f

 

Enhanced EPA Oversight 

and Action Can Further 

Protect Water Resources 

From the Potential Impacts of 

Hydraulic Fracturing

Report No. 15-P-0204 July 16, 2015

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.
Report Contributors: Dan Engelberg

Khadija Walker

Johnny Ross

Stacey Banks

Danielle Tesch

Abbreviations

API American Petroleum Institute

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CWA Clean Water Act 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office

OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OIG Office of Inspector General

ORD Office of Research and Development

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OW Office of Water

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

STRONGER Inc. State Review of Oil & Natural Gas Environmental Regulations Inc.

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

UIC Underground Injection Control

Cover photo: Example of a hydraulic fracturing site located in the Marcellus Shale.

(EPA photo)

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an

EPA program?

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)

Washington, DC 20460

(888) 546-8740

(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

More information at www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html.

EPA Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-2391

www.epa.gov/oig

Subscribe to our Email Updates

Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig

Send us your Project Suggestions
 15-P-0204

July 16, 2015

Why We Did This Review

The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA),

Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), conducted this review to 

evaluate how the EPA and 

states use existing authorities 

to regulate the potential 

impacts of hydraulic fracturing 

on water.

The use of horizontal drilling 

with hydraulic fracturing greatly 

expanded the ability of 

producers to recover natural 

gas and oil from 

unconventional sources. 

According to an April 2014 

report by the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration, 

natural gas production is 

projected to increase by 

56 percent from 2012 to 2040. 

In addition, crude oil production 

will climb from 7.5 million 

barrels per day in 2013 to 

9.6 million barrels per day by 

2019. The increase in 

unconventional oil and gas 

development has led to new 

and increased potential impacts 

to water resources. 

This report addresses the 

following EPA goals or 

cross-agency strategies:

 Protecting America’s 

waters.

 Ensuring the safety of 

chemicals and preventing 

pollution.

Send all inquiries to our public 

affairs office at (202) 566-2391

or visit www.epa.gov/oig.

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2015/ 

20150716-15-P-0204.pdf

Enhanced EPA Oversight and Action Can 

Further Protect Water Resources From the 

Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

 What We Found

Since 2007, the EPA, states and 

other stakeholders have collectively 

established regulations, policy, 

guidance, industry standards and 

recommended practices to manage 

impacts to water resources from 

unconventional oil and gas 

development. Our review identified 

two issues in need of improvement by 

the EPA. 

First, the EPA needs to improve oversight of permit issuance for hydraulic 

fracturing using diesel fuels, and address any related compliance issues.

Evidence shows that companies have used diesel fuels during hydraulic fracturing 

without EPA or primacy state underground injection control Class II permits. The 

EPA has also not determined whether primacy states and tribes are following the 

agency’s interpretive memorandum for issuing permits for hydraulic fracturing 

using diesel fuels. Enhanced EPA oversight can increase assurance that risks 

associated with diesel fuel hydraulic fracturing are being adequately addressed.

Second, the EPA needs to develop a plan for responding to the public’s concerns

about chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. In May 2014, the EPA initiated a 

process to evaluate whether to establish federal requirements for chemical 

disclosure. However, the agency has not yet developed a plan of action for further 

steps in this proposed rulemaking activity. A plan outlining the agency’s next steps

would inspire public confidence that the agency is indeed taking action to evaluate 

disclosure options within a defined timeframe. 

 Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water determine 

whether primacy states and tribes issue permits for the use of diesel fuels as 

required. We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance address any compliance issues related to issuing permits 

for hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels. We also recommend that the Assistant

Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention establish and publish 

a plan with milestone dates that outlines all steps for determining whether to 

propose a rule to obtain information concerning chemical substances and 

mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. 

The agency either agreed with our recommendations or proposed actions that 

meet the intent of our recommendations. All recommendations are resolved or 

closed and no further response from the agency is needed. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

Enhanced EPA oversight of the 

permitting process for diesel fuel use 

during hydraulic fracturing can further 

EPA efforts to protect water resources, 

and establishment of a plan for 

determining whether to propose a 

chemical disclosure rule can help 

address the public’s concerns about 

hydraulic fracturing chemicals.
July 16, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Enhanced EPA Oversight and Action Can Further Protect Water Resources 

From the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

Report No. 15-P-0204

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator

Office of Water

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in 

this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

The EPA’s Office of Water, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention have primary responsibility for implementing the recommendations in 

this report. 

You are not required to provide a written response to this final report because you provided agreed-to 

corrective actions and planned completion dates for the report recommendations. The OIG may make 

periodic inquiries on your progress in implementing these corrective actions. Please update the EPA’s 

Management Audit Tracking System as you complete planned corrective actions. Should you choose to 

provide a final response, we will post your response on the OIG’s public website, along with our 

memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file 

that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; 

if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with 

corresponding justification. 

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Enhanced EPA Oversight and Action Can 15-P-0204

Further Protect Water Resources From the

Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

Table of Contents

Chapters

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1

Background................................................................................................ 1

Responsible Offices ................................................................................... 5

Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 5

2 EPA, States and Other Stakeholders Are Taking Steps to Manage

Impacts to Water Resources, But Action Is Needed on the Use of

Diesel Fuels in Hydraulic Fracturing, and Chemical Disclosure................... 8

EPA and States Share Responsibilities for Managing Impacts to 

Water Resources................................................................................... 8

Other Stakeholder Initiatives Support Managing Impacts to 

Water Resources............................. ................................................. 11

EPA Needs to Assess Whether Permits Are Issued and Enforced

Properly When Diesel Fuels Are Used in Hydraulic Fracturing

Under the UIC Class II Program ............................................................ 11

EPA Has Started Responding to the Public’s Concerns About

Chemicals Used in Fracturing Fluid, But Action Plan Is Needed............ 14

Conclusion................................................................................................. 14

Recommendations..................................................................................... 15

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation..................................................... 15

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 17

Appendices

A Additional Details on Scope and Methodology .............................................. 18

B Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation ................................. 22

C Distribution ....................................................................................................... 27
15-P-0204 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), conducted this review to examine how the EPA and states use their 

authorities to manage the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water 

resources. 

Background

In this report, hydraulic fracturing refers to unconventional oil and gas 

development where vertical and horizontal drilling are combined to exploit 

unconventional sources of oil and gas. Recent advances in unconventional oil and 

gas development have made it profitable to extract oil and natural gas reserves 

previously not economically viable. Although unconventional oil and gas 

development was used as early as 2003, the process came into widespread use 

around 2007. Since 2007, the production of oil and gas has grown steadily. The 

production of natural gas in the major shale formations in the United States has 

grown from approximately 15.5 billion cubic feet per day in 2007 to 40.5 billion 

cubic feet per day in 2014 (Figure 1). The production of oil in major shale 

formations is projected to increase from 7.5 million barrels a day in 2013 to 

9.6 million barrels per day by 2019.

