### Page 1 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 OIL AND NATURAL GAS SECTOR 3 OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS 4 5 6 7 8 9PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE ON 10 New Source Performance Standards; National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 11 And Review 12 13 CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT 14 November 17, 2011 15 16Arlington, Texas 17 Thursday, September 29, 2011 18 Morning Session 19 20 21 22 REPORTED BY: SCHIAS K. CARMON-BROWN, TEXAS CSR#7682 23 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. COURT REPORTERS 24 Telephone: 1-800-288-3376 www.depo.com 25 FILE NO: A507E0A

### Page 2 1 PARTICIPANTS: 2 EPA Hearing Panel: 3 Morning Session: 4 FRED THOMPSON, Hearing Chair Associate Director, Sector Policies and Programs 5 Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 6ALEX MACPHERSON 7 ROB LAWRENCE 8 BRUCE MOORE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

### Page 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S: 2 MR. THOMPSON: Today is Thursday, 3 September 29, 2011. This is the public hearing on the 4 Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance 5 Standards and National Emissions Standards for 6Hazardous Air Pollutants and Review here in Arlington, 7 Texas. 8 Good morning and thank you for attending 9this public hearing. The U.S. Environmental Protection 10 Agency, the EPA, is holding this hearing to take 11 comment on the proposed rules. My name is Fred 12 Thompson, and I am the associate director for the 13 Sector's Policies and Programs Division in the EPA's 14 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. I will 15 be chairing today's hearing. 16Joining me on the panel are Bruce Moore, 17 to my right, of the Sector's Policies and Programs 18 Division in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; 19Alex Macpherson, to my left, who's with the Health and 20 Environmental Impacts Division in Research Triangle 21 Park, North Carolina; and Rob Lawrence of Region 6 here 22 in Dallas, Texas and he's with the EPA. 23 We're here today to listen to your 24 comments on the EPA's proposal, Oil and Natural Gas 25 Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National

### Page 4 1 Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and 2 Review. On July 28th, 2011, the EPA proposed a suite 3 of regulations that will reduce harmful air pollution 4 from the oil and natural gas industry while allowing 5 continued responsible growth in U.S. oil and natural 6gas production. 7 The proposal is based on proven 8 technology and best practices that the oil and gas 9industry is using in some states today. It includes 10 the first federal air standards for wells that are 11 hydraulically fractured along with requirements for 12 several other sources of pollution in the oil and gas 13 industry that currently are not regulated at the 14 federal level. 15 The proposal is based on reviews of four 16rules, two New Source Performance Standards and two air 17 toxics rules. As a result of our reviews, we are 18 proposing to improve existing NSPS for VOC and SO2 as 19well as proposing NSPS or additional VOC emission 20 sources not currently covered. In addition, we are 21 proposing improvements to the two existing air toxics 22 rules. 23 The proposal would cut smog-forming 24 volatile organic compounds of VOC emissions by nearly 25 one-fourth across the oil and gas industry, including a

### Page 5 1 nearly 95 percent reduction in VOCs emitted from new 2 and modified hydraulically-fractured gas wells. This 3 significant reduction would be accomplished primarily 4 through use of a proven technology to capture natural 5 gas that currently escapes to the air. That gas would 6then be made available for sale. 7 Today we are accepting oral comments on 8 all aspects of our proposal and we will prepare a 9written transcript of the hearing. The transcript for 10 the hearing will be available as part of the official 11 record for this rule. The EPA will consider your 12 comments as we move forward to complete a final rule by 13 February 28th, 2012. We are also accepting written 14 comments on the proposed rule until 30 days after the 15 last public hearing and at present, that is October 1631st, 2011. 17 At the registration area, which is 18 located in the hallway outside of this room, there are 19handouts with detailed information for submitting 20 written comments by mail, fax or electronically. Now, 21 let me describe procedures for today's hearing. I will 22 call the scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs. 23 When it is your turn to speak, please state your name 24 and your affiliation before you begin your testimony. 25 You will be asked to spell your name to ensure

### Page 6 1 accuracy. In order to be fair to everyone, please 2 limit your testimony to five minutes each and remain at 3 the microphone until both speakers in a pair have 4 finished. After you finish your testimony, members of 5 the panel may ask clarifying questions. If in addition 6to the transcript of your testimony you would also like 7 us to put the full text of your written comments into 8 the docket, please be sure and give a copy of any 9written comments to our staff at the registration 10 table. 11 We have a time-keeping system, which is 12 located here consisting of green, yellow and red 13 lights. When you begin speaking, the green light will 14 go on. You will have five minutes to speak. The 15 yellow light will signal that you have one minute to 16speak. When the red light goes on, five minutes has 17 passed and I will ask you to please complete your 18 testimony. 19Today's hearing is scheduled from 9 a.m. 20 and will continue until 8 p.m. or later, if necessary, 21 depending on the number of speakers. The hearing will 22 go on recess during the scheduled lunch break from 23 12:30 p.m. until 2 p.m., and a dinner break from 5 p.m. 24 until 6:30 p.m. We will reconvene promptly at 2 p.m. 25 and 6:30 p.m., respectively. We intend to stay into

### Page 7 1 the evening until everyone has had an opportunity to 2 comment. 3 If you would like to testify but have not 4 yet registered to do so, please sign up at the 5 registration table in the hallway outside of the room. 6For those who have already registered to speak, we have 7 tried to accommodate your request for specific time 8 slots. We ask for your patience as we proceed through 9the list of speakers. We may -- excuse me. We may 10 need to make some adjustments as the day progresses. 11 If any questions arise throughout the day, please see a 12 staff member at the registration table for assistance. 13 Thank you again for participating today. And at this 14 time, I'd like to get started. 15 I'd like to ask Mike O'Connor and Luke 16Metzger to please come forward. 17 Good morning, gentlemen. If you would, 18 please state your name for the court reporter and spell 19it, please. 20 MR. O'CONNOR: Mike O'Connor. 21 MR. METZGER: Luke Metzger. 22 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. O'Connor. 23 MR. O'CONNOR: Thank you. I'm Mike 24 O'Connor with XTO Energy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 25 Exxon Mobile Corporation, and I'm here today on behalf

### Page 8 1 of the American Petroleum Institute. I appreciate 2 having the opportunity to appear at this hearing for 3 the proposed regulations of the -- of the emissions 4 associated with the oil and natural gas industry. The 5 proposed rules have a very broad reach. My focus is on 6these parts specifically directed at emissions related 7 to oil and gas development and especially operations 8 employing hydraulic fracturing. 9This focus is important because hydraulic 10 fracturing operations are critical to U.S. energy 11 development. Without this technology and without the 12 ability to employ it cost effectively, natural gas and 13 oil development could be discouraged, delayed or 14 reduced. Oil and gas are a vital part of our nation's 15 energy landscape today and are expected to continue to 16be in our future. The EIA energy projections show that 17 oil and natural gas are expected to supply most of our 18 nation's energy for decades. 19Unfortunately, unless property -- 20 properly crafted, these rules could hamper ability to 21 supply the oil and natural gas that we know will be 22 needed and making the rules work could be difficult. 23 The comment period for these extensive, detailed rules 24 is too short. Controls would be imposed on the 25 industry with inadequate lead time. This would make it

### Page 9 1 difficult for operators to prepare to implement the 2 controls and would increase the risk of unintended 3 consequences. 4 In the worst case, the result could be 5 requirements that would hinder or hurt job creation, 6federal and state revenue generation and harm our 7 nation's energy future. We have prodigious reserves of 8 oil and natural gas here in the United States. Oil 9will continue to be vital for supplying transportation 10 fuels and are large and growing markets for natural gas 11 related to electricity generation, manufacturing, 12 transportation and home consumption. We need to be 13 able to meet this demand. Natural gas is more 14 affordable today relative to just a few years ago, 15 largely because of the shale boom now under way. 16More domestic oil and natural gas 17 development is crucial for job growth. The industry 18 has a strong track record of creating jobs, as 19evidenced by what is happening in North Dakota, Texas, 20 Pennsylvania and many other states. The industry now 21 supports 9.2 million jobs and continues to create them. 22 More than 9,000 oil and gas related jobs were created 23 this summer according to BLS at a time when new job 24 creation in the economy was sorely needed. Perhaps a 25 million or more U.S. jobs could be created over the

### Page 10 1 next seven years if common sense changes to energy 2 policy were implemented, according to recent -- 3 research conducted by the energy consulting firm, Wood 4 Mackenzie, assuming new regulations do not have 5 unreasonable provisions. 6Finally, sound common sense rules that do 7 not impair development are important because increased 8 use of natural gas could greatly benefit the 9environment, reducing air pollutant and carbon 10 emissions. As for specifics in the proposed rules, we 11 support reduced emission completions when the 12 operations determine the technology to be safe, 13 technically feasible and cost effective. However, the 14 final rule should phase any reduced emission completion 15 requirements by a significant extension of time for 16their full implementation. 17 Specifically designed equipment that is 18 time-consuming to build is required to safely perform 19reduced emission completions. There is insufficient 20 emission control equipment currently available and it 21 cannot be constructed before the expected second 22 quarter 2012 compliance date. Furthermore, the 23 proposed regulations do not account for challenges 24 related to several current completion technologies in 25 known reservoir properties.

### Page 11 1 For example, there are challenging 2 technical issues regarding certain coalbed methane 3 technologies, low-pressure reservoirs and reservoirs 4 with very low volatile organic compound content. The 5 final rule should also recognize that thousands of tank 6emission combusters will need to be certified and 7 manufactured to reduce emissions. These combusters 8 will not be available early next year. The final rules 9should recognize that additional time is necessary 10 before this requirement is imposed. 11 Lastly, EPA should simplify the 12 overly-burdensome aspects of the notification, 13 recordkeeping, monitoring, reporting and performance 14 testing requirements in this proposed rule to reflect 15 that many of the industry sources are at remote and 16unmanned facilities. 17 In closing, we believe the Agency should 18 allow an additional 60 days for the public to provide 19comment on this important rulemaking for the following 20 reasons: First, the proposed rules are expansive and 21 complex. This is a set of five complex and 22 interconnected rules. Indeed, the proposal spans over 23 a hundred pages in the Federal Register and the docket 24 contains many times more pages of supplemental analysis 25 and materials. Preparing comments on any of one of

### Page 12 1 these rules would be a challenge within 60 days. 2 Preparing thorough and meaningful comments on all 3 within 60 days is not reasonable or practicable (sic). 4 Second, the proposed rules are not being implemented in 5 a vacuum. The EPA has numerous other rules under 6development that demand time and attention from this 7 sector. 8 The proposed rules will have much greater 9economic impact than EPA predicts. Following a 10 preliminary review of the regulatory impacts analysis, 11 it already seems clear that the EPA has significantly 12 underestimated the cost of implementing the proposed 13 rules. 14 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. O'Connor, your time 15 has expired. Final comments. 16MR. O'CONNOR: Thank you, sir. I'll 17 submit the remainder to the registrar out front 18 incorporation into the record. 19MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you. Remain 20 seated. Any clarifying questions for Mr. O'Connor? 21 Mr. Metzger. 22 MR. METZGER: Good morning. My name is 23 Luke Metzger. I'm the director of Environment Texas. 24 We're a statewide citizen-funded advocate for clean 25 air, clean water and open spaces. Welcome to Texas,

### Page 13 1 gentlemen. And if you had a chance to drive around the 2 area yesterday or today, you may have seen some of the 3 electronic billboards flashing warnings for another 4 orange ozone day, directing people to limit their 5 activity outdoors. And, unfortunately, that's an 6all-too-common site here in the D/FW area and across 7 Texas. 8 Last year, there were more than 48 days 9where the ozone levels exceeded national health 10 standards. And, of course, that has a particular 11 impact on our most vulnerable populations, children and 12 senior citizens, who really take the brunt of the 13 problems. Children who grow up in smoggy areas may 14 develop diminished lung capacity, putting them at 15 greater risk of lung disease later in life. And 16Children exposed to smog in the womb can experience 17 lower birth weight and growth retardation. Even for 18 healthy adults, exposure to smog pollution damages lung 19tissues, decreases the ability to breathe, exacerbates 20 chronic diseases like asthma and can even cause 21 premature death. 22 In addition to the smog, Texas just 23 recently finished its -- the hottest June through 24 August summer in recorded U.S. history. And that's 25 something that the Texas state climatologist, an

### Page 14 1 appointee of Governor Perry, mind you, has attributed 2 in part to greenhouse gas emissions. And in addition, 3 our drought, which again is the worst one-year dry 4 spell in recorded history, and the recent wild fires, 5 again the worst in Texas history, are consistent with 6scientific predictions about global warming. 7 Texans deserve clean air, but on far too 8 many days for our children and for senior citizens, the 9air is just not safe to breathe. And we are also 10 suffering from serious impacts from air toxics and from 11 global warming. And so we are -- I'm, you know, here 12 today to commend the EPA for this proposal to reduce 13 emissions from the oil and gas sector, which is a large 14 contributor to the smog problem, to the air toxics and 15 to global warming emissions. According to the Texas 16Commission on Environmental Quality, emissions from oil 17 and gas operations in the D/FW area will soon surpass 18 that of the on-road vehicles in the D/FW areas by four 19million cars. So that's a significant impact. And I 20 think it's important to understand that you're not 21 asking very much of the oil and gas industry. These 22 are best practices taking place in other states and 23 they can certainly afford it. You know, these 24 companies are -- like Exxon and some of the richest in 25 the world are raking in billions of dollars in profits.

### Page 15 1 They're making a killing on all this drilling. And I 2 think they can certainly afford it. 3 And then if you think about what the rest 4 of us are doing, we're all doing our parts here in 5 Texas. Certainly in the D/FW area and where I live in 6Austin, we have to take our cars in every year to get 7 inspected. And if they're not clean, we have to pay 8 the -- make sure that they're not belching out 9health-damaging pollution. It's only fair that the oil 10 and gas industry do its part as well and reduce 11 emissions from their operations. 12 And, you know, company profits should not 13 be -- company profits should be based on hard work and 14 smart management and not irresponsible policies that 15 put citizens and the environment at risk. So I 16definitely support these rules and excited that they're 17 going to reduce smog-forming pollutants by 25 percent 18 and methane emissions by 26 percent and air toxics 19emissions by 30 percent. So we urge you to move 20 forward in the adoption of these rules. No more 21 delays. We can't wait any longer to get clean air here 22 in Dallas or across Texas or across the country. So 23 thank you very much. 24 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Metzger, 25 for your testimony. Thank you both. Any clarifying

### Page 16 1 questions for either? 2 Okay, gentlemen. Thank you very much. 3 Would John Rath and Jeff Applekamp please 4 come forward. Good morning, gentlemen. Please state 5 your name and spell them, please, for the court 6reporter. 7 MR. RATH: John Rath. 8 MR. APPLEKAMP: Jeff Applekamp, 9A-p-p-l-e-k-a-m-p. Who would you like to go first? 10 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Rath, please. 11 MR. RATH: Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. 12 Thank you for coming down here. I'm a resident of 13 Grapevine, Texas, which is about the second worst air 14 quality community in Northeast Tarrant County. Keller 15 gets the first spot. Grapevine gets the second. We 16have our own monitor right by Lake Grapevine. I don't 17 represent anybody but me, my family, my neighborhood, 18 the 10 or 12 kids on my basketball team, 4 of which 19need inhalers to play basketball. And I'd like to just 20 share a couple thoughts with you, please. 21 I don't want any more delays in air 22 regulations. I don't know whether you want the human 23 side or the statistical side. You'll probably get 24 plenty of both today, but our air needs to get cleaned 25 up. I have a memento here from the 1980's, which was a

### Page 17 1 government industry initiative called, Do Your Share 2 for Cleaner Air. And it lists all kinds of things that 3 we as citizens can do: don't mow our lawn, don't gas up 4 during the heat of the day, things like that. We're 5 trying to do our part. Two things. That's the first 6one. 7 The second one is, we still have really 8 lousy air. So I'm convinced -- and I was a volunteer 9going around to talk to organizations to help clean up 10 air -- that we don't have the leadership here in the 11 state or the local area, either business wise or 12 government wise, to get this done. We need your help. 13 Cook Children's Hospital did an independent study 14 talking about the bad air quality. I think it was 15 25 percent increase in respiratory problems for fourth 16grade students. Those are the kids on my basketball 17 team. There was a study by a professor at SMU, 18 Dr. Armendariz, talking about ways that the industry 19can reduce and make profits on the bad air that's being 20 released right now, common sense things. 21 So when I hear industry people talk about 22 common sense and the desire to reduce emissions, it's 23 like, why do we have to be here? Why weren't you doing 24 it beforehand and why weren't you making money off of 25 it? So I kind of have to ask myself, if they really

### Page 18 1 want to reduce emissions, what the heck does it take 2 you guys having to come here and hear this kind of 3 thing. 4 I heard an interesting statistic from a 5 former EPA employee the other day that your own study 6of the benefits of the Clean Air Act and what that's 7 done is something like 116 times the cost benefit 8 ratio -- in other words, the benefits outweighed the 9costs, 280 billion in -- in saved lives in productivity 10 versus 2.4 billion in costs of compliance, and you 11 probably know that study better than I do. 12 So gentlemen I ask you, please, no more 13 delays. You're hearing from a citizen. Thank you 14 again for the time to come here and talk to you, and 15 I'll sadly drive my internal combustion engine back to 16Grapevine. 17 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you for your 18 testimony, Mr. Rath. Are there any clarifying 19questions for Mr. Rath? 20 MR. MOORE: Do you have any -- do you 21 have any oil and gas facilities near your home? Unless 22 I missed this in your testimony. 23 MR. RATH: Grapevine has several wells. 24 At least one of the producers is Chesapeake. I'm 25 thinking we have two active wells at this point. I

### Page 19 1 could be off one or two, and we've got more permitted. 2 MR. MOORE: Thank you. 3 MR. THOMPSON: Any additional questions? 4 Mr. Applekamp. 5 MR. APPLEKAMP: Thank you. On behalf of 6the gas Gas Processors Association, GPA, I appreciate 7 this opportunity to speak to you regarding the proposed 8 rulemaking entitled, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New 9Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards 10 for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews. 11 GPA is a nonprofit trade organization 12 made up of approximately 130 corporate members, all of 13 whom are engaged in the processing of natural gas or in 14 the manufacture, transportation or further processing 15 of natural gas liquids. GPA's membership accounts for 16approximately 92 percent of all natural gas liquids 17 produced by the midstream energy sector in the United 18 States. 19Our members also produce, gather, 20 transmit and market natural gas and natural gas 21 liquids. Safely bringing clean-burning natural gas 22 from producers to U.S. consumers has always been one of 23 the highest priorities of GPA-member companies. The 24 vast supply of natural gas and natural gas liquids is 25 one of our country's greatest assets. Increased

### Page 20 1 production and use of natural gas will help reduce our 2 country's dependence on foreign oil and keep billions 3 of dollars each year at home in the United States. 4 Therefore, we urge the EPA to be 5 thoughtful and use caution in this rulemaking, ensuring 6the rules are streamlined, reasonable and do not impede 7 the production, processing and transportation of 8 natural gas to U.S. consumers. In that regard, we have 9only a few short comments to make at this time. 10 We commend the EPA for the hard work that 11 has led to the proposed NSPS Subpart quad O so far. 12 Our members feel that the proposed new NSPS is a 13 reasonable start from which we can build a final rule 14 that meets the EPA objectives and, provided adequate 15 time, would not unnecessarily burden the industry. 16GPA respectfully requests an extension of 17 the comment period to December 30th, 2011, to allow 18 adequate time for a thorough review of the multiple 19changes contained in the proposed rulemaking. GPA 20 feels an extension of time is justified based on the 21 significant expansion of the regulatory requirements in 22 the proposed rulemaking that would cover a variety of 23 emission units that have not previously been addressed 24 by these standards. 25 In order to provide meaningful comments,

### Page 21 1 GPA and other stakeholders need a reasonable amount of 2 time to review and verify EPA's data, as well as to 3 collect information that could prove useful in the 4 rulemaking process. Given the scope and complexity of 5 the proposed rulemaking and the anticipated burdens it 6will place on the oil and gas -- and gas sector, 7 particularly small operators, GPA submits that an 8 additional 60 days for this comment period is 9reasonable and appropriate. 10 GPA also requests that the EPA seek an 11 extension of the February 28th, 2012, consent 12 decree deadline for finalization of the rule. It seems 13 unlikely that EPA can complete a thoughtful review and 14 response to comments before the current consent decree 15 deadline. For example, if the OMB interagency process 16requires 90 days for review, which would have to start 17 December 1st, assuming the February 28th, 2012 18 deadline, then the EPA would have about one month from 19the current October 29th comment submittal deadline in 20 which to review, analyze and give thoughtful 21 consideration to the anticipated high number of 22 comments. 23 GPA suggests that the EPA seek a full 24 year extension to February 28th, 2013, for finalization 25 of this rule. GPA members have also specific concerns

### Page 22 1 relative to the copious number of requirements for 2 notifications, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 3 that will apply to thousands of small and insignificant 4 sources under this new rule. We do not believe that 5 EPA has adequately considered the substantial effort 6and expenditure required to meet the ongoing paperwork 7 requirements of the new rule. 8 In that regard, GPA asks for EPA's 9consideration and help in rectifying specific concerns 10 that, left unresolved, will place substantial burdens 11 on our industry without an associated and justified 12 environmental benefit. GPA has established a work 13 group within our environmental committee that is 14 reviewing the proposed rulemaking and developing 15 specific and detailed written comments that we will 16submit to the EPA. Our comments can be more meaningful 17 to the rulemaking process if EPA provides the comment 18 deadline extension requested. 19GPA appreciates your consideration of our 20 concerns and we look forward to working with the EPA to 21 address these and future comments and discussions. 22 Thank you. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Applekamp. 24 Any clarifying questions for Mr. Applekamp? 25 Mr. Rath, Mr. Applekamp, thank you both

### Page 23 1 for your testimony. 2 Would Craig Brown and Teddy Carter please 3 come forward. Craig Brown and Teddy Carter. 4 Good morning, gentlemen. 5 MR. BROWN: Good morning. 6MR. CARTER: Good morning. 7 MR. THOMPSON: Would you please state and 8 spell your name for the court reporter, please. 9MR. BROWN: My name is Craig Brown, 10 C-r-a-i-g B-r-o-w-n. 11 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, sir. 12 MR. BROWN: Good morning. My name is 13 Craig Brown and I'm from QEP Resources. Today I'm 14 offering comments on behalf of America's Natural Gas 15 Alliance, ANGA, a trade association dedicated to 16increasing understanding of the environment, economic 17 and national security benefits of clean, abundant, 18 dependable and efficient North American natural gas. 19ANGA's 31 members include North America's largest 20 independent natural gas exploration and production 21 companies, the leading developers of the shale clays 22 that are transforming the clean energy landscape and 23 allowing communities across the country to advance 24 economically, creates stable jobs, staying competitive 25 locally and embrace a cleaner environment. We need

### Page 24 1 reliable energy to meet our growing needs. We need 2 clean energy to protect our environment. Natural gas 3 bridges both of these needs while providing us energy 4 security and domestic jobs. 5 Discovery of U.S. shale clays combined 6with advances in drilling technology have resulted in 7 game-changing projections of our supply of affordable 8 domestic natural gas. Respected academics, government 9agencies and expert bodies from the Energy Information 10 Agency to MIT to the National Petroleum Council are all 11 coming to the same conclusion. We have abundant 12 domestic supplies of economically-recoverable natural 13 gas to power our nation for generations to come. 14 We see a growing role for natural gas in 15 the nation's energy mix, in particular, because of the 16environmental advantages of its uses, power generation 17 and transportation fuel. When used to generate 18 electricity, natural gas burns cleaner than many other 19fuel sources, virtually eliminating SO2, particulate 20 and mercury emissions and significantly reducing NOx 21 emissions. 22 Vehicles running on natural gas also 23 emit -- emit significantly less NOx, VOCs and 24 particulate matter than vehicles running on gasoline or 25 diesel. The natural gas community is keenly aware that

### Page 25 1 with the opportunities presented by North America's 2 vast supplies of natural gas comes a responsibility to 3 be dedicated environmental stewards. 4 We firmly believe that people do not have 5 to choose between protecting their natural resources 6and reaping the benefit of this abundant energy source. 7 To that end, we hope to work with the EPA to ensure 8 these regulations protect the environment in a manner 9that is consistent with our commitment to a safe, 10 responsible development without adding unnecessary 11 burden that would impede our nation's ability to take 12 full advantage of the tremendous potential of American 13 natural gas. ANGA intends to submit detailed written 14 comments to the agency, and we hope to have a continued 15 dialogue with the agency as it develops a final 16rulemaking. 17 In the meantime, we offer the following 18 thoughts on the proposed requirements: In the natural 19gas production process, we are already -- there are 20 already significant incentives in place for operators 21 to reduce air emissions. Lost emissions equate to lost 22 revenues as we strive to be cost effective in capturing 23 as much sellable gas as possible. It is important that 24 the new standards recognize these existing incentives. 25 To that end, we encourage the Agency to ensure the

### Page 26 1 standards continue to allow appropriate consideration 2 of safety as well as engineering judgment, particularly 3 with respect to reduced emission completions. We 4 require -- where requirements are prescriptive, such as 5 those that require installation of a particular piece 6of equipment or maintenance on a particular time frame, 7 we encourage the agency to ensure that compliant 8 technologies or equipment exists and that operators be 9given the flexibility with respect to prescribed 10 schedules if there is no need from an emissions 11 standpoint to undertake an activity at a particular 12 time. 13 In the instances where we believe the 14 requirements are largely captured, existing good 15 operating practices because of these incentives 16mentioned above. We encourage the agency to recognize 17 that and to avoid unnecessarily and overly-burdensome 18 recordkeeping recording -- requirements. 19Finally, we look forward to discussing 20 the -- further the agency's regulatory impact analysis. 21 We believe a better understanding of existing operating 22 practices will help the agency produce a more accurate 23 cost benefit estimate associated with rulemaking. 24 Again, ANGA and its member companies appreciate the 25 opportunity to comment here today. We look forward to

### Page 27 1 working with the Agency to ensure the dual goals of 2 resource development and environmental protection are 3 met so that Americans continue to benefit from the 4 development of our vast domestic natural gas resources. 5 Thank you. 6MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any 7 clarifying questions for Mr. Brown? Mr. Carter. 8 MR. CARTER: Hi. My name is Teddy 9Carter, T-e-d-d-y C-a-r-t-e-r, and I'm here today to 10 speak on behalf of the Texas Independent Producers and 11 Royalty Owners Association, also known as TIPRO. TIPRO 12 is comprised of over 2,300 members, including small 13 family-owned companies, largest -- largest publicly 14 traded independence and large and small mineral estates 15 and trusts. 16Let me first state, TIPRO and its member 17 companies are in favor of clean air. People in the oil 18 and gas industry live and work around their facilities 19and they want to protect the air that their families 20 breathe just as much or more than the EPA does. The 21 new regulations, particularly in this current economy, 22 must be reasonable and based on sound science. 23 Oil and gas producers operate like any 24 other business. All business owners will tell you that 25 when all is said and done, they're in business to turn

### Page 28 1 a profit. Profitability allows businesses to reinvest 2 capital to grow their business, retain and reward their 3 current employees and hire new employees to grow their 4 work force. There are approximately 5,000 oil and gas 5 well operators in Texas, many of them small 6independents with limited capital resources. 7 These operators work hard at maintaining 8 a positive bottom line and that includes examining and 9implementing every possible scenario by which they may 10 invest in new technology, equipment or strategies to 11 improve profitability. Green completions are strategy 12 recommended by EPA and often evaluated by operators. 13 The EPA is correct. It makes economic sense to perform 14 these types of completions where possible because it 15 results in greater quantities of saleable product. For 16this reason, many operators will opt for green 17 completions when circumstances permit. However, a lack 18 of readily available gathering lines often prohibits 19them from performing one and the alternative practice 20 of flaring is oft -- is also often prohibited due to 21 municipal flaring restrictions. Again, TIPRO's in 22 favor of clean air, but we believe that one size does 23 not fit all with regard to which wells should have 24 green completions performed on them and the practice 25 should continue to be encouraged but not mandated.

### Page 29 1 Secondly, EPA's residual risk review 2 found that the current maximum individual cancer risk 3 from oil and natural gas production is 40 in 1 million, 4 which falls within the -- a range the EPA considers 5 acceptable. The Agency's residual risk review of air 6toxic standards for natural gas transmission and 7 storage is 90 in 1 million, also a level which EPA 8 finds acceptable. 9The dictionary defines the word 10 acceptable as able to be agreed on, suitable, adequate, 11 satisfactory, pleasing or welcome. If the risk as it 12 exists today is acceptable, then why pass regulations 13 that will needlessly harm businesses and jobs. TIPRO 14 believes that a primary reason standards are reviewed 15 periodically is so that agencies need not try to 16regulate based on every scenario they can imagine. 17 When the average American leaves for 18 work, they know that any number of scenarios could 19happen that may cause them harm. A meteor could fall 20 from the sky. They might be attacked by animals 21 escaped from the zoo and they -- it's possible they 22 could get hit by lightning. But the mere existence of 23 these possibilities is not sufficient reason to stay 24 home from work. Instead, people take action to reduce 25 risk to acceptable levels. They look both ways before

### Page 30 1 they cross the street. They wear their seat belts. 2 They hold firmly to that strap on the subway. 3 Regulation should be based on actual 4 facts and evidence, not theories or projections. If 5 current evidence shows that risk from oil and gas is 6acceptable, then no additional regulation should be 7 required until the next review period. Regulation for 8 regulation's sake is a dangerous path that can 9potentially cause greater harm than good, and TIPRO 10 urges the EPA not to present solutions to problems that 11 do not currently exist. 12 Finally, this proposed rule package is 13 extremely complicated and will require very extensive 14 technical and economic review in order for stakeholders 15 to properly address the operational and cost 16consequences that will arise as a result of the 17 rulemaking. Many TIPRO members are small businesses 18 that do not have in-house staff with proper knowledge 19or expertise to conduct such a comprehensive review. 20 The very short 60-day time frame for review and 21 comment, even with the pre-publication version of the 22 rule available will pose a significant hardship to 23 TIPRO members. EPA's proposed timeline with the final 24 action date mandated by February 2012 will not allow 25 for TIPRO members to prepare to implement the rules and

### Page 31 1 could, therefor, place TIPRO members in the untenable 2 position of operating out of compliance as well as 3 causing economic hardship because these businesses will 4 not have had the opportunity to prepare to incorporate 5 the cost of the rule requirements into their operating 6budgets. 7 The Railroad Commission of Texas has 8 unparalleled knowledge of the oil and gas industry. 9The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has 10 successfully reduced harmful emissions at a greater 11 rate than any other state in the country. Together, 12 these agencies continue to ensure compliance and 13 provide proper oversight based on verifiable science. 14 And although the EPA is well-intentioned, TIPRO 15 believes that regulation of oil and gas operations in 16Texas should reside at the state level. 17 However, if this rule package is going to 18 continue to move forward regardless of that fact, then 19TIPRO -- 20 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Carter, I'm sorry. 21 Your time has expired. You're more than welcome to 22 submit the remainder of your written comments. 23 Are there any clarifying questions for 24 Mr. Carter? 25 MR. CARTER: My last statement was just

### Page 32 1 requesting more time and I'll submit that. 2 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, sir. Thank 3 you, gentlemen. Would Bill Stevens and Angie 4 Burckhalter please come forward. 5 Good morning. Would you please state 6your names and spell them for our court reporter, 7 please, starting with Mr. Stevens. 8 MR. STEVENS: My name is Bill Stevens, 9S-t-e-v-e-n-s. 10 MS. BURCKHALTER: Angie Burckhalter, 11 B-u-r-c-k-h-a-l-t-e-r. 12 MR. THOMPSON: Okay, thank you. 13 Mr. Stevens, please. 14 MR. STEVENS: We've had -- thank you very 15 much and I am Bill Stevens. I am a government affairs 16consultant for the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers. 17 We are an oil -- Texas oil and gas trade association 18 with about 3,400 members across the State of Texas. 19About 70 percent of our membership have fewer than ten 20 employees in their companies. So it is truly the small 21 business men and women of Texas that are in the oil and 22 gas business. And I won't repeat a lot of what has 23 already been said by two or three of the industry 24 representatives ahead of me, but I came here also today 25 to ask for an extension on this. You should have

### Page 33 1 received a letter from us. If not, it's en route 2 asking for a six-month extension on these rules. And 3 again, as Teddy Carter said, the current time schedule 4 that we see, I think that many of our small producers 5 will be -- will be out of compliance maybe -- well, 6they will be out of compliance without even knowing so. 7 There's a long education process. 8 We've just been through a nearly 9year-long rulemaking with TCEQ, which promulgated a new 10 PBR and standard permit. And I'm seeing in our 11 producer community that the education, particularly the 12 small corporations, who again have no staff for this 13 type of thing, who have not been involved in -- in air 14 permitting in the past, that there is a -- there's a 15 time lag there and we're working on that and happy to 16do so. But let's keep -- let's stay in compliance. 17 We're working to clean up the -- to clean up the air in 18 this industry, doing better and better. 19I would like to -- and I will -- in our 20 comments, whether we get another -- another 30 days or 21 another six months, we will submit technical comments 22 to you and, again, happy to do so. But when we talk 23 about green completions, the industry is moving that 24 direction. And it is often not -- not even possible to 25 do some of the things that -- that you require. I

### Page 34 1 would say that in your overview, I believe that you 2 overstated the benefits of the green com -- the dollar 3 benefits of green completions and understated the cost. 4 And oftentimes, there is not infrastructure available. 5 And when we talk about another alternative of flaring, 6that is also not an option, whether it's through 7 municipal ordinance -- we have a ban burn in Texas and 8 many, many places. And I don't think that a pit flare 9or any type of flare is warranted today in some of 10 the -- in some of the areas where we're drilling. I 11 just don't think you want to do that and there is a 12 ban -- a burn ban. 13 So it's not -- it's not always -- always 14 possible and we're obviously trying to -- trying to 15 accomplish what you want there voluntarily. The tank 16emissions and flash emissions, we've been through that 17 with TCEQ and we've been working on that. But I would 18 say to you that requiring a closed system on many, many 19of the small wells, the small locations that you're 20 talking about, is inordinately onerous. A one barrel 21 per day condensate level in any one tank, there needs 22 to be a much higher minimum standard than that. I will 23 say that the 20 barrels of crude oil is possibly 24 reachable, but it is -- again, I don't believe -- I 25 think that should be raised. I don't believe that

### Page 35 1 you're going to find the emissions factors there that 2 you want. 3 We have -- and again -- and I'm not 4 trying to mix agencies. I understand your mission, but 5 we've been through this in the last year of trying to 6educate our Barnett shale producers and seeing that. 7 But we have the difference with one rule with one PBR 8 and one standard permit. We have the difference in 9population density from Tarrant County at 2,500 people 10 per square mile to Shackelford County with less than 2 11 people per square mile with wells that are making an 12 average of 250 to 400 MCF a day to wells that are 13 producing associated gas at 3 MCF per day. And -- so 14 the one size does not fit all. These are the types of 15 things we would like to present to you in a more 16detailed comment. 17 Pneumatic controllers, another -- another 18 area. Again, other people have talked about control 19equipment. Pneumatic controllers where you're wanting 20 a guarantee of 6 M -- lead rate of 6 MCF per day or 21 less, the manufacturers will not guarantee that. 22 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Stevens, I'm sorry. 23 Your time has expired. 24 MR. STEVENS: Okay. Thank you very much. 25 I appreciate it and happy to be here with you.

### Page 36 1 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, sir. 2 Ms. Burckhalter, please. 3 MS. BURCKHALTER: My name is Angie 4 Burckhalter, and I represent the Oklahoma Independent 5 Petroleum Association in Oklahoma City. OIPA has 6approximately 2,100 small to large independent crude 7 oil and natural gas producers in Oklahoma that will be 8 significantly impacted by the proposed rules. We 9appreciate the opportunity to be here today and we 10 submit the following comments. 11 Many oil and gas operators in Oklahoma 12 are small businesses. That's already been stated a 13 number of times this morning. They are v -- these 14 small companies are ill-equipped to be able to bear the 15 cost burdens of more and more air regulations. Over 16the past three years, EPA alone has come out with 17 significant rules that have impacted our membership. 18 For example, the engine rules and the greenhouse gas 19reporting rules. 20 Many small businesses that operate 21 production facilities have limited staff. 22 Forty-six percent of OIPA's members have less than 19 23 employees. Their tolerance for more complex and costly 24 regulations is significantly different and is 25 significantly less than as compared to the larger

### Page 37 1 companies. These truly are small businesses that are 2 struggling to stay in business. Oil and gas 3 facilities, very significantly across the country, as 4 you know, there's drastic differences between the 5 fluids and the gases produced, the volumes that are 6produced initially, the production volume drop-offs 7 rates. The economics of each well vary. So there's a 8 number of variabilities that EPA needs to consider. 9The proposed regulations do not provide the flexibility 10 to address these different issues or the different 11 sectors of our industry, nor does it address the costly 12 and burdensome issues for small businesses. 13 For example, the EPA proposed an 14 overwhelming amount of information be submitted, for 15 example, your initial and subsequent notifications, 16your reporting -- your annual reporting requirements, 17 your monitoring, your testing data, your recordkeeping. 18 It goes on and on and on. The types of requirements 19will be onerous for the large companies, but it will be 20 significant for the smaller companies. The small 21 companies don't have EHS data -- data management 22 systems in place for the staff to address these issues. 23 EPA proposes to use an electronic 24 database or a third party compliance. Instead, we 25 request EPA re-evaluate the need for all of this

### Page 38 1 information. Greatly simplify and streamline the 2 various notices, recordkeeping, monitoring, all that 3 data that I just mentioned and try to implement 4 something more in the area of a general duty clause 5 allowing operators to just collect data and keep the 6records and, if needed or requested, they can submit 7 those. 8 Another area that's problematic for small 9operators, compliance deadlines. They won't be able to 10 meet -- meet the Federal Register Publication 11 compliance date. They need time to fully understand 12 the rules. They need to be able to program funding. 13 They need to be able to either train their staff or 14 hire consultants, establish procedures and protocols to 15 comply, purchase or rent the equipment. Our members 16are greatly concerned that they're going to have to 17 complete with the larger operators for the consultants 18 and the equipment. As you know, once the demand goes 19up, the supply goes down and the costs increase. 20 That's pretty basic economics. 21 So, therefore, we request an 18-month 22 delay in the compliance requirements, specifically 23 regarding production sites. EPA's NESHAP requirements 24 have become so technical that only a person with 25 significant knowledge and experience can really

### Page 39 1 understand those. Even someone who's very 2 sophisticated that's done air for many years has issues 3 with those MACT requirements. We're very concerned 4 that the small operators will be struggling to figure 5 out those rules and comply. 6I see my time is getting short. Also, 7 it's imperative that EPA, once they finalize the rule, 8 develops useful tools that can be implemented that 9operators can determine applicability, figure out how 10 to comply. That would be tables, fax sheets, webinars, 11 various flowcharts, things like that, that would help 12 our members better understand the rule and how to 13 comply. We request a 60-day extension to the comment 14 period to allow the smaller operators more time to 15 review and evaluate the rule. And also, we would 16greatly appreciate specific consideration to production 17 operations and the smaller operators. That's all I 18 have. I appreciate your time. 19MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Ms. 20 Burckhalter. Any clarifying questions? One question, 21 please. A question to start. 22 MR. MOORE: Actually, this is for both of 23 you, but Angie answered part of it already. Most of 24 you brought up the fact that you have a lot of smaller 25 operators out there that are not as sophisticated as a

### Page 40 1 lot of the larger companies may be. What I would like 2 to ask you -- and you can provide this later in your 3 written comments to give you more time to think about 4 it -- would be suggestions in addition to those that 5 Angie has already listed for what EPA can do to help 6the smaller operators understand what the requirements 7 are before they get into place so they'll know what 8 they're required to do before they're required to do 9it. And we su -- we would like your suggestions on 10 types of things we could do to help that be done. 11 MS. BURCKHALTER: We'll be happy to 12 submit our comments in writing, but we'll have detailed 13 comments by the comment deadline. Bill, go ahead if 14 you want. 15 MR. STEVENS: I just appreciate you 16asking that question, and that's something that -- I 17 think that we can work together -- together on and 18 particularly -- and through Region 6. Closer to home 19is always better. And have a good -- good staff at 20 Region 6 to help us with that. As we look forward, 21 I've always thought that, you know, there's not a lot 22 of difference sometimes between -- between production 23 sites. And -- and proving up every production site is 24 not always necessary. There can be forms and/or 25 methods through reporting to EPA -- it can be so simple

### Page 41 1 if it's this configuration, if this pressure, this 2 volume, this is the controller, then there's not really 3 anything for you to do other than, you know, to verify 4 those facts and send them to you because you're going 5 to know very, very closely what the potential to emit 6will be or any -- any potential for degradation. 7 MR. THOMPSON: Any additional question? 8 MS. BURCKHALTER: Just one quick 9suggestion. You know, screening tools, I know in your 10 greenhouse gas reporting rule, you have an 11 applicability tool on the website. Though our 12 operators try to use that, they can't. It's not usable 13 tool for them. So we need something more specific that 14 is more reasonable. And probably in that, you know, 15 y'all were trying to be conservative whenever you 16developed this rule, but it needs to be more reasonable 17 and useful because I'm getting calls all the time from 18 operators saying, you know, I can't even find anything 19to use as -- you know, even telling me I need to do 20 more detailed calculations. So anything like that 21 would be very helpful. 22 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you both for your 23 testimony. Thank you very much. 24 Ed Ireland and Thomas Sullivan, please 25 come forward. Ed Ireland and Thomas Sullivan. Good

### Page 42 1 morning, gentlemen. 2 MR. IRELAND: Good morning. 3 MR. THOMPSON: Could you please state 4 your names and spell for the court reporter, please, 5 starting with Mr. Ireland. 6MR. IRELAND: It's Ed Ireland. That's 7 E-d and I-r-e-l-a-n-d. 8 MR. SULLIVAN: Thomas Sullivan, 9T-h-o-m-a-s S-u-l-l-i-v-a-n. 10 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Ireland, 11 please. 12 MR. IRELAND: Good morning. 13 MR. THOMPSON: Good morning. 14 MR. IRELAND: I'm Ed Ireland, the 15 executive director of the Barnett Shale Energy 16Education Counsel, which is a nonprofit educational 17 organization that focuses on energy education as 18 related to the Barnett Shale region in North Texas. 19BSEEC members are committed to responsible principles 20 and operations in the development of the clean burning 21 natural gas in the Barnett Shale. I would like to 22 focus on two points regarding the proposed New Source 23 Performance Standards or NSPS rules. 24 First, a one-size-fits-all approach to 25 regulating VOC emissions from natural gas wells is not

### Page 43 1 appropriate because VOC emissions vary widely due to 2 geologic factors and operating conditions. For 3 example, the dry gas areas in the Barnett Shale have 4 very low VOC emissions. This also suggests that it is 5 not appropriate for the EPA to use natural gas 6emissions as a surrogate for VOC emissions. 7 Second, to propose NSPS rules for the oil 8 and gas natural gas -- oil and natural gas sector are 9so extensive and complex and the comment period so 10 short that the EPA should extend the comment period and 11 delay implementation of the rules until sufficient 12 review is performed and comments can be made. 13 Regarding VOC emissions from Barnett Shale natural gas 14 wells, the TCEQ recently released data collected from 15 their phase two special inventory in which operators 16were required to report the actual VOC, NOx and HAP 17 emissions from all 49,021 pieces of equipment listed in 18 their phase one inventory. These data revealed that 19the TCEQ significantly overestimated VOC emissions from 20 Barnett Shale natural gas wells in its state 21 implementation plan for the nine county D/FW 22 nonattainment area. 23 TCEQ's phase two emissions data show that 24 VOC emissions in the nine county area of the Barnett 25 Shale were actually 23.2 tons per day compared to the

### Page 44 1 TCEQ's SIP estimate of 101.8 tons per day. Even 2 allowing for a modest growth in the number of wells in 3 operation between 2009 and 2010, it's obvious that TCEQ 4 has been overestimating VOC emissions by many orders of 5 magnitude. 6One basis for the overestimation of VOC 7 appears to be the assumption that substantial amounts 8 of VOC emissions are omitted from condensate storage 9tanks. TCEQ has cited certain studies and findings in 10 support of its assumption as to the level of VOC 11 emissions from condensate storage tanks. As explained 12 in the attachments to my testimony, which I supplied to 13 your staff, the basis for this assumption rests solely 14 on the HARC H51C VOC flash emissions factor of 15 33 pounds per barrel. As detailed in my written 16comments, this emissions factor is based on faulty data 17 and was applied by TCEQ to its SIP rulemaking for all 18 condensate production regardless of the differences in 19VOC content of the flash gas and operating conditions. 20 The recent City of Fort Worth ERG study 21 provides additional evidence that prior estimates, 22 including the January 26, 2009 Armendariz report, have 23 overestimated VOC emissions from the oil and gas 24 sector. Unfortunately, the faulty 33 pounds per barrel 25 emissions factor from these studies has reappeared in

### Page 45 1 this EPA rulemaking and appears to underlie the EPA's 2 VOC calculations on which subpart quad O is based. 3 In summary, the EPA should recognize that 4 a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach to regulating 5 VOC from natural gas wells is not appropriate because 6such emissions vary widely depending on geologic 7 factors and operating conditions. This also suggests 8 it is not appropriate for the EPA to use natural gas 9emissions as a surrogate for VOC emissions. Since both 10 TCEQ and EPA have overestimated VOC emissions, the cost 11 of the proposed NSPS rules may be underestimated and 12 the benefits overestimated. 13 The EPA needs to be encouraging, not 14 discouraging the development of clean-burning natural 15 gas. This was highlighted in a study released this 16week by well-known economist, Dr. Ray Perryman, that 17 noted the huge economic benefits and jobs that Barnett 18 Shale activity is providing to North Texas and the 19entire State of Texas. The EPA should proceed with 20 caution so as not to damage this powerful economic 21 engine unnecessarily. 22 Finally, the EPA needs to provide more 23 time for -- 24 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Ireland -- 25 MR. IRELAND: -- companies to review --

### Page 46 1 MR. THOMPSON: -- I'm sorry. Your time 2 has expired. 3 MR. IRELAND: Thank you. 4 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. I have a 5 question for you, Mr. Ireland. The 2009 6Armendero (phonetic) report I think you referenced -- 7 MR. IRELAND: Yes. 8 MR. THOMPSON: January 26th, 2009 report. 9My question for you is, is that referenced in your 10 written comments that you've submitted to us? 11 MR. IRELAND: Yes, it is. 12 MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Thanks. Thank you. 13 Mr. Sullivan. 14 MR. SULLIVAN: My name is Thomas 15 Sullivan. I'm with Zephyr Environmental here today 16speaking on behalf of the Texas Oil and Gas 17 Association. TXOGA is the largest and oldest petroleum 18 organization in Texas representing over 4,000 members. 19That includes production of over 90 percent of Texas 20 crude oil and natural gas and operates over nearly a 21 hundred percent of the state's refining capacity. 22 The oil and gas industry in Texas 23 directly employs over 297,000 people in Texas and 24 indirectly supports millions of additional jobs. So 25 that's -- that's a scope of what your rule is going to

### Page 47 1 affect at this point in time. According to the 2 Railroad Commission, the Texas rig count as of 3 September 26th was 898, representing nearly 46 percent 4 of the active land rigs in the United States. And 5 statewide, over 9,400 wells were drilled in 2010. So 6there's -- this rule disproportionately impacts Texas 7 versus the rest of the country. 8 Texas holds nearly 24 percent of the 9domestic crude reserves and 32 percent of the domestic 10 natural gas preserves and is currently providing 11 27 percent of the onshore crude production and 12 32 percent of the onshore natural gas production. This 13 is more than any other state. As it's been said 14 before, and I think everyone's aware, all production is 15 not the same. The variety of reservoirs, the different 16types of wells, the variable number and size of sites, 17 different types of operation, the different ages of 18 these wells and production facilities and the variable 19capability of the operators all makes a 20 one-size-fits-all rule very difficult to implement and 21 to comply with. 22 One of the things that has been mentioned 23 in part and I'd like to discuss some more is the way 24 that -- excuse me -- operators typically have many 25 different contractors doing work and have different

### Page 48 1 responsibilities for their operations. This makes 2 compliance with -- with the different sections of the 3 rule very difficult and it also means that a lot of the 4 people who were going to be required to do actions 5 under this -- to comply with the rule are not present 6here and they aren't necessarily represented in this -- 7 in this process. And that's one of the reasons why 8 we've requested an extension on the comment periods, so 9that we can deal with -- can get the word out to the 10 vendors, to the contractors and get their comments 11 back. Because compliance is not going to be just, does 12 Exxon Mobil know about this rule, it's do the 13 operators, do their contractors know about this rule. 14 You're talking about thousands and thousands of 15 companies that all have to be educated and all have to 16understand their role in this new -- in this new rule. 17 So I think that both from a comment 18 extension and for a compliance extension, that's -- 19that requires some consideration. Now, it's been said 20 before, the proposed rules, we have serious concerns 21 about the recordkeeping burdens and the control 22 requirements. We'll provide additional technical 23 comments within the -- this current submittal deadline 24 but we would like more time to be able to address all 25 the technical issues within these rules.

### Page 49 1 Let's see. One additional comment I'd 2 like to make is in regards to D/FW and how over the 3 past ten years, the air quality in the D/FW area has 4 shown improvement from the existing ozone monitoring. 5 And that's over a time period where the well count has 6gone from 700 in 2000, wells, to over 13,000 wells in 7 2009. We've seen the ozone -- excuse me -- 8 exceedences (phonetic) in the high days decrease over 9that same period and at the same time that D/FW has had 10 added 4 million people in population. So we are doing 11 things right. I think that tying the results back to 12 what we're actually seeing on the ground is important. 13 But thank you for your time. 14 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Just one 15 question. What kind of comment extension are you -- 16MR. SULLIVAN: At this point in time, I 17 believe we've asked for 60 days extension. 18 MR. THOMPSON: Sixty days. 19MR. SULLIVAN: We have sent in a letter 20 requesting that. 21 MR. THOMPSON: Any clarifying questions, 22 gentlemen? Thank you both for your testimony. Thank 23 you. 24 Would Frederick Lopez and representative 25 Lon Burnam please come forward. Good morning,

### Page 50 1 gentlemen. 2 MR. LOPEZ: Hi, good morning. 3 MR. THOMPSON: Could you please pronounce 4 your names and spell for our court reporter. 5 MR. LOPEZ: Frederick Lopez, 6F-r-e-d-e-r-i-c-k L-o-p-e-z. 7 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. State your 8 name and spell for the court reporter, please. 9MR. BURNAM: I'm State Representative 10 Lon, L-o-n, Burnam, B-u-r-n-a-m, from Fort Worth. 11 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you both. 12 Mr. Lopez, please begin testimony. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you for this 14 opportunity to speak to you. Good morning. The 15 American Lung Association supports the protection of 16all people from harm of pollu -- of air pollution, 17 especially those who suffer disproportionate exposure 18 from local sources of emission. We recognize that 19energy and transportation sources of air pollution are 20 often located near where many people, especially 21 communities of color, and lower income live and work. 22 We recognize that many factors have contributed to 23 disproportionate levels of exposure in these 24 communities, including missing or weak limits on 25 emissions, poor enforcement of existing regulations,

### Page 51 1 inadequate monitoring of pollution and limited 2 scientific research. 3 Therefore, we support regular, thorough 4 assessments of the impacts to nearby communities from 5 sources of dangerous air pollution, including highways, 6industrial boilers, power plants and other sources of 7 air pollution. Organization is fighting every day for 8 a day when we can all breathe easier. Our over-arching 9call is for the implemation (sic) of effective air 10 quality programs and standards as we transition to a 11 cleaner energy future with a commitment of 12 environmental justice. 13 It is also important that, as we discuss 14 natural gas drilling, we mention the importance of 15 domestic production of shale gas to reduce point source 16and mobile (phonetic) source pollution. We are 17 concerned with toxic air emissions coming from 18 coal-fired power plants in our state. Therefore, we 19support the cleanup of coal-fired power plants with a 20 conversion of natural gas. As we pursue advancements 21 in renewable energy and build infrastructure to utilize 22 renewable energy sources, natural gas is a transition 23 fuel that burns cleaner than oil -- than coal. 24 In addition, the transportation sector in 25 the United States generates a significant share of the

### Page 52 1 nation's air pollution, threatening the health and 2 lives of millions of people. We've been urging the 3 administration to issue a stronger national air quality 4 standard for ozone. However, the administration 5 decided to delay the decision for more protective 6ozone national air quality standards until 2013. 7 Despite the EPA's efforts over the last 8 12 years -- over the last 2 years to strengthen the 9standard. As we continue to push for stricter 10 standards, (unintelligible) areas in our nonattainment 11 transportation -- in our nonattainment areas, 12 transportation alternatives that are affordable and 13 viable for public vehicle use. 14 The American Lung Association supports 15 programs to reduce transportation energy use and to 16provide greater transportation alternatives. Natural 17 gas is one tool in a toolbox of solutions to reduce the 18 exposure to mobile source air pollutions. It's 19important that the benefits of natural gas in energy 20 production in vehicle use are not negated by the 21 extraction process and also the process of getting it 22 to the end user. 23 Therefore, we support the adoption of 24 best practices with the least operational impact and 25 the best environmental outcome. That's it.

### Page 53 1 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Lopez. Any 2 clarifying questions for Mr. Lopez? Thank you. 3 Representative Burnam, please. 4 MR. BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I 5 stated earlier, I'm State Representative Lon Burnam 6from Fort Worth, and it's been my honor to represent 7 the people of District 90 and the inner city district 8 in Fort Worth of -- now of about 160,000 people for the 9last 15 years. But for the last 35 years, I've been 10 coming to public forums like this to try to clean up 11 the air here in North Texas. And today is particularly 12 unique because I am here primarily to praise the 13 efforts of the EPA, and you haven't seen a lot from 14 elected state officials here in Texas. But it's also 15 not unique in the context of, for that 35 years while 16we have seen slow and incremental progress towards 17 cleaning up our air, we have heard a consistent line 18 that we've heard again today from the producers of the 19air pollution. They also produce a really important 20 economic product. And my graduate degree is in 21 regional economic development. I understand the role 22 and the importance of the Barnett Shale and I'm really 23 kind of sick and tired of being sick and tired from 24 people talking about cost effectiveness and talking 25 about risk acceptableness at the cost of the children

### Page 54 1 in my district. 2 You've heard the allusion to the Cook 3 Children's hospital study. I was one of those 4 asthmatic children. From the age of nine forward, I 5 was asking what is in the air that makes me so sick 6that I can't play outside. One of the first witnesses 7 talked about the fact that in suburban Tarrant County, 8 we have kids that can't play basketball outside without 9using their inhalers. The air has been steadily 10 cleaning up for 30 of those 35 years. But what we've 11 seen in the last five years with the development of the 12 ability to develop the Barnett Shale is increasing air 13 pollution problems. All of that said, as the angry 14 nine-year-old wondering why he can't play outdoor, now 15 I want to talk about some of the specifics and I'll 16read my testimony. 17 I want to applaud you for posing these 18 common sense rules to reduce dangerous emission for 19proliferating oil and gas facilities around the 20 country. These long overdue improvements to the New 21 Source Performance Standards will do what the Texas 22 legislature and state agencies that oversee oil and gas 23 production have failed to do. 24 There has been no leadership in Texas. 25 I'm on the environmental reg committee, the Texas House

### Page 55 1 of Representatives, and I have offered several pieces 2 of legislation that address the specific issues that 3 your proposed rules propose, that with this situation 4 that we have in Texas with people consistently -- I 5 mean elected officials -- putting private profit over 6public health, we have not been able to do what we need 7 to do. We need to protect public health by placing 8 reasonable limits on air pollution that will both 9reduce emissions and increase industry revenue. 10 In fact, if they would do -- implement a 11 lot of the what you're talking about, in the longer 12 run, they would make a larger profit. But what we 13 always hear from the industry is short-term profits. 14 Let's talk about the first -- next quarter, not a year 15 from now, two years from -- three years from now. 16I have a number of comments, and I 17 realize I'll probably run out of time. So let me 18 highlight them. First, I want to talk about green 19completion, pneumatic control devices, storage tanks 20 and leak detection at gas processing plants. All of 21 those proposals are sound. Some of them need a little 22 bit of refinement. 23 While green completions are already 24 required by the City of Fort Worth gas drilling 25 ordinance, this rule will extend the requirement to the

### Page 56 1 unincorporated areas in the many municipalities around 2 Tarrant County and the Barnett Shale that lack these 3 requirements. Requiring green completions to include 4 all gas wells in the Barnett Shale will significantly 5 reduce emissions in the D/FW nonattainment area. 6I recommend that regardless of comments 7 provided today, the green completion requirement not be 8 limited to apply only to gas wells with certain VOC 9content but rather to all hydraulically-fractured well 10 completions. With increasing production of oil Barnett 11 and other shale formations in Texas, the requirement 12 should be extended to include new and existing oil 13 wells that co-produce gas, instead of only applying to 14 gas wells. 15 With regards to pneumatic control 16devices, requiring that new and replaced pneumatic 17 devices be, quote, no bleed or low bleed is an 18 important step. But the improved rules would have no 19impact on emissions from the thousands of valves 20 already in operation in the Barnett Shale. The reason 21 four years ago I called for a moratorium on development 22 is because we knew the increasing hazards to health and 23 we knew that the industry was consistently and 24 constantly resisting appropriate regulation. We should 25 have had a moratorium.

### Page 57 1 In one sense, we've let the cat out of 2 the bag or the horses out of the barn or we've opened 3 Pandora's box. We needed and should have had that 4 moratorium. That all we hear from industry is delay, 5 delay, delay while they maximize their profits in a 6huge profit industry at the expense of public health. 7 Am I out of time? 8 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir, you are. Your 9time has expired. 10 MR. BURNAM: Thank you. You can read 11 about storage tanks and leak detection of gas 12 processing in my submitted comments. Thank you for 13 your time. 14 MR. THOMPSON: Absolutely. Are there any 15 clarifying questions by either of these gentlemen? 16Okay. Mr. Lopez and State Representative Burnam, thank 17 you for your testimony. 18 MR. BURNAM: Thank you. 19MR. THOMPSON: Would Ramon Alvarez and 20 Darren Smith please come forward. Ramon Smith, please 21 come forward. And, again, if you would pronounce -- 22 you do a whole lot better job of it than I am, 23 obviously -- and spell your name for our court 24 reporter. It'd be much appreciated. 25 MR. ALVAREZ: My name is Ramon Alvarez,

### Page 58 1 R-a-m-o-n A-l-v-a-r-e-z. 2 MR. SMITH: My name is Darren Smith, 3 D-a-r-r-e-n S-m-i-t-h. 4 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. And, 5 Mr. Alvarez, please begin your testimony. 6MR. ALVAREZ: Good morning and welcome to 7 Texas, for most of you. My name is Ramon Alvarez. I'm 8 a scientist with Environmental Defense Fund in Austin. 9We're a nonpartisan environmental organization with 10 more than 700,000 members nationwide. 11 Thanks for the opportunity to testify 12 today. The proposed rule for new national clean air 13 standards for the oil and gas industry represent a 14 critical step towards protecting public health and the 15 environment from harmful air contaminants. The 16standards will not only reduce air pollution through 17 proven and highly cost-effective pollution controls but 18 avoid the needless waste of a valuable domestic energy 19resource. 20 They will also standardize many common 21 sense practices and technologies that are already 22 implemented in states such as Colorado and Wyoming and 23 are already being used by many natural gas companies 24 throughout the country. Just a little bit of 25 background and then I have some specific comments.

### Page 59 1 We all know that natural gas and oil 2 operations are expanding rapidly into new locations 3 across the country due to new technology developments 4 that allow the commercial extraction of previously 5 untapped unconventional resources. The lack of 6national level emission standards poses a serious 7 threat to families and communities across the U.S., 8 since exploration and production activities emit a 9number of hazardous air pollutants and other airborne 10 contaminants known to negatively affect human health 11 and the environment. 12 For example, hazardous air pollutants 13 like benzine, a known human carcinogen, have been 14 detected near production sites in Texas and Colorado, 15 also wintertime ozone levels in remote parts of Wyoming 16and Utah with little industrial activity except for oil 17 and gas have higher levels of ozone than other parts of 18 the country, the most heavily-polluted cities in the 19country, in fact. 20 These air pollution problems coupled with 21 other concerns, such as the risks presented by 22 hydraulic fracturing, have led many to wonder whether 23 the trade-offs to increasing domestic gas production 24 are too steep. Adoption of this proposal will be a 25 vital step to reducing the health and environmental

### Page 60 1 impact to the natural gas and oil industry. Simply 2 stated, there is real urgency for EPA to take this 3 action. We ask that you reject calls for delaying the 4 adoption or implementation of this package. 5 EDF supports EPA's proposal and 6recommends it be strengthened. The proposal is an 7 important first step in securing cleaner air and more 8 efficient industry practices. It goes a long way 9towards capturing the multiple benefit achievable to 10 the implementation of readily achievable 11 technologies -- readily available technologies and 12 practices. However, we believe the standards could be 13 strengthened. In particular, we are concerned that the 14 proposal fails to reduce emissions from many existing 15 sources. 16As a result, these sources will continue 17 to contribute to unhealthy levels of air pollution for 18 years to come. EDF applauds EPA's efforts thus far, 19but calls on the Agency to address existing sources in 20 order to achieve greater health and environmental 21 benefits and reduce waste of a valuable, natural 22 resource. 23 Second, national standards are needed to 24 protect families and communities in states like Texas 25 that have lagged behind in limiting emissions. All

### Page 61 1 Americans, regardless of where they live, deserve the 2 same opportunity to breathe air free of pollution from 3 oil and gas activities. Texas recently updated its 4 permit requirements for oil and gas but failed to 5 require any specific controls. So Texans are deprived 6of protections afforded to citizens of other states. 7 For example, Colorado and Wyoming require 8 reduced emission completions, as proposed by EPA. 9However, Texas does not require any controls on well 10 emissions, nor does it even consider those emissions in 11 determining the applicability of permitting 12 requirements. Wyoming and Colorado require the use of 13 low and no-bleed pneumatics, the industry gold standard 14 in reducing emissions from another significant source 15 of air pollution. Texas has no such requirement. 16Finally, the standards proposed by EPA 17 rely on proven technologies and practices. This is not 18 pie-in-the-sky stuff. The good news is, there are 19existing and cost-effective solutions at hand. EPA's 20 proposal builds on regulations already in place in 21 states like Colorado and Wyoming. Further, as the EPA 22 has shown, in cooperation with oil and gas companies 23 through the Natural Gas STAR Program, there are dozens 24 of technologies and best management practices to reduce 25 emissions from natural gas operations, a number of

### Page 62 1 which were on the basis of EPA's proposal. 2 These technologies reduce natural gas 3 losses, producing a greater recovery and sale of 4 product. The return on initial investment for many of 5 these required practices is sometimes as short as a few 6months and almost always less than two years. EPA's 7 proposed standards have also the added effect of 8 ensuring that our finite domestic resources are being 9used widely. 10 As we indicated in our comments in 11 Pittsburgh, there is no evidence of adverse effects 12 from -- 13 MR. THOMPSON: I'm sorry -- 14 MR. LOPEZ: -- the rules on -- 15 MR. THOMPSON: -- Mr. Lopez. Your time 16has expired. 17 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 18 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Any clarifying 19questions for Mr. Alvarez? Mr. Smith, please. 20 MR. SMITH: Thank you. Good morning and 21 thank you, EPA, for taking the time to hear public 22 comments on this important issue. My name is Darren 23 Smith. I'm an environmental health and safety manager 24 for Devon Energy, based in Oklahoma City. 25 Devon has been recognized numerous times

### Page 63 1 by the EPA for demonstrating leadership through our 2 voluntary air emission reduction projects. Today, I 3 want to discuss the serious concern Devon has about the 4 economics that the EPA relied on to justify the 5 requirements of this NSPS rule. 6EPA has suggested that producers can 7 actually profit by implementing this rule, and that 8 simply is not correct. Let me explain our concern. In 92010, representative of EPA's climate program employed 10 a flawed methodology to estimate natural gas emissions 11 from hydraulically-fractured well completions and 12 re-completions, those from shale gas, coalbed methane 13 and tight sand wells. 14 The EPA misapplied data reported to them 15 in good faith by producers under the EPA Natural Gas 16STAR Program. The EPA made an assumption that the 17 volume of gas recovered by the practice of green 18 completing the well, a technique used to capture and 19sell gas from a well before it is connected to a sales 20 line. They believe that that quantity of gas is the 21 same quantity of natural gas that would be emitted if a 22 well was not green completed. This is simply not the 23 case, and the data set that was used to develop the 24 factor had only four data points. 25 We became suspicious of this estimate

### Page 64 1 when we realized that, if it was true, Devon alone 2 would be losing more than $305 million to the 3 atmosphere in a single year, and no business would 4 tolerate this type of waste. The reality is that the 5 volume of gas emitted in instances where green 6completion equipment cannot be employed is a small 7 fraction of what EPA believes. 8 We have proof. Just yesterday, we 9completed a U.S. company-wide data effort at Devon from 10 wells completed in ten different basins across the 11 country. In using an EPA-endorsed flow equation, we 12 estimated the actual emissions from 13 hydraulically-fractured well completions. Our mission 14 estimate is very conservative, definitely erring on the 15 high side. But even then, it represents less than 7 16percent of what -- of the EPA estimate. 17 Now, the problem that we are facing today 18 is that the subpart quad O authors used the 19overestimates supplied to them from their coll -- 20 climate colleagues in their economic analysis. As a 21 result, and not surprisingly, the EPA believes that the 22 proposed green completion requirement would allow a 23 company to actually make $6,000 each time they 24 performed one. I should add that they did not discount 25 for the cost of all the associated reporting and

### Page 65 1 recordkeeping and notification that the rule proposes. 2 When we apply our conservative estimate 3 of actual completion emissions, green completions would 4 actually cost the company $25,000 each. Producers 5 already employ green completion technology where it 6makes sense. Devon is in favor of the practice. There 7 are benefits to doing it, but we are strongly opposed 8 to using misleading emission estimates to force this 9requirement where it isn't feasible. 10 The purpose of my testimony this morning 11 is to inform the EPA that there is actual industry data 12 to suggest that its economics are wrong. We, and our 13 peers, will be providing this data formally to you 14 under the public comment period. I don't need to 15 remind you that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has an 16obligation to employ the best available data to assess 17 the economic impacts of this rule. 18 The EPA also has an obligation to the 19American people to correct the data that is fueling 20 criticisms about the environmental performance of this 21 industry. Already, there have been reports and 22 potential public policy implications stemming from this 23 erroneous data. 24 Finally, EPA is using it to justify more 25 uncostly regulations on an industry that Americans rely

### Page 66 1 on for energy and job -- jobs. We urge the EPA to 2 recognize that additional costs translate into fewer 3 wells, fewer people earning a paycheck and higher 4 energy costs. This concludes my testimony. Thank you. 5 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Any 6clarifying questions? Okay. 7 MR. MACPHERSON: Thank you, Mr. Smith. 8 You said the reduced emissions completion cost $25,000. 9That's after netting out the value of the recovered 10 gas? 11 MR. SMITH: That's correct. 12 MR. MACPHERSON: Okay. And that's 13 described in support to your comments? 14 MR. SMITH: We haven't submitted those 15 yet, but we certainly will be before the deadline. 16MR. MACPHERSON: Okay. Thank you. 17 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, gentlemen. 18 Thank you both for your testimony. 19At this time, we're going to take a 20 ten-minute break and we'll reconvene at 10:35. 21 (Recess taken 10:25-10:38.) 22 MR. THOMPSON: At this time, I'd like to 23 ask Adam Briggle and David Weinberg to please come 24 forward. 25 Good morning, gentlemen.

### Page 67 1 MR. BRIGGLE: Good morning. 2 MR. THOMPSON: If you could state your 3 names and spell them for our court reporter, please. 4 MR. BRIGGLE: Yeah. My name is Adam 5 Briggle. It's A-d-a-m B-r-i-g-g-l-e. 6MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. 7 MR. WEINBERG: David Weinberg, 8 W-e-i-n-b-e-r-g. 9MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Briggle, 10 please begin your testimony. 11 MR. BRIGGLE: Okay. Thank you very much. 12 I'm a UNT professor and I live at 1315 Dartmouth Place, 13 76201. That's in Denton. I'm here today to add my 14 voice to those in favor of the new regulations that 15 have been put forward by the EPA for air emissions in 16the oil and gas industry. I'd like to applaud the EPA 17 for taking this step, and I want to strongly encourage 18 you to adopt these regulations. But I'm really here 19today to speak on behalf of my three-and-a-half year 20 old daughter, Mary Grace Briggle, and my wife, Amber, 21 who's pregnant with our second child. 22 Now, we recently moved back to the U.S. 23 after living abroad for several years. And for the 24 most part, we're happy to be home and we like it here 25 and we're proud to be back. But I tell you what, it's

### Page 68 1 scary living in D/FW because not only do you have 2 6 million people driving their cars and trucks, 3 conducting their businesses, running their industries, 4 but you've got the Barnett Shale which is experiencing 5 exploding growth in oil and gas exploration, drilling 6and production. You add that up and you see the smog 7 that I saw on the way down here. 8 Now, my daughter is breathing that in 9every day. Every time she takes a breath in, she's 10 circulating around her body our collective waste and 11 that has got to change. And I think these regulations 12 are a great step forward to make that change. 13 Now, I do what I can. I ride my bike to 14 work. I buy wind power for my home. But in reality, 15 there's only so much individuals acting alone can do. 16We're talking about energy systems. To change systems, 17 you need systematic change. And for that, you need 18 strong leadership. You need leadership at the top. 19I think what we need is the federal 20 government to make these decisions that will steer the 21 creative energies of the industry into more beneficial 22 channels. Now, our state leaders, I think, have shown 23 a blatant disregard for the health of my daughter. 24 Every time they attack the EPA, that's the way I read 25 what they're doing. And so I'm here to tell you me --

### Page 69 1 and I think there's lots of citizens in Texas that are 2 looking for the federal government to step in where our 3 state leaders refuse to step in and to be the leaders 4 that we need. 5 So I'm asking you to make hard choices, 6but in reality, I don't think this is a hard choice. I 7 think this is a no-brainer. You're going to make 8 significant reductions in volatile organic compounds. 9You're going to reduce benzine and other air toxics, 10 and it's all going to be cost-effective. And so my 11 message to you is simply, when you're making this 12 decision, when you go back to Washington, I want you to 13 keep my daughter and all the other children around here 14 in the front of your mind. Realize that they're going 15 to be breathing in your decisions, and so I'm asking 16you to do the right thing. Thank you. 17 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Briggle. 18 Thank you for your testimony. Any questions of 19Mr. Briggle from the panel? Okay. Mr. Weinberg. 20 MR. WEINBERG: Good morning. My name is 21 David Weinberg. I'm the executive director of the 22 Texas League of Conservation Voters, a statewide 23 environmental policy organization. My comments this 24 morning will be brief. 25 And, in short, we support the EPA in

### Page 70 1 promulgating these new regulations. I'm not going to 2 get into the weeds of the policy sort-of debate this 3 morning. I will defer to my colleagues at the 4 Environmental Defense Fund and some other organizations 5 to get into the specific policy debate on that, but I 6wanted to couch our support in just a couple quick -- I 7 think possibly more political comments. 8 There's been a lot of debate in Texas 9lately around not just these regulations but other EPA 10 rules which are being looked at. And my organization 11 feels very strongly that it is the role of government. 12 There is a very vital and important role for government 13 to play in balancing market needs and demands with 14 public health and public safety. So this is a very, 15 very important process that we are going through this 16morning. 17 A few other quick points, I do want to 18 give some credit where credit is due. I -- you know, 19we are strongly supportive of the fact that Texas this 20 year became the first state to pass a mandatory 21 hydraulic fracturing disclosure law. That law will 22 help to understand the science and the methodology 23 hydraulic fracturing in terms of protecting our water 24 supply. But we do need to do more in this country and, 25 particularly in the state, in this area, in terms of

### Page 71 1 air emissions and reducing air emissions from oil and 2 gas drilling. 3 My organization supports using more 4 natural gas as opposed to, say, lignite coal or 5 Canadian tar sands. It is much cleaner. But if you 6improve in particular reducing methane emissions from 7 natural gas drilling in use, it becomes even more 8 clean, as that is a potent greenhouse gas. 9The last thing that I would add this 10 morning is, that regardless of whatever regulations 11 come out of this process, the EPA cannot successfully 12 police, either in this state or in the country, the oil 13 and gas industry in terms of drilling practices and 14 everything else in between. It takes a partnership 15 between states and the federal government to make this 16work. I would argue that here in Texas, we are failing 17 at the state level in terms of adequate regulations in 18 terms of oil and gas drilling. The Railroad Commission 19needs to be adequately funded, in terms of inspectors. 20 It is not. There needs to be clarity between whose 21 roll it is between the TCEQ and the Railroad Commission 22 to address air quality and water quality issue with gas 23 drilling. That is not clear. 24 And lastly, with some of the more 25 egregious constituent cases you will hear from this

### Page 72 1 morning of citizens who were impacted, this state needs 2 to do a better job in addressing the needs and the 3 concerns of those citizens in terms of people who were 4 impacted on their property and public health and their 5 lives. And we need to do a better job of doing that. 6So, in short, we do support these 7 regulations. We do support the oil and gas industry in 8 Texas. We need to be doing a better job, and it will 9require cooperation between the federal government and 10 the states. Thank you very much. 11 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Weinberg. 12 Any clarifying questions for either Mr. Weinberg or 13 Mr. Briggle? Gentlemen, thank you both for your 14 testimony. 15 Would Jenna Gleaton and Larry Schweiger 16please come forward. Could you both pronounce and 17 spell your last names for us, please, starting with 18 Ms. Gleaton. 19MS. GLEATON: Hi. Jenna Gleaton, 20 J-e-n-n-a G-l-e-a-t-o-n. 21 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. 22 MR. SCHWEIGER: Larry Schweiger. It's 23 L-a-r-r-y S-c-h-w-e-i-g-e-r. 24 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you and good morning 25 to you both. Ms. Gleaton, please begin your testimony.

### Page 73 1 MS. GLEATON: Good morning. My name is 2 Jenna Gleaton, and I am here on behalf of a group 3 called Clean Resources, which is a group of concerned 4 citizens, small business owners and other Texans who 5 represent the more than hundred thousand jobs in the 6Barnett Shale region and rely on this vital resource. 7 We understand the value that the shale 8 gas development plays in improving our state and local 9economy, making our lives better and reducing for oil 10 imports and making our country stronger and protecting 11 our environment. And I'm just here to give some 12 information from various studies and groups, some of 13 which have already been mentioned here today, but are 14 very important. It shows the support that the citizens 15 have in this region. 16The Barnett Shale Energy Education 17 Council commissioned an air quality study to provide 18 the public with facts about emissions, and the study 19concluded that natural gas sites in Fort Worth and 20 Arlington District 2 expected to have the highest 21 benzine emissions are, in fact, not emitting harmful 22 levels of benzine or other compounds tested. 23 Furthermore, the Texas Commission on Environmental 24 Quality surveyed a hundred natural gas facilities and 25 did not find any cause for concern about harmful

### Page 74 1 materials being released. 2 It is a cleaner burning fuel that we need 3 and must protect and be allowed to utilize to its full 4 potential. The economic impact also cannot be ignored. 5 It has had an impact of $65.4 billion in North Texas 6and supports a hundred thousand, two hundred 7 sixty-eight jobs in 24 counties, according to a report 8 done by Ray Perryman. He also estimated that the total 9regional impact of the Barnett Shale will be 10 $11.1 billion in 2011. 11 There are numerous citizens that are 12 legitimately concerned about natural gas development 13 decreasing because of regulations. Some cities in the 14 area have made it nearly impossible, and I have 15 personally heard their complaints about not being able 16to see the economic progress other towns around them 17 are experiencing because of all the regulations. And 18 this is progress that -- this progress is vital to this 19region and it's a vital resource that should not be 20 hindered and should be allowed to continue to provide 21 benefits to the state and our country and the citizens 22 in this region. Thank you. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Ms. Gleaton. 24 Any clarifying questions for Ms. Gleaton? 25 Mr. Schweiger.

### Page 75 1 MR. SCHWEIGER: Hi. I'm Larry Schweiger 2 and I am president and CEO of the National Wildlife 3 Federation. We represent over 4 million Americans. 4 And the National Wildlife Federation believes that 5 America needs a responsible energy development, 6including natural gas exploration. We do believe that 7 it must be done with best practices, using best 8 available control technologies in a manner that 9considers wildlife and habitat impacts that considers 10 the clean air that people need for -- for life and for 11 clean water and all the other threats to human health. 12 The federation represents millions of 13 sportsmen across America. And the unique heritage of 14 hunting and fishing in the country has been threatened 15 in places by a rush for natural gas, like the Marcellus 16Shale in my home state of Pennsylvania, and the Eagle 17 Ford and Barnett Shale here in Texas. We simply cannot 18 afford to extract gas in an irresponsible manner that 19harms land, that damages our air quality and degrades 20 our water resources. 21 The National Wildlife Federation supports 22 EPA's efforts to curb smog, harmful sulfates, air 23 toxins and acid rain by creating standards for volatile 24 organic compounds, for establishing standards for 25 sulfur dioxide emissions, new standards for air toxins

### Page 76 1 for oil and gas production and standards for air toxins 2 related to natural gas transmission. 3 The fracking process raises serious 4 concerns about its impact on -- on these resources. 5 Much of the equipment used at the well pads runs on 6diesel fuel with serious emission problems that lead to 7 poor air quality. As an example of that, the -- 8 this -- earlier this year in the upper Green River 9Basin near Pinedale, Wyoming, we saw air quality worse 10 than Los Angeles from these operations. 11 The Wyoming Department of Air Quality 12 issued a notice that elderly children and people with 13 respiratory conditions should stay indoors as a result 14 of this intense pollution problem. I've seen the same 15 thing in the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming and also 16in surrounding areas where the air quality has been 17 degraded. 18 The National Wildlife Federation also 19views these rules as one essential step in tackling the 20 climate crises. The co-benefits of methane emissions 21 reductions from this rule are a much-needed piece of 22 the puzzle that -- if the United States is going to 23 make a concerted effort to reduce our global warming 24 pollution. I might also say that the federation is 25 concerned about the impacts from oil and gas

### Page 77 1 development that go beyond this critical issue of air 2 quality. Specifically, companies should be required to 3 disclose chemicals used in fracking, fluids that have 4 the potential to pollute ground water, streams and 5 lakes and rivers across the areas where gases and oil 6are being developed. 7 Drilling operations should be monitored 8 under Safe Drinking Water Act, closing the loophole 9created by the 2005 energy legislation. We also should 10 identify public lands that should be off limits to 11 drilling. These very special places that contain 12 precious landscapes, critical wildlife habitats are 13 essential for sportsmen and for other enthusiasts who 14 love the outdoors and care for these fragile resources. 15 I would like to end by thanking the EPA 16for protecting the health of our children. We heard 17 much here this morning and I won't add to that, but 18 simply say thanks for that and also for your 19willingness to address these important issues. We urge 20 speedy implementation to protect the public health in 21 this region and other parts of the country where we're 22 experiencing air pollution degradation. Thank you. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Schweiger. 24 Any clarifying questions? No. Okay. Respectfully, 25 Ms. Gleaton and Mr. Schweiger, thank you for your

### Page 78 1 testimony. 2 MR. SCHWEIGER: Thank you. 3 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. At 4 this time, I'd like to ask Julia Burgen and Donald 5 Dillard to please come forward. Good morning. 6MR. BURGEN: Good morning. 7 MR. THOMPSON: Could you both please 8 state your names and spell them for our court reporter. 9MS. BURGEN: Julia Burgen, J-u-l-i-a 10 B-u-r-g-e-n. 11 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. 12 MR. DILLARD: Donald Dillard, D-o-n-a-l-d 13 D-i-l-l-a-r-d. 14 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Dillard. 15 Ms. Burgen, please begin your testimony. 16MS. BURGEN: Thank you. I'm looking for 17 the lights because I need to watch because I want to be 18 sure I get my punch line in. 19MR. THOMPSON: All right. 20 MS. BURGEN: I may have to, you know, 21 come early around that. Thank you for this opportunity 22 to comment on this issue. I also spoke as an advocate 23 for breathers and healthy air at EPA hearings on 24 March 16th and August 2nd, 2010, and also at a couple 25 of TCEQ hearings at this same location in the last two

### Page 79 1 years. 2 I'm a native Texan of seven plus decades, 3 residing in the metroplex since 1949. If you want 4 someone who knows the history of environmental efforts, 5 you're looking at one. My history with air issues 6began in Dallas. My earliest clipped cartoon is dated 7 19 -- on air quality is dated 1971. My first letter in 8 my files addressed to the EPA was 1973. 9I moved to Arlington by the late 1980s 10 and began attending meetings at the North Central Texas 11 Council of Governments on air quality and other 12 environmental issues. That was almost 25 years ago. 13 Why is it taking so long to get breathable, healthy 14 air? The latest hurdle has been thrown by the gas 15 industry with its emissions virtually unabated. In 16fact, they were specifically exempted from all the 17 federal and environmental laws for their horizontal 18 fracking in the 2005 energy bill in a section commonly 19known as the Halliburton loophole. 20 That marked the beginning of the recent 21 phenomenal growth in the gas industry. Yet, as a 22 November 3rd, 2009 New York editorial -- Times 23 editorial said, but if hydraulic fracking is as safe as 24 the industry says it is, why should it fear regulation 25 or is this all just about turf wars and not public

### Page 80 1 health. I have five gas well complexes between three 2 eighths of a mile and one and two-thirds mile of my 3 home. There are two more that are within two miles. 4 I've got seven of these things. Two more gas well 5 complexes just two miles away. My personal costs for 6medication due to asthma are currently $1,827 a year. 7 I use Singulair, ProAir and Advair and none are 8 generic. Note that air is in each of these drugs to 9help me breathe. 10 That $1,827 is money that I don't have to 11 spend in our local economy. It ends up in companies in 12 Kansas or California, which is still the U.S. so far. 13 Not even figuring the cost of doctor visits and 14 insurance copay. If you start quantifying the cost to 15 society and citizens paid by themselves are partly 16through drug plans that they pay for or partly through 17 donations made to the many social service agencies to 18 assist those with no insurance or little income or 19property taxes to support county health, the costs 20 become more than just significant. It's no wonder that 21 medical services and drugs are a growth industry. 22 That's not the rationale for allowing the 23 gas industry to continue polluting, is it? I feel we 24 are approaching the same scenario that we had with the 25 cement kilns since they started bringing hazardous

### Page 81 1 waste in 1987. Health issues were rampant in that 2 area. I have attended meetings along with thousands of 3 breeders (sic) -- breathers, written so many letters, 4 made lots of phone calls over the years to get relief 5 for North Texans from air pollution, not just from 6cement kilns but from all the other sources. And now 7 we have a new source. 8 How long will it take? Another 25 years 9to get this newest polluter in line? I hope not 10 because I won't be here and I don't want to leave a 11 damaged planet as my legacy. Any business plan has two 12 paramount themes, maximize profits and minimize cost. 13 It's imperative under such a system that there be a 14 government agency charged with acting in the interest 15 of the public to see that the industries play fair. 16You are the people's Environmental Protection Agency. 17 I am eternally grateful that the Agency 18 was started in December of 1970, the year of the first 19Earth Day. I need you. We all need you. Thanks very 20 much. 21 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Ms. Burgen, for 22 your testimony. Mr. Dillard. 23 MR. DILLARD: My name is Donald Dillard 24 and I approve a one-size-fits-all regulation. I very 25 much appreciate the EPA's purpose. If you don't

### Page 82 1 protect the public, no one will. Like everyone else in 2 North Texas, I have no choice but to breathe the 3 available air. I want to be healthy and to pursue this 4 goal, I have run every day in North Texas for the last 5 11 years. 6The North Texas air quality regularly and 7 often is horrible. Horrible. In today's morning run, 8 I am more easily tired, adjusted my pace slower and 9felt marginally worse than usual. And in my little 10 drive over here today, I heard on the radio that our -- 11 the air pollution index is orange. That happens all 12 the time. All the time. And I'm one of the healthy 13 ones. Thank God, I don't have to do that (indicating) 14 stuff. But I probably will, if I continue to live in 15 Texas. 16I live in Duncanville, Texas, which is 17 between here and the cement plants that continue to 18 burn who knows what. And whenever the -- whenever the 19air blows from the south, people all over my area 20 complain. Hot, cold, whatever it is, they all start 21 coughing and wheezing. And I know that's not directly 22 related, but what is related is North Texas air quality 23 has been horrible for a very long time and it continues 24 to be horrible. And the last five years, we have added 25 new insults, so I very much appreciate the EPA as doing

### Page 83 1 their best to try to regulate the new insults that 2 we're having. Because so much of what we're -- so much 3 of what's happening in North Texas air quality is very, 4 very, very difficult to control. And this is one -- 5 your regulation is something that we can control. 6And we -- and the fact that some people 7 can make extra money by polluting the air is not -- is 8 not right because everybody has to breathe the air. 9And it's important that we need to factor in the 10 environmental cost to -- in the effort so that clean 11 energies can be developed. If we don't set an -- if we 12 don't set an environmental situation so that the cost 13 of polluting are on the ones who get the benefit from 14 the -- the companies that gain financially also ought 15 to bear the cost of the pollution. And if we don't set 16an environment where that's happening, then we'll -- 17 then we'll never get this air -- air quality cleaned 18 up. 19Many of the problems in North Texas air 20 are very difficult to -- to manage and control. One 21 comment I noticed as I was listening here today is that 22 a lot of the people who were, quote -- everybody is for 23 clean air. All the polluters, everybody I've noticed, 24 all the testimony is for clean air, but some people are 25 benefitting from lack of regulation. And they're

### Page 84 1 quoting studies that -- by people who are paid by the 2 people who benefit from polluting air. And so I do 3 think it's important that we pay attention when we hear 4 studies who -- who did these studies and who benefits 5 from the outcome of the studies. I'd like to say that 6when we delay in doing the right thing, we're doing the 7 wrong thing. 8 I thank you for your diligence in doing 9your duty. We need you. 10 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Dillard. 11 Please sit tight. Any clarifying questions from 12 anyone? Okay. Ms. Burgen and Mr. Dillard, thank you 13 both for your testimony today. 14 I'd like to ask Tom Hayden and Susan 15 Waskey to please come forward. Good morning. Could 16you please state and spell your names please for the 17 court reporter, starting with Mr. Hayden. 18 MR. HAYDEN: Tom Hayden, T-o-m 19H-a-y-d-e-n. 20 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, sir. 21 MS. WASKEY: Susan Waskey, S-u-s-a-n 22 W-a-s-k-e-y. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Hayden, 24 you can begin with your testimony, sir. 25 MR. HAYDEN: Thank you very much, sir. I

### Page 85 1 appreciate you coming and giving us an opportunity to 2 speak to you. 3 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. 4 MR. HAYDEN: I'm speaking as a private 5 citizen. I live in Double Oak, Texas, which is close 6to here. I drink the water from the aquifer underneath 7 there through my water company and I'm particularly 8 interested in that. I know this is an air pollution, 9but please don't wait too long about the water. If you 10 haven't heard, we're a little dry in Texas and don't 11 want to waste any. 12 I want to address a number of the 13 proposals you have and say that I really appreciate 14 your two-step approach to the risk analysis. I think 15 that's a very prudent way to do it, is to first go 16ahead with the one and ten thousand criteria and then 17 later on, as you evaluate things, to move up to the 18 more aggressive criteria. I think that's a very 19prudent way to do that. 20 The previous speaker addressed the Green 21 River Valley in Wyoming situation. I think that's 22 really important because there's many arguments given, 23 okay, is this pollution caused by fracking gas wells 24 or, look, all the other sources are causing the 25 trouble. That's a case history that says, look, they

### Page 86 1 went into the Green River Valley there. That's a 2 pristine area. No pollution. There's no industry, no 3 big towns, no nothing. It's the one of the few test 4 cases that are around. What happened. Maybe the ozone 5 reduction there and we know that's a surrogate for 6VOCs. The EPA standard is 75 parts per billion. Green 7 River Valley measured 124 parts per billion. Los 8 Angeles, which is not nice to breathe, top peak level 9the year before was 114. 10 It was all due to fracking and the 11 related industry. Nothing else. Therefore, any 12 argument that, oh, this is something -- some other 13 problem, that refutes that argument, I think, clearly 14 and concisely. Another argument that's already been 15 given this morning is that it turns out the air 16pollution measuring Little Dish, Texas, up here close 17 to us set off the -- was bigger than ESL limits of TCEQ 18 and triggered their investigation. And then there was 19a report soon came out in Fort Worth that said, oh, 20 TCEQ surveyed the Fort Worth air pollution and there's 21 no problems. 22 Well, they just forgot to mention, and 23 only in very small letters on their slides, does it 24 show that, oh, we didn't follow the EPA procedures and 25 the quality things we should have. And furthermore,

### Page 87 1 industry had to pay some of that because we didn't have 2 enough money. And third, the samples that were looked 3 at, there was an error in that and we just forgot to 4 tell our congressmen and things that there was these 5 problems. 6So I think, you know, the fact that they 7 say there is no problem, that's very suspect. And I'd 8 like to jump down to the cost-effective measures which 9I think are clearly being shown. And it turns out you 10 might argue, well, the price is way down. It's not 11 going to be cost effective. The price of gas will go 12 up in the future and I don't believe in the meantime 13 the gas that's been there a couple of million years is 14 going to go anywhere. And I think we can just wait and 15 there will be plenty of time for it to come back up. 16It's hard to try to project ahead and say exactly what 17 something's going to cost. 18 Let's look back at a case history which 19really will indicate, I think, how good you are at 20 estimating these things. For example, a few years ago 21 around the refineries, we asked for a reduction in 22 sulfur dioxide. The EPA estimated it would cost 350 to 23 $500 a ton. Industry, oh, no, it's going to cost 24 $1,500 a ton. When it was done, actual number, $100 a 25 ton. I think you were right on except a little high.

### Page 88 1 And so whenever they begin to question your future 2 estimates, I think you've done a really good job. 3 And Furthermore, your estimate showed 4 that there would be probably 2,300 premature deaths a 5 year that would be saved from reducing this, 54,000 6asthma attacks. The cost to industry over ten years 7 for the reduction of sulfur dioxide would be about 8 1.5 billion. That looks big. Cost benefits, 13 to 33 9billion per year. There's a big difference. So it's 10 very cost-effective. 11 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Hayden, I'm sorry. 12 Your time has expired. 13 MR. HAYDEN: Thank you. Sorry. 14 MR. THOMPSON: No need for apology. 15 Thank you. Again, I recommend, if you haven't done so, 16submit your comments to our folks out front so we can 17 have them as part of the public record, sir. 18 MR. HAYDEN: Thank you, sir. 19MR. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. 20 MR. HAYDEN: Thank you for your time. 21 MR. THOMPSON: Any clarifying questions 22 for Mr. Hayden? No. Okay. Ms. Waskey, please. 23 MS. WASKEY: My name is Susan Waskey. I 24 represent myself. I live in Argyle, Texas, which is a 25 small community about 35 miles north of Arlington. I'm

### Page 89 1 here today to share some of the health impacts I have 2 experienced from gas industry pollution. 3 My family moved to Texas 14 years ago, 4 buying a nice home on three acres in the country away 5 from any city development and any industrial 6facilities. However, since the advent of the Barnett 7 Shale gas drilling broo -- boom, my home now lies 8 within one mile of at least 20 drilling sites. 9In the past year, I have experienced 10 migraine headaches at an alarming frequency. These 11 migraines have been especially bad this summer, which 12 is, coincidentally, the worst ozone season in the 13 Dallas-Fort Worth history. Granted, I've had migraines 14 all my life, but usually only at the rate about one 15 headache a month. However, recently the frequency of 16these headaches has dramatically increased to sometimes 17 five migraines per week. I attribute this increased 18 frequency to an environmental change, namely the 19volatile organic compounds and other ozone-forming 20 chemicals leaking from gas drilling operations. 21 My rationale for this is that, if I 22 travel away from the Dallas-Fort Worth area, which I 23 often do, I rarely get the headaches. For example, I 24 recently returned from a two-week vacation to Ohio and 25 Indiana and I had no headaches there for a whole two

### Page 90 1 weeks. Anyone who has ever experienced a migraine 2 knows that it is not a simple headache that will go 3 away with a couple of Advil. To be able to function 4 and get relief of the intense pain, I must take a 5 specific prescription medicine. That pill costs $54 6per dose and I sometimes must take two pills per day to 7 rid myself of the migraine. 8 So assuming I take five pills per week, 9the weekly cost of this medication easily exceeds $250, 10 more than a thousand dollars a month. I have also had 11 to begin seeing a neurologist that specializes in 12 headaches. These visits have cost only $450 so far, 13 but they will continue at a rate of the $175 per visit. 14 So if these air pollution-induced migraines continue at 15 this elevated level, the cost of them -- treating them 16is $1,100 per month or more than $13,000 per year. 17 This medication is not available in a 18 generic form. I know I'm not the only person in the 19D/FW area that is suffering from health problems due to 20 the increased air pollution from gas drilling 21 operations. I hope the EPA will take the necessary 22 steps to protect human health and force these companies 23 to take the appropriate measures to reduce their 24 emissions. I believe it is time for the gas industry's 25 free wide to end. Other industries in the area have

### Page 91 1 had to control their emissions and automobile emissions 2 are being reduced as cleaner cars are being purchased. 3 The gas industry should also be required 4 to do their fair share to reduce air pollution in the 5 D/FW area. I support the Fair Share for Clean Air 6campaign advocated by the group Downwinders At Risk and 7 the proposed EPA regulations for controlling emissions 8 from the gas industry. It frustrates me that the 9natural gas companies are reluctant to take any steps 10 to reduce the pollution from their operations without 11 an EPA mandate, especially in light of the fact that 12 according a recent study, Dr. Melanie Sadler's study, 13 the cost of implementing these measures is less than 14 the revenues the company could generate by capturing 15 the emissions and selling them as a product. 16This seems like a no-brainer. As a 17 citizen of the State of Texas, I must rely on the 18 federal EPA to implement regulations necessary for 19protecting my public -- my health and the public's 20 health. The emissions created by the natural gas 21 drilling operations are a new public health threat in 22 our area, as they are in many other shale drilling 23 areas of the country. 24 I strongly urge the EPA to implement and 25 enforce regulations that require the natural gas

### Page 92 1 industry to control these harmful emissions, thus 2 ensuring the health of the public and reducing the 3 medical expenses incurred by treating the pollution's 4 adverse health effects. Thank you for holding this 5 hearing and listening to my concerns. 6MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Ms. Waskey. 7 Any clarifying questions? Well, thank you Mr. Hayden 8 and Ms. Waskey for your testimony. Thank you very 9much. 10 Okay. At this time, I'd like to ask 11 Alisa Rich and David Foster to please come forward. 12 Good morning to you both. Could you please pronounce 13 your names and spell for our court reporter, please. 14 Ms. Rich. 15 MS. RICH: My name is Alisa Rich, Alisa, 16last name is R-i-c-h. 17 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Foster. 18 Mr. Foster? 19MR. FOSTER: David Foster, D-a-v-i-d 20 F-o-s-t-e-r. 21 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, sir. Ms. Rich, 22 you can begin with your Testimony whenever you're 23 ready. 24 MS. RICH: Thank you, respected 25 officials, for being here and thank you for hearing the

### Page 93 1 people today. My name is Dr. Alisa Rich, and I'm an 2 environmental scientist and health analyst with Wolf 3 Eagle Environmental. I come today to speak to you 4 about my growing concern for the exposures of the 5 people across the country to both air pollution and 6water pollutants that are reaching our systems. 7 Texas is burning and so is North Dakota, 8 who burns off all the natural gas in order to reach the 9liquids. Our water resources are becoming depleted to 10 the point that ranchers can no longer feed their cattle 11 and municipalities will be forced to limit our water. 12 This is a side -- whoops. Previous. There you go. 13 Previous slide. This is a slide of the drilling 14 permits issued in the State of Texas by the Railroad 15 Commission approximating 19,692 since 2001. 16This is the slide of the water that has 17 been permanently removed from the hydrogeological 18 (phonetic) cycle in Texas, as the water is no longer 19usable as it has been contaminated with fracking 20 chemicals. In the same period of time, we have lost 19 21 to 49 billion cubic feet of water based on an estimate 22 of 1 to 5 million gallons of water used for each well. 23 However, this estimate may be too low. According to 24 the Advanced Resource International Case Presentation 25 given in China 2005, a new -- a new 12-stage open hole

### Page 94 1 completion system is being used which provides higher 2 reserves per well. This typically uses 18,000 barrels 3 of water per stage which equates to 11,880 million 4 gallons per well. 5 Texas is burning, and possibly, this is 6one of the reasons why. I spent the last four years 7 testing air and water across Texas and other states 8 involved in natural gas drilling, and many of these 9same chemicals that are used in fracking are winding up 10 in our air. 11 My testing has confirmed the presence of 12 radioactive material in our municipal and private water 13 wells in areas with natural gas production, including 14 isotopes of thallium, lead, radium, thorium, uranium 15 and strontium. These same isotopes are airborne during 16fracking, many of which the U.S. EPA has no primary, 17 secondary standards, protective guidelines in water. 18 The state regulatory body overseeing this 19contamination considers clients to be their natural gas 20 industry rather than the men and women and children 21 they're supposed to protect. And yet, in a 1992 22 document, it was very clear that the petroleum industry 23 and regulators are becoming increasingly concerned 24 about the presence of norm (phonetic). Our own 25 governor has spent a career attacking the U.S. EPA

### Page 95 1 while scientists, including four National Academy of 2 Science -- Scientists address the threat to municipal 3 water system to Andrew Cuomo. 4 Governor Rick Perry has said the air 5 pollution regulations are to blame for a loss of 500 6energy-related jobs in Texas. He shows his allegiance 7 boldly and openly and it is not to the people. Many 8 Texans would be dead today if not for the federal air 9pollution rules that he fights so strongly against. 10 In 2005, asthma expenditures in Texas 11 alone exceeded 665 million, 706 billion -- excuse me, 12 billion dollars and this far exceeds the 500 job (sic). 13 Texas is burning and it's time for the people to become 14 burning mad about the contamination that the state 15 turns a blind eye to, allowing our children to become 16sick and die and our precious resources become 17 contaminated. 18 I want to thank you for your time today. 19I want to thank you for listening to the people, and I 20 respectfully request that U.S. Administrator Jackson 21 provide regulatory limits on airborne methane, 22 water-borne methane, and radioactive material that is 23 reaching our air, our private and our municipal water 24 systems. I am not against natural gas, but I cannot 25 sit back and allow any industry to contaminate our

### Page 96 1 natural resources because it is our children that will 2 suffer from our negligence. Thank you very much. 3 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Dr. Rich, for 4 your testimony. Any clarifying questions from the 5 panel? Mr. Foster. 6MR. FOSTER: Thank you. My name is David 7 Foster. I'm here to speak as Texas program director 8 for Clean Water Action. I want to begin on a personal 9note and mention that I was born in Dallas, mostly grew 10 up here. My wife is from Fort Worth. We went to 11 college up the road in Denton, Texas, and still have 12 many family and friends here. And it saddens me every 13 time I come back to my native city and experience 14 firsthand how bad the air quality has become. And this 15 is a situation that the continued unregulate -- or lack 16of regulation of fracking can only worsen. 17 I do want to thank EPA for coming to 18 Arlington to listen to us and I want to thank EPA for 19the strong proposals to restrict air emissions from oil 20 and gas extraction operations. EPA regulations of 21 these large pollution sources are urgently needed here 22 in Texas and in many other communities across the 23 country. State governments, including Texas, have so 24 far done little or nothing to manage gas drilling and 25 we need the federal government to step in and play a

### Page 97 1 strong role in protecting public health and the 2 environment. It's important that the EPA understand 3 that fracking operations in Texas and elsewhere are 4 frequently occurring quite literally in people's back 5 yards. 6We have over a thousand gas facilities 7 within the city limits of Fort Worth alone, a city with 8 more than half a million residents. Any rules on air 9emissions must take into account that people are living 10 extremely close to these pollution sources. So we need 11 to be protecting -- not protecting people on average 12 but make sure that the rules are protecting everyone 13 living near gas drilling operations. 14 Another important point for EPA to 15 consider is that these rules are urgently needed and 16should be implemented as soon as possible. The EPA 17 should not delay or the extend the comment period or 18 the effective date of any of these new rules. Many of 19Texas' major metropolitan areas, including this one, 20 are already nonattainment under the federal Clean Air 21 Act. New air pollution rules can take a long time to 22 be enacted, and we need these rules in place as soon as 23 possible. 24 There was no moratorium on the state 25 level for permits for new frack wells here in Texas.

### Page 98 1 Thousands of wells have already been drilled. We know 2 that many thousands of additional wells are planned. 3 Any delay in putting restrictions in place means 4 allowing thousands of new pollution sources in Texas 5 that will have a significant impact on public health. 6Finally, we urge EPA to ensure that these 7 new rules are as strong as they can be. Best available 8 control technology should be a standard requirement for 9all oil and gas operations. All significant sources of 10 air emissions must be included in the rules, such as 11 the thousands of open-air frack pits that accompany 12 drilling sites. Remember, these pits can also only be 13 a couple of hundred feet from where people live. 14 All relevant pollutants should be 15 directly controlled, including methane and hydrogen 16sulfide. Finally, flaring should be completely 17 prohibited. It is simply irresponsible to allow the 18 gas industry to start production in a well before they 19have a way to safely control the flow of hazardous 20 emissions. It can have a serious impact on people's 21 health. 22 I just want to close by thanking the EPA 23 once again for coming to Texas and for issuing these 24 important rules. And again, I urge you to implement 25 them without delay. Thank you very much.

### Page 99 1 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Foster. 2 Any clarifying questions? Okay. Respectfully, thank 3 you, Dr. Rich, and Mr. Foster, for your testimony 4 today. 5 At this time, I'd like to ask Kip Averitt 6and Charles Morgan to please come forward. 7 MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, gentlemen. 8 MR. AVERITT: Good morning. 9MR. THOMPSON: If you could you please 10 state your names and spell for our court reporter, 11 please. 12 MR. AVERITT: Kip Averitt, Kip Averitt, 13 representing the Texas Clean Energy Coalition. 14 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, sir. 15 MR. MORGAN: I'm Charles Morgan from 16Freestone County. I represent Citizens for 17 Environmental Clean-up. 18 MR. THOMPSON: If you could spell your 19name for the court reporter, please. Spell your name 20 for the court reporter. 21 MR. MORGAN: Spell my name. It's 22 Charles, C-h-a-r-l-e-s, M-o-r-g-a-n. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, for the court 24 reporter. Thank you, sir. Please begin your 25 testimony.

### Page 100 1 MR. AVERITT: Thank you, gentlemen. 2 Thank you for being here. We know you have a tough job 3 to do. You've heard a lot of testimony this morning, a 4 lot of testimony this morning. I feel a little bit 5 like Elizabeth Taylor's eighth husband. I know what 6I'm supposed to do here, but I don't know how I'm going 7 to make it interesting for you. 8 The Clean Energy Coalition believes that 9Texas has a lot to gain by promoting and adopting 10 public policy that encourages the development and 11 implementation of new clean energy technologies. We 12 believe that there are a lot of economic benefits to 13 the development of the new green energies. And I'm 14 talking about renewable energies, such as geothermal 15 and wind and solar and also natural gas, which is clean 16energy as well. 17 We believe that our public policy 18 procedures should be encouraging and nurturing these -- 19the development of these job creating technologies and 20 energy producers. Texas has a history of -- a varied 21 history but, gentlemen, in the last six years or so, 22 we've put our clean air programs on steroids here in 23 the State of Texas. And since that time, we have seen 24 dramatic, almost miraculous, results in the air 25 emissions in our nonattainment areas in the Dallas-Fort

### Page 101 1 Worth metroplex and the Houston area as well. To the 2 point that in 2009, for example, only El Paso in our 3 entire state was out of compliance with our ozone 4 standards. Now, that was a one-year deal and it was an 5 extremely hot summer that year. It was not a fluke. 6And we've had a lot of hot summers in the last six 7 years. But our EPA slash TCEQ administered monitoring 8 system shows that we have achieved dramatic results in 9our state. 10 The ozone layers are dropping 11 dramatically. And we are never satisfied. We know 12 that you are always working to do better as well. Just 13 this last session, the Texas legislature adopted even 14 stronger monitoring positions, increased monitoring 15 levels, strictly for the Barnett Shale because of the 16concern here in North Texas, the legitimate concern 17 people have about the quality of air here. 18 The Texas legislature funded $8 million 19more dollars just for monitoring in the Barnett Shale 20 area. Not afraid to see what the results are. We have 21 34 monitors up here already and, as I said, the trend 22 is significantly down on all of those monitors, as 23 applied by the EPA rules. And we believe that there's 24 nothing wrong that can be had by having more 25 information. So I would say, bottom line, is that from

### Page 102 1 the clean energy point of view is that we do have a lot 2 to do with -- a lot to gain with promoting clean energy 3 policy. And when we're not promoting clean energy 4 opportunities, we are subsidizing less clean fuel 5 sources. In other words, if we're going to hinder our 6clean energy development, then we are going to maintain 7 or promote or inadvertently subsidize those energy 8 sources that are not as clean. And so I would -- I 9would ask that you would consider that as you consider 10 these rules. 11 And finally, we think that natural gas 12 has a lot to offer our state, both in terms of economic 13 development but also in further helping clean up our 14 air quality. We're never satisfied and we always want 15 to do better, but we would ask you to allow all of our 16things that we've done and the things that are on the 17 verge of being implemented to be considered as you 18 consider these new rules. And I thank you for your 19time. 20 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Averitt. 21 Any clarifying questions from the panel? Okay. 22 Mr. Morgan. 23 MR. MORGAN: I'm Charles Morgan. I'm 24 addressing the gas treating facility and natural gas 25 compressor stations and national compliance and another

### Page 103 1 area that you have not covered in your rules. Under 2 the gas treating facilities and your rules, the 40 CFR 3 part 60, subpart LLL for facilities with a sulfur feed 4 rate of less than five long ton per day. And I ask 5 what is the sulfur dioxide preferred control method? 6In Freestone County, we have permits for 7 facilities that burn hydrogen sulfide via flaring. And 8 the result of sulfur dioxide is uncontrolled and not 9measured it. Flaring of H2S is not an acceptable 10 method of control of the sulfur. It should be removed 11 from that system as liquid sulfur or something like 12 that, I believe. In the natural gas compressor 13 stations, compliance with the New Source Performance 14 Standards -- reference your page in the internet there, 15 52751, paragraph E2, the title, five permits not 16required for natural gas compressor stations, only a 17 permit by rule is required in Texas. 18 However, with a significant number of 19compressor stations in one county, the air emissions 20 allowed can exceed those of a large coal-fired power 21 plant. There are 130 compressor stations in Freestone 22 County, Texas, alone. They're allowed to emit 32,500 23 tons per year of nitrogen oxides and 3,250 tons per 24 year of sulfur dioxide. 25 How can we address this issue? Maybe a

### Page 104 1 corporation having enough aggregate facilities in a 2 given county that exceeded NSPS standards should be 3 required to obtain a title five permit by the aggregate 4 of facilities. In national compliance, a county's 5 national compliance is undeterminable without air 6monitors. There are few air monitors in Central Texas 7 and most all areas with less than a hundred thousand 8 population do not have an air monitor. 9Rural towns and counties need protection 10 of our air quality also. We believe air monitoring 11 must not depend on population. By -- the existence of 12 major sources of air pollution in an area would be more 13 appropriate. Air monitoring is a must to ensure 14 compliance with the NAAQS. In Freestone County, we 15 have two large coal-fired power plants emitting 1686,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide, the dirtiest 17 power plant in Texas. 18 We have one large gas-fired power plant. 19A hundred and thirty natural gas compressor stations, 20 the emissions noted earlier in the thousands of tons. 21 Several gas treating facilities, not to mention 22 numerous industrial facilities, are also there having 23 air emissions. And just south of us are two more large 24 coal-fired power plants with another one approved that 25 put out about 18,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide.

### Page 105 1 Therefore, the uncontrolled issuance of 2 air permits continues where any facility they want to 3 locate in our area because our county is classified as 4 attainment slash unclassified. How do we get 5 classified? If we've got the worst power plant in the 6State of Texas plus others and numerous thousands of 7 other tons of emissions, how can we become properly 8 classified? 9We're in a continuous battle trying to 10 protect our air. Air monitors must be installed within 11 40 miles of any major source of air pollution. A major 12 area not addressed by any EPA rule is the noise issue. 13 Noise from gas compressor stations is causing havoc all 14 across the United States. I received e-mails from 15 Connecticut to Idaho, people having major, major issues 16both personally affecting their bodies and as to 17 property devaluation. 18 People are dying and being run out of 19their homes, suffering body damage such as brain 20 damage, ruptured eardrums -- mine have been ruptured 21 twice just laying in bed, heart damage -- I've been 22 diagnosed with that -- restless leg syndrome, vertigo 23 and other symptoms. This is name vibroacoustic disease 24 by the Portuguese, those studied this whole body 25 pathology for 25 years. And there's low frequency

### Page 106 1 noise symposiums held in Lyons (sic), France, with all 2 of the Europe represented, but the United States was 3 not present. Also held a low frequency noise symposium 4 in Australia, with Japanese and the Canadians and all 5 present but not the United States. 6When are we going to address this issue? 7 The EPA delegated authority to state and local 8 governments in 1982 as a cost-cutting measure. 9MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Morgan, I'm sorry. 10 Your time has expired, sir. 11 MR. MORGAN: Sir? 12 MR. THOMPSON: Your time has expired. 13 MR. MORGAN: Okay. I just had a sentence 14 or two. I said there's -- 44 states are just 15 unprotected. Only six have picked up this thing and I 16believe that the EPA should retake authority of this 17 1972 noise control and abatement act to protect our 18 people. 19MR. THOMPSON: So noted, Mr. Morgan. 20 Your time has expired. If you could please submit your 21 comments out front. Sit tight, please. Any questions 22 from the panel? Gentlemen, thank you both for your 23 testimony. 24 MR. MORGAN: Thank you, sir. 25 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you very much.

### Page 107 1 At this time, I'd like to ask Calvin 2 Tillman to please come forward. Good morning, 3 Mr. Tillman. 4 MR. TILLMAN: Good morning. Thank you. 5 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. If you could state 6your name and spell it for the court reporter, please. 7 MR. TILLMAN: My name is Calvin Tillman, 8 C-a-l-v-i-n T-i-l-l-m-a-n. 9MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, and you can 10 begin with your testimony. 11 MR. TILLMAN: Thank you very much. 12 Appreciate you guys coming out and listening to this 13 and going around the country. I'm sure it must be 14 pretty tasking to sit and listen to -- to a variety of 15 different statements. 16You know, on my way over here today, 17 there was actually this radio commercial that was from 18 the natural gas industry that talked about the 19equipment they're using to control emissions. It 20 talked about infrared technology and it talked about 21 special valves and other things that they're using to 22 help protect our air right here in the Barnett Shale. 23 And it's funny that those very equipment -- that very 24 equipment is what could help them comply with this 25 regulation.

### Page 108 1 I walked in just a few minutes ago. I 2 haven't been here that long, but I'm guessing that 3 there's several industry folks who have come up here 4 and said why they -- why this rule is not needed. If 5 you do much research at all, you'll find that a lot of 6the same companies that come up here and talk about 7 that and the same organizations actually have various 8 presentations that you can find all over the internet 9that talks about how they can control their emissions 10 in other parts of the United States and other parts of 11 the world. 12 The fact of the matter is, is that they 13 control -- they can control a lot of the emissions they 14 produce. And the fact of the matter is, is that it 15 saves money over time. If they were really the good 16neighbors that they claim to be, we wouldn't have to be 17 having this discussion because they would already be 18 controlling these emissions. 19However, a lot of these companies aren't 20 worried about three years from now when a lot of this 21 technology would pay off. They're simply worried about 22 next quarter's profits. There's been a lot of debate, 23 especially here in the State of Texas, that this is a 24 state's right issue. The fact of the matter is, is 25 that this industry, like many others, are shopping for

### Page 109 1 the best deal. If all of the sudden the state started 2 holding them accountable, they'd be screaming for the 3 EPA to come in and protect them. 4 In Dish, we have one of the largest 5 natural gas compression stations and processing 6facilities in this area. Actually, there are five 7 individually-permitted facilities, all permitted under 8 what's called Permit by Rule by the Texas Commission on 9Environmental Quality. Unfortunately, that state 10 Agency permitted those five and didn't know that they 11 were permitting them right next to one another. When 12 this was brought to their attention, they had no idea 13 that they had permitted five facilities right next to 14 one another, essentially on the same piece of real 15 estate. 16Since that time, there's been some 17 improvements. That doesn't help the people in the town 18 of Dish. After getting some attention for the research 19that we did in Dish, there's been a lot of changes. 20 There's been some clean-ups. There's been some 21 technology installed to help control some of this 22 stuff. Albeit, the situation is not perfect, it's much 23 better than it was. I recently brought this up to 24 another state regulatory agency that's headed by three 25 commissioners. It's the Railroad Commission of Texas.

### Page 110 1 And I was telling her that things were being installed 2 and simple housekeeping things, I think, have improved 3 the situation. We still have issues from time to time, 4 but I think if you looked overall, things have improved 5 because of technology that has been installed. 6And that Railroad Commissioner, she told 7 me that Dish must have been built on top of a landfill 8 and that was where all the methane was coming from. It 9couldn't be from one of the largest natural gas 10 production facilities and compressor stations in the 11 area. We had to be built on top of a landfill, even 12 though I was telling her that things were improving 13 while this technology was being installed. And this is 14 the person who currently runs the Railroad Commission 15 of Texas. 16Those are two examples of what our state 17 agencies have done. There's many others and you'll 18 probably hear about them today and you've probably 19heard about different state agencies all around the 20 country. So these are the agencies here in Texas that 21 are supposed to protect us. And, unfortunately, that 22 isn't happening. I think that this whole state's right 23 issue is nothing but rhetoric. 24 MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Tillman, your time is 25 expired.

### Page 111 1 MR. TILLMAN: Okay. Do I have a quick 2 second or do I need to -- 3 MR. THOMPSON: A quick second is a 4 second, but your time has expired. So I'm going to 5 have to ask you, if you would, please, for the sake of 6consistency to submit your additional comments -- all 7 of your comments, if you would, please, out front. 8 MR. TILLMAN: Okay. I'll just close by 9saying that I think you guys need to implement this 10 rule. You need to implement this rule as quickly as 11 possible and I thank you for your time here today. 12 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. 13 Before you go, any questions for Mr. Tillman? Okay. 14 Thank you, sir. 15 MR. TILLMAN: And I will submit written 16comments. Thank you. 17 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. 18 Okay. I have been given a note here to ask that if 19there's anyone here who has signed up to speak and you 20 have not checked in up front, that you please do so at 21 this time. And also if anyone would like to speak, 22 please see a staff person at the registration desk. I 23 guess, in sum, there's no one signed up to speak at 24 this very moment. So until then, we're going to take a 25 recess and begin when the next speaker shows up. Okay.

### Page 112 1 Well, we take lunch break at 12:30, so between now and 2 12:30, I think that is -- between now and 12:30, the 3 panel will be here to listen to comments. But until 4 then, we're gonna -- you guys can take a recess. Thank 5 you very much. 6(Recess taken 11:41-12:01.) 7 MR. THOMPSON: At this time, I'd like to 8 ask Rosemary Reed and Michael Thornton to please come 9forward. Rosemary Reed and Michael Thornton. 10 And I guess it's officially good 11 afternoon, give or take a few seconds. So good 12 afternoon to the both of you. If you could please 13 state your names and spell them for the court reporter, 14 starting with Ms. Reed, please. 15 MS. REED: My name is Rosemary Reed. My 16address is 277 Donnie Lane in Grand Prairie, Texas. 17 MR. THOMPSON: And could you spell your 18 name for the court reporter. 19MS. REED: R-e-e-d. 20 MR. THOMPSON: And Rosemary? 21 MS. REED: R-o-s-e-m-a-r-y. 22 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Mr. Thornton. 23 MR. THORNTON: I'm Michael Thornton, 24 M-i-c-h-a-e-l T-h-o-r-n-t-o-n. 25 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, sir. And,

### Page 113 1 Ms. Reed, we'll begin with your testimony. 2 MS. REED: Good afternoon. Again, my 3 name is Rosemary Reed. I live at 277 Donnie Lane in 4 Grand Prairie. I am the president of the HOA in Grand 5 Prairie, the Westchester Association of Homeowners. I 6am also a member of the Westchester Grand Prairie 7 Community Alliance on Gas Drilling. 8 I would like to thank you today for 9conducting this hearing on the federal emissions 10 standards for gas pollution. I'm here to tell you 11 about my experiences with gas drilling. Chesapeake has 12 put a gas well 537 feet from my backyard and a frack 13 pond that held 176,000 barrels of water. That was 14 built ten feet from my backyard. And also flared that 15 well behind my house. 16I am very -- more fortunate than other 17 residents in other cities because Grand Prairie has 18 improved some of their gas drilling ordinance 19deficiencies. When Chesapeake was drilling on the Corn 20 Valley pad site, I called several times to TCEQ when we 21 smelled the methane gas and several times went on for 22 hours. By the time TCQ -- TCEQ got there, the fumes 23 were gone. The same thing happened when they were 24 fracking the well, but again, the fumes were gone by 25 the time they showed up. Our residents in our

### Page 114 1 neighborhood and my family had no breathing problems 2 for months. And then -- since we've lived there. And 3 when the gas drilling started, we had breathing 4 problems for many, many months. 5 My neighbor, which is my nextdoor 6neighbor, as you can see in the picture right there, 7 her daughter died shortly after the gas drilling 8 activities were ended through the drilling, the 9fracking and the flaring. She also had a compromised 10 immune system an health issues before this happened but 11 were extremely exacerbated by the gas drilling 12 activities that was going on behind our homes. I have 13 brought that visual board you're looking at today to 14 show you exactly what gas drilling in residential 15 communities look like. 16Unfortunately, it is not available with a 17 scratch and sniff. The oil and gas regulation, we want 18 them to do their fair share to clean the air. We need 19the EPA's help. We need you because the State of Texas 20 refuses to act to reduce pollution from the gas 21 drilling activities. Rick Perry says Texas does not 22 need or want federal air regulations and we want -- and 23 we went to Texas in Austin to ask the representatives 24 to help us on this issue and they also have refused. 25 Today, you will hear from Texans who do

### Page 115 1 want stricter federal air regulations. Everyone coming 2 here today wants green completion that separates the 3 gas and liquid hybocarbons (phonetic) from the flowback 4 that comes from the gas wells. We want the gas 5 industry to replace the wells at the operate -- operate 6by releasing natural gas through their pneumatic 7 valves. We want emission controls for the tanks that 8 are on the gas drilling properties down to at least six 9tons of VOCs a year. We want better maintenance on the 10 compressors. 11 These rules would cut -- would cut small 12 forming VOC emissions by nearly one-fourth across the 13 oil and gas industry, including nearly 95 percent 14 reduction in the VOCs emitted from new and re-fracked 15 gas wells primarily through the use of pollution 16controls to capture natural gas that currently escapes 17 to the air. The gas that would be available, they 18 could then sell. These rules would reduce almost 1940 million tons of toxins in the air and three and a 20 half million tons of methane, a green gas -- a 21 greenhouse gas that is over 20 times more destructive 22 than carbon dioxide. 23 The gas industry should have to comply 24 with the same clean air standards as other industries 25 in the Texas. We have hundreds of thousands of

### Page 116 1 high-impact wells that are now in existence in 2 neighborhoods just like mine, and they should not or 3 ever be given a loophole or be grandfathered. Each and 4 every well should have to become compliant under the 5 new rules that the EPA sets. We need your help. 6Please protect our family. Thank you for your time. 7 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mrs. Reed. And 8 if you don't mind, I want to ask can you just 9briefly -- because you still have some time left here 10 but -- I'm going to stop this (indicating). Can you 11 briefly just kind of step us through what we're seeing 12 here, your illustration? Can you come to it? Because 13 we can't -- at least I can't. I'm going to speak for 14 my eyesight. If you don't mind, just -- yeah, just 15 kind of tell us what we have here and I'll hold it for 16you. So what do we see here? 17 MS. REED: This is the gas well that's 18 behind our community and that just shows how close -- 19you know when you hear the numbers 500 feet, in some 20 communities, it's 200 feet. But 500 feet, you can see 21 exactly how close that is. This is the frack pond that 22 they built behind my fence. And again, ten feet from 23 my fence. I can reach out and touch it. This is the 24 construction that you have to put up with. We're 25 talking the big earth movers. We're not talking

### Page 117 1 regularly -- you know, the regular home constructions. 2 This is the -- the path site right in front of the Joe 3 Pool Dam and it's 850 feet from the dam. This is the 4 filling up the frack pond, which I said is hundreds of 5 thousands of gallons. 6MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. 7 MS. REED: Thank you. 8 MR. THOMPSON: Any additional clarifying 9questions for Ms. Reed? 10 MR. LAWRENCE: I'm just going to ask, how 11 many people live in the neighborhood? 12 MS. REED: In our neighborhood, we have 13 200. In Westchester, we have 4,000. 14 MR. THOMPSON: Any additional questions? 15 Okay. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Thornton. You 16can begin your testimony. 17 MR. THORNTON: Okay. I'm Michael 18 Thornton, and I represent one of the small oil 19operating companies that were described in earlier 20 testimony by the representatives of the various oil and 21 gas associations of which we are member of TIPRO and 22 the Alliance of Energy Producers and those such 23 organizations. 24 Our company is fortunate to have interest 25 in a few wells that have been drilled and completed

### Page 118 1 using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking 2 technology. But these wells are operated by larger oil 3 companies and green completion methods are employed on 4 these wells and base recovery units are employed on the 5 storage vessels to reduce VOC emissions. 6However, the mass majority -- the vast 7 majority of the wells we have an interest in are those 8 producing 20 barrels of oil per day or less. The 9production facilities associated with these wells emit 10 very low levels of VOCs to the atmosphere. We've made 11 these calculations on these emissions as part of the 12 requirements of the new PBR for the oil and gas 13 association from the TCEQ. We share the view of the 14 previous presentations by the oil and gas associations 15 that a one rule fits all producing facilities is not 16cost-effective and burdensome to the hundred -- to the 17 thousands of oil and gas facilities producing low 18 volumes of oil and gas in sparsely-populated areas. A 19lot of our production in Shackelford County is reported 20 earlier and we have two people per square mile out 21 there. That's what I have. I just wanted to add that 22 to what the association said earlier. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you, 24 Mr. Thornton. Clarifying questions? Bruce. 25 MR. MOORE: You mentioned that you had

### Page 119 1 done calculations on your tank emissions for your TCEQ 2 permits. What did you -- did you have -- did you 3 discover a relationship between the emissions in the 4 throughput of your tanks? 5 MR. THORNTON: Yes. We used the 6calculation methods that the TCEQ has. I think they 7 talked about that earlier, that that's some of the 8 things that would be good in your rule. They have 9fill-in-the-blank formats that you can do the 10 calculations with. One of the problems is, is 11 getting -- for oil, especially, is getting analysis 12 with the breakdown for those calculations. It's 13 expensive. There are very few labs in the State of 14 Texas do it. It costs like $3,000 to get an analysis 15 done on an oil sample. So it is costly to the smaller 16operators. But yes, we did those calculations and we 17 ran oil well of 11 barrels of oil per day and 18 15 barrels of oil per day, 15 barrels of produced water 19a day, just very little gas with two -- 210 tank -- oil 20 tanks and a 200-barrel water tank and a separator 21 flow-through. And the emissions on that was less than 22 four and a half tons a year. And so -- and we're -- 23 there's not an individual within two miles of the 24 facility. So, you know, they can -- you know, I can 25 understand -- we understand and we are involved in some

### Page 120 1 wells that make a lot more volume than that in 2 highly-populated areas. But that's where we ask, is 3 that there's some differential made -- difference made 4 between, you know, the high-volume wells 5 highly-populated area versus the majority of the wells, 6you know -- I think there's like 3,000 wells out in the 7 Stephen/Shackelford County area with very few people 8 out there and the average wells are way below ten 9barrels of oil per day. 10 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Any additional 11 questions from anyone else? Respectfully, Mrs. Reed 12 and Mr. Thornton, thank you for your testimony. Thank 13 you very much. 14 Okay. At this time, I'd like to ask 15 Dixie Fields and Molly Rooke to come forward. Good 16afternoon, ladies. If you could both state your names 17 and spell them for the court reporter, starting with 18 Ms. Fields, please. 19MS. FIELDS: Spell my name? 20 MR. THOMPSON: State your name and spell 21 it for the court reporter. 22 MS. FIELDS: Okay. Dixie Fields, 23 D-i-x-i-e F-i-e-l-d-s. 24 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. And 25 Mrs. Rooke, do the same, please.

### Page 121 1 MS. ROOKE: Molly Rooke, M-o-l-l-y 2 R-o-o-k-e. 3 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. 4 Mrs. Fields, you can begin with your testimony. 5 MS. FIELDS: First of all, I want to 6thank the EPA, sincerely thank you for your time, the 7 EPA, for proposing rules that will help protect our 8 children, the public health, our environment from 9toxins emitted by the oil and gas industry, for helping 10 clean up our air pollution and for holding the oil and 11 gas companies -- excuse me -- to the same standards as 12 other industries while making existing wells follow the 13 same rules as future wells. 14 I spoke to the planning and zoning 15 committee in January to ask them to keep the Greenman 16drill off of Green Oaks in North Arlington away from my 17 home and our neighbors and my children. The drill is 18 now a little over a thousand feet from my home. And I 19unfortunately know firsthand what toxins can do to our 20 health when my two and a half daughter was diagnosed 21 with leukemia. 22 On December 14th of 2006, my husband and 23 I were told that our daughter, Trinity, had leukemia, 24 which is a blood cancer. Sitting in the doctor's 25 office four month's pregnant, my first question was, is

### Page 122 1 she going to die and my second question, was how did 2 this happen. This is a little emotional. Excuse me. 3 MR. THOMPSON: Take your time. 4 MS. FIELDS: It has been over four years 5 since our daughter was diagnosed with such a vicious 6cancer. It was so vicious that it would have taken her 7 life in two weeks had we not found what had happened to 8 her. For two years and seven months, Trinity had 9countless hospital stays, bone marrow tests, spinal 10 taps, tiny -- her little chest was stuck with needles 11 repeatedly to access her port to inject her body with 12 over 20 different chemos, steroids, alterating -- 13 alternating leg shots three times a week, blood 14 transfusions, platelets and isolation from all of her 15 friends and most of her family. 16These are just some of the challenges 17 that our two and a half year old daughter had to endure 18 for two years and seven months. As her mother, I 19wanted and needed today know why this happened to my 20 daughter and how I could protect her. Being on the 21 family advisory counsel at Cook Children's Hospital in 22 Fort Worth, on the board of directors for the Honored 23 Hero Run, which benefits the Leukemia and Lymphoma 24 Society, and part of Team in Training, which also 25 benefits the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, there have

### Page 123 1 been millions of dollars raised to research to answer 2 the family's questions, how did my little one get 3 cancer. 4 Research from these organizations, 5 including research with individual doctors, 6oncologists, and families I have met with over the 7 years all points to toxins in the environment as one of 8 the main causes of cancer, one being leukemia. There 9are absolutely serious health risks for natural gas 10 drilling. I'll just -- and I know y'all know this, but 11 I'll just give you five of them. 12 The biggest one I am concerned about is 13 benzine, which I know we've heard of repeatedly. That 14 is absolutely linked with leukemia and that is in the 15 natural gas drilling. Hydrogen sulfide, heavy metals, 16such as arsenic, barium, lead and mercury, nitrogen 17 oxide and sulfur dioxide. I truly hope for the sake of 18 our children's lives, our lives and the environment 19that the EPA is allowed to do their job and have the 20 rules passed for much cleaner air and much better 21 regulations to hold the gas -- oil and gas companies 22 accountable for past and future wells. Thank you. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mrs. Reed, 24 thank you for your testimony. 25 MS. FIELDS: Fields. I'm Fields.

### Page 124 1 MR. THOMPSON: I'm sorry. Mrs. Fields, 2 I'm sorry. Thank you. Are there any clarifying 3 questions? Okay. Mrs. Rooke, please. 4 MS. ROOKE: I wanted to let you know that 5 I am a mineral owner and have had oil and gas drilling 6on my family's ranch in South Texas for many years and 7 I think we need to have stronger standards to protect 8 our health. I am -- as a volunteer, I am the clean air 9issues coordinator for the Dallas Sierra Club. 10 The Sierra Club applauds the EPA's 11 proposal to issue comprehensive and strong rules to 12 help reduce the millions of tons of dangerous air 13 pollution currently emitted by the oil and gas 14 operations. These new safeguards are much needed to 15 replace the outdated, grossly inadequate and patchy 16rules that now cover the industry's air pollution. 17 We urge the EPA to go even further to 18 strengthen the rules as it finalizes its plan. As the 19oil and gas industry is one of the largest sources of 20 methane pollution, this rule must require direct 21 methane reductions and controls. Hydrogen sulfide is a 22 dangerous air pollutant with significant health effects 23 to all who are in contact with it. So this dangerous 24 gas is currently ignored and must be addressed 25 immediately.

### Page 125 1 The oil and gas industry also must not be 2 allowed to flare or burn off uncaptured gas, as this is 3 still a significant source of air pollution. 4 And, finally, on more things to add, if 5 you would, please, the EPA needs to get rid of the part 6of the rule known as the malfunction defense so that 7 the industry can't get away with polluting at unlawful 8 levels without paying any penalty while communities 9suffer the consequences. 10 And we can expect the industry and their 11 allies to fight these changes and even may refer to 12 them as job killing or unnecessary regulations, but 13 they are neither. In fact, these regulations are 14 absolutely necessary to protect our health and our 15 communities, which are currently suffering from 16under-regulated oil and gas operations. These new 17 rules will create more jobs and the pollution control 18 equipment sometimes even pays for itself as companies 19stop leaks and capture oil and gas products they can 20 sell. EPA, we are counting on you to be strong and 21 hold firm on these proposed rules. Our lives depend on 22 it. Thank you. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mrs. Rooke. 24 Any clarifying questions for Mrs. Rooke? Okay. 25 Mrs. Fields and Mrs. Rooke, thank you very much for

### Page 126 1 your testimony today. Thank you. 2 At this time, I'd like to ask Shirl Miles 3 to come forward, Shirl Miles. We're smiling because 4 there's a Shirl Miles who works in our office. 5 MS. MILES: Really? 6MR. THOMPSON: Yes, there is. Good 7 afternoon. 8 MS. MILES: Good afternoon. Shirl Miles, 9S-h-i-r-l, Miles, M -- like Mary -- i-l-e-s. 10 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. 11 MS. MILES: I'm a private citizen. I did 12 not come prepared to speak today. I have never spoken 13 at a public place, so I feel honored and thank you for 14 giving me the opportunity. 15 There's just no way in just the short 16five minutes that you could express all the concerns to 17 the human beings and land and the environment and the 18 creatures and the water of oil fracking. I wanted to 19offer a couple of websites that -- I recently checked 20 out some movies at the library that showed things. 21 One is called The Fuel Film. If you go 22 to www.thefuelfilm.com, it shows that there is a cancer 23 ally and it's well known in State of Louisiana. And it 24 also shows that Louisiana is one of the biggest gas -- 25 in the United States for gas production. And it shows

### Page 127 1 the air quality -- I mean, you can tell by the 2 pictures. I've recently taken pictures of the Dallas 3 skyline and Fort Worth skyline. And pictures say it 4 all, but the air quality is definitely decreased since 5 oil and gas fracking and production in the State of 6Texas. 7 There's another movie called Modern 8 Marvels -- Modern Marvels Renewable Energy that shows 9alternatives to energy, rather than coal plants or gas, 10 oil, nuclear power, all of these that emit terrible 11 toxins into our air. And it doesn't just affect human 12 beings, but it -- if you can look at it from your 13 standpoint as a human being, you're a human being. If 14 you got sick from it, you'd want somebody to take 15 notice. Well, what if it's your wife, what if it's 16your daughter, what if it's your granddaughter, what if 17 it's like one of these ladies that just spoke? It's 18 her child. 19People suffer all around the entire 20 world. There are websites all over the internet from 21 not just Texas but from other areas. One is 22 www.guardian.co.uk, forward slash, environment, forward 23 slash, 2011, forward slash, SEP, forward slash, 28, 24 forward slash, S-H-A-L-E, then a hyphen and then gas, a 25 hyphen, threaten, a hyphen, bath, hyphen, springs. And

### Page 128 1 it's about fracking in another country. I mean, it's 2 not just -- we're concerned because we live here in 3 this state. 4 I was born and raised in Texas. I want 5 to stay in Texas, but it's in the fair to human beings 6just because the oil and gas industries are very strong 7 in Texas. Other alternatives need to be reached and 8 it's -- and for y'all to finally say, you know what, if 9you're going to do this, there's going to be some rules 10 and regulations. Well, to me, that should have 11 happened in the very beginning. What business -- what 12 other business would get away with such things? Do we 13 tell that to our physicians when we go to the hospital, 14 oh, well, there's not going to be any rules and 15 regulations and just let them practice their medicine 16without any rules or regs? 17 It needs to be -- I mean, if it's going 18 to be done, it needs to be regulated and it needs to 19protect all people. It affects our water, it affects 20 our air. The animals are affected, the trees, the 21 grass. Everything is polluted by the fracking 22 industry. Is my time up? 23 MR. THOMPSON: No, ma'am. You still have 24 a minute. 25 MS. MILES: Okay. The effects of oil and

### Page 129 1 gas drilling, the dirty oil and gas industry is the 2 second largest stationary source of global warming 3 pollution in the United States. United States is the 4 number one producer of carbon monoxide in the entire 5 world. We're the number one user of oil and gas. We 6only have two percent that we can offer up out of the 7 United States. Why are we not seeking alternatives? 8 Texas is a strong state. We can divest and divert into 9different things. So just wanted to say thank you for 10 your time. 11 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mrs. Miles. 12 Are there any clarifying questions for Mrs. Miles? 13 Okay. Thank you again for your testimony and you did 14 really well, your first time. 15 Okay. I've just been informed that we 16can now break for lunch and reconvene at 2 p.m. 17 (Proceedings recessed at 12:26 p.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

### Page 130 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 I, SCHIAS K. CARMON-BROWN, CSR, RPR, State of 3 Texas, do hereby certify: 4 That the foregoing proceedings is a correct 5 transcription from the proceedings in the 6above-entitled matter. 7 That the foregoing is a true and correct 8 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken. 9I further certify that I am neither counsel 10 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to 11 the action in which this proceeding was taken, and 12 further that I am not financially or otherwise 13 interested in the outcome of the action. 14 DATED this 14th day of October, 2011. 15 16_______________________________________ SCHIAS K. CARMON-Brown, Texas CSR #7682 17 Expiration date: December 31, 2012 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. 18 500 North Brand Boulevard, Third Floor Glendale, California 91203 19Firm Registration #32 License Expiration: December 31, 2011 20 Telephone: 1-800-288-3376 www.depo.com 21 22 23 24 25