[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF SHALE BEDS:
ENSURING REGULATORY APPROACHES THAT
WILL HELP PROTECT JOBS AND
DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION

=======================================================================

(112-61)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

NOVEMBER 16, 2011

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-234 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILLY LONG, Missouri HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania LAURA RICHARDSON, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee

(ii)

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman

DON YOUNG, Alaska TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
GARY G. MILLER, California ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois Columbia
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DUNCAN HUNTER, California BOB FILNER, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
Vice Chair JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana LAURA RICHARDSON, California
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
JEFF DENHAM, California NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma (Ex Officio)
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)

(iii)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi

TESTIMONY

Groome, Martie, Vice Chair, Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention
Committee, National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) 14
Hanlon, Jim, Director, Office of Wastewater Management, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, accompanied by Cynthia
Dougherty, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
United States Environmental Protection Agency.................. 14
Krancer, Michael L., Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Environmental Protection......................... 14
Murphy, Dana L., Chair, Oklahoma Corporation Commission.......... 14
Stewart, Thomas E., Executive Vice President, Ohio Oil and Gas
Association.................................................... 14

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Groome, Martie................................................... 48
Hanlon, Jim...................................................... 51
Krancer, Michael L............................................... 57
Murphy, Dana L................................................... 83
Stewart, Thomas E................................................ 90

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, request to submit letter from Josh Joswick,
Colorado Energy Issues Organizer, San Juan Citizens Alliance,
November 15, 2011.............................................. 44
Krancer, Michael L., Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Environmental Protection, responses to questions
from Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York.......................................... 78

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.010

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF SHALE BEDS:
ENSURING REGULATORY APPROACHES THAT
WILL HELP PROTECT JOBS AND
DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION

----------

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2011

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Gibbs. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment will come to order. I would like to welcome
everybody here today. Secretary Krancer is on his way, he is
coming through the security line, so he will be here
momentarily.
First order of business, I want to ask for unanimous
consent: Representative Farenthold of Texas is a member of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but doesn't sit on
this committee, and has asked to sit on this committee when he
arrives. So I have asked for unanimous consent to allow him to
do that.
[No response.]
Mr. Gibbs. Hearing none, so ordered.
I will start here with my opening statement dealing with
hydraulic fracturing.
First of all, again, welcome to today's hearing on
hydraulic fracturing and natural gas production from shale
beds, and ensuring that the regulatory approaches governing
these activities will protect jobs and domestic energy
production.
Our Nation is blessed with an abundant supply of natural
gas trapped in deep underground shale formations. Through a
technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, much more
of this domestic energy resource can be extracted from these
geologic formations, and used to drive our economy.
Fracking consists of injecting mostly water and sand under
high pressure into wells drilled into gas-containing shale
strata, causing the shale to fracture. As a result of these
fractures, the formation is able to yield much more of the gas
that it is holding. Fracking technologies have been used for
more than 60 years as a means of increasing productivity from
oil and gas wells. However, the technique has recently been
applied to gas production in unconventional shale formations
with remarkable results.
Just a few years ago, almost no gas was produced from wells
and shale formations. And today these produce nearly 15 percent
of the U.S. natural gas production. This percentage is expected
to grow significantly over the next several decades. As a
result of applying the fracking technique to shale gas beds,
the United States is transitioning from a natural gas importer
to a natural gas exporter.
In numerous areas around our Nation where shale gas
formations are found, there has been an economic boom resulting
from gas exploration and production. Not only is America
getting a relatively cheap and less polluting source of energy,
but the activity is generating thousands of direct jobs in the
drilling, extracting, and refinement processes.
In Pennsylvania alone, employment is projected to expand by
over 180,000 jobs during 2012 in the Marcellus shale formation
in the State. And in my State of Ohio, activities associated
with energy production from the Utica shale will be responsible
for generating more than 204,000 jobs and $12 billion in wages
by 2015.
In addition to the clear economic benefits of energy
production through fracking, there is a national security
benefit, as well. Making greater use of domestic sources of
energy reduces our dependence on foreign energy sources that
are often unstable and unfriendly.
In addition to gas, most wells and shale formations recover
a large amount of water that may contain high concentrations of
naturally occurring salts and possibly some naturally occurring
radioactive materials and other constituents. Thus, waste water
must be properly managed in accordance with the Clean Water Act
and other applicable Federal and State requirements.
Currently, the waste water from a well and a shale
formation is typically either recycled, or is injected back
into the deep underground formations, once the gas has been
extracted. This activity is regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
If waste water were to be to discharged to surface waters,
it would regulated under the Clean Water Act. This committee
has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. Discharges to
surface waters are currently not approved. Municipal sewage
treatment plants are not used for disposal because in many
cases the treatment plants are not equipped to handle all the
constituents that may be found in the waste water.
Fracking, as a means of enhancing gas extraction from shale
formation, needs to be properly and efficiently managed so
significant economic benefits and job-producing activities can
be realized safely and without environmental risk. Thousands of
fracking stimulated wells have been used to extract energy
resources in a safe and economical manner. Since fracking began
more than 60 years ago, the process has been regulated by the
States. Currently, the regulations of the waste water from the
well is being done by State agencies, both implementing State
laws and applicable Federal requirements.
Last month the U.S. EPA announced that it plans to develop
new guideline standards for waste water discharges produced by
natural gas extraction from underground shale and coal bed
formations. Even though no comprehensive set of Federal
standards exists at this time for the disposal of waste water
discharge from natural gas extraction activities, States have
been picking up the slack to make sure such activities are
conducted safely.
Moreover, the States are constantly improving their efforts
to make sure that extraction of these important energy
resources are done in a safe and environmentally protective
manner.
I am concerned that, given the recent history of the new
EPA regulations, these new guidelines will be so needlessly
restrictive that the gas extraction operations in Ohio and many
other States, and the resulting economic benefits they provide
the States, will suffer. The economic and national security
benefits that come from safely extracting gas from shale
formations are vitally important. We must be sure that the EPA
thinks carefully before developing new Clean Water Act
standards that would needlessly restrict this important
industry, and burden it with an additional layer of duplicative
Federal regulations.
I welcome our witnesses to the hearing today, and look
forward to hearing from each of you. But at this time I would
like to yield to my ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any
statements he might have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, I welcome this hearing that highlights an issue of
significant importance to my home State of New York, as well as
many other States throughout the Nation. In my view, the
growing national debate on hydraulic fracturing is less about
whether this Nation will develop its domestic natural gas
resources, and is more about how natural gas production should
be developed and regulated to protect American jobs, public
health, and the environment.
In my own State of New York, much of the concern about
hydrofracking, or fracking, has focused on how to ensure that
the largely unknown cocktail of chemicals and pollutants that
are injected into the ground during the drilling process do not
contaminate local drinking water supplies and endanger public
health or the environment. Where the drinking water sources of
New York communities are potentially at risk, the State has
taken prudent and necessary steps to protect them.
Regarding the focus of today's hearing, I am not entirely
sure what the majority has in mind. From my perspective,
today's hearing should focus on the important questions of what
to do with the chemicals and other fracking byproducts, once
they cease to be of value for natural gas production and need
to be disposed of. We will hear testimony about the most common
methods of handling drilling waste, such as recycling,
underground injection, or disposal at treatment plants.
However, if the intended focus of today's hearings is the
potential impacts of EPA regulations on jobs or domestic energy
production, then I hope someone can show me which Clean Water
Act regulations we are worried about. While oil and gas
producers have long been prohibited from directly discharging
their waste waters into the waters of the U.S., that sensible
restriction clearly has not impacted shale gas production
which, according to the Energy Information Administration, has
increased by 400 percent over the past 3 years.
So, what is the issue? It is true the EPA has announced it
will consider whether a national pretreatment standard for
shale gas waste water should be established, but that effort
has just begun, and no regulation will be proposed before 2014
if the EPA decides a pretreatment standard is even needed at
all.
I hope we can all agree that, so far, EPA's fact-finding
efforts regarding hydrofracking waste water disposal can hardly
be seen as caustic to business or job creation. Determining
whether or not hydraulic fracturing waste water disposal has
any potential negative impacts on public health or the
environment should not be a cause for alarm. In fact, as
policymakers we should want to know all that we can about the
potential impacts hydrofracking may have on our communities,
our constituents, and our water quality.
Today most treatment plants are ill-equipped to handle the
chemicals and other pollutants that may be common to
hydrofracking waste water. Without additional efforts, these
chemicals and pollutants may pass through treatment facilities
and into the surrounding environment, raising significant
public health and environmental concerns. This should give us
all pause.
These concerns were highlighted earlier this year, when the
New York Times ran a front-page article on ``how the highly
corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzine, and radioactive
elements like radium'' in drilling waste are typically not
removed by sewage treatment plants. According to the article,
these chemicals and pollutants typically pass through the
sewage treatment plant untreated, and wind up being discharged
back into local receiving waters, where they can contaminate
downstream drinking water sources in the environment.
In fact, the former secretary of Pennsylvania's department
of conservation and natural resources, John Quigley, was quoted
in this article as saying, ``We are producing massive amounts
of toxic waste water with salts and naturally occurring
radioactive materials, and it is not clear we have a plan for
properly handling this waste.''
I, for one, believe we should dig deeper into the questions
raised by the EPA, sewage treatment plant owners, and others
about the capability of sewage treatment plants to adequately
handle fracking waste. For example, how can systems designed
with technologies to treat domestic sewage and nutrients be
expected to safely remove industrial chemicals and naturally
occurring radioactive materials from the waste water stream?
More importantly, how can we expect sewage treatment plant
owners to safely operate their systems, when many times they do
not even know the chemicals and other pollutants that are
contained in the drilling waste they are being asked to treat?
More specific to the topic of today's hearing would be the
development of Clean Water Act guidelines for discharges
associated with the natural gas industry sector providing a
cost-effective, nationally recognized standard for the safe
disposal of chemicals associated with natural gas production in
the same way as other guidelines for discharge from other
industries.
Finally, I am having trouble keeping up with what role the
majority intends for State regulatory agencies under the Clean
Water Act. As I have stated numerous times, the successes of
the Clean Water Act can be traced to a robust Federal-State
partnership in addressing water quality impairments. However,
in bill after bill we seem to be undermining this partnership
for political expediency.
A few months ago, with H.R. 2018, the Clean Water
Cooperative federalism Act, the majority voted to remove any
Federal role in establishing certain water quality standards,
leaving States to have the final word. Then, just yesterday,
the House voted to approve a Coast Guard authorization in which
the majority formally rejected any role for the States to
protect important local water resources from invasive species.
Today I have to assume that we are back to the view that the
States are better equipped to protect their local water bodies
from the chemicals and pollutants contained in fracking waste.
In my view, this committee and the public would be better
served delving into the complex questions of how best to
balance our need for domestic fuel production with the
protection of public health and the environment in a cautionary
manner.
In my view, the issues of how we structure the development
of our domestic natural gas resources is very important, and
one that needs to be dictated by a modicum of caution.
Potentially releasing these largely undisclosed chemicals into
our ground waters, our underground aquifers, and our surface
waters will have economic, public health, and environmental
consequences for generations to come.
We need to be prudent in understanding the implications of
our actions before we take them, as the cost of cleaning up our
mistakes afterward has the potential to be massive.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Cravaack, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop, for holding this
important hearing on the best way to approach hydraulic
fracturing regulation.
I would like to welcome today's witnesses and our panel,
and I look forward to hearing your testimony about a vital part
of our country's energy future. I understand that fracking is a
rapidly growing part of our energy infrastructure, and is
projected to continue its growth in the years to come. In times
of rising energy costs and high unemployment, the natural gas
industry is a major bright spot, providing power to a wide
range of industries for a low cost.
I am concerned at some of the steps recently taken to
expand regulation and oversight on our industry that has done
nothing to warrant such action. I am very interested to see
what the EPA's finding are in its upcoming study, and I hope
those findings don't lead to an increase in energy costs, fewer
jobs, or handcuff an industry that is very much on the rise to
reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses and their thoughts
on what steps are needed, if any, to responsibly oversee
hydraulic fracturing operations. Thank you again, and I look
forward to your testimony. And I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Mr. Altmire, you have an opening
statement?
Mr. Altmire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come from
Pennsylvania, in a State and a region of the country where this
is an incredibly important issue. This is the issue I, by far,
hear more about when I travel around than any other issue. It
is a limitless opportunity, economically, and--in creating jobs
for Pennsylvania. And I am very grateful for our EPA
representatives who are here to discuss this issue, because I
know it is important to you, as well. And we have Secretary
Krancer, and everyone else who is here.
I am most interested in learning about the unique geography
that Pennsylvania has. As a Democrat, I think that Governor
Corbett in Pennsylvania has done a very good job in managing
the balance that needs to be struck in making sure that we take
advantage, economically, from a jobs perspective, of this very
unique circumstance that we have in Pennsylvania, and balancing
it to make sure that we do it in as clean and safe a way as
possible.
So, what I would like to learn today from all of our
witnesses--but especially our EPA witnesses--what can we do
better? What would be your vision, moving forward, and in
particular the unique geography of Pennsylvania in dispensing
of the fracking fluid and the waste water?
And I believe--and I have been very public about this--I
think the State is in a much better position to make those
decisions on the regulatory environment, and how we meet those
unique challenges, based upon the circumstances that are unique
to Pennsylvania, as a State, compared to any other State.
So, I am here to listen and to learn and to participate.
And I again want to just reiterate, Mr. Chairman, this is a
very important issue to the district I represent, and to the
State where I come from. And I am grateful that we are holding
this hearing today.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Mr. Harris?
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to thank you for holding this hearing. As you know, we have
held hearings on this subject in my subcommittee, Energy and
Environment Subcommittee in science and technology. In fact,
tomorrow afternoon we will hold another one about some of the
underlying science on the studies involved.
The context in which we have to discuss this is, you know,
making perfect the enemy of good. And we have a 9 percent
unemployment rate in the United States. You know, to say that
there is a public health implication of the possibility of
contaminating water with hydrofracturing fluid--although in
testimony in front of my subcommittee, or in my committee,
science and technology, you know, I asked the panelists very
simply, as I will ask the panelists today: Does anyone know of
any documented circumstance of hydrofracturing contaminating
drinking water? So all of you, that is a heads-up, you are
going to get the question. Because I couldn't get an answer.
The answer I got was no on the last panel I asked that
question.
Now, we know that with a 9 percent unemployment rate there
are public health implications of that. We know, because we
can't fund adequate health care in this country. We know part
of it is the economic situation we are in, and we know we have
got to get out of that situation. One of the keys clearly are
using the energy resources of this country to get out of the
economic situation we are in--9 percent unemployment, $3.50 a
gallon of gas--all of which compounds the problems.
Now, if you look at the growth of the natural gas resource
reserves in the United States in the last 10 years, it is
striking. Exponential growth in reserves, mostly due to the
discovery of the reserves that exist within the shale
formations.
Now, they are not easy to get to. We have some under the
western part of my State. So I went out and wanted to visit one
of the locations where they are exploring and producing.
Unfortunately, I couldn't go in my own State. I had to go to
the State of Pennsylvania because in my State they have decided
to have a moratorium. Fortunately for Pennsylvania, they
haven't, because when you visit those areas of the State, they
are boom towns. They are what the entire United States could be
if the administration had a reasonable economically based
policy with regards to using our natural reserves to get us out
of the economic mess we are in.
Now, I wish I shared the ranking member's enthusiasm that
this is only a matter of not whether we are going to ever use
these resources, but how. And if they want--if anybody wants
any better proof of how important that question is, it is
called Keystone Excel. Because the question up until a week ago
was, well, you know, it is not whether it is every going to be
built, but how and where. Now it is a question, actually, of
whether it ever will need to be built, because Canada is going
to go ahead and build a pipeline to their port terminals and
ship that natural resource to Asia, instead of the United
States, where we desperately need low-priced, petroleum-based
energy to fuel an economic recovery.
The question with Keystone Excel might be now not even a
question of whether. And that is the problem, that we don't
exist in a global vacuum with regards to energy. And if we
don't make use, and we don't do everything we can to facilitate
the access to these--to this shale formation natural gas, it
may be an opportunity we may never get again.
