[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LESSONS LEARNED: EPA'S INVESTIGATIONS
OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
=======================================================================
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
__________
July 24, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-42
__________
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
82-221 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
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 Environment
HON. CHRIS STEWART, Utah, Chair
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JULIA BROWNLEY, California
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MARK TAKANO, California
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RANDY WEBER, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
------
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 JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ZOE LOFGREN, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY WEBER, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
July 24, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 16
Written Statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 18
Written Statement............................................ 19
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 19
Written Statement............................................ 20
Witnesses:
Dr. Fred Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 24
Dr. David A. Dzombak, Chair, Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board, Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory
Panel
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Mr. John Rogers, Associate Director, Oil and Gas, Division of
Oil, Gas, and Mining, Utah Department of Natural Resources
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 48
Dr. Brian Rahm, New York Water Resources Institute, Cornell
University
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 56
Discussion....................................................... 69
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Fred Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency...... 92
Dr. David A. Dzombak, Chair, Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board, Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory
Panel.......................................................... 97
Mr. John Rogers, Associate Director, Oil and Gas, Division of
Oil, Gas, and Mining, Utah Department of Natural Resources..... 102
Dr. Brian Rahm, New York Water Resources Institute, Cornell
University..................................................... 105
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
National Human Health Risk Evaluation for Hydraulic Fracting
Fluid Additives report, Gradient, submitted by the Majority,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 108
Letter from Ranger Resources, submitted by Representative Chris
Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 129
Letter from Ranger Resources, submitted by Representative Chris
Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 131
LESSONS LEARNED: EPA'S INVESTIGATIONS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013
House of Representatives,
Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on
Environment and the Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chris
Stewart [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.007
Chairman Stewart. The joint hearing on the Subcommittee of
the Environment and the Subcommittee on Energy will come to
order.
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's joint hearing
entitled ``Lessons Learned: EPA's Investigations of Hydraulic
Fracturing.''
Before we get started today, I would like to recognize my
friend, David Piantanida--I can never say his name right--who
is with the EPA Office of Research and Development. And Dave
and Lisa had a little boy last Monday, as I understand.
Congratulations. Probably the most important thing we will do
today, so we want to recognize you for that.
In front of each Member are packets containing the written
testimony, biographies, and the truth-in-testimony disclosures
for today's witnesses. Before we get started, since this is a
joint hearing involving two Subcommittees, there were some
questions, so I wanted to explain how we will operate
procedurally so all Members understand how the question-and-
answer period will be handled.
As always, we will alternate between the majority and the
minority Members, first recognizing the Chair and Ranking
Members of the Environment and Energy Subcommittees. 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 the order of their arrival.
And I would now like to recognize myself for five minutes
for my opening statement.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. We had
a chance to introduce ourselves and welcome you earlier, and
again we thank you. Thank you for your time and your expertise.
I would like to include a special welcome to John Rogers,
Department of Natural Resources, from my home State of Utah.
EPA's recent announcement that it is walking away from its
attempt to link hydraulic fracturing to groundwater issues in
Wyoming is the most recent example of the Agency employing what
I consider a ``shoot first, ask questions later'' policy
towards unconventional oil and gas production. Following
investigations in Parker County, Texas, and also Pennsylvania,
this marks the third case in which EPA has made sweeping
allegations of fracking-caused contamination, only to have to
recant these claims later due to errors, omissions, or breaches
of protocol. At a time when so many Americans are learning to
distrust their Federal Government, this is another blow for the
credibility of the Federal agencies.
This hearing is focused on EPA's ongoing study of hydraulic
fracturing, a project initiated by a single line in a 2010
appropriations bill that has blossomed into an examination
costing tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that may not be
complete until the latter half of this decade. Given EPA's rush
to judgment in Wyoming and Texas and Pennsylvania, we should
question whether the Agency's ongoing study is a genuine fact-
finding and scientific exercise or could it be a witch-hunt to
find a pretext to regulate?
Officials from EPA's Office of Research and Development,
the scientists who are in charge of this study, have stated
publicly that they are also conducting ``a pretty comprehensive
look at all the statutes to determine where holes may allow for
additional Federal oversight.'' These same officials have also
overseen large shifts in both the study's timeline and the
scope of the study since the last time the Agency's independent
Science Advisory Board weighed in.
Given the Administration's anti-fossil fuel, pro-
environmental alarmism in their approach to energy, we need to
be vigilant in ensuring that the Agency does not put the
regulatory cart before the scientific horse, threatening tens
of thousands of good-paying jobs and hundreds of millions of
dollars in economic development that have resulted from oil and
gas production in recent years.
Toward this end, this Committee, which has jurisdiction
over the study and all science at EPA, has held dozens of
hearings and sent far too many letters to the regulators in the
last two Congresses.
For example, in the beginning of May of this year, I sent a
letter to the newly-formed independent Science Advisory Board
panel on hydraulic fracturing asking what I thought were some
fundamental questions about EPA's ongoing study, and I would
like to enter a copy of this letter into the record.
[The information follows:]
Chairman Stewart. Under the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Act of 1978, SABs were created
to ``provide such scientific advice as may be requested'' by
this Committee. And I would like to emphasize that. Let me say
it again. SABs were created to provide scientific advice to
this Committee.
Unfortunately, despite promises made to the members of this
panel, EPA's lawyers have prevented the supposedly independent
panel of experts from responding directly to these questions. I
believe that wastes taxpayers' resources and it is preventing
the Board from following the law. Even worse, EPA's Office of
General Counsel has refused to meet with me and my staff to
explain this position. It bothers me that the Office of General
Counsel refuses to meet with us. With such arrogance and
dismissiveness, little wonder that the Administration is losing
the confidence of the American people, as well as this
Congress.
This panel provided critical comments back to EPA on its
study progress in late June, and, unfortunately, much of the
feedback we received reiterated many of the concerns that we
have. Independent scientists raised questions about the nature
of EPA's study and whether it would have any use for decision-
makers. One panelist suggested the Agency needs to ``examine
the rapid changes of chemicals being used and future trends
toward greener chemicals.'' Another summarized that the failure
to consider industry practices ``runs the risk of making the
Agency's evaluation of the data, which in some cases may be
several years old, obsolete and not relevant to the public,
industry, and decision-makers at all levels in 2014.''
Several members of this independent panel--whom, by the
way, if I could point out, were appointed by the EPA
Administrator--stated that the Agency's figures and
characterizations were ``misleading,'' lacked relevant context,
and were designed to produce ``self-fulfilling results.''
The Agency's--or the Administration's interagency fracking
research is now over a year late in making its study plan
public. This seems especially important in light of the
landmark study released this week by DOE's National Energy
Technology Laboratory showing no evidence that fracking
chemicals impacted drinking water in western Pennsylvania.
For these and other issues, I look forward to this very
important hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment Chairman Chris
Stewart
Good afternoon, I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing,
which is being held to review innovative approaches to technology
transfer at universities, research institutes and National
Laboratories, and to examine a discussion draft of legislation, titled
the ``Innovative Approaches to Technology Transfer Act of 2013.''
In 2012, the Federal Government funded more than $131 billion in
research and development activities. More than half of all basic
research conducted at our nation's colleges and universities is funded
by the Federal Government.
According to the Association of University Technology Managers,
technology transfer is the process by which universities and research
institutes transfer scientific findings from one organization to
another for the purpose of further development or commercialization.
The Bayh-Dole Act, passed in 1980, changed the incentive structure
for universities and research institutes to work with commercial
entities, including small businesses, to license and patent
technologies. The Small Business Technology Transfer or STTR program
was created to provide federal R&D funding for proposals that are
developed and executed jointly between a small business and a
researcher in a nonprofit research organization. My own state of
Indiana has seen 99 STTR awards totaling more than $26 million. Both
Bayh-Dole and the STTR program have helped to create jobs and translate
new technologies into the marketplace.
However, while the rate of technology transfer at our nation's
universities, research institutes and national laboratories has
increased since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act and the creation of
the STTR program, I believe we can do even better.
The draft legislation, which is being developed under the
leadership of my colleague from New York, Mr. Collins, will create a
program to incentivize research institutions to implement innovative
approaches to technology transfer to achieve better outcomes. The
legislation would dedicate a portion of STTR program funding to provide
grants to research institutions to help facilitate and accelerate the
transfer of federally funded research and technology into the
marketplace.
We will be hearing today from the co-founder of a growing
biotechnology business based in Charlottesville, Virginia that was
developed out of federally funded R&D, with the assistance of private
foundation technology transfer grant funding. We will also hear from
the Assistant Vice President for Research and Associate Director of the
Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship at Purdue University in my
home state of Indiana. And from the Assistant Vice Chancellor for the
Office of Innovation, Technology, and Alliances at the University of
California, San Francisco. Our witnesses have first-hand experience in
technology transfer and can provide insight into how the proposed grant
program could help facilitate better technology transfer outcomes.
I'm looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on their thoughts
about the proposed legislation, including any recommendations they have
for improvements.
We thank our witnesses for being here today and we look forward to
your testimony.
Chairman Stewart. I would now like to recognize the Ranking
Member, Ms. Bonamici, for her opening statement.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairman Stewart and
Chair Lummis.
Over the past several years, we have seen a substantial
expansion of fracking for oil and gas across the country. As
this expansion continues, we must not ignore the potential
public health risks that may be caused if the operations of
fracking companies contaminate drinking water.
I want to thank the Chairs of the Subcommittees for
recognizing the importance of this issue by including in the
hearing charter that a focus of the hearing will be to examine
the EPA's investigations and ascertain any lessons that might
be learned from these experiences and use to inform and improve
the EPA's ongoing study of the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources.
Hydraulic fracturing emerged as a commercial success in
large part because of Federal investment in developing today's
fracking technologies. Although fracking has boosted shale gas
exploration to make it a formidable economic driver, providing
increased energy security and creating jobs, the fast-paced and
enormous scale of fracking for shale gas may be putting our
water resources at risk.
Our surface and groundwater resources are under tremendous
strain throughout the country. Population expansion,
residential and industrial development, droughts, and limited
precipitation not seen before in some areas of the country have
all contributed to this strain. These circumstances make access
to clean water and the EPA's study even more important. If we
want to enjoy the advantages and economic benefits of shale gas
development, we must do so with the highest regard for safety
and the protection of our precious water resources.
We have all heard the stories about exploding drinking
water wells, families with children who are exposed to
potentially harmful levels of methane gas in their drinking
water, and we should all be concerned about what could happen
going forward. Fracking for shale gas is predicted to continue
for some time. State, federal, and tribal leaders, in addition
to Americans all over the country are alarmed about whether
their drinking water is at risk and they deserve answers to
their questions.
The current debate over fracking goes beyond groundwater
and includes well integrity concerns, documented induced
seismicity events, and potential negative impacts to the health
of workers at these facilities. Although the primary focus of
the EPA's study we will discuss today is the connection to
drinking water resources, all of these concerns and important
questions must be addressed. Some, especially from the
industry, submit that no additional studies are needed, that
Americans should trust that the industry knows what it is doing
or that Federal interference is unnecessary because States are
already implementing best practices.
Although some States may be up to the managerial task if
they have demonstrated knowledge of local geology, hydrology,
and infrastructure, other States are not as prepared. Some have
only begun to develop rules establishing best practices for
companies operating fracking facilities within their borders.
The oil and gas industry has a history of adopting
environmental measures only after the drop of the regulatory
gavel by state or Federal environmental regulatory authorities.
Accordingly, EPA's role, aided by rigorous peer review process
overseen by the EPA Science Advisory Board must figure
prominently in this debate. State and tribal leaders will need
the results from the fracking study to formulate stronger
policies to protect their water resources and the health of
their citizens. And hopefully, communities will have answers to
the questions about drinking water safety they have long been
asking their state and Federal leaders.
Since the initial passage of the Environmental Research
Development and Demonstration Authorization Act almost 40 years
ago, the role of the EPA has been to ask and answer the most
challenging scientific questions related to industrial activity
in our communities. Their scientific research in collaboration
with States, tribal authorities, industry, community leaders,
and other stakeholders has led to the development of clear and
stronger environmental policies and practices over the decades.
The result of that collaboration has been unquestionable
benefits for our economy, certainty for industry, and
protection of our water quality. Without a better understanding
of the fracking water cycle and the impacts to drinking water
and groundwater, we will not know enough about the potential
risks to equip State and localities with the tools necessary to
keep their citizens healthy and safe.
I look forward to hearing about EPA's progress on its
drinking water study. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment Ranking Member
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Chair Stewart and Chair Lummis. Over the past several
years we have seen a substantial expansion of fracking for oil and gas
across the country. As this expansion continues, we must not ignore the
potential public health risks that may be caused if the operations of
fracking companies contaminate drinking water. I want to thank the
Chairs of the Subcommittees for recognizing the importance of this
issue by including in the Hearing Charter that a focus of the hearing
will be to examine the EPA's investigations and ``ascertain any lessons
that might be learned from these experiences and used to inform and
improve the EPA's ongoing study of the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources.''
Hydraulic fracturing, or ``fracking,'' emerged as a commercial
success in large part because of federal investment in developing
today's fracking technologies. Although fracking has boosted shale gas
exploration to make it a formidable economic driver, providing
increased energy security and creating jobs, the fast pace and enormous
scale of fracking for shale gas may be putting our water resources at
risk.
Our surface and groundwater resources are under tremendous strain
throughout the country. Population expansion, residential and
industrial development, droughts, and limited precipitation not seen
before in some areas of the country have all contributed to this
strain. These circumstances make access to clean water and the EPA's
study even more important. If we want to enjoy the advantages and
economic benefits of shale gas development, we must do so with the
highest regard for safety and the protection of our precious water
resources.
We have heard about exploding drinking water wells and families
with children who are exposed to potentially harmful levels of methane
gas in their drinking water--we should all be concerned about what
could happen going forward. Fracking for shale gas is predicted to
continue for some time. State, federal, and tribal leaders, in addition
to Americans all over the country, are alarmed about whether their
drinking water is at risk, and they deserve answers to their questions.
The current debate over fracking goes beyond groundwater and
includes well integrity concerns, documented induced seismicity events,
and potential negative impacts to the health of workers at these
facilities. Though the primary focus of the EPA study we will discuss
today is the connection to drinking water resources, all of these
concerns and important questions must be addressed.
Some, especially from the industry, submit that no additional
studies are needed, that Americans should trust that the industry knows
what it's doing, or that federal interference is unnecessary because
states are already implementing their own best practices. Although some
states may be up to the managerial task if they have demonstrated
knowledge of local geology, hydrology, and infrastructure, other states
are not as prepared. Some have only begun to develop rules establishing
best practices for companies operating fracking facilities within their
borders.
The oil and gas industry has a history of adopting environmental
measures only after the drop of the regulatory gavel by federal or
state environmental regulatory authorities. Accordingly, EPA's role--
aided by the rigorous peer-review process overseen by the EPA Science
Advisory Board--must figure prominently in this debate. State and
tribal leaders will need the results from the fracking study to
formulate stronger policies to protect their water resources and the
health of their citizens. And, hopefully, communities will have answers
to the questions about drinking water safety that they have long been
asking their state and federal leaders.
Since the initial passage of the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act almost 40 years ago,
the role of the EPA has been to ask and answer the most challenging
scientific questions related to industrial activity in our communities.
Their scientific research, in collaboration with states, tribal
authorities, industry, community leaders, and other stakeholders, has
led to the development of clearer and stronger environmental policies
and practices over the decades. The result of that collaboration has
been unquestionable benefits for our economy, certainty for industry,
and protection of our water quality. Without a better understanding of
the fracking water cycle and the impacts to drinking water and
groundwater, we will not know enough about the potential risks to equip
states and localities with the tools necessary to keep their citizens
healthy and safe.
I look forward to hearing EPA's progress on its drinking water
study. And, with that I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. The Chair now
recognizes the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Mrs.
Lummis, for her opening statement.
Chairman Lummis. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank both the Chairman of the Environment
Subcommittee to my right and the Chairman of the full Committee
to my left for holding this important hearing, ``Lessons
Learned: EPA's Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing.'' Also,
I want to thank the witnesses for taking time to be here this
morning.
The EPA's Study of the Potential Impact on--of Hydraulic
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources has been going on for
over three years now, and the final report is expected next
year. Given the national and international interest in the
results of this endeavor, I think it is important that the
Committee take a step back and assess the Agency's track record
on hydraulic fracturing. I hope the phrase ``lessons learned''
can be a useful starting point as we review past EPA behavior
to inform and hopefully improve the ongoing work on hydraulic
fracturing. Sadly, the Agency's track record in this regard,
particularly in my home State of Wyoming, gives me little
confidence.
Last month, the Agency decided to terminate work on its
draft report that wrongly alleged that groundwater
contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming, was related to fracking.
The EPA's work in Wyoming was so riddled with mistakes in well
construction, errors in sampling techniques, and failures to
follow protocol that their only course of action was to do the
right thing and withdraw the report.
And while I am relieved that EPA transferred authority to
the State of Wyoming on any continued work in Pavillion, I am
troubled that the Agency continues to insist that it ``stands
by its work'' on Pavillion.
I hope the EPA will avoid making these same mistakes in its
broader ongoing study, but I lack confidence when the EPA
stands by its work even when that work is shoddy and led even
prestigious publications to frighten Americans about this
significant technology. The new study design is flawed and
indicative of the Agency's characteristic outcome-driven
approach to hydraulic fracturing, where achieving desired
conclusions takes precedent over basing those conclusions on
the best available science.
For example, this study, intended to be a seminal and
authoritative work on whether or not hydraulic fracturing
impacts drinking water, is guided not by what is likely or
probable but by a search for what is merely possible. In this
manner, the Agency appears headed towards developing
conclusions completely divorced from any useful context. It is
akin to a weatherman warning citizens to take shelter based on
the possibility that a storm will occur without including any
indication of when, where, and how likely it is to actually
take place.
I am not alone in this concern, as several of the panelists
on EPA's Science Advisory Board's Hydraulic Fracturing Research
Advisory have similarly expressed apprehension over the lack of
context the Agency is providing and its neglect of risk
assessment.
Let me just read a few comments, which I urge EPA to
incorporate. These comments are from the advisory. ``To simply
discount the regulatory work in place and model what-if and
worst-case scenarios will not produce realistic results,
relevant context has to be taken into account, absent
information on chemical concentrations, amounts used, site
storage conditions, duration of storage onsite, and containment
systems, the information will not support an assessment of the
potential impact to drinking water resources. Inappropriately,
this experimental design produces self-fulfilling results.''
Mind you, these are quotes. ``Clearly, EPA should do much more
to put this information into context'' from the advisors.
These statements summarize just some of the concerns I have
with EPA's approach to hydraulic fracturing, concerns I hope
are a result of the collection of honest mistakes made by the
Agency rather than a calculated pattern of behavior based on
regulatory intentions. I look forward to hearing how the Agency
has learned from its past work and plans to improve its work in
the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy Chairman Cynthia Lummis
Good morning and I thank the Chairman of the Environment
Subcommittee for holding this important hearing, Lessons Learned: EPA's
Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing. I want thank the witnesses for
taking the time to be here this morning and I look forward to their
valuable testimony.
The EPA's Study of the Potential Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing on
Drinking Water Resources has been going on for over three years now,
and the final report is expected next year. Given the national-and
international-interest in the results of this endeavor, I think it's
important that the Committee takes this time to take a step back and
assess the Agency's track record on hydraulic fracturing. I hope that
phrase lessons learned can be a useful starting point this morning as
we review past EPA behavior in order to inform and hopefully improve
its ongoing work on hydraulic fracturing. Unfortunately, the Agency's
track record in this regard--particularly in my home state of Wyoming--
gives me no cause for confidence.
Initially, I was pleased to hear last month that the Agency decided
to terminate all work on its draft report alleging fracking
contaminated ground water in Pavillion, Wyoming. This undertaking was
so riddled with mistakes in well construction, errors in sampling
techniques, and failures to follow protocol that even the USGS--a
fellow federal agency--could not replicate the results. However, while
I am relieved that EPA decided to stop digging itself into a deeper
scientific hole, I am extremely troubled that the Agency continues to
brazenly insist it ``stands by its work'' on Pavillion.
I hope the EPA will avoid making these same mistakes in its
broader, ongoing study, but cause for optimism is wanting. The study
design is flawed and indicative of the Agency's characteristic outcome-
drive approach to hydraulic fracturing, where achieving desired
conclusions takes precedent over basing those conclusions on the best
available science. In that vein, this study, intended to be a seminal
and authoritative work on whether or not hydraulic fracturing impacts
drinking water, is guided by a search for what is possible, rather than
what is likely or probable.
In this manner, the Agency appears headed toward developing
conclusions completely divorced from any useful context. It is akin to
a weatherman warning citizens to take shelter based on the possibility
that a storm will occur, without including any indication of when the
storm might occur, where it might hit, and how likely it is to actually
take place. I am not alone in this concern, as several of the panelists
on the EPA's Science Advisory Board's Hydraulic Fracturing Research
Advisory have similarly expressed apprehension over the lack of context
the Agency is providing and its neglect of risk assessment.
Let me just read a few of those comments, which I urge the EPA to
incorporate:
``To simply discount the regulatory network in place and
model ``what if'' and ``worse case'' scenarios will not produce
realistic results''
``relevant context has to be taken into account''
``absent information on chemical concentrations, amounts
used, site storage conditions, duration of storage onsite, and
containment systems, the information will not support an assessment of
the potential impact to drinking water resources.''
``Inappropriately, this experimental design produces
self-fulfilling results''
``clearly, EPA should do much more to put this
information into context''
These statements summarize just some of the concerns I have with
EPA's approach to hydraulic fracturing, concerns I hope are a result of
a collection of honest mistakes made by the Agency rather than a
calculated pattern of behavior based on regulatory intentions. I look
forward to hearing how the Agency has learned from its past work and
plans to improve its work in the future.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Swalwell for his opening
statement.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Stewart and Chairman
Lummis, for holding this hearing and also I want to thank our
witnesses for being here with us today. And I also embrace and
look forward to the opportunity to examine EPA's efforts to
determine whether there is a significant link between fracking
and groundwater quality and, if so, what next future steps we
need to take to make sure that our drinking water is clean and
safe, and if this technology is able to be done safely, where
and how is the best way to do that?
As I have said before over and over in this Committee, I do
support an all-of-the-above approach to energy production and I
do believe that if we can make it safe, we should make it
happen. However, in any technology, if we cannot make it safe,
we should try and fix it to make it safe, and if not, certainly
not expose consumers and citizens to any of the hazards that
may exist in any project.
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, I still believe we need to proceed with
extreme caution.
And I understand the concern of the Chairman, both Chairman
Lummis and Chairman Stewart about the length of time it has
taken, but, frankly, I don't think three years is too long at
this point for something that is so serious. And, as I have
said, and I know many of my colleagues are committed, if we can
make this technology safe, we are willing to make it happen,
but we do have concerns, especially in California, about
seismic activity and what fracking could do with seismic
activity.
And with respect to the study in Wyoming, I certainly share
Chairman Lummis' concerns about what happened with that EPA
study, and what I am interested in learning is whether that
study was something that was supposed to be limited and limited
in scope only to the concern of groundwater affecting a
particular person or a particular group of individuals and
rather that--and whether that study should really be projected
more broadly as an EPA groundwater study.
So I think there is legitimate debate about whether the
study that was done should be used or whether there is a more
broad, comprehensive study taking place. But I look forward to
working with both Chairs to see that.
And we have to be careful that when we do extract this
resource that we do it carefully without unintended, serious
consequences to either our health or environment. And while I
know that the focus of this hearing is mostly on the EPA and
groundwater contamination, I have brought up my concerns in the
past about what I think are direct links between seismic
activity and fracking.
And as I have said, it may be the case that perhaps
California is not the best place to have hydraulic fracking and
perhaps other States that don't have seismic concerns, if they
can show that there will not be groundwater contamination, that
would be the best place to conduct fracking. It would be very
shortsighted, though, to produce energy via fracking in
California to only find that it would lead to seismic activity
or further seismic activity.
So I am pleased that the EPA and other Federal agencies,
along with many of the partners in your States, are taking
these issues seriously. And I urge you to take the time you
need to get the most accurate answers possible, even if some of
them don't turn out to be what we want to hear. There is simply
no place for politics when it comes to making sure that the
water that our families rely upon is safe and that the homes
that we live in are not put at further risk of a manmade
disaster. And so I look forward to learning more on this issue.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, 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 Stewart and Chairman Lummis for holding this
hearing today, and I also want to thank the witnesses for being here. I
appreciate the opportunity to further examine the EPA's efforts to
determine whether there is a significant link between fracking and
groundwater quality and, if so, the next steps we need to take to
ensure that our drinking water is clean and safe.
As I've said before, 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 unintended, serious consequences to either our health
or the environment. While I know it is not the focus of this particular
hearing, it is still worth noting to these expert witnesses that a
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.
So I am pleased that the EPA and other relevant federal agencies,
along with many of your partners in the states, are taking these issues
seriously. I urge you to take the time you need to get the most
accurate answers possible, even if some of them don't turn out to be
what we want to hear. There is simply no place for politics when it
comes to making sure that the water that our families rely on is safe,
and the homes that we live in are not at risk of a man-made disaster.
I look forward to learning more on this important issue, and with
that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell.
Like you, I would love to explore that question of the
impacts. Geological impacts of fracking, I think, would be
something that would be obviously beneficial and I think the
result would be, I think, positive as well in the sense of it
would allow the country to continue towards energy
independence.
With that, though, I now recognize Mr. Smith, the Chairman
of the full Committee, for an opening statement.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, before I start my opening statement, I do
want to acknowledge the opening statements by the Ranking
Members of the Energy and Environment Subcommittees because I
thought they were very measured opening statements and we can
look for ways to try to achieve the same goals.
It seems that each week there is more good news about the
incredible benefits of the fracking energy revolution that is
underway across America. Whether it is the manufacturing
renaissance taking place in this country thanks to cheap
natural gas, the creation of over one million jobs and
counting, or the potential for liquefied natural gas exports to
spur economic growth, the benefits of shale gas production can
hardly be overstated.
The fracking process is turning out to be a way to achieve
energy independence, strengthen our national security, and
stimulate the economy, all with minimal impact to the
environment.
However, some--however, the EPA has too often been
complicit in an effort to try to undercut this new development.
They have attempted to link fracking to water contamination in
at least three cases, only to be forced to retract their
statements after further scrutiny proved them to be unfounded.
Their track record and bias makes the EPA's ongoing study of
the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking
water resources even more troubling.
I am concerned that the EPA has failed to include a risk
assessment as part of this study, instead choosing to simply
identify potential risks without providing any context or
consideration of their likelihood. This deficiency would
significantly undermine the study's objectivity and ultimately
impair its utility.
Recent Science Advisory Board reviewers have noted this
deficiency as well. In comments last month on the EPA study,
one reviewer stated, ``There is no quantitative risk assessment
included in EPA's research effort. Thus, a reader has no sense
of how risky any operation may be in ultimately impacting
drinking water.'' This is a concern that I hope the EPA will
address in today's hearing.
The Agency should base its work on sound science rather
than regulatory ambition. However, if the Agency fails to do
this, a legislative remedy may be warranted to address the
study's deficiencies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith
It seems that each week there is more good news about the
incredible benefits of the fracking energy revolution that is underway
across America. Whether it's the manufacturing renaissance taking place
in this country thanks to cheap natural gas, the creation of over one
million jobs and counting, or the potential for liquefied natural gas
exports to spur economic growth, the benefits of shale gas production
can hardly be overstated.
The fracking process is turning out to be a way to achieve energy
independence, strengthen our national security and stimulate the
economy, all with minimal impact to the environment. However, some
choose to ignore these benefits and instead focus on finding ways to
restrain, if not stifle, the new development.
The EPA has too often been complicit in this effort. They have
attempted to link fracking to water contamination in at least three
cases, only to be forced to retract their statements after further
scrutiny proved them to be unfounded.
Their track record and bias makes the EPA's ongoing study of the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources
even more troubling. I am concerned that the EPA has failed to include
a risk assessment as part of this study, instead choosing to simply
identify potential risks without providing any context or consideration
of their likelihood. This deficiency would significantly undermine the
study's objectivity and ultimately impair its utility.
Recent Science Advisory Board reviewers have noted this deficiency
as well. In comments last month on the EPA study, one reviewer stated,
``There is no quantitative risk assessment included in EPA's research
effort. Thus, the reader has no sense of how risky any operation may be
in ultimately impacting drinking water.'' This is a concern that I hope
the EPA will address in today's hearing.
The Agency should base its work on sound science rather than
regulatory ambition. However, if the Agency fails to do this, a
legislative remedy may be warranted to address the study's
deficiencies.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And if I could just reiterate your comments about Mr.
Swalwell and Ms. Bonamici, that their efforts, a bipartisan
effort, their goodwill and frankly their background and
intelligence that they bring to these conversations is greatly
appreciated. So thank you for recognizing that.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for one
more quick comment?
Chairman Stewart. Yes, of course, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. And that is just to apologize to our
witnesses today. I am going to need to shuttle between this
hearing and a markup in the Judiciary Committee, so I will be
missing some important testimony but we will catch up later on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement as well.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
Chairman and Ranking Members of these committees.
I am pleased that Energy and Environment Subcommittees are
holding the hearing today and I welcome all of our
distinguished panelists to the Committee.
Like so many others, I am concerned about the health and
welfare of hardworking families who live around fracking
facilities. Concerns about contamination of groundwater and
drinking water have troubled us since the shale gas boom
started over a decade ago. And of course that shale gas boom
would likely not exist without critical research investments
from the Department of Energy over 30 years ago to bring new
natural gas online.
But as a number of fracking facilities operating in oil and
gas in States have gone from hundreds to thousands, the number
of reports from citizens complaining of contamination of their
drinking water has increased. Excuse me. We must be careful not
to sacrifice the quality of our natural water resources for the
sake of cheaper gas.
We need clean water as much as we need affordable energy
options. Our water resources are already stretched to support
our industrial and our agricultural sectors and residential and
commercial development. We cannot afford to contaminate the
limited drinking water supplies that we have. Like so many of
our hearings involving oil and gas industry, I expect that some
of our colleagues across the aisle will not like anything that
the EPA has to say about its progress in researching these
issues, but it is in the best interest of everyone, especially
the fracking industry, to resolve questions surrounding the
fracking water cycle and impact on groundwater and drinking
water.
In closing, I would like to again dispel the myth that
because I expect it will be undoubtedly raised, that Democrats
are mounting a war on oil and gas, that is simply not true. We
simply recognize that our Nation is strengthened by both
diversifying our energy supply and protecting public health.
These go hand-in-hand. Americans have a right to clean water
and a healthier environment. The gas will be there and it is up
to the industry to make sure it can be produced in an
environmentally sound manner.
Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice
Johnson
I am very pleased that the Energy and Environment Subcommittees are
holding this hearing today, and I welcome all of our distinguished
panelists to the Committee. Like so many others, I am concerned about
the health and welfare of hardworking families who live around fracking
facilities. Concerns about contamination of groundwater and drinking
water have troubled us since the shale gas boom started over a decade
ago. And of course, that shale gas boom would likely not exist without
critical research investments made by the Department of Energy over 30
years ago to bring new natural gas online.
But, as the number of fracking facilities operating in oil and gas
rich states has gone from hundreds to thousands, the number of reports
from citizens complaining of contamination of their drinking water has
increased. We must be careful not to sacrifice the quality of our
natural water resources for the sake of cheaper gas. We need clean
water as much as we need affordable energy options. Our water resources
are already stretched to support our industrial and agricultural
sectors, and residential and commercial development. We cannot afford
to contaminate the limited drinking water supplies that we have.
Like so many of our hearings involving the oil and gas industry, I
expect that some of my colleagues across the aisle will not like
anything that the EPA has to say about its progress in researching
these issues. But, it is in the best interest of everyone, especially
the fracking industry, to resolve questions surrounding the fracking
water cycle and the impact to groundwater and drinking water.
In closing, I would like to once again dispel the myth-because I
expect that it will undoubtedly be raised--that the Democrats are
mounting a war on oil and gas. We simply recognize that our nation is
strengthened by both diversifying our energy supply AND protecting
public health. These go hand in hand. Americans have a right to clean
water AND a healthier environment. The gas will be there, and it is up
to the industry to make sure it can be produced in an environmentally
sound manner.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
We now turn our attention to our witnesses, and I will
introduce each of you just previous to your opportunity to
speak and give your opening statements for five minutes.
Our first witness is Dr. Fred Hauchman, Director of the
Office of Science Policy at EPA's Office of Research and
Development. Dr. Hauchman has worked with EPA since 1985 in a
variety of scientific and executive positions. He previously
served as the Director of Microbiological and Chemical Exposure
Assessment Research Division and is a Senior Scientist in EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Dr. Hauchman received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins
University. He is a senior official overseeing EPA's ongoing
study of hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. And, Dr.
Hauchman, welcome to the Committee. And you are now allowed
five minutes for your opening testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. FRED HAUCHMAN,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE POLICY,
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. Hauchman. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Lummis,
Chairman Stewart, and other distinguished Members of the two
Subcommittees. My name is Fred Hauchman and I am, as was
stated, the Director of the Office of Science Policy within the
Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. I appreciate this opportunity to talk with
you today about the EPA's study of the potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources with an
emphasis on adherence to protocols, procedures, and other
science policies that govern our research.
As the President has stated, oil and natural gas are
important sources of energy, and these will continue to play a
vital role in our Nation's energy future. The Administration
has further emphasized that the extraction and development of
these energy resources must be done safely, responsibly, and be
guided by the best available science.
In 2010, Congress requested that EPA conduct a study of the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water
resources. In response this request, the EPA designed a study
that covers the full hydraulic fracturing water cycle from the
actual acquisition of the water through the ultimate treatment
and disposal. The EPA's Science Advisory Board affirmed the
study's scope and the research approaches that are being taken
and found that it is responsive to the Congressional request.
In December of this past year, we released a progress
report on the study, and in late 2014, we will issue a draft
final report that will be presented to the Science Advisory
Board for review and will also of course be available for
public comment.
I would like to turn now to the important issue of
scientific integrity. The EPA is committed to ensuring
scientific integrity in its research and is conducting this
study consistent with the Agency's Scientific Integrity Policy.
As noted in the EPA's study plan, all agency-funded research
projects must comply with the Agency's rigorous quality
assurance requirements. We are following the six principles
that were laid out by Congress when it requested EPA to conduct
the study.
First, we are using the best available science. Under the
direction of the EPA's senior scientific leadership, highly
skilled teams of EPA's scientists are conducting research using
state-of-the-art laboratories and methods. All the data
analyses and literature reviews are using the highest-quality
information that is available.
Second, we are incorporating independent sources of
information into our research. EPA's scientists are gathering
and analyzing data from the peer-reviewed literature, from
state agencies, from industry, and from other sources to ensure
that we have a thorough and current understanding of
information relating to hydraulic fracturing.
Third, we are following a rigorous quality assurance
protocol. All research associated with the study is conducted
in accordance with the Agency's rigorous quality assurance
program and meets the Office of Research and Development's
requirements for the highest level of quality assurance. Each
research project is guided by an approved and publicly
available quality assurance project plan.
Fourth, we are engaging stakeholders at every level. This
includes the public, industry, nongovernmental organizations,
tribal representatives, and state, interstate, and Federal
agencies. For example, we have conducted a series of technical
workshops. These occurred in 2011, 2012, and we are conducting
another round of expert workshops dealing with the technical
issues pertaining to the study this very year. We have also
solicited data and literature from stakeholders through the
Federal Register.
Fifth, we are conducting the study in a transparent
fashion. Throughout the course of this study from the very
beginning, the EPA shared and will continue to share
information with the public about our research procedures, the
status of our work, and our findings. We have held numerous
public information sessions, workshops, and roundtables, and we
have posted extensive information on the EPA's website.
Sixth, we are committed to a thorough peer review. The EPA
conducts its reviews in accordance with the Agency's peer
review policy, EPA's peer review handbook, and the guidance
provided by the Office of Management and Budget. The EPA is
committed to this peer review of the report as a highly
influential scientific assessment and this review will be
reviewed by the Science Advisory Board in 2014.
In conclusion, the EPA's study is a high-quality study, it
is transparent, it is current, and it is peer-reviewed. It also
is responsive to the request of Congress.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today. I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hauchman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.015
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Dr. Hauchman. And we look
forward to addressing some of your statements and following up
with that as well.
Our second witness today is Dr. David Dzombak, Chair of
EPA's Science Advisory Board's Hydraulic Fracturing Research
Advisory Panel, which recently provided feedback to the Agency
on its ongoing hydraulic fracturing study and will review the
completed study in late 2014.
Dr. Dzombak is also the head of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. In
addition to his current capacity, Dr. Dzombak has been part of
EPA's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology and the National Research Council. He received his
Ph.D. from MIT. Dr. Dzombak, then, your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID A. DZOMBAK,
CHAIR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD,
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
RESEARCH ADVISORY PANEL
Dr. Dzombak. Good morning. Chairman Stewart, Ranking Member
Bonamici, Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell,
distinguished Subcommittee Members, ladies and gentlemen, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before both Subcommittees.
I am Dave Dzombak, Professor and Head of the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon
University. My teaching and research is focused in water
quality engineering and science. I have also been continuously
engaged in professional and public service, including service
on the EPA's Science Advisory Board in various roles since
2002. I am Chair of the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory
Panel. This is an ad hoc panel formed by the SAB staff in
response to a request from the EPA Office of Research and
Development for peer review of their study.
As requested in your invitation, I will provide some
background on the SAB, the role the SAB and the advisory panel
with respect to the EPA's study, panel activities to date, and
our plans for future activities. I should emphasize that my
testimony I speak for myself and not for the advisory panel
members, the chartered SAB, or SAB management and staff.
Congress established the SAB in 1978 and gave it a broad
mandate: to advise the Agency on scientific and technical
matters. The EPA Administrator appoints members to the
chartered SAB, which conducts its work using subcommittees or
ad hoc panels of chartered SAB members augmented with
additional experts. The SAB is subject to and operates under
the regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA.
The SAB has been involved with providing scientific peer
review and expert advice since the beginning of the EPA
research study. This has included review of the research
scoping plan in 2010 and the detailed research study plan in
2011. I chaired both of these reviews, which were conducted by
two different panels. Both resulted in consensus advisory
reports that were submitted to the Administrator after review
by the chartered SAB.
For the December 2012 progress report, EPA requested a
consultation and the current panel was formed. An SAB
consultation is an opportunity for EPA to hear from individual
experts and does not require consensus among the experts, nor
preparation of a detailed report. After a consultation occurs,
a compilation of individual expert comments from SAB panel
members is often developed for the Agency's consideration.
The SAB anticipates that the Agency will submit a scheduled
2014 report of research study results for peer review. At that
time, the panel will conduct a review organized around charge
questions, consider public comment, and develop a written
report for review by the chartered SAB. Each of these steps
will be conducted at open meetings.
The advisory panel has 31 members and is the largest SAB
panel ever formed. The panel has at least three experts in each
of nine areas of expertise identified by the SAB staff as
needed considering the activities included in the final study
plan. The members of the panel represent a balance of
industrial, academic, nongovernment, and government experts.
During our May 2013 consultation meeting, panel members
provided their individual expert comments on 12 charge
questions covering five--the five major stages of the hydraulic
fracturing water cycle. Seven members of the public presented
oral statements at the beginning of the meeting and two
presented clarifying oral statements at the end. Written public
comments were submitted by 13 individuals or organizations for
consideration by the panel, and all these submitted comments
were posted promptly to the SAB website.
There will be additional opportunities for the advisory
panel to consider new and emerging information related to the
hydraulic fracturing research study. The panel plans to hold a
teleconference in fall 2013 to discuss such information. As I
noted previously, our panel will be in place to conduct peer
review of EPA's 2014 report.
I thank both Subcommittees again for the opportunity to
testify. In closing, I would like to note that EPA reached out
early to the SAB for scientific peer review of the hydraulic
fracturing research study. The engagement has continued since
initiation of the research and it is my understanding that EPA
plans to continue the engagement in their review of research
products. I will do my best as Chair to ensure in-depth, very
high-quality, and transparent peer review.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dzombak follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.027
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Dr. Dzombak.
Our third witness is Mr. John Rogers, Associate Director of
the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining at the Utah Department of
Natural Resources. Mr. Rogers manages the petroleum section
that permits, monitors, and regulates oil and gas production in
Utah. He has 15 years of experience in oil and gas exploration,
reservoir analysis, and economic analysis of oil and gas
fields. Mr. Rogers received his MS and MBA from Brigham Young
University.
Mr. Rogers.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN ROGERS,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
OIL AND GAS, DIVISION OF OIL,
GAS, AND MINING,
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Rogers. Good morning, Chairman Stewart, Chairman
Lummis, and Members of the Subcommittee. As was stated, my name
is John Rogers and I am the Associate Director of the Division
of Oil, Gas, and Mining in the State of Utah. The division
manages permitting, regulation, and monitoring of oil and gas
drilling, Class II injection wells, and oil and gas disposal
facilities in Utah. This includes hydraulic fracturing, which
we have regulated for many years, which is the primary focus of
this hearing.
Hydraulic fracturing has been an operational practice for
completing and stimulating oil and gas wells in Utah since the
early 1960s. In all the historical records of the division,
there has never been a verified case of hydraulic fracturing in
causing or contributing to contamination of water resources.
The division has always had very stringent rules concerning
wellbore construction and the protection of water resources.
However, to make the process of hydraulic fracturing more
transparent and alleviate the recent public fear of hydraulic
fracturing, the division has adopted a formal hydraulic
fracturing rule in October of 2012. This rule combined many of
the division's current existing rules concerning overall best
management practices for oil and gas production as related to
safe and efficient operations, as well as public disclosure of
chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process.
There are three major concerns that have come to the
forefront concerning hydraulic fracturing. The BLM has
presented these in their proposed rule and Utah has addressed
them historically and with their current new rule. The first is
provide public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic
fracturing; secondly, include regulations to ensure wellbore
integrity; and third, to address issues related to flow-back
water.
First, public disclosure, the Utah rule requires operators
to report to fracfocus.org within 30--within 60 days of
completion of a hydraulic fracturing operation of the chemicals
used in this process. The primary purpose of fracfocus.org is
to provide factual information concerning hydraulic fracturing
and groundwater protection. FracFocus is a national hydraulic
fracturing chemical registry accepted by both industry and
government. It is managed by the Ground Water Protection
Counsel and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, two
organizations whose missions revolve around conservation and
environmental protection.
The site was created to provide the public access to
reported chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing at specific
well sites. To help users put this information into
perspective, the site also provides objective information on
hydraulic fracturing, the chemicals used, and the purpose they
serve, and the means by which groundwater is protected. This
reporting process that the division uses is also the same
method proposed by the BLM rule.
Secondly, wellbore integrity, existing rules were already
in place to ensure wellbore integrity and construction. This
includes detailed rules on casing and cementing programs,
blowout prevention and uncontrolled flow, protection of
freshwater aquifers, and casing pressure tests.
Utah's hydraulic fracturing rule emphasizes the use of
already existing rules that have managed oil and gas production
in Utah for many years. The regulatory process of the division
are effective in ensuring the responsible development of Utah's
resources with due regard for and protection of the
environment. This begins with wellbore integrity. The staff at
DOGM, which we refer to the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining,
has local knowledge and expertise to address the technical and
scientific challenges proposed by Utah's unique geology and
geography.
Onsite inspections of oil and gas wells are a key component
of the division's regulatory program. All wells drilled on the
site, on the State or private lands in Utah are subject to
rigorous inspection programs that include inspection and
witnessing of well-control equipment, casing and cementing
operations, follow-up to third-party complaints, and general
compliance verification. In 2012, 8,983 such onsite inspections
were performed by the division.
Finally, management of flow-back water and service
protection, the division rule states the operator shall take
all reasonable precautions to avoid polluting lands, streams,
lakes, reservoirs, natural drainages, and underground water.
Prior to any drilling operation, all drill sites have onsite
inspections and are analyzed for surface conditions and best
practices are employed to prevent any contamination of surface
water or groundwater.
The division's board has recently approved a new rule July
1, 2013, entitled ``Waste Management and Disposal.'' These
rules update methods and restraints for disposal of RCRA-exempt
waste from oil and gas production. This would include the
management of hydraulic fracturing fluid flow-back.
Utah's production water is disposed of by two methods. The
first is underground injection wells, which 94 percent of the
water is included into those injection wells, which we have a
primacy from the EPA; and secondly, evaporative disposal ponds.
These are in very detailed rules and controlling these disposal
ponds, and so between those two methods, we feel we control the
surface and subsurface.
Finally, I believe our Federal and state interaction with
the division has worked very well with Federal agencies with
concerns spacing, flaring, and split estates. However, there
has been no collaboration concerning hydraulic fracturing. The
division believes that a statewide standard is defined by the
divisions hydraulic fracturing rule would be beneficial rather
than several regulations, as proposed.
Those are my statements.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.032
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
And I am sure, like you, both of us look forward to getting
back to our beautiful State. So thank you for being with us
today.
Our final witness then is Dr. Rahm. Dr. Brian Rahm is a
post-doctorate associate at Cornell University's Department of
Earth and Atmospheric Studies in New York State Water Resources
Institute. Dr. Rahm is engaged in education and research of
shale gas development on water resources and waste
infrastructure. He previously worked in New Zealand engaging in
climate change policy analysis. Dr. Rahm received his Ph.D.
from Cornell University. Dr. Rahm.
TESTIMONY OF DR. BRIAN RAHM,
NEW YORK WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE,
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Dr. Rahm. Good morning and thank you for inviting me to be
a part of this discussion.
My name is Brian Rahm and I work for the New York State
Water Resources Institute at Cornell University. My job is to
develop understanding of unconventional gas extraction and its
interaction with and impact on water resources. My goal is to
act as a neutral source of information to the public--people
are very excited in New York about this activity--and to
policymakers at local, state, and Federal levels. I have
therefore been following EPA's investigation with interest from
a New York perspective.
Unconventional gas development, not just hydraulic
fracturing per se, involves multiple activities that can and do
impact water resources. We know accidents happen. Accidents
present risks and have impacts. Figure 2 of my written
testimony shows the prevalence of violations issued by
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to
unconventional gas operators over the last few years. Spills of
various kinds, often of waste fluids, occur relatively
frequently. Many of these spills are small and contained. Less
frequently, they are larger and pose risks to nearby surface
and ground waters.
Apart from accidents, we also know that cumulative impacts
are possible. Cumulative impacts result from multiple
individual events occurring across the landscape. For example,
waste fluids need to be treated if they are to be discharged.
Waste from a single well might be diluted or treated, but if
waste from dozens or hundreds of wells is discharged, negative
impacts can occur. This is true even when single activities are
conducted within established rules and regulations.
A study in the proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, which I have here, observed elevated salt
concentrations in rivers downstream from treatment facilities
accepting unconventional gas waste in Pennsylvania over the
last decade.
What role do the EPA investigations play? The EPA
investigations in Pavillion, Dimock, and Parker County can
address the complaints that prompted them and demonstrate
responsiveness to the community. They can determine if
contamination is present and if there is an immediate risk to
environmental or public health. They can also provoke thinking
and discussion as the Pavillion investigation did for me on the
following points: 1) Design and scope of research into gas
development impacts needs to be carefully thought through,
adhered to, and communicated; 2) regional differences matter.
Geology practices and policy can vary by State and by gas play;
3) critical issues to acknowledge, discuss, and plan for
include the management of waste fluids, the management of well
integrity via casing and cementing, and the disclosure of
chemical additives; and 4) oversight of both gas and water well
construction is needed when target formations contain aquifers.
A more complete commentary can be found on our website.
An equally important question regarding these
investigations is what can't they do? They cannot act as risk
assessments of water resource impacts from gas development
accidents in general. This is because investigations occur
within the context of specific geological, historical, and
regulatory conditions. These also cannot address the risks
presented by cumulative impacts. Broad risk assessments that
incorporate cumulative impacts need data on a regional or
national scale and not just from places where complaints have
been lodged or where contamination has occurred. It is just as
important to know when things go right as it is to know when
things go wrong.
From what I understand of the ongoing EPA study of the
potential impacts on drinking water resources, they are asking
many good questions. It is a welcome response to the need for
assessments able to identify a set of shared and/or cumulative
risks that transcend local conditions and that are beyond the
purview of any single operator or state agency to manage. I am
looking forward to the results of their studies.
One big study, however, does not mean we will have perfect
answers. No single study can do that. The nature of research is
to build understanding through repetition and consensus. This
requires patience and willingness to adapt to new information.
Lack of perfect information doesn't mean that activities should
stop but, like other activities that pose risks to water
resources, treatment and discharge of sewage, for example,
unconventional gas development does require oversight to
minimize risk.
What does this mean for the regulation of shale gas in
states and the country as a whole? What is clear to me anyway
from the EPA investigations is that local characteristics will
vary. This suggests that states should continue to be the
leaders in day-to-day regulation since state agencies are most
familiar with local conditions. Indeed, many states already
regulate gas development like Utah to varying levels and
stringencies. This is explored in detail in a recent Resources
for the Future study, part of which I have included as figure 3
in my testimony.
That being said, the need for broad assessment of some
risks, along with cumulative impacts that we know can happen,
means that a broad examination and perspective is needed. In
response to these general risks and cumulative impacts, it may
make sense to establish basic standards at the regional or
Federal level.
In closing, we should be working thoughtfully toward
understanding both the benefits and the risks of our energy
choices and how they interact with our valuable water
resources. To not know the benefits and risks of unconventional
gas development while the activity is new is fair enough. We
have not had time to fully understand, but it is my hope we can
continue to learn through research, experience, and dialogue so
we increase our energy and water resource literacy in the years
to come.
Thanks for this opportunity. I am happy to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahm follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.045
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Dr. Rahm.
I recognize that each of you have written testimony and
that will be included in the record after this hearing. And
then I also review that for the members of the panel will each
have five minutes to question members of the panel of
witnesses. And I now recognize myself for five minutes as the
Chairman.
There are a couple things that I would love to talk with
each of you about, and I want to go strategic rather than
tactical. Dr. Hauchman and Dr. Dzombak, I appreciate your
testimony, but I want you to know that I disagree with you on
some of the elements of it. And I don't believe the Agency has
been responsive. I believe the evidence supports this concern
that I have. And I hope you understand that it is not helpful
for us in trying to develop a working relationship when we feel
like you are not being responsive and honoring the charter that
we have in order to provide answers to this Committee regarding
some of these, what we think are very, very important issues.
But putting that aside, again, I would like to talk about,
you know, kind of the bigger picture on some of these elements.
And, Dr. Hauchman, let me begin with you if I could, just
quickly. And I don't think we want to discuss this for a long
time, but I would like you to respond to this.
I mentioned in my opening statement the EPA's experience in
Wyoming, Texas and Pennsylvania where, in my opinion, they
clearly put the politics ahead of the science in some of these
public statements that they made and then had to withdraw and
to backup from some of those. And I would just ask can you see
how this episode makes Congress and frankly the American people
skeptical of EPA's willingness to be fair and unbiased in these
studies as they try to draw these connections between any
fracking activity and pollutants in groundwater?
Dr. Hauchman. Thank you for your question, Congressman
Stewart. I appreciate the nature of your question. My focus is
on the drinking water study. And I stand here--I sit here with
confidence in telling you and assuring you that we are
conducting a rigorous study that will be following all
appropriate procedures.
Chairman Stewart. And I appreciate that, but can you see
how with the previous experience that that there would be some
people that would be skeptical of that?
Dr. Hauchman. I appreciate your comment. Yes.
Chairman Stewart. Okay. Thank you. Let me, if I could,
maybe, Mr. Rogers, if I could ask you to respond. I was an Air
Force pilot for many years and before we flew a mission or
before we trained in our training or whether those who actually
fly in combat, you analyze the threat, you try to measure those
threats, you try to analyze which are the most important, which
are the most critical, and you try to mitigate those. And then
you go fly the mission. And if we had a threat matrix where we
had to eliminate every possible threat, then we would simply
never fly.
And I think that there is a parallel to some of the
language or some of the intents of this study and that is EPA
searching for what is possible without paying attention to what
is probable or what is likely. For example, the primary goals
of the study is to answer such question as what is the possible
impacts of hydraulic fracturing fluid surface spills on or near
well pads or drinking water resources, again, looking at every
conceivable possibility and not measuring those or attaching a
matrix to those that are much more likely? And I guess I would
ask is a mere possibility of an event occurring sufficient to
justify a regulatory action?
Mr. Rogers, again, I would appreciate your opinion on that.
Mr. Rogers. I think that any activity you take has risks
whether it be flying in an airplane, driving a car. There is
always a risk involved. Therefore, I think hydraulic fracturing
has a risk. There could be a possibility but I think we need to
quantify that, put a number on that, and find out what exactly
that risk is.
For example, in the State of Utah, we have done a study
where we have measured in our oil-and-gas producing area, the
Uinta basin, where the depth and moderately saline water, any
water that could possibly be used. So when we know where that
is, we put casing, we cement down to that level below it so
that we know that we are protecting that. Could something
happen? Possibly, but most likely no because we have gone, we
have analyzed, and we have addressed the risk and we think the
risk has been minimized if not just by the application of good
science.
So I think what your statement is true that there always is
an opportunity that something could happen but I think you need
to quantify that and put a real number on that on what the
reality of that happening.
Chairman Stewart. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Hauchman and Dr. Dzombak, will you reply to that? I
mean in your study are you doing a quantitative analysis and
attaching a quantitative measure to these risks and helping the
readers of this study understand that some of them are
significantly less risk than others or do you treat most of
them as if they are equal?
Dr. Hauchman. I will respond first. As we have stated, this
study is not a quantitative risk assessment. We are focused on
the research questions and we feel that by answering these
questions, we will have information that will be very useful.
But I want to be clear that we are not simply producing a
report that will have a statement that says it is possible or
it is not. We are doing a robust, a thorough analysis of the
available literature. We have requested information from the
public, from all the different sectors, and any findings or
conclusion we make will be made in proper context. They will be
made with attention to the quality of the information and so
forth. So I am confident that this will be a very useful
report.
Chairman Stewart. And again, I just want to make sure I
understand. But you will not attach a quantitative assessment
to each of these concerns that the study will address?
Dr. Hauchman. It has not been our intention to design this
study to develop a quantitative risk assessment.
Chairman Stewart. Okay. Do you view that as a weakness in
the study?
Dr. Hauchman. I would say it would be highly desirable to
have, as was very elegantly stated by Dr. Rahm, the perfect
study, but that doesn't discount the value and I would say a
very high value of the study that we are conducting.
Chairman Stewart. And I agree that there is value in the
study but I also agree with you that it was--it is not ideal,
and in fact in some ways it may be far from ideal because of
that lack of a quantitative assessment.
But my time is expired. I now recognize Mr. Swalwell for
his 5 minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as I alluded to
earlier, in my home State in California, we are beginning an
expansion of fracking for shale gas that may create an economic
boom for the State. But one of the main concerns that I hear
from my constituents and scientists in my community is the
concern that fracking can be tied to and cause induced
earthquakes tied to the disposal of the wastewater produced
after fracking. And based on reports of a recent internal study
on the issue, my understanding is that the EPA is now
considering recommendations for states on how to avoid the
possibility of induced seismic activity from these injection
wells.
So, Dr. Hauchman, the study described in your testimony
will look at the treatment of wastewater prior to disposal, is
that correct?
Dr. Hauchman. We will be looking at the treatment of
wastewater prior to disposal, that is correct.
Mr. Swalwell. And is the EPA examining deep well injections
to reduce or avoid the possibility of induced earthquakes?
Dr. Hauchman. That particular aspect of disposal is not
within the scope of the study. We are focused on the--examining
the potential association or impact on drinking water
resources.
Mr. Swalwell. Are you familiar with any EPA studies that
would deal with induced earthquakes?
Dr. Hauchman. Any EPA research studies? No, I am not.
Mr. Swalwell. Okay. Is that something that concerns you
that perhaps we should be looking at that area?
Dr. Hauchman. Well, this is certainly a concern that we
have heard from many stakeholders, and as you mentioned, the
EPA has developed or is developing a set of guidance--steps
being handled out of the regulatory office in coordination with
the U.S. Geological Survey.
Mr. Swalwell. In California, we are also continuing to
experience droughts and they are common in many places
throughout the State, and local officials have been
implementing water conservation measures just to conserve
adequate drinking water supplies during certain times of the
year. Still, fracking requires large, large volumes of water to
successfully release shale gas.
Dr. Rahm, in your written testimony, you note that states
should take into consideration different regional--take into
consideration regional differences to determine best practices,
which, of course, I think makes sense. As I mentioned earlier,
what may be good for State A may not be good for State B. But
to be a little bit more specific, are you saying that states
should consider the relationship between the scale of fracking
operations and the impacts on local drinking water supply?
Dr. Rahm. I would say that is fair, that the scale would be
important in terms of determining when--where certain water
sources should be used for hydraulic fracturing. I guess I
would point out an example of the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission as a regional body that has the authority to
regulate water withdrawals in multiple states. They have a
policy for how they determine when the flows and the streams
and rivers are high enough and, you know, when and where the
companies, which need a permit to do so, can take water from
those streams and rivers. And I think it works out pretty well.
It involves environmental protection but at the same time the
companies are allowed to take the water from the streams. So
everybody seems relatively happy in that situation.
Mr. Swalwell. Dr. Hauchman, can you tell us whether your
study will make recommendations relevant to State policymakers
so they can make informed decisions about the appropriate scale
of operations, particularly near active fracking sites that we
have in California?
Dr. Hauchman. Thank you for your question. It is not the
intent of the study to make recommendations specifically. What
we are doing is developing some scientific perspectives on the
issue.
Mr. Swalwell. And, Dr. Hauchman, how has the EPA engaged
industry stakeholders to ensure that the Agency stays current
on data and advances in technology as the study plan has
progressed?
Dr. Hauchman. Thank you for your question. It is a very
important one and we have heard that from a number of our
stakeholders about the importance of this particular issue. We
have, from the very beginning of this study, been reaching out
to stakeholders and sticking strictly to the technical aspects
of the study. We have had numerous roundtables and workshops.
In 2011 we had a series of technical workshops where we invited
in experts from industry, from nongovernment organizations,
from academia, et cetera, to work with us to exchange
information. I was able to attend one of those meetings and it
was excellent. It was highly collegial. It was sticking to the
science. There were no policy discussions at all. That is the
nature of the discussions we had in 2011.
We have had roundtables with a range of stakeholders
focused on technical issues in 2012, and we are completing
another round of technical workshops this particular year. And
I will add one other item. We have been reaching out in a
variety of ways to make sure we are current on innovations in
technology and other developments. We have just extended the
public in the federal register the period for receiving
information and data from the public on anything related to the
technical aspects of the study, and we are very much interested
in receiving whatever can be provided.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you, Dr. Hauchman. Thank you,
Dr. Rahm. And I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Dr. Swalwell.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee
on Energy, my friend from Wyoming.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And before I start my questions, I want to tell you a story
about why I think this is so important. I am a rancher in
Wyoming, grew up next to a refinery, ranched right next to an
oil refinery. And over a period of time the migration of
hydrocarbons off that refinery property and onto our ranch and
into our water that our cattle drink and that we irrigate with
became terrible. So under RCRA, the EPA dealt with the
refinery, entered an Order on Consent, and required the
refinery to clean it up.
And for 17 years that refinery did not turn a shovel to
meet the requirements of that Order on Consent. And we had to
fight as the neighboring ranchers to try to get the enforcement
of the consent order with our own money while our own land was
being polluted by this refinery.
So I was grateful when the EPA stepped in and helped us.
Without the EPA stepping in and helping us, we never would have
gotten it cleaned up. So it is unusual for a constitutional
conservative Republican to want to be an advocate and thank the
EPA. Okay. Full stop.
I come out here. EPA's science is so bad when it comes to
Pavillion, Wyoming, that it has embarrassed me as a previous
defender of the EPA. It humiliated and destroyed a lot of
opportunities for fracking by industry in Wyoming. We have a
very sophisticated, world-class oil and gas industry in Wyoming
because we are such an enormous producer, and to have that kind
of science released as a draft study when it was so faulty that
it was probably the EPA itself that polluted the wells when
they did the tests. It just completely shattered my ability as
a Republican who is trying to defend the EPA. I can't do it
anymore. You destroyed my ability to be a defender.
So, Dr. Rahm, when you said Pavillion made you think, I
will tell you Pavillion was a big lie. I believe that it was
leaked to the New York Times so they could sensationalize it so
it could be used as an excuse by the EPA to regulate and to
scare people and to make Wyoming look bad.
And so I am angry with the very agency that I came here
with difficulty trying to defend as a Republican. I can't
defend it anymore.
Okay. Given that scenario, Dr. Hauchman, shouldn't you wait
until any decisions on the merits of regulatory actions, until
after the study is complete? I mean you are kind of getting the
cart before the horse when you throw out a bad study,
completely tainted, then say, oh, we need to regulate but we
will do a longer study and it is going to be credible this
time. So why not wait? Why not regulate--wait until after the
study is done that can be peer-reviewed and can be blessed as
credible and then decide whether to regulate?
Dr. Hauchman. Thank you for your question, Chairman Lummis.
First of all, I do want to state that I respectfully do not
agree with your statements about the quality of EPA's science.
But having said that, we were charged in the Office of
Research and Development of conducting this study, and that is
exactly what we are doing with attention to all the appropriate
scientific policies, protocols, and procedures. What we do in
the Office of Research and Development is of course related to
but distinct from the activities of the regulatory arm of EPA.
Chairman Lummis. So--
Dr. Hauchman. So----
Chairman Lummis. But--so why wouldn't the EPA's regulatory
arm wait until--whether the science is good or not--I hope it
will be. I hope it will be. That said, why don't--why isn't the
regulatory arm waiting until the science is available?
Dr. Hauchman. I am not able to respond to that question. I
would be happy to get back to for the record.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stewart. We would look forward to your response on
that, Dr. Hauchman. All right. Thank you, then. Thank you, Mrs.
Lummis.
The Chair now turns to Mr. Takano from California.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rahm, could you comment briefly on the charge that the
Pavillion study was somehow bad science or flawed?
Dr. Rahm. I don't necessarily have a comment because I am
not an expert in drilling wells according to some of the
allegations about what made that study good or not good. I
think what I would want to say maybe as a third-party observer
of that study, I don't think the intent of the study, as
stated, was to make a statement about hydraulic fracturing,
though some speculative comments were concluded at the end,
which you--I think are debatable, given the evidence.
I think it was a very limited study. And I think that it is
useful to see the results that people publish and to
potentially use those results in the context of other results
that may be available. And to that extent, I think those
studies can be valuable.
And again, like I said, they made me think about issues
that may be important. Whether or not that proved one thing or
the other, it at least brought to the discussion some things
that we thought were important in New York. So I thought it was
valuable in that way.
But as far as whether or not it was good science, I think
it was--there were some results and that I think a lot of the
conclusions were very--were debatable and a lot of science
works that way.
Mr. Takano. Help me understand. I am very much a layman
myself in this area. Is there enough research, body of research
to really design any kind of quantitative risk assessment I
mean in a broad sense? I mean are we at that point yet? It is a
relatively new industry.
Dr. Rahm. So I am not necessarily an expert on risk
assessment. I am more of an expert on water resources. But I
think that it is difficult in the sense of some of my earlier
comments, conditions vary from location to location, and so if
you are doing--if you are getting, for example, results in
Pavillion, whether they are good or not, they may or may not be
relevant at all to what is happening in New York or
Pennsylvania for that matter.
And so I think it is difficult because conditions change
over time, and what I would say is that I am in support of more
study and research and data that we can get on these questions,
the better, because I think we will hopefully be able to
identify whether or not there are some of these shared risks
that might be relevant everywhere regardless of what the
conditions are and that we might have a better sense of when
these conditions change, are there--how do conditions change
from State to State or from place to place that might be
relevant for what the risks and the benefits might be.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Dr. Hauchman, would you have
anything to say about the state or the progress we have made in
understanding hydraulic fracturing to the point that we can
really establish quantitative risk assessment evaluations?
Dr. Hauchman. I would tend to agree with Dr. Rahm on this
point that we are relatively early in terms of the peer-
reviewed literature, which we rely upon quite heavily for
conducting quantitative--rigorous quantitative risk
assessments. There is new information that has been
forthcoming. We are, as we speak, pulling together a lot of
information that will be very informative. But again, the
quantitative risk assessment is relying upon quite an amount of
information and we are--in my perspective at least, we are not
quite there yet.
Mr. Takano. So you would--was it fair to say that our
knowledge is fairly formative at this point I mean as far as
what we know about hydraulic fracturing?
Dr. Hauchman. Well, I think there are many things we do
know about hydraulic fracturing with respect to the technology,
with respect to geology and so forth, a lot of the technical
issues that we are in fact looking at. But in terms of putting
the information together to answer the types of questions that
we are asking I would say we still are in a developing stage.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Dr. Dzombak?
Dr. Dzombak. I would just comment that the Science Advisory
Board is providing peer review for this study and to Chairman
Stewart's point on risk assessment and yours, this was a
question that was--the question of how far to go in risk
assessment was a question that was raised in both the review of
the study plan and in the consultation for the progress report.
And our members of the panel--both panels queried the ORD
project leaders about that.
And I would note that the studies arw being conducted in a
risk framework, there is not performance of a quantitative risk
assessment group that is really a site-specific activity.
Mr. Takano. Um-hum.
Dr. Dzombak. But in terms of understanding the sources,
understanding the transport that could occur from the sources,
understanding potential impacts, that is all in a risk
assessment framework. Our panel members ask very pointed
questions about that of the Office of Research and Development,
and they committed to in the final report putting the various
components of the study in a risk framework. And that will be a
quantitative risk assessment but I would argue the entire study
is in a risk framework, and that will not--the ORD is committed
to make that clear in the final report.
Mr. Takano. All right. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
We now turn to Mr. Weber of Texas.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You said the EPA had been guilty in your opening statements
of putting the regulatory cart before the scientific horse, and
I think Chairman Lummis probably echoed that.
Dr. Hauchman, I want to ask you a couple of questions.
State impact--a state impact NPR article on July 3, 2013, not
necessarily your most conservative Republican group, NPR,
stated that to the effect that the EPA had withdrawn from a
number of areas, the Pavillion case, of course I am from Texas,
the Texas case, the Pennsylvania case. After a multimillion
dollar--I would call it investigation--I don't think that is
the word they used--study, whatever, are you privy to the exact
numbers of taxpayer dollars spent on those three studies before
the EPA began to backtrack?
Dr. Hauchman. Thank you for your question. I am not able to
respond with figures. This was an investigation that was led by
the EPA regional office in Denver, and I was not part of those
discussions.
Mr. Weber. Do you have any knowledge--does the EPA ever
consider the impact on industry by creating a nightmare of
legal loopholes--legal maneuvers they have to make and the
amount of industry it holds up and the jobs it kills? Are you
all--does anyone in the EPA to your knowledge take that into
consideration?
Dr. Hauchman. I am quite confident that there is a thorough
consideration of the implications of any decisions that come
out of the EPA. I am not part of that particular part of the
Agency in terms of the policy, but yes, I think that there is
consideration given to impacts.
Mr. Weber. So you don't deal with policy per se?
Dr. Hauchman. I do not. I am not part of the policy
offices, that is correct.
Mr. Weber. Right. And how long have you not been part of
the policy offices?
Dr. Hauchman. I started my career as a risk assessor in the
Office of Air and Radiation many, many years ago.
Mr. Weber. Um-hum.
Dr. Hauchman. But since that time, I have been part of the
science arm of the EPA.
Mr. Weber. Okay. I have an article from Inside EPA quoting
you as saying, ``we are doing a pretty comprehensive look at
all the statutes trying to find holes to allow additional
regulations'' in March 2012. Did you make that comment?
Dr. Hauchman. Congressman Weber, excuse me, I am very happy
to have this opportunity to clarify that comment.
Mr. Weber. Good, that is why you are here.
Dr. Hauchman. I am glad to have this opportunity to provide
clarification. This was a statement that appeared in the
newsletter, Inside EPA. It was taken out of context. I stated
at the beginning of my talk, which was on the study, that I was
with the Office of Research and Development. I reiterated this
point in the brief comments I made about the various other
activities in EPA. I specifically stated that I was not part of
the policy arm of EPA, and I directed the audience to the EPA
website to get an understanding of the variety of activities
that we are conducting as an agency under the various statutes.
Mr. Weber. Okay. So you do make some policy determinations
it sounds like.
Let me jump over to Dr. Rahm for just a minute. Dr. Rahm--
and I don't want to put words into your mouth--I believe that
you said fracking and unconventional drilling practices can and
do impact water sources in your comments.
Dr. Rahm. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. Specific examples?
Dr. Rahm. Well, again, I think we have from--looking at
some of the violations and incidents happening in Pennsylvania,
we see, for example, spills on sites, again, many of them very
small, commonplace, it could be you spill a gallon of diesel,
or whatever it might be, construction--similar types of----
Mr. Weber. Okay. That is where I want to go.
Dr. Rahm. Okay.
Mr. Weber. Do you think those small spills, accidental
spills, justify millions of dollars of EPA activity and holding
up industry and putting them in the courts?
Dr. Rahm. I don't think I am in any position to make a
claim about what--about the amount of money EPA should be----
Mr. Weber. Well, they have already established that people
in the scientific community can opine on policy here this
morning, so don't be afraid. Do you think it justifies the
amount of money spent?
Dr. Rahm. I really don't want to make any comments about
the amount of money spent.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Rahm. I agree that policy----
Mr. Weber. I got you. I am running out of time.
Dr. Rahm. Yes.
Mr. Weber. All right. You also said regional differences
matter.
Dr. Rahm. Sure.
Mr. Weber. And then you also said states should continue to
be the leaders.
Dr. Rahm. I think that is right.
Mr. Weber. Are you saying that one size policy doesn't fit
all or are you yielding to the idea that states, particularly
Texas--I am from Texas----
Dr. Rahm. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. --has got the experience--who, by the way,
produces more oil than the next four oil-producing states
combined--have the experience--our TCEQ, we all want clean air
and clean water--
Dr. Rahm. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. --and a good environment, but we don't want to
do it the--you know, we don't want to spend all this money,
taxpayers' dollars, holding up the process to have the EPA
backpedal after having spent multimillions of dollars in
holding up industry and causing them to spill--spend
multimillions of dollars. And by the way, that drives the price
of gasoline up at the pump, okay. So when you said that states
should continue to be the leaders----
Dr. Rahm. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. --and that is based on your evaluation of how
this--and you said in your comments that I think NYU--is that
right?
Dr. Rahm. Cornell.
Mr. Weber. Cornell, thank you. I am sorry.
Dr. Rahm. No problem.
Mr. Weber. That you were to be impartial?
Dr. Rahm. I am trying my best.
Mr. Weber. I get that.
Dr. Rahm. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Unlike some others. But--did I say that out
loud? So your impartial analysis end game is that the states
really need to be the leaders?
Dr. Rahm. I think that is fair. And I think it is fair to
say that many states, particularly ones like Texas who have a
long history of this type of regulation and activity, sometimes
do a very good job of regulating and overseeing it.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. I am aware of my time. Mr. Chairman,
thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
We now return to our returning minority Ranking Member, Ms.
Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses for your time here today and
certainly for bringing your expertise. And even though I needed
to leave briefly for votes and a markup, I assure you, I have
read all of your testimony.
Dr. Rahm, you state clearly in your testimony that the EPA
should play a role in setting standards for states to follow
and you identified some areas or issues that are common across
the country. Can you please discuss why the country should
adopt some minimum practices or standards and in what areas?
Dr. Rahm. Well, and again, what I was getting at there is
that if common risks and cumulative impacts are found, which we
see--which we are seeing some evidence of, that we really
should consider, for example, regional, interstate, or Federal
basic standards. Again, these basic standards might be around
such issues like chemical disclosure. They might be around
issues of well casing and cementing, also, for example,
wastewater management and treatment, all of which are very
important issues.
I think if basic standards were to be established, again,
on an interstate, regional, and Federal level, many states
would already meet or exceed those standards. And it is my hope
that there would be a way that that would not be onerous to
those states, but that is not my field.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Dr. Rahm. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. And I have another question. I want to ask
you about something that was frequently mentioned this morning,
and those are the three groundwater investigations. It is
important that we try to understand the scope of those
investigations at Pavillion, Parker County, and is it Dimock?
Dr. Rahm. Dimock.
Ms. Bonamici. Dimock. You state very clearly in your
written testimony that these investigations were limited in
design. In fact, you talk about how these were in response to
unplanned events. So can you elaborate further on that because
the way I looked at it these investigations were very different
from the actual study that the EPA is doing. And I just want to
clarify it in the record that--what these investigations were.
Dr. Rahm. So yes, again, maybe just reiterating some of my
written and oral testimony, I think these investigations had a
very limited scope. If you were only to read, for example, the
first page of the Pavillion investigation, it would claim that
it was not the intent of the investigation to study hydraulic
fracturing, for example. Now, on the last pages, they
speculate--the authors of those studies do speculate perhaps
more broadly, and again that is--that could be debatable. But I
think that several of these studies were as a result of
specific complaints, and my reading of some of these
investigations--I am not familiar with the Texas case at all so
I can't speak for that, but for Dimock and Pavillion, that
specific complaints were made that the EPA was brought in to
investigate.
And I think they were capable of addressing those, but in
terms of broader questions and the ideas of risk assessments
that we have been talking about today, I don't think those
investigations were capable of addressing those types of
issues.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
And, Dr. Hauchman, do you agree with that statement about
the limited nature of those investigations?
Dr. Hauchman. Thank you for the question. I do agree. These
were investigations that were led by the regional offices of
EPA for very specific purposes, and they are distinct from our
study.
Ms. Bonamici. And they were--just to follow up--more in
response to complaints from individuals or----
Dr. Hauchman. That is correct.
Ms. Bonamici. --requests from individuals to investigate a
particular situation?
Dr. Hauchman. That is exactly correct.
Ms. Bonamici. Dr. Hauchman, after reading your testimony
and the stages of the fracking water cycle that the study
covers, I recognize that there is a considerable amount of
analysis related to the use of chemicals, groundwater
evaluations, geological and surface evaluations that will all
take a considerable amount of time and data. So how much is the
EPA depending on the industry for access to data needed to
perform these types of evaluations, and what steps are you
taking or is the EPA taking to be assured that the industry is
providing the EPA with the full scope of relevant data? And I
was interested to hear Mr. Rogers talk about how in Utah all
the chemicals are disclosed on a website. So can you talk a
little bit about how you are dealing with proprietary claims by
industry and whether you are taking steps to assure that you
have the full scope of the relevant data?
Dr. Hauchman. Yes, thank you for your question. We are
conducting a very robust evaluation of all available
information, regardless of where it comes from. We have a set
of criteria that we are using and applying to ensure that the
data are usable, that they are sound, that they do their best.
We will characterize uncertainty to the extent possible.
We are working closely with industry. For example, we have
had a number of meetings, conversations with them about the
FracFocus database, which we are using. We are evaluating as
much information from that database and other sources. We are
also very mindful of the issue of confidential business
information, and that is another example of where we have been
working closely with industry to assure them that that
confidentiality will not be compromised. However, we want to be
able to use as much information as we can, staying within the
rules with respect to the confidentiality.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And I see my time is
expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for holding this hearing and simulating a national
discussion on fracking, as well as the whole concept of
regulation and of energy, et cetera.
You know, over the years, it hasn't been hard to see that
many people who are engaged in environmental and, say, energy
policies have been motivated by whatever--for whatever reason a
hatred of the oil industry. Now, let me just note that my
family comes from dirt-poor farmers in North Dakota. I mean
that is where we come from, but unfortunately, we aren't--there
hasn't been any oil on our land unfortunately.
But let's just note that those people that I have seen over
the years who just have it in their gut where they don't like
the oil industry, never give the oil industry credit for the
fact that before we started using oil as a major source of
energy, the health of our people was being affected
dramatically by mountains of horse manure that were piling up
in our urban areas. And our water was being polluted by that
same source. By using animal energy, there was a price to pay
for that. And the oil industry actually has helped give us a
more healthful way of life for everyone who lives in an urban
area.
Also, we now are developed--you know, here we are, we are
evolving, and we find that the government is here to protect
us, and quite often, the government is there to protect us
until we--you know, and protecting us to death. The FDA, for
example, as we know, has such stringent protections that, quite
often, there are many, many deaths that are related directly to
keeping drugs off the market for years and then having that
same drug approved and then saying, well, look, we are saving
100,000 people this year because we have approved this drug
while not even paying attention to the people that that drug
was denied. So we can regulate people to death. We are doing
that in our country in so many ways.
Let's just note that--let me ask the panel. Is there a
production or energy or transportation system that any of you
know that is without risk? Can the panel come up with one that
is without risk? Do you have any examples of a system of
production of goods and services or energy or transportation
that has had no accidents? Okay. You can----
Dr. Dzombak. I will answer speaking for myself,
Congressman--
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Dr. Dzombak. --all energy sources and uses have impacts and
risks, and as a society, we manage risks.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. Okay. Well, how does fracking,
which comes--how does fracking compare to those other sources
of energy, coal, for example, or oil production in the more
traditional way? How does fracking compare in terms of
accidents and risk? Is it less risky or more risky than
traditional drilling or mining for coal, et cetera? Is it--
maybe we could just give a short answer right down the line. Is
it more risky or less risky than the traditional sources of
energy?
Dr. Hauchman. I understand the questions you are asking,
and I would have to respond that we don't have the information
to make that assessment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Dr. Hauchman. I certainly don't have that information.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Don't know. Yes.
Dr. Dzombak. Don't know. I believe that is why we are
studying it as a society.
Mr. Rogers. Being both from mining and oil and gas, I would
say that oil and gas is less risky than the mining activity.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And how about fracking as a method of
getting the oil? Is that less risky or more risky than
traditional drilling?
Mr. Rogers. My opinion is we have been doing fracking in
the United States since 1940 and in Utah since the early '60s,
so it is something that has not been--I see as a significant
risk.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Our men from Cornell?
Dr. Rahm. I don't know--like the others, I don't know. But
I might add that I think a lot of the data shows that some of
the--you know the--perhaps the risky part of unconventional gas
drilling is actually very similar to some of the risky aspects
of conventional gas drilling, i.e., not necessarily per se the
hydraulic fracturing but the drilling of vertical wells through
groundwater tables. So--
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note----
Dr. Rahm. --shared risks there.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note that just from an
outsider's point of view, it appears to me that much of what is
happening to push for more regulation or push for let's look
and try to find something as an excuse to stop this fracking, I
think that is what we are experiencing. We are doing it not
because there is a motive for there are so many people stepping
forward in order to protect us, but instead what we have is a
motive for those pushing more and more regulation and to look
into this.
The motive is to wean or to force the American people off
of an oil and gas industry. And dependency on that is our basic
source of energy. And that that motive is based on the idea
that oil and gas is changing the climate of the Earth. And I
think this all comes back to this and the safety things that we
have to go through and the arguments we have to look at and--
are basically a product of those who are pushing for another
motive rather than just safety. And it is very easy to see, and
I hope that what we do is take an honest look at safety and--of
the American people for this new thing that we are--new way of
producing oil and gas and that we don't approach it based on
trying to placate the desire of a fanatic group of people in
our country who want to change our system because they believe
that the climate of the Earth is being impacted by the fact
that we drive automobiles.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you.
We now turn to Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Chairman Stewart and Ranking Member
Bonamici and also to our witnesses today.
I appreciate that EPA is continuing its investigations of
hydraulic fracturing. I think that the EPA's investigations are
really critical to the Federal Government's responsibility to
ensure that drinking water and groundwater across the United
States remains safe. And I do understand the industry's
concerns about the investigations and the regulations that
accompany efforts to ensure that fracking is conducted safely,
but I think it is paramount that these activities be conducted
in a manner that does as little risk as possible,
understanding, as our witnesses have said, that it is important
for us to manage risk, but there is no reason for us to
jeopardize the public safety and the safety of our groundwater
and drinking water if we can help it. And so that is the spirit
in which I look at the efforts of the EPA.
And I don't think it is a negative point that the study in
western Pennsylvania found that fracking chemicals didn't
pollute the water. That is the job of the DOE and in that
instance and the EPA to ensure that constituent concerns,
community concerns, consumer concerns are addressed using the
best possible science.
Dr. Rahm mentioned in his prepared statement that that
study is not conclusive and shouldn't be used to make
inferences about fracking broadly. And I take that into
consideration when I read all the testimony. I don't think it
is highly unusual that EPA has a plan over a period of time
which may seem lengthy to us to develop the study, conduct the
investigations, peer review the investigations, and publish
those studies. I think it is important for us to try to get
this is as right as possible.
As the former Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight, I know--I can recall receiving
testimony on the lack of disclosure on the chemical mixtures
used in fracking and making sure that the industry is
transparent. I think some states have tried to move in that
direction but I would note that in my State of Maryland where
these activities might be pursued in the western part of our
State that there has been great resistance and I think even
threats from some in industry that if our State regulates the
industry more strictly than it wants, then it is going to pull
out its economic activity. And I just don't think that is the
way quite to do this. I would like to see a greater balance in
what it is that the Federal role but ensuring that our states
have the capacity to monitor the economic activities in the
State.
I just have really one question for Dr. Rahm because I
understand that, as you have indicated, the individual
investigations and studies that were conducted by EPA and other
agencies can't conclude whether fracking is safe or potentially
contaminate groundwater and that this is in part due to
geological differences, among other reasons. And I wonder if
that is even true within a State and within a--among various
sites because I think it is important to know that.
And in your written testimony you state that regional
differences matter and local character has an impact on
management strategies. And I wonder if you could discuss the
current regional collaboration and benefits of the kind of
partnership to inform an established best practices for
identifying potentially harmful impacts of fracking while
allowing states to unify their oversight.
Dr. Rahm. I am not quite sure what your question is. Sorry.
Ms. Edwards. The question is simply whether current
regional collaborations and the benefits of those partnerships
inform establishing best practices for identifying potentially
harmful impacts on fracking while also allowing states to unify
their oversight collectively, and that might be regionally.
So, for example, in Western Maryland, is it important to
unify those activities with what is going on in West Virginia,
which is our neighboring State?
Dr. Rahm. Sure. So I guess what that makes me think is
that, you know, just to reiterate the idea that it is important
to involve, I think, all stakeholders when it comes to the data
and information that we are collecting. Just to maybe point out
that industry and state agencies have a great amount of data
and expertise that we should be using, that they are using,
when it comes to looking at risks and impacts and assessing
those.
I don't know of many examples just personally of a regional
sort of effort to try and put that data together, which, I
think, is one of the things that we are really missing. There
are a few instances, again, the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission, which really only has authority over water
withdrawal, just that one particular activity. And they do pull
in--they do talk to industry and state agencies and I think you
can see that when they have the right information from
everybody, they can make smart decisions.
But a lot of times I don't think we have--at least as far
as I know, many other regional bodies that undertake that kind
of exercise where they are putting all the different pieces of
information together, and I think that would be valuable.
Ms. Edwards. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am out of time.
Chairman Stewart. All right. I thank you, Ms. Edwards.
Mr. Hultgren.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
Chairman Hall for allowing me to jump ahead in line here. I
have got another meeting I need to run to. But all of you,
thank you for being here today.
Safe extraction of our vast domestic energy resources
clearly is of paramount concern to policymakers and the public
needs to trust the work that the states and EPA are doing to
safely regulate these practices. Unfortunately, many of EPA's
recent actions, I believe, have severely harmed the public
trust necessary for the Agency to accomplish this core mission.
Every weekend when I am back home I am forced to answer
questions about an agency many see as running amok. Illinois
just recently passed legislation to regulate hydraulic
fracturing, and this was a long process leaving my State with
some of the most strict rules and regulations for the practice.
What worries me is how EPA appears to have ignored many of
the State rules and best practices already in place. I know in
2012 Battelle published a review of the EPA study plan which
pointed out the lack of ``a description of the full extent of
existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements,
standards, and guidelines, and industry best management
practice frameworks that already apply to the unconventional
natural gas production operations.'' Why isn't this information
considered relevant to the report? And I would direct it to our
EPA.
Dr. Hauchman. Right. Thank you for your question. We are
not conducting a review or an analysis of state regulations as
part of the study. We are focused on answering the scientific
questions, which of course could be informative. It is our hope
and expectation that it will be helpful in that regard but we
are not evaluating regulations as part of our study.
Mr. Hultgren. And I don't know if we expect you to other
than that many of them are working already and I think can be
helpful in telling--in coming up to this. And I think it does
become even more confusing. I hear it over and over again of
conflicting regulatory mandates an appearance to us up here but
also to our constituents back home that there isn't an
understanding of what the states are doing, what local groups
are doing that have been successful. And I think without a firm
understanding of what regulations and protocols are currently
in place, it is questionable how EPA can plan to assess the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water.
Mr. Rogers, I wonder if you could discuss with just a few
of what I am sure are numerous regulations in place in the
State of Utah specifically applicable to hydraulic fracturing?
Mr. Rogers. The most important would be the casing and
cementing of a wellbore. We make a study of where that water is
usable, how deep it is, and we make a definite ability in our
permitting process to protect that water. And when that well is
drilled, we go out there and we have witnesses see that that
well is cemented correctly. Then we also do a pre-site before
that well is even drilled. We go out there, we survey it, we
look at it, depth to groundwater, depth to surface water. Are
there drainages or issues? If something did get away from that
site, how are we going to protect it, berm it up? So we look at
it in great detail how we are going to do that. So that
primarily is the well casing is the critical part.
The flow-back is the second part that we manage. We have
disposal rules that we use either injection wells or we have
disposal ponds that are monitored regularly by our inspectors.
Mr. Hultgren. So from your answer, to me it is clear there
are numerous regulations in place already in the State of Utah.
And would you also say that you believe those regulations are
working and are accomplishing what they were intended to
accomplish?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, they are. Like I mentioned before, we have
had fracking in our State since the 1960s with no incident, and
I think our staff did an excellent job monitoring that. The
thing we did add about a year ago was a disclosure rule. That
is something we were lacking but that is something that we
now--we have out there and it is working very well.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. Dr. Hauchman, the Battelle study also
concluded that giving industries extensive experience and
unique expertise in the process of hydraulic fracturing and
associated technologies and its wealth of relevant data
available to inform this effort, it is a weakness of the study
plan and likely its implementation that significant industry
collaboration is missing. Do you agree with this conclusion
regarding the study's weaknesses?
Dr. Hauchman. We do in fact recognize the value that
industry can provide to this study. We have been going out
extensively engaging our colleagues in industry with technical
expertise, as well individuals from the states.
And in fact I do want to clarify a comment that I made
earlier in response to your question. We are, as I said, not
looking at regulations but we are asking states for
information. We are interested in any information, including
technologies, anything that will help us answer the questions
with any phase of our----
Mr. Hultgren. Well, and I think that is very important. I
only have 10 seconds left and I will wrap up with this, that I
just want to encourage you. I do think there is a wealth of
knowledge there from the states, some things that are
absolutely working, have been working for decades, and also
from industry. And I think it would be a huge mistake if EPA
were not to look at this and hopefully embrace many of the
things that are working rather than just saying you are going
to do this alone and you are going to look until you find
problems with it instead reaching out and finding what is
working.
With that, thank you, Chairman. Thank you, all of you, for
being here. I yield back.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
And we turn to another Congressman from Texas, Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
I wanted to ask Dr. Hauchman specifically about data that
EPA may have collected since 1970s on hydraulic fracturing. You
know, a lot of the talk about hydraulic fracturing and the
effects that it may have on groundwater and contamination have
been pretty recent. You know, it wasn't something that you
heard talked about previous to some of the discoveries and the
Barnett Shale and what have you.
What sort of data do you have on what hydraulic fracturing
may do to groundwater previous, you know, or going back to the
1970s?
Dr. Hauchman. Thank you for your question. I do not
personally know the answer to your question. I have not been
scouring the literature for that very information, but we will
in fact do just that as we prepare our report for 2014.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. Good. Good. I think that having that may
help clear up many of the conversations that we have here.
And one of the other things I wanted to ask you, you know,
really I mean to mitigate some of these concerns that people
have dealing with groundwater and the environment and what have
you, what recommendations have EPA made for what producers
should do or what municipalities should do with this sort of
new natural gas that many people are finding?