Figure 1: Annual natural gas production from seven shale plays (2007–2014)a

a This includes the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Haynesville, Marcellus, Niobrara, Permian and Utica 

shale plays.

 Source: OIG analysis of January 2015 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
15-P-0204 2

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 95 percent of domestic 

oil production growth and all domestic natural gas production growth during 2011

through 2013 came from seven key regions (or shale plays): Bakken, Eagle Ford, 

Haynesville, Marcellus, Niobrara, Permian and Utica (Figure 2).

 Figure 2: “Shale plays” in the continental United Statesa

a A “shale play” is an industry term used to refer to any shale formation that 

produces natural gas and oil.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (updated February 6, 2015).

Different Stages of Unconventional Oil and Gas Development Have 

Varying Potential Impacts to Water Resources

The process of unconventional oil and gas development involves the following 

stages:

1. Preparing the well pad, creating the infrastructure to the pad site, and 

drilling the well (“construction”).

2. Extracting the water needed for well stimulation from groundwater and 

surface water sources (“water acquisition”).

3. Mixing water with chemicals that will be used to stimulate, including

hydraulically fracturing, the well (“chemical mixing”).

4. Injecting the fracturing fluid into the well to stimulate (creating and 

propping open fractures) the formation and extracting oil and/or natural 

gas (“well stimulation”).

5. Collecting the wastewater that returns from the well as either flowback 

and/or produced water (“wastewater management and storage”).

6. Treating and/or disposing of the wastewater (“wastewater treatment and 

waste disposal”).
15-P-0204 3

In the 2011 publication Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, the White House 

highlighted the importance of proactively addressing concerns about potential 

negative impacts of hydraulic fracturing activities. The growth of unconventional 

oil and gas development has been accompanied by attention to the impacts of this

practice on the environment.

Table 1 summarizes how water resources may be impacted during different stages 

of unconventional oil and gas development. For example, well pad construction 

can cause land erosion and runoff of sediment and other harmful pollutants into 

nearby water bodies. Spills and leaks of hydraulic fracturing chemicals can also 

result from improper well construction and/or chemical storage and handling

during the chemical mixing and well-stimulation stages.

Table 1: Potential impacts to water resources during different stages of 

unconventional oil and gas development

Stage Potential impacts to water resources

Construction  Erosion and sediment runoff into surface waters from land 

disturbing activities impacting water quality, aquatic life and 

wetlands.

 Improper well construction could impact water resources in other 

stages of the process.

 Spills of drilling mud (i.e., a complex mixture of chemicals used 

to control pressure, lubricate the drill bit, stabilize the shale 

formation, control fluid loss, and retrieve cuttings).

Water 

Acquisition

 Impacts depend on the time of the year, the geographic location 

of water withdrawals and current water-management practices, 

but there could be impacts on local water quantity and quality.

Chemical Mixing  Surface spills or spills that reach the subsurface of individual 

hydraulic fracturing chemicals or fracturing fluid (i.e., chemicals 

mixed with water for hydraulic fracturing).

Well Stimulation  Migration of chemicals and natural gas/oil to groundwater 

sources as a result of improper well construction, well casing or 

cement failure under high pressure and/or repeated fracturing. 

 Migration of fluids through the hydraulically fractured network 

and/or the existing faults and fractures in the subsurface.

 Spills and leaks from hydraulic fracturing equipment (e.g.,

pumps and flowlines).

Wastewater 

Management 

and Storage

 Surface spills and releases of flowback and produced waters

while transporting wastewater to or from storage tanks or 

impoundments containing constituents from the formation water

(e.g., naturally occurring radioactive material, barium, dissolved 

solids, heavy metals and salts).

Wastewater 

Treatment 

and/or Disposal

 Water treatment facilities (i.e., publicly owned treatment works 

and centralized waste treatment) may not be able to effectively 

treat wastewater from hydraulic fracturing activities, which can 

impact surface water when discharged.

 Spills to surface waters during transportation of wastewater to 

treatment facilities or disposal sites.

Source: OIG analysis and summary. 
15-P-0204 4

Recent EPA Activities Related to Unconventional Oil and Gas 

Development

The EPA is taking steps to examine its role, responsibilities and prior regulatory 

determinations in light of a surge in unconventional oil and gas development. 

The agency has designated a headquarters-level official to share information and 

coordinate initiatives from various program offices involved with energy 

extraction activities, including hydraulic fracturing. In addition, EPA regions have 

managers and staff who coordinate oversight of energy extraction activities on a 

regional level. 

The EPA is also working with states and other stakeholders to understand and 

address potential concerns with hydraulic fracturing, to ensure the public has 

confidence that natural gas production will proceed in a safe and responsible 

manner. The EPA has been moving forward with initiatives to provide regulatory 

clarity with respect to existing laws and using existing authorities, where 

appropriate. For example, in February 2014, the Office of Water (OW) issued an 

interpretive memorandum1specific to the use of diesel fuels in hydraulic 

fracturing. In 2011, the EPA’s Region 3 clarified National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permit requirements if treatment plants accept wastewater 

from hydraulic fracturing operations.

The EPA’s Office of 

Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

(OSWER) completed a 

review of waste-related 

provisions contained in 

the state regulations for 

26 of the 33 gasproducing states as of 

March 2014. OSWER 

also developed a list of 

more than 80 publicly 

available sources of 

voluntary management 

practices for oil and 

gas exploration and 

production wastes. The results of both efforts are posted on the OSWER website 

as a resource for policymakers and operators. 

 

1 EPA OW. 2014. Memorandum from Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, to 

Regional Administrators and State and Tribal Underground Injection Control Program Directors, Subject: 

Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Existing Underground Injection Control Program Requirements 

for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuel, February 2014.

An unconventional oil and gas development site. (EPA photo)
15-P-0204 5

In November 2014, OW submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

proposed pretreatment standards for hydraulic fracturing wastewater from 

unconventional oil and gas formations sent to municipal wastewater treatment 

plants. The EPA proposed these pretreatment standards in the Federal Register in 

April 2015. OW also expects to release its draft chloride water-quality criterion 

for the protection of aquatic life from discharges of highly saline wastewater into 

surface water in early 2016.

In March 2015, the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) published 

results of its analysis of chemical disclosures reported by the oil and gas industry 

to FracFocus 1.0 between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013.2In the 

analysis, ORD identified 692 unique ingredients used as base fluids, proppants, 

and additives in hydraulic fracturing fluids. In June 2015, the ORD released its 

draft assessment of the potential impacts of oil and gas hydraulic fracturing 

activities on the quality and quantity of drinking water resources in the United 

States for public comment and peer review.