So, sure, we want to have clean drinking water. But I
actually stood on a property in western Pennsylvania where this
drilling and exploration is going on, and it is on a reservoir
property where through the trees you see the drinking water of
the local community. Now you got to tell me that nobody, nobody
sitting inside a bureaucratic white tower, ivory tower in
Washington, DC, with EPA on the door, is going to have any more
concern for the drinking water in that community than someone
who drinks the water in that community.
And that is what this hearing is going to be all about. It
is going to be about who best knows about how to protect the
local drinking water. I got to tell you, I don't come down on
the person sitting in Washington making a decision for western
Maryland, or western Pennsylvania, or eastern or western any
State in this country. And that is what it is about.
So I am going to be asking, you know, the EPA
representative, you know, how are they going to make sure that
when they come up with this study or these guidelines, that
they don't do that?
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for holding the
hearing. It is an incredibly important subject for this
country, and I look forward to what the panel has to say. Yield
back.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Representative Napolitano, opening
statement?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I have--I am
grateful for the hearing, because it is an issue that I have
been involved with for not quite 13 years that I have been in
Congress, but a good part of that.
As ranking member of the Natural Resources Water and Power
Subcommittee, we have had numerous hearings that deal with the
contamination of the ponds, the pools of water left by those
that do hydrofracking, and then expect the citizens, the
taxpayers, to clean them up. And while it may not be
contaminated for a whole area, it is possible that the leaching
could go into the aquifers and contaminate the drinking water
of these communities.
We must continue to investigate the impact that it has on
our water supply, and especially our ecosystem. The pools that
are left behind may contain corrosive salts, benzine,
radioactive elements. And unfortunately, the sewage plants
sometimes may take some of that residue, that leftover waste
water, may not be able to deal with the chemicals that are
present in those waste waters. And then they contaminate that
water that is being produced as secondary, whether it is
tertiary-treated water, et cetera.
So, in the many years that I have worked on this issue, I
have great questions about whether it may not directly
contaminate the aquifers, but it certainly is a process that is
being questioned.
And let's not forget that ground water is the most vital
resource for all our water agencies that provide this gold.
Water is now gold for business, for agriculture and especially
for the communities that bank on us, EPA, putting the
regulations that are going to provide them with clean, potable
water.
So it is really a vital thing for my area, for my State. We
have a superfund site list that has been--and cleanup--because
of contaminations. At least 20 years, and it has got another
maybe 10 or 15 to go. It is the biggest superfund cleanup in--
well, in California, probably the United States. So I have a
great issue on not being able to have the EPA and the States
have the ability to deal with their own contamination, and how
they can go after the PRPs, the potential responsible parties.
So, with that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
on this topic, and I thank the chair and the ranking member.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Shuster, you have an opening
statement?
Mr. Shuster. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing. And also, thank you to the witnesses
for being here today.
I would like to associate my remarks and--with the remarks
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Altmire, for two
reasons. One, because I agree with everything he said, and
second, to demonstrate what bipartisan support that this
development of shale gas in Pennsylvania has in the United
States Congress. And we worked across the aisle, I worked with
Secretary Krancer and others in the State of Pennsylvania to
fight the Federal Government, to fight the EPA and the Corps of
Engineers from expanding into Pennsylvania and taking over some
of the functions that the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection has done for decades, and has done it
successfully, in protecting the environment, in protecting the
drinking water of Pennsylvanians.
And as Mr. Harris pointed out, I don't believe somebody
sitting in Washington, DC, is more--is better equipped or more
dedicated than the folks at Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, or our local elected officials in
protecting the water of our citizens.
Marcellus shale is a tremendous opportunity, not only for
Pennsylvania to create employment and to regain our stature in
the States as one of the economic powerhouses in the United
States, but it is also important for America, for us to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, which we every year, to the tune
of over $100 billion, we are sending to countries that, quite
frankly, hate us. So it is extremely important.
Now, I have heard the President talk about expanding our
energy, using natural gas. But his rhetoric doesn't support his
actions. And just as the Keystone Pipeline is a perfect example
of that, here we have a great opportunity to get oil from a
great ally, our neighbor, Canada, and we have pushed it off for
another year, and there is questions as to if it will ever be
built in this--to support the United States and our needs for
energy.
Again, the President's actions don't support. He talks
about improving the environment for businesses and reducing
regulations, but yet one of his agencies--whether it is the
Corps of Engineers or the EPA--they turn around and are
expanding their efforts and their regulatory reach into places
like Pennsylvania.
And the word that is out there--my good friend from New
York, he talks about caution. It is not caution that is out
there, it is hysteria. Leading newspapers in America are
putting out false information, or misinformation out there. The
documentary--so-called documentary--``Gasland,'' was filled
with misinformation. And yet the extreme left in this country,
and Hollywood, celebrated it. And again, when you go through
it, there is not much truth to it. And we hear this
misinformation, this hysteria, going on all around the country.
As I said, I have now joined with my colleagues across the
aisle here in Congress, in the Pennsylvania delegation, to
fight the Corps of Engineers, for instance, that is reaching
out there to try to take in the permitting of pipes over small
streams. The department of environmental protection in
Pennsylvania has done it for 40 years, and done it quite
successfully. Yet the Corps of Engineers is now reaching out
there, trying to take on this responsibility. I believe they
are doing it because some bureaucrat sitting in the Corps of
Engineers figures this is how they can justify their existence
for the next 40 years, because of the huge potential for
Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania and for the country.
So, we are fighting that on a daily, weekly basis, joining
with our great secretary of the department of environmental
protection, Mr. Krancer, Secretary Krancer, to slow that down
and to turn that around so that Pennsylvania can decide how
best to regulate its emerging gas industry.
So I appreciate the hearing today. I think this is going to
be a very interesting and maybe somewhat lively discussion here
today, but I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses.
And again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this. I yield
back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Bucshon, you have an opening statement?
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would initially
like to comment on and thank the chairman for holding this
hearing. And the question was brought up: Why hold this hearing
today, when we may not see anything from EPA until 2014? Well,
let me go over briefly the history of the EPA under this
administration, as it relates to fossil fuel.
Coal dust regulation through mine safety, and EPA put into
place for ideological reasons with no science backing it up--I
am a thoracic surgeon, and I can tell you there was no science
behind that. Coal ash regulation now, which would cost billions
and billions of dollars in cleanup and also job loss across
this country. Again, coal ash twice previously declared non-
hazardous material by the EPA in previous administrations.
Boiler emission requirements that would require billions of
dollars of changes. In fact, there will be coal power plants in
my district--specifically in Terre Haute, Indiana--that will
have to close, costing us hundreds of jobs, and potentially
risking not only just the cost of energy in Indiana, but
whether or not there is energy out there in the grid to supply
the demand.
And then, most recently, of course, the administration's
bowing to environmental groups that both the President and Ms.
Jackson apparently agree with, stopping the Keystone Pipeline,
which multiple people agree has been proven and studies have
shown to be environmentally safe, not only jeopardizing this
country's future for energy independence, but also our
relationship with Canada, and resulting in Canada's selling its
oil to China, rather than to the United States.
And finally, why hold this hearing based on what the EPA
might do? Well, because we are seeing taxpayer dollars
directed, for ideological reasons, to corporations like
Solyndra, even in the face of multiple people telling the
administration that this company was financially unstable.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very, very timely
hearing. We need to get ahead of these problems.
And lastly, I would like to say what the States are doing
on this issue, as it relates to clean water and clean air. In
Indiana, the percentage of Hoosiers that live in counties that
meet the Federal and State air quality standards are 99.99
percent. The percent of Hoosiers that receive water from
facilities in full compliance with safe drinking water
standards Federal and State, 98.46 percent.
And we heard at previous hearings in this committee from
State EPA directors, saying that they are having a very
difficult time dealing with the EPA under this administration.
So the hearing should be held. I believe that the States should
be heard on this. I think the States are doing a good job. I
agree with Mr. Shuster. And I have significant concerns about
the U.S. Federal Government getting involved in a situation
that it appears that the States are adequately handling.
I do think it is about ideology, not science. And I am
looking forward to all the testimony today. Thank you. I yield
back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Lankford, you have an opening statement? And
feel free, after your opening statement, to make an
introduction.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing, as well. I do think this is a very
important conversation to have.
We've talked for decades about a national energy policy. In
the 1970s, the Federal Government warned that we were running
out of natural gas, and encouraged States and power generation
to be done with coal or with nuclear. As a response to that,
many of our energy production companies switched over from
natural gas, because we were running out. Now we see our
country is awash with natural gas. The supply has dramatically
increased, the prices have dropped, and great-paying jobs are
popping up all over the Nation dealing with energy production.
Today's hearing focuses on the water relationship to that.
Now, to be clear, water is used in dramatic quantities in
almost every form of energy production. There is a direct
relationship between water and energy production, as there is
with hydraulic fracking and natural gas exploration. But to be
clear as well, 99 percent of what is used for hydraulic
fracking is water and sand. One percent or less is actually the
additional chemicals that are added in the treatment process.
So, when we talk about all these chemicals being pumped
into the ground, we need to keep the perspective together on
it. Ninety-nine percent is just water and sand.
Water is a significant issue, though, for all involved. It
is significant in both the energy production, and it is
significant to people that live around that area, to the
industries there, the residents. It is significant because many
of the drilling locations are very remote. And so it is
significant to the industry itself. And getting that much water
to that spot, it uses about the same amount of water as an
Olympic-sized swimming pool, so it is a significant amount of
water involved in a frack job. So they have to be able to have
that amount of water there. And so storing it is significant.
State and local leadership, and their elected leadership
and oversight and regulators, it is very significant to them,
as well.
But our economy is built on inexpensive energy. Every
sector is dependent on the fact that we can keep the price of
energy down, whether that be food production, whether that be
housing, whatever it may be. So this is important, that we
don't mess this up, that we don't do what we did in the 1970s
and tell the Nation we are running out of it and we can't use
it, let's shift to coal, and then 40 years later say, ``Oops.''
So we better get this right.
Energy production is also a big deal for all of us in the
economy in just basic great-paying jobs. Many, many, many high-
paying jobs are around the energy segment. There are a lot of
other service-related jobs--hotels, food service,
manufacturing--that is around hydraulic fracking, as well.
If you come to Oklahoma City, you are going to find in
Oklahoma City we have the lowest unemployment rate of any
metropolitan area in the Nation. Number one lowest unemployment
rate. We have great companies that serve our community, that
are very involved, and are very responsible. We are a great
example of a community that knows exactly what hydraulic
fracking looks like, has functioned with it for decades, has
managed it well, and has reaped the benefits of that.
And so it is an interesting thing for us to be able to
watch all the different studies that are currently happening on
hydraulic fracking and to ask the question--we would invite you
to come to Oklahoma. We have done hydraulic fracking in
Oklahoma over 100,000 times, and we would invite you to come
drink our water, breathe our air, and see our beautiful land.
It is a great place to be, and it is a great place to live.
We understand exactly what fracking--what it looks like,
how it occurs, and how to regulate it. A great example of that
is corporation commissioner Dana Murphy that is here, is one of
the great regulators in the Nation. She regulates this
industry, and is tenacious about it. You can have great
regulation and great cooperation, and still high employment in
the Nation and great low prices, as well, in your energy.
So, I do look forward to this conversation. I am interested
to see all of the interchange and the decisions that come out
of this, as well. But I do want to say this. When we deal with
a national regulation of fracking, we should be clear. No two
areas of our beautiful dirt across our Nation are the same.
Geography matters. And a one-size-fits-all approach to what
happens underground, how deep and what that dirt looks like
underground, will not work.
The closer you can get to the actual frack site, and the
people that are used to that land and those rock formations,
the better you are going to be in being able to understand
exactly how to be able to regulate that. So, whatever comes out
of this, I would encourage we get regulations and regulators as
close to the well site as possible, so that they are familiar
with what happens around that.
And with that, I welcome Commissioner Murphy to this panel.
I look forward to your comments, as well as the comments of the
others, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. It is time we introduced our
panelists. We have Mr. Hanlon, he is the director of the Office
of Wastewater Management for the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
Accompanying him is Ms. Dougherty, who is the director of
the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water of the U.S. EPA.
Mr. Hanlon will be doing the testifying, and I think you are
there to help if it comes up to answering additional questions,
especially in regard to the Safe Drinking Water Act, where--
that falls on the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce
Committee--welcome.
Also we just introduced Chair Murphy, from Oklahoma. And I
am going to call Representative Shuster for any comments for
the next introduction.
Mr. Shuster. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a
great pleasure for us to have here today, I believe, Secretary
Krancer. And I think it is important that I point out that he
is a political appointee, but he is not just a political
appointee. He is someone with tremendous background in
environmental law.
Before becoming Secretary Krancer he was Judge Krancer, and
he was on the Pennsylvania environmental hearing board, who
heard cases that--about people that were dealing with the DEP
across Pennsylvania. He was--been on the board for several
years. He was not only on that board as a judge, but he was the
chief judge and chairman.
Prior to that, he was a law partner in Blank and Rome, and
handled environmental litigation. So tremendous experience
there, in the courtroom. And then, after that, he became the
assistant general counsel to Exelon Corporation, dealing with
complex environmental, safety compliance, and litigation for
Exelon, which is one of our major nuclear producers in this
country, as well as other types of power.
So, we have a real true expert here today, DEP, and I look
forward to hearing from him and continue working with him,
because I think it is well known in Pennsylvania that he is not
only well-equipped and will protect the citizens of
Pennsylvania and their drinking water, but if there is any bad
actors that come into Pennsylvania, they can fear that
Secretary Krancer will not tolerate bad actions in
Pennsylvania. So I am proud that he is here with us today, and
proud that he is our secretary of department of environmental
protection. And I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. It is appropriate for me to introduce
Mr. Stewart from Ohio. He is president of the Ohio Oil and Gas
Association. And I have known Mr. Stewart for a number of
years.
And I just want to give him kudos for what happened while I
was in the State Senate about 3 years ago. The industry came to
the legislature and asked to reform regulatory laws regarding
oil and gas production, and volunteered to pay more fees to
bring on more regulators, because they were concerned that the
regulations in place weren't adequate to protect the
environment. And Mr. Stewart led the issue there, and as a
result, Ohio has one of the foremost standards to protect the
environment in oil and gas exploration.
So again, welcome, Tom. Good to see you here.
We also have Ms. Groome. She is from the Pretreatment and
Pollution Prevention Committee of the National Association of
Clean Water Agencies. She is the vice chair. Welcome.
At this time, Mr. Hanlon, the floor is yours. I was reading
through your testimonies, everybody's testimonies, and they are
very good. But try to keep them within 5 minutes or so; we have
more time for Q&A. Welcome.

