|
Showing 1 - 6 of
6 matches in All Departments
Hydraulic fracturing is a technique developed initially to
stimulate oil production from wells in declining oil reservoirs.
More recently, it has been used to initiate oil and gas production
in unconventional (i.e., low-permeability) reservoirs where these
resources were previously inaccessible. This process now is used in
more than 90% of new oil and gas production wells. Hydraulic
fracturing is done after a well is drilled and involves injecting
large volumes of water, sand (or other propping agent), and
specialized chemicals under enough pressure to fracture the
formations holding the oil or gas. The sand or other proppant holds
the fractures open to allow the oil or gas to flow freely out of
the formation and into a production well. Its application, along
with horizontal drilling, for production of natural gas (methane)
from coal beds, tight gas sands, and, more recently, from
unconventional shale formations, has resulted in the marked
expansion of estimated U.S. natural gas reserves in recent years.
Similarly, hydraulic fracturing is enabling the development of
unconventional domestic oil resources, such as the Bakken Formation
in North Dakota and Montana. However, the rapidly increasing and
geographically expanding use of fracturing, along with a growing
number of citizen complaints and state investigations of well water
contamination attributed to this practice, has led to calls for
greater state and/or federal environmental regulation and oversight
of this activity. Historically, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) had not regulated the underground injection of fluids for
hydraulic fracturing of oil or gas production wells. In 1997, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that fracturing
for coalbed methane (CBM) production in Alabama constituted
underground injection and must be regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). This ruling led EPA to study the risk that
hydraulic fracturing for CBM production might pose to drinking
water sources. In 2004, EPA reported that the risk was small,
except where diesel was used, and that regulation was not needed.
However, to address regulatory uncertainty the ruling created, the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) revised the SDWA term
"underground injection" to explicitly exclude the injection of
fluids and propping agents (except diesel fuel) used for hydraulic
fracturing purposes. Consequently, EPA currently lacks authority
under the SDWA to regulate hydraulic fracturing, except where
diesel fuel is used. However, as the use of this process has grown,
some in Congress would like to revisit this statutory exclusion.
Several relevant bills are pending. H.R. 1084 and S. 587 would
repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing operations
established in EPAct 2005, and amend the term "underground
injection" to include explicitly the injection of fluids used in
hydraulic fracturing operations, thus authorizing EPA to regulate
this process under the SDWA. EPA's FY2010 appropriations act urged
the agency to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing
and drinking water quality. The interim report, expected in 2012,
may help inform Congress on whether federal action is needed.
Meanwhile, numerous states are reviewing or have revised their oil
and gas rules to address the increased use of hydraulic fracturing.
This report reviews past and proposed treatment of hydraulic
fracturing under the SDWA, the principal federal statute for
regulating the underground injection of fluids to protect
groundwater sources of drinking water. It reviews current SDWA
provisions for regulating underground injection activities, and
discusses some possible implications of, and issues associated
with, enactment of legislation authorizing EPA to regulate
hydraulic fracturing under this statute.
As reported July 10, 2012, by the House Committee on
Appropriations, Title II of H.R. 6091, the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Act, 2013, included a total of $7.06 billion
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2013, $1.28
billion (15.5%) below the President's FY2013 request of $8.34
billion, and $1.39 billion (16.5%) below the FY2012 enacted
appropriation of $8.45 billion. Although the House
committee-reported bill proposed an overall decrease for EPA, it
included both decreases and increases in funding for many
individual programs and activities in the eight appropriations
accounts that fund the agency compared with the FY2013 requested
and FY2012 enacted levels. Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA
accounts within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations. The House committee-reported bill would decrease
funding for seven of the eight EPA appropriations accounts compared
to the President's FY2013 request, and for six of the accounts
relative to FY2012 enacted levels. The largest decrease in H.R.
2061 as reported was for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) account: $2.60 billion for FY2013, compared to $3.36 billion
requested (23% decrease) and $3.61 billion for FY2012 (28%
decrease). This account consistently contains the largest portion
of the agency's funding among the eight accounts. The majority of
the proposed decrease is attributed to a combined $507.0 million
reduction in funding for grants that provide financial assistance
to states to help capitalize Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds (SRFs). Respectively, these funds finance local
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. H.R. 6091 as
reported included $689.0 million for Clean Water SRF capitalization
grants and $829.0 million for Drinking Water SRF capitalization
grants, compared to $1.18 billion and $850.0 million requested for
FY2013, and $1.47 billion and $917.9 million appropriated for
FY2012, respectively. The STAG account also includes funds to
support "categorical" grant programs. States and tribes use these
grants to support the day-to-day implementation of environmental
laws, such as monitoring, permitting and standard setting,
training, and other pollution control and prevention activities,
and these grants also assist multimedia projects. The $994.0
million total included for FY2013 for categorical grants in H.R.
6091 as reported is $208.4 million less than the $1.20 billion
requested for FY2013, and $94.8 million below the $1.09 billion
FY2012 enacted amount. Other prominent issues that have received
attention within the context of EPA appropriations include the
level of funding for implementing certain air pollution control
requirements including greenhouse gas emission regulations, climate
change research and related activities, cleanup of hazardous waste
sites under the Superfund program, cleanup of sites that tend to be
less hazardous (referred to as brownfields), and cleanup of
petroleum from leaking underground tanks. Funding needs for the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for the protection and
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and other geographic-specific
water programs, also have received attention. In addition to
funding priorities among the many pollution control programs and
activities, several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions
continue to be controversial in the FY2013 appropriations. H.R.
6091 as reported included a number of provisions similar to those
considered in the FY2012 appropriations debate (some of which were
adopted for FY2012) that would restrict the use of funding for the
development, implementation, and enforcement of certain regulatory
actions that cut across the various pollution control statutes'
programs and initiatives.
In the 109th Congress, key drinking water issues have involved
water infrastructure funding and problems caused by specific
contaminants, such as the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE), perchlorate, and lead in drinking water. Congress
last reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1996, and
although funding authority for most SDWA programs expired in
FY2003, reauthorization bills have not been proposed, as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and water systems
remain focused on implementing the requirements of the 1996
amendments. One SDWA amendment has been enacted in the 109th
Congress. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 322, amended SDWA
to preclude the EPA from regulating the injection of any fluids,
except diesel fuel, into underground sources of drinking water for
hydraulic fracturing purposes related to oil, gas, and geothermal
production. Congress also has considered legislation to address
concerns about drinking water contamination by perchlorate, the key
ingredient in solid rocket fuel. The House passed H.R. 18 and H.R.
186, which would establish groundwater remediation programs in
California, where most perchlorate contamination has been
identified. Other bills would direct the EPA to issue a SDWA
standard for perchlorate. The 107th Congress added drinking water
security provisions to the SDWA in the Bioterrorism Preparedness
Act. The act required community water systems to conduct
vulnerability assessments and prepare emergency plans, and it
called for drinking water security research. In the 109th Congress,
several bills, including a reported bill, S. 2145, would add
further water security requirements for certain water systems. An
overriding SDWA issue involves the cumulative cost and complexity
of drinking water standards and the ability of water systems,
especially small systems, to comply with standards. The issue of
the affordability of drinking water standards, such as the new
arsenic standard, has merged with the larger debate over the
federal role in assisting communities with financing drinking water
infrastructure. Congress authorized a drinking water state
revolving fund (DWSRF) program in 1996 to help communities finance
projects needed to comply with drinking water standards. For
FY2006, Congress provided $837.5 million for this program. However,
studies show that a large funding gap exists and could continue to
grow as SDWA requirements increase and infrastructure ages. The
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has reported S. 1400,
the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, to authorize increased
funding for the DWSRF and parallel wastewater programs, and to
provide grant assistance for small communities. Several other bills
would establish a grant program to help small communities comply
with drinking water standards and provide greater compliance
flexibility for small water systems. This report, which will be
updated as warranted, replaces CRS Issue Brief IB10118, Safe
Drinking Water Act: Implementation and Issues, by Mary Tiemann.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
67% of the 246 million people in the United States who receive
their water from a public water system received fluoridated water
in 2000. One of the CDC's national health goals is to increase the
proportion of the U.S. population served by community water systems
with "optimally" fluoridated drinking water to 75% by 2010. The
decision to add fluoride to a water supply is made by local or
state governments. The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) has
recommended an optimal fluoridation level in the range of 0.7 to
1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for the prevention of tooth decay.
Several major statutes form the legal basis for the programs of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many of these have been
amended several times. The current provisions of each are briefly
summarised in this report. The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) seeks
to prevent pollution through reduced generation of pollutants at
their point of origin. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to set
mobile source limits, ambient air quality standards, hazardous air
pollutant emission standards, standards for new pollution sources,
and significant deterioration requirements; and to focus on areas
that do not attain standards. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes
a sewage treatment construction grants program, and a regulatory
and enforcement program for discharges of wastes into U.S. waters.
Focusing on the regulation of the intentional disposal of materials
into ocean waters and authorising related research is the Ocean
Dumping Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishes primary
drinking water standards, regulates underground injection disposal
practices, and establishes a groundwater control program. The Solid
Waste Disposal Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) provide regulation of solid and hazardous waste, while the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), or Superfund, provides authority for the federal
government to respond to releases of hazardous substances, and
established a fee-maintained fund to clean up abandoned hazardous
waste sites. The authority to collect fees has expired, and funding
is now provided from general revenues. The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act requires industrial reporting of toxic
releases and encourages planning to respond to chemical
emergencies. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the
testing of chemicals and their use, and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) governs pesticide products
and their use.
|
|