S. HRG. 112–901 

NATURAL GAS DRILLING: PUBLIC HEALTH AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND 

WILDLIFE 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 
NATURAL GAS DRILLING: PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACTS 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

88–762PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–901 

NATURAL GAS DRILLING: PUBLIC HEALTH AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND 

WILDLIFE 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex officio) 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama, Ranking Member 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 12, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .............. 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 4 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ....................... 7 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming ........................ 9 

Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ................................. 10 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania ................................................................................................... 13 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ........................ 46 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey .......... 47 

Boren, Hon. Dan, U.S. Representative from the State of Oklahoma ................. 206 

WITNESSES 

Perciasepe, Hon. Robert, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 26 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 29 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 32 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 38 

Summers, Robert, acting secretary of the Environment, Maryland Department of the Environment .................................................................................... 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Volz, Conrad Daniel, director, Center for Healthy Environments and Communities ...................................................................................................................... 60

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Ubinger, Jack, senior vice president, Pennsylvania Environmental Council ..... 76 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 88 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 90 

Report, Developing the Marcellus Shale, Findings and Recommendations 

based on The Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Policy Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, July 2010................................................................................... 94–143 

The Marcellus Shale Amendments, a Proposal for Reforming the Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Act, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Chesapeake 

Bay Foundation, May 2011....................................................................... 144–154 

Cloud, Jeff, vice chairman, Oklahoma Corporation Commission ........................ 155 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 157 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 162 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 163 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 165 

Neslin, David, director, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ......... 166 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 168 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 172 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 174 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 175 
Page

IV 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

Bolin, David E., Ph.D., deputy director, State Oil and Gas Board of 

Alabama ......................................................................................................... 210 

Krancer, Michael L., acting-secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

Department of Environmental Protection ................................................... 235 

Klaber, Kathryn Z., president & executive director, Marcellus Shale Coalition ............................................................................................................... 243 

Paque, Michel J., Ground Water Protection Council ..................................... 247 

Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association ............................................. 249 

Helm, Lynn D., director of the Department of Mineral Resources Industrial Commission of the State of North Dakota ......................................... 251 

Fitch, Harold R., chief, Office of Geological Survey, Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality ............................................................................. 254 

Tew, Nick, Ph.D., P.G., Alabama State Geologist & Oil and Gas Supervisor, president, Association of American State Geologists ....................... 255 

Foerster, commissioner, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission .... 255 

Neslin, David, director, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission .. 256 

McDivitt, director, Indiana Department of Natural Resources .................... 256 

Collings, EEC, director, Kentucky Division of Oil and Gas .......................... 257 

Welsh, James, commissioner of Conservation, Louisiana Department of 

Natural Resources ......................................................................................... 257 

Fitch, Harold, director, Michigan: Office of Geological Survey, Department of Environmental Quality ................................................................... 257 

Wrotenbery, Lori, director, Oil and Gas Conservation Division, Oklahoma 

Corporation Commission .............................................................................. 258 

Schmierbach, Paul, manager, Tennessee Department of Environmental 

Conservation .................................................................................................. 258 

Carrillo, Victor G., chairman, Railroad Commission of Texas ...................... 258 

Steece, Fred, Oil and Gas supervisor, Department of Environment and 

Natural Resource .......................................................................................... 259 

Marvel, Rick, engineering manager, Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission ................................................................................................... 260 

Doll, Tom, Oil and Gas Commission supervisor, Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission ............................................................................ 260 

Letters: 

Doll, Thomas E., PE, State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil and 

Gas Conservation Commission, April 8, 2011 ............................................ 262 

Nally, Scott J., director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, April 

21, 2011 .......................................................................................................... 264 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection: 

McClung, Lisa, deputy cabinet secretary, April 20, 2011 ...................... 266 

Huffman, Randy C., cabinet secretary, April 15, 2011 .......................... 268 

Baker, Gerry, associate executive director, Interstate Oil & Gas Compact 

Commission, April 8, 2011 ........................................................................... 298 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: 

Krancer, Michael L., acting secretary, April 6, 2011 ............................. 363 

Daniels, Lisa, D., chief, Division of Operations Monitoring and Training, March 11, 2011 ............................................................................... 366 

Furlan, Ronald C., PE, manager, Division of Planning and Permits, 

March 18, 2011 ...................................................................................... 368 

Sydow, William H., director, Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, April 7, 2011 ................................................................................... 374 

Articles: 

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Drilling opponent to leave Pitt Post, Sunday, 

April 20, 2011 and Pitt: Departing shale drilling opponent free to 

speak his mind, Tuesday, April 12, 2011, by Luis Fabregas ................. 376–379 

Canada Free Press, Pitt prof caught off base in new frack attack, Monday, March 28, 2011, by Steve Milloy ......................................................... 380 

Studies: 

University of Arkansas, Sam M. Walton College of Business, Projecting 

the Economic Impact of the Fayetteville Shale Play for 2008–2012 

Executive Summary, March 2008 ................................................................ 383 

Penn State, An Emerging Giant: Prospects and Economic Impacts of 

Developing the Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Play, Cosidine, Timothy, 

Ph.D., M.B.A., Executive Summary, July 24, 2009 .................................... 390 
Page

V 

—Continued 

State of Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Department of 

Natural Resources ......................................................................................... 421 

Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission .............................................. 425 

Resolution, 10.052, Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission, Urging the 

Congressional Conference Committee on Bill H.R. 2996 and the Environmental Protection Agency to Remain Within the Scope of the Directive 

to EPA ................................................................................................................... 427 

(1) 

NATURAL GAS DRILLING: PUBLIC HEALTH 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, JOINTLY WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee and subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 

9:15 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Boxer, Inhofe, Sessions, Lautenberg, 

Whitehouse, Barrasso, Udall, Merkley and Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the joint 

hearing between the full Environment and Public Works Committee and the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife. I want to 

thank Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe for arranging for this 

hearing. I want to thank my colleagues that are here that are prepared to testify. 

Let me start by saying the United States has as much natural 

gas as Saudi Arabia has oil. According to Penn State, the Marcellus 

Shale which runs from Central New York State to West Virginia 

may be the second largest natural gas field in the world. We have 

enormous reserves that can help America meet its energy needs 

and do so in a way that produces far less pollution than coal, help 

the United States on its path to energy independence, and improve 

our national security. 

High volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is now 

being used to extract natural gas from shale formations in thousands of new wells. In Pennsylvania, more than 2,700 Marcellus 

wells were drilled from 2006 to March 10 of this year. A study last 

year estimated that Marcellus drilling would create or support 

more than 100,000 jobs in 2011 plus billions of dollars in economic 

value for the State. 

The natural gas industry is booming, but it may be in jeopardy. 

New York has imposed a moratorium on fracking operations. New 

Jersey is considering a ban on the practice. The city of Pittsburgh 

has enacted a ban on fracking operations within the city limits. 

Tiny Mountain Lake Park, MD adopted an ordinance making the 

drilling of natural gas illegal within the town limits. 
2 

So why is this happening? The answer is simple. The industry 

has failed to meet minimal acceptable performance levels for protecting human health and the environment. That is both an industry failure and a failure of the regulatory process. 

I am a strong supporter of domestic natural gas production, but 

my support only comes when human health and the environment 

are protected. The record is replete with cases of contamination 

from improper cement job, cracked drilling casing, drill pad spills 

and disturbances releasing natural gas in higher geological formations. 

In June 2010, the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association identified a total of 1,614 violations occurred by 45 Pennsylvania 

Marcellus Shale drillers dating to January 2008, including 91 violations of Pennsylvania’s clean stream laws, 162 cases of improper 

construction of wastewater impoundments, 50 cases of improper 

well casing construction, and four cases of inadequate blowout prevention. Last June, a well blowout in Clearfield County shot 35,000 

gallons of gas and water 75 feet in the air over a 16-hour period. 

Municipal wastewater treatment plants are not equipped to handle the contaminants that come out of the fracking operations. Five 

million gallons of water, combined with thousands of gallons of special chemicals, can be used in a single fracking operation. Much of 

this is returned to the surface. Then it is either injected into underground wells or it is used by wastewater treatment facility plants, 

and the wastewater treatment plants cannot handle that type of 

pollutant. 

The question is: What is EPA doing about this? We understand 

that fracking is exempt from certain parts of the Clean Water Act, 

but it is certainly subject to the provisions that deal with wastewater treatment. Is EPA acting on these areas? That is one of the 

areas I hope that this hearing will deal with. 

The challenge is that State regulators have not been able to handle the issue. We are exempt from several of the Federal laws. 

However, it is subject to other provisions within the Clean Water 

Act and whether we have an adequate regulatory system that protects the public so that we can get the natural gas that is critically 

important to our country. 

It is my hope that this hearing will help answer these questions. 

I thank the witnesses that are here today. I thank our two colleagues who are participating in this hearing. We need to get this 

right. We need to figure out how we can get the natural gas that 

is plentiful in the United States in an environmentally safe way. 

We have allowed for State regulation, but in some cases State 

regulation has been inadequate. We do have Federal laws, some 

apply, some are exempt, and the question is whether we are in fact 

adhering to the Federal environmental rules that are currently in 

existence. 

What do we do with the wastewater? How do we treat it? How 

do we deal with the danger to our environment? I hope this hearing will help us in that pursuit. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

The United States has as much natural gas as Saudi Arabia has oil. According 

to Penn State, the Marcellus Shale, which runs from central New York State to 

West Virginia, may be the second largest natural gas field in the world. 

We have enormous reserves that can help America meet its energy needs and do 

so in a way that produces far less pollution than coal, helps the United States on 

its path to energy independence, and improves national security. 

High volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or ‘‘fracking,’’ is now being used to 

extract natural gas from shale formations in thousands of new wells. In Pennsylvania more than 2,700 Marcellus wells were drilled from 2006 to March 10th of this 

year. 

A study last year estimated that Marcellus drilling would create or support more 

than 100,000 jobs in 2011, plus billions of dollars in economic value for the state. 

The natural gas industry is booming, but that may soon end. Against the backdrop of natural gas’s promise, • New York has imposed a moratorium on fracking operations. • New Jersey is considering a ban on the practice. • The city of Pittsburgh has enacted a ban on fracking operations within the city 

limits. • Tiny Mountain Lake Park, Maryland adopted an ordinance making the drilling 

of natural gas illegal within the town limits. 

What’s going on? In the face of its extraordinary promise, why is natural gas faltering? 

The answer is simple. The industry has failed to meet minimally acceptable performance levels for protecting human health and the environment. That is both an 

industry failure and a failure of the regulatory agencies. 

I am a strong supporter of domestic natural gas production. But my support only 

comes when human health and the environment are protected. 

POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The natural gas industry argues that there has never been a documented case of 

drinking water contamination from fracking. 

Viewed in isolation, fracking occurs far below drinking water aquifers. But 

fracking doesn’t mysteriously just happen. It involves drilling, wells, water, compressors, and all the associated equipment that goes into a modern well-drilling operation. 

The record is replete with cases of contamination from improper cement jobs, 

cracked drill casings, drill pad spills, and seismic disturbances releasing natural gas 

in higher geological formations. For example, Pennsylvania DEP brought an enforcement action against Cabot Oil for poor cementing after the drinking water wells of 

19 families in Dimock, PA were polluted. 

In June 2010, the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association identified a total of 1614 

violations accrued by 45 Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale drillers, dating to January 

2008, including: 

• 91 violations of Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law 

• 162 cases of Improper Construction of Waste Water Impoundments 

• 50 cases of Improper Well-Casing Construction, and 

• 4 cases of inadequate Blowout Prevention. Last June a well blowout in 

Clearfield County shot 35,000 gallons of gas and water 75 ft. into the air over 

a 16 hour period. 

Pro Publica, the investigative news site, has found over 1,000 reports of water 

contamination near drilling sites. 

Up to 5 million gallons of water combined with thousands of gallons of special 

chemicals can be used in a single fracking operation, much of this returning to the 

surface. 

This flowback fluid contains not only the chemicals used in the fracking process, 

but can also include salts, metals, and naturally occurring radioactive substances. 

Municipal wastewater treatment plants are not equipped to handle these contaminants. In Pennsylvania, more than a dozen publically owned treatment works facilities accepting natural gas wastewater have failed to treat it in accordance with permit requirements. Radioactive isotopes, heavy salts, and other chemicals were discharged into surface waters—all in apparent violation of the Clean Water Act. 

Even specialized facilities can have problems. 

Studies of the effluent from a commercial facility in Pennsylvania that collects 

water only from gas operations show half a dozen pollutants in excess of their approved limits as determined by an agency at the Centers for Disease Control. 
4 

The contaminants include: 

• Chloride, which has been found at levels that are hundreds of times higher than 

accepted health levels. • Benzene, a known carcinogen, has been detected at levels thousands of times 

above health limits. • Bromide reacts with other chemicals to form potentially carcinogenic compounds. It is present at levels tens of thousands of times higher than the levels 

of concern. 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA would typically be allowed to regulate all underground injections of fluids, including the chemicals used in fracking, 

cement jobs, casings, and disposal of flowback water. However, a loophole exempts 

fracking from regulation, except where diesel fuel is used. 

Even with this huge loophole, Federal violations have occurred. Since 2005, companies have injected over 32 million gallons of diesel fuel or fracking fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states. None of these operations obtained a permit 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act, meaning that all are in violation. To date, EPA 

has failed to take any enforcement action. 

Similar restrictions on the Clean Water Act allow drilling companies to operate 

outside its scope. 

State regulators, facing their own massive budget cuts, have tried to fill the void. 

In the Marcellus Shale area, Pennsylvania’s response has been characterized as 

playing continual regulatory catch-up, as regulations have routinely failed to address issues. 

As today’s hearing will make clear, the exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water 

Act and Clean Water Act aren’t working. 

We need to put the environmental cop back on the beat, take aggressive action 

against the bad actors in the industry and earn back the public’s confidence. 

The promise of natural gas will be a promise unfulfilled if the human health and 

environmental impacts are not properly safe-guarded. It’s long past time that they 

were. 

With that, let me turn to the Ranking Republican Member of the 

full committee, Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am really glad we are having this hearing because you hear 

this stuff about what a lousy job the States are doing, when in fact 

they are doing a great job. I have to say that on March 17 of 1949, 

more than 60 years ago, the first hydraulic fracturing job was performed in a well 12 miles east of Duncan in my home State of 

Oklahoma. 

The practice has now been used on more than 1 million currently 

producing wells, 35,000 wells a year, without one confirmed case of 

groundwater contamination. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s 

hear what the experts, the State regulators, have said. 

Nick Tew, Alabama State geologist, said: ‘‘There have been no 

documented cases of drinking water contamination that have resulted from hydraulic fracturing operations to stimulate oil and gas 

wells in the State of Alabama.’’ 

Cathy Foerster, Commissioner of the Alaskan Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: ‘‘There have been no verified cases of harm 

to groundwater in the State of Alaska as a result of hydraulic fracturing.’’ 

