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

                               FRACTURED SCIENCE:
                            EXAMINING EPA'S APPROACH
                            TO GROUNDWATER RESEARCH:
                             THE PAVILLION ANALYSIS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                                  ENVIRONMENT

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-58

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    72-655PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                        HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
        Wisconsin                        JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             PAUL D. TONKO, New York
    PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia               JERRY McNERNEY, California
    SANDY ADAMS, Florida                 JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona             TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
        Tennessee                        HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
    E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            VACANCY
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       VACANCY
    MO BROOKS, Alabama
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
    VACANCY
                                     ------

                     Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

                       HON. ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chair
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               PAUL D. TONKO, New York
    W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               ZOE LOFGREN, California
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              JERRY McNERNEY, California
    PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
        Tennessee
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

                                C O N T E N T S

                                February 1, 2012

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Andy Harris, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    18
        Written Statement............................................    20

    Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    21
        Written Statement............................................    22

                                   Witnesses:

    Mr. Jim Martin, Region 8 Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency
        Oral Statement...............................................    23
        Written Statement............................................    25

    Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil & Gas
      Conservation Commission
        Oral Statement...............................................    31
        Written Statement............................................    33

    Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President, Government & Public Affairs,
      Western Energy Alliance
        Oral Statement...............................................    45
        Written Statement............................................    47

    Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate
      School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh
        Oral Statement...............................................    53
        Written Statement............................................    55

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Mr. Jim Martin, Region 8 Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................    82

    Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil & Gas
      Conservation Commission........................................    98

    Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President, Government & Public Affairs,
      Western Energy Alliance........................................   120

    Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate
      School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh..............   123

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Submitted Report for the Record by Representative Brad Miller,
      Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   127

    Submitted Letter for the Record by Pavillion Area Concerned
      Citizens, The Powder River Basin Resource Council, and The
      Western Organization of Resource Councils......................   135

    Submitted Statement for the Record by Chairman Ralph Hall,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   145

    Submitted Statement for the Record by Representative Paul D.
      Tonko, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................   168

                               FRACTURED SCIENCE:
                          EXAMINING EPA'S APPROACH TO
                             GROUNDWATER RESEARCH:
                             THE PAVILLION ANALYSIS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
                        Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy
    Harris [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Harris. The hearing is called.
        I am going to read, before we start the hearing, I just
    want to remind all the Members of the audience what the
    Committee rules are, and as a functioning body, a legislative
    body, we of course have rules. That is the way society works.
    You have to live by the rules and agree to the rules, and the
    Ranking Member had indicated before the hearing was gaveled in
    that we should discuss it, but I will bring the Ranking
    Member's attention to the rule, rule number 9, the following
    shall apply to coverage of Committee meetings or hearings by
    audio or visual means, subsection J is very clear: personnel
    providing coverage by the television or radio media shall be
    currently accredited to the radio and television correspondents
    galleries and that personnel providing coverage by still
    photography shall be currently accredited to the press
    photographers galleries.
        Obviously, someone who records this hearing is to be
    credentialed. I will remind the Members of the audience and the
    Ranking Member that on the House Floor, you can't even bring a
    cell phone into the gallery. We allow cell phones but we do
    draw the line at what recording devices, when you use a
    recording device, that you have to be credentialed.
        I would also note that this hearing is being webcast at
    science.house.gov in its entirety, every word, every phrase, no
    editing, and it will be available in its entirety on the same
    site following the hearing. Therefore, every piece of
    information from this hearing is fully available to every
    member of the public. That is why we have rules that control
    who is recording because every bit of information is available
    to the public, just so we clear the air on that.
        With that, I would like to begin my opening statement.
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I move--in addition to the fellow
    who was just escorted out, who I understand was not
    credentialed, although he is, I understand, filming an HBO
    documentary, an ABC crew showed up earlier and they were turned
    away on the stated reason that they had not requested the film
    in advance. I think all those rules are to control access where
    there is limited access. It is very clear that we have space in
    this room for either of them to testify--to film this hearing.
        If you claim that that rule does not provide--does not
    allow them to film or more accurately allows you the
    discretion, the majority the power to turn them away, I move
    that the rules be suspended to the end, that the HBO--the
    fellow who wanted to film for HBO be allowed to film this
    hearing and that ABC News be allowed to film this hearing, and
    all God's children be allowed to film this hearing until the
    room is too full to conduct our business.
        Chairman Harris. Does the Ranking Member intend to persist
    with that motion?
        Mr. Miller. I do.
        Chairman Harris. Well, then, we are calling a recess
    because we don't have a quorum on the Committee.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Harris. All opposed? In the opinion of the Chair,
    the ayes have it.
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
        Chairman Harris. A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will
    call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairman Harris?
        Chairman Harris. Aye.
        The Clerk. Chairman Harris votes aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
        Mr. Lucas. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
        Mrs. Biggert?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Akin?
        Mr. Akin. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Akin votes aye.
        Mr. Neugebauer?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
        Mr. Broun?
        Dr. Broun. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
        Mr. Fleischmann?
        Mr. Fleischmann. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye.
        Mr. Hall?
        Chairman Hall. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
        Mr. Miller?
        Mr. Miller. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no.
        Ms. Woolsey?
        Ms. Woolsey. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no.
        Mr. Lujan?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Lofgren?
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
        Mr. McNerney?
        Mr. McNerney. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes no.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
        Chairman Harris. Have all Members voted? Anyone wish to
    change their vote?
        Will the clerk report the vote?
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, seven Members vote aye and six
    Members vote no.
        Chairman Harris. The motion to table having been passed,
    the motion is laid on the table. I will----
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee be in
    recess for a period of not less than one week to allow the
    gentleman from HBO to apply for press credentials and to allow
    ABC News and any other credentialed press organization to
    provide the overnight notice that they intend to film this
    hearing.
        Dr. Broun. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Harris. The gentleman from Georgia.
        Dr. Broun. I move to table the motion.
        Chairman Harris. There is a motion to table the motion. All
    in favor, say aye. All opposed? In the opinion of the chair,
    the ayes have it.
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
        Chairman Harris. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk
    will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Mr. Harris?
        Chairman Harris. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes aye.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
        Mr. Lucas. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
        Mrs. Biggert?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Akin?
        Mr. Akin. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Akin votes aye.
        Mr. Neugebauer?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
        Mr. Broun?
        Dr. Broun. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
        Mr. Fleischmann?
        Mr. Fleischmann. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye.
        Mr. Hall?
        Chairman Hall. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
        Mr. Miller?
        Mr. Miller. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no.
        Ms. Woolsey?
        Ms. Woolsey. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no.
        Mr. Lujan?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Tonko?
        Mr. Tonko. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
        Ms. Lofgren?
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
        Mr. McNerney?
        Mr. McNerney. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes no.
        Ms. Johnson?
        Ms. Johnson. No.
        The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
        Chairman Harris. Any Members wish to change their vote? If
    no, the clerk will report the roll.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, seven Members vote aye and six
    Members vote no.
        Chairman Harris. The majority voting to table the motion,
    the motion is tabled.
        Thank you very much, and sorry for the delay, but as the
    chairman of the full Committee has said, you know, if the
    minority wants a vote on something, they will get a vote on it
    each and every time.
        I want to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing to
    examine EPA's approach to groundwater research near Pavillion,
    Wyoming.
        The increased production and use of clean natural gas is
    the source of one of the few bright spots in our current
    economic climate. In 2010, the shale gas industry supported
    600,000 jobs, and a Federal Reserve economist estimates that
    lower natural gas prices enabled by increased production saved
    American consumers more than $16 billion in home energy costs
    last year, and of course, the price of natural gas has come
    down since last year. So it would be more than $16 billion in
    home energy costs saved each year from natural gas.
        Wyoming is a perfect case study. Tens of thousands of
    people are employed in oil and gas production, and royalties
    and taxes on that production delivered almost $2 billion going
    to state and local taxpayer coffers, more than $3,400 for every
    citizen in the state.
        However, in a remarkable display of arrogance and disregard
    for the plain facts, the President last week proclaimed his
    support for expanded shale gas production, while at the same
    time allowing every part of his Administration, from the EPA to
    the Department of the Interior to the CDC, to attack these
    practices through scientific innuendo and regulatory strait-
    jacketing.
        In the past year, the Subcommittee has held numerous
    hearings on EPA's use and abuse of science. Time and again we
    have demonstrated that this agency is substituting outcome-
    driven science for rigorous objective science. EPA's
    investigation of groundwater contamination in Pavillion appears
    to be yet another example of politics trumping policy and
    advocacy trumping science.
        The scientific method is a process characterized by the
    development of a hypothesis, creation of a rigorous experiment
    to test it, documentation of observations and objective
    analysis of results. Scientists in fact frequently believe that
    sharing the data is an important part of the scientific
    process. As far as I can see, EPA never managed to get even
    farther than the first step of most normal scientific
    investigation.
        EPA will no doubt emphasize today that this is a draft
    report that will soon undergo peer review. This fails to
    acknowledge, however, the impact this report has already had.
    The day after the draft report was released, the Governor of
    Delaware announced that it was the validation for his decision
    to vote against development of natural gas in the Delaware
    River Basin. This illustrates the power of EPA's press release
    science to drive public opinion and even critical decisions by
    policymakers.
        The key question before us today is, was the investigation
    conducted in a scientifically robust manner that justifies all
    this potential economic upheaval?
        I look forward to hearing from witnesses, but I am
    concerned about indications that EPA's approach in Wyoming has
    been poorly conducted, unnecessarily alarming, and fits within
    a pattern of an outcome-driven, regulate-for-any-excuse
    philosophy at the agency.
        Transparency is central to getting to the bottom of these
    scientific questions. Regardless that the President boasts that
    he leads the ``most transparent Administration in history'' and
    despite receiving multiple requests from state, media, and
    interested stakeholders, interestingly enough, it was not until
    late last night, the eve of this hearing, that EPA finally
    disclosed data essential to meaningfully evaluate their
    findings. Now, note that the original deadline for comment
    passed two weeks ago. Well, I am not sure how the EPA thought
    that people were going to make decisions on the adequacy of
    this study without the information that now the EPA I guess
    feels essential to make those kind of determinations.
        Now, while I am pleased that EPA posted 622 documents to
    its website last night, and I would offer that maybe they
    should follow the same rules the House has that you need 3 days
    of putting something out before you should actually consider
    it, clearly, that is not enough time for this Committee to take
    that into consideration in the hearing today. It is unfortunate
    that this transparency appears to only have been compelled by
    the calling of a Congressional oversight hearing, but then
    again, maybe that is the purpose of the 112th Congress.
        Compounding this problem is the complete failure to
    collaborate with experts and institutions with knowledge in the
    unique hydrogeology of this region. For example, the State of
    Wyoming, despite possessing decades of experience in
    groundwater assessments, was not consulted with about the most
    important aspects of this investigation, and we will hear from
    one of our witnesses today about that. The agency did not even
    consult with the U.S. Geological Survey before releasing the
    report, a sister government agency that has extensive
    understanding of aquifer complexity and geological
    characteristics in the region. Also concerning is EPA's
    apparent failures to follow its own laboratory protocols,
    Superfund site requirements, peer review handbook, information
    quality guidelines, as well as USGS recommendations for
    drilling and sampling monitoring wells.
        Hypocritically, these are behaviors and practices that the
    agency would not accept from any state or private sector entity
    conducting a comprehensive groundwater investigation.
        Finally, I'm afraid EPA's actions in Pavillion demonstrate
    a disturbing loss of perspective. The principal concern of this
    investigation should always have been the health and welfare of
    the people living near Pavillion, Wyoming. Unfortunately, in
    its single-minded pursuit of the hydraulic fracturing smoking
    gun, EPA appears to have lost focus on identifying the real
    causes of, and real solutions to, drinking water quality
    problems locally in Pavillion, Wyoming.
        I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the
    Subcommittee and I look forward to a constructive discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Chairman Andy Harris
        I want to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing to examine
    EPA's approach to ground water research near Pavillion, Wyoming.
        The increased production and use of clean natural gas is the source
    of one of the few bright spots in our current economic climate. In
    2010, the shale gas industry supported 600,000 jobs, and a Federal
    Reserve economist estimates that lower natural gas prices enabled by
    increased production saved American consumers more than $16 billion in
    home energy costs in 2010. Wyoming is a perfect case study--tens of
    thousands of people are employed in oil and gas production, and
    royalties and taxes on that production delivered almost $2 billion go
    to State and local taxpayer coffers--more than $3,400 for every citizen
    in the State.
        However, in a remarkable display of arrogance and disregard for the
    plain facts, the President last week proclaimed his support for
    expanded shale gas production, while at the same time allowing every
    part of his Administration--from the EPA to Interior to the CDC--to
    attack these practices through scientific innuendo and regulatory
    straight-jacketing.
        In the past year, this Subcommittee has held numerous hearings on
    EPA's use and abuse of science. Time and again we have demonstrated
    that this Agency is substituting outcome-driven science for rigorous
    objective science. EPA's investigation of groundwater contamination in
    Pavillion appears to be yet another example of politics trumping policy
    and advocacy trumping science.
        The scientific method is a process characterized by the development
    of a hypothesis, creation of a rigorous experiment to test it,
    documentation of observations and objective analysis of results. As far
    as I can see, EPA never managed to get farther than the first step.
        EPA will no doubt emphasize today that this is a draft report that
    will soon undergo peer review. This fails to acknowledge, however, the
    impact this report has already had. The day after the draft report was
    released, the Governor of Delaware announced that it was the validation
    for his decision to vote against development of natural gas in Delaware
    River Basin. This illustrates the power of EPA's ``press release
    science'' to drive public opinion and even critical decisions by
    policymakers.
        The key question before us today is, was the investigation
    conducted in a scientifically robust manner that justifies all this
    upheaval? I look forward to hearing from witnesses, but am concerned
    about indications that EPA's approach in Wyoming has been poorly
    conducted, unnecessarily alarming, and fits within a pattern of an
    outcome-driven, ``regulate-for-any-excuse'' philosophy at the Agency.
        Transparency is central to getting to the bottom of these
    scientific questions. Regardless that the President boasts that he
    leads the ``most transparent Administration in history'' and despite
    receiving multiple requests from state, media, and interested
    stakeholders, it was not until late last night, that EPA finally
    disclosed data essential to meaningfully evaluate their findings. While
    I am pleased that EPA posted 622 documents to its website last night,
    it is unfortunate that this transparency appears to only have been
    compelled by the calling of a Congressional oversight hearing.
        Compounding this problem is the complete failure to collaborate
    with experts and institutions with knowledge in the unique hydrogeology
    of this region. For example, the state of Wyoming, despite possessing
    decades of experience in ground water assessments, was not consulted
    with about the most important aspects of this investigation. The Agency
    did not even consult with the U.S. Geological Survey before releasing
    the report, a sister agency that has extensive understanding of aquifer
    complexity and geological characteristics
        Also concerning is EPA's apparent failures to follow its own
    laboratory protocols, Superfund site requirements, peer review
    handbook, information quality guidelines, as well as USGS
    recommendations for drilling and sampling monitoring wells.
    Hypocritically, these are behaviors and practices that the Agency would
    not accept from any state or private sector entity conducting a
    comprehensive ground water investigation.
        Finally, I'm afraid EPA's actions in Pavillion demonstrate a
    disturbing loss of perspective. The principle concern of this
    investigation should be the health and welfare of the people living
    near Pavillion, WY. Unfortunately, in its single-minded pursuit of the
    hydraulic fracturing smoking gun, EPA appears to have lost focus on
    identifying the real causes of, and real solutions to, drinking water
    quality problems in Pavillion.
        I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee
    and I look forward to a constructive discussion.

        Chairman Harris. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Miller for
    five minutes of an opening statement.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Harris.
        The stated purpose of this hearing is to examine the
    methodology, the quality assurance, the peer review process and
    the like of an EPA study that links hydraulic fracturing, or
    fracking, and groundwater contamination near Pavillion,
    Wyoming.
        The principal criticism of the EPA is that the EPA's
    procedures have lacked transparency. EPA conducted the study in
    response to requests by citizens in the area. After fracking
    operations began there, they began to suffer headaches, sore
    throat, nausea, sinus problems and other symptoms that are
    known to be associated with the contaminants found in
    Pavillion's drinking water supply by the EPA study. EPA--it is
    a draft report that is the product of three years of research.
    The report is subject to a public comment period, followed by
    peer review. EPA has extended the public comment period for 45
    days beyond--from 45 days to 90 days at the request of
    industry. Public comments are due by March 12, 2012. EPA is now
    soliciting also nominations for disinterested experts to serve
    as peer reviewers, real scientists, not members of the Science
    Committee, real scientists. Once selected, the peer review
    panel will have 30 days to complete their work. In other words,
    the Pavillion study is a work in progress and all the
    criticisms we will hear today are a part of the public comment
    and part of the peer review process.
        The Pavillion study does not call for any regulation of
    fracking. Their study is part of risk assessment, not risk
    management. Risk assessment informs risk management. Once we
    know the risks, EPA will then weigh of the economic benefits
    and the potential public health consequences of fracking to
    determine what safeguards, if any, are appropriate to develop
    needed natural gas resources while protecting the environment
    and public health.
        Although the industry and their political allies dismiss
    the concerns about fracking as uninformed hysteria, their
    refusal to provide basic information about the operations,
    their operations and their efforts to hinder independent
    scientific research like the Pavillion study cannot be
    reassuring to citizens living near fracking operations. The
    industry has refused to disclose the chemicals they inject into
    the earth, claiming that the information is proprietary, their
    ``secret sauce.'' But the draft Pavillion study is not the only
    study to find groundwater contamination, and at least one
    instance of surface water contamination, near fracking
    operations by chemicals not ordinarily found in nature and
    known to be part of the secret sauce. Some of the chemicals are
    known carcinogens.
        In short, the public concern about fracking seems very
    reasonable. The question is not whether we are pro-drilling or
    anti-drilling. The question is whether we will drill with our
    eyes open. The public wants to know if fracking is safe, and
    they are entitled to know. But the industry and their political
    allies just say, in effect, move along, there is nothing to see
    here.
        The integrity of scientific research at EPA is properly the
    subject of this Subcommittee's interest, although none of the
    Republican witnesses today appear to satisfy the requirements
    of disinterested expertise to serve as peer reviewers. With no
    disinterested scientists as witnesses, a reasonable question is
    whether this hearing is really about the science, the integrity
    of the science, or if it is just a big wink and nod to the
    industry that the majority is on their side no matter what.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Brad Miller
    Thank you Chairman Harris

        The stated purpose of this hearing is to examine the methodology,
    quality assurance, the peer review process and the like of an EPA study
    that links hydraulic fracturing, or ``fracking,'' and groundwater
    contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming. EPA conducted the study in
    response to requests by citizens in the area. The draft report is the
    product of three years of research. The report is subject to a public
    comment period, followed by a peer review. EPA has extended the public
    comment period from 45 days to 90 days at the request of industry.
    Public comments are due by March 12, 2012. EPA is also now soliciting
    nominations for disinterested experts to serve as peer reviewers. Once
    selected, the peer review panel will have thirty days to complete their
    work.

        In other words, the Pavillion study is a work in progress.

        The Pavillion study does not call for any regulation of fracking.
    The study is part of ``risk assessment,'' not ``risk management.'' Risk
    assessment informs risk management. Once we know the risks, EPA will
    then weigh of the economic benefits and the potential public health
    consequences of fracking to determine what safeguards, if any, are
    appropriate to develop needed natural gas resources while protecting
    the environment and public health.

        Although the industry and their political allies dismiss concerns
    about fracking as uninformed hysteria, their refusal to provide basic
    information about their operations and their efforts to hinder
    independent scientific research like the Pavillion study cannot be
    reassuring to citizens living near fracking operation. The industry has
    refused to disclose the chemicals they inject into the earth, claiming
    that the information is proprietary, their ``secret sauce.'' But the
    draft Pavillion study is not the only study to find ground water
    contamination, and at least one instance of surface water
    contamination, near fracking operations by chemicals not ordinarily
    found in nature and known to be part of the secret sauce. Some of the
    chemicals are known carcinogens.

        In short, the public concern about fracking seems very reasonable.

        The question is not whether we are ``pro-drilling'' or ``anti-
    drilling.'' The question is whether we will drill with our eyes open.
    The public wants to know if fracking is safe, and they're entitled to
    know. But the industry and their political allies just say, in effect,
    ``move along, there's nothing to see here.''

        The integrity of scientific research at EPA is properly the subject
    of this Subcommittee's interest, although none of the Republican
    witnesses today appear to satisfy the requirements of disinterested
    expertise to serve as peer reviewers. With no disinterested scientists
    as witnesses, a reasonable question is whether this hearing is really
    just a big wink and nod to the industry that the majority is on their
    side no matter what.

        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
        If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
        I would like to introduce our witness panel at this time,
    and again, I am going to apologize to the witnesses for the
    delay we had at the beginning of the hearing, but again, you
    know, one of our principles is, we make certain that, you know,
    minority or majority, if someone makes a motion, they are going
    to get a vote.
        Our first witness today is Mr. James B. Martin. Mr. Martin
    is the Regional Administrator for Region 8 at the Environmental
    Protection Agency. He has worked in the environmental field for
    nearly 30 years. Prior to his career in public service, Mr.
    Martin managed Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit focused
    on energy, public lands and water issues.
        Our next witness will be Mr. Tom Doll. Mr. Doll is the
    State Oil and Gas Supervisor at the Wyoming Oil and Gas
    Conservation Commission. Prior to becoming supervisor, he had
    38 years' experience in petroleum engineering and management,
    primarily in Wyoming and the northern Rockies. He is Wyoming's
    official representative to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
    Commission.
        Our third witness is Ms. Kathleen Sgamma. Ms. Sgamma is the
    Vice President of Government and Public Affairs at the Western
    Energy Alliance. She handles federal legislative, public lands,
    environmental and regulatory issues for companies involved in
    all aspects of exploration and production of oil and natural
    gas in the West.
        Our final witness is Dr. Bernard Goldstein. Dr. Goldstein
    is a Professor and Dean Emeritus at the Graduate School of
    Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh. He is a
    physician, board certified in internal medicine, hematology and
    toxicology. He also served as Assistant Administrator for EPA's
    Office of Research and Development from 1983 to 1985.
        I want to thank you all for appearing before the
    Subcommittee today, and again, thank you very much for your
    patience in waiting to testify.
        As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
    to five minutes each after which the Members of the Committee
    will have five minutes each to ask question.
        I now recognize our first witness, Mr. James Martin from
    the Environmental Protection Agency.

         STATEMENT OF MR. JIM MARTIN, REGION 8 ADMINISTRATOR,
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Martin. Good morning, Chairman Harris Ranking Member
    Miller and other Members of the Committee. My name is Jim
    Martin, and I am the Regional Administrator for the
    Environmental Protection Agency's Region 8. That is the region
    that encompasses the Dakotas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming and
    Colorado. I am here today to talk with you about the agency's
    groundwater investigation at Pavillion, Wyoming.
        In the spring of 2008, EPA staff at our regional office
    were contacted by a group of people from the rural community of
    Pavillion in central Wyoming. They had noticed a change in
    their drinking water, in its odor, its taste and its color, and
    wanted to know not only what had happened but whether their
    water was safe to drink.
        While the state had directed the operating company to test
    the water, the results were inconclusive and left the residents
    without those critical answers. After conferring with our state
    colleagues and with the Northern Arapahoe and Eastern Shoshone
    Tribes of the Wind River Indian Reservation, EPA agreed in 2008
    to conduct additional sampling.
        To ensure as thorough an approach as possible, we developed
    a plan that included a broad list of compounds at the lowest
    levels of detection. We conducted our initial round of sampling
    in March 2009. We looked at both domestic drinking water wells
    and at two of the wells that serve the town Pavillion just west
    of the Pavillion oil and gas field. We found that roughly a
    third of the domestic wells had detections of organic compounds
    including methane, total petroleum hydrocarbons and some other
    organics the lab was able to tentatively identify but not
    quantify.
        Our phase 2 sampling was again planned in collaboration
    with the tribes, the state and the operating company, in this
    case, Encana. Our goal was to better quantify the chemicals
    present in order to assess potential health risks and to
    identify potential sources. Again, we considered a wide range
    of potential sources in developing the sampling plan. The
    sampling plan--the sampling, rather, occurred in January of
    2010 but in a more refined area based on the results from our
    phase 1 sampling. Again, we confirmed that organic chemicals of
    concern were present in 16 of the 17 domestic well samples
    including methane and petroleum hydrocarbons. We also sampled
    shallow pit monitoring wells and found very high concentrations
    of several contaminants.
        We shared our data with the Agency for Toxic Substances and
    Disease Registry. Based both on those data and on a set of
    uncertainties, that agency recommended that residents use an
    alternative source of water for drinking and cooking and that
    they ventilate their bathrooms while running their showers.
    However, we concluded that without future data, further data,
    rather, we still could not identify potential sources of the
    contamination.
        Another round of consultation with stakeholders occurred
    and we then decided to construct two deep monitoring wells.
    Those wells were constructed in the summer of 2007--2010,
    rather--and we collected samples from both wells on two
    separate occasions. Throughout, we applied the most stringent
    quality assurance protocols used by the agency. Those results
    showed very high alkalinity at deeper levels of the aquifer,
    petroleum-related organic compounds including benzene at 50
    times the maximum contamination level set by the Safe Drinking
    Water Act, and a number of synthetic organic compounds that do
    not occur naturally in groundwater. EPA's technical team
    evaluated these data with great care and weighed a range of
    possible explanations that might fit the entire data set as
    well as the regional geology and the fuel production practices.
    Based upon multiple lines of reasoning, we have tentatively
    concluded that the drinking water aquifer contains compounds
    likely associated with gas production activities including
    hydraulic fracturing.
        We make clear in the draft report that our analysis is
    limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion
    gas field and should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in
    other geologic settings. It should be noted that fracturing in
    Pavillion is taking place in and below the drinking water
    aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells.
        As we were moving toward completion of the report, we asked
    three external scientists to review the sampling and analysis
    as a sort of final check-in. We also broadly shared the data
    and then conducted a series of meetings with the state, the
    tribes, BLM and BIA and the company to gather their concerns
    and assessments. In late 2011, we released the draft report. We
    provided notice of our intention to subject this report to a
    formal external peer review by scientists and engineers
    unaffiliated with EPA. Contemporaneously, we sought public
    comment on the draft report and have since extended the
    deadline for comment to March 12.
        To support this review, we have released an unprecedented
    amount of raw data, qualify assurance documentation and other
    supporting information. In addition, we are working with the
    state, the tribes and others to develop a plan for additional
    investigation at the site.
        In conclusion, I believe EPA acted carefully, thoughtfully
    and transparently in responding to the concerns raised by local
    residents in 2008. We have applied the highest standards of
    scientific rigor and have operated in the spirit of
    transparency and collaboration. There is more work to be done,
    and collaboration and transparency will continue to be the
    hallmarks of our investigation.
        With that, I yield the floor, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Mr. Jim Martin, Region 8 Administrator,
                        Environmental Protection Agency

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much.
        I now recognize our second witness, Mr. Tom Doll from the
    Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

                     STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS DOLL,

                     STATE OIL AND GAS SUPERVISOR,

              WYOMING OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

        Mr. Doll. Thank you. I am here this morning as a
    representative of the Honorable Governor of the State of
    Wyoming, Matthew H. Mead, and provide the following testimony
    regarding the EPA's groundwater science at Pavillion, Wyoming.
        The Pavillion Wind River formation natural gas field was
    discovered in 1960. By 2006, full field development was
    completed. This greater Pavillion gas field has 168 wells.
    Currently, there are 78 wells on tribal and 58 wells on private
    minerals. The last wells in this greater Pavillion gas field
    area that were hydraulically fractured occurred in 2007.
        In 2008, EPA reacted to complaints from a few domestic well
    owners claiming taste and odor problems following hydraulic
    fracturing at nearby gas production wells. EPA conducted
    sampling and testing of 42 shallow domestic and stock water
    wells, and in August 2010, results of that testing was made
    public.
        EPA drilled two monitoring wells in the Pavillion natural
    gas field in the summer of 2010. Both monitoring wells were
    completed at depths considerably below that of the shallow
    water supply wells. EPA via email notified the Wyoming
    Department of Environmental Quality of the plan to drill the
    monitoring wells literally as the rig was moving in, so I would
    question whether that is consultation with the state or not.
        Sampling of the two monitoring wells occurred in October
    2010 and again in April of 2011. Data was made public in
    November followed by the Pavillion draft report on groundwater
    in December 2011.
        The complex geology of the Wind River formation in central
    Wyoming makes identification of potential contamination
    pathways difficult. The sands are discontinuous and are
    individual lenses within a shale matrix. Visual individual
    potato chips layered in a bowl. Some are in contact and most
    are not. The Wind River formation is a shallow aquifer and is
    also a deep natural gas reservoir.
        EPA's draft report is based on two monitoring well sampling
    events. EPA found a single detect of 2-butoxyethanol out of
    nine lab samples analyzed using an analytical method still
    under development. Actual sample values for organics are so
    low, they are measured in parts per billion. This chemical
    compound at the 12.7 parts per billion detected is acceptable
    for drinking water supplied from a public water system.
        The EPA review of material safety data sheets found 2-
    butoxyethanol as a compound in foam additives used in hydraulic
    fracturing but ignored its use in other applications such as
    metal coatings and solvents. The EPA concluded that hydraulic
    fracturing caused groundwater contamination.
        Now I would like to focus on the natural gas wells in the
    immediate area of these two EPA monitoring wells. None of these
    natural gas wells have been hydraulically fractured since 2005.
    EPA's data is only applicable to the natural gas fields in
    central Wyoming. This fact is lost in the public reaction to
    the EPA announcement and a worldwide damnation of hydraulic
    fracturing has occurred. The report provides no data to show
    how these two EPA monitoring wells represent water supply wells
    used by anyone in the Pavillion natural gas field. Wyoming
    state agencies' technical questions have yet to be addressed,
    and I have been informed now that the new data has been
    released and posted on the EPA web page.
        The EPA report also ignores the ongoing public outreach
    investigation of natural gas well integrity and landowner-
    identified sites. EPA has not addressed other possible surface
    pathways of groundwater contamination. Wyoming state agency
    scientists contend that the chemical compounds detected were
    introduced during the drilling, completion, testing and
    sampling of the EPA monitoring wells. Further well testing is
    required.
        Wyoming has historically regulated hydraulic fracturing.
    Since 2010, Wyoming is the only state to require chemical
    disclosure prior to the initiation of the treatment. Disclosure
    of the actual chemical compounds used is also required post
    treatment. This well information is public and is posted on the
    Oil and Gas Conservation Commission web page.
        In conclusion, the EPA Pavillion draft report contains
    poor-quality data and science. The State of Wyoming experts do
    not support the EPA's data or analysis, and recommends further
    testing before any conclusion of groundwater contamination by
    any source be made. The goal is for residents of Pavillion to
    have clean water and conclusive answers about the source of the
    area's groundwater problems. Additional short-term sampling and
    long-term science-based efforts are being planned by the State
    of Wyoming and the USGS for the Pavillion area.
        Thank you for providing this opportunity to address the
    Subcommittee regarding Pavillion, Wyoming.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doll follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, Wyoming
                       Oil & Gas Conservation Commission

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much.
        I now recognize our third witness, Ms. Kathleen Sgamma from
    the Western Energy Alliance.

                   STATEMENT OF MS. KATHLEEN SGAMMA,

             VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS,

                        WESTERN ENERGY ALLIANCE

        Ms. Sgamma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller
    and Members of the Committee. Thanks for the opportunity today.
        Western Energy Alliance represents about 400 companies
    engaged in all aspects of environmentally responsible oil and
    gas development in Wyoming and across the West. There is no
    failsafe process, and accidents may happen with any human
    endeavor.
        One of the main roles of environmental regulation is to
    ensure that the risk is managed properly, that appropriate
    procedures are in place to prevent public exposure, and in the
    event of an accident, that problems are corrected.
        Oil and natural gas producers are held to high scientific
    standards to ensure operations are properly designed, executed
    and controlled. Because civil or criminal penalties can be
    levied on producers who fail to fulfill regulatory
    requirements, it is imperative that regulators are also held to
    high standards.
        Regulators must be required to show that sound science and
    correct procedures were followed when establishing regulations
    and when determining if a company failed to meet a regulatory
    standard. If sound science and accepted regulatory practices
    are not followed, findings cannot stand up in court and
    arbitrary regulatory practices sow uncertainty.
        As a democratic society, the legal culpability inherent in
    our regulatory system is not the only consideration. The court
    of public opinion is also important. Without public support,
    activities such as oil and natural gas development would not be
    possible.
        My industry struggles against outrageous information in the
    public arena that overstates our environmental impact and
    propagates blatantly false information about hydraulic
    fracturing. Every day we hear members of the media and
    unaccountable environmental groups make statements about
    supposedly thousands of cases of contamination. Never mind that
    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and most regulators from large
    oil and natural gas-producing states have felt compelled to
    issue statements about the lack of cases of contamination from
    fracking. Once misinformation gets out in the public, it takes
    on a life of its own and is almost impossible to correct. This
    misinformation has caused local communities and citizens to
    fear a process that is safe. The fear leads to development
    roadblocks, depriving state economies of tens of thousands of
    jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity.
        Furthermore, unfounded fears about fracking divert limited
    federal and state resources away from activities that truly
    pose a threat to underground sources of drinking water. The
    Groundwater Protection Council considers fracking low risk,
    especially compared to other threats such as agricultural
    runoff, septic systems, sewer lines and wastewater treatment
    sources.
        The public trusts EPA to follow the line and use sound
    science as the foundation of its regulatory work. When EPA
    releases a report stating that fracking may be the cause of
    contamination, the public expects that to be backed by science.
    However, in the case of the draft Pavillion report, EPA's own
    data contained within doesn't support the conclusions presented
    upfront. A conclusion with such broad implications should have
    first been tested through a scientific peer review of the work.
        We are left wondering why EPA would jump to conclusions.
    Why would EPA release the report without state input and
    scientific peer review? These are disturbing questions to ask
    about an agency that should have the public trust and points to
    the fact that EPA is also a political body, not a disinterested
    scientific institution.
        As this Committee knows, fundamental standards of science
    include objectivity, repeatability, transparency and peer
    review. It is hard to call something scientific if it doesn't
    include these basic elements, yet we have seen examples from
    EPA that do not. Industry is particularly concerned since
    Congress has charged EPA with conducting a scientific study of
    fracking. EPA's recent actions raise questions in our minds
    about the quality of the science for the broader fracking study
    as well.
        The Pavillion report and what we have observed so far in
    the fracking study cause great concern to industry as we see a
    lack of transparency, unscientific methods and failure to
    perform peer review. I ask this Committee to help ensure that
    the issues of scientific credibility are resolved. I believe in
    general that better oversight is needed of EPA science. There
    is an inherent given EPA's regulatory and compliance roles and
    its ability to conduct objective science. Given that conflict,
    it is especially important that EPA science be properly peer
    reviewed. Western Energy Alliance recommends that standards of
    EPA-conducted science be tightened.
        Fracking is vital to the supply of American energy. If we
    lose the public's confidence and cannot continue to develop oil
    and natural gas in the United States because of unfounded
    rumors and invalid science, America will deprive itself of
    significant job and economic growth and will continue to import
    energy from unfriendly countries.
        Thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Sgamma follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President, Government &
                    Public Affairs, Western Energy Alliance

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, and I recognize our
    fourth and final witness, Dr. Bernard Goldstein of the
    University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health.
    Doctor.

                  STATEMENT OF DR. BERNARD GOLDSTEIN,

                      PROFESSOR AND DEAN EMERITUS,

       GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

        Mr. Goldstein. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity
    to testify. I apologize but I will be showing slides. It is
    part of being a professor. I would lose my professorial
    appointment.
        My three major points are that there is--that the public is
    genuinely concerned about the potential health impacts and
    there is genuine reason for the concern and that there is
    almost no support for the research needed to respond to the
    public, and that lack of support is both shortsighted and
    counterproductive.
        There is a fair amount of public confusion, which I think
    is really important to put in context of this particular
    hearing. The public is hearing that hydro fracking is a new
    technology that now permits extraction. In our area of the
    country, it is the Marcellus shale. And oh, by the way, it has
    been around for decades so don't worry. It can't be both.
    Decades ago, hydro fracking was done with 50,000 gallons of
    water, straight shot down, vertical, no horizontal drilling.
    Now it is 5 to 8 million gallons. There is all these additional
    bells and whistles that have been added to it, and we are told,
    although there is a lot of secrecy, that the fracking chemicals
    have been changed.
        We are also confused about the fact that just as we are
    hearing here, there is no proof that hydro fracking has ever
    caused groundwater contamination. Well, that is a technical
    definition of hydro fracking which has to do with the release
    5,000 foot underground or 1,000 foot underground of these
    chemicals. It is not really what the public understands as
    hydro fracking, which is anything that happens with these
    chemicals from the time that the drill pad is leveled to 20
    years from now when we hope everybody goes away and everything
    is restored to where it was.
        So this confusion is very much behind causing even anger by
    folks. This is an analysis of the reasons given by those not in
    favor of Marcellus drilling, and you will see that health
    concerns are a large part of this. Part of the reason for
    concern is unnecessary secrecy. My example of how ludicrous
    this is comes from the Gulf oil spill. Secrecy about this
    particular component, this organic sulfonic acid salt at the
    bottom, this propriety drug, contributed greatly to the stress
    experienced by Gulf residents. It turns out that this secret
    ingredient is a commonly used over-the-counter stool softener
    we have often prescribed, and I can tell that at least one of
    us in this room has used. It is of no toxicological
    significance to humans. I don't know about the fish. But why do
    we keep this secret?
        One of my major concerns as a toxicologist as a physician
    is the mixture issue. We have lots of chemicals that are being
    used. They are continually changing. We don't know what is in
    there. I can't be responsive to someone who calls and says my
    kid has such and such problems, I am worried about this
    disease, because I don't really know what is being done there.
    And not only do we have this concern about the individual
    chemicals, there is this mixture issue but there is even a
    greater mixture issue having to do with the fracking fluids
    that return, the produce water, the flow-back water, which
    contain not only the residual fracking chemicals but also
    everything that has been brought up from underground. And we
    don't really know what is going to happen with these flow-back
    fluids.
        I can't in this brief presentation do more than list some
    of the potential health issues that should be addressed, and I
    must respectfully disagree with the distinguished Chair about
    the importance of index cases. In my experience, index cases
    are simply not very germane to environmental medicine.
        Let me cite our analysis of the Pennsylvania Department of
    Environmental Protection's data on violations by companies
    involved in Marcellus shale drilling. Some of these companies
    are to be commended. They have had no violations. Some should
    not be in business. And as long as that persists, we are going
    to have major problems.
        And finally, it is disappointing that despite the fact that
    the various advisory committees have been put together, this is
    the President, the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of
    Pennsylvania, that really look at health and welfare and are
    concerned about protection of public health, we have examined
    these three advisory committees, there are 52 members and there
    is nobody with any health background in any of these advisory
    committees. No physicians, nurses, toxicologists, risk
    assessors, etc.
        So let me conclude with what I think are three certainties
    of what are going to happen. First, there is going to be
    surprises. There already have been--bromides in water,
    earthquakes. There will be improved technology. Industry has to
    pay for their fracking chemicals. It is in their interest to
    recycle them. Industry should not be releasing the chemicals
    that come out in fact because they should be selling them. They
    want to sell them. But we found over these past 40 years that
    it requires a lot of oversight, a lot of rigorous oversight to
    make this happen. It won't happen by itself.
        And finally, there certainly will be adverse health impacts
    that are going to be reported in these various areas. They will
    be statistically significant. That doesn't mean they are
    causal. There is enough different diseases in different areas.
    People are going to wake up and said we have never had this
    much pancreatic cancer or autism or leukemia before those
    drilling, those wells were drilled, and at that point, to try
    to figure out in retrospect what is really going on is a little
    too late. It is cost-ineffective to do it then. We need to
    start doing it now if we are going to be able to get the
    greatest benefit we can, or in fact, the decisions will be made
    based upon litigation, not based upon science.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean
      Emeritus, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, Doctor, and I
    sympathize with you because, you know, as an academician,
    whenever I would give a talk, I always gave it from slides. So
    then I get into the legislature and find you don't do that
    anymore. Thank you very much for your presentation.
        Now we will begin, reminding Members that Committee rules
    limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair at this point will
    open the round of questions and I recognize myself for the
    first five minutes.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Martin, for being here. I
    understand Dr. Anastas couldn't, so I appreciate you being
    here. I want to ask you, though, and just confirm for me a
    couple of just facts. First of all, is the only chemical that
    was found in those wells that was above drinking water
    standards for a public well was benzene. Is that correct? In
    the two monitoring wells, the two deep monitoring wells.
        Mr. Martin. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but could you repeat
    your question?
        Chairman Harris. Sure. What substances were found at
    concentrations above the drinking water levels that are
    accepted for public water supplies?
        Mr. Martin. Benzene was the most notable example of what
    we----
        Chairman Harris. Which other ones? Could you list them?
        Mr. Martin. That is the only one, I believe.
        Chairman Harris. The only one. Okay. So it was the only
    one. And it is true, it was only found in one of the two
    monitoring wells. Isn't that right?
        Mr. Martin. No, I don't believe that is correct.
        Chairman Harris. I suggest you look at your draft report,
    which suggests that monitoring well #1 did not have measurable
    amounts and monitoring well #2 had them.
        Mr. Martin. I don't have the report in front of me, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Harris. Well, I do. I suggest you also check, you
    had two measurements separated by six months. Is that correct?
        Mr. Martin. Yes.
        Chairman Harris. And isn't it true that the benzene level
    was one-half the original reported amount when you went in the
    second sampling in well #2?
        Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, you have the data before you; I
    don't.
        Chairman Harris. Well, this is your report. You signed on
    to this--you approved this press release, didn't you?
        Mr. Martin. I don't know to what----
        Chairman Harris. This is the press release from October
    8th--I am sorry--from December 8th releasing the draft study,
    the company that released the draft study. You have read the
    report. I think you have read the report.
        Mr. Martin. Multiple times, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Harris. Very good. Well, I suggest you look at
    that table--so what we have done here is, we have said that we
    only have one contaminant. It was only found in one well, and
    oh, by the way, there is a twofold difference in the
    concentration in that well and it fell from the time of the
    first measurement to the time of the second measurement. Is it
    true, because there has been testimony in front of this
    Committee, there have been 1.2 million applications of hydro
    fracturing in the United States and there still has not been a
    documented contamination of drinking water above the levels
    acceptable for a public system. Is that correct? There still is
    no documented case?
        Mr. Martin. That is information to which I can't testify,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Harris. Okay. So you certainly can't refute the
    testimony in front of this Committee previously on that?
        Mr. Martin. I can't.
        Chairman Harris. I know why you can't because there still
    isn't, and although the EPA might want to suggest that in this
    press release, I think that it may not be true.
        Now, you state in your testimony that ``Our analysis is
    limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion
    gas field and should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in
    other geological settings.'' Now, that is an extension of what
    you actually had in the press release because the press release
    didn't actually say and oh, by the way, don't extrapolate this,
    don't apply this to fracturing in other settings, and you also
    went on to say in testimony that these wells had ``production
    conditions different from those in many other parts of the
    country.'' And having read the report, and having the testimony
    of a geologist, of someone with expert in the local geology, I
    can understand that. But I want to be clear. Regardless of what
    the peer review process determines about this report's findings
    and validities and all the rest, does the EPA think that the
    results of this investigation can be reasonably extrapolated to
    modern hydraulic fracturing being used, for example, in the
    Marcellus shale, which of course runs through my state?
        Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, the circumstances, the
    conditions, the geologic conditions that exist with the
    Marcellus shale are significantly different. In the Pavillion
    case, we were looking at production that occurred in an
    underground source of drinking water, an aquifer, at depths as
    shallow as 1,200 feet where the most--the deepest domestic
    drinking water well was 800 feet. I believe in the Marcellus
    shale, you are looking at production occurring from 5,000 feet
    below ground, so they are very different.
        Chairman Harris. So you believe that these results really
    can't be reasonably extrapolated to the Marcellus shale?
        Mr. Martin. We have not proposed to do anything of that
    sort, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Harris. Good. In light of that clarification, I
    want to give you an opportunity to comment on recent statements
    regarding the conclusion of EPA's draft report. After the
    issuance of EPA's Pavillion draft report, the Governor of
    Delaware said that this report validates his plans to veto gas
    drilling in the four-state Delaware basin. Was the Governor
    wrong to extrapolate your results to the Delaware River basin?
        Mr. Martin. I have never met the Governor. I don't know him
    and I don't know the circumstances or the context and I am not
    about to tell him he was right or wrong, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Harris. Well, I am just going to ask you based on
    your knowledge of the potential uniqueness of the geology in
    Pavillion, Wyoming, is it your impression that maybe the
    Governor should have thought a little longer about that or
    maybe looked into a little different or actually taken into
    account the geology of the Delaware River basin before coming
    to that conclusion? Because it sounds like that's what the EPA
    suggests, that you have to take local geology into account.
        Mr. Martin. I am not in a position, Mr. Chairman, to
    criticize any governor.
        Chairman Harris. Well, your former colleagues at the
    Environmental Defense Fund called the draft Pavillion report a
    ``wakeup call on the need for stronger regulation nationally on
    hydraulic fracturing.'' Now, are your former associates wrong
    to interpret the results in this way, broadly extrapolated to
    hydraulic fracturing anywhere in any geologic formation?
        Mr. Martin. I haven't talked with them, Mr. Chairman. I
    haven't seen their comments in context. I am not in a position
    to criticize anyone here other than to give you a better
    understanding of what we did at the Pavillion site.
        Chairman Harris. Has your office had any communication with
    them at all?
        Mr. Martin. Sir, there are 800 people in my office. I can't
    speak to whether anyone had had any----
        Chairman Harris. Would the FOIA request that has been made
    regarding this information, would that be part of that FOIA
    request? Because the FOIA request is solicited email responses.
    Would we find that information out there if you are unable to
    say whether you have had any communication with them?
        Mr. Martin. I can tell you definitively, I have not.
        Chairman Harris. By any means?
        Mr. Martin. Not about this particular----
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Martin, you said, or Dr. Harris asked if it was true
    that benzene was the only chemical that was above acceptable
    levels. Is benzene a known carcinogen? It is, is it not?
        Mr. Martin. It is, Congressman.
        Mr. Miller. Okay. And I think in your testimony earlier you
    said that it was at 50 times the acceptable level?
        Mr. Miller. I did.
        Mr. Miller. So if it fell to half what it was earlier, it
    was still 25 times acceptable level. Is that correct?
        Mr. Martin. I believe your math would be correct, sir.
        Mr. Miller. All right. Ms. Sgamma, from your biography, the
    biographical information provided to the Committee, your title
    is Vice President of Government and Public Affairs. That sounds
    like the title given to a lobbyist. Is that correct?
        Ms. Sgamma. That is my title, yes.
        Mr. Miller. All right. In looking at your educational
    background and your experience, it appears to be in information
    technology, computer stuff. The federal regs have a list of the
    scientific fields that are considered experts for purposes of
    hydraulic fracturing. IT is not one of them, and it appears
    that you have no background in geology or toxicology or
    hydrology or public health or anything else that is one of the
    fields of expertise that are touched by hydraulic fracturing.
    Is that correct?
        Ms. Sgamma. I am not applying to be on the peer review of
    any of this report but I do--I am informed by my members, who
    do indeed possess those degrees and that expertise.
        Mr. Miller. All right. Of course, they are not here to
    answer questions.
        Mr. Martin, we have heard that the contamination could have
    been caused by something else, by pesticides, by septic
    systems, by fuel stations, leahing underground storage tanks
    and that those were not considered. Did the EPA in fact
    consider and test for those other explanations?
        Mr. Martin. Congressman, we did. In fact, we designed the
    first two rounds of testing to look very broadly at a wide
    range of contaminants that might be present. We have been able
    to rule out pesticides and other potential sources including
    nitrates from agriculture or from dysfunctional septic systems.
    We have looked hard for a set of sources. We eliminated none
    going in. We have eliminated several in the process.
        Mr. Miller. All right. There has been some subject--some--
    well, Dr. Goldstein in his testimony said part of the public's
    concern is the lack of disclosure of what the chemicals going
    into the ground are. I understand from Mr. Doll--Dole?
        Mr. Doll. Doll.
        Mr. Miller. Doll, that they are now disclosing going
    forward but how would it be helpful to you--and I am not sure
    how further that disclosure is--but how would it be helpful to
    the EPA or anyone else studying groundwater contamination to
    know what chemicals were being used in fracking? Would it be
    helpful? Mr. Martin?
        Mr. Martin. Congressman, I believe it would be very
    helpful. We have actually been able to get from the company
    that operates this field MSDS sheets for some of the materials
    used in fracking, and that has been tremendously helpful.
        Mr. Miller. Okay. Well, how--you have been--ironically, you
    have been criticized by the Members of this Committee for a
    lack of transparency, but how would the transparency of EPA's
    work be compared to the transparency of the company doing the
    drilling, Encana, as well as the State of Wyoming?
        Mr. Martin. Congressman, we have worked closely and well
    with Encana on a number of issues but we are still awaiting
    responses to a number of questions we propounded to them
    including the results of the split sampling that they took
    during several phases of this investigation.
        Mr. Miller. Dr. Goldstein, I understand that a conference
    recently of medical experts recently urged that the rapid
    expansion of fracking for natural gas be, the term was paused,
    so that there could be research to determine the potential
    harmful effects on human health. Dr. Goldstein, it appears that
    you do have both the disinterest and the expertise to qualify
    as an expert in this area. What do you think of the idea of
    pausing, at least slowing the expansion, which may happen
    anyway for economic reasons or appears to be happening, anyway,
    for economic reasons, but pausing the expansion of fracking so
    that the scientific community can assess the risk of the
    technology?
        Mr. Goldstein. I strongly support that, sir. The issue to
    me is if we have in Pennsylvania 20 years of Marcellus shale
    gas, we are going to get all of that gas. I see no alternative
    to the fact that we will drill all that gas. That is the only
    reasonable scenario. So what is the rush? It is not going
    anywhere. In the Gulf, our Deepwater Horizon commission said
    that we ought to be drilling in part because otherwise the
    Cubans or the Venezuelans or the Chinese might get that oil,
    but unless the Canadians can figure out how to frack underneath
    Lake Erie, that is staying with us and we are going to get it.
    We might as well optimize how we get it in such a way that we
    don't interfere with public health or the environment.
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and I know
    how persnickety this Subcommittee is about the rules.
        Chairman Harris. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Miller. We
    like to play by the rules. That is what we do.
        The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Committee, Mr.
    Hall, for five minutes.
        Chairman Hall. I have a question for Mr. Doll. On January
    19, 2012, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson sent a letter to
    Governor Mead responding to his concern about the amount of
    sampling conducted during the course of his investigation. Are
    you aware of that?
        Mr. Doll. Yes, sir, I am.
        Chairman Hall. And in it, Administrator Jackson states ``We
    have conducted four phases of sampling, each of which was
    designed in consultation with the state.'' Is that correct?
        Mr. Doll. Sir, that is what she states in her letter, yes.
        Chairman Hall. Did this consultation take place? You have
    not been transparent so far as I have listened to you here
    today. Can you give me an answer to that?
        Mr. Doll. Are you asking me the question, sir?
        Chairman Hall. No, I am talking now to Mr. Martin.
        Mr. Martin. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. We consulted with a
    number of parties and certainly including the state at each
    phase of this process including the development of sampling
    plans for the first two phases, the design of the well, the
    monitoring wells that were constructed in the summer of 2010.
        Chairman Hall. I will get back to Mr. Doll. Did this
    consultation take place?
        Mr. Doll. The way I understand it, sir, from the Department
    of Environmental Quality, they were involved in the initial
    sampling that occurred in the 2008 time frame.
        Chairman Hall. What do you mean, involved in?
        Mr. Doll. They were notified and were aware that the
    sampling events were going to occur in 2009 and 2010. They were
    also informed at the time because it wasn't with my agency the
    speculation that I can address only as speculation is that they
    were informed that the monitoring wells were going to be
    drilled about the time that the drilling rig was moving to the
    site.
        Chairman Hall. How involved was the state in the
    development of sampling and monitoring those plans?
        Mr. Doll. I am not aware that we were involved at all, sir.
        Chairman Hall. What would you have recommended to EPA if
    you had been consulted? You were not consulted, were you?
        Mr. Doll. No, sir, we were not. The Oil and Gas
    Conservation Commission was not.
        Chairman Hall. Even though they contend that they were and
    they have so testified under oath that they were?
        Mr. Doll. They may have contacted by email the head of the
    Department of Environmental Quality but not the Oil and Gas
    Conservation Commission.
        Chairman Hall. Well, they might have sent them an email.
    That is not consulting, that is their own arrogant approach to
    it. I think they just sent them an email. They didn't consult
    with them. You are not testifying that they consulted with
    them, are you?
        Mr. Doll. No, sir, I am not.
        Chairman Hall. Then since the states are responsible for
    regulating drilling protocols, did EPA apply for a permit or
    submit a drilling plan to the State of Wyoming so far as you
    know?
        Mr. Doll. Not as far as I know, sir.
        Chairman Hall. Okay. Do you have any idea, Mr. Martin, why
    would the EPA Administrator claim that her agency consulted
    with the state on designing a sampling plan if it had not
    occurred?
        Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Doll and I----
        Chairman Hall. You haven't known when they asked you other
    questions about that.
        Mr. Martin. I am sorry, sir?
        Chairman Hall. You have not been able to testify. You
    wouldn't cross the Governor or anybody if you had information
    in front of you.
        Mr. Martin. I think----
        Chairman Hall. You are under oath now. You know that, don't
    you?
        Mr. Martin. I am, Mr. Chairman. I guess I am. I believe we
    conducted significantly greater consultation than Mr. Doll
    might be aware of. Early in the process, the Department of
    Environmental Quality for the State of Wyoming was designated
    as the lead agency for the State of Wyoming as part of this
    process. We consulted with them. We actually consulted with
    Encana in designing the monitoring wells that were constructed
    in 2010. We have significantly greater consultation with the
    state than perhaps Mr. Doll is aware of.
        Chairman Hall. I understood that EPA will be selecting a
    panel of outside peer reviewers to take a look at its work. Mr.
    Martin, can you assure me that at least one person recommended
    by the State of Wyoming will be named to this peer review
    panel?
        Mr. Martin. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Administrator
    has told the Governor that she expects that there will be at
    least one expert who meets all of the other qualifications for
    membership in an external peer review process, that there will
    be at least one person from Wyoming on the peer review panel.
        Chairman Hall. The Pavillion case that we are examining
    today reflects a troubling effect by EPA to build a case for
    regulating and even shutting down unconventional oil and gas
    production around the country and they are doing that all over
    the country, even out in Wyoming, and the EPA has it handed to
    them time after time by this Committee. I am sorry to say the
    liberal press hasn't printed it properly but they always say
    they need more investigation. But we have had people who have
    had years and years of experience and been here under oath that
    have testified there is not any way in the world that fracking
    could have affected the drinking water in the examples that
    were given to them. Do you understand that?
        Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. Is it a question or----
        Chairman Hall. It is important to recognize what EPA is
    doing in Wyoming is not isolated. They are going after fracking
    everywhere they can. I guess that is what I am trying to tell
    you, that they have been through most of the jurisdictions here
    and have absolutely had no proof, nothing testified under oath
    that would imply that fracking had damaged drinking water, not
    that I know of.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Hall. I would like to--let me enter in two
    documents into the record that raise questions about EPA's
    commitment to getting the science right on hydraulic
    fracturing.
        Chairman Harris. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II:]
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Doll, in reviewing your testimony, there at least
    appear to me to be some inconsistencies so that I would ask
    that perhaps you would clarify some points for me if you could,
    please. I will run through a few of these and then would like
    your comment. You indicate that the residents of Pavillion
    brought their concerns about water quality to the state in
    2005, on page two of your testimony, and the state's
    investigation showed no impact from oil and gas development.
    But the drilling company entered into a voluntary remediation
    program in 2008 with the state, and I quote ``because
    hydrocarbon impacts were discovered in groundwater.'' That is
    from section 2.2 of public participation plan of Pavillion,
    Wyoming, dated April 2008. This conclusion apparently was based
    on a study done by Wyoming's Department of Environmental
    Quality. So could you reconcile that for me?
        Mr. Doll. Yes, sir, I will. The work that was done in
    Pavillion by the Department of Environmental Quality goes back
    even before 2005. These are old--this is an old oil and gas
    field area. There were some pits that were identified and
    cleaned up and further testing was done in that 2005 to 2008
    time frame, and I believe that was why those pits were
    identified and put into the voluntary remediation program.
    There were over 60 pits reviewed, and then several, I think
    three or four, I am not sure, because that is the Department of
    Environmental Quality, but I think three or four were put into
    this voluntary remediation program. We have a group of
    individuals that are involved in a working group looking at
    these pits and sites that were identified by landowners as
    concern, and reviewed that data again and found one other area
    that upon testing found that needed to be added to the
    voluntary remediation program. So that is hydrocarbons that
    were probably hauled in. This gas that is being produced in the
    Wind River formation is a dry gas with very little liquids
    associated with it in terms of water or any kind of petroleum
    hydrocarbon.
        Mr. Tonko. And on page 5 of your testimony, you state that
    other possible sources of groundwater contamination remain
    unstudied. But notes from the April 2011 meeting indicate that
    they were researched by the pits working group which stated
    other potential sources including Greg Oberley of EPA said a
    records search into septic systems, dumps, oil and chemical
    storage sites is a work in process. And that Kathy Brown of DEQ
    reported that a DEQ database search did not identify any
    potential sources but she will need to do a paper records
    search to confirm. John Fenton said he needed more time to
    research county records and work with county planning to
    identify potential sources, there again from the meeting notes
    of April 11 from the pits working group under item #3.
        Mr. Doll. Congressman, you are absolutely correct. Those
    are continuing to be a work in progress. These are part of the
    working groups that have been meeting. We met four times in
    2011. None of this has been addressed in the draft report on
    Pavillion. It is a work in process, groups independent of the
    EPA's efforts on these two monitoring wells and what is put
    into that draft report.
        Mr. Tonko. So are they unstudied or----
        Mr. Doll. They are--well, there are no conclusions drawn.
    The study data has not been accumulated that I am aware of, so
    it is a work in process. So if I misspoke, it was only because
    the working group, it is a work in progress.
        Mr. Tonko. I appreciate that. I also observed that several
    of the statements in your testimony suggest that you do not
    believe the residents' wells are contaminated, that all
    substances are from natural sources. If so, why has the state
    offered five alternative methods for supplying water that you
    refer to in your testimony?
        Mr. Doll. The--sir, the five methods that were studied,
    that study was done by the Wyoming Department of Water
    Development, and the Wyoming Water Development Commission--
    excuse me--put out a report in September of 2011 stating that
    there were five potential solutions for those landowners for
    water. It did not address cause or that there was a requirement
    for that. They were tasked by the previous Governor, Governor
    Freudenthal, to do that study and that is what that is
    referring to in my written testimony.
        Mr. Tonko. So then are you suggesting there is no well
    water contamination?
        Mr. Doll. What I am suggesting, sir, is that that report is
    out there and that there is an effort by the current Governor,
    Governor Mead, and state agencies to make sure that these
    people have clean drinking water. That may be a source. They
    will probably have to form a rural water district to be able to
    do that but that is something that the landowners themselves
    must initiate, not the State.
        Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we put the
    documents that I referenced into the record, please.
        Chairman Harris. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II:]
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much.
        I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney,
    for five minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
    this hearing. I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward
    today. This is a contentious issue.
        In my mind, there is two potential problems with hydraulic
    fracturing. One is the actual contamination, and the other is
    the public perception of health risks from possible
    contamination. They are not unrelated, but they are separate in
    a sense, and in my mind, the Environmental Protection Agency's
    involvement and test program will help address both of those
    problems. It will help make sure that--it will help identify
    contaminations and sources of contaminations, and it will help
    us put procedures in place to make sure that there are
    standards on the cement and casings to prevent contamination,
    which is a serious issue, but also help satisfy the public in
    terms of openness and transparency, that they are satisfied
    that the tests are being done and that everybody has access to
    the data. So what the EPA is doing in terms of doing the tests,
    releasing the data and now they are going to go through the
    peer review process, this is all part of what has to happen in
    order to satisfy the public, in my opinion.
        So Mr. Martin, we have heard a lot about hydraulic
    fracturing in the last several months including potential
    contamination from waste disposal and storage and inadequate
    cement outside the production casing. Can you briefly discuss
    the EPA's draft findings pertaining to the cement outside of
    the casings of some of the wells? In other words, what have you
    found about well integrity with regard to cement in casing?
        Mr. Martin. Well, Congressman, what we found was that most
    of the production wells did not have surface casing that went
    below the depth of the deepest domestic drinking water well in
    the underground source of drinking water, the aquifer. We found
    weak or absent cement in many of the wells at depth, and that
    was one of the reasons we hypothesized that a potential pathway
    for vertical migration of the materials that we found at the
    deeper levels of the aquifer. It is a potential pathway. We
    posited several potential pathways. We were unable to identify
    any one as the most likely or the pathway.
        Mr. McNerney. Okay. Good. If you look at the theory, it is
    good. They have these casings in cement and it is all sealed,
    but if there is integrity problems with the cement, then the
    whole thing goes out the window, and we need to make sure that
    there are procedure and standards in place to prevent that. We
    need the gas and everybody wants to get to it. We just need to
    make sure that it is done properly. In my opinion, your
    involvement with the EPA is going to help us get there.
        Mr. Goldstein, I understand you have concerns such as
    problems with inadequate cement. Can you discuss this as well,
    please?
        Mr. Goldstein. Yes. It goes back to what the public is
    hearing. The public is hearing that there is no problem with
    hydraulic fracturing, none gets to the surface, and at the same
    token, they are reading in the newspaper how a company has been
    fined a million dollars and communities on drinking water
    because a cement casing blew. Well, it is all assumed to be
    hydro fracking. The fact that it is a cement casing or the fact
    that there were drums on the surface about to be put
    underground and a truck backed into it and released the
    contents of the drums, these were all fracking fluid. They were
    all groundwater contamination from hydro fracking in the
    broader sense of the term. It is occurring. We are reading
    about it. So we can't ignore that this is going to happen. And
    as I showed you, some of the companies are, at least in terms
    of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection not
    following the rules very closely.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, what should we do in your opinion to
    make this as safe a procedure as possible?
        Mr. Goldstein. I basically believe that we will know better
    whether industry, which is trying, I think, in many cases, as
    we have heard, very hard to do the best they can. We will know
    how serious they are in a few months when EPA comes out with
    its draft best control technology, and will industry support
    that, work to get the best control technology or will they
    stonewall these rules because they don't like the rules? That
    to me will be the test of how industry really responds.
        Mr. McNerney. Is the Pavillion activity by the EPA, is that
    going to be beneficial in terms of us getting there, in terms
    of understanding what the potential problems are?
        Mr. Goldstein. Well, I hope so. I go back to the time I was
    Assistant Administrator at EPA, a contentious time under
    President Reagan. There are two types of studies we do. Some
    fit very well into what Chairman Harris described as a superb
    scientific study initiated by EPA. Some are more responsive.
    They are more public health-oriented studies in that you are
    responding to the public. You haven't designed how they put
    those wells down and what has been released. It is not a matter
    of putting a well down and every 500 foot releasing a tracer
    and see if it came up in a randomized approach. This is a
    matter of being responsive, and as I read this report, I think
    it has got all the hedges and all the appropriate responses,
    and I would like to see what happens with the peer review. I
    hope it is a good peer review that they use.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, and we will have one
    other round of questions. I am going to again apologize to the
    witnesses for keeping you past noon, but this is such an
    important hearing.
        Mr. Doll, in your testimony you note that ``the draft
    report provides no data to show how these two EPA monitoring
    wells represent any water supply wells used by anyone in the
    Pavillion natural gas field.'' In your view, do the findings of
    the deep monitoring wells relate to drinking water issues cited
    by the complainants?
        Mr. Doll. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the report
    defines that or defends that properly. The actual information
    that we have seen from the data tells us that this gas and
    water that is found in these two monitoring wells is different
    than the gas and water that is found in the shallow drinking
    water aquifer. It is all the same formation. There is no
    barrier between the source rock at great depth and the
    formation that produces natural gas and serves as the aquifer.
        Chairman Harris. So you don't believe that those 622 pages
    released last night are going to change your opinion? I guess
    we have to wait to see what was released.
        Mr. Doll. I would hate to speculate on what would be
    their----
        Chairman Harris. Sure, and I am going to apologize for the
    Federal Government for taking so long to release that.
        Mr. Martin, Interior Secretary Salazar has been quoted as
    saying ``The jury is still out'' on the validity of the
    Pavillion study. Similarly, experts in the Interior's Bureau of
    Land Management viewed the draft report and communicated a
    number of concerns with the conclusions of the EPA the week
    before it was released to the state. Specifically, BLM's
    comments, they ``questioned the statistical validity of the two
    EPA monitoring well locations,'' highlighted that there is ``a
    serious lack of data if one is going to arrive at a specific
    source for the observed contamination'', third, raised
    ``concern over the well development process'' and said that
    ``arriving at conclusions at this stage is hasty, in my
    opinion'' and finally BLM concluded that ``the nature and
    extent of the contamination possible pathways and site
    conceptual models are not yet understood to the degree at which
    I would be comfortable assigning the source to anything
    including hydraulic fracturing.'' Why do you think that the
    experts, that your experts are right and BLM's are wrong? And
    have you discussed this at all with the Department of the
    Interior?
        Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, we had a series of meetings with
    both BLM and BIA as well as with the state and with Encana
    including one working group meeting with all of the
    stakeholders as well as certainly including the Bureau of Land
    Management. We are going to conduct an exhaustive, thorough
    peer review process. We are going to evaluate comments like
    that, which I have not seen, to be honest, and we are going to
    abide by the results of that peer review process.
        Chairman Harris. Well, thank you. Let me ask a question.
    Ms. Sgamma's testimony, or I guess it is not the testimony but
    it is the critical review of the draft report prepared for the
    American Petroleum Institute, so it is not that witness's. It
    says ``The EPA draft report jumps to the conclusion that
    hydraulic fracturing fluids are the source of many of the
    compounds found in the water samples from their two deep
    monitoring wells and that those materials have migrated to
    shallow or ground water.'' Is that a fair representation of the
    conclusion of the study, that hydraulic fracturing fluids are
    the sources of many of the compounds found in the water
    samples?
        Mr. Martin. I believe we said that it is likely the source.
        Chairman Harris. Really? On page 33 and 39 are the two
    places in the report, and you have already testified you have
    read the report and you know, I would point to you the page
    that had the other figures, but let us talk about page 33 and
    39 because that is where the conclusions are listed, and the
    word ``likely'' is only used in one place, and it is only used
    to say that gas production activities have likely enhanced the
    gas migration. That is the only place ``likely'' is used. The
    other two places--and Dr. Goldstein would appreciate this. It
    says that the data best supports. Now, in medicine, if you have
    10 differential diagnoses but one really isn't likely, what you
    say is well, you know, the data best supports this one but
    there are these other nine ones, and then you would say, well,
    do I treat that because it is not likely, it is best supported
    if that treatment would make the other ones worse or result in
    the death of a patient if you misdiagnosed. Can you describe
    what the difference is between best supports and likely,
    because the press release--and see, the whole purpose of this
    hearing is to say look, you are jumping the gun. The press
    release says ``likely'' but the draft report actually doesn't
    say ``likely'' about the migration of hydraulic fluid
    contamination. Could you address that? That is very important
    because that is the crux here because the press report said
    ``likely.'' The EPA concluded that it is likely that hydraulic
    fluids were the contamination, the source of contamination, but
    that is not what the draft report says to my reading. Why is my
    interpretation wrong?
        Mr. Martin. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I would say that we
    looked at a wide range of hypotheses including some that we
    have been able to discount based on the results that we have
    encountered in our research that all of the materials that we
    found at depth including the synthetic organic compounds, and
    there is a range of them, broader than what Mr. Doll referred
    to, to the fact that there are breakdown products of some of
    the materials that we found there. There is benzene, toluene,
    ethyl benzene and xylene, very, very high alkalinity levels
    that we found, the absence of strong buffers, the fact that
    potassium hydroxide was used as a cross linker and a solvent
    and aluminum chloride was used, things that account for the
    presence of both high potassium and chloride levels as well as
    the very high alkalinity, the caustic level of alkalinity.
    There is a number of different----
        Chairman Harris. Sure, I understand all that, but I assume
    a scientist wrote this report.
        Mr. Martin. Absolutely, sir.
        Chairman Harris. So why didn't they use the word ``likely''
    with regards to hydraulic fracturing fluids? They didn't use
    the word ``likely.'' You used the word ``likely'' in your
    testimony and your press office used the word ``likely'' in the
    press release. But the scientists didn't. They said ``best
    supports,'' and I am going to use the exact words ``best
    fitting and best supports.'' Now, I have written many
    scientific papers, and when my P value wasn't high enough, this
    is what I used. When I couldn't say it is likely or--and
    likely, of course, we all know, you an attorney by training, I
    understand, that is just more likely than not. That is the 51
    percent test. It is not a P value of less than .05, it is not
    95 percent likely, it is just likely. But the report, the
    scientists in the report didn't even use the word ``likely.''
    Why did you choose to use the word ``likely'' in your
    testimony? You agreed with the conclusion that it was likely
    the source, and the press release used the word ``likely.''
    Why?
        Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, I guess I believe that those are
    equivalent, that we haven't--we have said a number of times
    that we haven't----
        Chairman Harris. Mr. Martin, I will--and I accept your
    answer but I will tell you, there is a world of difference
    between ``best supports'' and ``likely.'' As an attorney, you
    ought to understand that. Because my understanding is, the word
    ``likely'' has a very specific meaning in a court of law.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Dr. Goldstein, you are on a panel with a lawyer
    and a lobbyist, and you seemed to be twitching at this last
    line of questions and answers. Do you have anything to--do you
    have an opinion about the questions that Mr. Martin has been
    fielding?
        Mr. Goldstein. Quite clearly, the word ``likely'' is a
    problem. It always has been a problem. I think ``likely'' can
    be used in a situation where there is far less than 50 percent.
    I am sure you use it in that way. I don't know why--it doesn't
    sound any real different to me is what I am hearing. Likely,
    best supports, they are just sort of different ways of sort of
    saying the same thing. Now, they could be interpreted in
    different ways quite clearly, and as I say, I read through the
    draft report having read some of the press accounts of it, and
    I thought again as a former Assistant Administrator that it was
    appropriately hedged based upon not really having the data.
        By the way, I would say that this Pavillion report, well,
    it doesn't have the data because as it says over and over
    again, this would be really a simple thing to do if there had
    been baseline studies. If you don't have baseline studies, you
    are responding to what is public. You can't conceivably have a
    perfect randomized control trial. You are going to have some
    degree of uncertainty. I think what this tells us is that those
    companies which are paying for water sampling of local
    community folks, local groundwater are doing the right thing
    and those who are not were just stirring up a lot of trouble
    for themselves because these kind of studies will come up again
    and they are going to be the ones who are going to be sued for
    basically contaminating water.
        Mr. Miller. Dr. Goldstein, I know that faculty humor is
    kind of an acquired taste, but there is a joke that
    administrators hate having scientists on their panels, on their
    committees because when the information changes, they change
    their opinion and you never know where they stand.
        Mr. Goldstein. Senator Muskie said it very well. He wanted
    one-handed scientists so he wouldn't on the one hand this and
    on the other hand that.
        Mr. Miller. That was Harry Truman's line about economists.
        Mr. Chairman, in my--in all the confusion of this hearing,
    I failed to move two documents into the record. The first is a
    report conducted in 2010 that is a survey of the health of
    residents of Pavillion. The participants again reported various
    health effects--headaches, sore throat, nausea, sinus problems
    and other illnesses that are known to be associated with the
    contaminants that the EPA found in the drinking water in 2009.
        And the second--and I believe both of these have been
    provided to the majority staff. The second is a letter to the
    Subcommittee from Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens, the Powder
    River Basin Resource Council, the Western Organization of
    Resource Councils. This also was provided to the Subcommittee
    with the perspectives of people who are actually affected by
    the contaminated groundwater, none of whom were invited to
    appear at this hearing today. It urges the Subcommittee to
    support the EPA's draft report.
        Chairman Harris. Without objection.
        [The information appears in Appendix II:]
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Doll, you said that you were doing the work
    of the citizens of that area but you don't contend that the
    various folks who are members of these organizations,
    particularly the concerned citizens--what is the name of it
    again, the letter that I just introduced, the Pavillion Area
    Concerned Citizens. They are not outside agitators, right? They
    are not--they didn't come in from Oakland or Greenwich Village
    just to request this review, right? They really live there in
    Pavillion and have right along. Isn't that right?
        Mr. Doll. I don't know who the membership is, to be honest
    with you. I don't know if it represents all of the landowners
    there or not.
        Mr. Miller. Do you know John Benton?
        Mr. Doll. John Fenton?
        Mr. Miller. Fenton?
        Mr. Doll. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Miller. Okay. Has he been right there in Pavillion
    right along?
        Mr. Doll. I don't know when he moved to Pavillion, no, sir,
    I do not.
        Mr. Miller. He is not an honest-to-God Wyomian, or whatever
    the phrase is?
        Mr. Doll. Wyomingite. I don't know when he moved to
    Pavillion. It was after the gas wells were drilled is what I
    understand but I don't know the date.
        Mr. Miller. Okay. Dr. Goldstein, your written testimony and
    your oral testimony, you said that the industry claims that
    hydraulic fracturing--the industry claims both hydraulic
    fracturing is an innovative new technology and don't worry, it
    has been around for years, decades, no problems with it, and
    that there is some contradiction in that. Do you think that we
    have sufficient--or how would you state--how would you describe
    the state of the science on natural gas drilling and fracking,
    and do policymakers have enough information to make informed
    decisions to protect public health?
        Mr. Goldstein. It is easiest to answer the second question.
    No, I don't think they do. I think that the idea that this has
    been around for so long and therefore don't worry about it is
    simply inappropriate. This is equivalent to when you have got
    five million gallons versus 50,000 gallons of fluid with
    changing chemical structure. You know, it is equivalent to
    saying well, there is no difference between a two-ton bomb and
    a hand grenade because they are both explosives, and we know
    about explosives. This is a tremendous increase in technology.
    We have in front of us all the time the industry folks in their
    commercials saying there is a wonderful new technology we are
    bringing that is going to get this gas. That is great. It is a
    wonderful new technology but we have to be careful with it.
        Mr. Miller. My time is expired, and I want to help the
    Committee abide by the rules.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
        I recognize the chairman of the Committee, Mr. Hall from
    Texas, for five minutes.
        Chairman Hall. Thank you.
        Mr. Martin, what involvement did the EPA headquarters have
    with your study?
        Mr. Martin. The study, Mr. Chairman, was conducted by
    scientists within the Office of Research and Development and
    scientists at Region 8, which is the region that I run. We
    involve scientists from elsewhere in the agency on occasion
    including the regional laboratory out of Pennsylvania, I
    believe it is. They were the people who did the work and wrote
    the study--or wrote the report, rather, sir.
        Chairman Hall. Did the EPA people or who reviewed the study
    plan?
        Mr. Martin. The study plan?
        Chairman Hall. Yes.
        Mr. Martin. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, that
    was just the scientists working on the report. I certainly
    never saw the study plan. It would have been developed, the
    original one, under the last Administration. It would have been
    2008, so some years ago.
        Chairman Hall. Did they review the protocols?
        Mr. Miller. The protocols are standard and are in use
    throughout the agency, and I don't believe anyone outside the
    scientists working on this report were involved in evaluating
    or identifying protocols, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Hall. Did they approve of your media plan and your
    outreach to the media on a draft, a non-peer-reviewed report?
        Mr. Martin. I believe so, sir.
        Chairman Hall. Tell us exactly what oversight or
    involvement EPA headquarters had with the Region 8 on this
    report and the media release, if you can do that.
        Mr. Martin. Well, Mr. Chairman, we briefed the upper levels
    of management periodically as we were developing the report, as
    the scientists were developing the report, more precisely. We--
    I know the Administrator met with Encana and spoke with the
    Governor of Wyoming late in the process. We have worked closely
    with the agency including the folks to whom I report and making
    sure that we were releasing the report in the way in which we
    could--the way in which best comported with the scientific
    report, a draft scientific report to which we plan to seek
    expert peer review. I mean, it is a very long, winding story,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Hall. Well, I agree with you there. In light of
    the use of Superfund authority to conduct this investigation
    and the differing results that came from Region 8 and the
    Office of Research and Development, I am interested in the
    relationship with EPA headquarters in carrying out the report,
    what that relationship actually was. That is what I am trying
    to get to.
        Mr. Martin. Well, the Assistant Administrator, Mr. Anastas,
    who was unable to be here today, was certainly involved in
    assuring that we were applying the strongest science, the best
    science and applying all of the protocols that apply here.
        Chairman Hall. Let me ask you this. How much has the EPA
    currently spent on the investigation and what does it plan to
    spend in the future?
        Mr. Martin. The first part of your question, Mr. Chairman,
    is easier to answer. It is roughly $1.7 million. We are now
    about to embark in a conversation with the State of Wyoming,
    the tribes, USGS and others about additional investigation at
    the site, and I don't know what that will cost or who will pay
    for it.
        Chairman Hall. When will you know?
        Mr. Martin. We haven't had our first meeting. We are hoping
    to do that soon so I am guessing relatively soon, sir.
        Chairman Hall. All right. I thank you, sir.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, Chairman.
        We will have one more round of five minute questions. We
    will hold you a little bit longer because we need to get down
    to the very end of this and know what is going on.
        Mr. Doll, in the draft report, EPA found ``a wide variety
    of organic chemicals'' in its two monitoring wells, and I am
    sure that is the basis of the conclusion that Mr. Martin has
    testified to that, you know, these are hydraulic fracturing
    fluids, but could this be the result of EPA drilling its two
    monitoring wells into gas-producing zones? I mean, my
    understanding is, they actually had blowout preventers on top
    of these wells. They were supposed to be drilled, you know,
    into water aquifers, a little unusual. I have a well in my
    backyard. I don't think I put a blowout preventer on it when it
    was drilled. Could some of the contamination, well, what is
    claimed to be contamination, be the result of EPA drilling its
    two monitoring wells into gas-producing zones?
        Mr. Doll. Mr. Chairman, the experts from the Oil and Gas
    Conservation Commission, the Department of Environmental
    Quality and the Water Quality Office all believe that this is
    induced contamination due to the drilling and completion of
    these two wells.
        Chairman Harris. And is it true, I think I read in the
    report that actually there had been, I guess it is called a
    blowout or something, at a well in the area that was actually
    drilled for water, a relatively shallow well drilled for water.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Doll. That is correct. That happened----
        Chairman Harris. A much shallower well than the EPA
    monitoring wells, because I think that well was only several
    hundred feet.
        Mr. Doll. The well was----
        Chairman Harris. The blowout well.
        Mr. Doll. Yes. That particular well was permitted to be a
    shallow water supply well but was drilled beyond that permitted
    depth and hit into a zone where the fluid, the drilling fluids
    were actually evacuated from the well bore in a loss of fluid
    and then natural gas entered it.
        Chairman Harris. And at what depth was that? Do you recall?
        Mr. Doll. I believe that was in that 900- to 1,000-foot
    range.
        Chairman Harris. So that was in the range of the EPA
    monitoring wells?
        Mr. Doll. Yes.
        Chairman Harris. Okay. I think a landowner did that, right?
        Mr. Doll. Yes, that is correct.
        Chairman Harris. So they weren't doing a monitoring well,
    they were just trying to drill for water and found gas?
        Mr. Doll. That well as permitted to be a water supply well,
    yes.
        Chairman Harris. So it not beyond the pale that the EPA
    drilled for water and found gas either at that depth?
        Mr. Doll. You should expect depth the deeper you go in this
    formation.
        Chairman Harris. That is what I thought.
        Mr. Martin, was EPA aware of this strong possibility and is
    that why the agency used blowout preventers when they drilled
    the wells? I mean, my understanding is, they add significant
    cost. Now, I understand that to the U.S. government, cost
    sometimes doesn't mean a whole lot, but I assume the EPA had a
    reasonable reason to believe that they could have a blowout and
    that is why they spent, you know, the hard-earned taxpayer
    dollars to put a blowout preventer on top of this well. Is that
    correct? I mean, did the EPA assume that they in fact could be
    drilling into a gas strata----
        Mr. Martin. Well, Mr. Chairman----
        Chairman Harris. --gas containing?
        Mr. Martin. Sorry.
        Chairman Harris. Yeah.
        Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, we knew that--I have forgotten
    the name of the individual who was drilling that well. We knew
    that he had experienced a blowout at about, I think it was 500-
    some feet, which was unusual. We had some anecdotal evidence we
    are continuing to investigate, but given the fact that a
    blowout occurred, yes, we installed blowout protectors on the
    two drill rigs that drilled both of our monitoring wells out of
    concern for the safety of the workers.
        Chairman Harris. A concern, but knowing that in fact you
    could be drilling into gas. Mr. Doll, let me address this
    question to you. You don't have to have a blowout when you
    drill into a--because my understanding is that the shallower
    strata, the gas could be under much less pressure. I mean, you
    could have gas under much less pressure.
        Mr. Martin. That is correct, sir.
        Chairman Harris. So in fact, you could drill into it and
    not even know that you are drilling into a gas-containing
    substance because there is no blowout. I mean, it is not like a
    blowout preventer would show that there is a rise, you know, a
    spike in pressure, wow, we hit something that is high pressure.
    You could drill that well, conduct everything and you know, by
    golly, you actually have some natural gas in what you find in
    the bottom of that well.
        Mr. Doll. Typically, the use of water or just native mud
    that is mixed from the cuttings as you drill will be enough to
    control any of the low pressure that would encounter until you
    see your surface casing. Then after you have cemented it back
    to surface, you would put on your blowout preventer and drill
    deeper and that is required if you are drilling a gas well to
    depths close to 3,000 feet into the natural gas zone.
        Chairman Harris. Right.
        Mr. Martin, exactly why did you choose that deep? What was
    the rationale behind it, the monitoring wells, the depth? Why
    did you choose specifically to drill into a depth where you
    know or I guess if you communicated with the U.S. Geological
    Survey, you would know, or with the local, you know, Wyoming
    authorities, that you would know that there was a chance that
    you would be hitting natural gas while you are drilling a water
    well?
        Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, we were--the formation and the
    activity that has occurred there over the course of 50 or 60
    years is complex so I think several of us have alluded to the
    fact that legacy pits, they are not pits attributable to the
    current operator but that there are legacy pits that are
    contributing significant contamination to a relatively shallow
    part of the aquifer, that there are domestic drinking water
    wells, municipal wells and stock watering wells that are
    drilled from relatively shallow depths to as deep as 800 feet,
    and we were looking to drill a well that sort of sandwiched
    those, a set of wells that are somewhat deeper but shallower
    than the production zone. So we chose about 800 feet in depth
    below ground surface and about 1,000 feet in depth below ground
    surface. The shallowest fracking has occurred at 1,200 feet.
    The shallowest fracking in the area of these two wells has
    occurred around 1,600 feet. So we were trying to sandwich the
    domestic drinking water wells and the other wells so that we
    could get some better sense of whether there was a source of
    contamination that is deeper than those drinking water wells.
        Chairman Harris. Let me just follow up, and I will give the
    Ranking Member the extra time to even it up.
        But Mr. Martin, you used the word, and words are important,
    and you know, I am going to disagree with the doctor, and you
    have written scientific papers too. You know, you use words
    very specifically in your conclusions, and I disagree, I think
    the word ``likely'' by the way has a very different meaning
    from ``best explanation,'' a very, very different meaning. To a
    scientist, I think it is a very, very different meaning.
        But Mr. Martin, let me ask, because you say the word
    ``producing well.'' But that is what is significant here
    because you could have small amounts of gas, not enough to
    produce at lower levels, and I think Mr. Doll's testimony,
    somewhere in here what I read is that at those shallower
    levels, you could have low pressure that no one would drill to
    to produce because you couldn't get gas out of it for
    commercial purposes, but it is there. So although you attempted
    to do what you are calling sandwiching, you are not sandwiching
    where--you are not saying--and again, I am drawing the
    extrapolation to Marcellus shale where you have got, you know,
    a mile of bedrock between the two. You don't have a mile of
    bedrock here. You have got, and my understanding of the geology
    is, you know, you have got this bowl of potato chips, and by
    this connection, there is connection between the two and some
    of the superficial potato chips that have sand in there
    actually have low-pressure gas but no one would drill into to
    produce. To produce, you would have to drill lower. So do you
    agree that you drilled into a location that was known--because
    we know we had a blowout somewhere between 500 and 800 feet,
    500 and 900 feet--known to have gas in it? Known, I mean, and
    look, everybody knew there was a blowout there that occurred at
    a depth shallower than you drilled your monitoring well.
        Mr. Martin. We had mud logs, Mr. Chairman, that suggested
    that in fact you wouldn't find those levels of natural gas at
    that depth but the fact that there had been a blowout at
    shallower depths also suggested that something perhaps has
    changed, and you are absolutely right, there is no lithologic
    barrier that we know of that would prevent the migration of
    either gas or either fluids vertically from the production
    zone, and in fact, we posited several hypotheses by which that
    is occurring, and that is the reason we chose those depths, to
    get some sense of whether in fact there is a deeper source that
    we could intercept with those monitoring wells.
        Chairman Harris. Well, thank you very much, and I defer to
    the Ranking Member, and you have 8-1/2 minutes to go.
        Mr. Miller. I won't use it all, Mr. Chairman.
        Curiously, the draft report that we have been discussing
    all morning is not part of the record, and someone reading the
    transcript of this hearing might wonder if the draft report was
    written in crayon, so it does appear that the draft report
    should be part of the record and I move that it be part of the
    record.
        Chairman Harris. I understand that we have no objection to
    parts of it, and it is sizable, I know, because I read it
    through and it has got a lot of appendices and things, but I
    will offer that our staff will work it out, and we will include
    parts of it. We will include parts of the draft report in the
    record.
        Mr. Miller. Okay, and I assume that will be anywhere the
    word ``likely'' appears.
        Chairman Harris. It only appears once.
        Mr. Miller. Dr. Goldstein, you were very critical today of
    three advisory panels that have looked at hydraulic fracturing,
    fracking. You have been very critical of their composition.
    Based upon your experience with EPA during the Reagan
    Administration, you are very familiar with the EPA. I assume
    you are familiar with EPA Science Advisory Board, and could you
    assess for us the composition of the SAB hydraulic fracturing,
    the fracking panel?
        Mr. Goldstein. Well, they have a broad representation of
    the sciences. SAB, I think, is an excellent organization that
    does a very good job of representing all of the different
    scientific disciplines.
        Mr. Miller. Okay. Chris Portier is the director of the
    National Center for Environmental Health at the Federal Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and before that,
    he was in the triangle area of North Carolina, so I have met
    him, I know him and I know his reputation, which is very good,
    and he has called for studies into hydraulic fracking's impact
    on public health, effect on public health. He said more
    research is needed for us to understand public health impacts
    for natural gas drilling and new gas drilling technologies.
    That is similar to your own testimony today. Do you have a
    general sense of where the greater weight of scientific opinion
    is on the need for greater research?
        Mr. Goldstein. I think Dr. Portier is correct in that. He,
    Dr. Birnbaum, who is the head of the National Institute of
    Environmental Health Sciences, have also expressed themselves
    on the need for research on the mixtures issue. We had with
    oversight of this Committee a lot of research on mixtures
    during the time of the Superfund because you had unknown
    mixtures could appear. This needs to be repeated with using the
    new toxicological approaches, using molecular biology to better
    understand what mixtures--how mixtures threaten the potential
    for adverse effects.
        Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Harris. Well, thank you very much.
        I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and
    the Members for their questions. Again, I apologize as yet
    again for the delay at the beginning.
        The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional
    questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
    those in writing. I will ask, because time is somewhat of the
    essence because the comment period is limited on this study,
    that you be timely if at all possible, and I will just leave
    that at that. Leave it to your own figuring what ``timely'' is.
    The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
    comments from Members.
        The witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Mr. Jim Martin, Region 8 Administrator,
    Environmental Protection Agency

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor,
    Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President,
    Government & Public Affairs, Western Energy Alliance

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean
            Emeritus,
    Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II:

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

         Submitted Report for the Record by Ranking Member Brad Miller

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Submitted Letter for the Record by Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens,

                    the Powder River Basin Resource Council,

               and the Western Organization of Resource Councils

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Submitted Documents for the Record by Mr. Ralph Hall, Chairman,
          Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
                                Representatives

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Submitted Documents for the Record by Mr. Paul D. Tonko, Member,
          Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
                                Representatives

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]