### Page 1 1 2

--------------------------------------------------------- 3 4 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 5OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS 6* * * 7 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS SECTOR RE: 8 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 9and 10 NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS 11 FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS REVIEWS 12

--------------------------------------------------------- 13 14 15COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER 700 14th Street, Room 207 16Denver, Colorado 80202 17 September 28, 2011 Commencing at 9:05 a.m. 18 (Corrected Transcript: November 15, 2011) 19 20 21 22 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. 23 COURT REPORTERS (800) 288-3376 24 www.depo.com REPORTED BY: CARLA D. CAPRITTA, RPR 25 FILE NO.: A507BEB

### Page 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 EPA PANEL: 3 JAMES MARTIN - REGION 8 4 WILLIAM HARNETT - REGION 8 5 GREG NIZICH - REGION 8 6 CARL DALY - REGION 8 (9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.) 7 KATE FAY - REGION 8 (2:04 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.) 8 DEIRDRE ROTHERY - REGION 8 (4:03 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) 9 10 11 SPEAKERS: 12 Clint Gill George Troutman Spencer Kimball Charlie Montgomery 13 Greg Thomas Jason Rauen John Admire Virginia Phillips 14 Tom Hassenboehler Elizabeth Paranhos Bruce Baizel Connie Mar 15 Wes Wilson Deborah Thomas Joy Jamison John Fenton 16Andrew Casper David Ellenberger Gene Bruhn Roni Sylvester 17 William Crossen Marie Soderberg Wayne Grider Donna Bonetti 18 Natalia Swalnick Anita Hartman Barry Andrews John Gale 19 Bryce Carter (for April Beach) Shakti Michael Findlay Brooke Tvermoes 20 Geri Reinardy Rick Blotter Alex Johnson George Saum 21 Jan Bennett Sue Gruenler Stan Dempsey Sonia Skakich-Scrima 22 Patrick Demmer Randee Webb Clark Rapp Jeremy Nichols 23 Sharon Alexander-Holt Roger Singer Whitney Coombs Gopa Ross 24 Diane Schrack Libby Comeaux Rene Whitmore Kenneth Sajdak 25

### Page 3 1 SPEAKERS (Continued): 2 Keli Kringel Wayne Sartori 3 Sandy Toland Dave Devanney 4 Lisa Willis Clayton Caroon 5Anna Florey Joan Seeman 6 Shane Davis Lawrence Martinez 7 Rena Kaplowitz Jeff Briggs 8 Bob Arrington Robin Cooley 9 Isaac Rivera Carol Schreuder 10 Frank Smith Sean Conway 11 Bryce Carter Susan Stantejsky 12 Richard Creswell Ben Tettlebaum 13April Matzenbacher 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

### Page 4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3ADMINISTRATOR MARTIN: Good morning, 4 everybody. You're not required to take a seat, but 5 there's a lot of seats. So if you'd like a seat, some 6 really great seats right here. Just lecture, there's no 7 offering today, so . . . 8 All right. So my name is Jim Martin. I'm the 9 Regional Administrator for Region 8, which is based here 10 in Colorado, with -- our region includes the Dakotas, 11 Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado, so vitally interested in 12 this rule, as I'm sure all of you are as well. I'm 13 going to speak very, very briefly and then turn the mic 14 over to all of you. 15I want to, first of all, thank all of you for 16being here today. For those of you who are out of 17 state, welcome to Colorado, welcome to Denver, welcome 18 to the convention center. It's a gorgeous day out 19 there, so I hope that you get a chance to at least spend 20 a few minutes outside sometime over the course of the 21 day. 22 A few comments on what we're doing here 23 today, and then, as I said, I'll turn this microphone 24 over to you and to the folks who have signed up. 25This is, as I said, a rule that's important to

### Page 5 1 all of us in this region, and I think it's an important 2 national rule that represents a significant step forward 3 in our strategy, the Environmental Protection Agency's 4 strategy, to protect the public from harmful effects of 5 air pollution. 6But having said that, as you know, our region 7 and lots of regions in this country are experiencing 8 pretty dramatic growth in oil and gas development, 9particularly shale gas, and those clearly represent 10 valuable natural resources for the country. 11 That boom is thanks, at least in part, to some 12 significant advances in exploration and production 13 technology; but it's also, I think, important to 14 recognize that it's an industrial practice, it's one 15 that occurs in both urban and rural areas. We've seen 16 all -- a lot of that all over this part of the country. 17 It's highly disbursed across the landscape, and, as with 18 most industries, it comes with potential public health 19 and environmental impacts as well, which is what we're 20 here to talk about today. 21 A number of energy-producing states, and I 22 want to point particularly to Wyoming and Colorado but a 23 number of other states as well, where this kind of 24 development is occurring, has been occurring, will occur 25 over the future, have recognized those impacts, and

### Page 6 1 they've developed some standards, some approaches, to 2 reducing those emissions that are associated with this 3 production technology. But given the industry's growth 4 into a lot more states and a lot more parts of different 5 states, it's time; and one of the things that this rule 6 will do, will level the playing field for all of the 7 participants in this process. 8 In certain places national emissions standards 9 for the exploration/production of oil and natural gas 10 will achieve that; in other cases, it's going just to 11 bring states up to where Colorado and Wyoming are, in 12 many respects. 13The proposed rule you're discussing today 14 contains measures that, to a large degree, build on what 15 we've learned here in Colorado and from Wyoming and from 16 Utah and other states, in reducing ozone precursors and 17 hazardous air pollutants. 18 We're committed, here at the Environmental 19 Protection Agency, to making these proposed rules, these 20 changes, workable and effective, and that's why we're 21 here today. We're looking for your comments on how we 22 can do those two things, make them workable and 23 effective. 24 I personally -- and I know there's a lot of 25 people here from Region 8. We're committed to the

### Page 7 1 success of these rules, and we urge your active 2 involvement today as we -- as we complete this rule 3making. And this public hearing is really a vital, vital 4 part of that. 5So with that, I think I'm almost done. I want 6 to close by saying, again, thank you for being here. And 7 I know you're all staying till 8:00 tonight, so I 8 appreciate your endurance. Or at least you're staying 9 for a while. 10 I also want to mention that we do have a 11 number of Region 8 staff here, as well as some folks 12 from headquarters. And Carl Daly, who runs our air 13 program here at Region 8, Carl will be here for -- 14 MR. DALY: At least till lunch. 15ADMINISTRATOR MARTIN: -- at least until 16 lunch, and others will be replacing him. Kate Fay, who 17 is my adviser for energy and climate, is in the back. 18 She might want to raise her hand. That's Kate. She's 19 going to be here for a large part of the day as well. 20 So if you have an opportunity, don't hesitate to avail 21 yourself of an opportunity to talk with those folks. 22 Finally, and last but not least, again, thanks 23 for being here. We look forward to your comments, to 24 your thoughts, to your suggestions on how we can do this 25 and do it better.

### Page 8 1 With that, Bill, you're next. 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I'm next. I too 3 want to say good morning and welcome you to our public 4 hearing. The U.S. EPA is holding this hearing to take 5 comments on four proposed air pollution rules that 6 affect the oil and gas manufacturing. 7 My name is Bill Harnett. I'm the Associate 8 Director for the Office of Air Quality Planning and 9 Standards in EPA. Joining me on the panel is Greg 10 Nizich, who is one of our engineers working on the oil 11 and gas rules; and Carl Daly, who is the head of the air 12 programs with Region 8. We're here to listen to your 13 comments on the proposal. 14 On July 28th we actually proposed a suite of 15 regulations, four in total, that will help reduce 16 harmful air pollution from oil and gas industry as well 17 as allowing continued responsible growth in the 18 industry. The proposal's based on technologies, as was 19 just mentioned, that are proven and best practices in 20 the industry today and that are being used in parts of 21 the country. It includes the first federal standards 22 for wells that are hydraulically fractured, along with 23 requirements for several other sources in the oil and 24 gas industry. 25There's four different rules. Two of them are

### Page 9 1 New Source Performance Standard rules under the Clean 2 Air Act, and two of them deal with hazardous air 3 pollutants, or toxics, under the Clean Air Act. We'll 4 be improving existing rules for VOC and SO2, or sulfur 5 dioxide, from facilities, as well as regulating some new 6 sources for volatile organic compounds, which contribute 7 to the formation of ozone. 8 In addition, we're proposing changes to the 9 two existing air toxics rules that affect volatile 10 organic compounds that are also hazardous air 11 pollutants. 12 So this will reduce the VOC emissions by 13 nearly one-fourth across the country from this industry, 14 including a 95 percent reduction in the VOCs that are 15 emitted from new and modified hydraulically fractured 16 gas wells. 17 And today we're accepting oral comments on all 18 aspects of the proposal. We will prepare a written 19 transcript of this meeting. And that hearing transcript 20 will be part of our official record that we'll respond 21 to when we make final decisions on the rule. 22 We -- the public comment period for this rule 23 will be open till October 29th of this year. You can 24 file comments. You can check our website. It has all 25 the information for filing comments. You can also check

### Page 10 1 at the registration here, desk here, to get information 2 on how to file comments, if you would like to. 3If you have anything like that today, that you 4 would like to leave with us, feel free to give it to our 5 people at the registration desk, and they will get them 6 officially filed in the record. 7 How we're going to proceed today, I want to 8 just give you sort of the way we're going to operate the 9 hearing. 10 I'm going to call up two speakers at a time. 11 We ask them to come sit over there. They will -- 12 they -- we would ask you both to stay there till you're 13 both finished giving your testimony. This will help us 14 manage the time better. 15We ask you to limit your testimony to five 16minutes. There is a series of lights there. You'll get 17 a green light when you begin. With one minute left, 18 you'll get a yellow light. And then it'll go red, 19blinking red, when your five minutes is up, just to -- 20 so that you can pay attention and know you should wrap 21 up when you're -- when you see the yellow. 22 Again, there's no limit on the amount of 23 comments you can file for the record, but we ask you to 24 be respectful of how you use your time today, so that we 25 can get in as many speakers as possible. We are

### Page 11 1 planning to be here today till at least 8:00 p.m. We 2 will stay later if there's still people wishing to make 3 comments and are still here at the time. We will keep 4 going. 5The hearing will take a recess from 12:30 to 6 2:00 for lunch. And we'll take another one, from 5:00 to 7 6:30, for dinner. 8 And so if you haven't registered yet to talk 9 and you wish to, you can do that out front in the 10 hallway, and they'll get you -- they'll work with you to 11 accommodate what time you need. 12 If any questions arise throughout the day, 13 feel free to, again, go outside to the group out there 14 and ask any questions of them, and they can provide you 15 information. 16That said, I'd like to begin now and call the 17 first two speakers. The first speaker will be Clint 18 Gill of American Petroleum Institute, and the second 19 will be Spencer Kimball of Western Energy. So if they 20 could both come up to the microphones, I'd appreciate 21 it. 22 If you don't see a green light on the 23microphone, you can turn on the microphone by pushing in 24 the center to turn it on. 25And so, Mr. Gill, if you're ready to go, I'll

### Page 12 1 start the clock. 2 SPEAKER GILL: I don't have a -- okay. 3ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: You're on. 4 SPEAKER GILL: Good morning. My name is Clint 5 Gill. I'm reading a statement this morning on behalf of 6American Petroleum Institute. I appreciate having the 7 opportunity to appear at this hearing on proposed 8 regulation of emissions associated with the oil and 9 natural gas industry. Those rules have a very broad 10 reach. My focus is on those parts specifically directed 11 at emissions related to oil and gas development and 12 especially operations employing hydraulic fracturing. 13This focus is important because hydraulic 14 fracturing operations are critical to U.S. energy 15 development. Without this technology, without the 16 ability to employ it cost effectively, natural gas and 17 oil development could be discouraged, delayed, or 18 reduced. This would be a serious mistake because this 19 (sic) fuels are a vital part of our nation's energy 20 landscape today and are expected to continue to be in 21 our future. The Administration's own energy projections 22 show that oil and natural gas are expected to supply 23most of our nation's energy for decades. 24 Unfortunately, unless properly crafted, these 25 rules could hamper our ability to supply the oil and

### Page 13 1 natural gas we know we will need, and making the rules 2 work would be difficult. The comment period for these 3 extensive, detailed rules is too short. Controls would 4 be imposed on the industry with inadequate lead time. 5 This would make it difficult for operators to prepare to 6 implement the controls. It would increase the risk of 7 unintended consequences. 8 In the worst case, the results could be 9 requirements that impose a virtual moratorium on 10 developing U.S. oil and natural gas resources. This 11 would severely hurt job creation and revenue generation 12 and harm our nation's energy future. 13We have prodigious reserves of oil and natural 14 gas here in the United States. Oil will continue to be 15 vital for supplying transportation fuels, and there are 16 large and growing markets for natural gas related to 17 electricity generation, manufacturing, transportation, 18 and home consumption. We need to be able to meet this 19 demand. Natural gas is extremely affordable today, 20 relative to just a few years ago, largely because of the 21 shale gas boom under way. 22 Our domestic oil and natural gas development, 23 unimpeded by impractical rules, is crucial for job 24 growth. The industry has a strong track record on jobs, 25 evidenced by what's happening in North Dakota, Texas,

### Page 14 1 Pennsylvania, and many other states. The industry now 2 supports 9.2 million jobs and continues to create them. 3 Over 9,000 oil- and gas-related jobs were created this 4 summer, according to BLS, at a time when new net job 5 creation for the economy as a whole was coming to a 6 halt. Perhaps a million or more new U.S. jobs could be 7 created over the next seven years if commonsense changes 8 to energy policies were implemented, according to recent 9 research conducted by the energy consulting firm Wood 10 Mackenzie. That includes imposing no new regulation 11 with unreasonable provisions. 12 Finally, sound, commonsense rules that do not 13 impair development are important because increased use 14 of natural gas could greatly benefit the environment, 15 reducing air pollutant and carbon emissions. 16As for specifics in the proposed rules, we 17 support reduced emission completions where the operators 18 determine the technology to be safe, technically 19 feasible, and cost effective. However, the final rules 20 should phase any reduced emission completion 21 requirements by including a significant extension of 22 time for their full implementation. 23Specifically designed equipment is required to 24 safely perform reduced emission completions, which is 25 both expensive and time-consuming to build.

### Page 15 1 Insufficient reduced emission completion equipment is 2 currently available and cannot be constructed before the 3 expected second-quarter 2012 compliance date. 4 Furthermore, the proposed regulations do not 5 account for challenges relating to several current 6 completion technologies and known reservoir properties. 7 For example, there are technical issues regarding 8 certain coal bed methane technologies, low-pressure 9 reservoirs, and reservoirs with very low volatile 10 organic compound content. 11 The final rules should also recognize that 12 thousands of tank combustors will be required to be 13 certified and manufactured to reduce emissions. These 14 combustors will not be available early next year. The 15 final rules should recognize that additional time is 16 necessary before the requirement is imposed. 17 Lastly, EPA should simplify the overly 18 burdensome aspects of the notification, recordkeeping, 19monitoring, reporting, performance testing requirements 20 in the proposed rules, to reflect that many of the 21 industry's sources are at remote and unmanned 22 facilities. 23In closing, we believe the Agency should allow 24 an additional 60 days for the public to provide comment 25 on the important rule making, for the following reasons:

### Page 16 1 The proposed rules are expansive and complex. 2 This is a set of five complex and interconnected rules. 3 Indeed, the rules spans over 100 pages in the Federal 4 Register, and that the docket contains many times more 5 pages of supplemental analysis of materials. Preparing 6 comments on one of these rules would be challenging 7 within the 60 days. Preparing thorough and meaningful 8 comments on all five within 60 days is not reasonable or 9practicable. 10 The proposed rules are not -- 11 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I'd ask you to 12 please wrap up. 13SPEAKER GILL: Proposed rules have a much 14 greater economic impact than EPA predicts. Following a 15 preliminary review of the regulatory impact analysis, it 16 already seems clear that EPA has significantly 17 underestimated the cost of implementing the proposed 18 rules. For such a far-reaching set of rules, it is 19 imperative for affected companies to have the time 20 needed to thoroughly assess the economic impact analysis 21 underpinning the proposal. 22 Again, we do not fundamentally oppose reducing 23 emission completions where they make sense -- 24 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I really have to 25 say, we have to stop now.

### Page 17 1 SPEAKER GILL: Okay. API will be submitting 2 detailed comments before the comment period closes. We 3 look forward to working with EPA on safe, achievable, 4 cost-effective final rules. 5That concludes my comments. Thank you. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: You're welcome. 7 Mr. Kimball. 8 SPEAKER KIMBALL: Hello. My name is Spencer 9 Kimball with the Western Energy Alliance. 10 Western Energy Alliance, formerly IPAMS, 11 represents over 400 companies engaged in all aspects of 12 environmentally responsible exploration and production 13 of oil and natural gas across the West. We appreciate 14 the opportunity to testify on the proposed NSPS and 15 NESHAP rules for the oil and gas sector. 16We feel that these new rules are one of many 17 EPA actions that focus limited government resources on 18 regulation, often with limited environmental value, at a 19 time of high unemployment and slow economic growth. 20 These rules will further divert investment from energy 21 development, into nonproductive regulatory compliance, 22 thereby resulting in less domestic energy production, 23 particularly of clean-burning natural gas that offers 24 real solutions, on a full life-cycle basis, to reducing 25 air emissions and greenhouse gases.

### Page 18 1 Overall, the proposed rules are extremely 2 complex, with a heavy burden of paperwork; and the 3 deadlines preclude proper deliberation, and 4 implementation is rushed and unrealistic. The red tape 5 required by this rule represents a huge administrative 6burden and expansion of government data collection 7 without sufficient environmental benefit to justify it. 8 The notification, recordkeeping, monitoring, and 9 reporting requirements in the proposed rules are burden10 some for companies as well as state regulators who will 11 be required to process all the new paperwork. The 12 proposed rules require operators to install expensive 13monitoring systems and flow meters that will generate 14 more data, for no real -- no real environmental 15 benefit. 16EPA cost estimates for the proposed rules are 17 extremely low and don't take into account the full 18 equipment and paperwork compliance costs. EPA estimates 19 that the combined annual costs of meeting the proposed 20 requirements would be 754 million in 2015, which is 21 unreasonably low, given the number of facilities across 22 the country and the elements missing from the analysis. 23 Tanks are an example, as EPA just considered just the 24 cost of adding flares, and not the cost of pads, piping, 25 installation, monitoring equipment, and other equipment

### Page 19 1 necessary to make the entire system work. 2 On the other hand, the benefit in estimates 3 are extremely high and claim that the capture of 3.4 4 million tons of recovered methane will net $30 million 5 annually. EPA is assuming only a small percentage of 6 facilities currently capture gas, and takes credit for 7 the full economic benefits as something many companies 8 are already doing where the operational conditions 9 allow. Gathering the data to refute these cost 10 estimates is extremely time-consuming and complex. 11 EPA claims the rules will reduce VOC emissions 12 by 540,000 tons and air toxics by 38,000 tons. However, 13 by EPA's own data, oil and gas production is already a 14 low source of VOC emissions, just 2.3 percent. In the 15 proposed rules, EPA even acknowledges that the residual 16 risk from air -- air toxics is already within the range 17 that EPA considers acceptable. Clearly, the cost and 18 red tape burden of these rules is not balanced with a 19 corresponding environmental benefit. 20 Rather than emissions limits that are 21 currently imposed by the Clean Air Act, EPA is dictating 22 a work practice, green completions for hydraulic 23 fracturing, that is not always feasible in certain 24 technical or economic situations. Rather than petroleum 25 and environmental engineers making the determination of

### Page 20 1 how to best -- how best to safely meet emissions 2 reductions standards given by the -- given the technical 3 situation in the field, nonexpert government employees 4 are dictating the method. 5Despite the complexity of these regulations, 6 EPA is giving the public only 60 days to respond. 7 Western Energy Alliance members, who are predominantly 8 small businesses, struggle to continue daily operations 9 while trying to understand a very complex, lengthy rule 10 and comply with several other new, complex EPA rules. 11 Furthermore, EPA's placed the burden of proof on the oil 12 and gas industry for the detailed technical data 13 necessary to justify the regulations. Normally, that 14 evidentiary burden falls on the regulating agency. It's 15 not left to the regulated entity. 16Compounding the complexity of responding to 17 this rule in a short time period, EPA is not allowing 18 adequate time for implementation, and the regulation 19 will be retroactively applied to August 2011. Western 20 Energy Alliance believes the deadline for the final rule 21 of February 2008 (sic), 2012, is unrealistic, as it does 22 not allow time for deliberative public comment and 23 implementation, and recommends that EPA request an 24 extension from the D.C. District Court. 25Thank you very much.

### Page 21 1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: You're welcome. 2 And the next two speakers are Greg Thomas of 3 Denver's Department of Environmental Health, and John 4 Admire of Gas Processing Association -- or Processors 5Association. Thank you, Greg. You can begin now. 6SPEAKER THOMAS: Thank you. My name's Greg 7 Thomas, and I am with the City and County of Denver's 8 Department of Environmental Health. And I'm also 9 representing Boulder County Public Health today. 10 We support the suite of cost-effective 11 technologies EPA is proposing to reduce air toxics and 12 smog precursors from oil and gas operations. Most of 13 you know the Denver metropolitan and north Front Range 14 area is considered nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 15 standard that is 75 parts per billion. Previously in 16 2008, the State, along with communities such as Denver 17 and Boulder County, worked with Colorado oil and gas 18 industry to develop reasonably protective and cost19 effective SIP strategies. 20 We feel this regulation will create a level 21 playing field and greater certainty for operations 22 across the country, such as requiring green completions 23 where they are technologically feasible. 24 In these economic times, local governments 25 support efforts such as this one, that will allow the

### Page 22 1 industry to save money -- according to the EPA's 2 estimates, 30 million per year -- as they cut emissions 3 of benzene, other air toxics, and smog-forming VOCs. 4 These pollutants degrade the quality of life for 5millions of people that suffer from asthma, and impair 6 the economy through lost work and school days. 7 According to the Colorado Department of Public 8 Health and Environment's 2008 Asthma Surveillance 9 Report, more than 9 percent of Colorado children have 10 asthma, which is slightly higher than the national 11 average. Asthma was the primary diagnosis in more than 12 4,000 hospitals visits. 13We know, from real-world monitoring in the 14 Colorado area, both from Denver, close to where we are, 15 all the way 40 miles north into a much more rural area, 16 that, for instance, air concentrations of benzene are, 17 in most days in the summer of 2006, higher than they are 18 downtown; which is strange because benzene mostly comes 19 from mobile sources, and the traffic density and the 20 population density in Denver, being much higher, should 21 say that the concentration should be lower. 22 So, you know, there are clear signs that oil 23 and gas operations, the emissions from oil and gas 24 operations, have significant impacts in areas where you 25might not expect them to be.

### Page 23 1 The EPA rule will also benefit Colorado by 2 simplifying the condensate tank controls, providing a 3 year-round standard applicable to all tanks emitting 4 more than 6 tons per. Controlling emissions on 5 significantly sized tanks such as these is important to 6 address localized air toxics impacts that aren't always 7 measured through monitoring. And the uniform standard 8 will better keep the areas clean. 9Currently, condensate tank controls, which are 10 mostly flares, are required in Colorado for the first 11 90 days, and then they can be moved around. But in 12 practice, condensate tank controls are rarely relocated, 13 and EPA's approach, based on throughput, is reasonable 14 and reduces the burden on state and local inspectors. 15We also agree with EPA's proposals to increase 16 the use and stringency of low-bleed pneumatic controls. 17 This was something we discussed, and pretty in-depth, in 18 2008, part of our last ozone action plan. It's cost19 effective and it's effective in reducing emissions as 20 well. It's technology that's been around for 20 years. 21 And while it's being used increasingly under Colorado's 22 state-only regulation, it will be enhanced by EPA's 23 approach. 24 Finally, as two jurisdictions with significant 25 activities under way to promote sustainability and

### Page 24 1 address climate change, we agree that the cobenefits of 2 reduced methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent 3 than carbon dioxide, is an important consideration of 4 the proposed regulations. 5Thank you. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Admire, you 7 can begin now. 8 SPEAKER ADMIRE: Good morning. My name's John 9Admire, with DCP Midstream. On behalf of Gas Processors 10 Association, or GPA, I appreciate this opportunity to 11 speak with you regarding the proposed rule making 12 entitled "Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source 13 Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards 14 for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews," published at 15 76 Federal Register, Page 52738, on August 23rd, 2011. 16GPA is a nonprofit trade organization made up 17 of approximately a hundred and thirty corporate members, 18 all of whom are engaged in the processing of natural gas 19 or in the manufacture, transportation, or further 20 processing of natural gas liquids. GPA's membership 21 accounts for approximately 92 percent of all natural gas 22 liquids produced by the midstream energy sector in the 23 United States. Our members also produce, gather, 24 transmit, and market natural gas and natural gas 25 liquids.

### Page 25 1 Safely bringing natural -- clean-burning 2 natural gas from producers to U.S. consumers has always 3 been one of the highest priorities of GPA member 4 companies. The vast supply of natural gas and natural 5 gas liquids is one of our country's greatest assets. 6 Increased production and use of natural gas will help 7 reduce or country's dependence on foreign oil and keep 8 billions of dollars each year at home, in the United 9 States. Therefore, we urge EPA to be thoughtful and use 10 caution in this rule making, ensuring the rules are 11 streamlined, reasonable, do not impede the production, 12 processing, and transportation of natural gas to U.S. 13 consumers. 14 In that regard, we only have a few short 15 comments to make at this time. First, we recommended 16 EPA -- or we commend EPA for the hard work that has led 17 to the proposed rule. Our members feel that the 18 proposed rule is a reasonable start, from which we can 19build a final rule that meets EPA's objectives and 20 provides -- and, provided adequate time, would not 21 unnecessarily burden the industry. 22 GPA respectfully requests an extension of the 23 comment period, to December 31st, 2011, to allow 24 adequate time for a thorough review of the multiple 25 changes contained in the proposed rule making. GPA

### Page 26 1 feels that an extension of time is justified based on 2 the significant expansion of the regulatory requirements 3 in the proposed rule making that would cover a variety 4 of emission units that have not previously been 5 addressed in these standards. 6In order to provide meaningful comments, GPA 7 and other stakeholders need a reasonable amount of time 8 to review and verify EPA's data as well as collect 9 information that could prove useful in the rule-making 10 process. Given the scope and complexity of the proposed 11 rule and the anticipated burden it will place on the oil 12 and gas sector, particularly small operators, GPA 13 submits that an additional 60 days for this comment 14 period is both reasonable and appropriate. 15GPA also requests that the EPA seek an 16 extension of the February 28, 2012, consent decree 17 deadline for finalization of the rule. It seems 18 unlikely that EPA can complete a thoughtful review and 19 respond to comments before the current consent decree 20 deadline. For example, if the OMB interagency process 21 requires a 90-day review, which would have to start 22 December the 3rd -- December 1st, assuming a 23 February 28, 2012, deadline, the EPA would have about 24 one month from the current October 31st comment 25 submittal deadline in which to review, analyze, and give

### Page 27 1 thoughtful consideration to the anticipated high number 2 of comments. GPA suggests that EPA seek a full year 3 extension, to February 28, 2013, for the finalization of 4 the rule. 5GPA members also have specific concerns 6 relative to the copious number of requirements for 7 notification, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 8 that will apply to thousands of small and insignificant 9 sources under the new rule. We don't believe that EPA 10 has adequately considered the substantial effort and 11 expenditure required to meet the ongoing paperwork 12 requirements of the new rule. In that regard, GPA asks 13 for EPA's consideration and help in rectifying specific 14 concerns that, left unresolved, will place substantial 15 burden on our industry, without an associated and 16 justifiable environmental benefit. 17 GPA has established a workgroup, under its 18 environmental committee, that is currently reviewing the 19proposed rule making and developing specific and 20 detailed written comments that we will submit to the 21 EPA. Our comments can be more meaningful to the 22 rule-making process if EPA provides the comment deadline 23 extension that we've requested. 24 GPA appreciates your consideration of our 25 concerns, and we look forward to working with EPA to

### Page 28 1 address these future comments -- these and future 2 comments and discussions. Thank you. 3ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very 4 much. 5Our next two speakers are Tom Hassenboehler 6 and Bruce Baizel. 7 And if I could ask the speakers, we've had a 8 request that, for the court reporter, if you could start 9by saying your name and spelling it, so that they're 10 able to get it down for the transcript properly. And so 11 if you'd open that way, and then I'll start the clock 12 after you finish spelling out your name. 13So, Mr. Hassenboehler. 14 SPEAKER HASSENBOEHLER: I'm a good first one 15 to start, I guess. It's Tom Hassenboehler, 16 H-a-s-s-e-n-b-o-e-h-l-e-r. Okay. 17 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. 18 SPEAKER HASSENBOEHLER: Good morning. I'm Tom 19 Hassenboehler. I work for America's Natural Gas 20 Alliance, a trade organization dedicated to increasing 21 understanding of the environmental, economic, and 22 national security benefits of clean, abundant, and 23 efficient North American natural gas. ANGA's 31 members 24 include North America's largest independent natural gas 25 exploration and production companies, the leading

### Page 29 1 developers of the shale plays that are transforming the 2 clean energy landscape and allowing communities across 3 the country to advance economically, create sustainable 4 jobs, stay competitive globally, and embrace a cleaner 5 environment. 6We need reliable energy to meet our growing 7 needs. We need clean energy to protect our environment. 8 Natural gas bridges both of those needs, while also 9providing energy security and domestic jobs. Discovery 10 of U.S. shale plays, combined with advances in drilling 11 technology, have resulted in game-changing projections 12 of our supply of affordable domestic natural gas. 13 Respected academics, government agencies, and expert 14 bodies, from the Energy Information Administration to 15 MIT to the Natural Petroleum Council, are all coming to 16 the same conclusion: We have abundant domestic supplies 17 of economically recoverable natural gas to power our 18 nation for generations to come. 19We at ANGA see a growing role for natural gas 20 in the nation's energy mix, in particular because of the 21 environmental advantages of its use as a power22 generation and transportation fuel. When used to 23 generate electricity, natural gas burns cleaner than 24 many other fuel sources, virtually eliminating SO2, 25 particulate, and mercury emissions, and significantly

### Page 30 1 reducing NOx emissions. Vehicles running on natural gas 2 also emit significantly less NOx, VOCs, and particulate 3matter than vehicles running on gasolene or diesel. 4 The natural gas community is keenly aware that 5 with the opportunities presented by North America's vast 6 supplies of natural gas comes the responsibility to be 7 dedicated environmental stewards. We firmly believe 8 that people do not have to choose between protecting 9 their natural resources and reaping the benefits of this 10 abundant energy source. To that end, we hope to work 11 with EPA to ensure these regulations protect the 12 environment in a manner that is consistent with our 13 commitment to safe and responsible development, without 14 adding unnecessary burdens that would impede our 15 nation's ability to take full advantage of the 16 tremendous potential. 17 ANGA intends to submit detailed written 18 comments to the Agency, and we hope to have a continued 19 dialogue with the Agency as it develops the final rule 20 making. In the meantime, we offer the following 21 thoughts: 22 In the natural gas production process, there 23 are already significant incentives in place for 24 operators to reduce air emissions. Lost emissions 25 equate to lost revenues, as we strive to cost-

### Page 31 1 effectively capture as much saleable gas as possible. 2 It is important that the new standards recognize these 3 existing incentives. 4 To that end, we encourage the Agency to ensure 5 the standards continue to allow appropriate 6 consideration of safety as well as engineering judgment, 7 particularly with respect to reduced emission 8 completions. Where requirements are prescriptive, such 9 as those that require installation of a particular piece 10 of equipment or maintenance on a particular time frame, 11 we encourage the Agency to ensure that compliant 12 technologies or equipment exist and that operators are 13 given the flexibility with respect to prescribed 14 schedules if there is no need, from an emissions 15 standpoint, to undertake an activity at a particular 16 time. 17 In the instances where we believe the 18 requirements are largely capturing existing good 19 operating practices because of the incentives mentioned 20 above, we encourage the Agency to recognize that and to 21 avoid creating unnecessary and overly burdensome record22 keeping and reporting requirements. 23Finally, we look forward to discussing further 24 the Agency's regulatory impact analysis. We believe a 25 better understanding of existing operating practices

### Page 32 1 will help the Agency produce a more accurate cost2 benefit estimate associated with the rule making. 3Again, ANGA's member companies appreciate the 4 opportunity to comment here today. We look forward to 5 working with the Agency to ensure that the dual goals of 6 resource development and environmental protection are 7 met, so that Americans can continue to benefit from the 8 development of our vast domestic natural gas resources. 9Thank you. 10 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: We have a 11 question here from the panel. 12 MR. NIZICH: Will you be submitting records of 13 the specific incentives that you just discussed? 14 SPEAKER HASSENBOEHLER: Yes, we will. 15MR. NIZICH: Okay. Thank you. 16SPEAKER HASSENBOEHLER: Absolutely. 17 MR. NIZICH: All right. 18 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Baizel. 19Again a reminder to spell your name for our court 20 reporter. 21 SPEAKER BAIZEL: My name is Bruce Baizel, 22 B-a-i-z-e-l. Good morning. I'm staff attorney for 23 Earthworks, a nonprofit organization that works with 24 communities to reduce the impacts from mining and energy 25 extraction. Our organization has worked on oil and gas

### Page 33 1 issues for more than two decades and specifically on the 2 issue of hydraulic fracturing for more than a decade. 3I appreciate the opportunity to provide oral 4 comment to you this morning. As an organization we will 5 be submitting detailed technical comments within the 6 comment period. We have thousands of members throughout 7 the Rocky Mountain states, in Texas, and the Marcellus 8 shale region. Many of our members are impacted by the 9 currently unregulated emissions from oil and gas 10 operations throughout those states. So this proposed 11 regulation providing a New Source Performance Standard 12 for volatile organic compounds, a New Source Performance 13 Standard for sulfur dioxide, an Air Toxics Standard for 14 oil and gas production, and an Air Toxics Standard for 15 natural gas transmission and storage, is of great 16 importance to our members. 17 Overall, we strongly support the draft rule as 18 a significant first step in addressing emissions from 19 upstream oil and gas operations. Generally, we believe 20 that the rule will lead to greater transparency from 21 this industry, in the form of accounting for the numerous 22 sources of emissions that are currently invisible due to 23 the lack of regulation. 24 We also believe that the rule will provide 25 health benefits to those who live close to the thousands

### Page 34 1 of gas facilities covered by this rule. And we believe 2 that the rule will provide an economic benefit to this 3 industry through the capture of additional product that 4 can be sold in the marketplace. 5We are confident that an industry which has 6 figured out horizontal drilling techniques and the 7 thousands of versions of hydraulic fracturing chemical 8 cocktails which have unlocked access to shale gas will 9 also be able to find a way to comply with this rule 10 while remaining highly profitable. 11 Specific to the Western U.S, we have three 12 reasons for supporting this will rule. First, here on 13 the Front Range, in the San Juan Basin and other areas 14 of the Rockies, emissions from gas wells and related 15 facilities are a significant contributor to our ozone 16 and smog issues. This rule would help to address that 17 issue through a reduction in VOCs. 18 Second, during one of our recent state rule 19makings here in Colorado, it became evident that 20 emissions, often showing up in the form of odor 21 complaints, were a significant irritant for those living 22 with natural gas drilling operations nearby. We believe 23 that this rule would help to reduce that impact. 24 Third, while industry has not been forthcoming 25 with monitoring and analysis of emissions coming off of

