-[2-
[bis(carboxymethyl)amino]ethyl]-N-(2-
hydroxyethyl)-, trisodium salt
139-89-9
-4.09
-
4.31 x 105
3.81 x 10"24
-
-
Glycolic acid
79-14-1
-1.07
-1.11
1.00 x 106
8.54 x 10"8
6.29 x 10"11
-
Glycolic acid sodium salt
2836-32-0
-1.07
-1.11
1.00 x 106
8.54 x 10"8
6.29 x 10"11
-
Glyoxal
107-22-2
-1.66
-
1.00 x 106
3.70 x 10"7
-
3.33 x 10"9
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-58	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Glyoxylic acid
298-12-4
-1.4
-
1.00 x 106
2.98 x 10"9
-
-
Heptane
142-82-5
3.78
4.66
3.554
2.27
2.39
2.00
Hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide
57-09-0
3.18
-
28.77
2.93 x 10"10
-
-
Hexane
110-54-3
3.29
3.9
17.24
1.71
1.69
1.80
Hexanedioic acid
124-04-9
0.23
0.08
1.67 x 105
9.53 x 10"12
8.10 x 10"13
4.71 x 10"12
Hydroxyvalerenic acid
1619-16-5
3.31
-
282.1
-
-
-
Indole
120-72-9
2.05
2.14
1,529
8.86 x 10"7
1.99 x 10"6
5.28 x 10"7
Isoascorbic acid
89-65-6
-1.88
-1.85
1.00 x 106
4.07 x 10"8
-
-
Isobutane
75-28-5
2.23
2.76
175.1
9.69 x 10"1
1.02
1.19
Isobutene
115-11-7
2.23
2.34
399.2
2.40 x 10"1
2.34 x 10"1
2.18 x 10"1
Isooctanol
26952-21-6
2.73
-
1,379
3.10 x 10"5
4.66 x 10"5
9.21 x 10"5
Isopentyl alcohol
123-51-3
1.26
1.16
4.16 x 104
1.33 x 10"5
1.65 x 10"5
1.41 x 10"5
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-59	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Isopropanol
67-63-0
0.28
0.05
4.02 x 105
7.52 x 10"6
1.14 x 10"5
8.10 x 10"6
Isopropanolamine dodecylbenzene
42504-46-1
7.94
8.65
0.001015
1.34 x 10"1
2.81 x 10"1
-
Isopropylamine
75-31-0
0.27
0.26
8.38 x 105
1.34 x 10"5
-
4.51 x 10"5
Isoquinoline
119-65-3
2.14
2.08
1,551
6.88 x 10"7
4.15 x 10"7
-
Isoquinoline, reaction products with
benzyl chloride and quinoline
68909-80-8
2.14
2.08
1,551
6.88 x 10"7
4.15 x 10"7
-
Isoquinolinium, 2-(phenylmethyl)-,
chloride
35674-56-7
4.4
-
6.02
1.19 x 10"6
-
-
Lactic acid
50-21-5
-0.65
-0.72
1.00 x 106
1.13 x 10"7
-
8.13 x 10"8
Lactose
63-42-3
-5.12
-
1.00 x 106
4.47 x 10"22
9.81 x 10"45
-
Lauryl hydroxysultaine
13197-76-7
-1.3
-
7.71 x 104
1.04 x 10"21
-
-
L-Dilactide
4511-42-6
1.65
-
3,165
1.22 x 10"5
-
-
L-Glutamic acid
56-86-0
-3.83
-3.69
9.42 x 105
1.47 x 10"14
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-60	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
L-Lactic acid
79-33-4
-0.65
-0.72
1.00 x 106
1.13 x 10"7
-
8.13 x 10"8
Methane
74-82-8
0.78
1.09
2,610
4.14 x 10"1
6.58 x 10"1
6.58 x 10"1
Methanol
67-56-1
-0.63
-0.77
1.00 x 106
4.27 x 10"6
3.62 x 10"6
4.55 x 10"6
Methenamine
100-97-0
-4.15
-
1.00 x 106
1.63 x 10"1
-
1.64 x 10"9
Methoxyacetic acid
625-45-6
-0.68
-
1.00 x 106
4.54 x 10"8
8.68 x 10"9
6.42 x 10"9
Methyl salicylate
119-36-8
2.6
2.55
1,875
4.55 x 10"6
2.23 x 10"9
9.81 x 10"5
Methyl vinyl ketone
78-94-4
0.41
-
6.06 x 104
2.61 x 10"5
1.38 x 10"5
4.65 x 10"5
Methylcyclohexane
108-87-2
3.59
3.61
28.4
3.39 x 10"1
3.30 x 10"1
4.30 x 10"1
Methylene bis(thiocyanate)
6317-18-6
0.62
-
2.72 x 104
2.61 x 10"8
-
-
Methylenebis(5-methyloxazolidine)
66204-44-2
-0.58
-
1.00 x 106
1.07 x 10"7
-
-
Morpholine
110-91-8
-0.56
-0.86
1.00 x 106
1.14 x 10"7
3.22 x 10"9
1.16 x 10"6
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-61	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Morpholinium, 4-ethyl-4-hexadecyl-,
ethyl sulfate
78-21-7
4.54
-
0.9381
2.66 x 10"12
-
-
N-(2-Acryloyloxyethyl)-N-benzyl-N,N-
dimethylammonium chloride
46830-22-2
-1.39
-
4.42 x 105
5.62 x 10"16
-
-
N-(3-Chloroallyl)hexaminium chloride
4080-31-3
-5.92
-
1.00 x 106
1.76 x 10"8
-
-
N,N,N-Trimethyl-3-((l-
oxooctadecyl)amino)-l-propanaminium
methyl sulfate
19277-88-4
4.38
-
0.7028
2.28 x 10"16
-
-
N,N,N-Trimethyloctadecan-l-aminium
chloride
112-03-8
4.17
-
2.862
5.16 x 10"10
-
-
N,N'-Dibutylthiourea
109-46-6
2.57
2.75
2,287
4.17 x 10"6
-
-
N,N-Dimethyldecylamine oxide
2605-79-0
1.4
-
2,722
4.88 x 10"14
-
-
N,N-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
-0.93
-1.01
9.78 x 105
7.38 x 10"8
-
7.39 x 10"8
N,N-Dimethylmethanamine
hydrochloride
593-81-7
0.04
0.16
1.00 x 106
3.65 x 10"5
1.28 x 10"4
1.04 x 10"4
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-62	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
N,N-Dimethyl-methanamine-N-oxide
1184-78-7
-3.02
-
1.00 x 106
3.81 x 10"15
-
-
N,N-dimethyloctadecylamine
hydrochloride
1613-17-8
8.39
-
0.008882
4.51 x 10"3
3.88 x 10"2
-
N,N'-Methylenebisacrylamide
110-26-9
-1.52
-
7.01 x 104
1.14 x 10"9
-
-
Naphthalene
91-20-3
3.17
3.3
142.1
5.26 x 10"4
3.70 x 10"4
4.40 x 10"4
Naphthalenesulfonic acid, bis(l-
methylethyl)-
28757-00-8
2.92
-
43.36
9.29 x 10"10
-
-
Naphthalenesulphonic acid, bis (1-
methylethyl)-methyl derivatives
99811-86-6
4.02
-
3.45
1.13 x 10"9
-
-
Naphthenic acid ethoxylate
68410-62-8
3.41
-
112.5
3.62 x 10"8
2.74 x 10"9
-
Nitrilotriacetamide
4862-18-4
-4.75
-
1.00 x 106
1.61 x 10"18
-
-
Nitrilotriacetic acid
139-13-9
-3.81
-
7.39 x 105
1.19 x 10"16
-
-
Nitrilotriacetic acid trisodium
monohydrate
18662-53-8
-3.81
-
7.39 x 105
1.19 x 10"16
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-63	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone
872-50-4
-0.11
-0.38
2.48 x 105
3.16 x 10"8
-
3.20 x 10"9
N-Methyldiethanolamine
105-59-9
-1.5
-
1.00 x 106
8.61 x 10"11
2.45 x 10"14
3.14 x 10"11
N-Methylethanolamine
109-83-1
-1.15
-0.94
1.00 x 106
8.07 x 10"10
2.50 x 10"10
-
N-Methyl-N-hydroxyethyl-N-
hydroxyethoxyethylamine
68213-98-9
-1.78
-
1.00 x 106
1.34 x 10"12
5.23 x 10"17
-
N-Oleyl diethanolamide
13127-82-7
6.63
-
0.1268
9.35 x 10"9
1.94 x 10"12
-
Oleic acid
112-80-1
7.73
7.64
0.01151
4.48 x 10"5
1.94 x 10"5
-
Pentaethylenehexamine
4067-16-7
-3.67
-
1.00 x 106
8.36 x 10"24
2.56 x 10"27
-
Pentane
109-66-0
2.8
3.39
49.76
1.29
1.20
1.25
Pentyl acetate
628-63-7
2.34
2.3
996.8
5.45 x 10"4
4.45 x 10"4
3.88 x 10"4
Pentyl butyrate
540-18-1
3.32
-
101.9
9.60 x 10"4
8.88 x 10"4
-
Peracetic acid
79-21-0
-1.07
-
1.00 x 106
1.39 x 10"6
-
2.14 x 10"6
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-64	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
4.35
4.46
0.677
5.13 x 10"5
2.56 x 10"5
4.23 x 10"5
Phenol
108-95-2
1.51
1.46
2.62 x 104
5.61 x 10"7
6.58 x 10"7
3.33 x 10"7
Phosphonic acid
(dimethylamino(methylene))
29712-30-9
-1.9
-
1.00 x 106
1.00 x 10"24
-
-
Phosphonic acid, (((2-[(2-hydroxyethyl)
(phosphonomethyl)amino)ethyl)imino]bis
(methylene))bis-, compd. with 2-
aminoethanol
129828-36-0
-6.73
-
1.00 x 106
5.29 x 10"42
-
-
Phosphonic acid, (1-hydroxyethylidene)
bis-, potassium salt
67953-76-8
-0.01
-
1.34 x 105
9.79 x 10"26
-
-
Phosphonic acid, (1-hydroxyethylidene)
bis-, tetrasodium salt
3794-83-0
-0.01
-
1.34 x 105
9.79 x 10"26
-
-
Phosphonic acid, [[(phosphonomethyl)
imino]bis[2,l-ethanediylnitrilobis
(methylene)]]tetrakis-
15827-60-8
-9.72
-
1.00 x 106
-
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-65	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Phosphonic acid, [[(phosphonomethyl)
imino]bis[2,l-ethanediylnitrilobis
(methylene)]]tetrakis-, ammonium salt
(l:x)
70714-66-8
-9.72
-
1.00 x 106
-
-
-
Phosphonic acid, [[(phosphonomethyl)
imino]bis[2,l-ethanediylnitrilobis
(methylene)]]tetrakis-, sodium salt
22042-96-2
-9.72
-
1.00 x 106
-
-
-
Phosphonic acid, [[(phosphonomethyl)
imino]bis[6,l-hexanediylnitrilobis
(methylene)]]tetrakis-
34690-00-1
-5.79
-
1.00 x 106
-
-
-
Phthalic anhydride
85-44-9
2.07
1.6
3,326
6.35 x 10"6
-
1.63 x 10"8
Poly(oxy-l,2-ethanediyl),
. a Ipha.-(octylphenyl)-. omega.-hydroxy-,
branched
68987-90-6
5.01
-
3.998
1.24 x 10"7
1.07 x 10"6
-
Potassium acetate
127-08-2
0.09
-0.17
4.76 x 105
5.48 x 10"7
2.94 x 10"7
1.00 x 10"7
Potassium oleate
143-18-0
7.73
7.64
0.01151
4.48 x 10"5
1.94 x 10"5
-
Propane
74-98-6
1.81
2.36
368.9
7.30 x 10"1
6.00 x 10"1
7.07 x 10"1
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-66	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Propanol, l(or 2)-(2-
methoxymethylethoxy)-
34590-94-8
-0.27
-
4.27 x 105
1.15 x 10"9
1.69 x 10"9
-
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
-0.42
-0.38
9.36 x 105
5.88 x 10"7
-
1.15 x 10"6
Propylene carbonate
108-32-7
0.08
-0.41
2.58 x 105
3.63 x 10"4
-
3.45 x 10"8
Propylene pentamer
15220-87-8
6.28
-
0.05601
3.92 x 10"1
1.09 x 10"3
-
p-Xylene
106-42-3
3.09
3.15
228.6
6.56 x 10"3
6.14 x 10"3
6.90 x 10"3
Pyrimidine
289-95-2
-0.06
-0.4
2.87 x 105
2.92 x 10"6
-
-
Pyrrole
109-97-7
0.88
0.75
3.12 x 104
9.07 x 10"6
7.73 x 10"6
1.80 x 10"5
Quaternary ammonium compounds, di-
C8-10-alkyldimethyl, chlorides
68424-95-3
2.69
-
90.87
2.20 x 10"10
-
-
Quinaldine
91-63-4
2.69
2.59
498.5
7.60 x 10"7
2.13 x 10"6
-
Quinoline
91-22-5
2.14
2.03
1,711
6.88 x 10"7
1.54 x 10"6
1.67 x 10"6
Rhodamine B
81-88-9
6.03
-
0.0116
-
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-67	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Sodium 1-octanesulfonate
5324-84-5
1.06
-
5,864
9.15 x 10"8
-
-
Sodium 2-mercaptobenzothiolate
2492-26-4
2.86
2.42
543.4
3.63 x 10"8
-
-
Sodium acetate
127-09-3
0.09
-0.17
4.76 x 105
5.48 x 10"7
2.94 x 10"7
1.00 x 10"7
Sodium benzoate
532-32-1
1.87
1.87
2,493
1.08 x 10"7
4.55 x 10"8
3.81 x 10"8
Sodium bicarbonate
144-55-8
-0.46
-
8.42 x 105
6.05 x 10"9
-
-
Sodium bis(tridecyl) sulfobutanedioate
2673-22-5
11.15
-
7.46 x 10"9
8.51 x 10"11
-
-
Sodium C14-16 alpha-olefin sulfonate
68439-57-6
4.36
-
2.651
4.95 x 10"7
-
-
Sodium caprylamphopropionate
68610-44-6
-0.26
-
615.1
1.19 x 10"9
2.45 x 10"10
-
Sodium carbonate
497-19-8
-0.46
-
8.42 x 105
6.05 x 10"9
-
-
Sodium chloroacetate
3926-62-3
0.34
0.22
1.95 x 105
1.93 x 10"7
8.88 x 10"8
9.26 x 10"9
Sodium decyl sulfate
142-87-0
1.44
-
1,617
1.04 x 10"7
-
-
Sodium D-gluconate
527-07-1
-1.87
-
1.00 x 106
4.74 x 10"13
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-68	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Sodium diacetate
126-96-5
0.09
-0.17
4.76 x 105
5.48 x 10"7
2.94 x 10"7
1.00 x 10"7
Sodium dichloroisocyanurate
2893-78-9
1.28
-
3,613
3.22 x 10"12
-
-
Sodium dl-lactate
72-17-3
-0.65
-0.72
1.00 x 106
1.13 x 10"7
-
8.13 x 10"8
Sodium dodecyl sulfate
151-21-3
2.42
-
163.7
1.84 x 10"7
-
-
Sodium erythorbate (1:1)
6381-77-7
-1.88
-1.85
1.00 x 106
4.07 x 10"8
-
-
Sodium ethasulfate
126-92-1
0.38
-
1.82 x 104
5.91 x 10"8
-
-
Sodium formate
141-53-7
-0.46
-0.54
9.55 x 105
7.50 x 10"7
5.11 x 10"7
1.67 x 10"7
Sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate
870-72-4
-3.85
-
1.00 x 106
4.60 x 10"13
-
-
Sodium l-lactate
867-56-1
-0.65
-0.72
1.00 x 106
1.13 x 10"7
-
8.13 x 10"8
Sodium maleate (l:x)
18016-19-8
0.05
-0.48
1.04 x 105
1.35 x 10"12
8.48 x 10"14
-
Sodium N-methyl-N-oleoyltaurate
137-20-2
4.43
-
0.4748
1.00 x 10"12
-
-
Sodium octyl sulfate
142-31-4
0.46
-
1.58 x 104
5.91 x 10"8
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-69	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Sodium salicylate
54-21-7
2.24
2.26
3,808
1.42 x 10"8
5.60 x 10"12
7.34 x 10"9
Sodium sesquicarbonate
533-96-0
-0.46
-
8.42 x 105
6.05 x 10"9
-
-
Sodium thiocyanate
540-72-7
0.58
-
4.36 x 104
1.46 x 10"4
-
-
Sodium trichloroacetate
650-51-1
1.44
1.33
1.20 x 104
2.39 x 10"8
-
1.35 x 10"8
Sodium xylenesulfonate
1300-72-7
-0.07
-
5.89 x 104
3.06 x 10"9
-
-
Sorbic acid
110-44-1
1.62
1.33
1.94 x 104
5.72 x 10"7
4.99 x 10"8
-
Sorbitan sesquioleate
8007-43-0
14.32
-
2.31 x 10"11
7.55 x 10"12
1.25 x 10"16
-
Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
1338-43-8
5.89
-
0.01914
1.42 x 10"12
5.87 x 10"20
-
Sorbitan, monooctadecanoate
1338-41-6
6.1
-
0.01218
1.61 x 10"12
2.23 x 10"19
-
Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
26266-58-0
22.56
-
1.12 x 10"19
4.02 x 10"11
2.68 x 10"13
-
Styrene
100-42-5
2.89
2.95
343.7
2.76 x 10"3
2.81 x 10"3
2.75 x 10"3
Sucrose
57-50-1
-4.27
-3.7
1.00 x 106
4.47 x 10"22
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-70	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Sulfan blue
129-17-9
-1.34
-
50.67
1.31 x 10"26
-
-
Sulfuric acid, mono-C12-18-alkyl esters,
sodium salts
68955-19-1
3.9
-
5.165
4.29 x 10"7
-
-
Sulfuric acid, mono-C6-10-alkyl esters,
ammonium salts
68187-17-7
0.46
-
1.58 x 104
5.91 x 10"8
-
-
Symclosene
87-90-1
0.94
-
4,610
6.19 x 10"11
-
-
tert-Butyl hydroperoxide
75-91-2
0.94
-
1.97 x 104
1.60 x 10"5
-
-
tert-Butyl perbenzoate
614-45-9
2.89
-
159.2
2.06 x 10"4
-
-
Tetradecane
629-59-4
7.22
7.2
0.009192
1.65 x 101
2.68 x 101
9.20
Tetradecyldimethylbenzylammonium
chloride
139-08-2
3.91
-
3.608
1.34 x 10"11
-
-
Tetraethylene glycol
112-60-7
-2.02
-
1.00 x 106
4.91 x 10"13
5.48 x 10"19
-
Tetraethylenepentamine
112-57-2
-3.16
-
1.00 x 106
2.79 x 10"20
4.15 x 10"23
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-71	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium
sulfate
55566-30-8
-5.03
-
1.00 x 106
9.17 x 10"13
-
-
Tetramethylammonium chloride
75-57-0
-4.18
-
1.00 x 106
4.17 x 10"12
-
-
Thiamine hydrochloride
67-03-8
0.95
-
3,018
8.24 x 10"17
-
-
Thiocyanic acid, ammonium salt
1762-95-4
0.58
-
4.36 x 104
1.46 x 10"4
-
-
Thioglycolic acid
68-11-1
0.03
0.09
2.56 x 105
1.94 x 10"8
-
-
Thiourea
62-56-6
-1.31
-1.08
5.54 x 105
1.58 x 10"7
-
1.98 x 10"9
Toluene
108-88-3
2.54
2.73
573.1
5.95 x 10"3
5.73 x 10"3
6.64 x 10"3
Tributyl phosphate
126-73-8
3.82
4
7.355
3.19 x 10"6
-
1.41 x 10"6
Tributyltetradecylphosphonium chloride
81741-28-8
11.22
-
7.90 x 10"7
2.61 x 10"1
-
-
Tridecane
629-50-5
6.73
-
0.02746
1.24 x 101
1.90 x 101
2.88
Triethanolamine
102-71-6
-2.48
-1
1.00 x 106
4.18 x 10"12
3.38 x 10"19
7.05 x 10"13
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-72	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Triethanolamine hydrochloride
637-39-8
-2.48
-1
1.00 x 106
4.18 x 10"12
3.38 x 10"19
7.05 x 10"13
Triethanolamine hydroxyacetate
68299-02-5
-2.97
-
1.00 x 106
6.28 x 10"11
-
-
Triethyl citrate
77-93-0
0.33
-
2.82 x 104
6.39 x 10"10
-
3.84 x 10"9
Triethyl phosphate
78-40-0
0.87
0.8
1.12 x 104
5.83 x 10"7
-
3.60 x 10"8
Triethylene glycol
112-27-6
-1.75
-1.75
1.00 x 106
3.16 x 10"11
2.56 x 10"16
-
Triethylenetetramine
112-24-3
-2.65
-
1.00 x 106
9.30 x 10"17
6.74 x 10"19
-
Triisopropanolamine
122-20-3
-1.22
-
1.00 x 106
9.77 x 10"12
4.35 x 10"18
-
Trimethanolamine
14002-32-5
-3.95
-
1.00 x 106
1.42 x 10"8
-
-
Trimethylamine
75-50-3
0.04
0.16
1.00 x 106
3.65 x 10"5
1.28 x 10"4
1.04 x 10"4
Tripotassium citrate monohydrate
6100-05-6
-1.67
-1.64
1.00 x 106
8.33 x 10"18
-
4.33 x 10"14
Tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether
25498-49-1
-0.2
-
1.96 x 105
2.36 x 10"11
4.55 x 10"13
-
Trisodium citrate
68-04-2
-1.67
-1.64
1.00 x 106
8.33 x 10"18
-
4.33 x 10"14
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-73	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Chemical name
CASRN
Log Kow
Water solubility
Henry's law constant
(atm-m3/mol at 25°C)
Estimated
Measured
Estimate from log Kow
(mg/Lat 25°C)
Bond
method
Group
method 25
Measured
Trisodium citrate dihydrate
6132-04-3
-1.67
-1.64
1.00 x 106
8.33 x 10"18
-
4.33 x 10"14
Trisodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate
150-38-9
-3.86
-
2.28 x 105
1.17 x 10"23
-
5.77 x 10"16
Trisodium ethylenediaminetriacetate
19019-43-3
-4.32
-
1.00 x 106
3.58 x 10"20
-
-
Tromethamine
77-86-1
-1.56
-
1.00 x 106
8.67 x 10"13
-
-
Undecane
1120-21-4
5.74
-
0.2571
7.04
9.52
1.93
Urea
57-13-6
-1.56
-2.11
4.26 x 105
3.65 x 10"10
-
1.74 x 10"12
Xylenes
1330-20-7
3.09
3.2
207.2
6.56 x 10"3
6.14 x 10"3
7.18 x 10"3
indicates no information available.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-74	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
The EPI (Estimation Programs Interface) Suite™ flJ.S. EPA, 2012al is an open-source, Windows®-
based suite of physicochemical property and environmental fate estimation programs developed by
the EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention Toxics and Syracuse Research Corporation. More
information on EPI Suite™ is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm.
Although only physicochemical properties from EPI Suite™ are provided here, other sources of
information were also consulted. QikProp (Schrodinger. 20121 and LeadScope® (inc.. 20121 are
commercial products designed primarily as drug development and screening tools. QikProp is
specifically focused on drug discovery and provides predictions for physically significant
descriptors and pharmaceutically (and toxicologically) relevant properties useful in predicting
ADME (adsorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) characteristics of drug candidates.
QikProp's use of whole-molecule descriptors that have a straightforward physical interpretation (as
opposed to fragment-based descriptors).
LeadScope® is a program designed for interpreting chemical and biological screening data that can
assist pharmaceutical scientists in finding promising drug candidates. The software organizes the
chemical data by structural features familiar to medicinal chemists. Graphs are used to summarize
the data, and structural classes are highlighted that are statistically correlated with biological
activity. It incorporates chemically-based data mining, visualization, and advanced informatics
techniques (e.g., prediction tools, scaffold generators). Note that properties generated by QikProp
and LeadScope® are generally more relevant to drug development than to environmental
assessment
Physicochemical properties of chemicals were generated from the two-dimensional (2-D) chemical
structures from the EPA National Center for Computational Toxicology's Distributed Structure-
Searchable Toxicity (NCCT DSSTox) Database Network in structure-data file (SDF) format. For EPI
Suite™ properties, both the desalted and non-desalted 2-D files were run using the program's batch
mode (i.e., processing many molecules at once) to calculate environmentally-relevant, chemical
property descriptors. The chemical descriptors in QikProp require 3-D chemical structures. For
these calculations, the 2-D desalted chemical structures were converted to 3-D using the Rebuild3D
function in the Molecular Operating Environment software (CCG. 20111. All computed
physicochemical properties are added into the structure-data file prior to assigning toxicological
properties.
Both LeadScope® and Qikprop software require input of desalted structures. Therefore, the
structures were desalted, a process where salts and complexes are simplified to the neutral,
uncomplexed form of the chemical, using "Desalt Batch" option in ACD Labs ChemFolder. All
LeadScope® general chemical descriptors (Parent Molecular Weight, AlogP, Hydrogen Bond
Acceptors, Hydrogen Bond Donors, Lipinski Score, Molecular Weight, Parent Atom Count, Polar
Surface Area, and Rotatable Bonds) were calculated by default
All physicochemical properties generated from EPI Suite™, QikProp, and LeadScope® will be made
available to the public in an electronic format in 2015.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 C-75 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
C.2. References for Appendix C
Afzal, W: Mohammad! AH: Riefaon, D, (2009). Volumetric properties of mono-, di-, tri-, and polyethylene
glycol aqueous solutions from (273.15 to 363.15) K: experimental measurements and correlations. Journal
of Chemical and Engineering Data 54:1254-1261. http: //dx.doiorg/10.1021 /je800694a
Alfa Aesar. (2015). A16163: Formaldehyde, 37% w/w aq. soln., stab, with 7-8% methanol. Available online at
fattps://www.alfa.com/en/catalog/A16163 (accessed May 4,2015).
Baragi. IG: Maganur. S: Malode. ¥: Baragi. SI. (2013). Excess molar volumes and refractive indices of binary
liquid mixtures of acetyl acetone with n-Nonane, n-Decane and n-Dodecane at (298.15, 303.15, and
308.15) K. Journal of Molecular Liquids 178:175-177. http: / /dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.molliq.2012.ll_.022
Bennett, GM: Ytiill, IL, (1935). The crystal form of anhydrous citric acid. J Chem Soc 1935:130.
hti	ioi.org/10.1039/IR9350000130
Biilmann. E. (1906). [Studien iiber organische Thiosauren III], Justus Liebigs Annalen der Chemie 348:133-
143. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1002 /iiac.19063480110
Biltz. W: Balz. G. (1928). [Uber molekular- und atomvolumina. XVIII. Das volumen des ammoniaks in
kristallisierten ammoniumsalzen]. Zeitschrift fur Anorganische und Allgemeine Chemie 170: 327-341.
M;	ioi.org/10.1002/zaac.19281700141
Blanco. A: Garcia-Abuin, A: Gomez-Diaz, D: Navaza, IM; Villaverde, PL. (2013). Density, speed of sound,
viscosity, surface tension, and excess volume ofn-ethyl-2-pyrrolidone plus ethanolamine (or
diethanolamine or triethanolamine) from T = (293.15 to 323.15) K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering
Data 58: 653-659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je301123j
Carpenter. EL: Davis. HS. (1957). Acrylamide. Its preparation and properties. Journal of Applied Chemistry 7:
671-676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ictb.5010071206
Casanova. C: Wilhelm. E: Grolier. IPE: Kehiaian. HV. (1981). Excess volumes and excess heat-capacities of
(water + alkanoic acid). The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 13: 241-248.
htJ	ioi.org/10.1016/0021-9614(8119012 3-3
CCG (Chemical Computing Group). (2011). Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) Linux (Version 2011.10)
[Computer Program], Montreal, Quebec. Retrieved from http://www.chemcomp.com/software.htm
Chafer. A: Lladosa. E: Monton, IB: Cruz Burguet. M. a. (2010). Liquid-liquid equilibria for the system 1-methyl
propyl ethanoate (1) + acetic acid (2) + water (3) at (283.15 and 323.15) K. Journal of Chemical and
Engineering Data 55: 523-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie90Q332x
Chasib. KF. (2013). Extraction of phenolic pollutants (phenol and p-chlorophenol) from industrial
wastewater. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 58:1549-1564.
hti	ioi org/10.102 l/je4Q01284
de Oliveira. LH: da Silva. IL, )r: Aznar. M. (2011). Apparent and partial molar volumes at infinite dilution and
solid-liquid equilibria of dibenzothiophene plus alkane systems. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data
56: 3955-3962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200327s
De joye Tanzi, C: Abert Vian, M: Ginies, C: Elmaataoui, M: Chemat, F, (2012). Terpenes as green solvents for
extraction of oil from microalgae. Molecules 17: 8196-8205.
hE	ioi.org/10.3390/moleculesl7078196
Dhondge, SS: Pandhurnekar, CP: Parwate. DV, (2010). Density, speed of sound, and refractive index of
aqueous binary mixtures of some glycol ethers at T=298.15 K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data
55: 3962-3968. http: //dx. doi .or g /10.1021/j e9 01072 c
Dubev, GP: Kumar. K. (2011). Thermodynamic properties of binary liquid mixtures of diethylenetriamine
with alcohols at different temperatures. Thermochim Acta 524: 7-17.
lit!	ioi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2 011.06.003
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-76	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Dubev, GP:Kumar, K, (2013). Studies of thermodynamic, thermophysical and partial molar properties of
liquid mixtures of diethylenetriamine with alcohols at 293.15 to 313.15 K. Journal of Molecular Liquids
180:164-171. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.moHiq.2013.01.011
Dvshin. AA: Eliseeva. 0V: Kiselev. MG: Al'per. GA. (2008). The volume characteristics of solution of
naphthalene in heptane-ethanol mixtures at 298.15 K. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Focus on
Chemistry 82: 1258-1261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0036024408080037
Egorov, GI: Makarov, DM: Kolker. AM. (2013). Volume properties of liquid mixture of water plus glycerol over
the temperature range from 278.15 to 348.15 K at atmospheric pressure. Thermochim Acta 570: 16-26.
Ml	ioi.org/10.1016/i.tea.2 013.07.012
Fadeeva. YA: Shmukler. LE: Safonova. LP. (2004). Physicochemical properties of the H3P04-
dimethylformamide system. Russian Journal of General Chemistry 74: 174-178.
Mi	ioi.org/10.102 3/B:RUGC. 000002 5496.07304.66
Faria. MAF: Martins. RI: Cardoso. MIE. M: Barcia. OE. (2013). Density and viscosity of the binary systems
ethanol + butan-l-ol, + pentan-l-ol, + heptan-l-ol, + octan-l-ol, nonan-l-ol, + decan-l-ol at 0.1 mpa and
temperatures from 283.15 K to 313.15 K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 58: 3405-3419.
fat!	ioi.org/10.1021/ie400630f
Fels. G. (1900). Ueber die Frage der isomorphen vertretung von halogen und hydroxyl. In Zeitschrift fur
Kristallographie, Kristallgeometrie, Kristallphysik, Kristallchemie. Frankfurt: Leipzig.
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucl.b3327977:view=lup:sea=5
finemech (finemech Precision Mechanical Components). (2012). Technical resources: Liquid nitrogen, LN2.
Available online at http://wmm/.finemech.com/tech resources/liquid nitrogen.html
Fuess, H: Bats. IW: Dannohl, H: Meyer. H: Schweig, A. (1982). Comparison of observed and calculated
densities. XII. Deformation density in complex anions. II. Experimental and theoretical densities in sodium
formate. Acta Crystallogr B B38: 736-743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S05677408820Q3999
Fujino, S: Hwang. C: Morinaga. K. (2004). Density, surface tension, and viscosity of Pb0-B203-Si02 glass
melts. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 87:10-16. http:/ /dx.doi.org/10.1111 / i.1151-
2916.2 004. tb!9937.x
Hagen, R: Kaatze. U. (2004). Conformational kinetics of disaccharides in aqueous solutions. J Chem Phys 120:
9656-9664. htt	ioi.org/10.1063/1.1701835
Harlow. A: Wiegand. G: Franck. EU. (1997). The Density of Ammonia at High Pressures to 723 K and 950 MPa.
101:1461-1465. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1002 /bbpc.199700007
Haynes. WM. (2014). CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. In WM Haynes (Ed.), (95 ed.). Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, http://www.hbcpnetbase.com/
He. YM: Bang, RF: Zhu. F: Luan, TG: Huang. ZQ; Ouyang. GF. (2008). Excess molar volumes and surface
tensions of 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene with isopropyl acetate and isobutyl
acetate at (298.15, 308.15, and 313.15)K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 53:1186-1191.
htt	ioi.org/10.1021/ie800046k
Huffman. HM: Fox. SW. (1938). Thermal data. X. The heats of combustion and free energies, at 25, of some
organic compounds concerned in carbohydrate metabolism. J Am Chem Soc 60:1400-1403.
lit!	ioi.org/10.102 l/ia01273a036
Inc.. L. (2012). Leadscope [Computer Program], Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.leadscope.com
IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry). (2014). Global availability of information on
agrochemicals: Triisopropanolamine. Available online at
http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/Reports/1338.htm
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-77	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Kiselev, VP: Kashaeva. HA: Shakiroya, II: Potapoya, LN: Konovalov, AI, (2012). Solvent effect on the enthalpy
of solution and partial molar volume of the ionic liquid l-butyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate.
Journal of Solution Chemistry 41:1375-1387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0953-012-9881-9
Krakowiak. I: Bobicz. D: Grzybkowski, W. (2001). Limiting partial molar volumes of tetra-n-alkylammonium
perchlorates in N,N-dimethylacetamide, triethylphosphate and dimethyl sulfoxide atT=298.15 K. The
Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 33: 121-133. http: //dx.doi .org /10,10 06/jcht,2000.0725
Laavi, H: Pokki, IP: Uusi-Kvyny. P: Massimi, A; Kim. Y: Sapei, E: Alopaeus, ¥. (2013). Vapor-liquid equilibrium
at 350 k, excess molar enthalpies at 298 K, and excess molar volumes at 298 K of binary mixtures
containing ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, and 2-butanol. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 58: 1011-
1019. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1021/je400036b
Laavi. H: Zaitseva, A: Pokki. IP: Uusi-Kvyny. P: Kim. Y: Alopaeus. ¥. (2012). Vapor-liquid equilibrium, excess
molar enthalpies, and excess molar volumes of binary mixtures containing methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
and 2-butanol, tert-pentanol, or 2-ethyl-l-hexanol. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 57: 3092-
3101. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1021/je300678r
Mak, TCW. (1965). Hexamethylenetetramine hexahydrate: A new type of clathrate hydrate. J Chem Phys 43:
2799. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1063/l.1697212
Martinez-Reina. M: Amado-Gonzalez. E: Mauricio Munoz-Munoz. Y. (2012). Study of liquid-liquid equilibria of
toluene plus (hexane, heptane, or cyclohexane) with l-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium ethylsulfate at 308.15
K. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 85: 1138-1144. http://dx.doi.org/10. L246/bcsi.20120112
Masood, AKM: Pethrick. RA; Swinton, FL. (1976). Physicochemical studies of super-cooled liquids - cyclic
carbonates and alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehydes. Faraday Trans 1 72: 20-28.
http ' 'ii \ doi.org/10.1039/fl97672Q002Q
Moosavi, M: Motahari, A: Omrani, A: Rostatni, AA, (2013). Thermodynamic study on some alkanediol
solutions: Measurement and modeling. Thermochim Acta 561:1-13.
htt	ioi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2 013.03.010
Oka. S. (1962). Studies on lactone formation in vapor phase. III. Mechanism of lactone formation from diols.
Bull Chem Soc Jpn 35: 986-989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1246/bcsj.35.986
Pal. A: Kumar. H: Maan,R; Shaiiiia. HK. (2013). Densities and speeds of sound of binary liquid mixtures of
some n-alkoxypropanols with methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, and n-butyl acetate at T = (288.15, 293.15,
298.15, 303.15, and 308.15) K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 58: 225-239.
htt	ioi.org/lQ.1021/ie3Q0789a
Pijper, WP, (1971). Molecular and crystal structure of glycollic acid. Acta Crystallogr B B27: 344-348.
htt	ioi,ore/10,1107/S056774087100219X
Radwan, MHS: Hanna, AA, (1976). Binary azeotropes containing butyric acids. Journal of Chemical and
Engineering Data 21: 285-289. htip://dx.doi.org/10.1021 /je60070a032
Rani. M: Maken, S. (2013). Excess molar enthalpies and excess molar volumes of formamide+l-propanol or 2-
propanol and thermodynamic modeling by Prigogine-Flory-Patterson theory and Treszczanowicz-Benson
association model. Thermochim Acta 559: 98-106. http: / /dx, doi. or g /10.1016/j .tea.2 013.02.010
Rawat. BS: Gulati. IB: Mallik, KL. (1976). Study of some sulphur-group solvents for aromatics extraction by gas
chromatography. Journal of Applied Chemistry and Biotechnology 26: 247-252.
htt	ioi.org/10.1002/jctb.502 02 60504
Rodnikova, MN: Solonina, IA: Egorov. GI: Makarov, DM: Gunina. MA. (2012). The bulk properties of dioxane
solutions in ethylene glycol at 2575C. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Focus on Chemistry 86:
330-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0036024412020239
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-78	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Sarkar. BK: Choudhurv, A: Sinha, B, (2012). Excess molar volumes, excess viscosities and ultrasonic speeds of
sound of binary mixtures of 1,2-dimethoxyethane with some aromatic liquids at 298.15 K. Journal of
Solution Chemistry 41: 53-74. http: //dx.dQi.org/10.1007/sl0953-011-9780-5
Sarkar. L: Roy. MN. (2009). Density, viscosity, refractive index, and ultrasonic speed of binary mixtures of 1,3-
dioxolane with 2-methoxyethanol, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2-butoxyethanol, 2-propylamine, and
cyclohexylamine. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 54: 3307-3312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je900240s
Schrodinger. (2012). Qikprop [Computer Program], New York, New York: Schrodinger, LLC. Retrieved from
http://www.schrodinger.CQni/products/14/17
Shanlev. P: Collin. RL. (1961). The crystal structure of the high temperature form of choline chloride. Acta
Cryst 14: 79-80. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0365110X61000292
Sigma-Aldrich, (2007). Material safety data sheet: Tert-butyl hydroperoxide (70% solution in water).
Available online at http://www.orcbs.msu.edu/msds/1116	027 TERT-BUTYL.PDF
Si gma-Aldrich, (2010). Product information: Sodium chloride. Available online at
https://www.sigmaald1ich.com/content/d3m/sigma-aM1ich/docs/Sigma-
Aldrich/Product Information Sheet/s7653pis,pdf
Sigma-Aldrich. (2014a). Material safety data sheet: Phosphorus acid. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaIdiich.eom/cataIog/product/sial/215112?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2014b). Material safety data sheet: Potassium carbonate. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaMiich.com/cataIog/product/aMiich/367877?Iang=en®ion=US
Si gma-Aldrich. (2015a). Material safety data sheet: Aluminum chloride [Fact Sheet], St. Louis, MO.
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/563919?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2015b). Material safety data sheet: Peracetic acid solution. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaIdiich.eom/cataIog/product/sial/2 69336?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2015c). Material safety data sheet: Sulfur dioxide. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/295698?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2015d). Material safety data sheet: Sulfuric acid. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/339741?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2015e). Material safety data sheet: Trimethyl borate. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldric	L8?lang=en®ion=lIS
Smirnov. VI: Badelin. VG. (2013). Enthalpy characteristics of dissolution of L-tryptophan in water plus
formamides binary solvents at 298.15 K. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Focus on Chemistry 87:
1165-1169. hti	ioiorg/10,1134/50036024413070285
Steinhauser. 0: Boresch. S: 13ertagnolIi. H. (1990). The effect of density variation on the structure of liquid
hydrogen chloride. A Monte Carlo study. J Chem Phys 93: 2357-2363.
lit!	ioi.org/10.1063/1.459015
Thalladi, VR: Nusse. M: Boese. R. (2000). The melting point alternation in alpha,omega-alkanedicarboxylic
acids. J Am Chem Soc 122: 9227-9236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja0011459
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012a). Estimation Programs Interface Suite for Microsoft
Windows (EPI Suite) [Computer Program], Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015c). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from the
FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0: Project database [EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/003).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
http://www2. ep aise-developed-fracfocus-l-disclosures
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015
C-79
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix C
Vijava Kumar, R: Anand Rao, M: Venkateshwara...Rao., M: Ravi Kumar, YVL: Prasad, DHL, (1996). Bubble
temperature measurements on 2-propyn-l-ol with 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 41:1020-1023.
fan	ioi.org/10.1021/je9600156
Wilt, fW, (1956). Notes - the halodecarboxylation of cyanoacetic acid. J Org Chem 21: 920-921.
h£	ioi.org/10.1021/io01114a607
Xiao, LN: Xtt, IN: Hu, YY: Wang, LM: Wang, Y: Ding, H: Cui, XB: Xtt, TO, (2013). Synthesis and characterizations
of the first [V16039C1J6- (V16039) polyanion. Dalton Transactions (Online) 42: 5247-5251.
M;	ioi.org/10.1039/c3dt33Q81h
Zhang, L: Gtto, Y: Xiao, J: Gong. X: Fang. W, (2011). Density, refractive index, viscosity, and surface tension of
binary mixtures of exo-tetrahydrodicyclopentadiene with some n-alkanes from (293.15 to 313.15) K.
Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 56: 4268-4273. fattp: //dx.doiorg/10,1021 /je200757a
Zhang,. Z:...Yang, L: Xing. Y: Li, W, (2013). Vapor-liquid equilibrium for ternary and binary mixtures of 2-
isopropoxypropane, 2-propanol, and n,n-dimethylacetamide at 101.3 kPa. Journal of Chemical and
Engineering Data 58: 357-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je300994v
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	C-80	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
Appendix D
Designing, Constructing, and Testing Wells for
Integrity
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
Appendix D. Designing, Constructing, and Testing Wells
for Integrity
This appendix presents the goals for the design and construction of oil and gas production wells,
the well components used to achieve those goals, and methods for testing well integrity to help
verify that the goals for well performance are achieved. This information provides additional
background for the well component discussions presented in Chapter 6. Information on the
pathways associated with the well that can cause fluid movement into drinking water resources is
presented in Chapter 6.
D.l. Design Goals for Well Construction
Simply stated, production wells are designed to move oil and gas from the production zone (within
the oil and gas reservoir) into the well and then through the well to the surface. There are typically
a variety of goals for well design (Renpu. 20111. but the main purposes are facilitating the flow of
oil and gas from the hydrocarbon reservoirs to the well (production management) while isolating
that oil and gas and the hydrocarbon reservoirs from nearby ground water resources (zonal
isolation).
To achieve these goals, operators design and construct wells to have and maintain mechanical
integrity throughout the life of the well. A properly designed and constructed well has two types of
mechanical integrity: internal and external. Internal mechanical integrity refers to the absence of
significant leakage within the production tubing, casing, or packer. External mechanical integrity
refers to the absence of significant leakage along the well outside of the casing.
Achieving mechanical integrity involves designing the well components to resist the stresses they
will encounter. Each well component must be designed to withstand all of the stresses to which the
well will be subjected, including burst pressure, collapse, tensile, compression (or bending), and
cyclical stresses (see Section 6.2.1 for additional information on these stresses). Well materials
should also be compatible with the fluids (including liquids or gases) with which they come into
contact to prevent leaks caused by corrosion.
These goals are accomplished by the use of one or more layers of casing, cement, and mechanical
devices (such as packers), which provide the main barrier preventing migration of fluids from the
well into drinking water sources.
D.2. Well Components
Casing and cement are used in the design and construction of wells to achieve the goals of
mechanical integrity and zonal isolation. Several industry-developed specifications and best
practices for well construction have been established to guide well operators in the construction
process; see Text Box D-l. (Information is not available to determine how often these practices are
used or how well they prevent the development of pathways for fluid movement to drinking water
resources.) The sections below describe options available for casing, cement, and other well
components.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-l DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment Appendix D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
D.2.1. Casing
17 Casing is steel pipe that is placed into the wellbore (the cylindrical hole drilled through the
18 subsurface rock formation) to maintain the stability of the wellbore, to transport the hydrocarbons
19 from the subsurface to the surface, and to prevent intrusion of other fluids into the well and
20 wellbore. Up to four types of casing may be present in a well, including (from largest to smallest-
21 diameter): conductor casing, surface casing, intermediate casing, and production casing. Each is
22 described below.
23 The conductor casing is the largest diameter string of casing. It is typically in the range of 30 in.
24 (76 cm) to 42 in. (107 cm) in diameter (ilyne. 2012). Its main purpose is to prevent unconsolidated
25 material, such as sand, gravel, and soil, from collapsing into the wellbore. Therefore, the casing is
26 typically installed from the surface to the top of the bedrock or other consolidated formations. The
27 conductor casing may or may not be cemented in place.
28 The next string of casing is the surface casing. A typical surface casing diameter is 13.75 in. (34.93
29 cm), but diameter can vary (Hvne. 20121. The surface casing's main purposes are to isolate any
30 ground water resources that are to be protected by preventing fluid migration along the wellbore
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-2 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Text Box D-l. Selected Industry-Developed Specifications and Recommended
Practices for Well Construction in North America.
American Petroleum Institute (API)
• API Guidance Document HF1—Hydraulic Fracturing Operations—Well Construction and Integrity
Guidelines (API. 2009a)
• API RP 10B-2—Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements (API. 2013)
• API RP 10D-2—Recommended Practice for Centralizer Placement and Stop Collar Testing (API. 2004)
• API RP 5C1—Recommended Practices for Care and Use of Casing and Tubing (API, 1999)
• API RP 65-2—Isolating Potential Flow Zones during Well Construction (API. 2010a)
• API Specification 1 OA—Specification on Cements and Materials for Well Cementing (API. 2010b)
• API Specification 11D1—Packers and Bridge Plugs (API. 2009b)
• API Specification 5CT—Specification for Casing and Tubing (API. 2011)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and Enform
• Hydraulic Fracturing Operating Practices: Wellbore Construction and Quality Assurance (CAPP, 2013)
• Interim Industry Recommended Practice Volume #24—Fracture Stimulation: Inter-wellbore
Communication (Enform, 2013)
Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC)
• Recommended Practices—Drilling and Completions (MSC, 2013)

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
once the casing is cemented and to provide a sturdy structure to which blow-out prevention
equipment can be attached. For these reasons, the surface casing most commonly extends from the
surface to some distance beneath the lowermost geologic formation containing ground water
resources to be protected. The specific depth to which the surface casing is set is often governed by
the depth of the ground water resource as defined and identified for protection in state regulations.
Intermediate casing is typically used in wells to control pressure in an intermediate-depth
formation. It may be used to reduce or prevent exposure of weak formations to pressure from the
weight of the drilling fluid or cement or to allow better control of over-pressured formations. The
intermediate casing extends from the surface through the formation of concern. There may be more
than one string of concentric intermediate casing present or none at all, depending on the
subsurface geology. Intermediate casing may be cemented, especially through over-pressured
zones; however, it is not always cemented to the surface. Intermediate casing, when present, is
often 8.625 in. (21.908 cm) in diameter but can vary fHyne. 20121.
Production casing extends from the surface into the production zone. The main purposes of the
production casing are to isolate the hydrocarbon product from fluids in surrounding formations
and to transport the product to the surface. It can also be used to inject fracturing fluids, receive
flowback during hydraulic fracturing operations (e.g., if tubing or a temporary fracturing string is
not present), and prevent other fluids from mixing with and diluting the produced hydrocarbons.
The production casing is generally cemented to some point above the production zone. Production
casing is often 5.5 in. (14.0 cm) in diameter but can vary (llyne. 2012).
Liners are another type of metal tubular (casing-like) well component that can be used to fulfill the
same purposes as intermediate and production casing in the production zone. Like casing, they are
steel pipe, but differ in that they do not extend from the production zone to the surface. Rather, they
are connected to the next largest string of casing by a hanger that is attached to the casing. A frac
sleeve is a specialized type of liner that is used during fracturing. It has plugs that can be opened
and closed by dropping balls from the surface (see the discussion of well completions below for
additional information on the use of frac sleeves).
Production tubing is the smallest, innermost steel pipe in the well and is distinguished from casing
by not being cemented in place. It is used to transport the hydrocarbons to the surface. Fracturing
may be done through the tubing if present, or through the production casing. Because casing cannot
be replaced, tubing is often used, especially if the hydrocarbons contain corrosive substances such
as hydrogen sulfide or carbon dioxide. Tubing may not be used in high-volume production wells.
Typical tubing diameter is between 1.25 in. (3.18 cm) and 4.5 in. (11.4 cm) (Hvne. 2012).
D.2.2. Cement
Cement is the main barrier preventing fluid movement along the wellbore outside the casing. It also
lends mechanical strength to the well and protects the casing from corrosion by naturally occurring
formation fluids. Cement is placed in the annulus, which is the space between two adjacent casings
or the space between the outermost casing and the rock formation through which the wellbore was
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-3 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
drilled. The sections below describe considerations for selecting cement and additives, as well as
cementing procedures and techniques.
D.2.2.1. Considerations for Cementing
The length and location of the casing section to be cemented and the composition of the cement can
vary based on numerous factors, including the presence and locations of weak formations, over- or
under-pressured formations, or formations containing fluids; formation permeability; and
temperature. State requirements for oil and gas production well construction and the relative costs
of well construction options are also factors.
Improper cementing can lead to the formation of channels (small connected voids) in the cement,
which can—if they extend across multiple formations or connect to other existing channels or
fractures—present pathways for fluid migration. This section describes some of the considerations
and concerns for proper cement placement and techniques and materials that are available to
address these concerns. Careful selection of cements (and additives) and design of the cementing
job can avoid integrity problems related to cement
To select the appropriate cement type, properties, and additives, operators consider the required
strength needed to withstand downhole conditions and compatibility with subsurface chemistry, as
described below:
• The cement design needs to achieve the strength required under the measured or
anticipated downhole conditions. Factors that are taken into account to achieve proper
strength can include density, thickening time, the presence of free water, compressive
strength, and formation permeability (Renpu. 20111. Commonly, cement properties are
varied during the process, with a "weaker" (i.e., less dense) lead cement, followed by a
"stronger" (denser) tail cement. The lead cement is designed with a lower density to
reduce pressure on the formation and better displace drilling fluid without a large concern
for strength. The stronger tail cement provides greater strength for the deeper portions of
the well the operator considers as requiring greater strength.
• The compatibility of the cement with the chemistry of formation fluids, hydrocarbons,
and hydraulic fracturing fluids is important for maintaining well integrity through the life
of the well. Most oil and gas wells are constructed using some form of Portland cement.
Portland cement is a specific type of cement consisting primarily of calcium silicates with
additional iron and aluminum. Industry specifications for recommended cements are
determined by the downhole pressure, temperature, and chemical compatibility required.
There are a number of considerations in the design and execution of a cement job. Proper
centralization of the casing within the wellbore is one of the more important considerations. Others
include the potential for lost cement, gas invasion, cement shrinkage, incomplete removal of drilling
mud, settling of solids in the wellbore, and water loss into the formation while curing. These
concerns, and techniques available to address them, include the following:
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-4 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
• Improper centralization of the casing within the wellbore can lead to preferential flow
of cement on the side of the casing with the larger space and little to no cement on the side
closest to the formation. If the casing is not centered in the wellbore, cement will flow
unevenly during the cement job, leading to the formation of cement channels. Kirksev
(20131 notes that, if the casing is off-center by just 25%, the cement job is almost always
inadequate. Centralizers are used to keep the casing in the center of the hole and allow an
even cement job. To ensure proper centralization, centralizers are placed at regular
intervals along the casing (API. 2010a). Centralizer use is especially key in horizontal
wells, as the casing will tend to settle (due to gravity) to the bottom of the wellbore if the
casing is not centered fSabins. 19901. leading to inadequate cement on the lower side.
• Lost cement (sometimes referred to as lost returns) refers to cement that moves out of
the wellbore and into the formation instead of filling up the annulus between the casing
and the formation. Lost cement can occur in weak formations that fail (fracture) under
pressure of the cement or in particularly porous, permeable, or naturally fractured
formations. Lost cement can result in lack of adequate cement across a water- or brine-
bearing zone. To avoid inadequate placement of cement due to lost cement, records of
nearby wells can be examined to determine zones where lost cement returns occur (API.
2009a). If records from nearby wells are not available, cores and logs may be used to
identify any high-permeability or mechanically weak formations that might lead to lost
cement Steps can then be taken to eliminate or reduce loss of cement to the formation.
Staged cementing (see below) can reduce the hydrostatic pressure on the formation and
may avoid fracturing weak formations (Lyons and Pligsa. 20041. Additives are also
available that will lessen the flow of cement into highly porous formations fAPI. 2010a: All
et at 20091.
• Gas invasion and cement shrinkage during cement setting can also cause channels and
poor bonding. During the cementing process, the hydrostatic pressure from the cement
column keeps formation gas from entering the cement. As the cement sets (hardens), the
hydrostatic pressure decreases; if it becomes less than the formation pressure, gas can
enter the cement, leading to channels. Cement also shrinks as it sets, which can lead to
poor bonding and formation of microannuli. These problems can be avoided by using
cement additives that increase setting time or expand to offset shrinkage (McDaniel etai,
2014: Woitanowicz. 2008: Dusseault et al. 20001. Foamed cement can help alleviate
problems with shrinkage, although care needs to be taken in cement design to ensure the
proper balance of pressure between the cement column and formation (API. 2010a).
Cement additives are also available that will expand upon contact with certain fluids such
as hydrocarbons. These cements, termed self-healing cements, are relatively new but have
shown early promise in some fields fAli et al. 20091. Rotating the casing during cementing
will also delay cement setting. Another technique called pulsation, where pressure pulses
are applied to the cement while it is setting, also can delay cement setting and loss of
hydrostatic pressure until the cement is strong enough to resist gas penetration (Stein et
al.. 20031.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-5 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
• Another important issue is removal of drilling mud. If drilling mud is not completely
removed, it can gather on one side of the wellbore and prevent that portion of the
wellbore from being adequately cemented. The drilling mud can then be eroded away after
the cement sets, leaving a channel. Drilling mud can be removed by circulating a denser
fluid (spacer fluid) to flush the drilling mud out fKirksev. 2013: Brufatto et al. 20031.
Mechanical devices called scratchers can also be attached to the casing and the casing
rotated or reciprocated to scrape drilling mud from the wellbore fHvne. 2012: Crook.
20081. The spacer fluid, which is circulated prior to the cement to wash the drilling fluid
out of the wellbore, must be designed with the appropriate properties and pumped in such
a way that it displaces the drilling fluid without mixing with the cement fKirksev. 2013:
API. 2010a: Brufatto etal, 20031.
• Also of concern in horizontal wells is the possibility of solids settling at the bottom of the
wellbore and free water collecting at the top of the wellbore. This can lead to channels and
poor cement bonding. The cement slurry must be properly designed for horizontal wells to
minimize free water and solids settling.
• If there is free water in the cement, pressure can cause water loss into the formation,
leaving behind poor cement or channels (liangetal. 20121. In horizontal wells, free water
can also accumulate at the top of the wellbore, forming a channel fSabins. 19901.
Minimizing free water in the cement design and using fluid loss control additives can help
control loss of water (Ross and King. 20071.
D.2.2.2. Cement Placement Techniques
The primary cement job is most commonly conducted by pumping the cement down the inside of
the casing, then out the bottom of the casing where it is then forced up the space between the
outside of the casing and the formation. (The cement can also be placed in the space between two
casings.) If continuous cement (i.e., a sheath of cement placed along the entire wellbore) is
desired, cement is circulated through the annulus until cement that is pumped down the central
casing flows out of the annulus at the surface. A spacer fluid is often pumped ahead of cement to
remove any excess drilling fluid left in the wellbore; even if the operator does not plan to circulate
cement to the surface, the spacer fluid will still return to the surface, as this is necessary to remove
the drilling mud from the annulus. If neither the spacer fluid nor the cement returns to the surface,
this indicates that fluids are being lost into the formation.
Staged cementing is a technique that reduces pressure on the formation by decreasing the height
(and therefore the weight) of the cement column. This may be necessary if the estimated weight
and pressure associated with standard cement emplacement could damage zones where the
formation intersected is weak. The reduced hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the cement
column can also reduce the loss of water to permeable formations, improving the quality of the
cement job. In multiple-stage cementing, cement is circulated to just below a cement collar placed
between two sections of casing. A cement collar will have been placed between two sections of
casing, just above, with ports that can be opened by dropping a weighted tool. Two plugs—which
are often referred to as bombs or darts because of their shape—are then dropped. The first plug is
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-6 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
dropped, once the desired cement for the first stage has been pushed out of the casing by a spacer
fluid. It closes the section of the well below the cement collar and stops cement from flowing into
the lower portion of the well. The second plug (or opening bomb) opens the cement ports in the
collar, allowing cement to flow into the annulus between the casing and formation. Cement is then
circulated down the wellbore, out the cement ports, into the annulus, and up to the surface. Once
cementing is complete, a third plug is dropped to close the cement ports, preventing the newly
pumped cement from flowing back into the well (Lyons and Pligsa. 2004): see Figure D-l.
Another less commonly used primary cementing technique is reverse circulation cementing. This
technique has been developed to decrease the force exerted on weak formations. In reverse
circulation cementing, the cement is pumped down the annulus directly between the outside of the
outermost casing and the formation. This essentially allows use of lower density cement and lower
pumping pressures. With reverse circulation cementing, greater care must be taken in calculating
the required cement, ensuring proper cement circulation, and locating the beginning and end of the
cemented portion.
Another method used to cement specific portions of the well without circulating cement along the
entire wellbore length is to use a cement basket. A cement basket is a device that attaches to the
well casing. It is made of flexible material such as canvas or rubber that can conform to the shape of
the wellbore. The cement basket acts as a one-way barrier to cement flow. Cement can be circulated
up the wellbore past the cement basket, but when circulation stops the basket prevents the cement
from falling back down the wellbore. Cement baskets can be used to isolate weak formations or
formations with voids. They can also be placed above large voids such as mines or caverns with
staged cementing used to cement the casing above the void.
If any deficiencies are identified, remedial cementing may be performed. The techniques available
to address deficiencies in the primary cement job including cement squeezes or top-job cementing.
A cement squeeze injects cement under high pressure to fill in voids or spaces in the primary
cement job caused by high pressure, failed formations, or improper removal of drilling mud.
Although cement squeezes can be used to fix deficiencies in the primary cement job, they require
the well to be perforated, which can weaken the well and make it susceptible to degradation by
pressure and temperature cycling as would occur during fracturing (Crescent. 2011). Another
method of secondary cementing is the top job. In a top job, cement is pumped down the annulus
directly to fill the remaining uncemented space when cement fails to circulate to the surface.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-7 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
Second-stage slurry
Second-stage flow path
Circulating ports
Cement collar
Opening bomb
First-stage slurry
First-stage flow path
ua: mSLy
- ¦ i,


Note: Figure not to scale
Two-Stage Cementing Process
Figure D-l. A typical staged cementing process.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015	D-8	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
D.3. Well Completions
Completion refers to how the well is prepared for production and how flow is established between
the formation and the surface. Figure D-2 presents examples of well completion types, including
cased, formation packer, and open hole completion.
Ground Surface
Legend
Cement
Casing
Wellbore
Induced fracture
Cemented Casing
Completion
Fracture stage
Perforations
11
Formation Packer
Completion
Fracture stage
Packer
Open Hole
Completion
Fracture stage
iiii
TTTT
Note: Nottoscale. Conductor casing not shown.
Figure D-2. Examples of well completion types.
Configurations shown include cased, formation packer, and open hole completion. From U.S.
EPA (2015f).
A cased completion, where the casing extends to the end of the wellbore and is cemented in place,
is the most common configuration of the well in the production zone fU.S. EPA. 2015f). Perforations
are made through the casing and cement and into the formation using small explosive charges
called "perf guns" or other devices, such as sand jets. Hydraulic fracturing then is conducted
through the perforations. This is a common technique in wells that produce from several different
depths and in low-permeability formations that are fractured fRenpu. 20111. While perforations do
control the initiation point of the fracture, this can be a disadvantage if the perforations are not
properly aligned with the local stress field. If the perforations are not aligned, the fractures will
twist to align with the stress field, leading to tortuosity in the fractures and making fluid movement
through them more difficult (Cramer. 20081. Fracturing stages can be isolated from each other
using various mechanisms such as plugs or baffle rings, which close off a section of the well when a
ball of the correct size is dropped down the well.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 D-9 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
A packer is a mechanical device used to selectively seal off certain s ections of the wellbore.
Packers can be used to seal the space between the tubing and casing, between two casings, or
between the production casing and formation. The packer has one or more rubber elements that
can be manipulated downhole to increase in diameter and make contact with the inner wall of the
next-largest casing or the formation, effectively sealing the annulus created between the outside of
the tubing and the inside of the casing. Packers vary in how they are constructed and how they are
set, based on the downhole conditions in which they are used. There are two types of packers:
internal packers and formation packers. Internal packers are used to seal the space between the
casing and tubing or between two different casings. They isolate the outer casing layers from
produced fluids and prevent fluid movement into the annulus. Formation packers seal the space
between the casing and the formation and are often used to isolate fracture stages; they can be used
to separate an open hole completion into separate fracture stages. Packers can seal an annulus by
several different mechanisms. Mechanical packers expand mechanically against the formation and
can exert a significant force on the formation. Swellable packers have elastomer sealing elements
that swell when they come into contact with a triggering fluid such as water or hydrocarbons. They
exert less force on the formation and can seal larger spaces but take some time to fully swell
fMcDaniel and Rispler. 20091. Internal mechanical integrity tests such as pressure tests can verify
that the packer is functioning as designed and has not corroded or deteriorated.
In an open hole completion, the production casing extends just into the production zone and the
entire length of the wellbore through the production zone is left uncased. This is only an option in
formations where the wellbore is stable enough to not collapse into the wellbore. In formations that
are unstable, a slotted liner may be used in open hole completions to control sand production
(Kenpu. 20111. Perforations are not needed in an open hole completion, since the production zone
is not cased. An open hole completion can be fractured in a single stage or in multiple stages.
If formations are to be fractured in stages, additional completion methods are needed to separate
the stages from each other and control the location of the fractures. One possibility is use of a liner
with formation packers to isolate each stage. The liner is equipped with sliding sleeves that can be
opened by dropping balls down the casing to open each stage. Fracturing typically occurs from the
end of the well and continues toward the beginning of the production zone.
D.4. Mechanical Integrity Testing
While proper design and construction of the well's casing and cement are important, it is also
important to verify the well was constructed and is performing as designed. Mechanical integrity
tests (MITs) can verify that the well was constructed as planned and can detect damage to the
production well that occurs during operations, including hydraulic fracturing activities. Verifying
that a well has mechanical integrity can prevent potential impacts to drinking water resources by
providing early warning of a problem with the well or cement and allowing repairs.
It is important to note that if a well fails an MIT, this does not mean the well has failed or that an
impact on drinking water resources has occurred. An MIT failure is a warning that one or more
components of the well are not performing as designed and is an indication that corrective actions
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-10 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
are necessary. If well remediation is not performed, a loss of well integrity could occur, which could
result in fluid movement from the well.
D.4.1. Internal Mechanical Integrity
Internal mechanical integrity is an absence of significant leakage in the tubing, casing, or packers
within the well system. Loss of internal mechanical integrity is usually due to corrosion or
mechanical failure of the well's tubular and mechanical components.
Internal mechanical integrity can be tested by the use of pressure testing, annulus pressure
monitoring, ultrasonic monitoring, and casing inspection logs or caliper logs:
• Pressure testing involves raising the pressure in the wellbore to a set level and shutting
in the well. If the well has internal mechanical integrity, the pressure should remain
constant with only small changes due to temperature fluctuation. Typically, the well is
shut in (i.e., production is stopped and the wellhead valves closed) for half an hour, and if
the pressure remains within 5% of the original reading, the well is considered to have
passed the test Usually, the well is pressure tested to the maximum expected pressure; for
a well to be used for hydraulic fracturing this would be the pressure applied during
hydraulic fracturing. Pressure tests, however, can cause debonding of the cement from the
casing, so test length is often limited to reduce this effect (API, 2010al.
• If the annulus between the tubing and casing is sealed by a packer, annulus pressure
monitoring can give an indication of the integrity of the tubing and casing. If the tubing,
casing, and packer all have mechanical integrity, the pressure in the annulus should not
change except for small changes in response to temperature fluctuations. The annulus can
be filled with a non-corrosive liquid and the level of the liquid can be used as another
indication of the integrity of the casing, tubing, and packer. The advantage of monitoring
the tubing/production casing annulus is it can give a continuous, real-time indication of
the internal integrity of the well. Even if the annulus is not filled with a fluid, monitoring its
pressure can indicate leaks. If pressure builds up in the annulus and then recovers quickly
after having bled off, that condition is referred to as sustained casing pressure or surface
casing vent flow and is a sign of a leak in the tubing or casing fWatson and Bachu. 20091.
Monitoring of annuli between other sets of casings can also provide information on the
integrity of those casings. It can also provide information on external mechanical integrity
for annuli open to the formation (see Section D.4.2 for additional information on external
MITs). lackson etal. ("20131 also note that monitoring annular pressure allows the
operator to vent gas before it accumulates enough pressure to cause migration into
drinking water resources. Measuring annulus flow rate also allows detection of gas
flowing into the annulus (Arthur. 20121.
• A newer tool uses ultrasonic monitors to detect leaks in casing and other equipment It
measures the attenuation of an ultrasonic signal as it is transmitted through the wellbore.
The tool measures transmitted ultrasonic signals as it is lowered down the wellbore. The
tool can pick up ultrasonic signals created by the leak, similar to noise logs. The tool only
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-ll DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
has a range of a few feet but is claimed to detect leaks as small as half a cup per minute
(lullan etal. 20071.
• Caliper logs have mechanical fingers that extend from a central tool and measure the
distance from the center of the wellbore to the side of the casing. Running a caliper log can
identify areas where corrosion has altered the diameter of the casing or where holes have
formed in the casing. Caliper logs may also detect debris or obstructions in the well. Casing
inspection and caliper logs are primarily used to determine the condition of the casing.
Regular use of them may identify problems such as corrosion and allow mitigation before
they cause of loss of integrity to the casing. To run these logs in a producing well, the
tubing must first be pulled.
• Casing inspection logs are instruments lowered into the casing to inspect the casing for
signs of wear or corrosion. One type of casing log uses video equipment to detect
corrosion or holes. Another type uses electromagnetic pulses to detect variations in metal
thickness. Running these logs in a producing well requires the tubing to be pulled.
If an internal mechanical integrity problem is detected, first, the location of the problem must be
found. Caliper or casing inspection logs can detect locations of holes in casing. Locations of leaks
can also be detected by sealing off different sections of the well using packers and performing
pressure tests on each section until the faulty section is located. If the leaks are in the tubing or a
packer, the problem may be remedied by replacing the well component Casing leaks may be
remedied by performing a cement squeeze (see the section on cementing).
D.4.2. External Mechanical Integrity
External well mechanical integrity is demonstrated by establishing the absence of significant fluid
movement along the outside of the casing, either between the outer casing and cement or between
the cement and the wellbore. Failure of an external MIT can indicate improper cementing or
degradation of the cement emplaced in the annular space between the outside of the casing and the
wellbore. This type of failure can lead to movement of fluids out of intended production zones and
toward drinking water resources.
Several types of logs are available to evaluate external mechanical integrity, including temperature
logs, noise logs, oxygen activation logs, radioactive tracer logs, and cement evaluation logs.
• Temperature logs measure the temperature in the wellbore. They are capable of
measuring small changes in temperature. They can be performed using instruments that
are lowered down the well on a wireline or they can be done using fiber optic sensors
permanently installed in the well. When performed immediately after cementing, they can
detect the heat from the cement setting and determine the location of the top of cement.
After the cement has set, temperature logs can sense the difference in temperatures
between formation fluids and injected or produced fluids. They may also detect
temperature changes due to cooling or warming caused by flow. In this way temperature
logs may detect movement of fluid outside the casing in the wellbore (Arthur. 2012).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-12 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
Temperature logs require interpretation of the causes of temperature changes and are
therefore subject to varying results among different users.
• Noise logs are sensitive microphones that are lowered down the well on a wireline. They
are capable of detecting small noises caused by flowing fluids, such as fluids flowing
through channels in the cement fArthur. 20121. They are most effective at detecting fast-
moving gas leaks and less successful with more slowly moving liquid migration.
• Oxygen activation logs consist of a neutron source and one or more detectors that are
lowered on a wireline. The neutron source bombards oxygen molecules surrounding the
wellbore and converts them into unstable nitrogen molecules that rapidly decay back to
oxygen, emitting gamma radiation in the process. Gamma radiation detectors above or
below the neutron source measure how quickly the oxygen molecules are moving away
from the source, thereby determining flow associated with water.
• Radioactive tracer logs involve release of a radioactive tracer and then passing a
detector up or down the wellbore to measure the path the tracers have taken. They can be
used to determine if fluid is flowing up the wellbore. Tracer logs can be very sensitive but
may be limited in the range over which leaks can be detected.
• Cement evaluation logs (also known as cement bond logs) are acoustic logs consisting of
an instrument that sends out acoustic signals along with receivers, separated by some
distance, that record the acoustic signals. As the acoustic signals pass through the casing
they will be attenuated to an extent, depending on whether the pipe is free or is bonded to
cement. By analyzing the return acoustic signal, the degree of cement bonding with the
casing can be determined. The cement evaluation log measures the sound attenuation as
sound waves passing through the cement and casing. There are different types of cement
evaluation logs available. Some instruments can only return an average value over the
entire wellbore. Other instruments are capable of measuring the cement bond radially.
Cement logs do not actually determine whether fluid movement through the annulus is
occurring. They only can determine whether cement is present in the annulus and in some
cases can give a qualitative assessment of the quality of the cement in the annulus. Cement
evaluation logs are used to calculate a bond index which varies between 0 and 1, with 1
representing the strongest bond and 0 representing the weakest bond.
If the well fails an external MIT, damaged or missing cement may be repaired using a cement
squeeze fWoitanowicz. 20081. A cement squeeze involves injection of cement slurry into voids
behind the casing or into permeable formations. Different types of cement squeezes are available
depending on the location of the void needing to be filled and well conditions (Kirksev. 20131.
Cement squeezes are not always successful, however, and may need to be repeated to successfully
seal off flow fWoitanowicz. 20081.
D.5. References for Appendix D
AH. M: Taoutaou. S: Shafaat. All: Salehapour. A: Noor. S. (2009). The use of self healing cement to ensure long
term zonal isolation for HPHT wells subject to hydraulic fracturing operations in Pakistan. Paper
presented at International Petroleum Technology Conference, December 7-9,2009, Doha, Qatar.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 D-13 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
API (American Petroleum Institute). (1999). Recommended practice for care and use of casing and tubing
[Standard] (18th ed.). (API RP 5C1). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2004). Recommended practice for centralizer placement and stop collar
testing (First ed.). (API RP 10D-2 (R2010)).
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2009a). Hydraulic fracturing operations - Well construction and
integrity guidelines [Standard] (First ed.). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2009b). Packers and bridge plugs (Second ed.). (API Spec 11D1).
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2010a). Isolating potential flow zones during well construction
[Standard] (1st ed.). (RP 65-2). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
http://www.techstreet.com/prod.ucts/preview/1695866
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2010b). Specification for cements and materials for well cementing
[Standard] (24th ed.). (ANSI/API SPECIFICATION 10A). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
http;//wyw.techstTeetcom/products/175 7.66.6
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2011). Specification for casing and tubing - Ninth edition [Standard]
(9th ed.). (API SPEC 5CT). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
http://www.techstreet.com/prod.ucts/1802047
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2013). Recommended practice for testing well cements [Standard] (2nd
ed.). (RP 10B-2). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
http://www.techstreet.com/products/1855370
Arthur. ID. (2012). Understanding and assessing well integrity relative to wellbore stray gas intrusion issues.
Presentation presented at Ground Water Protection Council Stray Gas - Incidence & Response Forum, July
24-26,2012, Cleveland, OH.
Brufatto. C: Cochran, f: Conn. L: El-Zeghatv. SZA. A: Fraboulet. B: Griffin. T: fames. S: Munk. T: Justus. F: Levine.
IR: Montgomery. C: Murphv. D: Pfeiffer. I: Pornpoch. T: Rishmani. L, (2003). From mud to cement -
Building gas wells. Oilfield Rev 15: 62-76.
CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers). (2013). CAPP hydraulic fracturing operating practice:
Wellbore construction and quality assurance. (2012-0034).
http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=218137&DT=NTV
Cramer. DP. (2008). Stimulating unconventional reservoirs: Lessons learned, successful practices, areas for
improvement. SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, February 10-12, 2008, Keystone, CO.
Crescent (Crescent Consulting, LLC). (2011). East Mamm creek project drilling and cementing study.
Oklahoma City, OK. http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/PiceanceBasin/EastMammCreek/ReportFinal.pdf
Crook, R. (2008). Cementing: Cementing horizontal wells. Halliburton.
Dusseault. MB: Gray. MN: Nawrocki. PA. (2000). Why oilwells leak: Cement behavior and long-term
consequences. Paper presented at SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China,
November 7-10, 2000, Beijing, China.
Enform. (2013). Interim industry recommended practice 24: fracture stimulation: Interwellbore
communication 3/27/2013 (1.0 ed.). (IRP 24). Calgary, Alberta: Enform Canada.
http://www'.enform.ca/safety resources/publicatjgns/PublicationDetails.aspx?a=29&type=irp
Hvne. NI, (2012). Nontechnical guide to petroleum geology, exploration, drilling and production. In
Nontechnical guide to petroleum geology, exploration, drilling and production (3 ed.). Tulsa, OK: PennWell
Corporation.
Jackson, RE: Gorodv. AW: Mayer. B: Rov. IW: Ryan. MC: Van Stempvoort. DR. (2013). Groundwater protection
and unconventional gas extraction: the critical need for field-based hydrogeological research. Ground
Water 51: 488-510. http: //dx.doi.org/10.llll/gwat.12074
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	D-14	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix D
Jiang. L: Guillot, D: Meraji, M: Kumari, P: Vidick, B: Duncan, B: Gaafar, GR: Sansudin, SB, (2012). Measuring
isolation integrity in depleted reservoirs. SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012,
Cartagena, Colombia.
Julian. JY: King, GE: Johns, IE: Sack, IK: Robertson, DB, (2007). Detecting ultrasmall leaks with ultrasonic leak
detection, case histories from the North Slope, Alaska. Paper presented at International Oil Conference and
Exhibition in Mexico, June 27-30, 2007, Veracruz, Mexico.
Kirksey, I. (2013). Optimizing wellbore integrity in well construction. Presentation presented at North
American Wellbore Integrity Workshop, 0ctoberl6-17,2013, Denver, CO.
Lyons, WC: Pligsa, GI, (2004). Standard handbook of petroleum and natural gas engineering (2nd ed.).
Houston, TX: Gulf Professional Publishing. http://www.elsevier.com/books/standard-handbook-of-
petroleum-and-natural-gas-engineering/lyons-phd-pe/978-0-7506-7785-1
McDaniel, BW: Rispler, KA, (2009). Horizontal wells with multistage fracs prove to be best economic
completion for many low permeability reservoirs. Paper presented at SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
September 23-15, 2009, Charleston, WV.
McDaniel, I: Walters, L: Shadravan. A, (2014). Cement sheath durability: Increasing cement sheath integrity to
reduce gas migration in the Marcellus Shale Play. In SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference
proceedings. Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168650-MS
MSC (Marcellus Shale Coalition). (2013). Recommended practices: Drilling and completions. (MSC RP 2013-
3). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Renpu, W, (2011). Advanced well completion engineering (Third ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Professional
Publishing.
Ross, D: King, G, (2007). Well completions. In MJ Economides; T Martin (Eds.), Modern fracturing: Enhancing
natural gas production (1 ed., pp. 169-198). Houston, Texas: ET Publishing.
Sabins, F, (1990). Problems in cementing horizontal wells. J Pet Tech 42: 398-400.
llC	ioi.org/10.2118/2 0005-PA
Stein, D: Griffin Jr. TI; Dusterhoft, D, (2003). Cement pulsation reduces remedial cementing costs. GasTIPS 9:
22-24.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015f). Review of well operator files for hydraulically
fractured oil and gas production wells: Well design and construction [EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/002).
Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Watson, TL: Bachu, S, (2009). Evaluation of the potential for gas and C02 leakage along wellbores. SPE
Drilling & Completion 24:115-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/106817-PA
Wojtanowiez, AK, (2008). Environmental control of well integrity. In ST Orszulik (Ed.), Environmental
technology in the oil industry (pp. 53-75). Houten, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	D-15	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Appendix E
Flowback and Produced Water Supplemental
Tables and Information
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Appendix E. Flowback and Produced Water
Supplemental Tables and Information
E.l. Flowback and Long-Term Produced Water Volumes
1	The EPA (2015») estimates of flowback volumes and long-term produced water volumes used to
2	generate the summaries appearing in Table 7-3 of Chapter 7 appear below in Table E-l.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-l	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-l. Flowback and long-term produced water characteristics for wells in unconventional formations, formation-level data.
Source: U.S. EPA (2015g).
Basin
Resource
Type
Unconventional
Formation
Drill
Type
Fracturing Fluid
(Mgal)
Flowback
(% of Fracturing Fluid Returned)
Long-Term Produced Water Rates
(gpd)
Median
Range
Number of
Data Points
Median
Range3
Number of
Data Points
Median
Rangeb
Number of
Data Points
Anadarko
Shale
Woodford
H
4.7
1.0-12
2,239
34
20-50
3
5,500
3,200-6,400
198
Tight
Cleveland
H
0.81
0.2-4.0
144
-
12-40
2
82
20-300
571
V
0.69
0.11-3
4
-
-
2
32
6.6-170
390
Granite Wash
H
6.2
0.2-9.4
77
-
7-22
2
1,300
0-2,200
273
V
0.56
0.05-3
26
-
-
2
500
170-1,300
2,413
Mississippi Lime
H
1.8
0.82-2.4
428
-
50
1
-
37,000-120,000
4
Appalachian
Shale
Marcellus
H
4.4
0.9-11
14,010
7
4-47
4,374
860
54-13,000
4,984
V
2.6
0.53-6.6
66
40
21-60
7
230
100-1,200
714
Utica
H
4.0
1.0-11
150
4
2-27
73
510
210-1,200
82
Arkoma
Shale
Fayetteville
H
5.1
1.7-11
1,668
-
10-20
2
430
150-2,300
2,305
Denver-
Julesburg
Shale
Niobrara
H
2.6
0.73-3.4
69
13
6-25
16
680
260-810
250
V
0.32
0.27-3.3
367
11
7-35
9
340
240-600
5,474
Tight
Codell
D
0.28
0.21-0.46
78
-
-
0
-
-
0
V
0.27
0.13-0.46
185
-
-
0
-
-
0
Codell-Niobrara
H
2.6
0.15-2.7
62
7
-
32
34
19-140
32
D
0.45
0.21-0.47
116
-
-
0
-
-
0
V
0.30
0.13-0.46
592
-
-
0
29
13-65
1,677
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-2	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Basin
Resource
Type
Unconventional
Formation
Drill
Type
Fracturing Fluid
(Mgal)
Flowback
(% of Fracturing Fluid Returned)
Long-Term Produced Water Rates
(gpd)
Median
Range
Number of
Data Points
Median
Range3
Number of
Data Points
Median
Rangeb
Number of
Data Points
Denver-
Julesburg,
cont.
Tight
cont.
Muddy J
D
0.59
.025-0.62
162
-
-
0
230
64-390
3
V
0.28
0.16-0.62
292
-
-
0
55
9.3-500
129
Fort Worth
Shale
Barnett
H
3.6
1-7.3
23,917
30
21-40
11
920
160-4,200
10,349
V
1.3
0.4-1.9
3,589
-
-
0
250
170-580
3,318
Green River
Shale
Hilliard-Baxter-
Mancos
H
1.7
1.0-5.6
2
-
-
0
37
15-58
7
Tight
Lance
V
1.3
0.81-3.5
29
3
1-50
31
410
250-580
1,050
D
1.2
0.76-1.9
180
6
1-17
170
860
360-1,200
1,140
Green River,
cont.

Mesa verde
D
V
0.23
0.16-0.31
73
8
0-37
61
190
150-440
445
0.17
0.081-
0.29
14
21
6-83
11
290
140-610
1,081
Illinois
Shale
New Albany
H
--
-
0
-
-
0
-
2,900
2
Michigan
Shale
Antrim
V
--
0.05
1
-
25-75
2
-
4,600
1
Permian
Shale
Avalon & Bone
Spring
D
2.2
0.94-4.5
20
13
5-31
16
950
220-2,400
183
H
1.1
0.73-2.8
17
-
-
0
0
0-2,300
37
Barnett-
Woodford
H
2.1
0.5-4.5
2
-
-
0
-
-
0
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-3	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Basin
Resource
Type
Unconventional
Formation
Drill
Type
Fracturing Fluid
(Mgal)
Flowback
(% of Fracturing Fluid Returned)
Long-Term Produced Water Rates
(gpd)
Median
Range
Number of
Data Points
Median
Range3
Number of
Data Points
Median
Rangeb
Number of
Data Points
Permian,
cont.
Shale,
cont.
Devonian (TX)
H
0.32
0.13-0.89
10
-
-
0
880
310-1,800
381
V
0.27
0.12-1.0
16
-
-
0
400
150-3,000
162
Wolfcamp
H
1.4
1.1-3.9
55
-
-
0
3,000
210-19,000
104
D
1.3
0.26-1.7
12
16
15-20
3
310
22-8,700
259
V
0.81
0.078-1.7
60
-
-
0
910
130-1,700
926
Tight
Spraberry
V
--
1.0
1
-
-
0
870
100-4,000
66
San Juan
Tight
Mesaverde (San
Juan)
D
--
-
0
-
-
0
18
12-260
48
Dakota
V
0.2
0.063-
0.22
19
-
-
0
65
29-120
6
D
0.12
0.07-0.3
52
4
1-40
30
160
41-370
379
TX-LA-MS
Shale
Bossier
H
2.7
1.7-3.6
2
-
-
0
750
610-1,200
25
V
0.4
0.19-1.7
16
-
-
0
470
180-1,100
1,203
D
0.28
0.13-0.8
21
-
-
0
320
130-1,300
253
Haynesville
H
5.3
0.95-15
3,222
5
5-30
3
1,700
84-1,800
1,249
V
0.61
.14-3.5
9
-
-
0
210
56-850
263
Tight
Cotton Valley
H
4.2
.25-6.0
30
-
<60
2
770
130-2,700
335
D
.48
.084-4.0
24
-
<60
2
950
630-1,800
1801
V
.28
.019-.94
76
-
<60
2
640
370-1,800
10,717
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-4	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Basin
Resource
Type
Unconventional
Formation
Drill
Type
Fracturing Fluid
(Mgal)
Flowback
(% of Fracturing Fluid Returned)
Long-Term Produced Water Rates
(gpd)
Median
Range
Number of
Data Points
Median
Range3
Number of
Data Points
Median
Rangeb
Number of
Data Points
TX-LA-MS,
cont.
Tight,
cont.
Travis Peak
H
3.0
0.25-6
2
-
-
0
200
39-1,700
5
V
0.9
0.2-4
2
-
-
0
980
330-1,800
1,380
Western Gulf
Shale
Eagle Ford
H
5.0
1.0-14
2,485
4
2-8
1,800
110
9.1-250
498
V
2.9
2.0-4.1
9
-
-
0
-
-
0
Pearsall
H
3.7
3.3-4.1
2
-
-
0
200
54-370
12
Tight
Austin Chalk
H
0.94
0.58-1.3
15
-
-
0
720
290-2,400
1,097
Vicksburg
V
.016
0.084-0.6
20
-
-
0
1,000
650-1,900
937
D
0.11
0.1-0.13
4
-
-
0
-
-
0
Wilcox Lobo
H
2.1
0.66-2.6
4
-
-
0
330
62-740
77
V
0.21
0.06-0.6
14
-
-
0
620
330-1,400
1,514
D
.058
.056-.076
3
-
-
0
-
-
0
Olmos
V
--
0.15
2
-
-
0
-
-
0
Williston

Bakken
H
2.0
0.35-10
2,203
19
5-47
206
680
380-1,500
1,739
V
1.1
.35-2.9
12
-
-
0
1,000
340-3,100
222
indicates no data; H, horizontal well; D, directional well; V, vertical well.
a For some formations, if only one data point was reported, the EPA reported it in the range column and did not report a median value.
b For some formations, the number of data points was not reported in the data source. In these instances, the EPA reported the number of data points as equal to one, even if
the source reported a range and median value.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-5	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
E.2. Produced Water Content
E.2.1. Introduction
In the main text of Chapter 7, we describe aspects of flowback and produced water composition,
including temporal changes in water quality parameters of flowback (Section 7.5) and major classes
of compounds in produced water (Section 7.6). In section 7.7 we describe variability as occurring
on three levels: between different rock types (e.g., coal vs. sandstone), between formations
composed of the same rock types (e.g., Barnett Shale vs. Bakken Shale), and within formations of
the same rock type (e.g., northeastern vs. southwestern Marcellus Shale). In this appendix we
present data from the literature which illustrates the differences among these three variability
levels.
E.2.2. General Water Quality Parameters
As noted in Chapter 7, the EPA identified data characterizing the content of unconventional
flowback and produced water in a total of 12 shale and tight formations and coalbed methane
(CBM) basins. These formations and basins span 18 states. Note that in this subsection we treat all
fluids as produced water. As a consequence, the variability of reported concentrations is likely
higher than if the data could be standardized to a specific point on the flowback-to-produced water
continuum. Table E-2 and Table E-3 provide supporting data on general water quality parameters
of produced water for 12 formations.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-6 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-2. Reported concentrations of general water quality parameters in produced water for unconventional shale and tight
formations, presented as: average (minimum-maximum) or median (minimum-maximum).
Parameter
Units
Shales
Tight formations
Bakkena
Barnettb
Fayettevillec
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Group'
Devonian
Sandstone®
Mesaverde'
Oswego'
States
n/a
MT, ND
TX
AR
PAd
PA, WVe
LA, TX
PA
CO, NM, UT,
WY
OK
Acidity
mg/L
-
NC
(ND-ND)
-
NC
(<5-473)
162
(5-925)
-
-
-
-
Alkalinity
mg/L
-
725
(215-1,240)
1,347
(811-1,896)
165
(8-577)
99.8
(7.5-577)
-
99
(43-194)
-
582
(207-1,220)
Ammonium
mg/L
-
-
-
-
-
89
(40-131)
-
-
-
Bicarbonate
mg/L
291
(122-610)
-
-
-
-
-
524
(ND-8,440)
2,230
(1,281-13,650)
-
Biochemical
oxygen
demand
(BOD)
mg/L
-
582
(101-2,120)
-
-
141
(2.8-12,400)
-
-
-
-
Carbonate
mg/L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
227
(ND-1,680)
-
Chloride
mg/L
119,000
(90,000-
133,000)
34,700
(9,600-
60,800)
9,156
(5,507-
12,287)
57,447
(64-
196,000)
49,000
(64.2-
196,000)
101,332
(3,167-
221,498.7)
132,567
(58,900-
207,000)
4,260
(8-
75,000)
44,567
(23,000-
75,000)
Chemical
oxygen
demand
mg/L
-
2,945
(927-3,150)
-
15,358
(195-
36,600)
4,670
(195-
36,600)
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-7	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Parameter
Units
Shales
Tight formations
Bakkena
Barnettb
Fayettevillec
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Group'
Devonian
Sandstoneg
Mesaverde'
Oswego'
States
n/a
MT, ND
TX
AR
PAd
PA, WVe
LA, TX
PA
CO, NM, UT,
WY
OK
DO
mg/L
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
(0.2-2.5)
-
-
DOC
mg/L
-
11.2
(5.5-65.3)
-
-
117
(3.3-5,960)
-
-
-
-
Hardness as
CaC03
mg/L
-
5,800
(3,500-21,0
00)
-
34,000
(630-
95,000)
25,000
(156-
106,000)
-
-
-
-
Oil and
grease
mg/L
-
163.5
(88.2-
1,430)
-
74
(5-802)
16.85
(4.7-802)
-
-
-
-
PH
SU
5.87
(5.47-6.53)
7.05
(6.5-7.2)
-
6.6
(5.1-8.4)
6.5
(4.9-7.9)
-
6.3
(5.5-6.8)
8
(5.8-11.62)
6.3
(6.1-6.4)
Specific
conductivity
US/cm
213,000
(205,000-
220,800)
111,500
(34,800-
179,000)
-
-
183,000
(479-
763,000)
-
184,800
(118,000-
211,000)
-
-
Specific
gravity
--
1.13
(1.0961-
1.155)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TDS
mg/L
196,000
(150,000-
219,000)
50,550
(16,400-
97,800)
13,290
(9,972-
15,721)
106,390
(680-
345,000)
87,800
(680-
345,000)
164,683
(5,241-
356,666)
235,125
(106,000-
354,000)
15,802
(1,032-
125,304)
73,082
(56,541-
108,813)
Total
Kjeldahl
nitrogen
mg/L
-
171
(26-298)
-
-
94.9
(5.6-312)
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-8	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Parameter
Units
Shales
Tight formations
Bakkena
Barnettb
Fayettevillec
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Group'
Devonian
Sandstoneg
Mesaverde'
Oswego'
States
n/a
MT, ND
TX
AR
PAd
PA, WVe
LA, TX
PA
CO, NM, UT,
WY
OK
TOC
mg/L
-
9.75
(6.2-36.2)
-
160
(1.2-1,530)
89.2
(1.2-5,680)
198
(184-212)
-
-
-
Total
suspended
solids
mg/L
-
242
(120-535)
-
352
(4-7,600)
127
(6.8-3,220)
-
-
-
-
Turbidity
NTU
-
239
(144-314)
-
-
126
(2.3-1,540)
-
-
-
-
n/a, not applicable; no value available; NC, not calculated; ND, not detected., SU= standard units, bolded italic numbers are medians
a Stepan et al. (2010). n = 3. Concentrations were calculated based on Stepan et al.'s raw data. Samples had charge balance errors of 1.74, -0.752, and -0.220%
b Hayes and Sever!n (2012b). n = 16. This data source reported concentrations without direct presentation of raw data.
c Warner et al. (2013). n = 6. Concentrations were calculated based on Warner et al.'s raw data. Both flowback and produced water included.
d Barbot et al. (2013). n = 134-159. This data source reported concentrations without direct presentation of raw data.
'Hayes (2009). n = 31-67. Concentrations were calculated based on Hayes's raw data. Both flowback and produced water included. Non-detects and contaminated blanks
omitted.
' Blondes et al. (2014). Cotton Valley Group, n=2; Mesa Verde, n = 1-407; Oswego, n = 4-30. Concentrations were calculated based on raw data presented in the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) National Produced Water Database v2.0.
s Dresel and Rose (2010). n = 3-15. Concentrations were calculated based on Dresel and Rose's raw data.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
E-9	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-3. Reported concentrations of general water quality parameters in produced water
for unconventional coalbed basins, presented as: average (minimum-maximum).
Parameter
Units
Black Warrior3
Powder Riverb
Ratonb
San Juanb
States
n/a
AL, MS
MT, WY
CO, NM
AZ, CO, NM, UT
Alkalinity
mg/L
355 (3-1,600)
1,384 (653-2,672)
1,107 (130-2,160)
3,181 (51-11,400)
Ammonium
mg/L
3.60 (0.16-8.91)
-
-
-
Bicarbonate
mg/L
427 (2-1,922)
1,080 (236-3,080)
1,124 (127-2,640)
3,380 (117-13,900)
Carbonate
mg/L
3 (0-64)
2.17 (0.00-139.0)
51.30
(1.30-316.33)
40.17 (0.00-1,178)
Chloride
mg/L
9,078 (11-42,800)
21(BDL-282)
787 (4.8-8,310)
624 (BDL-20,100)
Chemical oxygen
demand
mg/L
830 (0-10,500)
-
-
-
Dissolved oxygen
mg/L
-
1.07 (0.11-3.48)
0.39 (0.01-3.52)
0.51 (0.04-1.69)
DOC
mg/L
3.37 (0.53-61.41)
3.18 (1.09-8.04)
1.26 (0.30-8.54)
3.21 (0.89-11.41)
Hardness as CaCOs
mg/L
871 (3-6,150)
-
-
-
Hydrogen sulfide
mg/L
-
-
4.41 (BDL-190.0)
23.00
(23.00-23.00)
Oil and grease
mg/L
-
-
9.10 (0.60-17.6)
-
PH
SU
7.5 (5.3-9.0)
7.71 (6.86-9.16)
8.19 (6.90-9.31)
7.82 (5.40-9.26)
Phosphate
mg/L
0.435
(0.026-3.570)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
0.04 (BDL-1.00)
1.89 (BDL-9.42)
Specific
conductivity
US/cm
20,631
(718-97,700)
1,598
(413-4,420)
3,199 (742-11,550)
5,308
(232-18,066)
TDS
mg/L
14,319
(589-61,733)
997 (252-2,768)
2,512 (244-14,800)
4,693 (150-39,260)
Total Kjeldahl
nitrogen
mg/L
6.08 (0.15-38.40)
0.48 (BDL-4.70)
2.61 (BDL-26.10)
0.46 (BDL-3.76)
TOC
mg/L
6.03 (0.00-103.00)
3.52 (2.07-6.57)
1.74 (0.25-13.00)
2.91(0.95-9.36)
Total suspended
solids
mg/L
78 (0-2,290)
11.0 (1.4-72.7)
32.3 (1.0-580.0)
47.2 (1.4-236.0)
Turbidity
NTU
74 (0-539)
8.2 (0.7-57.0)
4.5 (0.3-25.0)
61.6 (0.8-810.0)
n/a, not applicable; no value available; BDL, below detection limit.
a DOE (2014). n = 206. Concentrations were calculated based on raw data presented in the reference.
b Dahm et al. (2011). Powder River, n = 31; Raton, n = 40; San Juan, n = 20. This data source reported concentrations without
presentation of raw data.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-10	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
E.2.3. Salinity and Inorganics
1 Table E-4 and Table E-5 provide supporting data on salinity and inorganic constituents of produced
2 water for 12 formations.
E.2.3.1. Processes Controlling Salinity and Inorganics Concentrations
3 Multiple mechanisms likely control elevated salt concentrations in flowback and produced water
4 and are largely dependent upon post-injection fluid interactions and the formation's stratigraphic
5 and hydrogeologic environment (Barbot et al. 20131. High inorganic ionic loads observed in
6 flowback and produced water are expressed as TDS.
7 Subsurface brines or formation waters are saline fluids associated with the targeted formation.
8 Shale and sandstone brines are typically much more saline than coalbed waters. After hydraulic
9 fracturing fluids are injected into the subsurface, the injected fluids (which are typically not sources
10 of high TDS) mix with in situ brines, which typically contain high ionic loads fHaluszczaketal.
11 20131.
12 Deep brines, present in over- or underlying strata, may naturally migrate into targeted formations
13 over geologic time or artificially intrude if a saline aquifer is breached during hydraulic fracturing
14 fChapman et al.. 2012: Maxwell. 2011: Blauch et al.. 20091. Whether it is through natural or induced
15 intrusion, saline fluids may contact the producing formation and introduce novel salinity sources to
16 the produced water (Chapman etal, 20121.
17 The dissolution salts associated with formation solids both increases TDS concentrations and alters
18 formation porosity and permeability (Blauch etal. 20091. Additionally, the mobilization of connate
19 fluids (deposition-associated pore fluids) and formation fluids during hydraulic fracturing likely
20 contributes to increased TDS levels (Preset and Rose. 2010: Blauch etal. 20091. Despite the general
21 use of fresh water for hydraulic fracturing fluid, some elevated salts in produced water may result
22 from the use of reused saline flowback or produced water as a hydraulic fracturing base fluid
23 (Hayes, 20091.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-ll DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-4. Reported concentrations (mg/L) of inorganic constituents contributing to salinity in unconventional shale and tight
formations produced water, presented as: average (minimum-maximum) or median (minimum-maximum).
Parameter
Shale
Tight Formations
Bakkena
Barnettb
Fayettevillec
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Group'
Devonian
Sandstone®
Mesaverde'
Oswego'
States
MT, ND
TX
AR
PAd
PA,WVe
LA, TX
PA
CO, NM, UT,
WY
OK
Bromide
-
589
(117-798)
111
(96-144)
511
(0.2-1,990)
512
(15.8-1,990)
498
(32-1,338)
1,048
(349-1,350)
-
-
Calcium
9,680
(7,540-
13,500)
1,600
(1,110-6,730)
317
(221-386)
7,220
(38-41,000)
7,465
(173-33,000)
19,998
(181-51,400)
20,262
(8,930-
34,400)
212
(1.01-4,580)
5,903
(3,609-8,662)
Chloride
119,000
(90,000-
133,000)
34,700
(9,600-60,800)
9,156
(5,507-12,287)
57,447
(64-
196,000)
49,000
(64.2-196,000)
101,332
(3,167-
221,498.7)
132,567
(58,900-
207,000)
4,260
(8-75,000)
44,567
(23,000-75,000)
Fluoride
-
3.8
(3.5-12.8)
-
-
0.975
(0.077-32.9)
-
-
-
-
Iodine
-
-
-
-
-
20
(1-36)
39
(11-56)
1.01
(1.01-1.01)
-
Nitrate as N
-
-
NC
(ND-ND)
-
1.7
(0.65-15.9)
-
-
0.6
(0.6-0.6)
-
Nitrite as N
-
4.7
(3.5-38.1)
-
-
11.8
(1.1-146)
-
-
-
-
Phosphorus
NC
(ND-0.03)
0.395
(0.19-0.7)
-
-
0.3 (0,08-21.8)
-
-
-
-
Potassium
2,970
(0-5,770)
316
(80-750)
-
-
337
(38-3,950)
1,975
(8-7,099)
858
(126-3,890)
160
(4-2,621)
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-12	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Parameter
Shale
Tight Formations
Bakkena
Barnettb
Fayettevillec
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Group'
Devonian
Sandstoneg
Mesaverde'
Oswego'
States
MT, ND
TX
AR
PAd
PA,WVe
LA, TX
PA
CO, NM, UT,
WY
OK
Silica
7
(6.41-7)
-
52
(13-160)
-
-
4
(4-4)
-
-
-
Sodium
61,500
(47,100-
74,600)
18,850
(4,370-28,200)
3,758
(3,152-4,607)
21,123
(69-
117,000)
21,650
(63.8-95,500)
39,836
(1,320-
85,623.24)
58,160
(24,400-
83,300)
5,828
(132-48,817)
19,460
(13,484-31,328)
Sulfate
660
(300-1,000)
709
(120-1,260)
NC
(ND-3)
71
(0-763)
58.9
(2.4-348)
407
(ND-
2,200.46)
20
(1-140)
837
(ND-14,612)
183
(120-271)
Sulfide
-
NC
(ND-ND)
-
-
3.2
(1.6-5.6)
-
0.7
(0.1-2.5)
-
-
Sulfite
-
-
-
-
12.4
(5.2-73.6)
-
-
-
-
TDS
196,000
(150,000-
219,000)
50,550
(16,400-
97,800)
13,290
(9,972-
15,721)
106,390
(680-
345,000)
87,800
(680-345,000)
164,683
(5,241-
356,666)
235,125
(106,000-
354,000)
15,802
(1,032-
125,304)
73,082
(56,541-
108,813)
-, no value available; NC, not calculated; ND, not detected. Boldeditalic numbers are medians.
a Stepan et al. (2010). n = 3. Concentrations were calculated based on Stepan et al.'s raw data. Samples had charge balance errors of 1.74, -0.752, and -0.220%
b Hayes and Severin (2012b). n = 16. This data source reported concentrations without presentation of raw data.
c Warner et al. (2013). n = 6. Concentrations were calculated based on Warner et al.'s raw data. Both flowback and produced water included.
d Barbot et al. (2013). n = 134-159. This data source reported concentrations without presentation of raw data.
0 Haves (2009). n = 8-65. Concentrations were calculated based on Hayes's raw data. Both flowback and produced water included. Non-detects and contaminated blanks
omitted.
' Blondes et al. (2014) Cotton Valley Group, n = 2; Mesa Verde, n = 1-407; Oswego, n = 4-30. Concentrations were calculated based on raw data presented in the USGS
National Produced Water Database v2.0.
8 Dresel and Rose (2010). n = 3-15. Concentrations were calculated based on Dresel and Rose's raw data.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
E-13	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-5. Reported concentrations (mg/L) of inorganic constituents contributing to salinity in
produced water for unconventional CBM basins, presented as: average
(minimum-maximum).
Parameter
Black Warrior3
Powder Riverb
Ratonb
San Juanb
State
AL, MS
MT, WY
CO, NM
AZ, CO, NM, UT
Barium
45.540 (0.136-352)
0.61(0.14-2.47)
1.67 (BDL-27.40)
10.80 (BDL-74.0)
Boron
0.185 (0-0.541)
0.17 (BDL-0.39)
0.36 (BDL-4.70)
1.30 (0.21-3.45)
Bromide
-
0.09 (BDL-0.26)
4.86 (0.04-69.60)
9.77 (BDL-43.48)
Calcium
218 (0-1,640)
32.09 (2.00-154.0)
14.47 (0.81-269.0)
53.29 (1.00-5,530)
Chloride
9,078 (11-42,800)
21(BDL-282)
787 (4.8-8,310)
624 (BDL-20,100)
Fluoride
6.13 (0.00-22.60)
1.57 (0.40-4.00)
4.27 (0.59-20.00)
1.76 (0.58-10.00)
Magnesium
68.12 (0.18-414.00)
14.66 (BDL-95.00)
3.31(0.10-56.10)
15.45 (BDL-511.0)
Nitrate
8.70 (0.00-127.50)
-
-
-
Nitrite
0.03 (0.00-2.08)
-
-
-
Phosphorus
0.32 (0.00-5.76)
-
-
-
Potassium
12.02 (0.46-74.00)
11.95 (BDL-44.00)
6.37 (BDL-29.40)
26.99 (BDL-970.0)
Silica
8.66 (1.04-18.10)
6.46 (4.40-12.79)
7.05 (4.86-10.56)
12.37 (3.62-37.75)
Sodium
4,353 (126-16,700)
356 (12-1,170)
989 (95-5,260)
1,610 (36-7,834)
Strontium
11.354 (0.015-142.000)
0.60 (0.10-1.83)
5.87 (BDL-47.90)
5.36 (BDL-27.00)
Sulfate
5.83 (0.00-302.00)
5.64 (BDL-300.0)
14.75 (BDL-253.00)
25.73 (BDL-1,800)
TDS
14,319 (589-61,733)
997 (252-2,768)
2,512 (244-14,800)
4,693 (150-39,260)
no value available; BDL, below detection limit.
a DOE (2014). n = 206. Concentrations were calculated based on the authors' raw data.
b Dahm et al. (2011). Powder River, n = 31; Raton, n = 40; San Juan, n = 20. This data source reported concentrations without
presentation of raw data.
E.2.4. Metals and Metalloids
Table E-6 and Table E-7 provide supporting data on metal constituents of produced water for 12
formations.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-14	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-6. Reported concentrations (mg/L) of metals and metalloids from unconventional shale and tight formation produced
water, presented as: average (minimum-maximum) or median (minimum-maximum).
Note that calcium, potassium, and sodium appear in Table E-4.
Parameter
Shale
Tight Formation
Bakkena
Barnettb
Fayettevillec
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Group'
Devonian
Sandstone®
Mesaverde'
Oswego'
States
MT, ND
TX
AR
PAd
PA, WVe
LA, TX
PA
CO, NM, UT,
WY
OK
Aluminum
-
0.43
(0.37-2.21)
-
-
2.57
(0.22-47.2)
-
-
-
-
Antimony
-
NC
(ND-ND)
-
-
0.028
(0.018-0.038)
-
-
-
-
Arsenic
-
NC
(ND-ND)
-
-
0.101
(0.013-0.124)
-
-
-
-
Barium
10
(0-24.6)
3.6
(0.93-17.9)
4
(3-5)
2,224
(0.24-13,80
0)
542.5
(2.590-
13,900)
160
(ND-400.52)
1,488
(7-4,370)
139
(4-257)

