Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Fact check: Did the EPA change its conclusion on the impacts of fracking?
January 12, 2017
By Amée LaTour
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final report on the agency’s review of scientific information concerning the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources in the United States, concluding that it lacks sufficient information to determine whether fracking has a widespread, systemic impact on such resources.[1] In response, Erik Milito, a program director with the American Petroleum Institute, claimed that the agency wrongly backed away from its 2015 draft conclusion that researchers did not find evidence of such impacts. Milito said, “Unfortunately, consumers have witnessed five years and millions of dollars expended only to see [a] conclusion based in science changed to a conclusion based in political ambiguity.”[2]
Is Milito correct in claiming that the EPA changed its draft conclusion?
Yes. The EPA’s draft report noted that researchers identified instances of local impact on drinking water resources, but “did not find evidence” of “widespread, systemic impacts.”[3] The final report also identified local impacts, but it stated that researchers could not calculate or estimate the extent of broader impacts because of “significant data gaps and uncertainties in the available data.”[1]
In short, the EPA changed the conclusion from there being no evidence of widespread impact to an inability to reach a conclusion. Whether the change is based in political ambiguity is a matter of opinion.
Background
Congress in 2010 directed the EPA to review available research on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing (also known as “fracking”) on drinking water resources.[4] The EPA study plan was released in November 2011, and the final report was released in December 2016.[5] The total cost of the study was $29 million.[6]
A review draft of the report was issued in June 2015, along with a press release headlined: “Assessment shows hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources and identifies important vulnerabilities to drinking water resources.”[7] The draft’s summary of major findings stated:
| “ | From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources. These mechanisms include water withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water availability; spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.[3][8] |
” |
Following release of the draft, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the report and submitted comments to the agency. In its 180 pages of comment, the board questioned the basis for the draft conclusion, stating, “The SAB finds that the EPA did not support quantitatively its conclusion about lack of evidence for widespread, systemic impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, and did not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater, surface water), the scale of impacts (i.e., local or regional), nor the definitions of ‘systemic’ and ‘widespread.’”[9]
The conclusion in the EPA's final report published in December 2016 stated:
| “ | The available data and information allowed us to qualitatively describe factors that affect the frequency or severity of impacts at the local level. However, significant data gaps and uncertainties in the available data prevented us from calculating or estimating the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. The data gaps and uncertainties described in this report also precluded a full characterization of the severity of impacts.[1][8] | ” |
Difference
Concerning the draft conclusion that researchers did not find evidence of widespread, systemic impacts from fracking on drinking water resources, the draft noted the following:
| “ | This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors. These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.[3][8] | ” |
In the final report, such data gaps were presented as inhibiting a conclusion about national impacts.
Following the release of the final study, EPA deputy administrator Thomas Burke told reporters that “this study does not have adequate evidence to really make a conclusive, quantified statement" regarding the question of national-level fracking impacts.[10]
Conclusion
Erik Milito of the American Petroleum Institute criticized the EPA’s final report on the impacts of fracking on drinking water, claiming that political considerations drove the agency to change its conclusion.
Both the draft and final reports noted that fracking has led to local-level impacts on drinking water resources in some instances. However, the final report concluded that data gaps prevented researchers from reaching a conclusion on broader impacts while the draft report noted no evidence of widespread impact. Therefore, Milito is correct that the EPA changed its conclusion. Whether the change is based in political ambiguity is a matter of opinion.
See also
Launched in October 2015 and active through October 2018, Fact Check by Ballotpedia examined claims made by elected officials, political appointees, and political candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. We evaluated claims made by politicians of all backgrounds and affiliations, subjecting them to the same objective and neutral examination process. As of 2025, Ballotpedia staff periodically review these articles to revaluate and reaffirm our conclusions. Please email us with questions, comments, or concerns about these articles. To learn more about fact-checking, click here.
Sources and Notes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States,” December 2016
- ↑ Energy API, “API: EPA Distorts Science in Hydraulic Fracturing Study,” December 13, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources,” June 2015
- ↑ United States Government Publishing Office, “Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010,” October 28, 2009
- ↑ United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Hydraulic Fracturing Study Timeline,” updated June 2015
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff, "Phone interview with EPA press secretary Monica Lee," December 20, 2016
- ↑ United States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Releases Draft Assessment on the Potential Impacts to Drinking Water Resources from Hydraulic Fracturing Activities,” June 4, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Subject: SAB Review of the EPA’s Draft Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources,” August 11, 2016
- ↑ The Hill, “EPA reverses course on fracking safety,” December 13, 2016
Contact
More from Fact Check by Ballotpedia
 January 3, 2017 |
 January 2, 2017 |
 December 29, 2016 |
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter
