[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]