Harold Fitch, director, Michigan Office of Geological Survey at 

the Department of Environmental Quality: ‘‘There is no indication 

that hydraulic fracturing has ever caused damage to the groundwater or other resources in Michigan. In fact, the OGS has never 

received a complaint or allegation that hydraulic fracturing has impacted groundwater in any way.’’ 
5 

Victor Carrillo, chairman of the Railroad Commission of Texas, 

that’s the organization in Texas that has that jurisdiction, I might 

add: ‘‘Though hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 60 years 

in Texas, our Railroad Commission records do not reflect a single 

documented surface or groundwater contamination case.’’ 

Same thing is true with Fred Steece from South Dakota and all 

of these others. So I have these other statements I will include in 

the record. 

[The referenced documents follow on page 255.] 

Senator INHOFE. Now, let me show you why this is the case. We 

have a chart. Pull the chart up here. It is very important. Let it 

spread out and hold that up high enough that people can see it, 

if you would. Very good. 

Now, the chart illustrates a cross-section of a typical well drilled 

in the Marcellus Shale in Southwest Pennsylvania. You see the 

blue line way up at the top, that little narrow blue line. That illustrates the groundwater aquifer. In between that groundwater aquifer and the Marcellus Shale are dozens of layers of solid rock, almost 2 miles of solid rock. Let me repeat that: 2 miles of solid rock 

between the aquifer and down here where they have the Marcellus 

Shale that is so valuable to the future of this country. 

Now, see the small box at the top? That is a picture of the Empire State Building. I am trying to get this in perspective so that 

people can see that this stuff they hear just flat isn’t true. For 

groundwater contamination to occur, frack fluids would have to migrate through 7,000 feet of solid rock. Once again, that is about the 

same as the distance from the west front of the Capitol all the way 

to the Washington Monument. The fluid migration can’t happen 

and it doesn’t happen. 

Given these facts, what can possibly explain calls to regulate 

fracking from Washington, DC? It is simple. The Obama administration wants to regulate fossil fuels out of existence. Energy Secretary Steven Chu actually said, ‘‘Somehow we have to figure out 

how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.’’ For my 

colleagues who might not know, the price there is about $8 a gallon. 

Or consider Alan Krueger of the Treasury Department in the 

Obama administration who said: ‘‘The Administration believes that 

it is no longer sufficient to address our Nation’s energy needs by 

finding more fossil fuel.’’ 

That is what this is all about. Mr. Krueger’s belief is now a reality. Gas at the pump is approaching $4 and we think it is going 

to be going on up. 

Now, if you think these data points are bad, they will grow far 

worse under EPA’s cap-and-trade agenda. As part of that agenda, 

the Agency is maneuvering to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a practice that has always been regulated by the States. Testimony today 

will confirm that States don’t need the EPA. There is this mentality we have here in Washington, I would say to my friends, and 

I want to welcome Jeff Cloud from my State of Oklahoma, who is 

here to testify. It is the Corporation Commission, I would say to 

Senator Cornyn, in Oklahoma, not the Railroad Commission that 

regulates it in Oklahoma. 
6 

These people have been doing a good job, but the mentality that 

we have here in Washington is that nothing is done right unless 

it is done in Washington. 

So the Nation’s immense shale deposits are predominantly located in States that effectively and efficiently regulate oil and gas, 

in States such as Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Ohio, and North Dakota. A virtual boom in 

natural gas development is transforming America’s energy security 

due in no small measure to the absence of Federal regulation. 

For this reason, I would only say that I agree with something 

that was said by the Chairman this morning when he was talking 

about the tremendous reserves. Our recoverable reserves in gas, 

and we were talking about natural gas this morning, are greater 

than any country in the world. We could run this country for 90 

years on natural gas without importing any from the Middle East. 

That is why this is important. For those people who say they 

want to cut down our dependence on the Middle East and at the 

same time kill natural gas production. Kill it? Yes, you start regulating. You can’t get natural gas from these deposits without hydraulic fracturing. It has worked. It has been successful. We have 

to keep that for America. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

On March 17, 1949, more than 60 years ago, the first hydraulic fracturing job was 

performed on a well 12 miles east of Duncan, in my home State of Oklahoma. The 

practice has now been used on more than 1 million currently producing wells, 

35,000 wells per year, without one confirmed case of groundwater contamination 

from these fracked formations. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s hear what the 

experts, the State regulators, have said: 

Nick Tew, Alabama State Geologist & Oil and Gas Supervisor.—‘‘There have been 

no documented cases of drinking water contamination that have resulted from hydraulic fracturing operations to stimulate oil and gas wells in the State of Alabama.’’ 

Cathy Foerster, Commissioner of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.—‘‘There have been no verified cases of harm to groundwater in the State of 

Alaska as a result of hydraulic fracturing.’’ 

Harold Fitch Director, Michigan Office of Geological Survey of the Department of 

Environmental Quality.—‘‘There is no indication that hydraulic fracturing has ever 

caused damage to groundwater or other resources in Michigan. In fact, the OGS has 

never received a complaint or allegation that hydraulic fracturing has impacted 

groundwater in any way.’’ 

Victor Carrillo, Chairman Railroad Commission of Texas.—‘‘Though hydraulic 

fracturing has been used for over 60 years in Texas, our Railroad Commission 

records do not reflect a single documented surface or groundwater contamination 

case associated with hydraulic fracturing.’’ 

Fred Steece, Oil and Gas Supervisor of the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources.—‘‘In the 41 years that I have supervised oil and gas 

exploration, production and development in South Dakota, no documented case of 

water well or aquifer damage by the fracking of oil or gas wells, has been brought 

to my attention. Nor am I aware of any such cases before my time.’’ 

And I have statements from eight more oil and gas producing states that I would 

like to submit for the record. They all state that hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate groundwater. 

Now let me show you why this is the case. This chart illustrates a cross section 

of a typical well drilled in the Marcellus shale in southwest Pennsylvania. Do you 

see the small blue line at the top of the chart? That illustrates the groundwater aquifer. In between that groundwater aquifer and the Marcellus shale are dozens of 

layers of solid rock—more than a mile of it. Let me say that again: there is more 

than a mile that separates the groundwater aquifer and the well. 
7 

See the small blue box at the top? That’s a picture of the Empire State Building. 

For groundwater contamination to occur, frack fluids would have to migrate through 

7,000 feet of that solid rock. Once again, that’s about the same distance as from the 

West front of the Capitol all the way to the Washington Monument—of solid rock. 

That fluid migration can’t happen and it doesn’t happen. 

Given these facts, what can possibly explain calls to regulate fracking from Washington, DC.? It’s simple: the Obama administration wants to regulate fossil fuels out 

of existence. And they haven’t been shy about it. Energy Secretary Steven Chu actually said, ‘‘Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the 

levels in Europe.’’ For my colleagues who might not know, prices are $8 per gallon 

in Europe. Or consider Alan Krueger of the Treasury Department, who said, ‘‘The 

Administration believes that it is no longer sufficient to address our Nation’s energy 

needs by finding more fossil fuels. . . .’’ 

Mr. Krueger’s belief is now reality. Gas at the pump is fast approaching $4.00 a 

gallon. Drilling in Federal offshore waters is nearly non-existent. As for Federal 

lands, the Western Energy Alliance recently reported that oil and gas leasing has 

dropped by 67 percent since 2005. 

If you think these data points are bad, they will grow far worse under EPA’s capand-trade agenda. As part of that agenda, the agency is maneuvering to regulate 

hydraulic fracturing, a practice that has always been regulated by the states. 

But testimony today will confirm that the states don’t need EPA. The nation’s immense shale deposits are predominantly located in states that effectively and efficiently regulate oil and gas. In states such as Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Oklahoma, 

Texas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Ohio, and North Dakota, a virtual boom in natural 

gas development is transforming America’s energy security—due in no small measure to the absence of Federal regulation. 

For this reason, let’s keep the states in charge of hydraulic fracturing, for the benefit of consumers, jobs, economic growth and expansion, and our Nation’s energy security. 

Senator CARDIN. Chairman Boxer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Thank you for chairing this important hearing as Chairman of 

the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee. 

First, just on another note, I want to express, as Chairman of 

this committee, I don’t speak for all the Members. I do speak for 

the Members on my side of the aisle. We are grateful that the 

budget agreement does not include EPA riders and a poll today 

showed that 70 percent of the people agree with that. 

Today, we are here to examine the public health and environmental impacts of natural gas drilling. Recent advancements in 

horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have led to significant 

expansion in proving U.S. natural gas reserves, and we are glad to 

see that we can in fact extract natural gas because now it is actually economically, where a few years ago it was not. 

The discovery of new resources creates an opportunity for increased production of a cleaner, domestically produced fuel. One of 

the key reasons for the increase in natural gas reserves is the discovery of the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian region of the 

United States, which underlays portions of Virginia, West Virginia, 

Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York. 

With drilling in this part of the country like to increase exponentially in coming years, it is critical that we ensure that efforts to 

extract natural gas do not threaten the air we breathe and the 

water we drink. 
8 

I want to thank Senator Casey for really taking this issue on in 

a very responsible way. I again want to thank Senator Cardin because his State has a lot at stake here as well. 

I am one who believes that this committee’s oversight effort is 

important because there are questions that need to be answered 

and if we follow the science, it will lead us the right way. A recent 

series of investigative reports in the New York Times highlighted 

some of the potential risks, I say potential risks, of natural gas 

drilling and the inconsistent efforts to regulate this booming industry. 

For example, the Times reported that the hydraulic fracturing 

process wastewater is often contaminated with pollutants, including toxic metals, highly corrosive salts, carcinogens such as benzine, and radioactive elements. These are facts. This is not a statement pro or con. These are facts. 

A large amount of this wastewater is disposed in municipal sewage treatment plants that may or may not be equipped to remove 

the contaminants. These plants can discharge harmful levels of radiation and toxic substances into local waterways, and the solid 

waste produced may contain an array of toxins. 

Without the proper oversight, the disposal of drilling wastewater 

poses threats to aquatic life and human health, especially when 

public drinking water systems rely on waterways where waste is 

being discharged. Concerns have also been raised that chemicals 

contained in the fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process can 

contaminate groundwater. 

However, Federal and State regulators and concerned citizens 

frankly haven’t had all the information they need to determine 

whether drilling was causing groundwater contamination. Historically, some companies have limited access to information on the 

chemicals they use in their drilling fluids. 

The Federal Government does not require drilling operators to 

fully disclose the chemicals they are injecting into the ground. 

Some States such as Wyoming now require disclosure of chemicals 

used in the fracking process. So I agree that some States are taking responsible action here. 

The industry has also recently launched a voluntary disclosure 

effort with the Groundwater Protection Council. That is encouraging, too, but we have a long way to go before full disclosure is 

a consistent and industry-wide practice. 

I believe in disclosure. Let the facts come out and we will make 

a reasonable decision, I believe. So I have highlighted only a few 

of the health and environmental issues that have been associated 

with natural gas drilling. Additional issues include air pollution, 

impacts on water supply due to the millions of gallons of water 

that are needed at each natural gas well. 

So given the array of potential impacts and the need for more 

studies, the State of New York is taking a time out of hydraulic 

fracturing, choosing to fully study the issues first before allowing 

widespread drilling. So New York and other States are taking action here. 

The U.S. EPA has also been directed by Congress, directed by 

Congress, to study the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies. I expect the Agency will use an independent, comprehensive 
9 

and scientific process to provide Congress with unbiased information. There is much that we need to learn so that we can move forward in a way that ensures safe and responsible drilling that is 

protective of our air and water. I think those have to go together. 

This hearing is an important step in the EPW Committee’s oversight on this issue and I certainly look forward to hearing from my 

colleagues and the other members of the panel. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

When it comes to American energy, we need it all. Oil and natural gas are a critical part of the mix. In my home State, we are 

very familiar with energy exploration. We have just about everything, from oil and gas to coal to wind, and these resources provide 

a great opportunity for our State and our Nation. It means jobs 

and economic security, as well as energy security. 

Wyoming right now ranks second in the country in natural gas 

production. The oil and gas industry supports nearly 20,000 jobs in 

the State of Wyoming and we are talking about a State with a population of only about a half million people. The revenues generated 

from oil and gas exploration are invested right at home. It helps 

build schools, roads and water systems. It also helps send kids to 

college in our State through the Hathaway Scholarship Program. 

Senator Inhofe gave a very compelling litany of success stories 

from across the country. I want to share a letter from the Wyoming 

Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The Commission regulates 

oil an gas activities, including hydraulic fracturing in Wyoming. 

Here are a couple of quotes: ‘‘Wyoming has no documented cases 

of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing. 

From 1999 to 2010, over 46,000 individual hydraulic fracturing 

well stimulation treatments were performed in Wyoming. Almost 

100 percent of oil and gas wells drilled in Wyoming require hydraulic fracture stimulation to be commercial.’’ 

I request a copy of this letter be placed in the record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The referenced document follows on page 262.] 

Senator BARRASSO. It provides details about my home State’s 

rules for hydraulic fracturing. In Wyoming, we have been producing oil and gas for a long time. The letter mentions over 46,000 

of these procedures from 1999 to 2010 alone, but our experience 

goes way back to the 1950’s. Wyoming continues to be a leader ensuring that the appropriate safeguards are in place for drilling and 

for hydraulic fracturing. We take this issue very seriously and I appreciate Senator Boxer’s comments about Wyoming doing it right. 

It is about both our environmental stewardship and about jobs. 

The State demonstrated this when it updated its rules just this last 

year. The changes include increased transparency requirements for 

hydraulic fracturing. Industry is required to disclose all the chemicals used in well stimulation before and after hydraulic fracturing. 
10 

Most of America’s oil and gas production is dependent on hydraulic fracturing. Without it, America’s vast energy resources will remain locked away and we will become increasingly dependent on 

foreign energy, a threat to our energy security, our financial security, and our national security. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

We will now turn to our colleagues as our first panel. We will 

start with Senator Cornyn. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, and thanks to 

Chairman Boxer, the Chairman of the full committee, and Senator 

Inhofe, the Ranking Member, and Senator Barrasso. It is good to 

be here with you today. 

As Senator Inhofe noted, fracking has been around a long time, 

about 60 years. What has changed the state of play, so to speak, 

has been the advent of horizontal drilling, which if you fly into Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, you will be met with scenes actually of active drilling going on there thanks to the directional drilling that 

is capable from a single platform of doing out a mile or more into 

some of the shale formations. 

I am glad to have the opportunity to share the perspective of my 

State on this practice, which I am proud to say we helped develop, 

and which is essential to the development of three shale plays in 

our State: the Barnett Shale around Fort Worth; the Haynesville 

Shale out in East Texas; and the Eagle Ford Shale. 

I want to focus on three points. Texas and the United States, as 

you already stated, has a bountiful supply of natural gas. This has 

implications for job creation and our economy and national security. States are effectively regulating hydraulic fracturing already. 

Federal regulation by the EPA would inevitably lead to duplicative 

regulation, bureaucratic delays and diminish the production of this 

important energy resource. 

In Texas, the oil and gas industry provides more than 1.7 million 

jobs and accounts for nearly 25 percent of our State’s economy. 