TESTIMONY OF JIM HANLON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
ACCOMPANIED BY CYNTHIA DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GROUND
WATER AND DRINKING WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY; DANA L. MURPHY, CHAIR, OKLAHOMA CORPORATION
COMMISSION; MICHAEL L. KRANCER, SECRETARY, COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; THOMAS E.
STEWART, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OHIO OIL AND GAS
ASSOCIATION; AND MARTIE GROOME, VICE CHAIR, PRETREATMENT AND
POLLUTION PREVENTION COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN
WATER AGENCIES (NACWA)

Mr. Hanlon. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I thank you for the opportunity to share information
on EPA's role in ensuring that public health and the
environment are protected during natural gas extraction and
production activities.
EPA strongly believes that domestic natural gas production
is critical to our Nation's energy future. The natural gas
resulting from well-designed and managed extraction from shale
formations has the potential to improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, stabilize energy prices, and provide
greater certainty about future energy reserves. Advancements in
technology have increased a number of economically accessible
gas reserves in the U.S., which has, in turn, benefitted energy
security and jobs.
While this increase in activity and resources is
beneficial, it is important that it be conducted in a way that
ensures protection of drinking water supplies and surface water
quality.
I would like to discuss a few recent and upcoming actions
by EPA related to shale gas extraction. EPA's current
activities include development of treatment standards for waste
water dischargers, a research study on the potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, guidance for
permitting when diesel fuel is used in hydraulic fracturing,
and guidance on water quality permitting and pretreatment.
On October 20th of this year, EPA announced that it was
beginning a rulemaking to set technology-based pretreatment
standards to regulate discharges to publicly owned treatment
works produced by natural gas extraction from underground shale
formations. We will pursue this effort in coordination with our
Federal partners, and with input from industry experts, States,
and public health organizations.
What we know is that shale gas extraction, in some
instances, can generate large volumes of waste water, and that
this waste water can potentially contain high concentrates of
salts, radionuclides, heavy metals, and other materials that
are potentially harmful to human health and the environment.
EPA will be soliciting data and information on the types
and characteristics of the pollutants in shale gas waste
waters, the volumes and concentrations of pollutants, and
instances of pass-through of pollutants, or upsets related to
shale gas waste waters at publicly owned treatment works.
EPA is also seeking information on documented impacts of
these pollutants on aquatic life and human health.
Finally, EPA plans to collect cost data on treatment
technologies to determine the cost and affordability of these
treatment options. EPA's current plan is to issue a proposed
rule for shale gas waste water standards in 2014. EPA will
propose regulations that are affordable. In the coming months
EPA will carefully consider the impact of regulatory costs to
the industry, and to subsets of stakeholders, such as small
businesses and State and local governments. EPA will also
consider potential impacts on jobs and local economies.
At the request of Congress, EPA launched a research project
last year to study the relationship between hydraulic
fracturing and drinking water resources. The study plan was
released on November 3rd of this year. The research will
consider the entire life cycle of water use in hydraulic
fracturing, and will look at five stages of water use,
including water acquisition, the mixing of chemicals, injection
at the well site, flow-back in produced water, and the disposal
of waste water. EPA will release the first report on the study
in 2012, which will include analysis of data, results of the
modeling of potential impacts, and studies on the formation of
disinfection byproducts, and an environmental justice
assessment.
Hydraulic fracturing flow-back can produce water disposal
through underground injection or delivery to a publicly owned
treatment works, or a centralized waste treatment facility--is
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Clean Water
Act.
EPA is currently working on guidance on permitting the use
of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing, as well as guidance on
water quality permitting and pretreatment. Those documents will
provide technical information and recommendations for State and
EPA permit-writers to consider, based on current statutes and
regulations, but will not be binding requirements.
In conclusion, EPA is committed to supporting the safe and
responsible development of natural gas resources to create
jobs, promote energy security, and reduce energy impacts
associated with energy production and use. In so doing, we will
use our authorities, consistent with the law and the best
available science to protect communities across the Nation from
potential impacts to water quality, human health, and the
environment that may be associated with natural gas production
activities. We will continue to coordinate our activities with
our State, Federal, and local partners as we move forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to any questions the panel may have.
Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Murphy, the floor is yours. Welcome.
Ms. Murphy. Thank you. It is a great pleasure to be here,
representing my State, and also here on behalf of Congressman
Lankford. I had let the panel know that in addition to being a
statewide elected official, I serve with two other corporation
commissioners. I am also a geologist. I have served as a former
administrative law judge at the corporation commission. And I
have also worked in oil and gas law for many, many years.
So, as the holder of a statewide office and chair of the
commission that actually regulates oil and gas drilling and
development, I know too well the danger of regulation for
regulation's sake. Any meaningful debate about regulation needs
to be focused on what the regulation is intended to accomplish.
Protection of water and the environment and the beneficial
development of the Nation's resources of oil and gas are not
mutually exclusive goals. Oklahoma is proof of that.
My fundamental point today would be to encourage that the
States are the appropriate bodies to regulate the oil and gas
drilling industry. I am going to provide the basis for that,
and also give several examples.
I would also point out to the committee that just recently
released is the National Petroleum Council study, ``Prudent
Development--Realizing the Potential of North America's
Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources,'' resulting from the
efforts of over 400 participants, over half of which were non-
industry-related individuals. And here is the statement that
actually comes from that recently released report: ``Regulation
of oil and gas operations is best accomplished at the State
level. A one-size-fits-all approach to regulation is not a
viable option to ensure the highest level of safety and
environmental protection.''
Why are the States the appropriate bodies to actually
regulate and work in conjunction with the Federal agencies?
Because extensive knowledge of geological conditions,
topography, the drought in my State this year, seasonal climate
changes which vary State by State and actually within the
States themselves. We have the most experience to ensure that
wells are properly constructed, operations are conducted
safely, and all with a minimal environmental footprint.
Our State has base of treatable water maps, where the water
tables are actually looked at, and the appropriate amount of
surface casing is cemented and put in place. We are the ones
that live in closest proximity to conduct the inspections,
respond not just quickly but with the most appropriate response
in any given situation, to oversee and enforce local
regulations, and target new regulations to promote safety and
environmental performance.
The States are those best able to coordinate, cooperate,
and share among each other evolving technologies and rules and
regulations and standards that can best help all the producing
States, especially since numerous companies are operating in
multiple-State jurisdictions.
State officials are directly accountable to residents of
the State and the people of Oklahoma. They know the buck stops
with us. It is important to us to keep focused on the mission
of protecting our State's water, its land, and the health and
safety of its citizens.
A couple of the examples that I would point out--and I will
start from a national level and go down to a smaller level. In
2009, the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, utility commissioners comprised from all 50
States with very divergent backgrounds, actually passed a
resolution that called on the States to be the appropriate
bodies for regulating oil and gas industry. Why would a group
of utility regulators who do not regulate the oil and gas
industry call upon the States to be the appropriate bodies?
Because they know gas is important for direct heating and for
power generation, and they know that the facts speak to the
issue of State regulation.
I would also point out, too, the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission, which is headquartered and was started,
actually, in Oklahoma, comprised of 30 member States and 8
associate members, working in conjunction with the Ground Water
Protection Council, who have created an Internet chemical
registry ability called ``FracFocus,'' for companies to
actually disclose the chemicals.
I will note in Oklahoma this year, in our rulemaking, we
are actually taking up adoption of FracFocus into our rules to
mandate upon the companies. I would also note that in the 2
years it has taken the EPA to put together their study on
hydraulic fracturing, there are five States--Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Louisiana, Colorado, Oklahoma, and most recently,
Arkansas--that have submitted to the STRONGER review process
comprised of environmentalists, State regulators, and the
industry to review State regulations on hydraulic fracturing.
The last point I would emphasize, we would not have reached
this place among all the States if the map and the track had
already been laid out. It is just as important for us to
cooperate and collaborate together to deal with innovation.
My closing statement would be the best thing that I feel
like the Federal Government and the Federal agencies can do is
encourage and facilitate the States to work together to come up
with good rules and regulations for their appropriate States
and across the regions.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Secretary Krancer, the floor is yours. Welcome.
Mr. Krancer. Yes. Thank you very much. Honor to be here.
And thank you, Congressman Shuster, for having me here.
I have been committed from the beginning to be governed by
science and facts, not by fiction and emotion. And one of the
important things to note is why we are here. Why we are here,
as I understand it, partially because of the pretreatment regs.
Why are they on the table? They are on the table--and this
is an object lesson for all of us--because the State took a
lead and the Feds followed. We have various facilities in our
State that are--in a pretreatment program that are in a Federal
program. They are not regulated by the State. We pointed this
out to the Feds, because we are doing it right in Pennsylvania
with our facilities. I think we are here partially because we
gave them a cue.
I was very shocked to hear Representative Bishop refer to
my fellow State person John Quigley--who said we had no plan? I
have to challenge that. I am not sure when John said that. It
must have been early on, or either that or I am not sure John
knows what was going on in his own building, because I was in
the department of energy a couple of months ago in which my
predecessor testified with great pride about the program and
the plan that his administration started to put into place, and
is in place, and we followed up on it.
And that plan is very detailed. It involves regulations on
total dissolved solids into waterways. So it is a total
fiction. It is a total fiction that sewage treatment plants are
discharging these terrible substances into the waterways.
Certainly in Pennsylvania, that is a fiction. And we, as an
administration, made a call on the drilling community to stop
delivering waste water to those facilities that were
grandfathered by the prior regulations, and that call was
answered immediately. So, we have undergone a sea change in
Pennsylvania to virtually no such discharges. So that is a
fiction.
I also heard a reference to the New York Times. And that
had to make me chuckle a little bit. I came into office, and
the New York Times was promulgating what I thought was--and I
wasn't the only one, even my predecessor thought was--extremely
irresponsible, fear-mongering type of journalism, journalism
which, by the way, was censured by its own newspaper or its own
editors. And I am not understanding why that fellow was still
writing, or why people are still buying that newspaper. It is
beyond me.
But in any event, the sine qua non of it was about 3 weeks
or 4 weeks after that fear-mongering article was written all
about radiation and how we were supposed to be afraid, and this
is horrible, and the sky is falling down, well, the department,
pursuant to its normal testing procedures that it monitors,
released data showing that radioactivity was at background
levels. So all they had to do was make a phone call to us to
figure out what was really going on, but they neglected to do
that.
In terms of water use--and I heard several folks talk about
that--and the point is well taken. The water used for fracking
in Pennsylvania, it ranks nine out of ninth. Here is the chart,
it is in my testimony. And there is another chart that is
important. I think Representative Lankford talked about this:
99.51 percent of the water is--frack water--is water and sand.
And this myth that somehow these terrible chemicals are getting
into the ground water is completely myth. It is bogus.
Let me read you an article, a snippet from a paper,
Harrisburg Patriot, from an author who was no friend of our
administration, frankly, and no friend of what we are doing all
the time. He says, ``Industry representatives say the chemicals
are the same as you would find under your kitchen sink, but
[this gentleman] said, `You don't want to take the stuff from
your kitchen sink and mix it in a glass of water you are going
to drink, and that's basically what's going on.' '' The
reporter says, ``But it's not.''
And that is the point. It is not what is going on. Fracking
occurs 8,000 feet beneath the surface. ground water in
Pennsylvania--and that may vary between States, and that is an
important point--is at several hundred feet. So the myth, the
myth out there, is just rampant.
I have to also agree with what Representative Altmire said.
I think the unique geography is important. Pennsylvania is
different. We are not Texas, we are not Oklahoma. We are very
different. We know what our State is like. We know our unique
geography. And I also certainly agree with him that Governor
Corbett is doing a good job regulating the industry, and we
are, as well.
And I have to also agree with Representative Shuster. We
have very high standards in Pennsylvania of conduct for the
folks who do business here. My boss, the Governor, is a former
attorney general and former United States prosecutor. I am a
former judge. If you can't meet the standards in Pennsylvania,
you are not welcome to be in Pennsylvania and do business here.
So--and one other comment that struck me was a comment that
one of the representatives was saying, that 99 percent of his
constituency lives in areas of attainment. Well, I wish I could
say that about Pennsylvania. But I will tell you one thing. If
we can exploit and take this natural resource and use it, we
will be in that position in Pennsylvania, because these are the
ADCs of Marcellus shale. It is abundant, it is available, it is
domestic, it is cheap, and it is clean.
Right now, I am told by my friends at PECO that PECO is
spending $300 million less per year for natural gas, and
millions of dollars are being saved by consumers. Electricity
prices are lower.
I also heard a comment about the unemployment in the United
States, 9 percent. Well, we in our State have certain counties
that rank third and sixth in job growth in the entire country,
of all countries. Williamsport, seventh largest growing city in
the United States.
And I see I am over time, and I apologize, and I will
welcome questions when they come.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Stewart, the floor is yours.
Mr. Stewart. For over a century-and-a-half, Ohio has been
blessed with production of plentiful oil and natural gas
resources. At each critical point in our industry's history it
has been changes wrought by technology that have provided
producers the ability to explore new horizons and expand the
resource base.
Today, the ability to horizontally drill deep underground
reservoir with exacting precision, exponentially exposing the
face of the reservoir rock to the wellbore has created massive
efficiencies in our ability to produce oil and gas. Ohio is now
beginning a new era of oil and gas exploration made possible by
technologies. It is unlocking reservoirs that, until now, were
not accessible.
For our entire history we explored for oil and gas in
reservoirs where it had been trapped after migrating over the
eons from source rocks where the oil and gas had been formed
and cooked in nature's kitchen. Now, industry is drilling into
the actual source rocks where most geologists believe 95
percent of the oil and gas still remains in place, even after
feeding the traps that have produced all the oil and gas that
we have found to date. This is a radical departure of America's
understanding of energy dependency, and resets the clock on
available domestic oil and gas resources.
Today the industry is providing natural gas priced at 22
percent of its intrinsic energy value, a trend that the
marketplace indicates will continue into the future. It is
enticing the chemical industry to re-enter the United States
and build new chemical manufacturing facilities, jump-starting
job growth downstream of the wellhead.
Since 1860, Ohio has produced 8.5 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas, and 1.14 billion barrels of crude oil. The State's
geologist recently provided a volumetric calculation to
estimate the recoverable reserve potential of the Utica shale--
our shale opportunity. He reported that should producers
extract 5 percent of the oil and gas in place, the Utica would
generate 15.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 5.5
billion barrels of crude oil. That is an astonishing number and
an enormous, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Ohio.
An economic impact study commissioned by the Ohio oil and
gas energy education program determined that the Utica shale
will lead to the creation of over 204,000 Ohio-based jobs over
the next 5 years. Investments by oil and gas companies will
reach $34 billion to fund development activity and
infrastructure. Producing wells are projected to generate $1.6
billion of royalty income to Ohio landowners.
Perhaps most significantly, the Utica shale can make Ohio
an exporter of energy. Coupled with the readily available and
affordable energy resource, development of the Utica shale may
be the most significant positive economic event to take place
in Ohio for decades.
Clearly, America's opportunity to use the shale gas and
shale oil resources hinges on the regulatory structures that
allow its development. Managing environmental risk has been a
key part of both State and Federal regulation. It remains
important to keep an appropriate balance between these
Government roles. States have historically been the regulator
of well construction and completion. They have the expertise to
permit new wells, and should continue to be the regulatory
authority.
States and Federal agencies share the responsibilities of
regulating waste discharges. States typically issue direct
permits under broad Federal guidelines. This balance is
appropriate, and should be continued, because States understand
the potential unique issues of each area. Because of the
diversity of conditions associated with oil and natural gas
production, the regulatory process must be flexible, and
reflect the unique conditions in a State or areas within a
State. It requires the technical expertise that has been
developed in each State, and which does not exist within EPA.
For this reason, Federal law has generally deferred to the
States for the regulation of this industry. The States have a
process available to them to demonstrate effective regulatory
ability, identify regulatory gaps, and find ways to close those
gaps and improve the respective regulatory programs.
The State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental
Regulations, STRONGER, is an independent stakeholder governing
body that manages State review process. The overall process of
the State review process is to help oil and gas regulatory
programs improve. The key innovative aspect of the process are
the teams made up of equal representation from the
environmental community, State regulators, and industry come
together to conduct an authentic peer review critique of the
State's regulatory program, benchmarking the program against a
national set of guidelines that itemize the critical elements
necessary to protect the public interest and the environment.
STRONGER recently updated the review guidelines to include
a specific section focusing on hydraulic fracturing. Over the
past year, STRONGER has done frack-specific reviews in six
States. In Ohio, following implementation of new law, STRONGER
conducted just such a survey that concluded that the Ohio
program was overall well managed, professional, and meeting its
program objectives. That provides the public interest faith and
trust in the regulatory process.
Both the Secretary of Energy's advisory board on shale gas
production subcommittee, interim reports, and the recent
national petroleum report on shale gas has specifically
commended the State review process. The State review process
demonstrates that the States are the best and most efficient
point to regulate the industry's waste streams. The process
provides for a system of constant and ongoing improvement, and
an opportunity to share and promote new and unique regulatory
concepts among the States, while maintaining the flexibility
needed to meet individual States' needs.
With the current intense focus on shale development, I
would recommend to the subcommittee that we focus our efforts
to support positive, collaborative efforts that work to
efficiently improve programs that protect health, safety, and
the environment, instead of relying on Federal control that
will only work to stifle economic opportunity.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
Ms. Groome, the floor is yours. Welcome.
Ms. Groome. Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, and
members of the subcommittee, my name is Martie Groome, and I am
the laboratory and industrial waste supervisor for the City of
Greensboro Water Resources Department in North Carolina. It is
a great privilege to be here to testify on how local clean
water agencies implement the national pretreatment program, and
how this program may affect the disposal of waste water from
shale gas extraction.
In addition to my duties at the city of Greensboro, I serve
as the vice chair of the pretreatment and pollution prevention
committee for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.
And it is my pleasure to be testifying on NACWA's behalf today.
NACWA's primary mission is to advocate on behalf of the
Nation's publicly owned waste water treatment works, and the
communities and rate payers they serve. The employees of these
agencies are true environmentalists, who ensure that the
Nation's waters are clean and safe, meeting the strict
requirements of the Clean Water Act.
The national pretreatment program is often recognized as
one of the most successful Clean Water Act programs for its
role in reducing the amount of pollutants discharged into sewer
systems and into the Nation's waters. Since 1983, the national
pretreatment program has placed public utilities in the realm
of local regulator for the industries that discharge waste
water to their sewer systems. It is the local waste water
utilities that are responsible for enforcing both national
pretreatment standards and any additional limits developed at
the local level needed to protect POTW operations and local
water quality.
To prevent potentially harmful pass-through of pollutants
to the environment or interference with the waste water
treatment process, the Clean Water Act requires EPA to
establish national pretreatment standards for industrial and
commercial facilities that discharge waste water to the sewer
system. Pretreatment standards are currently in place for more
than 50 industrial categories, and POTWs regulate over 20,000
significant industrial users.
Industries with unique waste water treatment needs and
challenges have arisen consistently since the passage of the
Clean Water Act. And clean water agencies have maintained a
strong record of addressing these new challenges. While NACWA
does not have a position on fracking, per se, the fracking
industry is merely another industry similar to the others
before it. And POTWs will act as public servants in
appropriately addressing the discharges from this industry.
Even in the absence of national pretreatment standards,
POTWs can tailor local limits to the particular needs of the
POTW and the industrial user. With local limits, POTWs may
regulate discharges from any industrial or commercial
facilities, not just the categorically regulated by national
pretreatment standards.
The pretreatment program has been so successful because it
gives local POTWs the authority to control the pollutants in
waste water from any industry, using both national pretreatment
standards and local limits. National pretreatment standards
have the benefit of leveling the nationwide playing field for
discharges to sewer systems. However, national pretreatment
standards can at times be stricter than is necessary to protect
a particular POTW, and the waters they discharge into.
Implementing national pretreatment standards also requires a
significant commitment of resources by the local POTW. Any
national pretreatment standards for the fracking industry
should be carefully developed and implemented to avoid
unnecessary cost to the public clean water agency and its
industrial customers.
It is NACWA's hope that EPA's pretreatment standard will
yield a scientifically and economically sound set of standards.
It is equally critical that the public understand that any
POTWs that accept fracking waste water during this interim
phase must meet their permit requirements and set local limits
for the industrial user, if necessary. In many cases, local
POTWs have effectively regulated industries for years before a
national pretreatment standard was developed by EPA.
If a POTW does not have the capacity to establish such
local standards, or fails to develop the necessary limits or
controls to prevent pass-through or pollutants of treatment
plant--or treatment plant interference, then the POTW should
not accept this waste. EPA's announcement that it will develop
a national pretreatment standard for the shale gas extraction
industry does not prevent POTWs from accepting hydraulic
fracturing waste water now, after working with their State
permitting authority to ensure the protectiveness of this
practice.
POTWs also have the authority to stop taking an industry's
waste water immediately if it causes any problems with the
waste water treatment process. Discharge to a POTW is only one
of several options for the shale gas extraction industry. If a
national pretreatment standard can ensure that such discharges
to a POTW are safe, it may be a more commonly used option.
NACWA does not have a position regarding the use of
fracking to meet the Nation's growing energy needs. A
scientifically and economically sound national pretreatment
standard for the shale gas extraction industry may provide
protection to both the industry and to POTWs. It would provide
a nationally acceptable baseline for treatment of hydraulic
fracturing waste water.
NACWA intends to work with EPA as the Agency studies the
industry and develops a pretreatment standard that is
protective and not unnecessarily burdensome.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.
And I look forward to any questions the subcommittee may have
for me.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I will start some of the questions
off.
Chair Murphy, I see your testimony. You state that there is
over 100,000 oil and gas wells in the State of Oklahoma, and at
least 95,000 of them have been fracked. Is there--was there any
incidents where the fracking caused the problem, or well
construction was the problem? Can you elaborate on what is
happening in your experience in Oklahoma?
Ms. Murphy. Yes. By way of background, I would actually
just say there have been over 500,000 wells actually drilled in
Oklahoma. About 185,000 wells are actually producing oil and
gas, and we have about 10,000 disposal wells. We treat our
water and handle waters differently than some of the other
States.
But there have been no documented instances of the
occurrence of pollution to the waters that you spoke about.
Mr. Gibbs. For neither poor well construction nor fracking?
Ms. Murphy. No.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Secretary Krancer, I believe there is a
little over 3,500 Marcellus shale wells in Pennsylvania, which
obviously are all fracked. What is your record?
Mr. Krancer. We have about 4,000, you are right.
Fracking has never caused ground water contamination in
Pennsylvania. Actually, Lisa Jackson was in front of the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on May 24th and
said the exact same thing. Fracking simply doesn't do that. And
there is still not a documented case.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Stewart, what is your experience in Ohio?
Mr. Stewart. There has been over 80,000 wells that have
been hydraulically fractured in the State of Ohio since 1952.
Nearly every well drilled in the State of Ohio is hydraulically
fractured. Before the resources committee of the Congress 2
years ago our State regulator testified that in his 25 years of
investigating ground water contamination, he has not once
correlated hydraulic fracturing to ground water contamination.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon, what is the EPA's thought
on implementing the Clean Water Act, working with State EPAs?
How do you view your role, as the U.S. EPA under the authority
of the Clean Water Act?
Mr. Hanlon. Under the authority of the Clean Water Act, EPA
has entered into contracts, basically, to authorize 46 States
to implement the point source clean water permitting program.
And basically, in those States, we expect the States to do a
good job. They issue permits, they review the permits, they do
inspections, they do compliance, they do enforcement where it
is necessary.
On an exception basis, EPA sort of does oversight for those
programs. Basically, we go in, we take a look at State permits,
we do quality reviews. We will do site visits on occasion. And
across the board, the States do a good job. That is our role in
the authorized States.
There are four unauthorized States where EPA holds the
pencil. We actually write the permits in those States, and then
we implement the whole program, in terms of permitting,
compliance, and enforcement.
Mr. Gibbs. What would be your role? Would you expect to put
out guidances to the States? My understanding on the point
source pollution, the 46 States that are participating, they
have a 3-year plan, and the U.S. EPA approves that. Is that
correct?
Mr. Hanlon. In the authorized States, in order to sort of
gain authorization, it is a fairly lengthy process. We recently
completed it in Alaska 3 years ago. And basically, the State
has to demonstrate it has the legal authorities, it has the set
of implementation authorities, in terms of regulations, you
know, review procedures and protocols, and a trained staff to
actually deliver the program.
And so, once they do that, basically the State then takes
over the----
Mr. Gibbs. So do you feel, then, the States are equipped
and are capable to protect the environment? We are talking
about the shale development, the fracturing. Do you have
confidence in the States to have the ability to do it?
Mr. Hanlon. We have the authority--we have the expectation
that every State does a good job in implementing and----
Mr. Gibbs. And clearly the record has shown that? Because
fracking has been going on for about 60 years, correct?
Mr. Hanlon. With fracking, I think the, you know, testimony
this morning and our experience has been--certainly in
Oklahoma, Texas, et cetera--there are hundreds of thousands of
wells that have been drilled. And the experience there has been
that essentially all of the produced water has been re-
injected. Basically, it never sort of finds the surface water.
And that has been a long-time successful experience that we
have had in our region six offices down in Dallas.
I think the recent concern over the last 2 or 3 years is
that, as the Marcellus formation has begun to be explored and
the resource used, that it is a part of the country where
there--you know, it has not been as much experience, certainly
in shale gas exploration, and basically the availability of re-
injection sites is not the same as the availability of re-
injection sites in Oklahoma and Texas.
So, I think both EPA and the States have been on a learning
curve over the last several years, in terms of, OK----
Mr. Gibbs. Well, my time is----
Mr. Hanlon [continuing]. My drill is--now that we got the
gas out, what do we do with produced water?
Mr. Gibbs. My time is up. I just--one quick question. Do
you believe that the States are setting the standards and the
guidelines to manage it right, or do you think guidelines
coming out of Washington, DC, one size fits all, would be--is
the way to go?
Mr. Hanlon. If you are referring to the guideline for
pretreatment standards, basically that will affect waste water
from shale gas production that will go either to a waste water
treatment plant or to a centralized waste treatment facility.
As things stand today, as I understand it, Ohio bans that.
Basically, it says----
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Hanlon [continuing]. ``You can't send that to a POTW.''
Pennsylvania had suggested or encouraged that their POTWs not
do that. And so, if you are a truck driver, and have 5,000
gallons of shale gas water in southwestern Pennsylvania, in an
hour you can get to West Virginia, you can get to Ohio, you can
get to Pennsylvania.
The objective of the guideline is to say that, for the
pretreatment standards, that 5,000 gallons will have the same
expectation when they show up at a small POTW, knock on the
door and say, ``I got 5,000 gallons of salty water. And here is
a check will you take it.'' And basically, it will provide that
operator with assurety in terms of what that--the quality of
that water is.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, thank you. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. And to all the panel,
thank you very much for your testimony.
Secretary Krancer, in your testimony you say that the
current preference for fracking waste water disposal is through
existing waste water treatment plants, but you also indicate
that the plants do not have the technology necessary to remove
fracking pollutants like total dissolved solids.
You then go on to say that Pennsylvania's new chapter 95
regulations, which were adopted last year, are intended to
completely address the cumulative impacts of waste water
discharges. And you also note quite proudly--and I would say
just justifiably so--that they are the first of their kind in
the country. And you indicated in your comments that you see
this hearing in some ways as a response to the leadership that
Pennsylvania has demonstrated. And you seem to take pride in
that, and I would encourage you to do so. I think that that is
something you should be proud of.
But my question is, in light of Pennsylvania's leadership,
do you not see Pennsylvania as a model for the rest of the
country? And do you not see the legitimacy of a minimum
national standard that would emulate Pennsylvania's, or perhaps
be less stringent than Pennsylvania's, but at least be a
minimum standard, and that in accordance with how we handle
other Clean Water Act regulations, Federal Government
establishes a minimum standard, States are then free to exceed
those standards?
Mr. Krancer. Well, let me answer that this way.
Pennsylvania is a role model, and it is a model, and we have
had visitors from foreign countries come to see us, and we do
have the new chapter 95 regulations, total dissolved solids,
which does address the issue of those plants that formerly
could not treat the water appropriately. Now they can, now they
are required to.
And as I said, there was a grandfather clause. We closed
that when we came into office, by issuing our call. And now, as
I have testified----
Mr. Bishop. If I may, all of that sounds to me to be
perfectly reasonable and laudable. My question is, why would
you not want your neighboring States to have the same concern
that Pennsylvania has made so clear?
Mr. Krancer. Well, I think that is a red herring. Quite
honestly, the question here is whether the States are capable
and whether the States can do a good job. The answer has been
yes--I heard that from the EPA here today--I have heard that
from EPA's----
Mr. Bishop. If--again, if that is true, then what is wrong
with a minimum national standard?
Mr. Krancer. Well, because not every State does it, number
one. Not every State does it the same way, number two. Number
three----
Mr. Bishop. If I----
Mr. Krancer [continuing]. Not every State has the same
geography. Number four--should I go on?
It is also a matter of philosophy. Should we have the
Federal Government establishing--and what would happen would be
lowest common denominator, that would be the case----
Mr. Bishop. Well, don't we have lowest common denominator
right now, if a truck can drive around until it finds a State
that is going to take the water?
Mr. Krancer. Well, again, I think you are posing a red
herring here. You can't do that in Pennsylvania, you can't do
that in Ohio. Both States are on top of what they are doing.
Oklahoma is on top of what it is doing. Louisiana is on top----
Mr. Bishop. But you seem to be questioning the fundamental
premise of the Clean Water Act. If you----
Mr. Krancer. Oh, no, no. You are misunderstanding me. That
is absolutely false.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Then----
Mr. Krancer. This--the Clean Water Act, as many Federal
environmental statutes do, set a Federal-State partnership. No
question about that.
Mr. Bishop. Correct.
Mr. Krancer. OK. But you know what? Number one, fracking
has never been regulated by the Federal Government. I have a
section in my testimony about the so-called Frack Act, and
about the other myths that are surrounding that issue----
Mr. Bishop. What is being contemplated here is the
regulation of the waste water from the fracking.
Mr. Krancer. Mm-hmm. I am sorry, go ahead, I----
Mr. Bishop. Is that OK?
Mr. Krancer. I misunderstood. Go ahead.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Look, I am not trying to be difficult, I am
trying to understand something here.
If New York, which is part of the watershed of the
Delaware, part of the watershed of the Susquehanna, if New York
decides that they don't care about environmental standards at
all, and they are not going to adopt the standards that
Pennsylvania has adopted, or be anywhere near as concerned as
Pennsylvania is, does that not have impact on Pennsylvania's
waters?
Mr. Krancer. Yes, certainly it does, Representative. But
you and I, I think, are having a fundamental philosophical
disagreement that probably goes back to 1787, when the
Constitution was formed. I have a certain idea of federalism
and where the State's role is, and yours apparently is not
where mine is, nor is it where other--even the EPA's is,
because even the statutes establish a State primacy system.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I am not prepared to have a philosophical
discussion with you. I just want to know what would
Pennsylvania do if New York, in the highly unlikely eventuality
would say, ``Pennsylvania is far too stringent, far too strict,
we are not doing this.'' What impact does that have on
Pennsylvania's waters, and what would Pennsylvania's response
be?
Mr. Krancer. Well, Representative, I have been a litigator
and a judge far too long to be able to answer complete
hypothetical questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. All right. I will ask one more
question.
How many jobs were lost when chapter 95 regulations were
put into place?
Mr. Krancer. Well, I don't have an answer for that, but I
think jobs have been increased, quite honestly, because what--
--
Mr. Bishop. OK, so----
Mr. Krancer. Let me finish. What I have seen is a rush of
capital coming to Pennsylvania to answer the call that was set
when we established those standards. I have seen new businesses
come to Pennsylvania, new jobs created by this----
Mr. Bishop. So----
Mr. Krancer [continuing]. New opportunity, where the
invisible hand of the marketplace is taking control to bring
jobs.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate your response. You simply have
illustrated that not all regulations are job-killing
regulations. Some regulations are grounded in science and in
good sense, and in prudent public policy.
Mr. Krancer. Well, quite honestly----
Mr. Bishop. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Krancer [continuing]. I don't think that is the point
here today, whether certain regulations create jobs or don't
create jobs. I think the point we are talking about is these
particular regulations and the way the States handle waste
water, which I think in my State is handled very well. In Ohio
I have heard it is handled very well. In Oklahoma I have heard
it is handled very well. And I have heard the EPA say the
States handle it very well.
Mr. Bishop. Then you would have nothing to fear from a
national standard. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Shuster?
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we
would have something to fear from a national standard because I
think that, as Secretary Krancer pointed out, it would be
lowest common denominator, and what happens in Oklahoma it
may--is very different than Pennsylvania.
So I think there is a real problem with the continued
expansion of regulations by the Federal Government. When the
States, based on what we heard from EPA today, what we heard
from--previously, in some cases--from Administrator Jackson,
that the States are doing a very, very good job of that.
I wondered, Secretary Krancer, if you could just talk
through a little bit about--I mentioned earlier about the Corps
of Engineers, and the definition of single and complete
projects. And can you talk to us about--you know, here is a
situation where the Corps of Engineers has reached out and have
changed the rules, have changed the interpretation. Can you
tell us what impact that has had on Pennsylvania and the
economy, and your views of what they are doing?
Mr. Krancer. Well, it is a good question. We are working
through that with the Army Corps now to certainly put a stopper
on some pipeline projects, pipeline projects that Pennsylvania
had regulated for years and years. And not just--linear
projects aren't just pipelines, they are roads, they are
electric lines, so on and so forth.
The bottom line is that we need to get this resource to
market, and we need the pipelines to do that. And, at the end
of the day, of course, pipelines are buried, they are--
invasiveness is very low. They are like electric lines:
emotional at the time, but when it is all over you never know
they were even there.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And Chairwoman Murphy, can you talk
a little bit about your view on the national standard? Do you
believe we need one, or do you believe that what is happening
today, the States are doing well and there is no need for the
EPA to come in and set these minimum national standards?
Ms. Murphy. I will note that I came directly here from the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
conference in St. Louis. And one of the common denominators
there was the collaboration among the States in working
together to actually have best practices in working with the
industry.
It just seems to me, just from my basis as a regulator, we
have an open rulemaking process where environmentalists,
landowners, everyone comes. We have technical conferences. It
is very open, lots of dialogue before any particular rule is
proposed. It seems like the way that the Environmental
Protection Agency goes about some of their rules, they propose
rules, then you have comments, then time passes and then here
is the rule. And it seems like maybe it is a better approach--
and I think the States, certainly Oklahoma, does it--where you
have the dialogue first, and get some ideas before you start
proposing rules for people to comment on. So, I think it is a
different approach.
But all that said, I believe that the States individually,
and the States working in collaboration through STRONGER,
through the IOGCC, through some of these other groups, are the
best approach.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Stewart, you care to comment on that, your
view of EPA putting a minimum standard out there?
Mr. Stewart. The problem with a minimum standard is we have
already discussed how State geology and geography all matters
in how you set minimum standards at the Federal level. Most
minimum standards are set focused on a particular source point.
The problem is that the source points for this particular
concept are individual wells and formations that can
drastically change in their characteristics well to well to
well. So I concur with Congressman Lankford, that the best way
to have this type of regulation is the people that are closest
to the wellhead, the people that are the boots on the ground,
that understand what that waste flow coming from that
individual well or individual play means when it comes to
standards on effluent discharge.
Mr. Shuster. Right. And Mr. Hanlon, the EPA, do you have
that same view, that the geology is different in Pennsylvania/
Ohio versus Oklahoma/Texas? Is that the EPA's view, that it is
very different?
Mr. Hanlon. The geology is different. As I said earlier,
the regulation that we began last month is one that would deal
with pretreatment requirements for waste water that go to
either municipally owned waste water treatment plants, or to
centralized waste treatment facilities. So it is basically--the
water that comes up, should it be pretreated? And if so, at
what level before it goes to either of those waste water
treatment plants?
It has nothing to do with what happens in the well. It has
nothing to do with sort of how that water is taken out. But
rather, whether it needs to be pretreated before it goes to a
municipal plant or a centralized waste treater, and whether
some baseline technology should be applied to that, which is
really irrelevant, in terms of the geology.
Mr. Shuster. My time has run out, but the chairman would
indulge me for one more question, and have Secretary Krancer
comment on what Mr. Hanlon just said, and your view on that.
Mr. Krancer. I am not sure how it fits in, to be honest
with you.
And again, Pennsylvania took care of its POTW, CTW end of
things. The reason we are here today is because EPA was trying
to give us free advice on things we had already done, and we
pointed out to them, hey, instead of commenting on our house,
why don't you get your own house in order on your Federal end,
the ELGs, and that is why we are here.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Mrs. Napolitano. Representative? Do you have
questions?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To Ms. Groome, it is
my understanding that your recent survey found that the
majority, if not all of your members, are currently refusing to
accept fracking fluids at their plants. And is that accurate?
And then I have a followup on that. The Federal Register
says most treatment plants do not have technology to treat
fracking waste water. It also states that, independent of the
Clean Water Act requirements, it is uncommon that sewage plants
have established local limits for the pollutants or parameters
of concern in the shale gas waste water, nor have they
established water quality-based effluent limits for such
parameters.
Then, if you can, give us some examples of other industrial
waste discharges that have had national pretreatment standards
established that have been effective in protecting the
operations of the sewage plant treatment and protecting water
quality. It is a mouthful.
Ms. Groome. Yes, it is. I have been with the city for 35
years, so I was with Greensboro before the pretreatment program
ever began. So I did see all of the categorical standards come
through. So, as I have said in my testimony, nothing prevents a
POTW from taking fracking waste water now, unless the State
itself has prevented it.
The organic chemical industry, for instance, we had several
in Greensboro long before the national pretreatment standard
came out. We had been accepting waste water from them. We had
developed local limits. So you certainly can develop----
Mrs. Napolitano. But has your survey found that most of
them do not want to take that treated waste water, or the waste
water?
Ms. Groome. I think until they can characterize the waste
water, they probably will say no. But we can certainly ask. We
want a complete characterization of this waste water. We will
do studies at our particular treatment plant to see if we can
handle it.
The local limits process can be used for any pollutant. Do
we currently, most of us, have total dissolved solids, local
limits? No. But that does not mean that you cannot use the
local limits process in order to develop them, if you need to.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Re-injecting the waste water, of
course, has some contaminants that, if they put in a truck and
send it down to the waste treatment plants, my understanding is
some of them may not be able to effectively remove all the
contaminants that they are--that they should be required to do.
Ms. Groome. That is indeed true. I think there will be
waste water treatment facilities in this country that cannot
handle fracking waste water without pretreatment. There may be
others that will be able to. A lot of it depends on the size.
There are treatment plants--Chicago's is 1 billion gallons. Of
course there is no fracking going on around there. But a small
treatment plant may not be able to handle it, that is correct.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Stewart asserts
in the testimony that developing an effluent limit guideline
for pretreatment of fracking fluids before they are disposed of
at pretreatment plants would likely be meaningless, because
every well and formation will be so different. And hence,
determining what will be in the fracking fluid will have no
consistency from one well to the next.
But aren't there certain chemicals that are routinely used
in hydraulic fracking--in fracturing that you will be looking
at to determine whether pretreatment standards are warranted?
And, furthermore, aren't there certain effluents, like total
dissolved solids, that we already know to be a problem? And
isn't that why Pennsylvania adopted new regulations related to
fracking waste water, and why the secretary in the department
of environmental protection in the State asked EPA to update
its effluent limit guidelines for total dissolved solids and
bromides for centralized waste treatment plants?
Mr. Hanlon. It is true that the produced water, flow-back
water, from individuals wells are not the same. Basically,
there is a distribution. For example, for total dissolved
solids, the ranges we have seen are as low as 300 and as high
as 345,000 parts per million. Some parameters of that high TDS
waste stream are--some parameters tend to sort of dominant the
TDS profile in Marcellus formation--chlorides for example,
basically salts--tend to be very high, as high as 190,000 parts
per million.
So, there are sort of similarities that we have seen in the
limited data to date, in terms of the flow-back water that
comes from shale gas operations, and that the thinking and the
reason for initiating the process for the guideline--and this
is what the data collection will show us over the next 2 or 3
years, as we develop the proposal--is are there technologies
out there that will provide a consistent, affordable level of
treatment to those flow-back waters prior to their being sent
to either a centralized waste treatment facility or a municipal
plant.
Mrs. Napolitano. And my time is almost--in fact, it has run
out. But has there been any new R&D done on the ability to
utilize whether it is the membranes or other systems to be able
to take care of those new----
Mr. Hanlon. My understanding is the industry is, in fact,
doing that research. EPA is, you know, from a research
standpoint and budget constraints, would not likely be doing
that.
Membranes are very difficult, because at 200, 300 parts per
million, the energy cost for sort of moving water across a
membrane would be very high. In fact, my understanding is, on
site, there are companies using distillation technologies that
basically take the water out, and basically you have a solid
waste, then, that you can send to a landfill, et cetera.
So that is the thought process of--conventionally designed
municipal waste water treatment plants using activated
suspended growth process do not take out the parameters that
are in shale gas flow-back water; all they do is dilute it.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Bucshon?
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think all of us
would agree that we all want clean water, clean air. I just
want to state that upfront.
But what I want to focus my questioning on is timing. And I
guess we have been fracturing for about 60 years. And so I
guess I would ask Mr. Hanlon. It says in here that you--EPA
received a request from Congress in March of 2010 to review
this process. Who requested it, and I--so was it a committee?
Was it a specific Member of Congress? I would like to know who