3

Responsible Offices

The EPA’s OW, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), and 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) are responsible for 

the issues identified in the report recommendations.

Scope and Methodology

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 

the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We conducted this performance audit 

from February 2014 through April 2015.

We conducted a literature review on unconventional oil and gas development,

as defined earlier. During the literature review, we focused on identifying the 

potential impacts during different stages, as well as the authorities and/or 

activities used by the EPA, states and other stakeholders to manage the potential 

impacts (Appendix A). 

 

2 EPA ORD. 2015. Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Data from the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry 

1.0, EPA/601/R-14/003 (March 2015). The data ORD analyzed is an incomplete picture of all hydraulic fracturing 

due to the voluntary reporting in some states, the omission of Confidential Business Information from disclosures, 

and invalid or erroneous information in the original disclosures or created during the development of ORD’s project 

database.

3 EPA ORD. 2015. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water 

Resources (External Review Draft), EPA/600/R-15/047c.
15-P-0204 6

We conducted interviews with the EPA and three states about their respective

programs regulating the different stages of unconventional oil and gas 

development, any ongoing initiatives to address potential impacts to water 

resources, practices observed from industry or implemented by the agency, and 

their views regarding gaps in regulations. We conducted interviews at EPA 

headquarters and in EPA Regions 3, 6 and 8. We also interviewed managers and 

staff from environmental protection and oil and gas agencies in Pennsylvania, 

Arkansas and Colorado. 

We interviewed other stakeholders (e.g., environmental groups, industry groups 

and academics) about unconventional oil and gas development and any activities 

or initiatives being implemented to manage potential impacts to water resources 

during hydraulic fracturing. 

Our review focused on identifying the EPA’s and states’ existing authorities and 

regulations that protect water resources from unconventional oil and gas 

development, not on how effectively these authorities and regulations actually 

protect water resources. We also did not examine the implementation or overall 

effectiveness of practices recommended by environmental and industry 

stakeholders at protecting water resources. This did not impact our conclusions or 

recommendations.

Additional details concerning our scope and methodology are found in

Appendix A.

Prior Audit Coverage

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the 

development of shale oil and gas resources, and the environmental and public 

health risks associated with the activity, in September 2012.4 GAO did not make 

any recommendations in this report. Also in September 2012, GAO issued a 

report detailing the key environmental and public health laws that apply to 

unconventional oil and gas development and the exemptions or limitations that 

affect how some of these laws can be applied.5 For this report, GAO also 

reviewed the environmental and public health requirements governing 

unconventional oil and gas development in six states (Colorado, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming). The GAO identified challenges faced 

by federal and state agencies in regulating unconventional oil and gas 

development. The GAO did not make any recommendations to the EPA.

 

4 GAO. 2012. Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health 

Risks. Report No. GAO-12-732. 

5 GAO. 2012. Unconventional Oil and Gas Development: Key Environmental and Public Health Requirements. 

Report No. GAO 12-874.
15-P-0204 7

In May 2014, GAO published a report on the management and oversight of oil 

and gas development on federal and Indian lands.6 GAO recommended that the 

Bureau of Land Management establish a process to ensure that its rules and 

guidance are reviewed and updated, improve coordination of inspection with 

states, provide data and direction to allow staff to efficiently locate resources and 

wells and determine situations where development may occur without prior 

approval, and improve timeliness of agreement reviews. The Bureau of Land 

Management agreed with all recommendations. 

In June 2014, GAO published a report on its review of the EPA’s oversight of the 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II program.7 GAO recommended that

the EPA review emerging risks and program safeguards; improve data collection 

and reporting; conduct a rulemaking to incorporate state program requirements 

and changes into federal regulations; evaluate and consider alternative processes

for incorporating state program changes into federal regulations; and evaluate and 

revise, if necessary, the UIC program guidance on effective oversight. The EPA 

agreed with all recommendations except one. While the EPA did not agree to 

conduct a rulemaking to incorporate state program requirements into federal 

regulations, it agreed to evaluate alternatives to rulemaking.

 

6 GAO. 2014. Updated Guidance, Increased Coordination, and Comprehensive Data Could Improve BLM’s 

Management and Oversight. Report No. GAO-14-238.

7 GAO. 2014. Drinking Water: EPA Program to Protect Underground Sources from Injection of Fluids Associated 

with Oil and Gas Production Needs Improvement. Report No. GAO-14-555.
15-P-0204 8

Chapter 2

EPA, States and Other Stakeholders Are Taking

Steps to Manage Impacts to Water Resources,

But Action Is Needed on the Use of Diesel Fuels

in Hydraulic Fracturing, and Chemical Disclosure

Since 2007, the EPA, states and other stakeholders have collectively established

regulations, policy, guidance, industry standards and recommended practices to 

manage impacts to water resources from unconventional oil and gas development. 

However, our review identified two issues in need of improvement by the EPA. 

 First, the EPA needs to improve its oversight of permit issuance for 

hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels. Evidence shows that companies have 

used diesel fuels during hydraulic fracturing without required EPA or 

primacy state UIC Class II permits. The EPA has also not determined 

whether primacy states and tribes are following the agency’s interpretive 

memorandum for issuing permits when using diesel fuels during hydraulic 

fracturing. 

 Second, the EPA has not developed a plan for responding to public 

concerns about chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. In May 2014, 

the EPA initiated a process to seek public and stakeholder comments to 

evaluate whether to establish federal chemical disclosure requirements.

However, the agency has not yet developed a plan of action for further 

steps in this rulemaking activity.

EPA and States Share Responsibilities for Managing Impacts to 

Water Resources

The EPA and states have developed different approaches to address the

environmental challenges of unconventional oil and gas development. Five key 

federal laws give the EPA the authority to manage impacts to water resources:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

(CERCLA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). 

Many states have their own regulations for the six stages of unconventional oil 

and gas development, and they adapt regulations in response to development 

activities as needed. Figure 3 summarizes the regulatory tools established by the 

EPA and states for use in unconventional oil and gas development.
15-P-0204 9

Figure 3: Summary of EPA, state regulatory and other tools established for use in

unconventional oil and gas development

Source: OIG analysis and summary.
15-P-0204 10

According to a 2014 study conducted by the Ground Water Protection Council: 8

...State regulatory strategies differ in response to unique local 

circumstances and characteristics; over time, they evolve to 

address public concerns about the safety and environmental impact 

of oil and gas development, as well as rapidly changing 

technologies, new field discoveries, revised leading operational 

practices, internal and external reviews, and regulatory experience.

