[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEW OF FEDERAL HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY &
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-564 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas JOE KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ZOE LOFGREN, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY WEBER,Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. CHRIS STEWART, Utah, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
Wisconsin JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia MARK TAKANO, California
RANDY WEBER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Friday, April 26, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 16
Written Statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 18
Written Statement............................................ 19
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 20
Written Statement............................................ 20
Witnesses:
Dr. Kevin Teichman, Senior Science Advisor, Office of Research
and Development, Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 24
Mr. Guido DeHoratiis, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oil
and Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Dr. David Russ, Regional Executive, Northeast Area, U.S.
Geological Survey
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Dr. Robin Ikeda, Acting Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Department of Health and Human Services
Oral Statement............................................... 46
Written Statement............................................ 48
Discussion....................................................... 58
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Kevin Teichman, Senior Science Advisor, Office of Research
and Development, Environmental Protection Agency............... 76
Mr. Guido DeHoratiis, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oil
and Gas, Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy......... 82
Dr. David Russ, Regional Executive, Northeast Area, U.S.
Geological Survey.............................................. 90
Dr. Robin Ikeda, Acting Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Department of Health and Human Services...... 93
REVIEW OF FEDERAL HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia
Lummis [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Energy] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Lummis. Good morning. We are small in number, but
mighty in commitment this morning. We welcome you to this
morning's hearing. It is a ``Review of Federal Hydraulic
Fracturing Research Activities.'' This is the fourth meeting of
the Energy Subcommittee this Congress, and today we welcome our
friends from the Environment Subcommittee to discuss this cross
cutting issue. Some of them are still at a classified briefing
on Syria and North Korea. We expect them to join us any minute.
The reason we are starting on time and not waiting for them is
we are tremendously time-constrained this morning due to votes
coming up, and we want to have an opportunity to take advantage
of the expertise you are providing here today.
A primary recurring theme from our earlier hearings, which
focused on energy markets and related technology subsidies, was
the incredible transformation of the U.S. energy sector as a
result of hydraulic fracturing-enabled shale production.
So today we are building on this theme and drilling down
into the science of hydraulic fracturing. Pun intended.
In April of 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order
creating a senior level task force charged with coordinating
Federal actions related to the development of unconventional
natural gas. Concurrent with the President's announcement, EPA,
DOE, and the Department of Interior signed a memorandum of
understanding committing to development of an interagency plan
to guide implementation of the Administration's $45 million
budget request to study environmental impacts associated with
unconventional oil and gas production.
The agencies committed to release a draft of the research
plan by October of last year, and to complete the final plan by
January of this year. Today, a year after the President's
original announcement, the Administration has not even released
a draft version of its plan for public comment.
So Congress and the public have very few details regarding
the Administration's ongoing activities in this area. In
addition to last year's $45 million request, the President is
seeking an additional $38 million in Fiscal Year 2014. Our
concerns regarding these activities are simple and
straightforward: before Congress redirects tens of millions of
dollars for this research effort, the Administration must tell
us what it wants to spend the money on.
Bringing sunlight to these activities is especially
important, given the Administration's terrible track record of
unsubstantiated allegations when it comes to hydraulic
fracturing. Pavillion, which is in my home State of Wyoming, is
at the center of this storm. In late 2011, EPA put Pavillion in
the national spotlight with a ``draft'' report implying that
fracking was somehow responsible for the quality of water in
the areas near town.
However, in the days and weeks that followed this
announcement, the State of Wyoming, industry, and other Federal
agencies exposed EPA's study as deeply flawed. Former
Administrator Jackson even admitted to me during questioning at
another committee that the EPA was not confident it had
discovered groundwater contamination in Pavillion related to
fracking. And she further said we have definitely not
discovered it in ground--rather, in drinking water.
Given its serious flaws, I have called on the agency to
abandon the report and return to a collaborative effort with
the State of Wyoming on how to resolve these issues around
Pavillion. The people of Pavillion deserve resolution, and the
State of Wyoming deserves deference for the hard work it has
done to ensure that oil and gas development in our state is
done safely. I certainly plan to follow-up with EPA and ensure
that they get it.
Policymaking related to fracking should be driven by open
public debate based on peer-reviewed science, not political
agendas. That is why we are here today, to ensure the
Administration's fracking-related research activities are
appropriate, balanced, and transparent.
On a related note, I do want to express frustration with
the lack of cooperation from EPA in planning this hearing. More
than 4 weeks ago, we invited Bob Sussman to testify at this
hearing on behalf of the agency, and despite this extended
advance notice, and Mr. Sussman's role as EPA's senior policy
representative on the interagency group that we are here to
discuss, the agency refused to allow him to participate or to
provide an explanation for its refusal. And we appreciate Dr.
Teichman--now did I pronounce that correctly? We do appreciate
your presence here today. But EPA's lack of cooperation is just
unacceptable, and only raises further questions regarding the
agency's transparency and ultimate intentions regarding
fracking.
I do, again, want to thank all of our witnesses for being
here, and look forward to today's discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Chairman Cynthia Lummis
Chairman Lummis: Good morning and welcome to this morning's
hearing, A Review of Federal Hydraulic Fracturing Research Activities.
This is the fourth meeting of the Energy Subcommittee this
Congress, and today we welcome our friends from the Environment
Subcommittee to discuss this cross-cutting issue. A primary recurring
theme from our earlier hearings--which focused on energy markets and
related technology subsidies--was the incredible transformation of the
U.S. energy sector as a result of hydraulic fracturing-enabled shale
production.
Today we will build on this theme by (figuratively) drilling down
into the science of hydraulic fracturing.
In April of 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order
creating a senior level task force charged with coordinating federal
actions related to development of unconventional natural gas.
Concurrent with the President's announcement, EPA, DOE, and the
Department of Interior signed a memorandum of understanding committing
to develop an interagency plan to guide implementation of the
Administration's $45 million budget request to study environmental
impacts associated with unconventional oil and gas production.
The agencies committed to release a draft of the research plan by
October 2012 and complete the final plan by January 2013. Today, a year
after the President's original announcement, the Administration has not
even released a draft version of it plan for public comment.
Consequently, Congress and the public have very few details
regarding the Administration's ongoing activities in this area. In
addition to last year's $45 million request, the President is seeking
an additional $38 million in fiscal year 2014. Our concerns regarding
these activities are simple and straightforward: before Congress
redirects tens of millions of dollars for this research effort, the
Administration must tell us what it wants to spend this money on.
Bringing sunlight to these activities is especially important given
the Administration's embarrassing track record of unsubstantiated
allegations when it comes to hydraulic fracturing. Pavillion, a small
town in my state of Wyoming, is at the center of this storm. In late
2011, EPA put Pavillion in the national spotlight with a ``draft''
report implying that fracking was somehow responsible for the quality
of water in the areas near town.
However, in the days and weeks that followed this announcement, the
State of Wyoming, industry, and other federal agencies exposed EPA's
study as deeply flawed. Former Administrator Jackson even admitted to
me during questioning at another committee that the EPA was not
confident it had discovered groundwater contamination in Pavillion
related to fracking.
Given its serious flaws, I have called on the Agency to abandon the
report and return to a collaborative effort with the State of Wyoming
on how to resolve the issues around Pavillion. The people of Pavillion
deserve resolution, and the State of Wyoming deserves deference for the
hard work it has done to ensure that oil and gas development in our
state is done safely. I certainly plan to follow-up with EPA to ensure
they get it.
Policymaking related to fracking should be driven by open public
debate based on peer-reviewed science, not political agendas. That is
why we are here today--to ensure the Administration's fracking--related
research activities are appropriate, balanced, and transparent.
On a related note, I want to express my great frustration with the
lack of cooperation from EPA in planning this hearing. More than four
weeks ago, we invited Bob Sussman to testify at this hearing on behalf
of the agency. Despite this extended advance notice, and Mr. Sussman's
role as EPA's senior policy representative on the interagency group we
are here to discuss, the Agency refused to allow him to participate or
even provide an explanation for its refusal. While we appreciate Dr.
Teichman's presence here today, EPA's lack of cooperation is
unacceptable, and only raises further questions regarding the agency's
transparency and ultimate intentions regarding fracking.
I thank our witnesses for being here, and look forward to today's
discussion.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, for
five minutes.
Chairman Lummis. And now I would like to recognize the
gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, for five minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing
today, and I also want to thank our witnesses for being here. I
appreciate the opportunity to examine the important topic of
hydraulic fracturing, often called fracking, in greater detail.
I agree with those who say that when it comes to our
country's energy resources, we should take an all-of-the-above
approach to energy production. The emerging natural gas boom
obviously provides an exciting opportunity for our Nation, not
to mention California, my state, to create jobs and diversity
energy options for both consumers and industry over the next
several years. I believe that wherever it is possible, if we
can make it environmentally safe, we can make it happen.
However, when it comes to fracking, I believe we need to
proceed with extreme caution. We have to be careful that if we
are to extract this resource safely without inadvertently
polluting either our drinking water or the environment, and in
California, of particular concern is what fracking can do to
cause earthquakes or to activate or reactivate previous fault
lines. It would be very short-sighted to produce energy in
California via fracking, only to find out later that it could
cause such damage, which also means that maybe perhaps fracking
may be better for one state than it is for anther, and that is
also a conversation and a topic I am interested in exploring
further.
But for that reason alone, it is imperative that we know as
much now as early as possible about what fracking can to do our
fault lines in California before pursuing short term gains. And
this is why I think this multi-agency effort is so important,
and I applaud President Obama and the Administration for
leveraging its diverse areas of expertise to determine the best
practices for hydraulic fracturing going forward.
I understand that the agencies testifying today have met
their internal goal of submitting a draft plan before the end
of 2012, and the final plan is now in the last stages of
coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.
In the meantime, this draft has already informed the
President's budget request for each of these agencies, and the
important research priorities that you have collectively
identified are being addressed, even before the release of the
final report, as you continue to work in close coordination
with each other.
I look forward to learning more about each of your efforts,
discussing these important issues with you today, and reviewing
the final report.
And with that said, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swalwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Ranking Member Eric Swalwell
Thank you Chairman Lummis and Chairman Stewart for holding this
hearing today, and I also want to thank the witnesses for being here. I
appreciate the opportunity to examine the important topic of hydraulic
fracturing, often called fracking, in greater detail.
I agree with those who say we need an ``all of the above'' approach
to energy production. The emerging natural gas boom obviously provides
an exciting opportunity for our nation--not to mention California--to
create jobs and diversify energy options for both consumers and
industry over the next several years.
That said, when it comes to fracking, we need to proceed with
extreme caution. We have to be careful that we extract this resource
safely, without inadvertently polluting either our drinking water or
the environment. Of particular concern to Californians is the
possibility that hydraulic fracturing might cause earthquakes. It would
be very short-sighted to produce energy via fracking only to find out
later that it caused such damage.
This is why I think this multi-agency effort is so important, and I
applaud President Obama and his Administration for leveraging its
diverse areas of expertise to determine the best practices for
hydraulic fracturing going forward.
I understand that the agencies testifying today have met their
internal goal of submitting a draft plan before the end of 2012, and
the final plan is now in the last stages of coordination with the
Office of Management and Budget.
In the meantime, this draft has already informed the President's
budget request for each of these agencies, and the important research
priorities that you've collectively identified are being addressed even
before the release of the final report as you continue to work in close
coordination with each other.
I look forward to learning more about each of your efforts,
discussing these important issues with you today, and reviewing the
final report.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. And as you know,
this is a joint hearing so the Chair now recognizes the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Mr. Stewart, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome to the
witnesses. Thank you for your being with us today, and to the
Chair, thanks again for holding this hearing on what I think is
a very important issue.
Unconventional oil and gas development enabled by hydraulic
fracking is a rare bright spot in our otherwise gloomy economy
over the last few years. Given the importance of this issue, I
too am disappointed that the EPA declined to send the witness
we had invited, Mr. Bob Sussman, the Senior Policy Counsel to
the EPA Administrator, to testify. While I hope the Agency had
a good reason for its refusal to make Mr. Sussman available,
they did not share this reason with us, and that troubles me. I
think it invites suspicion and it begs to be answered why. I
can only hope that this will prove to be an exception rather
than a trend. This is especially concerning, as EPA's past and
ongoing hydraulic fracturing studies and investigations
demonstrate a cart-before-the-horse approach to the science
that should make members think seriously about whether a blank
check for the Administration is good policy.
The shale gas revolution has not only brightened our
economic prospects and created sorely needed jobs, it has
strengthened our energy security. And as a former Air Force
pilot and officer, I understand how important that is, as I am
sure do most of you. Thanks to fracking, the U.S. is now poised
to surpass Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's largest oil
and gas producer in just the next few years. This could
dramatically alter the geopolitical landscape to the great
benefit of American interests.
Yesterday, we held a hearing to examine the science of
climate change. And whatever one's position is on this issue,
there is no denying that fracking is helping drive reductions
in carbon emissions. U.S. greenhouse emission gasses are at
their lowest level since 1994, and have dropped 12 percent
since 2005. In fact, from 2005 to 2011, the U.S. decreased its
carbon dioxide output more than any other nation, including
those countries that have implemented aggressive green energy
agendas, such as Germany and Spain. In light of these facts, it
is both ironic and troubling that many of the most passionate
advocates for action on climate change also oppose fracking. I
wish that I understood this, but frankly, I don't.
This should give pause to the EPA and any other agency that
seeks to hinder the development of our unconventional natural
gas resources. To do so not only negatively impacts our
economy, but it increases emissions and undercuts major
advances toward energy security. Rather than search for
problems that do not exist, the EPA and this Administration
should recognize that shale gas is a solution. It is not the
problem. Production, not regulation, has led to a reduction in
greenhouse gases, and market forces, not restrictions, quotas,
and carbon trading schemes, those are the things that have
positioned the U.S. as a global leader in oil and gas
production. Again, market forces, not restrictions.
I again thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I
look forward to your testimony. I hope that you recognize, as I
do, that searching for a problem as a pretext for regulation
rather than focusing on the science is a waste of time and a
waste of resources, and it runs counter to all of our
interests, as well as to the national interest.
And with that, I thank the gentlelady for the opportunity
to be here, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Environment
Chairman Chris Stewart
Good morning and welcome to today's joint Energy and Environment
Subcommittee hearing, A Review of Federal Hydraulic Fracturing
Research. I want to thank Chairman Lummis for holding a hearing with me
on this important issue.
Unconventional oil and gas development enabled by hydraulic
fracturing is a rare bright spot in our otherwise gloomy economy over
the last few years. Given the importance of this issue, I too am
disappointed that the EPA declined to send the witness we had invited,
Mr. Bob Sussman, the Senior Policy Counsel to the EPA Administrator, to
testify. While I hope the Agency had a good reason for its refusal to
make Mr. Sussman available, they did not share this reason with us. I
can only hope this will prove to be an exception rather than a trend.
This is especially concerning, as EPA's past and ongoing hydraulic
fracturing studies and investigations demonstrate a cart-before-the-
horse approach to the science that should make Members think seriously
about whether a blank check for the Administration is a good policy.
The shale gas revolution has not only brightened our economic
prospects and created sorely needed jobs, it has strengthened our
energy security. Thanks to fracking, the U.S. is now poised to surpass
Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's largest oil and gas producer in
the next few years. This could dramatically alter the geopolitical
landscape to the great benefit of American interests.
Yesterday, we held a hearing to examine the science of climate
change. Whatever one's position on this issue, there is no denying that
fracking is helping drive reductions in carbon emissions. U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions are at their lowest level since 1994, and have
dropped 12 percent since 2005. In fact, from 2005 to 2011, the U.S.
decreased its carbon dioxide output more than any other nation,
including those countries that have implemented aggressive green energy
agendas, such as Germany and Spain. In light of these facts, it is both
ironic and troubling that many of the most passionate advocates for
action on climate change also oppose fracking.
This should give pause to the EPA and any other agency that seeks
to hinder the development of our unconventional natural gas resources.
To do so would not only negatively impact our economy, but increase
emissions and undercut major advances toward energy security. Rather
than search for problems that do not exist, the EPA and this
Administration should recognize that shale gas is a solution rather
than a problem. Production, not regulation, has led to a reduction in
greenhouse gases, and market forces, not restrictions, quotas, or
carbon trading schemes, have positioned the U.S. as a global leader in
oil and gas production.
I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and look forward to
their testimony. I hope they recognize, as I do, that searching for
problems as a pretext for regulation rather than focusing on the
science is a waste of time, a waste of resources, and runs counter to
the national interest.
I thank the gentlelady, and I yield back.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chair Lummis and Chair
Stewart, for holding this hearing. I am pleased to have
representatives from the Federal agencies appearing before the
joint Subcommittees today to discuss their multi-agency plan to
research hydraulic fracturing and unconventional oil and gas.
Hydraulic fracturing has led to a significant expansion of
drilling for gas and oil in the United States, unlocking huge
natural gas reserves that have reduced the cost of natural gas
domestically and resulted in economic improvement across many
industries. The successful development in application of this
technology, however, has been accompanied by an insufficient
understanding of the potential impacts that hydraulic
fracturing, or fracking, might have on our environment and our
health. The debate about environmental health and human safety
issues has escalated as we have heard concerns related to
groundwater contamination, induced seismicity events--and I
share Mr. Swalwell's concerns as someone who has constituents
along the Cascadia's adduction zone--well integrity and
potential negative impacts to the health of workers, just to
name a few.
According to the Energy Information Administration, it is
estimated that shale gas will supply almost 50 percent of our
gas in 20 years. If that prediction is accurate, it is even
more critical that this boom in natural gas production be
accompanied by a clear development of best practices to
identify and curb potential negative impacts.
It is my hope that the multi-agency research plan will
address these very important questions in order to ensure the
continued prosperity of the industry, while preserving the
health and safety of the general public.
Hydraulic fracturing emerged as a commercial success in
large part because of Federal investment in fracking
technologies. The success the government had in aiding the
fracking industry is an example of how public-private
partnerships can work to advance science and engineering, and
turn nascent technologies into an economic driver.
Although I am a strong proponent of reducing our country's
dependence on conventional gas and oil, I hope we make similar
commitments to developing clean energy technology, with a
similar focus on preserving human and environmental health.
Diversifying our energy supply and protecting public health go
hand in hand.
In closing, I am pleased that the Administration is calling
upon the expertise of our Federal agencies to ensure that we
have the best scientific information available, use cutting
edge technology, and develop best practices for extracting this
plentiful resource in a manner that is safe for our workers and
the environment. I look forward to hearing how the agencies
plan to research and address these issues, and with that, I
yield back and look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment
Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Chair Lummis and Chair Stewart. I am pleased to have
representatives from the federal agencies appearing before the joining
Subcommittees today to discuss their multi-agency plan to research
hydraulic fracturing and unconventional oil and gas. Hydraulic
fracturing has led to a significant expansion of drilling for oil and
gas in the United States, unlocking huge natural gas reserves that have
reduced the cost of natural gas domestically and resulted in economic
improvement across many industries.
The successful development and application of this technology,
however, has been accompanied by an insufficient understanding of the
potential impacts that hydraulic fracturing, or ``fracking,'' might
have on our environment and our health. The debate about environmental
health and human safety issues has escalated over the years, as we have
heard concerns related to groundwater contamination, induced seismicity
events, well integrity, and potential negative impacts to the health of
workers, just to name a few. According to the Energy Information
Administration, shale gas is estimated to supply almost 50 percent of
our gas in 20 years. If that prediction is accurate, it is even more
critical that this boom in natural gas production be accompanied by a
clear development of best practices to identify and curb potential
negative impacts. It is my hope that the multiagency research plan will
address these very important questions in order to insure the continued
prosperity of the industry while preserving the health and safety of
the general public.