Dr. Hauchman. I am not prepared to answer your question but
be happy to get back to you with the answers--
Mr. Veasey. Okay.
Dr. Hauchman. --for the record.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. Good deal. Good deal. And I wanted to ask
the experts from Utah specifically. I believe it was Mr.
Rogers. I wanted to ask you what sort of techniques, devices,
you know, have you seen in the last couple years that would
help mitigate some of the concerns that people have as it
relates to these issues that we are talking about today dealing
with hydraulic fracturing and contaminants that may be released
into the environment?
Mr. Rogers. Well, as I spoke earlier, we have a new rule,
but the rules take into account things that we have been doing
for years. Wellbore integrity, I think, is the most critical
part of this so we ensure that that wellbore is designed
correctly to protect groundwater. We also have tightened up our
disposal rules so that any disposal, any kind of produced water
is protected from the environment and they are looked at on a
regular basis so we look at that.
Mr. Veasey. Is there something that you feel that the
industry can be doing to help with some of these concerns that
may be costly and maybe some producers don't want to implement
those safeguards just because they are costly? Is there
anything out there that you think is being--that you think is
out there and available but it is just not being used because
some people think that maybe it is too costly?
Mr. Rogers. I don't believe so. Hydraulic fracturing
operation is very expensive and so they are not going to cut
corners just to do that. It is very expensive and a very large
investment to even drill that well. It can be millions of
dollars so they are not going to cut corners on that end to
possibly damage the environment. So I see them doing all they
can.
Right now, I think probably the most beneficial thing that
industry could do is education and teaching people about
hydraulic fracturing rather than the rhetoric we see out there
and the fear that is passed on there. To actually understand
what it is would be critical for people to know about because
once you understand it, you realize the risk is not as severe
as what you read about.
Mr. Veasey. Are there any recommendations that have been
made to you specifically that you can think of that maybe you
don't agree with would help with the environmental concerns but
the recommendations have been made perhaps by the environmental
community?
Mr. Rogers. The thing we did respond to was to have a
disclosure role, which we responded to. That was a few years in
the coming but we did that. So I think disclosure puts people's
minds at ease. And to use fracfocus.org is an exceptional
website that can give you a lot of education and you can
actually look on and see what is being done in that particular
well in your area and throughout the country.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back my time.
Chairman Stewart. Thank you, then. We turn now to the
former Chair of the full Committee, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [inaudible] differs from
all those who have come before us from EPA. When Mr.
Rohrabacher's last question to each one of them and it is of
record, do you know of anywhere where it has damaged drinking
water? Every one of them said no. Now, Mr. Rahm, you seem to
know more than all the rest of them put together. Tell me where
you are talking about.
Dr. Rahm. I am sorry. What exactly is your question?
Mr. Hall. Tell us where you know that there is evidence and
actuality that drinking water has been damaged by fracking.
Dr. Rahm. Actually, what I----
Mr. Hall. What somebody has put in there----
Dr. Rahm. Sorry.
Mr. Hall. --to show it--that fracture itself--damaged the
fracture itself.
Dr. Rahm. So to the best of my knowledge I think it is
important to make the distinction between gas drilling
development and hydraulic fracturing. I have not really seen--I
have seen evidence of spills and harmful events from gas
development, gas oil development, but to my knowledge I have
not seen data that implicates----
Mr. Hall. What about the damage to the drinking water?
Dr. Rahm. To my knowledge, I have not seen that hydraulic
fracturing per se is the cause of that.
Mr. Hall. That you have no knowledge of it, is that what
you are telling me now?
Dr. Rahm. That is according to what I have seen, yes.
Mr. Hall. You are going to be one of the whole doggone
bunch over there that was going to say that you did know of a
place where they had damaged the drinking water.
Dr. Rahm. No, I am trying to be very careful about----
Mr. Hall. Please be careful.
Dr. Rahm. --making the distinction.
Mr. Hall. So far, you haven't told us anything but I don't
know or I am glad you asked that question.
Dr. Rahm. Try and make the distinction between shale gas
development in general and hydraulic fracturing per se.
Mr. Hall. That is your answer?
Dr. Rahm. Yes, it is.
Mr. Hall. Ask it again. Do you know of anywhere where
hydraulic fracturing has damaged our drinking water? Yes or no?
Dr. Rahm. As I said, no. Hydraulic fracturing per se I do
not have any data that indicates that.
Mr. Hall. And I thank you for that.
Dr. Rahm. Sure.
Mr. Hall. Based on all of the allegations and those that
they have had to retract and I really think Mrs. Lummis, the
other Chair, really were overly fair with you when they bragged
on you there and then were so disappointed in your activity in
her own area. And there has been some talk about you all have
engaged in info--asking for--begging for information. Dr.
Dzombak, you mentioned the high-quality panel that EPA has put
together to peer review the study. You are aware of that,
aren't you?
Dr. Dzombak. Yes.
Mr. Hall. All we know of states like Texas have decades of
experience in oil and gas regulation. Other 31 panelists, how
many experts from State regulatory agencies were chosen to be
peer reviewers no matter where they were from?
Dr. Dzombak. Let me say, Congressman, I wasn't involved
with choosing the panel.
Mr. Hall. I am not accusing you of that. I am just asking
you my question.
Dr. Dzombak. But I think we have none--no current state
regulators but I am not positive of that.
Mr. Hall. More than a dozen state environmental officials
were nominated, including from the State of Texas, from the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Why were none of
them chosen to provide their expertise to EPA on the study? Why
didn't you select one of them?
Dr. Dzombak. Well, I can't answer that because I wasn't
involved in the selection.
Mr. Hall. Another question you can't answer. All right.
Dr. Dzombak. The Science Advisory Board staff office and
management selects the committee. They solicit nominations
through the Federal Register. Many, many nominations come in.
They have a process that they go through, evaluation of ethics,
impartiality, look at potential exemptions, but that is their
process and I am not involved with it.
Mr. Hall. Dr. Hauchman, let me ask you, why should we trust
EPA's conduct in this study based on even the questions that
some of the Democrats have asked?
Dr. Hauchman. I--
Mr. Hall. And let me tell you this. You are under oath and
it is expected that you--whether you raise your right hand and
say you are going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. And everybody before you has done that,
but a lot of them have come before this Committee and
misrepresented the facts on how scientifically they have made
their selections. And that can be proved. But you go ahead and
answer now what I asked you.
Dr. Hauchman. I am pleased to respond to your question and
I will state, as I have stated previously, that I am confident
in the scientific integrity of the research that is being
conducted. We have a very transparent, rigorous peer review
process underway and----
Mr. Hall. You are that but I asked you about us. Why should
we trust EPA's conduct in this study because of your past
record? Do you differ with those who have come here before us
from EPA and testified under oath?
Dr. Hauchman. I am only prepared to speak about the rigors
of this particular study, and I sit before you confidently in
saying that this is a solid study that we are conducting.
Mr. Hall. Well, let me ask you this question. What has the
EPA done to prevent repeating the mistakes made in Parker
County, Texas; Pavillion, Wyoming; Dimock, Pennsylvania? What
policy and what protocol changes and actions have been taken by
the EPA to ensure sound science, if any? Or if you don't know
or you tell us you are glad I asked that question or have some
other answer for it, just answer me, please.
Dr. Hauchman. We have put in place for this study all the
appropriate policies, procedures, and protocols to ensure that
the data that we generate, the analyses that we conduct, the
methods that we use, and the models that we employ are
appropriate and will produce quality results. We are relying on
rigorous peer review. We are reaching out in many ways to
experts from throughout the country. We are doing everything
conceivably possible to ensure that this scientific study will
stand on its own merits.
Mr. Hall. All right. I will ask my last question for this
particular hearing. If any of you can tell me where and when of
your own knowledge or your own investigation or your own study
that fracking has damaged drinking water? Can any of the four
of you tell me and give me an answer and tell me date and times
and where it was? Now, you mentioned, Mr. Rahm, that it does
impact on water. You said like the others, though, I don't know
when they ask you information about it when Mr. Rohrabacher
asked you. Do you know of anywhere where you know of your own
knowledge and your own studies that fracturing has damaged
drinking water?
Dr. Rahm. As I said, no.
Mr. Hall. Yes or no? No?
Dr. Rahm. As I said, no.
Mr. Hall. All right.
Chairman Stewart. And the gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Hall. And how about you? Could I let the other three
answer yes or no?
Chairman Stewart. Very quickly, please.
Mr. Rogers. No, I don't.
Dr. Dzombak. Nor I. I haven't been involved in such
studies.
Mr. Hall. All right. So what you don't know, then, if you
haven't been involved. You don't know if you haven't been
involved so you don't know. And do you know?
Dr. Hauchman. I will restrict my response to the peer-
reviewed literature. We are aware of some very recent reports--
--
Mr. Hall. Give me a yes-or-no answer. That is all I asked
for. If it is yes, just give me yes.
Dr. Hauchman. There have been some reports. We will be
reviewing them.
Mr. Hall. There have then some reports. Do you know of any
place where there is damaged water?
Dr. Hauchman. I have not reviewed those reports, those
publications.
Mr. Hall. So you don't know?
Dr. Hauchman. At this particular time, no.
Mr. Hall. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stewart. All right. Thank you, Chairman Hall.
I thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony and
Members for their questions. And Members of this Committee may
have additional questions for you and we will ask you to
respond to those in writing. And the record will remain open
for two weeks of additional comments and written questions from
the Members.
But before we close, there is a couple things that we need
to do. Mr. Hauchman and Mr. Dzombak, I need your help and your
commitment. I have a timeline here. We have asked multiple
occasions for answers from charge questions from this
Committee. To date, we have not gotten replies to those charge
questions. There clearly has been enough time that there have
been opportunity to answer those.
In addition, we have asked at least twice a week to meet
with the members of SAB or members of the Administration to try
and understand why they won't answer these questions and have
been told that they are too busy to meet with us. And I frankly
don't understand that. If members of the SAB or members from
the Agency are too busy to meet with Members of Congress who we
are supposed to be working together on these studies, I think
that that generates suspicion and ill will between us. And I
think it is bad counsel whoever is counseling those members not
to meet with us. And I need your commitment that you will go
back to your agencies and to these individuals and press them
and encourage them to answer our questions and to meet with us.
Does that seem like a reasonable thing to ask? Yes? Yes, Mr.
Dzombak?
Dr. Dzombak. Chairman Stewart, I appreciate your concern
and your May 2 letter was examined in great detail by the panel
and by the SAB management. There are 13 specific queries in
there. I think the SAB management responded and I contributed
to the formulation of the response letter along with Dr. David
Allen, Chairman of the chartered SAB on May 31. Several of
those questions were more appropriately directed to the Office
of Research and Development. We contacted--we--the SAB
management contacted Office of Research and Development and
that response letter provided three specific responses to three
of the questions. On the other 10, as we outlined in that
letter, those are all valid, pointed questions, and some of
those were part of the discussion in the consultation on May 7
and 8 and we will be happy and we plan to carry those questions
forward for further discussion when the panel meets again in
the fall.
Chairman Stewart. Okay. So----
Dr. Dzombak. And I can assure--excuse me. I can assure you,
Chairman Stewart, that I have been engaged with the SAB
management on that and we are giving it all due deference and
specific attention.
Chairman Stewart. All right. So thank you. So you are
saying we won't have answers to those questions until the panel
meets again this fall?
Dr. Dzombak. Well, several of the questions, I am saying,
were responded to specifically----
Chairman Stewart. Right.
Dr. Dzombak. --in the May 31 response and the other 10
specific technical questions we will be engaging with this
fall.
Chairman Stewart. Okay. We look forward to that and thank
you. I ask unanimous consent then to enter into the record the
following two items: a letter from Ranger Resources to the
Committee regarding the EPA's investigations of groundwater
claims in Parker, Texas; and second, a letter I sent to the
Chairs of the EPA Science Advisory Board and Science Advisory
Board's Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel regarding
the SAB review of the EPA's study of potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. And without
objection, so ordered.
[The information follows appears in appendix II]
Chairman Stewart. And finally, before we close, I wanted to
take a moment to acknowledge the work of Ellen Scholl to my
left for her outstanding contributions to the Energy and the
Environment Subcommittees over the last two years. Ms. Scholl
is--this will be your last hearing. In August she is going to
be returning to Texas where she will be pursuing her graduate
work at the LBJ school of Public Policy. Ellen, we thank you
for your great work, for your contributions, and you will be
missed. Thank you.
With that then, if no further business, the witnesses are
excused and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Fred Hauchman
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.052
Responses by Dr. David A. Dzombak
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.060
Responses by Mr. John Rogers
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.062
Responses by Dr. Brian Rahm
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.064
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted by the Committee's Majority
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2221.091
Submitted by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Environment
Submitted by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Environment