In 2012, the National Conference of State Legislators reported that 170 bills 

pertaining to unconventional oil and gas development were introduced in 29 

states, but only 14 of those states enacted legislation (about 48 percent). In 2013, 

the number of bills introduced by states increased to more than 225 in 40 states; 

23 of those 40 states (approximately 58 percent) enacted legislation in 2013. The

introduced bills focused on aspects of the unconventional oil and gas process that 

are solely part of a state’s authority. 

In 2009, for example, the state of Arkansas found elevated levels of benzene

(a known carcinogen) and chlorides in groundwater. The presence of the 

chemicals in the groundwater was caused by the improper storage and disposal of 

hydraulic fracturing wastewater. As a result, the state revoked all land disposal 

permits and established new permit requirements for storage pits and wastewater 

disposal. The new requirements also included wastewater pre-testing and set new 

limits for allowable chloride levels. 

In another example, Pennsylvania found that 

one company contributed to methane 

groundwater contamination because of failure 

to properly cement casing at certain wells, as 

well as groundwater contamination because of 

a diesel fuel spill. In response, the state 

developed new regulations that require stricter 

containment practices for unconventional 

wells. Colorado and Pennsylvania use their 

own authorities to require operators to obtain

a stormwater discharge permit during the 

construction stage and implement best 

management practices to reduce erosion. 

Stormwater discharges at oil and gas sites 

generally cannot be regulated under the 

federal National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System program.

 

8 The Ground Water Protection Council is a nonprofit 501(c)6 organization whose members consist of state 

groundwater regulatory agencies that come together to mutually work toward the protection of the nation’s 

groundwater supplies. The council’s mission is to promote the protection and conservation of groundwater resources 

for all beneficial uses.

An unconventional oil and gas 

development site. (EPA photo)
15-P-0204 11

Other Stakeholder Initiatives Support Managing Impacts to 

Water Resources

Other stakeholders also help to develop measures to address current and potential

impacts to water resources from oil and gas development. Two active

stakeholders are the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the State Review of 

Oil & Natural Gas Environmental Regulations Inc. (STRONGER Inc.). Between 

2009 and 2011, the API developed and published a set of five guidance 

documents that addressed different issues related to hydraulic fracturing 

operations (e.g., well construction and integrity, water management, and 

mitigating surface impacts). Appendix A contains a partial list of the API 

documents.

In 2013, STRONGER Inc. published guidelines the group uses when it evaluates

state regulatory programs. The guidelines address well integrity, baseline 

groundwater monitoring protocols, and public disclosure of information about 

chemical additives.

According to the EPA and state regulators, oil and gas companies are also 

developing new strategies to lessen the impact on water resources by recycling 

wastewater, storing wastewater in tanks instead of open pits, and not sending 

wastewater to treatment plants lacking the capacity to handle oil and gas waste.

For example, the Arkansas Public Policy Panel reports that the largest producer in 

the Fayetteville Shale has been working with environmental groups and Arkansas 

state officials to ensure all operators abide by state and local rules governing 

unconventional oil and gas activities. This Fayetteville Shale producer also 

pledged to recycle 100 percent of its wastewater by 2017.

EPA Needs to Assess Whether Permits Are Issued and Enforced 

Properly When Diesel Fuels Are Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Under 

the UIC Class II Program

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L 109-58 §322, 119 Stat. 594 (2005))

amended the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300h (d)) to require permitting of hydraulic 

fracturing with diesel fuels.

9 As a result of the 2005 amendments to the SDWA

(Pub. L 109-58 §322, 119 Stat. 594 (2005)) and the EPA’s UIC regulations, a UIC 

Class II permit must be obtained prior to underground injection of diesel fuels for 

hydraulic fracturing.

In February 2014, the EPA issued a memorandum with its interpretation of the 

statutory term “diesel fuels,” and guidance containing nonbinding 

recommendations for how to permit the use of diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturing. 

The memorandum contained the EPA’s interpretation of existing statutory and 

regulatory requirements. The agency considers the following five substances to be

 

9 Diesel fuels contain chemicals, such as benzene, a known carcinogen.
15-P-0204 12

diesel fuels: diesel fuels, No. 2 diesel fuels, No. 2 fuel oil, No. 4 fuel oil, and 

kerosene. While the guidance is directed to EPA regional permit writers, the 

agency believes the guidance will be useful to primacy states and tribes 

implementing the UIC Class II program.

10

Since the Energy Policy Act 

amended the SDWA in 

2005, there is evidence that 

the EPA and primacy states 

have not been fully 

successful in their efforts to 

effectively control the use 

of diesel fuels for well 

stimulation. In 2011, a

congressional investigation 

reported that the injection 

of over 32 million gallons 

of diesel fuels without 

permits occurred in 19 

states between 2005 and 

2009.

11 According to the EPA, this congressional investigation prompted the 

agency to revise its permitting guidance and issue an interpretive memorandum in 

2014. The EPA stated the findings from the congressional investigation informed 

the agency that a 2003 Memorandum of Agreement with three well service 

companies (BJ Services, Halliburton and Schlumberger) to voluntarily eliminate 

diesel fuels from hydraulic fracturing fluids injected directly into underground 

sources of drinking water for coal-bed methane production12 was not being 

followed.

In 2012, after discovering that four companies may have used substances during 

hydraulic fracturing that may have qualified as diesel fuel constituents under the 

EPA’s draft permitting guidance, EPA Region 3 issued written notification to the 

operators that permits are required under the UIC program.

 

10 Primacy states and tribes have Class II UIC programs approved by the EPA through Sections 1422 or 1425 of the 

SDWA; therefore, states and tribes with approved primacy programs have primary enforcement authority over their 

respective underground injection activities. States receive primacy from the EPA, provided that the state has

regulations as stringent as federal regulations, or the state demonstrates its program is effective in protecting 

underground sources of drinking waters.

11 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy & Commerce, Waxman, Markey, and DeGette 

Investigation Finds Continued Use of Diesel in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids (January 2011); and Reps. Waxman, 

Markey, and DeGette Report Updated Hydraulic Fracturing Statistics to EPA (October 2011).

12 Methane is generated during coal formation and is contained in the coal microstructure. Typical recovery entails 

pumping water out of the coal to allow the gas to escape. Between 2008 and 2013, production of coal bed methane 

decreased from 1,966 billion cubic feet to 1,466 billion cubic feet.

An unconventional oil and gas development site. (EPA photo)
15-P-0204 13

More recently, in “Fracking Beyond the Law,”13 the Environmental Integrity 

Project reported that between 2010 and 2014 there were hundreds of instances in 

which wells were hydraulically fractured with diesel fuels without having a 

permit.14 However, in response to the Environmental Integrity Project 

investigation, Energy in Depth discusses the uncertainty that exists among 

primacy states and the industry regarding the interpretation of diesel fuels and 

how the SDWA UIC permitting applies to the use of diesel fuels during hydraulic 

fracturing.