Hydraulic fracturing emerged as a commercial success in large part
because of federal investment in fracking technologies. The success the
government had in aiding the fracking industry is an example of how
public-private partnerships can work to advance science and engineering
and turn nascent technologies into an economic driver. Although I am a
strong proponent of reducing our country's dependence on conventional
gas and oil, I hope that we make similar commitments to developing
clean energy technology, with a similar focus on preserving human and
environmental health. Diversifying our energy supply and protecting
public health go hand in hand.
In closing, I am pleased that the Administration is calling upon
the expertise of our federal agencies to ensure that we have the best
scientific information available, use cutting-edge technology, and
develop best practices for extracting this plentiful resource in a
manner that is safe for our workers and the environment. I look forward
to hearing how the agencies plan to research and address these issues.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
I now recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr.
Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have a very
brief opening statement.
It is difficult to overstate the incredible benefits of the
fracking energy revolution that is underway across America.
A recent report found that the Eagle Ford shale development
in Texas is now producing 700,000 barrels of oil and natural
gas liquids every day, up from zero just three years ago. The
economic benefits and job opportunities associated with this
shale boom, not just in Texas but across the Nation, is
arguably the brightest spot in an otherwise still stagnant
economy.
Unfortunately, a widely publicized handful of
unsubstantiated charges that fracking pollutes groundwater has
led many to question the safety of this practice. The EPA is at
the center of this debate, linking fracking to water
contamination in at least three cases, only to be forced to
retract their statements after further scrutiny.
It is against this backdrop that we are here to consider
the Administration's request to spend nearly $40 million across
several agencies studying the safety of hydraulic fracturing
that would be carried out under a long-delayed and still
unreleased research plan.
We all want to ensure safe and responsible production of
oil and natural gas, but the combination of the
Administration's track record on fracking and the delays
associated with developing these plans provide cause for
concern.
I look forward to hearing how we can support this energy
revolution and avoid any unnecessary delay in its evaluation by
the Federal Government.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
It is difficult to overstate the incredible benefits of the
fracking energy revolution that is underway across America.
A recent report found that the Eagle Ford shale development in
Texas is now producing 700,000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids
every day-up from zero just three years earlier. The economic benefits
and job opportunities associated with this shale boom--not just in
Texas but across the nation--is arguably the brightest spot in an
otherwise still stagnant economy.
Unfortunately, a widely publicized handful of unsubstantiated
charges that fracking pollutes ground water has led many to question
the safety of this practice. The EPA is at the center of this debate,
linking fracking to water contamination in at least three cases, only
to be forced to retract their statements after further scrutiny.
It is against this backdrop that we are here to consider the
Administration's request to spend nearly $40 million across several
agencies studying the safety of hydraulic fracturing that would be
carried out under a long-delayed and still unreleased research plan.
We all want to ensure safe and responsible production of oil and
natural gas, but the combination of the Administration's track record
on fracking and the delays associated with developing these plans
provide cause for concern.
I look forward to hearing how we can support this energy revolution
and avoid any unnecessary delay in its evaluation by the federal
government.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
Now for a little housekeeping. In front of each member are
packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and
Truth in Testimony disclosures for today's witnesses. As
always, we will alternate between the Majority and Minority
members in terms of asking questions. We will recognize those
members present at the gavel in order of seniority on the Full
Committee, and those coming in after the gavel will be
recognized in order of arrival. One more little thing. If there
are members who wish to submit additional opening statements,
your statements will be added to the record at this point.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Lummis. Yes? I recognize----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, I have--I am Chairman of a
hearing that is about to happen in a few minutes from now, and
I would just like to thank you for your leadership in calling
this hearing today, and I will be submitting questions for the
record and reading the testimony of the witnesses, but have to
leave and I am sorry for that.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Rohrabacher is
a long-distinguished member of this Committee, and we
appreciate his presence here this morning, and look forward to
the submittal of your questions and the responses to them from
the agencies here present. Thank you, Representative
Rohrabacher.
If there are additional opening statements, we will accept
them now.
Very well. That being said, it is now time to introduce our
panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Kevin Teichman.
Now did I get that right? It is Teichman. I had it right the
first time, didn't I? Would you please say it again?
Dr. Teichman. Teichman.
Chairman Lummis. Teichman, all right. Thank you. Dr.
Teichman is the Senior Science Advisor for the Office of
Research and Development at the EPA.
Our second witness is--now here we go. I am going to give
it a shot, and please correct me. Mr. DeHoratiis?
Mr. DeHoratiis. DeHoratiis.
Chairman Lummis. DeHoratiis. Welcome. Mr. DeHoratiis is the
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oil and Gas in the Office
of Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy.
Our third witness is Dr. David Russ--did I get that right?
Dr. Russ. Perfectly well. Thank you.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you. Regional Executive of the
Northeast Area for the United States Geological Survey.
And our final witness is Dr. Robin Ikeda----
Dr. Ikeda. Ikeda.
Chairman Lummis. Ikeda, all right. Dr. Ikeda is the Acting
Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry at the Department of Health and Human Services.
We are, again, grateful for your presence here today. As
our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five
minutes each, after which, members of the Committee have five
minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will be
included in the record of the hearing.
And now, I would like to recognize our first witness, Dr.
Teichman, for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. KEVIN TEICHMAN,
SENIOR SCIENCE ADVISOR,
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. Teichman. Good morning Chairmen Lummis and Stewart, and
other distinguished Subcommittee Members. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk with you today about EPA's research
activities related to hydraulic fracturing.
Among others, oil and natural gas are important sources of
energy that will continue to play a vital role in our Nation's
energy future. The extraction and development of these
resources must be done safely, responsibly, and be guided by
the best available science.
In April 2012, DOE, DOI, and EPA signed a memorandum of
agreement to develop a research program devoted to
unconventional oil and gas production. Under this MOA, the
three agencies are collaborating to provide information that
will support sound policy decisions by Federal agencies, state,
tribal, and local governments, the oil and gas industry, and
others to ensure prudent development of these sources while
promoting safe practices, human health, and the environment.
The three agencies are coordinating their research planning,
focusing on each agency's areas of core competency and
collaborating on research with each other and others.
Last July, the tri-agency steering committee held webinars
for three different groups of stakeholders, industry, state and
tribal governments, and not-for-profit organizations. At that
time, we described the research areas we thought should be
studied and asked each group what the most important research
questions that can be addressed in the short term and in the
long term? What would be the most useful research products, and
what research is your organization pursuing?
In addition, the members of the steering committee and its
technical subcommittee continue to participate in technical
conferences, meetings, and workshops devoted to this topic, at
which we have presented them our research areas and asked the
above questions.
Specifically, EPA has taken steps to coordinate with other
Federal agencies throughout the development and implementation
of our drinking water study. For example, DOE and DOI are
participants in the technical workshops related to our study.
These workshops are devoted to analytical chemical methods,
well construction and operation and subsurface modeling,
wastewater treatment, water acquisition modeling, and hydraulic
fracturing case studies.
In the MOA, the three agencies committed to the development
of a research plan that would, in brief, synthesize the state
of knowledge; identify data gaps; prioritize research topics;
and determine future goals and objectives. The research plan is
still under development. Work to date to develop the plan has
been very helpful in both coordinating the research efforts of
the three agencies, and developing the President's 2014 budget
request.
In Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013, EPA's research related to
hydraulic fracturing is focused on carrying out the
Congressionally requested Study of the Potential Impacts of
Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. This research
is focusing on assessing any potential impacts, as well as
identifying the factors that may affect the severity and
frequency of such impacts.
Work is underway to answer the research questions listed in
the study plan for this effort. EPA released a progress report
in December 2012 which provided an update of the ongoing
research. A draft report of results is expected in late 2014,
which will synthesize our research results together with the
available scientific literature to inform answers to the
research questions listed in the study plan.
As shown in the study plan, there are important questions
outside the scope of the current study that are of high
priority to stakeholders. Therefore, the tri-agency research
plan will include research on potential impacts on air quality,
human health effects, water, and ecosystems. This broader
perspective is reflected in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget
request.
The Fiscal Year 2014 budget request is $14.1 million and
$24.9 million FTE for EPA to conduct UOG research. Resources
are requested for the drinking water study; water quality and
ecological studies; and air quality studies. These research
areas are among those identified as high priority research
topics in the tri-agency effort and represent EPA's 2014
contribution to that effort.
As mentioned earlier, a draft report of the drinking water
study results is expected in late 2014, and additionally,
Fiscal Year 2014 resources will be used to revise the report as
needed to reflect public and peer review comments.
The remaining Fiscal Year 2014 requested resources will be
used to better characterize the composition of wastewater and
wastewater treatment residuals, including solids from hydraulic
fracturing and UOG operations, and air emissions from these
operations.
In conclusion, I believe the prudent development of our oil
and natural gas resources can make a critical contribution to
meeting our Nation's energy needs. I am proud to be part of the
research effort that will help enable the development of these
resources in a way that maximizes the positive impacts and
minimizes the potential negative ones. We are pursuing this
work with the best available science and the highest level of
transparency, and will continue to collaborate with our Federal
partners and work with our stakeholders to address the highest
priority challenges to safely and prudently developing
unconventional shale gas and tight oil resources.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Teichman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Teichman.
Now I am going to try one more time. I love these American
last names of global derivation. They are so much fun, and I
think have Dr. Teichman and Dr. Ikeda down, so I am going to
make one more run at Mr. DeHoratiis.
Mr. DeHoratiis. That is correct.
Chairman Lummis. Did I get it right?
Mr. DeHoratiis. That is correct.
Chairman Lummis. Great. The Chair now recognizes our next
witness, Mr. DeHoratiis.
TESTIMONY OF MR. GUIDO DEHORATIIS,
ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR OIL AND GAS, OFFICE OF FOSSIL
ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. DeHoratiis. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairs, the
Ranking Members, and the Members of the Subcommittees for
inviting me before you today to discuss the critical role that
the Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, in
collaboration with the Department of the Interior and the
Environmental Protection Agency, is playing to improve the
safety and environmental performance of our Nation's
unconventional oil and natural gas resources.
Federal coordination and collaboration is critical to
successfully addressing the challenges associated with the
development of unconventional oil and gas resources. To this
end, the President signed an Executive Order, which has already
been referenced this morning. On the same day, our three
agencies signed a related memorandum of agreement on
collaborative research to better identify and address the
highest priority issues associated with the safe and prudent
development of unconventional oil and gas resources.
This collaboration will address a subset of unconventional
resources, namely shale gas, tight gas, shale oil, and tight
oil, and a robust Federal research and development plan is
under development. Each of the three agencies has a unique set
of core capabilities relevant to this effort and will focus on
those tasks that are most relevant to their respective skill
sets. At the same time, the agencies will work together on
tasks that require collaboration. The President's 2014 budget
request includes $12 million for DOE to fund this effort.
Shale gas development has brought new options to American
consumers, along with new environmental concerns. This is a
period of great opportunity for the prudent development of our
country's resources which could make a positive contribution to
our economy, jobs, and balance of trade. But to get these
benefits we must do this right. Through targeted research and
development, DOE can work with our agency partners, industry,
and other stakeholders to help ensure that we are meeting our
shared goal of safe and responsible development of these
resources.
The successful application of horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing technologies has enabled production to be
extended to vast volumes of unconventional resources that were
previously uneconomic to produce. To help ensure that
development of our resources is done in a safe and responsible
way, DOE is implementing research in areas that will include
water quality and availability, air quality, induced
seismicity, and mitigating the impacts of development.
The Department is carrying out research directed at
quantifying and understanding the environmental and safety
risks of shale gas and shale oil development, improving our
understanding of emerging and developing shale plays, and
increasing the efficiency of technologies for treating
hydraulic fracture flowback water.
Our partnership with Altela to successfully treat hydraulic
wastewater, which I detailed in my written statement, is a good
example of the kind of projects we are pursuing. We are also
focused on improving environmental performance by mitigating
impacts related to well bore integrity and zonal isolation to
protect the shallow groundwater resources and reducing water
usage, air emissions, and resource degradation through improved
unconventional resource stimulation that appropriately matches
that technology to local geologic and hydrologic conditions.
This work is a critical component of DOE's portfolio to
advance the environmentally sound development of unconventional
natural gas and oil resources and will support ongoing
programmatic efforts.
DOE has research experience and capabilities in drilling
and production technologies, green technologies, complex
systems, imaging, materials, earth science and engineering.
DOE capabilities in drilling and production technologies
include experience and expertise in quantifying, evaluating and
mitigating potential risks resulting from the production and
development of shale oil and gas resources that includes multi-
phase flow in wells and reservoirs, well control, casing,
cementing, drilling fluids, and abandonment operations.
The Office of Fossil Energy is committed to developing the
science and technology that will allow the Nation to use its
abundant fossil energy resources in a way that meets its energy
needs, including sustaining a robust economy and ensuring
environmental responsibility. We believe that continued
progress will help in addressing issues of energy and
environmental security, and ensure the maximum benefit to the
U.S. taxpayers.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeHoratiis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, and your testimony provided a
great segue way to Dr. Russ about the geological issues.
Now, you are from the northeast region, so you have some
experience with the Marcellus area, I assume.
Dr. Russ. That is correct.
Chairman Lummis. We are looking forward to your testimony,
Dr. Russ. You may begin.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID RUSS,
REGIONAL EXECUTIVE,
NORTHEAST AREA, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Dr. Russ. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear today to review Federal hydraulic fracturing research
activities, the progress in coordinating research called for in
Executive Order 13605, and the associated interagency
memorandum of agreement, and the Department of Interior's role
and responsibilities in carrying out this work.
Interior supports the responsible development of natural
gas as a clean energy source, so it is important to understand
this resource as well as investigate and evaluate potential
environmental impacts associated with shale gas development.
The interagency collaboration builds on the core
capabilities of each agency to ensure that our efforts are
complementary and non-duplicative. The USGS does not regulate,
nor does it manage lands or other resources. The USGS conducts
scientific research and assessments of geologically based
energy resources, including unconventional resources such as
shale gas and shale oil. USGS programs that monitor and
investigate the Nation's surface water and groundwater
resources are fundamental in determining water availability and
quality, including the potential impacts of resource extraction
on drinking water, healthy ecosystems, and the sustainability
of living species. USGS core capabilities also include the
assessment of land-use change, critical to understanding the
impacts of energy development activities on ecosystems and the
socio-economics of communities, and the investigations of
earthquakes, including earthquakes.
To meet the challenge of safely and responsibly maximizing
the contribution that unconventional oil and gas resources make
to the total energy supply, DOE, EPA, and Interior are
developing a collaborative research framework. The three
agencies are building upon current work and identifying and
prioritizing new research and development activities that
support sound management and policy decisions by federal,
state, tribal, and local entities. The goal is to produce
decision-ready information to help ensure the prudent
development of energy resources, and the protection of human
health and the environment. Our effort encompasses a number of
research topics, including the U.S. unconventional oil and gas
resource assessment, characterization, and management; water
quality; water availability; air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions; effects on people and their communities; ecological
effects; and induced seismicity.
Interior, through the USGS, has ongoing and planned
activities covering a range of research topics. Specific
activities in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 are described in my
written statement, but in general, USGS envisions a
continuation of prior work that builds on core USGS
competencies. For example, the USGS has historically had
responsibility for assessing the undiscovered, technically
recoverable hydrocarbon resources of the Nation and will
continue this function for unconventional resources. The USGS
will identify and model water-quality changes associated with
the life cycle of unconventional oil and gas production, and
will determine the impact of well injection and produced waters
on groundwater quality. The USGS will support streamgage
baseline monitoring in states where production is ongoing or
planned, and will develop predictive tools and statistical
models for estimating the amount of water needed for drilling
and production operations. The USGS will also conduct
wastewater toxicity testing and vulnerability assessments to
identify and prioritize regions, aquatic communities, and
wildlife habitats that have the greatest potential for impact
from unconventional oil and gas activities. Decades of research
have demonstrated that the deep injection of large volumes of
fluids underground can induce earthquakes. The USGS will
calibrate models against field and lab data to support the
development of best management practices for minimizing induced
seismicity. The USGS will analyze seismic data to update the
national probabilistic seismic risk maps in ways that account
for induced earthquakes.
In conclusion, the research activities required to address
questions related to hydraulic fracturing draw on the core
capabilities and competencies of USGS scientists in geology,
seismology, energy resource development, biology, and
hydrology. I have briefly described many of our current and
proposed hydraulic fracturing-related efforts in my written
statement, but a number of other USGS programs also contribute
to an improved understanding of these issues.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the
activities of the USGS and the interagency effort to understand
this important natural resource, and the potential impacts of
its development. We appreciate your interest in and support for
our science, and I would be happy to answer any questions that
Members may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Russ follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Russ.
Now we turn to Dr. Ikeda.
Dr. Ikeda. Ikeda.
Chairman Lummis. I thought I had yours. I am sorry, Ikeda.
Correct?
Dr. Ikeda. Correct.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you. You are recognized, Dr. Ikeda.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBIN IKEDA,
ACTING DIRECTOR,
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AND DISEASE REGISTRY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. Ikeda. Good morning, Chairwoman Lummis, Chairman
Stewart, and Members of the Subcommittees. Thank you for the
opportunity to present this testimony.
I am pleased to represent the Department of Health and
Human Services to provide you with an update of our work
related to hydraulic fracturing. Although our work related to
hydraulic fracturing at HHS is limited in terms of the amount
of work we do, we provide technical assistance and scientific
expertise to our Federal colleagues and others. President Obama
has made clear his commitment to the safe and responsible
development of our natural gas resources as part of the all-of-
the-above energy plan. I will briefly describe the missions for
the three HHS components that conduct work related to hydraulic
fracturing.
CDC, ATSDR focuses on protecting people in communities from
environmental exposures to harmful substances. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, which is
also part of CDC, is responsible for preventing work-related
injury, illness, and death. As part of NIH, the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, conducts
basic applied and clinical research on the health effects of
environmental exposures. None of these three agencies have
regulatory authority.
Our work related to hydraulic fracturing is in primarily
four areas. First, we coordinate with federal, state, and local
partners. We define research gaps and other information needs.
We evaluate site-specific health conditions and potential
exposures in communities, and we assess potential workplace
exposures. If we identify harmful exposures in the community or
the workplace, we recommend actions to protect communities and/
or workers.
Our work related to hydraulic fracturing has been in
collaboration with federal, state, and local partners. HHS has
provided technical support to the multi-agency work group on
research related to unconventional oil and gas development.
Although HHS is not a member of the steering committee, we have
provided technical and scientific input to this initiative at
the Committee's request. In addition, HHS has provided input on
design of EPA's study looking at the potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.
HHS is also working to better define public health research
gaps and other information needs related to hydraulic
fracturing. In 2012, we participated in three meetings to
assess the public health research needs in this area. Other
participants at these meetings included experts from industry,
academia, and the government. Along similar lines, NIEHS
provided a small grant to the University of Rochester for a
one-year project to help understand the health and hydraulic
fracturing related information needs among various health
professionals, government officials, and communities in New
York, North Carolina, and Ohio. Information from this project
will be used to develop recommendations about how to respond to
the public's need for information about health and hydraulic
fracturing, and to guide future research.
ATSDR's site specific activities focus on whether health
hazards exist from exposures to harmful substances in air,
water, and soil. Typically, this work has been done at the
request of EPA and/or state agencies. If public health risks
are identified, ATSDR makes recommendations that individuals,
organizations, or government agencies can take to protect
health. ATSDR also follows up with local residents to make sure
they understand the findings.
In the last two fiscal years, ATSDR has completed more than
300 of these site specific consultations, but only a small
proportion of these consultations, eight sites in total, have
been related to health concerns in areas with ongoing hydraulic
fracturing activities. Our work at these eight sites has
generally fallen into three categories: sites where there are
concerns about the water quality, those where air quality is an
issue, and then those where there are potentially explosive
hazards, such as methane.
NIOSH works closely with industry colleagues to assess
potential workplace exposures and if indicated, recommends
actions like safe worker practices, use of protective
equipment, or engineering controls to protect workers. To
address an existing lack of information about dust and chemical
exposures associated with hydraulic fracturing, NIOSH initiated
an effort to better understand occupational exposures among oil
and gas extraction workers. With respect to hydraulic
fracturing, exposure to airborne silica during the fracturing
process has been the primary focus of NIOSH work to date.
Additional NIOSH activities related to hydraulic fracturing
include developing a research agenda and evaluating or
examining other potential worker safety hazards, such as falls,
chemical exposures, or fires and explosions.
In conclusion, HHS, working with our Federal and state
partners, communities, and industry, supports the President's
commitment to the safe and responsible development of our
natural gas resources as part of the all-of-the-above energy
plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy
to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ikeda follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Lummis. I thank the witnesses for their testimony,
and the Chair now recognizes herself for the first questions.
I want to start with each of you. Having been an ex-pat
member of the Interior and Environment Appropriations
Subcommittee, a lot of them are going to be related towards
spending.
In Fiscal Year 2013, the EPA, DOE, and USGS were given a
combined $45 million for fracking related research at your
agencies. Can each of you from those agencies tell us how much
your agency plans to spend this year related to this proposal?
Dr. Teichman. We will take it in the order that we
testified earlier, Chairman Lummis, and I believe I got that
correct.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Teichman. Yes, Lummis,
rhymes with hummus. Thank you.
Dr. Teichman. And let me also thank you, and in a moment of
bipartisan support, Representative Bonamici as well for rocking
the red as Washington Capitals fans. I appreciate your red
blazers here this morning.
One other very brief personal note. I thank all the
Committee Members for their work in the prior half an hour to
this hearing, as one who was on the Tokyo metro system the
morning that the Sarin attack occurred, just happened to be at
a different station, and whose son worked for Senator Frist
when the letter with ricin was opened in that office. So I
appreciate the seriousness of your work.
In Fiscal Year 2013, the EPA will spend $6.1 million and
14.9 FTE to continue the drinking water study that we began at
the request of Congress in the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations
report.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Teichman.
Mr. DeHoratiis. Good morning. In Fiscal Year 2013, the
Department of Energy plans to spend $10 million to support the
effort, the research areas that support the topics that are in
the framework.
Chairman Lummis. And Dr. Russ?
Dr. Russ. Thank you. Yes, our Continuing Resolution
sequestration information is still being sent over, I believe,
from OMB to the Congress, but our intention is for Fiscal Year
2013 to spend approximately $8.6 million.
Chairman Lummis. Okay. A follow-up for you, Dr. Russ. Last
year I was part of a discussion with Dr. McNutt in Interior
Approps on whether we should grant USGS the extra money for
these studies. And I was a little concerned about duplication,
but I really was most supportive of the USGS portion, because
Dr. McNutt told me on the record that the money would be used
to develop best practices for wastewater injection and seismic
activity. And you alluded to those continued uses in your
testimony. So that, as I understand it, is still the plan going
forward?
Dr. Russ. Yes, it is, Congresswoman.
Chairman Lummis. No changes there?
Dr. Russ. No.
Chairman Lummis. No expansion there?
Dr. Russ. There will be a modest expansion, I think, in our
induced seismicity component where we have a little bit more
money this year than last to look at the impacts of induced
seismicity and by looking at things like injection rates of
fluids underground to better understand the impacts potentially
producing earthquakes, and working with EPA, as well as
industry to understand best management practices potentially
reduce the occurrence of these types of events.
Chairman Lummis. Okay. I am a landowner and I am in a split
estate situation where the oil and gas is being developed and
so for somebody like me who owns the subsurface but not the
surface, obviously we are very concerned about wastewater
injection issues and appreciate USGS expertise in that area.
Dr. Teichman, I also had last year a discussion on fracking
with former Administrator Jackson at the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee. It was not quite as satisfying to
me as my exchange with Dr. McNutt. It was in that testimony
that Ms. Jackson admitted the EPA had found no conclusive
evidence that fracking had caused contamination in Pavillion,
Wyoming. This after the huge expose in the New York Times
indicating after they had released their draft report that
Wyoming was not in as positive a position as people thought it
should be.
Exactly how does the EPA intend to use this research money
in a way that doesn't duplicate its other studies related to
fracking, especially does not duplicate the lack of peer-
reviewed science and the lack of transparency that is the
hallmark of the Pavillion draft report, especially its release
as a draft report that was extremely critical and quite
frankly, wrong, and created this big flurry of concern about
fracking, and now has been completely impeached by subsequent
work. How can you assure me that doesn't happen again?
Dr. Teichman. Perhaps the best thing I can do I tell you
the interactions we have had with our Science Advisory Board on
the EPA drinking water study that I am a part of.
I would note for you that in Dr. Ikeda's written testimony,
it refers to the fact that the Pavillion, Wyoming situation is
not part of the EPA drinking water study, and so I wish to draw
that distinction to your attention.
Chairman Lummis. And I would wish to draw the point that
Lisa Jackson, when I asked her is the drinking water
contaminated by fracking in Pavilion, and she testified no. So
what--the problem I am having is that EPA is not distinguishing
in people's minds drinking water versus groundwater, non-
drinking groundwater. And furthermore, the fact that EPA was
probably responsible for contaminating some of those wells
during the testing process adds to the further frustration, and
you know, Pavillion is frequently held up as the poster child
for bad practices and bad consequences, when it was hugely
prematurely released. It has not been peer reviewed. It was
exaggerated, and in fact, it appears that EPA itself was
contaminating those wells in their own efforts.
I am hugely frustrated with the EPA and its treatment of my
state and of fracking in general. It is as if it tried to
create an example at Pavillion to exacerbate or raise the
profile of fracking as a national issue without the science to
back it up. So I--so the distinction between groundwater and
drinking water is important.
My time is--oh yeah, my time is way up, excuse me.
I yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Swalwell, with my
apologies.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chair Lummis, and no apology
needed. I am interested in this discussion as well, and as I
mentioned in my opening remarks, perhaps with fracking we may
find that the drinking water and groundwater contamination
concerns would apply to any state that has or participates in
fracking, but then once you look at individual states, you
might find that there are issues that are unique to those
states. And I am talking, of course, about California.
And so Dr. Russ, as I noted in my opening statement, my
constituents in California are particularly concerned about the
possibility of manmade earthquakes. I represent the Hayward
Fault. That is in my district, and it is an internationally
known fault line. Nature and physics give us enough problems as
it is, so how significant is the potential for induced
seismicity, and what are some of the ways that we can
sufficiently address that risk, as well as what do we know now
and what do you want to know in the future? And I was
encouraged to hear that there may be some funding that can be
put towards further studies.
Dr. Russ. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. Yes, induced seismicity
we regard as a very important topic for research. We want to
know more about how many earthquakes are occurring in areas
where fluid is being injected underground, wastewater fluid is
being injected. We want to know the rate in which those events
are occurring, and the size of those events. We want to know if
one earthquake that has been induced can trigger another
earthquake, and can it be a larger, more damaging earthquake?
We want to know the relationship between the pressure and the
rate of injection and the volumes of water and waste materials
that are injected underground so we can calibrate those rates
against the potential occurrence of earthquakes.
Mr. Swalwell. And what do we know now?
Dr. Russ. We know now that there is relationships between
the occurrence of these induced earthquakes and the locations
of subsurface injection wells. We know that it is important to
understand if there is an active fault nearby injection sites,
which could be--that fault might be ruptured and trigger an
event. We know that there has been a significant uptick in the
numbers of small to medium earthquakes in the central United
States, which we believe are associated largely with induced
earthquakes.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. And also, Dr. Russ, in my state, as in
many, water is a precious resource and fracking is an extremely
water-intensive process. If these activities were to expand
into Northern California, do you have a sense of where the
required water resources would be obtained from, and what the
impact on local water availability would be?
Dr. Russ. Very good question. Water availability is one of
the key research topics that are in our draft research report.
Each area, as you mentioned, is unique in terms of its
occurrence, the nature of where the aquifers are and where the
various units of contained water, whether it is streams or
subsurface sources. So we would have to take a look at that
individual area to determine what are the actual occurrences
and the problems. Also, seasonality of the weather in a given
area affects water availability, so the weather is an important
component as well.
Mr. Swalwell. Will the research plan also examine
alternative fracking fluid technologies that would be less
harmful to the environment?
Dr. Russ. Yes, that is the intent.
Mr. Swalwell. Okay. Also will the research plan examine
recycling of wastewater that would be produced in the fracking
process?
Dr. Russ. I am not sure if that is--if I have the knowledge
on that one.
Mr. Swalwell. Okay, any other witness? Dr. Teichman?
Dr. Teichman. Yes, I believe the research plan will include
the ability of recycling wastewaters as a way of preserving
water acquisition and not introducing additional chemicals into
the hydraulic fracturing process.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. And going back to where I started, for
all witnesses, would you agree that at least right now, as I
mentioned, we must proceed with extreme caution but that we may
find that some states are better suited, if you can address the
groundwater and drinking water concerns that some states may be
better suited for exploration through fracking rather than
other states?
Dr. Teichman. I will take the first stab and then turn,
perhaps, to Dr. Russ, and to state that certainly the
geological formations are different in different states, and
the approaches to be taken, therefore, should be dependent upon
what the different states geology is. For those who are
traditionally drilling much deeper than the aquifers, then I
think we would expect that practice to certainly be more
positively environmentally friendly than those who might be
drilling into them.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Actually, I will yield back the
balance of my time. Thank you, Chair.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you. I thank the Ranking Member.