Beryllium
-
NC (ND-ND)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Boron
116
(39.9-192)
30.3
(7.0-31.9)
4.800
(2.395-
21.102)
-
12.2
(0.808-145)
37
(2-100)
-
10
(1-14.2)
-
Cadmium
-
NC
(ND-ND)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chromium
-
0.03
(0.01-0.12)
-
-
0.079
(0.011-0.567)
-
-
-
-
Cobalt
-
0.01
(0.01-0.01)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-15	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Parameter
Shale
Tight Formation
Bakkena
Barnettb
Fayettevillec
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Group'
Devonian
Sandstoneg
Mesaverde'
Oswego'
States
MT, ND
TX
AR
PAd
PA, WVe
LA, TX
PA
CO, NM, UT,
WY
OK
Copper
NC
(ND-0.21)
0.29
(0.06-0.52)
-
-
0.506
(0.253-4.150)
0.7
(0.48-1)
0.04
(0.01-0.13)
-
-
Iron
96
(ND-120)
24.9
(12.1-93.8)
7
(1-13)
-
53.65
(2.68-574)
-
188
(90-458)
9
(1-29)
61
(41-78)
Lead
-
0.02
(0.01-0.02)
-
-
0.066
(0.003-0.970)
-
0.02
(0.01-0.04)
-
-
Lithium
-
19.0
(2.56-37.4)
9.825
(2.777-
28.145)
-
53.85
(3.410-323)
23
(1-53)
97.8
(20.2-315)
3
(1-33)
-
Magnesium
1,270
(630-1,750)
255
(149-755)
61
(47-75)
632
(17-2,550)
678
(40.8-2,020)
1,363
(27-3,712.98)
2,334
(797-3,140)
74
(1-2,394)
753
(486-1,264)
Manganese
7
(4-10.2)
0.86
(0.25-2.20)
2
(2-3)
-
2.825
(0.369-
18.600)
30.33
(30.33-30.33)
19
(5.6-68)
-
-
Mercury
-
NC
(ND-ND)
-
-
0.00024
-
-
-
-
Molybdenum
NC
(ND-<0.2)
0.02
(0.02-0.03)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nickel
-
0.04
(0.03-0.05)
-
0.1815
(0.007-
0.137)
0.419
(0.068-0.769)
-
-
-
-
Selenium
-
0.03
(0.03-0.04)
-
-
0.004
-
-
-
-
Silver
-
-
-
-
4
(3-6)
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-16	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Parameter
Shale
Tight Formation
Bakkena
Barnettb
Fayettevillec
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Group'
Devonian
Sandstoneg
Mesaverde'
Oswego'
States
MT, ND
TX
AR
PAd
PA, WVe
LA, TX
PA
CO, NM, UT,
WY
OK
Strontium
764
(518-1,010)
529
(48-1,550)
27
(14-49)
1,695
(0.6-8,460)
1,240
(0.580-8,020)
2,312
(39-9,770)
3,890
(404-13,100)
-
-
Thallium
-
NC
(ND-0.14)
-
-
0.168
-
-
-
-
Tin
-
NC
(ND-ND)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Titanium
-
0.02
(0.02-0.03)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Zinc
7
(2-11.3)
0.15
(0.10-0.36)
-
-
0.391
(0.087-247)
-
0.20
(0.03-1.26)
-
-
no value available; NC, not calculated; ND, not detected; BDL, below detection limit. Bolded italic numbers are medians.
a Stepan et al. (2010). n = 3. Concentrations were calculated based on Stepan et al.'s raw data.
b Hayes and Severin (2012b). n = 16. This data source reported concentrations without presentation of raw data.
c Warner et al. (2013). n = 6. Concentrations were calculated based on Warner et al.'s raw data. Both flowback and produced water included.
d Barbot et al. (2013). n = 134-159. This data source reported concentrations without presentation of data.
0 Hayes (2009). n = 48. Concentrations were calculated based on Hayes's raw data. Both flowback and produced water included. Non-detects and contaminated blanks
omitted.
' Blondes et al. (2014). Cotton Valley Group, n = 2; Mesa Verde, n = 1-407; Oswego, n = 4-30. Concentrations were calculated based on raw data presented in the USGS
National Produced Water Database v2.0.
8 Dresel and Rose (2010). n = 3-15. Concentrations were calculated based on Dresel and Rose's raw data.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
E-17	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-7. Reported concentrations (mg/L) of metals and metalloids from unconventional
coalbed produced water, presented as: average (minimum-maximum).
Parameter
Black Warrior3
Powder Riverb
Ratonb
San Juanb
States
AL, MS
MT, WY
CO, NM
AZ, CO, NM, UT
Aluminum
0.037 (0-0.099)
0.018 (BDL-0.124)
0.193 (BDL-2,900)
0.069 (BDL-0.546)
Antimony
0.006 (0.00-0.022)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
Arsenic
0.002 (0.0-0.085)
0.001 (BDL-0.004)
0.010 (BDL-0.060)
0.001 (BDL-0.020)
Barium
45.540 (0.136-352)
0.61 (0.14-2.47)
1.67 (BDL-27.40)
10.80 (BDL-74.0)
Beryllium
0.0 (0.0-0.008)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
Boron
0.185 (0-0.541)
0.17 (BDL-0.39)
0.36 (BDL-4.70)
1.30 (0.21-3.45)
Cadmium
0.001 (0.00-0.015)
BDL (BDL-0.002)
0.002 (BDL-0.003)
0.002 (BDL-.006)
Calcium
218 (0-1,640)
32.09 (2.00-154.0)
14.47 (0.81-269.0)
53.29 (1.00-5,530)
Cesium
0.011 (0.0-0.072)
-
-
-
Chromium
0.002 (0.0-0.351)
0.012 (BDL-0.250)
0.105 (BDL-3.710)
0.002 (BDL-0.023)
Cobalt
0.023 (0.00-0.162)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
0.001 (BDL-0.018)
0.001 (BDL-0.017)
Copper
0.001 (0.0-0.098)
0.078 (BDL-1.505)
0.091 (BDL-4.600)
0.058 (BDL-0.706)
Iron
8.956 (0.045-93.100)
1.55 (BDL-190.0)
7.18 (0.09-95.90)
6.20 (BDL-258.0)
Lead
0.008 (0.00-0.250)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
0.023 (BDL-0.233)
0.023 (BDL-0.390)
Lithium
1.157 (0-8.940)
0.13 (BDL-0.34)
0.32 (0.01-1.00)
1.61 (0.21-4.73)
Magnesium
68.12 (0.18-414.00)
14.66 (BDL-95.00)
3.31 (0.10-56.10)
15.45 (BDL-511.0)
Manganese
0.245 (0.006-4.840)
0.02 (BDL-0.16)
0.11(0.01-2.00)
0.19 (BDL-1.34)
Mercury
0.000 (0.000-0.000)
-
-
-
Molybdenum
0.002 (0-0.083)
0.005 (BDL-0.029)
0.002 (BDL-0.035)
0.020 (BDL-0.040)
Nickel
0.015 (0.0-0.358)
0.141 (BDL-2.61)
0.015 (0.004-0.11)
0.020 (BDL-0.13)
Potassium
12.02 (0.46-74.00)
11.95 (BDL-44.00)
6.37 (BDL-29.40)
26.99 (BDL-970.0)
Rubidium
0.013 (0.0-0.114)
-
-
-
Selenium
0.002 (0.00-0.063)
0.006 (BDL-0.046)
0.017 (BDL-0.100)
0.018 (BDL-0.067)
Silver
0.015 (0.0-0.565)
0.003 (0.003-0.003)
0.015 (BDL-0.140)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
Sodium
4,353 (126-16,700)
356 (12-1,170)
989 (95-5,260)
1,610 (36-7,834)
Strontium
11.354 (0.015-142.000)
0.60 (0.10-1.83)
5.87 (BDL-47.90)
5.36 (BDL-27.00)
Thallium
-
-
-
-
Tin
0.00 (0.00-0.009)
0.006 (BDL-0.028)
0.008 (BDL-0.021)
0.017 (BDL-0.039)
Titanium
0.003 (0.0-0.045)
BDL (BDL-0.002)
BDL (BDL-0.002)
0.004 (BDL-0.020)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-18	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Parameter
Black Warrior3
Powder Riverb
Ratonb
San Juanb
States
AL, MS
MT, WY
CO, NM
AZ, CO, NM, UT
Vanadium
0.001 (0.0-0.039)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
0.001 (BDL-0.013)
BDL (BDL-BDL)
Zinc
0.024 (0.0-0.278)
0.063 (BDL-0.390)
0.083 (0.010-3.900)
0.047 (0.005-0.263)
-, no value available; BDL, below detection limit.
a DOE (2014). n = 206. Concentrations were calculated based on the authors' raw data.
b Dahm et al. (2011). Powder River, n = 31; Raton, n = 40; San Juan, n = 20. This data source reported concentrations without
presentation of raw data.
E.2.4.1. Processes Controlling Mineral Precipitation and Dissolution
1 Hydraulic fracturing treatments introduce fluids into the subsurface that are not in equilibrium
2 with respect to formation mineralogy. Subsurface geochemical equilibrium modeling and
3 saturation indices are therefore used to assess the solution chemistry of unconventional produced
4 water and the subsequent likelihood of precipitation and dissolution reactions (Engle and Rowan,
5 2014: Barbotetal. 20131. Dissolution and precipitation reactions between fracturing fluids,
6 formation solids, and formation water contribute to the chemistry of flowback and produced water.
7 For example, early flowback fluids may be under-saturated with respect to certain constituents or
8 minerals associated with formation solids. Through time, as fluid-rock geochemistry returns to
9 equilibrium, formation minerals will dissolve into solution and return in flowback.
10 Depending upon the formation chemistry and composition of the hydraulic fracturing fluid, the
11 hydraulic fracturing fluid may initially have a lower ionic strength than existing formation fluids.
12 Consequently, salts, carbonate, sulfate, and silicate minerals may undergo dissolution or
13 precipitation. Proppants may also undergo dissolution or serve as nucleation sites for precipitation
14 (McLin etal. 20111.
15 Currently, relatively little literature quantitatively explores subsurface dissolution and
16 precipitation reactions between hydraulic fracturing fluids and formation solids and water.
17 However, the processes that take place will likely be a function of the solubilities of the minerals,
18 the chemistry of the fluid, pH, redox conditions, and temperature.
19 Documented dissolution processes in unconventional resources include the dissolution of feldspar
20 followed by sodium enrichment in coalbed produced water (Rice etal. 20081. Dissolution of
21 barium-rich minerals (barite (BaSCU) and witherite (BaCOs)), and strontium-rich minerals (celestite
22 (SrSCU) and strontianite (SrCOs)) are known to enrich shale produced waters in barium and
23 strontium fCfaaproan et al. 20121.
24 Known precipitation processes in unconventional resources include the precipitation of carbonate
2 5 and subsequent reduction of calcium and magnesium concentrations in coalbed produced water
26 fRice etal. 20081. Additionally, calcium carbonate precipitation is suspected to cause declines in pH
27 and alkalinity levels in shale produced water fBarbotetal. 20131.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-19 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
The subsurface processes associated with fluid-rock interactions take place over a scale of weeks to
months through the generation of flowback and produced water. Note that the types and extent of
subsurface dissolution and precipitation reactions change with time, from injection through
flowback and production. For instance, Engle and Rowan ("20141 found that early Marcellus Shale
flowback was under-saturated with respect to gypsum (CaS04-2H20), halite (NaCl), celestite,
strontianite, and witherite, indicating that these minerals would dissolve in the subsurface. Fluids
were oversaturated with respect to barite. Saturation indices for gypsum, halite, celestite, and
barite all increased during production. Knowing when dissolution and precipitation will likely
occur is important, because dissolution and precipitation of minerals change formation
permeability and porosity, which can affect production (Andre et al, 20061.
Additionally, pyrite (FeS2) is an important minor mineral in reduced sedimentary rocks. Pyrite is
the primary form of sulfur and iron occurrence in shales fLeventhal and Hosterman. 19821 and is
also a common mineral phase generated in coals in which organic matter is closely associated
(Ward. 20021. Pyrite content in shales can vary from less than 1% to several percent (Chermak and
Schreiber. 2014: Vulgamore etal. 20071. Researchers have found a strong association of trace
metals (i.e., nickel, copper, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) with
pyrite in shales fChermak and Schreiber. 2014: Tuttle et al.. 2009: Leventhal and Hosterman. 19821.
Although studies considering pyrite oxidation within the context of hydraulic fracturing are
currently lacking, it is likely that the introduction of oxygenated fluids to freshly exposed surfaces
in the subsurface during hydraulic fracturing can initiate limited, short-term pyrite oxidation or
dissolution. Pyrite dissolution may increase iron and trace element concentrations and acidity in
produced waters (Nordstrom and Alpers. 1999: Moses and Herman. 19911.
The extent to which the oxidative dissolution of pyrite would exert a control on post-injection
subsurface fluid chemistry is unknown, although an ongoing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study
anticipates it may be more significant than previously hypothesized (Li and Brantley. 20111.
Regardless, relative to other reactions contributing to the composition of flowback and produced
water (i.e., dissolution of salts), pyrite oxidation appears to be less significant. Ultimately, reactions
resulting from temporary changes in subsurface redox conditions will be less important relative to
other reactions that are less redox-dependent
E.2.5. Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) and Technically Enhanced Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM)
E.2.5.1. Formation Solids Levels of NORM
Elevated uranium levels in formation solids have been used to identify potential areas of natural
gas production for decades fFertl and Chilingar. 19881. Marine black shales are estimated to contain
an average of 5-20 ppm uranium depending on depositional conditions, compared to an average of
less than 5 ppm among all shales (USGS. 19611. Shales that bear significant levels of uranium
include the Barnett in Texas, the Woodford in Oklahoma, the New Albany in the Illinois Basin, the
Chattanooga Shale in the southeastern United States, and a group of black shales in Kansas and
Oklahoma fSwanson. 19551.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-20 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Bank et al. ("20121 identified Marcellus samples with uranium ranging from 4-72 ppm, with an
average of 30 ppm. Additionally, shale samples taken from three counties within the Marcellus
Shale had uranium concentrations ranging from 8 to 84 ppm fBTGS. 2011: Hatch and Leventhal.
19811. Chermak and Schreiber ("20141 compiled mineralogy and trace element data available in the
literature for nine U.S. hydrocarbon-producing shales. In this combined data set, uranium levels
among different shale plays were found to vary over three orders of magnitude, with samples of the
Utica Shale containing approximately 0-5 ppm uranium and samples of the Woodford Shale
containing uranium in the several-hundred-ppm range.
Vine (19561 reported that the principal uranium-bearing coal deposits of the United States are
found in Cretaceous and Tertiary formations in the northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountains; in
some areas of the West, coal deposits have been found with uranium concentrations in the range of
thousands of ppm or greater. In contrast, most Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, and Permian coals in
the north-central and eastern United States contain less than 10 ppm uranium, rarely containing
50 ppm or more.
E.2.5.2. Produced Water Levels of TENORM
Background data on NORM in the Marcellus Shale and Devonian sandstones are given in Table E-8.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-21 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-8. Reported concentrations (in pCi/L) of radioactive constituents in unconventional shale and sandstone produced water,
presented as: average (minimum-maximum) or median (minimum-maximum).
Parameter
Marcellus
Devonian Sandstone3
States
NY, PAb
PA NORM STUDY (PA DEP. 2015)
PA
Flowbackc
Conventional
Produced Waterd
Unconventional
Produced Water®
Gross alpha
6,845 (ND-123,000)
10,700 (288-71,000)
1,835 (465-2,570)
11,300 (2,240-41,700)
-
Gross beta
1,170 (ND-12,000)
2,400 (742-21,300)
909 (402-1,140)
3.445 (1.5-7,600)
-
Radium-226
1,869 (ND-16,920)
4,500 (551-25,500)
243 (81 - 819)
6,300 (1,700-26,600)
2,367 (200-5,000)
Radium-228
557 (ND-2,589)
633 (248-1,740)
128 (26 - 896)
941 (366-1,900)
-
Total Radium
2,530 (0.192-18,045)
-
371 (107 -1,715)
7,180 (2,336-28,500)
-
Uranium235
1 (ND-20)
-
-
-
-
Uranium238
42 (ND-497)
-
-
-
-
n/a, not applicable; no value available; BDL, below detection limit. Bolded italic numbers are medians.
a Dresel and Rose (2010). n = 3. Concentrations presented were calculated based on Dresel and Rose's raw data.
b Rowan et al. (2011). n = 51. Concentrations presented were calculated based on Rowan et al.'s raw data for Marcellus samples. Uranium data from Barbot et al. (2013) n = 14.
CPA PEP (2015). n = 9. Data reported in Table 3-14.
d PA PEP (2015). n = 9. Values calculated from Table 3-15 for unfiltered samples.
0 PA PEP (2015). n = 4. Values calculated from Table 3-15 for unfiltered samples.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
E-22	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
E.2.5.3. Mobilization of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
Similar to conventional oil and gas production, in unconventional oil and gas production,
radionuclides native to the targeted formation return to the surface with produced water. The
principal radionuclides found in oil and gas produced waters include radium-226 of the uranium-
238 decay series and radium-228 of the thorium-232 decay series fWhite. 19921. Levels of
TENORM in produced water are controlled by geologic and geochemical interactions between
injected and formation fluids, and the targeted formation (Bank. 20111. Mechanisms controlling
NORM mobilization into produced water include (1) the TENORM content of the targeted
formation; (2) factors governing the release of radionuclides, particularly radium, from the
reservoir matrix; and (3) the geochemistry of the produced water fChoppin. 2007. 2006: Fisher.
19981.
Organic-rich shales and coals are enriched in uranium, thorium, and other trace metals in
concentrations several times above those seen in typical shales or sedimentary rocks (Diefal et al,
2004: USGS. 1997: Wignall and Mvers. 1988: Tourtelot. 1979: Vine and Tourtelot. 19701. Unlike
shales and coals, sandstones are generally not organic-rich source rocks themselves. Instead,
hydrocarbons migrate into these formations over long periods of time (Clark and Veil. 20091. Since
TENORM and organic contents are typically positively correlated due to the original, reduced
depositional environment (Fertl and Chilingar. 19881. it is unlikely that sandstones would be
enriched in TENORM to the same extent as oil- and gas-bearing shales and coals. Therefore, concern
related to TENORM within produced water is focused on operations targeting shales and coalbeds.
Radium is most soluble and mobile in chloride-rich, high-TDS, reducing environments fSturchio et
al.. 2001: Zaoecza and Szabo. 1988: Langmuir and Riese. 19851. In formation fluids with high TDS,
calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sodium compete with dissolved radium for sorption sites,
limiting radium sorption onto solids and allowing it to accumulate in solution at higher
concentrations (Fisher. 1998: Webster et al.. 19951. The positive correlation between TDS and
radium is well established and TDS is a useful indicator of radium and TENORM activity within
produced water, especially in lithologically homogenous reservoirs fRowan et al.. 2011: Sturchio et
al.. 2001: Fisher. 1998: Kraemer and Reid. 19841.
Uranium and thorium are poorly soluble under reducing conditions and are therefore more
concentrated in formation solids than in solution (Fisher. 1998: Kraemer and Reid. 1984: Langmuir
and Herman. 19801. However, because uranium becomes more soluble in oxidizing environments,
the introduction of relatively oxygen-rich fracturing fluids may promote the temporary
mobilization of uranium during hydraulic fracturing and early flowback. In addition, the physical
act of hydraulic fracturing creates fresh fractures and exposes organic-rich and highly reduced
surfaces from which radionuclides could be released from the rock into formation fluids.
Produced water geochemistry determines, in part, the fate of subsurface radionuclides, particularly
radium. Radium may remain in the host mineral or it may be released into formation fluids, where
it can remain in solution as the dissolved Ra2+ ion, be adsorbed onto oxide grain coatings or clay
particles by ion exchange, substitute for other cations during the precipitation of minerals, or form
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-23 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
complexes with chloride, sulfate, and carbonate ions (Rowan etal, 2011: Sturchio etal, 2001:
Langmuir and Riese, 19851. Uranium- and thorium-containing materials with a small grain size, a
large surface-to-volume ratio, and the presence of uranium and thorium near grain surfaces
promote the escape of radium into formation fluids. Vinson etal. ("20091 point to alpha decay along
fracture surfaces as a primary control on radium mobilization in crystalline bedrock aquifers.
Radium may also occur in formation fluids due to other processes, such as the decay of dissolved
parent isotopes and adsorption-desorption reactions on formation surfaces (Sturchio et al, 20011.
Preliminary results from fluid-rock interaction studies (Bank. 20111 indicate that a significant
percentage of uranium in the Marcellus Shale may be subject to mobilization by hydrochloric acid,
which is used as a fracturing fluid additive. Understanding these processes will determine the
extent to which such processes might influence the TENORM content of flowback and produced
water.
E.2.6. Organics
Background data on organics in seven formations is given in Table E-9.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-24	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-9. Concentrations of select organic parameters from unconventional shale, a tight formation, and coalbed produced
water, presented as: average (minimum-maximum) or median (minimum-maximum).
Parameter
Unit
Shale
Tight
Formation
Coal
Barnett3
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Groupd
Powder River®
Raton®
San Juan®
Black Warrior'
States
n/a
TX
PAb
PA, WVC
LA, TX
MT, WY
CO, NM
AZ, CO, NM, UT
AL, MS
TOC
mg/L
9.75
(6.2-36.2)
160
(1.2-
1,530)
89.2
(1.2-5680)
198
(184-212)
3.52
(2.07-6.57)
1.74
(0.25-13.00)
2.91
(0.95-9.36)
6.03
(0.00-103.00)
DOC
mg/L
11.2
(5.5-65.3)
43
(5-695)
117
(3.3-5,960)
-
3.18
(1.09-8.04)
1.26
(0.30-8.54)
3.21
(0.89-11.41)
3.37
(0.53-61.41)
BOD
mg/L
582
(101-2,120)
-
141
(2.8-
12,400)
-
-
-
-
-
Oil and grease
mg/L
163.5
(88.2-1,430)
74
(5-802)
16.9
(4.7-802)
-
-
9.10
(0.60-17.6)
-
-
Benzene
Hg/L
680
(49-5,300)
-
220
(5.8-2,000)
-
-
4.7
(BDL-220.0)
149.7
(BDL-500.0)
-
Toluene
Hg/L
760
(79-8,100)
-
540
(5.1-6,200)
-
-
4.7 (BDL-78.0)
1.7
(BDL-6.2)
-
Ethylbenzene
Hg/L
29
(2.2-670)
-
42
(7.6-650)
-
-
0.8 (BDL-18.0)
10.5 (BDL-24.0)
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
E-25	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Parameter
Unit
Shale
Tight
Formation
Coal
Barnett3
Marcellus
Cotton Valley
Groupd
Powder River®
Raton®
San Juan®
Black Warrior'
States
n/a
TX
PAb
PA, WVC
LA, TX
MT, WY
CO, NM
AZ, CO, NM, UT
AL, MS
Xylenes
Hg/L
360
(43-1,400)
-
300
(15-6,500)
-
-
9.9
(BDL-190.0)
121.2
(BDL-327.0)
-
Average total BTEXB
Hg/L
1,829
2,910
1,102
-
-
20.1
283.1
-
n/a, not applicable; no value available; BDL, below detection limit. Bolded italic numbers are medians.
a Haves and Severin (2012b). n = 16. This data source reported concentrations without presentation of raw data,
b Barbot et al. (2013). n = 55; no presentation of raw data.
c Hayes (2009) n = 13-67. Concentrations were calculated based on Hayes' raw data. Both flowback and produced water included. Non-detects and contaminated blanks
omitted.
d Blondes et al. (2014). n = 2. Concentrations were calculated based on raw data presented in the USGS National Produced Water Database v2.0.
e Dahm et al. (2011). Powder River, n = 31; Raton, n = 40; San Juan, n = 20. This data source reported concentrations without presentation of raw data.
' DOE (2014). n = 206. Concentrations were calculated based on the authors' raw data.
g Average total BTEX was calculated by summing the average/median concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes for a unique formation or basin. Minimum
to maximum ranges were not calculated due to inaccessible raw data.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
E-26	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Several classes of naturally occurring organic chemicals are present in conventional and
unconventional produced waters, with large concentration ranges (Lee and Neff. 20111. These
organic classes include total organic carbon (TOC); saturated hydrocarbons; BTEX (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes); and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (see Table E-9). While
TOC concentrations in produced water are detected at the milligrams to grams per liter level,
concentrations of individual organic compounds are typically detected at the micrograms to
milligrams per liter level.
TOC indicates the level of dissolved and undissolved organics in produced water, including non-
volatile and volatile organics (Acharya etal. 20111. TOC concentrations in conventional produced
water vary widely from less than 0.1 mg/L to more than 11,000 mg/L. Average TOC concentrations
in unconventional produced water range from less than 2.00 mg/L in the Raton CBM basin to
approximately 200 mg/L in the Cotton Valley Group sandstones, although individual measurements
have exceeded 5,000 mg/L in the Marcellus Shale (see Table E-9).
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is a general indicator of organic loading and is the fraction of
organic carbon available for complexing with metals and supporting microbial growth. DOC values
in unconventional produced water range from less than 1.50 mg/L (average) in the Raton Basin to
more than 115 mg/L (median) in the Marcellus Shale (see Table E-9). Individual DOC
concentrations in the Marcellus Shale produced water approach 6,000 mg/L. For comparison, DOC
levels in fresh water systems are typically below 5 mg/L, while raw wastewater can exceed
50 mg/L fKatsoviannis and Samara. 2007: Muvlaertetal. 20051.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a conventional pollutant under the U.S. Clean Water Act It is
an indirect measure of biodegradable organics in produced water and an estimate of the oxygen
demand on a receiving water. Median BOD levels for Barnett and Marcellus Shales produced water
exceed 30 mg/L, and both reported maximum concentrations exceeding 12,000 mg/L (Table E-9).
In some circumstances wide variation in produced water median BOD levels may be reflective of
flowback reuse in fracturing fluids (Hayes. 20091.
Lastly, BTEX is associated with petroleum. Benzene was found in produced water from several
basins: average produced water benzene concentration from the Barnett Shale was 680 ng/L, from
the Marcellus Shale was 220 ng/L (median), and from the San Juan Basin was 150 ng/L (see Table
E-9). Total BTEX concentrations for conventional produced water vary widely from less than
100 ng/L to nearly 580,000 ng/L. For comparison, average total BTEX concentrations in
unconventional produced water range from 20 ng/L in the Raton Basin to nearly 3,000 |ig/L in the
Marcellus play (see Table E-9). From these data, average total BTEX levels in shale produced water
are one to two orders of magnitude higher than those in CBM produced water.
In addition to abundant BTEX, a variety of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds VOCs and
SVOCs have been detected in shale and coalbed produced water. Shale produced water contains
naphthalene, alkylated toluenes, and methylated aromatics in the form of several benzene and
phenol compounds, as shown in Table E-10. Like BTEX, naphthalene, methylated phenols, and
acetophenone are associated with petroleum. Detected shale produced water organics such as
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-27 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
1	acetone, 2-butanone, carbon disulfide, and pyridine are potential remnants of chemical additives
2	used as friction reducers or industrial solvents (Haves. 20091.
Table E-10. Reported concentrations (|ig/L) of organic constituents in produced water for two
unconventional shale formations, presented as: average (minimum-maximum) or
median (minimum-maximum).
Parameter
Barnett3
Marcellusb
States
TX
MD, NY, OH, PA, VA, WY
Acetone
145 (27-540)
83 (14-5,800)
Carbon disulfide
-
400 (19-7,300)
Chloroform
-
28
Isopropylbenzene
35 (0.8-69)
120 (86-160)
Naphthalene
238 (4.8-3,100)
195 (14-1,400)
Phenolic compounds
119.65 (9.3-230)
-
1,2,4-T rimethylbenzene
173 (6.9-1,200)
66.5 (7.7-4,000)
1,3,5-T rimethylbenzene
59 (6.4-300)
33 (5.2-1,900)
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
4.2 (0.5-7.8)
-
1,4-Dioxane
6.5 (3.1-12)
-
2-Methylnaphthalene
1,362 (5.4-20,000)
3.4 (2-120)
2-Methylphenol
28.3 (5.8-76)
13 (11-15)
2,4-Dichlorophenol
(ND-15)
-
2,4-Dimethylphenol
14.5 (8.3-21)
12
3-Methylphenol	and
4-Methylphenol
41 (7.8-100)
11.5 (0.35-16)
Acetophenone
(ND-4.6)
13 (10-22)
Benzidine
(ND-35)
-
Benzo(a)anthracene
(ND-17.0)
-
Benzo(a)pyrene
(ND-130.0)
6.7
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
42.2 (0.5-84.0)
10
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
42.3 (0.7-84.0)
6.9
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
32.8 (0.6-65.0)
5.9
Benzyl alcohol
81.5 (14.0-200)
41(17-750)
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
210 (4.8-490)
20 (9.6-870)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
34.3 (1.9-110)
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-28	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Parameter
Barnett3
Marcellusb
States
TX
MD, NY, OH, PA, VA, WY
Chrysene
120 (0.57-240)
-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
(ND-270)
15
Di-n-butyl phthalate
41(1.5-120)
14 (11-130)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
77 (3.2-150)
3.2 (2.3-11)
Diphenylamine
5.3 (0.6-10.0)
-
Fluoranthene
(ND-0.18)
6.1
Fluorene
0.8 (0.46-1.3)
8.4
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
71 (2.9-140)
3.1 (2.4-9.5)
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
8.9 (7.8-10)
2.7
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
(ND-410)
-
Phenanthrene
107 (0.52-1,400)
9.75 (3-22)
Phenol
63(17-93)
10 (2.4-21)
Pyrene
0.2 (ND-0.18)
13
Pyridine
413 (100-670)
250 (10-2,600)
no value available; ND, not detected.
a Haves and .Sevenn (2012b). n = 16. Data from days 1-23 of flowback. This data source reported concentrations without
presentation of raw data.
b Hayes (2009). n = 1-35. Data from days 1-90 of flowback. Concentrations were calculated from Hayes' raw data. Non-detects
and contaminated blanks omitted.
1	The organic profile of CBM produced water is characterized by high levels of aromatic and
2	halogenated compounds compared to other unconventional produced waters fSirivedhin and
3	Dallbauman. 20041. PAHs and phenols are the most common organic compounds found in coal bed
4	produced water. Produced water from coalbeds in the Black Warrior Basin mainly contains
5	phenols, multiple naphthalic PAHs, and various decanoic and decenoic fatty acids (see Table E-ll).
6	CBM-associated organics are also known to include biphenyls, alkyl aromatics, hydroxypyridines,
7	aromatic amines, and nitrogen-, oxygen-, and sulfur-bearing heterocyclics fOrem et al. 2014:
8	Pashin et al.. 2014: Benko and Drewes. 2008: Orem et al.. 2007: Fisher and Santamaria, 20021.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-29	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-ll. Reported concentrations of organic constituents in 65 samples of produced water
from the Black Warrior CBM Basin, presented as average (minimum-maximum).
Parameter
Number of observations
Concentration (|ig/L)a
States
-
AL, MS
Benzothiazole
45
0.25 (0.01-3.04)
Capro lactam
10
0.75 (0.02-2.39)
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur
29
1.06 (0.10-9.63)
Dimethyl-naphthalene
39
0.79 (0.01-9.51)
Dioctyl phthalate
57
0.21 (0.01-2.30)
Dodecanoic acid
30
1.13 (0.67-2.52)
Hexadecanoic acid
50
1.58(1.17-3.02)
Hexadecenoic acid
25
1.69 (1.13-8.37)
Methyl-biphenyl
18
0.25 (0.01-2.13)
Methyl-naphthalene
52
0.77 (0.01-15.55)
Methyl-quinoline
31
0.96 (0.03-3.75)
Naphthalene
49
0.41 (0.01-6.57)
Octadecanoic acid
32
1.95 (1.62-3.73)
Octadecenoic acid
29
1.87 (1.60-3.47)
Phenol, 2,4-bis(l,l-dimethyl)
21
0.45 (0.01-4.94)
Phenol, 4-(l,l,3,3-tetramethyl)
17
1.65 (0.01-18.34)
Phenolic compounds
-
19.06 (ND-192.00)
Tetradecanoic acid
53
1.51(0.94-5.32)
Tributyl phosphate
23
0.26 (0.01-2.66)
Trimethyl-naphthalene
23
0.65 (0.01-4.49)
Triphenyl phosphate
6
1.18 (0.01-6.77)
no value available.
a DOE (2014). Concentrations were calculated based on the authors' raw data.
1	Haves (20091 characterized the content of Marcellus Shale produced water including organics (see
2	Table E-10). The author tested for the majority of VOCs and SVOCs, pesticides and PCBs, based on
3	the recommendation of the Pennsylvania and West Virginia Departments of Environmental
4	Protection. Only 0.5% of VOCs and 0.03% of SVOCs in the produced water were detected above
5	1 mg/L. Approximately 96% of VOCs, 98% of SVOCs, and virtually all pesticides and PCBs were at
6	nondetectable levels.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-30	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
E.2.7. Chemical Reactions
Section E.2.7.1 describes general aspects of subsurface chemical reactions that might occur during
hydraulic fracturing operations. Here we augment the discussion by describing subsurface chemical
processes.
E.2.7.1. Injected Chemical Processes
Hydraulic fracturing injects relatively oxygenated fluids into a reducing environment, which may
mobilize trace or major constituents into solution. Injection of oxygenated fluids may lead to
short-term changes in the subsurface redox state, as conditions may shift from reducing to
oxidizing. The chemical environment in hydrocarbon-rich unconventional reservoirs, such as black
shales, is generally reducing, as evidenced by the presence of pyrite and methane fEngle and
Rowan. 2014: Preset and Rose. 20101. For black shales, reducing conditions are a product of
original accumulations of organic matter whose decay depleted oxygen to create rich organic
sediments within oil- and gas-producing formations (Tourtelnt 11_ 9j Vine and Tourteiot. 19701.
Yet reactions resulting from temporary redox shifts are likely to be less important than those
resulting from other longer-term physical and geochemical processes. Temporary subsurface redox
shifts may be due to the short timeframe for fluid injection (a few days to a few weeks) and the use
of oxygen scavengers to prevent downhole equipment corrosion.
Hydraulic fracturing fluid injection introduces novel chemicals into the subsurface.1 As such, the
geochemistry of injected and native fluids will not be in equilibrium. Over the course of days to
months, a complex series of reactions will equilibrate disparate fluid chemistries. The evolution of
flowback and produced water geochemistry are dependent upon the exposure of formation solids
and fluids to novel chemicals within hydraulic fracturing fluid. Chemical additives interact with
reservoir solids and either mobilize constituents or themselves become adsorbed to solids. Such
additives include metallic salts, elemental complexes, salts of organic acids, organometallics, and
other metal compounds (Montgomery. 2013: Hon ;presentatives. 20111.
The salts, elemental complexes, organic acids, organometallics, and other metal-containing
compounds may interact with metals and metalloids in the target formation through processes
such as ion exchange, adsorption, desorption, chelation, and complexation. For instance, natural
organic ligands (e.g., citrate) are molecules that can form coordination compounds with heavy
metals such as cadmium, copper, and lead (Martinez and McBride, 2001: Stumm and Morgan. 1981:
Bloomfield et al. 19761. Citrate-bearing compounds are used in hydraulic fracturing fluids as
surfactants, iron control agents, and biocides. Studies of the additives' interactions with formation
solids at concentrations representative of hydraulic fracturing fluids are lacking.
Furthermore, pH will likely play a role in the nature and extent of these processes, as the low pH of
hydraulic fracturing fluids may mobilize trace constituents. The pH of injected fluids may differ
from existing subsurface conditions due to the use of dilute acids (e.g., hydrochloric or acetic) used
for cleaning perforations and fractures during hydraulic fracturing treatments (Montgomery. 2013:
1 For more information on chemical additive usage, refer to Chapter 5 (Chemical Mixing].
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-31 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
GWPC and ALL Consulting, 20091. Metals within formation solids may be released through the
dissolution of acid-soluble phases such as iron and manganese oxides or hydroxides (Yang et al,
2009: Kashem et al. 2007: Filgueiras et al. 20021. Thus, the pH of hydraulic fracturing fluids, or
changes in system pH that may occur as fluid recovery begins, may influence which metals and
metalloids are likely to be retained within the formation and which may be recovered in flowback.
Ultimately, more research is needed to fully understand how the injection of hydraulic fracturing
fluids affects subsurface geochemistry and resultant flowback and produced water chemistry.
E.2.8. Microbial Community Processes and Content
By design, hydraulic fracturing releases hydrocarbons and other reduced mineral species from
freshly fractured shale, sandstone, and coal, resulting in saltier in situ fluids, the release of
formation solids, and increased interconnected fracture networks with rich colonization surfaces
that are ideal for microbial growth (Wuchter etal. 2013: Curtis. 20021. Depending upon the
formation, microorganisms may be native to the subsurface and/or introduced from non-sterile
equipment and fracturing fluids. Additionally, microorganisms compete for novel organics in the
form of chemical additives (Wuchter etal. 2013: Arthur et al. 20091. Since large portions of
hydraulic fracturing fluid can remain emplaced in the targeted formation, long-term microbial
activity is supported through these novel carbon and energy resources (Qrem et al. 2014: Murali
Mohan etal. 2013a: Struchtemever and Elshahed. 2012: Bottero etal. 20101. Such physical and
chemical changes to the environment at depth stimulate microbial activity and influence flowback
and produced water content in important ways.
Several studies characterizing produced water from unconventional formations (i.e., the Barnett,
Marcellus, Utica, and Antrim Shales) indicate thattaxa with recurring physiologies compose shale
flowback and produced water microbial communities (Murali Mohan et al. 2013b: Wuchter et al.
20131. Such physiologies include sulfur cyclers (e.g., sulfidogens: sulfur, sulfate, and thiosulfate
reducers); fermenters; acetogens; hydrocarbon oxidizers; methanogens; and iron, manganese, and
nitrate reducers fDavis etal. 20121.
Based on their physiologies, microorganisms cycle substrates at depth by mobilizing or
sequestering constituents in and out of solution. Mobilization can occur through biomethylation,
complexation, and leaching. Sequestration can occur through intracellular sequestration,
precipitation, and sorption to biomass.
The extent to which constituents are mobilized or sequestered depends upon the prevailing
geochemical environment after hydraulic fracturing and through production. Significant
environmental factors that influence the extent of microbially mediated reactions are increases in
ionic content (i.e., salinity, conductivity, total nitrogen, bromide, iron, and potassium); decreases in
acidity, and organic and inorganic carbon; the availability of diverse electron acceptors and donors;
and the availability of sulfur-containing compounds (Cluffetal. 2014: Murali Mohan et al. 2013b:
Davis etal. 20121. Examples follow that illustrate how subsurface microbial activity influences the
content of produced water.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-32 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Under prevailing anaerobic and reducing conditions, microorganisms can mobilize or sequester
metals found in unconventional produced water (Gadd. 20041. Microbial enzymatic reduction
carried out by chromium-, iron-, manganese-, and uranium-reducing bacteria can both mobilize and
sequester metals fYanengelen et al, 2008: Garcia etal, 2004: Mata etal, 2002: Gauthier etal,
1992: Myers and Nealson, 1988: Lovlev and Phillips, "19861. For instance, iron and manganese
species go into solution when reduced, while chromium and uranium species precipitate when
reduced (Gadd. 2004: Newman. 2001: Ahmann et al.. 19941.
Metals can also be microbially solubilized by complexing with extracellular metabolites,
siderophores (metal-chelating compounds), and microbially generated bioligands (e.g., organic
acids) (Glorias etal. 2008: Francis. 2007: Gadd. 2004: Hernlem et al.. 19991. For example,
Pseudomonas spp. secrete acids that act as bioligands to form complexes with uranium(VI) (Glorius
et al.. 20081.
Many sulfur-cycling taxa have been found in hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water
communities fMurali Mohan etal. 2013b: Mohan etal. 20111. Immediately following injection,
microbial sulfate reduction is stimulated by diluting high-salinity formation waters with fresh
water (high salinities inhibit sulfate reduction). Microbial sulfate reduction oxidizes organic matter
and decreases aqueous sulfate concentrations, thereby increasing the solubility of barium (Cheung
et al. 2010: Lovlev and Chapelle. 19951.
Sulfidogens also reduce sulfate, as well as elemental sulfur and other sulfur species (e.g.,
thiosulfate) prevalent in the subsurface, contributing to biogenic sulfide or hydrogen sulfide gas in
produced water (Alain et al. 2002: Ravot et al. 19971. Sulfide can also sequester metals in sulfide
phases fRavot et al. 1997: Lovlev and Chapelle. "19951. Sources of sulfide also include formation
solids (e.g., pyrite in shale) and remnants of drilling muds (e.g., barite and sulfonates), or other
electron donor sources (Davis etal. 2012: Kim etal. 2010: Collado etal. 2009: Grabowski et al.
20051.
Additionally, anaerobic hydrocarbon oxidizers associated with shale produced water can readily
degrade simple and complex carbon compounds across a considerable salinity and redox range
(Murali Mohan et al. 2013b: Fichter etal. 2012: Timmis. 2010: Lalucat et al. 2006: Yakimov etal.
2005: McGowan et al. 2004: Hedlund et al. 2001: Cavol etal. 1994: Gauthier et al. 1992: Zeikus et
al. 19831.
Lastly, microbial fermentation produces organic acids, alcohols, and gases under anaerobic
conditions, as is the case during methanogenesis. Some nitrogen-cycling genera have been
identified in unconventional shale gas systems. These include genera involved in nitrate reduction
and denitrification fKim et al. 2010: Yoshizawa et al. ; lizawa et al. 2009: Lalucat et al.
20061. These genera likely couple sugar, organic carbon, and sulfur species oxidation to nitrate
reduction and denitrification processes.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-33 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Consequently, using a variety of recurring physiologies, microorganisms mobilize and sequester
constituents in and out of solution to influence the content of flowback and produced water in
important ways.
E.3. Produced Water Content Spatial Trends
E.3.1. Variability between Plays of the Same Rock Type
E.3.1.1. Shale Formation Variability
The content of shale produced water varies geographically, as shown by data from four formations
(the Bakken, Barnett, Fayetteville, and Marcellus Shales; see Table E-2, Table E-4, Table E-6, Table
E-9, Table E-10). For several constituents, variability between shale formations is common. The
average/median TDS concentrations in the Marcellus (87,800 to 106,390 mg/L) and Bakken
(196,000 mg/L) Shales are one order of magnitude greater than the average TDS concentrations
reported for the Barnett and Fayetteville Shales (see Table E-2). As Fayetteville produced water
contains the lowest reported average TDS concentration (13,290 mg/L), average concentrations for
many inorganics (i.e., bromide, calcium, chloride, magnesium, sodium, and strontium) that
contribute to dissolved solids loads are the lowest compared to average concentrations for the
same inorganics in Bakken, Barnett, and Marcellus produced water (see Table E-4 and Table E-6).
Average concentrations for metals reported within Bakken and Marcellus produced water are also
higher than those within the Barnett or Fayetteville formations (see Table E-6).
Additionally, Marcellus produced water is enriched in barium (average concentration of 2,224 mg/1
in Barbot et al. (20131 or median calculated from Hayes (20091 of 542.5 mg/L) and strontium
(average concentration of 1,695 mg/L (Barbot etal, 2013) or median calculated from Haves
f20091of 1,240 mg/L) by one to three orders of magnitude compared to Bakken, Barnett, and
Fayetteville produced water (see Table E-6). Subsequently, radionuclide variability expressed as
isotopic ratios (e.g., radium-228/radium-226, strontium-87/strontium-86) are being used to
determine the reservoir source for produced water (Chapman et al. 2012: Rowan etal. 2011:
Blauch et al. 2009). Lastly, Barnett and Bakken produced waters are enriched in sulfate.
Although organic data are limited, average BTEX concentrations are higher in Marcellus compared
to Barnett produced water by one order of magnitude, whereas concentrations of benzene alone
are marginally higher in Barnett compared to Marcellus produced water (see Table E-9 and Table
E-10).
E.3.1.2. Tight Formation Variability
The average concentrations for various constituents in tight formation produced water vary
geographically between sandstone formations (the Cotton Valley Group, Devonian sandstone, and
the Mesaverde and Oswego), as shown in Table E-2, Table E-4, and Table E-6. The average TDS
concentrations in the Devonian sandstone (235,125 mg/L) and Cotton Valley Group
(164,683 mg/L) are one to two orders of magnitude greater than the average TDS concentrations
reported for the Mesaverde (15,802 mg/L) and Oswego Formations (73,082 mg/L) (see Table E-2).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-34 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Mesaverde produced water also contained the lowest average concentrations for many of the
inorganic components of TDS (i.e., calcium, chloride, iron, magnesium, and sodium; see Table E-4
and Table E-6).
Little variability was reported in pH between these four tight formations (see Table E-2).
Mesaverde produced water was enriched in sulfate, with an average concentration of 837 mg/L
(see Table E-4), whereas Devonian produced water was enriched in barium, which had an average
concentration of 1,488 mg/L (see Table E-6).
E.3.1.3. Coalbed Variability
Geochemical analysis showed that the Powder River Basin is predominately characterized by
bicarbonate water types with a large intrusion of sodium-type waters across a large range of
magnesium and calcium concentrations (Dahm etal. 2011).1 In contrast, the Raton Basin is typified
by sodium-type waters with low calcium and magnesium concentrations. A combination of Powder
River and Raton produced water compositional characteristics typifies the San Juan Basin (Dahm et
al. 20111. Lastly, Black Warrior Basin produced water is differentiated based upon its sodium
bicarbonate- or sodium chloride-type waters (DOE. 2014: Pashin et al.. 2014).
Regional variability is observed in average produced water concentrations for various constituents
of four CBM basins (Powder River, Raton, San Juan, and Black Warrior; see Table E-3, Table E-5,
Table E-7, Table E-9, and Table E-ll), but particularly between produced water of the Black
Warrior Basin and the others. As the average TDS concentration in Black Warrior Basin produced
water (14,319 mg/L) is one to two orders of magnitude higher than that of the other three
presented in Table E-3, average concentrations for TDS contributing ions (i.e., calcium, chloride,
and sodium) were also higher than in the Powder River, Raton, and San Juan Basins. These high
levels follow from the marine depositional environment of the Black Warrior Basin (Horsey. 1981).
Powder River Basin produced water has the lowest average TDS concentration (997 mg/L), which
is consistent with Dahm et al. f 20111 reporting that nearly a quarter of all the produced water
sampled from the Powder River Basin meets the U.S. drinking water secondary standard for TDS
(less than 500 mg/L).2 In addition, the Black Warrior Basin appears to be slightly enriched in
barium, compared to the other three CBM basins (see Table E-5). Lastly, the three western CBM
basins (Powder River, Raton, and San Juan) are much more alkaline and enriched in bicarbonate
than their eastern counterpart (the Black Warrior Basin; see Table E-3).
1 Water is classified as a "type" if the dominant dissolved ion is greater than 50% of the total. A sodium-type water
contains more that 50% of the cation milliequivalents (mEq] as sodium. Similarly, a sodium-bicarbonate water contains
50%o of the cation mEq as sodium, and 50%> of the anion mEq as bicarbonate (USGS. 2002).
2 MCL refers to the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are enforceable standards.
These include primary MCLs for barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and selenium. National Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations (NSDWRs or secondary standards] are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may
cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration] or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color] in drinking
water. Secondary MCLs are recommended for aluminum, chloride, copper, iron, manganese, pH, silver, sulfate, TDS, and
others. See http://water.epa.gOv/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#Primary for more information.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-35 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Average concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes are higher in San Juan compared to
Raton produced water by two orders of magnitude, whereas concentrations of toluene are
marginally higher in Raton compared to San Juan produced water (see Table E-9).
E.3.2. Local Variability
Spatial variability of produced water content frequently exists within a single producing formation.
For instance, Marcellus Shale barium levels increase along a southwest to northeast transect
(Barbot et al. 20131. Additionally, produced water from the northern and southern portions of the
San Juan Basin differ in TDS, due to ground water recharge in the northern basin leading to higher
chloride concentrations than in the southern portion fDahm etal. 2011: Van Voast. 20031.
Spatial variability of produced water content also exists at a local level due to the stratigraphy
surrounding the producing formation. For example, deep saline aquifers, if present in the over- or
underlying strata, may over geologic time encroach upon shales, coals, and sandstones via fluid
intrusion processes fBlauch et al.. 20091. Evidence of deep brine migration from adjacent strata into
shallow aquifers via natural faults and fractures has been noted previously in the Michigan Basin
and the Marcellus Shale (Vengosh et al.. 2014: Warner etal. 2012: Weaver etal.. 19951. By
extension, in situ hydraulic connectivity, which is stimulated by design during hydraulic fracturing,
may lead to the migration of brine-associated constituents in under- and overlying strata into
producing formations, as discussed in Chapter 6.
As hydrocarbon source rocks often form repeating sedimentary sequences, contact between these
layers presents opportunities for an exchange of organics and inorganics fFredrickson and Balkwill.
2006: U.S. EPA. 20041. For instance, diffusion of carbon sources and electron donors occurs at
subsurface shale-sandstone interfaces, suggesting a stratigraphic role in the exchange of
constituents between formations (Fredrickson and Balkwill. 20061.
E.4. Example Calculation for Roadway Transport
This section provides background information for the roadway transport calculation appearing in
Chapter 7.
E.4.1. Estimation of Transport Distance
In a study of wastewater management for the Marcellus Shale, Rahm et al. ("20131 used data
reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) to estimate the
average distance wastewater was transported. For the period from 2008 to 2010, the distance
transported was approximately 100 km, but it was reduced by 30% for 2011. The reduction was
attributed to increased treatment infrastructure in Lycoming County, an area of intensive hydraulic
fracturing operations in northeastern Pennsylvania. For the part of Pennsylvania within the
Susquehanna River Basin, Gilmore et al. (2 estimated the likely transport distances for drilling
waste to landfills (256 km or 159 mi); produced water to disposal wells (388 km or 241 mi); and
commercial wastewater treatment plants (CWTPs) (158 km or 98 mi). These distances are longer
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-36 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
than the values from Rahm etal. ("20131. in part, because wells in the Susquehanna Basin are
further to the east of Ohio disposal wells and some CWTPs.
E.4.2. Estimation of Wastewater Volumes
In an example water balance calculation, Gilmore et al. f20131 used 380,000 gal of flowback as the
volume transported to CWTPs, 450,000 gal of flowback transported to injection wells, and 130,000
gal of un-reusable treated water also transported to injection wells for a total estimated wastewater
volume of 960,000 gal per well.
E.4.3. Estimation of Roadway Accidents
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published statistics on roadway accidents flJ.S.
Department of Transportation. 20121 which indicate that the combined total of combination truck
crashes in 2012 was 179,736, or 110 per 100 million vehicle miles (1.77 million km) (see Table
E-12). As an indicator of the uncertainty of these data, DOT reported 122,240 large truck crashes
from a differing set of databases (see Table E-13), with a rate of 75 per 100 million vehicle miles,
which is 68% of the number of combination truck crashes.
Table E-12. Combination truck crashes in 2012 for the 2,469,094 registered combination
trucks, which traveled 163,458 million miles (U.S. Department of Transportation,
2012).a
Type of crash
Combination trucks
involved in crashes
Rates per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled by combination trucks
Property damage only
135,000
82.8
Injury
42,000
25.5
Fatal
2,736
1.74
Total
179,736
110
a A combination truck is defined as a truck tractor pulling any number of trailers (U.S. Department of Transportation. 2012).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-37 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-13. Large truck crashes in 2012 (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012).a
Type of crash
Total crashes
Large trucks with cargo tanks
Number
Percentage
Towaway crashes
72,644
4,364
6.0%
Injury
45,794
3,245
7.1%
Fatal
3,802
360
9.5%
Totals
122,240
7,969
6.5%
a A large truck is defined as a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds (U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2012).
E.4.4. Estimation of Material Release Rates in Crashes
Estimates ranging from 5.6% to 36% have been made for the probability of material releases from
crashed trucks. Craft (20041 used data from three databases to estimate the probability of spills in
fatality accidents at 36%, which may overestimate the probability for all types of accidents fRozell
and Reaven. 20121.1 The U.S. Department of Transportation ("20121 provides estimates of
hazardous materials releases from large truck crashes. For all types of hazardous materials carried,
408 of 2,903 crashes, or 14%, were known to have hazardous materials releases. The occurrence of
a release was unknown for 18% of the crashes. These crashes were not distinguished by truck type,
so they likely overestimated the number of tanker crashes. Harwood etal. f 19931 used accident
data from three states (California, Illinois, and Michigan) to develop hazardous materials release
rate estimates for different types of roadways, accidents, and settings (urban or rural). For
roadways in rural settings the probability of release ranged from 8.1% to 9.0%, while in urban
settings the probability ranged from 5.6% to 6.9%.
E.4.5. Estimation of Volume Released in Accidents
Based on the estimated volume (960,000 gal (3.63 million L) per well) and disposal distances used
by Rahm et al. (20131 and Gilmore et al. (20131. and an assumed 20,000 L (5,300 gal)-containing
truck fGilmore et al.. 20131. the total travel distance by trucks ranges from 9,620 miles (14,900 km)
to 17,760 miles (28,570 km) per well (see Table E-14).
1 The three databases were the Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents developed by the Center for National Truck Statistics at
the University of Michigan, the National Automotive Sampling System's General Estimates System (GES] produced by the
National Highway Transportation Safety Agency, and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS] Crash
File produced by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-38 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Table E-14. Estimate of total truck-travel miles per well in the Susquehanna River Basin based
on the transport analysis performed by Gilmore et al. (2013).
Action
Waste per well
(million gal)
Trucks
(20 m3/truck)
Miles
traveled
per truck
Total miles
traveled
(per well)
Material release rate bounds
5.6%
36%
Crashes per 100 million miles
75
110
75
110
Gilmore et al. (20131 distance estimates
Produced water
to CWTP
0.38
72
26.9
1,937

