[House Report 113-252]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-252
======================================================================
EPA HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY IMPROVEMENT ACT
_______
October 23, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2850]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 2850) to require certain procedures
in the conduct by the Environmental Protection Agency of its
study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on
drinking water resources, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Amendment.......................................................2
II. Purpose and Summary.............................................2
III. Background and Need for the Legislation........................2
IV. Hearing Summary.................................................5
V. Committee Consideration.........................................6
VI. Committee Votes................................................6
VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................8
VIII. Committee Views................................................8
IX. Committee Oversight Findings....................................8
X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives...........9
XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditure9
XII. Advisory on Earmarks...........................................9
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................9
XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................9
XV. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................10
XVI. Compliance with House Resolution 5.............................10
XVII. Federal Advisory Committee Statement..........................11
XVIII. Applicability to Legislative Branch...........................11
XIX. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................11
XX. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................12
I. AMENDMENT
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Improvement Act''.
SEC. 2. EPA HYDRAULIC FRACTURING RESEARCH.
In conducting its study of the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources, with respect to which a request
for information was issued under Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 218, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall adhere to
the following requirements:
(1) Peer review and information quality.--Prior to issuance
and dissemination of any final report or any interim report
summarizing the Environmental Protection Agency's research on
the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking
water, the Administrator shall--
(A) consider such reports to be Highly Influential
Scientific Assessments and require peer review of such
reports in accordance with guidelines governing such
assessments, as described in--
(i) the Environmental Protection Agency's
Peer Review Handbook 3rd Edition;
(ii) the Environmental Protection Agency's
Scientific Integrity Policy, as in effect on
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(iii) the Office of Management and Budget's
Peer Review Bulletin, as in effect on the date
of enactment of this Act; and
(B) require such reports to meet the standards and
procedures for the dissemination of influential
scientific, financial, or statistical information set
forth in the Environmental Protection Agency's
Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency,
developed in response to guidelines issued by the
Office of Management and Budget under section 515(a) of
the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554).
(2) Probability, uncertainty, and consequence.--In order to
maximize the quality and utility of information developed
through the study, the Administrator shall ensure that
identification of the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing
on drinking water resources included in such reports be
accompanied by objective estimates of the probability,
uncertainty, and consequence of each identified impact, taking
into account the risk management practices of States and
industry. Estimates or descriptions of probability,
uncertainty, and consequence shall be as quantitative as
possible given the validity, accuracy, precision, and other
quality attributes of the underlying data and analyses, but no
more quantitative than the data and analyses can support.
(3) Release of final report.--The final report shall be
publicly released by September 30, 2016.
II. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 2850 directs the EPA Administrator to adhere to
additional requirements in conducting its study into potential
impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.
The act requires the Administrator to peer review information
prior to the issuance of any final or interim report from the
EPA. The bill also directs the Administrator to ensure that
possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
included in the report be accompanied by objective estimates of
the probability, uncertainty, and consequence of each
identified impact.
III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
Pursuant to Congressional direction, the EPA is undertaking
a multi-year Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. The study results are
widely anticipated to have significant public policy
implications. Committee correspondence and testimony at
hearings since the inception of the report have emphasized the
importance of assuring the study be conducted in the most
scientifically sound manner possible, adhere to all appropriate
EPA peer review requirements, and present its conclusions in
relevant context.
The ongoing study is being conducted by EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD). The Fiscal Year 2010 Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-88) directed EPA to carry out the
study in accordance with the following report language:
``Hydraulic Fracturing Study.--The conferees urge the
Agency to carry out a study on the relationship between
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible
approach that relies on the best available science, as well as
independent sources of information. The conferees expect the
study to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed
process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data.
The Agency shall consult with other Federal agencies as well as
appropriate State and interstate regulatory agencies in
carrying out the study, which should be prepared in accordance
with the Agency's quality assurance principles.''
In February of 2011, EPA released a draft study plan for
public comment and review by its Science Advisory Board (SAB),
and a final study plan was released in November 2011.\1\ The
purpose of the study, as outlined in the final study plan, is
to ``elucidate the relationship, if any, between hydraulic
fracturing and drinking water resources'' and ``assess the
potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
resources and to identify the driving factors that affect the
severity and frequency of any impacts.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Environmental Protection Agency, Plan to Study the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, November
2011. Accessible at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
documents/hf_study_plan_110211_final_508.pdf
\2\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study plan identified the following fundamental
research areas and questions:
Water Acquisition: What are the potential
impacts of large volume water withdrawals from ground
and surface waters on drinking water resources?
Chemical Mixing: What are the possible
impacts of surface spills on or near well pads of
hydraulic fracturing fluids on drinking water
resources?
Well Injection: What are the possible
impacts of the injection and fracturing process on
drinking water resources?
Flowback and Produced Water: What are the
possible impacts of surface spills on or near well pads
of flowback and produced water on drinking water
resources?
Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal:
What are the possible impacts of inadequate treatment
of hydraulic fracturing wastewaters on drinking water
resources?
On December 21, 2012, EPA released a ``Progress Report'' to
this ongoing study which provided information on current work
being done by the Agency, including the status of research
projects that are anticipated to inform the final study.\3\ The
progress report did not include conclusions regarding the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water
resources. The final report, which has been classified by the
Agency as a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment, is
anticipated to be released in draft form in late 2014 for peer
review and public comment.\4\ However, recent testimony before
the Committee indicated the peer review process will continue
into 2015, suggesting that a final report will not be released
until that year or later.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\News Release, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Releases
Update on Ongoing Hydraulic Fracturing Study, December 21, 2012.
Accessible at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/
d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/4af0024955d936ef85257adb0058aa29
!OpenDocument
\4\Environmental Protection Agency, Stakeholder Engagement Roadmap
and Peer Review Overview for EPA's Study on the Potential Impacts of
Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. Accessible at: http:/
/www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/stakeholder-engagement-roadmap-and-peer-review-
overview-epas-study-potential-impacts
\5\Testimony of David A. Dzombak before the Subcommittee on
Environment and the Subcommittee on Energy, Lessons Learned: EPA's
Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing, July 24, 2012. Accessible at:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/
documents /HHRG-113-SY18-WState-DDzombak-20130724_0.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the release of the Progress Report, the EPA Office
of Research and Development requested the Scientific Advisory
Board to conduct a ``consultation'' review of the research that
would be found in that report. To this end, the ad hoc SAB
panel, known as the Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory
Board Panel\6\ participated in a consultation with the full SAB
in May of this year. In this meeting, the ad hoc SAB panel
responded to charge questions from the Agency and provided
input and comments on the Progress Report. The written comments
submitted by the panelists were compiled into a report, which
was released on June 25.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Members of Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel.
Accessible at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/
WebExternalSubCommitteeRosters?OpenView&committee=
BOARD&subcommittee=Hydraulic %20Fracturing%20Research
%20Advisory%20Panel
\7\EPA Science Advisory Board Consultation on EPA Office of
Research and Development Report, Progress Report: Potential Impacts of
Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources--December 2012. June
25, 2013. Accessible at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
5F72227CF643BF8785257B9500764E6B/$File/
Individual+Comments+from+Members+of
+Science+Advisory+Board+Hydraulic+Fracturing+
Research+Advisory+Panel+on+EPA.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this process stakeholders have expressed
concerns that the study had the potential to produce results
that lacked context and were based on what were possible
outcomes rather than likely or probable outcomes, as well as
concerns with the peer review process. Several issues with the
report were identified in an independent review of the EPA's
study plan conducted by Battelle, which included
recommendations for strengthening the study. Other issues and
questions have been raised by the SAB or addressed in
recommendations it has provided to the Administrator.
In its 2011 review of the draft study plan, the Science
Advisory Board recommended to the Administrator that ``EPA
consider the four steps of the risk assessment paradigm (i.e.
hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response
assessment, and risk characterization) to assess and prioritize
research activities''.\8\ In the more recent consultation
conducted by the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory
Panel on the Progress Report, several reviewers also commented
on the absence of a risk assessment. One reviewer noted ``There
is no quantitative risk assessment included in EPA's research
effort. Thus, the reader has no sense of how risky any
operations may be in ultimately impacting drinking water. This
is also a significant limitation of the work.''\9\ Another
reviewer noted that ``To simply discount the regulatory network
in place and model ``what if'' and ``worse case'' scenarios
will not produce realistic results.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\EPA Science Advisory Board to EPA Administrator, SAB Review of
EPA's Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan, August 4, 2011.P. ii.
Accessible at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct .nsf/0/
2BC3CD632FCC0E99852578E2006DF890/$File/EPA-SAB-11-012-unsigned.pdf
\9\Consultation, p. 60.
\10\Consultation, p. 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another concern expressed by stakeholders was EPA's past
failure to designate the study as a Highly Influential
Scientific Assessment, or HISA. According to a review of the
study plan conducted by Battelle, ``Such designation triggers
more rigorous standards for peer review, and thus study design,
data quality, and transparency.''\11\ Battelle also noted that
``Even in the absence of such a formal designation, there is no
direct evidence documented in the study plan or in associated
documents that EPA followed its quality policy in framing the
study objectives and developing the study design . . .''\12\
While EPA has since designated the final study as a HISA, there
is still a need to ensure that the requisite policies and
procedures governing such scientific undertakings are followed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Battelle, Review of EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan,
November 2011. P. 5. Accessible at: http://anga.us/media/press/
CA5CEA92-0C88-CC29-EAADA8AD4F447B5E/files/final_epa_
study_plan_review_061112.pdf
\12\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee concerns with EPA's overall study design and
implementation, as well as specific aforementioned issues such
as risk assessment and peer review, were detailed in numerous
letters to the agency in 2011 and 2012.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\October 26, 2011 letter from Reps. Ralph Hall, Andy Harris, and
Paul Broun. Accessible at http://science.house.gov/sites/
republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/Letters/10-26-
2011%20Letter%20to%20Jackson.pdf; June 7, 2012 letter from Rep. Andy
Harris. Accessible at http://science.house.gov/sites/
republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/Letters/060712_%20
Harris%20to%20Lisa%20Jackson.pdf; and October 16, 2012 letter from
Reps. Hall, Harris, and Dana Rohrabacher. Accessible at: http://
science.house.gov/sites/republicans .science.house.gov/files/documents/
10_16_2012%20Science%20Committee%20to%20Lisa%20Jackson_0.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. HEARING SUMMARY
Although there was no legislative hearing that specifically
focused on H.R. 2850 as introduced, on July 24, 2013, the
Subcommittee on Environment and the Subcommittee on Energy held
a joint oversight hearing, entitled, Lessons Learned: EPA's
Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing, which demonstrated the
need for the bill. The Subcommittees received testimony from
witnesses affiliated with the EPA, the Chair of the SAB's
Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel, the Utah
Department of Natural Resources, and Cornell University. The
Subcommittees examined concerns raised by Members of the
Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel, including that
``[t]here is no quantitative risk assessment included in EPA's
research effort.'' Dr. Brian Rahm of the New York Water
Resources Institute testified that ``industry and state
agencies have a great amount of data and expertise that we
should be using . . . when it comes to looking at risks and
impacts and assessing those.'' Dr. David Dzombak, Chair of the
SAB panel, said that EPA ``committed to in the final report
putting the various components of the study in a risk
framework'' when pushed by the panelists.
Additionally, the Subcommittee on Energy and the
Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing on April 26, 2013,
entitled, A Review of Federal Hydraulic Fracturing Research
Activities, which examined the research being undertaken by the
EPA, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) pursuant to an interagency Memorandum
of Understanding signed by the three agencies. At that hearing
the EPA's Senior Science Adviser at the Office of Research and
Development provided testimony on the ongoing drinking water
study.
The Committee also held several hearings in the 112th
Congress examining EPA's hydraulic fracturing research. On
February 1, 2012, the Subcommittee on Energy & Environment held
a hearing entitled, EPA Fractured Science--Examining EPA's
Approach to Ground Water Research: The Pavillion Analysis. The
hearing examined EPA's approach to ground water research in
Pavillion, Wyoming. The Subcommittee received testimony from
the Regional Administrator for EPA Region 8. On May 11, 2011,
the Full Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a
hearing to review the technology and practices of hydraulic
fracturing for energy production entitled, Review of Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology and Practices.
In addition to these hearings focused specifically on
hydraulic fracturing, the Committee held three additional
hearings in the 112th Congress with EPA witnesses, at which the
ongoing study received significant attention and discussion,
including: a March 10, 2011, full committee hearing on An
Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012 Research and Development
Budget Proposals at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency; a
November 17, 2011, Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing
on Fostering Quality Science at EPA: The Need for Common Sense
Reform; and a March 6, 2012, hearing on An Overview of NOAA &
EPA FY13 Budget.
V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On July 30, 2013, H.R. 2850 was introduced by Rep. Lamar
Smith and referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology.
On August 1st 2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 2850, as
amended, by voice vote. Further, the Committee ordered H.R.
2850 favorably reported to the House, as amended, by voice
vote.
VI. COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. A
motion to order H.R. X favorably reported to the House, as
amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
During Full Committee consideration of H.R. 2850, the
following amendments were considered:
VII. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
H.R. 2850 codifies EPA's designation of the final report as
a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA) by directing
the Administrator of the Office of Research and Development,
prior to the issuance and dissemination of any final or interim
report, to consider such reports HISAs.
The bill further requires the Administrator to ensure peer
review of the report is conducted in compliance with the
guidelines that govern HISAs. This includes the guidelines from
the EPA's Peer Review Handbook, which lays out the Agency's
policies and procedures governing peer review; the EPA's
Scientific Integrity Policy, which establishes the Agency's
framework to promote scientific integrity and promote
standards, including those governing information quality,
communication with the public and the use of peer review and
advisory committees; and the OMB's Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review, which establishes government-wide
guidance aimed at enhancing the practice of peer review of
government-wide science documents.
The Administrator is also required to follow the guidelines
for dissemination of influential scientific information as
outlined in the Agency's Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing
the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency. These
guidelines outline EPA's policy and procedural guidance for
ensuring information quality
Finally, the bill requires the Administrator to include a
risk assessment with any identification of possible impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. This will ensure that
any identification of possible risks is accompanied by an
assessment of such risks, which will provide context regarding
the likelihood that such impacts might occur.
VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS
H.R. 2850 improves the hydraulic fracturing study conducted
by the EPA by requiring an objective evaluation of the possible
impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. To
this end, the bill requires that any final or interim reports
be subject to peer review prior to issuance. The bill also
requires the agency to place the potential impacts in context
by providing objective estimates of uncertainties and
consequences.
In the absence of these changes, EPA's scientific review of
hydraulic fracturing would be insufficient to appropriately
inform decision makers about the adequacy of existing
groundwater protections. H.R. 2850 resolves this by requiring
the evaluation the Committee believes necessary for the
Administrator to make factual determinations.
IX. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight
hearing and made findings that are reflected in the descriptive
portions of this report.
X. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and
objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive
portions of this report, including the goal to improve the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ongoing study of the
potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.
XI. NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
XII. ADVISORY ON EARMARKS
In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI,
the Committee finds that H.R. 2850, the ``EPA Hydraulic
Fracturing Study Improvement Act'', contains no earmarks.
XIII. COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
XIV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 30, 2013.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2850, the EPA
Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act of 2013.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
Mehlman.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2850--EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act of 2013
H.R. 2850 would require the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to follow certain procedures related to its ongoing Study
Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water
Resources. (At the request of the Congress, EPA began this
mulityear study in 2010; a progress report was issued in
December 2012, and the draft report is expected to be released
for public comment and peer review in 2014.) This legislation
would require that any interim or final report pertaining to
EPA's study be considered as a Highly Influential Scientific
Assessment (HISA). With a HISA designation for the reports, EPA
must adhere to more stringent standards for peer review, meet
certain criteria related to data quality, and meet certain
procedures for the dissemination of scientific, financial, or
statistical information. This legislation also would require
EPA to include estimates of the probability, uncertainty, and
consequences of each identified impact on drinking water.
Finally, H.R. 2850 would require that the final report be
released by September 30, 2016; currently, there is no deadline
for the report.
According to EPA, enacting this legislation would require
additional resources primarily to address the requirement to
include probability assessments in the study. The ongoing study
is expected to discuss and describe appropriate levels of
uncertainty associated with hydraulic fracturing but will not
include any probability assessments. To include a
scientifically sound assessment of probability with the
appropriate level of detail, EPA would need to obtain
additional site-specific data related to well construction,
hydraulic fracturing, and wastewater management practices.
Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing
the changes proposed by this legislation would cost about $1
million annually, totaling $5 million over the 2014-2018 period
assuming availability of appropriated funds. That funding would
provide for additional personnel and related administrative
expenses.
Enacting H.R. 2850 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
H.R. 2850 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Susanne S.
Mehlman. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
XV. FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
XVI. COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
A. Directed Rule Making. This bill does not direct any
executive branch official to conduct any specific rule-making
proceedings.
B. Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
XVII. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
XVIII. APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
XIX. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Sec. 1. Short Title
This section establishes the short title as the ``EPA
Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act.''
Sec. 2. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Research
This section places requirements on the Administrator of
the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental
Protection Agency in carrying out the Study of the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources.
This section further requires that any interim or final
report pertaining to the EPA's study on the relationship
between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water be considered
as a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA). This
codifies EPA's designation of the final report as a HISA, and
also requires the Administrator to abide by the more stringent
standards for peer review and information quality that must
accompany such a designation. The guidelines the bill
specifically requires the Agency to follow are those outlined
in the 3rd Edition of the Agency's Peer Review Handbook and its
current Scientific Integrity Policy, and the Office of
Management and Budget's Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review.
The Administrator is also required in this section to
provide objective estimates of the probability, uncertainty,
and consequence of any possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing
on drinking water identified throughout the study and ensure
that such estimates be as quantitative as possible taking into
account the current risk management practices of states and
industry.
This section requires that the final report be publicly
released by September 30, 2016.
XX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
MARKUP OF H.R. 2850,
THE EPA HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY IMPROVEMENT ACT
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule II(f) and House Rule XI(2)(H)(4),
the Chair announces that he may postpone roll call votes on
matters in which the yeas and nays are ordered until the end of
the markup.
Welcome to today's Full Committee business meeting. We meet
today for two purposes: to authorize the issuance of subpoenas
and to mark up H.R. 2850, ``The EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
Improvement Act.''
Chairman Smith. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R.
2850, introduced by me along with Subcommittee Chairman Stewart
and Subcommittee Chairman Lummis. And the clerk will report the
bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 2850, to require certain procedures in the
conduct by the Environmental Protection Agency of its study of
the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water
resources.
[H.R. 2850 appears in Appendix I]
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read, and I will recognize myself for five
minutes for an opening statement.
This item that we consider, the ``EPA Hydraulic Fracturing
Study Improvement Act,'' is a simple, four page bill that
addresses the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing study
of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking
water.
The bill does two things. First, it requires the EPA to
follow basic scientific principles in carrying out the study,
which has been designated a Highly Influential Scientific
Assessment.
Second, the bill requires that the EPA's study go beyond
simply identifying ``possible impacts'' of hydraulic fracturing
on drinking water. The study must provide objective estimates
of the probability, uncertainty, and consequence of any such
impacts.
This addresses a concern identified on multiple occasions
by stakeholders and independent experts since the EPA first
proposed its study design in 2011. Requiring the EPA to provide
context to any identified risk will maximize the study's
utility to both scientists and decision-makers. And it will
limit the possibility that findings will be misinterpreted or
misused.
This basic principle has been emphasized repeatedly in
Committee hearings and correspondence over the last two years.
And its inclusion will enhance not only the credibility of the
EPA's work on hydraulic fracturing but also our ability to
ensure continued safe and responsible production of America's
vast oil and gas resources.
And that concludes my opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar Smith
The next item we consider today is H.R. 2850, the ``EPA Hydraulic
Fracturing Study Improvement Act.''
This simple, four-page bill addresses the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) ongoing study of the potential impacts of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water.
The bill does two things. First, it requires the EPA to follow
basic scientific principles in carrying out the study, which has been
designated a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment.
Second, the bill requires that the EPA's study go beyond simply
identifying ``possible impacts'' of hydraulic fracturing on drinking
water. The study must provide objective estimates of the probability,
uncertainty and consequence of any such impacts.