Next we go to the Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee,
Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to go
through a couple of questions, but I want to divert just if I
can and do some very quickly.
Dr. Russ, I would like to comment on some of the things you
have said. You know, I am afraid that you would leave the
impression with the American people being familiar with this
hearing today that there is a great risk of massive earthquakes
because of water reinjection and hydraulic fracking. Is that
your intention here with your testimony?
Dr. Russ. No, it is not.
Mr. Stewart. Because we agree that this is very, very
immature science, and we really can't draw any conclusions yet
at this point, is that true?
Dr. Russ. I would say that is true in terms of potential
damaging earthquakes.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. So there is some speculation, but very,
very little evidence to draw any conclusions to this?
Dr. Russ. We are very early in our research.
Mr. Stewart. Okay, thank you for that.
A couple others, and again, I will make these very easy if
I could. I am supposing that none of you would disagree with
the President's belief that greenhouse gas emissions pose a
global threat. Would that be true? None of you would disagree
with that? Okay.
And then let me, if I could just cite a point, from 2005 to
2011, which I know that you all are familiar with, of course,
the greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 12 percent. And
over this same period, global greenhouse emissions have
actually increased significantly, and a lot of the reason for
this is because of our abundance of natural gas. Then could we
agree that it is a good thing--it would be a good policy that
it was something we want to facilitate everything that we can
do to increase our natural gas production. Would we agree that
that is a good event?
Dr. Teichman. Let me just state in my testimony that I
believe we should indeed develop our energy sources in a way
that maximizes the positive benefits and certainly minimizes
the negative. I would, however, mention if you ask me which is
the cleanest form of energy, it is energy conservation.
Mr. Stewart. Okay, but the policy being is it is good for
us to facilitate natural gas production, any of you disagree
with that? Okay, thank you then.
Then in your testimony, either written or in some cases,
your testimony today, you praise the benefits of natural gas
but you caution that, as you said, we want to reap these
benefits but we want to ``do it right.'' And given that these
practices, they have been going for decades. This isn't
something that is new. There are some new variations of the
technology, but this isn't dramatically new or different than
what we have been doing for quite a lot of time. And to my
knowledge, there are no proven instances of groundwater
contamination, and as we have just said, greenhouse gasses have
been declining thanks to natural gas, and so I would ask you, I
mean, what have we done wrong? We say we want to do it right,
but what are our concerns? What have we done wrong up to this
point? And I would invite any of the panelists to try and
answer that.
Dr. Teichman. Let me try and start by stating that I
believe that the technology of drilling very deeply and
horizontally with new drill bits and using hydraulic fracturing
is something which the combination of has allowed us to see a
much greater resource than I would say we knew of decades ago,
to refer to your question.
Mr. Stewart. Which is a great thing.
Dr. Teichman. I certainly am glad to see domestic energy
supplies that may reduce our reliance on foreign supplies,
absolutely I agree with you in that regard.
To that extent, I think these newer combination of
technologies we just need to make sure we are maximizing the
positive benefits of the exploration of natural gas and oil, by
the way, and minimizing the potential for environmental harm at
the same time.
Mr. Stewart. Okay, so there isn't anything particular that
you think we have done wrong up to this point, would that be
true?
Dr. Teichman. I think that is true, although I would think
that work that I have heard industry talking about, and I hope
is being implemented, to have stronger casings or additional
casings when they go through aquifers, to recycle the
wastewater to go ahead and use greener fracking fluids, I would
very much encourage work in that direction.
Mr. Stewart. And I think all of us would, by the way,
Doctor. I think--I mean, there would be very little argument. I
can't imagine a reasonable argument against those suggestions
at all.
Dr. Teichman. I think that is right, other than sometimes
they may cost a little bit more, but I believe in the long run
it is to the benefit of all.
Mr. Stewart. Okay, and again, my fear is that there is
perception that this panel or that some others may create, kind
of coming back to the, you know, the earthquakes. Holy cow, you
know, we are going to have this enormous event when we don't
know that, and my fear is that the perception is that we would
leave the American people that we have done something wrong,
that we have been remiss in our environmental concerns up to
this point, and I just don't think that is the case. I don't
think the evidence supports that, and I appreciate that you
would agree with that.
With that being said, my time is up and I yield back to
you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Chairman Stewart.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have
several questions and very little time, so I am going to ask a
few at a time and then allow you an opportunity to respond, so
the first question is to Dr. Russ.
I want to follow up on your testimony about water
availability research where you said that the USGS will develop
water budgets to understand how much water is required to
produce UOG deposits. So when you are analyzing the suitability
of different communities, do you take into account the local
economy's water need, both present and future, to support
potential future economic growth? So hold that, and then my
next question is to Dr. Teichman.
Dr. Teichman, yesterday in the Environment Subcommittee, we
held a hearing on policy relevant issues related to climate
change. We discussed the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on
the planet and all of the witnesses who testified agreed that
anthropologic climate change is happening, and we need to take
action to address it. Now one concern I have heard about
hydraulic fracturing is the possibility of fugitive emissions
of methane gas, so I wanted you to please describe what the EPA
is doing with your ongoing studies into the potential of
fugitive emissions of methane from hydraulic fracturing.
And then finally for all of the panel, we have had, in the
Environment Subcommittee, several discussions about stakeholder
input, which is an important issue when discussing scientific
and environmental and public health issues. Now obviously,
there has been some miscommunication and misinformation
regarding hydraulic fracturing, so will you please detail what
efforts you have made to get input from stakeholders related to
your research plan, and also what you are planning to do to
communicate and reach out to the public to ensure that the
general public and stakeholders are informed about what you are
doing.
So starting with Dr. Russ on the water.
Dr. Russ. Thank you. A water availability and the
development of water budgets, we feel, is a critical component
to understand the amount of water it takes--is used, actually,
in the overall operations of hydraulic fracturing and related
activities. And yes, the water availability takes a look at all
of the uses of water, surface water, groundwater, including the
water that is needed to supply normal communities with the
waters that they need, whether it is drinking water,
irrigation, or whatever, so it does include all of these
sources.
Ms. Bonamici. And also, do you consider the potential
future to support economic growth in a particular community?
Dr. Russ. Yes, socioeconomics is a part of this study.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
Dr. Teichman on the----
Dr. Teichman. Fugitive emissions.
Ms. Bonamici. That is it.
Dr. Teichman. Right. Indeed, that is a concern that we have
that we actually believe the industry shares with us, that we
should not have such methane stray emissions occurring as part
of the drilling process, and therefore, I believe--although
this is somewhat out of my bailiwick and more into the policy
side as opposed to the research, that we have a new source
performance standard on well completion, that therefore would
minimize the methane emissions associated with the completion
of wells, and such that the material that would be collected by
the industry and so saving those methane emissions could
actually reap greater benefits than the cost to do so.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
And for the panel--did you want to add something?
Dr. Teichman. No, I was just going to go to your second
question----
Ms. Bonamici. Okay, perfect.
Dr. Teichman. --for the panel, but I will be very brief
because I can spend too much time on this. But part of the EPA
drinking water study, just to give you an example, in our
development of the study plan for it, there were four public
stakeholder meetings, an e-mail box set up, public comment was
offered on the draft study plan, the SAB consulted and had an
opportunity for public comment then from the stakeholders. The
SAB had a peer review of the study plan. There were technical
workshops, webinars, a docket was set up, a list serve, and
that is just on the study plan. We have had the same type of
external outreach on our study conduct.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Others on the panel, would you
please comment on stakeholder input and communication to
public?
Dr. Russ. Yes, as we have gone through the plans an
preparation of our draft research plan, we have webinars with
industry, with states, with academia, and other nongovernmental
organizations. We have, in addition, participated in many
professional meetings and other community meetings that have
asked about what we are looking at, including in our research
plan. Particularly, we have worked with states through things
like river basin commissions and participated in their meetings
to understand the potential effects and water use of hydraulic
fracturing. So we take their comments into consideration when
we build our ideas for the report.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and the others, I have a bit of
time left. Mr. DeHoratiis?
Mr. DeHoratiis. Yes, the Department of Energy participated
in both the EPA activities and USGS activities, especially in
terms of the webinars and presentations that were made. We have
had also additional interactions with industry and participated
in several, you know, public professional organizations. You
know, there are societies that we have given presentations at
the Society of Petroleum Engineers and other professional
activities.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Dr. Ikeda. And I will just mention a few activities along
these lines, and not necessarily related to the research plan,
but so for example, the project that I mentioned during my
testimony that NIEHS is supporting that does--they are looking
at information needs from the community, so that is one
activity. Another is that part and parcel of our standard
operating procedures when we work at the sites that I mentioned
is to communicate findings back to the community and address
any concerns or questions that they might have at that time.
And then I would also add that NIOSH works very closely with
industry and the Silica example that I mentioned in my
testimony have also worked very closely to communicate findings
with workers, along with industry partners.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I see my time has expired.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, and we--the Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Madam Chairman, and I would like to
use a lot of my time to tell you how very proud I am of you,
and I am going to, again, thank our Chairman, Chairman Smith,
for selection of you to head this Committee, because you are
doing a wonderful job. You ask the proper questions. You didn't
get proper answers.
I just want to say when it comes to hydraulic fracturing,
EPA has gained notoriety for using just driven science and
levying allegations that later have to be retracted and have
been retracted. I think certainly several examples such as--
Dimock, Pennsylvania; Parker County, Texas; and Pavillion,
Wyoming that the Chairperson alluded to where it appears that
the agency is more interested in rushing judgment and placing
information in the hands of the media than they are looking for
sound scientific approach.