Produced water
to disposal well
0.45
85
147
12,495

CWTP effluent to
disposal well
0.13
25
133
3,325

Total
0.96
182

17,757
3
4
18
27
Rahm et al. (2013) distance estimates
Transport 100 km
0.96
182
62.1
11,300
2
3
12
17
Transport 70 km
0.96
182
43.5
9,620
1
2
8
12
1 The Susquehanna River Basin Commission reported 1,928 well pads permitted within the basin
2 (SRBC. 20121. Assuming two wells per pad, the total distance traveled to haul hydraulic fracturing
3 wastewater is 68.4 million miles (110 million km).
4 Combining these data with the DOT crash data gives an estimated 76 crashes per year using the
5 combination truck crash rate or 52 per year using the DOT large truck crash rate. Based on the
6 various assumptions of travel distances, crash rates, and estimated minimum and maximum
7 material release rates, the number of crashes with releases ranges from 1 to 27 (see Table E-14).
8 Several limitations are inherent in this analysis, including differing rural road accident rates and
9 highway rates, differing wastewater endpoints, and differing amounts of produced water transport
10 Further, the estimates present an upper bound on impacts, because not all releases of wastewater
11 would reach or impact drinking water resources.
E.5. References for Appendix E
Acharya, HR; Henderson. C; Matis, H; Kommepalli, H; Moore, B; Wang, H. (2011). Cost effective recovery of
low-TDS frac flowback water for reuse. (Department of Energy: DE-FE0000784). Niskayuna, NY: GE Global
Research. http://www.netl.doe.gov/file%201ibrarv/Research/oil-gas/FE0000784 FinalReportpdf
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 E-39 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Ahmann, D: Roberts, AL: Krumholz, LR: Morel, FM, (1994). Microbe grows by reducing arsenic [Letter],
Nature 371: 750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/37175Qa0
Alain, K: Pignet, P: Zbinden, M: Quillevere, M: Duchiron, F: Donval, IP: Lesongeur, F: Raguenes, G: Crassous, P:
Ouerellou, I: Cambon-Bonavita, MA, (2002). Caminicella sporogenes gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel
thermophilic spore-forming bacterium isolated from an East-Pacific Rise hydrothermal vent. Int J Syst
Evol Microbiol 52:1621-1628.
Andre, L: Rabemanana, ¥: Vuataz. FD, (2006). Influence of water-rock interactions on fracture permeability of
the deep reservoir at Soultz-sous-Forets, France. Geothermics 35: 507-531.
M;	ioi.Org/10.1016/i.geothermics.2006.09.006
Arthur, ID: Bofam, B: Corntte, D, (2009). Environmental considerations of modern shale gas development.
Paper presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 4-7, 2009, New Orleans, LA.
Bank, T, (2011). Trace metal geochemistry and mobility in the Marcellus shale. In Proceedings of the
Technical Workshops for the Hydraulic Fracturing Study: Chemical & Analytical Methods. Bank, T.
http://www2,epa,gov/sites/productjon/fiIes/documents/tracemetaIgeochemistryandmobiIityinthemarc
Bank, T: Fortson, LA: Malizia, TR: Benelli, P, (2012). Trace metal occurrences in the Marcellus Shale
[Abstract], Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 44: 313.
Barbot. E: Vidic, NS: Gregory, KB: Vidic, RD, (2013). Spatial and temporal correlation of water quality
parameters of produced waters from Devonian-age shale following hydraulic fracturing. Environ Sci
Technol 47: 2562-2569.
Benko, KL: Drewes, IE, (2008). Produced water in the Western United States: Geographical distribution,
occurrence, and composition. Environ Eng Sci 25: 239-246.
Blattch, ME: Myers, RR: Moore, TR: Lipinski, BA, (2009). Marcellus shale post-frac flowback waters - where is
all the salt coming from and what are the implications? In Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting. Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Blondes, MS: Gans, KD: Thordsen, II: Reidv, ME: Thomas, B: Engle, MA: Kharaka, YK: Rowan, EL, (2014). Data:
U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.0 (Provisional) [Database]:
U.S. Geological Survey:: USGS. Retrieved from
http://energy.usgs.gQv/EnvironmentalAspects/EnvironmentalAspectsofEnergyProductionandUse/Produ
cedW aters, aspx#3822349-data
Bloomfield, C: Kelson, W: Pruden, G, (1976). Reactions between metals and humidified organic matter.
Journal of Soil Science 27:16-31. http: //dx.doi.Org/10.llll /il365-2389.1976.tb01971.x
Bottero, S: Picioreanu, C: Delft, TU: Enzien. M: van Loosdrecht. MCM: Braining. H: Heimovaara. T, (2010).
Formation damage and impact on gas flow caused by biofilms growing within proppant packing used in
hydraulic fracturing. Paper presented at SPE International Symposium and Exhibiton on Formation
Damage Control, February 10-12, 2010, Lafayette, Louisiana.
BTGS (Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey). (2011). Geochemical analyses of selected lithologies
from geologic units in central, north-central, and southeastern Pennsylvania. (OFMI 1101.0). Middletown,
PA: Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Pennsylvania Geological Survey.
Cayol, IL: Ollivier, B: Lawson anani soh, A: Fardeau, ML: Ageron, E: Grimont, PAD: Prensier, G: Guezennec, I;
Magot, M: Garcia, IL, (1994). Haloincola saccharolytica subsp. senegalensis subsp. nov., Isolated from the
sediments of a Hypersaline lake, and emended description of Haloincola saccharolytica. International
Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 44: 805-811. http://dx.doi. org/10,1099/002 07713-44-4-805
Chapman, EC: Capo, RC: Stewart. BW: Kirbv, CS: Hammack. RW: Schroeder, KT: Edenborn, HM, (2012).
Geochemical and strontium isotope characterization of produced waters from Marcellus Shale natural gas
extraction. Environ Sci Technol 46: 3545-3553.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-40	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Chermak, IA: Schreiber, ME, (2014). Mineralogy and trace element geochemistry of gas shales in the United
States: Environmental implications. Int J Coal Geol 126: 32-44.
htt p Ih doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2 013.12.005
Cheung. K: Klassen. P: Mayer. B: Goodarzi. F: Aravena. R. (2010). Major ion and isotope geochemistry of fluids
and gases from coalbed methane and shallow groundwater wells in Alberta, Canada. Appl Geochem 25:
1307-1329. hU	ipi.org/10.1016/i.apgeochem.2010.06.002
Choppin. GR. (2006). Actinide speciation in aquatic systems. Mar Chem 99: 83-92.
htlp j' d \ doi.org/10.1016/j.marcheni.2005.003.011
Choppin, GR. (2007). Actinide speciation in the environment. Journal of Radioanal Chem 273: 695-703.
trU	ioi,org/10,1007/sl0967-007-0933-3
Clark, CE: Veil, IA, (2009). Produced water volumes and management practices in the United States (pp. 64).
(ANL/EVS/R-09/1). Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory.
httniZZwim^^
content/upIoads/2010/09/ANL EVS R09 produced water volume report 2437.pdf
Clttff, M; Hartsock. A: Macrae. I: Carter. K: Mottser. PI. (2014). Temporal changes in microbial ecology and
geochemistry in produced water from hydraulically fractured Marcellus Shale Gas Wells. Environ Sci
Technol 48: 6508-6517. !i0	ioi.org/10.1021/es501173p
Collado, L: Cleenwerck, I: Van Trappen, S: De Vos, P: Figueras, Ml (2009). Arcobacter mytili sp. nov., an
indoxyl acetate-hydrolysis-negative bacterium isolated from mussels. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 59:1391-
1396. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1099/iis.0.003749-0
Craft. R. (2004). Crashes involving trucks carrying hazardous materials. (FMCSA-RI-04-024). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. http:/ /ntl.bts.gOv/lib/51000/51300/51302 /fmcsa-ri-04-024.pdf
Curtis, IB, (2002). Fractured shale-gas systems. AAPG Bulletin 86:1921-1938.
htl ioi.org/10.1306/61EEDDBE-173E-11D7-8645000102C1865D
Dahm, KG: Guerra, KL: Xu, P: Drewes, IE, (2011). Composite geochemical database for coalbed methane
produced water quality in the Rocky Mountain region. Environ Sci Technol 45: 7655-7663.
fatfp .'.\h doi.org/10.lQ21/es20102In
Davis, IP: Struchtemeyer, CG: Elshahed, MS, (2012). Bacterial communities associated with production
facilities of two newly drilled thermogenic natural gas wells in the Barnett Shale (Texas, USA). Microb Ecol
64: 942-954. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00248-012-0Q73-3
Diehl. SF: Goldhaber, MB: Hatch, JR. (2004). Modes of occurrence of mercury and other trace elements in coals
from the warrior field, Black Warrior Basin, Northwestern Alabama. Int J Coal Geol 59:193-208.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.lQ16/icoaI.2 004,02,003
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). (2014). Water management strategies for improved coalbed methane
production in the Black Warrior Basin. Available online athttp://wwm/.netI.(ioe.gov/research/oiI-and-
gas/project-summaries/natural -gas-resources/de-feQ000888
Dresel, PE: Rose, AW, (2010). Chemistry and origin of oil and gas well brines in western Pennsylvania (pp.
48). (Open-File Report OFOG 1001.0). Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser.
htto;//wyvw.marcellus.psu.edu/resQurces/PDFs/brines.pdf
Engle. MA: Rowan. EL, (2014). Geochemical evolution of produced waters from hydraulic fracturing of the
Marcellus Shale, northern Appalachian Basin: A multivariate compositional data analysis approach. Int J
Coal Geol 126: 45-56. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.ll.010
Fertl. WH: Chilingar, GV, (1988). Total organic carbon content determined from well logs. SPE Formation
Evaluation 3: 407-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15612 -PA
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-41	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Fichter, I: Moore, R: Braman. S: Wttneh,K; _Summer, E: Holmes, P, (2012). How hot is too hot for bacteria? A
technical study assessing bacterial establishment in downhole drilling, fracturing, and stimulation
operations. Paper presented at NACE International Corrosion Conference & Expo, March 11-15,2012, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Filgueiras, AV; La villa, I: Bendicho, C, (2002). Chemical sequential extraction for metal partitioning in
environmental solid samples. J Environ Monit 4: 823-857. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/MQ7574c
Fisher, IG; Santamaria, A, (2002). Dissolved organic constituents in coal-associated waters and implications
for human and ecosystem health. Paper presented at 9th Annual International Petroleum Environmental
Conference, October 22-25, 2002, Albuquerque, NM.
Fisher, RS, (1998). Geologic and geochemical controls on naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in
produced water from oil, gas, and geothermal operations. Environmental Geosciences 5:139-150.
htl	ioi,org/10,1046/1152 6-0984,1998,08018.x
Francis, AI, (2007). Microbial mobilization and immobilization of plutonium. J Alloy Comp 444: 500-505.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.iallcom.2007.01.132
Fredrickson, IK: Balkwill, PL, (2006). Geomicrobial processes and biodiversity in the deep terrestrial
subsurface. Geomicrobiology Journal 23: 345-356. http://dx.doi.org/10,1080/01490450600875571
Gadd, GM, (2004). Microbial influence on metal mobility and application for bioremediation. Geoderma 122:
109-119. http: //dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.geoderma.2004.01.002
Garcia, MT: Mellado, E: Ostos, fC: Ventosa. A, (2004). Halomonas organivorans sp. nov., a moderate halophile
able to degrade aromatic compounds. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54:1723-1728.
htl	ioi org/10.1099/ijs. 0,63114-0
Gauthier, MI: Lafav, B: Christen. R: Fernandez, k Acqttaviva, M: Bonin. P: Bertrand. IC, (1992). Marinobacter
hydrocarbonoclasticus gen. nov., sp. nov., a New, Extremely Halotolerant, Hydrocarbon-Degrading Marine
Bacterium. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 42: 568-576.
htl	ioi,org/10,1099/002 07713-42-4-568
Gilmore, K: Hupp, R: Glathar, I, (2013). Transport of Hydraulic Fracturing Water and Wastes in the
Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania. J Environ Eng 140: B4013002.
' '<-K doiorg/10.1061/fASCElEE.1943-7870.0000810
Glorius, M: Moll, H: Geipel, G: Bernhard, G, (2008). Complexation of uranium(VI) with aromatic acids such as
hydroxamic and benzoic acid investigated by TRLFS. Journal of Radioanal Chem 277: 371-377.
htj	ioi,org/10,1007/sl0967-007-7082-6
Grabowski, A: Nercessian, 0: Favolle, F: Blanchet. D: feanthon. C, (2005). Microbial diversity in production
waters of a low-temperature biodegraded oil reservoir. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 54: 427-443.
htl	ioi.or g/10,1016/j, femsec,2 005,05,007
GWPC and ALL Consulting (Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and ALL Consulting). (2009). Modern
shale gas development in the United States: A primer. (DE-FG26-04NT15455). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory.
http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/Shale%20Gas%20Primer%202009.pdf
Haluszczak. LP: Rose, AW; Rump,LR. (2013). Geochemical evaluation of flowbackbrine from Marcellus gas
wells in Pennsylvania, USA. Appl Geochem 28: 55-61.
htl	ioi.or g/10,1016/j, apgeochem.2012,10,002
Harwood, DW: Viner, IG; Russell, ER, (1993). Procedure for developing truck accident and release rates for
hazmat routing. Journal of Transportation Engineering 119:189-199.
htl	ioi,org/10,1061/fASCE10733-947.Xfl99 31119:2 (189)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-42	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Hatch, IK: Leventhal, IS, (1981). Geochemistry of organic-rich shales and coals from middle Pennsylvanian
Cherokee group and lower part of Marmaton group, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa [Abstract],
AAPG Bulletin 65: 936.
Hayes, T, (2009). Sampling and analysis of water streams associated with the development of Marcellus shale
gas. Des Plaines, IL: Marcellus Shale Coalition, http: / / ei dinar eel 1 us, org/ wp -
content/uploads/2 012/ll/MSCommission-Reportpdf
Hayes, T; Severin, BF, (2012b). Evaluation of the aqua-pure mechanical vapor recompression system in the
treatment of shale gas flowback water - Barnett and Appalachian shale water management and reuse
technologies. (08122-05.11). Hayes, T; Severin, BF. http://barnettehalewater.org/documents/08122-
05.11-EvaluationofMVR-3-12-2012.pdf
Hedlund, BP: Geiselbrecht. AD: Stalev, IT, (2001). Marinobacter strain NCE312 has a Pseudomonas-like
naphthalene dioxygenase. FEMS Microbiol Lett 201: 47-51.
Hemlem, BI: Vane. LM: Savles, GD, (1999). The application of siderophores for metal recovery and waste
remediation: Examination of correlations for prediction of metal affinities. Water Res 33: 951-960.
Horsey, CA, (1981). Depositional environments of the Pennsylvanian Pottsville Formation in the Black
Warrior Basin of Alabama. Journal of Sedimentary Research 51: 799-806.
http://dx.doi.Qrg/10.1306/212F7DB5-2B24-llD7-8648000102C1865D
House of Representatives (U.S. House of Representatives). (2011). Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Minority Staff.
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic-Fracturing-
Chemicals-2 011-4-18.pdf
Kashem. MA: Singh, BR: Kondo, T: Httq, SMI: Kawai. S, (2007). Comparison of extractability of Cd, Cu, Pb and
Zn with sequential extraction in contaminated and non-contaminated soils. Int J Environ Sci Tech 4: 169-
176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03326270
Katsoviannis, A: Samara, C, (2007). The fate of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the wastewater treatment
process and its importance in the removal of wastewater contaminants. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 14: 284-
292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/espr2006.05.302
Kim, HM: Hwang, CY: Cho, BC, (2010). Arcobacter marinus sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 60: 531-536.
MJ	ioi.org/10.1099/iis.0.007740-0
Kraemer. TF: Reid, DF, (1984). The occurrence and behavior of radium in saline formation water of the U.S.
Gulf Coast region. Isotope Geoscience 2:153-174.
Lalucat. f: Bennasar, A: Bosch, R: Garcia-Valdes, E: Palleroni, Nj, (2006). Biology of Pseudomonas stutzeri
[Review], Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 70: 510-547. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.0C
Langmuir, D: Herman, IS, (1980). The mobility of thorium in natural waters at low temperatures. Geochim
Cosmo Act 44: 1753-1766. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037f80190226-4
Langmuir, D: Riese. AC. (1985). THE THERMODYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF RADIUM. Geochim Cosmo Act 49:
1593-1601.
Lee, K: Neff. I, (2011). Produced water: Environmental risks and advances in mitigation technologies. New
York, NY: Springer. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-l-4614-0Q46-2
Leventhal, IS: Hosterman, IW, (1982). Chemical and mineralogical analysis Of Devonian black-shale samples
from Martin County, Kentucky - Caroll and Washington counties, Ohio - Wise County, Virginia - and
Overton County, Tennessee, USA. Chem Geol 37: 239-264.
Li, L: Brantley, SL, (2 011). Development of a subsurface reactive transport model for predicting potential
water quality problems at Marcellus shale. (USGS Project 2011PA159B). Li, L; Brantley, SL.
http://water.usgs.gov/wrri/2011grants/progress/2011PA159B.pdf
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-43	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Lovlev, PR: Chapelle, FH, (1995). Deep subsurface microbial processes. Rev Geophys 33: 365-381.
htl	ioi.ore/10.1029/95RG01305
Lovlev. PR: Phillips. EI. (1986). Organic matter mineralization with reduction of ferric iron in anaerobic
sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 51: 683-689.
Martinez. CE: McBride. MB. (2001). Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn coprecipitates in Fe oxide formed at different pH: Aging
effects on metal solubility and extractability by citrate. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:122-126.
fatl	ioi.org/10.1002/etc.5620200112
Mata,lA: Martmez-Canoyas.J; Ouesada, E: Bejar. ¥. (2002). A detailed phenotypic characterisation of the type
strains of Halomonas species. Syst Appl Microbiol 25: 360-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/0723-2020-
00122
Maxwell. SC. (2011). Hydraulic fracture height growth. Recorder 36: 18-22.
McGowan, L: Herbert. R: Mttyzer, G. (2004). A comparative study of hydrocarbon degradation by
Marinobacter sp., Rhodococcus sp. and Corynebacterium sp. isolated from different mat systems. Ophelia
58: 271-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00785236.2004.1041Q235
McLin, K: Brinton. D: Moore. I, (2011). Geochemical modeling of water-rock-proppant interactions. Thirty-
Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, January 31 - February 2,2011, Stanford University,
Stanford, California.
Mohan. AM: Gregory. KB: Vidic. RD: Miller. P: Hammack. RW. (2011). Characterization of microbial diversity
in treated and untreated flowback water impoundments from gas fracturing operations. Paper presented
atSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 30 - November 2, 2011, Denver, CO.
Montgomery. C. (2013). Fracturing fluid components. In A Bunder; J McLennon; R Jeffrey (Eds.), Effective and
Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing. Croatia: InTech. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56422
Moses. CO: Herman. IS. (1991). Pyrite oxidation at circumneutral pH. Geochim Cosmo Act 55: 471-482.
Murali Mohan. A: Hartsock. A: Bibby. KI: Hammack. RW: Vidic. RD: Gregory. KB. (2013a). Microbial
community changes in hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water from shale gas extraction. Environ
Sci Technol 47:13141-13150. http://dx.doi.org/10.102l/es402928b
Murali Mohan. A: Hartsock. A: Hammack. RW: Vidic. RD: Gregory. KB. (2013b). Microbial communities in
flowback water impoundments from hydraulic fracturing for recovery of shale gas. FEMS Microbiol Ecol.
try	ioi.org/10.1111/1574-6941.12183
Muvlaert. K: Dasseville, R: De Brabandere. L: Dehairs. F: Vvverman. W. (2005). Dissolved organic carbon in
the freshwater tidal reaches of the Schelde estuary. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 64: 591-600.
htl	ioi.org/10.1016/iecss.20Q5.04.010
Myers, CR; Nealson, KH. (1988). Bacterial manganese reduction and growth with manganese oxide as the sole
electron acceptor. Science 240:1319-1321. http://dx.doi.org/10.ri26/science.240.4857.1319
Newman. DK. (2001). Microbiology - How bacteria respire minerals. Science 292:1312-1313.
htl	ioi.org/10.1126/science.1060572
Nordstrom. DK: Alpers. CN. (1999). Geochemistry of acid mine waters. In GS Plumlee; MJ Logsdon (Eds.), The
Environmental Geochemistry of Mineral Deposits Part A: Processes, Techniques, and Health Issues Society
of Economic Geologists, Denver (pp. 133-160). Littleton, CO: Society of Economic Geologists.
Or em, W: Tatu, C: Varonka, M: Lerch, H: Bates. A: Engle, M: Crosby. L: Mcintosh, I, (2014). Organic substances
in produced and formation water from unconventional natural gas extraction in coal and shale. Int J Coal
Geol 126: 20-31. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.coa1.2014.01.003
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-44	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Orem, WH: Tatit, GA: Lerch, HE: Rice. CA: Bartos, TT: Bates, AL: Tewalt, S: Contm, MP, (2007). Organic
compounds in produced waters from coalbed natural gas wells in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA.
Appl Geochem 22: 2240-2256. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.apgeochem.2007.04.010
PAJDEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). (2015). Technologically enhanced naturally
occurring radioactive materials (TENORM) study report. Harrisburg, PA.
http://www.elibrarv.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-105822/PA-DEP-TENORM-
Studv Report Rev. 0 01-15-2015.pdf
Pashin. IC: Mcintvre-Redden. MR: Mann. SD: Kopaska-Merkel. DC: Varonka. M: Orem. W. (2014). Relationships
between water and gas chemistry in mature coalbed methane reservoirs of the Black Warrior Basin. Int J
Coal Geol 126: 92-105. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.10.002
Rabin, BG: Bates. IT: Bertoia. LR: Galford. AE: Yoxtheimer. DA: Riha. SI, (2013). Wastewater management and
Marcellus Shale gas development: trends, drivers, and planning implications. J Environ Manage 120: 105-
113. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.ienvman.2013.02.029
Ravot, G: Magot, M: Ollivier, B: Patel, BK: Ageron, E: Grimont, PA: Thomas, P: Garcia, JL (1997).
Haloanaerobium congolense sp. nov., an anaerobic, moderately halophilic, thiosulfate- and sulfur-reducing
bacterium from an African oil field. FEMS Microbiol Lett 147: 81-88.
Rice, CA: Flores, RM: Strieker, GD: Ellis, MS, (2008). Chemical and stable isotopic evidence for water/rock
interaction and biogenic origin of coalbed methane, Fort Union Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming
and Montana USA. Int J Coal Geol 76: 76-85. http: //cix.cioi.org/10.1016/icoai.2008.05.002
Rowan. EL: Engle, MA: Kirby. CS: Kraemer. TF, (2011). Radium content of oil- and gas-field produced waters
in the northern Appalachian Basin (USA): Summary and discussion of data. (Scientific Investigations
Report 20115135). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, h tip: / / p ub s. us gs. go v / s i r /2 011/513 5/
Rozell, PI: Reaven, SI, (2012). Water pollution risk associated with natural gas extraction from the Marcellus
Shale. Risk Anal 32:13821393. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.1539-6924.2011.01757.x
Sirivedhin, T: Dallbauman, L, (2004). Organic matrix in produced water from the Osage-Skiatook petroleum
environmental research site, Osage county, Oklahoma. Chemosphere 57: 463-469.
SRBC, (2012). Flowback and Produced Water Volume.
Stepan, 131: Shoekey, RE: Kttrz, BA: Kalenze, MS: Cowan. RM: Zitnan. II: Hariu, I A, (2010). Bakken water
opportunities assessment: Phase I. (2010-EERC-04-03). Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Industrial
Commission. http://www.nd.gov/ndic/ogrp/info/g-018-036-fi.pdf
Struchtemever, CG: Elshahed, MS, (2012). Bacterial communities associated with hydraulic fracturing fluids in
thermogenic natural gas wells in North Central Texas, USA. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 81: 13-25.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/i.1574-6941.2011.01196.x
Stunitn, W: Morgan. II, (1981). Aquatic chemistry: An introduction emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural
waters (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Sturchio. NC: Banner. IL: Binz, CM: Heratv. LB: Musgrove. M. (2001). Radium geochemistry of ground waters
in Paleozoic carbonate aquifers, midcontinent, USA. Appl Geochem 16:109-122.
Swanson. VE. (1955). Uranium in marine black shales of the United States. In Contributions to the geology of
uranium and thorium by the United States Geological Survey and Atomic Energy Commission for the
United Nations International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switzerland, 1955
(pp. 451-456). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0300/report.pcif
Timmis. KN. (2010). Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/microbiology/book/978-3-540-77584-3
Tourtelot. HA. (1979). Black shale - its deposition and diagenesis. Clays and Clay Minerals 27: 313-321.
Ml	ioi.org/10.1346/CCMN. 1979.02 70501
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-45	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Tuttle, MLW: Breit. GN: Goldhaber, MB, (2009). Weathering of the New Albany Shale, Kentucky: II.
Redistribution of minor and trace elements. Appl Geochem 24:1565-1578.
Mi	ioi.org/10.1016/iapgeochem.2009.04.034
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2012). Large truck and bus crash facts 2012. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
http://ai.fincsa.dot.gov/CarrierResearchResuIts/PDFs/LargeTruckandBttsCrashFacts2012.pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2004). Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of
drinking water by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs. (EPA/816/R-04/003). Washington,
DC.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015g). Technical development document for proposed
effluent limitation guidelines and standards for oil and gas extraction. (EPA-821-R-15-003). Washington,
D.C. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/oilandgas/unconv.cfm
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (1961). Geology and geochemistry of uranium in marine black shales: a review.
(U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 356-C). Reston, VA. http: //pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0356c/report.pdf
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (1997). Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash: Abundance, forms, and
environmental significance [Fact Sheet], (U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-163-97).
http://ptibs.tisgs.gov/fs/1997/fsl63-97/FS-163-97.pdf
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (2002). Water quality and environmental isotopic analyses of ground-water
samples collected from the Wasatch and Fort Union formations in areas of coalbed methane
developmentimplications to recharge and groundwater flow, eastern Powder river basin, Wyoming.
(Report 02-4045). Reston, VA. http:// pubs.usgs.gov / wr i/wr i024045/
Van Voast, WA. (2003). Geochemical signature of formation waters associated with coalbed methane. AAPG
Bulletin 87: 667-676.
Vanengelen. MR: Pevton. BM: Mormile. MR: Pinkart. HC. (2008). Fe(lll), Cr(VI), and Fe(lll) mediated Cr(VI)
reduction in alkaline media using a Halomonas isolate from Soap Lake, Washington. Biodegradation 19:
841-850. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0532-008-9187-l
Vengosh, A: Jackson, RB: Warner, N: Darrah. TH: Kondash, A. (2014). A critical review of the risks to water
resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States.
Environ Sci Technol 48: 36-52. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1021/es405118v
Vine. ID. (1956). Uranium-bearing coal in the United States. In Contributions to the geology of uranium and
thorium by the United States Geological Survey and Atomic Energy Commission for the United Nations
International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switzerland, 1955. Reston, VA: U.S.
Geological Survey, http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp300
Vine.JD: Tourtelot. EB. (1970). Geochemistry of black shale deposits; A summary report. Econ Geol 65: 253-
272. http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.65.3.253
Vinson. PS: Vengosh. A: Hirschfeld. D: Dwver. GS. (2009). Relationships between radium and radon
occurrence and hydrochemistry in fresh groundwater from fractured crystalline rocks, North Carolina
(USA). Chem Geol 260:159-171. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2008.10.022
Vulgamore. TB: Clawson. TP: Pope. CD: Wolhart. SL: Maverhofer. MI: Machovoe. SR: Waltman. CK. (2007).
Applying hydraulic fracture diagnostics to optimize stimulations in the Woodford Shale. Richardson, TX:
Society of Petroleum Engineers, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/110029- MS
Ward, CR. (2002). Analysis and significance of mineral matter in coal seams. Int J Coal Geol 50:135-168.
hC	ioi.org/10.1016/S0166-5162 f02100117-9
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-46	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix E
Warner, NR: Christie, CA; facksoii, RB; Vengosh, A, (2013). Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water
quality in western Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 47:11849-11857.
hti	ioi. org/10.102 l/es402165b
Warner. NR: Jackson. RB: Darrah. TH: Osborn. SG: Down. A: Zhao. K: White. A: Vengosh. A. (2012). Reply to
Engelder: Potential for fluid migration from the Marcellus Formation remains possible. PNAS 109: E3626-
E3626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217974110
Weaver. TR: Frape, SK: Cherry. I A, (1995). Recent cross-formational fluid flow and mixing in the shallow
Michigan Basin. Geol Soc Am Bulletin 107: 697-707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0Q16-
7606fl995T107<0697:RCFFFA>2.3.CQ:2
Webster. IT: Hancock. GJ: Murray. AS. (1995). Modelling the effect of salinity on radium desorption from
sediments. Geochim Cosmo Act 59: 2469-2476. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037f95100141-7
White. GJ, (1992). Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in oil and gas industry equipment and
wastes: A literature review. (DOE/ID/01570-T158). Bartlesville, OK: U.S. Department of Energy.
Wignall, PG; Myers, KI, (1988). Interpreting benthic oxygen levels in mudrocks: A new approach. Geology 16:
452-455. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613fl9881016<0452:IBQLIM>2.3.CO:2
Wuchter. C: Banning. E: Mincer. TI: Drenzek. NI: Coolen. MI, (2013). Microbial diversity and methanogenic
activity of Antrim Shale formation waters from recently fractured wells. FMICB 4:1-14.
h£	ioi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2 013.00367
Yakimov. MM: Denaro. R: Genovese. M: Cappello. S: D'Auria. G: Chernikova. TN: Timmis. KN: Golvshin. PN:
Giluliano. L. (2005). Natural microbial diversity in superficial sediments of Milazzo Harbor (Sicily) and
community successions during microcosm enrichment with various hydrocarbons. Environ Microbiol 7:
1426-1441. hti	ioi,org/10,1111/i,1462-5822,2005,00829.x
Yang, IS: Lee, JY: Baek, K: Kwon, TS: Choi, I, (2009). Extraction behavior of As, Pb, and Zn from mine tailings
with acid and base solutions. J Hazard Mater 171:1-3. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.06.021
Yoshizawa. S: Wada. M: Kita-Tsukamoto. K: Ikemoto. E: Yokota, A: Kogure. K. (2009). Vibrio azureus sp. nov., a
luminous marine bacterium isolated from seawater. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 59:1645-1649.
ta!	ioi.org/10.lQ99/iis. 0.004283-0
Yoshizawa. S: Wada. M: Yokota. A; Kogure. K, (2010). Vibrio sagamiensis sp. nov., luminous marine bacteria
isolated from sea water. J Gen Appl Microbiol 56: 499-507.
Zapecza, OS: Szabo, Z. (1988). Natural radioactivity in ground watera review. In National Water Summary
1986Hydrologic Events and Ground-Water Quality, Water-Supply Paper 2325. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological
Survey, http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2325
Zeikus. IG: Hegge, PW: Thompson. TE: Phelps. TI: Langworthv. TA. (1983). Isolation and description of
Haloanaerobium praevalens gen. nov. and sp. nov., an obligately anaerobic halophile common to Great Salt
Lake sediments. Curr Microbiol 9: 225-233. http://dx.doi.org/10,1007/BF01567586
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	E-47	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Appendix F
Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal
Supplemental Information
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Appendix F. Wastewater Treatment and Waste
Disposal Supplemental Information
This appendix provides additional information for context and background to support the
discussions of hydraulic fracturing wastewater management and treatment in Chapter 8 of the
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment Information in this appendix includes: estimates
compiled for several states for volumes of wastewater generated in regions where hydraulic
fracturing is occurring; an overview of the technologies that can be used to treat hydraulic
fracturing wastewater; calculations of estimated treatment process effluent concentrations for
example constituents; a description of the different discharge options for centralized waste
treatment plants; and the water quality needed for wastewater to be reused for hydraulic
fracturing. Discussion is also provided on difficulties that can arise during treatment of hydraulic
fracturing wastewaters: the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing wastewater on biological
treatment processes; and an overview of the formation of disinfection byproducts.
F.l. Estimates of Wastewater Production in Regions where Hydraulic
Fracturing is Occurring
Table F-l presents estimated wastewater volumes for several states in areas with hydraulic
fracturing activity. These data were compiled from production data available on state databases
and were tabulated by year. For California, data were compiled for Kern County, where about 95%
of hydraulic fracturing is taking place (CCST. 20151. Production records from Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming include the producing formation for each well reported; data from these states were
filtered to select data from formations indicated in the literature as targets for hydraulic fracturing.
Data presented for these three states include statewide estimates as well as estimates for selected
basins. Data from New Mexico are available from the states in files for three basins as well as for the
state; these data were not filtered further.
Results in Table F-l illustrate some of the challenges associated with obtaining estimates of
hydraulic fracturing wastewater volumes, especially using publicly available data. Some of the
values likely include reported values from conventional wells (wells that may not be hydraulically
fractured, and are typically not subject to modern, high volume hydraulic fracturing). For example,
the well counts for California, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming were in the thousands or tens of
thousands at least as early as 2000, several years before the surge of modern hydraulic fracturing
began in the mid-2000s. The data used for California were from Kern County but are not specific to
hydraulic fracturing activity. Where producing formations are provided, the accuracy of the
estimates will depend upon correct selection of hydraulically fractured formations. Thus, both
underestimation and overestimation may be possible because of a lack of clear indication of which
wells were hydraulically fractured.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 F-l DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Table F-l. Estimated volumes (millions of gallons) of wastewater based on state data for selected years and numbers of wells
producing fluid.
State
Basin
Principal
lithologies
Data type
2000
2004
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Comments
California
San Joaquin3
Shale,
unconsoli-
dated sands
Produced
water
46,000
48,000
58,000
65,000
71,000
75,000
74,000

Data from CA Department of
Conservation, Oil and Gas
Division.3 Produced water data
compiled for Kern County.
Data may also represent
contributions from production
without hydraulic fracturing.



Wells
33,695
39,088
46,519
49,201
51,031
51,567
52,763
-

Colorado
All basins
with hy-
draulically
fractured
formations

Produced
water
7,300
11,000
21,000
14,000
12,000
12,000
7,700

Data from CO Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission.15
Produced water includes
flowback. Data filtered for
formations indicated in
literature as undergoing
hydraulic fracturing and
matched to corresponding
basins. Example counties
selected for presentation as
well as estimated state total.



Wells
11,264
14,934
28,282
33,929
35,999
38,371
37,618
-


Denver
Sandstone,
shale
Produced
water
140
160
170
160
160
150
110
-




Wells
1,829
1,511
1,277
1,204
1,193
1,131
1,072
-


Piceance
Sandstone
Produced
water
3,500
5,800
9,300
6,900
6,500
6,800
4,300
-




Wells
1,134
2,478
6,486
9,105
10,057
10,868
10,954
-

June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
F-2	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
State
Basin
Principal
lithologies
Data type
2000
2004
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Comments
Colorado,
cont.
Raton
Coalbed
methane
Produced
water
2,400
4,100
8,900
4,300
3,200
2,700
2,100
-




Wells
681
1,634
2,795
2,734
2,778
2,710
2,545
-


San Juan
Coalbed
methane
Produced
water
1,000
1,100
1,300
2,000
1,200
1,100
650
-




Wells
1,183
1,605
1,975
2,220
2,308
2,328
2,333
-

New Mexico
Permian
Shale,
sandstone
Produced
water





31,000
31,000
20,000
Data from New Mexico Oil
Conservation Division.0 Data
provided by the state by basin
and for the entire state.
Unclear how much
contribution from production
without hydraulic fracturing.
Produced water includes
flowback.



Wells
-
-
-
-
-
29,839
30,386
30,287


Raton
Coalbed
methane
Produced
water
-
-
-
-
-
510
540
310




Wells
-
-
-
-
-
1,495
1,502
1,526


San Juan
Coalbed
methane
Produced
water
-
-
-
-
-
1,700
2,000
1,100




Wells
-
-
-
-
-
22,492
22,349
22,076


Total
-
Produced
water
-
-
-
-
-
33,000
34,000
22,000




Wells
-
-
-
-
-
53,826
54,237
53,889

June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
F-3	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
State
Basin
Principal
lithologies
Data type
2000
2004
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Comments
Utah
All basins
with hy-
draulically
fractured
formations

Produced
water
1,200
1,200
2,300
2,400
2,700
2,900
3,400
2,800
Data from State of Utah Oil
and Gas Program.d Produced
water includes flowback. Data
filtered by formation indicated
in the literature as hydraul-
ically fractured and matched to
basins. Data presented for
selected basins as well as for
all formations likely to be
hydraulically fractured.



Wells
3,080
4,377
7,409
8,432
9,101
10,075
10,661
10,900


Kaiparowits/
Uinta
Coalbed
methane
Produced
water
860
740
1,300
1,400
1,800
2,000
2,400
1,900




Wells
1,718
2,517
3,761
4,329
4,838
5,538
6,046
6,334


San Juan/
Uinta
Coalbed
methane
Produced
water
2
49
350
270
240
230
190
120




Wells
62
223
910
933
959
951
867
870


Uinta
Shale/sand-
stone
Produced
water
350
420
560
680
700
640
830
790




Wells
1,067
1,396
2,282
2,745
2,888
3,115
3,257
3,223

Wyoming
All basins
with hy-
draulically
fractured
formations

Produced
water
1,300
1,400
1,300
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,600
1,800
Data from Wyoming Oil and
Gas Conservation
Commission.6 Produced water
may include flowback. Data
filtered by formation indicated
in the literature as
hydraulically fractured and
matched to basins. Data
presented for selected basins
as well as for all formations
likely to be hydraulically
fractured.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
F-4	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
State
Basin
Principal
lithologies
Data type
2000
2004
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Comments
Wyoming,
cont.


Wells
3,470
3,378
3,585
3,620
3,728
3,843
4,030
4,213


Big Horn
Sandstone
Produced
water
380
350
350
380
430
440
420
440




Wells
365
359
387
397
412
414
407
403


Denver
Sandstone
Produced
water
54
44
49
59
76
90
97
170




Wells
142
118
124
140
167
204
230
278


Green River
Sandstone/
shale
Produced
water
0
1
2
8
5
5
9
15




Wells
44
44
60
67
67
59
64
67


Powder
River
Coalbed
methane
Produced
water
690
630
620
660
700
840
970
1,100




Wells
1,953
1,900
2,001
2,028
2,119
2,207
2,352
2,565


Wind River/
Powder
River
Sandstone/
shale
Produced
water
130
330
330
400
420
290
110
41




Wells
966
957
1,013
988
963
959
977
900

a California Department of Conservation, Oil and Gas Division. Oil & Gas - Online Data. Monthly Production and Injection Databases:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/new database format/.
b Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Data: Downloads: Production Data: http://cogcc.state.co.us/data2.html#/downloads.
c New Mexico Oil Conservation Division. Production Data. Production Summaries: All Wells Data: http://gotech.nmt.edu/gotech/Petroleum Data/allwells.aspx.
d Utah Department of Natural Resources. Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining. Data Research Center. Database Download Files:
http://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Data Center/DataCenter.cfm#production.
e Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Production files by county and year:
http://wogcc.state.wy. us/productioncountvvear.cfm?Oops=#oops#&RequestTimeOut=65QO.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
F-5	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
F.2. Overview of Treatment Processes for Treating Hydraulic Fracturing
Wastewater
Treatment technologies discussed in this appendix are classified as basic or advanced. Basic
treatment technologies are ineffective for reducing total dissolved solids (TDS) and are typically not
labor intensive. Advanced treatment technologies can remove TDS and/or are complex in nature
(e.g., energy- and labor-intensive).
F.2.1. Basic Treatment
Basic treatment technologies include physical separation, coagulation/oxidation,
electrocoagulation, sedimentation, and disinfection. These technologies are effective at removing
total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, scale-forming compounds, and metals, and they can
minimize microbial activity. Basic treatment is typically incorporated in a permanent treatment
facility (i.e., fixed location) but can also be part of a mobile unit for onsite treatment applications.
F.2.1.1. Physical Separation
The most basic treatment need for oil and gas wastewaters, including those from hydraulic
fracturing operations, is separation to remove suspended solids, and oil and grease. The separation
method largely depends on the type of resource (s) targeted by the hydraulic fracturing operation.
Down-hole separation techniques, including mechanical blocking devices and water shut-off
chemicals to prevent or minimize water flow to the well, may be used during production in shale
plays containing greater amounts of liquid hydrocarbons. To treat water at the surface, separation
technologies such as hydrocyclones, dissolved air or induced gas flotation systems, media (sand)
filtration, and biological aerated filters can remove suspended solids and some organics from
hydraulic fracturing wastewater.
Media filtration can also remove hardness and some metals if chemical precipitation (i.e.,
coagulation, lime softening) is also employed fBoschee. 20141. An example of a centralized waste
treatment facility (CWT) that uses chemical precipitation and media filtration to treat hydraulic
fracturing waste is the Water Tower Square Gas Well Wastewater Processing Facility in
Pennsylvania (see Table 8-7). One or more of these technologies is typically used prior to advanced
treatment such as reverse osmosis (RO) because advanced treatment processes foul, scale, or
otherwise do not operate effectively in the presence of TSS, certain organics, and/or some metals
and metalloid compounds (Boschee. 2014: Drewes etal, 2009). The biggest challenge associated
with use of these separation technologies is solids disposal from the resulting sludge flgunnu and
Chen. 2014).
F.2.1.2. Coagulation/Oxidation
Coagulation is the process of agglomerating small, unsettleable particles into larger particles to
promote settling. Chemical coagulants such as alum, iron chloride, and polymers can be used to
precipitate TSS, some dissolved solids (except monovalent ions such as sodium and chloride), and
metals from hydraulic fracturing wastewater. Adjusting the pH using chemicals such as lime or
caustic soda can increase the potential for some constituents, including dissolved metals, to form
precipitates. Chemical precipitation is often used in industrial wastewater treatment as a
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 F-6 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
pretreatment step to decrease the pollutant loading on subsequent advanced treatment
technologies; this strategy can save time, money, energy consumption and the lifetime of the
infrastructure.
Processes using advanced oxidation and precipitation have been applied to hydraulic fracturing
wastewaters in on-site and mobile systems. Hydroxyl radicals generated by cavitation processes
and the addition of ozone can degrade organic compounds and inactivate micro-organisms. The
process can also aid in the precipitation of elements, which cause hardness and scaling in the
treated water (e.g. calcium, magnesium). The process can also reduce sulfate and carbonate
concentrations in the treated water. This type of treatment can be very effective for on-site reuse of
wastewater (Ely etal.. 20111.
The produced solid residuals from coagulation/oxidation processes typically require further
treatment, such as de-watering (Duraisamv etal.. 2013: Hammer and VanBriesen. 20121.
F.2.1.3. Electrocoagulation
Electrocoagulation (EC) (Figure F-l) combines the principles of coagulation and electrochemistry
into one process (Gomes et al.. 2009). An electrical current added to the wastewater produces
coagulants that then neutralize the charged particles, causing them to destabilize, precipitate, and
settle. EC may be used in place of, or in addition to, chemical coagulation. EC can be effective for
removal of organics, TSS, and metals, but it is less effective for removing TDS and sulfate. Although
it is still considered an emerging technology for unconventional oil and gas wastewater treatment,
EC has been used in mobile treatment systems to treat hydraulic fracturing wastewaters
fHalliburton. 2014: Igunnu and Chen. 20141. Limitations with this technology are the potential for
scaling corrosion, and bacterial growth fGomes et al.. 20091.
Figure F-l. Electrocoagulation unit.
Source: Dunkel (2013).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 F-7 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
F.2.1.4. Sedimentation
Treatment plants may include sedimentation tanks, clarifiers, or some other form of settling basin
to allow larger particles to settle out of the water where they can eventually be collected,
dewatered, and disposed of. These types of tanks/basins all serve the same purpose - to reduce the
amount of solids going to subsequent processes (i.e., overload the media filters).
F. 2.1.5. Disinfection
Some hydraulic fracturing applications may require disinfection to kill bacteria after treatment and
prior to reuse. Chlorine is a common disinfectant. Chlorine dioxide, ozone, or ultraviolet light can
also be used. This is an important step for reused water because bacteria can cause problems for
further hydraulic fracturing operations by multiplying rapidly and causing build-up in the well
bore, which decreases gas extraction efficiency.
F.2.2. Advanced Treatment
Advanced treatment technologies consist of membranes (reverse osmosis (RO), nanofiltration,
ultrafiltration, microfiltration, electrodialysis, forward osmosis, and membrane distillation),
thermal distillation technologies, crystallizers, ion exchange, and adsorption. These technologies
are effective for removing TDS and/or targeted compounds. They typically require pretreatment to
remove solids and other constituents that may damage or otherwise impede the technology from
operating as designed. Advanced treatment technologies can be energy intensive and are typically
employed when a purified water effluent is necessary for direct discharge, indirect discharge, or
reuse. In some instances, these water treatment technologies can make use of methane generated
by the gas well as an energy source. Some advanced treatment technologies can be made mobile for
on-site treatment.
F.2.2.1. Membranes
Pressure-driven membrane processes including microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nano filtration, and
RO (Figure F-2) are being used in some settings to treat oil and gas wastewater. These processes
use hydraulic pressure to overcome the osmotic pressure of the influent waste stream, forcing clean
water through the membrane fDrewes etal. 20091. Microfiltration and ultrafiltration processes do
not reduce TDS but can remove TSS and some metals and organics (Drewes etal.. 2009). RO and
nano filtration are capable of removing TDS, including anions and radionuclides. RO, however, may
be limited to treating TDS levels of approximately 40,000 mg/L TDS (Shaffer etal. 2013: Younos
and Tulou, 2005).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 F-8 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Figure F-2. Photograph of reverse osmosis system.
Source: Thinkstock.
F.2.2.2. Electrodialysis
1	Electrodialysis relies on positively and negatively charged particles and coated membranes to
2	separate contaminants from the water (Figure F-3). Electrodialysis has been considered for use by
3	the shale gas industry, but it is not currently widely utilized fALL Consulting. 20131. TDS
4	concentrations above 15,000 mg/L are difficult to treat by electrodialysis (ALL Consulting. 20131
5	and oil and divalent cations (e.g. Ca, Fe, Mg) can foul the membranes (Hayes and Severin. 2012b:
6	Guolin etal.. 20081.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015	F-9	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F

rj
44

£
1
s*
i
4
Figure F-3. Picture of mobile electrodialysis units in Wyoming.
Source: DOE (2006). Permission: ALL Consulting.
F.2.2.3. Forward Osmosis/Membrane Distillation
Forward osmosis, an emerging technology for treating hydraulic fracturing wastewater, uses an
osmotic pressure gradient across a membrane to draw the contaminants from a low osmotic
solution (the feed water) to a high osmotic solution (Drewes etal.. 20091. The selection of the
constituents for the draw solution is very important as the constituents should be more easily
removed from solution than the compounds (e.g. salts] in the feed. Alternatively, draw solutions can
contain components that are more easily reused or recycled. Another emerging technology,
membrane distillation, relies on a thermal gradient across a membrane surface to volatilize pure
water and capture it in the distillate (Drewes et al. 20091.
F.2.2.4. Thermal Distillation
Thermal distillation technologies, such as mechanical vapor recompression (MVR] (Figure F-4] and
dewvaporation, use liquid-vapor separation by applying heat to the waste stream, vaporizing the
water to separate out impurities, and condensing the vapor into distilled water (Drewes et al.
2009: LEau LLC. 2008: Hamieh and Beckman. 20061. MVR and dewvaporation can treat high-TDS
waters and have been proven in the field as effective for treating oil and gas wastewater (Haves and
Severin. 2012b: Drewes etal.. 20091. Like RO, these processes are energy intensive and are used
when the objective is very clean water (i.e., TDS less than 500 mg/L] for direct/indirect discharge
or if clean water is needed for reuse. As with membrane processes, scaling is an issue with these
technologies, and scale inhibitors maybe needed for them to operate effectively flgunnu and Chen.
20141.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 F-10 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Figure F-4. Picture of a mechanical vapor recompression unit near Decatur, Texas.
Source: Drewes et al. (2009], Permission provided.
1	CWTs such as the Judsonia Central Water Treatment Facility in Arkansas, and the Casella-Altela
2	Regional Environmental Services and Clarion Altela Environmental Services, both in Pennsylvania,
3	have NPDES permits and use MVR or thermal distillation for TDS removal. Figure F-5 shows a
4	diagram of the treatment train at another facility, the Maggie Spain facility in Texas, which uses
5	MVR in its treatment of Barnett Shale wastewater fHaves and Severin. 2012a],
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015	F-ll	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Flowback
Delivery
Concentrated
Brine to
Deep Well
or Reuse
3 MVR
Units
Condensate
Samples (3)
Storage Reservoir

Influent
Sample
Flash Mixer
Lime and
Polymer,
pH 10
Surge Tank
Post Clarifier Acid to pH 4
Sample
Distillate
Samples (3)
Lamella
Separator
il
¦
Filtrate
2 Filter Presses
Product Water Storage
^ _
Product Water
to Reuse or Discharge
Sludge Cake
to Landfill
Figure F-5. Mechanical vapor recompression process design - Maggie Spain Facility.
Adapted from: Hayes and Severin (2012a).
Crystallizers can be employed at CWTs to treat high-TDS waters or to further concentrate the waste
stream from a distillation process, reducing residual waste disposal volumes. The crystallized salt
can be landfilled, deep-well injected, or used to produce pure salt products that may be salable
(Ertel etal.. 20131.
Another thermal method, freeze-thaw evaporation, involves spraying wastewater onto a freezing
pad, allowing ice crystals to form, and the brine mixture that remains in solution to drain from the
ice (Drewes etal.. 20091. In warmer weather, the ice thaws and the purified water is collected. This
technology cannot treat waters with high methanol concentrations and is only suitable for areas
where the temperature is below freezing in the winter months flgunnu and Chen. 20141. In
addition, freeze-thaw evaporation can only reduce TDS concentrations to approximately 1,000
mg/L, which is higher than the 500 mg/L TDS surface water discharge limit required by most
permits (Igunnu and Chen. 20141.
F.2.2.5. Ion Exchange and Adsorption
Ion exchange (Figure F-6) is the process of exchanging ions on a media referred to as resin for
unwanted ions in the water. Ion exchange is used to treat for target ions that may be difficult to
remove by other treatment technologies or that may interfere with the effectiveness of advanced
treatment processes.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 F-12 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Figure F-6. Picture of a compressed bed ion exchange unit.
Source: Drewes et al. (2009). Permission provided.
Adsorption is the process of adsorbing contaminants onto a charged granular media surface.
Adsorption technologies can effectively remove organics, heavy metals, and some anions (Igunnu
and Chen. 20141. With ion exchange and adsorption processes, the type of resin or adsorptive
media used (e.g., activated carbon, organoclay, zeolites) dictates the specific contaminants that will
be removed from the water fDrewes et al.. 2009: Fakhru'l-Razi etal.. 20091.
Because they can be easily overloaded by contaminants, ion exchange and adsorption treatment
processes are generally used as a polishing step following other treatment processes or as a unit
process in a treatment train rather than as stand-alone treatment fDrewes et al.. 20091 Stand-alone
units require more frequent regeneration and/or replacement of the spent media making these
technologies more costly to operate (Igunnu and Chen. 20141. Figure F-7 shows a schematic of the
Pinedale Anticline Water Reclamation Facility located in Wyoming which uses an ion exchange unit
with boron-selective resin as a polishing step to treat hydraulic fracturing wastewater specifically
for boron (Boschee. 20121.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 F-13 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Reverse
Oamo&is
Boron Ion
Exchange
Membrane
Bio reactor
Bioraactor
Frac Water
to Pipeline
Distribution
Adcfitional
Treatment
and Disposal
Clean Water
Discharged to
Environment
Figure F-7. Discharge water process used in the Pinedale Anticline field.
Source: Boschee (2012).
F.3. Treatment Technology Removal Capabilities
Table F-2 provides removal efficiencies for common hydraulic fracturing wastewater constituents
by treatment technology. With the exception of TSS and TDS, the studies cited demonstrate removal
for a subset of constituents in a category fe.g. Gomes et al.. 20091 reported that electrodialysis was
an effective treatment for oil and grease, not all organics). The removal efficiencies include ranges
of 1 to 33% (denoted by +), 34% to 66% (denoted by ++), and greater than 66% removal (denoted
by +++). Cells denoted with indicate that the treatment technology is not suitable for removal of
that constituent or group of constituents. If a particular treatment technology only lists removal
efficiencies for TDS, it can be assumed that in some cases, cations and anions would also be
removed by that technology; therefore, where specific results were not provided in literature, cells
denoted with "Assumed" refer to cations and anions that comprise TDS.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015	F-14	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Table F-2. Removal efficiency of different hydraulic fracturing wastewater constituents using
various wastewater treatment technologies.3
Treatment
Technology
Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater Constituents
TSS
TDS
Anions
Metals
Radio-
nuclides
Organics
Hydrocyclones
+++
(Duraisamy et
al„ 2013)



"
++
(Duraisamy et al„
2013)
Evaporation
(freeze-thaw
evaporation)
+++
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014;
Drewes et al,»
2003)
+++
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014;
Drewes et al„
2009; Arthur
et al„ 2005)
Assumed
+++
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014;
Drewes et al,,
2009; Arthur
et al,, 2005)

+++
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014;
Duraisamy et al,,
2013; Drewes et
al,, 2009)
Filtration
(granular media)
+++
(Barrett, 2010)


+++b
(Duraisamy et

+++
(Shafer, 2011;

al,, 2013)
Drewes et al,,
2009)
Chemical
precipitation
+++
(Fakhru'l-Razi
et al„ 2009)


+++
(Fakhru'l-Razi
+++c
(Zhang et al,.
+++
(Fakhru'l-Razi et
et al,, 2009;
AWWA, 1999)
2014)
al,, 2009)
Sedimentation
(clarifier)
++
(NMSU DACC
WUTAP, 2007)





Dissolved air
flotation
+++
(Shammas,
2010)




++/+++
(Duraisamy et al,,
2013; Fakhru'l-
Razi et al,, 2009)
Electro-
coagulation
+++
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014;
Bukhari, 2008)


+
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014)

+++
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014;
Duraisamy et al,,
2013; Fakhru'l-
Razi et al,, 2009)
Advanced
oxidation and
precipitation

+
(Abrams,
2013)

+/+++
(Abrams,
2013)

+++d
(Duraisamy et al,,
2013)
(Fakhru'l-Razi et
al,, 2009)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-15	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Treatment
Technology
Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater Constituents
TSS
TDS
Anions
Metals
Radio-
nuclides
Organics
Reverse osmosis

++/+++e
(Alzahrani et
al., 2013;
Drewes et al.,
2009)
+++
(Alzahrani et
al., 2013)
(Arthur et al.,
2005)
++/+++f
(Alzahrani et
al., 2013)
(Drewes et al.,
2009; AWWA,
1999)
+++
(Drewes et
al., 2009)
+/++/+++g
(Drewes et al.,
2009; Munter,
2000)
Membrane
filtration (UF/MF)
+++
(Arthur et al,,
2005)


+++
(Fakhru'l-Razi
et al., 2009)

++/+++
(Duraisamy et al.,
2013; Fakhru'l-


Razi et al., 2009;
Haves and
Arthur, 2004;
AWWA, 1999)h
Forward osmosis

+++
(Drewes et al.,
2009)
Assumed
Assumed


Distillation,
including thermal
distillation (e.g.,
mechanical vapor
recompression
(MVR))

+++'
(Haves et al..
+++
(Bruff and
+++
(Haves et al.,
+++
(Bruff and
+/++/+++
(Haves et al.,
2014; Bruff
and Jikich,
2011; Drewes
et al., 2009)
Jikich, 2011;
Drewes et al.,
2009)
2014; Bruff
and Jikich,
2011; Drewes
et al., 2009)
Jikich, 2011;
Drewes et
al., 2009)
2014; Duraisamy
et al., 2013;
Drewes et al.,
2009; Fakhru'l-
Razi et al., 2009)
Ion exchange


+++
(Drewes et
+++
(Drewes et al..
+++
(Drewes et
+/++/+++
(Fakhru'l-Razi et
al., 2009)
2009; Arthur
et al., 2005)
al., 2009)
al., 2009;
Munter, 2000V
Crystallization
--
+++
(ER, 2014)
Assumed
Assumed
--
-
Electrodialysis

+++k
(Drewes et al.,
2009; Gomes
et al., 2009;
Arthur et al.,
2005)
++/+++
(Banasiak and
Schafer,
2009)
+/++/+++
(Banasiak and
Schafer, 2009)

+++
(Gomes et al.,
2009)
Capacitive
deionization
(emerging
technology)

+++'
(Drewes et al.,
2009)




This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-16	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Treatment
Technology
Hydraulic Fracturing Wastewater Constituents
TSS
TDS
Anions
Metals
Radio-
nuclides
Organics
Adsorption"1


+/++/+++"
(Habuda-
Stanic et al.,
2014)
+++
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014;
Drewes et al.,
2009)

+/++/+++
(Arthur et al.,
2005; Haves and
Arthur, 2004;
Munter, 2000)
Biological
treatment
+++
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014;
Drewes et al,»
2003)




+/++/+++
(Igunnu and
Chen, 2014;
Drewes et al.,
2009; Fakhru'l-
Razi et al., 2009)
Constructed
wetland/reed
beds
++/+++
(Manios et al,,
2003)
+
(Arthur et al.,
2005)

++/+++
(Fakhru'l-Razi
et al., 2009)

+/ +++
(Fakhru'l-Razi et
al., 2009; Arthur



et al., 2005)
a To the extent possible, removal efficiencies are based on an individual treatment technology that does not assume extensive
pretreatment or combined treatment processes. However, it should be noted that some processes cannot effectively operate
without pretreatment (e.g., RO, media filtration, sedimentation).
b Pretreatment (pH adjustment, aeration, solids separation) required.
c Radium co-precipitation with barium sulfate.
d The Fenton process.
eTypically requires pretreatment. Not a viable technology if TDS influent >50,000 mg/L.
f Iron and manganese oxides will foul the membranes.
g Some organics will foul the membranes (e.g., organic acids).
h Ultrafiltration membrane was modified with nanoparticles.
' Can typically handle high TDS concentrations.
' Resin consisted of modified zeolites that targeted removal of BTEX.
k Influent TDS for this technology should be <8,000 mg/L.
1 Specific technology was an electronic water purifier which is a hybrid of capacitive deionization. Influent TDS for this
technology should be <3,000 mg/L.
m Typically polishing step, otherwise can overload bed quickly with organics.
" Removal efficiency is dependent on the type of adsorbent used and the water quality characteristics (e.g., pH).
1	Given the variety of properties among classes of organic constituents, different treatment processes
2	may be required depending upon the types of organic compounds needing removal. Table F-3 lists
3	treatment processes and the classes of organic compounds they can treat
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-17	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Table F-3. Treatment processes for hydraulic fracturing wastewater organic constituents.
Treatment processes
Organic compounds removed
References
Adsorption with activated carbon
Soluble organic compounds
Fakhru'l-Razi et al. (2009)
Adsorption with organoclay media
Insoluble organic compounds
Fakhru'l-Razi et al. (2003)
Aeration
Volatile organic compounds
Tchobanoglous et al. (2013)
Dissolved air flotation
Volatile organic compounds, dispersed oil
Drewes et al. (2009)
Freeze/thaw evaporation3
TPH, volatile organic compounds, semi-
volatile organic compounds
Duraisamy et al. (2013); Drewes
et al. (2009)
Ion exchange (with modified
zeolites)
BTEX, chemical oxygen demand,
biochemical oxygen demand
Hayes et al. (2014); Duraisamy et
al. (2013); Drewes et al. (2009);
Fakhru'l-Razi et al. (2009);
Munter (2000)
Distillation
BTEX, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
Hayes et al. (2014); Duraisamy et
al. (2013); Drewes et al. (2009);
Fakhru'l-Razi et al. (2009).
Chemical precipitation
Oil & grease
Drewes et al. (2009); Fakhru'l-
Razi et al. (2009)
Chemical Oxidation
Oil & grease
Drewes et al. (2009); Fakhru'l-
Razi et al. (2009)
Media filtration (walnut shell
media or sand)
Oil & grease
Drewes et al. (2009); Fakhru'l-
Razi et al. (2009)
Microfiltration
Oil & grease
Drewes et al. (2009); Fakhru'l-
Razi et al. (2009)
Ultrafiltration
Oil & grease, BTEX
Drewes et al. (2009); Fakhru'l-
Razi et al. (2009)
Reverse osmosisb
Dissolved organics
Drewes et al. (2009); U.S. EPA
(2005)
Electrocoagulation
Chemical oxygen demand, Biochemical
oxygen demand
Fakhru'l-Razi et al. (2009)
Biologically aerated filters
Oil & grease, TPH, BTEX
Fakhru'l-Razi et al. (2009)
Reed bed technologies
Oil & grease, TPH, BTEX
Fakhru'l-Razi et al. (2009)
Hydrocyclone separators
Dispersed oil
Drewes et al. (2009)
a Technology cannot be used if the methanol concentration in the hydraulic fracturing wastewater exceeds 5%.
b RO will remove specific classes of organic compounds with removal efficiencies dependent on the compound's structure and
the physical and chemical properties of the hydraulically fractured wastewater. Organoacids will foul membranes.
1	Table F-4 presents estimated effluent concentrations that could be produced by a variety of unit
2	treatment processes for several example constituents and for various influent concentrations. This
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-18	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
1	analysis uses treatment process removal efficiencies from literature used to develop Table F-2 and
2	average wastewater concentrations of several constituents presented in Chapter 7 and Appendix E.
3	These estimates were done to illustrate the combined effects of influent wastewater composition
4	and treatment process choice on achievable effluent concentrations. The removal efficiencies
5	represent a variety of studies, primarily at bench and pilot scale, and done with either conventional
6	or hydraulic fracturing wastewater. Removal efficiency for a given treatment process can vary due
7	to a number of factors, and constituent removal may be different in a full-scale facility that uses
8	several processes. Thus, the calculations shown in Table F-4 are intended to be rough
9	approximations for illustrative purposes.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-19	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Table F-4. Estimated effluent concentrations for example constituents based on treatment process removal efficiencies.
Shale/
Sandstone
Play
Contaminant
MCL
Avg.
Influent
Cone.
Units
Freeze-Thaw Evaporation
Media Filtration
Chemical Precipitation
Flotation (DAF)
Electro-coagulation
Advanced Oxidation and
precipitation
Reverse osmosis
Membrane Filtration
(UF/MF)
Distillation
Ion exchange
Electrodialysis
Adsorption
Biological Treatment
(biodisks, BAFs)
Constructed Wetland
Bakken
Barium
2
10
mg/L