Over 11,000 wells have been completed in the Barnett Shale, which 

as I said, is in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, one of the Nation’s most 

active and largest unconventional natural gas fields. The Barnett 

Shale contributes over 20 percent of the total Texas natural gas 

production. 

In South Texas, a very exciting development there with the 

Eagle Ford Shale. According to a recent study by the University of 

Texas at San Antonio, the long-term regional implications of the 

boom in South Texas are staggering. According to a study by the 

University, under modest assumptions, by 2020 the Eagle Ford 

Shale is expected to account for close to $11.6 billion in gross State 

product; $21.6 billion in total economic output impact; and support 

close to 67,000, roughly 68,000 full-time jobs. 

The Haynesville Shale in East Texas and Louisiana was not commercially viable until a few years ago, but is now thanks to advancing technology. I recently went to a drilling rig outside of 

Nacogdoches, TX that represents the latest improvements on drill-
11 

ing, using more energy-efficient engines, leading to shorter drilling 

times, and reducing the impact on surrounding areas. 

The proliferation of these domestic resources has contributed to 

Texas’ ability, if not unique, nearly unique in this recession, to actually add jobs to our economy. Yet the job creators and workers 

on this particular rig were anxious about what they could expect 

from Washington in terms of additional and duplicative regulation. 

As you know, hydraulic fracturing has been used safely in tens 

of thousands of wells already. This practice has been studied extensively by the Environmental Protection Agency, Groundwater Protection Council, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. 

In each case, hydraulic fracturing has been judged to be environmentally sound. 

At every step in the drilling process, energy producers are subject to State regulations already, as well as Federal requirements 

under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, the Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and the 

Toxic Substances Control Act. So as you can see, the Federal Government is already actively involved. 

This week, the Groundwater Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission unveiled a landmark webbased national registry for the disclosure of chemical additives used 

in the fracking process. As alluded to by Chairman Boxer, this is 

important information. Energy companies now have a single source 

to publicly disclose these fluids on a well by well basis. So State 

regulators are already aware of what chemicals are being used and 

hydraulic fracturing has not been the culprit in water contamination. This registry is an important tool for the education of the public. 

However, I must say that I’m joined here at the table by my good 

friend Senator Casey, who I know is proposing legislation called 

the FRAC Act that would go beyond public disclosure of chemical 

additives and give the EPA direct regulatory authority over hydraulic fracturing for the first time in our Nation’s history. 

In my view, there is no need to destroy the current partnership 

between State and Federal regulators and put the EPA in the driver’s seat. We have seen the EPA through aggressive regulatory efforts engage in a lot of activity which, frankly, is harmful to our 

economy and we have seen what happens when over-regulation and 

misinformation becomes the common narrative. 

Additional layers of red tape, lawsuits and restrictions can create 

a death by a thousand cuts that run independent producers out of 

business and take with them valuable jobs, as well as local, State 

and Federal tax revenue. 

Without hydraulic fracturing, access to potentially massive natural gas resources in America’s shale regions would be substantially restricted. 

I thank very much the committee for having the hearing and 

thank you for having me come testify on a very, very important 

topic. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn follows:] 
12 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for having me testify on the 

topic of hydraulic fracturing, which is a critical technology for increasing domestic 

natural gas production. I am glad to have the opportunity to share my state’s perspective on this practice—which, I am proud to say, we helped develop, and is essential to the development of the three shale plays in my home state: the Barnett, the 

Haynesville, and the Eagle Ford. 

I’d like to focus on a few key points. (1) Texas and the United States have a bountiful supply of natural gas with significant, positive implications for our economy, 

and our future energy security. (2) States are effectively regulating hydraulic fracturing. (3) Federal regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would 

inevitably lead to duplicative regulation, bureaucratic delays, and diminish the production of this important energy resource. 

Over the past decade, the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has allowed access to large volumes of shale gas that were previously uneconomical to produce. Production of shale gas is expected to continue to increase, and 

constitute 45 percent of U.S. total natural gas supply in 2035, as projected in the 

2011 Annual Energy Outlook by the Energy Information Administration. 

In Texas, the oil and gas industry provides more than 1.7 million jobs and accounts for nearly 25 percent of the state’s economy. Over 11,000 gas wells have been 

completed in the Barnett Shale, one of the nation’s most active and largest unconventional natural gas fields. The Barnett Shale production currently contributes 

over 20 percent of total Texas natural gas production. 

In South Texas, the Eagle Ford Shale is also booming. According to a recent study 

by the University of Texas at San Antonio, the long-term regional implications of 

the boom are staggering. According to a study by the university: ‘‘Under modest assumptions, by 2020 the Eagle Ford shale is expected to account for close to $11.6 

billion in gross State product, $21.6 billion in total economic output impact and support close to 67,971 full-time jobs in the area.’’ 

The Haynesville Shale in East Texas and Louisiana was not commercially viable 

a few years ago, but is today thanks to technology. I recently visited a new drilling 

rig in Nacogdoches, Texas that represents the latest improvements in horizontal 

drilling—using more energy efficient engines, leading to shorter drilling times and 

reducing the impact on surrounding areas. The proliferation of these domestic resources has contributed to Texas’ ability to add jobs in the current economy. Yet the 

job creators and workers on the rig were anxious about Washington’s misguided 

policies. 

Hydraulic fracturing has been used safely in tens of thousands of wells across the 

state. The practice has been studied by the EPA, Groundwater Protection Council 

(GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). In each 

case, hydraulic fracturing was judged to be environmentally sound. 

At every step in the drilling process, energy producers are subject to State regulations as well as Federal requirements through the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, the Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and 

the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

This week, the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil 

and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), unveiled a landmark web-based national 

registry for the disclosure of the chemical additives used in the fracturing process. 

Energy companies now have a single source to publically disclose these fluids on a 

well-by-well basis. Though State regulators are already aware what chemicals are 

being used, and hydraulic fracturing has not been the culprit in water contamination, this registry is an important tool for the education of the public. 

However, legislation introduced by my friend, Senator Casey, known as the FRAC 

Act, would go beyond public disclosure of chemical additives and give the EPA direct 

regulatory authority over hydraulic fracturing for the first time in history. In my 

view, there is no need to destroy the current partnership between State and Federal 

regulators and put the EPA in the driver’s seat. Unfortunately, we’ve seen what 

over-regulation and misinformation can do to our energy supplies. 

Additional layers of Federal red tape, lawsuits, and restrictions can create ‘‘death 

by a thousand cuts’’ that run independent producers out of business—and take with 

them valuable jobs, as well as local, State and Federal tax revenue. Without hydraulic fracturing, access to potentially massive natural gas resources in America’s shale 

regions would be substantially restricted. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator Casey. 
13 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you for this hearing and Chairman Boxer, thank 

you as well for your testimony, and Ranking Member Inhofe, and 

now we are joined by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Barrasso. 

I do want to thank Senator Cornyn for his testimony. Let me 

first of all ask consent that I can place my whole statement in the 

Record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. I will be rather brief. 

I will start with history. In our State, we went through most of 

the 19th century and roughly about half of the 20th century not 

getting it right as it relates to the extraction of a natural resource, 

in this case coal, and balancing that with environmental regulations to make sure we were protecting public health and the environment. 

After 1950, we began to get it right in our State. Our State 

passed legislation like the Clean Streams Law in the early 1960’s. 

As time went on, we started to do a much better job of regulating 

and making sure that we are getting that balance right. 

Today, we have to get it right. We have to be able to at the same 

time create jobs, and there has been a tremendous increase in jobs 

in Pennsylvania as a result of natural gas extraction. We also have, 

of course, the availability of a domestically produced source of energy, and that is good news. We need to pursue that. 

But we have to balance those with the kind of protections for 

public health and safety, as well as making sure that groundwater 

and drinking water is protected. I will speak about my legislation 

in a moment, but it reached a point in our State where after all 

that history and all of that learning and experience, that our State 

constitution was amended in the early 1970s. It is a very simple 

statement, but it is an important statement I think for our Commonwealth and I think for our country. 

Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania constitution says the 

people shall have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the 

environment. It goes on to say that that obligation means that we 

hold the environment as trustees for future generations. 

That is the directive from our State’s constitution. It is not optional. It is not a maybe. It is not a hope you can do it. It is a directive, a constitutional directive. So I live in a State where that directive is very important to the Commonwealth and very important I 

think to people across the State. 

I think we can get this right. I don’t think there is any question 

about it. But unfortunately, now even though this process has been 

around a while, the hydraulic fracturing process, there is still a lot 

of questions about whether or not it will have some of the environmental impacts that some are concerned about. 

I don’t think it has to in any way slow things down. These questions are being raised in the State where over a four or 5-year period of time we were averaging only 17 wells drilled a month. Now, 

we are well are well above I think the last number I saw was 120 

wells a month are being drilled. So nothing has slowed down here. 
14 

There is tremendous growth of this industry and tremendous opportunity with it. But as we are doing that, we have to make sure 

that we get it right. 

Let me just highlight. I have three bills, one that deals with 

emergencies as well sites; one that deals with job training. I will 

skip over those. They will be in my testimony. 

But just on the hydraulic fracturing, the so-called FRAC Act. Basically, what we are trying to do is amend the Safe Drinking Water 

Act, in particular the definition of ‘‘underground injection’’ to include underground injection of fluids or propping agents used for 

hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil and gas production activities. It is very simple. We are trying to close the loophole that 

is in the law as it stands now. 

Second, it would require public disclosure of the chemical constituents, but not the proprietary information. Of course, if you 

analogize that to ingredients in something you would be making, 

baking a cake or something like that, we are not asking in this legislation that the proprietary information is made a part of public 

disclosure, but just the chemicals. 

The good news is here that we are getting a good bit of cooperation and help from the industry. Companies are disclosing. We will 

have some debates about the level and nature of disclosures, but 

I think the most difficult issue and the one that will cause the most 

conflict is the question of regulation. 

I am in favor of a national standard. Why should we have a set 

of tough environmental rules that protect drinking water and 

groundwater in one State, and have a State next door or across the 

country have a whole other set of rules. 

So I think we can get this right. I appreciate the opportunity to 

speak about this, and I am grateful to be joined by Senator Cornyn 

here at the table. I think we are both running out the door. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Casey follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Good morning. I want to thank the members of the committee and subcommittee 

for holding this morning’s hearing As you know, natural gas drilling is an issue of 

immediate national relevance and vital importance to my home state. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. 

I. NATURAL GAS, JOBS, AND ENERGY SECURITY

I support the responsible development of domestic natural gas resources and believe that it has the potential to produce significant environmental and economic 

benefits. Natural gas is playing an increasingly substantial role in our energy portfolio as we transition to a new energy future, and we are fortunate to have this domestic resource to help meet our growing demands. President Obama, in his speech 

introducing the ‘‘Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future,’’ noted that, ‘‘In terms of 

new sources of energy, we have a few different options. The first is natural gas.’’ 

While we must push harder for renewables such as wind and solar, all forms of 

power generation must remain under consideration. Natural gas offers enormous potential for our transportation and power needs. 

Technological advances are enabling amazingly high yields from previously inaccessible sources such as the Marcellus Shale. Hydraulic fracturing is an Americanborn technology prime for export, but importers may not embrace it until it is proven to be safe and sustainable. While hydraulic fracturing has been in use for over 

50 years, it is a markedly different technology from previous decades. It is now used 

in conjunction with horizontal drilling, in a much greater proportion of wells drilled, 

uses much larger total amounts of water and chemicals, and is rapidly expanding 

in geographic scope, most notably in the Marcellus Shale. 
15 

It is mind-boggling how deep and how far we are now able to accurately drill into 

targeted areas and extract out tiny pockets of gas trapped in hard rock. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is experiencing a natural gas boom. An average of 120 

wells per month were drilled in the Marcellus Shale in 2010, versus 17 a month 

in the preceding 4 years. Palpable optimism exists around the energy resource advantage that American natural gas reserves give us on a global scale. But it is incumbent on us to unequivocally ensure its practice as a safe, clean, and stable energy extraction method. 

II. HISTORY AND EXAMPLES

In the last 150 years, prospectors and energy companies have drilled as many as 

12 million holes across the United States in search of oil and gas. Edwin Drake 

drilled the Nation’s first commercial oil well near Titusville, PA, in 1859. People 

have since drilled wells as they pleased all across the country. Hundreds of thousands of these wells were abandoned and forgotten, often leaving no records of their 

existence. Some States did not develop modern regulations until the second half of 

the 20th century. In the early days, the industry was dominated by ‘‘wildcatters’’ 

looking to get rich quick. Some say that what is happening now is on par with a 

gold rush from back then. I don’t believe that the miners of yore, or present-day 

drillers, intentionally sought to do damage to the communities they left behind. But 

my State bares the burden of past mining and drilling practices that have left environmental impacts that we continue to face. Most of these were created in previous 

generations when Federal regulations that promoted responsible development did 

not exist. We have old natural gas wells that were not capped and leaked methane 

into homes. We have acid mine drainage that we spend millions of dollars every 

year to remediate. There are lessons in these examples from which we need to learn. 

For Pennsylvania and other States sitting on top of the Marcellus Shale formation, the rapid growth of gas drilling may increase the danger of oil, gas or brineladen water pathways up to groundwater supplies or to the surface. The protection 

of underground water sources is especially important to Pennsylvania because we 

have the second highest number of private drinking water wells in the Nation; 3 

million Pennsylvanians are dependent on private wells to provide safe drinking 

water to their homes. Every day I hear from Pennsylvanians who worry about their 

future access to safe drinking water and about explosions caused by gases migrating 

up from the deep. There continue to be incidents in Pennsylvania that could have, 

and should have, been averted. These cases raise the question of whether the necessary steps have been taken to protect families and communities against potential 

detrimental side effects of drilling. 

While these cases may be anomalies, they are highly visible calamities. As with 

other high-impact incidents, such as the Gulf oil tragedy, they can serve to stall, 

or even halt, development of domestic energy production. Their impacts stretch beyond tragic public health and environmental consequences to lost jobs and the economy. 

I commend my home State of Pennsylvania and the other States that have been 

taking steps to strengthen regulations and oversight of gas drilling with the goal 

of protecting the environment and public health. However, this is an industry without widely held and consistent best management practices, such as for controlling 

the quality of cementing and well casing. This has led to State-by-State variability 

in factors that are critical to ensuring the integrity of wells and protecting water 

resources. 

III. FRAC ACT, MARCELLUS ON-THE-JOB ACT, AND THE FASTER ACT

There is no reason that we should be forced to choose among adequate environmental protection, energy security, and economic gain. In addition to helping to secure an Environmental Protection Agency study on fracking, I introduced a trio of 

related Bills: 

• The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act would 

increase disclosure and regulation of chemicals that could enter Pennsylvania’s 

drinking water supply; 

• The Faster Action Safety Team Emergency Response (FASTER) Act would improve safety for workers and emergency response procedures at drilling sites; 

and 

• The Marcellus Shale On-the-Job Training Act would promote job training to 

help give Pennsylvania workers the skills needed to get jobs in the natural gas 

industry so that workers are not shipped in from out-of-state. 

If passed, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, 

S. 587, would, 
16 

• amend the Safe Drinking Water Act definition of ‘‘underground injection’’ to include the underground injection of fluids or propping agents used for hydraulic 

fracturing operations related to oil and gas production activities; • require public disclosure of the chemical constituents (but not the proprietary 

chemical formulas) used in the fracturing process to State agencies prior to 

fracking, as well as after completing fracking, which will then be made public 

via Website; and • require disclosure of a propriety formula to the State, EPA Administrator, or 

treating physicians or nurse in the case of a medical emergency. I view this as 

a simple matter of citizens having a right to know about any risks in their community. 

I have received questions as to how the FRAC Act would work. It is my understanding that the FRAC Act would add fracking back to EPA’s underground injection control program, from which hydraulic fracturing was exempted in 2005. Under 

the current underground injection control program, States can request primacy over 

the process. EPA would approve a State’s request for primacy if the State had adequate laws and regulations in place to protect the environment. When States have 

primacy, they are responsible for the permitting and enforcement process, but EPA 

could step in if a State is irresponsible in its implementation. 

I introduced S. 587, the FRAC Act, and its two corresponding bills on March 15, 

2011. The FRAC Act was referred to this committee. 

The Marcellus Shale On-the-Job Training Act, S. 588, is with the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. It would amend the Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998 to require the Secretary of Labor to make discretionary 

grants to local areas for adult on-the-job training or dislocated worker on-the-job 

training as worksites directly related to the exploration for, production of, and 

transportation of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation. 

The Faster Action Safety Team Emergency Response (FASTER) Act, S. 589, has 

been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

It would ensure that the citizens and environment are protected from any emergency situations that may arise. The FASTER Act of 2011 provides the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration with the ability to draft regulations that will enhance emergency response procedures at oil and gas wells. 

Specifically, the FASTER Act provides OSHA the power to draft regulations that 

will require operators to: • Have an employee, knowledgeable in responding to emergency situations, 

present at the well at all times during the exploration or drilling phase; • Make available a certified response team, within one hour of ground travel 

time, if an emergency situation arises; • Contact local first responders within 15 minutes of the commencement of an 

emergency situation; 

• Contact OSHA within 1 hour of the commencement of an emergency situation; 

• Contact the National Response Center within 1 hour of the commencement of 

an emergency situation; 

• Provide communication technology at the well site (e.g., mobile communication 

or satellite phone); 

• Provide annual training to local first responders on the hazards of a well site 

and proper emergency response techniques; and 

• File an annual report with OSHA that names the certified response team assigned to each well of the operator. 

• OSHA will have 18-months to finalize the regulations under this Act. The Act 

will allow OSHA to define the term ‘emergency situation.’ 

In closing, I support responsible gas exploration, yet I strongly feel that we must 

protect against repercussions that not only harm the environment and put people 

at risk, but also hurt business and affect the economy. Damaging incidents can 

spark strong backlashes and end up stalling economic development. We are fortunate to have an abundance of natural gas, but it must be developed in a manner 

that fully protects human health and the environment, while creating economic benefits. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify here today. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. Senator Casey, let me thank you very 

much for the contribution that you are making to this debate. I 

think your legislation is one we obviously want to consider very 

closely. 

Senator Cornyn, we thank you very much. Our objectives are the 

same. We know we have a large amount of natural gas and we 
17 

want to make sure that we can get that safely and use it for our 

energy security here in America. 

With that, the two of you are excused. Thank you very much. 

The first panel will consist of Hon. Robert Perciasepe, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Mr. Perciasepe, it is nice to have you back before the committee. 

You may proceed as you wish. Your entire statement will be made 

part of our record. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT PERCIASEPE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Madam Chair, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Inhofe, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am 

pleased to be here to discuss natural gas production and EPA’s role 

in ensuring that public health and the environment are protected. 

Let me begin my remarks by saying that natural gas is a very 

important fuel for our country. It can enhance our domestic energy 

options, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies, and serve as a 

bridge fuel to the future and to renewable energy sources. 

Produced responsibly, natural gas has the potential to improve 

air quality, stabilize energy prices, and provide greater certainty 

about the future energy reserves. 

As President Obama said in a recent town hall meeting, ‘‘Recent 

innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves of 

natural gas, perhaps a century’s worth, in the shale under our feet. 

Now we have to make sure we are doing it safely without polluting 

our water supplies.’’ 

In addition, the President has ordered EPA, the Department of 

Interior and the Department of Energy to work together with industry, the environmental community and States to come up with 

best practices for environment and safety. 

Making sure our water supply is safe is what I would like to talk 

about today. The Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water 

Act are the primary statutes we use to ensure that natural gas extraction through a process called hydraulic fracturing or fracking 

does not impair water quality. We believe natural gas can be and 

must be extracted responsibly in a way that secures its promise for 

the benefit of all. 

If improperly managed, hydraulic fracturing could potentially result in public health and environmental impacts at any time in the 

life cycle of the well and its associated operations. Such impacts to 

water could include stress on surface water and groundwater supplies, given the use of fresh water for these operations; potential 

contamination of drinking water aquifers, resulting from faulty 

well construction and completion; and compromised water quality 

due to the disposal of contaminated wastewater. These contaminants could include organic chemicals, metals, salts and radionuclides. 

Where we know problems exist, EPA will not hesitate to protect 

Americans’ whose health may be at risk. We remain committed to 

working with State officials who are on the front lines of permitting and regulating natural gas production activities. EPA will not 

only use the authority that Congress has given it, but we are also 
18 

leading on understanding the science behind potential drinking 

water contamination from fracking. 

As you know, EPA launched a study last year to understand the 

relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. When complete, this peer-reviewed research study will 

help us better understand the conditions that may be associated 

with the potential contamination of drinking water resources, as 

well as factors that may lead to human health exposure and risk. 

While we await the results of this study, we will also use our legal 

authorities where appropriate. 

While Congress specifically exempted selected oil and gas production activities from several environmental laws, a number of environmental protections continue to apply. For example, while the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 excluded hydraulic fracturing for oil and 

gas production from permitting under the State Drinking Water 

Act Underground Injection and Control Program, these activities 

are still regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act when diesel 

fuels are used as fracking fluids. Also flow-back and produced 

water through injection is still regulated under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. 

In addition to our authorities under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act, EPA regulates wastewater from oil and gas wells under the 

Clean Water Act when they are discharged into publicly owned 

treatment works and surface waters. Under both of these laws, 

States play a major, if not leading role in its implementation. For 

States with fully delegated programs, including many in the 

Marcellus Shale region, States have the responsibility in making 

sure the laws are followed. EPA provides guidance to the States on 

how to follow these rules and to make sure that they are addressing all the threats to public health. 

The issues surrounding natural gas extraction are lengthy and 

complicated. By helping manage environmental impacts and addressing public concerns, natural gas production can and will proceed in a responsible manner that protects public health and enhances our domestic energy options. 

I will be happy to take any questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Perciasepe, first of all, thank you very 

much for your testimony. I agree with the point that you make that 

there are significant environmental laws that give EPA authority 

to act in this area. 

I want to just start by I think there is general agreement in this 

committee and in Congress. We want to be able to tap into the natural gas reserves in this Nation. We believe that is an energy 

source that we have. We want to be able to obtain that energy 

source and we want to do it in a safe and environmentally sound 

manner. 

But as you point out, you have certain responsibilities under environmental laws that you are responsible to enforce. I listened to 

Senator Inhofe talk about how the fracking practice works so far 

underground, and we all understand that. You inject fluids that 

contain certain chemicals. Those fluids then are extracted, and 

when they are extracted they bring out not only the original fluids, 

but they bring out a whole host of potential pollutants that could 

be very damaging to public health. 

The question is: What then happens to that fluid that is removed 

during the fracking procedures? As I understand it, the best practice that many of the gas companies use is to recycle that fluid. 

That is fine. They recycle it. They take out the hard chemicals that 

they can, the pollutants, and dispose of them properly, and then we 

use the fluid in a way that is constructive to getting more natural 

gas. 

In some cases, they inject the fluids back into the earth in underground wells. That is also cases have been done in a very sound 

environmental way. But in some cases, they take it to the wastewater treatment facility plant that is close by, which to me presents significant problems. Let me just cite a letter that was sent 

by EPA, the Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin, to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, where the EPA 

said wastewater resulting from gas drilling operations contained 

material that may present a threat to human health and aquatic 

environments. Many of these substances are not completely removed by wastewater treatment facilities and their discharges may 

cause or contribute to impaired drinking water quality from downstream users or harm aquatic life. 

Well, it seems to me that you have the responsibility to make 

sure that the wastewater treatment facilities are in fact complying 

with the permit. If you believe there is a danger to the public 

health because of the inability to remove certain pollutants, you 

need to take action. My question is: Has the EPA taken action? If 

not, why not? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you for that question. There are a number of factors that would be involved with how we would take action when these fluids are used in a publicly owned treatment 

works, to do that as a general statement. There needs to be caretaken that the pollutants won’t go through the sewage treatment 

plant or that they won’t disrupt the sewage treatment plant’s operation. 

In the case that you cited in Pennsylvania, the Regional Administrator has been working with the State. We have issued in the 

past information collection requests so that we could understand 
42 

what was going on to those different sewage treatment plants. In 

many cases, those sewage treatment plants have stopped taking 

some of those fracking fluids and produce water. 

So we are in the process of working with Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has responded to that letter that the Regional Administrator 

sent, and we feel like we are making good progress there. 

Senator CARDIN. We appreciate that. Some of us think this is a 

pretty clear issue and that there needs to be pretty definitive action by EPA so that we can avoid this public health risk. 

There are other areas that you could be enforcing the environmental laws. As you know, there is no exemption if diesel is used 

in the fracking process. Yet I am not aware of any enforcement actions taken by EPA in that regard. Am I wrong? Have there been 

enforcement actions taken against fracking privileges that endanger our environment? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We have taken enforcement actions through 

issuing orders where we think there is an imminent and substantial endangerment. But in terms of enforcement where there may 

be diesel fuel being used for fracking, we are in the process of collecting information on that. We have information from Congress, as 

well as our own information collection we have been doing. That is 

in the process of going through enforcement procedures. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me yield to Senator Inhofe. I might have 

some questions after my colleagues have completed. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In response to Senator Casey and his FRAC Act, I do want to 

point out that there are other points of view within Pennsylvania 

regarding the need for Federal intervention in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing. 

First of all, to submit testimony for the record from Michael 

Krancer, who is the Secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection. Senator Casey may not realize it, but according to Secretary Krancer, Pennsylvania already requires the 

disclosure of frack fluids. As he pointed out, ‘‘The State DEP’s new 

regulations require operators to disclose the chemical additives and 

the hazardous constituents of those additives on a well by well 

basis.’’ This is the DEQ from the State of Pennsylvania. 

He went on to say, ‘‘Simply put, because of a long history of oil 

and gas development and comprehensive regulatory structure, 

Pennsylvania does not need Federal intervention to ensure an appropriate balance between resource development and environmental protection.’’ 

I would also like to highlight and submit for the record two studies from Penn State University examining the economic impacts of 

the current activity in Pennsylvania’s portion of the Marcellus. The 

studies found that Marcellus activity, ‘‘generated $3.9 billion in 

value-added; $389 million in State and local tax revenues and more 

than 44,000 jobs. By 2020, employment would expand by 200,000 

jobs and annual gains in State and local revenues would exceed $1 

billion.’’ 

Additionally, Penn State University also concluded that Federal 

regulation, just like Senator Casey’s FRAC Act, was a serious 

threat to Marcellus development: ‘‘Proposals to regulate hydraulic 

fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act pose yet another se-
43 

rious threat to the development of the Marcellus Shale and other 

unconventional gas sources.’’ 

I would like to submit testimony also from Mike Paque who is 

from the Groundwater Protection Council. That is a national association of State groundwater and underground injection control 

agencies whose mission is to promote the protection and conservation of groundwater. That is what they do for a living. 

Their testimony describes the new frack-focused registry which 

went active just yesterday. Frack Focus provides for a detailed and 

thorough disclosure of all frack fluid constituents on a well by well 

basis, and even though participation at this time is voluntary, he 

points out, ‘‘within the first 8 hours of going live, Fracfocus.org had 

24 oil and gas companies signed on to use it and nine already 

uploading fracturing data on 309 wells.’’ 

A quick glance at the list of participating companies revealed 

that the largest companies, really the largest companies and small 

companies, are clamoring for this opportunity and they are participating. 

Now, clearly the States are running successful regulatory programs. We are going to hear from some of them today and I would 

hope, Director Perciasepe, that you would be able to stick around 

and listen to some of their testimony. 

On the Federal level, of course, EPA is doing a study on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing. I also understand that President 

Obama has asked the Department of Energy’s Advisory Board to 

look into fracking. On top of that, the White House Council of Environmental Quality has been petitioned to study any cumulative impacts. 

I would say, Mr. Perciasepe, to help me understand these various 

studies and particularly how they all fit together, it would be helpful if you could commit to brief my staff on the efforts on maybe 

a quarterly basis. You have always been willing to do that in the 

past, and I am sure you would do that. That way, we can properly 

see what this oversight is doing. 

Now, just one thing. I was going to hold this up, by the way, and 

I am sorry I didn’t. This is the Marcellus Shale. This is what we 

are talking about. This is how they have to get the gas out of this 

type of formation and the only way they can do it is fracking. 

So I would say that States are different. In my State of Oklahoma, the Anadarko Shale, we are talking about 30,000 feet. Go 

just north in Kansas, their shale is between 3,000 to 4,000 feet. 

Louisiana is something like three miles deep; Pennsylvania, two 

miles deep. So it is different. 

That is why the one-size-fits-all just doesn’t really work in this 

case. So the question I would ask you is, are they not doing a good 

job in the States? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. There are many States taking leadership on 

this issue and they obviously, as I mention in my oral testimony, 

are on the front lines on the Safe Drinking Water Act and the 

Clean Water Act where they have authority. But let me just go 

back to the Pennsylvania example for just a minute that you started with, Senator. 

When the fracking fluids and the produced water were being 

brought to the publicly owned treatment works, the responsibility 
44 

for the discharge permit of that sewage treatment plant is the 

State’s, and the State’s discharge permit did not contain limits on 

some of the material that were in the fluids that were going to the 

sewage treatment plant. It is that kind of back and forth of oversight between EPA and the State that I think is important to make 

sure that we have a level playing field. 

But you are correct, there is no one-size-fits-all here. The geology 

in all of these different shale formations around the country is different. There are different depths. There are different layers above 

them in the sedimentary rock levels. So we have to be able to look 

at those things in that way. 

So our primary role here is oversight of State programs where 

they are running the programs, providing guidance where we can, 

and where we see some imminent endangerment, we may take our 

own action on that. 

Senator INHOFE. My time is expired, but I would only say that 

once you start from the Federal level, it grows. That is my concern. 

I say to my friend Senator Boozman, he wasn’t here during my 

opening statement, I listed a lot of the States, including your State 

of Arkansas, that has a lot of these reserves, and I am just really 

concerned over the over-regulation, but we will hear that from 

some of the State people in the next panel. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. I hear what my colleague is saying about 

his preference for State regulation. I would cite an example, 

though, of New York just shutting it down for the moment because 

they are concerned. I think since Senator Casey’s name was mentioned by my colleague, he wasn’t here to explain what he meant, 

but what I heard him say is that his State constitution calls for defending the quality or more. They make it a right there to clean 

water and clean air. So if the State next door doesn’t have the 

same type of laws, what happens is that his State could be impacted. 

I don’t have a particular position on where we go from here except that I think we need to have the facts. I think that is the 

point, and I want to ask you about this. 

Will EPA’s study look broadly at all potential impacts to drinking 

water, including impacts from wastewater that is producing during 

the hydraulic fracturing process, in your studies? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Senator, we are characterizing both the 

fracking fluids. We have gotten information from the companies. 

We are also going to be characterizing the produced water because 

the fracking fluids don’t, for instance, contain radionuclides. These 

are naturally occurring in some of the rock formations, but they 

come out with some of the produced water. 

Senator BOXER. So the answer is yes, you are looking at this? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Can you assure us that EPA will use an 

independent, comprehensive and scientific process to provide an accurate and unbiased assessment which will help us make sure 

drilling is done safely and responsibly and protect the public 

health? 
45 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. Not only will the study plan be peer-reviewed before we even start the study, but the actual results of the 

study will be peer-reviewed as well. 

Senator BOXER. I want to ask a question about diesel fuel here. 

On January 31, a number of Representatives in the House sent Administrator Jackson a letter providing the results of an investigation which found that diesel fuel continues to be used in hydraulic 

fracturing. First of all, to your knowledge, is that true? 

As you know, the Safe Drinking Water Act exemption for hydraulic fracturing specifically does not include the use of diesel fuel, so 

you still have the ability to regulate that, is my understanding. 

In 2003, EPA signed an MOU with major drilling service companies to eliminate the use of diesel in hydraulic fracturing operations. Will you provide us with an update on what efforts EPA has 

taken to protect public health from the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The MOU or MOA, I think it was, with the 

companies that was developed was for hydraulic fracking in coalbed methane production, not in the shale production. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. So that is where there was a concern because 

many of those formations are at a shallower depth. 

We are in the process of confirming and reviewing the information that we received from Congress. We have our own information 

requests out to the companies and we are looking at that as well. 

Senator BOXER. OK. As a lot of us have mentioned, millions of 

gallons of wastewater produced during the hydraulic fracturing 

process can contain radioactive elements, corrosive salts, carcinogens. These reports indicate wastewater is being sent to municipal 

wastewater treatment plants that may not be equipped to treat 

this waste, which could result in a discharge of harmful toxins to 

local waterways. 

What authorities does EPA now have to address the treatment 

of wastewater from natural gas drilling operations? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. There are several steps that have to be taken 

in terms of the use of a publicly owned treatment works for disposal of the fluids. The first are that limits have to be placed on 

the permit for the sewage treatment plant. Now, if the State is the 

agency that is running the NPDES pollution program in that State, 

then they need to put those limits on those plants. If the State is 

operating the pre-treatment program, which would be how you 

treat these fluids before they go into the sewage treatment plant, 

they would be required to do that. 

EPA is looking into guidance on what pre-treatment might be 

useful for those kinds of waste, but the first step would be obviously making sure we have the right limits on every plant that is 

going to be receiving those wastes. That is part of our oversight responsibility. 

Senator BOXER. So you do have that oversight responsibility 

right now? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Are you working with municipal wastewater 

treatment plants that accept hydraulic fracturing waste to ensure 
46 

that adequate treatment is occurring? Are you working with the 

plants themselves at this time? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Where the States are the permitting authority, 

we are working with the States, like we are doing in Pennsylvania. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, I will submit the rest of my questions 

for the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank you 

and the Ranking Member for having this hearing. It is very, very 

important. It is very important to my State and really just in the 

Nation in general in the sense that we certainly need the resources 

that it engenders. 

Now, currently as it stands, the gas and oil industry is regulated 

by the States as far as these type of things? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The States have been delegated the authority 

under the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. They 

are the ones that have primacy or the delegated authority. EPA 

provides oversight of those States. I just went through an example 

of what that oversight might look like in a particular place. So that 

is in my written testimony also, Senator, the detail of all those 

interactions. 

But it is like almost all the other pollution laws that we have, 

an interaction between the States and the Federal Government 

with the Federal Government providing oversight and delegation of 

authority. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Well, I think it is important as we have new 

technology, and certainly this is a new technology that hasn’t been 

around very long and is a very effective technology, that we understand potential risks and deal with them, and deal with them in 

a sound way. 

I guess my feeling is that the Agency has the responsibility of 

providing good science to help the States in making their decisions. 

But I feel very strongly that it does need to remain at the State 

level. In the past, the oil industry has worked fairly well in doing 

that. I think that there is a good record. So again, I would be inclined to continue as we are now, again with the EPA providing 

sound science. 

When you do the studies and things, how do you make it such 

that there is an apartness? Will you be the ones that are selecting 

the people that do the study and the peer-review board? I guess 

what I am trying to see is what separation there is in that regard. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We have a Science Advisory Board that EPA 

uses for many of its peer-review, not all, but many of its peer-review—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. The Science Advisory Board, is that appointed 

by the EPA? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. It is an independent Federal advisory committee and it provides advice to the Administrator on science matters that we present to it. They can set up special panels if they 

need the expertise to look at a particular subject. They operate in 
47 

many ways similar to the way the National Academy of Sciences 

would set up a panel to look at a particular matter, of scientists 

in that field. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Few things in life are more essential than the water we drink, 

and government has few responsibilities as critical as protecting 

our country’s water supply. I am going to use these couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman, to make my statement. 

But communities across the country are reporting serious contamination of their water supplies from a drilling process that we 

are now looking at, fracking. And the Environmental Protection 

Agency, as we have discussed here and widely know, has been powerless to protect these communities because a Republican Congress 

at Vice President Cheney’s behest, prohibited EPA from setting 

standards. 

This so-called Halliburton loophole eliminates the Federal oversight that we would like to see of companies that inject chemicals 

into the ground in order to get to the hard to reach natural gas. 

Some States, which we have heard, have adopted strong laws to restrict fracking, reducing the risk to their residents. 

But let’s face it: water doesn’t recognize State boundaries, and 

you may live in a State that has strong laws, but if the State next 

door doesn’t, your water and your families could still be at risk. 

The risk to humans isn’t limited to those who live near the drilling 

sites, and during the fracking process, the wastewater that flows 

to the surface can also be highly contaminated. 

A recent New York Times investigation revealed that this wastewater can end up in rivers and streams, and even if it is taken to 

a wastewater treatment plant, the water often contains radioactive 

and toxic materials that the treatment facilities cannot remove. 

We don’t want to make any mistakes in our representation here. 

Natural gas has its advantages and it is critical for our energy 

needs. Natural gas is cheaper, cleaner than coal or oil, and an important domestic energy source for our country. 

But nothing, nothing is more important than the health of our 

children and risking their health is an unacceptable price under 

any condition. We simply can’t allow their drinking water or our 

rivers and streams to be contaminated by natural gas drilling. We 

need the cleaner fuels to replace dirty coal and oil, but we can’t 

allow the cure to be worse than the disease. 

That is why I have joined with Senator Casey and others on this 

committee to introduce a bill to close the Halliburton loophole and 

restore EPA’s ability to regulate fracking. Our bill would also require companies to disclose the chemicals they use in the process. 

Now, 25 years ago, I authored the right-to-know law on toxic 

chemical releases in the air to make sure that people know about 

potential hazardous substances in their communities. Parents have 

a right to know what is in the fracking fluid that can contaminate 

the water their children drink, and more information on contami-
48 

nants, which we are happy to see EPA undertaking, will empower 

citizens and help the government to make better decisions on pollutants in the water supply. We need the natural gas, but we also 

need clean water. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we 

can work together to ensure natural gas is done as safely as possible. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Now, I want to ask you, Mr. Perciasepe, 

a question about our air in New Jersey is already dirty by coalfired powerplants to the west of us, and now there are unprecedented numbers of hydraulic fracturing wells in Pennsylvania and 

other nearby States. What can we expect with air pollution coming 

into New Jersey from these activities? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The air emissions from oil and gas activities 

would be regulated under the Clean Air Act, depending on the size 

and the type of emission that it is. There have been problems with 

some areas of the country where some of the emissions from all the 

activities going on related to natural gas extraction that it has created an increase in emissions of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides which has contributed to ozone. So it is certainly 

something that would have to be carefully looked at, and there is 

authority under the Clean Air Act to do that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So that is the conclusion that you come to 

at EPA, when will we be able to find out what is happening and 

what we can do to prevent it from coming all over New Jersey? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, the Clean Air Act requires technology to 

be used, and this is a process that EPA is continually looking at 

in terms of how it goes about working with the States and with the 

industry directly on those standards that would be used. 

One of the things that I mentioned in my opening comments was 

the President has asked the Department of Energy; the Department of Interior, who has responsibilities on public land, and EPA, 

who has all the regulatory oversight responsibilities, to work together with industry to find the best practices. 

Certainly, one of the things we want to make sure we are looking 

at is, what is the best practice to be used to minimize the air impacts of the actual practice of gas extraction. On the other side of 

the coin is the big advantage to air pollution of using natural gas 

for energy production in the United States. 

So we have to be able to make sure that we balance that out 

properly in the long-term air quality plans for the country. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Udall? 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding this hearing. 

I would ask unanimous consent to put my opening statement in 

the record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, the statement will be included. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Mr. Perciasepe, in 2005, the Energy 

Policy Act included an exemption for hydraulic fracturing from underground injection control permits under the Safe Water Drinking 

Act. However, there was also an exemption from the exemption, as 

you are well aware, for the hydraulic fracturing with diesel fuel, 
49 

meaning that if you injected hydraulic fracturing fluid with diesel 

in it, the statutory exemption did not apply. 

Recently, a House Committee report found that millions of gallons of diesel had been injected since 2005, including hundreds of 

thousands of gallons in New Mexico. What is EPA’s position on 

this? Do you need a Federal permit to inject diesel fuel underground in a hydraulic fracturing operation? If not, please explain 

the court rulings, LEAF v. EPA, that came out in 1997, and the 

2005 exemption for diesel. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuel for the 

fluid is subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. 

Senator UDALL. That is under the court ruling, correct? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it is the plain reading of the law, the 2005 

law that you just referred to. We have the information that we received from the Congress and we also are in the process of gathering our own information as we are going through our analysis. 

So we are looking into this issue of diesel use and we will be following up on it soon. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, but my very specific question here, in a 

sense it is a legal question, do you need a permit to inject diesel 

fuel? What is the EPA’s position on that specific question? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, where a State has primacy, and I actually 

have a letter. The State of Texas Railroad Commission that Senator Inhofe mentioned earlier, has actually issued a letter inside 

the State of Texas saying that they can’t use diesel fuel without 

getting a permit from them. 

Senator UDALL. Well, that is the Texas situation. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it is the same law for the whole country. 

Senator UDALL. If States aren’t doing what Texas is doing, then 

are you requiring a permit? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, that is what we are trying to find out and 

try to gather the information on where diesel fluids maybe being 

used. We have the information that was given to us. We are also 

getting information from the companies now. 

Senator UDALL. So the answer to the legal question, do you need 

a permit to inject diesel fuel, you are not giving an answer to that 

today. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, I just said it is subject to the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. 

Senator UDALL. But if the State isn’t requiring a permit, are you 

requiring a permit on folks? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, we have to find out where, and that is our 

investigation that is going on now. Where are these fluids being 

used? We have to know where it is being used to require the permit. 

Senator UDALL. OK. Let me go on to something else. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Let me be clear. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Using diesel fluids for hydraulic fracturing in 

shale is subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act. It would be required to get a permit. 

Senator CARDIN. Will the gentleman yield for one moment so I 

can get the facts straight on this one issue? 

Senator UDALL. You are taking the Chairman’s time. 
50 

Senator CARDIN. I will give you an extra minute. 

Senator UDALL. OK. 

Senator CARDIN. According to our information, I think there is 

somewhere around 19 States that are using diesel as part of their 

injection process, and that between 2005 and 2009, there were 32 

million gallons of injection fluids used that contained diesel. I 

would appreciate it if you could verify that for us. I think Senator 

Udall’s point that it appears that permits are needed and we 

haven’t seen any enforcement of this by EPA. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding, but I want to make sure we 

get the right numbers. You mentioned hundreds of thousands. We 

have 32 million gallons that were used that included diesel. 

Senator UDALL. Maybe asking it another way. If they didn’t get 

a permit, they were in violation of the law. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. OK, good. Now moving on here, in the Marcellus 

Shale, much of the produced water is not disposed of by injection 

wells, as you are aware, but rather is transported to wastewater 

treatment plants, many of them municipal, and then treated and 

discharged into waterways. 

Here I am trying to get at best practices. Is this better or worse 

than disposing the produced water in underground injection? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. An underground injection well for disposal is 

going to be permitted to deal with those issues. The problem we 

have in many places, although I don’t want to say this is everywhere, is that the discharge limits on the actual sewage treatment 

plant, the limits it has for discharge into the water that it is permitted to discharge into, may not have the limits on it for the 

chemical constituents that might be in the fluids that are going 

into the plant to be treated. So there would be no way to know if 

it is meeting those limits before it is discharged to the water. 

Now, I am not saying that is the case everyplace, but many publicly owned sewage treatment plants have not put limits on their 

discharge to deal with the constituents of the fracking fluids or of 

the produced water. That is the issue we are working on in Pennsylvania, for instance. 

Senator UDALL. So you are seeing that as a problem, it sounds 

like. If they don’t adjust their wastewater treatment plants to deal 

with what is coming in, which isn’t like municipal sewage, it is 

much different in terms of the constituents, that that could be a 

real problem and you are trying to get on top of that. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Either putting limits on the plant then figuring 

out how the plant handles it, or treating the fluids before it is 

brought to the plant so that it can be compatible with the plant. 

Those are the two approaches you can take with a sewage treatment plant. 

Whereas a permitted class II, I think that is right, class II underground injection control well would actually be permitted to 

deal with those issues. 

Senator UDALL. But today, we have them just loading this produced water in trucks and driving it over to the wastewater treatment plant and then dumping it in the wastewater treatment 

plant. Are you aware that they are pre-treating it? 
51 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. A number of those instances where we have 

learned about this are ones that we are working directly with the 

States or gathering information under our enforcement authority 

under the Clean Water Act. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. Thank you for your service there at EPA. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I wanted to ask you about the article that the Cornell University 

researchers came out with recently that tried to look at the impact 

of fracking on fugitive methane, methane being a very potent global warming gas, far worse than carbon dioxide. Their initial finding 

was that natural gas is worse than coal in terms of its greenhouse 

gas footprint over a 20-year period, roughly equal to coal over a 

100-year footprint, which is a real surprise to many of us. 

Is this an issue that the EPA is analyzing and looking at? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We have had a voluntary program working with 

companies to tighten up their system, to reduce fugitive emissions 

of methane, which is a natural gas. However, this study, which I 

don’t think has actually been published yet, although obviously it 

has been discussed in the newspapers and the basic outlines of it 

are available there, is an important piece of information that we 

need to bring into the discussion. 

If it indeed is from leakage out of the system, these are generally 

problems that can be addressed through proper controls or through 

collection controls at the wellhead. So I think it needs to be taken 

into account. 

The other issue I mentioned earlier on clean air, the same kinds 

of techniques that reduce the emissions for regular criteria pollutants would also reduce the emissions of methane. This is something that is going to have to be looked at over the long haul here. 

We are going to have to make sure that fugitive emissions can be 

reduced. 

Senator MERKLEY. So my understanding is that a lot of these 

emissions are the result of actually the fracking fluid carrying the 

methane to the surface and if it goes into a pone of anywhere else, 

that methane then gases into the atmosphere. So if it is contained 

in the fluid, what strategies are there that could address this? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. There are technologies that can be used when 

the fluids come to the surface. 

Senator MERKLEY. That is what I am asking. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. There are technologies. 

Senator MERKLEY. No, I am asking what technologies. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I am not familiar with the details. They are 

both tightening of the system, but also collected and stripped or 

some other. I am not 100 percent certain on the technology. We 

have been working with companies in a voluntary program to do 

some of these, and I think I can followup with you, if it is OK, with 

giving you more specifics on what technologies have been tried and 

used. We would be very interested in sharing that with the committee, and obviously it is something that if this study, after we review it, adds to this discussion, we are going to definitely want to 

be looking as a country at reducing the emissions from facilities. 
52 

But in addition, we want to be looking at reducing the emissions 

of the criteria pollutants that are causing ozone and other problems 

as well. So all that can be done together in a common sense kind 

of way. 

Senator MERKLEY. Are you familiar with the documentary 

Gasland? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I am generally familiar with it, yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. That was quite a dramatic demonstration. I 

haven’t seen it. I just read the description of it. So the filmmaker 

runs his kitchen faucet and then holds a cigarette lighter up next 

to it and a ball of fire erupts because there is so much gas that 

it has entered into the water supply from fracking in the area. So 

this is obviously a pretty dramatic demonstration of the concern 

people have about their water supply. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, and we definitely have examples, and you 

have seen some, of where the drinking water supplies have been 

contaminated with methane itself. In those cases where we learn 

of this, EPA is taking enforcement actions to correct those problems or deal with those problems. 

As Senator Inhofe showed earlier in his chart, which showed the 

shale layers being very deep, but the actual well has to go through 

drinking water. So if it is not properly constructed, it is conceivable 

and possible, and we have examples where we have seen methane 

contamination. How that has happened is what is the subject of 

some of our analysis. 

Senator MERKLEY. So in that area, despite the Halliburton loophole, you feel like you have enforcement powers? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. When there is endangerment, we have enforcement powers under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Perciasepe, again thank you for your testimony. 

Let me just point out that EPA has authority here to act in certain areas. Obviously, we think it is not adequate, then we will 

look at taking action, and Senator Casey has introduced legislation. 

But it seems to me that it is pretty clear as it relates to the wastewater treatment facility issues on the fluids that are returned to 

the surface. 

It is my understanding there are still seven wastewater treatment facility plants taking today the fluids coming out of fracking. 

With your own agency already acknowledging that it presents a 

threat to human health, I would hope that would be at the highest 

priority as you look at the appropriate role for the EPA. 

I think Senator Udall’s point concerning the diesel issues is one 

also that requires EPA to take more definitive action. Senator 

Merkley has raised a very important issue also. 

So I hope that you will respond to the urgency of some of these 

issues. As you have already pointed out, you have the authority. It 

is now your responsibility to take action. 

Is there any Member seeking a second round? 

Senator Inhofe, are you OK? 

Senator Merkley? 

Yes, sir. 
53 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I just want to confirm what you just said, Senator, that EPA is acting on all these fronts. We are taking action 

where there is imminent endangerment, as we just discussed. I 

think if you look and step back for a minute that the dynamic between the States and the Federal Government and how we have 

shared our authorities under these laws for many years. Certainly, 

EPA’s responsibility in oversight is one that we are very much 

pushing forward on in a very strong and strenuous way. 

If I step back to my opening comment and just simply say that 

providing a framework that provides public confidence in what we 

are doing here, because of the great need the country has to develop these resources for our energy needs. What we also need to 

do at the same time is get together and make sure we are trying 

to provide the confidence the public needs to allow this to happen, 

and you won’t see in the long haul these situations where there is 

an unknown or there is uncertainty or that States like New York, 

for instance, have to stop all activity because they are just trying 

to find out what is going on. 

So we need to be looking at it from that perspective on a national 

level. How do we create that public confidence to move forward in 

the ways we need to move forward? 

So I appreciate the chance to share some of these thoughts with 

the committee. 

Senator CARDIN. We fully agree and want to work with you closely. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and a host of other groups 

have petitioned the Obama administration to conduct a programmatic environmental impact statement to help understand the 

impact of all of the wells being currently operated. 

Without objection, I will include in the record the copy of their 

petition. 

[The referenced document was not received at time of print.] 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. We will now turn to our second panel, which 

consists of Dr. Bob Summers, the acting secretary of the Maryland 

Department of the Environment; Dr. Dan Volz, the director of the 

Center for Healthy Environments and Communities; Mr. Jack 

Ubinger, senior vice president, Pennsylvania Environmental Council; Jeff Cloud, the vice chairman of the Oklahoma Corporation 

Commission; and David Neslin, the director of the Colorado Oil and 

Gas Conservation Commission. 

We will start with Dr. Summers. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SUMMERS, ACTING SECRETARY OF 

THE ENVIRONMENT, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

Mr. SUMMERS. Thank you. 

Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Inhofe, honorable Members 

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share Maryland’s experience and concerns with hydraulic fracturing in the 

Marcellus Shale. I am Bob Summers, acting secretary, Maryland’s 

Department of the Environment. 

The Marcellus Shale formation underlies Garrett County and 

part of Allegany County in Maryland in the far western part of our 
54 

State. In these two counties, gas companies have leased the gas 

rights on more than 100,000 acres. 

We are just beginning to enter into this. We currently have applications from two companies for a total of five wells. We are very 

mindful of the tremendous benefits that could accrue tot he environment and the economy by exploring and exploiting these gas reserves, but we are equally alert to the risks of adverse public 

health and environmental effects. 

Our paramount concern is protecting public health, the environment, and our ground and surface water quality. We are proceeding cautiously and deliberately and do not intend to allow drilling and fracking in the Marcellus Shale in Maryland until these 

issues are resolved to our satisfaction. 

There are numerous issues. We have heard a lot about those already. Some of the things we are particularly concerned about are 

the adequacy and sustainability of surface water and groundwater 

in the region to supply fracking; minimum requirements for constructing casing and cementing wells; minimum requirements for 

the integrity testing of those wells; requirements for installing and 

testing blowout prevention equipment; the potential for gas migration up from the well, including migration that can be induced from 

some of those layers that the well goes through versus failure of 

the well itself; toxicity in transport of fracking fluids; proper handling and disposal of naturally occurring radioactive materials, and 

many other aspects of this complex operation that need to be controlled. 

In Maryland, we are moving forward. We anticipate to take it in 

two stages in doing this. First, over the next year, we are surveying 

existing practices and selecting best practices for drilling and 

fracking of wells. These will cover all aspects of safe preparation 

and design, delivery and management materials, drilling casings, 

cementing, fracking and waste disposal. 

After we develop this interim we will call it gold standard, we 

will consider issuing permits for a small number of exploratory 

wells to be drilling and fracked in Maryland and we will carefully 

monitor these to provide more detailed information that we can use 

in order to take the second step in our process, using the data from 

the exploratory wells, along with the results of other research we 

are gathering from the surrounding States and other areas. 

If we determine that gas production can be accomplished without 

unreasonable risks to human health and the environment, the Department could then make decisions on applications for production 

wells. Permit conditions will reflect all of these best practices and 

avoid public health and environmental harm. 

We need the Federal Government to take a more active role in 

studying and regulating activities such as deep drilling, horizontal 

drilling, hydraulic fracking and waste disposal. While we believe 

States should retain the responsibility and should be able to enact 

more stringent requirements if they desire, the Federal regulatory 

floor will ensure at least basic protection of public health. 

We believe that Federal technical support and oversight such as 

occurs now with the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act 

are particularly important to protect our interstate waters such as 

the Susquehanna River, the Potomac River, Chesapeake Bay, 
55 

which are all critical resources. In fact, today we have right here 

probably Potomac River water which also needs to be protected for 

the citizens in this area. 

We commend Congress for directing U.S. EPA to conduct this research. The States need the Federal Government to lead and lend 

resources to help us in this effort. We support the legislation that 

we have just heard discussed today to allow regulation under the 

Federal law, under the Safe Drinking Water Act and to require disclosure. 

So thank you for taking the initiative to inquire into this important issue and for providing this opportunity. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Summers follows:] 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Dr. Summers. 

Now, I will turn to Dr. Volz. 

STATEMENT OF CONRAD DANIEL VOLZ, DIRECTOR, CENTER 

FOR HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS AND COMMUNITIES 

Mr. VOLZ. Thank you all for the opportunity to testify this morning at this joint hearing on public health and environmental impacts. I believe that unconventional gas extraction in deep shale 

deposits presents considerable risks to public health and safety, as 

well as to environmental resources, particularly water quality and 

aquatic organisms. 

My testimony today is going to cover three critical public health 

and environmental policy areas related to unconventional natural 

gas production. No. 1, it is largely unregulated siting of these wells, 

patterns of violations from Marcellus Shale wells that show impacts on water resources, and finally I think a very important issue 

that has been brought up a couple times, the toxic substances that 

are entering surface water sources from disposal of flow-back waters through brine treatment and sewage treatment plants. 

First of all, I am going to talk about the unregulated siting of 

natural gas wells in areas of high population density, which also 

occurs near schools, critical infrastructure. This is shown in slide 

three of my presentation that I gave to the committees today. Unconventional gas extraction wells are highly industrialized operations that bear little resemblance to what we know in Northeastern United States of conventional oil and gas exploration. 

These wells are highly, as I said, highly industrialized and there 

can be risks of catastrophic blowout, explosion, and/or fire. Any of 

these can create an immediately dangerous to life and health situation. 

The unregulated siting of unconventional natural gas wells and 

production facilities in residential neighborhoods and near critical 

infrastructure is very unwise public health preparedness policy, especially in light of the tens of billions of dollars that we are spending at Federal and State level to reduce risk from terror attacks 

on USA citizens and damage to critical infrastructure. 

Second, the higher rates and differential patterns of Oil and Gas 

Act violations, and they are listed on slide four of my presentation, 

are very different as compared to conventional oil and gas wells, 

and suggest a much greater impact to drinking water and aquatic 

resources. 

We have done a study at my outfit that shows that Marcellus 

wells have about a 1.5 to four times, depending on the denominator 

you use, more violations than conventional oil and gas wells per offending well, and that those violations are more serious and that 

the violations have a more direct impact on water quality, things 

like failures to minimize accelerated erosion, implement erosion 

and sedimentation plans, discharge of pollution to the waters of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, many general violations of the 

Clean Streams law, failure to properly store, transport, process or 

dispose of residual wastes, and failures to adequately construct or 

maintain these impoundments that hold actually toxic flow-back 

water. 
61 

The third problem and a problem that my group has been looking 

at, both sewage treatment plants and brine treatment plants, we 

have been looking at the disposal of flow-back fluids through these 

plants. We sampled a brine treatment facility in Indiana County, 

PA called Pennsylvania Brine Treatment, Josephine Facility, and 

we found that coming out of the effluent pipe of that plant was discharge of nine pollutants, essentially all in excess of nationally recognized human and/or aquatic health standards into the nearby 

Blacklick Creek. 

These contaminants included barium, and what was coming out 

in the effluent was eight times the minimum risk level in drinking 

water for children and 27 times the EPA consumption concentration for fish and fish-plus-water. Strontium was found. Bromide 

was coming out in the effluent water and its level was almost 

10,000 times the level that the water treatment facilities like to see 

in background water of 100 parts per billion. Benzene was found 

coming out at two times the drinking water standard and six times 

its EPA consumption criteria and 1.5 times the drinking water 

minimum risk level for children. 

Last, we found butoxyethanol coming out of the effluent pipe. 

This is a glycol ether that is used in Marcellus Shale gas extraction. We found it coming out at between 24 to 55 times the derived 

drinking water minimum risk level for intermediate exposure for 

men, women and children. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Volz follows:] 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Ubinger. 

STATEMENT OF JACK UBINGER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL 

Mr. UBINGER. Thank you, Chairwoman Boxer, Chairman Cardin, 

Ranking Member Inhofe and Ranking Member Sessions for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council concerning our work relating to shale gas development in Pennsylvania. 

It goes without saying, and a number of the Members have already spoken to this, that there are enormous economic and strategic energy implications to the development of the shale gas resource. But as you have all been quick to add, it must be done 

right. 

Pennsylvania’s participation in the Nation’s shale gas boom is 

relatively recent. It has occurred over the past 5 years with the development of the Marcellus Shale formation. As the statistics cited 

in our written testimony suggest, the development of the Marcellus 

Shale gas formation in Pennsylvania has increased at an everquickening pace and is expected to continue to do so. 

While we in Pennsylvania appreciate the positive energy and economic attributes of shale gas development, we are also cognizant 

that throughout its history, Penns Woods has paid an enormous 

price for the exploitation of its bountiful natural resources. 

In today’s political discourse in many contexts, much is said 

about the burden that our current actions will impose upon future 

generations to come. Today in Pennsylvania when it comes to the 

legacy of natural resource exploitation, we are that future generation and the costs of restoration of degradation to our environment 

from prior resource exploitation is substantial. 

If the lessons of the past have taught us anything it is this. Now, 

while we are in the formative years of a shale gas industry, an industry that will be a prominent part of our landscape for generations to come, we must identify and quantify the impact to our 

land, our water, our air and our communities and establish a regulatory framework that mitigates those impacts to the greatest extent practicable so that avoidable environmental degradation is not 

part of our legacy to future generations. 

The written testimony that we submitted to the committee staff 

last week describes our work over the past two and a half years 

and identifies a number of enhancements to Pennsylvania’s preexisting regulatory structure which we believe are essential to the 

prudent management of shale gas development. I would welcome 

the opportunity to answer any questions the committee may have 

with respect to our written testimony. 

However, what I would like to focus on at the moment is the 

issue of cumulative impacts and the question is: How do we efficiently acquire relevant information to objectively assess and mitigate the cumulative impacts of the variety of activities which are 

required to extract, process and move natural gas from wellhead to 

the market? 

We believe that the elements of an efficient process for assessing 

and mitigating cumulative impacts are found in a program estab-
77 

lished by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to regulate 

water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing. SRBC implements a robust data collection program which predates the Marcellus Shale 

development in Pennsylvania. However, the SRBC data base, 

which is expanded to include more information from headwater 

areas of the Marcellus Shale regions of the river basin, is used to 

make informed decisions for the authorization of water withdrawals and informed decisions as to when the authorized withdrawals must be suspended to avoid adverse impacts. The key, we 

think, is that it is the routine collection of data. 

Similar data base assessment programs are not currently feasible 

for assessing the cumulative impacts of other attributes of shale 

gas development such as discharges from the surface management 

of wastewater or air emissions from shale gas development activities because the capacity to collect relevant field data is not available. 

The Pennsylvania Environmental Council firmly believes that 

shale gas development cannot be properly managed without an investment in the capacity to routinely measure cumulative impacts 

on an ongoing basis. We further believe that the Federal Government, as well as the State, has a vital role in establishing and 

funding a continuing research agenda that will enable the collection and evaluation of the data required to assess and mitigate cumulative impacts. 

We also believe that it is vitally important that the shale gas industry and the government both at the Federal and State level collaborate on projects to develop and demonstrate through data best 

management practices to mitigate impacts and require the implementation of best management practices throughout through appropriate regulations. 

In closing, let me reiterate. The successful development of shale 

gas resources is economically important to the States in which is 

occurs and strategically important to the country as a whole, but 

it is critical that we do it right. 

The Pennsylvania Environmental Council has focused its efforts 

on the development of a regulatory program in Pennsylvania which 

is based on proactive information-driven processes designed to 

identify and quantify impacts, including cumulative impacts and to 

mitigate those impacts to the greatest extent possible through best 

management practices appropriately codified in the regulatory 

framework. 

We believe that our recommendations for Pennsylvania can serve 

as a model for others in the regulation of unconventional natural 

gas development. 

Once again, let me thank the committee for this opportunity to 

present our testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ubinger follows:] 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Ubinger, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Cloud. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF CLOUD, VICE CHAIRMAN, OKLAHOMA 

CORPORATION COMMISSION 

Mr. CLOUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair 

Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, I very much appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today about the regulation of hydraulic 

fracturing and Oklahoma’s many decades of experience in this regard. I ask that my corrected testimony be submitted in the record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, all of your statements will be 

included in the record. 

Mr. CLOUD. Thank you. 

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission was first given responsibility for regulation of oil and gas production in Oklahoma in 1914. 

Currently, the Commission has exclusive State jurisdiction over all 

oil and gas industry activity in Oklahoma, including oversight and 

enforcement of rules aimed at pollution prevention and abatement 

the State’s precious water supplies. 

Presently, there are over 185,000 wells in Oklahoma and thousands of miles of gathering and transmission pipelines. In recent 

years, the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma has become an important 

source of natural gas for the Nation. The development of Oklahoma’s Woodford Shale, like other shale regions in the United 

States, has been made possible by horizontal drilling and hydraulic 

fracturing technologies. 

Hydraulic fracturing, as Senator Inhofe said, has been used in 

Oklahoma for over 60 years and more than 100,000 Oklahoma 

wells have been hydraulically fractured over that period. Over that 

more than half-century of hydraulic frack experience, there has not 

been one single documented instance of contamination to groundwater or drinking water as a result of this process. 

To say we take protection of our water quality seriously would 

be an understatement. Our rules are constantly reviewed and updated with that in mind. Our rules include a general prohibition 

against pollution of any surface or subsurface fresh water from well 

completion activities. 

Oklahoma Corporation Commission rules address procedures in 

the event of unanticipated operational or mechanical changes. 

Standard Commission rules also require an operator to submit a 

well completion report within 30 days after completion of activities. 

The volumes of fluids used in this process are required on the form. 

Last fall, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission volunteered to 

have its hydraulic fracturing program reviewed by a 12-year-old 

multi-stakeholder organization known as STRONGER or by its full 

name, State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations. From October 2010 through January 2011, a seven-person 

again multi-stakeholder review team afforded by STRONGER conducted an in-depth examination of Oklahoma’s hydraulic regulatory 

program. 

The review team included Leslie Savage of the Texas Railroad 

Commission, Wilma Subra of Subra Company of New Iberia, LA 

and a noted critic of the domestic oil and gas industry, and Jim 
156 

Collins of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Official observers included the Oklahoma Sierra Club and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI. 

The review team concluded that the Oklahoma program is overall well managed, professional and meets its program’s objectives. 

Incidentally, the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy 

have provided grant funding to STRONGER to support its activities. 

I would also note that in Oklahoma, collaboration involving the 

regulated oil and gas industry, other stakeholders and my State’s 

agency staff have repeatedly led to successful development of rules 

and policies to address environmental protection issues, particularly the protection of water. 

An example, there are two particular lakes that are exceptionally 

clean in Southeastern Oklahoma, Lake Atoka and McGee Creek 

Reservoir, that provide a very high quality water to the city of 

Oklahoma City about 100 miles away. But the lakes are also on top 

of deep rock deposits that hold huge amounts of natural gas, which 

in the best interests of Oklahoma and the Nation, we want to allow 

the petroleum industry to find and produce. 

Without the need of any Federal intervention, the city of Oklahoma City, the regulated oil and gas industry and the State 

worked together to come up with acceptable protections because we 

all realize that it is in our mutual best interest to ensure proper 

and practical water and environmental protections, without cutting 

off access to critical resources. 

Nature by itself unfortunately did not bless Oklahoma with any 

large natural bodies of water, so fresh water is especially precious 

in my State. Oklahoma has more than 50 man-made lakes and it 

is worth noting that Texas is currently suing Oklahoma in Federal 

Court to get our State’s water. We must be doing something right. 

All of us can agree that there needs to be rules of the road and 

that those rules need to be followed and enforced. We are making 

sure that those rules are followed and that Oklahoma’s water and 

our environment are protected. Our record is clear that State regulation is the best way to meet those goals. 

I and my two fellow Commissioners both hold elected statewide 

positions. We are directly accountable to our fellow Oklahomans 

and we all have a vested and personal interest in ensuring our 

water is protected. After all, and not be trite, we drink the water, 

too. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cloud follows:] 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Neslin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID NESLIN, DIRECTOR, COLORADO OIL 

AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

Mr. NESLIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, other Members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective on how Colorado protects public health and the environment 

while we develop our oil and gas resources. 

My name is David Neslin. I am the director of the Colorado Oil 

and Gas Conservation Commission. We are a major oil and gas-producing State with a rich natural heritage and a thriving outdoor 

economy. 

I want to focus my comments today on the subject of hydraulic 

fracturing. 

Most of Colorado’s 44,000 oil and gas wells, as well as the thousands of new wells that will be drilled in the coming years, rely on 

hydraulic fracturing. This technology is vital to unlocking our rich 

oil and gas reserves which are a critical source of domestic energy 

and provide good-paying jobs and needed tax revenues to our communities. 

But it is also essential that this development occurs in an environmentally responsible manner that protects our drinking water. 

This is a fundamental part of our regulatory mission and it is 

something that everyone at our agency takes very seriously. 

To this end, our environmental professionals have investigated 

hundreds of groundwater complaints over the years. To date, we 

have found no verified instance of hydraulic fracturing harming 

groundwater. These investigations are all publicly available. 

We have also required operators to test water quality repeatedly 

and over time in more than 1,900 water wells in one of our most 

productive natural gas fields. Thousands of nearby oil and gas 

wells have been hydraulically fractured and if fracturing fluids 

were reaching those water wells, then you would expect the water’s 

chemical composition to change. But independent analysis has 

found not statistically significant changes to those waters. This 

analysis is likewise publicly available. 

In addition, we have comprehensively updated our regulation to 

address a broad range of environmental issues. Our current rules 

strike a responsible balance between energy development and environmental protection, and they reflect substantial input from local 

governments, oil and gas companies, environmental groups and 

thousands of individuals from across our State. 

Other States have taken or are taking similar action, including 

Wyoming, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas. These recent State rulemakings exemplify the benefits associated with 

State oversight and site-specific regulation, and they specifically 

address hydraulic fracturing. 

In Colorado, for example, wells must be cased and cemented to 

protect aquifers and well pressures must be monitored during hydraulic fracturing. Operators must inventory chemicals including 

hydraulic fracturing fluids and provide this information upon request to the State and certain health care professionals. 
167 

There are mandatory setbacks and enhanced environmental protections for oil and gas development near public drinking water 

sources. Additional pressure testing, well testing, water well sampling is required for shallow of cold-bed methane wells. Enhanced 

requirements apply to pit permitting, pit lining, pit monitoring, to 

ensure that waste, including any flow-back of hydraulic fracturing 

fluids, is properly contained. 

Now, these regulations are important and they have substantially improved our groundwater protection, but we haven’t stopped 

there. We are continuing to take proactive, cost-effective steps to 

ensure that hydraulic fracturing protects public health and the environment. 

First, we and other States have worked closely with the Groundwater Protection Council on the launch of the new Website 

fracfocus.org. This site encourages oil and gas operators to voluntarily provide information on the chemicals they use to hydraulically fracture a well and complements our own regulatory framework. 

Second, we have arranged to have our hydraulic fracturing regulations professionally audited this summer by STRONGER, a national organization consisting of State regulators and industry and 

environmental representatives. STRONGER recently completed 

similar reviews of Oklahoma, as you have heard, as well as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Louisiana. We are having them review Colorado’s program to determine whether further improvements can be 

made at our end. 

Third, we are actively investigating the alleged use of diesel fuel 

or fluids containing diesel fuel for hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. 

While we believe that our regulations would have prevented contamination of drinking water supplies, we are collecting information to independently assess that issue. 

Fourth, we continue to address public concerns on this issue in 

an open and transparent manner. Just this last February, our 

Commission convened a full public hearing to examine an allegation of water well contamination. In that case, our Commissioners, 

a diverse board representing environmental, industry, local government, and other sectors, unanimously determined that hydraulic 

fracturing had not impacted the well in question. 

In summary, I want to stress how seriously we take this subject 

and that many other States are taking similar action. Our experience and that of other States demonstrates how hydraulic fracturing and other oil and gas activities are effectively regulated at 

the State level where highly diverse regional and local conditions 

are more fully understood and where rules can be tailored to fit the 

needs of local basins, local landscapes and local communities. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neslin follows:] 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you all for your testimony. 

I am going to urge the committee Members if they could limit 

themselves to a 4-minute round so we can get the panel completed 

before the vote on the floor. 

Let me thank all of you for your testimony. 

Mr. Cloud, I just really want to compliment the actions taken in 

your State of Oklahoma. I think you have provided a good model 

that should be used in other States. 

I am very impressed that the back-flow by State action can either be recycled or must be put into, as I understand it, one of the 

containment wells which operates under the Clean Water Act. 

So it seems to me that you have been able to do exactly what 

Mr. Perciasepe indicated, the Federal Government working with 

the State to develop the right framework for dealing with natural 

gas extraction. 

Why is it that you prohibit the back-flow from entering into our 

wastewater treatment facility plants? Why have you taken that action? 

Mr. CLOUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe that the State has for many years since we have been 

doing hydraulic fracturing for 60 years, we have kept a close eye 

on it. We just make sure that the frack fluids be kept out of the 

water supplies and they are never sent to water treatment facilities, as you outlined, only to be recycled or to be back-injected into 

abandoned wells. 

Senator CARDIN. I think that is the right way to proceed and I 

am curious as to why Pennsylvania and other States are still allowing the back-flow to enter treatment facility plants. Do either one 

of my friends from Pennsylvania have an explanation as to why the 

State is still permitting that? 

Mr. VOLZ. Well, I think I do, Senator. It essentially boiled down 

to there was a very pressing need to dispose of a lot of material. 

There were a lot of wells drilled very quickly. I believe it was an 

oversight by our Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection that a lot of this material was going to these brine treatment facilities that are very inefficient, as well as these sewage 

treatment plants. No one had a real handle on it. 

Senator CARDIN. It is my understanding there are wells that it 

could have been injected to. It may have required some transportation, but there are wells that would have accepted it. 

Mr. VOLZ. In Ohio, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. Yes, but it was a transportation issue, a cost 

issue, I assume, so it is pragmatic decision made which is we never 

want to see public health put at risk due to a pragmatic judgment. 

Dr. Summers, as I understand it, the Maryland legislature did 

not act yesterday on a moratorium, but as I understand what you 

were saying, at the present time Maryland is uncomfortable in 

moving forward until you understand the practices that will be 

used will be safe for public health. Is that true? 

Mr. SUMMERS. That is correct. We have just started to receive 

permits. We have been watching very closely what has been going 

on in Pennsylvania. We are reviewing the work out of New York, 

looking at what is going on in other States; are very interested to 

look more closely at how Wyoming is handling this. 
198 

Our plans are to proceed very cautiously, make sure that we do 

have the best practices in place so we are able to take advantage 

of information that these other States that have more experience 

than we do have, and also trying to work with the Environmental 

Protection Agency because as I said, we believe their role is very 

critical in providing the background information and technical support. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry about the 

votes coming up. I think you are doing the right thing, though, although we would all like to have more time to ask questions. 

Let me first of all talk to Commissioner Cloud and Director 

Neslin. 

Director Neslin, you didn’t say what percentage of your wells 

would be hydraulically fracked. Would either one of you have just 

a rough estimate as to the percentage in the State of Oklahoma 

and the State of Colorado that would be using that technology in 

their fracking? 

Mr. NESLIN. In Colorado, it would be substantially all wells. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Mr. CLOUD. In Oklahoma, it would be much the same. We have 

185,000 active wells and 100,000 of them have been fracked, but 

the newer wells that utilize horizontal drilling are all hydraulically 

fracked. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I would just remind this panel up here, for 

those who weren’t here in my opening statement, that we initiated 

the very first hydraulic fracturing in Oklahoma 60 years ago. So 

we know something about it. 

Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of focus on the disposal of both flow-back water in frack jobs and produced water 

from oil and gas wells, especially in Pennsylvania. Could you tell 

us how this water is disposed of in your two respective States, kind 

of briefly? 

Mr. NESLIN. Certainly. In Colorado, a majority of the water is recycled and reused. If we are talking about the end disposal, final 

disposal of the water, about 60 percent is reinjected deep underground in permitted underground ejection wells. About 20 percent 

is evaporated. About 20 percent is discharged surface waters under 

State water quality permits that do contain environmental and 

health-based standards. 

Mr. CLOUD. In Oklahoma, we recycle most of the frack water, but 

when it is used up, we have 10,500 injection wells that we put the 

water down, the fluids down in. 

Senator INHOFE. So it is roughly the same as they are doing in 

Colorado, then. 

How do your agencies respond to and investigate groundwater 

complaints, Director Neslin? Your agency recently investigated I 

think it was in Southern Colorado some complaints. Will you tell 

us how you do that? 

Mr. NESLIN. Certainly. This is the event I mentioned that led to 

the hearing this last February. A couple of things about this are 

important. We got a complaint. We had an inspector on site in 16 

hours collecting samples for laboratory analysis. This inspector has 
199 

a Ph.D., in chemistry and 25 years of experience. He spent over 40 

hours investigating the alleged contamination; worked with other 

members of our staff, including our engineering staff; wrote a 30- 

page report documenting his investigation and the various types of 

analysis that were used as part of that exercise. 

When the landowner was dissatisfied with the conclusion that 

the staff had drawn, which was that there had been no impact 

from hydraulic fracturing, he received a full hearing, a half-day 

hearing, before our Commission within 60 days. Then our Commission unanimously affirmed the staff’s finding. 

So I think in terms of the rigor of the analysis, the timeliness 

of the work and the transparency of the process, this compares 

very well. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

About the same in Oklahoma? 

Mr. CLOUD. It is about the same, Senator. We have an extensive 

field staff that are all over the State monitoring the wells and the 

well activity. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I only have about 30 seconds left. I would 

like to have each one of you talk about new technologies that are 

coming along. Is there a procedure? I will just confine this to Commissioner Cloud. Any kind of a procedure where you investigate 

these new technologies to what possible dangers could come up and 

what you do to mitigate these? 

Mr. CLOUD. As I said, our staff is on top of it all the time, and 

we have a Complaint Division that if anybody has a complaint, like 

was outlined in Colorado, we are 24-hour accessible and we try to 

stay on top of every single instance. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Volz, you made several comments about the risk levels and 

that type of thing. There was a very negative article in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review yesterday that I am sure that you have read 

by now, and I would like to ask that that be made a part of the 

record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, it will be included in the 

record. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The referenced document follows on page 376.] 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Neslin, as I listened to your testimony, it sounded like there 

has never been any problem in Colorado and ‘‘We found no verified 

instance of hydraulic fracturing harming groundwater.’’ How do we 

square that with the documentary I referred to earlier where Mike 

Markham takes and pours water out of his kitchen faucet, holds a 

cigarette lighter up to it, and after a few seconds, a ball of fire 

erupts out of the sink, almost enveloping Markham’s head? The 

source of the flammable water and the substance of gas is a mining 

process called hydraulic fracturing. 

How does that square with no verified instance of hydraulic 

harming groundwater? 

Mr. NESLIN. Senator, we investigated that allegation. We investigated that well. The facts are that that water well was completed 
200 

in a coal-bearing formation that contains what is called biogenic 

methane, methane unrelated to oil and gas development. 

There are papers, published papers by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Colorado Geological Survey dating back more than 30 

years verifying that fact, that in these formations there is naturally 

occurring biogenic methane not attributable to oil and gas development; not released by oil and gas development. 

The allegations were thoroughly investigated. Laboratory analyses were done. The conclusion was drawn that this was biogenic 

methane not related to oil and gas development. As I say, it is 

based on not just the work of our staff, but scientific papers and 

geological surveys dating back decades. 

Senator MERKLEY. So basically, if he had been running his water 

30 years ago, he would have had exactly the same problem? 

Mr. NESLIN. Yes, sir. 

Senator MERKLEY. Interesting. Thank you for addressing that. 

Dr. Volz, in your paper, you refer to a long list of chemicals that 

are coming out of the brine treatment facility: barium, strontium, 

bromide, benzene, glycol ether, chlorides and so forth. Now, was 

this facility, the brine treatment developed specifically to try to basically address the challenge of these flow-back fluids and clean 

them up? 

Mr. VOLZ. Senator, this is an older flow-back fluid treatment facility that has been in operation for about 25 years, and up until 

about 5 years ago, only took care of conventional oil and gas fluids. 

Now, it is dealing with these Marcellus fluids. 

Senator MERKLEY. So the technology in that facility is completely 

inappropriate or ineffective in terms of the flow-back fluids that are 

now being sent to it? 

Mr. VOLZ. That is right, sir. 

Senator MERKLEY. But if it was a newer facility, if you were looking at newer facility in Pennsylvania that had been designed specifically, we would find that all of these problems had been addressed? 

Mr. VOLZ. I am not sure of that, sir. I think there needs to be 

a very definitive review of all the processes that are used by treatment facilities, not only in the State of Pennsylvania, because 

wastewater from the State of Pennsylvania is actually being treated by these plants and sewage treatment plants in New York, New 

Jersey, Maryland, Ohio and West Virginia, as well as Pennsylvania. 

Senator MERKLEY. So I may have misinterpreted the pictures 

that were presented in your slides, but it looked like pipes coming 

out of the brine treatment facility into a creek and it is just dumping all of this ineffectively treated, highly contaminated dangerous 

stuff right into a creek on the surface in Pennsylvania. Is that actually what is happening? 

Mr. VOLZ. That is exactly what is happening, sir. There is very 

little treatment that is done at that plant except to remove some 

of the barium. It is precipitated with a sulfate solution and the barium is lower, still high, but much lower than in the flow-back 

water, but there are many other contaminants that are not treated 

by the facility at all. 
201 

Senator MERKLEY. Why is Pennsylvania’s Department allowing 

this highly contaminated fluid just to be put right into a creek? 

Mr. VOLZ. I don’t know, sir. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Sessions is the Ranking Republican 

Member of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. I didn’t know who was next, but 

thank you. 

Mr. Ubinger, the Federal Government regulates discharges in 

the streams and Pennsylvania regulates it. Maybe you would like 

to answer the question or Mr. Volz’s comment that Pennsylvania 

is permitting pollutant discharges against the health and safety of 

the people into the water? 

Mr. UBINGER. Senator, the Department of Environmental Protection in 2010—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Are you familiar with this incident that he is 

talking about? 

Mr. UBINGER. Only from news reports about that facility. But 

what I was going to say is that the Department of Environmental 

Protection formulated a State-wide discharge limit for TDS and 

bromium and strontium that became effective either late last year 

or early this year. That standard is now in place. That standard, 

I think, would require newly issued permits to include that standard. It is a very stringent 500 parts per million standard. 

I think one of the issues is that the permit cycle, which is typically 5 years, is running its course and thus far as far as I am 

aware, the Department has not asked anybody to accelerate the revision of those permits to put that standard in place. 

Now, the import of that standard is that a number of the responsibility leaders in the industry have begun to recycle their flowback water by reinjecting it into new Marcellus well development. 

There are varying statistics, I am not sure which one would be accurate, but it is anywhere from 50 percent to 90 percent of flowback water, at least has some kind of recycling. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, could I just ask this, if it violates the 

Clean Water Act and the Clean Water Act would apply to that discharge, would it not, the Federal Clean Water Act? 

Would it, yes or no? 

Mr. UBINGER. Yes, it applies. 

Senator SESSIONS. Somebody should investigate that and check 

on it and stop it if it is in violation, should it not? 

Yes or no? 

Mr. UBINGER. Yes, it should be. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. So he has made a complaint. I hope 

Pennsylvania will get around to doing it, instead of stopping hydraulic fracturing around the country. 

Mr. UBINGER. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. We are in a serious financial problem in 

America. I am worried about our economy. The surging gas prices 

make a difference. Natural gas absolutely can be an alternative to 

the liquid fuel we import, the gasoline. It burns cleaner. It is allAmerican. It is a lot cheaper. Engines that use it will pay for themselves over a period of time. The President I think indicated re-
202 

cently that he was interested in expanding natural gas for vehicles. 

I just think it has tremendous potential. 

Too often, what we are seeing in Washington is the American 

people are suffering under high energy prices and all they hear 

from Washington is obstruction that makes those prices go up instead of down. People are worried about it. 

I just would have to say that we need clean, lower-cost energy 

and I believe that is what natural gas is. 

I would like to introduce, Mr. Chairman, into the record a statement from Dr. David Bolin, the deputy director of the State of Alabama’s Oil and Gas Board. We have a large natural gas component 

and probably are the leading producer of coal-bed methane in the 

country, with thousands of wells. Over 20 or 30 years, we have 

never had a problem, according to Dr. Bolin who supervises that. 

He went further. He took the media reports of leaking into 

groundwater allegations around the country. He called his colleagues around the country in those States and he has concluded 

that he has found no incidence in which groundwater has been polluted. 

Do you know him, Mr. Cloud, Dr. Bolin? 

Mr. CLOUD. I do not. 

Senator SESSIONS. He has done this since 1982 when he joined 

the Board and has a master’s degree and doctorate in water hydrology, not petroleum engineering. But I would just offer that for the 

record. 

Just to paraphrase Senator Cornyn or to followup on it, I think 

we have to watch that the regulations and the lawsuits don’t become a death by a thousand cuts. 

Mr. Cloud, how many fracturing wells have been—— 

Mr. CLOUD. In Oklahoma, 100,000. 

Senator SESSIONS. One-hundred thousand. I think it is 5,000 or 

10,000 in Alabama. Nationwide, do you have any idea how many? 

Mr. CLOUD. I believe the number is right at 1 million. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is just huge numbers, and we have just got 

to be careful that at this time when we desperately need cleaner 

natural gas, all-American natural gas, keeping our wealth at home, 

that we don’t create a greater bureaucracy, duplicative regulations 

that make it more difficult for us to fight back against high energy 

costs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I am honored to be 

with you on this Subcommittee. You are a strong leader. You are 

a good experienced Member of Congress in the House and the Senate, and we are glad you are here. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I wanted to ask Mr. Cloud and Mr. Neslin, 

when Deputy Administrator Perciasepe was here, he said that companies that used diesel in fracking and did not seek a permit under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act would be in violation of that Act. Are 

you aware in either of your States that diesel is used as an element 

of the fracking fluid? 
203 

Mr. NESLIN. Senator, as I mentioned in my testimony, we are 

currently investigating that issue. Our investigation is not complete yet. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, let me give Mr. Cloud a chance to 

answer before I go to another question. 

Mr. CLOUD. We are much the same, Senator. But I just want to 

emphasize that we do not allow frack fluids into the water treatment facilities. The frack fluids are only recycled, and when they 

are used up, they are put into injection wells. So it doesn’t reach 

our water supply, any frack fluid. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You have no concern that the deployment 

of the frack fluid in the wells could ever reach your water supply? 

Mr. CLOUD. We always have that concern, but we are assured by 

our rules and practices that that doesn’t happen. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You keep enough of a buffer between? 

Mr. CLOUD. Yes. Production casing is required to be cemented 

200 feet above the producing zone, so it can’t reach. We have field 

inspectors that witness that process when it is undergone. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Why isn’t it helpful to simply know what 

is being used as the frack fluid so that you don’t have to investigate where diesel is being used because the company would have 

reported it already since it is being injected into public land, basically? 

Mr. CLOUD. Well, as some have discussed today, there is an 

IOGCC, an Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and 

Groundwater Protection Council initiative that is voluntary right 

now, where companies, and it is just in its infancy, but we have 

had a great response. It has been outlined a little bit today, where 

people divulge, or companies divulge the type of fluids that they 

are using. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am new to this issue, as you can imagine. We don’t do a lot of this in Rhode Island. But I have seen the 

stories on the news about families whose water, for instance, is 

suddenly compromised. In time, it is associated with fracking having taken place nearby. Are there different geological differences 

that explain why this might be happening in other places? Or is 

there a less well-developed technique? Or do you think that this is 

actually not related to fracking and just a matter of coincidence? 

Mr. NESLIN. Senator, if I may answer that on behalf of Colorado, 

we get dozens of allegations a year that water wells have been contaminated. We inspect and investigate all of those rigorously. In 

some cases, we have found that contamination has occurred and 

that it is attributable to oil and gas development, not hydraulic 

fracturing. Typically, it is a spill. It is a leak; might have been a 

failure of the cement job. 

In most instances or in many instances, we find that there has 

been no contamination; that the conditions that are being complained of are bacterial contamination, a problem with maintaining 

the water well. In other instances, as I mentioned in response to 

another question, there may be an impact from natural gas, but it 

is biogenic natural gas, swamp gas from decaying organic material, 

not attributable to oil and gas development. 

Mr. CLOUD. Speaking for Oklahoma, we have been doing this 

process for a long time and there has not been one single docu-
204 

mented instance of contamination to groundwater or drinking 

water as a result of this process. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all, gentlemen, for your testimony. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman, thank you for your patience. You are recognized. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Again, I appreciate all of you being here. I think we have heard 

a lot about some of the potential problems with the process, but 

also some of the solutions. One of the things that Mr. Cloud and 

Mr. Neslin mentioned was the STRONGER review process. What 

I would like for you to do is very briefly, if you could, talk about 

the make-up of the review teams, the observers, the evaluations 

and followup procedures of STRONGER. 

Then also I believe that sometimes EPA is involved and DOE, 

you can talk a little bit about that. 

Mr. NESLIN. If I might begin, STRONGER is a unique group in 

that it is comprised one-third of State regulators, one-third representatives of the industry, one-third of environmental representatives. Therefore, on a study, a STRONGER review, one-third of the 

review team will be from each of those groups. One-third of the observers will be from each of those groups. 

It is also a collaborative process, so rather than a group that 

issues majority and minority positions, the participants work collaboratively to reach a common assessment and a common conclusion. 

Then it is a transparent process in which these reports are 

issued typically within 60 days after the review is concluded and 

are posted on the Website and publicly available. 

Mr. CLOUD. Mr. Neslin did a good job of outlining the make-up 

of the Board. One-third of the people in STRONGER that reviewed 

Oklahoma, it was a Texas regulatory Commissioner and then a 

noted critic of the domestic oil and gas industry, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. But official observers to 

the process and contributors to that process were the Sierra Club 

and the EPA, and STRONGER is funded partially by EPA and 

DOE. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Let me thank all of our witnesses. I think this panel has been 

extremely helpful. There are still a lot of questions I think we need 

to deal with. 

As I was listening to the testimony, I was curious and I might 

be submitting some questions on this, as to what precautions are 

taken in regards to abandoned drilling sites to make sure that they 

are not only safely sealed, but the impact that the vacated cavity 

could have on geological activities. I am not, again, a geologist, but 

I would be interested as to whether we are at least mindful of 

these types of issues as we are drilling more and more wells with 

the amount of natural gas that we have. 

So I think there are questions that need to be answered. I do 

want to compliment the States of Colorado and Oklahoma who 
205 

have taken aggressive action to protect their public health of their 

citizens. I think we need to learn from the best practices and we 

have seen some of that sort of catch on in other States. 

We do have a framework here between the Federal Government 

and the State government. Our committee will investigate to see 

whether that is strong enough under existing law or whether new 

laws are needed. 

I certainly appreciate the testimony from the Environmental Protection Agency and it looks like they are aggressively dealing with 

some of the open issues on public health. 

So we will be following up on the questions that have been 

asked. The record is open for additional questions that may be 

asked. If that is done, I would ask you all to respond in a timely 

way. 

With that, the joint hearing of the committee and subcommittee 

will be adjourned. 

Thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m. the committee and subcommittee were 

adjourned.] 

[Documents related to Marcellus Shale Development EPA Region 

III, have been archived and may be found in committee files.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 

Æ