15 If primacy states and tribes are unclear about the permitting of diesel 

fuels, this could cause a disparity in the level of protection provided to the 

environment and public health. 

The ORD’s analysis of data 

from FracFocus,

16 the chemical 

disclosure database, shows that 

diesel fuels (diesel fuels, No. 2 

diesel fuels, and kerosene) have 

been used during hydraulic 

fracturing. However, the ORD’s 

timeframe for the FracFocus 

analysis is prior to the EPA 

OW’s issuance of its 

interpretive memorandum and 

permitting guidance for diesel 

fuels use during hydraulic 

fracturing. The ORD did not 

analyze whether a UIC Class II 

permit had been issued for 

these instances.

The EPA says it intends to follow the interpretation of “diesel fuels” in its 

implementation, enforcement and oversight of the UIC Class II program. The 

EPA’s issuance of a memorandum and guidance is an important management 

control. However, the EPA’s implementation of the memorandum and guidance

by the agency’s permit writers, as well as oversight of primacy states and tribes, 

will increase assurance that the risks to groundwater resources associated with 

diesel fuels hydraulic fracturing are adequately addressed.

 

13 Environmental Integrity Project. 2014. Fracking Beyond the Law: Despite Industry Denials, Investigation Reveals 

Continued Use of Diesel Fuels in Hydraulic Fracturing.

14 Many of the wells noted in the Environmental Integrity Project’s analysis as hydraulically fractured without a 

permit were done so with kerosene, which EPA did not clarify as a diesel fuel until after the EPA issued its 

interpretive memorandum and revised permitting guidance in February 2014. 

15 Energy in Depth is a research, education and public outreach project, launched by the Independent Petroleum 

Association of America in 2009, focused on oil and natural gas energy development. See their analysis of the 

Environmental Integrity Project’s investigation at http://energyindepth.org/national/eip-diesel-fuel-report-lacks-dataintegrity/. 

16 ORD analyzed chemical disclosures reported by the oil and gas industry to FracFocus 1.0 between January 1, 

2011, and February 28, 2013.

An example of a pit or impoundment at an 

unconventional oil and gas development site. 

(EPA photo)
15-P-0204 14

EPA Has Started Responding to the Public’s Concerns About

Chemicals Used in Fracturing Fluid, But Action Plan Is Needed

In 2011, the EPA received a petition from 115 environmental groups to 

promulgate rules to require full disclosure of chemicals and mixtures used in oil 

and gas exploration and production. In response, the EPA agreed to convene a 

stakeholder process to develop an overall approach to require reporting of 

chemicals and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing, while minimizing reporting 

burdens and costs, taking advantage of existing information, and avoiding

duplication of efforts. To facilitate public comment, in May 2014, the EPA 

published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking identifying key issues for 

further discussion and analysis. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking

requested public comments on various aspects of obtaining information on 

chemical substances and mixtures used for hydraulic fracturing. Also, the EPA 

solicited public comment on “appropriate disclosure to ensure that information 

about the chemicals and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing activities is 

provided to the public in a transparent fashion.” 

The EPA asked the public to comment on several factors, including: (a) the 

overall approach to reporting and disclosure of chemical substances and mixtures 

used in hydraulic fracturing, (b) what information companies should report or 

disclose, (c) the scope of reporting or disclosure of information, and (d) the 

possible use of third parties in data collection and verification.

The comment period closed in September 2014. The EPA received over 260,000 

submissions in response to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. During 

our review, the EPA officials said that they will review the comments and 

consider next steps. To date, however, the agency has not addressed the 

comments or developed a plan of action for the next steps. The EPA’s OCSPP

needs to develop an action plan with a timeline to address the public comments 

and determine whether to propose a rule to obtain information on chemical 

substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. 

Conclusion

The EPA, states and other stakeholders have made progress developing policies 

and regulations to manage potential impacts to water resources from hydraulic 

fracturing. Areas for improvement that can be addressed by the EPA include

determining how its memorandum and guidance on the permitting of hydraulic 

fracturing using diesel fuels is implemented by primacy states and tribes and 

addressing any compliance issues identified. Additionally, the agency should 

develop an action plan to address public comments and determine whether there is 

a need for a federal chemical disclosure program. Addressing these areas will 

support and strengthen program and environmental protection controls for the 

growing field of hydraulic fracturing.
15-P-0204 15

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:

1. Use authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act to: 

a. Determine whether the EPA, primacy states and tribes issue permits 

for hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels as required by statute, the 

interpretive memorandum and permitting guidance.

b. Report the results of the determination to the public.

c. Submit an action plan outlining the steps (along with completion 

dates) the agency will take if the determination reveals permitting of 

hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels is not occurring in accordance 

with statute, the interpretive memorandum and permitting guidance.

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance:

2. Address compliance issues related to diesel fuel hydraulic fracturing 

without a permit and not in accordance with statute, the interpretive 

memorandum and permitting guidance.

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention:

3. Establish and publish an action plan with milestone dates that outlines the

steps necessary for determining whether to propose a rule to obtain 

information on the chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic 

fracturing.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

The Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water provided a response to our draft 

report on May 28, 2015 (Appendix B), which also included responses from 

OCSPP and OECA. OIG staff met with these offices on June 10, 2015, to gather 

additional information and discuss the recommendations and the agency 

responses.

The agency agreed with Recommendation 1 and provided high-level corrective 

actions that are responsive. The agency disagreed with Recommendation 1(c) in its 

official response. However, in further discussions, OW staff and managers 

indicated they will determine by March 2017 if additional steps are needed based 

on the results of the determination in Recommendation 1(a) and develop an action 
15-P-0204 16

plan if appropriate. Recommendations 1(a)-(c) are resolved and open, pending 

completion of the actions.

The agency disagreed with Recommendation 2 and suggested that this 

recommendation was unnecessary because of OECA’s ongoing work under the 

agency’s Energy Extraction and Production National Enforcement Initiative, 

which focuses on compliance at onshore natural gas extraction and production 

facilities. Based on additional information received from OECA, we conclude that 

the EPA’s proposed corrective actions meet the intent of this recommendation. 

This recommendation is resolved and closed. 

The agency agreed with Recommendation 3 and provided high-level corrective 

actions that are responsive. The agency’s initial response did not include a 

milestone date for completion. However, during later discussions, the agency 

provided a milestone date of January 2016 to complete evaluation of the public 

comments received as part of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking and to 

determine next steps. This recommendation is resolved and open, pending 

completion of the actions. 

The agency also provided technical comments from OW; OSWER; OCSPP; the 

Office of General Counsel; and Regions 3, 4 and 6. Where appropriate, we

incorporated changes to the report based on the agency’s technical comments.
15-P-0204 17

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 15 Use authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

to: 

O Assistant Administrator

for Water

a. Determine whether the EPA, primacy states 

and tribes issue permits for hydraulic 

fracturing using diesel fuels as required by 

statute, the interpretive memorandum and 

permitting guidance. 

12/31/16

b. Report the results of the determination to 

the public.

3/30/17

c. Submit an action plan outlining the steps 

(along with completion dates) the agency 

will take if the determination reveals 

permitting of hydraulic fracturing using 

diesel fuels is not occurring in accordance 

with statute, the interpretive memorandum 

and permitting guidance.

3/30/17

2 15 Address compliance issues related to diesel fuel

hydraulic fracturing without a permit and not in 

accordance with statute, the interpretive 

memorandum and permitting guidance.

C Assistant Administrator

for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

7/16/15

3 15 Establish and publish an action plan with milestone 

dates that outlines the steps necessary for 

determining whether to propose a rule to obtain 

information on chemical substances and mixtures 

used in hydraulic fracturing.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention

1/31/16

1 O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending. 

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed. 

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
15-P-0204 18

Appendix A

Additional Details on Scope and Methodology

Literature Review of Potential Impacts

We reviewed the EPA’s national study plan and progress report on the potential impacts on 

hydraulic fracturing. We reviewed GAO reports and published articles about unconventional oil 

and gas development, including hydraulic fracturing. We also reviewed reports from industry

sources and environmental groups for information about potential public health and 

environmental impacts. A listing of the reports appears below.

Through a literature review, we identified and evaluated the authorities and activities relevant to 

the EPA, states and other stakeholders involved with the management of potential health and 

environmental impacts. We reviewed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the CWA, SDWA,

RCRA, TSCA and CERCLA.

Our review of state regulations focused on the coverage of the regulations, not their quality or 

effectiveness. For example, we did not conduct a detailed evaluation of what regulators, permit 

writers or enforcers require when they design and implement their program(s).

EPA Guidance and Reports

 ORD. 2012. Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water 

Resources Progress Report. EPA 601/R-12/011.

 ORD. 2011. Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking 

Water Resources. EPA/600/R-11/122.

 OW. 2014. Permitting Guidance for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using 

Diesel Fuels: Underground Injection Control Program Guidance #84, February 2014. 

EPA 816-R-14-001. 

 OW. 2014. Memorandum from Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water to Regional Administrators and State and Tribal UIC Program Directors, 

Subject: Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Existing Underground 

Injection Control Program Requirements for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities 

Using Diesel Fuel, February 2014.

Other Documents, Reports and Articles

 API. 2011. Guidance Document HF3, Practices for Mitigating Surface Impacts 

Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing, First Edition.

 API. 2010. Guidance Document HF2, Water Management Related to Hydraulic 

Fracturing, First Edition. 

 API. 2009. Guidance Document HF1, Hydraulic Fracturing Operations-Well 

Construction and Integrity Guidelines, First Edition.
15-P-0204 19

 API. 2009. Recommended Practice 51R, Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and 

Gas Production Operations and Leases, First Edition. 

 Bagheri, F. 2013. Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing of Shale Gas Formations in the 

United States. Pepperdine Public Policy Review 6(1).

 Behr, P. 2012. Authors of Model Fracking Regulation Find It’s Lonely in the Middle. 

Midwest Energy News. October 4, 2012. 

 Boling, M. 2013. Balancing Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts of Shale Gas 

Development Activities. Emerging Issues in Shale Gas Development Webinar 

presentation. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, January 23, 2013. 

 Brady, W.J. and J.P. Crannell. 2012. Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation in the United 

States—The Laissez-Faire Approach of the Federal Government and Varying State 

Regulations. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 14(2012-2103): 39-70.

 Brown, K. 2014. Environmental Integrity Project Diesel Fuel Report Lacks Data 

Integrity. Energy in Depth.

 Congressional Letters to former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Results of a 

Congressional Investigation into the Use of Diesel Fuel, January 31, 2011, and 

October 25, 2011.

 Congressional Research Service. 2013. Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water 

Act Regulatory Issues. Report No. R41760. 

 Cricco-Lizza, G. 2012. Hydraulic Fracturing and Cooperative Federalism: Injection 

Reality Into Policy Formation. Seton Hall Law Review 42(2): 703-740. 

 Dennis, J.P. 2013. The Emergence of Natural Gas and the Need for Cooperative 

Federalism to Address a Big “Fracking” Problem. San Diego Journal of Climate & 

Energy Law 4: 253-275.

 Environmental Defense Fund. 2014. Model Regulatory Framework for Hydraulically 

Fractured Hydrocarbon Production Wells. 

 Environmental Integrity Project. 2014. Fracking Beyond the Law: Despite Industry 

Denials, Investigation Reveals Continued Use of Diesel Fuels in Hydraulic Fracturing. 

 Farrell, A., D. Frongillo, K. Kennedy, M. Paque, M. Robertson, and C.M. Smith. 2012. 

Fracking: The Roles of Corporate Self Governance and Federal, State and Local Control; 

The Environmental Forum 29(6): 44-51. 

 Fershee, J.P. 2012. The Oil and Gas Evolution: Learning from the Hydraulic Fracturing 

Experiences in North Dakota and West Virginia. West Virginia University Law Legal 

Studies Research Paper No. 2012-14. Texas Wesleyan Law Review 19: 23-36.

 GAO. 2014. Drinking Water: EPA Program to Protect Underground Sources from 

Injection of Fluids Associated with Oil and Gas Production Needs Improvement. 

Report No. GAO-14-555. 

 GAO. 2014. Oil and Gas: Updated Guidance, Increased Coordination, and 

Comprehensive Data Could Improve BLM’s Management and Oversight. 

Report No. GAO-14-238.

 GAO. 2012. Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and 

Environmental and Public Health Risks. Report No. GAO-12-732. 

 GAO. 2012. Unconventional Oil and Gas Development: Key Environmental and 

Public Health Requirements. Report No. GAO 12-874.
15-P-0204 20

 Gradijan, F. 2012. State Regulation, Litigation, and Hydraulic Fracturing. Environmental 

& Energy Law & Policy Journal 7(1): 47-85. 

 Ground Water Protection Council/ALL Consulting/U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. 

Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer.

 Ground Water Protection Council. 2014. State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed 

to Protect Water Resources: 2014 Edition. 

 Hatzenbuhler, H. and T.J. Centner. 2012. Regulation of Water Pollution from Hydraulic 

Fracturing in Horizontally-Drilled Wells in the Marcellus Shale Region, USA. 

Water 4(4): 983-994.

 Horizon Environmental Services, Inc./Independent Producers Association of America. 

2004. Guidance Document: Reasonable and Prudent Practices for Stabilization (RAPPS) 

of Oil and Gas Construction Sites. 

 Investor Environmental Health Network/Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. 

2014. Disclosing the Facts 2014: Transparency and Risk in Hydraulic Fracturing 

Operations. 

 Konschnik, K.E. and M.K. Boling. 2014. Shale Gas Development: A Smart Regulation 

Framework. Environmental Science & Technology. 

 Kulander, C.S. 2013. Shale Oil and Gas State Regulatory Issues and Trends. 

Case Western Reserve Law Review 63(4): 1101-1141. 

 Liroff, R. 2011. Extracting the Facts: An Investor Guide to Disclosing Risks from 

Hydraulic Fracturing Operations, published by the Investor Environmental Health 

Network. 

 National Conference of State Legislatures. 2013. States Take the Lead on Regulating 

Hydraulic Fracturing Overview of 2012 State Legislation.

 National Resources Defense Council. 2012. State Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Rules 

and Enforcement: A Comparison. 

 Negro, S.E. 2012. Fracking Wars: Federal, State and Local Conflicts over the Regulation 

of Natural Gas Activities. Zoning and Planning Law Report 35(2): 1-14.

 Rahm, D. 2011. Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale Gas Plays: The Case of Texas. 

Energy Policy 39 (2011): 2974-2981. 

 Resources for the Future. 2013. The State of State Shale Gas Regulation.

 Resources for the Future. 2013. The State of State Shale Gas Regulation: State by State 

Tables. 

 Spence, D.B. 2013. Federalism, Regulatory Lags, and the Political Economy of Energy 

Production. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161: 431-508. 

 Warner, B. and J. Shapiro. 2012. Fracing and Federalism: A Regulatory Battle of the 

Titans. American Political Science Association 2012 Annual Meeting Paper.

 Wiseman, H. 2010. Regulatory Adaptation in Fractured Appalachia. Villanova 

Environmental Law Journal 21(2): 229-292. 

 Wiseman, H. and F. Gradijan. 2011. Regulation of Shale Gas Development, Including 

Hydraulic Fracturing. University of Tulsa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-11.
15-P-0204 21

Interviews with EPA, States and Other Stakeholders

We interviewed the EPA and states about their respective programs that regulate the different 

stages of hydraulic fracturing, any ongoing initiatives to address the potential impacts, 

recommended practices observed from industry or implemented by the agency, and their views 

on gaps in regulations. We interviewed EPA Regions 3, 6 and 8 based on the following factors: 

the amount of unconventional oil and gas development, the current level of federal and state 

activity and involvement, and recent news or occurrences of alleged contamination from 

hydraulic fracturing. We also selected one state from each region to interview using the same 

factors that we used to select the EPA regions. Pennsylvania was selected from Region 3, 

Arkansas from Region 6, and Colorado from Region 8. In each state, we met with managers and 

staff from the environmental protection and oil and gas agencies or offices. Table A-1 provides a

listing of the organizations interviewed.

Table A-1: Interviews conducted during the OIG evaluation

EPA  Office of the Administrator

 Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

 Office of Research and Development

 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

 Office of Water

 Region 3

 Region 6

 Region 8 

State and Basin  Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

 Arkansas Department of Natural Resources

 Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment 

 Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

 Delaware River Basin Commission 

 Susquehanna River Basin Commission

Industry 

nongovernmental 

organizations 

 American Petroleum Institute

 Colorado Oil and Gas Association 

 Independent Producers Association of America

Environmental 

nongovernmental 

organizations

 Earthworks

 Environmental Defense Fund

 Natural Resources Defense Council

Others  STRONGER Inc.

 Ground Water Protection Council

 Arkansas Public Policy Panel

 Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Colorado 

Source: OIG analysis and summary.
15-P-0204 22

Appendix B

Agency Response to Draft Report 

and OIG Evaluation

May 28, 2015

SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General’s Draft Report/Project No. OPEFY14-0018, “Enhanced EPA Oversight and Action Can Further Protect Water 

Resources from the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing,” dated April 28, 

2015

FROM: Kenneth J. Kopocis 

Deputy Assistant Administrator

TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.

Inspector General

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit 

report. The following is a summary of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s overall 

response to the draft report, along with specific comments on each of the report’s 

recommendations. We have also included an attachment with technical comments on the report.

The EPA agrees with and appreciates the recognition by the Office of Inspector General that the 

Agency is taking positive steps to protect public health and the environment in light of a surge in 

unconventional oil and gas development. Over the past several years, the EPA has proactively 

coordinated initiatives from various program and regional offices involved with energy 

extraction activities, including hydraulic fracturing. The Agency also agrees that it needs to 

consider the public’s interest in the chemicals and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing 

activities. The EPA is currently evaluating public and stakeholder comments on the Agency’s 

2014 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to obtain information on chemicals and mixtures 

used in hydraulic fracturing, and to determine appropriate next steps.

Over the past several years, the EPA has worked with states and the regulated community to 

improve understanding of the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Underground 

Injection Control regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing activities. The Agency provided 

regulatory clarity on hydraulic fracturing by issuing an interpretive memorandum1in 2014. In the 

memorandum, the EPA explains that any owner or operator who injects diesel fuels as part of 

hydraulic fracturing for oil or gas extraction must obtain a UIC Class II permit before injection, 

and provides the Agency’s interpretation of the statutory term “diesel fuels” for permitting 

purposes. The EPA also provided detailed recommendations to EPA permit writers in its 

 

1

“Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Existing Underground Injection Control Program Requirements 

for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels” (EPA, 2014)
15-P-0204 23

permitting guidance for hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuels.2 The EPA engaged with state and 

tribal programs, industry stakeholders and the environmental community throughout the 

development and after publication of the UIC permitting guidance and interpretive memorandum 

for the use of diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturing.

The EPA coordinates with states where use of diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturing has been 

reported and evaluates any information regarding injection of diesel fuels for hydraulic fracturing 

on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Environmental Integrity Project issued a report in late 

2014, stating that diesel fuels usage had been reported in multiple states through the disclosure 

website www.fracfocus.org. In response, EPA regional offices met with the states where 

unpermitted diesel fuels usage was reported. As a result of this communication, the state 

programs initiated investigations. Upon review of the wells’ final stimulation plans, the states 

found that diesel fuels were not actually used in those hydraulic fracturing activities. The reports 

of diesel fuel usage in FracFocus were either filing mistakes or were part of initial drilling plans 

that were not implemented. With assistance from the EPA, state and tribal governments have 

worked to inform well service companies and operators of the UIC permit implications of using 

diesel fuels for hydraulic fracturing, and have encouraged the use of safer alternatives.

