U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–221PDF 2013

LESSONS LEARNED: EPA’S INVESTIGATIONS 

OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 24, 2013 

Serial No. 113–42 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. CHRIS STEWART, Utah, Chair 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

July 24, 2013 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Fred Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research 

and Development, Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24 

Dr. David A. Dzombak, Chair, Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 32 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34 

Mr. John Rogers, Associate Director, Oil and Gas, Division of Oil, Gas, and 

Mining, Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48 

Dr. Brian Rahm, New York Water Resources Institute, Cornell University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 53 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 56 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 69 
Page

IV 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Fred Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research 

and Development, Environmental Protection Agency ....................................... 92 

Dr. David A. Dzombak, Chair, Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel ........................ 97 

Mr. John Rogers, Associate Director, Oil and Gas, Division of Oil, Gas, and 

Mining, Utah Department of Natural Resources .............................................. 102 

Dr. Brian Rahm, New York Water Resources Institute, Cornell University ...... 105 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

National Human Health Risk Evaluation for Hydraulic Fracting Fluid Additives report, Gradient, submitted by the Majority, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 108 

Letter from Ranger Resources, submitted by Representative Chris Stewart, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 129 

Letter from Ranger Resources, submitted by Representative Chris Stewart, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 131 
(1) 

LESSONS LEARNED: EPA’S INVESTIGATIONS 

OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

JOINT HEARING WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chris Stewart 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment] presiding. 
2 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Tsxas 

CHAIRMAN 

[ongress of the Bnttro ~tates 

il'lou5£ of 1RcprcstntatiU[5 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 www.science.house.goY 

Subcommittee on Environment 

And 

Subcommittee on Energy 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

RANKING MEMBER 

Lessons Learned: EPA's Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 

10:00 am. - 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dr, Fred Hauchmau, Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Dr, David A. Dzombak, Chair, Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, 

Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel 

Mr. John Rogers, Associate Director, Oil and Gas, Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Utah 

Department of Natural Resources 

Dr. Brian Rahm, New York Water Resources Institute, Cornell University 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

Lessons Leamed: EPA's Iuvestigations of Hydraulic Fracturing 

PURPOSE 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 

10:00 a,m, 12:00 p,m, 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

The Subcommittee on Environment and the Subcommittee on Energy will hold a joint 

hearing entitled Lessons Learned: EPA's Investigations of Hydraulic Frac/uring on Wednesday, 

July 24'", a110:00 a,m, in Room 2318 orlhe Rayburn House Omce Building, The purpose of the 

hearing is to examine the EPA's conduct of its investigation into the relationship between 

hydraulic fracturing and groundwater, with an emphasis on adherence to protocols, procedures, 

and other policies governing these research activities, A paJiicular focus of tile hearing will be to 

examine the EPA's investigations in Parker County, Texas; Pavillion, Wyoming; and Dimock, 

Pennsylvania, and ascertain any lessons that might be learned from these experiences and used to 

inform and improve the EPA's ongoing study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on 

drinking water resources. 

WITNESS LIST 

Dr. Fred Hauchman, Director, Office "fScience Policy, Office of Research and 

Development, Environmental Protection Agency 

Dr. David A. Dzombak, Chair, Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, 

Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel 

Mr .. lohn Rogers, Associate Director, Oil and Gas, Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, Utah 

Department orNatural Resources 

Dr. Brian Rahm. Post-Doctoral Associate, New York State Water Resources Institute, 

Cornell University 

BACKGROUND 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is involved in several research efforts 

focused on hydraulic fracturing, inCluding an ongoing study to determine the relationship, if any, 

between hydraulic Ibcturing and drinking water resources being conducted by the Office of 

Research and Development (ORO), Additionally, the Agency is part ofa research initiative 
4 

intended to addressed the "highest priority challenges" related to unconventional oil and gas 

production, as outlined in an April 2012 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the EPA, 

the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Interior (DOl).' According to the 

MOA, tilis research effort is intended to "improve our understanding of the impacts of 

developing our Nation's unconventional oil and gas resources," and in doing so, will focus each 

Agency on its area of core competency. Accordingly, the EPA portion of this research initiative 

will focus on air monitoring, environment and human health risk, and water quality2 

In addition to these ongoing efforts, the EPA has conducted investigations into individual 

cases involving hydraulic tl'aetming, ostensibly to dctermine the impact, if any, that the practice 

had on groundwater resources in the area. The EPA examined specific cases of hydraulic 

fracturing in Parker County, Texas; Pavillion, Wyoming; and Dimock, Pennsylvania. 

EPA Ongoing Activities: Hydraulic Fracturing Research 

The Fiscal Year 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-88) directed EPA to carry out a study on hydraulic tl'acluring, in 

accordance with the following report language: 

"Hydraulic F)'aefuring Siudy. --The conferees urge the Agency to carry out a study on the 

relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking waleI', using a credible approach 

thaI relies on the best available science, as' well as independent sources of information. 

The cOl?ferees e>.:pect the study fo be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed 

process Ihat will ensure the validity and accuracy o(lhe data. The Agency shall consult 

with olher Federal agencies as well as appropriale State and interstate regulatOlY 

agencies in cartying out the study, which should be prepared in accordance with the 

Agency's quality assurance principles. " 

The study, entitled Study a/Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking 

Water Resources, is ongoing and its scope includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic 

fracturing. in February of20II, EPA released a draft study plan for public comment and review 

by its Science Advisory Board (SAB), and a final study plan was released in November 2011. 3 

The purpose of the study, as outlined in the final study plan, is to "elucidate the relationship, if 

any, between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resourcesl

' and "assess the potential 

impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources and to identify the driving factors 

that affect the severity and frequency of any impacts.,,4 

The study plan identified the following fundamental research areas and questions: 

IVater Acquisition: What are the potential irnpacts of large volume 1.-vater withdrawals 

from ground and surface waters on drinking water resources? 

Collaboration Dn Unconventional Oil and Gas Research, 2012. Accessible 

2 
5 

Chemical J14ixing: What are the pussible impacts o/sUiface .spills on or near well pads ,,{ 

hydraulicfracturingfluidfj on drinking \t'oler resources? 

Well bijection: What are the possible impacts of the injeclion andjracluring process on 

drinking }j,'{lter resources? 

Flowback and Produced Waler: What are the possible impacts o{sur/;'ce or 

near well pads 0/ flow back and pruduced waleI' on drinking 

Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal: What are the possible impacts of inadequate 

treatment of hydraulicfracturing wastewaters on drinking tvater resources? 

On December 21. 2012, EPA released a "Progress RepOlt" to this ongoing study which 

provided information on current work being done by the Agency, including the status of research 

projects that are anticipated to inform the final studyS The progress report did not include 

conclusions regarding the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water 

resources. The final report, which has been classified by the Agency as a Ilighly Influential 

Scientific Assessment, is anticipated to be released in late 2014 for peer review and public 

comment.6 

Prior to the release orthe Progress Report, the EPA Office of Research and Development 

requested the Scientific Advisory Board to conduct a "consultation" review of the research that 

would be found inlhat report. A consultation is a mechanism whereby the SAB panelists may 

provide their individual expert comments to the Agency for consideration, but does not require 

consensus among committee members nor result in preparation of a detailed report To this end, 

the ad hoc SAB panel, known as the Ilydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Board Panel' 

participated in a consultation with the full SAB in May of this year. In this meeting, the ad hoc 

SAB panel responded to charge questions from the Agency and provided input and comments on 

the Progress Report. The written comments submitted by the panelists were compiled into a 

report, which was released 011 June 258 

In addition to the ongoing hydraulic fracturing study, the EPA is also involved in a multiagency research initiative with the DOE and DOl intended to address the "highest priority 

5 News Release, Environmenta! Protection Agency, EPA l?eleases Update on Ongoing flydraulic Fracluring S'/udy, 

2012. Accessible at: 

UC',c"'plll,em Report, 

June 25, 

3 
6 

challenges" related to unconventional oil and gas development as established in an MOA9 In 

May 2012, the agencies established a Steering Committee to lead this effort and publish a 

research plan by January 2013, This research plan has yet to be released. The goal orthis effort is 

to focus on "policy relevant science1

' directed toward research topics where collaboration among 

the three Agencies can produce results and technologies that "'support sound policy decisions by 

state and Federal agencies", 

EPA Site Specific Activities: lIy<!mw.ic ~racturing 

Parker COI/nly, Texas: 

In Dccember 2010, the EPA issued an Emergency Administrative Order to Range 

Resollrces, an operator in the Barnelt Shale in Northeast Texas, alleging that natural gas found in 

nearby water wells was likely ii'om the same source as the gas produced by Range and accusing 

the company of groundwater contamination. to In response to these allegations, the Texas 

Railroad Commission conducted a staff investigation II and held a hearing to examine the 

situation. The Commission found evidence that demonstrated the gas found in the water wells in 

question came from the shallow Strawn gas field, located about 200 to 400 feet below the 

surface. The gas being produced by Range, on the other hand, was from the Barnett Shale tield, 

some 5,000 feet below the surface. Thus, the Commission concluded, the gas being produced by 

Range was not connected to the gas discovered in the water wells. Additionally, the Railroad 

Commission concluded that the wells produced by Range were mechanically sound and without 

leaks. 

The Railroad Commission, finding no evidence to suggest that Range was responsible for 

the alleged contamination, ruled in March 20 II that the company be allowed to continue to 

produce from the wells in question. t2 In March 20 12, the EPA vacated its emergency order 

against Range." Additionally, in July 2012 the EPA Office ,,[Inspector General notified the 

Acting Regional Administrator for Region 6 that a review of the enforcement actions against 

Range would be conducted. 14 

Pavillion, Wyoming: 

Multi*Agency Collaboration on Unconventional Oil and Gas Research, DOE, 

Accessible at: 

of Texas, Revised Examiners' Report and Proposal for Decision, March 11,201 L 

Accessible at: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/meetin CT s/ogpfd/RangePFD-03-ll-ll.pdf 

12 Railroad Commission of Texas, Final Order, March 22 1 2011. Accessible at: 

4 
7 

On December 8, 20ll, EPA released a draft report summarizing the Agency's findings 

pursuant to its groundwater investigation in Pavillion, Wyoming. 1; The Agency initiatcd this 

inquiry in September of 2008 in response to complaints made by some private well-owncrs 

rcgarding taste and odor concerns. Numerous concerns witb the draft report were quickly 

identified, including the absence of peer review prior to the report's release, a lack of data 

transparency. failure to adhere to information quality guidelines, and poor sampling and 

monitoring techniques that called into question the validity of tile results. 

In September 20 12, tbe USGS released a technical report summarizing its findings in the 

Pavillion case. '6 Specifically, the report described the resulls of their attempts to reproduce 

EPA's results from its monitoring wells. Ultimately, the USGS samples did not yield the same 

results: materials were found at lower concentrations than EPA lindings, the USGS did not find 

the presence of key chemicals of interest found by EPA, and the USGS was unable to produce a 

representative groundwater sample from one of EPA 's deep monitoring wells. 

In response to significant public concerns, the EPA twice extended the public comment 

period for its draft report on Pavillion. The second extension was for an additional nine months 

and was scheduled to close in September of this year. However, on June 20th, the EPA 

terminated activity on the report, stating that the draft report would not be finalized nor would 

the Agency seek peer review. Additionally, EPA indicated it would leave any future action 

regarding tbe investigation to the State ofWyoming. '7 

Dimock, Pennsylvania: 

In 2008, residents of Dimock, Pennsylvania notified the Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) of issues with their private water wells, including water clarity and odor. These 

allegations led state officials to sbut down wells owned by Cabot Oil & Gas and resulted in 

negotiations between the company, the landowners, and the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP), which included water sampling and testing, 

The EPA announced in January 2012 that it would ensure temporary delivery of water 

supplies to some residents of Dimock and conduct tests of watcr wells in the area. IS Between 

January and June 2012, EPA sampled private drinking water wells in 64 homes. On July 25, 

2012, the EPA announced that it had completed its sampling and declared there were "not levels 

15 EPA Region 8, Pavillion, Groundwater 

16 Press Release, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Pavillion, Wyo,~ September 26, 2012. Accessible at: 

http://www,usgs,goY/newsroomiartic!e.asp?1 D=341 O&from::o:rss _home 

17 Press Release1 u.s, Environmental Protection Wyoming 10 Lead Further Investigation of Water Quality 

Concerns Outside of Pavillion June 20, 2013. Accessible at: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA to Regin Sampling Water at Some Residences in 

19,2012. Accessible at: 
8 

of contaminants present that would require additional action by the Agency" and that the water 

in Dimock was safe to drink.'o 

Additional Reading: 

Hearing Charter, House Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and 

Environment Hearing entitled, Fractured Science--Examining EPA's Approach 10 

Ground Water Research: The Pavillion Analysis, February 1,2012. Available at: 

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.hollse.gQ\I/files/docllments/hearings/H 

!-IRQ-112-SY;?Q,20120201-SDOOl.pdf 

Railroad Commission of Texas, Revised Examiners' Repoltand Proposal For Decision 

Statement of the Case, March It, 2011. Available at: 

http://www,rre.state.tx.,,lds/meetings/ogpfd/RangePFD-03-11:.lLpJif 

• Letter, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to EPA Regional 

Administrator, January 5, 2012. Accessible at: 

http://s3.documentcJoud.org/documents!282670/stateimpact-pa-krancer-dimock-Ietter.pdf 

19 Press Release, U,S, Environmental Protection Agency, EP.·1 Completes Drinking Water Sampling in Dimock, Pa" 

25, 2012. Accessible at: 

6 
9 

Chairman STEWART. The joint hearing on the Subcommittee of 

the Environment and the Subcommittee on Energy will come to 

order. 

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today’s joint hearing entitled ‘‘Lessons Learned: EPA’s Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing.’’ 

Before we get started today, I would like to recognize my friend, 

David Piantanida—I can never say his name right—who is with 

the EPA Office of Research and Development. And Dave and Lisa 

had a little boy last Monday, as I understand. Congratulations. 

Probably the most important thing we will do today, so we want 

to recognize you for that. 

In front of each Member are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and the truth-in-testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. Before we get started, since this is a joint hearing 

involving two Subcommittees, there were some questions, so I 

wanted to explain how we will operate procedurally so all Members 

understand how the question-and-answer period will be handled. 

As always, we will alternate between the majority and the minority Members, first recognizing the Chair and Ranking Members 

of the Environment and Energy Subcommittees. We will recognize 

those Members present at the gavel in order of seniority on the full 

Committee, and those coming in after the gavel will be recognized 

in the order of their arrival. 

And I would now like to recognize myself for five minutes for my 

opening statement. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. We had a 

chance to introduce ourselves and welcome you earlier, and again 

we thank you. Thank you for your time and your expertise. I would 

like to include a special welcome to John Rogers, Department of 

Natural Resources, from my home State of Utah. 

EPA’s recent announcement that it is walking away from its attempt to link hydraulic fracturing to groundwater issues in Wyoming is the most recent example of the Agency employing what I 

consider a ‘‘shoot first, ask questions later’’ policy towards unconventional oil and gas production. Following investigations in 

Parker County, Texas, and also Pennsylvania, this marks the third 

case in which EPA has made sweeping allegations of frackingcaused contamination, only to have to recant these claims later due 

to errors, omissions, or breaches of protocol. At a time when so 

many Americans are learning to distrust their Federal Government, this is another blow for the credibility of the Federal agencies. 

This hearing is focused on EPA’s ongoing study of hydraulic fracturing, a project initiated by a single line in a 2010 appropriations 

bill that has blossomed into an examination costing tens of millions 

of taxpayer dollars that may not be complete until the latter half 

of this decade. Given EPA’s rush to judgment in Wyoming and 

Texas and Pennsylvania, we should question whether the Agency’s 

ongoing study is a genuine fact-finding and scientific exercise or 

could it be a witch-hunt to find a pretext to regulate? 

Officials from EPA’s Office of Research and Development, the scientists who are in charge of this study, have stated publicly that 

they are also conducting ‘‘a pretty comprehensive look at all the 
10 

statutes to determine where holes may allow for additional Federal 

oversight.’’ These same officials have also overseen large shifts in 

both the study’s timeline and the scope of the study since the last 

time the Agency’s independent Science Advisory Board weighed in. 

Given the Administration’s anti-fossil fuel, pro-environmental 

alarmism in their approach to energy, we need to be vigilant in ensuring that the Agency does not put the regulatory cart before the 

scientific horse, threatening tens of thousands of good-paying jobs 

and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic development that 

have resulted from oil and gas production in recent years. 

Toward this end, this Committee, which has jurisdiction over the 

study and all science at EPA, has held dozens of hearings and sent 

far too many letters to the regulators in the last two Congresses. 

For example, in the beginning of May of this year, I sent a letter 

to the newly-formed independent Science Advisory Board panel on 

hydraulic fracturing asking what I thought were some fundamental 

questions about EPA’s ongoing study, and I would like to enter a 

copy of this letter into the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairman STEWART. Under the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1978, SABs were created to 

‘‘provide such scientific advice as may be requested’’ by this Committee. And I would like to emphasize that. Let me say it again. 

SABs were created to provide scientific advice to this Committee. 

Unfortunately, despite promises made to the members of this 

panel, EPA’s lawyers have prevented the supposedly independent 

panel of experts from responding directly to these questions. I believe that wastes taxpayers’ resources and it is preventing the 

Board from following the law. Even worse, EPA’s Office of General 

Counsel has refused to meet with me and my staff to explain this 

position. It bothers me that the Office of General Counsel refuses 

to meet with us. With such arrogance and dismissiveness, little 

wonder that the Administration is losing the confidence of the 

American people, as well as this Congress. 

This panel provided critical comments back to EPA on its study 

progress in late June, and, unfortunately, much of the feedback we 

received reiterated many of the concerns that we have. Independent scientists raised questions about the nature of EPA’s study 

and whether it would have any use for decision-makers. One panelist suggested the Agency needs to ‘‘examine the rapid changes of 

chemicals being used and future trends toward greener chemicals.’’ 

Another summarized that the failure to consider industry practices 

‘‘runs the risk of making the Agency’s evaluation of the data, which 

in some cases may be several years old, obsolete and not relevant 

to the public, industry, and decision-makers at all levels in 2014.’’ 

Several members of this independent panel—whom, by the way, 

if I could point out, were appointed by the EPA Administrator— 

stated that the Agency’s figures and characterizations were ‘‘misleading,’’ lacked relevant context, and were designed to produce 

‘‘self-fulfilling results.’’ 

The Agency’s—or the Administration’s interagency fracking research is now over a year late in making its study plan public. This 

seems especially important in light of the landmark study released 

this week by DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory show-
11 

ing no evidence that fracking chemicals impacted drinking water in 

western Pennsylvania. 

For these and other issues, I look forward to this very important 

hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT CHAIRMAN CHRIS

STEWART

Good afternoon, I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, which is being 

held to review innovative approaches to technology transfer at universities, research 

institutes and National Laboratories, and to examine a discussion draft of legislation, titled the ‘‘Innovative Approaches to Technology Transfer Act of 2013.’’ 

In 2012, the Federal Government funded more than $131 billion in research and 

development activities. More than half of all basic research conducted at our nation’s colleges and universities is funded by the Federal Government. 

According to the Association of University Technology Managers, technology 

transfer is the process by which universities and research institutes transfer scientific findings from one organization to another for the purpose of further development or commercialization. 

The Bayh-Dole Act, passed in 1980, changed the incentive structure for universities and research institutes to work with commercial entities, including small businesses, to license and patent technologies. The Small Business Technology Transfer 

or STTR program was created to provide federal R&D funding for proposals that 

are developed and executed jointly between a small business and a researcher in 

a nonprofit research organization. My own state of Indiana has seen 99 STTR 

awards totaling more than $26 million. Both Bayh-Dole and the STTR program 

have helped to create jobs and translate new technologies into the marketplace. 

However, while the rate of technology transfer at our nation’s universities, research institutes and national laboratories has increased since the passage of the 

Bayh-Dole Act and the creation of the STTR program, I believe we can do even better. 

The draft legislation, which is being developed under the leadership of my colleague from New York, Mr. Collins, will create a program to incentivize research 

institutions to implement innovative approaches to technology transfer to achieve 

better outcomes. The legislation would dedicate a portion of STTR program funding 

to provide grants to research institutions to help facilitate and accelerate the transfer of federally funded research and technology into the marketplace. 

We will be hearing today from the co-founder of a growing biotechnology business 

based in Charlottesville, Virginia that was developed out of federally funded R&D, 

with the assistance of private foundation technology transfer grant funding. We will 

also hear from the Assistant Vice President for Research and Associate Director of 

the Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship at Purdue University in my 

home state of Indiana. And from the Assistant Vice Chancellor for the Office of Innovation, Technology, and Alliances at the University of California, San Francisco. 

Our witnesses have first-hand experience in technology transfer and can provide insight into how the proposed grant program could help facilitate better technology 

transfer outcomes. 

I’m looking forward to hearing from our witnesses on their thoughts about the 

proposed legislation, including any recommendations they have for improvements. 

We thank our witnesses for being here today and we look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman STEWART. I would now like to recognize the Ranking 

Member, Ms. Bonamici, for her opening statement. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairman Stewart and 

Chair Lummis. 

Over the past several years, we have seen a substantial expansion of fracking for oil and gas across the country. As this expansion continues, we must not ignore the potential public health risks 

that may be caused if the operations of fracking companies contaminate drinking water. 
12 

I want to thank the Chairs of the Subcommittees for recognizing 

the importance of this issue by including in the hearing charter 

that a focus of the hearing will be to examine the EPA’s investigations and ascertain any lessons that might be learned from these 

experiences and use to inform and improve the EPA’s ongoing 

study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking 

water resources. 

Hydraulic fracturing emerged as a commercial success in large 

part because of Federal investment in developing today’s fracking 

technologies. Although fracking has boosted shale gas exploration 

to make it a formidable economic driver, providing increased energy security and creating jobs, the fast-paced and enormous scale 

of fracking for shale gas may be putting our water resources at 

risk. 

Our surface and groundwater resources are under tremendous 

strain throughout the country. Population expansion, residential 

and industrial development, droughts, and limited precipitation not 

seen before in some areas of the country have all contributed to 

this strain. These circumstances make access to clean water and 

the EPA’s study even more important. If we want to enjoy the advantages and economic benefits of shale gas development, we must 

do so with the highest regard for safety and the protection of our 

precious water resources. 

We have all heard the stories about exploding drinking water 

wells, families with children who are exposed to potentially harmful levels of methane gas in their drinking water, and we should 

all be concerned about what could happen going forward. Fracking 

for shale gas is predicted to continue for some time. State, federal, 

and tribal leaders, in addition to Americans all over the country 

are alarmed about whether their drinking water is at risk and they 

deserve answers to their questions. 

The current debate over fracking goes beyond groundwater and 

includes well integrity concerns, documented induced seismicity 

events, and potential negative impacts to the health of workers at 

these facilities. Although the primary focus of the EPA’s study we 

will discuss today is the connection to drinking water resources, all 

of these concerns and important questions must be addressed. 

Some, especially from the industry, submit that no additional studies are needed, that Americans should trust that the industry 

knows what it is doing or that Federal interference is unnecessary 

because States are already implementing best practices. 

Although some States may be up to the managerial task if they 

have demonstrated knowledge of local geology, hydrology, and infrastructure, other States are not as prepared. Some have only 

begun to develop rules establishing best practices for companies operating fracking facilities within their borders. 

The oil and gas industry has a history of adopting environmental 

measures only after the drop of the regulatory gavel by state or 

Federal environmental regulatory authorities. Accordingly, EPA’s 

role, aided by rigorous peer review process overseen by the EPA 

Science Advisory Board must figure prominently in this debate. 

State and tribal leaders will need the results from the fracking 

study to formulate stronger policies to protect their water resources 

and the health of their citizens. And hopefully, communities will 
13 

have answers to the questions about drinking water safety they 

have long been asking their state and Federal leaders. 

Since the initial passage of the Environmental Research Development and Demonstration Authorization Act almost 40 years ago, 

the role of the EPA has been to ask and answer the most challenging scientific questions related to industrial activity in our 

communities. Their scientific research in collaboration with States, 

tribal authorities, industry, community leaders, and other stakeholders has led to the development of clear and stronger environmental policies and practices over the decades. 

The result of that collaboration has been unquestionable benefits 

for our economy, certainty for industry, and protection of our water 

quality. Without a better understanding of the fracking water cycle 

and the impacts to drinking water and groundwater, we will not 

know enough about the potential risks to equip State and localities 

with the tools necessary to keep their citizens healthy and safe. 

I look forward to hearing about EPA’s progress on its drinking 

water study. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT RANKING MEMBER

SUZANNE BONAMICI

Thank you, Chair Stewart and Chair Lummis. Over the past several years we 

have seen a substantial expansion of fracking for oil and gas across the country. As 

this expansion continues, we must not ignore the potential public health risks that 

may be caused if the operations of fracking companies contaminate drinking water. 

I want to thank the Chairs of the Subcommittees for recognizing the importance of 

this issue by including in the Hearing Charter that a focus of the hearing will be 

to examine the EPA’s investigations and ‘‘ascertain any lessons that might be 

learned from these experiences and used to inform and improve the EPA’s ongoing 

study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.’’ 

Hydraulic fracturing, or ‘‘fracking,’’ emerged as a commercial success in large part 

because of federal investment in developing today’s fracking technologies. Although 

fracking has boosted shale gas exploration to make it a formidable economic driver, 

providing increased energy security and creating jobs, the fast pace and enormous 

scale of fracking for shale gas may be putting our water resources at risk. 

Our surface and groundwater resources are under tremendous strain throughout 

the country. Population expansion, residential and industrial development, 

droughts, and limited precipitation not seen before in some areas of the country 

have all contributed to this strain. These circumstances make access to clean water 

and the EPA’s study even more important. If we want to enjoy the advantages and 

economic benefits of shale gas development, we must do so with the highest regard 

for safety and the protection of our precious water resources. 

We have heard about exploding drinking water wells and families with children 

who are exposed to potentially harmful levels of methane gas in their drinking 

water—we should all be concerned about what could happen going forward. 

Fracking for shale gas is predicted to continue for some time. State, federal, and 

tribal leaders, in addition to Americans all over the country, are alarmed about 

whether their drinking water is at risk, and they deserve answers to their questions. 

The current debate over fracking goes beyond groundwater and includes well integrity concerns, documented induced seismicity events, and potential negative impacts to the health of workers at these facilities. Though the primary focus of the 

EPA study we will discuss today is the connection to drinking water resources, all 

of these concerns and important questions must be addressed. 

Some, especially from the industry, submit that no additional studies are needed, 

that Americans should trust that the industry knows what it’s doing, or that federal 

interference is unnecessary because states are already implementing their own best 

practices. Although some states may be up to the managerial task if they have demonstrated knowledge of local geology, hydrology, and infrastructure, other states are 
14 

not as prepared. Some have only begun to develop rules establishing best practices 

for companies operating fracking facilities within their borders. 

The oil and gas industry has a history of adopting environmental measures only 

after the drop of the regulatory gavel by federal or state environmental regulatory 

authorities. Accordingly, EPA’s role—aided by the rigorous peer-review process overseen by the EPA Science Advisory Board—must figure prominently in this debate. 

State and tribal leaders will need the results from the fracking study to formulate 

stronger policies to protect their water resources and the health of their citizens. 

And, hopefully, communities will have answers to the questions about drinking 

water safety that they have long been asking their state and federal leaders. 

Since the initial passage of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act almost 40 years ago, the role of the EPA has been to 

ask and answer the most challenging scientific questions related to industrial activity in our communities. Their scientific research, in collaboration with states, tribal 

authorities, industry, community leaders, and other stakeholders, has led to the development of clearer and stronger environmental policies and practices over the decades. The result of that collaboration has been unquestionable benefits for our economy, certainty for industry, and protection of our water quality. Without a better 

understanding of the fracking water cycle and the impacts to drinking water and 

groundwater, we will not know enough about the potential risks to equip states and 

localities with the tools necessary to keep their citizens healthy and safe. 

I look forward to hearing EPA’s progress on its drinking water study. And, with 

that I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. The Chair now 

recognizes the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Mrs. 

Lummis, for her opening statement. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank both the Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee to my right and the Chairman of the full Committee to 

my left for holding this important hearing, ‘‘Lessons Learned: 

EPA’s Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing.’’ Also, I want to 

thank the witnesses for taking time to be here this morning. 

The EPA’s Study of the Potential Impact on—of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources has been going on for over 

three years now, and the final report is expected next year. Given 

the national and international interest in the results of this endeavor, I think it is important that the Committee take a step back 

and assess the Agency’s track record on hydraulic fracturing. I 

hope the phrase ‘‘lessons learned’’ can be a useful starting point as 

we review past EPA behavior to inform and hopefully improve the 

ongoing work on hydraulic fracturing. Sadly, the Agency’s track 

record in this regard, particularly in my home State of Wyoming, 

gives me little confidence. 

Last month, the Agency decided to terminate work on its draft 

report that wrongly alleged that groundwater contamination near 

Pavillion, Wyoming, was related to fracking. The EPA’s work in 

Wyoming was so riddled with mistakes in well construction, errors 

in sampling techniques, and failures to follow protocol that their 

only course of action was to do the right thing and withdraw the 

report. 

And while I am relieved that EPA transferred authority to the 

State of Wyoming on any continued work in Pavillion, I am troubled that the Agency continues to insist that it ‘‘stands by its work’’ 

on Pavillion. 

I hope the EPA will avoid making these same mistakes in its 

broader ongoing study, but I lack confidence when the EPA stands 

by its work even when that work is shoddy and led even prestigious publications to frighten Americans about this significant 
15 

technology. The new study design is flawed and indicative of the 

Agency’s characteristic outcome-driven approach to hydraulic fracturing, where achieving desired conclusions takes precedent over 

basing those conclusions on the best available science. 

For example, this study, intended to be a seminal and authoritative work on whether or not hydraulic fracturing impacts drinking water, is guided not by what is likely or probable but by a 

search for what is merely possible. In this manner, the Agency appears headed towards developing conclusions completely divorced 

from any useful context. It is akin to a weatherman warning citizens to take shelter based on the possibility that a storm will occur 

without including any indication of when, where, and how likely it 

is to actually take place. 

I am not alone in this concern, as several of the panelists on 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory have similarly expressed apprehension over the lack of context the Agency is providing and its neglect of risk assessment. 

Let me just read a few comments, which I urge EPA to incorporate. These comments are from the advisory. ‘‘To simply discount 

the regulatory work in place and model what-if and worst-case scenarios will not produce realistic results, relevant context has to be 

taken into account, absent information on chemical concentrations, 

amounts used, site storage conditions, duration of storage onsite, 

and containment systems, the information will not support an assessment of the potential impact to drinking water resources. Inappropriately, this experimental design produces self-fulfilling results.’’ Mind you, these are quotes. ‘‘Clearly, EPA should do much 

more to put this information into context’’ from the advisors. 

These statements summarize just some of the concerns I have 

with EPA’s approach to hydraulic fracturing, concerns I hope are 

a result of the collection of honest mistakes made by the Agency 

rather than a calculated pattern of behavior based on regulatory 

intentions. I look forward to hearing how the Agency has learned 

from its past work and plans to improve its work in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CHAIRMAN CYNTHIA LUMMIS

Good morning and I thank the Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee for 

holding this important hearing, Lessons Learned: EPA’s Investigations of Hydraulic 

Fracturing. I want thank the witnesses for taking the time to be here this morning 

and I look forward to their valuable testimony. 

The EPA’s Study of the Potential Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking 

Water Resources has been going on for over three years now, and the final report 

is expected next year. Given the national-and international-interest in the results 

of this endeavor, I think it’s important that the Committee takes this time to take 

a step back and assess the Agency’s track record on hydraulic fracturing. I hope 

that phrase lessons learned can be a useful starting point this morning as we review 

past EPA behavior in order to inform and hopefully improve its ongoing work on 

hydraulic fracturing. Unfortunately, the Agency’s track record in this regard—particularly in my home state of Wyoming—gives me no cause for confidence. 

Initially, I was pleased to hear last month that the Agency decided to terminate 

all work on its draft report alleging fracking contaminated ground water in 

Pavillion, Wyoming. This undertaking was so riddled with mistakes in well construction, errors in sampling techniques, and failures to follow protocol that even 

the USGS—a fellow federal agency—could not replicate the results. However, while 

I am relieved that EPA decided to stop digging itself into a deeper scientific hole, 
16 

I am extremely troubled that the Agency continues to brazenly insist it ‘‘stands by 

its work’’ on Pavillion. 

I hope the EPA will avoid making these same mistakes in its broader, ongoing 

study, but cause for optimism is wanting. The study design is flawed and indicative 

of the Agency’s characteristic outcome-drive approach to hydraulic fracturing, where 

achieving desired conclusions takes precedent over basing those conclusions on the 

best available science. In that vein, this study, intended to be a seminal and authoritative work on whether or not hydraulic fracturing impacts drinking water, is guided by a search for what is possible, rather than what is likely or probable. 

In this manner, the Agency appears headed toward developing conclusions completely divorced from any useful context. It is akin to a weatherman warning citizens to take shelter based on the possibility that a storm will occur, without including any indication of when the storm might occur, where it might hit, and how likely it is to actually take place. I am not alone in this concern, as several of the panelists on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory 

have similarly expressed apprehension over the lack of context the Agency is providing and its neglect of risk assessment. 

Let me just read a few of those comments, which I urge the EPA to incorporate: 

• ‘‘To simply discount the regulatory network in place and model ‘‘what if’’ and 

‘‘worse case’’ scenarios will not produce realistic results’’ 

• ‘‘relevant context has to be taken into account’’ 

• ‘‘absent information on chemical concentrations, amounts used, site storage conditions, duration of storage onsite, and containment systems, the information 

will not support an assessment of the potential impact to drinking water resources.’’ 

• ‘‘Inappropriately, this experimental design produces self-fulfilling results’’ 

• ‘‘clearly, EPA should do much more to put this information into context’’ 

These statements summarize just some of the concerns I have with EPA’s approach to hydraulic fracturing, concerns I hope are a result of a collection of honest 

mistakes made by the Agency rather than a calculated pattern of behavior based 

on regulatory intentions. I look forward to hearing how the Agency has learned from 

its past work and plans to improve its work in the future. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Swalwell for his opening statement. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairman Stewart and Chairman 

Lummis, for holding this hearing and also I want to thank our witnesses for being here with us today. And I also embrace and look 

forward to the opportunity to examine EPA’s efforts to determine 

whether there is a significant link between fracking and groundwater quality and, if so, what next future steps we need to take 

to make sure that our drinking water is clean and safe, and if this 

technology is able to be done safely, where and how is the best way 

to do that? 

As I have said before over and over in this Committee, I do support an all-of-the-above approach to energy production and I do believe that if we can make it safe, we should make it happen. However, in any technology, if we cannot make it safe, we should try 

and fix it to make it safe, and if not, certainly not expose consumers and citizens to any of the hazards that may exist in any 

project. 

The emerging natural gas boom obviously provides an exciting 

opportunity for our Nation, not to mention California, to create jobs 

and diversify energy options for both consumers and industry over 

the next several years. That said, when it comes to fracking, I still 

believe we need to proceed with extreme caution. 

And I understand the concern of the Chairman, both Chairman 

Lummis and Chairman Stewart about the length of time it has 
17 

taken, but, frankly, I don’t think three years is too long at this 

point for something that is so serious. And, as I have said, and I 

know many of my colleagues are committed, if we can make this 

technology safe, we are willing to make it happen, but we do have 

concerns, especially in California, about seismic activity and what 

fracking could do with seismic activity. 

And with respect to the study in Wyoming, I certainly share 

Chairman Lummis’ concerns about what happened with that EPA 

study, and what I am interested in learning is whether that study 

was something that was supposed to be limited and limited in 

scope only to the concern of groundwater affecting a particular person or a particular group of individuals and rather that—and 

whether that study should really be projected more broadly as an 

EPA groundwater study. 

So I think there is legitimate debate about whether the study 

that was done should be used or whether there is a more broad, 

comprehensive study taking place. But I look forward to working 

with both Chairs to see that. 

And we have to be careful that when we do extract this resource 

that we do it carefully without unintended, serious consequences to 

either our health or environment. And while I know that the focus 

of this hearing is mostly on the EPA and groundwater contamination, I have brought up my concerns in the past about what I think 

are direct links between seismic activity and fracking. 

And as I have said, it may be the case that perhaps California 

is not the best place to have hydraulic fracking and perhaps other 

States that don’t have seismic concerns, if they can show that there 

will not be groundwater contamination, that would be the best 

place to conduct fracking. It would be very shortsighted, though, to 

produce energy via fracking in California to only find that it would 

lead to seismic activity or further seismic activity. 

So I am pleased that the EPA and other Federal agencies, along 

with many of the partners in your States, are taking these issues 

seriously. And I urge you to take the time you need to get the most 

accurate answers possible, even if some of them don’t turn out to 

be what we want to hear. There is simply no place for politics when 

it comes to making sure that the water that our families rely upon 

is safe and that the homes that we live in are not put at further 

risk of a manmade disaster. And so I look forward to learning more 

on this issue. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swalwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RANKING MEMBER ERIC

SWALWELL

Thank you Chairman Stewart and Chairman Lummis for holding this hearing 

today, and I also want to thank the witnesses for being here. I appreciate the opportunity to further examine the EPA’s efforts to determine whether there is a significant link between fracking and groundwater quality and, if so, the next steps we 

need to take to ensure that our drinking water is clean and safe. 

As I’ve said before, I agree with those who say we need an ‘‘all of the above’’ approach to energy production. The emerging natural gas boom obviously provides an 

exciting opportunity for our nation—not to mention California—to create jobs and 
18 

diversify energy options for both consumers and industry over the next several 

years. 

That said, when it comes to fracking, we need to proceed with extreme caution. 

We have to be careful that we extract this resource safely, without unintended, serious consequences to either our health or the environment. While I know it is not 

the focus of this particular hearing, it is still worth noting to these expert witnesses 

that a particular concern to Californians is the possibility that hydraulic fracturing 

might cause earthquakes. It would be very short-sighted to produce energy via 

fracking only to find out later that it caused such damage. 

So I am pleased that the EPA and other relevant federal agencies, along with 

many of your partners in the states, are taking these issues seriously. I urge you 

to take the time you need to get the most accurate answers possible, even if some 

of them don’t turn out to be what we want to hear. There is simply no place for 

politics when it comes to making sure that the water that our families rely on is 

safe, and the homes that we live in are not at risk of a man-made disaster. 

I look forward to learning more on this important issue, and with that, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. 

Like you, I would love to explore that question of the impacts. 

Geological impacts of fracking, I think, would be something that 

would be obviously beneficial and I think the result would be, I 

think, positive as well in the sense of it would allow the country 

to continue towards energy independence. 

With that, though, I now recognize Mr. Smith, the Chairman of 

the full Committee, for an opening statement. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, before I start my opening statement, I do want to acknowledge the opening statements by the Ranking Members of the 

Energy and Environment Subcommittees because I thought they 

were very measured opening statements and we can look for ways 

to try to achieve the same goals. 

It seems that each week there is more good news about the incredible benefits of the fracking energy revolution that is underway 

across America. Whether it is the manufacturing renaissance taking place in this country thanks to cheap natural gas, the creation 

of over one million jobs and counting, or the potential for liquefied 

natural gas exports to spur economic growth, the benefits of shale 

gas production can hardly be overstated. 

The fracking process is turning out to be a way to achieve energy 

independence, strengthen our national security, and stimulate the 

economy, all with minimal impact to the environment. 

However, some—however, the EPA has too often been complicit 

in an effort to try to undercut this new development. They have attempted to link fracking to water contamination in at least three 

cases, only to be forced to retract their statements after further 

scrutiny proved them to be unfounded. Their track record and bias 

makes the EPA’s ongoing study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources even more troubling. 

I am concerned that the EPA has failed to include a risk assessment as part of this study, instead choosing to simply identify potential risks without providing any context or consideration of their 

likelihood. This deficiency would significantly undermine the 

study’s objectivity and ultimately impair its utility. 

Recent Science Advisory Board reviewers have noted this deficiency as well. In comments last month on the EPA study, one reviewer stated, ‘‘There is no quantitative risk assessment included 
19 

in EPA’s research effort. Thus, a reader has no sense of how risky 

any operation may be in ultimately impacting drinking water.’’ 

This is a concern that I hope the EPA will address in today’s hearing. 

The Agency should base its work on sound science rather than 

regulatory ambition. However, if the Agency fails to do this, a legislative remedy may be warranted to address the study’s deficiencies. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH

It seems that each week there is more good news about the incredible benefits 

of the fracking energy revolution that is underway across America. Whether it’s the 

manufacturing renaissance taking place in this country thanks to cheap natural gas, 

the creation of over one million jobs and counting, or the potential for liquefied natural gas exports to spur economic growth, the benefits of shale gas production can 

hardly be overstated. 

The fracking process is turning out to be a way to achieve energy independence, 

strengthen our national security and stimulate the economy, all with minimal impact to the environment. However, some choose to ignore these benefits and instead 

focus on finding ways to restrain, if not stifle, the new development. 

The EPA has too often been complicit in this effort. They have attempted to link 

fracking to water contamination in at least three cases, only to be forced to retract 

their statements after further scrutiny proved them to be unfounded. 

Their track record and bias makes the EPA’s ongoing study of the relationship 

between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources even more troubling. I 

am concerned that the EPA has failed to include a risk assessment as part of this 

study, instead choosing to simply identify potential risks without providing any context or consideration of their likelihood. This deficiency would significantly undermine the study’s objectivity and ultimately impair its utility. 

Recent Science Advisory Board reviewers have noted this deficiency as well. In 

comments last month on the EPA study, one reviewer stated, ‘‘There is no quantitative risk assessment included in EPA’s research effort. Thus, the reader has no 

sense of how risky any operation may be in ultimately impacting drinking water.’’ 

This is a concern that I hope the EPA will address in today’s hearing. 

The Agency should base its work on sound science rather than regulatory ambition. However, if the Agency fails to do this, a legislative remedy may be warranted 

to address the study’s deficiencies. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And if I could just reiterate your comments about Mr. Swalwell 

and Ms. Bonamici, that their efforts, a bipartisan effort, their goodwill and frankly their background and intelligence that they bring 

to these conversations is greatly appreciated. So thank you for recognizing that. 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for one 

more quick comment? 

Chairman STEWART. Yes, of course, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. And that is just to apologize to our witnesses 

today. I am going to need to shuttle between this hearing and a 

markup in the Judiciary Committee, so I will be missing some important testimony but we will catch up later on. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement as well. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

Chairman and Ranking Members of these committees. 
20 

I am pleased that Energy and Environment Subcommittees are 

holding the hearing today and I welcome all of our distinguished 

panelists to the Committee. 

Like so many others, I am concerned about the health and welfare of hardworking families who live around fracking facilities. 

Concerns about contamination of groundwater and drinking water 

have troubled us since the shale gas boom started over a decade 

ago. And of course that shale gas boom would likely not exist without critical research investments from the Department of Energy 

over 30 years ago to bring new natural gas online. 

But as a number of fracking facilities operating in oil and gas in 

States have gone from hundreds to thousands, the number of reports from citizens complaining of contamination of their drinking 

water has increased. Excuse me. We must be careful not to sacrifice the quality of our natural water resources for the sake of 

cheaper gas. 

We need clean water as much as we need affordable energy options. Our water resources are already stretched to support our industrial and our agricultural sectors and residential and commercial development. We cannot afford to contaminate the limited 

drinking water supplies that we have. Like so many of our hearings involving oil and gas industry, I expect that some of our colleagues across the aisle will not like anything that the EPA has to 

say about its progress in researching these issues, but it is in the 

best interest of everyone, especially the fracking industry, to resolve questions surrounding the fracking water cycle and impact on 

groundwater and drinking water. 

In closing, I would like to again dispel the myth that because I 

expect it will be undoubtedly raised, that Democrats are mounting 

a war on oil and gas, that is simply not true. We simply recognize 

that our Nation is strengthened by both diversifying our energy 

supply and protecting public health. These go hand-in-hand. Americans have a right to clean water and a healthier environment. The 

gas will be there and it is up to the industry to make sure it can 

be produced in an environmentally sound manner. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE

JOHNSON

I am very pleased that the Energy and Environment Subcommittees are holding 

this hearing today, and I welcome all of our distinguished panelists to the Committee. Like so many others, I am concerned about the health and welfare of hardworking families who live around fracking facilities. Concerns about contamination 

of groundwater and drinking water have troubled us since the shale gas boom started over a decade ago. And of course, that shale gas boom would likely not exist 

without critical research investments made by the Department of Energy over 30 

years ago to bring new natural gas online. 

But, as the number of fracking facilities operating in oil and gas rich states has 

gone from hundreds to thousands, the number of reports from citizens complaining 

of contamination of their drinking water has increased. We must be careful not to 

sacrifice the quality of our natural water resources for the sake of cheaper gas. We 

need clean water as much as we need affordable energy options. Our water resources are already stretched to support our industrial and agricultural sectors, and 

residential and commercial development. We cannot afford to contaminate the limited drinking water supplies that we have. 
21 

Like so many of our hearings involving the oil and gas industry, I expect that 

some of my colleagues across the aisle will not like anything that the EPA has to 

say about its progress in researching these issues. But, it is in the best interest of 

everyone, especially the fracking industry, to resolve questions surrounding the 

fracking water cycle and the impact to groundwater and drinking water. 

In closing, I would like to once again dispel the myth-because I expect that it will 

undoubtedly be raised—that the Democrats are mounting a war on oil and gas. We 

simply recognize that our nation is strengthened by both diversifying our energy 

supply AND protecting public health. These go hand in hand. Americans have a 

right to clean water AND a healthier environment. The gas will be there, and it 

is up to the industry to make sure it can be produced in an environmentally sound 

manner. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

We now turn our attention to our witnesses, and I will introduce 

each of you just previous to your opportunity to speak and give 

your opening statements for five minutes. 

Our first witness is Dr. Fred Hauchman, Director of the Office 

of Science Policy at EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Dr. 

Hauchman has worked with EPA since 1985 in a variety of scientific and executive positions. He previously served as the Director of Microbiological and Chemical Exposure Assessment Research 

Division and is a Senior Scientist in EPA’s Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. 

Dr. Hauchman received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University. He is a senior official overseeing EPA’s ongoing study of hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. And, Dr. Hauchman, welcome to the Committee. And you are now allowed five minutes for 

your opening testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. FRED HAUCHMAN, 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE POLICY, 

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman 

Lummis, Chairman Stewart, and other distinguished Members of 

the two Subcommittees. My name is Fred Hauchman and I am, as 

was stated, the Director of the Office of Science Policy within the 

Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. I appreciate this opportunity to talk with you 

today about the EPA’s study of the potential impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources with an emphasis on adherence to protocols, procedures, and other science policies that govern 

our research. 

As the President has stated, oil and natural gas are important 

sources of energy, and these will continue to play a vital role in our 

Nation’s energy future. The Administration has further emphasized 

that the extraction and development of these energy resources 

must be done safely, responsibly, and be guided by the best available science. 

In 2010, Congress requested that EPA conduct a study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. In response this request, the EPA designed a study that 
22 

covers the full hydraulic fracturing water cycle from the actual acquisition of the water through the ultimate treatment and disposal. 

The EPA’s Science Advisory Board affirmed the study’s scope and 

the research approaches that are being taken and found that it is 

responsive to the Congressional request. 

In December of this past year, we released a progress report on 

the study, and in late 2014, we will issue a draft final report that 

will be presented to the Science Advisory Board for review and will 

also of course be available for public comment. 

I would like to turn now to the important issue of scientific integrity. The EPA is committed to ensuring scientific integrity in its research and is conducting this study consistent with the Agency’s 

Scientific Integrity Policy. As noted in the EPA’s study plan, all 

agency-funded research projects must comply with the Agency’s rigorous quality assurance requirements. We are following the six 

principles that were laid out by Congress when it requested EPA 

to conduct the study. 

First, we are using the best available science. Under the direction of the EPA’s senior scientific leadership, highly skilled teams 

of EPA’s scientists are conducting research using state-of-the-art 

laboratories and methods. All the data analyses and literature reviews are using the highest-quality information that is available. 

Second, we are incorporating independent sources of information 

into our research. EPA’s scientists are gathering and analyzing 

data from the peer-reviewed literature, from state agencies, from 

industry, and from other sources to ensure that we have a thorough and current understanding of information relating to hydraulic fracturing. 

Third, we are following a rigorous quality assurance protocol. All 

research associated with the study is conducted in accordance with 

the Agency’s rigorous quality assurance program and meets the Office of Research and Development’s requirements for the highest 

level of quality assurance. Each research project is guided by an 

approved and publicly available quality assurance project plan. 

Fourth, we are engaging stakeholders at every level. This includes the public, industry, nongovernmental organizations, tribal 

representatives, and state, interstate, and Federal agencies. For example, we have conducted a series of technical workshops. These 

occurred in 2011, 2012, and we are conducting another round of expert workshops dealing with the technical issues pertaining to the 

study this very year. We have also solicited data and literature 

from stakeholders through the Federal Register. 

Fifth, we are conducting the study in a transparent fashion. 

Throughout the course of this study from the very beginning, the 

EPA shared and will continue to share information with the public 

about our research procedures, the status of our work, and our 

findings. We have held numerous public information sessions, 

workshops, and roundtables, and we have posted extensive information on the EPA’s website. 

Sixth, we are committed to a thorough peer review. The EPA 

conducts its reviews in accordance with the Agency’s peer review 

policy, EPA’s peer review handbook, and the guidance provided by 

the Office of Management and Budget. The EPA is committed to 

this peer review of the report as a highly influential scientific as-
23 

sessment and this review will be reviewed by the Science Advisory 

Board in 2014. 

In conclusion, the EPA’s study is a high-quality study, it is transparent, it is current, and it is peer-reviewed. It also is responsive 

to the request of Congress. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today. I look 

forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hauchman follows:] 
24 

TESTIMONY 

Fred S. Hauchman, Ph.D. 

Director, Office of Science Policy 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Joint Hearing on Lessons Learned: EPA's Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Subcommittee on Energy 

July 24, 2013 

Good morning, Chairman Lummis, Chairman Stewart, and other distinguished members of the two 

Subcommittees. My name is Fred Hauchman, and [am the Director of the Office of Science Policy in 

the Office of Research and Development (ORO) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today about the EPA's work to study the potential impacts 

of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, with an emphasis on adherence to protocols, 

procedures, and other science policies governing our research activities associated with the study. 

Oil and natural gas are important sources of energy, among others, that will continue to playa vital role 

in our nation's energy future. As the President has stated, "Recent innovations have given us the 

opportunity to tap large reserves of natural gas in the shale under our feet. But just as is true in terms of 

us extracting oil from the ground. we've got to make sure that we're extracting natural gas safely, 

without polluting our water supply." The extraction and development of these energy sources must be 

done safely, responsibly, and be guided by the best availahle science, 
25 

The Study: Potential Impacts of Hydraulic 'Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources 

In its FY2010 Appropriations Committee Conference Report, Congress requested that the EPA study the 

relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, and to use the best available science and 

independent sources of information, The EPA is undertaking the study using a transparent, peerreviewed process. We have engaged experts in developing our approach and we continue to consult with 

experts and stakeholders throughout the study, 

In 20 II, the EPA began research under its Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing 

on Drinking Water Resources, The purpose of the study is to assess the potential impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources, if any, and to identify the driving factors that may affect the 

severity and frequency of such impacts. 

The scope of the proposed research includes the full hydraulic fracturing water cycle, from acquisition 

of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and injection of fluids, to the post-fracturing stage, 

including the management of tlowback and produced water and its ultimate treatment and disposal. The 

EPA's Scicnce Advisory Board (SA B), in their June 2010 review orlhe draft Study Plan, affirmed that 

the study scope and general research approaches proposed by the EPA were appropriate, The Study 

Plan, finalized on Novcmber 3,2011, outlines fundamental research questions associated with each 

stage the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. 

Study Progress Report and Synthesis Report 

In December, 2012, the EPA released the Study of the Potential Impacts (if Hydraulic Fracturing on 

Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report to provide the public with the latest infonnation on the 

work being undertaken as part of the research study, This report, which describes the progress that has 

been made to date, does not contain any fIndings, As such, it cannot be used to draw conclusions about 

2 
26 

the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The EPA's synthesis of 

existing literature and data, in combination with laboratory studies, toxicity assessments, scenario 

evaluations (modeling), and case studies, will address the key research questions about the potential 

impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The draft EPA report that synthesizes the 

results of these studies is expected to be released for peer revicw and public comment in latc 2014. 

Scientific Integrity 

As noted in the EPA's Study Plan, all EPA-funded research projects must comply with the agency's 

rigorous quality assurance requirements. Individual projects, for example, are subjected to technical 

system and data quality audits, and all products will receive quality assurance reviews. The EPA is 

committed to ensuring scientific integrity in its research, and is conducting this study consistent with tbe 

agency's Scientitic Integrity Policy I and with the six principles laid out by Congress when it requested 

that EPA conduct the study. 

To that end, the EPA is conducting the study following these six principles. First, we are using the best 

available science. Highly skilled tcams of EPA scientists and support staff are conducting rigorously 

designed research using state-of-the-art laboratories and methodologies. Data analyses and literature 

reviews are being conducted using the highest quality information available. 

Second, we are incorporating independent sources of information in our research. In addition to 

conducting original research, EPA scientists are gathering and analyzing existing data from a wide 

variety of sources to ensure a thorough understanding of current information on hydraulic fracturing 

-----------

I http;I/ww\v.epa.gov/research/htm/scientific-integrity.htm 
27 

activities and to provide better context for the study findings. This includes data from State agencies, 

industry, federal agencies and other public sources. 

Third, we are following rigorous quality assurance procedures in the study. A II research associated with 

this study is conducted in accordance with the EPA's Quality Assurance Program for environmental data 

and is meeting ORD's requirements for the highest level of quality assurance. The study's Quality 

Management Plan establishes the overall quality assurance approach. Each research project is guided by 

an approved quality assurance project plan, which outlines the necessary quality assurance procedures, 

quality control activities, and other technical activities that will ensure the collection of accurate data. 

Results from every project will undergo a comprehensive quality assurance review before being released 

for peer review. 

Fourth, we are engaging stakeholders at every level. This includes the public, industry, nongovernmental organizations, tribal governments, and State, inter-state, and federal agencies. Stakeholder 

input is being considered as we conduct the study and develop the 2014 draft report. 

Fitth, we are conducting the study in a transparent fashion. The EPA is communicating research 

procedures and providing status updates to the public, and will present findings along with underlying 

assumptions and any uncertainties associated with the final conclusions. The EPA has supported full 

transparency by holding public information sessions and by posting all quality assurance project plans 

online. 

4 
28 

Sixth, we are committed to a thorough peer review. The EPA conducts its reviews in accordance with 

the agency's Peer Review Policy,' EPA's Peer Review Handbook,3 and the guidance provided in 

OMB's Peer Review Bulletin4 The initial scoping plan, the draft Study Plan and the 2012 Progress 

RCpOlt were all reviewed by technical experts from the SAB. As a Highly Influential Scientific 

Assessment, the 2014 draft repOlt will also receive meaningful and timely peer review by an SAB panel, 

with opportunities for public comment. The panel members will be briefed periodically as the research 

progresses to prepare them to conduct the peer review of the 2014 draft repOli. 

1n sum, this integrated approach of openness and scientific rigor is ensuring that the EPA study will 

provide the full range of policy makers with high quality, policy-relevant science that will inform their 

decision making. 

Stakeholder Engagement 

Stakeholder input has played, and will continue to play, all important role in the study. We have 

implemented a strategy that has provided many opportunities for exchange of information and input on 

the study design and the research as it progresses. The EPA has further enhanced the stakeholder process 

to ensure tbat experts in key areas, including cutting-edge industry technologies and practices, are being 

engaged to provide input on the EPA's research. Five technical roundtables were held in late 2012 on 

each stage ofille water cycle, and a second round of expert workshops on important technical topicsS 

2 USEPA, Peer Review and Peer fnvolvement at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 31, 2006 

http://www.epa.goy/peerreview/pdfs/peer review Rolic\' and memo. pdf 

} lJSEPA. Peer Review Handbook, 3" Edition, March 2006 

http://www.epa,gov/peerreview/pdf.-;/peer review handbook 2012.pdf 

4 Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum: Issuance ofOMB's "Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review", December 16,2004 http://www.whiteholise.gov/sitesidefau1t!fi1esiomblmemoraudaffY200Slm05-03.pdf 

5 Analytical Chemical Methods; We!1 Construction/Operation and Subsurface Modeling; Wastewater Treatment and Related 

Modeling; Water Acquisition Modeling; and Case Studies> 
29 

began in february 2013. Information from these roundtables and workshops is being made widely 

available to the public through webinars and the hydraulic fracturing study website. 6 

In November 2012, the EPA published a Federal Register notice to solicit data and studies trom 

stakeholders to inform the study. To ensure transparency, the information received (with the exception 

of confidential business information) is placed in the EPA docket so that it is accessible to everyone. 

The EPA has extended the period for submissions to November 2013 to help ensure that the most up-todate information is available for the preparation of the 2014 draft report. We will continue to engage 

stakeholders by providing updates and receiving technical input as the research progresses. 

Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 

The EPA has been actively consulting with several key federal agencies regarding this important 

research. The EPA, the Depaltment of Energy (DOE) and the US Geological Survey (USGS) routinely 

exchange information regarding research plans and curren! activities. Exchanges among the principal 

investigators, in addition to high level discussions, help to assure that scientific details about the work 

arc shared and can be used to help inform work underway by others. DOE's National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, for example, recently briefed EPA on the progress of their work in hydraulic 

fracturing. In addition, DOE and USGS are among those participating in our technical workshops. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the President believes the prudent development of our oil and natural gas resources can 

make a critical contribution to meeting our nation's energy needs. [ am proud to be part of the research 

effOlt that will help enable the development of these resources in a way that protects the human health 

6 www.epa.gov/hfstudy 

6 
30 

and the environment while providing the benefits of these important energy sources. We are pursuing 

this work with the best available science and the highest level of transparency. This study will continue 

to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process in consultation with other federal 

agencies, appropriate State and inter-state regulatory agencies, and with input from industry, nongovernmental organizations, tribal governments, and other stakeholders. As you have heard today, we 

will continue to collaborate with our federal partners and work with our stakeholders to address the 

highest priority challenges to safely and prudently develop unconventional gas and oil resources. 

llook forward to keeping this Committee updated on our progress, and thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. I am happy to take any questions you may have at this time. 

7 
31 

July. 2013 

BIO 

Dr. Fred S. Hauchman 

Fred Hauchman has worked l'Or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since j 985 in 

a variety of scientific and executive leadership positions. He is currently director of the 

Office of Science Policy (OSP) within EPA's Office of Research and Development 

(ORO) in Washington, DC. OSP is ORO's lead organization for the integration of 

scientific and technical int'Ormation into Agency decisions. His office also coordinates 

ORD's Regional Science Program and several other ORO science activities. Fred 

previously served as the director of ORO's Microbiological and Chemical Exposure 

Assessment Research Division, as the ORO National Program Director for Drinking 

Water Research, and as a senior scientist in EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. In addition, Fred has worked internationally on projects relating to water 

quality and risk assessment. He received his M.S. in Public Health from the University of 

North Carolina, and his Ph.D. in environmental sciences from the Johns Hopkins 

University. 
32 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Dr. Hauchman. And we look forward to addressing some of your statements and following up with 

that as well. 

Our second witness today is Dr. David Dzombak, Chair of EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board’s Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory 

Panel, which recently provided feedback to the Agency on its ongoing hydraulic fracturing study and will review the completed study 

in late 2014. 

Dr. Dzombak is also the head of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. In addition to his current capacity, Dr. Dzombak has been part of EPA’s 

National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology and the National Research Council. He received his Ph.D. 

from MIT. Dr. Dzombak, then, your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID A. DZOMBAK, 

CHAIR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD, 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

RESEARCH ADVISORY PANEL 

Dr. DZOMBAK. Good morning. Chairman Stewart, Ranking Member Bonamici, Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell, distinguished Subcommittee Members, ladies and gentlemen, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before both Subcommittees. 

I am Dave Dzombak, Professor and Head of the Department of 

Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. My teaching and research is focused in water quality engineering and science. I have also been continuously engaged in professional and public service, including service on the EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board in various roles since 2002. I am Chair of the SAB 

Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory Panel. This is an ad hoc panel 

formed by the SAB staff in response to a request from the EPA Office of Research and Development for peer review of their study. 

As requested in your invitation, I will provide some background 

on the SAB, the role the SAB and the advisory panel with respect 

to the EPA’s study, panel activities to date, and our plans for future activities. I should emphasize that my testimony I speak for 

myself and not for the advisory panel members, the chartered SAB, 

or SAB management and staff. 

Congress established the SAB in 1978 and gave it a broad mandate: to advise the Agency on scientific and technical matters. The 

EPA Administrator appoints members to the chartered SAB, which 

conducts its work using subcommittees or ad hoc panels of chartered SAB members augmented with additional experts. The SAB 

is subject to and operates under the regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA. 

The SAB has been involved with providing scientific peer review 

and expert advice since the beginning of the EPA research study. 

This has included review of the research scoping plan in 2010 and 

the detailed research study plan in 2011. I chaired both of these 

reviews, which were conducted by two different panels. Both resulted in consensus advisory reports that were submitted to the 

Administrator after review by the chartered SAB. 
33 

For the December 2012 progress report, EPA requested a consultation and the current panel was formed. An SAB consultation 

is an opportunity for EPA to hear from individual experts and does 

not require consensus among the experts, nor preparation of a detailed report. After a consultation occurs, a compilation of individual expert comments from SAB panel members is often developed for the Agency’s consideration. 

The SAB anticipates that the Agency will submit a scheduled 

2014 report of research study results for peer review. At that time, 

the panel will conduct a review organized around charge questions, 

consider public comment, and develop a written report for review 

by the chartered SAB. Each of these steps will be conducted at 

open meetings. 

The advisory panel has 31 members and is the largest SAB panel 

ever formed. The panel has at least three experts in each of nine 

areas of expertise identified by the SAB staff as needed considering 

the activities included in the final study plan. The members of the 

panel represent a balance of industrial, academic, nongovernment, 

and government experts. 

During our May 2013 consultation meeting, panel members provided their individual expert comments on 12 charge questions covering five—the five major stages of the hydraulic fracturing water 

cycle. Seven members of the public presented oral statements at 

the beginning of the meeting and two presented clarifying oral 

statements at the end. Written public comments were submitted by 

13 individuals or organizations for consideration by the panel, and 

all these submitted comments were posted promptly to the SAB 

website. 

There will be additional opportunities for the advisory panel to 

consider new and emerging information related to the hydraulic 

fracturing research study. The panel plans to hold a teleconference 

in fall 2013 to discuss such information. As I noted previously, our 

panel will be in place to conduct peer review of EPA’s 2014 report. 

I thank both Subcommittees again for the opportunity to testify. 

In closing, I would like to note that EPA reached out early to the 

SAB for scientific peer review of the hydraulic fracturing research 

study. The engagement has continued since initiation of the research and it is my understanding that EPA plans to continue the 

engagement in their review of research products. I will do my best 

as Chair to ensure in-depth, very high-quality, and transparent 

peer review. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dzombak follows:] 
34 

TESTIMONY OF 

DAVID A. DZOMBAK 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

OFTHE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY 

JOINT HEARING ON 

LESSONS LEARNED: EPA'S INVESTIGATIONS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

JUL Y 24, 2013 

Good morning Chairman Stewart, Ranking Member Bonamici, Chairman Lummis, Ranking 

Member Swallwell, Distinguished Subcommittee Members, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify betore both subcommittees. I am Dave Dzombak, the Waiter 1. 

Blenko, Sr. University Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental 

Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. I am in my 25th year on the faculty at Carnegie 

Mellon. My teaching and research is focused in water quality engineering and science, and I 

have worked on a wide range of topics in this domain as a researcher and consultant. I have also 

been continuously engaged in professional and public service, including professional society 

service and editorial service for professional journals; service on various state and regional 

committees; and service for several federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). I served as a member of the Environmental Engineering Committee 

of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SA B) from 2002-2007, Chair of the Committee from 2007-

20 I 0, and since 2007 I have been a member of the Chartered SAR. I also served on the 

Environmental Technology Subcommittee of the EPA National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology from 2004-2008. In addition, I am a member of the 

National Academy of Engineering, and have served on and chaired a number of committees of 

the National Research Council, the research division of the National Academies. 

[ am Chair of the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory Panel. This is an ad hoc panel formed by 

the SAB staff in response to a request from the EPA Office of Research and Development for 

peer review of research progress and products from their Congressionally-requested study of the 

relationship of hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. [n the July 16 invitation letter 
35 

from Chairman Stewart and Chairman Lummis, J was asked to address four specific topics. 

have organized my testimony to address these topics. 

I should emphasize that in my testimony I speak for myself and not for the Hydraulic Fracturing 

Advisory Panel members, the Chartered SAB, or SAB management and staff. 

Role of the Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel 

Discuss the role a/the Science Advisory Board's Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel 

in reviewing, commenting on, and otherwise assessing the EPA '.I' ongoing study of hydraulic 

ji-aetl/ring. This should include an explanation o/the relationship between the Panel, the SAB, 

and the Agency, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the Panel relative to the study and a 

time line Qf review-related activities. 

Relationship between the Panel, the SAB, and the Agency 

Congress established the EPA Science Advisory Board in 1978 and gave it a broad mandate to 

advise the Agency on scientific and technical matters. The EPA Administrator appoints 

members to the Chartered SAB. The Chartered SAB often conducts its work using 

subcommittees, sometimes augmented with additional experts, or panels composed of SAB 

members and additional experts or consultants. All such groups report to the Chaltered SAB, 

and are chaired by Chartered SAB members. Authority to approve and transmit advice to the 

EPA Administrator lies solely with the Chartered SAB. The SAB is subject to and operates 

under the regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 

The SAB has been involved with providing scientific peer review and expert advice since the 

beginning of the EPA research study. This has included review ofthe research scoping plan in 

20 10 and the detailed research stlldy plan in 20 I I. The SAB Environmental Engineering 

Committee augmented with other SAB members reviewed the research scoping plan in 2010, 

and the SAB formed a new ad hoc panel to review the research study plan. I chaired both of 

these reviews, and both resulted in consensus advisory reports that were submitted to the 

Administrator after review by the Chartered SAB. The EPA requested a consultation for the 

December 2012 Progress Report, for which the current Advisory Panel was tormed by the SAB. 

2 
36 

An SAB consultation is an opportunity for EPA to hear from individual experts and does not 

require consensus among the experts nor preparation of a detailed report. After a consultation 

meeting occurs, a compilation of individual expert comments from SAB Panel members is often 

developed lor the Agency's consideration. Although individual members may prepare written 

comments, let me emphasize that this is not consensus advice and no report is prepared for 

consideration by the Chartered SAB. A brief letter is sent to the EPA Administrator for 

notification that the consultation was held. 

The review conducted by the Chartered SAB on draft SAB reports is called a "quality review," 

which focuses on the quality, technical accuracy and clarity of the report. Thc quality review 

occurs in a separate public meeting, and is guided by four questions: a) Were the charge 

questions to the SA B committee or panel adequately addressed; b) Are there any technical errors 

or omissions or issues that are not adequately dealt with in the draft repoli; c) Is the draft report 

clear and logical; and d) Are the conclusions drawn or recommendations provided supported by 

the body of the draft report. As with panelmcetings, Chartered SAB members usually prepare 

written pre-meeting comments that address the quality review questions. Members' review 

comments are posted to tbe SAB website. 

During the SAB advisory process, representatives of EPA offices provide review documents for 

the SAB's consideration, and specific charge questions for which SAB response is requested. 

Agency representatives also provide briefings on scientific issues. They are a resource for the 

panel members, and answer questions about the work being reviewed. However, Agency 

personnel are not involved with preparation of an SAB advisory report; the SAB is independent 

in its evaluations and guards this independence scrupulously. The Agency is provided an 

opportunity to request technical corrections (errors of fact) or clarification of text in draft reports. 

Requests from the Agency for sllch clarifications or corrections must be made in writing and are 

posted to the SAB website. The SAB Staff Designated Federal Officer may request additional 

information from the Agency on behalf of the panel, and this information also is pali of the 

public record. 

3 
37 

The SAB anticipates that the Agency will submit the scheduled 2014 report of research study 

results for peer review. At that time the SAB will address charge questions, review the 

document, and develop a written repoli after deliberations by the Advisory Panel, opportunity for 

public comment, and a review by the Charted SAB before advice is provided to the 

Administrator. Each of these steps will be conducted at open meetings or teleconferences in 

accordance with F ACA. 

Roles and Responsibilities oftlle Panel relative to EPA's Hydraulic Fracturing Research, and 

Timeline for Panel Activities 

EPA requested an SAB consultation on EPA's December 20 12 "Progress Report: Potential 

Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources." The SAB formed an advisory 

panel with appropriate expertise. The SAB announced in March 2013 the Hydraulic Fracturing 

Research Advisory Panel and conducted a consultation on the December 2012 Progress Report 

on May 7-8, 2013. 

The Advisory Panel plans to hold a teleconference in Fall 20 13 to discuss ncw and emerging 

information related to hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. The SAB Staff Office 

will follow thc standard procedure to provide notice in thc Federal Register on the SAB's 

website describing the logistics and venue for this teleconference. 

1 understand that EPA plans to develop a complete report of initial results orits research on the 

potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources by December 2014 and 

request a peer review of this report. After receiving the report, I anticipate that it will take 10 

months to one year before a final, consensus SAB Repoli is completed and subjected to quality 

review by the Chartered SAB. The Panel may also provide advice on other technical documents 

and issues related to the EPA study upon further request by EPA. 

SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel Formation and Panel Member Information 

The Advisory Panel was formed by the SAB Staff Office. SAB members do not participate in 

the selection of Panel members. Questions about Panel formation should be directed to the SAB 

Staff Office. The SAB Staff Office announced the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research 

4 
38 

Advisory Panel on March 21, 2013. 

The Advisory Panel has 31 members and is the largest SAB panel ever formed. The members of 

the Panel represent a balance of industrial, academic, non-government, and government experts. 

The Panel has at least three expelis in each of the following ni ne areas of expertise that were 

identified by the SAB staff as needed considering the activities included in the final Study Plan: 

PetroleumlNatural Gas Engineering; PetroleumlNatural Gas Well Drilling; 

Hydrology/Hydrogeology; Geology/Geophysics; Groundwater Chemistry/Geochemistry; 

Toxicology/Biology; Statistics; Civil Engineering; and Waste Water and Drinking Water 

Treatment. 

The Panel comprises eight current employees of companies and consulting firms; two 

government employees; and 21 academics/university professors (including some previously 

employed in industry). 

The eight Panelmcmbers who are currently employed by industry have a collective total of2 [8 

years working in industry or consulting (average of27 years experience each). Ten other Panel 

members have significant industry experience (i.e., at least two or more years working as 

industry employees or as tull-time consultants). These ten members have a collective total of61 

years working in industry or consulting (i.e., an average of 6 years experience each). 

May 2013 SAB Consultation on EPA's Hydraulic Fracturing Research Progress Report 

Explain and discuss the consultation that took place between the Panel, the full SAB. and the 

Agency in May of 20 13 with respect to the EPA Progress Report: Potential Impacts of Hydraulic 

Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources ~ December 2012. Please summarize the interactions 

that took place. the review mechanisms and processes that were undertaken. and the nature of 

the review. 

During 2012, prior to release of the Progress Report, EPA requested the SAB to conduct a 

consultation on the research described in the report. An SAB consultation is a mechanism for 

5 
39 

SAB Panel members to provide their individual expert comments for the Agency's consideration 

early in the implementation of a project or action. A consultation does not require consenSLlS 

among the committee members nor preparation of a detailed report. 

The SAB conducted the consultation at a public meeting in Arlington, VA on May 7 and 8, 2013. 

The meeting provided opportunity for individual members of the Advisory Panel to hear public 

comment, listen to EPA staff briefings, and provide their individual expert oral comments on 

charge questions associated with the research described in EPA's December 2012 Progress 

Report, as well as an 0ppoltunity for members of the public to provide oral and written 

comments for the Panel's consideration. 

All materials and presentations ti'om the May 7-8, 2013 meeting are posted on the SAB meeting 

website: 

http://yosemite&Plhgov/sab/sabproduct.1181~84bfee 16cc358ad85256cc@Q(ibOb4b/928483abb4f2 

a I 3285257b02004ab250!OpenDocument&Date=20 13-05-07. 

The SAB used several approaches to ensure the May 7-8, 2013 consultation meeting of the Panel 

was open to the public. Members of the public could attend the meeting, call into the meeting 

via teleconference, or follow the meeting via a live webcast with audio and visual feed from the 

meeting. 

During the May 7-8, 20t3 consultation meeting, the individual members of the SAB Hydraulic 

Fracturing Research Advisory Panel provided their individual expert comments on the 12 charge 

questions covering the five major stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle: water 

acquisition, chemical mixing, well injection, flowback and produced water management, 

wastewater treatment and disposal. Lead disclissants were assigned by the Chair and DFO to 

facilitate the discussions, as identified in the Agenda for the meeting. The Panel did not seek to 

identify points of agreement or consensus advice. After the meeting, individual written 

comments were prepared by Panel members wishing to do so. These comments were compiled 

and posted on SAWs website. All Panel members were encouraged to provide individual written 

6 
40 

comments responding to the charge questions and any other issues they identified in the Progress 

Report. 

Seven members of the publie presented oral statements at the beginning ofthe May 7,2013 

meeting, and two members of the public presented claritying oral statements at the end of the 

May 8, 2013 meeting. 

Six sets of written public comments for consideration by the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research 

Advisory Panel were received prior to the May 7-8, 2013 meeting. Seven sets of written public 

comments for the Panel's consideration were received after the start of the May 7-8, 2013 

meeting. All submitted comments were posted promptly to the SAB website. 

A letter was sent to the EPA Acting Administrator on June 27, 2013, notifying him that the May 

2013 consultation meeting occurred. 

Minutes of the May 2013 consultation meeting are being developed in accordance with 

requirements under FACA and will be posted on SAB's website when final. 

Chairman Stewart sent a letter to Dr. David Allen, SAB Chair, and me on May 2, 2013, 

requesting that the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel address thirteen specific 

questions related to EPA's ongoing research related to the potential effects of hydraulic 

ihcturing on drinking water resources. Chairman StcwaIi's letter was provided to the Advisory 

Panel, and was placed on SAB's website prior to the Panel's May 7-8, 2013 meeting. The Panel 

members also received a copy of the SAB May 31,2013 response to Chairman Stewart's letter. 

In the May 31 response to this letter, the SAB noted that the Panel members will have 

opportunity to consider these questions independently. Future meetings of the Panel are planned 

to consider new and emerging information related to the EPA study, including the May 2nd letter, 

and the SAB will provide notice in the Federal Register and on the SAB website about all future 

meetings of the Panel. Plans are in development for the Panel to hold a teleconference in Fall 

2013. 

7 
41 

Compilation ofIndividual Comments from Members of the SAB Panel 

txplain the report on the consultation thai was released by the Science Advisory Board on June 

25, and summarize any comments, key findings, or details. 

A cOlnpilation of individual comments on the December 2012 Progress Report from members of 

the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel was released on June 25, 2013, and is 

available on SAB's website: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabRroducLnsf/a84bfee 16cc:258ad85256ccd006bOb4bL928483abb4f2 

!!.l3285257b02004ab250!OpenDocument&:Date~20 13-05-Q1 

These are comments from individual members of the Panel. The Panel did not deliberate toward 

a consensus among the committee members, did not develop materials that can be construed as a 

product of the Panel, nor did the Panel present a product to the Chartered SAB for consideration. 

Next Steps for the Panel 

Discuss what the Panel's next steps will be in this process and explain the Panel's 

responsibilities with regard to the final sludy due out next year. 

There will be additional opportullities for the SAB Hydraulic FnlCturitlg Reseal'ch Advisory 

Panel to consider new and emerging information related to the EPA hydraulic fracturing research 

study. The Panel plans to hold a teleconference in Fall 2013 to discllss such information. The 

SAB Staff Office will provide notice in the Federal Register and on SAB's website on the 

logistics for this meeting of the Panel. 

The Panel anticipates receiving the Agency's draft report of results in late 2014. The same 

Advisory Panel will be in place to conduct peer review on EPA's 2014 report. At that time the 

SAB Staff Office will schedule an advisory meeting for the panel in 2015 to respond to charge 

questions related to the Agency's research results and to develop a panel draft peer review report. 

The SAB will issue a peer review report through the Chartered SAB tbat will include the SAB's 

adv ice on EPA's 2014 report. 

8 
42 

Any meetings or teleconferences of the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel and 

Chartered SAB regarding its review and advice on EPA's research on the potential impacts of 

hydraulic fhcturing on drinking water resources will occur in a public forum and follow the 

procedures required by FACA to keep the public informed, 

Public and Stakeholder Confidence in the EPA Study 

Based on your experience chairing the Panel to review the EPA study, please provide your 

recommendations on how EPA can best ensure public and stakeholder confidence in the design, 

methods, and associated sCientificfindings related to its ongoing study of hydraulic ji'acturing 

and drinking water resources. Additionally, please comment specifically on whether or not you 

believe that EPA '8 study of hydraulicj;Ylcluring should ensure that identification o/the possible 

impacts of hydraulic ji'acturing on drinking water resources be accompanied by a corresponding 

analysis of risk based on probability and consequence, taking into account the current risk 

management practices of industry and the states. 

( cannot speak for the Chartered SAB or the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel 

regarding recommendations associated with EPA's research on the potential impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources. As Chair of the Panel, it would be inappropriate for me 

offer personal views of the EPA study. However, I can offer the following observations of fact 

regarding process. 

EPA has conducted a number of outreach efforts to ensure public and stakeholder confidence in 

its research. It would be appropriate for EPA, and not me, to provide more details on these 

efforts. 

EPA has engaged the SAB and entered a transparent and public process to develop the scientific 

and technical information needed to complete the study. This public process encourages public 

discourse to identify and address issues. Earlier in my testimony J outlined the SAB efforts to 

convene a panel that: 

• encompasses a broad range of professional expertise and background; 

9 
43 

• includes a balance of industrial, academic, non-government and government 

representatives across the needed disciplines; and 

• includes members who have very strong credentials and who serve on the highest levels 

of industry and government committees and leadership positions within their professional 

associations. 

Inclusion of Risk Analysis in the EPA Study 

Please comment specifically on whether or not you believe that EPA's study of hydraulic 

fracturing should ensure that identification of the possible impacts of hydraulicfracturing on 

drinking water resources be accompanied by a corresponding analysis of risk based on 

probability and consequence, taking into account the current risk management practices of 

industry and the states. 

I cannot speak for the Chartered SAB or the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel 

regarding recommendations associated with EPA's research on the potential impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources, As Chair of the Panel, it would be inappropriate for me 

offer personal views of the EPA study. I would note, however, that EPA finalized its Study Plan, 

which included consideration of various risks, after considering SAB advice on its draft Study 

Plan. Various risk topics were discussed in the March 2011 advisory meeting on the Study Plan 

and inlhe course of the May 2013 consultation. The Advisory Panel has had and will continue 

to have opportunities to opine on risk issues pertaining to the EPA study. 

Concluding Remarks 

[thank both subcommittees again for the opportunity to testify today and explain the role of the 

Science Advisory Board in providing scientific peer review and expelt advice to EPA. In 

concluding! would like to note that EPA reached out early to the SAB for scientific peer review 

ofthe hydraulic fracturing research study, the engagement has continued since the initiation of 

the research, and it is my understanding that EPA plans to continue the engagement in the review 

of research products. I will do my best as Chair to ensure in-depth, very high quality, and 

transparent peer review. 

10 
44 

DAvm A. DZOMllAK, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE, NAE 

Ca .... egie Mellon University 

Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 

phone: 412-268-2946, email: dzombak(cycmu,edu, web: www,ce,clllu,eduipcoplelfacultyldzombak,hlmi 

Dr. Dzombak is the Walter J. Blenko, S ... University Professor and Head of tile Department of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon, The emphasis of his research and teaching is on waleI' 

quality engineering, environmental remediation, and energy-environment issues. At Carnegie Mellon he 

also has served as Associate Dean for Graduate and Faculty Affairs for the College of Engineering 

(2006-2010), as Director of the Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education and Research (2007-

2013), and as Interim Vice Provost of Sponsored Programs (November 20 12-July 2013). 

Dr, Dzombak received his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering (environmental engineering focus) from the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1986. He also holds an M.S. in Civil Engineering (1981, 

environmental engineering focus) and a B,S. in Civil Engineering (1980) from Carnegie Mellon, and a 

B.A. in Mathematics from Saint Vincent College (1980). He is a registered Professional Engineer in 

Pennsylvania, a Board Certified Environmental Engineer by the American Academy of Environmental 

Engineers and Scientists, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. 

Dr. Dzombak's research and professional interests include: aquatic chemistry; fate and transport of 

chemicals in water, soil, and sediment; water and wastewater treatment; in situ and ex situ soil and 

sediment treatment; hazardous waste site remediation; abandoned mine drainage remediation; river and 

watershed restoration; energy and environment; population and environment; and public communication 

of environmental engineering and science. He has p.ublished numerous articles in leading environmental 

engineering and science journals; book chapters; 'articles for the popular press; and three books. He also 

has a wide range of consulting experience. 

His professional service activity has included the EPA Science Advisory Board (Chartered SAB, 2007-

present; Environmental Engineering Committee, 2002-2010); the EPA National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology, Environmental Technology Subcommittee (2004-2008); the 

National Research Council (various committees, 2000-present); Associate Editor of Environmental 

Science & Technology (2005-2012); Editorial Board of Water Environment Research (1993-1998) and 

Ground Water (1991-1993); Chair, Board of Directors, AEESP Foundation (2012-present); Board of 

Directors and Officer (Treasurer) of the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science 

Professors (1996-1999); chair of committees for the American Academy of Environmental Engineers, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, and Water Environment Federation; and advisory committees for 

Allegheny County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He also has served in various advisory roles 

for Saint Vincent College since 1990, and was elected to the Board of Directors in 2012. 

Dr. Ozombak was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2008. Other recognitions include 

election as Fellow of AEESP (2013), the Water Environment Federation (2012), and the American 

Society of Civil Engineers (2002); an honorary Doctor of Science degree from Saint Vincent College 

(2010); Professional Research Award from the Pennsylvania Water Environment Association (2002); 

Jack Edward McKee Medal (2000) and the Harrison Prescott Eddy Medal (1993) from the Water 

Environment Federation; Aldo Leopold Leadership Program Fellowship from the David and Lucile 

Packard Foundation (2000); Distinguished Lecturer Award (2011) and Distinguished Service Award 

(1999) from AEESP; Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prize from the American Society of 

Civil Engineers (1997); and National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award 

(1991). 

July 2013 
45 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Dr. Dzombak. 

Our third witness is Mr. John Rogers, Associate Director of the 

Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining at the Utah Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Rogers manages the petroleum section that 

permits, monitors, and regulates oil and gas production in Utah. 

He has 15 years of experience in oil and gas exploration, reservoir 

analysis, and economic analysis of oil and gas fields. Mr. Rogers received his MS and MBA from Brigham Young University. 

Mr. Rogers. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN ROGERS, 

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

OIL AND GAS, DIVISION OF OIL, 

GAS, AND MINING, 

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. ROGERS. Good morning, Chairman Stewart, Chairman 

Lummis, and Members of the Subcommittee. As was stated, my 

name is John Rogers and I am the Associate Director of the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining in the State of Utah. The division 

manages permitting, regulation, and monitoring of oil and gas drilling, Class II injection wells, and oil and gas disposal facilities in 

Utah. This includes hydraulic fracturing, which we have regulated 

for many years, which is the primary focus of this hearing. 

Hydraulic fracturing has been an operational practice for completing and stimulating oil and gas wells in Utah since the early 

1960s. In all the historical records of the division, there has never 

been a verified case of hydraulic fracturing in causing or contributing to contamination of water resources. The division has always 

had very stringent rules concerning wellbore construction and the 

protection of water resources. 

However, to make the process of hydraulic fracturing more transparent and alleviate the recent public fear of hydraulic fracturing, 

the division has adopted a formal hydraulic fracturing rule in October of 2012. This rule combined many of the division’s current existing rules concerning overall best management practices for oil 

and gas production as related to safe and efficient operations, as 

well as public disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. 

There are three major concerns that have come to the forefront 

concerning hydraulic fracturing. The BLM has presented these in 

their proposed rule and Utah has addressed them historically and 

with their current new rule. The first is provide public disclosure 

of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing; secondly, include regulations to ensure wellbore integrity; and third, to address issues related to flow-back water. 

First, public disclosure, the Utah rule requires operators to report to fracfocus.org within 30—within 60 days of completion of a 

hydraulic fracturing operation of the chemicals used in this process. The primary purpose of fracfocus.org is to provide factual information concerning hydraulic fracturing and groundwater protection. FracFocus is a national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry 

accepted by both industry and government. It is managed by the 

Ground Water Protection Counsel and the Interstate Oil and Gas 
46 

Compact Commission, two organizations whose missions revolve 

around conservation and environmental protection. 

The site was created to provide the public access to reported 

chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing at specific well sites. To 

help users put this information into perspective, the site also provides objective information on hydraulic fracturing, the chemicals 

used, and the purpose they serve, and the means by which groundwater is protected. This reporting process that the division uses is 

also the same method proposed by the BLM rule. 

Secondly, wellbore integrity, existing rules were already in place 

to ensure wellbore integrity and construction. This includes detailed rules on casing and cementing programs, blowout prevention 

and uncontrolled flow, protection of freshwater aquifers, and casing 

pressure tests. 

Utah’s hydraulic fracturing rule emphasizes the use of already 

existing rules that have managed oil and gas production in Utah 

for many years. The regulatory process of the division are effective 

in ensuring the responsible development of Utah’s resources with 

due regard for and protection of the environment. This begins with 

wellbore integrity. The staff at DOGM, which we refer to the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, has local knowledge and expertise to 

address the technical and scientific challenges proposed by Utah’s 

unique geology and geography. 

Onsite inspections of oil and gas wells are a key component of 

the division’s regulatory program. All wells drilled on the site, on 

the State or private lands in Utah are subject to rigorous inspection programs that include inspection and witnessing of well-control equipment, casing and cementing operations, follow-up to 

third-party complaints, and general compliance verification. In 

2012, 8,983 such onsite inspections were performed by the division. 

Finally, management of flow-back water and service protection, 

the division rule states the operator shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid polluting lands, streams, lakes, reservoirs, natural drainages, and underground water. Prior to any drilling operation, all drill sites have onsite inspections and are analyzed for 

surface conditions and best practices are employed to prevent any 

contamination of surface water or groundwater. 

The division’s board has recently approved a new rule July 1, 

2013, entitled ‘‘Waste Management and Disposal.’’ These rules update methods and restraints for disposal of RCRA-exempt waste 

from oil and gas production. This would include the management 

of hydraulic fracturing fluid flow-back. 

Utah’s production water is disposed of by two methods. The first 

is underground injection wells, which 94 percent of the water is included into those injection wells, which we have a primacy from the 

EPA; and secondly, evaporative disposal ponds. These are in very 

detailed rules and controlling these disposal ponds, and so between 

those two methods, we feel we control the surface and subsurface. 

Finally, I believe our Federal and state interaction with the division has worked very well with Federal agencies with concerns 

spacing, flaring, and split estates. However, there has been no collaboration concerning hydraulic fracturing. The division believes 

that a statewide standard is defined by the divisions hydraulic 
47 

fracturing rule would be beneficial rather than several regulations, 

as proposed. 

Those are my statements. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:] 
48 

John C. Rogers 

Associate Director of The Division of Oil, Gas and Mining f(x The State of Utah 

July 24,2013 

My name is John Rogers and I am the Associate Director of the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining 

for the State of Utah (DOGM). The Division manages the permitting, regulation and monitoring 

of oil and gas drilling, Class II UIC injection wells and oil and gas disposal facilities in Utah. 

This includes hydraulic fracturing which it has regulated for many years, which is the primary 

purpose of this hearing. 

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) has been an operational practice for completing and stimulating oil 

and gas wells in Utah since the 1960's. State government regulation of the oil and gas industry 

commenced with creation of the Utah Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 1955. In all of 

the historical records ofDOGM, there has never been a verified case of hydraulic fracturing 

causing or contributing to contamination of water resources. The Division has always had very 

stringent rules concerning well bore construction and the protection of water resources. 

However, to make the the process of hydraulic fracturing more transparent and alleviate the 

recent public fear of hydraulic fracturing, the Division adopted a formal hydraulic fracturing rule 

in October 2012. This rule combined many of the Division exiting rules concerning overall best 

management practices for oil and gas production as related to sate and efficient operations, as 

well as a public disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. 

There are three major concerns that have come to the forefront concerning hydraulic fracturing. 

The BLM has presented these in their proposed rule and Utah has also addressed them 

historically and with their current hydraulic fracturing rule. 

(l) Provide public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing 

(2) Include regulations to insure well-bore integrity 

(3) Address issues related to flowback water 

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE 

The Utah rule requires operators to report to fracfocus.org within 60 days of completion of the 

hydraulic fracturing operation of the chemicals used in the process. The primary purpose of 

fracfocus.org is to provide factual information concerning hydraulic fracturing and groundwater 

1 
49 

protection. FracFocus is the national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry accepted by both 

industry and government. It is managed by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and 

the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). two organizations whose missions 

both revolve around conservation and envi ronmental protection. 

The site was created to provide the public access to reported chemicals used for hydraulic 

fracturing at specific well locations. To help users put this information into perspective, the site 

also provides objective information on hydraulic fracturing, the chemicals used, and the purposes 

they serve and thc means by which groundwater is protected. 

This reporting process that The Division uses and is also proposed by the BLM rule. 

WELL BORE INTEGRITY 

Existing rules were already in place to insure well bore integrity and construction. This included 

detailed rules on: 

• Casing and cementing programs 

• Blowout prevention and uncontrolled flow 

• Protection of freshwater aquifers 

• Casing pressure tests 

The Utah hydraulic fracturing rule emphasizes the the use of already existing rules that have 

manage oil and gas production in Utah for many years. The regulatory processes of The Division 

(that include permitting, inspection, compliance, and enforcement) are effective in ensuring the 

responsible development of Utah's resources with due regard tor and protection of the 

environment. This begins with well bore integrity. The professional staff ofDOGM has the 

local knowledge and expertise to address the technical and scientific challenges posed by Utah's 

unique geology and geography. A nationwide process of hydraulic fracturing rulemaking would 

be no more effective in achieving better oversight of hydraulic fracturing operations than exits at 

the state level in Utah and other states with similar rules. In addition, substantial cost of 

manpower and time for both government and the private sector organizations would be incurred. 

On-site inspection of oil and gas wells are a key component of The Division's regulatory 

program. All wells drilled on state or private lands in Utah are subject to a rigorous inspection 

program that includes: inspection and witnessing of well control equipment tests, 

casing/cementing operations, follow lip to third party complaints, general compliance 

verification, drilling operations, emergency response, final land restoration/bond release, well 

plugging, production/environmental, and workover/recompletion. In 2012, 8,983 such on-site 

inspections were performcd by DOGM field operations staff. 

2 
50 

Through a detail and very comprehensive geologic study, the depth to the usable ground water 

has been mapped in the primary oil and gas producing area of Utah, the Uintah Basin. 

Recognizing the usable water and its protection is the primary concern when developing a casing 

program for a potential well. 

MANAGEMENT OF FLOWBACK WATER AND SlJRFACE PROTECTION 

The Division's rules state that the operators shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid 

polluting lands, streams, lakes, reservoirs, natural drainages and underground water. Prior to any 

drilling operations all drill sites have on-site inspections and are analyzed for surface conditions 

and best practices are employed to prevent any contamination of surface water or ground water. 

The Division's Board has recently approved (July 1,2013) a revised set of rules entitled "Waste 

Management and Disposal" These rules update methods and restraints for disposal of RCRA 

(Resource Conservation Recovery Act) exempt waste from oil and gas production. This would 

include the the management of hydraulic fracturing fluid flow back. 

Utah production water is dispose of by two methods: 

• UIC Class II injection wells (94%) 

• Evaporative disposal ponds (6%) 

DOGM has primacy from EPA region 8 to permit Class 1I injection well on all non-Indian 

Country. The Divisionjust recently went under an extensive review of tile process from EPA 

and was found to be in compliance with their rules and regulations. 

The Board at DOGM has recently approved new rules that revised the regulations concerning 

surface disposal facilities that accept hydraulic fracturing flowback. This includes: 

• Chemical testing as needed 

• Surface and sub-surface geology 

• Size and depth limited to 10 acre-feet 

• Protection of drinking water, flood plains and ground water 

• Duclliners with leak detection system 

• Bermed area to contain any catastrophic failure 

3 
51 

• Safety and emergency plans 

• Increased and escalated bonding. 

The management of hydraulic fracturing f10w back is monitored through both surface disposal 

and UIC Class II wells as directed by the EPA. No other regulation is necessary. 

FEDERAL (STATE INTERACTION 

The Division has worked very well with federal agencies when concerned with spacing, f1aring 

and split estate issues. However, there is no collaboration concerning hydraulic fracturing. The 

Division believes that a state wide standard as defined by The Division's hydraulic fracturing 

would be beneficial, rather than several regulations as proposed. 

STATE AND INDUSTRY 

State and industry have worked very well together to establish a win-win situation concerning 

hydraulic fracturing tlowback that is injected into the ground for water f100ds. Facilities, both 

penllanent and temporary have been used to clean tlowback water and use it in the water tlood of 

an oil field. This recycled water greatly reduces the amount of fresh water that is used in 

hydraulic fracturing. In addition, water tlow lines have been constructed in order to greatly 

reduce truck traffic and improve air quality. 

CONCLUSION 

[believe that Utah DOGM does an excellent job in monitoring hydraulic fracturing in Utah. 

Also, it is my experience that other States also perform at a similar exceptional level. In the 

ongoing EPA study on hydraulic fracturing in order to insure public and stakeholder confidence, 

it is my opinions that the EPA may raise issues concerning possible impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources. Those risks should identified and analyzed based on 

probability and possible perceived consequences. The current risk management as defined by 

modern technology as utilized by industry should be taken into account as to the true nature of 

those risks and quantified as actual or perceived risks. 

4 
52 

John Rogers is the Associate Director of the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining for the the Department of 

Natural Resources in Utah. He manages the petroleum section that permits, monitors and regulates oil 

and gas production in Utah. This includes the Class II injection program and produced water disposal in 

Utah. He hold a BS in geology, MS in Geology and a MBA with an emphasis in finance from Brigham 

Young University. He has 15 years of experience in oil and gas exploration, reservoir analysis and 

economic analysis of oil and gas fields. Research has included deposition and litholgic studies of deep 

water shales of Western Utah. 
53 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

And I am sure, like you, both of us look forward to getting back 

to our beautiful State. So thank you for being with us today. 

Our final witness then is Dr. Rahm. Dr. Brian Rahm is a postdoctorate associate at Cornell University’s Department of Earth 

and Atmospheric Studies in New York State Water Resources Institute. Dr. Rahm is engaged in education and research of shale gas 

development on water resources and waste infrastructure. He previously worked in New Zealand engaging in climate change policy 

analysis. Dr. Rahm received his Ph.D. from Cornell University. Dr. 

Rahm. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BRIAN RAHM, 

NEW YORK WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE, 

CORNELL UNIVERSITY 

Dr. RAHM. Good morning and thank you for inviting me to be a 

part of this discussion. 

My name is Brian Rahm and I work for the New York State 

Water Resources Institute at Cornell University. My job is to develop understanding of unconventional gas extraction and its interaction with and impact on water resources. My goal is to act as a 

neutral source of information to the public—people are very excited 

in New York about this activity—and to policymakers at local, 

state, and Federal levels. I have therefore been following EPA’s investigation with interest from a New York perspective. 

Unconventional gas development, not just hydraulic fracturing 

per se, involves multiple activities that can and do impact water 

resources. We know accidents happen. Accidents present risks and 

have impacts. Figure 2 of my written testimony shows the prevalence of violations issued by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to unconventional gas operators over the last few 

years. Spills of various kinds, often of waste fluids, occur relatively 

frequently. Many of these spills are small and contained. Less frequently, they are larger and pose risks to nearby surface and 

ground waters. 

Apart from accidents, we also know that cumulative impacts are 

possible. Cumulative impacts result from multiple individual 

events occurring across the landscape. For example, waste fluids 

need to be treated if they are to be discharged. Waste from a single 

well might be diluted or treated, but if waste from dozens or hundreds of wells is discharged, negative impacts can occur. This is 

true even when single activities are conducted within established 

rules and regulations. 

A study in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 

which I have here, observed elevated salt concentrations in rivers 

downstream from treatment facilities accepting unconventional gas 

waste in Pennsylvania over the last decade. 

What role do the EPA investigations play? The EPA investigations in Pavillion, Dimock, and Parker County can address the 

complaints that prompted them and demonstrate responsiveness to 

the community. They can determine if contamination is present 

and if there is an immediate risk to environmental or public 

health. They can also provoke thinking and discussion as the 

Pavillion investigation did for me on the following points: 1) Design 
54 

and scope of research into gas development impacts needs to be 

carefully thought through, adhered to, and communicated; 2) regional differences matter. Geology practices and policy can vary by 

State and by gas play; 3) critical issues to acknowledge, discuss, 

and plan for include the management of waste fluids, the management of well integrity via casing and cementing, and the disclosure 

of chemical additives; and 4) oversight of both gas and water well 

construction is needed when target formations contain aquifers. A 

more complete commentary can be found on our website. 

An equally important question regarding these investigations is 

what can’t they do? They cannot act as risk assessments of water 

resource impacts from gas development accidents in general. This 

is because investigations occur within the context of specific geological, historical, and regulatory conditions. These also cannot address the risks presented by cumulative impacts. Broad risk assessments that incorporate cumulative impacts need data on a regional 

or national scale and not just from places where complaints have 

been lodged or where contamination has occurred. It is just as important to know when things go right as it is to know when things 

go wrong. 

From what I understand of the ongoing EPA study of the potential impacts on drinking water resources, they are asking many 

good questions. It is a welcome response to the need for assessments able to identify a set of shared and/or cumulative risks that 

transcend local conditions and that are beyond the purview of any 

single operator or state agency to manage. I am looking forward to 

the results of their studies. 

One big study, however, does not mean we will have perfect answers. No single study can do that. The nature of research is to 

build understanding through repetition and consensus. This requires patience and willingness to adapt to new information. Lack 

of perfect information doesn’t mean that activities should stop but, 

like other activities that pose risks to water resources, treatment 

and discharge of sewage, for example, unconventional gas development does require oversight to minimize risk. 

What does this mean for the regulation of shale gas in states and 

the country as a whole? What is clear to me anyway from the EPA 

investigations is that local characteristics will vary. This suggests 

that states should continue to be the leaders in day-to-day regulation since state agencies are most familiar with local conditions. Indeed, many states already regulate gas development like Utah to 

varying levels and stringencies. This is explored in detail in a recent Resources for the Future study, part of which I have included 

as figure 3 in my testimony. 

That being said, the need for broad assessment of some risks, 

along with cumulative impacts that we know can happen, means 

that a broad examination and perspective is needed. In response to 

these general risks and cumulative impacts, it may make sense to 

establish basic standards at the regional or Federal level. 

In closing, we should be working thoughtfully toward understanding both the benefits and the risks of our energy choices and 

how they interact with our valuable water resources. To not know 

the benefits and risks of unconventional gas development while the 

activity is new is fair enough. We have not had time to fully under-
55 

stand, but it is my hope we can continue to learn through research, 

experience, and dialogue so we increase our energy and water resource literacy in the years to come. 

Thanks for this opportunity. I am happy to take questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahm follows:] 
56 

NEW YORK STATE 

WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE 

Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 

1123 Bradfield Hail, Come!! University 

NY 14853-1901 

Testimony before the 

Email: nys.tri@c:omell.edu 

U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittees on Environment and Energy of the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

July 24th, 2013 

lessons learned: EPA's Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing 

Brian G. Rahm, Ph.D. 

Postdoctoral Associate 

New York State Water Resources Institute 

Cornell University 

1103 Bradfield, Ithaca, NY 14850 

607-254-7163 

bgr4@cornell.edu 

http://wri.eas.comell.edu/ 

----.----------------------------------------
57 

Good morning Chairman Stewart, Ranking Member Bonamici, and members of both subcommittees, and thank 

you for inviting me to be a part of this discussion, 

Today I provide testimony on behalf of the New York State Water Resources Institute (NYSWRI), a federally 

authorized research entity established by the The Water Resources Research Act of 1984, designated by the 

New York State legislature to reside at Cornell University, We receive base funding through the United States 

Geological Survey, We also receive funding from, and collaborate with, the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation and Hudson River Estuary Program, Additional funding for NYSWRI comes from the 

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, as well as the David R, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, both at 

Cornell University, Our federal and state mandates direct us to undertake research and perform outreach with 

the goal of improving water resources management in the state of NY and across the nation, We seek to identify 

and explore water resource issues of emerging interest in order to provide and disseminate information to State 

agencies, water resource managers, the academic community, and citizens and stakeholders in general. 

Shale gas development, particularly of the Marcellus Shale, has been a topic of great interest in NY for the past 

several years, Currently there is a moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing related to shale gas 

development while NY State agencies complete environmental and public health impact assessments, In the 

meantime, NYSWRI has taken the opportunity to learn from unconventional resource extraction occurring in 

other states across the country, We have therefore been following EPA's investigations with interest, seeking to 

understand how the events investigated may and may not be applicable to NY, what they might reveal about 

environmental risks, and how policy influences water resource impacts, Our goal is to use that understanding to 

inform prudent policy-making, and to act as a neutral and informed voice within a polarized and contentious 

discussion. A sample of our most relevant research and activity, including peer-reviewed publications, can be 

found at the end of this testimony, 

In this testimony, I will: 

Discuss the main water resource-related risks associated with shale gas development 

Discuss what the EPA investigations in question can and cannot do 

Summarize the lessons learned 

What are some ofthe main water resource-related risks associated with shale gas development? 

I'd like to describe what I have come to understand about water resources risks associated with shale gas 

development. This will serve to illustrate the scope of what water resource managers and researchers think and 

care about with respect to shale gas, Although the title of this hearing specifies hydraulic fracturing, I wish to be 

clear that I will be discussing shale gas development as a whole, of which hydraulic fracturing is just a part, 

Please look at Figure 1, which is a simplified cartoon of activities commonly associated with shale gas 

development, These activities include land clearing for the establishment and construction of well pads; vertical 

drilling - often through potable groundwater supplies; horizontal drilling through the target formation; water 

acquisition from surface or ground sources; transportation, storage and mixing of chemicals with water for use 

in hydraulic fracturing; and storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste fluids, These activities 

necessarily draw the attention of water resource managers and regulators whose job it is to minimize any 

associated negative environmental impacts. Given all of this, it is fair to ask: what are the main risks to water 

resources that arise from this development, and are they substantially different from risks we already face from 

the activities around us? 

The answer to this question is complicated, can change from one location to another, and evolves over time, But 

to illustrate a part of the answer I'd like to share some information NYSWRI has gathered from our neighboring 

state of Pennsylvania (PAl, where Marcellus Shale development has been occurring in earnest for several years, 

-1-
58 

Figure 2 demonstrates the prevalence of certain violations issued by the PA Department of Environmental 

Protection to unconventional gas operators over the last few years, While this information is only one way to 

assess risk, you can get a sense of where problems may lie, at least in the eyes of PA law and the inspectors that 

enforce it According to our analysis, the most common types of violations are related to spills of various kinds at 

the surface (often of waste fluids), erosion control and site restoration issues, and proper cementing and casing 

practices below the surface, From this data, we observe no violations or impacts related to hydraulic fracturing, 

per se, That being said, it is clear from this information that things can and do go wrong, often times at the 

surface, and that the frequency of these events (or the conditions that make events possible) can be high, 

Some of these risks are familiar to us, Construction and agricultural activities in particular share many risks with 

shale gas development They involve clearing of land and subsequent risk of erosion via storm water runoff. 

They involve the use of fuels or chemicals that can be transported to and stored onsite, with a subsequent risk 

for spills, Cementing and casing activities resemble conventional oil and gas practices, as does the production of 

waste fluids with complex chemistries that need to be collected, stored, transported, treated, and sometimes 

discharged, 

What is different, however, is the pace, scale, and sometimes location of shale gas development across 

landscapes. Well pads are larger in order to accommodate bigger rigs, The volumes of water that need to be 

acquired from surface and ground waters is substantially greater than for conventional drilling and fracturing 

operations, leading in turn to larger volumes of waste fluids requiring treatment and discharge, Perhaps most 

importantly, these activities are quickly accelerating in places where historical activity may not have occurred, 

and where policies and practices have not had the chance to evolve over time, Northeastern PA is an example of 

this, as are parts of the southern tier of NY State where development is likely to proceed, 

Making the distinction between planned and unplanned environmental risks 

Looking again at Figure 1, one of the important distinctions made in this cartoon is the difference between 

planned and unplanned events, This distinction is important because these types of events get assessed, 

studied, and regulated differently. Planned events are certain to occur because they are a necessary part ofthe 

shale gas development process, Operators, regulators, and surrounding communities know that well pads need 

to be constructed, water needs to be obtained, and waste fluid will be produced and processed. The magnitude 

of these events is also directly related to the pace and scale of development in general: the more wells, the 

larger the cumulative impact of planned events, 

Much of my work at NYSWRI has focused on planned events and how the cumulative impact of a collection of 

individual activities might have negative consequences for water resources, Water withdrawals for hydraulic 

fracturing operations provide a case in point Individual Withdrawals, say for a single well, generally do not result 

in environmental impact when they are taken from medium to large rivers, When multiple withdrawals are 

made within the same river system, however, the potential for negative impact is greatly increased. Because we 

know, or can approximate, how much water is required for hydraulic fracturing, as well as the flow of the river 

or stream, it is possible to plan withdrawal activities in such a way as to minimize negative impacts, This, of 

course, requires oversight, and an institution or agency capable of understanding and analyzing the system. 

Other researchers have also estimated and observed negative cumulative impacts associated with planned 

events during shale gas development', 

1 For example: 

R. Vidic et al., Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality, Science 340, 2013. 001: lO.1126/science.1235009 

S, Olmstead et 01., Shale Gas Development Impacts on Surface Water Quality in Pennsylvania, PNAS 110(13), 2013. 001: 

lQ,1073/pnas,1213871110 

B. Rahm & S. Rilla, Toward Strategic Management of Shale Gas Development: Regional. Collective Impacts on Water Resources, 

Environmental Science & Policy 17, 2012. 001: lO.1016/j,envsci.2011.12.004 

- 2-
59 

Unplanned events are accidents. These can be anticipated only in the sense that they are likely to occur at some 

rate over time, although their occurrence and consequences at any given location are difficult to predict. The 

likelihood and potential impact of unplanned events must be inferred or estimated using data from similar 

activities over time and across space. Risk assessments related to unplanned events inform decision-makers who 

need to balance the benefits of an activity against the potential negative consequence that might occur if 

something were to go wrong. There is often room to invest in protective measures against likely or catastrophic 

risks while still realizing benefits from the activity. That being said, risk cannot be avoided altogether, and some 

tolerance of unplanned events is necessary. 

EPA investigations in Pavillion, WY; Dimock, PA; and Parker County, TX: what they do and don't do 

From my perspective, the EPA investigations in Pavillion, Dimock, and Parker County are dealing with 

unplanned events. That is to say they are responses to complaints regarding alleged impacts that were 

unintended. Furthermore, the events and impacts in question would have been difficult to predict with 

spatial and temporal accuracy ahead of time. I bring this up because I think it is critical to understanding 

what types of questions such investigations can and cannot address. 

These investigations of unplanned events can address the question of whether or not contamination of 

some kind is present, and whether or not this represents an immediate risK to environmental or public 

health. 

Given sufficient resources, these investigations might be capable of determining the possible causes of 

contamination in the past, and what the levels of contamination may lOOK like in the future. What I can 

tell you from my experience in working with chloroethene-contaminated groundwater sites is that to 

achieve a high degree of certainty with respect to contamination cause and its evolution in the future 

can require extensive study and substantial resources. 

What these types of investigations cannot do, by virtue of their design, is act as definitive risK 

assessments of water resource impacts from shale gas development in general. They cannot do this 

because individual investigations occur within the context of a specific set of conditions - local geology, a 

specific operator or set of operators, a unique site history, and a local regulatory environment. More 

general risK assessments - or better yet, risk assessments that are robust enough to account for 

variability of the characteristics I just mentioned require a different, broader approach. I will revisit 

this concept in a moment. -

Despite the limitations of these investigations, I believe they can provide valuable information, as well as 

spark important discussions about risk, best management, and policy. That being said, I'd like to relate 

some key paints I take away from the investigation in Pavillion, Wyoming, which is the most developed 

of the three in the sense that EPA has drafted a report. A more complete NYSWRI commentary on the 

Pavillion investigation can be found on our website at 

http:/L,.;ri.eas.comell.edu/Comment on EPA Pavillion Study.QQf. 

Investigation and research design must be well thought-out and articulated - The stated objective of the 

investigation was to determine whether ground water contamination had occurred and, if possible, to 

differentiate between shallow sources of potential contamination - such as surface pits - and deep sources 

such as gas production wells. It was not the intent of the study to evaluate the extent of contamination, nor 

was the objective to evaluate the hydraulic fracturing process itself as a route of potential contamination. 

P. Drohan et af., Early Trends in landcover Change and Forest Fragmentation Due to Shale-Gas Development in Pennsylvania: A 

potentjal outcome for the Northcentral Appalachians, Environmental Management, 2012. DO! 10.1007/s00267-012-9841~6 
60 

While the investigation's speculative conclusions are open for debate, the data collected was still useful so 

long as its purpose is kept firmly in mind. This suggests that the design, scope, and outreach related to 

future EPA investigations and studies should be carefully thought through, adhered to, and communicated. 

Regional differences matter - Each gas play has its own characteristics and challenges, its own regulatory 

environment, and its own mix of land use, industry, and infrastructure that will influence environmental risk 

and industry best practice. Regulatory agencies need to be aware of this local character and develop 

management strategies that are effective and appropriate. In some ways, this illustrates the critical role of 

state-level regulation. In other ways, the variability in the coverage of regulations from state to state 

suggests the need for at least some form of oversight at an interstate, regional, or federal level. 

Management of waste fluids is a critical issue - Although this investigation does not definitively link ground 

water contamination with the use of open, unlined waste pits, it does place the practice into the spotlight 

for critical evaluation. In New York, regulators have chosen to move toward the requirement of closedsystem waste containment as a way to minimize contamination risks associated with wastewaters that have 

complex and sometimes toxic chemistries. Although wastewaters will vary across the country as a result of 

differences in fracturing strategies and geology, it is prudent for state and federal agencies to closely assess 

the risks of waste pits. On-site and centralized wastewater management and treatment technologies have 

evolved rapidly and provide the industry with alternatives that may not have been available in the past, but 

which should be encouraged or required in the future. The high prevalence of waste fluid spills (at least in 

PA, Figure 2) indicates that waste fluid storage is a potential area in which general basic standards are worth 

implementing. 

Ce"'-"_'l!..illlality and gas production well integrity are essential- Again, this investigation does not 

demonstrate a direct link between cementing practices and ground water contamination. However, it does 

show that cementing in the area of study was often done poorly in terms of quality, and insufficiently in 

terms of depth and coverage relative to the screened depth of local domestic water wells. Best practice with 

respect to cementing, bond-logging, and gas well integrity has received significant attention in recent years, 

particularly in the Marcellus Shale where public scrutiny and criticism has been intense. State agencies 

should examine their own guidelines, while federal agencies should consider basic standards. 

Chemical additives need to be on record - Situations in which contamination is thought to occur, but for 

which the exact nature of the contamination source is unknown, highlight the need for better 

documentation of chemical additives used during the drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes. At the very 

least, there is a need to make information regarding chemical additives and their volumes available to state 

or federal regulatory personnel and emergency responders, regardless of location or purpose, Replacing the 

most toxic additives is, and should continue to be, a priority. Figure 3, taken from a study by Resources For 

the Future, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization, illustrates the variability in fracturing fluid 

disclosure requirements from state to state. Again, this suggests a role for basic federal standards on this 

important issue. 

Targeting of formations containing an underground source of drinking water (USDW) should elicit strict 

regulation - Whether by mistake, or through the fault of one or more involved parties, gas production wells 

in Pavillion were allowed to contain surface casing that did not extend below nearby domestic water wells. I 

know it is common in some cases, such as coal bed methane, to target gas-bearing formations that also act 

as an USDW. However, to do so without strict oversight of both gas and water well construction seems 

irresponsible. in cases where such development occurs on federal land, this is an opportunity for the Federal 

government to lead the way in ensuring that development occurs safely or not at all. 

- 4-
61 

The investigation in Pavillion demonstrates both the importance of state regulation in dealing with local 

conditions, as well as the need to constructively discuss the role of federal agencies in regulating activity 

on federal lands, and setting basic standards for activities that are cause for concern across states and 

gas plays. It is fair to mention that many states, particularly those with a long history of regulating oil 

and gas extraction, would meet or exceed any basic standards likely to be set. Still, there is significant 

variability in state approaches on at least some issues of broad concern. And, as development spreads 

into new plays, some of which lie outside historic regions of development, a basic threshold for safety 

becomes more important. Using PA as an example, states that face rapid unconventional development 

should be able to respond with appropriate regulations within a few years. It is during this initial period, 

however, when activity is occurring even as new poliCies are being worked out, that communities may 

benefit from basic regional or federal protections. 

What kind of approach would address stakeholder concerns regarding water resources - a role for the 

EPA study on drinking water resources? 

The investigations in Pavillion, Dimock, and Parker County have value insofar as they are able to respond 

to complaints and identify contamination if it exists. With additional resources, they might provide 

insight regarding the origin and evolution of contamination. But I think that what we are all after are risk 

assessments robust enough to be used in general, not just in one location at a time. So, the question 

becomes: if single investigations are not sufficient, what more is needed to assess risk in a 

comprehensive way? 

It is difficult to answer this question, but I can offer my opinion on what would be needed. First, more 

data, research, and analysis is needed on the events that we know occur and which transcend local 

conditions, such as spills and erosion at the surface, and poorly designed casing and cementing below 

the surface. Such data should come from academic research, industry, state and federal agencies, and 

should encompass a representative sampling of development sites, not just places where complaints 

have been lodged, or where known contamination events have occurred. It is just as important to know 

how often things go right, as it is to know when things go wrong, so that we can determine the proper 

balance between precaution and mitigation. 

Of course data alone is not sufficient for developing a risk assessment. Analysis must be conducted on a 

large enough scale to address the general concerns raised by our communities. Industry has a wealth of 

data and expertise, but is not structured so as to collect data from competing operators, and is not 

incentivized to provide results in a transparent fashion. This is understandable. State agencies are often 

intimately familiar with local conditions, but do not have staff, time, or mandate to engage in analyses 

which stretch beyond their jurisdictions. Institutions or agencies with broad interstate, regional, or 

federal missions are needed so that a transparent analysis can be conducted with the input of all 

involved stakeholders. 

Another important reason to involve entities with broad mandates is the potential for cumulative 

impacts to dominate risk once a certain pace and scale of development is achieved. As I discussed 

previously, cumulative impacts may arise even when each individual activity is conducted safely and in 

accordance with rules and regulations. Water resource impacts from the combustion of coal provide a 

case in point. The cumulative impact of coal-fired power plants throughout the Midwest, initially 

unforeseen, is exacerbation of acidification and nutrient contamination of water resources in the 

Northeast. 

The EPA study on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources is an 

example of a broader risk assessment. In theory it is designed to identify a set of shared and/or 

- 5-
62 

cumulative risks that transcend local conditions, and that are beyond the purview of any single operator 

or state agency to manage. I am keen, as I'm sure the Committee is, to see that the drinking water study 

is designed and performed effectively, and I am curious to know what will be found. 

What are the lessons learned? 

There are a variety of risks and impacts to water resources as a result of activities and events 

associated with shale gas development. Many have little to do with hydraulic fracturing itself but are 

nevertheless important to water resource managers. Some of these risks are similar to those we 

face from conventional oil and gas development, and construction and agricultural activity in 

general. Still, the pace and scale of development, particularly in areas unaccustomed to shale gas 

development, necessitates a fresh look at how we undertake, manage, and regulate this activity. 

Local differences in geology, hydrology, policy, infrastructure, and industrial capability mean that 

states are still the appropriate level at which much of the regulation of shale gas development 

should occur. 

Best practices exist (and are promulgated by industry) that help to provide environmental 

protection as development continues; some operators observe them and others do not. 

Planned events, such as the withdrawal of water and the treatment and discharge of waste fluids, 

are certain to occur and have the potential to impact water resources, especially if cumulative 

impacts over time and space are not properly understood. Therefore, planned events and their 

cumulative impacts must be studied, planned for, and considered within regulatory frameworks. 

Unplanned events, or accidents, are also certain to occur, but in locations and with impacts that are 

difficult to predict. Analysis of a wide range of data, conducted on an interstate, regional, or federal 

scale, should help in development of assessments of risks that are shared across states and shale 

plays. 

The EPA, and/or other relevant agencies, can and should playa role in regulating and investigating 

complaints on federal lands. More broadly, federal agencies should continue developing approaches 

that identify shared risks across states and plays, regardless of local differences, so that basic 

standards may be justified, agreed upon, and established. Issues regarding chemical disclosure, 

proof and maintenance of well integrity through cementing and casing, and the storage, treatment 

and discharge of waste fluids, are candidates for shared risks. States with a history of oil and gas 

development are likely to meet or exceed these basic standards, while a regulatory floor is critical in 

states experiencing new development. 

Lastly, I'd like to acknowledge that the presence of risk does not necessarily mean that an activity should 

not proceed. Like other activities that pose risks to our water resources in one way or another (the 

treatment and discharge of sewage, for example), shale gas development requires oversight, some 

aspects of which are most appropriately local, while other aspects of which require broader 

perspectives, abilities, and mandates. It is critical that we scientists, industry, policymakers, and 

communities - acknowledge and continue to discuss risks from unconventional oil and gas development, 

even as development continues on a large scale. The nature of scientific research is to build 

understanding over time through repetition and consensus. This requires patience, the ability to 

articulate and discuss alternatives, and most importantly, a willingness to accept new information over 

time, sometimes at the expense of old paradigms. Polarized discussions on hydraulic fracturing are 

rarely constructive. We should be working more thoughtfully toward understanding the benefits and 

·6· 
63 

risks of our energy choices and how they interact with our valuable water resources. To not know the 

benefits and risks of shale gas development while the activity is new is fair enough - we have not had 

enough time to fully understand. But to not know them a decade from now because we either ignored 

the issues or refused to address them, would be irresponsible. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. I'd be happy to take any questions. 

- 7-
64 

Figure 1. A simplified cartoon of shale gas development events associated with potential 

water resource risks and impacts 

Surface 

Subsurface 

Monitoring 

Planned 

Basin-scale 

(Collective impacts associated 

with overall pace & scale of 

development) 

Unplanned 

Local-scale 

(Specific impacts associated with 

a reported event) 

-8-
65 

Figure 2. Prevalence of environmentally-relevant violations issued to operators in 

Pennsylvania since 2007 - data for analysis taken from PaDEP online database 

found at: htm:llwww.portal.state.pa.uslportai(se[yeLPtlcommunitvloil and .. gas compliance report/20299 

30 

25 

." 

." '" ." 

a20 

.:a '" 

~ g 15 ... 

h 

~ 

'" c: i 10 

o 

:> 

J. J 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Erosion 

Site Restoration 

Cementing and Casing 

III Wetland Encroachment 

l J Littered Site 

III Drill Cuttings 

III Total Spills 

2011 2012 2013lx2) 

- 9-
66 

Figure 3. Source of graphic - Richardson et aI., The State of State Shale Gas 

Regulation. Resources for the Future. June, 2013. Accessed at: 

http://www.rff.org/centers/energy economics and policy/Pages/Shale Maps.aspx 

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure Requirements 

Disdostlre required 

(14statos) 

Disdosuro rcqulroo. with exclusions 

(1 statal 

Proposed disclosure requirement 

(3 stat os) 

No Qvidence of regulation found 

03 states} 

Not in study 

- II!-
67 

Relevant NYSWRI research and activities: 

Peer-Reviewed Publications 

Rahm, B.G., Vedachalam, S., Shen, l, Woodbury, P,B., Riha, SJ, "A watershed-scale goals approach to 

assessing and funding wastewater infrastructure!' J Environ. Manage, In press 

McPhillips, L.; Creamer, A.E.; Rahm, B.G.; Walter, M,T. "Spatial analysis of dissolved methane in central New 

York groundwater" submitted to Water Resources Research. In review 

Rahm, B.G., Bates, J.T., Bertoia, LR., Galford, A.E., Yoxtheimer, D.A., Riha, SJ. "Wastewater Management 

and Marcellus Shale Gas Development: Trends, Drivers, and Planning Implications" J. Environ. Manage. (120) 

2013.105-113 

Rahm, B.G.; Riha, SJ. "Toward strategic management of shale gas development: Regional, collective impacts 

on water resources" Environ. Sci. Policy. 2012. 17. 12-23 

Other Publications 

Abdalla, c.; Drohan, J.; Rahm, B.G.; Jacquet, 1.; Becker, J.; Collins, A.; Klaiber, A.; Poe, G.; Grantham, D. 

"Water's journey through the shale gas drilling and production processes in the Mid-Atlantic region" Penn 

state Cooperative Extension. 2012 

Rahm, B.G.; Ford, L; Rukovets, S.; Meriwether, M.B.; Riha, S.J. "Protection of Surface Waters Associated 

with Shale Gas Drilling and Related Support Sites" NYWEA white paper. May 16, 2011 

Riha, 5,].; Rahm, B.G. "Framework for assessing water resource impacts from shale gas drilling" NYWEA 

Clear Waters. 2010,40 (Winter), 16-19 

Rahm, B.G.; Riha, S. "Framework for Assessing Water Resource Impacts from Shale Gas Drilling" Green 

Choices, website of Cornell University's Department of City and Regional Planning, December, 2010 

Invited Panel & Testimony 

"Farm Foundation Forum: Natural Gas Extraction -Impacts on rural America," Farm Foundation panel held 

at the National Press Club, Washington, DC, April 3, 2013. 

~ww.farmfoundation.org/forums.aspx?year=2013 

"Shale Gas Development & Water Resources Planning & Management" Municipal Law and Planning: A Local 

Perspective on Hydrafracking. Albany Law School. Albany, NY, September 28,2012 

"Waste Water and Cuttings as they Pertain to Hydraulic Fracturing" New York State Senate Standing 

Committee on Environmental Conservation, Canandaigua, NY, December 12, 2011 

"USDA Agricultural Landscapes Forum" Northeast Regional Meeting, Panel on water security. Cobleskil, NY, 

March 10, 2011 

"Hearing on the Continued Examination of Hydraulic Fracturing Including the NYSDEC and DRBC Processes" 

New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection, New York, NY, March 1, 2011 

-1/-
68 

Brian G. Rahm, Ph.D. 

Postdoctoral Associate 

NEW YORK STATE 

WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE 

Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 

Tel: (607) 255-3034 

Fax: (607) 255-2016 

Email: nyswri@corneU.edu 

New York State Water Resources Institute 

Cornell University 

1103 Bradfield, Ithaca, NY 14850 

607-254-7163 

bgr4@cornelLedu 

http://wrLeas.comell.edu/ 

Brief Bio: 

Dr Brian Rahm received his masters from UC Berkeley and doctorate from Cornell University, where he worked 

on remediation of groundwater contamination_ Since then, he moved to New Zealand and spent a year engaged 

in climate change policy analysis for the capital city, Wellington, and has also performed research on greenhouse 

gas emissions from wastewater treatment plants. He is currently with the New York State Water Resources 

Institute where he is engaged in education and research on a variety of topics, including the impact of shale gas 

development on water resources, and aging waste water infrastructure. 
69 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Dr. Rahm. 

I recognize that each of you have written testimony and that will 

be included in the record after this hearing. And then I also review 

that for the members of the panel will each have five minutes to 

question members of the panel of witnesses. And I now recognize 

myself for five minutes as the Chairman. 

There are a couple things that I would love to talk with each of 

you about, and I want to go strategic rather than tactical. Dr. 

Hauchman and Dr. Dzombak, I appreciate your testimony, but I 

want you to know that I disagree with you on some of the elements 

of it. And I don’t believe the Agency has been responsive. I believe 

the evidence supports this concern that I have. And I hope you understand that it is not helpful for us in trying to develop a working 

relationship when we feel like you are not being responsive and 

honoring the charter that we have in order to provide answers to 

this Committee regarding some of these, what we think are very, 

very important issues. 

But putting that aside, again, I would like to talk about, you 

know, kind of the bigger picture on some of these elements. And, 

Dr. Hauchman, let me begin with you if I could, just quickly. And 

I don’t think we want to discuss this for a long time, but I would 

like you to respond to this. 

I mentioned in my opening statement the EPA’s experience in 

Wyoming, Texas and Pennsylvania where, in my opinion, they 

clearly put the politics ahead of the science in some of these public 

statements that they made and then had to withdraw and to 

backup from some of those. And I would just ask can you see how 

this episode makes Congress and frankly the American people 

skeptical of EPA’s willingness to be fair and unbiased in these 

studies as they try to draw these connections between any fracking 

activity and pollutants in groundwater? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Thank you for your question, Congressman 

Stewart. I appreciate the nature of your question. My focus is on 

the drinking water study. And I stand here—I sit here with confidence in telling you and assuring you that we are conducting a 

rigorous study that will be following all appropriate procedures. 

Chairman STEWART. And I appreciate that, but can you see how 

with the previous experience that that there would be some people 

that would be skeptical of that? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I appreciate your comment. Yes. 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. Thank you. Let me, if I could, maybe, 

Mr. Rogers, if I could ask you to respond. I was an Air Force pilot 

for many years and before we flew a mission or before we trained 

in our training or whether those who actually fly in combat, you 

analyze the threat, you try to measure those threats, you try to 

analyze which are the most important, which are the most critical, 

and you try to mitigate those. And then you go fly the mission. And 

if we had a threat matrix where we had to eliminate every possible 

threat, then we would simply never fly. 

And I think that there is a parallel to some of the language or 

some of the intents of this study and that is EPA searching for 

what is possible without paying attention to what is probable or 

what is likely. For example, the primary goals of the study is to 

answer such question as what is the possible impacts of hydraulic 
70 

fracturing fluid surface spills on or near well pads or drinking 

water resources, again, looking at every conceivable possibility and 

not measuring those or attaching a matrix to those that are much 

more likely? And I guess I would ask is a mere possibility of an 

event occurring sufficient to justify a regulatory action? 

Mr. Rogers, again, I would appreciate your opinion on that. 

Mr. ROGERS. I think that any activity you take has risks whether 

it be flying in an airplane, driving a car. There is always a risk involved. Therefore, I think hydraulic fracturing has a risk. There 

could be a possibility but I think we need to quantify that, put a 

number on that, and find out what exactly that risk is. 

For example, in the State of Utah, we have done a study where 

we have measured in our oil-and-gas producing area, the Uinta 

basin, where the depth and moderately saline water, any water 

that could possibly be used. So when we know where that is, we 

put casing, we cement down to that level below it so that we know 

that we are protecting that. Could something happen? Possibly, but 

most likely no because we have gone, we have analyzed, and we 

have addressed the risk and we think the risk has been minimized 

if not just by the application of good science. 

So I think what your statement is true that there always is an 

opportunity that something could happen but I think you need to 

quantify that and put a real number on that on what the reality 

of that happening. 

Chairman STEWART. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. Hauchman and Dr. Dzombak, will you reply to that? I mean 

in your study are you doing a quantitative analysis and attaching 

a quantitative measure to these risks and helping the readers of 

this study understand that some of them are significantly less risk 

than others or do you treat most of them as if they are equal? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I will respond first. As we have stated, this 

study is not a quantitative risk assessment. We are focused on the 

research questions and we feel that by answering these questions, 

we will have information that will be very useful. 

But I want to be clear that we are not simply producing a report 

that will have a statement that says it is possible or it is not. We 

are doing a robust, a thorough analysis of the available literature. 

We have requested information from the public, from all the different sectors, and any findings or conclusion we make will be 

made in proper context. They will be made with attention to the 

quality of the information and so forth. So I am confident that this 

will be a very useful report. 

Chairman STEWART. And again, I just want to make sure I understand. But you will not attach a quantitative assessment to each 

of these concerns that the study will address? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. It has not been our intention to design this 

study to develop a quantitative risk assessment. 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. Do you view that as a weakness in 

the study? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I would say it would be highly desirable to have, 

as was very elegantly stated by Dr. Rahm, the perfect study, but 

that doesn’t discount the value and I would say a very high value 

of the study that we are conducting. 
71 

Chairman STEWART. And I agree that there is value in the study 

but I also agree with you that it was—it is not ideal, and in fact 

in some ways it may be far from ideal because of that lack of a 

quantitative assessment. 

But my time is expired. I now recognize Mr. Swalwell for his 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as I alluded to earlier, in my home State in California, we are beginning an expansion of fracking for shale gas that may create an economic boom 

for the State. But one of the main concerns that I hear from my 

constituents and scientists in my community is the concern that 

fracking can be tied to and cause induced earthquakes tied to the 

disposal of the wastewater produced after fracking. And based on 

reports of a recent internal study on the issue, my understanding 

is that the EPA is now considering recommendations for states on 

how to avoid the possibility of induced seismic activity from these 

injection wells. 

So, Dr. Hauchman, the study described in your testimony will 

look at the treatment of wastewater prior to disposal, is that correct? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. We will be looking at the treatment of wastewater prior to disposal, that is correct. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And is the EPA examining deep well injections 

to reduce or avoid the possibility of induced earthquakes? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. That particular aspect of disposal is not within 

the scope of the study. We are focused on the—examining the potential association or impact on drinking water resources. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Are you familiar with any EPA studies that 

would deal with induced earthquakes? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Any EPA research studies? No, I am not. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay. Is that something that concerns you that 

perhaps we should be looking at that area? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Well, this is certainly a concern that we have 

heard from many stakeholders, and as you mentioned, the EPA has 

developed or is developing a set of guidance—steps being handled 

out of the regulatory office in coordination with the U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

Mr. SWALWELL. In California, we are also continuing to experience droughts and they are common in many places throughout the 

State, and local officials have been implementing water conservation measures just to conserve adequate drinking water supplies 

during certain times of the year. Still, fracking requires large, large 

volumes of water to successfully release shale gas. 

Dr. Rahm, in your written testimony, you note that states should 

take into consideration different regional—take into consideration 

regional differences to determine best practices, which, of course, I 

think makes sense. As I mentioned earlier, what may be good for 

State A may not be good for State B. But to be a little bit more 

specific, are you saying that states should consider the relationship 

between the scale of fracking operations and the impacts on local 

drinking water supply? 

Dr. RAHM. I would say that is fair, that the scale would be important in terms of determining when—where certain water sources 

should be used for hydraulic fracturing. I guess I would point out 
72 

an example of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission as a regional body that has the authority to regulate water withdrawals 

in multiple states. They have a policy for how they determine when 

the flows and the streams and rivers are high enough and, you 

know, when and where the companies, which need a permit to do 

so, can take water from those streams and rivers. And I think it 

works out pretty well. It involves environmental protection but at 

the same time the companies are allowed to take the water from 

the streams. So everybody seems relatively happy in that situation. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Dr. Hauchman, can you tell us whether your 

study will make recommendations relevant to State policymakers 

so they can make informed decisions about the appropriate scale of 

operations, particularly near active fracking sites that we have in 

California? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Thank you for your question. It is not the intent 

of the study to make recommendations specifically. What we are 

doing is developing some scientific perspectives on the issue. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And, Dr. Hauchman, how has the EPA engaged 

industry stakeholders to ensure that the Agency stays current on 

data and advances in technology as the study plan has progressed? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Thank you for your question. It is a very important one and we have heard that from a number of our stakeholders about the importance of this particular issue. We have, 

from the very beginning of this study, been reaching out to stakeholders and sticking strictly to the technical aspects of the study. 

We have had numerous roundtables and workshops. In 2011 we 

had a series of technical workshops where we invited in experts 

from industry, from nongovernment organizations, from academia, 

et cetera, to work with us to exchange information. I was able to 

attend one of those meetings and it was excellent. It was highly 

collegial. It was sticking to the science. There were no policy discussions at all. That is the nature of the discussions we had in 

2011. 

We have had roundtables with a range of stakeholders focused 

on technical issues in 2012, and we are completing another round 

of technical workshops this particular year. And I will add one 

other item. We have been reaching out in a variety of ways to 

make sure we are current on innovations in technology and other 

developments. We have just extended the public in the federal register the period for receiving information and data from the public 

on anything related to the technical aspects of the study, and we 

are very much interested in receiving whatever can be provided. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thank you, Dr. Hauchman. Thank you, 

Dr. Rahm. And I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Dr. Swalwell. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee 

on Energy, my friend from Wyoming. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And before I start my questions, I want to tell you a story about 

why I think this is so important. I am a rancher in Wyoming, grew 

up next to a refinery, ranched right next to an oil refinery. And 

over a period of time the migration of hydrocarbons off that refinery property and onto our ranch and into our water that our cattle 

drink and that we irrigate with became terrible. So under RCRA, 
73 

the EPA dealt with the refinery, entered an Order on Consent, and 

required the refinery to clean it up. 

And for 17 years that refinery did not turn a shovel to meet the 

requirements of that Order on Consent. And we had to fight as the 

neighboring ranchers to try to get the enforcement of the consent 

order with our own money while our own land was being polluted 

by this refinery. 

So I was grateful when the EPA stepped in and helped us. Without the EPA stepping in and helping us, we never would have gotten it cleaned up. So it is unusual for a constitutional conservative 

Republican to want to be an advocate and thank the EPA. Okay. 

Full stop. 

I come out here. EPA’s science is so bad when it comes to 

Pavillion, Wyoming, that it has embarrassed me as a previous defender of the EPA. It humiliated and destroyed a lot of opportunities for fracking by industry in Wyoming. We have a very sophisticated, world-class oil and gas industry in Wyoming because we are 

such an enormous producer, and to have that kind of science released as a draft study when it was so faulty that it was probably 

the EPA itself that polluted the wells when they did the tests. It 

just completely shattered my ability as a Republican who is trying 

to defend the EPA. I can’t do it anymore. You destroyed my ability 

to be a defender. 

So, Dr. Rahm, when you said Pavillion made you think, I will tell 

you Pavillion was a big lie. I believe that it was leaked to the New 

York Times so they could sensationalize it so it could be used as 

an excuse by the EPA to regulate and to scare people and to make 

Wyoming look bad. 

And so I am angry with the very agency that I came here with 

difficulty trying to defend as a Republican. I can’t defend it anymore. 

Okay. Given that scenario, Dr. Hauchman, shouldn’t you wait 

until any decisions on the merits of regulatory actions, until after 

the study is complete? I mean you are kind of getting the cart before the horse when you throw out a bad study, completely tainted, 

then say, oh, we need to regulate but we will do a longer study and 

it is going to be credible this time. So why not wait? Why not regulate—wait until after the study is done that can be peer-reviewed 

and can be blessed as credible and then decide whether to regulate? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Thank you for your question, Chairman 

Lummis. 

First of all, I do want to state that I respectfully do not agree 

with your statements about the quality of EPA’s science. 

But having said that, we were charged in the Office of Research 

and Development of conducting this study, and that is exactly what 

we are doing with attention to all the appropriate scientific policies, 

protocols, and procedures. What we do in the Office of Research 

and Development is of course related to but distinct from the activities of the regulatory arm of EPA. 

Chairman LUMMIS. So— 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. So—— 

Chairman LUMMIS. But—so why wouldn’t the EPA’s regulatory 

arm wait until—whether the science is good or not—I hope it will 
74 

be. I hope it will be. That said, why don’t—why isn’t the regulatory 

arm waiting until the science is available? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I am not able to respond to that question. I 

would be happy to get back to for the record. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman STEWART. We would look forward to your response on 

that, Dr. Hauchman. All right. Thank you, then. Thank you, Mrs. 

Lummis. 

The Chair now turns to Mr. Takano from California. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Rahm, could you comment briefly on the charge that the 

Pavillion study was somehow bad science or flawed? 

Dr. RAHM. I don’t necessarily have a comment because I am not 

an expert in drilling wells according to some of the allegations 

about what made that study good or not good. I think what I would 

want to say maybe as a third-party observer of that study, I don’t 

think the intent of the study, as stated, was to make a statement 

about hydraulic fracturing, though some speculative comments 

were concluded at the end, which you—I think are debatable, given 

the evidence. 

I think it was a very limited study. And I think that it is useful 

to see the results that people publish and to potentially use those 

results in the context of other results that may be available. And 

to that extent, I think those studies can be valuable. 

And again, like I said, they made me think about issues that 

may be important. Whether or not that proved one thing or the 

other, it at least brought to the discussion some things that we 

thought were important in New York. So I thought it was valuable 

in that way. 

But as far as whether or not it was good science, I think it was— 

there were some results and that I think a lot of the conclusions 

were very—were debatable and a lot of science works that way. 

Mr. TAKANO. Help me understand. I am very much a layman myself in this area. Is there enough research, body of research to really design any kind of quantitative risk assessment I mean in a 

broad sense? I mean are we at that point yet? It is a relatively new 

industry. 

Dr. RAHM. So I am not necessarily an expert on risk assessment. 

I am more of an expert on water resources. But I think that it is 

difficult in the sense of some of my earlier comments, conditions 

vary from location to location, and so if you are doing—if you are 

getting, for example, results in Pavillion, whether they are good or 

not, they may or may not be relevant at all to what is happening 

in New York or Pennsylvania for that matter. 

And so I think it is difficult because conditions change over time, 

and what I would say is that I am in support of more study and 

research and data that we can get on these questions, the better, 

because I think we will hopefully be able to identify whether or not 

there are some of these shared risks that might be relevant everywhere regardless of what the conditions are and that we might 

have a better sense of when these conditions change, are there— 

how do conditions change from State to State or from place to place 

that might be relevant for what the risks and the benefits might 

be. 
75 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. Dr. Hauchman, would you have anything to say about the state or the progress we have made in understanding hydraulic fracturing to the point that we can really establish quantitative risk assessment evaluations? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I would tend to agree with Dr. Rahm on this 

point that we are relatively early in terms of the peer-reviewed literature, which we rely upon quite heavily for conducting quantitative—rigorous quantitative risk assessments. There is new information that has been forthcoming. We are, as we speak, pulling 

together a lot of information that will be very informative. But 

again, the quantitative risk assessment is relying upon quite an 

amount of information and we are—in my perspective at least, we 

are not quite there yet. 

Mr. TAKANO. So you would—was it fair to say that our knowledge is fairly formative at this point I mean as far as what we 

know about hydraulic fracturing? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Well, I think there are many things we do know 

about hydraulic fracturing with respect to the technology, with respect to geology and so forth, a lot of the technical issues that we 

are in fact looking at. But in terms of putting the information together to answer the types of questions that we are asking I would 

say we still are in a developing stage. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. Dr. Dzombak? 

Dr. DZOMBAK. I would just comment that the Science Advisory 

Board is providing peer review for this study and to Chairman 

Stewart’s point on risk assessment and yours, this was a question 

that was—the question of how far to go in risk assessment was a 

question that was raised in both the review of the study plan and 

in the consultation for the progress report. And our members of the 

panel—both panels queried the ORD project leaders about that. 

And I would note that the studies arw being conducted in a risk 

framework, there is not performance of a quantitative risk assessment group that is really a site-specific activity. 

Mr. TAKANO. Um-hum. 

Dr. DZOMBAK. But in terms of understanding the sources, understanding the transport that could occur from the sources, understanding potential impacts, that is all in a risk assessment framework. Our panel members ask very pointed questions about that of 

the Office of Research and Development, and they committed to in 

the final report putting the various components of the study in a 

risk framework. And that will be a quantitative risk assessment 

but I would argue the entire study is in a risk framework, and that 

will not—the ORD is committed to make that clear in the final report. 

Mr. TAKANO. All right. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Takano. 

We now turn to Mr. Weber of Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You said the EPA had been guilty in your opening statements of 

putting the regulatory cart before the scientific horse, and I think 

Chairman Lummis probably echoed that. 

Dr. Hauchman, I want to ask you a couple of questions. State impact—a state impact NPR article on July 3, 2013, not necessarily 

your most conservative Republican group, NPR, stated that to the 
76 

effect that the EPA had withdrawn from a number of areas, the 

Pavillion case, of course I am from Texas, the Texas case, the 

Pennsylvania case. After a multimillion dollar—I would call it investigation—I don’t think that is the word they used—study, whatever, are you privy to the exact numbers of taxpayer dollars spent 

on those three studies before the EPA began to backtrack? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Thank you for your question. I am not able to 

respond with figures. This was an investigation that was led by the 

EPA regional office in Denver, and I was not part of those discussions. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you have any knowledge—does the EPA ever consider the impact on industry by creating a nightmare of legal loopholes—legal maneuvers they have to make and the amount of industry it holds up and the jobs it kills? Are you all—does anyone 

in the EPA to your knowledge take that into consideration? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I am quite confident that there is a thorough 

consideration of the implications of any decisions that come out of 

the EPA. I am not part of that particular part of the Agency in 

terms of the policy, but yes, I think that there is consideration 

given to impacts. 

Mr. WEBER. So you don’t deal with policy per se? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I do not. I am not part of the policy offices, that 

is correct. 

Mr. WEBER. Right. And how long have you not been part of the 

policy offices? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I started my career as a risk assessor in the Office of Air and Radiation many, many years ago. 

Mr. WEBER. Um-hum. 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. But since that time, I have been part of the 

science arm of the EPA. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. I have an article from Inside EPA quoting you 

as saying, ‘‘we are doing a pretty comprehensive look at all the 

statutes trying to find holes to allow additional regulations’’ in 

March 2012. Did you make that comment? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Congressman Weber, excuse me, I am very 

happy to have this opportunity to clarify that comment. 

Mr. WEBER. Good, that is why you are here. 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I am glad to have this opportunity to provide 

clarification. This was a statement that appeared in the newsletter, 

Inside EPA. It was taken out of context. I stated at the beginning 

of my talk, which was on the study, that I was with the Office of 

Research and Development. I reiterated this point in the brief comments I made about the various other activities in EPA. I specifically stated that I was not part of the policy arm of EPA, and I 

directed the audience to the EPA website to get an understanding 

of the variety of activities that we are conducting as an agency 

under the various statutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. So you do make some policy determinations 

it sounds like. 

Let me jump over to Dr. Rahm for just a minute. Dr. Rahm— 

and I don’t want to put words into your mouth—I believe that you 

said fracking and unconventional drilling practices can and do impact water sources in your comments. 

Dr. RAHM. Yes, sir. 
77 

Mr. WEBER. Specific examples? 

Dr. RAHM. Well, again, I think we have from—looking at some 

of the violations and incidents happening in Pennsylvania, we see, 

for example, spills on sites, again, many of them very small, commonplace, it could be you spill a gallon of diesel, or whatever it 

might be, construction—similar types of—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. That is where I want to go. 

Dr. RAHM. Okay. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you think those small spills, accidental spills, 

justify millions of dollars of EPA activity and holding up industry 

and putting them in the courts? 

Dr. RAHM. I don’t think I am in any position to make a claim 

about what—about the amount of money EPA should be—— 

Mr. WEBER. Well, they have already established that people in 

the scientific community can opine on policy here this morning, so 

don’t be afraid. Do you think it justifies the amount of money 

spent? 

Dr. RAHM. I really don’t want to make any comments about the 

amount of money spent. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Dr. RAHM. I agree that policy—— 

Mr. WEBER. I got you. I am running out of time. 

Dr. RAHM. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. All right. You also said regional differences matter. 

Dr. RAHM. Sure. 

Mr. WEBER. And then you also said states should continue to be 

the leaders. 

Dr. RAHM. I think that is right. 

Mr. WEBER. Are you saying that one size policy doesn’t fit all or 

are you yielding to the idea that states, particularly Texas—I am 

from Texas—— 

Dr. RAHM. Um-hum. 

Mr. WEBER. —has got the experience—who, by the way, produces 

more oil than the next four oil-producing states combined—have 

the experience—our TCEQ, we all want clean air and clean 

water— 

Dr. RAHM. Um-hum. 

Mr. WEBER. —and a good environment, but we don’t want to do 

it the—you know, we don’t want to spend all this money, taxpayers’ 

dollars, holding up the process to have the EPA backpedal after 

having spent multimillions of dollars in holding up industry and 

causing them to spill—spend multimillions of dollars. And by the 

way, that drives the price of gasoline up at the pump, okay. So 

when you said that states should continue to be the leaders—— 

Dr. RAHM. Um-hum. 

Mr. WEBER. —and that is based on your evaluation of how this— 

and you said in your comments that I think NYU—is that right? 

Dr. RAHM. Cornell. 

Mr. WEBER. Cornell, thank you. I am sorry. 

Dr. RAHM. No problem. 

Mr. WEBER. That you were to be impartial? 

Dr. RAHM. I am trying my best. 

Mr. WEBER. I get that. 

Dr. RAHM. Yes. 
78 

Mr. WEBER. Unlike some others. But—did I say that out loud? 

So your impartial analysis end game is that the states really need 

to be the leaders? 

Dr. RAHM. I think that is fair. And I think it is fair to say that 

many states, particularly ones like Texas who have a long history 

of this type of regulation and activity, sometimes do a very good 

job of regulating and overseeing it. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. I am aware of my time. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

We now return to our returning minority Ranking Member, Ms. 

Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the witnesses for your time here today and certainly for bringing your expertise. And even though I needed to 

leave briefly for votes and a markup, I assure you, I have read all 

of your testimony. 

Dr. Rahm, you state clearly in your testimony that the EPA 

should play a role in setting standards for states to follow and you 

identified some areas or issues that are common across the country. Can you please discuss why the country should adopt some 

minimum practices or standards and in what areas? 

Dr. RAHM. Well, and again, what I was getting at there is that 

if common risks and cumulative impacts are found, which we see— 

which we are seeing some evidence of, that we really should consider, for example, regional, interstate, or Federal basic standards. 

Again, these basic standards might be around such issues like 

chemical disclosure. They might be around issues of well casing 

and cementing, also, for example, wastewater management and 

treatment, all of which are very important issues. 

I think if basic standards were to be established, again, on an 

interstate, regional, and Federal level, many states would already 

meet or exceed those standards. And it is my hope that there would 

be a way that that would not be onerous to those states, but that 

is not my field. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Dr. RAHM. Yes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I have another question. I want to ask you 

about something that was frequently mentioned this morning, and 

those are the three groundwater investigations. It is important that 

we try to understand the scope of those investigations at Pavillion, 

Parker County, and is it Dimock? 

Dr. RAHM. Dimock. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Dimock. You state very clearly in your written 

testimony that these investigations were limited in design. In fact, 

you talk about how these were in response to unplanned events. So 

can you elaborate further on that because the way I looked at it 

these investigations were very different from the actual study that 

the EPA is doing. And I just want to clarify it in the record that— 

what these investigations were. 

Dr. RAHM. So yes, again, maybe just reiterating some of my written and oral testimony, I think these investigations had a very limited scope. If you were only to read, for example, the first page of 

the Pavillion investigation, it would claim that it was not the in-
79 

tent of the investigation to study hydraulic fracturing, for example. 

Now, on the last pages, they speculate—the authors of those studies do speculate perhaps more broadly, and again that is—that 

could be debatable. But I think that several of these studies were 

as a result of specific complaints, and my reading of some of these 

investigations—I am not familiar with the Texas case at all so I 

can’t speak for that, but for Dimock and Pavillion, that specific 

complaints were made that the EPA was brought in to investigate. 

And I think they were capable of addressing those, but in terms 

of broader questions and the ideas of risk assessments that we 

have been talking about today, I don’t think those investigations 

were capable of addressing those types of issues. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. 

And, Dr. Hauchman, do you agree with that statement about the 

limited nature of those investigations? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Thank you for the question. I do agree. These 

were investigations that were led by the regional offices of EPA for 

very specific purposes, and they are distinct from our study. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And they were—just to follow up—more in response to complaints from individuals or—— 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. That is correct. 

Ms. BONAMICI. —requests from individuals to investigate a particular situation? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. That is exactly correct. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Dr. Hauchman, after reading your testimony and 

the stages of the fracking water cycle that the study covers, I recognize that there is a considerable amount of analysis related to the 

use of chemicals, groundwater evaluations, geological and surface 

evaluations that will all take a considerable amount of time and 

data. So how much is the EPA depending on the industry for access 

to data needed to perform these types of evaluations, and what 

steps are you taking or is the EPA taking to be assured that the 

industry is providing the EPA with the full scope of relevant data? 

And I was interested to hear Mr. Rogers talk about how in Utah 

all the chemicals are disclosed on a website. So can you talk a little 

bit about how you are dealing with proprietary claims by industry 

and whether you are taking steps to assure that you have the full 

scope of the relevant data? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Yes, thank you for your question. We are conducting a very robust evaluation of all available information, regardless of where it comes from. We have a set of criteria that we 

are using and applying to ensure that the data are usable, that 

they are sound, that they do their best. We will characterize uncertainty to the extent possible. 

We are working closely with industry. For example, we have had 

a number of meetings, conversations with them about the 

FracFocus database, which we are using. We are evaluating as 

much information from that database and other sources. We are 

also very mindful of the issue of confidential business information, 

and that is another example of where we have been working closely 

with industry to assure them that that confidentiality will not be 

compromised. However, we want to be able to use as much information as we can, staying within the rules with respect to the confidentiality. 
80 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. And I see my time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for holding this hearing and simulating a national discussion on fracking, as well as the whole concept of regulation and 

of energy, et cetera. 

You know, over the years, it hasn’t been hard to see that many 

people who are engaged in environmental and, say, energy policies 

have been motivated by whatever—for whatever reason a hatred of 

the oil industry. Now, let me just note that my family comes from 

dirt-poor farmers in North Dakota. I mean that is where we come 

from, but unfortunately, we aren’t—there hasn’t been any oil on 

our land unfortunately. 

But let’s just note that those people that I have seen over the 

years who just have it in their gut where they don’t like the oil industry, never give the oil industry credit for the fact that before we 

started using oil as a major source of energy, the health of our people was being affected dramatically by mountains of horse manure 

that were piling up in our urban areas. And our water was being 

polluted by that same source. By using animal energy, there was 

a price to pay for that. And the oil industry actually has helped 

give us a more healthful way of life for everyone who lives in an 

urban area. 

Also, we now are developed—you know, here we are, we are 

evolving, and we find that the government is here to protect us, 

and quite often, the government is there to protect us until we— 

you know, and protecting us to death. The FDA, for example, as 

we know, has such stringent protections that, quite often, there are 

many, many deaths that are related directly to keeping drugs off 

the market for years and then having that same drug approved 

and then saying, well, look, we are saving 100,000 people this year 

because we have approved this drug while not even paying attention to the people that that drug was denied. So we can regulate 

people to death. We are doing that in our country in so many ways. 

Let’s just note that—let me ask the panel. Is there a production 

or energy or transportation system that any of you know that is 

without risk? Can the panel come up with one that is without risk? 

Do you have any examples of a system of production of goods and 

services or energy or transportation that has had no accidents? 

Okay. You can—— 

Dr. DZOMBAK. I will answer speaking for myself, Congressman— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Dr. DZOMBAK. —all energy sources and uses have impacts and 

risks, and as a society, we manage risks. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Okay. Well, how does fracking, which 

comes—how does fracking compare to those other sources of energy, coal, for example, or oil production in the more traditional 

way? How does fracking compare in terms of accidents and risk? 

Is it less risky or more risky than traditional drilling or mining for 

coal, et cetera? Is it—maybe we could just give a short answer 

right down the line. Is it more risky or less risky than the traditional sources of energy? 
81 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I understand the questions you are asking, and 

I would have to respond that we don’t have the information to 

make that assessment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I certainly don’t have that information. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Don’t know. Yes. 

Dr. DZOMBAK. Don’t know. I believe that is why we are studying 

it as a society. 

Mr. ROGERS. Being both from mining and oil and gas, I would 

say that oil and gas is less risky than the mining activity. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And how about fracking as a method of getting the oil? Is that less risky or more risky than traditional drilling? 

Mr. ROGERS. My opinion is we have been doing fracking in the 

United States since 1940 and in Utah since the early ’60s, so it is 

something that has not been—I see as a significant risk. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Our men from Cornell? 

Dr. RAHM. I don’t know—like the others, I don’t know. But I 

might add that I think a lot of the data shows that some of the— 

you know the—perhaps the risky part of unconventional gas drilling is actually very similar to some of the risky aspects of conventional gas drilling, i.e., not necessarily per se the hydraulic fracturing but the drilling of vertical wells through groundwater tables. 

So— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note—— 

Dr. RAHM. —shared risks there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note that just from an outsider’s 

point of view, it appears to me that much of what is happening to 

push for more regulation or push for let’s look and try to find something as an excuse to stop this fracking, I think that is what we 

are experiencing. We are doing it not because there is a motive for 

there are so many people stepping forward in order to protect us, 

but instead what we have is a motive for those pushing more and 

more regulation and to look into this. 

The motive is to wean or to force the American people off of an 

oil and gas industry. And dependency on that is our basic source 

of energy. And that that motive is based on the idea that oil and 

gas is changing the climate of the Earth. And I think this all comes 

back to this and the safety things that we have to go through and 

the arguments we have to look at and—are basically a product of 

those who are pushing for another motive rather than just safety. 

And it is very easy to see, and I hope that what we do is take an 

honest look at safety and—of the American people for this new 

thing that we are—new way of producing oil and gas and that we 

don’t approach it based on trying to placate the desire of a fanatic 

group of people in our country who want to change our system because they believe that the climate of the Earth is being impacted 

by the fact that we drive automobiles. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you. 

We now turn to Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Chairman Stewart and Ranking Member Bonamici and also to our witnesses today. 
82 

I appreciate that EPA is continuing its investigations of hydraulic fracturing. I think that the EPA’s investigations are really critical to the Federal Government’s responsibility to ensure that 

drinking water and groundwater across the United States remains 

safe. And I do understand the industry’s concerns about the investigations and the regulations that accompany efforts to ensure that 

fracking is conducted safely, but I think it is paramount that these 

activities be conducted in a manner that does as little risk as possible, understanding, as our witnesses have said, that it is important for us to manage risk, but there is no reason for us to jeopardize the public safety and the safety of our groundwater and 

drinking water if we can help it. And so that is the spirit in which 

I look at the efforts of the EPA. 

And I don’t think it is a negative point that the study in western 

Pennsylvania found that fracking chemicals didn’t pollute the 

water. That is the job of the DOE and in that instance and the 

EPA to ensure that constituent concerns, community concerns, consumer concerns are addressed using the best possible science. 

Dr. Rahm mentioned in his prepared statement that that study 

is not conclusive and shouldn’t be used to make inferences about 

fracking broadly. And I take that into consideration when I read 

all the testimony. I don’t think it is highly unusual that EPA has 

a plan over a period of time which may seem lengthy to us to develop the study, conduct the investigations, peer review the investigations, and publish those studies. I think it is important for us 

to try to get this is as right as possible. 

As the former Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, I know—I can recall receiving testimony 

on the lack of disclosure on the chemical mixtures used in fracking 

and making sure that the industry is transparent. I think some 

states have tried to move in that direction but I would note that 

in my State of Maryland where these activities might be pursued 

in the western part of our State that there has been great resistance and I think even threats from some in industry that if our 

State regulates the industry more strictly than it wants, then it is 

going to pull out its economic activity. And I just don’t think that 

is the way quite to do this. I would like to see a greater balance 

in what it is that the Federal role but ensuring that our states 

have the capacity to monitor the economic activities in the State. 

I just have really one question for Dr. Rahm because I understand that, as you have indicated, the individual investigations and 

studies that were conducted by EPA and other agencies can’t conclude whether fracking is safe or potentially contaminate groundwater and that this is in part due to geological differences, among 

other reasons. And I wonder if that is even true within a State and 

within a—among various sites because I think it is important to 

know that. 

And in your written testimony you state that regional differences 

matter and local character has an impact on management strategies. And I wonder if you could discuss the current regional collaboration and benefits of the kind of partnership to inform an established best practices for identifying potentially harmful impacts of 

fracking while allowing states to unify their oversight. 

Dr. RAHM. I am not quite sure what your question is. Sorry. 
83 

Ms. EDWARDS. The question is simply whether current regional 

collaborations and the benefits of those partnerships inform establishing best practices for identifying potentially harmful impacts on 

fracking while also allowing states to unify their oversight collectively, and that might be regionally. 

So, for example, in Western Maryland, is it important to unify 

those activities with what is going on in West Virginia, which is 

our neighboring State? 

Dr. RAHM. Sure. So I guess what that makes me think is that, 

you know, just to reiterate the idea that it is important to involve, 

I think, all stakeholders when it comes to the data and information 

that we are collecting. Just to maybe point out that industry and 

state agencies have a great amount of data and expertise that we 

should be using, that they are using, when it comes to looking at 

risks and impacts and assessing those. 

I don’t know of many examples just personally of a regional sort 

of effort to try and put that data together, which, I think, is one 

of the things that we are really missing. There are a few instances, 

again, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, which really 

only has authority over water withdrawal, just that one particular 

activity. And they do pull in—they do talk to industry and state 

agencies and I think you can see that when they have the right information from everybody, they can make smart decisions. 

But a lot of times I don’t think we have—at least as far as I 

know, many other regional bodies that undertake that kind of exercise where they are putting all the different pieces of information 

together, and I think that would be valuable. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am out of time. 

Chairman STEWART. All right. I thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank 

Chairman Hall for allowing me to jump ahead in line here. I have 

got another meeting I need to run to. But all of you, thank you for 

being here today. 

Safe extraction of our vast domestic energy resources clearly is 

of paramount concern to policymakers and the public needs to trust 

the work that the states and EPA are doing to safely regulate these 

practices. Unfortunately, many of EPA’s recent actions, I believe, 

have severely harmed the public trust necessary for the Agency to 

accomplish this core mission. 

Every weekend when I am back home I am forced to answer 

questions about an agency many see as running amok. Illinois just 

recently passed legislation to regulate hydraulic fracturing, and 

this was a long process leaving my State with some of the most 

strict rules and regulations for the practice. 

What worries me is how EPA appears to have ignored many of 

the State rules and best practices already in place. I know in 2012 

Battelle published a review of the EPA study plan which pointed 

out the lack of ‘‘a description of the full extent of existing federal, 

state, and local regulatory requirements, standards, and guidelines, 

and industry best management practice frameworks that already 

apply to the unconventional natural gas production operations.’’ 

Why isn’t this information considered relevant to the report? And 

I would direct it to our EPA. 
84 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Right. Thank you for your question. We are not 

conducting a review or an analysis of state regulations as part of 

the study. We are focused on answering the scientific questions, 

which of course could be informative. It is our hope and expectation 

that it will be helpful in that regard but we are not evaluating regulations as part of our study. 

Mr. HULTGREN. And I don’t know if we expect you to other than 

that many of them are working already and I think can be helpful 

in telling—in coming up to this. And I think it does become even 

more confusing. I hear it over and over again of conflicting regulatory mandates an appearance to us up here but also to our constituents back home that there isn’t an understanding of what the 

states are doing, what local groups are doing that have been successful. And I think without a firm understanding of what regulations and protocols are currently in place, it is questionable how 

EPA can plan to assess the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. 

Mr. Rogers, I wonder if you could discuss with just a few of what 

I am sure are numerous regulations in place in the State of Utah 

specifically applicable to hydraulic fracturing? 

Mr. ROGERS. The most important would be the casing and cementing of a wellbore. We make a study of where that water is usable, how deep it is, and we make a definite ability in our permitting process to protect that water. And when that well is drilled, 

we go out there and we have witnesses see that that well is cemented correctly. Then we also do a pre-site before that well is 

even drilled. We go out there, we survey it, we look at it, depth to 

groundwater, depth to surface water. Are there drainages or 

issues? If something did get away from that site, how are we going 

to protect it, berm it up? So we look at it in great detail how we 

are going to do that. So that primarily is the well casing is the critical part. 

The flow-back is the second part that we manage. We have disposal rules that we use either injection wells or we have disposal 

ponds that are monitored regularly by our inspectors. 

Mr. HULTGREN. So from your answer, to me it is clear there are 

numerous regulations in place already in the State of Utah. And 

would you also say that you believe those regulations are working 

and are accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, they are. Like I mentioned before, we have had 

fracking in our State since the 1960s with no incident, and I think 

our staff did an excellent job monitoring that. The thing we did add 

about a year ago was a disclosure rule. That is something we were 

lacking but that is something that we now—we have out there and 

it is working very well. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Okay. Dr. Hauchman, the Battelle study also 

concluded that giving industries extensive experience and unique 

expertise in the process of hydraulic fracturing and associated technologies and its wealth of relevant data available to inform this effort, it is a weakness of the study plan and likely its implementation that significant industry collaboration is missing. Do you agree 

with this conclusion regarding the study’s weaknesses? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. We do in fact recognize the value that industry 

can provide to this study. We have been going out extensively en-
85 

gaging our colleagues in industry with technical expertise, as well 

individuals from the states. 

And in fact I do want to clarify a comment that I made earlier 

in response to your question. We are, as I said, not looking at regulations but we are asking states for information. We are interested 

in any information, including technologies, anything that will help 

us answer the questions with any phase of our—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, and I think that is very important. I only 

have 10 seconds left and I will wrap up with this, that I just want 

to encourage you. I do think there is a wealth of knowledge there 

from the states, some things that are absolutely working, have 

been working for decades, and also from industry. And I think it 

would be a huge mistake if EPA were not to look at this and hopefully embrace many of the things that are working rather than just 

saying you are going to do this alone and you are going to look 

until you find problems with it instead reaching out and finding 

what is working. 

With that, thank you, Chairman. Thank you, all of you, for being 

here. I yield back. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. 

And we turn to another Congressman from Texas, Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you very much. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Hauchman specifically about data that EPA 

may have collected since 1970s on hydraulic fracturing. You know, 

a lot of the talk about hydraulic fracturing and the effects that it 

may have on groundwater and contamination have been pretty recent. You know, it wasn’t something that you heard talked about 

previous to some of the discoveries and the Barnett Shale and what 

have you. 

What sort of data do you have on what hydraulic fracturing may 

do to groundwater previous, you know, or going back to the 1970s? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. Thank you for your question. I do not personally 

know the answer to your question. I have not been scouring the literature for that very information, but we will in fact do just that 

as we prepare our report for 2014. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. Good. Good. I think that having that may 

help clear up many of the conversations that we have here. 

And one of the other things I wanted to ask you, you know, really I mean to mitigate some of these concerns that people have dealing with groundwater and the environment and what have you, 

what recommendations have EPA made for what producers should 

do or what municipalities should do with this sort of new natural 

gas that many people are finding? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I am not prepared to answer your question but 

be happy to get back to you with the answers— 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. —for the record. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. Good deal. Good deal. And I wanted to ask 

the experts from Utah specifically. I believe it was Mr. Rogers. I 

wanted to ask you what sort of techniques, devices, you know, have 

you seen in the last couple years that would help mitigate some of 

the concerns that people have as it relates to these issues that we 

are talking about today dealing with hydraulic fracturing and contaminants that may be released into the environment? 
86 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, as I spoke earlier, we have a new rule, but 

the rules take into account things that we have been doing for 

years. Wellbore integrity, I think, is the most critical part of this 

so we ensure that that wellbore is designed correctly to protect 

groundwater. We also have tightened up our disposal rules so that 

any disposal, any kind of produced water is protected from the environment and they are looked at on a regular basis so we look at 

that. 

Mr. VEASEY. Is there something that you feel that the industry 

can be doing to help with some of these concerns that may be costly 

and maybe some producers don’t want to implement those safeguards just because they are costly? Is there anything out there 

that you think is being—that you think is out there and available 

but it is just not being used because some people think that maybe 

it is too costly? 

Mr. ROGERS. I don’t believe so. Hydraulic fracturing operation is 

very expensive and so they are not going to cut corners just to do 

that. It is very expensive and a very large investment to even drill 

that well. It can be millions of dollars so they are not going to cut 

corners on that end to possibly damage the environment. So I see 

them doing all they can. 

Right now, I think probably the most beneficial thing that industry could do is education and teaching people about hydraulic fracturing rather than the rhetoric we see out there and the fear that 

is passed on there. To actually understand what it is would be critical for people to know about because once you understand it, you 

realize the risk is not as severe as what you read about. 

Mr. VEASEY. Are there any recommendations that have been 

made to you specifically that you can think of that maybe you don’t 

agree with would help with the environmental concerns but the 

recommendations have been made perhaps by the environmental 

community? 

Mr. ROGERS. The thing we did respond to was to have a disclosure role, which we responded to. That was a few years in the coming but we did that. So I think disclosure puts people’s minds at 

ease. And to use fracfocus.org is an exceptional website that can 

give you a lot of education and you can actually look on and see 

what is being done in that particular well in your area and 

throughout the country. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 

my time. 

Chairman STEWART. Thank you, then. We turn now to the former 

Chair of the full Committee, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [inaudible] differs from all 

those who have come before us from EPA. When Mr. Rohrabacher’s 

last question to each one of them and it is of record, do you know 

of anywhere where it has damaged drinking water? Every one of 

them said no. Now, Mr. Rahm, you seem to know more than all the 

rest of them put together. Tell me where you are talking about. 

Dr. RAHM. I am sorry. What exactly is your question? 

Mr. HALL. Tell us where you know that there is evidence and actuality that drinking water has been damaged by fracking. 

Dr. RAHM. Actually, what I—— 

Mr. HALL. What somebody has put in there—— 
87 

Dr. RAHM. Sorry. 

Mr. HALL. —to show it—that fracture itself—damaged the fracture itself. 

Dr. RAHM. So to the best of my knowledge I think it is important 

to make the distinction between gas drilling development and hydraulic fracturing. I have not really seen—I have seen evidence of 

spills and harmful events from gas development, gas oil development, but to my knowledge I have not seen data that implicates—— 

Mr. HALL. What about the damage to the drinking water? 

Dr. RAHM. To my knowledge, I have not seen that hydraulic fracturing per se is the cause of that. 

Mr. HALL. That you have no knowledge of it, is that what you 

are telling me now? 

Dr. RAHM. That is according to what I have seen, yes. 

Mr. HALL. You are going to be one of the whole doggone bunch 

over there that was going to say that you did know of a place 

where they had damaged the drinking water. 

Dr. RAHM. No, I am trying to be very careful about—— 

Mr. HALL. Please be careful. 

Dr. RAHM. —making the distinction. 

Mr. HALL. So far, you haven’t told us anything but I don’t know 

or I am glad you asked that question. 

Dr. RAHM. Try and make the distinction between shale gas development in general and hydraulic fracturing per se. 

Mr. HALL. That is your answer? 

Dr. RAHM. Yes, it is. 

Mr. HALL. Ask it again. Do you know of anywhere where hydraulic fracturing has damaged our drinking water? Yes or no? 

Dr. RAHM. As I said, no. Hydraulic fracturing per se I do not 

have any data that indicates that. 

Mr. HALL. And I thank you for that. 

Dr. RAHM. Sure. 

Mr. HALL. Based on all of the allegations and those that they 

have had to retract and I really think Mrs. Lummis, the other 

Chair, really were overly fair with you when they bragged on you 

there and then were so disappointed in your activity in her own 

area. And there has been some talk about you all have engaged in 

info—asking for—begging for information. Dr. Dzombak, you mentioned the high-quality panel that EPA has put together to peer review the study. You are aware of that, aren’t you? 

Dr. DZOMBAK. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. All we know of states like Texas have decades of experience in oil and gas regulation. Other 31 panelists, how many experts from State regulatory agencies were chosen to be peer reviewers no matter where they were from? 

Dr. DZOMBAK. Let me say, Congressman, I wasn’t involved with 

choosing the panel. 

Mr. HALL. I am not accusing you of that. I am just asking you 

my question. 

Dr. DZOMBAK. But I think we have none—no current state regulators but I am not positive of that. 

Mr. HALL. More than a dozen state environmental officials were 

nominated, including from the State of Texas, from the Texas Com-
88 

mission on Environmental Quality. Why were none of them chosen 

to provide their expertise to EPA on the study? Why didn’t you select one of them? 

Dr. DZOMBAK. Well, I can’t answer that because I wasn’t involved 

in the selection. 

Mr. HALL. Another question you can’t answer. All right. 

Dr. DZOMBAK. The Science Advisory Board staff office and management selects the committee. They solicit nominations through 

the Federal Register. Many, many nominations come in. They have 

a process that they go through, evaluation of ethics, impartiality, 

look at potential exemptions, but that is their process and I am not 

involved with it. 

Mr. HALL. Dr. Hauchman, let me ask you, why should we trust 

EPA’s conduct in this study based on even the questions that some 

of the Democrats have asked? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I— 

Mr. HALL. And let me tell you this. You are under oath and it 

is expected that you—whether you raise your right hand and say 

you are going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth. And everybody before you has done that, but a lot of 

them have come before this Committee and misrepresented the 

facts on how scientifically they have made their selections. And 

that can be proved. But you go ahead and answer now what I 

asked you. 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I am pleased to respond to your question and I 

will state, as I have stated previously, that I am confident in the 

scientific integrity of the research that is being conducted. We have 

a very transparent, rigorous peer review process underway and—— 

Mr. HALL. You are that but I asked you about us. Why should 

we trust EPA’s conduct in this study because of your past record? 

Do you differ with those who have come here before us from EPA 

and testified under oath? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I am only prepared to speak about the rigors of 

this particular study, and I sit before you confidently in saying that 

this is a solid study that we are conducting. 

Mr. HALL. Well, let me ask you this question. What has the EPA 

done to prevent repeating the mistakes made in Parker County, 

Texas; Pavillion, Wyoming; Dimock, Pennsylvania? What policy 

and what protocol changes and actions have been taken by the 

EPA to ensure sound science, if any? Or if you don’t know or you 

tell us you are glad I asked that question or have some other answer for it, just answer me, please. 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. We have put in place for this study all the appropriate policies, procedures, and protocols to ensure that the data 

that we generate, the analyses that we conduct, the methods that 

we use, and the models that we employ are appropriate and will 

produce quality results. We are relying on rigorous peer review. We 

are reaching out in many ways to experts from throughout the 

country. We are doing everything conceivably possible to ensure 

that this scientific study will stand on its own merits. 

Mr. HALL. All right. I will ask my last question for this particular hearing. If any of you can tell me where and when of your 

own knowledge or your own investigation or your own study that 

fracking has damaged drinking water? Can any of the four of you 
89 

tell me and give me an answer and tell me date and times and 

where it was? Now, you mentioned, Mr. Rahm, that it does impact 

on water. You said like the others, though, I don’t know when they 

ask you information about it when Mr. Rohrabacher asked you. Do 

you know of anywhere where you know of your own knowledge and 

your own studies that fracturing has damaged drinking water? 

Dr. RAHM. As I said, no. 

Mr. HALL. Yes or no? No? 

Dr. RAHM. As I said, no. 

Mr. HALL. All right. 

Chairman STEWART. And the gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. HALL. And how about you? Could I let the other three answer yes or no? 

Chairman STEWART. Very quickly, please. 

Mr. ROGERS. No, I don’t. 

Dr. DZOMBAK. Nor I. I haven’t been involved in such studies. 

Mr. HALL. All right. So what you don’t know, then, if you haven’t 

been involved. You don’t know if you haven’t been involved so you 

don’t know. And do you know? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I will restrict my response to the peer-reviewed 

literature. We are aware of some very recent reports—— 

Mr. HALL. Give me a yes-or-no answer. That is all I asked for. 

If it is yes, just give me yes. 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. There have been some reports. We will be reviewing them. 

Mr. HALL. There have then some reports. Do you know of any 

place where there is damaged water? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. I have not reviewed those reports, those publications. 

Mr. HALL. So you don’t know? 

Dr. HAUCHMAN. At this particular time, no. 

Mr. HALL. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman STEWART. All right. Thank you, Chairman Hall. 

I thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony and Members 

for their questions. And Members of this Committee may have additional questions for you and we will ask you to respond to those 

in writing. And the record will remain open for two weeks of additional comments and written questions from the Members. 

But before we close, there is a couple things that we need to do. 

Mr. Hauchman and Mr. Dzombak, I need your help and your commitment. I have a timeline here. We have asked multiple occasions 

for answers from charge questions from this Committee. To date, 

we have not gotten replies to those charge questions. There clearly 

has been enough time that there have been opportunity to answer 

those. 

In addition, we have asked at least twice a week to meet with 

the members of SAB or members of the Administration to try and 

understand why they won’t answer these questions and have been 

told that they are too busy to meet with us. And I frankly don’t 

understand that. If members of the SAB or members from the 

Agency are too busy to meet with Members of Congress who we are 

supposed to be working together on these studies, I think that that 

generates suspicion and ill will between us. And I think it is bad 

counsel whoever is counseling those members not to meet with us. 
90 

And I need your commitment that you will go back to your agencies 

and to these individuals and press them and encourage them to answer our questions and to meet with us. Does that seem like a reasonable thing to ask? Yes? Yes, Mr. Dzombak? 

Dr. DZOMBAK. Chairman Stewart, I appreciate your concern and 

your May 2 letter was examined in great detail by the panel and 

by the SAB management. There are 13 specific queries in there. I 

think the SAB management responded and I contributed to the formulation of the response letter along with Dr. David Allen, Chairman of the chartered SAB on May 31. Several of those questions 

were more appropriately directed to the Office of Research and Development. We contacted—we—the SAB management contacted Office of Research and Development and that response letter provided 

three specific responses to three of the questions. On the other 10, 

as we outlined in that letter, those are all valid, pointed questions, 

and some of those were part of the discussion in the consultation 

on May 7 and 8 and we will be happy and we plan to carry those 

questions forward for further discussion when the panel meets 

again in the fall. 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. So—— 

Dr. DZOMBAK. And I can assure—excuse me. I can assure you, 

Chairman Stewart, that I have been engaged with the SAB management on that and we are giving it all due deference and specific 

attention. 

Chairman STEWART. All right. So thank you. So you are saying 

we won’t have answers to those questions until the panel meets 

again this fall? 

Dr. DZOMBAK. Well, several of the questions, I am saying, were 

responded to specifically—— 

Chairman STEWART. Right. 

Dr. DZOMBAK. —in the May 31 response and the other 10 specific 

technical questions we will be engaging with this fall. 

Chairman STEWART. Okay. We look forward to that and thank 

you. I ask unanimous consent then to enter into the record the following two items: a letter from Ranger Resources to the Committee 

regarding the EPA’s investigations of groundwater claims in 

Parker, Texas; and second, a letter I sent to the Chairs of the EPA 

Science Advisory Board and Science Advisory Board’s Hydraulic 

Fracturing Research Advisory Panel regarding the SAB review of 

the EPA’s study of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on 

drinking water resources. And without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows appears in appendix II] 

Chairman STEWART. And finally, before we close, I wanted to 

take a moment to acknowledge the work of Ellen Scholl to my left 

for her outstanding contributions to the Energy and the Environment Subcommittees over the last two years. Ms. Scholl is—this 

will be your last hearing. In August she is going to be returning 

to Texas where she will be pursuing her graduate work at the LBJ 

school of Public Policy. Ellen, we thank you for your great work, 

for your contributions, and you will be missed. Thank you. 

With that then, if no further business, the witnesses are excused 

and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 
(91) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
92 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Fred Hauchman 
93 

approaching external stakeholders on issues around hydraulic fracturing? Given the 

concerns raised by the public, legislators and other parts of your agency regarding the use 

of chemicals do you not see a role for your team to place the use of chemicals in context? 

AJlswer: To the extent that data are available, the EPA intends to summarize the purpose, frequency, 

and concentration of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids and to provide available chemical, 

physical, and toxicological properties of these chemicals. This information, considered along with the 

results of other parts oflhe EPA study, will provide the agency and stakeholders with a better 

understanding of the environmental fate and the toxicity of these chemicals. The EPA will provide 

appropriate context for the findings in the draft study report and in the extensive stakeholder outreach 

activities associated with the release of the report. 

3. During the EPA's research in Pavillion, Wyoming the USGS conducted an assessment and 

released two technical reports regarding the EPA investigation and draft report. The USGS 

report identified, among other things, flaws in EPA's research, including improper monitoring 

well construction and development and possible cross-contamination of groundwater during 

EPA monitoring well development. For example, the USGS was unable to sample EPA's 

Monitoring Well 2. What changes, if any, has the EPA made or assurance can EPA provide to 

prevent these sorts of errors from being repeated? 

AJlswer: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) did not identify flaws in the EPA's methodology in their 

reports. The USGS reports were (I) a data report and (2) a methods report describing the consensus 

approach (developed by EPA, USGS, local Tribes, and the state of Wyoming) used for sampling. No 

conclusions were drawn about the EPA methods or data. With regard to the EPA's Study oJthe Potential 

impacts oj Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, the agency is committed to ensuring 

scientific integrity in its research and is conducting the work in line with its Scientific Integrity Policyi, 

its Quality Assurance Policies, and with the principles laid out in the request from Congress. 

4. It is well known that, in the case of Pavillion, Wyoming - where EPA alleged hydraulic 

fracturing caused groundwater contamination in a draft report and press release prior to peer 

review - EPA failed to follow standard well sampling protocols, including those by USGS and 

in some cases their own. It is my understanding that this failure likely contributed to EPA's 

erroneous conclusions and misplaced accusations. 

a) Dr. Hauchman, what steps is the EPA taking to prevent similar sampling errors in its work 

on the broader fracking study, particular with respect to the case studies? 

Allswer: As stated above, the USGS did not identify flaws in the EPA's methodology in their reports. 

The EPA stands behind its work and data from Pavillion while recognizing the state of Wyoming's 

commitment to conduct a comprehensive review of all the relevant data and to initiate an additional 

science-based investigation. The EPA's current Study oJIhe Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing 

all Drinking Water Resources adheres to a rigorous application of the agency's quality assurance 

principles such as audits of data quality and tcclmical systems audits. This approach ensures that results 

generated are scientifically sound. The methods and standard operating procedures for the case studies 

are outlined in project-specific Quality Assurance Project Plans. 

I U.S, EPA. Scientific Integrity Policy. http://www.epa.govlosa/pdfslepa.scientiticJntegrity_policy _20120 IIS,pdf 

2 
94 

5. What interactions have you or the Agency had with State regulators in the development and 

execution of this study? Please provide details on how you solicited their input and reactions to 

the progress report and what you are doing to continue that dialogue with the states'? 

Answer: State input has played an important role in the development and execution of the EPA's Study 

oj/he Polential Impacts oj Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. During the 

development of the study plan, the agency held webinars and in-person public informational meetings 

in Texas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New York to obtain feedback on the EPA's proposed research 

activities. In the execution of the study, the agency coordinated with states in our fieldwork and in the 

analysis of data obtained from the states. Webinars, technical roundtables and workshops, requests for 

information through the Federal Register, and public comment periods associated with the Science 

Advisory Board review of the Progress Report continue to provide states and other stakeholders with 

information updates and opportunities for input on the agency's hydraulic fracturing research activities. 

111e EPA intends to continue engaging the states during the development of the draft study report. 

a) Do you plan to or is there a mechanism to discuss and incorporate the various state 

regulations in place regarding hydraulic fracturing? 

Answer: The study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources will not 

include a review of state regulations. The focus of the study is on conducting research and analyzing 

data to assess whether hydraulic fracturing can impact drinking water resources and, if so, identify 

driving factors that affect the severity and frequency of any impacts. 

b) Why were no state regulators included on the hydraulic fracturing advisory panel of the 

Science Advisory Board? 

Answer: The Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office worked to ensure that the Hydraulic 

Fracturing Research Advisory Panel is a broad, balanced and diverse panel that includes members with 

experience and expertise relevant to the EPA's Study oJthe Potential Impacts oj Hydraulic Fracturing 

on Drinking WaleI' Resources. Disciplines and areas of expertise were identified in a Federal Register 

Notice released in August 2012 that sought nominations for the paneL!n addition to publishing this 

notice, the EPA SAB staff conducted extensive outreach to seek nominations from professional groups, 

associations of local, state and tribal representatives, industry, public interest groups and other federal 

agencies. 

Members on this panel were selected from a list of candidates nominated by the public and evaluated 

against the following criteria: (a) scientific andlor technical expertise, knowledge, and experience; (b) 

availability and willingness to serve; (e) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an 

appearance of a loss of impartiality; (e) skills working on advisory committees and panels; and (f) for 

the committee as a whole, diversity of scientific expertise and points of view. While the list of 

candidates included experts who work for a range of employers, members were selected based on a 

consideration of the above criteria, not as representatives of their employer. 
95 

Questions from Chairman Lummis 

1. Dr. Hauchman, in June the Agency announced tbat it would not be pnrsuing further action on 

its draft report in Pavillion, including peer review. Does the Agency plan to include any ofthe 

data or information from the Pavillion investigation in ongoing hydraulic fracturing study? 

a) The EPA website, on a page entitled "Questions and Answers about EPA's Hydraulic 

Fracturing Study" states tbe following witb regard to groundwater investigations including 

the one in Pavillion: 

"Ground waler illvestigatiolls are distillctfrom tlte retrospective alld prospective case studies 

cOllducted as a part of tit is study, alld so tltey call1lot be used as case studies. However; groulld 

water illvestigatiolls such as these will be cOllsidered ill this study's al1alysis of existillg data, 

ol1ce they have ulldergone peer review. " 

Given tbis statement, does tbe EPA still plan to consider this data as part of the peer 

review, even thougb Ihis data will not undergo peer review? 

Answer: The EPA does not plan to finalize or seek peer review of its draft Pavillion groundwater 

report released in December 2011, nor does the agency plan to rely upon the conclusions in the draft 

report. 

4 
96 

Questions from Congressman Bridenstine 

I. In regard to the hydraulic fracturing study, does EPA intend to make all non-Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) data puhlicly available that will be used to develop conclusions 

and recommendations? 

Aflswer: The EPA will make publicly available data in alignment with the principles outlined in the 

February 22, 2013, Memorandum from the Office of Science and Technology Policy ("Increasing 

Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research"), which includes in its aims to 

"maximize access, by the general public and without charge, to digitally formatted scientific data created 

with Federal funds." The agency is developing a draft implementation plan in response to the 

aforementioned Memorandum. In any such releases of data, Confidential Business Information (CBl), 

Personally Identifiable Information (PIl), data related to National Security, etc. will be excluded from 

public posting. 

5 
97 

Responses by Dr. David A. Dzombak 

Response to August 26, 20]3 Questions to David Dzombak 

1. Many o[the commentspom reviewers in the recently published consultation expressed 

concern that EPA in/ormation in the Progress Report did notl'eflect how the industry 

had, and will continue to, change over time. How does the Agency plan to account jor 

these changes and keep updating their data accordingly? Realistically, how does EPA 

plan to ensure the iI?[ormatiol1 in its study won 'f be obsolete by the time it is released? 

Response: 

The role of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) is to provide expert review and 

advice to the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) team conducting the 

research on hydraulic fracturing. Questions about the scope of EPA's current plans for 

conducting research on the potential effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water 

resources should be directed to ORD, However, I can offer the following observations 

regarding statements made by EPA staff at the May 7-8, 2013 SAB Hydraulic Fracturing 

Research Advisory Panel public meeting on this topic. 

Statements made by EPA staff at the May 7-8, 2013 public meeting regarding ORO plans 

to conduct certain activities to stay current on frequently changing hydraulic fracturing 

industry practices can be found within the meeting minutes that are posted on SAB's 

website. l 

For example, at the May 2013 Panel meeting, ORD's Ramona Trovato stated that ORD's 

stakeholder engagement activities provide a mechanism to stay current on such practices, 

and noted that ORD also has been conducting webinars to keep the public informed on its 

activities. ORD's Jeanne Briskin stated that ORD released a Federal Register Notice in 

November 2012 inviting submittal of information on industry practices from the public, 

and noted that ORD extended its Federal Register Notice to allow more time for the 

public to provide such information to EPA. Ms. Briskin noted that ORD has made a 

public docket available so that companies and members of the public can submit detailed 

chemical data, including Confidential Business Information, to EPA to assist in its 

research study on hydraulic fracturing. Ms. Briskin also noted that ORO appreciates 

receiving information fl'om the public on case studies, and is planning to consider 

information from the literature as it develops its reports. She urged the public to bring 

this information to ORD's attention. Ms. Briskin further noted that when requesting 

information from service companies, ORD asked what trends these companies had in 

their use of these chemicals, She also noted that ORD was also considering trends 

identified in the literature data on hydraulic fracturing chemicals in use. 
98 

a. Do you have any recommendations or did other panelisls express any ways the study 

might be kept as current as possible? How might the study better include the most 

curren! practices lIsed by industry? 

Response: 

I cannot speak for the Chartered SAB or the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research 

Advisory Panel regarding recommendations associated with EPA's research on the 

potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The Panel has not 

yet conducted a peer review resulting in a consensus report, and the Chartered SAB will 

have final review authority when any such report is developed by the Panel in the future. 

As Chair of the Panel, it would be inappropriate for me offer personal views of the EPA 

study. However, I can offer the following observations of fact regarding individual 

comments raised by SAB panel members at the May 7-8, 2013 SAB Hydraulic Fracturing 

Research Advisory Panel public meeting. Also, I can provide information about current 

plans for the Panel to hold an upcoming teleconference to hear testimony from the public 

about new and emerging information regarding hydraulic fracturing technology, 

practices, and impacts. 

At the May 7-8,2013 public meeting, and in individual comments submitted after the 

public meeting, several Panel members suggested or commented on ways that EPA could 

gather or utilize updated information on current practices or data related to hydraulic 

fracturing, The statements of individual Panel members can be found within the minutes 

of the May 7-8, 2013 public meeting2 and written comments from individual Panel 

members are found in the compilation of individual Panel member comments on EPA's 

Progress Report.3 Although individual Panel members provided their individual 

suggestions or comments at the meeting and individual written comments, let me 

emphasize that this is not consensus advice and no report was prepared for consideration 

by the Chartered SAB. The Panel did not deliberate toward a consensus among the 

committee members, did not develop materials that can be construed as a product of the 

Panel, nor did the Panel present a product to the Chartered SAB for consideration. 

In addition, the SAB Staff Office plans to announce in the Federal Register that the SAB 

Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel will hold a public teleconference to 

receive written and oral comments ii'om the public on new and emerging information 

related to hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. The information provided to 

the Panel will serve as background to assist the Panel in its review of the EPA's draft 

report on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources that is 

'Summary Minutes ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science AdvisOlY Board Hydraulic fracturing 

Research Advisory Panel Public Meeting, May 7-8, 

20 J3,http://yosem ite .epa.gov /sab/saborod uct.nstlM eeti ngCai/928483 A B B4 F 2A 1328525 7B02004A B250/$fi Ie/May 

+7-8,1·20 13+ meeting-Hyqraulic+Fracturing+Research+Advisory+Panel-Minutes-Final.pdf 

J Compilation of Individual Comments trom Members of Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research 

Advisory Panel on EPA's Progress Report: Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources 

December 2012, 

http:Uyosemite.epa.gov!sablsabproductnsf!5F72227CF643BF8785257B9500764E6B!$File!lndividual+Comments 

+from+Members+of+Science+Advisory+Board+Hydraulic+Fracturing+Research+Advisory+Panel+on+EPA.pdf 
99 

scheduled for completion in December 20 14. The public teleconference will be held on 

November 20,2013, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). 

b. Does EPA have a documented change management procedure associated with this 

Study? Does the Agency reference change management within quali~y management 

protocol (e.g., QAPP. QMPJ? 

Response: 

I am not entirely clear about what is intended by "change management. In any case, 

questions about procedures being implemented by EPA to enable consideration of 

changing conditions in the ongoing research on the potential effects of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources should be directed to ORD. 

I also offer the following ohservations of fact regarding ORD's plans for quality 

assurance for its ongoing research on the potential effects of hydraulic fracturing on 

drinking water resources. EPA has developed a final Study Plan that outlines the scope 

of EPA's activities for conducting research on this topic.4 Section 2.6 of the final Study 

Plan outlines EPA's plans for quality assurance for this research. Section 8 and 

Appendix C of EPA's December 2012 Progress Report on its researchs describes the 

quality assurance process that EPA is following and notes the quality assurance project 

plans (QAPPs) that EPA has prepared for this research. Current versions of these QAPPs 

and EPA's Quality Management Plan for conducting this research are available on EPA's 

website6

. 

2. Would this report be stronger, as suggested by past SAB reviews, if the EPA considered 

risk assessment as part of their approach? 

a. In an August 2011 leiter to then Administrator Jackson regarding their review of the 

Study Plan, the SAB recommended that "EPA consider thefour steps of the risk 

assessment paradigm (i.e., hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response 

assessment, and risk characterization) to assess and prioritize research activities." Has 

EPA provided any documentation or il?formalion to the public regarding the risk-based 

approach claimed to be used by the agency to prioritize research? Is there any evidence 

EPAfollow agency risk assessment guidance/protocols during this process? 

'Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, EPAI600IR-111122, 

November 20 II, httD:l/ww_w2.e"R~.gQ~lsites{production{files{documents{hi study plan 110211 final 50B.pdf 

5 EPA's December 2012 Progress Report: Potential impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water 

Resourccs.http://wwV.acimil...-wites{production{files/docunlents/hf·report20121214.pdf 

6 Quality Assurance & Integrity, EPA's Study ofHydrauiic Fracturing and lts Potential Impact on Drinking Water 

Resources, http://www.eQa.gov{hfstudy{gapps.html 
100 

Response: 

I cannot speak for the Chartered SAB or the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research 

Advisory Panel regarding assessment of EPA '5 research on the potential impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, The Panel has not yet conducted a peer 

review resulting in a consensus report, and the Chartered SAB will have final review 

authority when any such report is developed by the Panel in the future. As Chair of the 

Panel, it would be inappropriate for me offer personal views of the EPA study. 

However, I can offer the following observations of fact regarding SAB's review of EPA's 

research related to this topic, and EPA's plans for researching this topic area. 

The SAB has been involved with providing scientific peer review and expert advice since 

the beginning of the EPA research study. This has included review of the Research 

Scoping Plan in 2010 and EPA's draft Research Study Plan in 2011. In SAB's August 4, 

2011 "Review of EPA's Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan,7" SAB recommended 

that EPA consider the four steps of the risk assessment paradigm (i.e., hazard 

identification, exposure assessment, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization) 

to assess and prioritize research activities for each water lifecycle stage presented in the 

draft Study Plan, and to focus research questions. The SAB also recommended that EPA 

first focus on hazard identification and potential human exposure in the current research 

eftort. 

Section 2.3 of EP A's final Study Plans outlines EPA's plans to use a risk-based 

prioritization approach to identify research that addresses the most significant potential 

risks at each stage of the hydraulic fracturing water lifecycle. 

b. Specifically, is the EPA including those four elements: hazard identification, exposure 

assessment, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization, as pari of the study? 

Response: 

Questions about specific current activities in EPA's research on the potential effects of 

hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources should be directed to ORD. 

I would note that within Section 2.3 of EPA's final Study Plan9

, which the SAB reviewed 

in 2011, the following discussion outlines EPA's plans to use a risk-based prioritization 

approach to identify research tbat addresses the most significant potential risks at each 

stage of the hydraulic fracturing water lifecycle. Within this Section, EPA notes that: 

• For the current study, emphasis is placed on exposure assessment and hazard 

identification. 

7 SAB's August 4, 2011 "Review of EPA's Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan," 

httP:Uyosemlte.e.J2il.,RQI!L>?~bproduct.nsf/02ad90b136fc21ef8S256eba004364S9/2BC3CD632FCCOE99852578E 

2006DF890($FileLEPA,SAB-ll-012-unslgned. pdf 

sPlan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, EPAI600iR-llil22, 

November 20 II, htJQ:l!www2.epa.gov!sltes!productlon/fil~documents!hf study plan 110211 final S08.pdf 

')Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fraeturlng on Drinking Water Resources, EPAi600iR-lliI22, 

November 20 I I, http://www2.epa.gov/sltes/production/files(documents/hf study plan 110211 final 508.pdf 
101 

• Exposure assessment will be informed by work on several tasks including, but not 

limited to, modeling (i.e., water acquisition, injectionlflowbacklproductioll, 

wastewater management), case studies, and evaluation of existing data. 

• Analysis of the chemicals used in hydraulic fi'acturing, how they are used, and 

their fate will provide useful data for hazard identification. 

• A definitive evaluation of dose-response relationships and a comprehensive risk 

characterization are beyond the scope of this study. 

Thus, the EPA study is being conducted in a risk assessment ti-amework. 

c. Should the EPA's study ()f hydraulic/rae turing ensure thai identification 0/ the possible 

impacts 0/ hydraulic/racturing on drinking water resources be accompanied by a 

corresponding analysis ()f risk based on probability and consequence, taking into account 

the current risk management practices o/industry and the states? 

Response: 

1 cannot speak for the Chartered SAB or the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research 

Advisory Panel regarding assessment of EPA's research on the potential impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The Panel has not yet conducted a peer 

review resulting in a consensus report, and the Chartered SAB will have final review 

authority when any such report is developed by the Panel in the future. As Chair of the 

Panel, it would be inappropriate for me offer personal views of the EPA study. [would 

note, however, that EPA finalized its Study Plan, which included consideration of various 

risks, after considering SAB advice on its draft Study Plan. Various risk topics were 

discussed in the March 2011 SAB advisory meeting on the Study Plan and in the course 

of the May 7-8, 2013 SAB Panel public meeting. The SAB Panel has had and will 

continue to have 0ppoliunities to opine on risk issues pertaining to the EPA study. For 

example, the SAB Staff Office plans to announce in the Federal Register that the SAB 

Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel will hold a public teleconference on 

November 20,2013, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). 

Given recent commentsFom the Secretary o/the DOE, and prior statements by the 

former EPA Administrator that there has been no documented impact to drinking water 

ii-om the actual process (~fhydraulic fracturing, can you affirm here that the agency has 

nol documented any case where drinking water has actually been impacted by the 

process o/hydraulic./i-acluring? 

Response: 

Questions about the findings of EPA's research on the potential effects of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources should be directed to ORO. The SAB has not yet 

reviewed findings of the study, which is not yet completed. 
102 

3. What prevented your panel/rom responding to the questions in my May 2, 2013 letter on 

the same limeline as it replied 10 Dr, Hauchman 's charge questions? When and how will 

panelists be given the opportunity to respond in writing? 

Response: 

In its May 31, 2013 letter to Chairman Stewart, the EPA SAB Staff Office responded to 

the questions raised in Chairman Stewart's May 2, 2013 letter. I participated in the 

development of the response, Of the thirteen specific queries, three related specifically to 

activities of the SA!3 while the other to were related to activities ofORD. Detailed 

responses were provided for the three queries focused on SAB activities, while the other 

10 queries were forwarded to ORD as noted in the question-by-question response 

provided in the May 31 letter. It is my understanding that stafffrom the SAB and the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology are working on the issue of the process 

for SAB response to Congress on specific scientific queries. 
103 

Responses by Mr. John Rogers 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESEl\TATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

. Subcommittee on Environment 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Chris Stewart 

Lessons Learned: EPA'5 il1vestigations oj Hydraulic Fracturing 

Mr. John Rogers 

1. In the summer of2012 Battelle released a review of the EPA's Study Plan. In this review, 

Battelle concluded that given industry'S "extensive experience" and "unique expertise in 

the process of hydraulic fracturing and associated technologies, and its wealth of relevant 

data available to inform this effclIi, it is a wcakness of the study plan, and likely its 

implementation, that significant industry collaboration is missing." 

Response: 

a. Mr. Rogers, in your experience at the state level, do you and your office solicit 

input and comments from industry? 

Any rule the Division proposes, undergoes a very close examination from both industry and 

environmentalists. The Division forms a stakeholder's group that allows tor very diverse input 

on the subject in question. Throughout the rule making process, there is continuous opportunity 

for public comment. Finally, before any acceptance of a rule, the Board of Oil, Gas and Mining 

revues the process for openness and viability and application of the rule. 

2. One SAB reviewer, in individual comments on the Progress Report, specifically noted 

that EPA data included in the progress report did not reflect or address the fact that 

different operational areas or fields that are fractured require different chemical 

compositions to provide optimum performance. What SOlis of variability in geology, 

hydrogeology, and other aspects of the formation exist amongst different basins or 

producing arcas in the State of Utah? 

a. Would you say that tor a study of hydraulic tracturing to be accurate and useful, it 

must reflect, emphasize, and account for the broad diversity and range of 

conditions across the country? 
104 

Response: 

The geology of an area has the largest effect of what methodology for hydraulic fracturing will 

be utilized. This includes the type of rock, depth to the target zones, existing natural tj'aclures, 

formation pressures, faulting, rock mechanics, depth to usable aquifers, surface conditions and 

formation chemistry. There are many variable conditions that can change both regionally and 

within in a basin. One broad rule to monitor the vast variety of geology in an area would not 

seem practical. 

3. What sort ofknowlcdge do State agencies have when it comes to pre-existing or 

historical groundwater conditions or variability within a basin? 

Response: 

The Division of on, Gas and Mining has contracted with the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) to study water quality in the Uintah Basin of Utah for 20 years. The Uintah Basin is the 

primary oil and gas producing basin in Utah. This study is concentrated in areas surrounding 

class II water injection wells to insure that injection well's f1uid are not migrating into water 

wells. In addition, the Utah Geological Survey (UGS), USGS and Division of Water Quality 

(DWQ) and Utah Division of Water Resources have collaborative studies of ground water in 

various areas oflJtah. 
105 

Responses by Dr. Brian Rahm 

NEW YORK STATE 

WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 

Response to Hearing Questions for the Record 

(See below for reproduction of the questions) 

These are good questions. As with all scientific inquiries, it is important to understand what research can accompfish, as 

well as its limitations. An honest discussion of limitations often paves the way for future research, and helps to bound 

the conclusions that can and ought to be drawn. 

Examination of these questions should be an important part of the EPA's ultimate discussion. As I mentioned in my 

testimony, no "ingl~ study - even om~ as largE" as the EPAs - can provide all the answers we seek with respect to 

comprehensive risk assessments associated with shale gas development. 

Response to question "a" -

The "thresholD" for regional or national data is subjective. By themselves, single case studies should not be used to 

speculate on national~scale risks. Overall, great care should be taken to present case studies in their proper contexts. 

That being said, it is possible that the col!ection of data associated with each ease, which may include historical 

background data, and contextual data from the larger geographical area, may help to provide a regional picture by 

putting together different information sources in a more coordinated way than has been previously done, If this is done, 

this effort could reasonably be considered a regional or even national one, Another potential advantage of the study is 

the possibility of comparing information across regions, which itself may help to highlight and illuminate important 

differences in regional geology, practices, regulations, and technologies that are useful for understanding how 

unconventional gas activities may present different risks in different places. Lastly, while the geographic limitations of 

this .s.tudy should be acknowledged and carefully discussed, it may aid other regional and national-scale researchers who 

are seeking to synthesize datasets across studies, using a combination of industry, academic, and government data. 

Response to question "b" -

This is also a critical question that needs significant attention in any final discussion of EPA results. The difference 

between trends (which might be generalizable) and incidents (which may be impactful, but rare and difficult to predict in 

time and space) needs to be made clear. If not enough is known to make statistically rigorous conclusions, discussion of 

risk needs to be qualified appropriately. 

Prospective case studies, of which a limited number are proposed, should help to provide broader contextual 

information for the plays in which they are conducted (Marcellus & Haynesville). This seems valuable, but limited. 

Secondly, it should be possible to use contextual data collected by government agencies, industry, and academics, to 

provide estimates of the degree to which case studies are generalizable. Let's take, for example, the theoretical case of a 

well blowout. If this single case was generalized to represent all wells, one would have the impression that drilling for 

gas leads to tens of thousands of blowouts every year. This is obviously not the case. By incorporating the number of 
106 

wells drilled without well blowouts, we can develop a sense of how frequent these accidents happen, and therefore 

initiate an intelligent dialogue about how to prevent or mitigate such accidents. This effort will not be perfect, especially 

since many risks are not as immediately detectable as well blowouts. Still, with careful use of contextual data, the EPA 

study should be able to provide or lead to better assessments than we currently have, even if the EPA themselves do not 

conduct such an assessment. Whether these assessments are "good enough" wi!! be a matter of debate. More data can 

always be collected to refine understanding of risk. Finally, we should not view risk assessment as an actiVity that ends 

with the publication of a study. Risks assessments are on-going, and need to evolve and adapt along with technologies, 

policies, and practices. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I'm happy to talk further if I can be helpful. 

Respectfully, 

Brian G Rahm, PhD 

Healing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Chris Stewart 

LessOIlS Leamed: EPA's Investigations of Hydraulic Fracturing 

Dr. Brian Rabm 

1. In your testimony you noted that there were limitations to what spedfic groundwater 

investigations, such as the one in Pavillion, Wyoming could do. Yon stated these 

investigations could not act as definitive risk assessments of water resource impacts from 

shale gas development in general, During the hearing you also said that we need data on a 

regional or national scale, not just data from a,reas where problems occurred. 

a Given that EPA's retrospective sites were selected from a small sample size (5 

selected out of 60), would you say that this data meets 1he threshold of data on a 

regional or national scale? 

b. Additionally, since these sites were chosen based on stakeholder solicitation and 

were generally skewed toward sites \vith preexisting issues or problems, does that 

mean that any data gathered in these case studies cannot be generalized? 
(107) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
108 

SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE’S MAJORITY

Prepared for 

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. 

P.O. Box 42806 

Houston, TX 77242-2806 

May 1, 2013 

GRADIENT 

www.gradientcorp.com 

20 University Road 

Cambridge, MA 02138 

617-395-5000 
109 

Table 0/ Contents 

------------

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... ES-1 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 

2 Well Installation and Hydraulic Fracturing ......................................................................... 3 

2.1 HF Well Pad Installation and Spacing ..................................................................... 3 

2.2 Well Design and Installation ................................................................................... 3 

2.2.1 Multiple Well Isolation Casings ................................................................... 4 

2.2.2 Well logging ................................................................................................ 7 

2.2.3 Perforation .................................................................................................. 7 

2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing Process .................................................................................. 7 

2.3.1 HF Planning and Monitoring ....................................................................... 7 

2.3.1.1 HF Planning ................................................................................... 7 

2.3.1.2 Monitoring During HF Treatment ................................................. 8 

2.3.2 HF Phases and the Role of Chemical Additives ........................................... 8 

2.4 Flowback ............................................................................................................... 10 

3 Environmental Setting for Tight Oil/Gas Reservoirs ......................................................... 12 

3.1 Sedimentary Basins and Tight Formations ........................................................... 12 

3.2 Hydrogeology of Sedimentary Basins ................................................................... 15 

3.3 Surface Water Hydrology ...................................................................................... 16 

4 Conceptual Model for Risk Analysis .................................................................................. 19 

4.1 Exposure Pathway Scenarios ................................................................................ 19 

4.2 HF Chemicals Evaluated ........................................................................................ 21 

4.2.1 HESI HF Fluid Systems and Constituents .................................................. 21 

4.2.2 Constituents in Flowback Fluid ................................................................. 26 

5 Exposure Analysis .............................................................................................................. 30 

5.1 Protection of Drinking Water Aquifers Through Zonal Isolation .......................... 30 

5.2 Implausibility of Migration of HF Constituents from Target Formations ............. 31 

5.2.1 Baseline Period ......................................................................................... 32 

5.2.2 Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing on Fluid Migration .................................. 34 

5.2.2.1 Effect of Elevated Pressures During HF Stimulations ................. 35 

5.2.2.2 Effect of Induced Fractures ........................................................ 35 

5.2.2.3 Effect of Natural Faults ............................................................... 39 

5.2.3 Overall Evaluation of Pathway .................................................................. 40 

5.2.4 DF Calculation for Hypothetical Migration ............................................... 41 

GRADIENT 
110 

5.3 Surface Spills .................... " .................................................................... , .............. 42 

5.3.1 Overview of Probabilistic Approach for Evaluating Potential Impacts 

of Surface Spills .................................................................. , ...................... 42 

5.3.2 Surface Spill Volumes ........................................................................ , ....... 44 

5.3.3 Surface Spill Impacts to Groundwater ...................................................... 46 

5.3.3.1 leachate Migration to Groundwater {Unsaturated Zone} ......... 49 

5.3.3.2 Groundwater Dilution (Saturated Zone) .................................... 51 

5.3.3.3 Combined leaching and Groundwater Dilution ......................... 53 

5.3.3.4 Groundwater HF Chemical Exposure Concentrations ................ 55 

5.3.4 Surface Spill Impacts to Surface Water ..................................................... 55 

5.3.4.1 Representative Surface Water Flow ........................................... 56 

5.3.4.2 Surface Water DF ........................................................................ 59 

6 Human Health Chemical Hazard Analysis ......................................................................... 67 

6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 67 

6.2 Common Uses and Occurrence of HF Constituents ............................................. 67 

6.3 Hierarchy for Determining RBCs ........................................................................... 68 

6.4 HF Constituents with No RBCs .............................................................................. 69 

7 Risk Characterization ........................................................................................................ 71 

7.1 HESI HF Constituents ............................................................................................ 72 

7.2 Flowback Fluid Constituents ................................................................................. 73 

8 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 80 

9 References ........................................................................................................................ 82 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

AppendixC 

Appendix D 

Appendix E 

GRADIENT 

Flowback Fluid Chemical Data 

Hypothetical Upward Migration Dilution Factor Derivation 

Spill to Groundwater Dilution Factor Derivation 

Drinking Water Human Health Risk Based Concentrations (RBCs) for HF 

Additives 

Critique of Modeling Undertaken by Myers and Others 
111 

List of Tables 

Table ES,1 

Table ES,2 

Table E53 

Table ES,4 

Table 2,1 

Table 3,1 

Table 4,1 

Table 4,2 

Table 4.3 

Table 4.4 

Table 5,1 

Table 5.2 

Table 5.3 

Table 5.4 

Table 5,5 

Table $,6 

Table 5,7 

Table 5,8 

Table 5,9 

Table 7,1 

Table 7,2 

Table 7.3 

GRADIENT 

Spill Volume Percentiles 

Summary of Spill to Groundwater DFs 

Summary of Spill to Surface Water DFs by Aridity Regions 

Percentiles of Chemical HQs for Maximum Wellhead Chemical Concentrations for HESI 

HF Fluid Systems 

Example HF Fluid Components for Tight Formations 

Summary of USGS Gauging Stations in Tight Formation Basins by Hydroclimatic Zones 

Features of Different Types of HF Fluid Systems 

Typical HESI HF Fluid Systems 

Constituents in Typical HESI HF Fluid Systems 

Flowback Fluid Constituent Concentrations 

Spill Volume Percentiles 

Summary of PADEP Oil and Gas Wells Drilled and Spills 

Summary of Saturated Zone DF Values Derived by US EPA 

Comparison of Calculated Groundwater DFs with US EPA,Reported Percentiles 

Summary of Spill to Groundwater DFs 

Summary of Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) Associated with Minimum and 

Maximum Chemical Concentrations for HESI HF Systems 

Summary of Flowback Fluid Constituent Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) Used in 

Risk Analysis 

Summary Statistics for USGS lowest low Annual Mean Daily Discharge 

Summary Percentiles of Surface Water DFs 

Summary of Chemical Hazard Quotients (HQs) Associated with Maximum Chemical 

Concentrations for HESI HF Systems 

Summary of Hazard Indices for HESI HF Systems 

Summary of Chemical Hazard Quotients (HQs) Associated with Highest Median 

Flowback Fluid Chemical Concentrations 

ill 
112 

List of Figures 

Figure ES.l 

Figure ES.Z 

Figure ES.3 

Figure ES.4 

Figure ES.5 

Figure 2.1 

Figure 3.1 

Figure 3.2 

Figure 3.3 

Figure 4.1 

Figure 5.1 

Figure 5.2 

Figure 5.3 

Figure 5.4 

Figure 5.5 

Figure 5.6 

Figure 5.7 

Figure 5.8 

Figure 5.9 

Figure 6.1 

Major Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in Tight Formations 

Illustration of Exposure Pathways Examined in Risk Analysis 

Illustration of Monte Carlo Sampling Method Used to Develop a Distribution of 

Outcomes (e.g., DF values) to Assess Health Risks of HF Spills 

Schematic of Groundwater Pathway DF Development 

USGS Monitoring Stations, Sedimentary Basins, and Aridity Zones 

Typical Horizontal Well Design 

Major Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in Tight Formations 

Cross Section of the Appalachian Basin 

USGS Monitoring Stations, Sedimentary Basins, and Aridity Zones 

Conceptual Site Model of Exposure Pathways Evaluated in Health Risk Analysis 

Locations of Basins with Microseismic Data (gray regions) in the US 

Observed Fracture Heights versus Hydraulic Fracture Fluid Volume in (al Log and (b) 

Linear Space 

Depth Range of Perforation Midpoints and Tallest Fractures 

Illustration of Monte Carlo Sampling Method Used to Develop a Distribution of 

Outcomes (e.g., DF values) to Assess Health Risks of HF Spills 

Schematic of Spill to Groundwater Pathway 

Example of Chemical Profile and Dispersion in Unsaturated Zone 

Schematic of Groundwater Pathway DF Monte Carlo Sampling 

Comparison of Low Flow Data by Climate (Aridity) Zones 

Schematic of Surface Water DF Monte Carlo Sampling 

Toxicological Information Hierarchy in the Human Health Risk Evaluation 

iv 
113 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

Improvements in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing (HF) technologies have allowed for the 

extraction of large reserves of natural gas and oil from formerly uneconomical low-permeability 

formations (e.g., shale, tight sand, tight carbonate). The increasing usc of HF in the US and globally to 

develop oil and gas reserves in these "tight formations" has brought with it heightened attention to its 

alleged impacts. We have previously examined HF procedures used in the Marcellus Shale and the 

chemical constituents commonly used during the HF process (Gradient, 2012). That earlier analysis 

addressed whether adverse human health impacts relating to drinking water could be associated with HF 

fluids in the MarceiJus Shale as a result of their intended use (to aid in fracturing deeply buried 

hydrocarbon deposits) or in the event that there were unintended surface releases (spills) of these 

constituents. The purpose of this report is to expand the scope of these prior analyses to address the use 

of HF fluids and their potential impacts on drinking water in a broad range of shale plays and other tight 

formations across the contiguous United States. 

ES.l Hydraulic Fracturing Process Overview 

Recent advances in well drilling techniques, especially the increased use of "horizontal" drilling in 

conjunction with high volume hydraulic fracturing, have expanded the capacity of oil and gas cxtraction 

from a single well. In addition, it is increasingly common to install multiple horizontal wells at a single 

"well pad" in order to maximize gas/oil production and minimize the amount of land disturbance when 

developing the targeted formations. 

Hydraulic fracturing is a multi-step process aimed at opening up rractures within the natural hydrocarbonbearing geologic fonnations and keeping fractures open to maximize the flow of oil and/or natural gas to 

a production well. The HF process involves pumping fluid (referred to here as "HF fluid") into the target 

formation to create fractures, and then pumping proppants (e.g, sand) into the induced fractures to 

prevent them from closing. After the proppant is in place, all readily recoverable HF fluid is pumped 

from the well or flows under pressure to the surface along with water from the formation that was 

hydraulically fractured; this process is refelTed to as "llowback" and we use the term "flowback fluid" to 

describe the fluid that flows back out of the well during the initial period following hydraulic fracturing.' 

The fluids used in the tIF process generally consist mostly of water with small amounts of chemical 

additives, typically comprising approximately 0.5% by weight of the fluid, to enhance the efficiency of 

the fracturing process. Hydraulic fracturing additives serve many functions in HF, such as limiting the 

growth of bacteria, preventing corrosion of the well casing, and reducing friction to minimize energy 

losses during the fracturing phase. The HF additives used in a given hydraulic fracture treatment depend 

on the geologic conditions of the target formation. 

1 The composition of the fluid that flows out oflhe well once the IIF process has concluded and production begins changes over 

time. Initially) the fluid is generally a mixture oflhe fluid used to hydraulically fracture the well and water and other constituents 

that are naturally present in the formation (sometimes referred to as "formation water"). Over time, the proportion ofHF fluid in 

the fluid flowing out oflhe well declines, and after a period of time the l1uid llowing out is almost entirely formation water. As a 

matter of convenience, industry generally refer to the fluid that flows out of the well for the first several weeks as "flowback," 

"flowbm.:k water," or "nowback Jluid," and the fluid that continues to Dow ITom the wdl over the !ong~r term production period 

as "produ5~~~~~~!c:r,"'~~.!I~g_~gh there is no bright line separating the 1\1,'0. 

GRADIENT ES·l 
114 

Every step in the well development process - well installation, fracturing, fluids management, and well 

operation adheres to a carefully designed sct of protocols and is managed to minimize the potential for 

incidents that could result in unintentional releases offluids and to maximize gas/oil yield. The process is 

extensively regulated at the federal, state. and even the local level. A detailed description of the HF 

process can be found in a variety of documents (e.g., CRS, 2009; API, 2009)2 

ES.2 Scope of This Evaluation 

While it is beyond the scope of this report to cover all natural hydrocarbon-bearing formations which use 

hydraulic fracturing to develop the resource, we have examined a broad range of current oil and gas 

"plays," focllsing on tight formations in the contiguous US, specitically those that occur in deep shales, 

tight sands, and tight carbonates (Figure ES.! shows the regional extent of these sedimentary basins 

across the contiguous US).' 

Figure ES.l Major Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in Tight Formations 

Tight formations around the country are estimated to contain significant oil and gas reservoirs (Biewick, 

2013). Oil and gas exploration activities are expanding in these formations, thereby attracting interest 

from mUltiple stakeholders, including the public, regulators, scientific community, and industry. 

Concerns havc been expressed over the potential for the additives used in the HF process to impact 

drinking water resources. The United States Enviromnental Protection Agency (US EPA) is conducting a 

Congress-mandated study evaluating the potential impacts of HE on drinking water resources which 

focuses "primarily on hydraulic fracturing of shale for gas extraction" (US EPA, 2012b, p. 6). State 

1 See also web rc:.ourccs: http://fradocus,orgfhydraulic-fracturing-process; http://www,energyindepth.orgl; and 

http://vl\vw.halliburton.com/pubJic/projects/pubsdatalhyJraulic~fracturing/fhlcturing~IOI.htm!. 

3 The \;ontiguous US has a wide range of sedimentary basins with different characteristics and our analysis applies more broadly 

to sedimentary basins around the \~·9.r1d with characteristics similar to those considered in our re,"'p"'on"','-________ _ 

GRADIENT ES-2 
115 

environmental agencies arc also assessing the potential environmental impacts of HF, including the 

likelihood of impacts on drinking water supplies." 

This report, which Gradient has prepared on behalf of Hal lib lIlt on Energy Services, Inc, (HESI), presents 

our evaluation of the potential human health impacts relating to drinking water that are associated with 

the use of typical HF fluids. We examine the human health risks posed by the "intended" use of these 

fluids, i.e., the pumping of the tluids into a target fonnation to create fractures in the formation. 

Specifically, we note the steps that are taken in well construction to prevent the HF fluids being pumped 

down the well from escaping the wellbore and coming into contact with drinking water aquifers and to 

ensure that the HF fluids reach their intended destination, i.e., the formation to be hydraulically fractured 

("zonal isolation"). We then examine whether it is possible for HE' tluids pumped into tight formations to 

migrate upward from those formations. We address this concern in this report, although we note at the 

outset that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (2011) and other 

stakeholders have evaluated this issue and concluded that it would not be plausible for the tluids to 

migrate upward and contaminate shallow drinking water aquifers. We also examine the human health 

risks associated with "unintended" (accidental) releases of fluids containing HI' fluid and flowback fluid 

constituents, focusing on surface spiJIs. We evaluate the potential for such spills to impact groundwater 

or surface water and the human health implications of exposure to HF constituents if such water is then 

used for drinking water purposes. 

The possible exposure scenarios evaluated in our risk analysis are illustrated in the figure below, and 

addressed in turn in the summary that follows. 

Exposure Pathways Evaluated: 

1. Upward from deep, hydraulically 

fractured formation to shallow 

groundwater 

2. Migration of a surface spt!! to 

groundwater 

3. 

Figure ES.2 Illustration of Exposure Pathways Examined in Risk Analysis 

-I For example, the NYSDEC IUI3 prepared seve-ral versions of its Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2009, 201l), which contains permit requirements for the development of natural gas production wells 

in the Marcellus Shale, underlies significant areas of New York, extending also under large portions of 

GRADIENT ES-3 
116 

ES.3 Implausibility of Migration of HF Constituents from Target Formations 

As part of the HF process, HF fluids are pumped down the well and into the target formation to create 

fI'actures that will facilitate the production of oil/gas from the well. Production wells are carefully 

constructed with multiple layers of casing and cement in accordance with state requirements and industry 

standards in order to ensure that the fluids in the well do not come into contact with drinking water 

aquifers or subsurface layers other than the formation being targeted for production; this is otten referred 

to as "zonal isolation" (API, 2009; GWPC and ALL Consulting, 2009). 

When installed in accordance with these standards and requirements, casing and cementing are effective 

in protecting Underground Sources of Drinking Water ("lJSDWs") from the fluids used in HF operations. 

As we discuss, NYSDEC concluded, using the analogy of underground il~ection wells, that the likelihood 

of a properly constructed well contaminating a potable aquifer was less than I in 50 million wells.' 

Accordingly, the only pathway by which HF fluids pumped into a properly constructed well during the 

HF process could reach a USDW would be for the tluids to migrate upward from the target formation. 

We therefore considered whether fluid could migrate upward through intact bedrock, through the 

ti'aclures created as a result of the HF process ("induced fractures"), or along natural faults.' 

Our analysis indicates that contamination of lJSDWs via any of these theoretical migration pathways is 

not plausible. Tight oil and gas formations are set in very restrictive environments that greatly limit 

upward fluid migration due to the presence of multiple layers of low permeability rock, the inherent 

tendency of the naturally occurring salty formation water (i.e., brines) in these deep formations to sink 

below rather than mingle with or rise above less-dense tresh water (density stratil1cation), and other 

factors, as demonstrated by the fact that the oil, gas, and brines in the formation have been trapped for 

millions of years. Moreover, the effects of the HF process itself will not cause changes in these natural 

conditions suflicient to allow upward migration to USDWs for the following reasons. 

During the HF process, elevated pressures are applied for a short duration (a matter of hours to 

days). This period of elevated pressure is far too short to mobilize HF constituents upward 

through thousands of feet of low permeability rock to overlying potable aquifers. 

Fluid migration to lJSDWs via induced fractures is also not plausible. An extensive database of 

measured fi'actured heights has been compiled from microseismic monitoring of over 12,000 HF 

stages. These data indicate that even the tallest fractures have remained tar below USDWs. 

These same data were used to evaluate potential hydraulic fracture-fault interactions and the 

potential for fluid movement up natural faults. Our analysis shows that fault sizes activated by 

hydraulic fracturing are very small (typically < 30 It in size) and are relatively unimportant for 

enhancing upward fluid migration. 

Overall, there is no scientific basis for signil1cant upward migration of HF fluid or brine from tight target 

formations in sedimentary basins. Even if upward migration from a target formation to a potable aquifer 

were hypothetically possible, the rate of migration would be extremely slow and the resulting dilution of 

the fluids would be velY large. Such large dilution under this implausible scenario would reduce HF fluid 

constituent concentrations in the overlying aquifer to concentrations well below health-based 

standards/benchmarks. Given the overall implausibility and very high dilution factor, this exposure 

pathway does not pose a threat to drinking water resources. 

5 Given the vcry low probability of a properly constructed well Impacting shallow aquifers, we did not quantify potentia! health 

for stich a scenario. 

We have prepared two scientific papers on th~se issues which have been submitted for publication. fn addition, we had 

considered many of these issues in the context of an analysis submitted to the NYSDEC that IOCl!5cd on the Marcellus 

GRADIENT ES·4 
117 

Various regulatory authorities have evaluated hypothetical upward migration of HF constituents during 

HF activities and come to similar conclusions. For example, based on its initial analysis in 2009, 

NYSDEC concluded that "groundwater contamination by migration of fracturing fluid [from the deep 

fracture zone 1 is not a reasonably foreseeable impact" (NYSDEC, 2009, p. 8-6). In its revised Draft 

Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGE1S), NYSDEC (2011) reaffirmed this 

conclusion, indicating" ... that adequate well design prevents contact between fracturing fluids and ti'esh 

ground water sources, and ... ground water contamination by migration of fracturing fluid [from the deep 

fracture zone] is not a reasonably foreseeable impact" (NYSDEC, 20 II, p. 8-29). 

Thus, our analysis of hypothetical upward migration of HF constituents ti'om tight formations across the 

US confllms that migration of HI' fluid additives from target formations up through overlying bedrock to 

a surface aquifer is an implausible chemical migration pathway. The thickness ofthe overlying confining 

rock layers, and the effective hydraulic isolation that these overlying layers have provided for millions of 

years will sequester fluid additives within the bedrock far below drinking water aquifers. Neither induced 

fractures nor natural faults would provide a pathway for He fluids to reach USDWs, as demonstrated by 

an extensive dataset on fracture heights and theoretical limits on fracture height growth. Even if such a 

pathway were hypothetically assumed, the slow rate of migration would lead to very large dilution and 

attenuation factors, thereby reducing HF t1uid constituent concentrations in USDWs to levels that would 

be well below health risk-based benchmarks, and that would not pose a potential threat to human health 

even under such an implausible scenario. 

ES.4 HF Fluid Accidental Spill Scenario Exposure Analysis 

We also examined potential "unintended" fluid spill scenarios to assess whether such spills could lead to 

the presence of HF constituents in either groundwater or surface water that may be used as drinking water 

sources at levels that could pose possible human health risks. In this report, we use the term "spills" to 

encompass various types of accidental releases of fluids containing IIF constituents, such as leaks from 

HF fluid containers, storage tanks, or pipe/valve ruptures during t1uid handling, or even possibly cases of 

wellhead blowouts. As a conservative (i.e., health protective) aspect of our assessment, we have assumed 

that potential spills are "unmitigated," meaning that any t1uid spilled is not recovered, even though it is 

standard practice at well sites to have measures in place to mitigate spills. Instead, spills are assumed for 

purposes of this study to wash off of the well pad into nearby streams (assumed to exist in proximity to 

the pad)' andlor migrate into the soil and ultimately impact underlying groundwater resources. 

ESAl Overview of Approach to Surface Spill Analysis 

We assessed the potential for human health impacts associated with drinking water as a result of potential 

surface spills of fluids containing HF chemical constituents (i.e., HF t1uids and t10wback fluid). Our goal 

was to determine the concentrations at which the constituents of these fluids might be found in drinking 

water as a result of a spill and then compare those concentrations to concentration levels at which adverse 

health effects could start to become a possible concern. We also undertook an assessment of the 

likelihood that a spill of either HF fluids or flowback fluids would occur at a given well site. 

The concentration of HF fluid or flowback fluid constituents that could possibly be found in drinking 

water as the result of a spill or release depends on a number of factors, beginning with the volume of t1uid 

spilled. However, the concentration of the constituents in the fluid spilled would be reduced as a result of 

dilution in water or soil as it moves through the environment to reach a drinking water source. The extent 

of this dilution would depend on the conditions accompanying the spill. Therefore, a key part of our 

7 We have not included any dilution {hat would inherently be provided by precipitation during the transport of material from the 

ES·S 
118 

analysis was determining the anticipated extent of dilution of constituent concentrations (expressed as 

"dilution factors" or "DFs"). 

Given the national scope of oil and gas production using HF, our analysis adopted methods that allow for 

assessing possible risks associated with a variety of potential spills spanning a wide range of 

environmental conditions. For example, depending on differences in climate and topography, regional 

streamflow varies substantially. In the event of a surface spill, such regional variations in streamflow 

would be expected to lead to variations in the possible HF constituent concentrations potentially 

impacting surface water areas with low flows would likely experience higher HF concentrations (less 

dilution) than areas with higher flows (more dilution). Similarly, differences in local groundwater 

conditions (e.g., depth to groundwater, differences in aquifer properties, etc.) will give rise to differences 

in the impacts of surface spills possibly impacting groundwater resources used for drinking water. 

Given this natural variability, the results from "deterministic," or site-specific, assessment approaches can 

be constrained by the fact that the results can be difficult to extrapolate more broadly beyond the specific 

conditions evaluated. To address this limitation, we have adopted "probabilistic" methods that 

incorporate the wide range of variability that occurs in areas with active oil and gas plays in tight 

formations. Assessing the possible drinking water impacts associated with HF spills in a probabilistic 

framework is accomplished by examining a large number of possible combinations ("samples") from a 

range of conditions that might be encountered in nature. For example, one "sample" might combine a 

small spill volume with a discharge into a large stream; another "sample" might combine a small spill 

volume with a discharge into a small stream; while yet another sample could combine a larger spill 

volume into a small stream. By assessing a large number of repeated (random) "samples," the 

probabilistic analysis assesses the full range of possible conditions associated with a spill. 

In order to use this approach, we needed to determine "probability distributions" for a number of key 

variables that reflect how likely a particular condition (sueh as spill size) is to occur. We then needed to 

combine the probabilities of different conditions occurring in a way that reflected the overall probability 

that a spill would result in a particular chemical constituent concentration in drinking water. To do this, 

we used a common simulation technique termed Monte Carlo sampling. The Monte Carlo sampling 

process involved selecting random samples from the underlying probability distributions that define 

variables relating to spill size and factors that affect chemical transpOItidilution ("input variables"), and 

then using these random samples to estimate the resulting impacts (e.g., resulting HF constituent 

concentration in either surface water or groundwater). This process was repeated many times (we 

selected a million samples) to generate the full range of possible combinations of outcomes spanning the 

full range ofthe input variables. The figure below illustrates the Monte Carlo process, 

GRADIENT ES·6 
119 

Input Variables 

Iterative Sampling 

and Calculation 

Output Distribution 

(e.g., Dilution Factors, Risk Outcome) 

Figure ES.3 Illustration of Monte Carlo Sampling Method Used to Develop a Distribution of 

Outcomes (e.g., DF values) to Assess Health Risks of HF Spills 

Using this approach, we developed distributions of possible outcomes, i.e., distributions of DFs, and 

resulting constituent concentrations in surface water and groundwater that might result from surface 

spills. We then assessed the likelihood of possible human health impacts by comparing the range of 

predicted constituent concentrations in surface water and groundwater with "risk-based concentrations" 

(RBCs) for drinking water (i.e., concentrations below which human health impacts are not expected to 

occur) for various chemical constituents that may be found in HF or flowback fluids. Finally, we factored 

in the likelihood of a spill in order to determine an overall probability of human health impacts associated 

with spills of fluids containing HF chemical constituents. 

Our analysis evaluated a wide range of HF constituents found in 12 typical HESI HF fluid systems used 

to develop oil and gas resources in tight formations. In addition, we extended our analysis to constituents 

that have been found in flowbaek fluid from wells that have been hydraulically fractured even though 

many of these constituents derive trom the naturally-occurring formation water as opposed to the HF fluid 

pumped into the formation. 

ES.4,2 Fluid Spill Distribution 

As noted, our Monte Carlo sampling was based OJ] probability distributions for key variables representing 

a range of conditions. The flrst of these variables is the possible range of volumes of surface spills during 

HF operations. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Office of Oil and 

Gas Management (OGM) has compiled information specitlcally relating to spills during HF activities. 8 

Spills associated with HF activities are reported in the PADEP "Oil and Gas Compliance Report" 

database, which is "designed to show all inspections that resulted in a violation or enforcement action 

assigned by the Oil and Gas program."" We downloaded all of the inspection data for wells tapping 

s http://vv,,"w,portaLstatc.pRusiportal/server.pticommunity/offtcc _ ot oil_and ...£as _ management/20291. For reasons discussed 

later in this report, we did not usc several other state databases because of din-iculties in extracting information relating 

to spills ofHF tluid or llowhack fluid. 

ES-7 
120 

"unconventional" formations (primarily the Marcellus Shale, which is one of the tight formations covered 

by our analysis). From this information, we compiled all entries for inspections from 2009 through April, 

2013 that indicated a fluid spill (with an associated volume, typically reported in gallons or barrels, but 

sometimes volumes as small as a cup or a quart). A total of 231 inspections repol1ed spills from 

"unconventional" systems. A summary of the spill volumes associated with different probabilities 

(percentiles) for this distribution of spill data is provided below.'o 

Table ES.l SpillVolllme Percentiles 

Percentile Spill Volume (gal) 

10% 1 

25% 6 

50% 38 

75% 230 

90% 1,152 

95% 2,999 

Note: 

Cumulative percentiles based on fitting data to a 

lognormal distribution and selecting 1 million Monte 

Carlo samples. The percentiles represent the 

likelihood spill volumes are less than or equal to the 

volume at the reported percentifes. 

The foregoing information provides a reasonable means to estimate the distribution of HF spill volumes if 

a spill occurs. The PADEP OGM also has compiled information on the number of wells installed each 

year. For the period 2009 through 2012, a total of 5,543 wells were installed in the Marcellus Shale in 

Pennsylvania. For this same period, there were 185 spills reflected in the PADEP database (for wells in 

unconventional formations). This suggests a spill frequency of 3.3% over this 4-year period. This spill 

frequency is likely a conservative (upper estimate) interpretation of the data, as it includes all spills in the 

PADEP databasc, even though some materials spilled were not identified as lIP or flowbaek fluids (e.g., 

hydraulic oil). II 

For the purposes of our risk analysis, we have conservatively evaluated potential risks based on two 

scenarios: a 3.3% spill probability as well as a doubling of this rate to a 6.6% spill probability (i.e., 

assuming hypothetically spills occur at double the frequency reported in the PADEP data) as a 

conservative measure. This range of spill probabilities is considered reasonable, if conservative, to use 

for our risk analysis. 

ES.4.3 Surface Spill Impacts 

If uncontrolled, HF constituents spilled to the surface could migrate overland via surface runoff/erosion to 

adjacent surface water resources; surtace spills could also allow HF constituents to migrate through the 

soil and impact underlying groundwater resources under certain circumstances. For our exposure and risk 

analysis, we evaluated two bounding sets of hypothetical conditions, assessing the implications if: 

(I) 100% of the surface spill leaches to groundwater and (2) 100% of the surface spill impacts surface 

ID 'lllC maximum spill reported was 7,980 gallons (Dimock, PA). Our analysis encompasses a spill of this size (it falls in the 

99.6th percentile). In fact, because the distribution is unbounded at the upper tail, the largest spill volumes included in our 

analysis exceeded even this spill sin and were well over 100,000 gallons. such that the range included could even account Cor 

sllch events as wellhead blowouts. 

11 Moreover. the \vay we have wnducted this part of the analysis may result in an underestimation of the number of 

"unconventional" wells drilled to which the number fit "unconventional" well sites should be compared - leading to a 

ES-8 
121 

water. These hypothetical scenarios bound the possible fate of surface spills, because the entirety of any 

given spill could not migrate to both groundwater and surface water (as our worst case analysis assumes), 

and therefore this approach, adopted solely for the purposes of this study, is considered quite 

conservative. More likely, even if spills escaped containment measures at the well pad, a portion of the 

spilled fluid would almost celiainly be retained in the soil on or adjacent to the pad such that only a 

portion would potentially reach any nearby surface water bodies. Similarly, it is unlikely that 100% of 

the spill volume would leach to groundwater, as we have conservatively assumed. We discuss the 

development of probability distributions for the kcy variables with respect to these scenarios, below. 

ES.4.3.1 Surface Spill Impacts to Groundwater 

As one possible scenario for this study, surface spills of HF fluids or flow back fluids along with their 

constituents could spread out and soak into the ground in a shallow zone at the soil's surface. The fluid 

constituents in this surface zone could then be subject to leaching downward through unsaturated soils 

(herein referred to as the "uIlsaturated zone") as rainfall percolates into the ground, carrying the HF 

constituents downward with the percolating water. Given sumcient time, if the constituents in the fluid 

do not adsorb to soil and/or degrade (both processes arc likely to occur), the constituents could reach a 

shallow aquifer beneath the area of the spill. The process of leaching downward through the soil would 

lead to spreading of the constituents within the unsaturated zone (dispersion) and mixing of the HF 

constituents in the leaching water over time. Similarly, if the constituents leach sufficiently and reach 

shallow aquifers, they could mix within the underlying groundwater ("saturated zone") and potentially 

migrate with groundwater to drinking water wclls. This process would also cause the concentration of the 

fluid constituents to diminish, or be diluted, as they mix with the groundwater. To account for these 

inherent dilution mechanisms, we have adopted well-established modeling approaches to provide 

estimates of the degree of dilution that would likely occur between the point of the surface spill and a 

downgradient drinking water well. These modeling approaches are outlined below. 

UIl$81Unlted 

Zone 

Contam!nant 

Plume 

Wello<a!Icn landSurfaca 

Overall DF = DFl x DFGW 

Unsaturated Zone (OFl): 

Dispersion only (no adsorption or degradation). 

Saturated Zone (OFGw): 

Relied upon US EPA modeling results where DF 

probabilities are reported as a function of different 

spill areas (source area). 

Figure ES.4 Schematic of Groundwater Pathway OF Development 

GRADIENT E5·9 
122 

For the saturated zone groundwater exposure analysis, we developed "dilution factors" ("DFs") based 

upon those developed by US EPA (1996). The US EPA derived groundwater DFs when it developed 

risk-based chemical screening levels in soil that are protective of groundwater resources (in its Soil 

Screening Guidance)." In its analysis, the US EPA modeled a wide range of possible hydrologic 

conditions, variable distances to nearby drinking water wells (including wells immediately adjacent to 

contaminated source areas), and variable well depths (from 15 feet to a maximum of 300 feet). Using a 

Monte Carlo probabilistic modeling approach to incorporate these types of variable conditions, US EPA 

determined groundwater DFs as a function of the size of contaminated "source areas." 13 US EPA did not 

report the full range of percentiles (e.;?,'., probability distribution) associated with their Monte Carlo 

modeling (US EPA only reported the 85' " 90'h, and 95'h percentile DFs). Thus, we extended the US EPA 

analysis to extrapolate a complete distribution of DFs to use in our probabilistic modeling. 

[n its derivation of groundwater DFs, US EPA adopted simplifying and conservative assumptions that 

underestimate chemical attenuation in the soil and groundwater; these assumptions included that 

chemicals do not adsorb to soil, and that chemicals do not degrade, both of which are "attenuation" 

processes that lead to additional reduction in constituent concentrations. In addition, in deriving the 

groundwater DFs, the chemical source was assumed to be "infinite." The US EPA adopted these 

assumptions as conservative measures. While indeed conservative, clearly such assumptions are not 

realistic if applied to a surface spill of fluids containing HF constituents, In particular, the assumption of 

an infinite source effectively assumes "steady state" conditions have been reached such that a 

constant/uniform constituent concentration exists in the unsaturated zone. This assumption thereby does 

not account for chemical dilution of a finite source within the unsaturated zone that is caused by 

dispersion. For a finite source, such as a single spill of HF or fiowback fluid, the chemical concentration 

will diminish over time and as a function of depth within the soil as constituents are leached down 

through the unsaturated zone. 

In this assessment, we have not assumed an intinite source because-the spill volumes used in our analysis 

are finite (limited) volumes, based on the spill distribution described above. Consequently, we have 

accounted for dilution of chemical concentrations in the unsaturated zone before reaching the 

groundwater table due to chemical spreading (dispersion) within the unsaturated zone. '4 We used wellestablished, standard techniques (i.e., a chemical advection-dispersion equation) to model constituent 

dilution within the unsaturated zonc. 

Using this approach, we calculated an overall DF for the soil-to-groundwater pathway by combining the 

saturated-zone DFs developed from the US EPA values with the Gradient-derived unsaturated-zone DFs. 

We emphasize that the soil-to-groundwater pathway DFs used in this analysis are more likely to 

underestimate than overestimate dilution because both the satul'ated- and unsaturated-zone DFs were 

derived assuming no chemical adsurption or degradation. This assumption leads to the conservative 

result that 100% of the chemicals spilled ultimately migrate to and mix within the drinking water aquifer 

- an unrealistic premise that adds further conservatism to our exposure analysis. The DFs we used to 

assess the potential surface spill impacts to a shallow drinking water aquifer are summarized below. 

l2 US EPA referred to them as "dilution attenuation factors" (DAFs). We use the term "dilution factors" because in our analysis, 

as 'vas also the case in US EPA's DAF development. we have not accounted for Hattenuation" processes such as chemical-soil 

adsorption or biodegradation. These attenuation processes vlould further reduce the chemical coH<:entratlons in the environment 

in the event of a spill (i.e., leading to larger dilution factors if induded). 

IJ For example, US EPA determined that a chemical constituent originating fT-om a small 

groundwater to a nearby drinking water \,yell would be expected to be diluted at least 55,400-fold in and at least 

2,740~fold iI190%ofscenarios. For a larger SOllrce area of 1 acre, the US EPA-derived groundwater Drs decrease to 668-fo!d in 

85% of scenarios and 60-foJd in 90% of scenarios. 

14 A chemical spilt at the surfhce does not migrate downward as a uniform 

ES-10 
123 

ES.4.3.2 

Table ES.2 Summary of Spill to Groundwater DFs 

Percentile Unsaturated Zone 

(DFt) 

101 

51 

28 

19 

Based on 1 million Monte Carlo samples. The percentiles represent the likelihood 

of equaling or exceeding the associated DF values. 

For any given Monte Carlo sample, the overall OF is the product of the respective 

values of the unsaturated and saturated zone DFs. However, given that 

independent random variables govern each component OF, the percentiles of the 

overall OF are not given by the product of the respective unsaturated~ and 

saturated-zone DFs at the same percentiles. 

The saturated zone OFs presented above are not directly comparable to the US 

EPA-reported values (US EPA, 1996). since the US EPA percentiles are associated 

with a corresponding spiH area, whereas the above va!ues correspond to a range of 

spill areas, which are a function of the potentia! spill vo!ume. 

Surface Spill Impacts to Surface Water 

As another exposure scenario. we also considered the potential impacts of hypothetical surface spills 

affecting surface water resources. For the surface water exposure analysis. we developed surface water 

Dfs conservatively assuming "low tlow" mixing conditions in streams potentially impacted by surface 

spills. 

As noted earlier, the national scope of (his assessment extends across regions characterized by differences 

in climate and topography that in turn affect the distribution of stream flows. In order to account for these 

regional variations, we based our analysis on the distribution of low-end stream tlow values for streams 

within the major sedimentary basins in the US. Stream flow was obtained from the national database of 

USGS stream gauging information (see Figure ES.5). 

We selected the lowest average daily streamflow for each year of record at each gauging station." From 

this data set of lowest average daily streamtlow measurements (for each year of record). we then took the 

lowest average daily flow over all years of record at each station to develop the distribution of low-end 

streamflows for our assessment (low flows yield higher exposure concentrations). 

Based on a statistical comparison of the low-end streamflow data, the data for the arid and semi-arid 

regions of the country were not statistically different, and the data for the temperate and semi-humid 

regions are also not statistically different. Thus. for the probabilistic analysis we evaluated the possible 

impacts of HF spills impacting surface waters for two separate climatic regions: arid/semi-arid. and 

temperate/semi-humid. 

As noted previously, our surface water exposure analysis assumed that 100% of the HF tluid or flowback 

fluid chemical constituents spilled on the well pad reach a surface water body via overland runoff. This 

assumption ignores mitigation measures such as possible well setbacks and spill containment practices. 

In addition, many well pads wili be located too far from streams for this pathway to be possible. Thus, 

the use of low-end stream flow, coupled with the assumption that 100% of any spilled fluid containing 

HF additives reach the surface drinking water source, results in a conservative approach that yields "high15 As summarized in our report, \ve selected stations with a minimum of 5 years of gauging data as one criteria to ensure a 

ES-ll 
124 

end" estimates of potential human exposure for the surface water exposure pathway that are likely to over 

predict actual conditions in the event of a spill. Moreover, we have conservatively assumed that all the 

streams in the database could be used directly as drinking water sources (i.e., with drinking water being 

taken directly 1'1'0111 the stream as oppnsed to a downstream reservoir), regardless of whether a stream is 

large enough to serve as a drinking water source. 

o 2'" ~Mile$. 

Figure ES.5 USGS Monitoring Stations, Sedimentary Basins, and Aridity Zones 

One factor in our surface water exposure analysis was the period over which constituents in potential 

spills might migrate to and mix into a stream. In selecting the appropriate period for mixing to occur, we 

considered the likelihood of spill events having direct (immediate/short term) versus indirect (longer 

term) impacts on a nearby stream, and the physical processes that might convey HF constituents Irom the 

location ora surface spill to a nearby surface water body. 16 

Based on available data, spills associated with HF activities that directly impact surface water, which 

might raise concerns regarding short-term impacts, are rare. For example, based on the infonnation in the 

PADEP OGM violation database (discussed earlier, see also Section 5), only about 6 out of every 10,000 

wells (0.06%) experienced a spill that had a direct impact on a stream. 17 The rarity of these events is 

partly due to the fact that well pads are located some distance from nearby streams and there are only a 

very limited number of unlikely scenarios in which a spill might migrate quickly over such distances to a 

stream. 

16 For the grmmdw<lter pathway, no mixing period was explicitly included both because &1fQundwater travel would likely have 

timescales of years or decade.s ... and because for the unsaturated zone component we conservatively selected the "peak" plume 

concentration (which may not occur for decades), rather than specifying a specific time~frame for tile analysis. 

17 This is based on 4 of234 spills (1.7%) in the PADEP OGM database that indicate direct impacts to a stream. When combined 

with the overill! spill frequency (3.3%). this gi\'cs 0.06% probability that HF activities could result in an liP spill directly 

ES·12 
125 

Given the low probability of incidents that might lead to short-term impacts, it was more relevant to focus 

our analysis on potentiallong-teon effects, i.e., effects that might be caused by (still infrequent) spills that 

do not reach streams quickly (and tilat, in reality, may never reach streams at all). 18 From a human health 

perspective, long-term effects (chronic impacts) are generally den ned by exposure periods of seven 

years,'9 or in some instances one year, or longer.'o From this perspective, selecting a mixing period tilat 

matches the exposure period for potential long term health effects is consistent with risk assessment 

methodology. 

An appropriate mixing period can also be derived from an assessment of physical processes that could 

transport HF constituents from an area of spill-impacted soil (well pad) to a stream. These include direct 

overland runoff (i.e., constituents carried with water and/or eroding soil particles that runs over the land 

surface) and slower migration underground (i.e., movement with groundwater that then discharges into a 

stream). Direct overland runoff and soil erosion are episodic processes (i.e., not "continuous") that are 

int1uenced by the frequency and magnitude of rainfall events. In order for 100% of spilled constituents to 

migrate to a stream as we have assumed, the surface runoff/erosion process is morc likely to occur over 

timescales on the order of years (rather than days or months). If the migration to surface water is via 

groundwater flow, the timescales could be even longer - in many cases decades or morc (Winter et al., 

1998). Thus, a time period on the order of years is considered to be a conservatively short transport 

timescale for all the constituents in a spill area to be transported to a stream. 

Based on the foregoing considerations, we selected an averaging period of I year as a conservative (i.e., 

health protective) approach21 

Using the spill volume distribution described earlier, and the foregoing methods for developing a 

distribution of surface water mixing volumes, the range of surface water dilution factors derived in this 

analysis is summarized below. 

Table ES.3 Summary of Spill to Surface Water Dfs by 

Aridity Regions 

Percentile Arid/Semi-Arid OF 

50% 1.4 x 108 

75% 1.5 x 107 

90% 2.0 x 10' 

95% 

Note: 

Temperate/Semi-Humid DF 

4.9 x 108 

5.1 X 107 

6.7 X 10' 

Results are Based on 1 million Monte carlo samples. The percentiles 

represent the likelihood of equaling or exceeding the associated DF 

values. 

ES.5 Toxicity Characterization 

As reflected in the HESI HF tluid systems, a wide variety of additives and their associated constituents 

could be used in hydraulic fracturing. A number of these constituents are used as food additives, are 

present in a wide variety of household/personal care products, or occur naturally in the environment. 

)8 We also note that concentrations of chemical constituents which might give rise to possible health concerns due to long term 

exposure are generally lower (more restrictive) than their corresponding benchmarks based on s.hort~term exposures. 

19 US EPA, 2002. 

2(1 ATSOR "Minimum Risk Levels" (MRLs) define chronic exposures as 365 days or more. 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrlsJindex.asp. 

21 Note also that we have not accnlmted for the additional dilution that would occur due 10 direct rainfall, nor have we included 

ES,13 
126 

Nonetheless, as part of this risk analysis, we evaluated the potential human toxicity of these constituents, 

regardless of other uses or origin. 

We adopted established regulatory methodologies to evaluate the toxicity of constituents of HF fluid and 

flowback fluid. We used agency-established toxicity criteria (e.g., cirinking water standards, or risk-based 

benchmarks) when these were available. For constituents lacking these agency-established drinking 

water or health benchmarks, we developed risk-based concentrations (RBCs) for drinking water, based on 

published toxicity data (when available), toxicity benchmarks for surrogate compounds, or additional 

methods as described in this report. Use of tiered hierarchies for detlning constituent toxicity is a 

standard risk assessment practice (US EPA, 2003, 2012a). 

ES.6 Surface Spill Risk Evaluation Conclusions 

As described in Section ESA, we used the distribution (e.g., percentiles) of groundwater and surface 

water pathway DFs to derive a distribution of possible HF fluid and flowback fluid constituent "exposure 

point concentrations" that might be found in drinking water in the event of a surface spill. We compared 

this distribution of exposure point concentrations to th.e chemical RBCs and expressed the ratio as a 

"Hazard Quotient" (HQ)." An HQ value less than 1.0 indicates the exposure concentration ofa chemical 

constitucnt is below a concentration at which adverse health effects are not expected. We also summed 

the HQs for all chemicals used in particular HESI HF systems to calculate the "Hazard Index" for the 

entire HF system. 

The results of our analysis indicate that potential human health risks associated with exposure to drinking 

water (derived from surface water or groundwater) potentially affected by spills of typical HESI HF 

fluids, or flowback fluids, are expected to be insignitlcant as defined by agency-based risk management 

guidelines. Our analysis yields this result even though it is based on a number of assumptions, 

highlighted below, that collectively result in a substantial overestimation of potential risk. 

Key Conservative Assumptions 

No containment or mitigation measures were included 

100% of spill assumed to impact both surface water and groundwater 

Distribution of low-end stream flow used for surface water dilution 

All streams assumed to be direct sources of drinking water 

Selected groundwater dilution factors based on US EPA's methodology which assume continuous and 

infinite sources (whereas HF spills are more appropriately charaCterized as short term, singular events) 

Adsorption and degradation of chemicals was ignored - _ ..... -.... "', 

Human health risks associated with potential surface spills of fluids containing HF constituents are 

expected to be insignificant with respect to both impacts to USDWs and impacts to surface waters due to 

dilution mechanisms which are expected to reduce concentrations in potable aquifers and surface waters 

to levels below health-based drinking water concentrations in the event of surface spills. Based on the 

probabilistic analysis presented here, spanning an enormous range of conditions, HQs were below 1.0 

even at the upper tails (high percentiles) of the distribution of dilution factors. 
127 

We have summarized the HQ results below for the central tendency (50'" percentile) OF values. as well as 

upper percentiles (e.g., HQs associated with 90'" and 95'" percentile OF values). for example, at the 95"' 

percentile OF. the highest HQ for surface water in arid/semi-arid regions was 0.04. This means that in 

95% of tile Monte Carlo simulations, the highest HQs were less than or equal to this value. 

When considering the results from this probabilistic analysis, it is important to understand what the 

results reported for any particular OF percentile represent. The Dr percentiles are based on the 

presumption that a spill has occurred (that is. they are a function of spill volume and other environmental 

variables). However, as discussed earlier, the likelihood of spills occurring during HF activities, based on 

the experience in Pennsylvania, is conservatively estimated to be about 3.3%. Using this spill frequency, 

there is a 96.7% likelihood (probability) that there would be no release of HF constituents at a given well 

site, and thus 96.7% of the HQs would be zero (no exposure). In order to determine the overall 

likelihood, or probability, of any particular HQ outcome, the spill probability, and cumulative probability 

of any particular DF, must be combined using the following expression: 

Overall HQ Occurrence Probability = (100% - Spill Frequency) + (Spill Frequency x DF Percentile/100) 

For example. at a spill rate of 3.3%, given a typical (50'" percentile) amount of dilution there is a 98.4% 

probability that the HQ for impacts to surface water associated with the use of !-IF fluids at a well site in 

an arid or semi-arid region would be less than 0.OO()2, or several orders of magnitude less than an HQ that 

would indicate that adverse health effects might be a concern. Even for a low dilution factor one that 

would be exceeded in 95% of instances where a spill occurred (i.e., the 95'" percentile) there is a very 

high (99.84%) likelihood that a well site even in an arid area would not experience an HQ greater than 

0.04, which is still at a level where adverse health effects would not be expected to occur. 

Table ES.4 Percentiles of Chemical HQs for Maximum Wellhead Chemical Concentrations for HESI 

HF Fluid Systems 

Surface Water Groundwater Spill Frequency 

Arid/Semi-Arid Temperate/Semi-Humid 3.3% 6.6% 

OF Percentile' Overall HQ Occurrence 

Highest HQ at Associated OF Percentile Probability at Associated 

Spill Frequency' 

50% 0.0002 0.00005 2 x 10'" 98.4% 96.7% 

90% 0.Q1 0.003 4 x 10.5 99.7% 99.3% 

95% 0.04 0.01 0.01 99.84% 99.67% 

Notes: 

[aJ The DF percentiles represent the cumulative probability associated with a particular DF (see Tables ES,2 and E5.3) in the 

event of a spill. 

fbi The overall HQ percentile at any particular DF percentile is: (100% Spill frequency) + (Spill Frequency x DF 

Percentile/lOO). 

ES.7 Overall Conclusions 

Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that when used in their intended manner in tight oil and gas 

formations, i.e., pumped into a subsurface formation to induce fractures in the target formation, HF fluids 

are not expected to pose adverse risk to human health because wells are designed and constructed to 

prevent Hf fluids in the well from coming in contact with shallow aquifers and it is implausible that the 

t1uids pumped into the target formation would migrate trom the target formation through overlying 

bedrock to reach shallow aquifers. Even in the event of surface spills, inherent environmental dilution 

mechanisms would, with a high degree of confidence (based on our probabilistic analysis covering wideranging conditions). reduce concentrations of HF chemical constituents in either groundwater or surface 

ES-15 
128 

water below levels of human health concern (RBCs), such that adverse human health impacts are not 

expected to be significant. Our conclusions are bascd on examining a broad spectrum of conditions 

spanning !-IF operations in tight oil and gas formations across the country. By extension, these 

conclusions would apply more broadly under environmental conditions (including geologic formations) in 

other parts of the world that are similar to those we have examined in the US. 

GRADIENT ES-16 
129 

SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS STEWART, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT
130 

properties in the applicable area (including the water well in question) to detennine if the 

water was safe to drink. The experts tested for the potential presence of over 135 

different chemicals, elements, minerals, and other constituents in the water to detennine 

whether there was any concentration that could make the water unsafe to drink or use. 

In coordination with the RRC, in late 2010, the groundwater test results were evaluated using the 

Texas Risk Reduction Program Protective Concentration Level to detennine if there was a threat 

to human health. The test results confinned that none of the constituents tested for in the water 

well exceeded the government standards. 

Based on the testimony of experts at the evidentiary hearing and the groundwater testing results, 

the RRC ultimately concluded that Range's natural gas production activities had no impact on 

the water aquifer or the well in question. This detennination by the state agency with the most 

experience and expertise in the oil and gas industry should have ended the accusations against 

Range. 

Despite the RRC investigation and findings, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 

Region 6 office issued an unprecedented emergency order in December 2010 ordering Range to 

cease our production activities in Parker County. Despite the media and activist fanfare that 

greeted this order (most of which was sought out by the then Regional Administrator), the 

ensuing EPA investigation could not change the scientific facts in the case--that natural gas, 

predominantly methane, is naturally present in the Trinity Aquifer in the area, and that the 

presence of methane in the water wells did not result from Range's production activities. After 

over a year of sampling and testing, in March 2012, the EPA retracted its emergency order. 

The most important lesson to be learned based on the Parker County case is that it is imperative 

that discussions about shale development and public safety, and any consideration of policy 

proposals, are infonned by sound science and accurate infonnation. In that spirit, we look 

forward to working with you and would be pleased to facilitate a briefing for any Member of the 

Subcommittee or the full Committee on this matter. 

Sincerely, 

K. Scott Roy 

Corporate Vice President, Government Affairs & Communications 

-2-
131 

SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS STEWART, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT
132 

I 

I I 

! i 

I, . I 

I 

I 

! 

• Given EPA's tillite resouroes II1II\ time, as noted in the SAB Enviromnerrtull!ngineering Committee'. reconunendations,' would a more focused study havepIovide more Valuable 

infurmaiion and scientifio evaluation of the process of interest (i.~ .• hydraulic frac1ming) 

and its relationship, if "'!Y. to drinking water? 

"Risk characterlza1ion atEP A is considered to b ... conscious and deliberate process to 

bring all important considerations about risk, both the likelihood of the risk but also the strengths 

and limitations of the assessment and a description of how others have assesse4 the risk into an 

infesrated picture.'s Acco:tding to the EPA Risk eharacterization Handbook. "[t]he goal of risk 

characterization is to clearly cpmmunicate the key findings and their strengths and limitations so 

its uae in decision making can ha put into context." The Agency has acknowledged, however, 

. . that the expected study resui1B will have significant limitations in "providing resul1B that can then 

be uaed to assess the potential risks to drinking water resources Jiomhydmulic ftacturing." 

Notwithstsndingthis acknowledgemen~ the agency is prematurely cJsiming its resuI1B will 

''provide policymakexs at all levels with high·quality scientific knowledge that <:aD be nsed in 

decision-making. H 

Have all aspects of the hydraulic fractilring study been designed in amanoer that will 

provide an inlegmted picture and appropriate level of context (ie, likelihood, severity, 

beman exposme), as described in EPA's Risk CharacterizatIon Handbook, necessary for 

policy-<nakers to ma!te infolll)ed decisions regarding the hydrsulic fracturing prooeaa? 

• Based on EPA's detiDition ofhydraulic fracturing, has the Agency selected research questions and projec1B that are specific and unique to the hydraulic fracturing process? 

• How are waterwithdniwals associated with hydolu1ic ftacturing differeiIt or unique in 

compsrison to potential impacts from water withdrawals by other users? 

Earlier this week, EPA announced that it i. "extending its desdJine for the public to 

submit data and scientific literature to infomt EP Ns reseaICh on the potential impacts of 

hydron1ic fracturing ondrinldng water resources from.l\prl130, 2013 UJlIilNoveinber IS,2013," 

raising concerns about the thneline for the study.7 

• What impact will this chsngehave on the Board andPanel'sreviewofEPA'. ongoing researoh? . 

• When does the Board and Panel plan to·meet and accept pob1ic comments between now 

and the intended completion of draft study resulls in December 20147 

Resource Constraint!! 

I strongly support researchrelated to unconventional oil and gss prodUction, ineluding 

the prooeaa ofhydraulic fracturing, because it is important to the u.s. economy. and energy 
133 

securitY. HDwever, the U.S. governprenHs currently tliclng budgetconsb:aints and it is prudent 

to ccntinuaIly asses. allocation of financial resource •• 

• Considering the SAB Environrn~ Engineering CommittJ>e'. past recomrneodstiOllS' to EPA to conduct. study specific to hythauIic fracWrlng and exclude well-understood 

issues (e.g., site development), what research activities could be removed or effort 

reduced from the Agency'. plan with iosiguificant inwuct on acbievillg the reseOn:h 

study'. purpose?' ..... 

EPA acknowledged research dats Jimitstionswithin the 2012 progress report, inclnding 

in the spill and enviromrumtaljustice sactions' l 

• HDw didEP A's lack of asystematic planning process (e.g., Data Quality Objectives) 

inwuct its ability to ideotify, gather and .... s. tipproprl81e inforination to answer rese!lrOh 

qnestions? 

Stgc!y Design 

• Has EPA provided within the study plans a consistent approach that will be used to 

d.scribe and ca)cnlate IIl1CeI'tainty in a rnsnner that is 1rBnsparent, reliabie and 

reproducible for all aspects of the agency'. hydraulic fraciuring research? 

Kumly T,Riemtial fi£iantIfi£ Asseument 

A scieotific assOssment is considered "highly influentlalnlfthe adminislxOring agency or 

the OIRA Administrator detennines that its dissemination could have a clear and substantial 

impaet on important public policies (mcluding xegula1o!y actions) or private sector decisions 

. with a poteirtial effect ofmore than $500 million in aoy one year or that its dissemination . 

involves precedent setting, novel and complex approa.i>hes, or sigoificant interagencyintorest.· 

EPA bas designated the 2014 hydxautic:li:actnxing study final report ofresuIts as "highly influential." . 

• If the CcmpiIation of the parts is"bighJ.y influential", should all study n:sults, parts or 

components (i.e., individual reports) that are inteiIded to be included in 1he 2014 final 

report aIsQ be. classified as ''bigbIy influeotial'l"" . 

Background & Bast!IjDe Information 

• .., Has EPA incorporated an appropriate level ofbackground and baseline data collection 

and assessment activities wltbin the ~ and project specific study plans? 

Specifically, booed on the retroapective study quaiity assuxsnce project plans and 2012 

progress report, bas the AgeW:y designed the study in a manner that will enable it to 

a bUp"byww wbit$9"§8.80y/.itgldttjultlflkltlPDlblaagotilomblinforeslpeet 1WewQ4l404.pdf . , 

• Within tbo p_ Roport, EPAhas _the ''lInal report of_: wbich bas been cr..igoated as 

"hlgbIy influantJal;" from "iluIMdllah.po'" and pop ....... This appears to b. a loophole that would allow EPA's 

~tob.finalfzedand_loti>;publicwid!Out"""-rgaingprudeotand ...... lIIYtecbnica1acrut1ny. 
134 

Æ