This addresses a concern identified on multiple occasions by
stakeholders and independent experts since the EPA first proposed its
study design in 2011.
Requiring the EPA to provide context to any identified risks will
maximize the study's utility to both scientists and decision-makers.
And it will limit the possibility that findings will be misinterpreted
or misused.
This basic principle has been emphasized repeatedly in Committee
hearings and correspondence over the last two years. And its inclusion
will enhance not only the credibility of the EPA's work on hydraulic
fracturing but also our ability to ensure continued safe and
responsible production of America's vast oil and gas resources.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is
recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be relatively
brief in my remarks on H.R. 2850 because there is really not
much to say about it.
Unfortunately, it is another example of this Committee's
majority doing political messaging instead of legislating. If
the majority were really interested in legislating on the issue
ostensibly being addressed by this bill, they would have had
meaningful Subcommittee hearings to examine the potential
impact of the congressionally mandated study that this bill
could have. They would have given EPA time to assess that
impact and provide input to the Subcommittee jurisdiction. They
would not have skipped Subcommittee and instead rushed this
bill to the Full Committee markup one day before the August
recess.
I have to conclude that this bill is not a serious bill.
It, coupled with the ill-advised move at today's business
meeting to push for subpoenas against EPA, as well as
potentially any nongovernmental custodians of the data that the
Chairman is seeking, is consistent with the majority's ongoing
attempt across the House of Representatives to discredit EPA's
scientific work and to undermine the ability of the new EPA
Administrator to do her job.
I understand that Representative Bera may offer an
amendment today to this bill, and I will support that
amendment, but I wanted to be clear. I do not intend to support
this bill and will not vote for it. We all need to remember
that the study that this bill will impact has been well
underway and the study's planned review by EPA's Scientific
Advisory Board. Members of Congress want the study to proceed
unimpeded so that we can get its results in a timely fashion.
This bill is at best a piece of political messaging, at
worst, something that can seriously delay and undercut the
congressionally mandated study. This bill will go nowhere in
the Senate but it should not even be coming out of this
Committee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Mr. Chairman, I will be relatively brief in my remarks about H.R.
2850, because there really is not much to say about it. It
unfortunately is another example of this Committee Majority doing
political messaging instead of legislating. If the Majority were really
interested in legislating on the issue ostensibly being addressed by
this bill, they would have had meaningful Subcommittee hearings to
examine the potential impact on the congressionally mandated study that
this bill could have. They would have given EPA time to assess that
impact and provide input to the Subcommittee of jurisdiction. They
would not have skipped Subcommittee and instead rushed this bill to a
Full Committee markup one day before the August recess.
I have to conclude that this bill is not a serious bill. It,
coupled with the ill-advised move at today's business meeting to push
for subpoenas against EPA as well as potentially any non-governmental
custodians of the data that the Chairman is seeking, is consistent with
the Majority's ongoing attempts across the House of Representatives to
discredit EPA's scientific work and to undermine the ability of the new
EPA Administrator to do her job.
I understand that Congressman Ami Bera (D-CA) may offer an
amendment today to this bill, and I will support that amendment. But I
want to be clear--I do not support this bill and will not vote for it.
We all need to remember that the study that this bill will impact has
been well underway and the study's plan reviewed by EPA's Science
Advisory Board. Members of Congress want the study to proceed unimpeded
so that we can get its results in a timely fashion.
This bill is at best a piece of political messaging, and at worst,
something that could seriously delay or undercut the congressionally
mandated study. This bill will go nowhere in the Senate, but it should
not even be coming out of this Committee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I will recognize
myself for a unanimous consent request, which is to enter into
the record a letter from the Chamber of Commerce supporting
H.R. 2850. That letter was sent to both myself and the Ranking
Member.
[The information follows:]
Letter from the Chamber of Commerce supporting H.R. 2850
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from California, Dr. Bera, is
recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment.
Mr. Bera. Mr. Chairman, I have got an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Smith. And the clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2850 offered by Mr. Bera of
California.
[The amendment of Mr. Bera appears in Appendix I]
Mr. Bera. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read and the gentleman is recognized to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
I understand the desire of the majority to provide context
to the ultimate findings of the study. And, you know, as a
doctor, I certainly would not want to tell a patient that they
have a risk of a particular illness without qualifying that
risk as much as I can, and that is the intent of this study.
However, I also have concerns that the current language of
the bill perhaps inadvertently could lead to a significant
delay in the release of an in-depth, critically important study
that the EPA is currently carrying out to determine whether
there is a relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
groundwater contamination. This study is an important component
to informing science-based national and state policies in this
area going forward. I am told that such a delay is not the
majority's intent and any delay in the study and a delay in the
EPA reporting their findings will continue to hinder both the
scientific community and industry. So let's hold to the
original intent of the study and, you know, put those findings
forward.
Therefore, I am offering this amendment to ensure that this
is the case. The amendment simply states that the final report
will be released no later than September 30, 2016, which is
consistent with the study's current timeline. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment
as it in no way would undermine the majority's intent while
also ensuring that the report's schedule will not intentionally
or otherwise be further delayed by the language of the
underlying bill.
And I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera, and I will recognize
myself in support of the amendment.
This amendment--and, by the way, let me say at the outset
this amendment very much improves the bill and I appreciate the
gentleman's offering it.
The amendment requires the EPA to release its final report
of its ongoing study of the potential impact of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources by September 30, 2016.
The EPA has continuously insisted that the final draft report
of results should be expected late next year, 2014, with peer
review to continue into 2015. So it appears that, according to
the Agency's own projections, they should be able to meet this
deadline of 2016.
Additionally, this study has been ongoing for three years
and the 2016 deadline is another three years away. While we
support the EPA taking a deliberate approach to get the science
right, we also should ensure that this study is completed in a
timely fashion and not unduly prolonged or otherwise delayed.
Given that the Agency testified last week that the study is
being conducted within a risk framework, inclusion of estimates
of probability, uncertainty, and consequences should not
lengthen the study beyond the deadline that this amendment
proposes.
This amendment gives the EPA ample time frame in which to
complete the study while also ensuring that the study is
completed without further delay or expansion of its scope. For
these reasons, I support the amendment and urge my colleagues
to support the amendment as well.
Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the
amendment? If not, the vote is on the Bera amendment.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The amendment is agreed to.
Are there any other amendments? If there are no further--
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Maffei.
Mr. Maffei. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Maffei. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is an important issue to me and my district. My
district is in upstate central New York and relies on a clean
water economy. Lake Ontario, the Finger Lakes, Onondaga Lake,
all of these natural resources support tourism, agriculture,
and wineries, clean water-dependent industries, and thousands
of jobs.
We fight a constant battle to preserve our clean waters. We
fight against pollution and invasive species. Our communities
rely on water resources and, as such, New York has a State
moratorium on hydrofracking. But we face a new threat, the
uncertainty created by even the possibility that hydrofracking
may have a disaster that would threaten our clean water
economy. That reputation even is a threat. So our watershed and
clean water know no state boundaries, and the Federal
Government shouldn't turn a blind eye to this issue. So that is
why I am pleased that the EPA is looking at it. It is also why
I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan FRAC Act, which would put
fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act, making the practice
subject to Federal regulation.
Now, the EPA is studying the effects of hydrofracking on
drinking water and the bill we are considering today may
postpone the publication of some of those findings. If, as
supporters say, fracking is safe, we should be happily
anticipating the EPA's findings and not working to postpone
them or even a piece of them. If, as supporters say, fracking
is safe, then they also should have no issue creating a level
playing field and applying the safe drinking water standards.
Therefore, I will respectfully oppose this bill today and I
encourage my colleagues on the Committee to also oppose the
bill. I thank the Chairman and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Maffei. Are there
others?
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the Chairman for his interest in this
issue. I know that we are all interested in getting the best
results from the EPA on this important study.
Just a week ago yesterday, the Chair mentioned to me this
concept that we are marking up today and asked me to keep an
open mind. I did. I reviewed the Chair's memo and the language
of the bill multiple times. I just received that language on
July 29, 3 days ago. I also reviewed the Committee memo and the
EPA's progress report.
I concluded that Section 1 of the bill isn't necessary. The
EPA's own progress report from December of 2012 on page 4
states ``the EPA has designated the report of results as highly
influential scientific assessment, which will undergo peer-
review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board, an independent and
external Federal advisory Committee that conducts peer-reviews
of significant EPA research products and activities.'' So the
designation is in place already and that has already triggered
the strictest peer-reviewed requirements.
With regard to Section 2, this section appears to impose
new and ostensibly different research requirements on the EPA.
Unfortunately, because there was no hearing on this bill, we do
not have information from the EPA regarding whether these
requirements will take additional time, and if so, how much
time. And importantly, we don't have information about what
additional resources, if any, the EPA might require to comply
with this language.
And I do want to note what has happened in the meantime.
The majority has proposed cutting the EPA's budget by 34
percent. So without more information about what would be
required to comply with the provisions in this bill, I will be
opposing it at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
Are there other Members who wish to be heard? If not, the
question is on the bill, H.R. 2850, as amended. The question is
not on the bill. The question is on the--it is on the bill.
On the 2850 as amended, those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill
is ordered reported favorably.
Pursuant----
Mr. Maffei. Mr. Chairman, on that I request a roll call
vote. For the bill to be reported favorably, I request a roll
call vote.
Chairman Smith. Would the gentleman approach the Chair for
a minute? Okay.
A roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to Committee
Rule II(f) and House Rule XI(2)(H)(4), proceedings on this vote
will be postponed.
Mr. Maffei. I thank the Chair.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Let me announce to the Members that
there are a couple of classified briefings still ongoing and
Members may be attending those classified briefings. So we are
going to postpone proceedings on the three pending votes and we
will give Members 30 minutes advanced notice of the specific
time to which we will roll those votes.
So, once again, everyone will have 30 minutes notice. It
will be this afternoon and we will stand in recess until that
time.
[Recess.]
Chairman Smith. The Science, Space, and Technology
Committee will reconvene.
And before we get to the scheduled and postponed votes, I
want to take a minute to recognize Ellen Scholl. Ellen, stand
up just for a second so everybody can say hello and goodbye. I
want to recognize Ellen for her hard work and dedication to the
Full Committee and the Energy and Environment Subcommittees
over the past 2-1/2 years. After this markup, Ellen will be
packing up for a long drive back to the great State of Texas
where she will return to UT Austin to pursue a graduate degree
at the LBJ School of Public Affairs. Ellen, we thank you for
your outstanding service to this Committee and we certainly
wish you well in your next adventure.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Maffei, is
recognized.
Mr. Maffei. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I ask unanimous
consent that I be allowed to withdraw my request for a roll
call vote on the pending matter.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection, I thank the
gentleman. The question is on the bill H.R. 2850, as amended.
Those in favor, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it and the bill, as amended, is agreed to.
Now, without objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid upon
the table, and I move that the bill H.R. 2850, as amended, be
favorably reported to the House and that staff be authorized to
make any necessary technical and conforming changes. And
without objection, so ordered.
If there is no further discussion, that completes our
business and this concludes the Full Committee markup. Without
objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I:
----------
H.R. 2850, THE EPA HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY IMPROVEMENT ACT, Section-
by-Section Analysis, Amendments, Amendment Roster
Section-by-Section Analysis of
H.R. 2850, THE EPA HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Section 1. Short Title
This section establishes the short title as the ``EPA Hydraulic
Fracturing Study Improvement Act.''
Section 2. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Research
This section places requirements on the Administrator of the Office
of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency in
carrying out the Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
on Drinking Water Resources.
The bill requires that any interim or final report pertaining to
the EPA's study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
drinking water be considered as a Highly Influential Scientific
Assessment (HISA). This codifies EPA's designation of the final report
as a HISA, and also requires the Administrator to abide by the more
stringent standards for peer review and information quality that
accompany such a designation. The guidelines the bill specifically
requires the Agency to follow are those outlined in the 3rd Edition of
the Agency's Peer Review Handbook and its current Scientific Integrity
Policy, and the Office of Management and Budget's Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.
The Administrator is also required to provide objective estimates
of the probability, uncertainty, and consequence of any possible
impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water identified throughout
the study and shall ensure that such estimates be as quantitative as
possible and take into account the current risk management practices of
states and industry.
Amendments
Amendment Roster