specifically requested it, and if you have any documentation of
that request being sent to EPA.
Ms. Dougherty. If it is OK, I will answer that question. It
was requested, actually, by EPA's appropriation committee. And
we usually----
Dr. Bucshon. OK, EPA appropriation committee. So that was
the appropriations--who, specifically? It says Congress
requested it, and I want to know----
Ms. Dougherty. Well, it was the appropriation----
Dr. Bucshon. You know, ``Congress'' implies to me that some
Members of Congress thought this was a problem, and they
requested EPA review it.
Ms. Dougherty. I believe it was requested in the fiscal
year 2010 appropriation conference committee report. But it
might have been in other--it might have been the bill language.
But I think it was in the report language.
Dr. Bucshon. OK. Can you----
Ms. Dougherty. It says--I can read it to you. So it is
``The conferees urged the Agency to carry out a study on the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water,
using a credible approach that relies on the best available
science, as well as independent sources of information. The
conferees expect the study to be conducted through a
transparent peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity
and accuracy of the data. The Agency shall consult with other
Federal agencies, as well as appropriate State and interstate
regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, which should be
prepared in accordance with the Agency's quality assurance
principles.''
Dr. Bucshon. OK. So it is in a conference report. Was that
related to a specific bill that was trying to be passed from
the----
Ms. Dougherty. I don't have the bill--the number of the
law. It was the fiscal year 2010 appropriations----
Dr. Bucshon. Because I would be interested in knowing what
that was, and whose--if it was a conference report on a
specific piece of legislation, who sponsored the legislation--
--
Ms. Dougherty. Well----
Dr. Bucshon [continuing]. And who was on the--who were the
conferees----
Mr. Bishop. Doctor----
Mr. Gibbs. Representative, would you yield for a second?
Dr. Bucshon. Yes, yes.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. Bucshon, would you----
Dr. Bucshon. I will yield.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for yielding. Please correct me if I
am wrong, but it was in the energy and water appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2010 conference committee report.
Dr. Bucshon. Yes, OK.
Mr. Bishop. Means it was agreed to by a majority of the
conferees----
Dr. Bucshon. Right.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. And then passed by both chambers.
Dr. Bucshon. Yes, I understand.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry, I just----
Ms. Dougherty. I can get you the----
Mr. Bishop. Not energy and water, interior.
Dr. Bucshon. OK, thank you.
Ms. Dougherty. I will get the----
Dr. Bucshon. And so, with that--OK, I understand that. I
was just--my ears hear that--hear, you know, ``requested by
Congress,'' I want to know more specifically who requested it
and why.
And I guess that leads into my next question, is do you
know--was there--are there specific incident somewhere in the
United States that spurred on this request? I mean is there--it
is again about timing. Because I am--as you probably gather, I
am a little bit skeptical about the timing on some of these
things, as it relates to the Federal EPA in the last--since I
have been here in Congress. So I am trying to see if there is,
you know, some background information to provide the reason why
this was requested, and why the--I guess the conferees, I
suspect, most likely--that don't agree with me on environmental
issues requested it. Is there any--do they have background in
their request?
Ms. Dougherty. I am not aware of specific background
related to that, but I can check for the record----
Dr. Bucshon. So I guess the question begs to why. I mean I
guess--Mr. Hanlon, can you answer that, why EPA--I mean usually
when I do things at my office--and I was a heart surgeon
before--I usually want to know why. Why specifically now? I
mean why do we need--you know.
And it seems like, to me, that you should have the answer
to that, which means--to me it either has to be there was a
specific incident related to a problem related to fracking,
there was evidence of ground water contamination somewhere in
the 50 States, a specific reason why the Federal Government
would all of the sudden decide that it needs to try to usurp
the State's role in regulating their environment in their own
State. I mean I want to know specifically why.
Mr. Hanlon. We are not--I am not aware why Congress put
that request in the appropriations report for EPA to conduct
the study. It was congressional request to the EPA in our
appropriations report. We are very sensitive and responsive to
requests of the appropriations committee.
Dr. Bucshon. OK, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Altmire?
Mr. Altmire. Mr. Hanlon, I am going to ask about the
bromide level in western Pennsylvania waters. There was a
recent Carnegie Mellon University study and others that have
shown an increased level of bromides. Some have equated that in
a cause and effect relationship to the fracking process.
And I wondered if you were prepared to offer an opinion on
is the increased level of bromides in any way related to
hydraulic fracturing? Does that in any way endanger our
drinking water? Is it definitely caused by the fracking? And if
not, does the EPA also monitor other heavy industries and the
release of bromides into the water?
Mr. Hanlon. We are sort of following the issue of bromides
in drinking water. My understanding is that potential sources
of bromides into surface waters include shale gas flow-back
water, mining operations, a potential source of water, as well
as power plants, especially those that are installing flue gas
to de-sulfurization units and the waste water that results from
that.
The complication is that, as bromine increases in surface
waters that then become intake waters for drinking water
treatment plants, it significantly increases the potential for
creating brominated trihalomethanes, which are carcinogens.
They are more toxic than chlorinated trihalomethanes. They are
less volatile. That means sort of when--they are more difficult
to evaporate. And so they are on our radar screen.
I know the States, including Pennsylvania, are looking
closely at these issues.
Mr. Altmire. But do----
Mr. Hanlon. Cynthia and I were in our region three office
in Philadelphia last month and received a briefing in terms of
the work that is ongoing regarding bromine, where it comes
from, to alert drinking water treatment plants to test more
regularly for this, and then to look at enhancements, potential
enhancements, to the drinking water treatment process where
there are elevated levels of bromine in the intake water.
Mr. Altmire. But you listed a whole bunch of things that
could be the cause. Do you think that fracking is one of the
causes?
Mr. Hanlon. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Altmire. When you, the EPA--it probably was not you,
specifically--the EPA testified before the Senate about the
natural gas waste water standards recently, and they were
asked--the witness was asked the reasoning for developing the
standards, and they responded to the Senate that it was because
of a request from Pennsylvania in dealing with the POTW issues.
Pennsylvania, of course, now has a zero discharge standard
on that. So I am wondering if you feel that moving forward with
the request to pursue these standards, given the fact that the
entity that requested you look into this has now made a
decision to no longer do the discharge into the POTWs, if you
think the question is now moot.
Mr. Hanlon. I believe the EPA witness that you refer to is
sitting to my left.
Mr. Altmire. OK. Well, maybe Ms. Dougherty, and then you
could answer the question.
Mr. Hanlon. In that case, basically the decision to
initiate work on an effluent guideline was, in part, responsive
to the position taken by the State of Pennsylvania. Again, my
understanding is that their current policy is to suggest or
encourage that publicly owned treatment works not take shale
gas flow-back water. It is not a regulatory requirement.
And, you know, we have talked about Pennsylvania's
recommendation to POTWs, we have talked about Ohio's ban on
POTWs taking flow-back water. There are dozens of States that
are sort of managing shale gas, shale gas protocols,
production, and flow-back water. And so this isn't a
Pennsylvania-Ohio-West Virginia issue, it is a national issue.
And that is why we made the decision to initiate the
process--again, we are not publishing a proposed regulation
next week--but to collect the data, look at sort of the issues
of where the flow-back water is going, does it in fact pass
through--interfere with the waste water treatment process or
contaminate the biosolids, and if so, what technologies are
available, what are the cost of those technologies, and then
use that to inform a rulemaking process.
Mr. Altmire. Thank you. And lastly, in your opening
statement, your testimony, you say that the study, which you
expect to be out, will include a modeling of potential impacts
to these issues that we are discussing. And I was wondering. Is
one of the impacts that the EPA considers--or do they
consider--jobs created or lost as a result of these
regulations? And when they issue a ruling, do they consider the
economic impact to the community and to the State?
Mr. Hanlon. The reference to the study was--the study that
was, again, done at the request of the appropriations
committee, or the appropriations report, and basically that is
looking--is more focused on hydraulic fracturing fluids and
sort of the water continuum that I described.
The effluent guideline, the regulation that we announced
the initiation of last month, will absolutely consider the
economic impacts. The standard in the Clean Water Act is the
best available technologically economically achievable. And so
those impacts are considered--will be considered in this
deliberation, as they are in every effluent guideline. We have
done technology-specific guidelines for over 50 industrial
categories over the last 35 years, and we have initiated the
process to look at this one.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Mr. Harris?
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much. Mr. Hanlon, let me ask you
a question. The testimony was--I think it was the fiscal year
2010--is that right, the appropriations bill--that had this
language, fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010. Which one was it,
fiscal year 2010?
Do you have any idea how much your budget is lower this
year than the fiscal year 2010 budget in the upcoming year?
Mr. Hanlon. I don't have that number at my fingertips. I
would be happy to get back to you through----
Dr. Harris. It is lower, though, isn't it? Didn't we lower
the EPA budget?
Mr. Hanlon. Currently we are operating at the fiscal year
2011 level under a continuing resolution, as you understand----
Dr. Harris. Sure.
Mr. Hanlon [continuing]. But we expect it to be lower----
Dr. Harris. Lower.
Mr. Hanlon [continuing]. Than it was in fiscal year 2010.
Dr. Harris. So there is really no need to look for work, is
there, over at the EPA?
Mr. Hanlon. We have plenty to do every day.
Dr. Harris. You do, don't you?
Mr. Hanlon. Yes, sir.
Dr. Harris. The language in that appropriations bill, it is
not binding language, is it? It doesn't say the EPA shall do
it--because, actually, I don't think you can do that in an
appropriations bill--but it is not binding language, is it?
Mr. Hanlon. I would have to sort of refer to my general
counsel's office, in terms of----
Dr. Harris. Ms. Dougherty, what is the language--you quoted
the language from the bill. What does it say?
Ms. Dougherty. It says ``the conferees urge the Agency.''
Dr. Harris. Urge. Wow. Secretary Krancer, you are a judge.
If somebody came to a court and said that that implied somehow
that the EPA was forced to do it under the authority of law,
what would you do?
Mr. Krancer. I would have to throw them out----
Dr. Harris. It would be summary judgment, right?
Mr. Krancer. Yes.
Dr. Harris. Because there is no--it says ``urge.'' Why is
the EPA looking for work to do when your budget is being cut,
and this language is clearly not mandatory language?
In fact, you said it is being responsive to the
appropriation committee request. That is what the EPA likes to
do. Did the current appropriation committee put any similar
language, perhaps even more binding language, in this year's
appropriation bill coming out of this appropriation committee,
which, I assume, is the one you would be most like to be
responsive to?
Mr. Hanlon. I am not aware of a similar request in the--if
this was in the fiscal year 2010 language--in the fiscal year
2011 language.
Dr. Harris. Sure.
Mr. Hanlon. The fiscal year 2012 process is pending. And--
--
Dr. Harris. It is not--I will cut to the chase. It is not
in the bill.
Ms. Dougherty. Well, but----
Mr. Hanlon. Across the board, we are responsible----
Dr. Harris. So we have--what we have is we have a situation
where EPA is obviously looking to create work to do when their
budget is being cut. This is fascinating. Because I am going to
ask the question that I asked before. Anybody on this panel
know of a documented case of contamination of drinking water by
the hydrofracturing technique?
[No response.]
Dr. Harris. I don't see a yes anywhere on the panel. There
are--Chair Murphy, 100,000 instances nationwide of
hydrofracturing, 200,000, 300,000? How many do you think? How
many wells have been hydrofractured in the U.S.?
Ms. Murphy. I can speak to my State, and my State is close
to 100,000.
Dr. Harris. Oh, 100,000. So let's say it is a 200,000,
300,000, 400,000, 500,000 wells----
Mr. Stewart. 1.2 million.
Dr. Harris. 1.2 million wells. Now, in medicine this is
called post-marketing surveillance, when you look for things
that have happened in something that looks like it appears to
be safe, like in the case of a drug. So you have administered
1.2 million treatments, and you are telling me there is not a
single case? Now, even the FDA, which some people have problems
with, too, would take no action against something where you had
1.2 million applications and nothing happening.
Now, Mr. Hanlon, you know I just love it when people come
here and say there is radiation going on, and there is bromine,
and things like this that just sound terrible. Isn't bromine a
swimming pool chemical? Mr. Hanlon, isn't it used in swimming
pools that my children go in to swim in?
And I am going to ask you a specific question, because you
are all about clean water.
Mr. Hanlon. Bromine is----
Dr. Harris. What is the level in the hydrofracturing fluid
that comes out, compared to the swimming pool level? It is a
simple question. You said that you are all concerned. You have
got to have bromine levels on this stuff. And I know my kids
swim in swimming pools with bromine in it. Can you get back to
me on what the level is in a swimming pool, compared to what it
is in a hydrofracturing fluid that comes out of a
hydrofractured well?
Mr. Hanlon. We would be happy----
Dr. Harris. Just to justify, you know, how you are going to
spend a whole lot of taxpayer dollars looking at bromine,
because it is just fascinating to me. I mean, given the setting
we have.
The Duke paper--I think Secretary Krancer--was it--did
you--one of you had referenced the Duke paper in your
testimony. Is it true that they would not reveal the locations
of their--of the sources of their samples?
Mr. Krancer. That is a tremendously timely question. I have
said in the past that they have treated what they have done,
where they have done it, their data, kind of like a Mike
Krzyzewski game plan, that's secret. And of course I think I
read the other day that Mike Krzyzewski just won his whatever-
thousandth game.
Dr. Harris. Sure.
Mr. Krancer. They have been very, very secretive. It has
been like trying to get information from the CIA.
Dr. Harris. Well, that is pretty interesting. Because, like
the CIA, they actually get Federal funding to do some of this
work. And, you know, the taxpayers, if they are going to spend
money on things, I think they do deserve to know that. As a
scientist, I think it is unbelievable that a group purporting
to do scientific, carefully done research, which is frequently
quoted, would not be willing to share that data.
Anyway, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of
issues, obviously, dealing with fracking. And I thank all of
you for coming. You spent a lot of time in travel and
preparation, and I thank you for all your written materials and
your oral testimony and answering questions. I am sure this is
the most fun part of your day at any point, is coming to talk
to a congressional committee on it.
Let me just go through just a couple questions, just to
pull some additional information out.
Mr. Hanlon, you had mentioned before just--the EPA and the
study, and I understand all the study and the background, and
some of those things on it. Have you been to a frack site
before, personally, to walk around on a frack site?
Mr. Hanlon. I have personally never been to a frack site.
My staff has.
Mr. Lankford. OK. That would be helpful, to walk around and
get a chance to see. And I would just encourage you to walk
around on it. When you go to a frack site and you see the
operation, the group of professionals that are there, and the
way the water is handled, and the transition of it, I think it
will be very enlightening. So I would encourage you to go and
to watch the process, as it works its way through.
You listed off five areas--and I am going to go to a
different area, because I was going to ask you about several
things, but since you haven't been to a frack site, I am not
going to ask you about those things--but you listed five areas:
the acquisition of the water, the mix of the chemicals, the
injection, the flow-back, and the waste water.
There are a couple areas in here. Obviously, when you are
dealing with the water that gets into a drinking water source,
and as it moves into a stream, or if it is just taken out of
the well and dumped straight into someplace, obviously that
would cause major concerns. That is not what is happening at
this point.
In 2005, Congress did enact a law that excluded hydraulic
fracking in the permitting, in the safe drinking water, except
in a couple areas. One is diesel is used. Do you know if diesel
is still being used in many hydraulic fracking jobs, or what
percentage of jobs are still using diesel? Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Dougherty. I don't know percentage, but we do know that
diesel fuel is being used in hydraulic fracturing fluid from
statements that have been made by--in public forums by--or in
public discussions with members of the industry and other
information. It has been----
Mr. Lankford. So--but in the study of this, are you
limiting your study to only those that use the diesel fuel as a
part of it, or is your study for every area? Because I
understand the diesel fuel is a restriction----
Ms. Dougherty. I believe that the study is for hydraulic
fracturing, overall, and the use----
Mr. Lankford. OK.
Ms. Dougherty [continuing]. And the water cycle related to
hydraulic fracturing, overall.
Mr. Lankford. So, because safe drinking water--because it
specifically notes that it is excluded from that, from
regulating it unless it uses diesel, but the study is studying
all of it. And so is the hope that they will come back to
Congress and say, ``We have done this study, here is this
information, Congress. If you want us to regulate these areas,
here are the information,'' and assume there will be new laws
that will be passed on that? Because I am trying to figure
out--if there is not an assumption you are going to do a study
and begin regulations when it has been specifically excluded in
the law.
Ms. Dougherty. Well, there are two different--we might be
getting confused. There is a study that will be done in terms
of collecting information related to the effluent guideline
that Jim Hanlon has been talking about.
Mr. Lankford. Right.
Ms. Dougherty. But the study that our research office is
doing is related to the use of water and hydraulic fracturing,
and the impact on drinking water resources.
Mr. Lankford. Right----
Mr. Hanlon. We understand----
Ms. Dougherty. And so they are looking overall----
Mr. Hanlon [continuing]. The results of that study could
not result in a regulation of injection, but for the diesel
exclusion.
Mr. Lankford. Right.
Mr. Hanlon. Basically, that is excluded by the 2005 law,
and we understand that.
Mr. Lankford. Correct. So the study assumes that you are
going to provide information and research, but not new
regulations based on that----
Ms. Dougherty. Yes.
Mr. Lankford [continuing]. Because of the exclusion?
Ms. Dougherty. Yes.
Mr. Lankford. OK. The peer review that is in the statement
as well that is from the fiscal year 2010 appropriations piece,
it does, you know, obviously encourage. But it also says it
must be scientifically based and peer reviewed. How is EPA
fulfilling that peer review? Are you allowing industry, outside
watchdog groups, environmentalist groups, to be able to tag
along when a study is done at various--do you all take a
sample, they take a sample?
I raise the assumption at the end of the day, when the
study is released, you allow people to be able to review it.
That peer review, how is that being fulfilled currently?
Ms. Dougherty. I--it is probably better to get some
information for you for the record. But the Agency is going
through a significant process to make sure we do peer review at
many different steps.
We did a peer review with the scientific advisory board of
the Agency and took public comments on the initial draft study
plan. We are doing, under our normal quality assurance
requirements, quality assurance project plans for each of the
pieces of the study, including the case studies that are being
done. Some of the prospective case studies are being done in
concert with industry, because we have got to do it at----
Mr. Lankford. Sure.
Ms. Dougherty [continuing]. A well where they are doing
work. The retrospective will be laying out the information.
But--and we have been discussing the plans with landowners and
State and local and industry representatives. But I believe we
will be as transparent as we can be, but we won't be having
industry necessarily follow us around as we do our work.
Mr. Lankford. Great. Is that--Mr. Chairman, could I request
this committee request of EPA that there is a--the peer review
portion of this, that that is something they submit back to us,
what the process is, and how the transparency--and I appreciate
the openness and the transparency on that, but that we get the
actual document that shows the peer review process, and how
that is being fulfilled, just as a part of our oversight role?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, we will request that.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Dougherty, you have to leave at noon, and
you are excused, and thank you for being here.
At this time, Ms. Beutler, do you have questions?
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is
pretty simple, and I kind of smile because I am sitting in
between two doctors, like a heart surgeon and a--I mean this is
a simple question, which I am sure anyone here can answer. But
it would help me understand.
You know, in the move to look at possibly requiring a
pretreatment standard before it goes to a POTW--and what I was
hearing was, well, what if a--this potable water is driven to
Virginia or outside of Pennsylvania or, you know, who knows--
maybe they want to drive it to Washington State, probably get
sent back at the border.
But does a POTW not have the ability to say we can't or
won't treat that, go somewhere else? And wouldn't someone who
is driving that water, right, who is probably with the company
who is doing the fracturing, say, ``Hey, maybe we should figure
out where we are going to take this''? Isn't that kind of
pretty--I would assume that is somewhat prearranged. You know
you are taking it somewhere where they can handle what you are
going to take. Is that way beyond----
Mr. Krancer. Well, let me take a shot at that. I think you
are essentially--maybe more than essentially--very correct.
POTWs, CTWs have certain permit limits that they must meet, and
they must meet them. So whatever comes in on the outside has to
meet the permit limits. So, ergo say in Pennsylvania, for
example, we now have the new total dissolved solids regulations
that apply to this particular waste stream, 500 milligrams per
liter. So, whatever goes in has to be able to meet 500
milligrams per liter on the way out.
Now, those folks who are taking it in will know whether it
can or can't. And if it can't, then that is a no-no, and they
are not supposed to do that. That is the way the system works.
So I think you have very accurately described it, as far as I
can see.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So if a State has a concern about the
level or quality of this waste water, they could simply choose
to not allow it to be disposed of in their--in a facility or in
their locality?
Ms. Groome. Yes, and the State does not have to be the one
that makes that determination. Each local municipality has the
authority, just as you said, to say, ``No, we are too small to
take it, we haven't done those studies that we need to, to
determine whether we can,'' so you are absolutely----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Or even, ``We don't like this, we
don't like fracking, we don't like what you're doing, go
somewhere else,'' right?
Ms. Groome. Certainly. You can----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. OK.
Mr. Stewart. You want some followup on that? In the State
of Ohio it has been the law since 1985 that all produced water
from oil and gas production that include flow-back must go down
to a class two well, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and as regulated by the Ohio department of natural resources,
under their primacy agreement with U.S. EPA.
There has been one POTW facility that set up in the city of
Warren that was taking waters from the State of Pennsylvania,
operating under a permit issued by Ohio EPA. That permit has
been withdrawn. It is somewhat controversial. The industry in
the State of Ohio supports the disposal of produced waters down
class two wells. But wee have great formations to take it, and
we have a regulatory structure backed up by delegation to
support the development of that resource.
Other States are not as fortunate on that, and they need
flexibility in the ability to manage this in order for this
play to develop. Pennsylvania finds themselves in that
situation.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I just got a couple more questions
for Mr. Hanlon. You know, it sounds like the EPA is moving
forward on a number of activities. Obviously, there is the
studies and potential rules and guidances. Are there any other
initiatives that you can talk about that might be underway by
the EPA you can kind of briefly outline what the thinking is
moving forward, in regard to oil and shale gas extraction?
Mr. Hanlon. We have talked about the effluent guideline, we
have talked about the study--I am going by our office of
research and development and response to the appropriations
request. The written testimony summarizes a set of questions
and answers that we issued in March, in terms of how does shale
gas work within the construct of the NPDS program, both
pretreatment and the regular sort of base program, so that is
out and available on our Web site.
We are--and I mentioned in the testimony--we are working on
two other guidance documents related to Clean Water Act
responsibilities, one guidance for permit writers--again, this
is voluntary guidance that says if you are writing a permit for
a centralized waste treatment facility, if you are writing a
permit for a publicly owned treatment works, here are the kind
of questions you should be asking to EPA and State permit
writers, as they are dealing with this relatively unique waste
stream.
Again, in the southwest, in Oklahoma and Texas, permit
writers haven't dealt with this because they have all gone down
disposal wells. So, in areas where the option is being actively
considered in terms of whether POTWs should take this stuff,
what should be the questions that are asked. So that is one
guidance document.
And the other one is sort of as we develop the pretreatment
regulation, the Clean Water Act requires that in the meantime,
until there is--in the instance there is not a national
regulation, basically there is a decision process laid out
under current regulations that has been there for 30 years,
where permit writers make sort of best professional judgment
decisions in terms of whether any pretreatment should be
required on a case-by-case basis. And so that is the second
guidance document we are working on that was covered in the
testimony.
Mr. Gibbs. What is your thought on how you kind of work
with the States and stakeholders? Do you have public hearings?
I am concerned about having duplicative regulations and cost to
stakeholders in the industry that is going to stifle the
development.
I have a bill working on pesticides, and duplicate
regulation is really, it is a problem. What is U.S. EPA's
intent working with the States and working collaboratively, and
stakeholders?
Mr. Hanlon. Again, the target audience for those two items
of guidance are the State and regional permit writers. So,
basically, we will be consulting with them as the guidance is
developed.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Another question, quickly. I understand that
the EPA's Federal authorities are developing best management
practices for controlling erosion and sediment from storm water
runoff at oil and gas drilling sites under construction. What
is the EPA's planning with respect to storm water and sediment
controls? Are you planning to do guidances--States are
implementing certain things; what is happening in that area?
Mr. Hanlon. A number of years ago--and I believe it was the
2005 Energy Policy Act exempted oil and gas exploration and
production activities from storm water regulation.
Mr. Gibbs. That is correct.
Mr. Hanlon. And so, basically, that exemption is in place,
except that--and there were two exceptions--to the extent that
runoff from an oil and gas construction site results in a
violation of a State water quality standard. And the State sets
a standard. If there is a violation of a standard, then
basically that site is in violation--is discharging in
violation of the Clean Water Act.
Or, if there is a discharge that results in a reportable
quantity of a constituent of production--so if there is an oil
sheen, some of the oil is getting out and getting into the
creek, then basically that is also not covered by the
exemption. We are not--you know, as a matter of course--and we
have sort of dealt with oil and gas construction sites across
the country--there aren't issues.
My understanding--and I talked to our water director in
region three in Philadelphia this morning--they have done a
series of inspections sort of in the Mid-Atlantic region, and
they have visited a number of sites where the well pad itself
is constructed in the stream bed. I would suggest that if they
have done that, there was probably runoff as they were
constructing that into the stream that probably violated State
water quality standards.
Again, I wasn't there, I didn't observe that. But if that
happened, then I think we would--I would sort of assert that
sort of that is a violation, and that site would not enjoy the
exemption.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Stewart, do you have any comments on that?
Do you have any issues in Ohio with site selection with the
EPA, in regard to storm water runoff?
Mr. Stewart. There was two instances in the State of Ohio
as the shale was getting underway last year, in which an
operator had a location that was very approximate to a stream.
They violated the law, they were cited, and faced censure by
both the department of natural resources and Ohio EPA.
Mr. Gibbs. So State regulation in place took care of the
problem. I thought so.
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Mr. Hanlon. Just, again, a clarification on that point. In
an example like that, both Ohio and Pennsylvania are authorized
to implement the NPDS program. That would be a discharge in
violation of the Clean Water Act. As I said earlier, those
States would take appropriate Clean Water Act actions.
Mr. Gibbs. I've got one final question, I guess.
The EPA's regional offices, they have authority to develop
their own policies and guidance under the Clean Water Act. Do
they have that authority?
Mr. Hanlon. The Clean Water Act--and I have sort of said
this publicly many times--was elegant in its design. So the
designers back in the early 1970s, I think, came up with very
elegant design. It is tedious in its implementation, there are
a lot of moving parts. And so it is common that regional
offices, when they work with States, will basically deal with,
sort of on a State by State, sort of site by site basis,
interpretation of the statute, of the regulations, and of
national guidance that is----
Mr. Gibbs. Do you know of any specific examples of any
regional offices taking steps related to this issue?
Mr. Hanlon. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I yield to Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I will
be brief. I thank you all.
I just want to thank you, Mr. Hanlon, for responding on
behalf of the EPA to the interior committee conferees request
that you conduct a study. And I understand that we did not use
the highest order of imperative there. We did not say
``shall.''
But we hear routinely from our friends on the other side of
the aisle about faceless Washington-based bureaucrats
arrogating to themselves authority that they do not have or
ought not to exercise. If we are at the point where these same
faceless Washington-based bureaucrats are going to arrogate to
themselves the authority to ignore the clearly express will of
the Congress, such will being a bipartisan expressed will of
the Congress, then we are in a sorry state of affairs, indeed.
So, I thank you on behalf of the EPA for responding to that
request.
And I also just--again, I don't think any one of us ought
to fear data. You are conducting a study on drinking water--by
the way, not the subject of this hearing--you are conducting a
study on drinking water, which will be presumably based in
sound collection of data. And your effluent guidelines work
right now is, right now, engaged in the compilation of data.
That is something that we all ought to welcome. We ought not to
speak disparagingly about it. We ought not to fear it. We ought
to welcome it. And I thank you for conducting it. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Just one final comment. I think data is
important, to collect the data and make sure it is done in a
scientifically way--based way. I think the purpose of this
hearing was to bring out in the open to make sure that the U.S.
EPA and their respective State EPAs can work collaboratively,
and we can develop this natural resource.
And it is a huge economic boom in job creation, and it is a
national security issue because we spend almost $1 trillion
overseas for oil, and we don't really need to be doing that.
And we have a huge opportunity that is in our lifetimes to
experience--especially in my area in Ohio, with the Utica
shale, we are really excited about it.
And, you know, I am confident--it was good to hear the
regulators from Oklahoma and Pennsylvania stating the
experiences they are having, the excellent environmental record
that they have had to protect the environment, and we can move
forward, I think. But I want to make sure that the Federal
regulators are doing their part to not have duplicative
regulations, duplicative costs, and making sure that they are
doing their--I think the Clean Water Act is supposed to be
implemented by the States under the auspices, authority,
oversight, of the Federal Government, but let the States do
their thing. If they are doing their thing, let's let it
happen. And that is what I think----
Mr. Bishop. Very quickly, I hope this is not going to be
hard, since it is just you and me left, but I am asking for
unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the
San Juan Citizens Alliance regarding this issue.
Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1234.013

Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. And again, I want to thank the witnesses for
coming and preparing. And we look forward to developing these
resources.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]