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

71–234 PDF 2012

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF SHALE BEDS: 

ENSURING REGULATORY APPROACHES THAT 

WILL HELP PROTECT JOBS AND 

DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION 

(112–61) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 16, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, 

Vice Chair 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Groome, Martie, Vice Chair, Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention Committee, National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) ................... 14 

Hanlon, Jim, Director, Office of Wastewater Management, United States Environmental Protection Agency, accompanied by Cynthia Dougherty, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 14 

Krancer, Michael L., Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department 

of Environmental Protection ............................................................................... 14 

Murphy, Dana L., Chair, Oklahoma Corporation Commission ........................... 14 

Stewart, Thomas E., Executive Vice President, Ohio Oil and Gas Association . 14 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Groome, Martie ........................................................................................................ 48 

Hanlon, Jim .............................................................................................................. 51 

Krancer, Michael L. ................................................................................................. 57 

Murphy, Dana L. ..................................................................................................... 83 

Stewart, Thomas E. ................................................................................................. 90 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York, request to submit letter from Josh Joswick, Colorado Energy 

Issues Organizer, San Juan Citizens Alliance, November 15, 2011 ................ 44 

Krancer, Michael L., Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department 

of Environmental Protection, responses to questions from Hon. Timothy 

H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ........... 78 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 71234.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 71234.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 71234.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 71234.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 71234.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 71234.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 71234.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 71234.008
xiv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 71234.009
xv 


Insert offset folio 10 here 71234.010
(1) 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF SHALE BEDS: 

ENSURING REGULATORY APPROACHES THAT 

WILL HELP PROTECT JOBS AND 

DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will come to order. I would like to welcome everybody here 

today. Secretary Krancer is on his way, he is coming through the 

security line, so he will be here momentarily. 

First order of business, I want to ask for unanimous consent: 

Representative Farenthold of Texas is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but doesn’t sit on this committee, and has asked to sit on this committee when he arrives. So 

I have asked for unanimous consent to allow him to do that. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. Hearing none, so ordered. 

I will start here with my opening statement dealing with hydraulic fracturing. 

First of all, again, welcome to today’s hearing on hydraulic fracturing and natural gas production from shale beds, and ensuring 

that the regulatory approaches governing these activities will protect jobs and domestic energy production. 

Our Nation is blessed with an abundant supply of natural gas 

trapped in deep underground shale formations. Through a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, much more of 

this domestic energy resource can be extracted from these geologic 

formations, and used to drive our economy. 

Fracking consists of injecting mostly water and sand under high 

pressure into wells drilled into gas-containing shale strata, causing 

the shale to fracture. As a result of these fractures, the formation 

is able to yield much more of the gas that it is holding. Fracking 

technologies have been used for more than 60 years as a means of 

increasing productivity from oil and gas wells. However, the technique has recently been applied to gas production in unconventional shale formations with remarkable results. 

2 

Just a few years ago, almost no gas was produced from wells and 

shale formations. And today these produce nearly 15 percent of the 

U.S. natural gas production. This percentage is expected to grow 

significantly over the next several decades. As a result of applying 

the fracking technique to shale gas beds, the United States is 

transitioning from a natural gas importer to a natural gas exporter. 

In numerous areas around our Nation where shale gas formations are found, there has been an economic boom resulting from 

gas exploration and production. Not only is America getting a relatively cheap and less polluting source of energy, but the activity 

is generating thousands of direct jobs in the drilling, extracting, 

and refinement processes. 

In Pennsylvania alone, employment is projected to expand by 

over 180,000 jobs during 2012 in the Marcellus shale formation in 

the State. And in my State of Ohio, activities associated with energy production from the Utica shale will be responsible for generating more than 204,000 jobs and $12 billion in wages by 2015. 

In addition to the clear economic benefits of energy production 

through fracking, there is a national security benefit, as well. Making greater use of domestic sources of energy reduces our dependence on foreign energy sources that are often unstable and unfriendly. 

In addition to gas, most wells and shale formations recover a 

large amount of water that may contain high concentrations of naturally occurring salts and possibly some naturally occurring radioactive materials and other constituents. Thus, waste water must be 

properly managed in accordance with the Clean Water Act and 

other applicable Federal and State requirements. 

Currently, the waste water from a well and a shale formation is 

typically either recycled, or is injected back into the deep underground formations, once the gas has been extracted. This activity 

is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

If waste water were to be to discharged to surface waters, it 

would regulated under the Clean Water Act. This committee has 

jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. Discharges to surface waters 

are currently not approved. Municipal sewage treatment plants are 

not used for disposal because in many cases the treatment plants 

are not equipped to handle all the constituents that may be found 

in the waste water. 

Fracking, as a means of enhancing gas extraction from shale formation, needs to be properly and efficiently managed so significant 

economic benefits and job-producing activities can be realized safely and without environmental risk. Thousands of fracking stimulated wells have been used to extract energy resources in a safe 

and economical manner. Since fracking began more than 60 years 

ago, the process has been regulated by the States. Currently, the 

regulations of the waste water from the well is being done by State 

agencies, both implementing State laws and applicable Federal requirements. 

Last month the U.S. EPA announced that it plans to develop new 

guideline standards for waste water discharges produced by natural gas extraction from underground shale and coal bed formations. Even though no comprehensive set of Federal standards exVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-16-~1\71234.TXT JEAN
3 

ists at this time for the disposal of waste water discharge from natural gas extraction activities, States have been picking up the slack 

to make sure such activities are conducted safely. 

Moreover, the States are constantly improving their efforts to 

make sure that extraction of these important energy resources are 

done in a safe and environmentally protective manner. 

I am concerned that, given the recent history of the new EPA 

regulations, these new guidelines will be so needlessly restrictive 

that the gas extraction operations in Ohio and many other States, 

and the resulting economic benefits they provide the States, will 

suffer. The economic and national security benefits that come from 

safely extracting gas from shale formations are vitally important. 

We must be sure that the EPA thinks carefully before developing 

new Clean Water Act standards that would needlessly restrict this 

important industry, and burden it with an additional layer of duplicative Federal regulations. 

I welcome our witnesses to the hearing today, and look forward 

to hearing from each of you. But at this time I would like to yield 

to my ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for any statements he might 

have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I welcome this hearing that highlights an issue of significant 

importance to my home State of New York, as well as many other 

States throughout the Nation. In my view, the growing national debate on hydraulic fracturing is less about whether this Nation will 

develop its domestic natural gas resources, and is more about how 

natural gas production should be developed and regulated to protect American jobs, public health, and the environment. 

In my own State of New York, much of the concern about 

hydrofracking, or fracking, has focused on how to ensure that the 

largely unknown cocktail of chemicals and pollutants that are injected into the ground during the drilling process do not contaminate local drinking water supplies and endanger public health or 

the environment. Where the drinking water sources of New York 

communities are potentially at risk, the State has taken prudent 

and necessary steps to protect them. 

Regarding the focus of today’s hearing, I am not entirely sure 

what the majority has in mind. From my perspective, today’s hearing should focus on the important questions of what to do with the 

chemicals and other fracking byproducts, once they cease to be of 

value for natural gas production and need to be disposed of. We 

will hear testimony about the most common methods of handling 

drilling waste, such as recycling, underground injection, or disposal 

at treatment plants. 

However, if the intended focus of today’s hearings is the potential 

impacts of EPA regulations on jobs or domestic energy production, 

then I hope someone can show me which Clean Water Act regulations we are worried about. While oil and gas producers have long 

been prohibited from directly discharging their waste waters into 

the waters of the U.S., that sensible restriction clearly has not impacted shale gas production which, according to the Energy Information Administration, has increased by 400 percent over the past 

3 years. 

4 

So, what is the issue? It is true the EPA has announced it will 

consider whether a national pretreatment standard for shale gas 

waste water should be established, but that effort has just begun, 

and no regulation will be proposed before 2014 if the EPA decides 

a pretreatment standard is even needed at all. 

I hope we can all agree that, so far, EPA’s fact-finding efforts regarding hydrofracking waste water disposal can hardly be seen as 

caustic to business or job creation. Determining whether or not hydraulic fracturing waste water disposal has any potential negative 

impacts on public health or the environment should not be a cause 

for alarm. In fact, as policymakers we should want to know all that 

we can about the potential impacts hydrofracking may have on our 

communities, our constituents, and our water quality. 

Today most treatment plants are ill-equipped to handle the 

chemicals and other pollutants that may be common to 

hydrofracking waste water. Without additional efforts, these chemicals and pollutants may pass through treatment facilities and into 

the surrounding environment, raising significant public health and 

environmental concerns. This should give us all pause. 

These concerns were highlighted earlier this year, when the New 

York Times ran a front-page article on ‘‘how the highly corrosive 

salts, carcinogens like benzine, and radioactive elements like radium’’ in drilling waste are typically not removed by sewage treatment plants. According to the article, these chemicals and pollutants typically pass through the sewage treatment plant untreated, 

and wind up being discharged back into local receiving waters, 

where they can contaminate downstream drinking water sources in 

the environment. 

In fact, the former secretary of Pennsylvania’s department of conservation and natural resources, John Quigley, was quoted in this 

article as saying, ‘‘We are producing massive amounts of toxic 

waste water with salts and naturally occurring radioactive materials, and it is not clear we have a plan for properly handling this 

waste.’’ 

I, for one, believe we should dig deeper into the questions raised 

by the EPA, sewage treatment plant owners, and others about the 

capability of sewage treatment plants to adequately handle 

fracking waste. For example, how can systems designed with technologies to treat domestic sewage and nutrients be expected to 

safely remove industrial chemicals and naturally occurring radioactive materials from the waste water stream? 

More importantly, how can we expect sewage treatment plant 

owners to safely operate their systems, when many times they do 

not even know the chemicals and other pollutants that are contained in the drilling waste they are being asked to treat? 

More specific to the topic of today’s hearing would be the development of Clean Water Act guidelines for discharges associated 

with the natural gas industry sector providing a cost-effective, nationally recognized standard for the safe disposal of chemicals associated with natural gas production in the same way as other guidelines for discharge from other industries. 

Finally, I am having trouble keeping up with what role the majority intends for State regulatory agencies under the Clean Water 

Act. As I have stated numerous times, the successes of the Clean 

5 

Water Act can be traced to a robust Federal-State partnership in 

addressing water quality impairments. However, in bill after bill 

we seem to be undermining this partnership for political expediency. 

A few months ago, with H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative 

federalism Act, the majority voted to remove any Federal role in establishing certain water quality standards, leaving States to have 

the final word. Then, just yesterday, the House voted to approve 

a Coast Guard authorization in which the majority formally rejected any role for the States to protect important local water resources from invasive species. Today I have to assume that we are 

back to the view that the States are better equipped to protect 

their local water bodies from the chemicals and pollutants contained in fracking waste. 

In my view, this committee and the public would be better served 

delving into the complex questions of how best to balance our need 

for domestic fuel production with the protection of public health 

and the environment in a cautionary manner. 

In my view, the issues of how we structure the development of 

our domestic natural gas resources is very important, and one that 

needs to be dictated by a modicum of caution. Potentially releasing 

these largely undisclosed chemicals into our ground waters, our underground aquifers, and our surface waters will have economic, 

public health, and environmental consequences for generations to 

come. 

We need to be prudent in understanding the implications of our 

actions before we take them, as the cost of cleaning up our mistakes afterward has the potential to be massive. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Cravaack, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop, for holding this important hearing on the best way to approach hydraulic fracturing 

regulation. 

I would like to welcome today’s witnesses and our panel, and I 

look forward to hearing your testimony about a vital part of our 

country’s energy future. I understand that fracking is a rapidly 

growing part of our energy infrastructure, and is projected to continue its growth in the years to come. In times of rising energy 

costs and high unemployment, the natural gas industry is a major 

bright spot, providing power to a wide range of industries for a low 

cost. 

I am concerned at some of the steps recently taken to expand 

regulation and oversight on our industry that has done nothing to 

warrant such action. I am very interested to see what the EPA’s 

finding are in its upcoming study, and I hope those findings don’t 

lead to an increase in energy costs, fewer jobs, or handcuff an industry that is very much on the rise to reduce our dependence on 

foreign energy sources. 

I look forward to hearing the witnesses and their thoughts on 

what steps are needed, if any, to responsibly oversee hydraulic 

fracturing operations. Thank you again, and I look forward to your 

testimony. And I yield back. 

6 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Mr. Altmire, you have an opening statement? 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come from Pennsylvania, in a State and a region of the country where this is an incredibly important issue. This is the issue I, by far, hear more 

about when I travel around than any other issue. It is a limitless 

opportunity, economically, and—in creating jobs for Pennsylvania. 

And I am very grateful for our EPA representatives who are here 

to discuss this issue, because I know it is important to you, as well. 

And we have Secretary Krancer, and everyone else who is here. 

I am most interested in learning about the unique geography 

that Pennsylvania has. As a Democrat, I think that Governor 

Corbett in Pennsylvania has done a very good job in managing the 

balance that needs to be struck in making sure that we take advantage, economically, from a jobs perspective, of this very unique 

circumstance that we have in Pennsylvania, and balancing it to 

make sure that we do it in as clean and safe a way as possible. 

So, what I would like to learn today from all of our witnesses— 

but especially our EPA witnesses—what can we do better? What 

would be your vision, moving forward, and in particular the unique 

geography of Pennsylvania in dispensing of the fracking fluid and 

the waste water? 

And I believe—and I have been very public about this—I think 

the State is in a much better position to make those decisions on 

the regulatory environment, and how we meet those unique challenges, based upon the circumstances that are unique to Pennsylvania, as a State, compared to any other State. 

So, I am here to listen and to learn and to participate. And I 

again want to just reiterate, Mr. Chairman, this is a very important issue to the district I represent, and to the State where I come 

from. And I am grateful that we are holding this hearing today. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Mr. Harris? 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to thank you for holding this hearing. As you know, we have held 

hearings on this subject in my subcommittee, Energy and Environment Subcommittee in science and technology. In fact, tomorrow 

afternoon we will hold another one about some of the underlying 

science on the studies involved. 

The context in which we have to discuss this is, you know, making perfect the enemy of good. And we have a 9 percent unemployment rate in the United States. You know, to say that there is a 

public health implication of the possibility of contaminating water 

with hydrofracturing fluid—although in testimony in front of my 

subcommittee, or in my committee, science and technology, you 

know, I asked the panelists very simply, as I will ask the panelists 

today: Does anyone know of any documented circumstance of 

hydrofracturing contaminating drinking water? So all of you, that 

is a heads-up, you are going to get the question. Because I couldn’t 

get an answer. The answer I got was no on the last panel I asked 

that question. 

Now, we know that with a 9 percent unemployment rate there 

are public health implications of that. We know, because we can’t 

fund adequate health care in this country. We know part of it is 

the economic situation we are in, and we know we have got to get 

7 

out of that situation. One of the keys clearly are using the energy 

resources of this country to get out of the economic situation we are 

in—9 percent unemployment, $3.50 a gallon of gas—all of which 

compounds the problems. 

Now, if you look at the growth of the natural gas resource reserves in the United States in the last 10 years, it is striking. Exponential growth in reserves, mostly due to the discovery of the reserves that exist within the shale formations. 

Now, they are not easy to get to. We have some under the western part of my State. So I went out and wanted to visit one of the 

locations where they are exploring and producing. Unfortunately, I 

couldn’t go in my own State. I had to go to the State of Pennsylvania because in my State they have decided to have a moratorium. Fortunately for Pennsylvania, they haven’t, because when 

you visit those areas of the State, they are boom towns. They are 

what the entire United States could be if the administration had 

a reasonable economically based policy with regards to using our 

natural reserves to get us out of the economic mess we are in. 

Now, I wish I shared the ranking member’s enthusiasm that this 

is only a matter of not whether we are going to ever use these resources, but how. And if they want—if anybody wants any better 

proof of how important that question is, it is called Keystone Excel. 

Because the question up until a week ago was, well, you know, it 

is not whether it is every going to be built, but how and where. 

Now it is a question, actually, of whether it ever will need to be 

built, because Canada is going to go ahead and build a pipeline to 

their port terminals and ship that natural resource to Asia, instead 

of the United States, where we desperately need low-priced, petroleum-based energy to fuel an economic recovery. 

The question with Keystone Excel might be now not even a question of whether. And that is the problem, that we don’t exist in a 

global vacuum with regards to energy. And if we don’t make use, 

and we don’t do everything we can to facilitate the access to 

these—to this shale formation natural gas, it may be an opportunity we may never get again. 

So, sure, we want to have clean drinking water. But I actually 

stood on a property in western Pennsylvania where this drilling 

and exploration is going on, and it is on a reservoir property where 

through the trees you see the drinking water of the local community. Now you got to tell me that nobody, nobody sitting inside a 

bureaucratic white tower, ivory tower in Washington, DC, with 

EPA on the door, is going to have any more concern for the drinking water in that community than someone who drinks the water 

in that community. 

And that is what this hearing is going to be all about. It is going 

to be about who best knows about how to protect the local drinking 

water. I got to tell you, I don’t come down on the person sitting in 

Washington making a decision for western Maryland, or western 

Pennsylvania, or eastern or western any State in this country. And 

that is what it is about. 

So I am going to be asking, you know, the EPA representative, 

you know, how are they going to make sure that when they come 

up with this study or these guidelines, that they don’t do that? 

8 

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for holding the hearing. It is an incredibly important subject for this country, and I 

look forward to what the panel has to say. Yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Napolitano, opening statement? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I have—I am 

grateful for the hearing, because it is an issue that I have been involved with for not quite 13 years that I have been in Congress, 

but a good part of that. 

As ranking member of the Natural Resources Water and Power 

Subcommittee, we have had numerous hearings that deal with the 

contamination of the ponds, the pools of water left by those that 

do hydrofracking, and then expect the citizens, the taxpayers, to 

clean them up. And while it may not be contaminated for a whole 

area, it is possible that the leaching could go into the aquifers and 

contaminate the drinking water of these communities. 

We must continue to investigate the impact that it has on our 

water supply, and especially our ecosystem. The pools that are left 

behind may contain corrosive salts, benzine, radioactive elements. 

And unfortunately, the sewage plants sometimes may take some of 

that residue, that leftover waste water, may not be able to deal 

with the chemicals that are present in those waste waters. And 

then they contaminate that water that is being produced as secondary, whether it is tertiary-treated water, et cetera. 

So, in the many years that I have worked on this issue, I have 

great questions about whether it may not directly contaminate the 

aquifers, but it certainly is a process that is being questioned. 

And let’s not forget that ground water is the most vital resource 

for all our water agencies that provide this gold. Water is now gold 

for business, for agriculture and especially for the communities 

that bank on us, EPA, putting the regulations that are going to 

provide them with clean, potable water. 

So it is really a vital thing for my area, for my State. We have 

a superfund site list that has been—and cleanup—because of contaminations. At least 20 years, and it has got another maybe 10 or 

15 to go. It is the biggest superfund cleanup in—well, in California, 

probably the United States. So I have a great issue on not being 

able to have the EPA and the States have the ability to deal with 

their own contamination, and how they can go after the PRPs, the 

potential responsible parties. 

So, with that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on 

this topic, and I thank the chair and the ranking member. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Shuster, you have an opening statement? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for holding this hearing. And also, thank you to the witnesses for 

being here today. 

I would like to associate my remarks and—with the remarks of 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Altmire, for two reasons. 

One, because I agree with everything he said, and second, to demonstrate what bipartisan support that this development of shale 

gas in Pennsylvania has in the United States Congress. And we 

worked across the aisle, I worked with Secretary Krancer and others in the State of Pennsylvania to fight the Federal Government, 

9 

to fight the EPA and the Corps of Engineers from expanding into 

Pennsylvania and taking over some of the functions that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has done for decades, and has done it successfully, in protecting the environment, 

in protecting the drinking water of Pennsylvanians. 

And as Mr. Harris pointed out, I don’t believe somebody sitting 

in Washington, DC, is more—is better equipped or more dedicated 

than the folks at Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, or our local elected officials in protecting the water of our 

citizens. 

Marcellus shale is a tremendous opportunity, not only for Pennsylvania to create employment and to regain our stature in the 

States as one of the economic powerhouses in the United States, 

but it is also important for America, for us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which we every year, to the tune of over $100 

billion, we are sending to countries that, quite frankly, hate us. So 

it is extremely important. 

Now, I have heard the President talk about expanding our energy, using natural gas. But his rhetoric doesn’t support his actions. And just as the Keystone Pipeline is a perfect example of 

that, here we have a great opportunity to get oil from a great ally, 

our neighbor, Canada, and we have pushed it off for another year, 

and there is questions as to if it will ever be built in this—to support the United States and our needs for energy. 

Again, the President’s actions don’t support. He talks about improving the environment for businesses and reducing regulations, 

but yet one of his agencies—whether it is the Corps of Engineers 

or the EPA—they turn around and are expanding their efforts and 

their regulatory reach into places like Pennsylvania. 

And the word that is out there—my good friend from New York, 

he talks about caution. It is not caution that is out there, it is 

hysteria. Leading newspapers in America are putting out false information, or misinformation out there. The documentary—socalled documentary—‘‘Gasland,’’ was filled with misinformation. 

And yet the extreme left in this country, and Hollywood, celebrated 

it. And again, when you go through it, there is not much truth to 

it. And we hear this misinformation, this hysteria, going on all 

around the country. 

As I said, I have now joined with my colleagues across the aisle 

here in Congress, in the Pennsylvania delegation, to fight the 

Corps of Engineers, for instance, that is reaching out there to try 

to take in the permitting of pipes over small streams. The department of environmental protection in Pennsylvania has done it for 

40 years, and done it quite successfully. Yet the Corps of Engineers 

is now reaching out there, trying to take on this responsibility. I 

believe they are doing it because some bureaucrat sitting in the 

Corps of Engineers figures this is how they can justify their existence for the next 40 years, because of the huge potential for 

Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania and for the country. 

So, we are fighting that on a daily, weekly basis, joining with our 

great secretary of the department of environmental protection, Mr. 

Krancer, Secretary Krancer, to slow that down and to turn that 

around so that Pennsylvania can decide how best to regulate its 

emerging gas industry. 

10 

So I appreciate the hearing today. I think this is going to be a 

very interesting and maybe somewhat lively discussion here today, 

but I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses. And again, 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Bucshon, you have an opening statement? 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would initially like 

to comment on and thank the chairman for holding this hearing. 

And the question was brought up: Why hold this hearing today, 

when we may not see anything from EPA until 2014? Well, let me 

go over briefly the history of the EPA under this administration, 

as it relates to fossil fuel. 

Coal dust regulation through mine safety, and EPA put into 

place for ideological reasons with no science backing it up—I am 

a thoracic surgeon, and I can tell you there was no science behind 

that. Coal ash regulation now, which would cost billions and billions of dollars in cleanup and also job loss across this country. 

Again, coal ash twice previously declared non-hazardous material 

by the EPA in previous administrations. 

Boiler emission requirements that would require billions of dollars of changes. In fact, there will be coal power plants in my district—specifically in Terre Haute, Indiana—that will have to close, 

costing us hundreds of jobs, and potentially risking not only just 

the cost of energy in Indiana, but whether or not there is energy 

out there in the grid to supply the demand. 

And then, most recently, of course, the administration’s bowing 

to environmental groups that both the President and Ms. Jackson 

apparently agree with, stopping the Keystone Pipeline, which multiple people agree has been proven and studies have shown to be 

environmentally safe, not only jeopardizing this country’s future for 

energy independence, but also our relationship with Canada, and 

resulting in Canada’s selling its oil to China, rather than to the 

United States. 

And finally, why hold this hearing based on what the EPA might 

do? Well, because we are seeing taxpayer dollars directed, for ideological reasons, to corporations like Solyndra, even in the face of 

multiple people telling the administration that this company was 

financially unstable. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very, very timely hearing. We 

need to get ahead of these problems. 

And lastly, I would like to say what the States are doing on this 

issue, as it relates to clean water and clean air. In Indiana, the 

percentage of Hoosiers that live in counties that meet the Federal 

and State air quality standards are 99.99 percent. The percent of 

Hoosiers that receive water from facilities in full compliance with 

safe drinking water standards Federal and State, 98.46 percent. 

And we heard at previous hearings in this committee from State 

EPA directors, saying that they are having a very difficult time 

dealing with the EPA under this administration. So the hearing 

should be held. I believe that the States should be heard on this. 

I think the States are doing a good job. I agree with Mr. Shuster. 

And I have significant concerns about the U.S. Federal Government getting involved in a situation that it appears that the States 

are adequately handling. 

11 

I do think it is about ideology, not science. And I am looking forward to all the testimony today. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Lankford, you have an opening statement? And 

feel free, after your opening statement, to make an introduction. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for holding this hearing, as well. I do think this is a very important conversation to have. 

We’ve talked for decades about a national energy policy. In the 

1970s, the Federal Government warned that we were running out 

of natural gas, and encouraged States and power generation to be 

done with coal or with nuclear. As a response to that, many of our 

energy production companies switched over from natural gas, because we were running out. Now we see our country is awash with 

natural gas. The supply has dramatically increased, the prices have 

dropped, and great-paying jobs are popping up all over the Nation 

dealing with energy production. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the water relationship to that. Now, 

to be clear, water is used in dramatic quantities in almost every 

form of energy production. There is a direct relationship between 

water and energy production, as there is with hydraulic fracking 

and natural gas exploration. But to be clear as well, 99 percent of 

what is used for hydraulic fracking is water and sand. One percent 

or less is actually the additional chemicals that are added in the 

treatment process. 

So, when we talk about all these chemicals being pumped into 

the ground, we need to keep the perspective together on it. Ninetynine percent is just water and sand. 

Water is a significant issue, though, for all involved. It is significant in both the energy production, and it is significant to people 

that live around that area, to the industries there, the residents. 

It is significant because many of the drilling locations are very remote. And so it is significant to the industry itself. And getting 

that much water to that spot, it uses about the same amount of 

water as an Olympic-sized swimming pool, so it is a significant 

amount of water involved in a frack job. So they have to be able 

to have that amount of water there. And so storing it is significant. 

State and local leadership, and their elected leadership and oversight and regulators, it is very significant to them, as well. 

But our economy is built on inexpensive energy. Every sector is 

dependent on the fact that we can keep the price of energy down, 

whether that be food production, whether that be housing, whatever it may be. So this is important, that we don’t mess this up, 

that we don’t do what we did in the 1970s and tell the Nation we 

are running out of it and we can’t use it, let’s shift to coal, and 

then 40 years later say, ‘‘Oops.’’ So we better get this right. 

Energy production is also a big deal for all of us in the economy 

in just basic great-paying jobs. Many, many, many high-paying jobs 

are around the energy segment. There are a lot of other servicerelated jobs—hotels, food service, manufacturing—that is around 

hydraulic fracking, as well. 

If you come to Oklahoma City, you are going to find in Oklahoma 

City we have the lowest unemployment rate of any metropolitan 

area in the Nation. Number one lowest unemployment rate. We 

have great companies that serve our community, that are very inVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-16-~1\71234.TXT JEAN
12 

volved, and are very responsible. We are a great example of a community that knows exactly what hydraulic fracking looks like, has 

functioned with it for decades, has managed it well, and has reaped 

the benefits of that. 

And so it is an interesting thing for us to be able to watch all 

the different studies that are currently happening on hydraulic 

fracking and to ask the question—we would invite you to come to 

Oklahoma. We have done hydraulic fracking in Oklahoma over 

100,000 times, and we would invite you to come drink our water, 

breathe our air, and see our beautiful land. It is a great place to 

be, and it is a great place to live. 

We understand exactly what fracking—what it looks like, how it 

occurs, and how to regulate it. A great example of that is corporation commissioner Dana Murphy that is here, is one of the great 

regulators in the Nation. She regulates this industry, and is tenacious about it. You can have great regulation and great cooperation, and still high employment in the Nation and great low prices, 

as well, in your energy. 

So, I do look forward to this conversation. I am interested to see 

all of the interchange and the decisions that come out of this, as 

well. But I do want to say this. When we deal with a national regulation of fracking, we should be clear. No two areas of our beautiful 

dirt across our Nation are the same. Geography matters. And a 

one-size-fits-all approach to what happens underground, how deep 

and what that dirt looks like underground, will not work. 

The closer you can get to the actual frack site, and the people 

that are used to that land and those rock formations, the better 

you are going to be in being able to understand exactly how to be 

able to regulate that. So, whatever comes out of this, I would encourage we get regulations and regulators as close to the well site 

as possible, so that they are familiar with what happens around 

that. 

And with that, I welcome Commissioner Murphy to this panel. 

I look forward to your comments, as well as the comments of the 

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

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. It is time we introduced our panelists. We 

have Mr. Hanlon, he is the director of the Office of Wastewater 

Management for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

Accompanying him is Ms. Dougherty, who is the director of the 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water of the U.S. EPA. Mr. 

Hanlon will be doing the testifying, and I think you are there to 

help if it comes up to answering additional questions, especially in 

regard to the Safe Drinking Water Act, where—that falls on the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee—welcome. 

Also we just introduced Chair Murphy, from Oklahoma. And I 

am going to call Representative Shuster for any comments for the 

next introduction. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a great 

pleasure for us to have here today, I believe, Secretary Krancer. 

And I think it is important that I point out that he is a political 

appointee, but he is not just a political appointee. He is someone 

with tremendous background in environmental law. 

13 

Before becoming Secretary Krancer he was Judge Krancer, and 

he was on the Pennsylvania environmental hearing board, who 

heard cases that—about people that were dealing with the DEP 

across Pennsylvania. He was—been on the board for several years. 

He was not only on that board as a judge, but he was the chief 

judge and chairman. 

Prior to that, he was a law partner in Blank and Rome, and handled environmental litigation. So tremendous experience there, in 

the courtroom. And then, after that, he became the assistant general counsel to Exelon Corporation, dealing with complex environmental, safety compliance, and litigation for Exelon, which is one 

of our major nuclear producers in this country, as well as other 

types of power. 

So, we have a real true expert here today, DEP, and I look forward to hearing from him and continue working with him, because 

I think it is well known in Pennsylvania that he is not only wellequipped and will protect the citizens of Pennsylvania and their 

drinking water, but if there is any bad actors that come into Pennsylvania, they can fear that Secretary Krancer will not tolerate bad 

actions in Pennsylvania. So I am proud that he is here with us 

today, and proud that he is our secretary of department of environmental protection. And I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. It is appropriate for me to introduce Mr. 

Stewart from Ohio. He is president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association. And I have known Mr. Stewart for a number of years. 

And I just want to give him kudos for what happened while I 

was in the State Senate about 3 years ago. The industry came to 

the legislature and asked to reform regulatory laws regarding oil 

and gas production, and volunteered to pay more fees to bring on 

more regulators, because they were concerned that the regulations 

in place weren’t adequate to protect the environment. And Mr. 

Stewart led the issue there, and as a result, Ohio has one of the 

foremost standards to protect the environment in oil and gas exploration. 

So again, welcome, Tom. Good to see you here. 

We also have Ms. Groome. She is from the Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention Committee of the National Association of Clean 

Water Agencies. She is the vice chair. Welcome. 

At this time, Mr. Hanlon, the floor is yours. I was reading 

through your testimonies, everybody’s testimonies, and they are 

very good. But try to keep them within 5 minutes or so; we have 

more time for Q&A. Welcome. 

14 

TESTIMONY OF JIM HANLON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY CYNTHIA DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY; DANA L. MURPHY, CHAIR, OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION; MICHAEL L. KRANCER, SECRETARY, 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; THOMAS E. STEWART, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OHIO OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION; 

AND MARTIE GROOME, VICE CHAIR, PRETREATMENT AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES (NACWA) 

Mr. HANLON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I thank you for the opportunity to share information on 

EPA’s role in ensuring that public health and the environment are 

protected during natural gas extraction and production activities. 

EPA strongly believes that domestic natural gas production is 

critical to our Nation’s energy future. The natural gas resulting 

from well-designed and managed extraction from shale formations 

has the potential to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions, stabilize energy prices, and provide greater certainty 

about future energy reserves. Advancements in technology have increased a number of economically accessible gas reserves in the 

U.S., which has, in turn, benefitted energy security and jobs. 

While this increase in activity and resources is beneficial, it is 

important that it be conducted in a way that ensures protection of 

drinking water supplies and surface water quality. 

I would like to discuss a few recent and upcoming actions by 

EPA related to shale gas extraction. EPA’s current activities include development of treatment standards for waste water dischargers, a research study on the potential impacts of hydraulic 

fracturing on drinking water resources, guidance for permitting 

when diesel fuel is used in hydraulic fracturing, and guidance on 

water quality permitting and pretreatment. 

On October 20th of this year, EPA announced that it was beginning a rulemaking to set technology-based pretreatment standards 

to regulate discharges to publicly owned treatment works produced 

by natural gas extraction from underground shale formations. We 

will pursue this effort in coordination with our Federal partners, 

and with input from industry experts, States, and public health organizations. 

What we know is that shale gas extraction, in some instances, 

can generate large volumes of waste water, and that this waste 

water can potentially contain high concentrates of salts, radionuclides, heavy metals, and other materials that are potentially 

harmful to human health and the environment. 

EPA will be soliciting data and information on the types and 

characteristics of the pollutants in shale gas waste waters, the volumes and concentrations of pollutants, and instances of passthrough of pollutants, or upsets related to shale gas waste waters 

at publicly owned treatment works. 

EPA is also seeking information on documented impacts of these 

pollutants on aquatic life and human health. 

15 

Finally, EPA plans to collect cost data on treatment technologies 

to determine the cost and affordability of these treatment options. 

EPA’s current plan is to issue a proposed rule for shale gas waste 

water standards in 2014. EPA will propose regulations that are affordable. In the coming months EPA will carefully consider the impact of regulatory costs to the industry, and to subsets of stakeholders, such as small businesses and State and local governments. 

EPA will also consider potential impacts on jobs and local economies. 

At the request of Congress, EPA launched a research project last 

year to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and 

drinking water resources. The study plan was released on November 3rd of this year. The research will consider the entire life cycle 

of water use in hydraulic fracturing, and will look at five stages of 

water use, including water acquisition, the mixing of chemicals, injection at the well site, flow-back in produced water, and the disposal of waste water. EPA will release the first report on the study 

in 2012, which will include analysis of data, results of the modeling 

of potential impacts, and studies on the formation of disinfection 

byproducts, and an environmental justice assessment. 

Hydraulic fracturing flow-back can produce water disposal 

through underground injection or delivery to a publicly owned 

treatment works, or a centralized waste treatment facility—is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Clean Water Act. 

EPA is currently working on guidance on permitting the use of 

diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing, as well as guidance on water 

quality permitting and pretreatment. Those documents will provide 

technical information and recommendations for State and EPA permit-writers to consider, based on current statutes and regulations, 

but will not be binding requirements. 

In conclusion, EPA is committed to supporting the safe and responsible development of natural gas resources to create jobs, promote energy security, and reduce energy impacts associated with 

energy production and use. In so doing, we will use our authorities, 

consistent with the law and the best available science to protect 

communities across the Nation from potential impacts to water 

quality, human health, and the environment that may be associated with natural gas production activities. We will continue to coordinate our activities with our State, Federal, and local partners 

as we move forward. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to any questions the panel may have. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Murphy, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Ms. MURPHY. Thank you. It is a great pleasure to be here, representing my State, and also here on behalf of Congressman 

Lankford. I had let the panel know that in addition to being a 

statewide elected official, I serve with two other corporation commissioners. I am also a geologist. I have served as a former administrative law judge at the corporation commission. And I have also 

worked in oil and gas law for many, many years. 

So, as the holder of a statewide office and chair of the commission that actually regulates oil and gas drilling and development, 

I know too well the danger of regulation for regulation’s sake. Any 

meaningful debate about regulation needs to be focused on what 

16 

the regulation is intended to accomplish. Protection of water and 

the environment and the beneficial development of the Nation’s resources of oil and gas are not mutually exclusive goals. Oklahoma 

is proof of that. 

My fundamental point today would be to encourage that the 

States are the appropriate bodies to regulate the oil and gas drilling industry. I am going to provide the basis for that, and also give 

several examples. 

I would also point out to the committee that just recently released is the National Petroleum Council study, ‘‘Prudent Development—Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources,’’ resulting from the efforts of over 400 

participants, over half of which were non-industry-related individuals. And here is the statement that actually comes from that recently released report: ‘‘Regulation of oil and gas operations is best 

accomplished at the State level. A one-size-fits-all approach to regulation is not a viable option to ensure the highest level of safety 

and environmental protection.’’ 

Why are the States the appropriate bodies to actually regulate 

and work in conjunction with the Federal agencies? Because extensive knowledge of geological conditions, topography, the drought in 

my State this year, seasonal climate changes which vary State by 

State and actually within the States themselves. We have the most 

experience to ensure that wells are properly constructed, operations 

are conducted safely, and all with a minimal environmental footprint. 

Our State has base of treatable water maps, where the water tables are actually looked at, and the appropriate amount of surface 

casing is cemented and put in place. We are the ones that live in 

closest proximity to conduct the inspections, respond not just quickly but with the most appropriate response in any given situation, 

to oversee and enforce local regulations, and target new regulations 

to promote safety and environmental performance. 

The States are those best able to coordinate, cooperate, and share 

among each other evolving technologies and rules and regulations 

and standards that can best help all the producing States, especially since numerous companies are operating in multiple-State jurisdictions. 

State officials are directly accountable to residents of the State 

and the people of Oklahoma. They know the buck stops with us. 

It is important to us to keep focused on the mission of protecting 

our State’s water, its land, and the health and safety of its citizens. 

A couple of the examples that I would point out—and I will start 

from a national level and go down to a smaller level. In 2009, the 

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, utility 

commissioners comprised from all 50 States with very divergent 

backgrounds, actually passed a resolution that called on the States 

to be the appropriate bodies for regulating oil and gas industry. 

Why would a group of utility regulators who do not regulate the 

oil and gas industry call upon the States to be the appropriate bodies? Because they know gas is important for direct heating and for 

power generation, and they know that the facts speak to the issue 

of State regulation. 

17 

I would also point out, too, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 

Commission, which is headquartered and was started, actually, in 

Oklahoma, comprised of 30 member States and 8 associate members, working in conjunction with the Ground Water Protection 

Council, who have created an Internet chemical registry ability 

called ‘‘FracFocus,’’ for companies to actually disclose the chemicals. 

I will note in Oklahoma this year, in our rulemaking, we are actually taking up adoption of FracFocus into our rules to mandate 

upon the companies. I would also note that in the 2 years it has 

taken the EPA to put together their study on hydraulic fracturing, 

there are five States—Pennsylvania, Ohio, Louisiana, Colorado, 

Oklahoma, and most recently, Arkansas—that have submitted to 

the STRONGER review process comprised of environmentalists, 

State regulators, and the industry to review State regulations on 

hydraulic fracturing. 

The last point I would emphasize, we would not have reached 

this place among all the States if the map and the track had already been laid out. It is just as important for us to cooperate and 

collaborate together to deal with innovation. 

My closing statement would be the best thing that I feel like the 

Federal Government and the Federal agencies can do is encourage 

and facilitate the States to work together to come up with good 

rules and regulations for their appropriate States and across the 

regions. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Secretary Krancer, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. KRANCER. Yes. Thank you very much. Honor to be here. And 

thank you, Congressman Shuster, for having me here. 

I have been committed from the beginning to be governed by 

science and facts, not by fiction and emotion. And one of the important things to note is why we are here. Why we are here, as I understand it, partially because of the pretreatment regs. 

Why are they on the table? They are on the table—and this is 

an object lesson for all of us—because the State took a lead and 

the Feds followed. We have various facilities in our State that 

are—in a pretreatment program that are in a Federal program. 

They are not regulated by the State. We pointed this out to the 

Feds, because we are doing it right in Pennsylvania with our facilities. I think we are here partially because we gave them a cue. 

I was very shocked to hear Representative Bishop refer to my fellow State person John Quigley—who said we had no plan? I have 

to challenge that. I am not sure when John said that. It must have 

been early on, or either that or I am not sure John knows what 

was going on in his own building, because I was in the department 

of energy a couple of months ago in which my predecessor testified 

with great pride about the program and the plan that his administration started to put into place, and is in place, and we followed 

up on it. 

And that plan is very detailed. It involves regulations on total 

dissolved solids into waterways. So it is a total fiction. It is a total 

fiction that sewage treatment plants are discharging these terrible 

substances into the waterways. Certainly in Pennsylvania, that is 

18 

a fiction. And we, as an administration, made a call on the drilling 

community to stop delivering waste water to those facilities that 

were grandfathered by the prior regulations, and that call was answered immediately. So, we have undergone a sea change in Pennsylvania to virtually no such discharges. So that is a fiction. 

I also heard a reference to the New York Times. And that had 

to make me chuckle a little bit. I came into office, and the New 

York Times was promulgating what I thought was—and I wasn’t 

the only one, even my predecessor thought was—extremely irresponsible, fear-mongering type of journalism, journalism which, by 

the way, was censured by its own newspaper or its own editors. 

And I am not understanding why that fellow was still writing, or 

why people are still buying that newspaper. It is beyond me. 

But in any event, the sine qua non of it was about 3 weeks or 

4 weeks after that fear-mongering article was written all about radiation and how we were supposed to be afraid, and this is horrible, and the sky is falling down, well, the department, pursuant 

to its normal testing procedures that it monitors, released data 

showing that radioactivity was at background levels. So all they 

had to do was make a phone call to us to figure out what was really going on, but they neglected to do that. 

In terms of water use—and I heard several folks talk about 

that—and the point is well taken. The water used for fracking in 

Pennsylvania, it ranks nine out of ninth. Here is the chart, it is in 

my testimony. And there is another chart that is important. I think 

Representative Lankford talked about this: 99.51 percent of the 

water is—frack water—is water and sand. And this myth that 

somehow these terrible chemicals are getting into the ground water 

is completely myth. It is bogus. 

Let me read you an article, a snippet from a paper, Harrisburg 

Patriot, from an author who was no friend of our administration, 

frankly, and no friend of what we are doing all the time. He says, 

‘‘Industry representatives say the chemicals are the same as you 

would find under your kitchen sink, but [this gentleman] said, ‘You 

don’t want to take the stuff from your kitchen sink and mix it in 

a glass of water you are going to drink, and that’s basically what’s 

going on.’ ’’ The reporter says, ‘‘But it’s not.’’ 

And that is the point. It is not what is going on. Fracking occurs 

8,000 feet beneath the surface. ground water in Pennsylvania—and 

that may vary between States, and that is an important point—is 

at several hundred feet. So the myth, the myth out there, is just 

rampant. 

I have to also agree with what Representative Altmire said. I 

think the unique geography is important. Pennsylvania is different. 

We are not Texas, we are not Oklahoma. We are very different. We 

know what our State is like. We know our unique geography. And 

I also certainly agree with him that Governor Corbett is doing a 

good job regulating the industry, and we are, as well. 

And I have to also agree with Representative Shuster. We have 

very high standards in Pennsylvania of conduct for the folks who 

do business here. My boss, the Governor, is a former attorney general and former United States prosecutor. I am a former judge. If 

you can’t meet the standards in Pennsylvania, you are not welcome 

to be in Pennsylvania and do business here. 

19 

So—and one other comment that struck me was a comment that 

one of the representatives was saying, that 99 percent of his constituency lives in areas of attainment. Well, I wish I could say that 

about Pennsylvania. But I will tell you one thing. If we can exploit 

and take this natural resource and use it, we will be in that position in Pennsylvania, because these are the ADCs of Marcellus 

shale. It is abundant, it is available, it is domestic, it is cheap, and 

it is clean. 

Right now, I am told by my friends at PECO that PECO is spending $300 million less per year for natural gas, and millions 

of dollars are being saved by consumers. Electricity prices are 

lower. 

I also heard a comment about the unemployment in the United 

States, 9 percent. Well, we in our State have certain counties that 

rank third and sixth in job growth in the entire country, of all 

countries. Williamsport, seventh largest growing city in the United 

States. 

And I see I am over time, and I apologize, and I will welcome 

questions when they come. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Stewart, the floor is yours. 

Mr. STEWART. For over a century-and-a-half, Ohio has been 

blessed with production of plentiful oil and natural gas resources. 

At each critical point in our industry’s history it has been changes 

wrought by technology that have provided producers the ability to 

explore new horizons and expand the resource base. 

Today, the ability to horizontally drill deep underground reservoir with exacting precision, exponentially exposing the face of 

the reservoir rock to the wellbore has created massive efficiencies 

in our ability to produce oil and gas. Ohio is now beginning a new 

era of oil and gas exploration made possible by technologies. It is 

unlocking reservoirs that, until now, were not accessible. 

For our entire history we explored for oil and gas in reservoirs 

where it had been trapped after migrating over the eons from 

source rocks where the oil and gas had been formed and cooked in 

nature’s kitchen. Now, industry is drilling into the actual source 

rocks where most geologists believe 95 percent of the oil and gas 

still remains in place, even after feeding the traps that have produced all the oil and gas that we have found to date. This is a radical departure of America’s understanding of energy dependency, 

and resets the clock on available domestic oil and gas resources. 

Today the industry is providing natural gas priced at 22 percent 

of its intrinsic energy value, a trend that the marketplace indicates 

will continue into the future. It is enticing the chemical industry 

to re-enter the United States and build new chemical manufacturing facilities, jump-starting job growth downstream of the wellhead. 

Since 1860, Ohio has produced 8.5 trillion cubic feet of natural 

gas, and 1.14 billion barrels of crude oil. The State’s geologist recently provided a volumetric calculation to estimate the recoverable 

reserve potential of the Utica shale—our shale opportunity. He reported that should producers extract 5 percent of the oil and gas 

in place, the Utica would generate 15.7 trillion cubic feet of natural 

gas, and 5.5 billion barrels of crude oil. That is an astonishing 

20 

number and an enormous, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity 

for Ohio. 

An economic impact study commissioned by the Ohio oil and gas 

energy education program determined that the Utica shale will 

lead to the creation of over 204,000 Ohio-based jobs over the next 

5 years. Investments by oil and gas companies will reach $34 billion to fund development activity and infrastructure. Producing 

wells are projected to generate $1.6 billion of royalty income to 

Ohio landowners. 

Perhaps most significantly, the Utica shale can make Ohio an exporter of energy. Coupled with the readily available and affordable 

energy resource, development of the Utica shale may be the most 

significant positive economic event to take place in Ohio for decades. 

Clearly, America’s opportunity to use the shale gas and shale oil 

resources hinges on the regulatory structures that allow its development. Managing environmental risk has been a key part of both 

State and Federal regulation. It remains important to keep an appropriate balance between these Government roles. States have 

historically been the regulator of well construction and completion. 

They have the expertise to permit new wells, and should continue 

to be the regulatory authority. 

States and Federal agencies share the responsibilities of regulating waste discharges. States typically issue direct permits under 

broad Federal guidelines. This balance is appropriate, and should 

be continued, because States understand the potential unique 

issues of each area. Because of the diversity of conditions associated with oil and natural gas production, the regulatory process 

must be flexible, and reflect the unique conditions in a State or 

areas within a State. It requires the technical expertise that has 

been developed in each State, and which does not exist within EPA. 

For this reason, Federal law has generally deferred to the States 

for the regulation of this industry. The States have a process available to them to demonstrate effective regulatory ability, identify 

regulatory gaps, and find ways to close those gaps and improve the 

respective regulatory programs. 

The State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, STRONGER, is an independent stakeholder governing body 

that manages State review process. The overall process of the State 

review process is to help oil and gas regulatory programs improve. 

The key innovative aspect of the process are the teams made up 

of equal representation from the environmental community, State 

regulators, and industry come together to conduct an authentic 

peer review critique of the State’s regulatory program, 

benchmarking the program against a national set of guidelines that 

itemize the critical elements necessary to protect the public interest and the environment. 

STRONGER recently updated the review guidelines to include a 

specific section focusing on hydraulic fracturing. Over the past 

year, STRONGER has done frack-specific reviews in six States. In 

Ohio, following implementation of new law, STRONGER conducted 

just such a survey that concluded that the Ohio program was overall well managed, professional, and meeting its program objectives. 

21 

That provides the public interest faith and trust in the regulatory 

process. 

Both the Secretary of Energy’s advisory board on shale gas production subcommittee, interim reports, and the recent national petroleum report on shale gas has specifically commended the State 

review process. The State review process demonstrates that the 

States are the best and most efficient point to regulate the industry’s waste streams. The process provides for a system of constant 

and ongoing improvement, and an opportunity to share and promote new and unique regulatory concepts among the States, while 

maintaining the flexibility needed to meet individual States’ needs. 

With the current intense focus on shale development, I would 

recommend to the subcommittee that we focus our efforts to support positive, collaborative efforts that work to efficiently improve 

programs that protect health, safety, and the environment, instead 

of relying on Federal control that will only work to stifle economic 

opportunity. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 

Ms. Groome, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Ms. GROOME. Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Martie Groome, and I 

am the laboratory and industrial waste supervisor for the City of 

Greensboro Water Resources Department in North Carolina. It is 

a great privilege to be here to testify on how local clean water 

agencies implement the national pretreatment program, and how 

this program may affect the disposal of waste water from shale gas 

extraction. 

In addition to my duties at the city of Greensboro, I serve as the 

vice chair of the pretreatment and pollution prevention committee 

for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. And it is my 

pleasure to be testifying on NACWA’s behalf today. 

NACWA’s primary mission is to advocate on behalf of the Nation’s publicly owned waste water treatment works, and the communities and rate payers they serve. The employees of these agencies are true environmentalists, who ensure that the Nation’s waters are clean and safe, meeting the strict requirements of the 

Clean Water Act. 

The national pretreatment program is often recognized as one of 

the most successful Clean Water Act programs for its role in reducing the amount of pollutants discharged into sewer systems and 

into the Nation’s waters. Since 1983, the national pretreatment 

program has placed public utilities in the realm of local regulator 

for the industries that discharge waste water to their sewer systems. It is the local waste water utilities that are responsible for 

enforcing both national pretreatment standards and any additional 

limits developed at the local level needed to protect POTW operations and local water quality. 

To prevent potentially harmful pass-through of pollutants to the 

environment or interference with the waste water treatment process, the Clean Water Act requires EPA to establish national 

pretreatment standards for industrial and commercial facilities 

that discharge waste water to the sewer system. Pretreatment 

standards are currently in place for more than 50 industrial catVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-16-~1\71234.TXT JEAN
22 

egories, and POTWs regulate over 20,000 significant industrial 

users. 

Industries with unique waste water treatment needs and challenges have arisen consistently since the passage of the Clean 

Water Act. And clean water agencies have maintained a strong 

record of addressing these new challenges. While NACWA does not 

have a position on fracking, per se, the fracking industry is merely 

another industry similar to the others before it. And POTWs will 

act as public servants in appropriately addressing the discharges 

from this industry. 

Even in the absence of national pretreatment standards, POTWs 

can tailor local limits to the particular needs of the POTW and the 

industrial user. With local limits, POTWs may regulate discharges 

from any industrial or commercial facilities, not just the categorically regulated by national pretreatment standards. 

The pretreatment program has been so successful because it 

gives local POTWs the authority to control the pollutants in waste 

water from any industry, using both national pretreatment standards and local limits. National pretreatment standards have the 

benefit of leveling the nationwide playing field for discharges to 

sewer systems. However, national pretreatment standards can at 

times be stricter than is necessary to protect a particular POTW, 

and the waters they discharge into. Implementing national 

pretreatment standards also requires a significant commitment of 

resources by the local POTW. Any national pretreatment standards 

for the fracking industry should be carefully developed and implemented to avoid unnecessary cost to the public clean water agency 

and its industrial customers. 

It is NACWA’s hope that EPA’s pretreatment standard will yield 

a scientifically and economically sound set of standards. It is equally critical that the public understand that any POTWs that accept 

fracking waste water during this interim phase must meet their 

permit requirements and set local limits for the industrial user, if 

necessary. In many cases, local POTWs have effectively regulated 

industries for years before a national pretreatment standard was 

developed by EPA. 

If a POTW does not have the capacity to establish such local 

standards, or fails to develop the necessary limits or controls to 

prevent pass-through or pollutants of treatment plant—or treatment plant interference, then the POTW should not accept this 

waste. EPA’s announcement that it will develop a national 

pretreatment standard for the shale gas extraction industry does 

not prevent POTWs from accepting hydraulic fracturing waste 

water now, after working with their State permitting authority to 

ensure the protectiveness of this practice. 

POTWs also have the authority to stop taking an industry’s 

waste water immediately if it causes any problems with the waste 

water treatment process. Discharge to a POTW is only one of several options for the shale gas extraction industry. If a national 

pretreatment standard can ensure that such discharges to a POTW 

are safe, it may be a more commonly used option. 

NACWA does not have a position regarding the use of fracking 

to meet the Nation’s growing energy needs. A scientifically and economically sound national pretreatment standard for the shale gas 

23 

extraction industry may provide protection to both the industry 

and to POTWs. It would provide a nationally acceptable baseline 

for treatment of hydraulic fracturing waste water. 

NACWA intends to work with EPA as the Agency studies the industry and develops a pretreatment standard that is protective and 

not unnecessarily burdensome. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. And 

I look forward to any questions the subcommittee may have for me. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I will start some of the questions off. 

Chair Murphy, I see your testimony. You state that there is over 

100,000 oil and gas wells in the State of Oklahoma, and at least 

95,000 of them have been fracked. Is there—was there any incidents where the fracking caused the problem, or well construction 

was the problem? Can you elaborate on what is happening in your 

experience in Oklahoma? 

Ms. MURPHY. Yes. By way of background, I would actually just 

say there have been over 500,000 wells actually drilled in Oklahoma. About 185,000 wells are actually producing oil and gas, and 

we have about 10,000 disposal wells. We treat our water and handle waters differently than some of the other States. 

But there have been no documented instances of the occurrence 

of pollution to the waters that you spoke about. 

Mr. GIBBS. For neither poor well construction nor fracking? 

Ms. MURPHY. No. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Secretary Krancer, I believe there is a little over 

3,500 Marcellus shale wells in Pennsylvania, which obviously are 

all fracked. What is your record? 

Mr. KRANCER. We have about 4,000, you are right. 

Fracking has never caused ground water contamination in Pennsylvania. Actually, Lisa Jackson was in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on May 24th and said 

the exact same thing. Fracking simply doesn’t do that. And there 

is still not a documented case. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Stewart, what is your experience in Ohio? 

Mr. STEWART. There has been over 80,000 wells that have been 

hydraulically fractured in the State of Ohio since 1952. Nearly 

every well drilled in the State of Ohio is hydraulically fractured. 

Before the resources committee of the Congress 2 years ago our 

State regulator testified that in his 25 years of investigating 

ground water contamination, he has not once correlated hydraulic 

fracturing to ground water contamination. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon, what is the EPA’s thought 

on implementing the Clean Water Act, working with State EPAs? 

How do you view your role, as the U.S. EPA under the authority 

of the Clean Water Act? 

Mr. HANLON. Under the authority of the Clean Water Act, EPA 

has entered into contracts, basically, to authorize 46 States to implement the point source clean water permitting program. And basically, in those States, we expect the States to do a good job. They 

issue permits, they review the permits, they do inspections, they do 

compliance, they do enforcement where it is necessary. 

On an exception basis, EPA sort of does oversight for those programs. Basically, we go in, we take a look at State permits, we do 

quality reviews. We will do site visits on occasion. And across the 

24 

board, the States do a good job. That is our role in the authorized 

States. 

There are four unauthorized States where EPA holds the pencil. 

We actually write the permits in those States, and then we implement the whole program, in terms of permitting, compliance, and 

enforcement. 

Mr. GIBBS. What would be your role? Would you expect to put 

out guidances to the States? My understanding on the point source 

pollution, the 46 States that are participating, they have a 3-year 

plan, and the U.S. EPA approves that. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANLON. In the authorized States, in order to sort of gain 

authorization, it is a fairly lengthy process. We recently completed 

it in Alaska 3 years ago. And basically, the State has to demonstrate it has the legal authorities, it has the set of implementation authorities, in terms of regulations, you know, review procedures and protocols, and a trained staff to actually deliver the program. 

And so, once they do that, basically the State then takes over 

the—— 

Mr. GIBBS. So do you feel, then, the States are equipped and are 

capable to protect the environment? We are talking about the shale 

development, the fracturing. Do you have confidence in the States 

to have the ability to do it? 

Mr. HANLON. We have the authority—we have the expectation 

that every State does a good job in implementing and—— 

Mr. GIBBS. And clearly the record has shown that? Because 

fracking has been going on for about 60 years, correct? 

Mr. HANLON. With fracking, I think the, you know, testimony 

this morning and our experience has been—certainly in Oklahoma, 

Texas, et cetera—there are hundreds of thousands of wells that 

have been drilled. And the experience there has been that essentially all of the produced water has been re-injected. Basically, it 

never sort of finds the surface water. And that has been a longtime successful experience that we have had in our region six offices down in Dallas. 

I think the recent concern over the last 2 or 3 years is that, as 

the Marcellus formation has begun to be explored and the resource 

used, that it is a part of the country where there—you know, it has 

not been as much experience, certainly in shale gas exploration, 

and basically the availability of re-injection sites is not the same 

as the availability of re-injection sites in Oklahoma and Texas. 

So, I think both EPA and the States have been on a learning 

curve over the last several years, in terms of, OK—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, my time is—— 

Mr. HANLON [continuing]. My drill is—now that we got the gas 

out, what do we do with produced water? 

Mr. GIBBS. My time is up. I just—one quick question. Do you believe that the States are setting the standards and the guidelines 

to manage it right, or do you think guidelines coming out of Washington, DC, one size fits all, would be—is the way to go? 

Mr. HANLON. If you are referring to the guideline for 

pretreatment standards, basically that will affect waste water from 

shale gas production that will go either to a waste water treatment 

25 

plant or to a centralized waste treatment facility. As things stand 

today, as I understand it, Ohio bans that. Basically, it says—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. HANLON [continuing]. ‘‘You can’t send that to a POTW.’’ 

Pennsylvania had suggested or encouraged that their POTWs not 

do that. And so, if you are a truck driver, and have 5,000 gallons 

of shale gas water in southwestern Pennsylvania, in an hour you 

can get to West Virginia, you can get to Ohio, you can get to Pennsylvania. 

The objective of the guideline is to say that, for the pretreatment 

standards, that 5,000 gallons will have the same expectation when 

they show up at a small POTW, knock on the door and say, ‘‘I got 

5,000 gallons of salty water. And here is a check will you take it.’’ 

And basically, it will provide that operator with assurety in terms 

of what that—the quality of that water is. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. And to all the panel, thank 

you very much for your testimony. 

Secretary Krancer, in your testimony you say that the current 

preference for fracking waste water disposal is through existing 

waste water treatment plants, but you also indicate that the plants 

do not have the technology necessary to remove fracking pollutants 

like total dissolved solids. 

You then go on to say that Pennsylvania’s new chapter 95 regulations, which were adopted last year, are intended to completely 

address the cumulative impacts of waste water discharges. And you 

also note quite proudly—and I would say just justifiably so—that 

they are the first of their kind in the country. And you indicated 

in your comments that you see this hearing in some ways as a response to the leadership that Pennsylvania has demonstrated. And 

you seem to take pride in that, and I would encourage you to do 

so. I think that that is something you should be proud of. 

But my question is, in light of Pennsylvania’s leadership, do you 

not see Pennsylvania as a model for the rest of the country? And 

do you not see the legitimacy of a minimum national standard that 

would emulate Pennsylvania’s, or perhaps be less stringent than 

Pennsylvania’s, but at least be a minimum standard, and that in 

accordance with how we handle other Clean Water Act regulations, 

Federal Government establishes a minimum standard, States are 

then free to exceed those standards? 

Mr. KRANCER. Well, let me answer that this way. Pennsylvania 

is a role model, and it is a model, and we have had visitors from 

foreign countries come to see us, and we do have the new chapter 

95 regulations, total dissolved solids, which does address the issue 

of those plants that formerly could not treat the water appropriately. Now they can, now they are required to. 

And as I said, there was a grandfather clause. We closed that 

when we came into office, by issuing our call. And now, as I have 

testified—— 

Mr. BISHOP. If I may, all of that sounds to me to be perfectly reasonable and laudable. My question is, why would you not want 

your neighboring States to have the same concern that Pennsylvania has made so clear? 

26 

Mr. KRANCER. Well, I think that is a red herring. Quite honestly, 

the question here is whether the States are capable and whether 

the States can do a good job. The answer has been yes—I heard 

that from the EPA here today—I have heard that from EPA’s—— 

Mr. BISHOP. If—again, if that is true, then what is wrong with 

a minimum national standard? 

Mr. KRANCER. Well, because not every State does it, number one. 

Not every State does it the same way, number two. Number 

three—— 

Mr. BISHOP. If I—— 

Mr. KRANCER [continuing]. Not every State has the same geography. Number four—should I go on? 

It is also a matter of philosophy. Should we have the Federal 

Government establishing—and what would happen would be lowest 

common denominator, that would be the case—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, don’t we have lowest common denominator 

right now, if a truck can drive around until it finds a State that 

is going to take the water? 

Mr. KRANCER. Well, again, I think you are posing a red herring 

here. You can’t do that in Pennsylvania, you can’t do that in Ohio. 

Both States are on top of what they are doing. Oklahoma is on top 

of what it is doing. Louisiana is on top—— 

Mr. BISHOP. But you seem to be questioning the fundamental 

premise of the Clean Water Act. If you—— 

Mr. KRANCER. Oh, no, no. You are misunderstanding me. That 

is absolutely false. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Then—— 

Mr. KRANCER. This—the Clean Water Act, as many Federal environmental statutes do, set a Federal-State partnership. No question about that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Correct. 

Mr. KRANCER. OK. But you know what? Number one, fracking 

has never been regulated by the Federal Government. I have a section in my testimony about the so-called Frack Act, and about the 

other myths that are surrounding that issue—— 

Mr. BISHOP. What is being contemplated here is the regulation 

of the waste water from the fracking. 

Mr. KRANCER. Mm-hmm. I am sorry, go ahead, I—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Is that OK? 

Mr. KRANCER. I misunderstood. Go ahead. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Look, I am not trying to be difficult, I am trying 

to understand something here. 

If New York, which is part of the watershed of the Delaware, 

part of the watershed of the Susquehanna, if New York decides 

that they don’t care about environmental standards at all, and they 

are not going to adopt the standards that Pennsylvania has adopted, or be anywhere near as concerned as Pennsylvania is, does that 

not have impact on Pennsylvania’s waters? 

Mr. KRANCER. Yes, certainly it does, Representative. But you and 

I, I think, are having a fundamental philosophical disagreement 

that probably goes back to 1787, when the Constitution was 

formed. I have a certain idea of federalism and where the State’s 

role is, and yours apparently is not where mine is, nor is it where 

27 

other—even the EPA’s is, because even the statutes establish a 

State primacy system. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. I am not prepared to have a philosophical discussion with you. I just want to know what would Pennsylvania do 

if New York, in the highly unlikely eventuality would say, ‘‘Pennsylvania is far too stringent, far too strict, we are not doing this.’’ 

What impact does that have on Pennsylvania’s waters, and what 

would Pennsylvania’s response be? 

Mr. KRANCER. Well, Representative, I have been a litigator and 

a judge far too long to be able to answer complete hypothetical 

questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. All right. I will ask one more question. 

How many jobs were lost when chapter 95 regulations were put 

into place? 

Mr. KRANCER. Well, I don’t have an answer for that, but I think 

jobs have been increased, quite honestly, because what—— 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, so—— 

Mr. KRANCER. Let me finish. What I have seen is a rush of capital coming to Pennsylvania to answer the call that was set when 

we established those standards. I have seen new businesses come 

to Pennsylvania, new jobs created by this—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So—— 

Mr. KRANCER [continuing]. New opportunity, where the invisible 

hand of the marketplace is taking control to bring jobs. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate your response. You simply have illustrated that not all regulations are job-killing regulations. Some regulations are grounded in science and in good sense, and in prudent 

public policy. 

Mr. KRANCER. Well, quite honestly—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. KRANCER [continuing]. I don’t think that is the point here 

today, whether certain regulations create jobs or don’t create jobs. 

I think the point we are talking about is these particular regulations and the way the States handle waste water, which I think in 

my State is handled very well. In Ohio I have heard it is handled 

very well. In Oklahoma I have heard it is handled very well. And 

I have heard the EPA say the States handle it very well. 

Mr. BISHOP. Then you would have nothing to fear from a national standard. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we 

would have something to fear from a national standard because I 

think that, as Secretary Krancer pointed out, it would be lowest 

common denominator, and what happens in Oklahoma it may—is 

very different than Pennsylvania. 

So I think there is a real problem with the continued expansion 

of regulations by the Federal Government. When the States, based 

on what we heard from EPA today, what we heard from—previously, in some cases—from Administrator Jackson, that the 

States are doing a very, very good job of that. 

I wondered, Secretary Krancer, if you could just talk through a 

little bit about—I mentioned earlier about the Corps of Engineers, 

and the definition of single and complete projects. And can you talk 

to us about—you know, here is a situation where the Corps of EnVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-16-~1\71234.TXT JEAN
28 

gineers has reached out and have changed the rules, have changed 

the interpretation. Can you tell us what impact that has had on 

Pennsylvania and the economy, and your views of what they are 

doing? 

Mr. KRANCER. Well, it is a good question. We are working 

through that with the Army Corps now to certainly put a stopper 

on some pipeline projects, pipeline projects that Pennsylvania had 

regulated for years and years. And not just—linear projects aren’t 

just pipelines, they are roads, they are electric lines, so on and so 

forth. 

The bottom line is that we need to get this resource to market, 

and we need the pipelines to do that. And, at the end of the day, 

of course, pipelines are buried, they are—invasiveness is very low. 

They are like electric lines: emotional at the time, but when it is 

all over you never know they were even there. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. And Chairwoman Murphy, can you 

talk a little bit about your view on the national standard? Do you 

believe we need one, or do you believe that what is happening 

today, the States are doing well and there is no need for the EPA 

to come in and set these minimum national standards? 

Ms. MURPHY. I will note that I came directly here from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners conference 

in St. Louis. And one of the common denominators there was the 

collaboration among the States in working together to actually 

have best practices in working with the industry. 

It just seems to me, just from my basis as a regulator, we have 

an open rulemaking process where environmentalists, landowners, 

everyone comes. We have technical conferences. It is very open, lots 

of dialogue before any particular rule is proposed. It seems like the 

way that the Environmental Protection Agency goes about some of 

their rules, they propose rules, then you have comments, then time 

passes and then here is the rule. And it seems like maybe it is a 

better approach—and I think the States, certainly Oklahoma, does 

it—where you have the dialogue first, and get some ideas before 

you start proposing rules for people to comment on. So, I think it 

is a different approach. 

But all that said, I believe that the States individually, and the 

States working in collaboration through STRONGER, through the 

IOGCC, through some of these other groups, are the best approach. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Stewart, you care to comment on that, your 

view of EPA putting a minimum standard out there? 

Mr. STEWART. The problem with a minimum standard is we have 

already discussed how State geology and geography all matters in 

how you set minimum standards at the Federal level. Most minimum standards are set focused on a particular source point. 

The problem is that the source points for this particular concept 

are individual wells and formations that can drastically change in 

their characteristics well to well to well. So I concur with Congressman Lankford, that the best way to have this type of regulation is 

the people that are closest to the wellhead, the people that are the 

boots on the ground, that understand what that waste flow coming 

from that individual well or individual play means when it comes 

to standards on effluent discharge. 

29 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. And Mr. Hanlon, the EPA, do you have that 

same view, that the geology is different in Pennsylvania/Ohio 

versus Oklahoma/Texas? Is that the EPA’s view, that it is very different? 

Mr. HANLON. The geology is different. As I said earlier, the regulation that we began last month is one that would deal with 

pretreatment requirements for waste water that go to either municipally owned waste water treatment plants, or to centralized 

waste treatment facilities. So it is basically—the water that comes 

up, should it be pretreated? And if so, at what level before it goes 

to either of those waste water treatment plants? 

It has nothing to do with what happens in the well. It has nothing to do with sort of how that water is taken out. But rather, 

whether it needs to be pretreated before it goes to a municipal 

plant or a centralized waste treater, and whether some baseline 

technology should be applied to that, which is really irrelevant, in 

terms of the geology. 

Mr. SHUSTER. My time has run out, but the chairman would indulge me for one more question, and have Secretary Krancer comment on what Mr. Hanlon just said, and your view on that. 

Mr. KRANCER. I am not sure how it fits in, to be honest with you. 

And again, Pennsylvania took care of its POTW, CTW end of 

things. The reason we are here today is because EPA was trying 

to give us free advice on things we had already done, and we pointed out to them, hey, instead of commenting on our house, why don’t 

you get your own house in order on your Federal end, the ELGs, 

and that is why we are here. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Napolitano. Representative? Do you have questions? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To Ms. Groome, it is 

my understanding that your recent survey found that the majority, 

if not all of your members, are currently refusing to accept fracking 

fluids at their plants. And is that accurate? 

And then I have a followup on that. The Federal Register says 

most treatment plants do not have technology to treat fracking 

waste water. It also states that, independent of the Clean Water 

Act requirements, it is uncommon that sewage plants have established local limits for the pollutants or parameters of concern in the 

shale gas waste water, nor have they established water qualitybased effluent limits for such parameters. 

Then, if you can, give us some examples of other industrial waste 

discharges that have had national pretreatment standards established that have been effective in protecting the operations of the 

sewage plant treatment and protecting water quality. It is a 

mouthful. 

Ms. GROOME. Yes, it is. I have been with the city for 35 years, 

so I was with Greensboro before the pretreatment program ever 

began. So I did see all of the categorical standards come through. 

So, as I have said in my testimony, nothing prevents a POTW from 

taking fracking waste water now, unless the State itself has prevented it. 

30 

The organic chemical industry, for instance, we had several in 

Greensboro long before the national pretreatment standard came 

out. We had been accepting waste water from them. We had developed local limits. So you certainly can develop—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But has your survey found that most of them 

do not want to take that treated waste water, or the waste water? 

Ms. GROOME. I think until they can characterize the waste 

water, they probably will say no. But we can certainly ask. We 

want a complete characterization of this waste water. We will do 

studies at our particular treatment plant to see if we can handle 

it. 

The local limits process can be used for any pollutant. Do we currently, most of us, have total dissolved solids, local limits? No. But 

that does not mean that you cannot use the local limits process in 

order to develop them, if you need to. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Re-injecting the waste water, of course, 

has some contaminants that, if they put in a truck and send it 

down to the waste treatment plants, my understanding is some of 

them may not be able to effectively remove all the contaminants 

that they are—that they should be required to do. 

Ms. GROOME. That is indeed true. I think there will be waste 

water treatment facilities in this country that cannot handle 

fracking waste water without pretreatment. There may be others 

that will be able to. A lot of it depends on the size. There are treatment plants—Chicago’s is 1 billion gallons. Of course there is no 

fracking going on around there. But a small treatment plant may 

not be able to handle it, that is correct. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Hanlon, Mr. Stewart asserts 

in the testimony that developing an effluent limit guideline for 

pretreatment of fracking fluids before they are disposed of at 

pretreatment plants would likely be meaningless, because every 

well and formation will be so different. And hence, determining 

what will be in the fracking fluid will have no consistency from one 

well to the next. 

But aren’t there certain chemicals that are routinely used in hydraulic fracking—in fracturing that you will be looking at to determine whether pretreatment standards are warranted? And, furthermore, aren’t there certain effluents, like total dissolved solids, 

that we already know to be a problem? And isn’t that why Pennsylvania adopted new regulations related to fracking waste water, and 

why the secretary in the department of environmental protection in 

the State asked EPA to update its effluent limit guidelines for total 

dissolved solids and bromides for centralized waste treatment 

plants? 

Mr. HANLON. It is true that the produced water, flow-back water, 

from individuals wells are not the same. Basically, there is a distribution. For example, for total dissolved solids, the ranges we 

have seen are as low as 300 and as high as 345,000 parts per million. Some parameters of that high TDS waste stream are—some 

parameters tend to sort of dominant the TDS profile in Marcellus 

formation—chlorides for example, basically salts—tend to be very 

high, as high as 190,000 parts per million. 

So, there are sort of similarities that we have seen in the limited 

data to date, in terms of the flow-back water that comes from shale 

31 

gas operations, and that the thinking and the reason for initiating 

the process for the guideline—and this is what the data collection 

will show us over the next 2 or 3 years, as we develop the proposal—is are there technologies out there that will provide a consistent, affordable level of treatment to those flow-back waters 

prior to their being sent to either a centralized waste treatment facility or a municipal plant. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And my time is almost—in fact, it has run 

out. But has there been any new R&D done on the ability to utilize 

whether it is the membranes or other systems to be able to take 

care of those new—— 

Mr. HANLON. My understanding is the industry is, in fact, doing 

that research. EPA is, you know, from a research standpoint and 

budget constraints, would not likely be doing that. 

Membranes are very difficult, because at 200, 300 parts per million, the energy cost for sort of moving water across a membrane 

would be very high. In fact, my understanding is, on site, there are 

companies using distillation technologies that basically take the 

water out, and basically you have a solid waste, then, that you can 

send to a landfill, et cetera. 

So that is the thought process of—conventionally designed municipal waste water treatment plants using activated suspended 

growth process do not take out the parameters that are in shale 

gas flow-back water; all they do is dilute it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Bucshon? 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think all of us would 

agree that we all want clean water, clean air. I just want to state 

that upfront. 

But what I want to focus my questioning on is timing. And I 

guess we have been fracturing for about 60 years. And so I guess 

I would ask Mr. Hanlon. It says in here that you—EPA received 

a request from Congress in March of 2010 to review this process. 

Who requested it, and I—so was it a committee? Was it a specific 

Member of Congress? I would like to know who specifically requested it, and if you have any documentation of that request being 

sent to EPA. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. If it is OK, I will answer that question. It was 

requested, actually, by EPA’s appropriation committee. And we 

usually—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK, EPA appropriation committee. So that was 

the appropriations—who, specifically? It says Congress requested 

it, and I want to know—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Well, it was the appropriation—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. You know, ‘‘Congress’’ implies to me that some 

Members of Congress thought this was a problem, and they requested EPA review it. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I believe it was requested in the fiscal year 

2010 appropriation conference committee report. But it might have 

been in other—it might have been the bill language. But I think 

it was in the report language. 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK. Can you—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. It says—I can read it to you. So it is ‘‘The conferees urged the Agency to carry out a study on the relationship 

32 

between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible 

approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information. The conferees expect the study to 

be conducted through a transparent peer-reviewed process that will 

ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. The Agency shall consult with other Federal agencies, as well as appropriate State and 

interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, which 

should be prepared in accordance with the Agency’s quality assurance principles.’’ 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK. So it is in a conference report. Was that related to a specific bill that was trying to be passed from the—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I don’t have the bill—the number of the law. It 

was the fiscal year 2010 appropriations—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. Because I would be interested in knowing what 

that was, and whose—if it was a conference report on a specific 

piece of legislation, who sponsored the legislation—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Well—— 

Dr. BUCSHON [continuing]. And who was on the—who were the 

conferees—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Doctor—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative, would you yield for a second? 

Dr. BUCSHON. Yes, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. Bucshon, would you—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. I will yield. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for yielding. Please correct me if I am 

wrong, but it was in the energy and water appropriations bill for 

fiscal year 2010 conference committee report. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Yes, OK. 

Mr. BISHOP. Means it was agreed to by a majority of the conferees—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. Right. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. And then passed by both chambers. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Yes, I understand. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry, I just—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I can get you the—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Not energy and water, interior. 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK, thank you. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I will get the—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. And so, with that—OK, I understand that. I was 

just—my ears hear that—hear, you know, ‘‘requested by Congress,’’ 

I want to know more specifically who requested it and why. 

And I guess that leads into my next question, is do you know— 

was there—are there specific incident somewhere in the United 

States that spurred on this request? I mean is there—it is again 

about timing. Because I am—as you probably gather, I am a little 

bit skeptical about the timing on some of these things, as it relates 

to the Federal EPA in the last—since I have been here in Congress. 

So I am trying to see if there is, you know, some background information to provide the reason why this was requested, and why 

the—I guess the conferees, I suspect, most likely—that don’t agree 

with me on environmental issues requested it. Is there any—do 

they have background in their request? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I am not aware of specific background related 

to that, but I can check for the record—— 

33 

Dr. BUCSHON. So I guess the question begs to why. I mean I 

guess—Mr. Hanlon, can you answer that, why EPA—I mean usually when I do things at my office—and I was a heart surgeon before—I usually want to know why. Why specifically now? I mean 

why do we need—you know. 

And it seems like, to me, that you should have the answer to 

that, which means—to me it either has to be there was a specific 

incident related to a problem related to fracking, there was evidence of ground water contamination somewhere in the 50 States, 

a specific reason why the Federal Government would all of the sudden decide that it needs to try to usurp the State’s role in regulating their environment in their own State. I mean I want to know 

specifically why. 

Mr. HANLON. We are not—I am not aware why Congress put that 

request in the appropriations report for EPA to conduct the study. 

It was congressional request to the EPA in our appropriations report. We are very sensitive and responsive to requests of the appropriations committee. 

Dr. BUCSHON. OK, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Altmire? 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Hanlon, I am going to ask about the bromide 

level in western Pennsylvania waters. There was a recent Carnegie 

Mellon University study and others that have shown an increased 

level of bromides. Some have equated that in a cause and effect relationship to the fracking process. 

And I wondered if you were prepared to offer an opinion on is 

the increased level of bromides in any way related to hydraulic 

fracturing? Does that in any way endanger our drinking water? Is 

it definitely caused by the fracking? And if not, does the EPA also 

monitor other heavy industries and the release of bromides into the 

water? 

Mr. HANLON. We are sort of following the issue of bromides in 

drinking water. My understanding is that potential sources of bromides into surface waters include shale gas flow-back water, mining operations, a potential source of water, as well as power plants, 

especially those that are installing flue gas to de-sulfurization units 

and the waste water that results from that. 

The complication is that, as bromine increases in surface waters 

that then become intake waters for drinking water treatment 

plants, it significantly increases the potential for creating 

brominated trihalomethanes, which are carcinogens. They are more 

toxic than chlorinated trihalomethanes. They are less volatile. That 

means sort of when—they are more difficult to evaporate. And so 

they are on our radar screen. 

I know the States, including Pennsylvania, are looking closely at 

these issues. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. But do—— 

Mr. HANLON. Cynthia and I were in our region three office in 

Philadelphia last month and received a briefing in terms of the 

work that is ongoing regarding bromine, where it comes from, to 

alert drinking water treatment plants to test more regularly for 

this, and then to look at enhancements, potential enhancements, to 

the drinking water treatment process where there are elevated levels of bromine in the intake water. 

34 

Mr. ALTMIRE. But you listed a whole bunch of things that could 

be the cause. Do you think that fracking is one of the causes? 

Mr. HANLON. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. When you, the EPA—it probably was not you, specifically—the EPA testified before the Senate about the natural gas 

waste water standards recently, and they were asked—the witness 

was asked the reasoning for developing the standards, and they responded to the Senate that it was because of a request from Pennsylvania in dealing with the POTW issues. 

Pennsylvania, of course, now has a zero discharge standard on 

that. So I am wondering if you feel that moving forward with the 

request to pursue these standards, given the fact that the entity 

that requested you look into this has now made a decision to no 

longer do the discharge into the POTWs, if you think the question 

is now moot. 

Mr. HANLON. I believe the EPA witness that you refer to is sitting to my left. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. OK. Well, maybe Ms. Dougherty, and then you 

could answer the question. 

Mr. HANLON. In that case, basically the decision to initiate work 

on an effluent guideline was, in part, responsive to the position 

taken by the State of Pennsylvania. Again, my understanding is 

that their current policy is to suggest or encourage that publicly 

owned treatment works not take shale gas flow-back water. It is 

not a regulatory requirement. 

And, you know, we have talked about Pennsylvania’s recommendation to POTWs, we have talked about Ohio’s ban on 

POTWs taking flow-back water. There are dozens of States that are 

sort of managing shale gas, shale gas protocols, production, and 

flow-back water. And so this isn’t a Pennsylvania-Ohio-West Virginia issue, it is a national issue. 

And that is why we made the decision to initiate the process— 

again, we are not publishing a proposed regulation next week—but 

to collect the data, look at sort of the issues of where the flow-back 

water is going, does it in fact pass through—interfere with the 

waste water treatment process or contaminate the biosolids, and if 

so, what technologies are available, what are the cost of those technologies, and then use that to inform a rulemaking process. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. And lastly, in your opening statement, 

your testimony, you say that the study, which you expect to be out, 

will include a modeling of potential impacts to these issues that we 

are discussing. And I was wondering. Is one of the impacts that the 

EPA considers—or do they consider—jobs created or lost as a result 

of these regulations? And when they issue a ruling, do they consider the economic impact to the community and to the State? 

Mr. HANLON. The reference to the study was—the study that 

was, again, done at the request of the appropriations committee, or 

the appropriations report, and basically that is looking—is more focused on hydraulic fracturing fluids and sort of the water continuum that I described. 

The effluent guideline, the regulation that we announced the initiation of last month, will absolutely consider the economic impacts. 

The standard in the Clean Water Act is the best available technologically economically achievable. And so those impacts are considVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-16-~1\71234.TXT JEAN
35 

ered—will be considered in this deliberation, as they are in every 

effluent guideline. We have done technology-specific guidelines for 

over 50 industrial categories over the last 35 years, and we have 

initiated the process to look at this one. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Mr. Harris? 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Hanlon, let me ask you 

a question. The testimony was—I think it was the fiscal year 

2010—is that right, the appropriations bill—that had this language, fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010. Which one was it, fiscal 

year 2010? 

Do you have any idea how much your budget is lower this year 

than the fiscal year 2010 budget in the upcoming year? 

Mr. HANLON. I don’t have that number at my fingertips. I would 

be happy to get back to you through—— 

Dr. HARRIS. It is lower, though, isn’t it? Didn’t we lower the EPA 

budget? 

Mr. HANLON. Currently we are operating at the fiscal year 2011 

level under a continuing resolution, as you understand—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Sure. 

Mr. HANLON [continuing]. But we expect it to be lower—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Lower. 

Mr. HANLON [continuing]. Than it was in fiscal year 2010. 

Dr. HARRIS. So there is really no need to look for work, is there, 

over at the EPA? 

Mr. HANLON. We have plenty to do every day. 

Dr. HARRIS. You do, don’t you? 

Mr. HANLON. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HARRIS. The language in that appropriations bill, it is not 

binding language, is it? It doesn’t say the EPA shall do it—because, 

actually, I don’t think you can do that in an appropriations bill— 

but it is not binding language, is it? 

Mr. HANLON. I would have to sort of refer to my general counsel’s 

office, in terms of—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Ms. Dougherty, what is the language—you quoted 

the language from the bill. What does it say? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. It says ‘‘the conferees urge the Agency.’’ 

Dr. HARRIS. Urge. Wow. Secretary Krancer, you are a judge. If 

somebody came to a court and said that that implied somehow that 

the EPA was forced to do it under the authority of law, what would 

you do? 

Mr. KRANCER. I would have to throw them out—— 

Dr. HARRIS. It would be summary judgment, right? 

Mr. KRANCER. Yes. 

Dr. HARRIS. Because there is no—it says ‘‘urge.’’ Why is the EPA 

looking for work to do when your budget is being cut, and this language is clearly not mandatory language? 

In fact, you said it is being responsive to the appropriation committee request. That is what the EPA likes to do. Did the current 

appropriation committee put any similar language, perhaps even 

more binding language, in this year’s appropriation bill coming out 

of this appropriation committee, which, I assume, is the one you 

would be most like to be responsive to? 

36 

Mr. HANLON. I am not aware of a similar request in the—if this 

was in the fiscal year 2010 language—in the fiscal year 2011 language. 

Dr. HARRIS. Sure. 

Mr. HANLON. The fiscal year 2012 process is pending. And—— 

Dr. HARRIS. It is not—I will cut to the chase. It is not in the bill. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Well, but—— 

Mr. HANLON. Across the board, we are responsible—— 

Dr. HARRIS. So we have—what we have is we have a situation 

where EPA is obviously looking to create work to do when their 

budget is being cut. This is fascinating. Because I am going to ask 

the question that I asked before. Anybody on this panel know of 

a documented case of contamination of drinking water by the 

hydrofracturing technique? 

[No response.] 

Dr. HARRIS. I don’t see a yes anywhere on the panel. There are— 

Chair Murphy, 100,000 instances nationwide of hydrofracturing, 

200,000, 300,000? How many do you think? How many wells have 

been hydrofractured in the U.S.? 

Ms. MURPHY. I can speak to my State, and my State is close to 

100,000. 

Dr. HARRIS. Oh, 100,000. So let’s say it is a 200,000, 300,000, 

400,000, 500,000 wells—— 

Mr. STEWART. 1.2 million. 

Dr. HARRIS. 1.2 million wells. Now, in medicine this is called 

post-marketing surveillance, when you look for things that have 

happened in something that looks like it appears to be safe, like 

in the case of a drug. So you have administered 1.2 million treatments, and you are telling me there is not a single case? Now, even 

the FDA, which some people have problems with, too, would take 

no action against something where you had 1.2 million applications 

and nothing happening. 

Now, Mr. Hanlon, you know I just love it when people come here 

and say there is radiation going on, and there is bromine, and 

things like this that just sound terrible. Isn’t bromine a swimming 

pool chemical? Mr. Hanlon, isn’t it used in swimming pools that my 

children go in to swim in? 

And I am going to ask you a specific question, because you are 

all about clean water. 

Mr. HANLON. Bromine is—— 

Dr. HARRIS. What is the level in the hydrofracturing fluid that 

comes out, compared to the swimming pool level? It is a simple 

question. You said that you are all concerned. You have got to have 

bromine levels on this stuff. And I know my kids swim in swimming pools with bromine in it. Can you get back to me on what the 

level is in a swimming pool, compared to what it is in a 

hydrofracturing fluid that comes out of a hydrofractured well? 

Mr. HANLON. We would be happy—— 

Dr. HARRIS. Just to justify, you know, how you are going to 

spend a whole lot of taxpayer dollars looking at bromine, because 

it is just fascinating to me. I mean, given the setting we have. 

The Duke paper—I think Secretary Krancer—was it—did you— 

one of you had referenced the Duke paper in your testimony. Is it 

37 

true that they would not reveal the locations of their—of the 

sources of their samples? 

Mr. KRANCER. That is a tremendously timely question. I have 

said in the past that they have treated what they have done, where 

they have done it, their data, kind of like a Mike Krzyzewski game 

plan, that’s secret. And of course I think I read the other day that 

Mike Krzyzewski just won his whatever-thousandth game. 

Dr. HARRIS. Sure. 

Mr. KRANCER. They have been very, very secretive. It has been 

like trying to get information from the CIA. 

Dr. HARRIS. Well, that is pretty interesting. Because, like the 

CIA, they actually get Federal funding to do some of this work. 

And, you know, the taxpayers, if they are going to spend money on 

things, I think they do deserve to know that. As a scientist, I think 

it is unbelievable that a group purporting to do scientific, carefully 

done research, which is frequently quoted, would not be willing to 

share that data. 

Anyway, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of 

issues, obviously, dealing with fracking. And I thank all of you for 

coming. You spent a lot of time in travel and preparation, and I 

thank you for all your written materials and your oral testimony 

and answering questions. I am sure this is the most fun part of 

your day at any point, is coming to talk to a congressional committee on it. 

Let me just go through just a couple questions, just to pull some 

additional information out. 

Mr. Hanlon, you had mentioned before just—the EPA and the 

study, and I understand all the study and the background, and 

some of those things on it. Have you been to a frack site before, 

personally, to walk around on a frack site? 

Mr. HANLON. I have personally never been to a frack site. My 

staff has. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. That would be helpful, to walk around and 

get a chance to see. And I would just encourage you to walk around 

on it. When you go to a frack site and you see the operation, the 

group of professionals that are there, and the way the water is 

handled, and the transition of it, I think it will be very enlightening. So I would encourage you to go and to watch the process, 

as it works its way through. 

You listed off five areas—and I am going to go to a different 

area, because I was going to ask you about several things, but since 

you haven’t been to a frack site, I am not going to ask you about 

those things—but you listed five areas: the acquisition of the water, 

the mix of the chemicals, the injection, the flow-back, and the 

waste water. 

There are a couple areas in here. Obviously, when you are dealing with the water that gets into a drinking water source, and as 

it moves into a stream, or if it is just taken out of the well and 

dumped straight into someplace, obviously that would cause major 

concerns. That is not what is happening at this point. 

In 2005, Congress did enact a law that excluded hydraulic 

fracking in the permitting, in the safe drinking water, except in a 

38 

couple areas. One is diesel is used. Do you know if diesel is still 

being used in many hydraulic fracking jobs, or what percentage of 

jobs are still using diesel? Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I don’t know percentage, but we do know that 

diesel fuel is being used in hydraulic fracturing fluid from statements that have been made by—in public forums by—or in public 

discussions with members of the industry and other information. It 

has been—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. So—but in the study of this, are you limiting 

your study to only those that use the diesel fuel as a part of it, or 

is your study for every area? Because I understand the diesel fuel 

is a restriction—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I believe that the study is for hydraulic fracturing, overall, and the use—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY [continuing]. And the water cycle related to hydraulic fracturing, overall. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So, because safe drinking water—because it specifically notes that it is excluded from that, from regulating it unless it uses diesel, but the study is studying all of it. And so is the 

hope that they will come back to Congress and say, ‘‘We have done 

this study, here is this information, Congress. If you want us to 

regulate these areas, here are the information,’’ and assume there 

will be new laws that will be passed on that? Because I am trying 

to figure out—if there is not an assumption you are going to do a 

study and begin regulations when it has been specifically excluded 

in the law. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Well, there are two different—we might be getting confused. There is a study that will be done in terms of collecting information related to the effluent guideline that Jim 

Hanlon has been talking about. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. But the study that our research office is doing 

is related to the use of water and hydraulic fracturing, and the impact on drinking water resources. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right—— 

Mr. HANLON. We understand—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. And so they are looking overall—— 

Mr. HANLON [continuing]. The results of that study could not result in a regulation of injection, but for the diesel exclusion. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. 

Mr. HANLON. Basically, that is excluded by the 2005 law, and we 

understand that. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Correct. So the study assumes that you are going 

to provide information and research, but not new regulations based 

on that—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Yes. 

Mr. LANKFORD [continuing]. Because of the exclusion? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Yes. 

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. The peer review that is in the statement as 

well that is from the fiscal year 2010 appropriations piece, it does, 

you know, obviously encourage. But it also says it must be scientifically based and peer reviewed. How is EPA fulfilling that peer review? Are you allowing industry, outside watchdog groups, environVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:48 Apr 25, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\WR\2011\11-16-~1\71234.TXT JEAN
39 

mentalist groups, to be able to tag along when a study is done at 

various—do you all take a sample, they take a sample? 

I raise the assumption at the end of the day, when the study is 

released, you allow people to be able to review it. That peer review, 

how is that being fulfilled currently? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I—it is probably better to get some information 

for you for the record. But the Agency is going through a significant process to make sure we do peer review at many different 

steps. 

We did a peer review with the scientific advisory board of the 

Agency and took public comments on the initial draft study plan. 

We are doing, under our normal quality assurance requirements, 

quality assurance project plans for each of the pieces of the study, 

including the case studies that are being done. Some of the prospective case studies are being done in concert with industry, because we have got to do it at—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. Sure. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY [continuing]. A well where they are doing work. 

The retrospective will be laying out the information. But—and we 

have been discussing the plans with landowners and State and 

local and industry representatives. But I believe we will be as 

transparent as we can be, but we won’t be having industry necessarily follow us around as we do our work. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Great. Is that—Mr. Chairman, could I request 

this committee request of EPA that there is a—the peer review portion of this, that that is something they submit back to us, what 

the process is, and how the transparency—and I appreciate the 

openness and the transparency on that, but that we get the actual 

document that shows the peer review process, and how that is 

being fulfilled, just as a part of our oversight role? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, we will request that. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Dougherty, you have to leave at noon, and you 

are excused, and thank you for being here. 

At this time, Ms. Beutler, do you have questions? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is 

pretty simple, and I kind of smile because I am sitting in between 

two doctors, like a heart surgeon and a—I mean this is a simple 

question, which I am sure anyone here can answer. But it would 

help me understand. 

You know, in the move to look at possibly requiring a 

pretreatment standard before it goes to a POTW—and what I was 

hearing was, well, what if a—this potable water is driven to Virginia or outside of Pennsylvania or, you know, who knows—maybe 

they want to drive it to Washington State, probably get sent back 

at the border. 

But does a POTW not have the ability to say we can’t or won’t 

treat that, go somewhere else? And wouldn’t someone who is driving that water, right, who is probably with the company who is 

doing the fracturing, say, ‘‘Hey, maybe we should figure out where 

we are going to take this’’? Isn’t that kind of pretty—I would assume that is somewhat prearranged. You know you are taking it 

somewhere where they can handle what you are going to take. Is 

that way beyond—— 

40 

Mr. KRANCER. Well, let me take a shot at that. I think you are 

essentially—maybe more than essentially—very correct. POTWs, 

CTWs have certain permit limits that they must meet, and they 

must meet them. So whatever comes in on the outside has to meet 

the permit limits. So, ergo say in Pennsylvania, for example, we 

now have the new total dissolved solids regulations that apply to 

this particular waste stream, 500 milligrams per liter. So, whatever 

goes in has to be able to meet 500 milligrams per liter on the way 

out. 

Now, those folks who are taking it in will know whether it can 

or can’t. And if it can’t, then that is a no-no, and they are not supposed to do that. That is the way the system works. So I think you 

have very accurately described it, as far as I can see. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So if a State has a concern about the 

level or quality of this waste water, they could simply choose to not 

allow it to be disposed of in their—in a facility or in their locality? 

Ms. GROOME. Yes, and the State does not have to be the one that 

makes that determination. Each local municipality has the authority, just as you said, to say, ‘‘No, we are too small to take it, we 

haven’t done those studies that we need to, to determine whether 

we can,’’ so you are absolutely—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Or even, ‘‘We don’t like this, we don’t 

like fracking, we don’t like what you’re doing, go somewhere else,’’ 

right? 

Ms. GROOME. Certainly. You can—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. OK. 

Mr. STEWART. You want some followup on that? In the State of 

Ohio it has been the law since 1985 that all produced water from 

oil and gas production that include flow-back must go down to a 

class two well, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act, and as 

regulated by the Ohio department of natural resources, under their 

primacy agreement with U.S. EPA. 

There has been one POTW facility that set up in the city of Warren that was taking waters from the State of Pennsylvania, operating under a permit issued by Ohio EPA. That permit has been 

withdrawn. It is somewhat controversial. The industry in the State 

of Ohio supports the disposal of produced waters down class two 

wells. But wee have great formations to take it, and we have a regulatory structure backed up by delegation to support the development of that resource. 

Other States are not as fortunate on that, and they need flexibility in the ability to manage this in order for this play to develop. 

Pennsylvania finds themselves in that situation. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I just got a couple more questions for Mr. 

Hanlon. You know, it sounds like the EPA is moving forward on 

a number of activities. Obviously, there is the studies and potential 

rules and guidances. Are there any other initiatives that you can 

talk about that might be underway by the EPA you can kind of 

briefly outline what the thinking is moving forward, in regard to 

oil and shale gas extraction? 

Mr. HANLON. We have talked about the effluent guideline, we 

have talked about the study—I am going by our office of research 

and development and response to the appropriations request. The 

41 

written testimony summarizes a set of questions and answers that 

we issued in March, in terms of how does shale gas work within 

the construct of the NPDS program, both pretreatment and the 

regular sort of base program, so that is out and available on our 

Web site. 

We are—and I mentioned in the testimony—we are working on 

two other guidance documents related to Clean Water Act responsibilities, one guidance for permit writers—again, this is voluntary 

guidance that says if you are writing a permit for a centralized 

waste treatment facility, if you are writing a permit for a publicly 

owned treatment works, here are the kind of questions you should 

be asking to EPA and State permit writers, as they are dealing 

with this relatively unique waste stream. 

Again, in the southwest, in Oklahoma and Texas, permit writers 

haven’t dealt with this because they have all gone down disposal 

wells. So, in areas where the option is being actively considered in 

terms of whether POTWs should take this stuff, what should be the 

questions that are asked. So that is one guidance document. 

And the other one is sort of as we develop the pretreatment regulation, the Clean Water Act requires that in the meantime, until 

there is—in the instance there is not a national regulation, basically there is a decision process laid out under current regulations 

that has been there for 30 years, where permit writers make sort 

of best professional judgment decisions in terms of whether any 

pretreatment should be required on a case-by-case basis. And so 

that is the second guidance document we are working on that was 

covered in the testimony. 

Mr. GIBBS. What is your thought on how you kind of work with 

the States and stakeholders? Do you have public hearings? I am 

concerned about having duplicative regulations and cost to stakeholders in the industry that is going to stifle the development. 

I have a bill working on pesticides, and duplicate regulation is 

really, it is a problem. What is U.S. EPA’s intent working with the 

States and working collaboratively, and stakeholders? 

Mr. HANLON. Again, the target audience for those two items of 

guidance are the State and regional permit writers. So, basically, 

we will be consulting with them as the guidance is developed. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Another question, quickly. I understand that the 

EPA’s Federal authorities are developing best management practices for controlling erosion and sediment from storm water runoff 

at oil and gas drilling sites under construction. What is the EPA’s 

planning with respect to storm water and sediment controls? Are 

you planning to do guidances—States are implementing certain 

things; what is happening in that area? 

Mr. HANLON. A number of years ago—and I believe it was the 

2005 Energy Policy Act exempted oil and gas exploration and production activities from storm water regulation. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is correct. 

Mr. HANLON. And so, basically, that exemption is in place, except 

that—and there were two exceptions—to the extent that runoff 

from an oil and gas construction site results in a violation of a 

State water quality standard. And the State sets a standard. If 

there is a violation of a standard, then basically that site is in violation—is discharging in violation of the Clean Water Act. 

42 

Or, if there is a discharge that results in a reportable quantity 

of a constituent of production—so if there is an oil sheen, some of 

the oil is getting out and getting into the creek, then basically that 

is also not covered by the exemption. We are not—you know, as a 

matter of course—and we have sort of dealt with oil and gas construction sites across the country—there aren’t issues. 

My understanding—and I talked to our water director in region 

three in Philadelphia this morning—they have done a series of inspections sort of in the Mid-Atlantic region, and they have visited 

a number of sites where the well pad itself is constructed in the 

stream bed. I would suggest that if they have done that, there was 

probably runoff as they were constructing that into the stream that 

probably violated State water quality standards. 

Again, I wasn’t there, I didn’t observe that. But if that happened, 

then I think we would—I would sort of assert that sort of that is 

a violation, and that site would not enjoy the exemption. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Stewart, do you have any comments on that? Do 

you have any issues in Ohio with site selection with the EPA, in 

regard to storm water runoff? 

Mr. STEWART. There was two instances in the State of Ohio as 

the shale was getting underway last year, in which an operator had 

a location that was very approximate to a stream. They violated 

the law, they were cited, and faced censure by both the department 

of natural resources and Ohio EPA. 

Mr. GIBBS. So State regulation in place took care of the problem. 

I thought so. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. HANLON. Just, again, a clarification on that point. In an example like that, both Ohio and Pennsylvania are authorized to implement the NPDS program. That would be a discharge in violation 

of the Clean Water Act. As I said earlier, those States would take 

appropriate Clean Water Act actions. 

Mr. GIBBS. I’ve got one final question, I guess. 

The EPA’s regional offices, they have authority to develop their 

own policies and guidance under the Clean Water Act. Do they 

have that authority? 

Mr. HANLON. The Clean Water Act—and I have sort of said this 

publicly many times—was elegant in its design. So the designers 

back in the early 1970s, I think, came up with very elegant design. 

It is tedious in its implementation, there are a lot of moving parts. 

And so it is common that regional offices, when they work with 

States, will basically deal with, sort of on a State by State, sort of 

site by site basis, interpretation of the statute, of the regulations, 

and of national guidance that is—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Do you know of any specific examples of any regional 

offices taking steps related to this issue? 

Mr. HANLON. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I yield to Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I will be 

brief. I thank you all. 

I just want to thank you, Mr. Hanlon, for responding on behalf 

of the EPA to the interior committee conferees request that you 

43 

conduct a study. And I understand that we did not use the highest 

order of imperative there. We did not say ‘‘shall.’’ 

But we hear routinely from our friends on the other side of the 

aisle about faceless Washington-based bureaucrats arrogating to 

themselves authority that they do not have or ought not to exercise. If we are at the point where these same faceless Washingtonbased bureaucrats are going to arrogate to themselves the authority to ignore the clearly express will of the Congress, such will 

being a bipartisan expressed will of the Congress, then we are in 

a sorry state of affairs, indeed. 

So, I thank you on behalf of the EPA for responding to that request. 

And I also just—again, I don’t think any one of us ought to fear 

data. You are conducting a study on drinking water—by the way, 

not the subject of this hearing—you are conducting a study on 

drinking water, which will be presumably based in sound collection 

of data. And your effluent guidelines work right now is, right now, 

engaged in the compilation of data. That is something that we all 

ought to welcome. We ought not to speak disparagingly about it. 

We ought not to fear it. We ought to welcome it. And I thank you 

for conducting it. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just one final comment. I think data is important, to 

collect the data and make sure it is done in a scientifically way— 

based way. I think the purpose of this hearing was to bring out in 

the open to make sure that the U.S. EPA and their respective State 

EPAs can work collaboratively, and we can develop this natural resource. 

And it is a huge economic boom in job creation, and it is a national security issue because we spend almost $1 trillion overseas 

for oil, and we don’t really need to be doing that. And we have a 

huge opportunity that is in our lifetimes to experience—especially 

in my area in Ohio, with the Utica shale, we are really excited 

about it. 

And, you know, I am confident—it was good to hear the regulators from Oklahoma and Pennsylvania stating the experiences 

they are having, the excellent environmental record that they have 

had to protect the environment, and we can move forward, I think. 

But I want to make sure that the Federal regulators are doing 

their part to not have duplicative regulations, duplicative costs, 

and making sure that they are doing their—I think the Clean 

Water Act is supposed to be implemented by the States under the 

auspices, authority, oversight, of the Federal Government, but let 

the States do their thing. If they are doing their thing, let’s let it 

happen. And that is what I think—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Very quickly, I hope this is not going to be hard, 

since it is just you and me left, but I am asking for unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the San Juan Citizens Alliance regarding this issue. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

44 


Insert offset folio 11 here 71234.011
45 


Insert offset folio 12 here 71234.012
46 


Insert offset folio 13 here 71234.013
47 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. And again, I want to thank the witnesses for coming 

and preparing. And we look forward to developing these resources. 

The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

48 


Insert offset folio 14 here 71234.014
49 


Insert offset folio 15 here 71234.015
50 


Insert offset folio 16 here 71234.016
51 


Insert offset folio 17 here 71234.017
52 


Insert offset folio 18 here 71234.018
53 


Insert offset folio 19 here 71234.019
54 


Insert offset folio 20 here 71234.020
55 


Insert offset folio 21 here 71234.021
56 


Insert offset folio 22 here 71234.022
57 


Insert offset folio 23 here 71234.023
58 


Insert offset folio 24 here 71234.024
59 


Insert offset folio 25 here 71234.025
60 


Insert offset folio 26 here 71234.026
61 


Insert offset folio 27 here 71234.027
62 


Insert offset folio 28 here 71234.028
63 


Insert offset folio 29 here 71234.029
64 


Insert offset folio 30 here 71234.030
65 


Insert offset folio 31 here 71234.031
66 


Insert offset folio 32 here 71234.032
67 


Insert offset folio 33 here 71234.033
68 


Insert offset folio 34 here 71234.034
69 


Insert offset folio 35 here 71234.035
70 


Insert offset folio 36 here 71234.036
71 


Insert offset folio 37 here 71234.037
72 


Insert offset folio 38 here 71234.038
73 


Insert offset folio 39 here 71234.039
74 


Insert offset folio 40 here 71234.040
75 


Insert offset folio 41 here 71234.041
76 


Insert offset folio 42 here 71234.042
77 


Insert offset folio 43 here 71234.043
78 


Insert offset folio 44 here 71234.044
79 


Insert offset folio 45 here 71234.045
80 


Insert offset folio 46 here 71234.046
81 


Insert offset folio 47 here 71234.047
82 


Insert offset folio 48 here 71234.048
83 


Insert offset folio 49 here 71234.049
84 


Insert offset folio 50 here 71234.050
85 


Insert offset folio 51 here 71234.051
86 


Insert offset folio 52 here 71234.052
87 


Insert offset folio 53 here 71234.053
88 


Insert offset folio 54 here 71234.054
89 


Insert offset folio 55 here 71234.055
90 


Insert offset folio 56 here 71234.056
91 


Insert offset folio 57 here 71234.057
92 


Insert offset folio 58 here 71234.058
93 


Insert offset folio 59 here 71234.059
94 


Insert offset folio 60 here 71234.060
95 


Insert offset folio 61 here 71234.061
96 


Insert offset folio 62 here 71234.062
97 


Insert offset folio 63 here 71234.063
98 


Insert offset folio 64 here 71234.064
99 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 65 here 71234.065