Based on the EPA’s outreach and evaluation, to date, no states or tribes with permitting authority 

for the UIC Class II program have received applications or issued any permits for the use of 

diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturing. Likewise, the Agency has not received applications nor 

issued any permits for the use of diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturing where the EPA is the 

permitting authority. Further, as noted above, investigations of diesel fuels use since the release 

of the Agency’s 2014 guidance and memorandum show that no improper permitting of diesel 

occurred in these cases.

In 2011, the EPA designated “energy extraction” as one of its six National Enforcement 

Initiatives, which includes a focus on unconventional gas extraction and production. The 

Initiative’s primary goal is to address impacts to air and water from onshore natural gas 

extraction and production activities that may cause or contribute to significant harm to public 

health and/or the environment. Compliance issues associated with hydraulic fracturing at natural 

gas sites, including the UIC Class II program, fall under the Energy Extraction Initiative.

The EPA will continue to use its oversight authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act to 

work with state primacy programs and EPA regional permit authorities to communicate 

requirements and responsibilities regarding the use of diesel fuels during hydraulic fracturing, 

and to evaluate reports of unpermitted use of diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturing. If a permit is 

warranted, the EPA will ensure that the activity is permitted in a manner that is protective of 

underground sources of drinking water.

 

2 Revised Guidance: Permitting Guidance for Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels: 

Underground Injection Control Program Guidance #84 (EPA, 2014)
15-P-0204 24

AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Agreements

No. Recommendation High-Level Intended 

Corrective Action(s)

Estimated 

Completion by

1(a). Use oversight authorities under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act to 

determine whether the EPA, 

primacy states and tribes issue 

permits for the use of diesel fuel 

during hydraulic fracturing as 

required by statute, the 

interpretive memorandum and 

permitting guidance.

As part of the EPA UIC 

program’s regular oversight 

activities with states and 

through direct implementation 

of the UIC program, the 

Agency will continue to 

communicate requirements and 

responsibilities regarding the 

use of diesel fuels during 

hydraulic fracturing. Through 

these oversight activities, we 

will determine whether diesel 

fuels are used; and, if so, 

whether the EPA, states and 

tribes are issuing permits in 

accordance with the SDWA and 

UIC regulations.

December 2016

1(b). Report the results of the 

determination to the public.

The Office of Water will 

compile results of regional and 

primacy program permitting 

activities regarding the use of 

diesel fuels in hydraulic 

fracturing and post those results 

on our public website.

March 2017

3. Establish and publish an action 

plan with milestone dates that 

outlines the steps necessary for 

determining whether to propose a 

rule to obtain information on the 

chemical substances and mixtures 

used in hydraulic fracturing.

In May 2014, the EPA issued 

an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to seek public and 

stakeholder input on how best 

to obtain information on 

chemicals and mixtures used in 

hydraulic fracturing. The EPA 

is currently evaluating the 

comments to determine 

appropriate next steps and our 

future plan of action.

To be determined based 

on evaluation of public 

comments.

OIG Response: The agency’s high-level corrective actions for Recommendations 1(a) and 1(b) are 

responsive. Subsequent to a meeting with the agency in June 2015, the EPA provided an estimated 

date of January 2016 for Recommendation 3 of when it will complete its evaluation of public comments 

and decide whether to continue the rulemaking process. 
15-P-0204 25

Disagreements

No. Recommendation High-Level Intended 

Corrective Action(s)

Estimated 

Completion by

1(c). Submit an action plan outlining 

the steps (along with completion 

dates) the Agency will take if the 

determination reveals permitting 

of diesel fuel during hydraulic 

fracturing is not occurring in 

accordance with statute, the 

interpretive memorandum and 

permitting guidance.

Outreach and evaluation to date 

has shown that neither states, 

tribes, nor the EPA have 

received applications or issued 

any permits for the use of diesel 

fuels in hydraulic fracturing. 

Since the 2014 guidance and 

memo clarified requirements, 

the EPA has not seen any 

evidence of improper use of 

diesel fuels, so an action plan 

would be premature without the 

results of the determination in 

1(a).

The EPA will 

determine any next 

steps based on the 

results of the 

determination in 

recommendation 1(a). 

If significant diesel use 

is found and states are 

issuing permits, the 

EPA may decide to 

examine how states are 

permitting the use of 

diesel fuels in hydraulic

fracturing activities 

with respect to the 

practices found in the

guidance.

2. Address compliance issues

related to diesel fuel use during 

hydraulic fracturing without a 

permit and not in accordance with 

statute, the interpretive 

memorandum and permitting 

guidance.

This recommendation is 

unnecessary and should be 

deleted. The EPA designated 

“energy extraction” as a

National Enforcement Initiative 

in 2011. The Initiative has the 

primary goal of addressing 

impacts to air and water from 

onshore natural gas extraction 

and production activities that 

may cause or contribute to

significant harm to public 

health and/or the environment.

The Agency is 

implementing the 

Energy Extraction 

National Enforcement 

Initiative, which is

focused on onshore 

natural gas extraction 

and production, and

which encompasses 

UIC Class II

compliance issues.

OIG Response: The agency’s high-level corrective actions for Recommendation 1(c) are responsive. 

Following a June 2015 meeting to discuss the agency’s comments, the agency provided an estimated 

milestone completion date of March 2017 for Recommendation 1(c), based on the results of 

Recommendation 1(a), For example, if significant diesel use is found and states are issuing permits, 

the EPA may decide to examine how states are permitting the use of diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturing 

activities with respect to the recommendations for the EPA permit writers found in the guidance. Should 

significant unpermitted diesel use be found, the EPA’s response would depend on considerations such 

as its extent and location, as well as the reasons for the unpermitted use.

The OIG disagrees with the agency that Recommendation 2 should be deleted. During the June 2015

exit meeting, agency staff indicated that any compliance issues identified from onshore natural gas and 

concurrent oil extraction and production activities would be part of the Energy Extraction and 

Production National Enforcement Initiative. Other oil extraction activities would be part of the regions’ 

core enforcement programs. After receiving and reviewing clarifying information from the agency, we 

consider Recommendation 2 as closed upon issuance of the final report.
15-P-0204 26

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Ronald Bergman, Acting 

Director, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at 

(202) 565-3823; Andrew Stewart, Acting Director, Special Litigation and Projects Division, 

Office of Civil Enforcement/Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at (202) 564-

1463; or Paul Lewis, Chief, Chemical Information and Testing Branch, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics at (202) 564-6738.

cc:

Mike Shapiro

Marilyn Ramos

Dan Engelberg

Johnny Ross

Peter Grevatt

Cynthia Giles

Jim Jones

Mary Hanley

Action Follow-up Coordinators (HQ and RT)
15-P-0204 27

Appendix C

Distribution

Office of the Administrator

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator

General Counsel

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Water

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention