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

80–564PDF 2013

REVIEW OF FEDERAL HYDRAULIC 

FRACTURING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 

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 

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013 

Serial No. 113–25 

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 ENERGY

HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL 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 

JOE KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. CHRIS STEWART, Utah, Chair 

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 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Friday, April 26, 2013 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

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

Representatives .................................................................................................... 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

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

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Statement by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

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

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

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

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 18 

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

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 20 

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

Witnesses: 

Dr. Kevin Teichman, Senior Science Advisor, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

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

Mr. Guido DeHoratiis, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oil and Gas, 

Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33 

Dr. David Russ, Regional Executive, Northeast Area, U.S. Geological Survey 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39 

Dr. Robin Ikeda, Acting Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, Department of Health and Human Services 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46 

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

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 58 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Kevin Teichman, Senior Science Advisor, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................... 76 
Page

IV 

Mr. Guido DeHoratiis, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oil and Gas, 

Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy ................................................. 82 

Dr. David Russ, Regional Executive, Northeast Area, U.S. Geological Survey .. 90 

Dr. Robin Ikeda, Acting Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, Department of Health and Human Services ..................................... 93 
(1) 

REVIEW OF FEDERAL HYDRAULIC 

FRACTURING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia Lummis 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Energy] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Chairman LUMMIS. Good morning. We are small in number, but 

mighty in commitment this morning. We welcome you to this morning’s hearing. It is a ‘‘Review of Federal Hydraulic Fracturing Research Activities.’’ This is the fourth meeting of the Energy Subcommittee this Congress, and today we welcome our friends from 

the Environment Subcommittee to discuss this cross cutting issue. 

Some of them are still at a classified briefing on Syria and North 

Korea. We expect them to join us any minute. The reason we are 

starting on time and not waiting for them is we are tremendously 

time-constrained this morning due to votes coming up, and we 

want to have an opportunity to take advantage of the expertise you 

are providing here today. 

A primary recurring theme from our earlier hearings, which focused on energy markets and related technology subsidies, was the 

incredible transformation of the U.S. energy sector as a result of 

hydraulic fracturing-enabled shale production. 

So today we are building on this theme and drilling down into 

the science of hydraulic fracturing. Pun intended. 

In April of 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order 

creating a senior level task force charged with coordinating Federal 

actions related to the development of unconventional natural gas. 

Concurrent with the President’s announcement, EPA, DOE, and 

the Department of Interior signed a memorandum of understanding committing to development of an interagency plan to 

guide implementation of the Administration’s $45 million budget 

request to study environmental impacts associated with unconventional oil and gas production. 

The agencies committed to release a draft of the research plan 

by October of last year, and to complete the final plan by January 

of this year. Today, a year after the President’s original announcement, the Administration has not even released a draft version of 

its plan for public comment. 

So Congress and the public have very few details regarding the 

Administration’s ongoing activities in this area. In addition to last 

year’s $45 million request, the President is seeking an additional 

$38 million in Fiscal Year 2014. Our concerns regarding these activities are simple and straightforward: before Congress redirects 

tens of millions of dollars for this research effort, the Administration must tell us what it wants to spend the money on. 

Bringing sunlight to these activities is especially important, 

given the Administration’s terrible track record of unsubstantiated 

allegations when it comes to hydraulic fracturing. Pavillion, which 

is in my home State of Wyoming, is at the center of this storm. In 

late 2011, EPA put Pavillion in the national spotlight with a 

‘‘draft’’ report implying that fracking was somehow responsible for 

the quality of water in the areas near town. 

However, in the days and weeks that followed this announcement, the State of Wyoming, industry, and other Federal agencies 

exposed EPA’s study as deeply flawed. Former Administrator Jackson even admitted to me during questioning at another committee 

that the EPA was not confident it had discovered groundwater contamination in Pavillion related to fracking. And she further said we 

have definitely not discovered it in ground—rather, in drinking 

water. 
14 

Given its serious flaws, I have called on the agency to abandon 

the report and return to a collaborative effort with the State of Wyoming on how to resolve these issues around Pavillion. The people 

of Pavillion deserve resolution, and the State of Wyoming deserves 

deference for the hard work it has done to ensure that oil and gas 

development in our state is done safely. I certainly plan to followup with EPA and ensure that they get it. 

Policymaking related to fracking should be driven by open public 

debate based on peer-reviewed science, not political agendas. That 

is why we are here today, to ensure the Administration’s frackingrelated research activities are appropriate, balanced, and transparent. 

On a related note, I do want to express frustration with the lack 

of cooperation from EPA in planning this hearing. More than 4 

weeks ago, we invited Bob Sussman to testify at this hearing on 

behalf of the agency, and despite this extended advance notice, and 

Mr. Sussman’s role as EPA’s senior policy representative on the 

interagency group that we are here to discuss, the agency refused 

to allow him to participate or to provide an explanation for its refusal. And we appreciate Dr. Teichman—now did I pronounce that 

correctly? We do appreciate your presence here today. But EPA’s 

lack of cooperation is just unacceptable, and only raises further 

questions regarding the agency’s transparency and ultimate intentions regarding fracking. 

I do, again, want to thank all of our witnesses for being here, 

and look forward to today’s discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

CHAIRMAN CYNTHIA LUMMIS

Chairman Lummis: Good morning and welcome to this morning’s hearing, A Review of Federal Hydraulic Fracturing Research Activities. 

This is the fourth meeting of the Energy Subcommittee this Congress, and today 

we welcome our friends from the Environment Subcommittee to discuss this crosscutting issue. A primary recurring theme from our earlier hearings—which focused 

on energy markets and related technology subsidies—was the incredible transformation of the U.S. energy sector as a result of hydraulic fracturing-enabled shale 

production. 

Today we will build on this theme by (figuratively) drilling down into the science 

of hydraulic fracturing. 

In April of 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order creating a senior 

level task force charged with coordinating federal actions related to development of 

unconventional natural gas. Concurrent with the President’s announcement, EPA, 

DOE, and the Department of Interior signed a memorandum of understanding committing to develop an interagency plan to guide implementation of the Administration’s $45 million budget request to study environmental impacts associated with 

unconventional oil and gas production. 

The agencies committed to release a draft of the research plan by October 2012 

and complete the final plan by January 2013. Today, a year after the President’s 

original announcement, the Administration has not even released a draft version of 

it plan for public comment. 

Consequently, Congress and the public have very few details regarding the Administration’s ongoing activities in this area. In addition to last year’s $45 million 

request, the President is seeking an additional $38 million in fiscal year 2014. Our 

concerns regarding these activities are simple and straightforward: before Congress 

redirects tens of millions of dollars for this research effort, the Administration must 

tell us what it wants to spend this money on. 

Bringing sunlight to these activities is especially important given the Administration’s embarrassing track record of unsubstantiated allegations when it comes to hy-
15 

draulic fracturing. Pavillion, a small town in my state of Wyoming, is at the center 

of this storm. In late 2011, EPA put Pavillion in the national spotlight with a ‘‘draft’’ 

report implying that fracking was somehow responsible for the quality of water in 

the areas near town. 

However, in the days and weeks that followed this announcement, the State of 

Wyoming, industry, and other federal agencies exposed EPA’s study as deeply 

flawed. Former Administrator Jackson even admitted to me during questioning at 

another committee that the EPA was not confident it had discovered groundwater 

contamination in Pavillion related to fracking. 

Given its serious flaws, I have called on the Agency to abandon the report and 

return to a collaborative effort with the State of Wyoming on how to resolve the 

issues around Pavillion. The people of Pavillion deserve resolution, and the State 

of Wyoming deserves deference for the hard work it has done to ensure that oil and 

gas development in our state is done safely. I certainly plan to follow-up with EPA 

to ensure they get it. 

Policymaking related to fracking should be driven by open public debate based on 

peer-reviewed science, not political agendas. That is why we are here today—to ensure the Administration’s fracking—related research activities are appropriate, balanced, and transparent. 

On a related note, I want to express my great frustration with the lack of cooperation from EPA in planning this hearing. More than four weeks ago, we invited Bob 

Sussman to testify at this hearing on behalf of the agency. Despite this extended 

advance notice, and Mr. Sussman’s role as EPA’s senior policy representative on the 

interagency group we are here to discuss, the Agency refused to allow him to participate or even provide an explanation for its refusal. While we appreciate Dr. 

Teichman’s presence here today, EPA’s lack of cooperation is unacceptable, and only 

raises further questions regarding the agency’s transparency and ultimate intentions regarding fracking. 

I thank our witnesses for being here, and look forward to today’s discussion. 

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, for five minutes. 

Chairman LUMMIS. And now I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, for five minutes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing 

today, and I also want to thank our witnesses for being here. I appreciate the opportunity to examine the important topic of hydraulic fracturing, often called fracking, in greater detail. 

I agree with those who say that when it comes to our country’s 

energy resources, we should take 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, my state, to create jobs and diversity energy options for 

both consumers and industry over the next several years. I believe 

that wherever it is possible, if we can make it environmentally 

safe, we can make it happen. However, when it comes to fracking, 

I believe we need to proceed with extreme caution. We have to be 

careful that if we are to extract this resource safely without inadvertently polluting either our drinking water or the environment, 

and in California, of particular concern is what fracking can do to 

cause earthquakes or to activate or reactivate previous fault lines. 

It would be very short-sighted to produce energy in California via 

fracking, only to find out later that it could cause such damage, 

which also means that maybe perhaps fracking may be better for 

one state than it is for anther, and that is also a conversation and 

a topic I am interested in exploring further. 

But for that reason alone, it is imperative that we know as much 

now as early as possible about what fracking can to do our fault 

lines in California before pursuing short term gains. And this is 

why I think this multi-agency effort is so important, and I applaud 

President Obama and the Administration for leveraging its diverse 
16 

areas of expertise to determine the best practices for hydraulic 

fracturing going forward. 

I understand that the agencies testifying today have met their 

internal goal of submitting a draft plan before the end of 2012, and 

the final plan is now in the last stages of coordination with the Office of Management and Budget. 

In the meantime, this draft has already informed the President’s 

budget request for each of these agencies, and the important research priorities that you have collectively identified are being addressed, even before the release of the final report, as you continue 

to work in close coordination with each other. 

I look forward to learning more about each of your efforts, discussing these important issues with you today, and reviewing the 

final report. 

And with that said, 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 Lummis and Chairman Stewart for holding this hearing 

today, and I also want to thank the witnesses for being here. I appreciate the opportunity to examine the important topic of hydraulic fracturing, often called fracking, 

in greater detail. 

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 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 inadvertently 

polluting either our drinking water or the environment. Of 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. 

This is why I think this multi-agency effort is so important, and I applaud President Obama and his Administration for leveraging its diverse areas of expertise to 

determine the best practices for hydraulic fracturing going forward. 

I understand that the agencies testifying today have met their internal goal of 

submitting a draft plan before the end of 2012, and the final plan is now in the 

last stages of coordination with the Office of Management and Budget. 

In the meantime, this draft has already informed the President’s budget request 

for each of these agencies, and the important research priorities that you’ve collectively identified are being addressed even before the release of the final report as 

you continue to work in close coordination with each other. 

I look forward to learning more about each of your efforts, discussing these important issues with you today, and reviewing the final report. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. And as you know, 

this is a joint hearing so the Chair now recognizes the Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Environment, Mr. Stewart, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome to the 

witnesses. Thank you for your being with us today, and to the 

Chair, thanks again for holding this hearing on what I think is a 

very important issue. 

Unconventional oil and gas development enabled by hydraulic 

fracking is a rare bright spot in our otherwise gloomy economy over 

the last few years. Given the importance of this issue, I too am disappointed that the EPA declined to send the witness we had invited, Mr. Bob Sussman, the Senior Policy Counsel to the EPA Ad-
17 

ministrator, to testify. While I hope the Agency had a good reason 

for its refusal to make Mr. Sussman available, they did not share 

this reason with us, and that troubles me. I think it invites suspicion and it begs to be answered why. I can only hope that this 

will prove to be an exception rather than a trend. This is especially 

concerning, as EPA’s past and ongoing hydraulic fracturing studies 

and investigations demonstrate a cart-before-the-horse approach to 

the science that should make members think seriously about 

whether a blank check for the Administration is good policy. 

The shale gas revolution has not only brightened our economic 

prospects and created sorely needed jobs, it has strengthened our 

energy security. And as a former Air Force pilot and officer, I understand how important that is, as I am sure do most of you. 

Thanks to fracking, the U.S. is now poised to surpass Saudi Arabia 

and Russia as the world’s largest oil and gas producer in just the 

next few years. This could dramatically alter the geopolitical landscape to the great benefit of American interests. 

Yesterday, we held a hearing to examine the science of climate 

change. And whatever one’s position is on this issue, there is no denying that fracking is helping drive reductions in carbon emissions. 

U.S. greenhouse emission gasses are at their lowest level since 

1994, and have dropped 12 percent since 2005. In fact, from 2005 

to 2011, the U.S. decreased its carbon dioxide output more than 

any other nation, including those countries that have implemented 

aggressive green energy agendas, such as Germany and Spain. In 

light of these facts, it is both ironic and troubling that many of the 

most passionate advocates for action on climate change also oppose 

fracking. I wish that I understood this, but frankly, I don’t. 

This should give pause to the EPA and any other agency that 

seeks to hinder the development of our unconventional natural gas 

resources. To do so not only negatively impacts our economy, but 

it increases emissions and undercuts major advances toward energy security. Rather than search for problems that do not exist, 

the EPA and this Administration should recognize that shale gas 

is a solution. It is not the problem. Production, not regulation, has 

led to a reduction in greenhouse gases, and market forces, not restrictions, quotas, and carbon trading schemes, those are the things 

that have positioned the U.S. as a global leader in oil and gas production. Again, market forces, not restrictions. 

I again thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I look forward to your testimony. I hope that you recognize, as I do, that 

searching for a problem as a pretext for regulation rather than focusing on the science is a waste of time and a waste of resources, 

and it runs counter to all of our interests, as well as to the national 

interest. 

And with that, I thank the gentlelady for the opportunity to be 

here, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENT

CHAIRMAN CHRIS STEWART

Good morning and welcome to today’s joint Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing, A Review of Federal Hydraulic Fracturing Research. I want to 

thank Chairman Lummis for holding a hearing with me on this important issue. 
18 

Unconventional oil and gas development enabled by hydraulic fracturing is a rare 

bright spot in our otherwise gloomy economy over the last few years. Given the importance of this issue, I too am disappointed that the EPA declined to send the witness we had invited, Mr. Bob Sussman, the Senior Policy Counsel to the EPA Administrator, to testify. While I hope the Agency had a good reason for its refusal 

to make Mr. Sussman available, they did not share this reason with us. I can only 

hope this will prove to be an exception rather than a trend. This is especially concerning, as EPA’s past and ongoing hydraulic fracturing studies and investigations 

demonstrate a cart-before-the-horse approach to the science that should make Members think seriously about whether a blank check for the Administration is a good 

policy. 

The shale gas revolution has not only brightened our economic prospects and created sorely needed jobs, it has strengthened our energy security. Thanks to fracking, 

the U.S. is now poised to surpass Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s largest 

oil and gas producer in the next few years. This could dramatically alter the geopolitical landscape to the great benefit of American interests. 

Yesterday, we held a hearing to examine the science of climate change. Whatever 

one’s position on this issue, there is no denying that fracking is helping drive reductions in carbon emissions. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are at their lowest level 

since 1994, and have dropped 12 percent since 2005. In fact, from 2005 to 2011, the 

U.S. decreased its carbon dioxide output more than any other nation, including 

those countries that have implemented aggressive green energy agendas, such as 

Germany and Spain. In light of these facts, it is both ironic and troubling that many 

of the most passionate advocates for action on climate change also oppose fracking. 

This should give pause to the EPA and any other agency that seeks to hinder the 

development of our unconventional natural gas resources. To do so would not only 

negatively impact our economy, but increase emissions and undercut major advances toward energy security. Rather than search for problems that do not exist, 

the EPA and this Administration should recognize that shale gas is a solution rather than a problem. Production, not regulation, has led to a reduction in greenhouse 

gases, and market forces, not restrictions, quotas, or carbon trading schemes, have 

positioned the U.S. as a global leader in oil and gas production. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and look forward to their testimony. 

I hope they recognize, as I do, that searching for problems as a pretext for regulation rather than focusing on the science is a waste of time, a waste of resources, 

and runs counter to the national interest. 

I thank the gentlelady, and I yield back. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chair Lummis and Chair 

Stewart, for holding this hearing. I am pleased to have representatives from the Federal agencies appearing before the joint Subcommittees today to discuss their multi-agency plan to research hydraulic fracturing and unconventional oil and gas. 

Hydraulic fracturing has led to a significant expansion of drilling 

for gas and oil in the United States, unlocking huge natural gas 

reserves that have reduced the cost of natural gas domestically and 

resulted in economic improvement across many industries. The successful development in application of this technology, however, has 

been accompanied by an insufficient understanding of the potential 

impacts that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, might have on our 

environment and our health. The debate about environmental 

health and human safety issues has escalated as we have heard 

concerns related to groundwater contamination, induced seismicity 

events—and I share Mr. Swalwell’s concerns as someone who has 

constituents along the Cascadia’s adduction zone—well integrity 

and potential negative impacts to the health of workers, just to 

name a few. 

According to the Energy Information Administration, it is estimated that shale gas will supply almost 50 percent of our gas in 

20 years. If that prediction is accurate, it is even more critical that 
19 

this boom in natural gas production be accompanied by a clear development of best practices to identify and curb potential negative 

impacts. 

It is my hope that the multi-agency research plan will address 

these very important questions in order to ensure the continued 

prosperity of the industry, while preserving the health and safety 

of the general public. 

Hydraulic fracturing emerged as a commercial success in large 

part because of Federal investment in fracking technologies. The 

success the government had in aiding the fracking industry is an 

example of how public-private partnerships can work to advance 

science and engineering, and turn nascent technologies into an economic driver. 

Although I am a strong proponent of reducing our country’s dependence on conventional gas and oil, I hope we make similar commitments to developing clean energy technology, with a similar 

focus on preserving human and environmental health. Diversifying 

our energy supply and protecting public health go hand in hand. 

In closing, I am pleased that the Administration is calling upon 

the expertise of our Federal agencies to ensure that we have the 

best scientific information available, use cutting edge technology, 

and develop best practices for extracting this plentiful resource in 

a manner that is safe for our workers and the environment. I look 

forward to hearing how the agencies plan to research and address 

these issues, and with that, I yield back and look forward to the 

testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

RANKING MEMBER SUZANNE BONAMICI

Thank you, Chair Lummis and Chair Stewart. I am pleased to have representatives from the federal agencies appearing before the joining Subcommittees today 

to discuss their multi-agency plan to research hydraulic fracturing and unconventional oil and gas. Hydraulic fracturing has led to a significant expansion of drilling 

for oil and gas in the United States, unlocking huge natural gas reserves that have 

reduced the cost of natural gas domestically and resulted in economic improvement 

across many industries. 

The successful development and application of this technology, however, has been 

accompanied by an insufficient understanding of the potential impacts that hydraulic fracturing, or ‘‘fracking,’’ might have on our environment and our health. The debate about environmental health and human safety issues has escalated over the 

years, as we have heard concerns related to groundwater contamination, induced 

seismicity events, well integrity, and potential negative impacts to the health of 

workers, just to name a few. According to the Energy Information Administration, 

shale gas is estimated to supply almost 50 percent of our gas in 20 years. If that 

prediction is accurate, it is even more critical that this boom in natural gas production be accompanied by a clear development of best practices to identify and curb 

potential negative impacts. It is my hope that the multiagency research plan will 

address these very important questions in order to insure the continued prosperity 

of the industry while preserving the health and safety of the general public. 

Hydraulic fracturing emerged as a commercial success in large part because of 

federal investment in fracking technologies. The success the government had in aiding the fracking industry is an example of how public-private partnerships can work 

to advance science and engineering and turn nascent technologies into an economic 

driver. Although I am a strong proponent of reducing our country’s dependence on 

conventional gas and oil, I hope that we make similar commitments to developing 

clean energy technology, with a similar focus on preserving human and environmental health. Diversifying our energy supply and protecting public health go hand 

in hand. 
20 

In closing, I am pleased that the Administration is calling upon the expertise of 

our federal agencies to ensure that we have the best scientific information available, 

use cutting-edge technology, and develop best practices for extracting this plentiful 

resource in a manner that is safe for our workers and the environment. I look forward to hearing how the agencies plan to research and address these issues. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I have a very 

brief opening statement. 

It is difficult to overstate the incredible benefits of the fracking 

energy revolution that is underway across America. 

A recent report found that the Eagle Ford shale development in 

Texas is now producing 700,000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids every day, up from zero just three years ago. The economic 

benefits and job opportunities associated with this shale boom, not 

just in Texas but across the Nation, is arguably the brightest spot 

in an otherwise still stagnant economy. 

Unfortunately, a widely publicized handful of unsubstantiated 

charges that fracking pollutes groundwater has led many to question the safety of this practice. The EPA is at the center of this debate, linking fracking to water contamination in at least three 

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

scrutiny. 

It is against this backdrop that we are here to consider the Administration’s request to spend nearly $40 million across several 

agencies studying the safety of hydraulic fracturing that would be 

carried out under a long-delayed and still unreleased research plan. 

We all want to ensure safe and responsible production of oil and 

natural gas, but the combination of the Administration’s track 

record on fracking and the delays associated with developing these 

plans provide cause for concern. 

I look forward to hearing how we can support this energy revolution and avoid any unnecessary delay in its evaluation by the Federal Government. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

It is difficult to overstate the incredible benefits of the fracking energy revolution 

that is underway across America. 

A recent report found that the Eagle Ford shale development in Texas is now producing 700,000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids every day-up from zero just 

three years earlier. The economic benefits and job opportunities associated with this 

shale boom—not just in Texas but across the nation—is arguably the brightest spot 

in an otherwise still stagnant economy. 

Unfortunately, a widely publicized handful of unsubstantiated charges that 

fracking pollutes ground water has led many to question the safety of this practice. 

The EPA is at the center of this debate, linking fracking to water contamination 

in at least three cases, only to be forced to retract their statements after further 

scrutiny. 

It is against this backdrop that we are here to consider the Administration’s request to spend nearly $40 million across several agencies studying the safety of hydraulic fracturing that would be carried out under a long-delayed and still 

unreleased research plan. 

We all want to ensure safe and responsible production of oil and natural gas, but 

the combination of the Administration’s track record on fracking and the delays associated with developing these plans provide cause for concern. 
21 

I look forward to hearing how we can support this energy revolution and avoid 

any unnecessary delay in its evaluation by the federal government. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

Now for a little housekeeping. In front of each member are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and Truth in 

Testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. As always, we will alternate between the Majority and Minority members in terms of 

asking questions. 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 order of arrival. One more 

little thing. If there are members who wish to submit additional 

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

this point. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman? 

Chairman LUMMIS. Yes? I recognize—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I have—I am Chairman 

of a hearing that is about to happen in a few minutes from now, 

and I would just like to thank you for your leadership in calling 

this hearing today, and I will be submitting questions for the 

record and reading the testimony of the witnesses, but have to 

leave and I am sorry for that. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Rohrabacher is 

a long-distinguished member of this Committee, and we appreciate 

his presence here this morning, and look forward to the submittal 

of your questions and the responses to them from the agencies here 

present. Thank you, Representative Rohrabacher. 

If there are additional opening statements, we will accept them 

now. 

Very well. That being said, it is now time to introduce our panel 

of witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Kevin Teichman. Now did I 

get that right? It is Teichman. I had it right the first time, didn’t 

I? Would you please say it again? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Teichman. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Teichman, all right. Thank you. Dr. 

Teichman is the Senior Science Advisor for the Office of Research 

and Development at the EPA. 

Our second witness is—now here we go. I am going to give it a 

shot, and please correct me. Mr. DeHoratiis? 

Mr. DEHORATIIS. DeHoratiis. 

Chairman LUMMIS. DeHoratiis. Welcome. Mr. DeHoratiis is the 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oil and Gas in the Office of 

Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy. 

Our third witness is Dr. David Russ—did I get that right? 

Dr. RUSS. Perfectly well. Thank you. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you. Regional Executive of the Northeast Area for the United States Geological Survey. 

And our final witness is Dr. Robin Ikeda—— 

Dr. IKEDA. Ikeda. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Ikeda, all right. Dr. Ikeda is the Acting Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at 

the Department of Health and Human Services. 

We are, again, grateful for your presence here today. As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes 

each, after which, members of the Committee have five minutes 
22 

each to ask questions. Your written testimony will be included in 

the record of the hearing. 

And now, I would like to recognize our first witness, Dr. 

Teichman, for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. KEVIN TEICHMAN, 

SENIOR SCIENCE ADVISOR, 

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Good morning Chairmen Lummis and Stewart, 

and other distinguished Subcommittee Members. I appreciate the 

opportunity to talk with you today about EPA’s research activities 

related to hydraulic fracturing. 

Among others, oil and natural gas are important sources of energy that will continue to play a vital role in our Nation’s energy 

future. The extraction and development of these resources must be 

done safely, responsibly, and be guided by the best available 

science. 

In April 2012, DOE, DOI, and EPA signed a memorandum of 

agreement to develop a research program devoted to unconventional oil and gas production. Under this MOA, the three agencies 

are collaborating to provide information that will support sound 

policy decisions by Federal agencies, state, tribal, and local governments, the oil and gas industry, and others to ensure prudent development of these sources while promoting safe practices, human 

health, and the environment. The three agencies are coordinating 

their research planning, focusing on each agency’s areas of core 

competency and collaborating on research with each other and others. 

Last July, the tri-agency steering committee held webinars for 

three different groups of stakeholders, industry, state and tribal 

governments, and not-for-profit organizations. At that time, we described the research areas we thought should be studied and asked 

each group what the most important research questions that can 

be addressed in the short term and in the long term? What would 

be the most useful research products, and what research is your organization pursuing? 

In addition, the members of the steering committee and its technical subcommittee continue to participate in technical conferences, 

meetings, and workshops devoted to this topic, at which we have 

presented them our research areas and asked the above questions. 

Specifically, EPA has taken steps to coordinate with other Federal agencies throughout the development and implementation of 

our drinking water study. For example, DOE and DOI are participants in the technical workshops related to our study. These workshops are devoted to analytical chemical methods, well construction 

and operation and subsurface modeling, wastewater treatment, 

water acquisition modeling, and hydraulic fracturing case studies. 

In the MOA, the three agencies committed to the development of 

a research plan that would, in brief, synthesize the state of knowledge; identify data gaps; prioritize research topics; and determine 

future goals and objectives. The research plan is still under development. Work to date to develop the plan has been very helpful in 
23 

both coordinating the research efforts of the three agencies, and developing the President’s 2014 budget request. 

In Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013, EPA’s research related to hydraulic fracturing is focused on carrying out the Congressionally requested Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on 

Drinking Water Resources. This research is focusing on assessing 

any potential impacts, as well as identifying the factors that may 

affect the severity and frequency of such impacts. 

Work is underway to answer the research questions listed in the 

study plan for this effort. EPA released a progress report in December 2012 which provided an update of the ongoing research. A draft 

report of results is expected in late 2014, which will synthesize our 

research results together with the available scientific literature to 

inform answers to the research questions listed in the study plan. 

As shown in the study plan, there are important questions outside the scope of the current study that are of high priority to 

stakeholders. Therefore, the tri-agency research plan will include 

research on potential impacts on air quality, human health effects, 

water, and ecosystems. This broader perspective is reflected in the 

Fiscal Year 2014 budget request. The Fiscal Year 2014 budget request is $14.1 million and $24.9 

million FTE for EPA to conduct UOG research. Resources are requested for the drinking water study; water quality and ecological 

studies; and air quality studies. These research areas are among 

those identified as high priority research topics in the tri-agency effort and represent EPA’s 2014 contribution to that effort. 

As mentioned earlier, a draft report of the drinking water study 

results is expected in late 2014, and additionally, Fiscal Year 2014 

resources will be used to revise the report as needed to reflect public and peer review comments. 

The remaining Fiscal Year 2014 requested resources will be used 

to better characterize the composition of wastewater and wastewater treatment residuals, including solids from hydraulic fracturing and UOG operations, and air emissions from these operations. 

In conclusion, I believe the prudent development of our oil and 

natural gas resources can make a critical contribution to meeting 

our Nation’s energy needs. I am proud to be part of the research 

effort that will help enable the development of these resources in 

a way that maximizes the positive impacts and minimizes the potential negative ones. We are pursuing this work with the best 

available science and the highest level of transparency, and will 

continue to collaborate with our Federal partners and work with 

our stakeholders to address the highest priority challenges to safely 

and prudently developing unconventional shale gas and tight oil resources. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Teichman follows:] 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Dr. Teichman. 

Now I am going to try one more time. I love these American last 

names of global derivation. They are so much fun, and I think have 

Dr. Teichman and Dr. Ikeda down, so I am going to make one more 

run at Mr. DeHoratiis. 

Mr. DEHORATIIS. That is correct. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Did I get it right? 

Mr. DEHORATIIS. That is correct. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Great. The Chair now recognizes our next 

witness, Mr. DeHoratiis. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. GUIDO DEHORATIIS, 

ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR OIL AND GAS, OFFICE OF FOSSIL 

ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. DEHORATIIS. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairs, the 

Ranking Members, and the Members of the Subcommittees for inviting me before you today to discuss the critical role that the Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, in collaboration with 

the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection 

Agency, is playing to improve the safety and environmental performance of our Nation’s unconventional oil and natural gas resources. 

Federal coordination and collaboration is critical to successfully 

addressing the challenges associated with the development of unconventional oil and gas resources. To this end, the President 

signed an Executive Order, which has already been referenced this 

morning. On the same day, our three agencies signed a related 

memorandum of agreement on collaborative research to better 

identify and address the highest priority issues associated with the 

safe and prudent development of unconventional oil and gas resources. 

This collaboration will address a subset of unconventional resources, namely shale gas, tight gas, shale oil, and tight oil, and 

a robust Federal research and development plan is under development. Each of the three agencies has a unique set of core capabilities relevant to this effort and will focus on those tasks that are 

most relevant to their respective skill sets. At the same time, the 

agencies will work together on tasks that require collaboration. The 

President’s 2014 budget request includes $12 million for DOE to 

fund this effort. 

Shale gas development has brought new options to American consumers, along with new environmental concerns. This is a period 

of great opportunity for the prudent development of our country’s 

resources which could make a positive contribution to our economy, 

jobs, and balance of trade. But to get these benefits we must do 

this right. Through targeted research and development, DOE can 

work with our agency partners, industry, and other stakeholders to 

help ensure that we are meeting our shared goal of safe and responsible development of these resources. 

The successful application of horizontal drilling and hydraulic 

fracturing technologies has enabled production to be extended to 

vast volumes of unconventional resources that were previously un-
32 

economic to produce. To help ensure that development of our resources is done in a safe and responsible way, DOE is implementing research in areas that will include water quality and 

availability, air quality, induced seismicity, and mitigating the impacts of development. 

The Department is carrying out research directed at quantifying 

and understanding the environmental and safety risks of shale gas 

and shale oil development, improving our understanding of emerging and developing shale plays, and increasing the efficiency of 

technologies for treating hydraulic fracture flowback water. 

Our partnership with Altela to successfully treat hydraulic 

wastewater, which I detailed in my written statement, is a good example of the kind of projects we are pursuing. We are also focused 

on improving environmental performance by mitigating impacts related to well bore integrity and zonal isolation to protect the shallow groundwater resources and reducing water usage, air emissions, and resource degradation through improved unconventional 

resource stimulation that appropriately matches that technology to 

local geologic and hydrologic conditions. 

This work is a critical component of DOE’s portfolio to advance 

the environmentally sound development of unconventional natural 

gas and oil resources and will support ongoing programmatic efforts. 

DOE has research experience and capabilities in drilling and production technologies, green technologies, complex systems, imaging, 

materials, earth science and engineering. 

DOE capabilities in drilling and production technologies include 

experience and expertise in quantifying, evaluating and mitigating 

potential risks resulting from the production and development of 

shale oil and gas resources that includes multi-phase flow in wells 

and reservoirs, well control, casing, cementing, drilling fluids, and 

abandonment operations. 

The Office of Fossil Energy is committed to developing the 

science and technology that will allow the Nation to use its abundant fossil energy resources in a way that meets its energy needs, 

including sustaining a robust economy and ensuring environmental 

responsibility. We believe that continued progress will help in addressing issues of energy and environmental security, and ensure 

the maximum benefit to the U.S. taxpayers. 

This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeHoratiis follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, and your testimony provided a 

great segue way to Dr. Russ about the geological issues. 

Now, you are from the northeast region, so you have some experience with the Marcellus area, I assume. 

Dr. RUSS. That is correct. 

Chairman LUMMIS. We are looking forward to your testimony, 

Dr. Russ. You may begin. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID RUSS, 

REGIONAL EXECUTIVE, 

NORTHEAST AREA, U.S. 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dr. RUSS. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 

today to review Federal hydraulic fracturing research activities, the 

progress in coordinating research called for in Executive Order 

13605, and the associated interagency memorandum of agreement, 

and the Department of Interior’s role and responsibilities in carrying out this work. 

Interior supports the responsible development of natural gas as 

a clean energy source, so it is important to understand this resource as well as investigate and evaluate potential environmental 

impacts associated with shale gas development. 

The interagency collaboration builds on the core capabilities of 

each agency to ensure that our efforts are complementary and nonduplicative. The USGS does not regulate, nor does it manage lands 

or other resources. The USGS conducts scientific research and assessments of geologically based energy resources, including unconventional resources such as shale gas and shale oil. USGS programs that monitor and investigate the Nation’s surface water and 

groundwater resources are fundamental in determining water 

availability and quality, including the potential impacts of resource 

extraction on drinking water, healthy ecosystems, and the sustainability of living species. USGS core capabilities also include the assessment of land-use change, critical to understanding the impacts 

of energy development activities on ecosystems and the socio-economics of communities, and the investigations of earthquakes, including earthquakes. 

To meet the challenge of safely and responsibly maximizing the 

contribution that unconventional oil and gas resources make to the 

total energy supply, DOE, EPA, and Interior are developing a collaborative research framework. The three agencies are building 

upon current work and identifying and prioritizing new research 

and development activities that support sound management and 

policy decisions by federal, state, tribal, and local entities. The goal 

is to produce decision-ready information to help ensure the prudent 

development of energy resources, and the protection of human 

health and the environment. Our effort encompasses a number of 

research topics, including the U.S. unconventional oil and gas resource assessment, characterization, and management; water quality; water availability; air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; 

effects on people and their communities; ecological effects; and induced seismicity. 
38 

Interior, through the USGS, has ongoing and planned activities 

covering a range of research topics. Specific activities in fiscal years 

2013 and 2014 are described in my written statement, but in general, USGS envisions a continuation of prior work that builds on 

core USGS competencies. For example, the USGS has historically 

had responsibility for assessing the undiscovered, technically recoverable hydrocarbon resources of the Nation and will continue this 

function for unconventional resources. The USGS will identify and 

model water-quality changes associated with the life cycle of unconventional oil and gas production, and will determine the impact of 

well injection and produced waters on groundwater quality. The 

USGS will support streamgage baseline monitoring in states where 

production is ongoing or planned, and will develop predictive tools 

and statistical models for estimating the amount of water needed 

for drilling and production operations. The USGS will also conduct 

wastewater toxicity testing and vulnerability assessments to identify and prioritize regions, aquatic communities, and wildlife habitats that have the greatest potential for impact from unconventional oil and gas activities. Decades of research have demonstrated 

that the deep injection of large volumes of fluids underground can 

induce earthquakes. The USGS will calibrate models against field 

and lab data to support the development of best management practices for minimizing induced seismicity. The USGS will analyze 

seismic data to update the national probabilistic seismic risk maps 

in ways that account for induced earthquakes. 

In conclusion, the research activities required to address questions related to hydraulic fracturing draw on the core capabilities 

and competencies of USGS scientists in geology, seismology, energy 

resource development, biology, and hydrology. I have briefly described many of our current and proposed hydraulic fracturing-related efforts in my written statement, but a number of other USGS 

programs also contribute to an improved understanding of these 

issues. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the activities of 

the USGS and the interagency effort to understand this important 

natural resource, and the potential impacts of its development. We 

appreciate your interest in and support for our science, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions that Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Russ follows:] 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Dr. Russ. 

Now we turn to Dr. Ikeda. 

Dr. IKEDA. Ikeda. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thought I had yours. I am sorry, Ikeda. Correct? 

Dr. IKEDA. Correct. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you. You are recognized, Dr. Ikeda. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBIN IKEDA, 

ACTING DIRECTOR, 

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

AND DISEASE REGISTRY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Dr. IKEDA. Good morning, Chairwoman Lummis, Chairman 

Stewart, and Members of the Subcommittees. Thank you for the 

opportunity to present this testimony. 

I am pleased to represent the Department of Health and Human 

Services to provide you with an update of our work related to hydraulic fracturing. Although our work related to hydraulic fracturing at HHS is limited in terms of the amount of work we do, 

we provide technical assistance and scientific expertise to our Federal colleagues and others. President Obama has made clear his 

commitment to the safe and responsible development of our natural 

gas resources as part of the all-of-the-above energy plan. I will 

briefly describe the missions for the three HHS components that 

conduct work related to hydraulic fracturing. 

CDC, ATSDR focuses on protecting people in communities from 

environmental exposures to harmful substances. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, which is also 

part of CDC, is responsible for preventing work-related injury, illness, and death. As part of NIH, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, conducts basic applied and clinical research on the health effects of environmental exposures. 

None of these three agencies have regulatory authority. 

Our work related to hydraulic fracturing is in primarily four 

areas. First, we coordinate with federal, state, and local partners. 

We define research gaps and other information needs. We evaluate 

site-specific health conditions and potential exposures in communities, and we assess potential workplace exposures. If we identify 

harmful exposures in the community or the workplace, we recommend actions to protect communities and/or workers. 

Our work related to hydraulic fracturing has been in collaboration with federal, state, and local partners. HHS has provided technical support to the multi-agency work group on research related 

to unconventional oil and gas development. Although HHS is not 

a member of the steering committee, we have provided technical 

and scientific input to this initiative at the Committee’s request. In 

addition, HHS has provided input on design of EPA’s study looking 

at the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water 

resources. 
47 

HHS is also working to better define public health research gaps 

and other information needs related to hydraulic fracturing. In 

2012, we participated in three meetings to assess the public health 

research needs in this area. Other participants at these meetings 

included experts from industry, academia, and the government. 

Along similar lines, NIEHS provided a small grant to the University of Rochester for a one-year project to help understand the 

health and hydraulic fracturing related information needs among 

various health professionals, government officials, and communities 

in New York, North Carolina, and Ohio. Information from this 

project will be used to develop recommendations about how to respond to the public’s need for information about health and hydraulic fracturing, and to guide future research. 

ATSDR’s site specific activities focus on whether health hazards 

exist from exposures to harmful substances in air, water, and soil. 

Typically, this work has been done at the request of EPA and/or 

state agencies. If public health risks are identified, ATSDR makes 

recommendations that individuals, organizations, or government 

agencies can take to protect health. ATSDR also follows up with 

local residents to make sure they understand the findings. 

In the last two fiscal years, ATSDR has completed more than 300 

of these site specific consultations, but only a small proportion of 

these consultations, eight sites in total, have been related to health 

concerns in areas with ongoing hydraulic fracturing activities. Our 

work at these eight sites has generally fallen into three categories: 

sites where there are concerns about the water quality, those 

where air quality is an issue, and then those where there are potentially explosive hazards, such as methane. 

NIOSH works closely with industry colleagues to assess potential 

workplace exposures and if indicated, recommends actions like safe 

worker practices, use of protective equipment, or engineering controls to protect workers. To address an existing lack of information 

about dust and chemical exposures associated with hydraulic fracturing, NIOSH initiated an effort to better understand occupational 

exposures among oil and gas extraction workers. With respect to 

hydraulic fracturing, exposure to airborne silica during the fracturing process has been the primary focus of NIOSH work to date. 

Additional NIOSH activities related to hydraulic fracturing include 

developing a research agenda and evaluating or examining other 

potential worker safety hazards, such as falls, chemical exposures, 

or fires and explosions. 

In conclusion, HHS, working with our Federal and state partners, communities, and industry, supports the President’s commitment to the safe and responsible development of our natural gas 

resources as part of the all-of-the-above energy plan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ikeda follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the witnesses for their testimony, 

and the Chair now recognizes herself for the first questions. 

I want to start with each of you. Having been an ex-pat member 

of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, a 

lot of them are going to be related towards spending. 

In Fiscal Year 2013, the EPA, DOE, and USGS were given a combined $45 million for fracking related research at your agencies. Can each of you from those agencies tell us how much your 

agency plans to spend this year related to this proposal? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. We will take it in the order that we testified earlier, Chairman Lummis, and I believe I got that correct. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Dr. Teichman. Yes, Lummis, 

rhymes with hummus. Thank you. 

Dr. TEICHMAN. And let me also thank you, and in a moment of 

bipartisan support, Representative Bonamici as well for rocking the 

red as Washington Capitals fans. I appreciate your red blazers here 

this morning. 

One other very brief personal note. I thank all the Committee 

Members for their work in the prior half an hour to this hearing, 

as one who was on the Tokyo metro system the morning that the 

Sarin attack occurred, just happened to be at a different station, 

and whose son worked for Senator Frist when the letter with ricin 

was opened in that office. So I appreciate the seriousness of your 

work. 

In Fiscal Year 2013, the EPA will spend $6.1 million and 14.9 

FTE to continue the drinking water study that we began at the request of Congress in the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations report. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Dr. Teichman. 

Mr. DEHORATIIS. Good morning. In Fiscal Year 2013, the Department of Energy plans to spend $10 million to support the effort, 

the research areas that support the topics that are in the framework. 

Chairman LUMMIS. And Dr. Russ? 

Dr. RUSS. Thank you. Yes, our Continuing Resolution sequestration information is still being sent over, I believe, from OMB to the 

Congress, but our intention is for Fiscal Year 2013 to spend approximately $8.6 million. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Okay. A follow-up for you, Dr. Russ. Last 

year I was part of a discussion with Dr. McNutt in Interior 

Approps on whether we should grant USGS the extra money for 

these studies. And I was a little concerned about duplication, but 

I really was most supportive of the USGS portion, because Dr. 

McNutt told me on the record that the money would be used to develop best practices for wastewater injection and seismic activity. 

And you alluded to those continued uses in your testimony. So 

that, as I understand it, is still the plan going forward? 

Dr. RUSS. Yes, it is, Congresswoman. 

Chairman LUMMIS. No changes there? 

Dr. RUSS. No. 

Chairman LUMMIS. No expansion there? 

Dr. RUSS. There will be a modest expansion, I think, in our induced seismicity component where we have a little bit more money 

this year than last to look at the impacts of induced seismicity and 

by looking at things like injection rates of fluids underground to 
59 

better understand the impacts potentially producing earthquakes, 

and working with EPA, as well as industry to understand best 

management practices potentially reduce the occurrence of these 

types of events. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Okay. I am a landowner and I am in a split 

estate situation where the oil and gas is being developed and so for 

somebody like me who owns the subsurface but not the surface, obviously we are very concerned about wastewater injection issues 

and appreciate USGS expertise in that area. 

Dr. Teichman, I also had last year a discussion on fracking with 

former Administrator Jackson at the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. It was not quite as satisfying to me as my exchange 

with Dr. McNutt. It was in that testimony that Ms. Jackson admitted the EPA had found no conclusive evidence that fracking had 

caused contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming. This after the huge 

expose ́ in the New York Times indicating after they had released 

their draft report that Wyoming was not in as positive a position 

as people thought it should be. 

Exactly how does the EPA intend to use this research money in 

a way that doesn’t duplicate its other studies related to fracking, 

especially does not duplicate the lack of peer-reviewed science and 

the lack of transparency that is the hallmark of the Pavillion draft 

report, especially its release as a draft report that was extremely 

critical and quite frankly, wrong, and created this big flurry of concern about fracking, and now has been completely impeached by 

subsequent work. How can you assure me that doesn’t happen 

again? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Perhaps the best thing I can do I tell you the 

interactions we have had with our Science Advisory Board on the 

EPA drinking water study that I am a part of. 

I would note for you that in Dr. Ikeda’s written testimony, it refers to the fact that the Pavillion, Wyoming situation is not part 

of the EPA drinking water study, and so I wish to draw that distinction to your attention. 

Chairman LUMMIS. And I would wish to draw the point that Lisa 

Jackson, when I asked her is the drinking water contaminated by 

fracking in Pavilion, and she testified no. So what—the problem I 

am having is that EPA is not distinguishing in people’s minds 

drinking water versus groundwater, non-drinking groundwater. 

And furthermore, the fact that EPA was probably responsible for 

contaminating some of those wells during the testing process adds 

to the further frustration, and you know, Pavillion is frequently 

held up as the poster child for bad practices and bad consequences, 

when it was hugely prematurely released. It has not been peer reviewed. It was exaggerated, and in fact, it appears that EPA itself 

was contaminating those wells in their own efforts. 

I am hugely frustrated with the EPA and its treatment of my 

state and of fracking in general. It is as if it tried to create an example at Pavillion to exacerbate or raise the profile of fracking as 

a national issue without the science to back it up. So I—so the distinction between groundwater and drinking water is important. 

My time is—oh yeah, my time is way up, excuse me. 

I yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Swalwell, with my apologies. 
60 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chair Lummis, and no apology needed. I am interested in this discussion as well, and as I mentioned 

in my opening remarks, perhaps with fracking we may find that 

the drinking water and groundwater contamination concerns would 

apply to any state that has or participates in fracking, but then 

once you look at individual states, you might find that there are 

issues that are unique to those states. And I am talking, of course, 

about California. 

And so Dr. Russ, as I noted in my opening statement, my constituents in California are particularly concerned about the possibility of manmade earthquakes. I represent the Hayward Fault. 

That is in my district, and it is an internationally known fault line. 

Nature and physics give us enough problems as it is, so how significant is the potential for induced seismicity, and what are some 

of the ways that we can sufficiently address that risk, as well as 

what do we know now and what do you want to know in the future? And I was encouraged to hear that there may be some funding that can be put towards further studies. 

Dr. RUSS. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. Yes, induced seismicity we 

regard as a very important topic for research. We want to know 

more about how many earthquakes are occurring in areas where 

fluid is being injected underground, wastewater fluid is being injected. We want to know the rate in which those events are occurring, and the size of those events. We want to know if one earthquake that has been induced can trigger another earthquake, and 

can it be a larger, more damaging earthquake? We want to know 

the relationship between the pressure and the rate of injection and 

the volumes of water and waste materials that are injected underground so we can calibrate those rates against the potential occurrence of earthquakes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And what do we know now? 

Dr. RUSS. We know now that there is relationships between the 

occurrence of these induced earthquakes and the locations of subsurface injection wells. We know that it is important to understand 

if there is an active fault nearby injection sites, which could be— 

that fault might be ruptured and trigger an event. We know that 

there has been a significant uptick in the numbers of small to medium earthquakes in the central United States, which we believe 

are associated largely with induced earthquakes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. And also, Dr. Russ, in my state, as in 

many, water is a precious resource and fracking is an extremely 

water-intensive process. If these activities were to expand into 

Northern California, do you have a sense of where the required 

water resources would be obtained from, and what the impact on 

local water availability would be? 

Dr. RUSS. Very good question. Water availability is one of the 

key research topics that are in our draft research report. Each 

area, as you mentioned, is unique in terms of its occurrence, the 

nature of where the aquifers are and where the various units of 

contained water, whether it is streams or subsurface sources. So we 

would have to take a look at that individual area to determine 

what are the actual occurrences and the problems. Also, 

seasonality of the weather in a given area affects water availability, so the weather is an important component as well. 
61 

Mr. SWALWELL. Will the research plan also examine alternative 

fracking fluid technologies that would be less harmful to the environment? 

Dr. RUSS. Yes, that is the intent. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay. Also will the research plan examine recycling of wastewater that would be produced in the fracking process? 

Dr. RUSS. I am not sure if that is—if I have the knowledge on 

that one. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay, any other witness? Dr. Teichman? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Yes, I believe the research plan will include the 

ability of recycling wastewaters as a way of preserving water acquisition and not introducing additional chemicals into the hydraulic 

fracturing process. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. And going back to where I started, for all 

witnesses, would you agree that at least right now, as I mentioned, 

we must proceed with extreme caution but that we may find that 

some states are better suited, if you can address the groundwater 

and drinking water concerns that some states may be better suited 

for exploration through fracking rather than other states? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. I will take the first stab and then turn, perhaps, 

to Dr. Russ, and to state that certainly the geological formations 

are different in different states, and the approaches to be taken, 

therefore, should be dependent upon what the different states geology is. For those who are traditionally drilling much deeper than 

the aquifers, then I think we would expect that practice to certainly be more positively environmentally friendly than those who 

might be drilling into them. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Actually, I will yield back the balance of 

my time. Thank you, Chair. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you. I thank the Ranking Member. 

Next we go to the Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, 

Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to go 

through a couple of questions, but I want to divert just if I can and 

do some very quickly. 

Dr. Russ, I would like to comment on some of the things you 

have said. You know, I am afraid that you would leave the impression with the American people being familiar with this hearing 

today that there is a great risk of massive earthquakes because of 

water reinjection and hydraulic fracking. Is that your intention 

here with your testimony? 

Dr. RUSS. No, it is not. 

Mr. STEWART. Because we agree that this is very, very immature 

science, and we really can’t draw any conclusions yet at this point, 

is that true? 

Dr. RUSS. I would say that is true in terms of potential damaging 

earthquakes. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. So there is some speculation, but very, very 

little evidence to draw any conclusions to this? 

Dr. RUSS. We are very early in our research. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay, thank you for that. 

A couple others, and again, I will make these very easy if I could. 

I am supposing that none of you would disagree with the Presi-
62 

dent’s belief that greenhouse gas emissions pose a global threat. 

Would that be true? None of you would disagree with that? Okay. 

And then let me, if I could just cite a point, from 2005 to 2011, 

which I know that you all are familiar with, of course, the greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 12 percent. And over this 

same period, global greenhouse emissions have actually increased 

significantly, and a lot of the reason for this is because of our abundance of natural gas. Then could we agree that it is a good thing— 

it would be a good policy that it was something we want to facilitate everything that we can do to increase our natural gas production. Would we agree that that is a good event? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Let me just state in my testimony that I believe 

we should indeed develop our energy sources in a way that maximizes the positive benefits and certainly minimizes the negative. I 

would, however, mention if you ask me which is the cleanest form 

of energy, it is energy conservation. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay, but the policy being is it is good for us to 

facilitate natural gas production, any of you disagree with that? 

Okay, thank you then. 

Then in your testimony, either written or in some cases, your testimony today, you praise the benefits of natural gas but you caution that, as you said, we want to reap these benefits but we want 

to ‘‘do it right.’’ And given that these practices, they have been 

going for decades. This isn’t something that is new. There are some 

new variations of the technology, but this isn’t dramatically new or 

different than what we have been doing for quite a lot of time. And 

to my knowledge, there are no proven instances of groundwater 

contamination, and as we have just said, greenhouse gasses have 

been declining thanks to natural gas, and so I would ask you, I 

mean, what have we done wrong? We say we want to do it right, 

but what are our concerns? What have we done wrong up to this 

point? And I would invite any of the panelists to try and answer 

that. 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Let me try and start by stating that I believe that 

the technology of drilling very deeply and horizontally with new 

drill bits and using hydraulic fracturing is something which the 

combination of has allowed us to see a much greater resource than 

I would say we knew of decades ago, to refer to your question. 

Mr. STEWART. Which is a great thing. 

Dr. TEICHMAN. I certainly am glad to see domestic energy supplies that may reduce our reliance on foreign supplies, absolutely 

I agree with you in that regard. 

To that extent, I think these newer combination of technologies 

we just need to make sure we are maximizing the positive benefits 

of the exploration of natural gas and oil, by the way, and minimizing the potential for environmental harm at the same time. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay, so there isn’t anything particular that you 

think we have done wrong up to this point, would that be true? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. I think that is true, although I would think that 

work that I have heard industry talking about, and I hope is being 

implemented, to have stronger casings or additional casings when 

they go through aquifers, to recycle the wastewater to go ahead 

and use greener fracking fluids, I would very much encourage work 

in that direction. 
63 

Mr. STEWART. And I think all of us would, by the way, Doctor. 

I think—I mean, there would be very little argument. I can’t imagine a reasonable argument against those suggestions at all. 

Dr. TEICHMAN. I think that is right, other than sometimes they 

may cost a little bit more, but I believe in the long run it is to the 

benefit of all. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay, and again, my fear is that there is perception that this panel or that some others may create, kind of coming 

back to the, you know, the earthquakes. Holy cow, you know, we 

are going to have this enormous event when we don’t know that, 

and my fear is that the perception is that we would leave the 

American people that we have done something wrong, that we have 

been remiss in our environmental concerns up to this point, and I 

just don’t think that is the case. I don’t think the evidence supports 

that, and I appreciate that you would agree with that. 

With that being said, my time is up and I yield back to you, 

Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Chairman Stewart. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have several questions and very little time, so I am going to ask a few at 

a time and then allow you an opportunity to respond, so the first 

question is to Dr. Russ. 

I want to follow up on your testimony about water availability 

research where you said that the USGS will develop water budgets 

to understand how much water is required to produce UOG deposits. So when you are analyzing the suitability of different communities, do you take into account the local economy’s water need, 

both present and future, to support potential future economic 

growth? So hold that, and then my next question is to Dr. 

Teichman. 

Dr. Teichman, yesterday in the Environment Subcommittee, we 

held a hearing on policy relevant issues related to climate change. 

We discussed the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet and all of the witnesses who testified agreed that anthropologic 

climate change is happening, and we need to take action to address 

it. Now one concern I have heard about hydraulic fracturing is the 

possibility of fugitive emissions of methane gas, so I wanted you to 

please describe what the EPA is doing with your ongoing studies 

into the potential of fugitive emissions of methane from hydraulic 

fracturing. 

And then finally for all of the panel, we have had, in the Environment Subcommittee, several discussions about stakeholder 

input, which is an important issue when discussing scientific and 

environmental and public health issues. Now obviously, there has 

been some miscommunication and misinformation regarding hydraulic fracturing, so will you please detail what efforts you have 

made to get input from stakeholders related to your research plan, 

and also what you are planning to do to communicate and reach 

out to the public to ensure that the general public and stakeholders 

are informed about what you are doing. 

So starting with Dr. Russ on the water. 

Dr. RUSS. Thank you. A water availability and the development 

of water budgets, we feel, is a critical component to understand the 
64 

amount of water it takes—is used, actually, in the overall operations of hydraulic fracturing and related activities. And yes, the 

water availability takes a look at all of the uses of water, surface 

water, groundwater, including the water that is needed to supply 

normal communities with the waters that they need, whether it is 

drinking water, irrigation, or whatever, so it does include all of 

these sources. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And also, do you consider the potential future to 

support economic growth in a particular community? 

Dr. RUSS. Yes, socioeconomics is a part of this study. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Teichman on the—— 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Fugitive emissions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. That is it. 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Right. Indeed, that is a concern that we have that 

we actually believe the industry shares with us, that we should not 

have such methane stray emissions occurring as part of the drilling 

process, and therefore, I believe—although this is somewhat out of 

my bailiwick and more into the policy side as opposed to the research, that we have a new source performance standard on well 

completion, that therefore would minimize the methane emissions 

associated with the completion of wells, and such that the material 

that would be collected by the industry and so saving those methane emissions could actually reap greater benefits than the cost to 

do so. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

And for the panel—did you want to add something? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. No, I was just going to go to your second question—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Okay, perfect. 

Dr. TEICHMAN. —for the panel, but I will be very brief because 

I can spend too much time on this. But part of the EPA drinking 

water study, just to give you an example, in our development of the 

study plan for it, there were four public stakeholder meetings, an 

e-mail box set up, public comment was offered on the draft study 

plan, the SAB consulted and had an opportunity for public comment then from the stakeholders. The SAB had a peer review of 

the study plan. There were technical workshops, webinars, a docket 

was set up, a list serve, and that is just on the study plan. We have 

had the same type of external outreach on our study conduct. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Others on the panel, would you please 

comment on stakeholder input and communication to public? 

Dr. RUSS. Yes, as we have gone through the plans an preparation 

of our draft research plan, we have webinars with industry, with 

states, with academia, and other nongovernmental organizations. 

We have, in addition, participated in many professional meetings 

and other community meetings that have asked about what we are 

looking at, including in our research plan. Particularly, we have 

worked with states through things like river basin commissions 

and participated in their meetings to understand the potential effects and water use of hydraulic fracturing. So we take their comments into consideration when we build our ideas for the report. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and the others, I have a bit of time 

left. Mr. DeHoratiis? 
65 

Mr. DEHORATIIS. Yes, the Department of Energy participated in 

both the EPA activities and USGS activities, especially in terms of 

the webinars and presentations that were made. We have had also 

additional interactions with industry and participated in several, 

you know, public professional organizations. You know, there are 

societies that we have given presentations at the Society of Petroleum Engineers and other professional activities. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Dr. IKEDA. And I will just mention a few activities along these 

lines, and not necessarily related to the research plan, but so for 

example, the project that I mentioned during my testimony that 

NIEHS is supporting that does—they are looking at information 

needs from the community, so that is one activity. Another is that 

part and parcel of our standard operating procedures when we 

work at the sites that I mentioned is to communicate findings back 

to the community and address any concerns or questions that they 

might have at that time. And then I would also add that NIOSH 

works very closely with industry and the Silica example that I 

mentioned in my testimony have also worked very closely to communicate findings with workers, along with industry partners. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and I see my time has expired. Thank 

you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, and we—the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Madam Chairman, and I would like to 

use a lot of my time to tell you how very proud I am of you, and 

I am going to, again, thank our Chairman, Chairman Smith, for selection of you to head this Committee, because you are doing a 

wonderful job. You ask the proper questions. You didn’t get proper 

answers. 

I just want to say when it comes to hydraulic fracturing, EPA 

has gained notoriety for using just driven science and levying allegations that later have to be retracted and have been retracted. I 

think certainly several examples such as—Dimock, Pennsylvania; 

Parker County, Texas; and Pavillion, Wyoming that the Chairperson alluded to where it appears that the agency is more interested in rushing judgment and placing information in the hands of 

the media than they are looking for sound scientific approach. 

I just think that it is pitiful, and then when they mention the 

first lady of—we invited her to come before us, Lisa Jackson. We 

had to do everything but threaten to subpoena her to get her and 

finally got an agreement from her to appear at 10 o’clock one morning. That 10 o’clock happened to be the day that the Supreme 

Court guessed wrong on Obamacare, and she was a member of 

the—that had to be with the President that day, so she escaped 

that. Lisa Jackson came before this Committee and made the statement that they were not in the business of creating jobs. I think 

that is one of the meanest things I have ever heard anybody testify 

to here at a time when men are having to go home and face their 

families. They can’t send their daughter to school or they can’t 

keep their son in school or they can’t continue to feed their own 

family. I just think we are in a critical time. And when the EPA 

answered to Congressman Rohrabacher, ask him, he asked the 

question do you know of anywhere, any time when fracturing has 
66 

caused mistreatment of drinking water, every one of them said no. 

Nowhere in the United States. 

Mr. Teichman, in May of 2012, Fred Hauchman, who was the director of the EPA’s Office of Science Policy, said that the agency 

is ‘‘doing a pretty comprehensive look at all of the statutes to determine where there are some holes to justify further regulation of hydraulic fracturing.’’ 

I guess my question to you, Mr. Teichman, can you assure this 

Committee that EPA will not use a steering committee or the 

broader interagency working group to search for holes or engage in 

a search for ways to regulate hydraulic fracturing, rather than trying to help Congress find some way to support jobs and seek for 

jobs? You have come to my state and you came to my state and 

without yielding to scientific—and I would like to remind you, sir, 

that you are under oath when you come here, and that there is a 

statute of limitations when you mislead a Congressional Committee. That statute has not run. It won’t run until we have a new 

President, and I am really proud of the Chair for taking you on. 

I guess I just ask that one question to you as to whether or not 

you can assure the Committee that the EPA is not going to use 

false and unrelated testimony that you later have to go back on or 

if the courts have to turn you around on, and both of those things 

have happened, have they not? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. I can’t speak to the testimony about the rest of 

the EPA. I can tell you that I signed for this Committee the truth 

and whatever the official term is, or the document, I apologize, and 

I am very glad to have done so and there is nothing I have said 

here to the best of my knowledge is not totally truthful, nor will 

it be for the rest of the answer to this question. 

The answer to your question, I believe, is in my testimony where 

the research that we are doing at EPA, if you were to ask me who 

the intended audience is, it is indeed Federal agencies. It is also 

state, local and tribal governments. It is also the oil and gas industry, and it is also the general public, and I believe those are the 

policymakers, not me as the researcher, who will make the decisions on policymaking, and I am hoping to provide research results 

that inform all of their thinking in the soundest possible way. 

Mr. HALL. I don’t know whose direction you are following, but 

when you come here and give us bad science backup for your testimony, that gives me some question about what your attitude is, 

and one of the young ladies up there said that your job is to protect 

the citizens, and that is what you are trying to do. Our job is to 

also protect jobs and to be sure that we have proper science when 

decisions are made that affect this entire country. 

I think my time is up. I would just leave with this. One of the 

horses next Saturday in the Kentucky Derby, there’s a horse 

named Frac Daddy, F-r-a-c D-a-d-d-y, and he has the same odds 

that you have with me. He’s a 45–1 long shot. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and recognize Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to talk with you specifically about this issue, and I 

don’t know if you have heard me speak before the Committee be-
67 

fore, but I really sort of represent a very unique perspective when 

it comes to drilling, because most of the drilling that I am—that 

happens—that I know about—that I am more familiar with, I will 

say, happens in an urban setting. I live in Ft. Worth, Texas, which 

is basically the hub of the Barnett shale, and so, I mean, I live in 

a city with 700,000-plus people, but I have frack ponds, pipelines, 

compressor stations, you name it, in neighborhoods. And so it is 

certainly a difference, because I can tell you that while this issue 

has been controversial in other areas, including Ft. Worth, it is not 

controversial in Midland, Texas, where it is a part of the everyday 

life and basically makes up their entire economy. 

And so what I wanted to ask you specifically, because I have 

about 438 active wells in my district right now, and wanted to ask 

you, has any of your research been centered on the effects of natural gas in an urban setting? Because—and another reason why 

that is so important is that back in 2005, it really took off in Ft. 

Worth, but now, you are going to start seeing more of that take 

place in Dallas County as well, possibly. 

Mr. DEHORATIIS. Well, one of the things that we are doing at the 

Department of Energy is promoting research in dealing with air 

emissions, especially in areas where there may be associated gas 

that is being flared, and so we are definitely looking at technology 

to control and mitigate those emissions. Whether it is dealing with 

improved flaring operations or alternatives to flaring, beneficial use 

of the natural gas that may be associated gas associated with oil 

production from shale oil formations, and also emission capture 

technology. 

So I think that is the technology work at the Department of Energy we are doing that is going to focus more on urban areas. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. Dr. Teichman, do you have anything on 

urban drilling specifically? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Specifically I am not aware that any of the case 

studies, either retrospective or prospective, are intentionally in an 

urban area, but I could be wrong and I would like to double check 

that and offer the answer for the record. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. I wanted to talk with you about drought. As 

you know, specifically in Texas right now we are experiencing 

droughts. We have had situations where, you know, people have— 

they are not taking as many cattle as they were before to feed lots 

and things like that, so I mean we are experiencing that problem. 

And I know that first water reserves in Texas has really been an 

issue lately, and I know the fracking uses, only about one percent 

of the fresh water reserves in our state right now, but it was estimated to use about nine percent of the fresh water annually in one 

of the cities in the Barnett shale area. The water needs for natural 

gas will obviously continue to grow, but as you probably are also 

familiar, our area in the state, the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, is one of 

the fastest growing areas in the entire region, so we obviously are 

going to continue to need to look for water for an increasing population in the metroplex. 

Will any of the research that you plan include information for 

water recycling? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. I believe that question also was raised in a slightly different form, and the answer is yes, to the extent that we can 
68 

recycle wastewater so that we don’t need to continuously use new 

water sources for the hydraulic fracturing, we will look into that 

practice and hopefully it will prove to be very fruitful for all parties. It will save water use, and it will probably save expense, in 

fact, for the industries that are developing the resource. 

Mr. VEASEY. And let me just say this also, the earthquake issue 

has been something that has been covered quite extensively in our 

local newspaper. Obviously when, you know, there were never any 

earthquakes and as someone that is a lifelong resident of the 

metroplex, I can tell you that we have never had any earthquakes, 

and then all of a sudden, we have a lot of earthquakes. They have 

been very small, you know, earthquakes. I think the last one that 

we had recently was about 2—it was measured at 2.6 or so, but you 

know—but we have the earthquakes. 

One scientist from the city of Cleburne, which I know that Ralph 

Hall knows about the city of Cleburne, that they hired him. He 

came in and said to one of the newspapers that yes, you know, 

there is earthquakes—there may be earthquakes associated with 

drilling, and then told the other newspaper there may be earthquakes associated with drilling but it wouldn’t hesitate me to sell 

my minerals and let them drill on my land. So in regards to the 

earthquakes, how serious of an issue do you think it is or not, and 

particularly in specificity to the size of the earthquakes that we 

have been, you know, seeing, these 2.6 or lower, maybe a little bit 

higher. Can you give me some—your thoughts on that particular 

issue? 

Chairman LUMMIS. And quickly, because the time is expired. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman LUMMIS. You bet. 

Dr. RUSS. Yes, very quickly. A very good question. One of our 

goals is to understand through research just how large of an earthquake might be induced by underground injection of fluids, and so 

this understanding of the injection rates and volumes and how that 

might affect the types of earthquakes, the distribution of earthquakes is part of what we are working on. There has been some 

earthquakes in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. You asked about urban 

areas a moment ago, and there is an earthquake that occurred in 

Youngstown, Ohio, that we are studying as well, so that is an 

urban area. 

So we don’t have the answers to these questions yet. It is a complex topic, but it is one of the issues we are looking at. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the witness, and I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Well thank you, Madam Chairman. I am a little late 

in getting here, so I really don’t have a lot of questions. I think my 

colleague over here, also from Texas, was able to get some questions and extract a pound of flesh, so I think I will leave it at that. 

I yield back. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Weber. We have about ten 

minutes until votes, and we have completed one round of testimony. If others are interested, I would suggest that we give each 

of us the opportunity to ask one more question. Just one question. 

Is that agreeable? 

Mr. SWALWELL. Sure. 
69 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the Ranking Member, and the Chairman yields to herself to ask a question. 

I note in what you have told me that you are spending money 

to implement this plan on looking at fracking, and yet, we haven’t 

seen the plan. And I look back at what my opening remarks, the 

agencies committed to release a draft of the research plan in October, final plan in January. We haven’t even received a draft 

version. You are spending money to implement the plan. I want the 

plan. Will you please commit to give us the plan? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. Chairman Lummis, with all due respect, the plan 

is under development. As soon as I am able to have it released, I 

will get it to you. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Well, you know, the logical follow-up question 

is why are you spending money to implement a plan that you 

haven’t released to the public or given for public comment? That 

is my question, and now I yield to—— 

Dr. TEICHMAN. May I respond? I apologize, but in Fiscal Year 

2013, which is when we are indeed spending dollars for our drinking water study, that is consistent with the money we have. It is— 

the plan will be for Fiscal Year 2014, where no dollars have been 

spent yet. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman, and yield to Mr. 

Swalwell. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to ask Mr. DeHoratiis, my understanding is that investments that your office has made in hydraulic fracturing as far as 

research and development decades ago can be directly linked to the 

oil and gas boom that we are seeing today. And if that is the case, 

would you say that this provides a clear example of how federally 

funded applied energy research can have a major impact on establishing or accelerating the development of new energy technologies 

that are critically important to our Nation? 

Mr. DEHORATIIS. Thank you very much. Yes, you know, DOE 

was working in shale gas research back as early as 1978, before it 

was even a thought in most people’s minds that we could produce 

oil from shale formations, oil and gas. So DOE is very proud of 

that. Our efforts today are taking what we think is the next step 

forward, looking at mitigation technologies, how can we do it and 

improve? Just as technology has advanced on the production side, 

we want to make sure that technology is advancing on the performance side. And so we are looking at better ways to reduce the 

amount of water that we need, how can we reuse water, how can 

we find alternatives to water? What about the air emissions? Can 

we do things in that area? Can we better understand the impacts 

of wastewater injection that may induce seismicity? So we are 

doing research in all these areas, and we feel that this is a very 

important research topic for us. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great, thank you, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman LUMMIS. Thank you. We have been joined by a Member of the Committee who hasn’t had a chance to ask questions, so 

I will yield five minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson. 
70 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you very much. I have some questions for 

Dr. Ikeda, and this has to do with the ATSDR’s activities with regard to the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico. Are you familiar with 

the ATSDR’s activities regarding Vieques? 

Dr. IKEDA. Yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Is it fair to say that it is within scientific 

knowledge that the military has released toxins in various places, 

including Vieques and elsewhere, where the military has done 

bombing? Is it fair to say that we know to a scientific certainty that 

the military has released toxins into the environment in airs that 

it has done bombing? 

Dr. IKEDA. We are focused on the human health aspects, environmental exposures, and our work in Vieques has not documented 

human health exposures or human health impacts related to military activities in Vieques. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay, Doctor, my question was is it fair to say 

with a scientific certainty that bombing has led to environmental 

damage through the release of toxins? That is my question. 

Dr. IKEDA. I can’t speak to the environmental damage. Our focus 

is on the human health aspects of exposures in the environment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Is it fair to say, Doctor, to a scientific 

certainty that the release of mercury into the environment can 

cause human health damage? 

Dr. IKEDA. Mercury has been associated with negative health impacts, yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Now the same thing is true of Agent Orange, 

right? 

Dr. IKEDA. Yes, correct. 

Mr. GRAYSON. And the same thing is true of depleted uranium, 

right? 

Dr. IKEDA. Yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. And the same thing is true of napalm, right? 

Dr. IKEDA. Yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Now can you tell me how much napalm 

was released in Vieques during the half century of bombing by the 

Navy? 

Dr. IKEDA. I am sorry, I don’t have that information. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Do you have any idea? 

Dr. IKEDA. I don’t know. No, we would have to get back to you. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Do you—can you tell me how much depleted uranium was released on Vieques during a half century of bombing by 

the Navy? 

Dr. IKEDA. Again, I am sorry. I don’t have that information. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Does anybody within your agency have that information? 

Dr. IKEDA. I certainly will check and get back. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Can you tell me how much Agent Orange was 

used and released into the environment at Vieques over the course 

of half a century? 

Dr. IKEDA. Again, I am sorry. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Can you identify for me with specificity any of the 

environmental toxins that do cause damage to human health that 

you know or don’t know was released into the environment at 

Vieques at any time in the past 60 years? 
71 

Dr. IKEDA. I couldn’t do that with any specificity, so we would 

have to get that information back to you. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. It is fair to say that you really can’t 

make a firm judgment or even a wild guess as to whether there has 

been damage to health—human health in Vieques without knowing 

what toxins released, when, and how much? 

Dr. IKEDA. I am sorry, I don’t know the specifics about the report, but the final results from the report have shown that there 

were not human health impacts related to the military activities in 

Vieques. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Doctor, if you don’t know whether or how much 

Agent Orange was released, how could you possibly reach that conclusion? 

Dr. IKEDA. No, I am saying that—I am sorry, that I personally 

don’t have the information, but the information in the report is 

final. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well Doctor, I will represent to you that nobody 

in that report—involved in that report, which to some degree, preceded your time at the agency, nobody working on that report at 

ATSDR, as far as I know, knew the answer to that question. Nobody knows at ATSDR how much Agent Orange was released. Nobody knows how much napalm was released. It wasn’t in the report. 

Now given that fact, given the fact that you were not told exactly 

what toxins were released by the military during the bombing, is 

it fair to say that we don’t really know with a firm answer whether 

the bombing caused any health damages on the island or not? 

Dr. IKEDA. Again, I would say that based on the information that 

we do have, we did not find evidence of human health impacts— 

negative human health impacts related to the military bombing. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Doctor, if you know nothing, then really, you can’t 

say anything, right? 

Dr. IKEDA. I will stand by my answer. Again, I am sorry, I don’t 

have the personal information, but according to our report and the 

work that we have done and the data that we do have—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. I will ask you to assume hypothetically, since you 

don’t have that information here with you today, if the Navy has 

not released the information to you or the people of Vieques or 

even to us in Congress, the information about how much of these 

toxins were released during their bombing, is it fair to say then 

that you cannot reach any firm, final scientific conclusions without 

the information that you need in order to be able to reach that conclusion? 

Dr. IKEDA. Again, I would say that based on the information that 

we have, we believe that our conclusions are valid. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Based on that information that you have which 

you know is—— 

Chairman LUMMIS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I will now yield to the gentleman from Utah, 

Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 
72 

Mr. Grayson, your comment that if you know nothing, you can’t 

say anything, very clearly, sir, you have never raised teenagers, because I have several of them who—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Point well taken. 

Mr. STEWART. I only have a few minutes. I would like to follow 

up just in a big picture kind of general sort of way, and again, it 

is something that I think we would agree with, but I would like 

to caution us, if we could, and that is that in regarding to fracking 

and the research and the science and the development and the 

technology around that, and the EPA has repeatedly insisted, and 

we appreciate this, that you are trying to be transparent and research-driven as you approach this, and thank you for doing that. 

It is important that you do do that, but there are examples where 

that appears to not have taken place. And I won’t elaborate them 

here. We have discussed some of them already in the Committee, 

but there are times when it appeared that the agency is more interested in rushed judgments and placing—and this is particularly 

troubling—placing information in the hands of the media rather 

than undertaking a sound scientific approach, and just the few seconds that I have, I would ask us—ask you to agree that that is detrimental to what we are all trying to do here, and that it invites 

suspicion as to the agency’s motivation. And if I could have your 

commitment that the agency would do everything in its power to 

work within the normal protocols and to not put information out 

there—frankly, I am afraid that this Committee has done—that 

this hearing has done today in regard to—as I said, in regards to 

earthquakes—to not put a perception or partial information out 

there that the media then, of course, runs with and does what the 

media does. And I would appreciate your commitment that you will 

do everything within your power to try to avoid that. 

Dr. TEICHMAN. I believe that is probably most directed to me—— 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. 

Dr. TEICHMAN. —and I would say that EPA has been and will 

continue to be committed to performing all of its research in strict 

conformance with the highest standards of scientific quality as promoted by our own EPA scientific integrity policy and related policies, and you are hearing that from the person who helped write 

the scientific integrity policy for EPA. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay, and again, we appreciate that. And if we 

could have this science-based once again and go through the normal protocols rather than, in some cases where it has been partial 

information, or in some cases absolutely inaccurate information has 

been provided to the press and allowed them to, you know, create 

great concerns among the local populations. It just didn’t bear out, 

so thank you for your commitment to doing that. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Utah, and the 

Chair now recognizes Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to ask about the cooperation that you are getting from 

the industry, and get back to the topic of earthquakes, because that 

is something that we have heard from a couple of Members here, 

and I know that there is a Williams Ellsworth who is with the 

USGS and is or was a geophysicist. I don’t know if he is still with 
73 

the USGS, but has written more than 100 papers on earthquakes 

and reviewed a study, Mr. Ellsworth study of geophysics at Stanford, earned his doctorate from MIT, former president of the Seismological Society of America. When he was asked if there was any 

doubt among his colleagues about what produced quakes in Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas, he said injection of 

wastewater into class 2 wells has induced earthquakes, including 

those you site. In my opinion, it is pretty clear in all of these cases, 

Youngstown, Arkansas, DFW, Trinidad, and Oklahoma, that injection wells were the cause. So obviously, there are people who are 

experts who are making this connection. 

Have you been able to get information from the industry that 

would help you form opinions about that, for example, the amount 

of water, what they are using, and how they are injecting the 

water? Thank you. 

Dr. RUSS. Yes, I will take a stab at answering that. This is Dr. 

Russ. And yes, Dr. Ellsworth is a geophysicist with our offices in 

Menlo Park, California. He is still very much an active member of 

that unit, and I think he has done a good job at summarizing and 

looking at the evidence to support the relationship between the activities subsurface injection and earthquakes that you mentioned. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And are you working on this report 

and this plan, this research, are you able to get the information 

you need from the industry about what they are injecting, how 

much they are injecting, and what their process is? 

Dr. RUSS. We have been successful at getting some of the information we think is necessary. We would like to have more information, rates of pumpage, volumes of water injected. In some cases, 

companies haven’t recorded that information so we are trying to 

work with the companies and with the Environmental Protection 

Agency to see how we can improve our ability to get some of that 

important information. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Dr. Teichman, do you want to weigh in on this, 

please? 

Dr. TEICHMAN. I would only add today’s remarks, and that is 

part of our drinking water study. We have two prospective studies 

that we are hoping to have, in which case we will be there measuring baseline data of water quality before fracking occurs at a 

site, while it is occurring, and even after wells are completed and, 

in fact, the production is stopped. And we hope by that time to be 

there and getting the very type of data that you are talking about 

and measuring the potential environmental impact, if any, as we 

do that. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and I hope that the industry is cooperative because the more facts that you have, the more data you 

have, the more you will be able to have accurate reports that you 

can get back to us. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman LUMMIS. I thank the gentlelady from Oregon, and the 

gentleman from California as well. Our Ranking Members, their attendance and the attendance of the Minority as well as the Majority Members is deeply appreciated. I also want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and the Members for their 

questions. 
74 

The Members of the Committee may have additional questions 

for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 

written questions from Members. Again, with my deepest thanks to 

the witnesses today, you are now excused, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(75) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
76 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Kevin Teichman 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 

Responses by Mr. Guido DeHoratiis 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 

Responses by Dr. David Russ 
91 
92 
93 

Responses by Dr. Robin Ikeda 
94 
95 

Æ