1





0.44
0.8

0.1
-
0.3
ND
-
0.7







2.2
Barnett
Barium
2
3.6
mg/L

0.4





0.16
0.29

0.036
-
0.11
ND
-
0.3







0.8
Fayetteville
Barium
2
4
mg/L

0.4





0.18
0.32

0.04
-
0.12
ND
-
0.3







0.9
Marcellus
Barium
2
2200
mg/L

220





98
180

22
-
67
ND
-
160







490
Cotton
Valley
Barium
2
160
mg/L

16





7
13

1.6
-
4.8
ND
-
11







35
Mesaverde
Barium
2
140
mg/L

14





6.1
11

1.4
-
4.2
ND
-
9.7







31
Marcellus
Cadmium
5
25
Pg/L
2.5
2.5






13









5




15
Bakken
Strontium
-
760
mg/L

76








7.6
-
23
53










Barnett
Strontium
-
530
mg/L

53








5.3
-
16
37










Fayetteville
Strontium
-
27
mg/L

2.7








0.27
-
0.81
1.9










Marcellus
Strontium
-
1700
mg/L

170








17
-
51
120










Cotton
Valley
Strontium
-
2300
mg/L

230








23
-
69
160










Devonian
Sandstone
Strontium
-
3900
mg/L

390








39
-
120
270










Marcellus
Radium 226
-
620
pCi/L


32
-
440



6.2

6.2
-
19
44










June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
F-20	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Shale/
Sandstone
Play
Contaminant
MCL
Avg.
Influent
Cone.
Units
Freeze-Thaw Evaporation
Media Filtration
Chemical Precipitation
Flotation (DAF)
Electro-coagulation
Advanced Oxidation and
precipitation
Reverse osmosis
Membrane Filtration
(UF/MF)
Distillation
Ion exchange
Electrodialysis
Adsorption
Biological Treatment
(biodisks, BAFs)
Constructed Wetland
Devonian
Sandstone
Radium 226
--
2400
pCi/L


120
-
1700



24

24
-
71
170










Marcellus
Radium 228
-
120
pCi/L


6.2
-
85



1.2

1.2
-
3.6
8.4










Marcellus
Total Radium
5
2500
pCi/L


130
-
1800



25

25
-
76
180










Barnett
TOC
-
9.8
mg/L









0.2







0.98
-
2.9
2.1
-
4
1
Marcellus
TOC
-
160
mg/L









3.2







16
-
48
35
-
58
16
Cotton
Valley
TOC
-
200
mg/L









4







20
-
59
44
-
71
20
Barnett
BOD
-
580
mg/L






58






290
-
440




29
-
87
47
Marcellus
BOD
-
40
mg/L






4






20
-
30




2
-
6
3.2
Barnett
O&G
-
160
mg/L

16







16






8
1.6


43


9.8
Marcellus
O&G
-
74
mg/L

7.4







7.4






3.7
0.74


19


4.4
Barnett
Benzene
5
680
Pg/L
68








310

6.8





110





ND
Marcellus
Benzene
5
360
Pg/L
36








170

3.6





58





ND
Barnett
Toluene
1,000
760
Pg/L
76








350







84





ND
Marcellus
Toluene
1,000
1100
Pg/L
110








510







120





ND
Barnett
Ethyl benzene
700
29
Pg/L
2.9




17











3.2





ND
Marcellus
Ethyl benzene
700
150
Pg/L
15




90











17





ND
Barnett
Xylenes
10,000
360
Pg/L
36








170







14





ND
Marcellus
Xylenes
10,000
1300
Pg/L
130








600







52





ND
Barnett
BTEX
-
1800
Pg/L
180






7.3



91

270
-
550

3.7
-
91




June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
F-21	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
>n
H
O
o
Z
o
H
n
H
m
o
P3
1

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
F.4. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities and Waste Management Options
CWTs are designed to treat for site-specific wastewater constituents so that the effluent meets the
requirements of the designated disposal option(s) (i.e., reuse, direct/indirect discharge). The most
basic treatment processes that a CWT might use include (Easton. 2014: Dufaon. 20121:
• Physical treatment technologies such as dissolved air or gas flotation technologies, media
filtration, hydrocyclones, and clarification;
• Chemical treatment technologies such as chemical precipitation and chemical oxidation;
and
• Biological treatment technologies such as biological aerated filter systems and reed beds.
While these technologies are effective at removing oil and grease, suspended solids, scale-forming
compounds, and some heavy metals, if TDS should be reduced as required by the intended disposal
option, advanced processes such as RO, thermal distillation, or evaporation are necessary.
F.4.1. Discharge Options for CWTs
Direct discharge CWTs are allowed to discharge treated wastewater directly to surface waters
under the NPDES permit program. Discharge limitations may be based on water quality standards
in the NPDES and technology-based effluent limitation guidelines under 40 CFR Part 437. In
addition, permitting authorities have permitted facilities for discharge under 40 CFR 435, Subpart
E. Judsonia Central Water Treatment Facility in Sunnydale, Arkansas is permitted to directly
discharge treated effluent from produced and flowback waters from the Fayetteville Shale play to
Byrd pond located on the property. Pinedale Anticline Field Wastewater Treatment Facility in
Wyoming, WY, originally designed to treat produced water from tight gas plays in the Pinedale
Anticline Field to levels suitable for reuse, was upgraded to include RO treatment for discharge to a
local river. CWTs with NPDES discharge permits may also opt to treat oil and gas wastewater for
reuse. Some facilities have the ability to treat wastewater to different qualities (e.g., with or without
TDS removal), which they might do to target various reuse water quality criteria. Both the Judsonia
facility and Pinedale facility discussed above have the ability to employ either TDS- or non-TDS-
removal treatment depending on the customers' needs.
Indirect discharge CWTs may treat hydraulic fracturing wastewater and then discharge the treated
wastewater effluent to a POTW. Discharge to the POTW is controlled by an Industrial User
mechanism, which incorporates pretreatment standards established in 40 CFR Part 437. Two
facilities located in Pennsylvania (Eureka Resources) and Ohio (Patriot Water Treatment) include
indirect discharge as an option in wastewater treatment. The Eureka-Williamsport facility accepts
wastewater (primarily from the Marcellus Shale play) and either treats it for reuse or discharges it
to the local POTW. The Patriot facility offers services to hydraulic fracturing operators in the
Marcellus and Utica Shale plays for removal of solids and metals using chemical treatment. As of
March 2015, however, the Patriot facility is limited by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in
accepting only "low salinity" (<50,000 mg/L TDS) produced water and may only discharge 100,000
gallons (380,000 L) per day to the Warren Ohio POTW.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 F-23 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Zero-discharge CWTs do not discharge treated wastewater; instead, the wastewater is treated and
reused in subsequent hydraulic fracturing operations. WVWRI (20121 state that this practice
reduces potential effects on surface drinking water sources by reducing both direct and indirect
discharges. Zero-discharge facilities may offer different levels of treatment including minimal
treatment (for example, filtration), low-level treatment (chemical precipitation), and/or advanced
treatment (evaporation, crystallization). Reserved Environmental Services (RES) Mt Pleasant,
Pennsylvania, is a zero liquid discharge facility permitted by PA DEP to treat wastewater from the
Marcellus Shale play for reuse. Residual solids are dewatered and sent to a landfill. Treated
wastewater effluent is stored, monitored, and chlorinated for reuse (ONG Services. 2015).
F.5. Water Quality for Reuse
As of 2015, there is no consensus on the water quality requirements for reuse of wastewater for
hydraulic fracturing, and operator opinions vary on the minimum standards for the water quality
needed for fracturing fluids (Vidic etal. 2013: Acharva etal. 2011). Table F-5 provides a list of
constituents and the recommended or observed target concentrations for reuse applications. The
wide concentration ranges for many constituents (e.g., TDS ranges from 500 to 70,000 mg/L),
suggest that water quality requirements for reuse are dictated by operation-specific requirements,
including operator preference and selection of fracturing fluid chemistry.
Table F-5. Water quality requirements for reuse.
Source: U.S. EPA (2015g).
Constituent
Reasons for Limiting
Concentrations
Recommended or observed base fluid target
concentrations (mg/L, after blending)b
TDS
Fluid stability
500 - 70,000
Chloride
Fluid stability
2,000 - 90,000
Sodium
Fluid stability
2,000 - 5,000
Metals
Iron
Scaling
LO
1
1
1
Strontium
Scaling
1
Barium
Scaling
2-38
Silica
Scaling
20
Calcium
Scaling
50 - 4,200
Magnesium
Scaling
10 -1,000
Sulfate
Scaling
124 -1,000
Potassium
Scaling
100 - 500
Scale formers3
Scaling
2,500
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 F-24 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Constituent
Reasons for Limiting
Concentrations
Recommended or observed base fluid target
concentrations (mg/L, after blending)b
Other
Phosphate
Not Reported
10
TSS
Plugging
50 -1,500
Oil
Fluid stability
5-25
Boron
Fluid stability
0-10
pH (S.U.)
Fluid stability
1
00
1
LO
UD
Bacteria (counts/mL)
Bacterial growth
0 -10,000
a Includes total of barium, calcium, manganese, and strontium.
b Unless otherwise noted.
1	Wastewater quality can be managed for reuse by either blending it with freshwater and allowing
2	dilution to bring the concentrations of problematic constituents to an acceptable range or through
3	treatment (Veil. 2010). Treatment, if needed, can be conducted at facilities that are mobile, semi-
4	permanent modular systems, or fully permanent CWTs fNicotetal.. 20121. At a minimum, hydraulic
5	fracturing service providers generally prefer that the wastewater be treated to remove TSS,
6	microorganisms, and constituents that form scale or inhibit crosslinking in gelled fluid systems
7	fBoschee, 20141. Figure F-8 shows a schematic of a treatment system to treat wastewater for reuse
8	that can remove suspended solids, hardness, and organic constituents.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-25	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Frac
Flowback
Water
Oil
Byproduct
Lime or Sodium Soda
Caustic Sulfate Ash
¦HI
Air
GAC:
Organics Polish
Acid
r~i
nil
Treated
Water
Precip/Clarifier:
Hardness Removal
Sand Filter:
TSS Removal
Oxidation:
Chlorine Dioxide
CDM Smith, adapted by The Cadmus Group
Figure F-8. Diagram of treatment for reuse of flowback and produced water.
Source: Kimball (2010).
In the Marcellus, the wastewater to be reused is first generally treated with oil/gas-water
separation, filtration, and dilution fMa et al.. 20141. Although many Marcellus treatment facilities
only supply basic reuse treatment that removes oil and solids, advanced treatment facilities that
use techniques such as RO or distillation methods are also in operation (Veil. 20101.
Reuse concerns can vary with the type of hydraulic fracturing fluid used (e.g., slickwater, linear gel,
crosslinked gel, foam] ( Vasvlishen and Fulton. 20121 and the anticipated changes in water
chemistry over time (transition from flowback to produced water] (Hammer and VanBriesen.
20121. Elevated TDS is a concern, but residual constituents from previous fluid mixtures (e.g.,
breakers) may also cause difficulties when reusing water for subsequent fracturing operations
(Montgomery. 2013: Walsh. 20131.
On-Site Treatment for Reuse
On-site systems that treat produced water for reuse can reduce potential impacts to drinking water
resources associated with transportation and disposal and facilitate the logistics of reuse by
preparing the water close to well sites. These systems sometimes consist of mobile units containing
one or more treatment processes that can be moved from site to site to treat waters in newly
developed sites that are not yet producing at full-scale. Semi-permanent facilities that serve a
specific area also exist (Halldorson. 2013: Boschee. 20121.
Treatment systems are typically tailored for site-specific produced water chemical concentrations
and desired water quality treatment goals, including whether significant TDS removal is needed. If
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.
June 2015 F-26 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
lowTDS water is needed, more advanced treatment will be required (see Section 8.5 of Chapter 8),
which can increase the treatment costs to three to four times higher than for treatment systems
that do not remove TDS fHalldorson. 20131. On-site facilities may be warranted where truck
hauling or seasonal accessibility to and from a central facility is an issue (Boschee, 2014: Tiemann
etai, 20141. Operators may also consider on-site facilities if they have not fully committed to an
area and the well counts are initially low. In those instances, they can later decide to add or remove
units based on changing production volumes (Boschee. 20141.
F.6. Hydraulic Fracturing Impacts on POTWs
F.6.1. Potential Impacts on Treatment Processes
Wastewater treatment processes used by POTWs are generally not designed or operated for
wastewater containing high salt concentrations (>0.1-5% salt). Four basic problems for biological
treatment of saline water have been described (Woolard and Irvine. 19951: 1) microbes in
conventional treatment systems tend to be sensitive to changes in ionic strength, 2) microbial
metabolic functions are disrupted leading to decreased degradation of carbon compounds, 3)
effluent suspended solids are increased due to cell lysis and/or a reduction in organisms that
promote flocculation, and 4) the extent of salt acclimation is limited in conventional systems.
Biological pre-treatment may be beneficial as an added process in pre-treatment (e.g. prior to
indirect discharge from a CWT to a POTW) for removal of organic contaminants. Specialized
treatment systems using salt-tolerant bacteria may be beneficial as an additional level of treatment
for pre-treating (or polishing) wastewaters in centralized treatment systems. (These processes
differ from conventional biological processes in standard wastewater treatment, which are not
suitable for large volumes of UOG wastewater.) In particular, membrane bioreactors (MBRs) have
been examined for the treatment of oil and gas wastewater fDao et al. 2013: Kose etal. 2012:
Miller. 20111. MBRs provide advantages over conventional aeration basin processes as they can be
implemented into existing treatment trains more easily and have a much smaller footprint than
aeration basins.
Because sudden increases in chloride concentration, above 5-8 g/L, may cause problems for
wastewater treatment (Ludzack and Noran. 19651. POTWs planning to accept indirect discharge in
the future may find it valuable to restrict influent salt concentrations to a level that will not disturb
existing biological treatment processes.
F.7. Hydraulic Fracturing and DBPs
F. 7.1.1. Disinfection By-Products
This section provides background information on disinfection by-products (DBPs) and their
formation to support the discussion in Section 8.6.1 of Chapter 8 regarding impacts on surface
waters and downstream drinking water utilities due to elevated bromide and iodide in hydraulic
fracturing wastewaters.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 F-27 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Regulated DBPs are a small subset of the full spectrum of DBPs that include other chlorinated and
brominated DBPs as well as nitrogenous and iodated DBPs. Some of the emerging unregulated
DBPs may be more toxic than their regulated counterparts fHarkness et al. 2015: McGuire etal.
2014: Parker et al, 20141. Of the many types of DBPs that can form when drinking water is
disinfected, SDWA's Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBP Rules regulate four total trihalomethanes (TTHMs),
five haloacetic acids (HAA5s), bromate, and chlorite (U.S. EPA. 20061.
Most brominated DBPs form when water containing organic material and bromide reacts with a
disinfectant such as chlorine during drinking water treatment Parameters that affect DBP
formation include concentration and type of organic material, disinfectant concentration, pH, water
temperature, and disinfectant contact time. In addition, many studies have found that elevated
bromide levels correlate with increased DBP formation (Singer, 2010: Obolenskv and Singer. 2008:
Matamoros et al. 20 ; t et al. 2006: Yang and Shang. 20041. Some studies found similar results
for iodide as well (McGuire et al. 2014: Parker etal. 20141. Pope et al. (20071 reported that
increased bromide levels are the second best indicator of DBP formation, with pH being the first.
In addition, research finds that higher levels of bromide and iodide contribute to increased
concentrations of the brominated and iodated forms of DBPs (both regulated and unregulated),
which tend to be more cytotoxic, genotoxic, and carcinogenic than chlorinated species (McGuire et
al. 2014: Parker etal. 2014: States et al. 2013: Krasner. 2009: Richardson et al. 20071. Studies
generally report that the ratios of halogen incorporation into DBPs reflect the ratio of halogen
concentrations in the source water fCriauet et al. 2012: lones et al. 2012: Obolenskv and Singer.
20081.
From a regulatory perspective, elevated bromide levels create difficulties in meeting drinking water
MCLs. When the TTHMs are predominately in the form of brominated DBPs, the higher molecular
weight of bromide (79.9 g/mol) relative to chloride (35.5 g/mol) causes the overall mass of the
TTHM sum to increase. This can lead to elevated concentrations of TTHM, in turn potentially
leading to violations of the TTHM MCL for the drinking water utility (Francis etal. 20091.
High bromide levels are also cited as causing formation of nitrogenous DBP N-
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in water disinfected with chloramines (Luh and Marinas. 20121.
Although NDMA is not regulated by the EPA as of early 2015, it is listed as a priority toxic pollutant,
and the EPA is planning to evaluate NDMA and other nitrosamines as candidates for regulation
during the six-year review of the Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts (MDBP) rules flJ.S. EPA.
2014a).
F.8. References for Appendix F
Abraiiis. R. (2013). Advanced oxidation frac water recycling system. Presentation presented at 20th
International Petroleum Environmental Conference, November 12-14, 2013, San Antonio, TX.
Acharva, HR: Henderson. C: Matis. H: Kommepalli, H: Moore. B: Wang. H. (2011). Cost effective recovery of
low-TDS frac flowback water for reuse. (Department of Energy: DE-FE0000784). Niskayuna, NY: GE Global
Research. http://www.netI.doe.gov/fiIe%20Iibrary/Research/oiI-gas/FE0000784 FinalReportpdf
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 F-28 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
ALL Consulting (ALL Consulting, LLC). (2013). Water treatment technology fact sheet: Electrodialysis [Fact
Sheet], Tulsa, OK. http://www.all-llc.com/publicdownloads/ED-EDRFactSheetpdf
Alzahrani. S: Mohammad. AW: Hilal, N: Abdullah. P: laafar. 0. (2013). Comparative study of NF and RO
membranes in the treatment of produced water-Part I: Assessing water quality. Desalination 315: 18-26.
hE ioi,org/10,1016/idesai2 012,12,004
Arthur. ID: Langhus. BG: Patel. C. (2005). Technical summary of oil and gas produced water treatment
technologies. Tulsa, OK: ALL Consulting, LLC.
http://www.odinoilandgas.eom/Portals/0/TreatmentOptionsReportpdf
AWWA (American Water Works Association). (1999). Residential end uses of water. In PW Mayer; WB
DeOreo (Eds.). Denver, CO: AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.
http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/RFR90781 1999 241A.pdf
Banasiak. LI: Scha (2009). Removal of boron, fluoride and nitrate by electrodialysis in the presence of
organic matter. J Memb Sci 334:101-109. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.02.020
Barrett, ME. (2010). Evaluation of sand filter performance. (CRWR Online Report 10-7). Austin, TX: Center for
Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin.
http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/reports/pdf/2010/rptl0-07.pdf
Boschee. P. (2012). Handling produced water from hydraulic fracturing. Oil and Gas Facilities 1: 23-26.
Boschee. P. (2014). Produced and flowback water recycling and reuse: Economics, limitations, and
technology. Oil and Gas Facilities 3:16-22.
Brttff, M: likich. SA. (2011). Field demonstration of an integrated water treatment technology solution in
Marcellus shale. Paper presented at SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, August 17-19,2011, Columbus, OH.
Bukhari. AA. (2008). Investigation of the electro-coagulation treatment process for the removal of total
suspended solids and turbidity from municipal wastewater. Bioresour Technol 99: 914-921.
fati ioi,org/10,1016/j,biortech,2 007,03,015
CCST (California Council on Science and Technology). (2015). An independent scientifc assessment of well
stimulation in California, Volume 1: Well stimulation technologies and their past, present, and potential
future use in California. Sacramento, CA. http://www.ccst.us/publications/2015/2015SB4-vl.pdf
Criquet I; Allard, S: Salhi, E: loll, CA; Heitz, A: von Gun ten. U. rs. (2012). lodate and lodo-Trihalomethane
Formation during Chlorination of Iodide-Containing Waters: Role of Bromide. Environ Sci Technol 46:
7350-7357. htj ioi.org/10.1021/es301301g
Dao. TP: Mericq, IP: Laborie. S: Cabassud. C. (2013). A new method for permeability measurement of
hydrophobic membranes in Vacuum Membrane Distillation process. Water Res 47: 20962104.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). (2006). A guide to practical management of produced water from onshore
oil and gas operations in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, National
Petroleum Technology Office.
http://fracfocus.0rg/sites/default/files/publications/a guide to practical management of produced wat
er from onshore oil and gas operations in the united states.pdf
Drewi h. T: Debroux. f: Veil. I. (2009). An integrated framework for treatment and management of
produced water - Technical assessment of produced water treatment technologies (1st ed.). (RPSEA
Project 07122-12). Golden, CO: Colorado School of Mines.
http://aqwatec.mines.edu/research/proiects/Tech Assessment PW Treatment Tech.pdf
Duhon. H. (2012). Produced water treatment: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Oil and Gas Facilities 3: 29-31.
Dunkel. M. (2013). Reducing fresh water use in upstream oil and gas hydraulic fracturing. In Summary of the
technical workshop on wastewater treatment and related modeling (pp. A37-A43). Irving, TX: Pioneer
Natural Resources USA, Inc. http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudv/summary-technical-workshop-wastewater-
treatment-and-related-modeling
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 F-29 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Dura|gamy..R^	A, (2013). State of the art treatment of produced water. In W Elshorbagy; RK
Chowdhury (Eds.), Water treatment (pp. 199-222). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
hi!	ioi.org/10.5772/53478
, (2014). Optimizing fracking wastewater management. Pollution Engineering January 13.
Ely. IW: Horn. A: Cathev. R: Fraitn, M: Jakhete. S. (2011). Game changing technology for treating and recycling
frac water. Paper presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 30 - November 2,
2011, Denver, CO.
ER (Eureka Resources, LLC). (2014). Crystallization technology. Available online at http: / /www.eureka-
resources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/EURE-022 Crystallization 53013.pdf (accessed March 4,
2015).
Ertel. D: McManus, K: Bogdan. f. (2013). Marcellus wastewater treatment: Case study. In Summary of the
technical workshop on wastewater treatment and related modeling (pp. A56-A66). Williamsport, PA:
Eureka Resources, LLC. http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/summary-technical-workshop-wastev/ater-
treatment-and-rela
Fakhru'l-Razi.
3endashteh, A: Abdullah. LC: Biak. PR: Madaeni. SS: Abidin, ZZ, (2009). Review of
technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment [Review], J Hazard Mater 170: 530-551.
Francis. RA: Small. MI: Vanbriesen. 1M. (2009). Multivariate distributions of disinfection by-products in
chlorinated drinking water. Water Res 43: 3453-3468. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.05.008
Gomes. I: Cocke. D: Das. K: Guttula. M: Trail, D: Beckinan: f, (2009). Treatment of produced water by
electrocoagulation. Shiner, TX: KASELC0, LLC. http://www.kaselco.com/index.php/library/industry-
white-papers
Guolin, I: Xiaovu. W: Chunjie, H. (2008). The effect of oilfield polymer-flooding wastewater on anion exchange
membrane performance. Desalination 220: 386-393.
Habuda-Stanic. M: Ravancic, ME: Flanagan. A. (2014). A Review on Adsorption of Fluoride from Aqueous
Solution. Materials 7: 6317-6366. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma7096317
Halldorson. B. (2013). Successful oilfield water management: Five unique case studies. Presentation
presented at EPA Technical Workshop - Wastewater Treatment and Related Modeling Research, April 18,
2013, Triangle Park, NC.
Halliburton. (2014). Hydraulic fracturing 101. Available online at
http://www.haIIiburton.com/pubIic/projects/pubsdata/hydrauIic fracturing/fracturing 101.html
H ami eh. BM: Beckman. JR. (2006). Seawater desalination using Dewvaporation technique: theoretical
development and design evolution. Desalination 195: 1-13.
liti	ioior g /10.1016 / j. desal .2 005.09.03 4
Hammer. R: VanBriesen. I. (2 012). In frackings wake: New rules are needed to protect our health and
environment from contaminated wastewater. New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council.
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/flles/fracking-wastewater-fulIreport.pdf
. IS: Dwver, GS: Warner. NR: Parker. KM: Mitch. WA: Vengosh. A. (2015). Iodide, Bromide, and
Ammonium in Hydraulic Fracturing and Oil and Gas Wastewaters: Environmental Implications. Environ
Sci Technol 49:1955-1963.
Hayes. T: Severin. B. (2012a). Characterization of flowback water from the the Marcellus and the Barnett
shale regions. Barnett and Appalachian shale water management and reuse technologies. (08122-05.09;
Contract 08122-05). Hayes, T; Severin, B. http://www.rpsea.org/media/files/project/2146b3a0/08122-
05-RT-Characterization Flowback Waters Marcellus Barnett Shale Regions-03-20-12.pdf
Harki
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-30	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Hayes, T: Severin, BF, (2012b). Evaluation of the aqua-pure mechanical vapor recompression system in the
treatment of shale gas flowback water - Barnett and Appalachian shale water management and reuse
technologies. (08122-05.11). Hayes, T; Severin, BF. http://barnettshalewater.org/documents/08122-
05.11-EvaluationofMVR-3-12-2012.pdf
Hayes. TP: Arthur. D. (2004). Overview of emerging produced water treatment technologies. Paper presented
at 11th Annual International Petroleum Environmental Conference, October 12-15, 2004, Albuquerque,
NM.
Hayes, TP: HalMorson. B: jjorner^	I: Werline. IR: Severin. BF. (2014). Mechanical vapor
recompression for the treatment of shale-gas flowback water. Oil and Gas Facilities 3: 54-62.
Hua, GH: Reckhow, PA: Kim, f, (2006). Effect of bromide and iodide ions on the formation and speciation of
disinfection byproducts during chlorination. Environ Sci Technol 40: 3050-3056.
hE	ioi.org/10.1021/es0519278
Igunntt, ET: Chen. GZ. (2014). Produced water treatment technologies. International Journal of Low-Carbon
Technologies 9:157-177. http: //dx.doi.Qrg/10.1093/iiIct/cts049
Jones. PB : SagIam. A: Song. H: Karanfil. T. (2012). The impact of bromide/iodide concentration and ratio on
iodinated trihalomethane formation and speciation. Water Res 46: 11-20.
htj	ioi.org/10.1016/iwatres.2Qll.10.005
Kimball. B. (2010). Water treatment technologies for global unconventional gas plays. Presentation presented
at US - China Industry Oil and Gas Forum, September 16, 2010, Fort Worth, TX.
Kose. B: Ozgttn, H: Ersahin. ME: Pizge. N; Koseoglulmer. PY: Atay. B: Kaya. R: Altinbas. M: Sayili. S: Hosfaan, P:
Atay, D: Eren, E: Kinaci, C: Kovuncu. I. (2012). Performance evaluation of a submerged membrane
bioreactor for the treatment of brackish oil and natural gas field produced water. Desalination 285: 295-
300.
Krasner. SW. (2009). The formation and control of emerging disinfection by-products of health concern
[Review], Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci 367: 4077-4095. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2009.010
LEau LLC. (2008). Dew vaporation desalination 5,000-gallon-per-day pilot plant. (Desalination and Water
Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 120). Denver, CO: Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior. htto://www.us br.gov/research/AVVT/reportpdfs/reportl20.pdf
Ludzack, FI; Noran, PK, (1965). Tolerance of high salinities by conventional wastewater treatment processes.
J Water Pollut Control Fed 37:1404-1416.
Ltth. f: Marinas. Bf, (2012). Bromide ion effect on N-nitrosodimethylamine formation by monochloramine.
Environ Sci Technol 46: 5085-5092. htj	ioi.org/10.1021/es300Q77x
Ma. G: Geza. M: Xu. P. (2014). Review of flowback and produced water management, treatment, and beneficial
use for major shale gas development basins. Shale Energy Engineering Conference 2014, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, United States.
Manios. T: Stentiford. EI: Millner. P. (2003). Removal of total suspended solids from wastewater in
constructed horizontal flow subsurface wetlands. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 38:
1073-1085.	ioi.org/10.1081/ESE-120019865
Matamoros, ¥: Mujeriego. R: Bayona, IM, (2007). Trihalomethane occurrence in chlorinated reclaimed water
at full-scale wastewater treatment plants in NE Spain. Water Res 41: 3337-3344.
ht	ioi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.04.021
McGuire. MI: Karanfil. T: Krasner. SW: Reckhow. DA: Roberson. IA: Summers. RS: Westerhoff. P: Xie.Y. C2014I
Not your granddad's disinfection by-product problems and solutions. JAWWA 106: 54-73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0128
Miller. P. (2011). Future of hydraulic fracturing depends on effective water treatment. Hydrocarbon Process
90: 13-13.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-31	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Montgomery, C, (2013). Fracturing fluid components. In A Bunder; J McLennon; R Jeffrey (Eds.), Effective and
Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing. Croatia: InTech. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56422
Milliter, R. (2000). Industrial wastewater treatment. In LC Lundin (Ed.), Sustainable water management in the
Baltic Sea Basin book II: Water use and management (pp. 195-210). Sida, Sweden: Baltic University
Programme Publication. http://www.balticuniv.uu.se/index.php/bpH-pnline-library/831-swm-2-water-
use-and-management
Nicot, IP; Reedy, RC: Costlev, RA: Huang, Y. (2012). Oil & gas water use in Texas: Update to the 2011 mining
water use report Nicot, JP; Reedy, RC; Costley, RA; Huang, Y.
http://www.twdb.5tate.ta.us/pubHcations/reports/contracted reports/doc/0904830939 2012Update M
mmgWaterUse.pdf
NMSU DACC WUTAP (New Mexico State University, Dona Ana Community College, Water Utilities Technical
Assistance Program). (2007). New Mexico wastewater systems operator certification study manual -
Version 1.1. Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Environment Department.
http://www.nmrwa.org/sites/nmrwa.org/files/WastewaterOperatorStudyManual.pdf
Obolensky, A; Singer, PC, (2008). Development and interpretation of disinfection byproduct formation models
using the Information Collection Rule database. Environ Sci Technol 42: 5654-5660.
hti	ioi. org/10.102 l/es702974f
ONG Services, (2015). ONGList: Reserved Environmental Services. Available online at
http://www,onglist,com/Hoine/Search?SearchString=Reserved+environmental+services&Distance=&sea
rchAddress=&CategorvTypeID=l&SubCategoryID
Parker KM: Zeng. T: Harkness. I: Vengosh. A: Mitch, WA, (2014). Enhanced formation of disinfection
byproducts in shale gas wastewater-impacted drinking water supplies. Environ Sci Technol 48:11161-
11169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5028184
Pope, PG: Martin-Poole, M: Speitel, GE: Collins, MR, (2007). Relative significance of factors influencing DXAA
formation during chloramination. JAWWA 99:144-156.
Richardson, SD: Plewa. MI: Wagner, ED: Schoenv, R: Demarini, DM, (2007). Occurrence, genotoxicity, and
carcinogenicity of regulated and emerging disinfection by-products in drinking water: A review and
roadmap for research [Review], Mutat Res 636:178-242. http: //dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.mrrev.2007.09.00
Shafgr, L, (2011). Water recycling and purification in the Pinedale anticline field: results from the anticline
disposal project. In 2011 SPE Americas E&P health, safety, security & environmental conference.
Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers, htt;> ft; doi,org/10,2! I i J.1 \ \ H-MS
Shaffe	rias Chavez, LH: Ben-Sasson, M: Romero-Vargas Castrillon, S: Yip, NY: Elimelech, M, (2013).
Desalination and reuse of high-salinity shale gas produced water: drivers, technologies, and future
directions. Environ Sci Technol 47: 9569-9583.
Shammas, NK, (2010). Wastewater renovation by flotation. In LK Wang; NK Shammas; WA Selke; DB
Aulenbach (Eds.), Flotation technology (pp. 327-345). New York, NY: Humana Press.
hi!	ioi,org/10,1007/978-1-60327-133-2 9
Singer, P, (2010). Anomalous DBP speciation patterns: Examples and explanations. Water Quality Technology
Conference and Exposition 2010, November, 14-18, 2010, Savannah, GA.
States, S; Cyprych, G; Stoner, M; Wvdra, F; Kuchta, I; Monnell, J; Casson, L, (2013). Marcellus Shale drilling and
brominated THMs in Pittsburgh, Pa., drinking water. J Am Water Works Assoc 105: E432-E448.
MU> - - ,1, doi,org/10,5942/iawwa,2013,105,0093
Tchobanoglous, G: Burton, FL: Stensel, HP, (2013). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and reuse. In th (Ed.),
(9780070418783 ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-32	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix F
Tiemann. M: FoIger. P: Carter, NT, (2014). Shale energy technology assessment: Current and emerging water
practices. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-
content/uploads// assets/crs/R43635. pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2005). Membrane filtration guidance manual. (EPA 815-R-
06-009). Washington, D.C.
fattp://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/disinfection/It2/pdfs/guide lt2 memfaranefiltration final,pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2006). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule.
http://water.epa.gov/Iawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/stage2/
U.S. EPA. Announcement of preliminary regulatory determinations for contaminants on the third drinking
water contaminant candidate list EPA-HO-OW-2012-Q1SS 62715 -62750 (62736 pages) (2014a).
httesilwwwJMeralregistej^yla^
regulatory-determinations-for-contaminants-on-the-third-drinking-water#page-62715
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015g). Technical development document for proposed
effluent limitation guidelines and standards for oil and gas extraction. (EPA-821-R-15-003). Washington,
D.C. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/oilandgas/unconv.cfm
Veil. I A. (2010). Water management technologies used by Marcellus shale gas producers - Final Report. (DOE
Award No.: FWP 49462). Veil, JA.
http://fracfocus.org/sites/defauIt/fiIes/publications/water management in the mar cell us, pdf
on regional water quality [Review], Science 340:1235009. http:/ /dx.doi,org/10.1126/science, 1235009
Walsh, IM, (2013). Water management for hydraulic fracturing in unconventional resourcesPart 1. Oil and
Gas Facilities 2.
Wasvlishen, R: Fulton, S, (2012). Reuse of flowback & produced water for hydraulic fracturing in tight oil.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada: The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada (PTAC).
http: //www.ptac, org/ proj ects /151
Woolard, CR: Irvine, RL, (1995). Treatment of of hypersaline wastewater in the sequencing batch reactor.
Water Res 29:1159-1168.
WVWRI (West Virginia Water Research Institute, West Virginia University). (2012). Zero discharge water
management for horizontal shale gas well development. (DE-FE0001466). https://www.netl.doe.gov/File
Library/Research/Oil-Gas/Natural Gas/shale gas/fe0001466-final-report.pdf
Yang, X: Shang, C, (2004). Chlorination byproduct formation in the presence of humic acid, model nitrogenous
organic compounds, ammonia, and bromide. Environ Sci Technol 38: 4995-5001.
M;	ioi.org/10.1021/es049580g
Yottnos, T: Tulou, KE, (2005). Overview of desalination techniques. Journal of Contemporary Water Research
& Education 132: 3-10. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/i.1936-704X.2005.mpl32001002.x
Zhang, T: Gregory, K: Hammack, RW: Vidic, RD, (2014). Co-precipitation of radium with barium and strontium
sulfate and its impact on the fate of radium during treatment of produced water from unconventional gas
extraction. Environ Sci Technol 48: 4596-4603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es405168b
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	F-33	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Appendix G
Identification and Hazard Evaluation of
Chemicals across the Hydraulic Fracturing
Water Cycle Supplemental Tables and
Information
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Appendix G. Identification and Hazard Evaluation of
Chemicals across the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle
Supplemental Tables and Information
Appendix G provides detail and supporting information on the oral reference values (RfVs) and oral
slope factors (OSFs) that were identified in Chapter 9 of this assessment1 Section G.l provides
detail on the criteria used to select sources of RfVs and OSFs for chemicals used or detected in
hydraulic fracturing processes, and lists all sources of RfVs and OSFs that were considered for this
study. Section G.2 provides a glossary of the toxicity value terminology that is used by these various
sources. Lastly, all of the RfVs and OSFs collected from these sources are provided in Table G-l and
Table G-2. Tables G-la through G-ld show the available RfVs and OSFs for chemicals used in
hydraulic fracturing fluids, and Tables G-2a through G-2d show the available RfVs and OSFs for
chemicals detected in hydraulic fracturing flowback and wastewater. These tables provide cancer
weight-of-evidence (WOE) characterizations for these chemicals where available, and indicate
whether each chemical has available data on physicochemical properties or occurrence.
G.l. Criteria for Selection and Inclusion of Reference Value (RfV) and Oral
Slope Factor (OSF) Data Sources
The criteria listed below were used to evaluate the quality of RfVs and OSFs considered for use in
the hazard analyses conducted in Chapter 9. These criteria were originally outlined in the hydraulic
fracturing research plan (U.S. EPA. 2011a) and interim progress report (U.S. EPA. 2012c). Only data
sources that met these criteria were considered of sufficient quality to be included in the analyses.
The following criteria had to be met for a source to be deemed of sufficient quality:
1) The body or organization generating or producing the peer-reviewed RfVs, peer-reviewed OSFs,
or peer reviewed qualitative assessment must be a governmental or intergovernmental body.
a. Governmental bodies include sovereign states, and federated states/units.
b. Intergovernmental bodies are those whose members are sovereign states, and the
subdivisions or agencies of such intergovernmental bodies. The United Nations is an
example of an intergovernmental body. The International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) is an agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), which is itself an
agency of the United Nations. Thus, IARC is considered a subdivision of the United
Nations.
1 As defined in Chapter 9, the term RfV refers to reference values for noncancer effects occurring via the oral route of
exposure and for chronic durations, except where noted.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 G-l DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
2)	The data source must include peer-reviewed RfVs, peer-reviewed OSFs, or peer reviewed
qualitative assessments.
a.	A committee that is established to derive the RfVs, OSFs, or qualitative assessments can
have members of that same committee provide the peer review, so long as either the
entire committee, or members of the committee who did not participate in the
derivation of a specific section of a work product, conduct the review.
b.	Peer reviewers who work for grantees of the organization deriving the RfVs, OSFs, or
qualitative assessments are generally allowed, and this will not be considered to
constitute a conflict/duality of interest.
c.	Peer reviewers may work in the same or different office, so long as they did not
participate in any way in the development of the product, and these individuals must be
free of conflicts/duality of interest with respect to the chemical(s) assigned.
i. For instance, peer reviewers for Program X, conducted by Office A, may also be
employed by Office A so long as they did not participate in the creation of the
Program X product they are reviewing.
3)	The RfVs, OSFs, or qualitative assessments must be based on peer-reviewed scientific data.
a. There are cases where industry reports that were not published in a peer-reviewed,
scholarly journal may be used, if the industry report has been adequately peer-reviewed
by an external body (external to the group generating the report, and external to the
group generating the peer-reviewed RfVs, peer-reviewed OSFs, or peer-reviewed
qualitative assessment) that is free of conflicts/dualities of interest
4)	The RfVs, OSFs, or qualitative assessments must be focused on protection of the general public.
a. Sources that are focused on workers are not appropriate as workers are assumed to
accommodate additional risk than the general public due to their status as workers.
5)	The body generating the values or qualitative assessments must be free of conflicts of interest
with respect to the chemicals for which it derives RfVs, OSFs, or qualitative assessments.
a.	If a body generating the RfVs, OSFs, or qualitative assessments accepts funding from an
interested party (i.e., a company or organization that may be impacted by past, present,
or future values or qualitative assessments), then the body has a conflict of interest
b.	For instance, if a non-profit organization is funded by an industry trade group, and the
non-profit generates RfVs, OSFs, or qualitative assessments for chemicals that trade
group is interested in, then the non-profit is considered to have a conflict of interest
with respect to those chemicals.
It is important to note that having a conflict/duality of interest for one chemical is sufficient to
disqualify the entire database, as it is assumed that conflicts/dualities of interest may exist for
other chemicals as well.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-2	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
G.l.l. Included Sources
We applied our criteria to 16 different sources of RfVs and/or OSFs. After application of our criteria,
we were left with eight sources. For those sources which did not meet our criteria, we provide an
explanation of why they were excluded.
The following sources were evaluated, met our criteria, and were selected as sources of reference
doses or cancer slope factors for this analysis:
• U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
• U.S. EPA Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides (HHBP)
• U.S. EPA Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs)
• U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk
Levels (MRLs)
• California EPA Toxicity Criteria Database
• International Programme On Chemical Safety (IPCS) Concise International Chemical
Assessment Documents (CICAD)
The following sources were evaluated, met our criteria, and were selected as sources of qualitative
cancer classifications:
• International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
• US National Toxicology Program Report on Carcinogens (RoC)
RfVs and/or OSFs from these data sources are listed in Tables G-la through G-ld for chemicals used
in hydraulic fracturing fluid formulation, and Tables G-2a through G-2d for chemicals reported in
hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced water.
In addition, Table G-l and Table G-2 also list the EPA's drinking water maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) and maximum contaminant goal levels (MCLG) when available. These values are generally
based on IRIS values, and are treatment-based. MCL and MCLG values are listed for reference only,
and were not considered in the hazard analysis presented in Chapter 9.
G.1.2. Excluded Sources
• American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: The assessments
derived by this body are specific to workers and are not generalizable to the general
public. In addition, this body is not a governmental or intergovernmental body. Thus, these
values were excluded based on criteria 1 and 4.
• European Chemicals Bureau, Classification and Labeling Annex I of Directive
67/548/EEC: These assessments are not based on peer-reviewed values, but are based on
data supplied by manufacturers. Further, the enabling legislation states that
"Manufacturers, importers, and downstream users shall examine the information...to
ascertain whether it is adequate, reliable and scientifically valid for the purpose of the
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 G-3 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
evaluation..." This clearly demonstrates that the data and the evaluation are not required
to be peer-reviewed. Thus, these values were excluded based on criterion 2.
• Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment's (TERA's) International Toxicity
Estimates for Risk Assessment (ITER): The ITER database is developed by TERA a
501(c)(3) non-profit TERA accepts funding from various sources, including interested
parties that may be impacted by their assessment work. Thus, ITER is excluded based on
criteria 1 and 5.
• Other U.S. states: The EPA evaluated values from all states that had values reported on
their websites. If a state's values were determined to be largely duplicative of the EPA's
values (e.g., the state adopts EPA values, such as the regional screening levels, and does
not typically generate its own peer-reviewed values), that state's values were no longer
considered. The EPA contacted those states whose values were determined to not be
duplicative of EPA's values, and confirmed whether or not a peer review process was used
to develop the state's values. The EPA determined that of the states with values not
duplicative of the EPA's values, only California's values met all of the EPA's criteria for this
report Other states with publicly accessible RfVs and/or OSFs include: Alabama, Florida,
Hawaii, and Texas.
• WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality: The WHO Guidelines' values are not RfVs,
but rather drinking water values.
G.2. Glossary of Toxicity Value Terminology
This section defines the toxicity values and qualitative cancer classifications that are frequently
found in the sources identified above.
Lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL): The lowest exposure level at which there are
biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of adverse effects between the exposed
population and its appropriate control group. Source: U.S. EPA (2011c).
Maximum allowable daily level (MADL): The maximum allowable daily level of a reproductive
toxicant at which the chemical would have no observable adverse reproductive effect, assuming
exposure at 1,000 times that level. Source: OEHHA (20121.
Maximum contaminant level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in
drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment
technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards. Source: U.S. EPA
f2014bl.
Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below
which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are
nonenforceable public health goals. Source: U.S. EPA (2014b).
Minimum risk level (MRL): An ATSDR estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance
at or below which the substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of harmful (adverse),
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 G-4 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
1 noncancerous effects. MRLs are calculated for a route of exposure (inhalation or oral) over a
2 specified time period (acute, intermediate, or chronic). MRLs should not be used as predictors of
3 harmful (adverse) health effects.
7 Source: ATSDR f20091.
8 No-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL): The highest exposure level at which there are no
9 biologically significant increases in the frequency or severity of adverse effect between the exposed
10 population and its appropriate control; some effects may be produced at this level, but they are not
11 considered adverse or precursors of adverse effects. Source: U.S. EPA (201 lc).
12 Oral slope factor (OSF): An upper-bound, approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased
13 cancer risk from a lifetime oral exposure to an agent. This estimate, usually expressed in units of
14 proportion (of a population) affected per mg/kg-day, is generally reserved for use in the low-dose
15 region of the dose-response relationship, that is, for exposures corresponding to risks less than 1 in
16 100. Source: U.S. EPA f2011cl,
......re....
17 Reference dose (RfD) (U.S. EPA IRIS and PPRTV definition): An estimate (with uncertainty
18 spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population
19 (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
20 during a lifetime. It can be derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL, or benchmark dose, with uncertainty
21 factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used. The RfD is generally used in the
22 EPA's noncancer health assessments.
23 • Chronic RfD: Duration of exposure is up to a lifetime.
24 • Subchronic RfD (sRFD): Duration of exposure is up to 10% of an average lifespan.
25 Source: IJ.S. EPA f2011c).
26 Reference dose (RfD) (U.S. EPA HHBP definition): The particular concentration of a chemical
2 7 that is known not to cause health problems. A standard that also may be referred to as the
28 acceptable daily intake. Derived using the same EPA guidance for IRIS and PPRTV RfD
29 determination. Source: U.S. EPA f2015el.
30 Tolerable daily intake (TDI): An estimate of the intake of a substance, expressed on a body mass
31 basis, to which an individual in a (sub) population may be exposed daily over its lifetime without
32 appreciable health risk. Source: WHO ("20151.
33 Weight-of-evidence (WOE) characterization for carcinogenicity: A system used for
34 characterizing the extent to which the available data support the hypothesis that an agent causes
3 5 cancer in humans.
4
6
5
• Chronic MRL: Duration of exposure is 365 days or longer.
• Intermediate MRL: Duration of exposure is >14 to 364 days.
• Acute MRL: Duration of exposure is 1 to 14 days.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015
G-5
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
• EPA 1986 guidelines: Under the EPA's 1986 risk assessment guidelines, the WOE was
described by categories "A through E," with Group A for known human carcinogens through
Group E for agents with evidence of noncarcinogenicity. Five standard WOE descriptors
were used:
o A: Human carcinogen
o Bl: Probable human carcinogen—based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity in
humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals
o B2: Probable human carcinogen—based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals
o C: Possible human carcinogen
o D: Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
o E: Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans
• EPA 1996 proposed guidelines: The EPA's 1996 proposed guidelines outlined a major
change in the way hazard evidence was weighted in reaching conclusions about the human
carcinogenic potential of agents. These guidelines replaced the WOE letter categories with
the use of standard descriptors of conclusions incorporated into a brief narrative. Three
categories of descriptors with the narrative were used:
o Not likely
Source: U.S. EPA fl9961.
• EPA 1999 guidelines: The 1999 guidelines adopted a framework incorporating hazard
identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization
with an emphasis on characterization of evidence and conclusions in each part of the
assessment. Five descriptors summarizing the WOE in the narrative were used:
o Carcinogenic to humans
o Likely to be carcinogenic to humans
o Suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human
carcinogenic potential
o Data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential
o Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans
• EPA 2005 guidelines: The approach outlined in the EPA's 2005 guidelines for carcinogen
risk assessment considers all scientific information in determining whether and under what
conditions an agent may cause cancer in humans and provides a narrative approach to
Source:
o Known/likely
o Cannot be determined
Source: U.S. EP.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015
G-6
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
characterize carcinogenicity rather than categories. Five standard WOE descriptors are
used as part of the narrative:
o Carcinogenic to humans
o Likely to be carcinogenic to humans
o Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential
o Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential
o Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans
Source: IJ.S. EPA f2011c).
•	IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: The IARC
classifies carcinogen risk as a matter of scientific judgement that reflects the strength of the
evidence derived from studies in humans, in experimental animals, from mechanistic data,
and from other relevant data. Five WOE classifications are used:
o Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
o Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans
o Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans
o Group 3: Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans
o Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans
Source: IARC f20151.
•	NTP: The NTP describes the results of individual experiments on a chemical agent and
notes the strength of the evidence for conclusions regarding each study. Negative results, in
which the study animals do not have a greater incidence of neoplasia than control animals,
do not necessarily mean that a chemical is not a carcinogen, inasmuch as the experiments
are conducted under a limited set of conditions. Positive results demonstrate that a
chemical is carcinogenic for laboratory animals under the conditions of the study and
indicate that exposure to the chemical has the potential for hazard to humans. For each
separate experiment, one of the following five categories is selected to describe the findings.
These categories refer to the strength of the experimental evidence and not to potency or
mechanism.
o Clear evidence of carcinogenic activity
o Some evidence of carcinogenic activity
o Equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity
o No evidence of carcinogenic activity
o Inadequate study of carcinogenic activity
Source: NTP f2014a).
•	The RoC is a congressionally mandated, science-based, public health report that identifies
agents, substances, mixtures, or exposures (collectively called "substances") in our
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-7	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
environment that may potentially put people in the United States at increased risk for
cancer. NTP prepares the RoC on behalf of the Secretary of the Health and Human Services.
The listing criteria in the RoC Document are:
o Known to be a human carcinogen
o Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen
Source: NTP f 2014b).
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-8	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
G.3. Tables
Table G-la. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, with available federal chronic RfVs and OSFs.
Chemicals from the FracFocus database are listed first, ranked by IRIS reference dose (RfD). The symbol indicates that no value was available
from the sources consulted. Additionally, an "x" indicates the availability of usage data from FracFocus (U.S. EPA, 2015a) and physicochemical
properties data from EPI Suite™ (see Appendix C). Italicized chemicals are found in both fracturing fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical Name
CASRN
Frac-
Focus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg/
kg-day)
Chronic
RfD8
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health goalf
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Acrylamide
79-06-1
X
X
0.002
0.5
"Likely to be
carcinogenic
to humans"
-
-
-
0.001
-
0
-
Propargyl alcohol
107-19-7
X
X
0.002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Furfural
98-01-1
X
X
0.003
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.01
-
-
Benzene
71-43-2
X
X
0.004
0.015-
0.055
A
-
-
-
0.0005
-
0
0.005
Dichloromethane
75-09-2
X
X
0.006
0.002
"Likely to be
carcinogenic
in humans"
-
-
-
0.06
-
0
0.005
Naphthalene
91-20-3
X
X
0.02
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess human
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-9	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Frac-
Focus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg/
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health goalf
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
X
X
0.03
0.1
"Likely to be
carcinogenic
to humans"
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
Sodium chlorite
7758-19-2
X

0.03
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess human
carcinogen-
icity"
-
-
-
-
-
1
0.8
Chlorine dioxide
10049-04-4
X

0.03
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess human
carcinogen-
icity"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,3-
Dichloropropene
542-75-6
X
X
0.03
0.05
"Likely to be a
human
carcinogen"
-
-
-
0.03
-
-
-
Bisphenol A
80-05-7
X
X
0.05
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toluene
108-88-3
X
X
0.08
-
"Inadequate
information to
assess the
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
X
0.1
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-10	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Frac-
Focus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg/
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health goalf
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
1-Butanol
71-36-3
X
X
0.1
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cumene
98-82-8
X
X
0.1
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acetophenone
98-86-2
X
X
0.1
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
X
X
0.1
-
"Not likely to
be carcino-
genic to
humans"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Xylenes
1330-20-7
X
X
0.2
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess the
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
0.2
-
10
10
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
X
X
0.2
-
B1
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
Phenol
108-95-2
X
X
0.3
-
"Data are
inadequate
for an
assessment of
human
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2-Methyl-l-
propanol
78-83-1
X
X
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-ll	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Frac-
Focus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg/
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health goalf
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Acetone
67-64-1
X
X
0.9
-
"Data are
inadequate
for an
assessment of
human
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ethyl acetate
141-78-6
X
X
0.9
-
-
-
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
X
X
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Methanol
67-56-1
X
X
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzoic acid
65-85-0
X
X
4
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aniline
62-53-3
X
X
-
0.0057
B2
0.007
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
X
X
-
0.17
B2
0.002
-
-
-
-
-
-
(E)-Crotonaldehyde
123-73-9
X
X
-
-
C
0.001
-
-
-
-
-
-
N,N-Dimethylform
amide
68-12-2
X
X
-
-
-
0.1
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Epichlorohydrin
106-89-8
X
X
-
0.0099
B2
0.006
-
-
-
-
0
-
1,2-Propylene
glycol
57-55-6
X
X
-
-
-
20
-
NL
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-12	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Frac-
Focus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg/
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health goalf
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
112-34-5
X
X
-
-
-
0.03
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Hexanedioic acid
124-04-9
X
X
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quinoline
91-22-5
X
X
-
3
"Likely to be
carcinogenic
in humans"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ethylenediamine
107-15-3
X
X
-
-
D
0.09
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Formic acid
64-18-6
X
X
-
-
-
0.9
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Sodium chlorate
7775-09-9
X

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.03
-
-
Quaternary
ammonium
compounds,
benzyl-C12-16-
alkyldimethyl,
chlorides
68424-85-1
X

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.44
-
-
Benzenesulfonic
acid, C10-16-alkyl
derivs.
68584-22-5
X

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
Ammonium
phosphate
7722-76-1
X

-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Didecyldimethylam
monium chloride
7173-51-5
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
2-(Thiocyano
methylthio)benzot
hiazole
21564-17-0
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.01
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-13	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Frac-
Focus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg/
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health goalf
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Mineral oil -
includes paraffin
oil
8012-95-1
X

-
-
-
3
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Trisodium
phosphate
7601-54-9
X

-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Triphosphoric acid,
pentasodium salt
7758-29-4
X

-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Aluminum
7429-90-5
X

-
-
-
1
-
IN
1
-
-
-
Phosphoric acid
7664-38-2
X

-
-
-
48.6
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Iron
7439-89-6
X

-
-
-
0.7
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Tricalcium
phosphate
7758-87-4
X

-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Bis(2-chloroethyl)
ether
111-44-4
X
X
-
1.1
B2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dodecylbenzenesul
fonic acid
27176-87-0
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
Hydrazine
302-01-2
X

-
3
B2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tetrasodium
pyrophosphate
7722-88-5
X

-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-14	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Frac-
Focus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg/
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health goalf
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Potassium
phosphate, tribasic
7778-53-2
X

-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Sodium
trimetaphosphate
7785-84-4
X

-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Arsenic
7440-38-2


0.0003
1.5
A
-
-
-
0.0003
-
0
0.010
Phosphine
7803-51-2


0.0003
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acrolein
107-02-8

X
0.0005
-
"Data are
inadequate
for an
assessment of
human
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9


0.003
-
A (inhaled);
D(oral)
-
-
-
0.0009
-
-
-
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
117-81-7

X
0.02
0.014
B2
-
-
-
0.06
-
0
0.006
Chlorine
7782-50-5


0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Styrene
100-42-5

X
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-15	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Frac-
Focus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg/
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health goalf
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Zinc
7440-66-6


0.3
-
"Inadequate
information to
assess
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
Acrylic acid
79-10-7

X
0.5
-
-
-
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Chromium (III)
16065-83-1


1.5
-
"Data are
inadequate
for an
assessment of
human
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Phthalic anhydride
85-44-9

X
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cyclohexanone
108-94-1

X
5
-
-
-
-
IN
-
-
-
-
1,2-Propylene
oxide
75-56-9

X
-
0.24
B2
-
-
-
-
0.001
-
-
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)
ethanol
111-90-0

X
-
-
-
0.06
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Tributyl phosphate
126-73-8

X
-
-
-
0.01
0.009
LI
0.08
-
-
-
2-Methoxyethanol
109-86-4

X
-
-
-
0.005
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Polyphosphoric
acids, sodium salts
68915-31-1


-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Phosphoric acid,
diammonium salt
7783-28-0


-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-16	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Frac-
Focus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa
(mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per
mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg/
kg-day)
Chronic
RfD8
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health goalf
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Sodium
pyrophosphate
7758-16-9


-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Phosphoric acid,
aluminium sodium
salt
7785-88-8


-
-
-
49
-
IN
-
-
-
-
ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; CASRN = Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number; IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System; PPRTV = Provisional
Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values; HHBP = Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides
a Reference dose (RfD) (IRIS and PPRTV definition): An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from a no observed-adverse-effect level
(NOAEL), lowest observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL), or benchmark dose (BMD), with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used. The RfD is
generally used in the EPA's noncancer health assessments. Chronic RfD: Duration of exposure is up to a lifetime.
b Oral slope factor (OSF): An upper-bound, approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime oral exposure to an agent. This estimate, usually
expressed in units of proportion (of a population) affected per mg/kg-day, is generally reserved for use in the low dose region of the dose response relationship, that is, for
exposures corresponding to risks less than 1 in 100.
c Weight of evidence (WOE) characterization for carcinogenicity: A system used for characterizing the extent to which the available data support the hypothesis that an agent
causes cancer in humans. See glossary for details.
d Minimum risk level (MRL): An ATSDR estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance at or below which the substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of
harmful (adverse), noncancerous effects. MRLs are calculated for a route of exposure (inhalation or oral) over a specified time period (acute, intermediate, or chronic). MRLs
should not be used as predictors of harmful (adverse) health effects. Chronic MRL: Duration of exposure is 365 days or longer.
e Reference dose (RfD) (HHBP definition): The particular concentration of a chemical that is known not to cause health problems. A standard that also may be referred
to as the acceptable daily intake. Derived using the same EPA guidance for RfD determination.
f Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of
safety and are nonenforceable public health goals.
s Maximum contaminant level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available
treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-17	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Table G-lb. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, with available state
chronic RfVs and OSFs.
Chemicals from the FracFocus database are listed first, ranked by California EPA maximum allowable
daily level (MADL). The symbol indicates that no value was available from the sources consulted.
Additionally, an "x" indicates the availability of usage data from FracFocus (U.S. EPA, 2015a) and
physicochemical properties data from EPI Suite™ (see Appendix C). Italicized chemicals are found in
both fracturing fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical name
CASRN
FracFocus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
California
Oral MADLa
(Hg/day)
OSFb (per
mg/kg-day)
Ethylene oxide
75-21-8
X
X
20
0.31
Benzene
71-43-2
X
X
24
0.1
N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone
872-50-4
X
X
17000
-
Acrylamide
79-06-1
X
X
140
4.5
Aniline
62-53-3
X
X
-
0.0057
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
X
X
-
0.17
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
X
X
-
0.027
Epichlorohydrin
106-89-8
X
X
-
0.08
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
X
-
0.011
Nitrilotriacetic acid
139-13-9
X
X
-
0.0053
Nitrilotriacetic acid trisodium
monohydrate
18662-53-8
X
X
-
0.01
Thiourea
62-56-6
X
X
-
0.072
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
111-44-4
X
X
-
2.5
1,3-Butadiene
106-99-0
X
X
-
0.6
Hydrazine
302-01-2
X

-
3
1,3-Dichloropropene
542-75-6
X
X
-
0.091
Dichloromethane
75-09-2
X
X
-
0.014
Lead
7439-92-1


0.5
0.0085
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9


8.2
0.5
2-Methoxyethanol
109-86-4

X
63
-
2-Ethoxyethanol
110-80-5

X
750
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-18	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical name
CASRN
FracFocus
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
California
Oral MADLa
(Hg/day)
OSFb (per
mg/kg-day)
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7

X
20 (neonate male)
58 (infant male)
410 (adult)
0.003
1,2-Propylene oxide
75-56-9

X
-
0.24
Arsenic
7440-38-2


-
9.5
a Maximum allowable daily level (MADL): The maximum allowable daily level of a reproductive toxicant at which the chemical
would have no observable adverse reproductive effect, assuming exposure at 1,000 times that level.
b Oral slope factor (OSF): An upper-bound, approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime
oral exposure to an agent. This estimate, usually expressed in units of proportion (of a population) affected per mg/kg day, is
generally reserved for use in the low-dose region of the dose-response relationship, that is, for exposures corresponding to
risks less than 1 in 100.
Table G-lc. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, with available
international chronic RfVs and OSFs.
Chemicals from the FracFocus database are listed first, ranked by CICAD reference dose (TDI, or
tolerable daily intake). An "x" indicates the availability of usage data from FracFocus (U.S. EPA, 2015a)
and physicochemical properties data from EPI Suite™ (see Appendix C). Italicized chemicals are found
in both fracturing fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical name
CASRN
FracFocus data
available
Physicochemical
data available
IPCS Chronic TDIa
(mg/kg-day)
D-Limonene
5989-27-5
x
X
0.1
Potassium iodide
7681-11-0
X

0.01
Sodium iodide
7681-82-5
X

0.01
Copper(l) iodide
7681-65-4
X

0.01
Glyoxal
107-22-2
X
X
0.2
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
X
X
0.05
N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone
872-50-4
X
X
0.6
Strontium chloride
10476-85-4


0.13
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9


0.0009
IPCS = International Programme on Chemical Safety; CICAD = Concise International Chemical Assessment Documents
a Tolerable daily intake (TDI): An estimate of the intake of a substance, expressed on a body mass basis, to which an individual
in a (sub) population may be exposed daily over its lifetime without appreciable health risk.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-19	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Table G-ld. Chemicals reported to be used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, with available less-
than-chronic RfVs and OSFs.
Chemicals from the FracFocus database are listed first, ranked by PPRTV subchronic reference dose
(sRfD). The symbol indicates that no value was available from the sources consulted. Additionally,
an "x" indicates the availability of usage data from FracFocus (U.S. EPA, 2015a) and physicochemical
properties data from EPI Suite™ (see Appendix C). Italicized chemicals are found in both fracturing
fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical name
CASRN
FracFocus
data
available
Physico-
chemical data
available
PPRTV
ATSDR
sRfDa
(mg/kg-day)
Acute oral
MRLb
(mg/kg-day)
Intermediate
oral MRLC
(mg/kg-day)
Benzyl chloride
100-44-7
X
X
0.002
-
-
Epichlorohydrin
106-89-8
X
X
0.006
-
-
(E)-Crotonaldehyde
123-73-9
X
X
0.01
-
-
Benzene
71-43-2
X
X
0.01
-
-
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
X
0.05
-
0.4
Ethylenediamine
107-15-3
X
X
0.2
-
-
N,N-
Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
X
X
0.3
-
-
2-(2-
Butoxyethoxy)ethanol
112-34-5
X
X
0.3
-
-
Hexane
110-54-3
X
X
0.3
-
-
Xylenes
1330-20-7
X
X
0.4
1
0.4
Antimony trioxide
1309-64-4
X

0.5
-
-
Iron
7439-89-6
X

0.7
-
-
Toluene
108-88-3
X
X
0.8
0.8
0.02
Formic acid
64-18-6
X
X
0.9
-
-
Hexanedioic acid
124-04-9
X
X
2
-
-
Benzoic acid
65-85-0
X
X
4
-
-
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6
X
X
20
-
-
Mineral oil - includes
paraffin oil
8012-95-1
X

30
-
-
Phosphoric acid
7664-38-2
X

48.6
-
-
Ammonium phosphate
7722-76-1
X

49
-
-
Trisodium phosphate
7601-54-9
X

49
-
-
Triphosphoric acid,
pentasodium salt
7758-29-4
X

49
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-20	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical name
CASRN
FracFocus
data
available
Physico-
chemical data
available
PPRTV
ATSDR
sRfDa
(mg/kg-day)
Acute oral
MRLb
(mg/kg-day)
Intermediate
oral MRLC
(mg/kg-day)
Tricalcium phosphate
7758-87-4
X

49
-
-
Tetrasodium
pyrophosphate
7722-88-5
X

49
-
-
Potassium phosphate,
tribasic
7778-53-2
X

49
-
-
Sodium
trimetaphosphate
7785-84-4
X

49
-
-
Acrylamide
79-06-1
X
X
-
0.01
0.001
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
X
X
-
5
0.5
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1
X
X
-
0.8
0.8
Naphthalene
91-20-3
X
X
-
0.6
0.6
Phenol
108-95-2
X
X
-
1
-
Sodium chlorite
7758-19-2
X

-
-
0.1
Acetone
67-64-1
X
X
-
-
2
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
X
X
-
0.4
0.07
Aluminum
7429-90-5
X

-
-
1
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
X
X
-
-
0.3
1,3-Dichloropropene
542-75-6
X
X
-
-
0.04
Dichloromethane
75-09-2
X
X
-
0.2
-
Antimony trichloride
10025-91-9


0.0004
-
-
2-Methoxyethanol
109-86-4

X
0.02
-
-
Tributyl phosphate
126-73-8

X
0.03
1.1
0.08
Acrylic acid
79-10-7

X
0.2
-
-
2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)
ethanol
111-90-0

X
0.6
-
-
Cyclohexanone
108-94-1

X
2
-
-
Polyphosphoric acids,
sodium salts
68915-31-1


49
-
-
Phosphoric acid,
diammonium salt
7783-28-0


49
-
-
Sodium
pyrophosphate
7758-16-9


49
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-21	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical name
CASRN
FracFocus
data
available
Physico-
chemical data
available
PPRTV
ATSDR
sRfDa
(mg/kg-day)
Acute oral
MRLb
(mg/kg-day)
Intermediate
oral MRLC
(mg/kg-day)
Phosphoric acid,
aluminium sodium salt
7785-88-8


49
-
-
Acrolein
107-02-8

X
-
-
0.004
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
117-81-7

X
-
-
0.1
Styrene
100-42-5

X
-
0.1
-
Arsenic
7440-38-2


-
0.005
-
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9


-
-
0.005
Copper
7440-50-8


-
0.01
0.01
Zinc
7440-66-6


-
-
0.3
a Reference dose (RfD): An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the
human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during
a lifetime. It can be derived from a no observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL), lowest observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL),
or benchmark dose (BMD), with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used. The RfD is
generally used in the EPA's noncancer health assessments. Subchronic RfD (sRFD): Duration of exposure is up to 10% of an
average lifespan.
b Minimum risk level (MRL): An ATSDR estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance at or below which the
substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of harmful (adverse), noncancerous effects. MRLs are calculated for a route of
exposure (inhalation or oral) over a specified time period (acute, intermediate, or chronic). MRLs should not be used as
predictors of harmful (adverse) health effects. Acute MRL: Duration of exposure is 1 to 14 days.
c Minimum risk level (MRL): An ATSDR estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance at or below which the
substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of harmful (adverse), noncancerous effects. MRLs are calculated for a route of
exposure (inhalation or oral) over a specified time period (acute, intermediate, or chronic). MRLs should not be used as
predictors of harmful (adverse) health effects. Intermediate MRL: Duration of exposure is >14 to 364 days.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-22	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Table G-2a. Chemicals reported to be detected in flowback or produced water, with available federal chronic RfVs and OSFs.
Chemicals are ranked by IRIS reference dose (RfD). The symbol indicates that no value was available from the sources consulted. Additionally,
an "x" indicates the availability of measured concentration data in flowback or produced water (see Appendix E) and physicochemical properties
data from EPI Suite™ (see Appendix C). Italicized chemicals are found in both fracturing fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical Name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg /
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health
goal'
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Heptachlor
epoxide
1024-57-3

X
0.000013
9.1
B2
-
-
-
-
-
0
0.0002
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
x

0.00002
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aldrin
309-00-2

X
0.00003
17
B2
-
-
-
0.00003
-
-
-
Dieldrin
60-57-1

X
0.00005
16
B2
-
-
-
0.00005
-
-
-
Arsenic
7440-38-2
X

0.0003
1.5
A
-
-
-
0.0003
-
0
0.010
Lindane
58-89-9

X
0.0003
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0002
0.0002
Antimony
7440-36-0
X

0.0004
-
-
-
-
IN
-
-
0.006
0.006
Acrolein
107-02-8

X
0.0005
-
"Data are
inadequate for
an assessment
of human
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cadmium
7440-43-9
X

0.0005
(water)
-
B1
-
-
-
0.0001
-
0.005
0.005
Heptachlor
76-44-8

X
0.0005
4.5
B2
-
-
-
-
-
0
0.0004
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-23	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg /
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health
goal'
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Cyanide
57-12-5

X
0.0006
-
"Inadequate
information to
assess the
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2
Pyridine
110-86-1
X
X
0.001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Methyl bromide
74-83-9

X
0.0014
-
D
-
-
-
-
0.02
-
-
Beryllium
7440-41-7
X

0.002
-
B1
-
-
-
0.002
-
0.004
0.004
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9


0.003
-
A (inhaled);
D(oral)
-
-
-
0.0009
-
-
-
Benzene
71-43-2
X
X
0.004
0.015-
0.055
A
-
-
-
0.0005
-
0
0.005
2-Methylnaphth
alene
91-57-6
X
X
0.004
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess human
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
0.04
-
-
-
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
X

0.005
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Silver
7440-22-4
X

0.005
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Selenium
7782-49-2
X

0.005
-
D
-
-
-
0.005
-
0.05
0.05
Dichloromethane
75-09-2

X
0.006
0.002
"Likely to be
carcinogenic in
humans"
-
-
-
0.06
-
0
0.005
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-24	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg /
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health
goal'
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
1,2,4-
Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1

X
0.01
-
D
-
0.029
LI
0.1
-
0.07
0.07
Tetrachloroethyl
ene
127-18-4

X
0.006
0.0021
"Likely to be
carcinogenic in
humans"
-
-
-
0.008
-
0
0.005
Chloroform
67-66-3
X
X
0.01
-
B2
-
-
-
0.01
-
-
-
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
117-81-7
X
X
0.02
0.014
B2
-
-
-
0.06
-
0
0.006
Naphthalene
91-20-3
X
X
0.02
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess human
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,4-
Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
X
X
0.02
-
-
-
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Chlorodibromom
ethane
124-48-1

X
0.02
0.084
C
-
-
-
0.09
-
-
-
Bromoform
75-25-2

X
0.02
0.0079
B2
-
-
-
0.02
-
-
-
Bromodichlorom
ethane
75-27-4

X
0.02
0.062
B2
-
-
-
0.02
-
-
-
Diphenylamine
122-39-4
X
X
0.025
-
-
-
-
IN
-
0.1
-
-
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
X
X
0.03
0.1
"Likely to be
carcinogenic to
humans"
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-25	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg /
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health
goal'
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Pyrene
129-00-0
X
X
0.03
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
X
X
0.04
-
D
-
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Fluorene
86-73-7
X
X
0.04
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
m-Cresol
108-39-4
X
X
0.05
-
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
o-Cresol
95-48-7
X
X
0.05
-
C
-
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Toluene
108-88-3
X
X
0.08
-
"Inadequate
information to
assess the
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
Chlorine
7782-50-5


0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
X
0.1
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
Cumene
98-82-8
X
X
0.1
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acetophenone
98-86-2
X
X
0.1
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
X
X
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dibutyl phthalate
84-74-2
X
X
0.1
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-26	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G




IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chemical Name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg /
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health
goal'
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Nitrite
14797-65-0
X

0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
Manganese
7439-96-5
X

0.14
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Xylenes
1330-20-7
X
X
0.2
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess the
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
0.2
-
10
10
Barium
7440-39-3
X

0.2
-
"Not likely to
be carcinogenic
to humans"
-
-
-
0.2
-
2
2
Boron
7440-42-8
X

0.2
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess the
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Zinc
7440-66-6
X

0.3
-
"Inadequate
information to
assess
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
Phenol
108-95-2
X
X
0.3
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess human
carcinogenicity
//
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-27	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg /
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health
goal'
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Strontium
7440-24-6
X

0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Methyl ethyl
ketone
78-93-3

X
0.6
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess
carcinogenic
potential"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2

X
0.8
-
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Acetone
67-64-1
X
X
0.9
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess human
carcinogenicity
//
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chromium (III)
16065-83-1


1.5
-
"Data are
inadequate to
assess human
carcinogenicity
//
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nitrate
14797-55-8
X

1.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
10
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1

X
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Methanol
67-56-1

X
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,2-Propylene
glycol
57-55-6

X
-
-
-
20
-
NL
-
-
-
-
Formic acid
64-18-6

X
-
-
-
0.9
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Aluminum
7429-90-5
X

-
-
-
1
-
IN
1
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-28	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg /
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health
goal'
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLg
(mg/L)
Iron
7439-89-6
X

-
-
-
0.7
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Bis(2-chloroethyl)
ether
111-44-4

X
-
1.1
B2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzyl alcohol
100-51-6
X
X
-
-
-
0.1
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Butylbenzene
104-51-8

X
-
-
-
0.05
-
IN
-
-
-
-
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1

X
-
0.54
B1
-
-
-
0.04
-
-
-
Phorate
298-02-2

X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0005
-
-
beta-Hexachloro
cyclohexane
319-85-7

X
-
1.8
C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
X
X
-
7.3
B2
-
-
-
-
-
0
0.0002
p,p'-DDE
72-55-9

X
-
0.34
B2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lithium
7439-93-2
X

-
-
-
0.002
-
IN
-
-
-
-
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-29	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical Name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
IRIS
PPRTV
ATSDR
HHBP
National Primary
Drinking Water
Regulations
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
RfDa (mg/
kg-day)
OSFb
(per mg/
kg-day)
Cancer
WOE
character-
ization
Chronic
oral MRLd
(mg /
kg-day)
Chronic
RfDe
(mg/kg-
day)
Public
health
goal'
(MCLG)
(mg/L)
MCLs
(mg/L)
Cobalt
7440-48-4
X

-
-
-
0.0003
-
LI
-
-
-
-
Vanadium
7440-62-2
X

-
-
-
0.00007
-
IN
-
-
-
-
N-Nitrosodiphen
ylamine
86-30-6
X
X
-
0.0049
B2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; CASRN = Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number; IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System; PPRTV = Provisional
Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values; HHBP = Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides
a Reference dose (RfD) (IRIS and PPRTV definition): An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from a no observed-adverse-effect level
(NOAEL), lowest observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL), or benchmark dose (BMD), with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used. The RfD is
generally used in the EPA's noncancer health assessments. Chronic RfD: Duration of exposure is up to a lifetime.
b Oral slope factor (OSF): An upper-bound, approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime oral exposure to an agent. This estimate, usually
expressed in units of proportion (of a population) affected per mg/kg day, is generally reserved for use in the low dose region of the dose response relationship, that is, for
exposures corresponding to risks less than 1 in 100.
c Weight of evidence (WOE) characterization for carcinogenicity: A system used for characterizing the extent to which the available data support the hypothesis that an agent
causes cancer in humans. See glossary for details.
d Minimum risk level (MRL): An ATSDR estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance at or below which the substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of
harmful (adverse), noncancerous effects. MRLs are calculated for a route of exposure (inhalation or oral) over a specified time period (acute, intermediate, or chronic). MRLs
should not be used as predictors of harmful (adverse) health effects. Chronic MRL: Duration of exposure is 365 days or longer.
e Reference dose (RfD) (HHBP definition): The particular concentration of a chemical that is known not to cause health problems. A standard that also may be referred to as the
acceptable daily intake. Derived using the same EPA guidance for RfD determination.
f Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of
safety and are nonenforceable public health goals.
g Maximum contaminant level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available
treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards.
June 2015
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
G-30	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Table G-2b. Chemicals reported to be detected in flowback or produced water, with available
state chronic RfVs and OSFs.
Chemicals are ranked by California EPA maximum allowable daily level (MADL). The symbol
indicates that no value was available from the sources consulted. Additionally, an "x" indicates the
availability of measured concentration data in flowback or produced water (see Appendix E) and
physicochemical properties data from EPI Suite™ (see Appendix C). Italicized chemicals are found in
both fracturing fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
California
Oral MADLa
(Hg/day)
OSFb (per
mg/kg-day)
Lead
7439-92-1
X

0.5
0.0085
Cadmium
7440-43-9
X

4.1
15
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9


8.2
0.5
Dibutyl phthalate
84-74-2
X
X
8.7
-
Benzene
71-43-2
X
X
24
0.1
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1

X
-
1
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
X
X
-
0.027
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
X
-
0.011
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
X
X
20 (neonate male)
58 (infant male)
410 (adult)
0.003
Arsenic
7440-38-2
X

-
9.5
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
111-44-4

X
-
2.5
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3

X
-
5.5
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1

X
-
0.0036
Tetrachloroethylene
127-18-4

X
-
0.051
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
193-39-5
X
X
-
1.2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
X
X
-
1.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
X
X
-
1.2
Aldrin
309-00-2

X
-
17
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
319-85-7

X
-
1.5
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
X
X
-
2.9
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
X
X
-
4.1
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
57-97-6

X
-
250
Lindane
58-89-9

X
-
1.1
Dieldrin
60-57-1

X
-
16
Chloroform
67-66-3
X
X
-
0.019
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-31	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical
data
available
California
Oral MADLa
(Hg/day)
OSFb (per
mg/kg-day)
p,p'-DDE
72-55-9

X
-
0.34
Bromoform
75-25-2

x
-
0.011
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4

x
-
0.13
Heptachlor
76-44-8

X
-
4.1
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
X
X
-
0.009
Safrole
94-59-7

X
-
0.22
Dichloromethane
75-09-2

X
-
0.014
a Maximum allowable daily level (MADL): The maximum allowable daily level of a reproductive toxicant at which the chemical
would have no observable adverse reproductive effect, assuming exposure at 1,000 times that level.
b Oral slope factor (OSF): An upper-bound, approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime
oral exposure to an agent. This estimate, usually expressed in units of proportion (of a population) affected per mg/kg day, is
generally reserved for use in the low-dose region of the dose-response relationship, that is, for exposures corresponding to
risks less than 1 in 100.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-32	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Table G-2c. Chemicals reported to be detected in flowback or produced water, with available
international chronic RfVs and OSFs.
Chemicals are ranked by CICAD reference dose (TDI - Tolerable Daily Intake). An "x" indicates the
availability of measured concentration data in flowback or produced water (see Appendix E) and
physicochemical properties data from EPI Suite™ (see Appendix C). Italicized chemicals are found in
both fracturing fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical name
CASRN
Concentration
data available
Physicochemical
data available
IPCS Chronic TDIa
(mg/kg-day)
Heptachlor
76-44-8

X
0.0001
Strontium
7440-24-6
X

0.13
Chloroform
67-66-3
X
X
0.015
Mercury
7439-97-6
X

0.002
Barium
7440-39-3
X

0.02
Beryllium
7440-41-7
X

0.002
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1

X
0.05
Tetrachloroethene
127-18-4

X
0.05
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9


0.0009
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2

X
5
IPCS = International Programme on Chemical Safety; CICAD = Concise International Chemical Assessment Documents
a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI): An estimate of the intake of a substance, expressed on a body mass basis, to which an individual
in a (sub) population may be exposed daily over its lifetime without appreciable health risk.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-33	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Table G-2d. Chemicals reported to be detected in flowback or produced water, with available
less-than-chronic RfVs and OSFs.
Chemicals are ranked by PPRTV subchronic reference dose (sRfD). The symbol indicates that no
value was available from the sources consulted. Additionally, an "x" indicates the availability of
measured concentration data in flowback or produced water (see Appendix E) and physicochemical
properties data from EPI Suite™ (see Appendix C). Italicized chemicals are found in both fracturing
fluids and flowback/produced water.
Chemical name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical data
available
PPRTV
ATSDR
sRfDa
(mg/kg-day)
Acute oral
MRLb
(mg/kg-day)
Intermediate
oral MRLC
(mg/kg-day)
Aldrin
309-00-2

X
0.00004
0.002
-
Antimony
7440-36-0
X

0.0004
-
-
Vanadium
7440-62-2
X

0.0007
-
0.01
Lithium
7439-93-2
X

0.002
-
-
Cobalt
7440-48-4
X

0.003
-
0.01
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
X
X
0.004
-
-
Methyl bromide
74-83-9

X
0.005
-
0.003
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4

X
0.008
0.04
-
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
87-61-6

X
0.008
-
-
Benzene
71-43-2
X
X
0.01
-
-
p-Cresol
106-44-5
X
X
0.02
-
-
Bromoform
75-25-2

X
0.03
0.7
0.2
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
X
0.05
-
0.4
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
X
X
0.05
-
-
Chlorodibromomethane
124-48-1

X
0.07
0.1
-
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1

X
0.09
-
0.1
Butylbenzene
104-51-8

X
0.1
-
-
Benzyl alcohol
100-51-6
X
X
0.3
-
-
Pyrene
129-00-0
X
X
0.3
-
-
Xylenes
1330-20-7
X
X
0.4
1
0.4
Iron
7439-89-6
X

0.7
-
-
Toluene
108-88-3
X
X
0.8
0.8
0.02
Formic acid
64-18-6

X
0.9
-
-
1,2-Propylene glycol
57-55-6

X
20
-
-
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-34	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical data
available
PPRTV
ATSDR
sRfDa
(mg/kg-day)
Acute oral
MRLb
(mg/kg-day)
Intermediate
oral MRLC
(mg/kg-day)
Acrolein
107-02-8

X
-
-
0.004
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
X
X
-
5
0.5
Ethylene glycol
107-21-1

X
-
0.8
0.8
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
117-81-7
X
X
-
-
0.1
Naphthalene
91-20-3
X
X
-
0.6
0.6
Phenol
108-95-2
X
X
-
1
-
Acetone
67-64-1
X
X
-
-
2
Arsenic
7440-38-2
X

-
0.005
-
Chromium (VI)
18540-29-9


-
-
0.005
Copper
7440-50-8
X

-
0.01
0.01
Zinc
7440-66-6
X

-
-
0.3
Aluminum
7429-90-5
X

-
-
1
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1

X
-
0.1
0.01
Dioctyl phthalate
117-84-0
X
X
-
3
0.4
Tetrachloroethylene
127-18-4

X
-
0.008
0.008
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
X
X
0.1
-
0.4
beta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane
319-85-7

X
-
0.05
0.0006
Lindane
58-89-9

X
-
0.003
0.00001
Dieldrin
60-57-1

X
-
-
0.0001
Chloroform
67-66-3
X
X
-
0.3
0.1
Strontium
7440-24-6
X

-
-
2
Tin
7440-31-5
X

-
-
0.3
Barium
7440-39-3
X

-
-
0.2
Boron
7440-42-8
X

-
0.2
0.2
Cadmium
7440-43-9
X

-
-
0.0005
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
X
X
-
0.01
-
Heptachlor
76-44-8

X
-
0.0006
0.0001
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
X

-
-
0.0002
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-35	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
Chemical name
CASRN
Concen-
tration
data
available
Physico-
chemical data
available
PPRTV
ATSDR
sRfDa
(mg/kg-day)
Acute oral
MRLb
(mg/kg-day)
Intermediate
oral MRLC
(mg/kg-day)
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2

x
-
7
6
Dibutyl phthalate
84-74-2
X
x
-
0.5
-
Fluorene
86-73-7
X
X
-
-
0.4
Dichloromethane
75-09-2

X
-
0.2
-
a Reference dose (RfD): An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the
human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during
a lifetime. It can be derived from a no observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL), lowest observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL),
or benchmark dose (BMD), with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used. The RfD is
generally used in the EPA's noncancer health assessments. Subchronic RfD (sRFD): Duration of exposure is up to 10% of an
average lifespan.
b Minimum risk level (MRL): An ATSDR estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance at or below which the
substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of harmful (adverse), noncancerous effects. MRLs are calculated for a route of
exposure (inhalation or oral) over a specified time period (acute, intermediate, or chronic). MRLs should not be used as
predictors of harmful (adverse) health effects. Acute MRL: Duration of exposure is 1 to 14 days.
c Minimum risk level (MRL): An ATSDR estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance at or below which the
substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of harmful (adverse), noncancerous effects. MRLs are calculated for a route of
exposure (inhalation or oral) over a specified time period (acute, intermediate, or chronic). MRLs should not be used as
predictors of harmful (adverse) health effects. Intermediate MRL: Duration of exposure is >14 to 364 days.
G.4. References for Appendix G
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). (2009). Glossary of terms. Available online at
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/glossary.html
1ARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). (2015). IARC monographs - Classifications. Available
online at http://mQnographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classiflc3tion/index.php
NTP (National Toxicology Program). (2014a). Definition of carcinogenicity results. Available online at
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/pubs/longterm/defs/index.html
NTP (National Toxicology Program). (2014b). Report on carcinogens. Thirteenth edition. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/rocl3/index.htmI
OEHHA. Title 27. California Code of Regulations Article 8. No Observable Effect Levels. §25701 (2012).
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/Iaw/pdf zip/RegsArt8.pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1996). Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment
[EPA Report], (EPA/600/P-92/003C). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Assessment Forum.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1999). Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment [review
draft] [EPA Report], (NCEA-F-0644). Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/raf/pubIications/pdfs/CANCER GLS.PDF
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	G-36	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix G
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2011a). Plan to study the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources [EPA Report], (EPA/600/R-11/122). Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
resources-epa600r-11122
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2011c). Terminology services (TS): Vocabulary catalog -
IRIS glossary. Available online at
fattp .'.'oitiipub.epa.gov/sor internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/se
arch.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary (accessed May 21, 2015).
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012c). Study of the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources: Progress report. (EPA/601/R-12/011). Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
http://nepis.epa.go¥/exe/ZyPlIRL.cgi?Po_ckgy=Pl_00FH8M.txt
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2014b). Drinking water contaminants. Available online at
fattp: / / water, epa. gov/ drink/ contaminants/
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015a). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from the
FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0 [EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/003). Washington, D.C.: Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudv/analysis-hydraulic-fracturing-fluid-data-fracfocus-chemical-disclosure-
registry 1 pdi
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015e). Human health benchmarks for pesticides.
Available online at http://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pestirides/f?p=HHBP:HOME
WHO (World Health Organization). (2015). Concise international chemical assessment documents. Available
online at http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/
fattp: II www2 .epa
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015
G-37
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix H
Appendix H
Description of EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Publications Cited in This Assessment
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix H
Appendix H. Description of EPA Hydraulic Fracturing
Study Publications Cited in This Assessment
Table H-l. Titles, descriptions, and citations for EPA hydraulic fracturing study publications
cited in this assessment.
Research project
Description
Citations
Analysis of existing data
Literature Review
Review and assessment of existing
papers and reports, focusing on
peer-reviewed literature
Literature review is incorporated into this document.
Spills Database
Analysis
Characterization of hydraulic
fracturing-related spills using
information obtained from
selected state and industry data
sources
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Review of state and industry spill data:
characterization of hydraulic fracturing-related spills
[EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/001). Washington, D.C.:
Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Service Company
Analysis
Analysis of information provided
by nine hydraulic fracturing service
companies in response to a
September 2010 information
request on hydraulic fracturing
operations
Analysis of data received is incorporated into this
document.1
Well File Review
Analysis of information provided
by nine oil and gas operators in
response to an August 2011
information request for 350 well
files
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Review of well operator files for hydraulically
fractured oil and gas production wells: Well design and
construction [EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/002).
Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Analysis of data received is also incorporated into this
document.2
1 Data received and incorporated into this document is cited as: U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. (2013].
Data received from oil and gas exploration and production companies, including hydraulic fracturing service companies
2011 to 2013. Non-confidential business information source documents are located in Federal Docket ID: EPA-HQ-
ORD2010-0674. Available at http://www.regulations.goy
2 Data received and incorporated into this document is cited as: U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. (2011].
Sampling data for flowback and produced water provided to EPA by nine oil and gas well operators (non-confidential
business information]. US Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail:rpp=100:so=DESC:sb=docId:po=0:D=EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0674
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 H-l DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix H
Research project
Description
Citations
FracFocus Analysis
Analysis of data compiled from
FracFocus 1.0, the national
hydraulic fracturing chemical
registry operated by the Ground
Water Protection Council and the
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from
the FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0 [EPA
Report], (EPA/601/R-14/003). Washington, D.C.: Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/
analysis-hydra ulic-fracturing-fluid-data-fracfocus-
chemica (-disclosure-registry-1-pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from
the FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0: project
database. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from
the FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0: Data
management and quality assessment report [EPA
Report], (EPA/601/R-14/006). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development. http://www2.eDa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-03/documents/fracfocus data
management report final 032015 508.pdf

This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	H-2	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix H
Research project
Description
Citations
Scenario evaluations
Subsurface
Migration
Modeling
Numerical modeling of subsurface
fluid migration scenarios that
explore the potential for fluids,
including liquids and gases to move
from the fractured zone to drinking
water aquifers
Kim, J; Moridis, GJ. (2013). Development oftheT+M
coupled flow-geomechanical simulator to describe
fracture propagation and coupled flow-thermal-
geomechanical processes in tight/shale gas systems.
Computers and Geosciences 60: 184-198.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.cageo.2013.04.023
Kim, J; Moridis, GJ. (In Press). Numerical analysis of
fracture propagation during hydraulic fracturing
operations in shale gas systems. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences.
Kim, J; Um, ES; Moridis, GJ. (2014). Fracture
Propagation, Fluid Flow, and Geomechanics of Water-
Based Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale Gas Systems and
Electromagnetic Geophysical Monitoring of Fluid
Migration. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168578-IV1S
Reagan, MT; Moridis, GJ; Johnson, JN; Keen, ND. (2015).
Numerical simulation of the environmental impact of
hydraulic fracturing of tight/shale gas reservoirs on
near-surface groundwater: background, base cases,
shallow reservoirs, short-term gas and water transport.
Water Resour Res 51: 1-31. http://dx.cloi.org/10.1002/
2014WR016086
Rutqvist, J; Rinaldi, AP; Cappa, F; Moridis, GJ. (2013).
Modeling of fault reactivation and induced seismicity
during hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas reservoirs.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 107: 31-
44. http://dx.doi, org/10,1016/i, petrol, 2013,04,023
Rutqvist, J; Rinaldi, AP; Cappa, F; Moridis, GJ. (2015).
Modeling of fault activation and seismicity by injection
directly into a fault zone associated with hydraulic
fracturing of shale-gas reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering 127: 377-386.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.petroI.2015.01.019
Surface Water
Modeling
Modeling of concentrations of
selected chemicals at public water
supplies downstream from
wastewater treatment facilities
that discharge treated hydraulic
fracturing wastewater to surface
waters
Weaver, JW; Xu, J; Mravik, SC. (In Press) Scenario
analysis of the impact on drinking water intakes from
bromide in the discharge of treated oil and gas waste
water. J Environ Eng.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	H-3	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix H
Research project
Description
Citations
Water Availability
Modeling
Assessment and modeling of
current and future scenarios
exploring the impact of water
usage for hydraulic fracturing on
drinking water availability in the
Upper Colorado River Basin and
the Susquehanna River Basin
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Case study analysis of the impacts of water
acquisition for hydraulic fracturing on local water
availability [EPA Report], (EPA/600/R-14/179).
Washington, D.C.
Laboratory studies
Source
Apportionment
Studies
Identification and quantification of
the source(s) of high bromide and
chloride concentrations at public
water supply intakes downstream
from wastewater treatment plants
discharging treated hydraulic
fracturing wastewater to surface
waters
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Sources contributing bromide and inorganic
species to drinking water intakes on the Allegheny river
in western Pennsylvania [EPA Report], (EPA/600/R-
14/430). Washington, D.C.
Analytical Method
Development
Development of analytical
methods for selected chemicals
found in hydraulic fracturing fluids
or wastewater
DeArmond, PD; DiGoregorio, AL. (2013).
Characterization of liquid chromatography-tandem
mass spectrometry method for the determination of
acrylamide in complex environmental samples. Anal
Bioanal Chem 405: 4159-4166. httDi//dx,doi,org/
10,lQ07/s00216-Q13-6822-4
DeArmond, PD; DiGoregorio, AL. (2013). Rapid liquid
chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based
method for the analysis of alcohol ethoxylates and
alkylphenol ethoxylates in environmental samples. J
Chromatogr A 1305:154-163. httDi//dx,doi,org/
10.1016/i. chroma.2013.07.017
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	H-4	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix H
Research project
Description
Citations
Analytical Method
Development
(cont.)
Development of analytical
methods for selected chemicals
found in hydraulic fracturing fluids
or wastewater (cont.)
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2014). Development of rapid radiochemical method for
gross alpha and gross beta activity concentration in
flowback and produced waters from hydraulic
fracturing operations [EPA Report], (EPA/600/R-
14/107). Washington, D.C. http://www2.epa.gov/
hfstudy/development-rapid-radiochemical-method-
gross-alpha-and-gross-beta-activitv-concentration
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2014). The verification of a method for detecting and
quantifying diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol,
tetraethylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol and 2-
methoxyethanol in ground and surface waters [EPA
Report], (EPA/600/R-14/008). Washington, D.C.
httpi//www2,epa,gov/hfstudy/verification-method-
detecting-and-quantifying-diethvlene-glvcol-
triethylene-glycol
Retrospective case studies
Investigations of whether reported drinking water impacts may be associated with or caused by hydraulic
fracturing activities
Las Animas and
Huerfano
Counties, Colorado
Investigation of potential drinking
water impacts from coalbed
methane extraction in the Raton
Basin
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Retrospective case study in the Raton Basin,
Colorado: study of the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources [EPA Report],
(EPA 600/R-14/091). Washington, D.C.
Dunn County,
North Dakota
Investigation of potential drinking
water impacts from a well blowout
during hydraulic fracturing for oil
in the Bakken Shale
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Retrospective case study in Killdeer, North
Dakota: study of the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources [EPA Report],
(EPA 600/R-14/103). Washington, D.C.
Bradford County,
Pennsylvania
Investigation of potential drinking
water impacts from shale gas
development in the Marcellus
Shale
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2014). Retrospective case study in northeastern
Pennsylvania: study of the potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources [EPA
Report], (EPA 600/R-14/088). Washington, D.C.
Washington
County,
Pennsylvania
Investigation of potential drinking
water impacts from shale gas
development in the Marcellus
Shale
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Retrospective case study in southwestern
Pennsylvania: study of the potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources [EPA
Report], (EPA 600/R-14/084). Washington, D.C.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	H-5	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix H
Research project
Description
Citations
Wise County,
Texas
Investigation of potential drinking
water impacts from shale gas
development in the Barnett Shale
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
(2015). Retrospective case study in Wise County, Texas:
study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on
drinking water resources [EPA Report], (EPA 600/R-
14/090). Washington, D.C.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	H-6	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix I
Appendix I
Unit Conversions
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix I
Appendix I. Unit Conversions
1	LENGTH	
2	1 in (inch)	=	2.54 cm (centimeters)
3	25.4 mm (millimeters)
4	25,400 [im (microns)
5	1ft (foot)	= 0.3048 m (meters)
6	30.48 cm
7	1 mi (mile)	= 5,280 ft
8	1,609.344 m
9	1.6093 km (kilometers)
10	AREA	
11	1 ft2 (square foot)	=	0.0929 m2 (square meters)
12	1 acre	= 43,560 ft2
13	=	0.0016 mi2 (square miles)
14	= 0.4047 ha (hectares)
15	= 4,046.825 m2
16	1 mi2	= 639.9974 ac
17	= 258.9988 ha
18	=	2.5899 km2 (square kilometers)
19	MASS	
20	1 lb (pound)	= 453.5924 g (grams)
21	= 0.4536 kg (kilograms)
22	1 ton (shortton, U.S.)	= 2,000 lbs
23	= 907.185 kg
24	= 0.9072 metric tons
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	1-1	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------

Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix I
1
VOLUME OR CAPACITY (LIQUID MEASURE)
2
1 bbl (barrel) =
42 gal (gallons, U.S.)
3
=
158.9873 L (liters)
4
1 gal
231 in3 (cubic inches)
5
=
0.1337 ft3 (cubic feet)
6
=
3.7854 L
7
=
0.0039 m3 (cubic meters)
8

3.7854 x 10"9 Mm3 (million cubic meters)
9
1 Mgal (million gallons) =
1.3368 x 105 ft3
10
1 ft?
1,728 in3
11
=
7.4805 gal
12
=
28.3169 L
13
=
0.0283 m3
14
1 mi3 (cubic mile) =
4.1682 km3 (cubic kilometers)
15


16
CONCENTRATION

17
1 mg/L (milligram per liter) =
1.0 x 10-6 kg/L (kilograms per liter)
18
=
1.0 x 10"3 g/L (grams per liter)
19
=
1,000 |ig/L (micrograms per liter)
20
=
1.001 ppm (parts per million)
21
=
8.3454 x 10"6 lb/gal (pounds per gallon)
22
—
6.2428 x 10"5 lb/ft3 (pounds per cubic foot)
23
SPEED

24
1 mi/hr (mile per hour) =
1.4666 ft/s (feet per second)
25
=
0.4470 m/s (meters per second)
26
DENSITY

27
1 g/mL
1,000 g/L
28

1.0 x 106 mg/L

This document is a draft for review
purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy.

June 2015
1-2 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix I
1 VOLUME PER UNIT TIME
2	1 ft3/s (cubic footper second)	=	448.8312 gpm (gallons per minute)
3	=	0.6163 Mgpd (million gallons per day)
4	=	28.3169 L/s (liters per second)
5	=	0.0283 m3/s (cubic meters per second)
6	1 ft3/day (cubic feet per day)	=	0.0052 gpm
7	=	7.4805 gpd
8	=	0.0283 m3/d (cubic meters per day)
9
10	1 bbl/day (barrel per day)	=	42 gpd
11	=	158.9873 L/d (liters per day)
12	PRESSURE	
13	1 psi (pound per square inch)	=	6,894.7573 Pa (pascals)
14	=	0.068 atm (standard atmospheres)
15	RADIATION	
16	Activity
17	1 Ci (curie)	=	3.7 x 1010 decays per second
18	1 Bq (becquerel)	*	2.703 x 10 11 Ci
19	*	27.027 pCi (picocuries)
20	lpCi	=	0.037 Bq
21	=	0.037 decays per second
22	=	2.22 decays per minute
2 3	Exposure
24	1 rem (roentgen equivalent in man) =	0.01 Sv (sieverts)
25	1 Sv	=	1 J/kg (joule per kilogram)
26	ELECTRIC CONDUCTANCE
27	1S (siemen)	= 1 fl1 (reciprocal of resistance)
28	=	1A/V (ampere per volt)
29	=1 kg1 • nr2 • s3 • A2 (second cubed- ampere squared
30	per kilogram-square meter)
31	=	1.0 x 106 [j.S (microsiemens)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	1-3	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix I
TEMPERATURE
2 [°F (degrees, Fahrenheit) - 32] x 5/9 =
°C (degrees, Celsius)
PERMEABILITY
4
5
1 cm2
1.0 x lCMm2
1.0 x 108 D (darcys)
6
7
8
1 D
1.0 x IO-12 m2
1,000 mD (millidarcys)
1.0 x 106 [j.D (microdarcys)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	1-4	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
Glossary
Appendix J
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
Appendix J. Glossary
J.l. Glossary Terms and Definitions
1 Acid mine drainage: Flow of water from areas that have been mined for coal or other mineral ores.
2 The water has a low pH because of its contact with sulfur-bearing material and is harmful to
3 aquatic organisms. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
4 Additive: A single chemical or chemical mixture designed to serve a specific purpose in the
5 hydraulic fracturing fluid.1
6 Adsorption: Adhesion of molecules of gas, liquid, or dissolved solids to a surface. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
7 Advection: A mechanism for moving chemicals in flowing water, where a chemical moves along
8 with the flow of the water itself.
9 Aeration: A process that promotes biological degradation of organic matter in water. The process
10 may be passive (as when waste is exposed to air) or active (as when a mixing or bubbling device
11 introduces the air). (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
12 Aerobic mesophiles: Microorganisms that use oxygen for energy production and are tolerant of
13 moderate temperatures.
14 Analyte: The element, ion, or compound that an analysis seeks to identify; the compound of
15 interest flJ.S. EPA. 2013dl
16 Annulus: Refers to either the space between the casing of a well and the wellbore or the space
17 between any two strings of tubing or casing. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
18 API number: A unique identifying number for all oil and gas wells drilled in the United States. The
19 system was developed by the American Petroleum Institute. (Oil and Gas Mineral Services. 2010)
20 Aquifer: An underground geological formation, or group of formations, containing water. A source
21 of ground water for wells and springs. fU.S. EPA. 2013dl
22 Base fluid: The fluid into which additives and proppants are mixed to formulate a hydraulic
23 fracturing fluid.
24 Basin: A depression in the crust of the earth, caused by plate tectonic activity and subsidence, in
25 which sediments accumulate. Sedimentary basins vary from bowl-shaped to elongated troughs.
26 Basins can be bounded by faults. Rift basins are commonly symmetrical; basins along continental
27 margins tend to be asymmetrical. If rich hydrocarbon source rocks occur in combination with
2 8 appropriate depth and duration of burial, then a petroleum system can develop within the basin.
1 Definitions that have no associated citation in this glossary were developed for this assessment.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-l DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Most basins contain some amount of shale, thus providing opportunities for shale gas exploration
2 and production. (Schlumberger. 20141
3 Biogenic: Methane that is produced in shallower formations by bacterial activity in anaerobic
4 conditions. It is the ultimate dissimilation product of microbially mediated reactions of organic
5 molecules.
6 Blowout preventer (BOP): Casinghead equipment that prevents the uncontrolled flow of oil, gas,
7 and mud from the well by closing around the drill pipe or sealing the hole. (Oil and Gas Mineral
8 Services. 20101
9 Brackish water: Mixed fresh and salt waters. Used here to qualitatively refer to water that contains
10 higher total dissolved solids (TDS) than that typically used for fresh drinking water.
11 BTEX: An acronym for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. These chemicals are a group of
12 single ringed aromatic hydrocarbon based on the benzene structure. These compounds are found in
13 petroleum and are of specific importance because of their health effects.
14 Caliper log: A log that is used to check for any wellbore irregularities. It is run prior to primary
15 cementing as a means of calculating the amount of cement needed. Also run in conjunction with
16 other open hole logs for log corrections or run on cased holes to evaluate metal loss. (NYSDEC.
17 20111
18 Capillarity: The action by which the surface of a liquid where it is in contact with a solid is elevated
19 or depressed depending on the relative attraction of the molecules of the liquid for each other and
20 for those of the solid. Capillary forces arise from the differential attraction between immiscible
21 fluids and solid surfaces; these are the forces responsible for capillary rise in small-diameter tubes
22 and porous materials. (Adapted from Pake. 19781
23 Casing: Steel pipe that is lowered into a wellbore. Casing extends from the bottom of the hole to the
24 surface. (Schlumberger. 20141
25 Casing inspection logs: An in situ record of casing thickness and integrity, to determine whether
2 6 and to what extent the casing has undergone corrosion. The term refers to an individual
27 measurement, or a combination of measurements using acoustic, electrical, and mechanical
28 techniques, to evaluate the casing thickness and other parameters. The log is usually presented
29 with the basic measurements and an estimate of metal loss. It was first introduced in the early
30 1960s. Today the terms casing-evaluation log and pipe-inspection log are used synonymously.
31 fSchlumberger. 20141
32 Cation exchange capacity: The total amount of cations (positively charged ions) that a soil can
33 hold.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-2 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Cement: Material used to support and seal the well casing to the rock formations exposed in the
2 borehole. Cement also protects the casing from corrosion and prevents movement of injectate up
3 the borehole. fli.S. EPA. 2013d!
4 Cement squeeze: A remedial cementing operation designed to force cement into leak paths in
5 wellbore tubulars. The required squeeze pressure is achieved by carefully controlling pump
6 pressure. Squeeze cementing operations may be performed to repair poor primary cement jobs,
7 isolate perforations, or repair damaged casing or liner. fSchlumberger. 20141
8 Centralized waste treatment facility (CWT): any facility that treats (for disposal, recycling or
9 recovery of material) any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes, hazardous or non-
10 hazardous industrial wastewater, and/or used material received from off-site. flJ.S. EPA. 2012bl
11 Coalbed methane: Methane contained in coal seams. A coal seam is a layer or stratum of coal
12 parallel to the rock stratification. fU.S. EPA. 2013dl
13 Collapse pressure: The pressure at which a tube, or vessel, will catastrophically deform as a result
14 of differential pressure acting from outside to inside of the vessel or tube. (Schlumberger. 20141
15 Collar: A threaded coupling used to join two lengths of pipe such as production tubing, casing, or
16 liner. The type of thread and style of collar varies with the specifications and manufacturer of the
17 tubing. (Schlumberger. 20141
18 Combination truck: A truck tractor or a truck tractor pulling any number of trailers. fU.S.
19 Department of Transportation. 20121
2 0 Community water systems: Public water systems that supply water to the same population year-
21 round. fU.S. EPA. 2013c!
2 2 Completion: A term used to describe the assembly of equipment at the bottom of the well that is
23 needed to enable production from an oil or gas well. It can also refer to the activities and methods
24 (including hydraulic fracturing) used to prepare a well for production following drilling.
25 Complexation: A reaction between two chemicals that form a new complex, either through
26 covalent bonding or ionic forces. This often results in one chemical solubilizing the other.
27 Compressive strength: Measure of the ability of a substance to withstand compression. fNYSDEC.
28 20111
29 Conductor casing: This large diameter casing is usually the first string of casing in a well. It is set
30 or driven into the unconsolidated material where the well will be drilled to keep the loose material
31 from caving in. fNYSDEC. 20111
32 Confidential business information (CBI): Information that contains trade secrets, commercial or
33 financial information, or other information that has been claimed as confidential by the submitter.
34 The EPA has special procedures for handling such information. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-3 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Contaminant: A substance that is either present in an environment where it does not belong or is
2 present at levels that might cause harmful (adverse) health effects. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
3 Conventional reservoir: A reservoir in which buoyant forces keep hydrocarbons in place below a
4 sealing caprock. Reservoir and fluid characteristics of conventional reservoirs typically permit oil
5 or natural gas to flow readily into wellbores. The term is used to make a distinction from shale and
6 other unconventional reservoirs, in which gas might be distributed throughout the reservoir at the
7 basin scale, and in which buoyant forces or the influence of a water column on the location of
8 hydrocarbons within the reservoir are not significant. (Scfaluroberger. 2014)
9 Crosslinked gels: linear gels that are linked together by chemicals called crosslinkers, which may
10 link two or more chains together.
11 Crude oil: A general term for unrefined petroleum or liquid petroleum. (Schlumberger. 2014)
12 Cumulative effects: Refers to combined changes in the environment that can take place as a result
13 of multiple activities over time and/or space.
14 Cumulative water use/cumulative water: Refers to the amount of water used or consumed by all
15 hydraulic fracturing wells in a given area per year.
16 Cyclical stress: Refers to stress caused by frequent or rapid changes in temperature or pressure.
17 Deviated well: Any non-horizontal well in which the well bottom is intentionally located at a
18 distance (e.g., hundreds of feet) laterally from the wellhead.
19 Discharge: Any emission (other than natural seepage), intentional or unintentional. Includes, but is
20 not limited to, spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping. fU.S. EPA.
21 2013d")
22 Disinfection byproduct (DBP): A compound formed by the reaction of a disinfectant such as
23 chlorine with organic material in the water supply. flJ.S. EPA. 2013dl
24 Domestic water use: Includes indoor and outdoor water uses at residences, and includes uses such
25 as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes and dishes, flushing toilets, watering lawns
26 and gardens, and maintaining pools. (USGS, 2015)
2 7 Drill bit: The tool used to crush or cut rock. Most bits work by scraping or crushing the rock as part
28 of a rotational motion, while some bits work by pounding the rock vertically. (Schlumberger. 2014)
29 Drill collar: A component of a drill string that provides weight on the bit for drilling. Drill collars
30 are thick-walled tubular pieces machined from solid bars of steel, usually plain carbon steel but
31 sometimes of nonmagnetic nickel-copper alloy or other nonmagnetic premium alloys.
32 fSchlumberger. 20141
3 3 Drill cuttings: Ground rock produced by the drilling process.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-4 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1	Drill string: The combination of the drillpipe, the bottomhole assembly, and any other tools used to
2	make the drill bit turn at the bottom of the wellbore. (Schlumberger. 20141
3	Drilling fluid: Any of a number of liquid and gaseous fluids and mixtures of fluids and solids used
4	when drilling boreholes. (Adapted from Schlumberger, 20141
5	Drinking water resource: Any body of ground water or surface water that now serves, or in the
6	future could serve, as a source of drinking water for public or private use (U.S. EPA, 2Q13dl
7	Dry gas: Refers to natural gas that occurs in the absence of liquid hydrocarbons. (Adapted from
8	Schlumberger. 20141
9	Effluent: Waste material being discharged into the environment, either treated or untreated. (U.S.
10	EPA. 2013d!
11	Facultative anaerobes: Microorganisms that can use oxygen for energy production if it is present
12	in their environment, but can also use alternatives for energy production if no oxygen is present
13	Fault: A fracture or fracture zone along which there has been displacement of the sides relative to
14	each other. fNYSDEC. 20111
15	Field: Area of oil and gas production with at least one common reservoir for the entire area. (Oil
16	and Gas Mineral Services. 20101
17	Flowback: The term is defined multiple ways in the literature. In general, it is either fluids
18	predominantly containing hydraulic fracturing fluid that return from a well to the surface or a
19	process used to prepare the well for production.
20	Fluid: A substance that flows when exposed to an external pressure; fluids include both liquids and
21	gases.
22	Fluid formulation: The entire suite of chemicals, proppant, and base fluid injected into a well
23	during hydraulic fracturing. (U.S. EPA. 2013dl
24	Formation: A body of earth material with distinctive and characteristic properties and a degree of
25	homogeneity in its physical properties. fU.S. EPA. 2013dl
2 6	Formation packer: A specialized casing part that has the same inner diameter as the casing but
2 7	whose outer diameter expands to make contact with the formation and seal the annulus between
28	the casing and formation, preventing migration of fluids.
29	Formation fluid: Fluid that occurs naturally within the pores of rock. These fluids consist primarily
30	of water, with varying concentrations of total dissolved solids, but may also contain oil or gas.
31	Sometimes referred to as native fluids, native brines, or reservoir fluids.
32	FracFocus Registry: A registry for oil and gas well operators to disclose information about
33	hydraulic fracturing well locations, and water and chemical use during hydraulic fracturing
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	J-5	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 operations developed by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas
2 Compact Commission.
3 Fracture: A crack or breakage surface within a rock.
4 Fracture geometry: Refers to characteristics of the fracture such as height and aperture (width).
5 Fresh water: Qualitatively refers to water with relatively low TDS that is most readily available for
6 drinking water currently.
7 Gelled fluids: Fracturing fluids that are usually water-based with added gels to increase the fluid
8 viscosity to aid in the transport of proppants. (Spellman. 2012: Gupta and Valko. 20071
9 Ground water: In the broadest sense, all subsurface water; more commonly that part of the
10 subsurface water in the saturated zone. (Solley et al, 19981
11 Halite: A soft, soluble evaporate mineral commonly known as salt or rock salt Can be critical in
12 forming hydrocarbon traps and seals because it tends to flow rather than fracture during
13 deformation, thus preventing hydrocarbons from leaking out of a trap even during and after some
14 types of deformation. fSchlimiberger. 20141
15 Hazard evaluation: A component of risk assessment that involves gathering and evaluating data
16 on the types of health injuries or diseases (e.g., cancer) that may be produced by a chemical and on
17 the conditions of exposure under which such health effects are produced.
18 Hazard identification: A process for determining if a chemical or a microbe can cause adverse
19 health effects in humans and what those effects might be. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
20 Henry's law constant: Ratio of a chemical's vapor pressure in the atmosphere to its solubility in
21 water. The higher the Henry's law constant, the more volatile the compound will be from water.
22 fNYSDEC. 20111
23 Horizontal drilling: Drilling a portion of a well horizontally to expose more of the formation
24 surface area to the wellbore. (Oil and Gas Mineral Services. 2010)
25 Horizontal well: A well that is drilled vertically up to a point known as the kickoff point, where the
26 well turns toward the horizontal, extending into and parallel with the approximately horizontal
27 targeted producing formation.
28 Hydraulic fracturing: A stimulation technique used to increase production of oil and gas.
29 Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fluids under pressures great enough to fracture the
30 oil- and gas-production formations. (U.S. EPA. 2011a)
31 Hydraulic fracturing fluids: Engineered fluids, typically consisting of a base fluid, additives, and
32 proppant, that are pumped under high pressure into the well to create and hold open fractures in
33 the formation.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-6 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Hydraulic fracturing wastewater: Flowback and produced water that is managed using practices
2 that include but are not limited to reuse in subsequent hydraulic fracturing operations, treatment
3 and discharge, and injection into disposal wells.
4 Hydraulic fracturing water cycle: The cycle of water in the hydraulic fracturing process,
5 encompassing the acquisition of water, chemical mixing of the fracturing fluid, injection of the fluid
6 into the formation, the production and management of flowback and produced water, and the
7 ultimate treatment and disposal of hydraulic fracturing wastewaters.
8 Hydraulic gradient: Slope of a water table or potentiometric surface. More specifically, change in
9 the hydraulic head per unit of distance in the direction of the maximum rate of decrease. flJ.S. EPA.
10 2013d")
11 Hydrocarbon: An organic compound containing only hydrogen and carbon, often occurring in
12 petroleum, natural gas, and coal. fU.S. EPA. 2013dl
13 Hydrostatic pressure: The pressure exerted by a column of fluid at a given depth.
14 Imbibition: The displacement of a non-wet fluid (i.e., gas) by a wet fluid (typically water), fAdapted
15 from Pake. 19781
16 Immiscible: The chemical property in which two or more liquids or phases are incapable of
17 attaining homogeneity. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
18 Impact: Any observed change in the quality or quantity of drinking water resources, regardless of
19 severity, that results from a mechanism.
2 0 Impact, potential: Any change in the quality or quantity of drinking water resources that could
21 logically occur, but has not yet been observed, as the result of a mechanism or potential mechanism.
22 Induced fracture: A fracture created during hydraulic fracturing.
23 Injection well: A well into which fluids are being injected (40 CFR 144.3).
24 Integrated risk information system (IRIS): An electronic database that contains the EPA's latest
25 descriptive and quantitative regulatory information about chemical constituents. Files on chemicals
26 maintained in IRIS contain information related to both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic health
27 effects. fUS. EPA. 2013d"!
2 8 Intermediate casing: Casing that seals off intermediate depths and geologic formations that may
29 have considerably different reservoir pressures than deeper zones to be drilled. (Devereux. 1993:
30 Baker. 1979"!
31 Karst: A type of topography that results from dissolution and collapse of carbonate rocks, such as
32 limestone, dolomite, and gypsum, and that is characterized by closed depressions or sinkholes,
33 caves, and underground drainage. (Sollev et al. 1998)
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-7 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Kill fluid: A weighted fluid with a density that is sufficient to overcome the formation pressure and
2 prevent fluids from flowing up the wellbore.
3 Large truck: A truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. fU.S.
4 Department of Transportation, 20121
5 Lateral: A horizontal section of a well.
6 Leakoff: The fraction of the injected fluid that infiltrates into the formation (e.g., through an
7 existing natural fissure) and is not recovered during production.
8 Linear gel: a series of chemicals linked together so that they form a chain.
9 Liner: A casing string that does not extend to the top of the wellbore, but instead is anchored or
10 suspended from inside the bottom of the previous casing string. (Schlumberger, 20141
11 Lost cement: Refers to a failure of the cement to be circulated back to the surface, indicating that
12 the cement has escaped into the formation.
13 Lowest-observable-adverse effect level (LOAEL): The lowest exposure level at which there are
14 biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of adverse effects between the exposed
15 population and its appropriate control group.
16 Maximum allowable daily level (MADL): The maximum allowable daily level of a reproductive
17 toxicant at which the chemical would have no observable adverse reproductive effect, assuming
18 exposure at 1,000 times that level.
19 Maximum contaminant level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in
20 drinking water. MCLs are enforceable standards. (U.S. EPA. 2014b)
21 Mechanical integrity: The absence of significant leakage within the injection tubing, casing, or
22 packer (known as internal mechanical integrity), or outside of the casing (known as external
23 mechanical integrity). (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
24 Mechanism: A means or series of events by which an activity within the hydraulic fracturing water
25 cycle has been observed to change the quality or quantity of drinking water resources.
26 Mechanism, potential: A means or series of events by which hydraulic fracturing activities could
27 logically or theoretically (for instance, based on modeling) change the quality or quantity of
28 drinking water resources but one that has not yet been observed.
29 Mechanism, suspected: A means or series of events by which hydraulic fracturing activities could
30 logically have resulted in an observed change in the quality or quantity of drinking water resources.
31 Available evidence may or may not be sufficient to determine if it is the only mechanism that caused
32 the observed change.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-8 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Metropolitan combined statistical area: A core urban area of 50,000 or more people. fU.S.
2 Census Bureau. 20131
3 Microaerophiles: Microorganisms that require small amounts of oxygen for energy production.
4 Microannuli: Very small channels that form in the cement and that may serve as pathways for fluid
5 migration to drinking water resources.
6 Micropolitan combined statistical area: An urban core of at least 10,000, but less than 50,000,
7 people. (U.S. Census Bureau. 20131
8 Microseismic monitoring: A technique to track the propagation of a hydraulic fracture as it
9 advances through a formation. (Schlumberger. 20141
10 Minimum risk level (MRL): An estimate of daily human exposure to a hazardous substance at or
11 below which the substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of harmful (adverse),
12 noncancerous effects. MRLs are calculated for a route of exposure (inhalation or oral) over a
13 specified time period (acute, intermediate, or chronic).
14 Mobility: The ratio of effective permeability to phase viscosity. The overall mobility is a sum of the
15 individual phase viscosities. Well productivity is directly proportional to the product of the mobility
16 and the layer thickness product (Schlumberger. 20141
17 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A national program under
18 Section 402 of the Clean Water Act for regulation of discharges of pollutants from point sources to
19 waters of the United States. Discharges are illegal unless authorized by an NPDES permit (U.S. EPA.
20 2013d)
21 National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR): Non-enforceable guidelines
22 regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or
23 aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water (also referred to as secondary
24 standards). CU.S. EPA. 2014bl
2 5 Natural gas: A naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon gases in porous
26 formations beneath the earth's surface, often in association with petroleum. The principal
27 constituent of natural gas is methane. fSchlumberger. 20141
28 Natural organic matter (NOM): Complex organic compounds that are formed from decomposing
29 plant animal and microbial material in soil and water. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
3 0 Non-community water systems: Water systems that supply water to at least 2 5 of the same
31 people at least six months per year, but not year-round. (U.S. EPA. 2013c)
32 Octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow): A coefficient representing the ratio of the solubility of a
33 compound in octanol (a nonpolar solvent) to its solubility in water (a polar solvent). The higher the
34 Kow, the more nonpolar the compound. Log Kow is generally used as a relative indicator of the
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-9 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 tendency of an organic compound to adsorb to soil. Log Kow values are generally inversely related to
2 aqueous solubility and directly proportional to molecular weight. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
3 Offset well: An existing wellbore close to a proposed well that provides information for planning
4 the proposed well. fSchlumberger, 20141
5 Open hole completion: A well completion that has no casing or liner set across the reservoir
6 formation, allowing the produced fluids to flow directly into the wellbore. fSchlumberger. 20141
7 Oral slope factor (OSF): An upper-bound, approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased
8 cancer risk from a lifetime oral exposure to an agent. This estimate, usually expressed in units of
9 proportion (of a population) affected per mg/kg day, is generally reserved for use in the low dose
10 region of the dose response relationship, that is, for exposures corresponding to risks less than 1 in
11 100.
12 Organic carbon-water partition coefficient A coefficient representing the amount of a
13 compound that is adsorbed to soil to the amount of a compound that is dissolved in water,
14 normalized to the total organic carbon content of the soil. The higher the Koc, the more likely a
15 compound is to adsorb to soils and sediments, and the less likely it is to migrate with water. Along
16 with log Kow, log Koc is used as a relative indicator of the tendency of an organic compound to adsorb
17 to soil.
18 Orphaned well: An inactive oil or gas well with no known (or financially solvent) owner.
19 Overburden: Material of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies a deposit of
20 useful minerals or ores. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
21 Packer: A device that can be run into a wellbore with a smaller initial outside diameter that then
22 expands externally to seal the wellbore. fSchlumberger. 2014)
23 Pad fluid: a mixture of base fluid, typically water and additives designed to create, elongate, and
24 enlarge fractures along the natural channels of the formation when injected under high pressure.
2 5 Partial cementing: Cementing a casing string along only a portion of its length.
2 6 Passby flow: A prescribed, low-streamflow threshold below which withdrawals are not allowed.
27 rti.S. EPA. 2015d1
28 Peer review: A documented critical review of a specific major scientific and/or technical work
29 product Peer review is intended to uncover any technical problems or unresolved issues in a
3 0 preliminary or draft work product through the use of independent experts. This information is then
31 used to revise the draft so that the final work product will reflect sound technical information and
3 2 analyses. The process of peer review enhances the scientific or technical work product so that the
33 decision or position taken by the EPA, based on that product, has a sound and credible basis. (U.S.
34 EPA. 2013(31
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-10 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Perforation: The communication tunnel created from the casing or liner into the reservoir
2 formation through which injected fluids and oil or gas flows. Also refers to the process of creating
3 communication channels, e.g., via the use of a jet perforating gun.
4 Permeability: The ability of a material (e.g., rock or soil) to transmit fluid to move through pore
5 spaces.
6 Persistence: The length of time a compound stays in the environment, once introduced. A
7 compound may persist for less than a second or indefinitely.
8 Physicochemical properties: The inherent physical and chemical properties of a molecule such as
9 boiling point, density, physical state, molecular weight, vapor pressure, etc. These properties define
10 how a chemical interacts with its environment. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
11 Play: A set of oil or gas accumulations sharing similar geologic, geographic properties, such as
12 source rock, hydrocarbon type, and migration pathways. fOil and Gas Mineral Services. 20101
13 Poisson's ratio: A ratio of transverse-to-axial (or latitudinal-to-longitudinal) strain; characterizes
14 how a material is deformed under pressure.
15 Polar molecule: A molecule with a slightly positive charge at one part of the molecule and a
16 slightly negative charge on another. The water molecule, H20, is an example of a polar molecule,
17 where the molecule is slightly positive around the hydrogen atoms and negative around the oxygen
18 atom.
19 Porosity: A measure of pore space, or the percentage of the material (e.g., rock or soil) volume that
20 can be occupied by oil, gas, or water.
21 Produced water: Water that flows from oil and gas wells.
22 Production casing: The deepest casing set and serves primarily as the conduit for producing fluids,
23 although when cemented to the wellbore, this casing can also serve to seal off other subsurface
24 zones including ground water resources. (Devereux. 1998: Baker. 1979)
25 Production well: A well that is used to bring fluids (such as oil or gas) to the surface.
26 Production zone: Refers to the portion of a subsurface rock zone that contains oil or gas to be
27 extracted (sometimes using hydraulic fracturing). The production zone is sometimes referred to as
2 8 the target zone.
29 Proppant/propping agent: A granular substance (sand grains, aluminum pellets, or other
30 material) that is carried in suspension by the fracturing fluid and that serves to keep the cracks
31 open when fracturing fluid is withdrawn after a fracture treatment (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
3 2 Protected ground water resource: The deepest aquifer that the state or other regulatory agency
33 requires to be protected from fluid migration through or along wellbores.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-ll DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Public water system source: The source of the surface or ground water used by a public water
2 system, including source wells, intakes, reservoirs, infiltration galleries, and springs.
3 Public water systems: Water systems that provide water for human consumption from surface or
4 ground water through pipes or other infrastructure to at least 15 service connections or serve an
5 average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days a year. (Safe Drinking Water Act. 20021
6 Publicly owned treatment works (POTW): Any device or system used in the treatment (including
7 recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature that is
8 owned by a state or municipality. This definition includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only
9 if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing treatment. flJ.S. EPA. 2013dl
10 Quality assurance (QA): An integrated system of management activities involving planning,
11 implementation, documentation, assessment, reporting, and quality improvement to ensure that a
12 process, item, or service is of the type and quality needed and expected by the customer. flJ.S. EPA.
13 2013d")
14 Quality assurance project plan (QAPP): A formal document describing in comprehensive detail
15 the necessary quality assurance procedures, quality control activities, and other technical activities
16 that need to be implemented to ensure that the results of the work performed will satisfy the stated
17 performance or acceptance criteria. flJ.S. EPA. 2013dl
18 Quality management plan: A document that describes a quality system in terms of the
19 organizational structure, policy and procedures, functional responsibilities of management and
20 staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those planning, implementing, documenting, and
21 assessing all activities conducted. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
2 2 Radioactive tracer log: A record of the presence of tracer material placed in or around the
23 borehole to measure fluid movement in injection wells. fSchlumberger. 20141
24 Radionuclide: Radioactive particle, man-made or natural, with a distinct atomic weight number.
25 Emits radiation in the form of alpha or beta particles, or as gamma rays. Can have a long life as soil
26 or water pollutant Prolonged exposure to radionuclides increases the risk of cancer. (U.S. EPA.
27 2013d)
28 Reference dose (RfD): An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of
29 a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be
30 without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
31 Reference value (RfV): An estimate of an exposure for a given duration to the human population
32 (including susceptible subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse health
33 effects over a lifetime. Reference value is a generic term not specific to a given route of exposure.
34 Relative permeability: A dimensionless property allowing for comparison of the different abilities
35 of fluids to flow in multiphase settings. If a single fluid is present, its relative permeability is equal
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-12 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 to 1, but the presence of multiple fluids generally inhibits flow and decreases the relative
2 permeability.
3 Reservoir: A porous and permeable geologic formation where hydrocarbons collect under
4 pressure over geological time.
5 Residuals: The solids generated or retained during the treatment of wastewater. fU.S. EPA. 2013dl
6 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): The act designed to protect the nation's drinking water supply
7 by establishing national drinking water standards (maximum contaminant levels or specific
8 treatment techniques) and by regulating underground injection control wells. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
9 Sandstone: A clastic sedimentary rock whose grains are predominantly sand sized. The term is
10 commonly used to imply consolidated sand or a rock made of predominantly quartz sand, although
11 sandstones often contain feldspar, rock fragments, mica, and numerous additional mineral grains
12 held together with silica or another type of cement The relatively high porosity and permeability of
13 sandstones make them good reservoir rocks. (Schlumberger. 2014)
14 Science Advisory Board (SAB): A federal advisory committee that provides a balanced, expert
15 assessment of scientific matters relevant to the EPA. An important function of the Science Advisory
16 Board is to review EPA's technical programs and research plans. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
17 Service company: A company that assists well operators by providing specialty services, including
18 hydraulic fracturing. fU.S. EPA. 2013dl
19 Shale: A fine-grained, fissile, detrital sedimentary rock formed by consolidation of clay- and silt-
20 sized particles into thin, relatively impermeable layers. fSchlumberger. 20141
21 Shale gas: Natural gas generated and stored in shale.
22 Shale oil: Oil present in unconventional oil reservoirs that are made up of shale.
23 Shut-in: The process of sealing off a well by either closing the valves at the wellhead, a downhole
24 safety valve, or a blowout preventer.
25 Slickwater: A type of fracturing fluid that consists mainly of water with a very low portion of
26 additives like polymers that serve as friction reducers to reduce friction loss when pumping the
27 fracturing fluid downhole. (Barati and Liang. 2014)
2 8 Solubility: The amount of mass of a compound that will dissolve in a unit volume of solution. (U.S.
29 EPA.2013d1
30 Sorption: The general term used to describe the partitioning of a chemical between soil and water
31 and depends on the nature of the solids and the properties of the chemical.
32 Source water: Surface or ground water, or reused wastewater, acquired for use in hydraulic
33 fracturing. CU.S. EPA. 2013dl
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-13 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Spacer fluid: A fluid pumped before the cement to clean drilling mud out of the wellbore.
2 Spud (spud a well): To start the well drilling process by removing rock, dirt, and other
3 sedimentary material with the drill bit flJ.S. EPA. 2013dl
4 Stages (frac stages): A single reservoir interval that is hydraulically stimulated in succession with
5 other intervals.
6 Stimulation: Refers to (1) injecting fluids to clear the well or pore spaces near the well of drilling
7 mud or other materials that create blockage and inhibit optimal production (i.e., matrix treatment)
8 and (2) injecting fluid to fracture the rock to optimize the production of oil or gas.
9 Stray gas: Refers to the phenomenon of natural gas (primarily methane) migrating into shallow
10 drinking water resources or to the surface.
11 Strings: An assembled length of steel pipe configured to suit a specific wellbore.
12 Subsurface formation: A mappable body of rock of distinctive rock type(s), including the rock's
13 pore volume (i.e., the void space within a formation that fluid flow can occur, as opposed to the bulk
14 volume which includes both pore and solid phase volume), with a unique stratigraphic position.
15 Surface casing: The shallowest cemented casing, with the widest diameter. Cemented surface
16 casing generally serves as an anchor for blowout protection equipment and to seal off drinking
17 water resources. (Baker. 1979)
18 Surface water: All water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds,
19 streams, impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.). (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
20 Surfactant: Used during the hydraulic fracturing process to decrease liquid surface tension and
21 improve fluid passage through the pipes. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
22 Sustained casing pressure: Refers to cases when the pressure in any well annulus that is
2 3 measurable at the wellhead rebuilds after it is bled down, not caused solely by temperature
24 fluctuations or imposed by the operator. If the pressure is relieved by venting natural gas from the
25 annulus to the atmosphere, it will build up again once the annulus is closed (i.e., the pressure is
26 sustained). (Skierven et al, 2011)
27 Technically recoverable resources: The volumes of oil and natural gas that could be produced
2 8 with current technology, regardless of oil and natural gas prices and production costs. (EIA. 2013)
29 Temperature log: A log of the temperature of the fluids in the borehole; a differential temperature
30 log records the rate of change in temperature with depth and is sensitive to very small changes.
31 fTJ.S. EPA.2013d1
32 Tensile strength: The force per unit cross-sectional area required to pull a substance apart.
33
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015
J-14
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Thermogenic: Methane that is produced by high temperatures and pressures in deep formations
2 over geologic timescales. Thermogenic methane is formed by the thermal breakdown, or cracking,
3 of organic material that occurs during deep burial of sediment.
4 Tight oil: Oil found in relatively impermeable reservoir rock. (Schlumberger. 20141
5 Total dissolved solids (TDS): The quantity of dissolved material in a given volume of water. Total
6 dissolved solids can include salts (e.g., sodium chloride), dissolved metals, radionuclides, and
7 dissolved organics. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
8 Toxicity: The degree to which a substance or mixture of substances can harm humans or animals.
9 Acute toxicity involves harmful effects in an organism through a single or short-term exposure.
10 Chronic toxicity is the ability of a substance or mixture of substances to cause harmful effects over
11 an extended period, usually upon repeated or continuous exposure, sometimes lasting for the entire
12 life of the exposed organism. Subchronic toxicity is the ability of the substance to cause effects for
13 more than 1 year but less than the lifetime of the exposed organism. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
14 Tubing: The narrowest casing set within a completed well, either hung directly from the wellhead
15 or secured at its bottom using a packer. Tubing is not typically cemented in the well.
16 Unconventional reservoir: A reservoir characterized by lower permeability than conventional
17 reservoirs. It can be the same formation where hydrocarbons are formed and also serve as the
18 source for hydrocarbons that migrate and accumulate in conventional reservoirs. Unconventional
19 reservoirs can include methane-rich coalbeds and oil- and/or gas-bearing shales and tight sands.
20 Unconventional resource: An umbrella term for oil and natural gas that is produced by means
21 that do not meet the criteria for conventional production. What has qualified as unconventional at
22 any particular time is a complex function of resource characteristics, the available exploration and
23 production technologies, the economic environment, and the scale, frequency, and duration of
24 production from the resource. Perceptions of these factors inevitably change over time and often
25 differ among users of the term. At present, the term is used in reference to oil and gas resources
26 whose porosity, permeability, fluid trapping mechanism, or other characteristics differ from
27 conventional sandstone and carbonate reservoirs. Coalbed methane, gas hydrates, shale gas,
28 fractured reservoirs, and tight gas sands are considered unconventional resources. (Schlumberger.
29 20141
30 Underground Injection Control (UIC): The program under the Safe Drinking Water Act that
31 regulates the use of wells to pump fluids into the ground. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
32 Unsaturated zone: The soil zone above the water table that is only partially filled by water; also
33 referred to as the "vadose zone."
34 Vapor pressure: The force per unit area exerted by a vapor in an equilibrium state with its pure
35 solid, liquid, or solution at a given temperature. Vapor pressure is a measure of a substance's
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-15 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 propensity to evaporate. Vapor pressure increases exponentially with an increase in temperature.
2 fTJ.S. EPA. 2013dl
3 Vertical well: A well in which the wellbore is vertical throughout its entire length, from the
4 wellhead at the surface to the production zone.
5 Viscosity: A measure of the internal friction of a fluid that provides resistance to shear within the
6 fluid, informally referred to as how "thick" a fluid is.
7 Volatile: Readily vaporizable at a relatively low temperature. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
8 Volatilization: The process in which a chemical leaves the liquid phase and enters the gas phase.
9 Wastewater treatment: Chemical, biological, and mechanical procedures applied to an industrial
10 or municipal discharge or to any other sources of contaminated water in order to remove, reduce,
11 or neutralize contaminants. fU.S. EPA. 2013dl
12 Water availability: There is no standard definition for water availability, and it has not been
13 assessed recently at the national scale flJ.S. GAP. 20141. I nstead, a number of water availability
14 indicators have been suggested fe.g.. Rov et al. 20051. Here, availability is most often used to
15 qualitatively refer to the amount of a location's water that could, currently or in the future, serve as
16 a source of drinking water (U.S. GAP. 20141. which is a function of water inputs to a hydrologic
17 system (e.g., rain, snowmelt, groundwater recharge) and water outputs from that system occurring
18 either naturally or through competing demands of users.
19 Water consumption: Water that is removed from the local hydrologic cycle following its use (e.g.,
20 via evaporation, transpiration, incorporation into products or crops, consumption by humans or
21 livestock), and is therefore unavailable to other water users fMaupin et al. 20141.
2 2 Water intensity: The amount of water used per unit of energy obtained. (Nicotetal, 2014:
23 Laurenzi and lersev, 2013)
24 Water reuse: Any hydraulic fracturing wastewater that is used to offset total fresh water
2 5 withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing, regardless of the level of treatment required.
26 Water use: Water withdrawn for a specific purpose, part or all of which may be returned to the
27 local hydrologic cycle.
28 Water withdrawal: Water removed from the ground or diverted from a surface-water source for
29 use. fNicot et al. 2014: Laurenzi and lersev. 20131
30 Well blowout: The uncontrolled flow of fluids out of a well.
31 Well communication: Refers to fractures intersecting abandoned or active (producing) offset
32 wells near the well that is being stimulated.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-16 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
1 Well logging: A continuous measurement of physical properties in or around the well with
2 electrically powered instruments to infer formation properties. Measurements may include
3 electrical properties (resistivity and conductivity), sonic properties, active and passive nuclear
4 measurements, measurements of the wellbore, pressure measurement, formation fluid sampling,
5 sidewall coring tools, and others. Measurements may be taken via a wireline, which is a wire or
6 cable that is used to deploy tools and instruments downhole and that transmits data to the surface.
7 (Adapted from Schlumberger. 20141
8 Well operator: A company that controls and operates oil and gas wells. (U.S. EPA. 2013d)
9 Well pad: A temporary drilling site, usually constructed of local materials such as sand and gravel.
10 After the drilling operation is over, most of the pad is usually removed or plowed back into the
11 ground. CNYSDEC. 20111
12 Wellbore: The drilled hole or borehole, including the open hole or uncased portion of the well.
13 Wet gas: Refers to natural gas that typically contains less than 85% methane along with ethane and
14 more complex hydrocarbons.
15 Wetting/nonwetting: The preferential attraction of a fluid to the surface. In typical reservoirs,
16 water preferentially wets the surface, and gas is nonwetting. (Adapted from Pake. 1978)
17 Workover: Refers to any maintenance activity performed on a well that involves ceasing
18 operations and removing the wellhead.
19 Young's modulus: A ratio of stress to strain that is a measure of the rigidity of a material.
J.2. References for Appendix J
Baker. R. (1979). A primer of oilwell drilling (4th ed.). Austin, TX: Petroleum Extension Service (PETEX).
Barati. R: Liang. IT. (2014). A review of fracturing fluid systems used for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas
wells. J Appl Polymer Sci Online pub. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/app.40735
Pake. LP. (1978). Fundamentals of reservoir engineering. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
http://www.ing.unp.edu.ar/asignaturas/reservorios/Fundamentals%20of%20Reservoir%20Engineering
%20%28LP.%20Dake%29.pdf
Devereux. S. (1998). Practical well planning and drilling manual. Tulsa, OK: PennWell Publishing Company.
http://www.pennwellboQks.com/practical-well-planning-and-drilling-manual/
EIA (Energy Information Administration). (2013). Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources:
an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States (pp. 730). Washington,
D.C.: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
http://www.eia.gQv/anaIysis/studies/wQrIdshaIegas/
Gupta. DVS: Valko. P. (2007). Fracturing fluids and formation damage. In M Economides; T Martin (Eds.),
Modern fracturing: enhancing natural gas production (pp. 227-279). Houston, TX: Energy Tribune
Publishing Inc.
Laurenzi. II: lersev. GR. (2013). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater consumption of Marcellus
shale gas. Environ Sci Technol 47: 4896-4903. http://dx.doi.Qrg/10.1021/es305162w
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015 J-17 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
Maupin, MA: Kenny, IF: Hutson.SS: Lovelace, IK: Barber, NL: Linsey, KS, (2014). Estimated use of water in the
United States in 2010. (USGS Circular 1405). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
htt p Ik doi,org/10,3133/cirl405
Nicot, IP: Scanlon, BR: Reedv, RG: Costley, RA, (2014). Source and fate of hydraulic fracturing water in the
Barnett Shale: a historical perspective. Environ Sci Technol 48: 2464-2471.
fati	ioi.org/10.1021/es404Q50r
NYSDEC (NewYorkState Department of Environmental Conservation). (2011). Revised draft supplemental
generic environmental impact statement (SGEIS) on the oil, gas and solution mining regulatory program:
Well permit issuance for horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing to develop the Marcellus
shale and other low-permeability gas reservoirs. Albany, NY: NY SDEC.
http: / / www, dec.nv.gov /energy / 7537O.html
Oil and Gas Mineral Services, (2010). MineralWise: Oil and gas terminology. Available online at
http://www.mineralweb.com/library/oil-and-gas-terms/
Roy, SB: Ricci, PF: Summers, K¥:Chung, CF: GQldstein, RA, (2005). Evaluation of the sustainability of water
withdrawals in the United States, 1995 to 2025. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:1091-1108.
Safe Drinking Water Act Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act Safety of Public Water Systems (Safe
Drinking Water Act) as amended through P.L. 107-377, (2002). http://www,epw,senate,gov/sdwa,pdf
Schlumberger (Schlumberger Limited). (2014). Schlumberger oilfield glossary. Available online at
http://'www.glossary.oilfield.slb. coin/
Skierven, T: Lunde, 8: Perander, M: Wjlliams, B: Farquhar, R: Sinet. I: Sasby, I: Haga, HB: Finnseth, 0: lohnsen,
S. (2011). Norwegian Oil and Gas Association recommended guidelines for well integrity. (117, Revision
4). Norway: Norwegian Oil and Gas Association.
http://www.norskoljeoggass.no/Global/Retningslinjer/Boring/117%20-
%2 0Recommended%2 0guidelines%2 0Well%2 0integrity%2 0rev4%2006.06.%2011.pdf
Sollev, WB: Pierce, RR: Perlman, HA, (1998). Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. (USGS
Circular: 1200). U.S. Geological Survey. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/rirl200
Spellman, FR, (2012). Environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. In Environmental impacts of hydraulic
fracturing. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
U.S. Census Bureau, (2013). Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas main. Available online at
http://www.census.gov/population/metro/ (accessed January 12, 2015).
U.S. Department of Transportation, (2012). Large truck and bus crash facts 2012. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/CarrierResearchResults/PDFs/LargeTruckandBusCrashFacts2 012.pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2011a). Plan to study the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources [EPA Report], (EPA/600/R-11/122). Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
http://www2.epa.gov/hfistudv/plan-study-potential-impacts-hydraulic-fracturing-drinking-water-
resources-epa600r-11122
U.S. EPA, General definitions, 40 CFR j 437,2 (2012b). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title40-
vol31/pdf/CFR-2 012-title40-vol31-sec437-2.pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2013c). Drinking water and ground water statistics, fiscal
year 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/upload/epa816rl3003.pdf
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	J-18	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
Appendix ]
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2013d). Terminology services (TS): Terms and acronyms.
Available online at
http://iaspub.epa.gov/sor internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/termsandacronyms/search.dQ
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2014b). Drinking water contaminants. Available online at
http: / / water, epa. gov/ drink/ contaminants /
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015d). Case study analysis of the impacts of water
acquisition for hydraulic fracturing on local water availability [EPA Report], (EPA/600/R-14/179).
Washington, D.C.
U.S. GAP (U.S. Government Accountability Office). (2014). Freshwater: Supply concerns continue, and
uncertainties complicate planning. Report to Congressional requesters. (GAO-14-430). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663343.pdf
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (2015). Water use in the United States. Available online at
http: / / water, usgs. gov/ watus e /
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	J-19	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
	References: All Appendices	
Abrams, R, (2013). Advanced oxidation frac water recycling system. Presentation presented at 20th
International Petroleum Environmental Conference, November 12-14, 2013, San Antonio, TX.
Acharva, HR: Henderson. C: Matis. H: Kommepalli, H: Moore. B: Wang. H. (2011). Cost effective recovery of
low-TDS frac flowback water for reuse. (Department of Energy: DE-FE0000784). Niskayuna, NY: GE Global
Research. http://www.netl.doe.gov/file%201ibrary/Research/oil-gas/FE0000784 FinalReportpdf
Afzal. W: Mohammadi, AH; Richon. D. (2009). Volumetric properties of mono-, di-, tri-, and polyethylene
glycol aqueous solutions from (273.15 to 363.15) K: experimental measurements and correlations. Journal
of Chemical and Engineering Data 54:1254-1261. http: / / dx.doi.org/10.1021 /je800694a
Ahtnann, D: Roberts. AL: Krumholz. LR: Morel. FM. (1994). Microbe grows by reducing arsenic [Letter],
Nature 371: 750. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/37175Qa0
Alain. K: Pignet, P: Zbinden. M: Ouillevere. M: Duchiron. F: Donval. IP: Lesongeur. F: Raguenes. G: Crassous. P:
Querellou. I; Cambon-Bonavita, MA. (2002). Caminicella sporogenes gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel
thermophilic spore-forming bacterium isolated from an East-Pacific Rise hydrothermal vent. Int J Syst
Evol Microbiol 52:1621-1628.
Alfa Aesar. (2015). A16163: Formaldehyde, 37% w/vv aq. soln., stab, with 7-8% methanol. Available online at
https://www.alfa.com/en /catalog/A16163 (accessed May 4,2015).
Ali. M: Taoutaou. S: Shafqat, AU: Salehapour. A: Noor. S. (2009). The use of self healing cement to ensure long
term zonal isolation for HPHT wells subject to hydraulic fracturing operations in Pakistan. Paper
presented at International Petroleum Technology Conference, December 7-9, 2009, Doha, Qatar.
ALL Consulting (ALL Consulting, LLC). (2013). Water treatment technology fact sheet: Electrodialysis [Fact
Sheet], Tulsa, OK. http://www'.aIl-lIc.com/pubIicdownIoads/ED-EDRFactSheetpdf
Alzahrani. S: Mohammad. AW: Hilal, N: Abdullah. P: laafar. 0. (2013). Comparative study of NF and RO
membranes in the treatment of produced water-Part I: Assessing water quality. Desalination 315: 18-26.
fat	ioiorg/10.1016/j.desal.2 012.12.004
Andre. L: Rabemanana. V: Vuataz. FD. (2006). Influence of water-rock interactions on fracture permeability of
the deep reservoir at Soultz-sous-Forets, France. Geothermics 35: 507-531.
hti	ioi org/10.1016/j. geothermics.2 006.09.006
API (American Petroleum Institute). (1999). Recommended practice for care and use of casing and tubing
[Standard] (18th ed.). (API RP 5C1). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	1	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2004). Recommended practice for centralizer placement and stop collar
testing (First ed.). (API RP 10D-2 (R2010)).
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2009a). Hydraulic fracturing operations - Well construction and
integrity guidelines [Standard] (First ed.). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2009b). Packers and bridge plugs (Second ed.). (API Spec 11D1).
AP| (American Petroleum Institute). (2010a). Isolating potential flow zones during well construction
[Standard] (1st ed.). (RP 65-2). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
http: / / www.techstr eet. com/products/previ ew /169 586 6
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2010b). Specification for cements and materials for well cementing
[Standard] (24th ed.). (ANSI/API SPECIFICATION 10A). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
http: / / www.techstreet.com/ products/1757666
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2011). Specification for casing and tubing - Ninth edition [Standard]
(9th ed.). (API SPEC 5CT). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
http://www.techstreet.com/products/1802047
API (American Petroleum Institute). (2013). Recommended practice for testing well cements [Standard] (2nd
ed.). (RP 10B-2). Washington, DC: API Publishing Services.
http://www.techstreet.com/products/1855370
Arthur. ID. (2012). Understanding and assessing well integrity relative to wellbore stray gas intrusion issues.
Presentation presented at Ground Water Protection Council Stray Gas - Incidence & Response Forum, July
24-26,2012, Cleveland, OH.
Arthur. ID; Bohm, B: Corntte, D. (2009). Environmental considerations of modern shale gas development.
Paper presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 4-7, 2009, New Orleans, LA.
Arthur. ID: Langhus. BG: Patel. C. (2005). Technical summary of oil and gas produced water treatment
technologies. Tulsa, OK: ALL Consulting, LLC.
http://www.odinoilandgas.eom/PortaIs/0/TreatmentOptionsReport.pdf
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). (2009). Glossary of terms. Available online at
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/glossary.html
AWWA (American Water Works Association). (1999). Residential end uses of water. In PW Mayer; WB
DeOreo (Eds.). Denver, CO: AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.
http://www.waterrf.org/PubIicReportLibrary/RFR90781 1999 241A.pdf
Baker. R. (1979). A primer of oilwell drilling (4th ed.). Austin, TX: Petroleum Extension Service (PETEX).
Banasiak. LI: Scha	(2009). Removal of boron, fluoride and nitrate by electrodialysis in the presence of
organic matter. J Memb Sci 334:101-109. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.02.020
Bank. T. (2011). Trace metal geochemistry and mobility in the Marcellus shale. In Proceedings of the
Technical Workshops for the Hydraulic Fracturing Study: Chemical & Analytical Methods. Bank, T.
http://www2.epa.goy/sites/production/files/documents/tracemetalgeochemistryandmobilityinthemarc
ellusformationl.pdf
Bank. T; Fortson. LA: Malizia. TR: Benelli. P. (2012). Trace metal occurrences in the Marcellus Shale
[Abstract], Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 44: 313.
Baragi. IG; Maganur. S; Malode, ¥; Baragi. SI, (2013). Excess molar volumes and refractive indices of binary
liquid mixtures of acetyl acetone with n-Nonane, n-Decane and n-Dodecane at (298.15, 303.15, and
308.15) K. Journal of Molecular Liquids 178:175-177. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.molliq.2012.ll.022
Barati. R: Liang. IT. (2014). A review of fracturing fluid systems used for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas
wells. J Appl Polymer Sci Online pub. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/app.40735
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	2	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
BarbotE; Vidic. NS: Gregory, KB: Vidic, RD, (2013). Spatial and temporal correlation of water quality
parameters of produced waters from Devonian-age shale following hydraulic fracturing. Environ Sci
Technol 47: 2562-2569.
Barrett. ME. (2010). Evaluation of sand filter performance. (CRWR Online Report 10-7). Austin, TX: Center for
Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin.
http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/repQrts/pdf/2010/rptl0-07.pdf
Benko, KL: Drewes, IE, (2008). Produced water in the Western United States: Geographical distribution,
occurrence, and composition. Environ Eng Sci 25: 239-246.
llC	ioi.org/10.1039/IR9350000130
Biilmann. E. (1906). [Studien iiber organische Thiosauren III], Justus Liebigs Annalen der Chemie 348:133-
143. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1002 /iiac.19063480110
Biltz. W: Balz. G. (1928). [Uber molekular- und atomvolumina. XVIII. Das volumen des ammoniaks in
kristallisierten ammoniumsalzen]. Zeitschrift fur Anorganische und Allgemeine Chemie 170: 327-341.
M;	ioi.org/10.1002/zaac.19281700141
Blanco. A: Garcia-Abuin. A: Gomez-Diaz. D: Navaza, IM: Villaverde, PL, (2013). Density, speed of sound,
viscosity, surface tension, and excess volume ofn-ethyl-2-pyrrolidone plus ethanolamine (or
diethanolamine or triethanolamine) from T = (293.15 to 323.15) K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering
Data 58: 653-659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je301123j
Blauch. ME: Myers. RR: Moore. TR: Lipjnski 8A. (2009). Marcellus shale post-frac flowback waters - where is
all the salt coming from and what are the implications? In Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting. Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Blondes. MS: Gans, KD: Thordsen. II: Reidv. ME: Thomas. B: Engle. MA: Kharaka. YK: Rowan. EL. (2014). Data:
U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.0 (Provisional) [Database]:
U.S. Geological Survey:: USGS. Retrieved from
http://energy.usgs.gov/EiwironmentaIAspects/EnvironmentaIAspectsofEnergyProductionandlIse/Produ
cedW ater s. aspx#3822349-data
Bloomfield. C: Kelson. W: Pruden. G. (1976). Reactions between metals and humidified organic matter.
Journal of Soil Science 27:16-31. http: //dx.doi.Org/10.iril/j.1365-2389.1976.tb01971.x
Boschee. P. (2012). Handling produced water from hydraulic fracturing. Oil and Gas Facilities 1: 23-26.
Boschee. P. (2014). Produced and flowback water recycling and reuse: Economics, limitations, and
technology. Oil and Gas Facilities 3:16-22.
8ottero, S: Picioreanu. C: Delft. TU: Enzien, M: van Loosdrgcht. MCM: Brttining. H: Heimovaara. T. (2010).
Formation damage and impact on gas flow caused by biofilms growing within proppant packing used in
hydraulic fracturing. Paper presented at SPE International Symposium and Exhibiton on Formation
Damage Control, February 10-12, 2010, Lafayette, Louisiana.
Brufatto. C: Cochran, f: Conn. L: El-Zeghatv. SZA. A: Fraboulet. B: Griffin. T: fames. S: Munk. T: Justus. F: Levine.
IR: Montgomery. C: Murphv. D: Pfeiffer. I: Pornpoch. T: Rishmani. L, (2003). From mud to cement -
Building gas wells. Oilfield Rev 15: 62-76.
Brttff. M: likicfa, SA. (2011). Field demonstration of an integrated water treatment technology solution in
Marcellus shale. Paper presented at SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, August 17-19,2011, Columbus, OH.
BTGS (Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey). (2011). Geochemical analyses of selected lithologies
from geologic units in central, north-central, and southeastern Pennsylvania. (OFMI 1101.0). Middletown,
PA: Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Pennsylvania Geological Survey.
i. The crystal form of anhydrous citric acid. J Chem Soc 1935:130.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	3	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Bukhari, AA, (2008). Investigation of the electro-coagulation treatment process for the removal of total
suspended solids and turbidity from municipal wastewater. Bioresour Technol 99: 914-921.
hti	ioi. org/10.1016/j.biortech.2 007.03.015
CAPE (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers). (2013). CAPP hydraulic fracturing operating practice:
Wellbore construction and quality assurance. (2012-0034).
http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=218137&DT=NTV
Carpenter, EL: Davis, HS. (1957). Acrylamide. Its preparation and properties. Journal of Applied Chemistry 7:
671-676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ictb.5010071206
Casanova, C: Wilhelm, E: Grolier, IPE; Kehiaian, HV, (1981). Excess volumes and excess heat-capacities of
(water + alkanoic acid). The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 13: 241-248.
htJ	joi.org/10.1016/0021-9614f81190123-3
Cayol, IL: Ollivier, B: Lawson anani soh. A: Fardeau, ML: Ageron, E: Grimont, PAD: Prensier, G: Guezennec, I:
Magot, M: Garcia, IL, (1994). Haloincola saccharolytica subsp. senegalensis subsp. nov., Isolated from the
sediments of a Hypersaline lake, and emended description of Haloincola saccharolytica. International
Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 44: 805-811. httx): / /dx.doi.org/10.1099 /00207713-44-4-805
CCG (Chemical Computing Group). (2011). Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) Linux (Version 2011.10)
[Computer Program], Montreal, Quebec. Retrieved from http://www.chemcomp.com/software.htm
CCST (California Council on Science and Technology). (2014). Advanced well stimulation technologies in
California: An independent review of scientific and technical information. Sacramento, CA.
http://ccst.us/publications/2014/2014wst.pdf
CCST (California Council on Science and Technology). (2015). An independent scientifc assessment of well
stimulation in California, Volume 1: Well stimulation technologies and their past, present, and potential
future use in California. Sacramento, CA. http://www.ccst.us/publications/2015/2015SB4-vl.pdf
Chafer, A: Lladosa, E: Monton, IB: Cruz Burguet, M, a, (2010). Liquid-liquid equilibria for the system 1-methyl
propyl ethanoate (1) + acetic acid (2) + water (3) at (283.15 and 323.15) K. Journal of Chemical and
Engineering Data 55: 523-525. http://dx,tloi,org/10,1021/jg900332x
Chapman, EC: Capo, RC: Stewart. BW: Kirbv, CS: Hammack, RW: Schroeder, KT; Edenborn, HM, (2012).
Geochemical and strontium isotope characterization of produced waters from Marcellus Shale natural gas
extraction. Environ Sci Technol 46: 3545-3553.
Cfaasib, KF, (2013). Extraction of phenolic pollutants (phenol and p-chlorophenol) from industrial
wastewater. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 58:1549-1564.
hE	ioi.org/10.1021/ie4001284
Chermak, IA: Schreiber, ME, (2014). Mineralogy and trace element geochemistry of gas shales in the United
States: Environmental implications. Int J Coal Geol 126: 32-44.
hti	ioi,org/10,1016/j,coal,2 013,12,005
Cheung. K: Klassen, P: Mayer, B: Goodarzi, F: Aravena, R, (2010). Major ion and isotope geochemistry of fluids
and gases from coalbed methane and shallow groundwater wells in Alberta, Canada. Appl Geochem 25:
1307-1329. hti	ioi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2010,06,002
Choppin, GR, (2006). Actinide speciation in aquatic systems. Mar Chem 99: 83-92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/imarchem.2005.0Q3.011
Choppin, GR, (2007). Actinide speciation in the environment. Journal of Radioanal Chem 273: 695-703.
htm . rh doi.org/lQ.lQQ7/slQ967-QQ7-Q933-3
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	4	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Clark, CE: Veil. IA. (2009). Produced water volumes and management practices in the United States (pp. 64).
(ANL/EVS/R-09/1). Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory.
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-
content/uploads/2010/09/ANL EVS R09 produced water volume report 2437.pdf
Cluff. M: Hartsock. A: Macrae. J: Carter. K: Mouser. PI. (2014). Temporal changes in microbial ecology and
geochemistry in produced water from hydraulically fractured Marcellus Shale Gas Wells. Environ Sci
Technol 48: 6508-6517.	ioi.org/10.1021/es501173p
Colborn. T: Kwiatkowski, C: Schultz, K: Bachran. M. (2011). Natural gas operations from a public health
perspective. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 17:1039-1056. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2011.605662
Collado, L: Cleenwerck. I: Van Trappen. S: De Vos. P: Figueras. Ml. (2009). Arcobacter mytili sp. nov., an
indoxyl acetate-hydrolysis-negative bacterium isolated from mussels. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 59:1391-
1396. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1099/iis.0.003749-0
Craft, R. (2004). Crashes involving trucks carrying hazardous materials. (FMCSA-RI-04-024). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. http://ntI.bts.gOv/Iib/51000/51300/51302/fincsa-ii-04-024.pdf
Cramer. DP. (2008). Stimulating unconventional reservoirs: Lessons learned, successful practices, areas for
improvement. SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, February 10-12, 2008, Keystone, CO.
Crescent (Crescent Consulting, LLC). (2011). East Mamm creek project drilling and cementing study.
Oklahoma City, OK. http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/PiceanceBasin/EastMammCreek/ReportFinal.pdf
Criquet. I: Allard. S: Salhi. E: loll. CA: Heitz, A: von Gun ten. U. rs. (2012). lodate and lodo-Trihalomethane
Formation during Chlorination of Iodide-Containing Waters: Role of Bromide. Environ Sci Technol 46:
7350-7357. htt	ioi,org/10,lQ21/es301301g
Crook. R. (2008). Cementing: Cementing horizontal wells. Halliburton.
Curtis. IB. (2002). Fractured shale-gas systems. AAPG Bulletin 86:1921-1938.
hti	ioi.org/10.13Q6/ 61EEDDBE-173E-11D7-8645000102C1865D
Dahtn, KG: Guerra, KL: Xtt. P: Drewes. IE. (2011). Composite geochemical database for coalbed methane
produced water quality in the Rocky Mountain region. Environ Sci Technol 45: 7655-7663.
htl	ioi.org/10.1021/es201021n
Pake. LP. (1978). Fundamentals of reservoir engineering. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
http://mmm/.ing.unp.edu.ar/asignaturas/rgsgryorios/Fundamenta]s%20oPM)20Reservoir%20Engineering
%20%28LP.%20Pake%29.pdf
Pao. TP: Merica. IP: Laborie. S: Cabassud. C. (2013). A new method for permeability measurement of
hydrophobic membranes in Vacuum Membrane Pistillation process. Water Res 47: 20962104.
Pavis, IP; Struchtemever, CG: Elshahed, MS. (2012). Bacterial communities associated with production
facilities of two newly drilled thermogenic natural gas wells in the Barnett Shale (Texas, USA). Microb Ecol
64: 942-954. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00248-012-0073-3
de Oliveira. LH: da Silva. IL. Ir: Aznar. M. (2011). Apparent and partial molar volumes at infinite dilution and
solid-liquid equilibria of dibenzothiophene plus alkane systems. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Pata
56: 3955-3962. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200327s
Dejove Tanzi. C: Abert Vian. M: Ginies, C: Elmaataoui. M: Chemat. F, (2012). Terpenes as green solvents for
extraction of oil from microalgae. Molecules 17: 8196-8205.
htl	ioi. or g /10.3 39 0/mol ecul es1707819 6
Devereux. S. (1998). Practical well planning and drilling manual. Tulsa, OK: PennWell Publishing Company.
http://www.pennwellbooks.com/practical-well-planning-and-drilling-manual/
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	5	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Dhondge, SS: Pandhurnekar, CP: Parwate, DV, (2010). Density, speed of sound, and refractive index of
aqueous binary mixtures of some glycol ethers at T=298.15 K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data
55: 3962-3968. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie901072c
Diehl. SF: Goldhaber. MB: Hatch. JR. (2004). Modes of occurrence of mercury and other trace elements in coals
from the warrior field, Black Warrior Basin, Northwestern Alabama. Int J Coal Geol 59:193-208.
M;	ioi.org/10.1016/icoal.2004.02.003
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). (2006). A guide to practical management of produced water from onshore
oil and gas operations in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, National
Petroleum Technology Office.
http: //fracfocus,org/sites/default/files/publicatioi	de to practical management of produced wat
er from onshore oil and gas operations in the united states.pdf
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). (2014). Water management strategies for improved coalbed methane
production in the Black Warrior Basin. Available online at http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/oil-and-
gas/project-summaries/natural-gas-resources/de-fe0000888
Dresel, PE: Rose. AW. (2010). Chemistry and origin of oil and gas well brines in western Pennsylvania (pp.
48). (Open-File Report OFOG 1001.0). Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser.
http://www.marcellus.psu.edu/resources/PDFs/brines.pdf
Drew	h. T: Debroux. j: Veil. I. (2009). An integrated framework for treatment and management of
produced water - Technical assessment of produced water treatment technologies (1st ed.). (RPSEA
Project 07122-12). Golden, CO: Colorado School of Mines.
http://aawatec.mines.edu/research/proiects/Tech Assessment PW Treatment Tech.pdf
Dubev, GP: Kumar. K. (2011). Thermodynamic properties of binary liquid mixtures of diethylenetriamine
with alcohols at different temperatures. Thermochim Acta 524: 7-17.
hti	ioi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2 011.06.003
Dubev. GP: Kumar. K. (2013). Studies of thermodynamic, thermophysical and partial molar properties of
liquid mixtures of diethylenetriamine with alcohols at 293.15 to 313.15 K. Journal of Molecular Liquids
180:164-171. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/imolliq.2013.01.011
Duhon, H. (2012). Produced water treatment: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Oil and Gas Facilities 3: 29-31.
Dunkel. M. (2013). Reducing fresh water use in upstream oil and gas hydraulic fracturing. In Summary of the
technical workshop on wastewater treatment and related modeling (pp. A37-A43). Irving, TX: Pioneer
Natural Resources USA, Inc. http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/summary-technical-workshop-wastewater-
treatment-and-related-modeling
Duraisamy. RT: Beni, AH: Henni, A. (2013). State of the art treatment of produced water. In W Elshorbagy; RK
Chowdhury (Eds.), Water treatment (pp. 199-222). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
hti	ioi, org/10,5 772/53478
Dusseault. MB: Gray. MN: Nawrocki. PA. (2000). Why oilwells leak: Cement behavior and long-term
consequences. Paper presented at SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China,
November 7-10, 2000, Beijing, China.
Pyshjn.AA: Eliseeva. OV: Kiselev. MG: Al'per. GA. (2008). The volume characteristics of solution of
naphthalene in heptane-ethanol mixtures at 298.15 K. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Focus on
Chemistry 82: 1258-1261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0036024408080037
Easton. I. (2014). Optimizing fracking wastewater management. Pollution Engineering January 13.
Egorov. GI: Makarov. DM: Kolker. AM. (2013). Volume properties of liquid mixture of water plus glycerol over
the temperature range from 278.15 to 348.15 K at atmospheric pressure. Thermochim Acta 570: 16-26.
lit!	ioi.org/10.1016/j.tea.2 013.07.012
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	6	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
E.IA (Energy Information Administration). (2013). Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources:
an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States (pp. 730). Washington,
D.C.: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/
Ely. fW: Horn. A: Cathev. R: Fraim. M: fakhete, S. (2011). Game changing technology for treating and recycling
frac water. Paper presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 30 - November 2,
2011, Denver, CO.
En form. (2013). Interim industry recommended practice 24: fracture stimulation: Interwellbore
communication 3/27/2013 (1.0 ed.). (IRP 24). Calgary, Alberta: Enform Canada.
http://www.enform.ca/safetv resources/publications/PublicationDetails.aspx?a=29&type=irp
Engle. MA: Rowan. EL. (2014). Geochemical evolution of produced waters from hydraulic fracturing of the
Marcellus Shale, northern Appalachian Basin: A multivariate compositional data analysis approach. Int J
Coal Geol 126: 45-56. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.ll.010
ER (Eureka Resources, LLC). (2014). Crystallization technology. Available online at fatto: / /www.ettreka-
resources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/EURE-022 Crystallization 53013.pdf (accessed March 4,
2015).
Ertel. D: McManus. K: Bogdan. j, (2013). Marcellus wastewater treatment: Case study. In Summary of the
technical workshop on wastewater treatment and related modeling (pp. A56-A66). Williamsport, PA:
Eureka Resources, LLC. http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/summary-technical-workshop-wastewater-
treatment-and-related-modeling
Fadeeva. YA: Shmukler. LE: Safonova. LP. (2004). Physicochemical properties of the H3P04-
dimethylformamide system. Russian Journal of General Chemistry 74:174-178.
hE	ioi.org/10.102 3/B:RUGC. 000002 5496.07304.66
Fakhru'l-Razi. A: Pendashteh. A: Abdullah. LC: Biak. PR: Madaeni. SS: Abidin. ZZ. (2009). Review of
technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment [Review], J Hazard Mater 170: 530-551.
Faria. MAF: Martins. RI: Cardoso. MIE. M: Baixia. OE. (2013). Density and viscosity of the binary systems
ethanol + butan-l-ol, + pentan-l-ol, + heptan-l-ol, + octan-l-ol, nonan-l-ol, + decan-l-ol at 0.1 mpa and
temperatures from 283.15 Kto 313.15 K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 58: 3405-3419.
ht	joi.org/10.1021/je400630f
Fels. G. (1900). Ueber die Frage der isomorphen vertretung von halogen und hydroxyl. In Zeitschrift fur
Kristallographie, Kristallgeometrie, Kristallphysik, Kristallchemie. Frankfurt: Leipzig.
http://babel.hathitrustorg/cgi/pt?id=ucl.b3327977:view=lup:seq=5
Fertl, WH: Chilingar, GV. (1988). Total organic carbon content determined from well logs. SPE Formation
Evaluation 3: 407-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15612-PA
Fichter, I: Moore. R: Braman, S: Wunch, K: Summer. E: Holmes, P. (2012). How hot is too hot for bacteria? A
technical study assessing bacterial establishment in downhole drilling, fracturing, and stimulation
operations. Paper presented at NACE International Corrosion Conference & Expo, March 11-15,2012, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Filgueiras. AV: La villa. I: Bendjcho.C. (2002). Chemical sequential extraction for metal partitioning in
environmental solid samples. J Environ Monit 4: 823-857. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b207574c
finemech (finemech Precision Mechanical Components). (2012). Technical resources: Liquid nitrogen, LN2.
Available online at http://wmm/.fjnemech.com/tech resources/liquid nitrogen.html
Fisher. IG: Santamaria. A. (2002). Dissolved organic constituents in coal-associated waters and implications
for human and ecosystem health. Paper presented at 9th Annual International Petroleum Environmental
Conference, October 22-25, 2002, Albuquerque, NM.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	7	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Fisher, RS, (1998). Geologic and geochemical controls on naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in
produced water from oil, gas, and geothermal operations. Environmental Geosciences 5:139-150.
hi!	ioi.org/10.1046/1.152 6-0984.1998.08018.x
Francis. A), (2007). Microbial mobilization and immobilization of plutonium. J Alloy Comp 444: 500-505.
fati	ioi. org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2 007.01.132
Francis. RA: Small. MI: Vanbriesen. IM, (2009). Multivariate distributions of disinfection by-products in
chlorinated drinking water. Water Res 43: 3453-3468. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.05.008
Fredrickson. IK: Balkwill, PL. (2006). Geomicrobial processes and biodiversity in the deep terrestrial
subsurface. Geomicrobiology Journal 23: 345-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490450600875571
Fuess. H: Bats. IW: Dannohl. H: Meyer. H: Schweig. A. (1982). Comparison of observed and calculated
densities. XII. Deformation density in complex anions. II. Experimental and theoretical densities in sodium
formate. Acta Crystallogr B B38: 736-743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0567740882003999
Fujino, S: Hwang. C: Morinaga. K. (2004). Density, surface tension, and viscosity of Pb0-B203-Si02 glass
melts. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 87:10-16. http: / /dx.doi.org/10.1111 /j,1151-
2916.2 004. tb!9937.x
Gadd. GM. (2004). Microbial influence on metal mobility and application for bioremediation. Geoderma 122:
109-119. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.002
Garcia. MT: Mellado. E: Ostos. IC: Ventosa. A. (2004). Halomonas organivorans sp. nov., a moderate halophile
able to degrade aromatic compounds. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 54:1723-1728.
M;	ioi.org/10.1099/iis*0.63114-0
Gauthier. MI; Lafay. B: Christen, R; Fernandez, L: Acqttaviva, M: Bonin, P: Bertrand. IC, (1992). Marinobacter
hydrocarbonoclasticus gen. nov., sp. nov., a New, Extremely Halotolerant, Hydrocarbon-Degrading Marine
Bacterium. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 42: 568-576.
htJ	ioi.org/10.1099/002 07713-42-4-568
Gilmore. K: Hupp. R: Glathar. I. (2013). Transport of Hydraulic Fracturing Water and Wastes in the
Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania. J Environ Eng 140: B4013002.
M	ioi.org/10.lQ61/fASCElEE.1943-7870.0000810
Glorius. M: Moll. H: Geipel. G: Bernhard. G. (2008). Complexation of uranium(VI) with aromatic acids such as
hydroxamic and benzoic acid investigated by TRLFS. Journal of Radioanal Chem 277: 371-377.
llC	ioi.org/10.1007/sl0967-007-7082-6
Gomes. I: Cocke. D: Das. K: Guttula. M: Tran, D: Beckman: I. (2009). Treatment of produced water by
electrocoagulation. Shiner, TX: KASELCO, LLC. http://www.kaselco.com/index.php/library/industry-
white-papers
Goodwin, S: Carlson, K: Knox, K: Douglas, C: Rein, L, (2014). Water intensity assessment of shale gas resources
in the Wattenberg field in northeastern Colorado. Environ Sci Technol 48: 5991-5995.
hti	ioi.org/10.102 l/es404675h
Grabowski. A: Nercessian. 0: Favolle. F: Blanchet. D: leanthon. C. (2005). Microbial diversity in production
waters of a low-temperature biodegraded oil reservoir. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 54: 427-443.
M;	ioi.org/10.1016/i.femsec.2005.05.007
Gttolin, I: Xiaovu. W; Chunjie. H, (2008). The effect of oilfield polymer-flooding wastewater on anion exchange
membrane performance. Desalination 220: 386-393.
Gupta. D¥S: yalko. P- (2007). Fracturing fluids and formation damage. In M Economides; T Martin (Eds.),
Modern fracturing: enhancing natural gas production (pp. 227-279). Houston, TX: Energy Tribune
Publishing Inc.
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	8	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
GWPC and ALL Consulting (Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and ALL Consulting). (2009). Modern
shale gas development in the United States: A primer. (DE-FG26-04NT15455). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory.
fattp: / / www.gwpc.org/sites/def3u1t/files/Shale%2 0Gas%2 0Primer%2 02 009.pdf
Habuda-Stanic. M: Ravancic, ME: Flanagan. A. (2014). A Review on Adsorption of Fluoride from Aqueous
Solution. Materials 7: 6317-6366. http: //dx,doi.org/10.3390/ma?096317
Hagen, R: Kaatze, U. (2004). Conformational kinetics of disaccharides in aqueous solutions. J Chem Phys 120:
9656-9664. htj	ioi.org/10.1063/1.1701835
HaHdorson, B. (2013). Successful oilfield water management: Five unique case studies. Presentation
presented at EPA Technical Workshop - Wastewater Treatment and Related Modeling Research, April 18,
2013, Triangle Park, NC.
Halliburton. (2014). Hydraulic fracturing 101. Available online at
http://www.haIIiburton.com/pubIic/projects/pubsdata/hydrauIic fracturing/fracturing 101.html
Haluszczak, LP: Rose. AW; Kump, LR. (2013). Geochemical evaluation of flowbackbrine from Marcellus gas
wells in Pennsylvania, USA. Appl Geochem 28: 55-61.
hti	ioiorg/10.1Q16/j.apgeochem.2 012.10.002
H ami eh. BM: Beckman. JR. (2006). Seawater desalination using Dewvaporation technique: theoretical
development and design evolution. Desalination 195:1-13.
hti	ioi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2 005.09.034
Hammer. R: VanBriesen. I. (2 012). In frackings wake: New rules are needed to protect our health and
environment from contaminated wastewater. New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council.
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/fracking-wastewater-fulIreport.pdf
Hansen. E: Mulvanev. D: Betcher. M. (2013). Water resource reporting and water footprint from Marcellus
Shale development in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Durango, CO: Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability
Project, http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports publication/marcellus wv pa.pdf
Harkness. IS: Dwver. GS: Warner. NR: Parker. KM: Mitch. WA: Veneosh. A. (2015). Iodide, Bromide, and
Ammonium in Hydraulic Fracturing and Oil and Gas Wastewaters: Environmental Implications. Environ
Sci Technol 49:1955-1963. http: / /dx.doi.org /10.1021 /es50¦4654n
Harlow, A: Wiegand. G: Franck. EU. (1997). The Density of Ammonia at High Pressures to 723 Kand 950 MPa.
101:1461-1465. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1002 /bbDC.199700007
Harwood. DW: Viner. 1G: Russell. ER. (1993). Procedure for developing truck accident and release rates for
hazmat routing. Journal of Transportation Engineering 119:189-199.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1061/fASCE10733-947Xfl993T119:2fl891
Hatch. IR: Leventhal, IS, (1981). Geochemistry of organic-rich shales and coals from middle Pennsylvanian
Cherokee group and lower part of Marmaton group, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa [Abstract],
AAPG Bulletin 65: 936.
Hayes. T. (2009). Sampling and analysis of water streams associated with the development of Marcellus shale
gas. Des Plaines, IL: Marcellus Shale Coalition, http: / / ei dinar eel 1 us. org/ wp -
content/uploads/2 012/11/MSCommission-Reportpdf
Hayes. T: Severin. B. (2012a). Characterization of flowback water from the the Marcellus and the Barnett
shale regions. Barnett and Appalachian shale water management and reuse technologies. (08122-05.09;
Contract 08122-05). Hayes, T; Severin, B. http://www.rpsea.org/media/files/project/2146b3a0/08122-
05-RT-Characterization Flowback Waters Marcellus Barnett Shale Regions-03-20-12.pdf
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	9	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Hayes, T: Severin, BF, (2012b). Evaluation of the aqua-pure mechanical vapor recompression system in the
treatment of shale gas flowback water - Barnett and Appalachian shale water management and reuse
technologies. (08122-05.11). Hayes, T; Severin, BF. http://barnettshalewater.org/documents/08122-
05.11-EvaluationofMVR-3-12-2012.pdf
Hayes. TP: Arthur. D. (2004). Overview of emerging produced water treatment technologies. Paper presented
at 11th Annual International Petroleum Environmental Conference, October 12-15, 2004, Albuquerque,
NM.
Hayes, TP: HalMorson. B: jjorner^	I: Werline. IR: Severin. BF. (2014). Mechanical vapor
recompression for the treatment of shale-gas flowback water. Oil and Gas Facilities 3: 54-62.
Haynes, WM. (2014). CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. In WM Haynes (Ed.), (95 ed.). Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, http://www.hbcpnetbase.com/
He. YM: Jiang. RF: Zhu. F: Luan, TG: Huang. ZQ: Ouvang. GF. (2008). Excess molar volumes and surface
tensions of 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene with isopropyl acetate and isobutyl
acetate at (298.15, 308.15, and 313.15)K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 53:1186-1191.
hti	ioi.org/10.102 l/ie800046k
Hedlund. BP: Geiselbrecht. AD: Stalev. IT. (2001). Marinobacter strain NCE312 has a Pseudomonas-like
naphthalene dioxygenase. FEMS Microbiol Lett 201: 47-51.
Hernlem. BI: Vane. LM: Savles, GP. (1999). The application of siderophores for metal recovery and waste
remediation: Examination of correlations for prediction of metal affinities. Water Res 33: 951-960.
Horsey. CA, (1981). Depositional environments of the Pennsylvanian Pottsville Formation in the Black
Warrior Basin of Alabama. Journal of Sedimentary Research 51: 799-806.
llS	ioi.org/10.1306/212F7PB5-2B24-llP7-8648000102C1865P
House of Representatives (U.S. House of Representatives). (2011). Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.
Washington, P.C.: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Minority Staff.
hti	nocrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic-Fracturing-
Chemicals-20ri-4-18.pdf
Htta. GH: Reckhow, DA: Kim. I, (2006). Effect of bromide and iodide ions on the formation and speciation of
disinfection byproducts during chlorination. Environ Sci Technol 40: 3050-3056.
ht;	ioi,org/10,102 l/es05192 78
Huffman, HM: Fox, SW, (1938). Thermal data. X. The heats of combustion and free energies, at 25, of some
organic compounds concerned in carbohydrate metabolism. J Am Chem Soc 60:1400-1403.
hjj	ioi.org/10.102 l/ia01273a036
Hvne. NI. (2012). Nontechnical guide to petroleum geology, exploration, drilling and production. In
Nontechnical guide to petroleum geology, exploration, drilling and production (3 ed.). Tulsa, OK: PennWell
Corporation.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). (2015). IARC monographs - Classifications. Available
online at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php
Igunntt. ET: Chen. GZ. (2014). Produced water treatment technologies. International Journal of Low-Carbon
Technologies 9:157-177. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1093/iilct/cts049
Inc.. L. (2012). Leadscope [Computer Program], Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.leadscope.com
IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry). (2014). Global availability of information on
agrochemicals: Triisopropanolamine. Available online at
http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/Reports/1338.htm
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	10	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
lackson, RE: Gorody, AW: Mayer, B: Roy. jW: Ryan, MC; ¥an Stempvoort, PR, (2013). Groundwater protection
and unconventional gas extraction: the critical need for field-based hydrogeological research. Ground
Water 51: 488-510. http://dx,doi,org/10,1111 /gwat, 12074
Jiang, L: Guillot, D: Meraji, M: Kumari, P: Vidick, B: Duncan, B: Gaafar, GR: Sansudin. SB, (2012). Measuring
isolation integrity in depleted reservoirs. SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-20, 2012,
Cartagena, Colombia.
Jones, DB: Saglam. A: Song, H: Karanfil. T, (2012). The impact of bromide/iodide concentration and ratio on
iodinated trihalomethane formation and speciation. Water Res 46: 11-20.
M;	ioi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2011.10.005
Julian, IY: King, GE: Johns, IE: Sack, IK: Robertson, DB, (2007). Detecting ultrasmall leaks with ultrasonic leak
detection, case histories from the North Slope, Alaska. Paper presented at International Oil Conference and
Exhibition in Mexico, June 27-30, 2007, Veracruz, Mexico.
Kashem, MA: Singh, BR: Kondo, T: Hug, SMI: Kawai, S, (2007). Comparison of extractability of Cd, Cu, Pb and
Zn with sequential extraction in contaminated and non-contaminated soils. Int J Environ Sci Tech 4: 169-
176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03326270
Katsoviannis, A: Samara, C, (2007). The fate of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the wastewater treatment
process and its importance in the removal of wastewater contaminants. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 14: 284-
292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/espr2006.05.302
Kim, HM: Hwang, CY: Cho, BC, (2010). Arcobacter marinus sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 60: 531-536.
doi,org/10,1099/iis,0,00 ' K> o
Kimball, B, (2010). Water treatment technologies for global unconventional gas plays. Presentation presented
at US - China Industry Oil and Gas Forum, September 16, 2010, Fort Worth, TX.
Kirksev. I. (2013). Optimizing wellbore integrity in well construction. Presentation presented at North
American Wellbore Integrity Workshop, 0ctoberl6-17,2013, Denver, CO.
Kiselev, VP: Kashaeva. HA: Shakirova, II: Potapova, LN: Konovalov, AI, (2012). Solvent effect on the enthalpy
of solution and partial molar volume of the ionic liquid l-butyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate.
Journal of Solution Chemistry 41:1375-1387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/slQ953-012-9881-9
Kose, B: Ozgttn, H: Ersahin, ME: Dizge, N: Koseoglulmer, DY; Atay, B: Kaya, R: Altinbas, M: Sayili, S: Hoshan, P:
Atay, D; Eren, E: Kinaci, C: Koyuncu, I, (2012). Performance evaluation of a submerged membrane
bioreactor for the treatment of brackish oil and natural gas field produced water. Desalination 285: 295-
300.
Kraemer, TF: Reid, DF, (1984). The occurrence and behavior of radium in saline formation water of the U.S.
Gulf Coast region. Isotope Geoscience 2:153-174.
Krakowiak, J; Bobicz, D; Grzybkowski, W, (2001). Limiting partial molar volumes of tetra-n-alkylammonium
perchlorates in N,N-dimethylacetamide, triethylphosphate and dimethyl sulfoxide atT=298.15 K. The
Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 33: 121-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jcht2000.0725
Krasner, SW, (2009). The formation and control of emerging disinfection by-products of health concern
[Review], Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci 367: 4077-4095. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2009.010
Laavi, H: Pokki, IP: Uusi-Kyynv, P: Massimi, A: Kim, Y: Sapei, E: Alopaeus, V, (2013). Vapor-liquid equilibrium
at 350 k, excess molar enthalpies at 298 K, and excess molar volumes at 298 K of binary mixtures
containing ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, and 2-butanol. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 58: 1011-
1019. http://dx.doi.Qrg/10.1021/je400036b
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	11	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Laavi, H: Zaitseva, A: Pokki, IP: Uusi-Kyyny, P: Kim, Y: Alopaeus, ¥, (2012). Vapor-liquid equilibrium, excess
molar enthalpies, and excess molar volumes of binary mixtures containing methyl isobutyl ketone [MIBK]
and 2-butanol, tert-pentanol, or 2-ethyl-l-hexanol. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 57: 3092-
3101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je300678r
Lalucat. I: Bennasar. A: Bosch. R: Garcia-Valdes, E: Palleroni. NI, (2006). Biology of Pseudomonas stutzeri
[Review], Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 70: 510-547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00047-05
Langmuir, D: Herman, IS, (1980). The mobility of thorium in natural waters at low temperatures. Geochim
Cosmo Act 44:1753-1766. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037f80190226-4
(1985). THE THERMODYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF RADIUM. Geochim Cosmo Act 49:
-aurenzi. 11: jersey, GR, (2013). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater consumption of Marcellus
shale gas. Environ Sci Technol 47: 4896-4903. http: //dx.doi.org /10.1021 /es305162w
LEatt LLC, (2008). Dew vaporation desalination 5,000-gallon-per-day pilot plant. (Desalination and Water
Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 120). Denver, CO: Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior. htto;//wyvw.usbr.goy/research/AWT/reportpdfs/reportl20.pdf
ir, D: Ries
1593-1601
Lee, K: Neff. I, (2011). Produced water: Environmental risks and advances in mitigation technologies. New
York, NY: Springer, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-l-4614-0046-2
Leventhal, IS: Hosterman, IW, (1982). Chemical and mineralogical analysis Of Devonian black-shale samples
from Martin County, Kentucky - Caroll and Washington counties, Ohio - Wise County, Virginia - and
Overton County, Tennessee, USA. Chem Geol 37: 239-264.
Li, L: Brantley, SL, (2011). Development of a subsurface reactive transport model for predicting potential
water quality problems at Marcellus shale. (USGS Project 2011PA159B). Li, L; Brantley, SL.
http://water.usgs.gov/wrri/2011grants/progress/2011PA159B.pdf
Lovlev, PR: Chapelle, FH, (1995). Deep subsurface microbial processes. Rev Geophys 33: 365-381.
llC	ioi,org/10,1029/95RG01305
Lovlev, PR: Phillips, EI, (1986). Organic matter mineralization with reduction of ferric iron in anaerobic
sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 51: 683-689.
Ludzack, FI; Noran, DK, (1965). Tolerance of high salinities by conventional wastewater treatment processes.
J Water Pollut Control Fed 37:1404-1416.
Lull, f: Marinas. BI, (2012). Bromide ion effect on N-nitrosodimethylamine formation by monochloramine.
Environ Sci Technol 46: 5085-5092. htj	ioi.org/10.1021/es300Q77x
Lyons. WC: Pligsa, GI, (2004). Standard handbook of petroleum and natural gas engineering (2nd ed.).
Houston, TX: Gulf Professional Publishing, http://www.elsevier.com/books/standard-handbook-of-
petroleum-and-natural-gas-engineering/lyons-phd-pe/978-0-7506-7785-1
Ma, G: Geza, M: Xu, P, (2014). Review of flowback and produced water management, treatment, and beneficial
use for major shale gas development basins. Shale Energy Engineering Conference 2014, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, United States.
Mak. TCW. (1965). Hexamethylenetetramine hexahydrate: A new type of clathrate hydrate. J Chem Phys 43:
2799. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1063/l.1697212
Manios, T: Stentiford. EI: Millner. P, (2003). Removal of total suspended solids from wastewater in
constructed horizontal flow subsurface wetlands. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 38:
1073-1085.	ioi.org/10.1081/ESE-12 0019865
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	12	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Martinez-Reina, M: Amado-Gonzalez, E: Mauricio Munoz-Munoz, Y, (2012). Study of liquid-liquid equilibria of
toluene plus (hexane, heptane, or cyclohexane] with l-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium ethylsulfate at 308.15
K. Bull Chem Soc Jpn 85: 1138-1144. http: IIdx.doi.org/10.1246/bcsj.20120112
Martinez. CE: McBride. MB. (2001). Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn coprecipitates in Fe oxide formed at different pH: Aging
effects on metal solubility and extractability by citrate. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:122-126.
http: / / dx. do i. org/10,1002/ etc.5 62 02 00112
Masood, AKM: Pethrick. RA: Swinton, FL. (1976). Physicochemical studies of super-cooled liquids - cyclic
carbonates and alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehydes. Faraday Trans 1 72: 20-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/fl9767200020
Mata. IA: Martmez-Canovas. I: Ouesada. E: Bejar. V. (2002). A detailed phenotypic characterisation of the type
strains of Halomonas species. Syst Appl Microbiol 25: 360-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/0723-2020-
00122
Matamoros. ¥: Mujeriego. R: Bavona. JM. (2007). Trihalomethane occurrence in chlorinated reclaimed water
at full-scale wastewater treatment plants in NE Spain. Water Res 41: 3337-3344.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2007.04.021
Maupin. MA: Kenny. IF: Hutson, SS: Lovelace. IK: Barber. NL: Linsev. KS. (2014). Estimated use of water in the
United States in 2010. (USGS Circular 1405). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey,
http: / / dx. do i. or g /10.313 3 / ci r 14 0 5
Maxwell. SC. (2011). Hydraulic fracture height growth. Recorder 36: 18-22.
McDaniel, BW: Rispler. KA. (2009). Horizontal wells with multistage fracs prove to be best economic
completion for many low permeability reservoirs. Paper presented at SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
September 23-15, 2009, Charleston, WV.
McDaniel. f: Watters. L: Shadravan. A. (2014). Cement sheath durability: Increasing cement sheath integrity to
reduce gas migration in the Marcellus Shale Play. In SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference
proceedings. Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168650-MS
McGowan. L: Herbert. R: Muvzer. G. (2004). A comparative study of hydrocarbon degradation by
Marinobacter sp., Rhodococcus sp. and Corynebacterium sp. isolated from different mat systems. Ophelia
58: 271-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00785236.2004.10410235
Not your granddad's disinfection by-product problems and solutions. JAWWA 106: 54-73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0128
McLin. K: Biinton. D: Moore. I. (2011). Geochemical modeling of water-rock-proppant interactions. Thirty-
Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, January 31 - February 2,2011, Stanford University,
Stanford, California.
Miller. P. (2011). Future of hydraulic fracturing depends on effective water treatment. Hydrocarbon Process
90: 13-13.
Mitchell. AL: Small. M: Gasman. EA. (2013). Surface water withdrawals for Marcellus Shale gas development:
performance of alternative regulatory approaches in the Upper Ohio River Basin. Environ Sci Technol 47:
12669-12678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es403537z
Mohan. AM: Gregory. KB: Vidic. RD: Miller. P: Hammack. RW. (2011). Characterization of microbial diversity
in treated and untreated flowback water impoundments from gas fracturing operations. Paper presented
at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 30 - November 2, 2011, Denver, CO.
Montgomery. C. (2013). Fracturing fluid components. In A Bunder; J McLennon; R Jeffrey (Eds.), Effective and
Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing. Croatia: InTech. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56422
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	13	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Moosavi, M: Motahari. A; Omraiii, A: Rostamj, AA, (2013). Thermodynamic study on some alkanediol
solutions: Measurement and modeling. Thermochim Acta 561:1-13.
hti	ioi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2013.03.010
Moses. CO: Herman. IS. (1991). Pyrite oxidation at circumneutral pH. Geochim Cosmo Act 55: 471-482.
MSG (Marcellus Shale Coalition). (2013). Recommended practices: Drilling and completions. (MSG RP 2013-
3). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Munter. R. (2000). Industrial wastewater treatment. In LC Lundin (Ed.), Sustainable water management in the
Baltic Sea Basin book II: Water use and management (pp. 195-210). Sida, Sweden: Baltic University
Programme Publication. http://www.balticuniv.uu.se/index.php/boII-online-library/831-swm-2-water-
use-and-management
Murali Mohan. A: Hartsock. A: Bibbv, KI: Hammack. RW: Vidic. RD: Gregory. KB. (2013a). Microbial
community changes in hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water from shale gas extraction. Environ
Sci Technol 47:13141-13150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es402928b
Murali Mohan. A: Hartsock, A: Hammack, RW: Vidic, RD: Gregory. KB. (2013b). Microbial communities in
flowback water impoundments from hydraulic fracturing for recovery of shale gas. FEMS Microbiol Ecol.
hi!	ioi.org/10.1111/1574-6941.12183
Murray, KE, (2013). State-scale perspective on water use and production associated with oil and gas
operations, Oklahoma, U.S. Environ Sci Technol 47: 4918-4925. http://dx,doi,org /10,1021 /es4000593
Muvlaert. K: Dasseville, R: De Brabandere. L: Dehairs, F: Vvverman, W, (2005). Dissolved organic carbon in
the freshwater tidal reaches of the Schelde estuary. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 64: 591-600.
ht	ioi,org/10,1016/j,ecss,2005,04,010
Myers, CR: Nealson, KH, (1988). Bacterial manganese reduction and growth with manganese oxide as the sole
electron acceptor. Science 240:1319-1321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.240.4857.1319
Newman. DK. (2001). Microbiology - How bacteria respire minerals. Science 292:1312-1313.
hti	ioi org/10.112 6/science.1060572
Nicot, IP; Reedy, RC: Costley, RA: Huang, Y, (2012). Oil & gas water use in Texas: Update to the 2011 mining
water use report Nicot, JP; Reedy, RC; Costley, RA; Huang, Y.
http://iAm/w,twdb,state,tx,us/publications/rgports/contracted reports/doc/0904830939 2012Update M
Nicot. IP: Scanlon. BR. (2012). Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, U.S. Environ Sci Technol 46: 3580-
3586. http: //dx.doi.Qrg/10.1021/es204602t
NLM (National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine). (2014). ChemID plus advanced. Available
NMSU DACC WUTAP (New Mexico State University, Dona Ana Community College, Water Utilities Technical
Assistance Program). (2007). New Mexico wastewater systems operator certification study manual -
Version 1.1. Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Environment Department.
http;//www.nmrwa.org/sites/nmrwa.org/files/Waste waterOperatorStudyManual.pdf
Nordstrom, DK; Alpers, CN, (1999). Geochemistry of acid mine waters. In GS Plumlee; MJ Logsdon (Eds.), The
Environmental Geochemistry of Mineral Deposits Part A: Processes, Techniques, and Health Issues Society
of Economic Geologists, Denver (pp. 133-160). Littleton, CO: Society of Economic Geologists.
North Dakota State Water Commission. (2014). Facts about North Dakota fracking and water use. Bismarck,
ND. http://www.swc.nd.gov/4dIink9/4dcgi/GetContentPDF/PB-2419/Fact%20Sheetpdf
Nicot IP: Scanlon. BR: Reedy. RC: Costley. RA. (2014). Source and fate of hydraulic fracturing water in the


Barnett Shale: a historical perspective. Environ Sci Technol 48: 2464-2471.
online at I
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015
14
DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
NTP (National Toxicology Program). (2014a). Definition of carcinogenicity results. Available online at
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ results/pubs/longterm/defs/index.html
NTP (National Toxicology Program). (2014b). Report on carcinogens. Thirteenth edition. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhe3lth/roc/rocl3/index.htmI
NYSDEC (NewYorkState Department of Environmental Conservation). (2011). Revised draft supplemental
generic environmental impact statement (SGEIS) on the oil, gas and solution mining regulatory program:
Well permit issuance for horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing to develop the Marcellus
shale and other low-permeability gas reservoirs. Albany, NY: NY SDEC.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/ 7537O.html
Obolensky. A: Singer. PC. (2008). Development and interpretation of disinfection byproduct formation models
using the Information Collection Rule database. Environ Sci Technol 42: 5654-5660.
http -; d\ doi.org/10.1021/es7Q2974f
OEHHA. Title 27. California Code of Regulations Article 8. No Observable Effect Levels. £25701(2012).
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/Iaw/pdf zip/RegsArt8.pdf
Oil and Gas Mineral Services. (2010). MineralWise: Oil and gas terminology. Available online at
http://www.mineraIweb.com/Iibrary/oi1-and-gas-terms/
Oka. S. (1962). Studies on lactone formation in vapor phase. III. Mechanism of lactone formation from diols.
Bull Chem Soc Jpn 35: 986-989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1246/bcsj.35.986
ONG Services. (2015). ONGList: Reserved Environmental Services. Available online at
http://www.onglistcom/Home/Search?SearchString=Reserved+environmental+services&Pistance=&sea
rchAddress=&CategoryTypeID=l&SubCategoryID
Orem. W: Tatu, C: Varonka. M: Lerch. H: Bates. A: Engle. M: Crosbv. L: Mcintosh. I, (2014). Organic substances
in produced and formation water from unconventional natural gas extraction in coal and shale. Int J Coal
Geol 126: 20-31. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.coal.2014.01.003
Orem. WH: Tatu. CA: Lerch. HE: Rice. CA: Bartos. TT: Bates. AL: Tewalt. S: Corum. MP. (2007). Organic
compounds in produced waters from coalbed natural gas wells in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA.
Appl Geochem 22: 2240-2256. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2007.04.010
1910.1200 (2013). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsvs/pkg/CFR-2013-tit1e29-voI6/xm1/CFR-2013-tit1e29-voI6-
secl910-1200,xtnl
PA PEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). (2010). Chemicals used by hydraulic
fracturing companies in Pennsylvania for surface and hydraulic fracturing activities. Harrisburg, PA:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP).
http://fiIes.dep.state.pa.us/0ilGas/B0GM/B0GMPortalFiIes/MarceIIusShaIe/Frac%20Iist%206-30-
2010.pdf.
PA PEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). (2015). Technologically enhanced naturally
occurring radioactive materials (TENORM) study report. Harrisburg, PA.
http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Pocument-105822/PA-PEP-TENORM-
Studv Report Rev. 0 01-15-2015.pdf
Pal. A: Kumar. H: Maan,R: Sharma. HK. (2013). Densities and speeds of sound of binary liquid mixtures of
some n-alkoxypropanols with methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, and n-butyl acetate at T = (288.15, 293.15,
298.15, 303.15, and 308.15) K. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 58: 225-239.
hti	ioi. org/10.102 l/je300789a
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	15	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Parker, KM: Zeng, T: Harkness, I: Vengosh, A: Mitch, WA, (2014). Enhanced formation of disinfection
byproducts in shale gas wastewater-impacted drinking water supplies. Environ Sci Technol 48:11161-
11169. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5028184
Pashin, IC: Mcintvre-Redden, MR: Mann, SD: Kopaska-Merkel. DC: Varonka, M: Orem, W, (2014). Relationships
between water and gas chemistry in mature coalbed methane reservoirs of the Black Warrior Basin. Int J
Coal Geol 126: 92-105. http://dx.doi,org/10,1016/i,coal,2013,10,002
Pijper, WP, (1971). Molecular and crystal structure ofglycollic acid. Acta Crystallogr B B27: 344-348.
Mi	ioi,org/10,1107/S056774087100219X
Pope, PG: Martin-Poole, M: Speitel, GE: Collins, MR, (2007). Relative significance of factors influencing DXAA
formation during chloramination. JAWWA 99:144-156.
Radwan. MHS: Hanna, AA, (1976). Binary azeotropes containing butyric acids. Journal of Chemical and
Engineering Data 21: 285-289. http: //dx.doi,org /10,1021 /je60070a032
Rafarn, BG: Bates, IT: Bertoia. LR: Galford, AE: Yoxtheimer, DA: Rjha, SI, (2013). Wastewater management and
Marcellus Shale gas development: trends, drivers, and planning implications. J Environ Manage 120:105-
113. http: //dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.ienvman.2013.02.029
Rani, M: Maken, S, (2013). Excess molar enthalpies and excess molar volumes of formamide+l-propanol or 2-
propanol and thermodynamic modeling by Prigogine-Flory-Patterson theory and Treszczanowicz-Benson
association model. Thermochim Acta 559: 98-106. http: / / dx, doi or g /10,1016 / j .tea,2 013,02,010
Ravot, G: Magot, M: Ollivier, B: Patel, BK: Ageron, E: Grimont, PA: Thomas, P: Garcia, IL, (1997).
Haloanaerobium congolense sp. nov., an anaerobic, moderately halophilic, thiosulfate- and sulfur-reducing
bacterium from an African oil field. FEMS Microbiol Lett 147: 81-88.
Rawat, BS: Gulati, IB: Mallik, KL, (1976). Study of some sulphur-group solvents for aromatics extraction by gas
chromatography. Journal of Applied Chemistry and Biotechnology 26: 247-252.
http: //dx.doi,org/10,1002/jctb,502 02 60504
Renpu, W, (2011). Advanced well completion engineering (Third ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Professional
Publishing.
Rice, CA: Flores, RM: Strieker. GD: Ellis, MS, (2008). Chemical and stable isotopic evidence for water/rock
interaction and biogenic origin of coalbed methane, Fort Union Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming
and Montana USA. Int J Coal Geol 76: 76-85. http://dx,doi,org/10,1016/i,coal,2008,05,002
Richardson, SD: Plewa, MI: Wagner, ED: Schoenv, R: Demarini, DM, (2007). Occurrence, genotoxicity, and
carcinogenicity of regulated and emerging disinfection by-products in drinking water: A review and
roadmap for research [Review], Mutat Res 636:178-242. http://dx.doi,org/10,1016/j.mrrev.2007,09,00
Rodnikova, MN: Solonina, IA: Egorov, GI: Makarov, DM: Gttnina, MA, (2012). The bulk properties of dioxane
solutions in ethylene glycol at 2575C. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Focus on Chemistry 86:
330-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0036024412020239
Ross, D: King. G, (2007). Well completions. In MJ Economides; T Martin (Eds.), Modern fracturing: Enhancing
natural gas production (1 ed., pp. 169-198). Houston, Texas: ET Publishing.
Rowan, EL: Engle, MA: Kirbv, CS: Kraemer, TF, (2011). Radium content of oil- and gas-field produced waters
in the northern Appalachian Basin (USA): Summary and discussion of data. (Scientific Investigations
Report 20115135). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5135/
Roy, SB: Ricci, PF: Summers, KV: Chung, CF: Goldstein, RA, (2005). Evaluation of the sustainability of water
withdrawals in the United States, 1995 to 2025. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41: 1091-1108.
Rozell, PI: Reaven, SI, (2012). Water pollution risk associated with natural gas extraction from the Marcellus
Shale. Risk Anal 32:13821393. http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/i.1539-6924.2011.01757.x
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	16	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Sabins, F, (1990}. Problems in cementing horizontal wells. J Pet Tech 42: 398-400.
ll«	ioi.ore/10.2118/20005-PA
Safe Drinking Water Act. Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act Safety of Public Water Systems (Safe
Drinking Water Act] as amended through P.L. 107-377, (2002). http: //www.epw.senate.gov/sdwa,pdf
Sarkar. BK: Choudhurv. A: Sinha. B. (2012). Excess molar volumes, excess viscosities and ultrasonic speeds of
sound of binary mixtures of 1,2-dimethoxyethane with some aromatic liquids at 298.15 K. Journal of
Solution Chemistry 41: 53-74. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0953-011-9780-5
Sarkar. L: Roy. MN. (2009). Density, viscosity, refractive index, and ultrasonic speed of binary mixtures of 1,3-
dioxolane with 2-methoxyethanol, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2-butoxyethanol, 2-propylamine, and
cyclohexylamine. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 54: 3307-3312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je900240s
Schlumberger (Schlumberger Limited). (2014). Schlumberger oilfield glossary. Available online at
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/
Schrodinger. (2012). Qikprop [Computer Program], New York, New York: Schrodinger, LLC. Retrieved from
http://www.schrodinger.com/products/14/17
Shafer. L. (2011). Water recycling and purification in the Pinedale anticline field: results from the anticline
disposal project. In 2011 SPE Americas E&P health, safety, security & environmental conference.
Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/141448-MS
Shaffe	rias Chavez. LH: Ben-Sasson. M: Romero-Vargas Castrillon. S: Yip. NY: Elimelech, M. (2013).
Desalination and reuse of high-salinity shale gas produced water: drivers, technologies, and future
directions. Environ Sci Technol 47: 9569-9583.
Sham mas, NK. (2010). Wastewater renovation by flotation. In LK Wang; NK Shammas; WA Selke; DB
Aulenbach (Eds.), Flotation technology (pp. 327-345). New York, NY: Humana Press.
htj	ioi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-133-2 9
Shanlev. P: Collin. RL (1961). The crystal structure of the high temperature form of choline chloride. Acta
Cryst 14: 79-80. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1107/S0365110X61000292
Sheets. MSP, (a) Encana/Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.: Duncan, Oklahoma. Provided by Halliburton
Energy Services during an onsite visit by the EPA on May 10, 2010; (b) Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc.:
Denver, Colorado. Provided to US EPA Region 8. Material Safety Data Sheets.
Sigma-Aldrich. (2007). Material safety data sheet: Tert-butyl hydroperoxide (70% solution in water).
Available online at http://www.orcbs.msu.edu/msds/111607 DL1 027 TERT-BUTYL.PDF
Sigma-Aldrich. (2010). Product information: Sodium chloride. Available online at
https://www.sigmaaMrich.com/cgntent/dam/sigma-aMiich/docs/Sigma-
Sigma-Aldrich. (2014a). Material safety data sheet: Phosphorus acid. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaMiich.eom/cataIog/product/sial/215112?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2014b). Material safety data sheet: Potassium carbonate. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaMiich.com/catalog/product/aMiich/367877?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2015a). Material safety data sheet: Aluminum chloride [Fact Sheet], St. Louis, M0.
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/563919?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2015b). Material safety data sheet: Peracetic acid solution. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaMiich.eom/cataIog/product/sial/2 69336?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2015c). Material safety data sheet: Sulfur dioxide. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/295698?lang=en®ion=US
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	17	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Sigma-Aid rich. (2015d). Material safety data sheet: Sulfuric acid. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/339741?lang=en®ion=US
Sigma-Aldrich. (2015e). Material safety data sheet: Trimethyl borate. Available online at
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldric	L8?lang=en®ion=US
Singer. P. (2010). Anomalous DBP speciation patterns: Examples and explanations. Water Quality Technology
Conference and Exposition 2010, November, 14-18, 2010, Savannah, GA.
Sirivedhin. T: Dallbauman. L. (2004). Organic matrix in produced water from the Osage-Skiatook petroleum
environmental research site, Osage county, Oklahoma. Chemosphere 57: 463-469.
Skierven, T: Lunde. 0: Perander. M: Wjlliams. 6: Farquhar. R: Sinet. I: Sasby, I: Haga. HB: Finnseth, 0: lofansen,
S. (2011). Norwegian Oil and Gas Association recommended guidelines for well integrity. (117, Revision
4). Norway: Norwegian Oil and Gas Association.
http://www.norskoIjeoggass.no/GIobaI/RetiiingsIiiijer/BQiiiig/117%20-
%2 0Recommended%2 0guidelines%2 0Well%2 0integiity%2 0rev4%2006.06.%2011.pdf
Smirnov, VI: Badelin, VG. (2013). Enthalpy characteristics of dissolution of L-tryptophan in water plus
formamides binary solvents at 298.15 K. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Focus on Chemistry 87:
1165-1169. to	ioiorg/10,1134/50036024413070285
Sollev, WB: Pierce. RR: Perlman. HA. (1998). Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. (USGS
Circular: 1200). U.S. Geological Survey, fattp: //pttbs.er.ttsgs.gov/publication/cir'1200
Spellman. FR. (2012). Environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. In Environmental impacts of hydraulic
fracturing. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
SRBC. (2012). Flowback and Produced Water Volume.
States. S: Cyprych. G: Stoner. M: Wydra. F: Ktichta. I: Monnell,); C'jsson. L. (2013). Marcellus Shale drilling and
brominated THMs in Pittsburgh, Pa., drinking water. J Am Water Works Assoc 105: E432-E448.
hE	ioi.org/10.5942/iawwa.2 013.105.0093
Stein. D: Griffin jr. TI: Dusterhoft. D. (2003). Cement pulsation reduces remedial cementing costs. GasTIPS 9:
22-24.
Steinhauser. 0: Boresch. S: Bertagnolli. H. (1990). The effect of density variation on the structure of liquid
hydrogen chloride. A Monte Carlo study. J Chem Phys 93: 2357-2363.
hti	ioi.org/10.1063/1.459015
Stepa	ockev. RE: Kttrz, BA: Kalenze. NS: Cowan. RM: Ziman. II: Harjti, I A. (2010). Bakken water
opportunities assessment: Phase I. (2010-EERC-04-03). Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Industrial
Commission, http://www.nd.gov/ndic/ogrp/info/g-018-036-fi.pdf
Struchtemever. CG: Elshahed, MS. (2012). Bacterial communities associated with hydraulic fracturing fluids in
thermogenic natural gas wells in North Central Texas, USA. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 81: 13-25.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/i.1574-6941.2011.01196.x
Stumm. W: Morgan, jj. (1981). Aquatic chemistry: An introduction emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural
waters (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Sturchio. NC: Banner. IL: Binz, CM: Heraty. LB: Musgrove. M. (2001). Radium geochemistry of ground waters
in Paleozoic carbonate aquifers, midcontinent, USA. Appl Geochem 16:109-122.
Swanson, VE. (1955). Uranium in marine black shales of the United States. In Contributions to the geology of
uranium and thorium by the United States Geological Survey and Atomic Energy Commission for the
United Nations International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switzerland, 1955
(pp. 451-456). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, http://ptibs.tisgs.gov/pp/0300/report.pdf
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	18	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Tchobanoglous, G: Burton, FL: Stensel, HP, (2013). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and reuse. In th (Ed.),
(9780070418783 ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Thalladi, VR: Nusse. M: Boese. R. (2000). The melting point alternation in alpha,omega-alkanedicarboxylic
acids. J Am Chem Soc 122: 9227-9236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja0011459
Tiemann. M: Folger. P: Carter. NT. (2014). Shale energy technology assessment: Current and emerging water
practices. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-
eontent/ uploads//assets/crs/R43635.pdf
Timmis. KN. (2010). Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Tourtelot. HA. (1979). Black shale - its deposition and diagenesis. Clays and Clay Minerals 27: 313-321.
hE	ioi.org/10.1346/CCMN. 1979.02 70501
Tuttle. MLW: Breit GN: Goldhaber. MB. (2009). Weathering of the New Albany Shale, Kentucky: II.
Redistribution of minor and trace elements. Appl Geochem 24:1565-1578.
hti	ioi org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2 009.04.034
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas main. Available online at
http://www.census.gov/population/metro/ (accessed January 12, 2015).
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2012). Large truck and bus crash facts 2012. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
http://ai.firncsa.dot.gov/CarrierResearchResults/PDFs/LargeTruckandBusCrashFacts2012.pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1996). Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment
[EPA Report], (EPA/600/P-92/003C). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Assessment Forum.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1999). Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment [review
draft] [EPA Report], (NCEA-F-0644). Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/CANCER GLS.PDF
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2004). Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of
drinking water by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs. (EPA/816/R-04/003). Washington,
DC.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2005). Membrane filtration guidance manual. (EPA 815-R-
06-009). Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/disinfection/lt2/pdfs/guide lt2 membranefiltration final,pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2006). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/stage2/
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2011a). Plan to study the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources [EPA Report], (EPA/600/R-11/122). Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/plan-study-potential-impacts-hydraulic-fracturing-drinking-water-
resources-epa600r-11122
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2011b). Sampling data for flowback and produced water
provided to EPA by nine oil and gas well operators (non-confidential business information). US
Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.regulations.gOv/#ldocketDetai1 :rpp=100:so=DESC:sb=docId:po=0:D=EPA-HO-QRD-2010-
0674
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	19	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2011c). Terminology services (TS): Vocabulary catalog -
IRIS glossary. Available online at
http: // o fmp ub, ep a, go v/ s or internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/se
arch.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary (accessed May 21, 2015).
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012a). Estimation Programs Interface Suite for Microsoft
Windows (EPI Suite) [Computer Program], Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuitedI.htm
IJiLJPA^GmeMjM^	(2012b). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title40-
v Q1 ^ I /.pUiy CFR' 6 U	• pUi
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012c). Study of the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources: Progress report. (EPA/601/R-12/011). Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
http://nepis. epa.gov/exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100FH8M.txt
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2013a). Data received from oil and gas exploration and
production companies, including hydraulic fracturing service companies 2011 to 2013. Non-confidential
business information source documents are located in Federal Docket ID: EPA-HQ-ORD2010-0674.
Available at http://www.regulations.gov.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2013b). Distributed structure-searchable toxicity
(DSSTOX) database network. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ncct/dsstox/index.html
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2013c). Drinking water and ground water statistics, fiscal
year 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
http: //wa ter.epa.gov/scitech/ datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/upload/epa816rl 3003.pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2013d). Terminology services (TS): Terms and acronyms.
Available online at
http://iaspub.epa.gov/sor internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/termsandacronyms/search.do
U.S. EPA, Announcement of preliminary regulatory determinations for contaminants on the third drinking
vratenDontaminantmididateHsUjiPA^	(62736 pages) (2014a).
httgSLZ/wyvgftdi&dgnilnjgistengoy^
regulatoiy-determinations-for-contaminants-on-the-third-drinking-water#page-62715
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2014b). Drinking water contaminants. Available online at
http://water, epa. gov/ drink/ contaminants/
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2014c). Substance registry services. Available online at
http: / / o fmp ub, ep a, go v / s or internet/registry/substreg/home/overview/home.do
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015a). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from the
FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0 [EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/003). Washington, D.C.: Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/analysis-hydraulic-fracturing-fluid-data-fracfocus-chemical-disclosure-
registrv-l-pdf
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015b). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from the
FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0: Data management and quality assessment report [EPA
Report], (EPA/601/R-14/006). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
03/documents/fracfocus data management report final 032015 508.pdf
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	20	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015c). Analysis of hydraulic fracturing fluid data from the
FracFocus chemical disclosure registry 1.0: Project database [EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/003).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
http://www2.epa.gov/hfistudv/epa-project-database-developed-fracfocus-l-disclosures
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015d). Case study analysis of the impacts of water
acquisition for hydraulic fracturing on local water availability [EPA Report], (EPA/600/R-14/179).
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015e). Human health benchmarks for pesticides.
Available online at http://iaspub.epa.goy/apex/pestieides/f?p=HH6P:H0ME
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015f). Review of well operator files for hydraulically
fractured oil and gas production wells: Well design and construction [EPA Report], (EPA/601/R-14/002).
Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2015g). Technical development document for proposed
effluent limitation guidelines and standards for oil and gas extraction. (EPA-821-R-15-003). Washington,
D.C. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/oiIandgas/uncony.cfm
U.S. GAP (U.S. Government Accountability Office). (2014). Freshwater: Supply concerns continue, and
uncertainties complicate planning. Report to Congressional requesters. (GAO-14-430). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). http://www.gao.goy/assets/670/663343.pdf
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (1961). Geology and geochemistry of uranium in marine black shales: a review.
(U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 356-C). Reston, VA. http://pubs.usgs.goy/pp/0356c/report.pdf
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (1997). Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash: Abundance, forms, and
environmental significance [Fact Sheet], (U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-163-97).
http://pubs.usgs.goy/fs/1997/fsl63-97/FS-163-97.pdf
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (2002). Water quality and environmental isotopic analyses of ground-water
samples collected from the Wasatch and Fort Union formations in areas of coalbed methane
developmentimplications to recharge and groundwater flow, eastern Powder river basin, Wyoming.
(Report 02-4045). Reston, VA. http://piibs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024045/
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (2014). Withdrawal and consumption of water by thermoelectric power plants
in the United States, 2010. (Scientific Investigations Report 20145184). Reston, VA.
htt	ioi.org/10.313 3/sir2 0145184
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (2015). Water use in the United States. Available online at
http: / / water, us gs. gov/ watus e/
Van Voast. WA. (2003). Geochemical signature of formation waters associated with coalbed methane. AAPG
Bulletin 87: 667-676.
Vaneneelen. MR: Pevton. BM: Mormile. MR: Pinkart, HC. (2008). Fe(III), Cr(VI), and Fe(III) mediated Cr(VI)
reduction in alkaline media using a Halomonas isolate from Soap Lake, Washington. Biodegradation 19:
841-850. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0532-008-9187-l
Veil. J A, (2010). Water management technologies used by Marcellus shale gas producers - Final Report. (DOE
Award No.: FWP 49462). Veil, JA.
http://fracfocus.org/sites/defauIt/files/pubIications/water management in the marcellus.pdf
Vengosh. A: Jackson. RB: Warner. N: Darrah. TH: Kondash. A. (2014). A critical review of the risks to water
resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States.
Environ Sci Technol 48: 36-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021 /es¦405118y
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	21	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
VerdegemvMCJ:..Bosm (2009). Water withdrawal for brackish and inland aquaculture, and options to
produce more fish in ponds with present water use. Water Policy 11: 52-68.
hti	ioi.org/10.2166/wp.2 009.003
Vidic. RD: Brantley. SL: Vandenbossche. IM: Yoxtheimer. D: Abad. ID. (2013). Impact of shale gas development
on regional water quality [Review], Science 340:1235009. http://dx.doi.Qrg/10.1126/science.1235009
Vjiaya Kumar. R: Anand Rao. M: Venkateshwara Rao.1V1: Ravi Kumar. YVL: Prasad. DHL. (1996). Bubble
temperature measurements on 2-propyn-l-ol with 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 41:1020-1023.
M;	ioi.org/10.1021/ie9600156
Vine. ID. (1956). Uranium-bearing coal in the United States. In Contributions to the geology of uranium and
thorium by the United States Geological Survey and Atomic Energy Commission for the United Nations
International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switzerland, 1955. Reston, VA: U.S.
Geological Survey, http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp300
Vine.JD: Tourtelot. EB. (1970). Geochemistry of black shale deposits; A summary report. Econ Geol 65: 253-
272. http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.65.3.253
Vinson. PS: Vengosh. A: Hirschfeld. D: Dwver. GS. (2009). Relationships between radium and radon
occurrence and hydrochemistry in fresh groundwater from fractured crystalline rocks, North Carolina
(USA). Chem Geol 260:159-171. http://dx.doi.Org/lQ.lQ16/j.chemgeo.20Q8.lQ.Q22
Vulgamore. TB: Clawson. TP: Pope. CD: Wolhart. SL: Maverhofer. MI: Machovoe. SR: Waltman. CK. (2007).
Applying hydraulic fracture diagnostics to optimize stimulations in the Woodford Shale. Richardson, TX:
Society of Petroleum Engineers, http: / /dx.doi.org /10.2118/11002 9- MS
Walsh, IM. (2013). Water management for hydraulic fracturing in unconventional resourcesPart 1. Oil and
Gas Facilities 2.
Ward. CR. (2002). Analysis and significance of mineral matter in coal seams. Int J Coal Geol 50:135-168.
hE	ioi.org/10.1016/S0166-5162f02100117-9
Warner. NR: Christie. CA: lackson, RB: Vengosh. A. (2013). Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water
quality in western Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 47:11849-11857.
http ''> i \doi.org/10.102l/es402165b
Warner. NR: lackson. RB: Darrah, TH: Osborn. SG: Down. A: Zhao. K: White. A: Vengosh. A. (2012). Reply to
Engelder: Potential for fluid migration from the Marcellus Formation remains possible. PNAS 109: E3626-
E3626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217974110
Wasvlishen. R: Fulton. S. (2012). Reuse of flowback & produced water for hydraulic fracturing in tight oil.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada: The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada (PTAC).
http: //www.ptac. org/ proj ects/151
Watson. TL: Bachu. S. (2009). Evaluation of the potential for gas and CO 2 leakage along wellbores. S P E
Drilling & Completion 24:115-126. http: //dx.doi.org/10.2118/106817-PA
Weaver. TR: Frape. SK: Cherry. I A, (1995). Recent cross-formational fluid flow and mixing in the shallow
Michigan Basin. Geol Soc Am Bulletin 107: 697-707. http://dx.doi.org /10.1130/0016-
7606fl995T107<0697:RCFFFA>2.3.CQ:2
Webster. IT: Hancock. G|: Muii'ay, AS. (1995). Modelling the effect of salinity on radium desorption from
sediments. Geochim Cosmo Act 59: 2469-2476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037f951t
White. GI, (1992). Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in oil and gas industry equipment and
wastes: A literature review. (DOE/ID/01570-T158). Bartlesville, OK: U.S. Department of Energy.
WHO (World Health Organization). (2015). Concise international chemical assessment documents. Available
online at http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	22	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment
All Appendices' References
Wjgnall, PG: Myers, KI, (1988). Interpreting benthic oxygen levels in mudrocks: A new approach. Geology 16:
452-455. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613fl988]016<0452:IBQLIM>2.3.CO:2
Wilt. IW. (1956). Notes - the halodecarboxylation of cyanoacetic acid. J Org Chem 21: 920-921.
lit!	joi.org/10.1021/jo01114a607
Wojtanowicz. AK. (2008). Environmental control of well integrity. In ST Orszulik (Ed.), Environmental
technology in the oil industry (pp. 53-75). Houten, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
Woolard. GR: Irvine. RL. (1995). Treatment of of hypersaline wastewater in the sequencing batch reactor.
Water Res 29:1159-1168.
Wuchter. C: Banning. E: Mincer. TI: Drenzek. Nl: Coolen. MI. (2013). Microbial diversity and methanogenic
activity of Antrim Shale formation waters from recently fractured wells. FMICB 4:1-14.
lit!	ioi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2 013.00367
WVWRI (West Virginia Water Research Institute, West Virginia University). (2012). Zero discharge water
management for horizontal shale gas well development. (DE-FE0001466). https://www.netI.doe.gov/FiIe
Library/Research/Oil-Gas/Natural Gas/shale gas/fe0001466-final-report.pdf
Xiao. LN: Xu. IN: Hu. YY: Wang. LM: Wang. Y: Ding. H: Cui. XB: Xu. 10, (2013). Synthesis and characterizations
of the first [V16039C1J6- (V16039) polyanion. Dalton Transactions (Online) 42: 5247-5251.
lit!	ioi.org/lQ.lQ39/c3dt33Q81h
Yakimov. MM: Denaro. R: Genovese. M: Cappello, S: D'Auria. G: Chernikova. TN: Timmis. KN: Golvshin. PN:
Giluliano. L. (2005). Natural microbial diversity in superficial sediments of Milazzo Harbor (Sicily) and
community successions during microcosm enrichment with various hydrocarbons. Environ Microbiol 7:
1426-1441. ht!	ioi.org/10.1111/i.l462-5822.2005.00829.x
Yang. IS: Lee. IY: Baek. K: Kwon. TS: Choi. I, (2009). Extraction behavior of As, Pb, and Zn from mine tailings
with acid and base solutions. J Hazard Mater 171:1-3. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jhazmat2009.06.021
Yang. X: Sfaang, C, (2004). Chlorination byproduct formation in the presence of humic acid, model nitrogenous
organic compounds, ammonia, and bromide. Environ Sci Technol 38: 4995-5001.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es049580g
Yoshizawa, S: Wada, M; Kite-Tsukamoto. K: Ikemoto. E: Yokota, A: Kogure. K. (2009). Vibrio azureus sp. nov., a
luminous marine bacterium isolated from seawater. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 59:1645-1649.
ta!	ioi.org/10.1099/iis. 0.004283-0
Yoshizawa, S: Wada, M: Yokota, A: Kogure, K, (2010). Vibrio sagamiensis sp. nov., luminous marine bacteria
isolated from sea water. J Gen Appl Microbiol 56: 499-507.
Younos. T: Tttlott. KE, (2005). Overview of desalination techniques. Journal of Contemporary Water Research
& Education 132: 3-10. http: //dx.doi.Org/10.llll/i.1936-704X.2005.mpl32001002.x
Zapecza. OS: Szabo, Z. (1988). Natural radioactivity in ground watera review. In National Water Summary
1986Hydrologic Events and Ground-Water Quality, Water-Supply Paper 2325. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological
Survey. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubIication/wsp2325
Zeikus. IG: Hegge. PW: Thompson. TE: Phelps. TI: Langworthy. TA. (1983). Isolation and description of
Haloanaerobium praevalens gen. nov. and sp. nov., an obligately anaerobic halophile common to Great Salt
Lake sediments. Curr Microbiol 9: 225-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01567586
Zhang. L: Guo. Y: Xiao. I: Gong, X: Fang. W, (2011). Density, refractive index, viscosity, and surface tension of
binary mixtures of exo-tetrahydrodicyclopentadiene with some n-alkanes from (293.15 to 313.15) K.
Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 56: 4268-4273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie200757a
Zhang. T: Gregory. K: Hammack. RW: Vidic. RD. (2014). Co-precipitation of radium with barium and strontium
sulfate and its impact on the fate of radium during treatment of produced water from unconventional gas
extraction. Environ Sci Technol 48: 4596-4603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es405168b
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	23	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
Hydraulic Fracturing Drinking Water Assessment	All Appendices' References
Zhang, Z: Yang, L: Xitij	V, (2013). Vapor-liquid equilibrium for ternary and binary mixtures of 2-
isopropoxypropane, 2-propanol, and n,n-dimethylacetamide at 101.3 kPa. Journal of Chemical and
Engineering Data 58: 357-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je300994v
This document is a draft for review purposes only and does not constitute Agency policy
June 2015	24	DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300

-------