I just think that it is pitiful, and then when they mention
the first lady of--we invited her to come before us, Lisa
Jackson. We had to do everything but threaten to subpoena her
to get her and finally got an agreement from her to appear at
10 o'clock one morning. That 10 o'clock happened to be the day
that the Supreme Court guessed wrong on Obamacare, and she was
a member of the--that had to be with the President that day, so
she escaped that. Lisa Jackson came before this Committee and
made the statement that they were not in the business of
creating jobs. I think that is one of the meanest things I have
ever heard anybody testify to here at a time when men are
having to go home and face their families. They can't send
their daughter to school or they can't keep their son in school
or they can't continue to feed their own family. I just think
we are in a critical time. And when the EPA answered to
Congressman Rohrabacher, ask him, he asked the question do you
know of anywhere, any time when fracturing has caused
mistreatment of drinking water, every one of them said no.
Nowhere in the United States.
Mr. Teichman, in May of 2012, Fred Hauchman, who was the
director of the EPA's Office of Science Policy, said that the
agency is ``doing a pretty comprehensive look at all of the
statutes to determine where there are some holes to justify
further regulation of hydraulic fracturing.''
I guess my question to you, Mr. Teichman, can you assure
this Committee that EPA will not use a steering committee or
the broader interagency working group to search for holes or
engage in a search for ways to regulate hydraulic fracturing,
rather than trying to help Congress find some way to support
jobs and seek for jobs? You have come to my state and you came
to my state and without yielding to scientific--and I would
like to remind you, sir, that you are under oath when you come
here, and that there is a statute of limitations when you
mislead a Congressional Committee. That statute has not run. It
won't run until we have a new President, and I am really proud
of the Chair for taking you on. I guess I just ask that one
question to you as to whether or not you can assure the
Committee that the EPA is not going to use false and unrelated
testimony that you later have to go back on or if the courts
have to turn you around on, and both of those things have
happened, have they not?
Dr. Teichman. I can't speak to the testimony about the rest
of the EPA. I can tell you that I signed for this Committee the
truth and whatever the official term is, or the document, I
apologize, and I am very glad to have done so and there is
nothing I have said here to the best of my knowledge is not
totally truthful, nor will it be for the rest of the answer to
this question.
The answer to your question, I believe, is in my testimony
where the research that we are doing at EPA, if you were to ask
me who the intended audience is, it is indeed Federal agencies.
It is also state, local and tribal governments. It is also the
oil and gas industry, and it is also the general public, and I
believe those are the policymakers, not me as the researcher,
who will make the decisions on policymaking, and I am hoping to
provide research results that inform all of their thinking in
the soundest possible way.
Mr. Hall. I don't know whose direction you are following,
but when you come here and give us bad science backup for your
testimony, that gives me some question about what your attitude
is, and one of the young ladies up there said that your job is
to protect the citizens, and that is what you are trying to do.
Our job is to also protect jobs and to be sure that we have
proper science when decisions are made that affect this entire
country.
I think my time is up. I would just leave with this. One of
the horses next Saturday in the Kentucky Derby, there's a horse
named Frac Daddy, F-r-a-c D-a-d-d-y, and he has the same odds
that you have with me. He's a 45-1 long shot.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and
recognize Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to talk with you specifically about this issue,
and I don't know if you have heard me speak before the
Committee before, but I really sort of represent a very unique
perspective when it comes to drilling, because most of the
drilling that I am--that happens--that I know about--that I am
more familiar with, I will say, happens in an urban setting. I
live in Ft. Worth, Texas, which is basically the hub of the
Barnett shale, and so, I mean, I live in a city with 700,000-
plus people, but I have frack ponds, pipelines, compressor
stations, you name it, in neighborhoods. And so it is certainly
a difference, because I can tell you that while this issue has
been controversial in other areas, including Ft. Worth, it is
not controversial in Midland, Texas, where it is a part of the
everyday life and basically makes up their entire economy.
And so what I wanted to ask you specifically, because I
have about 438 active wells in my district right now, and
wanted to ask you, has any of your research been centered on
the effects of natural gas in an urban setting? Because--and
another reason why that is so important is that back in 2005,
it really took off in Ft. Worth, but now, you are going to
start seeing more of that take place in Dallas County as well,
possibly.
Mr. DeHoratiis. Well, one of the things that we are doing
at the Department of Energy is promoting research in dealing
with air emissions, especially in areas where there may be
associated gas that is being flared, and so we are definitely
looking at technology to control and mitigate those emissions.
Whether it is dealing with improved flaring operations or
alternatives to flaring, beneficial use of the natural gas that
may be associated gas associated with oil production from shale
oil formations, and also emission capture technology.
So I think that is the technology work at the Department of
Energy we are doing that is going to focus more on urban areas.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. Dr. Teichman, do you have anything on
urban drilling specifically?
Dr. Teichman. Specifically I am not aware that any of the
case studies, either retrospective or prospective, are
intentionally in an urban area, but I could be wrong and I
would like to double check that and offer the answer for the
record.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. I wanted to talk with you about drought.
As you know, specifically in Texas right now we are
experiencing droughts. We have had situations where, you know,
people have--they are not taking as many cattle as they were
before to feed lots and things like that, so I mean we are
experiencing that problem. And I know that first water reserves
in Texas has really been an issue lately, and I know the
fracking uses, only about one percent of the fresh water
reserves in our state right now, but it was estimated to use
about nine percent of the fresh water annually in one of the
cities in the Barnett shale area. The water needs for natural
gas will obviously continue to grow, but as you probably are
also familiar, our area in the state, the Dallas/Ft. Worth
area, is one of the fastest growing areas in the entire region,
so we obviously are going to continue to need to look for water
for an increasing population in the metroplex.
Will any of the research that you plan include information
for water recycling?
Dr. Teichman. I believe that question also was raised in a
slightly different form, and the answer is yes, to the extent
that we can recycle wastewater so that we don't need to
continuously use new water sources for the hydraulic
fracturing, we will look into that practice and hopefully it
will prove to be very fruitful for all parties. It will save
water use, and it will probably save expense, in fact, for the
industries that are developing the resource.
Mr. Veasey. And let me just say this also, the earthquake
issue has been something that has been covered quite
extensively in our local newspaper. Obviously when, you know,
there were never any earthquakes and as someone that is a
lifelong resident of the metroplex, I can tell you that we have
never had any earthquakes, and then all of a sudden, we have a
lot of earthquakes. They have been very small, you know,
earthquakes. I think the last one that we had recently was
about 2--it was measured at 2.6 or so, but you know--but we
have the earthquakes.
One scientist from the city of Cleburne, which I know that
Ralph Hall knows about the city of Cleburne, that they hired
him. He came in and said to one of the newspapers that yes, you
know, there is earthquakes--there may be earthquakes associated
with drilling, and then told the other newspaper there may be
earthquakes associated with drilling but it wouldn't hesitate
me to sell my minerals and let them drill on my land. So in
regards to the earthquakes, how serious of an issue do you
think it is or not, and particularly in specificity to the size
of the earthquakes that we have been, you know, seeing, these
2.6 or lower, maybe a little bit higher. Can you give me some--
your thoughts on that particular issue?
Chairman Lummis. And quickly, because the time is expired.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Lummis. You bet.
Dr. Russ. Yes, very quickly. A very good question. One of
our goals is to understand through research just how large of
an earthquake might be induced by underground injection of
fluids, and so this understanding of the injection rates and
volumes and how that might affect the types of earthquakes, the
distribution of earthquakes is part of what we are working on.
There has been some earthquakes in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.
You asked about urban areas a moment ago, and there is an
earthquake that occurred in Youngstown, Ohio, that we are
studying as well, so that is an urban area.
So we don't have the answers to these questions yet. It is
a complex topic, but it is one of the issues we are looking at.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the witness, and I recognize the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Well thank you, Madam Chairman. I am a little
late in getting here, so I really don't have a lot of
questions. I think my colleague over here, also from Texas, was
able to get some questions and extract a pound of flesh, so I
think I will leave it at that. I yield back.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Weber. We have about ten
minutes until votes, and we have completed one round of
testimony. If others are interested, I would suggest that we
give each of us the opportunity to ask one more question. Just
one question. Is that agreeable?
Mr. Swalwell. Sure.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the Ranking Member, and the
Chairman yields to herself to ask a question.
I note in what you have told me that you are spending money
to implement this plan on looking at fracking, and yet, we
haven't seen the plan. And I look back at what my opening
remarks, the agencies committed to release a draft of the
research plan in October, final plan in January. We haven't
even received a draft version. You are spending money to
implement the plan. I want the plan. Will you please commit to
give us the plan?
Dr. Teichman. Chairman Lummis, with all due respect, the
plan is under development. As soon as I am able to have it
released, I will get it to you.
Chairman Lummis. Well, you know, the logical follow-up
question is why are you spending money to implement a plan that
you haven't released to the public or given for public comment?
That is my question, and now I yield to----
Dr. Teichman. May I respond? I apologize, but in Fiscal
Year 2013, which is when we are indeed spending dollars for our
drinking water study, that is consistent with the money we
have. It is--the plan will be for Fiscal Year 2014, where no
dollars have been spent yet.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the gentleman, and yield to Mr.
Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to ask Mr. DeHoratiis, my understanding is that
investments that your office has made in hydraulic fracturing
as far as research and development decades ago can be directly
linked to the oil and gas boom that we are seeing today. And if
that is the case, would you say that this provides a clear
example of how federally funded applied energy research can
have a major impact on establishing or accelerating the
development of new energy technologies that are critically
important to our Nation?
Mr. DeHoratiis. Thank you very much. Yes, you know, DOE was
working in shale gas research back as early as 1978, before it
was even a thought in most people's minds that we could produce
oil from shale formations, oil and gas. So DOE is very proud of
that. Our efforts today are taking what we think is the next
step forward, looking at mitigation technologies, how can we do
it and improve? Just as technology has advanced on the
production side, we want to make sure that technology is
advancing on the performance side. And so we are looking at
better ways to reduce the amount of water that we need, how can
we reuse water, how can we find alternatives to water? What
about the air emissions? Can we do things in that area? Can we
better understand the impacts of wastewater injection that may
induce seismicity? So we are doing research in all these areas,
and we feel that this is a very important research topic for
us.
Mr. Swalwell. Great, thank you, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you. We have been joined by a Member
of the Committee who hasn't had a chance to ask questions, so I
will yield five minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Grayson.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much. I have some questions for
Dr. Ikeda, and this has to do with the ATSDR's activities with
regard to the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico. Are you
familiar with the ATSDR's activities regarding Vieques?
Dr. Ikeda. Yes.
Mr. Grayson. All right. Is it fair to say that it is within
scientific knowledge that the military has released toxins in
various places, including Vieques and elsewhere, where the
military has done bombing? Is it fair to say that we know to a
scientific certainty that the military has released toxins into
the environment in airs that it has done bombing?
Dr. Ikeda. We are focused on the human health aspects,
environmental exposures, and our work in Vieques has not
documented human health exposures or human health impacts
related to military activities in Vieques.
Mr. Grayson. Okay, Doctor, my question was is it fair to
say with a scientific certainty that bombing has led to
environmental damage through the release of toxins? That is my
question.
Dr. Ikeda. I can't speak to the environmental damage. Our
focus is on the human health aspects of exposures in the
environment.
Mr. Grayson. All right. Is it fair to say, Doctor, to a
scientific certainty that the release of mercury into the
environment can cause human health damage?
Dr. Ikeda. Mercury has been associated with negative health
impacts, yes.
Mr. Grayson. Now the same thing is true of Agent Orange,
right?
Dr. Ikeda. Yes, correct.
Mr. Grayson. And the same thing is true of depleted
uranium, right?
Dr. Ikeda. Yes.
Mr. Grayson. And the same thing is true of napalm, right?
Dr. Ikeda. Yes.
Mr. Grayson. All right. Now can you tell me how much napalm
was released in Vieques during the half century of bombing by
the Navy?
Dr. Ikeda. I am sorry, I don't have that information.
Mr. Grayson. Do you have any idea?
Dr. Ikeda. I don't know. No, we would have to get back to
you.
Mr. Grayson. Do you--can you tell me how much depleted
uranium was released on Vieques during a half century of
bombing by the Navy?
Dr. Ikeda. Again, I am sorry. I don't have that
information.
Mr. Grayson. Does anybody within your agency have that
information?
Dr. Ikeda. I certainly will check and get back.
Mr. Grayson. Can you tell me how much Agent Orange was used
and released into the environment at Vieques over the course of
half a century?
Dr. Ikeda. Again, I am sorry.
Mr. Grayson. Can you identify for me with specificity any
of the environmental toxins that do cause damage to human
health that you know or don't know was released into the
environment at Vieques at any time in the past 60 years?
Dr. Ikeda. I couldn't do that with any specificity, so we
would have to get that information back to you.
Mr. Grayson. All right. It is fair to say that you really
can't make a firm judgment or even a wild guess as to whether
there has been damage to health--human health in Vieques
without knowing what toxins released, when, and how much?
Dr. Ikeda. I am sorry, I don't know the specifics about the
report, but the final results from the report have shown that
there were not human health impacts related to the military
activities in Vieques.
Mr. Grayson. Doctor, if you don't know whether or how much
Agent Orange was released, how could you possibly reach that
conclusion?
Dr. Ikeda. No, I am saying that--I am sorry, that I
personally don't have the information, but the information in
the report is final.
Mr. Grayson. Well Doctor, I will represent to you that
nobody in that report--involved in that report, which to some
degree, preceded your time at the agency, nobody working on
that report at ATSDR, as far as I know, knew the answer to that
question. Nobody knows at ATSDR how much Agent Orange was
released. Nobody knows how much napalm was released. It wasn't
in the report.
Now given that fact, given the fact that you were not told
exactly what toxins were released by the military during the
bombing, is it fair to say that we don't really know with a
firm answer whether the bombing caused any health damages on
the island or not?
Dr. Ikeda. Again, I would say that based on the information
that we do have, we did not find evidence of human health
impacts--negative human health impacts related to the military
bombing.
Mr. Grayson. Doctor, if you know nothing, then really, you
can't say anything, right?
Dr. Ikeda. I will stand by my answer. Again, I am sorry, I
don't have the personal information, but according to our
report and the work that we have done and the data that we do
have----
Mr. Grayson. I will ask you to assume hypothetically, since
you don't have that information here with you today, if the
Navy has not released the information to you or the people of
Vieques or even to us in Congress, the information about how
much of these toxins were released during their bombing, is it
fair to say then that you cannot reach any firm, final
scientific conclusions without the information that you need in
order to be able to reach that conclusion?
Dr. Ikeda. Again, I would say that based on the information
that we have, we believe that our conclusions are valid.
Mr. Grayson. Based on that information that you have which
you know is----
Chairman Lummis. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairman Lummis. I will now yield to the gentleman from
Utah, Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Grayson, your comment that if you know nothing, you
can't say anything, very clearly, sir, you have never raised
teenagers, because I have several of them who----
Mr. Grayson. Point well taken.
Mr. Stewart. I only have a few minutes. I would like to
follow up just in a big picture kind of general sort of way,
and again, it is something that I think we would agree with,
but I would like to caution us, if we could, and that is that
in regarding to fracking and the research and the science and
the development and the technology around that, and the EPA has
repeatedly insisted, and we appreciate this, that you are
trying to be transparent and research-driven as you approach
this, and thank you for doing that. It is important that you do
do that, but there are examples where that appears to not have
taken place. And I won't elaborate them here. We have discussed
some of them already in the Committee, but there are times when
it appeared that the agency is more interested in rushed
judgments and placing--and this is particularly troubling--
placing information in the hands of the media rather than
undertaking a sound scientific approach, and just the few
seconds that I have, I would ask us--ask you to agree that that
is detrimental to what we are all trying to do here, and that
it invites suspicion as to the agency's motivation. And if I
could have your commitment that the agency would do everything
in its power to work within the normal protocols and to not put
information out there--frankly, I am afraid that this Committee
has done--that this hearing has done today in regard to--as I
said, in regards to earthquakes--to not put a perception or
partial information out there that the media then, of course,
runs with and does what the media does. And I would appreciate
your commitment that you will do everything within your power
to try to avoid that.
Dr. Teichman. I believe that is probably most directed to
me----
Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir.
Dr. Teichman. --and I would say that EPA has been and will
continue to be committed to performing all of its research in
strict conformance with the highest standards of scientific
quality as promoted by our own EPA scientific integrity policy
and related policies, and you are hearing that from the person
who helped write the scientific integrity policy for EPA.
Mr. Stewart. Okay, and again, we appreciate that. And if we
could have this science-based once again and go through the
normal protocols rather than, in some cases where it has been
partial information, or in some cases absolutely inaccurate
information has been provided to the press and allowed them to,
you know, create great concerns among the local populations. It
just didn't bear out, so thank you for your commitment to doing
that.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the gentleman from Utah, and the
Chair now recognizes Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to ask about the cooperation that you are getting
from the industry, and get back to the topic of earthquakes,
because that is something that we have heard from a couple of
Members here, and I know that there is a Williams Ellsworth who
is with the USGS and is or was a geophysicist. I don't know if
he is still with the USGS, but has written more than 100 papers
on earthquakes and reviewed a study, Mr. Ellsworth study of
geophysics at Stanford, earned his doctorate from MIT, former
president of the Seismological Society of America. When he was
asked if there was any doubt among his colleagues about what
produced quakes in Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, Oklahoma, and
Texas, he said injection of wastewater into class 2 wells has
induced earthquakes, including those you site. In my opinion,
it is pretty clear in all of these cases, Youngstown, Arkansas,
DFW, Trinidad, and Oklahoma, that injection wells were the
cause. So obviously, there are people who are experts who are
making this connection.
Have you been able to get information from the industry
that would help you form opinions about that, for example, the
amount of water, what they are using, and how they are
injecting the water? Thank you.
Dr. Russ. Yes, I will take a stab at answering that. This
is Dr. Russ. And yes, Dr. Ellsworth is a geophysicist with our
offices in Menlo Park, California. He is still very much an
active member of that unit, and I think he has done a good job
at summarizing and looking at the evidence to support the
relationship between the activities subsurface injection and
earthquakes that you mentioned.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And are you working on this report
and this plan, this research, are you able to get the
information you need from the industry about what they are
injecting, how much they are injecting, and what their process
is?
Dr. Russ. We have been successful at getting some of the
information we think is necessary. We would like to have more
information, rates of pumpage, volumes of water injected. In
some cases, companies haven't recorded that information so we
are trying to work with the companies and with the
Environmental Protection Agency to see how we can improve our
ability to get some of that important information.
Ms. Bonamici. Dr. Teichman, do you want to weigh in on
this, please?
Dr. Teichman. I would only add today's remarks, and that is
part of our drinking water study. We have two prospective
studies that we are hoping to have, in which case we will be
there measuring baseline data of water quality before fracking
occurs at a site, while it is occurring, and even after wells
are completed and, in fact, the production is stopped. And we
hope by that time to be there and getting the very type of data
that you are talking about and measuring the potential
environmental impact, if any, as we do that.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I hope that the industry is
cooperative because the more facts that you have, the more data
you have, the more you will be able to have accurate reports
that you can get back to us.
Thank you very much. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the gentlelady from Oregon, and
the gentleman from California as well. Our Ranking Members,
their attendance and the attendance of the Minority as well as
the Majority Members is deeply appreciated. I also want to
thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and the
Members for their questions.
The Members of the Committee may have additional questions
for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from Members. Again, with my
deepest thanks to the witnesses today, you are now excused, and
this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Kevin Teichman
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Responses by Mr. Guido DeHoratiis
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Responses by Dr. David Russ
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Responses by Dr. Robin Ikeda
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]