### Page 35 1 their drilling operations, other agencies and academic 2 researchers, sampling around centralized flowback waste 3 impoundments, have found numerous volatile organic 4 chemicals returning to the surface, sometimes in high 5 concentrations. We believe that this rule would help to 6 reduce these potentially harmful emissions. 7 Finally, and consistent with the 8 recommendations of the Department of Energy's Natural 9 Gas Subcommittee report, we also believe that the final 10 rule should be expanded to include the thousands of 11 existing wells and facilities, which already constitute 12 a significant source of emissions and resulting impacts 13 to people living, working, or going to school nearby. 14 For example, in La Plata County, in the 15 southwest part of the state, my home county, we have a 16 natural gas well and its associated dehydrator tank 17 sited less than 200 feet from an elementary school. An 18 initial one-time fence-line grab sample from a visible 19plume coming off of the well site and towards the school 20 showed the presence of significant levels of a known 21 cancer-causing chemical. Two sampling efforts later, 22 one by industry and one by the school district, and the 23 discussion has lost track of the real goal, protecting 24 our children from preventable unhealthy emissions, and 25 fallen into an argument over sampling protocols. And

### Page 36 1 there are more than 200 of these types of facilities in 2 La Plata County alone. 3This illustrates why we believe the rule 4 should be expanded to include existing facilities and -- 5 existing wells and the related facilities. 6For all of these reasons, we urge you to adopt 7 the strongest possible rule governing these oil and gas 8 emission sources in early 2012. 9I thank you for holding these hearings and for 10 your attention this morning. 11 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both 12 very much. 13Our next two speakers are Mr. Wes Wilson, and 14 Joy Jamison of Colorado Interforce Power and Light -- or 15 Interface, I'm sorry. 16Mr. Wilson, if you'd give your first and last 17 name and spell them for the court reporter, I'd 18 appreciate it. And then we'll begin. 19SPEAKER WILSON: Thank you. My name is Weston 20 Wilson; W-e-s-t-o-n, W-i-l-s-o-n. I'm a resident of 21 Denver, Colorado. I retired from EPA last year, after 22 serving 37 years in the Federal Government, most of it 23 as an environmental engineer in the Region 8 office of 24 EPA here in Denver. 25In July of last year, EPA announced, in its

### Page 37 1 plan to study the effects of hydraulic fracking, it 2 announced as part of its national study, that it was to 3 include the investigation of the air pathway of health 4 effects, in its national study. Published data from EPA 5 and Congress on the numerous chemical additives has 6 shown that the industry is using toxic components, 7 including persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons. A 8 portion of them are volatile. And they come off of the 9 fracking fluids, once returned to the surface, and 10 intentionally allowed to evaporate into the air when the 11 produced water and flowback are returned to open pits 12 adjacent to the well. 13But then, unexpectedly, last February EPA 14 dropped all consideration of the air pathway and limited 15 its national study to evaluation of whether hydraulic 16 fracturing affects groundwater. 17 But today EPA's proposed Clean Air Act rule 18 would go a long way to close that omission in EPA's 19 scientific investigation by requiring green completions 20 on natural gas operations. Green completions would 21 eliminate many of the volatile organic compounds and 22 hazardous air emissions coming back from the hydraulic 23 fracturing process. 24 EPA's rule, if finalized, could have a total 25 cost of some 700 million, but that would be completely

### Page 38 1 offset by the sale of natural gas valued at some 2 $730 million, all while reducing the amount of volatile 3 organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants released 4 in the air. 5This is a tried and proven technology. For 6 example, two years ago Wyoming began to require green 7 completions in its vast Jonah Field and Pinedale 8 Anticline, but only after prior drilling without this 9 control measure had contributed to an exceeding of the 10 National Air Quality standard on ozone. Here in 11 Colorado, the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 12 has rules defining green completions, similar to EPA's 13 proposed rule; however, Colorado's green completion rule 14 is not mandated, but can be required by the director of 15 the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 16If passed, EPA's clean rule would benefit the 17 public in three ways. The air we breathe would be 18 healthier, less greenhouse gas emissions would occur, 19 and the additional gas captured would improve the 20 economy. 21 However, the new rule would not apply unless 22 the industry had first installed natural gas compressors 23 and collection pipelines to get the gas to market. That 24 leaves out many wells, including wildcat or exploratory 25 natural gas wells and some oil wells that produce

### Page 39 1 natural gas, like the giant Bakken Formation oil 2 shale -- oil shale play in North Dakota and eastern 3 Montana. 4 The nation needs this rule to improve public 5 health. And while it's commendable that the application 6 of the rule in a mature natural gas field will bring 7 more revenue and offset the cost to industry, that 8 should not be the EPA standard for public health 9protection. Consequently, EPA should expand this 10 proposed rule to apply to all wells, regardless of their 11 proximity to existing pipelines. The public's safety 12 cannot be put at risk simply because the industry's 13 investment may not be offset by additional natural gas 14 capture. 15Thank you for considering this presentation. 16 I appreciate your being here. 17 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Ms. Jamison, if 18 you would do the same and spell your -- say your name 19 and spell it, and then you can begin. 20 SPEAKER JAMISON: My name is Joy Jamison, 21 that's J-a-m-i-s-o-n. I'm on the board of a nonprofit 22 here on the Front Range, called Colorado Interfaith 23 Power and Light. We try to educate and energize 24 Colorado's diverse faith communities to care for God's 25 creation, with a big focus on climate change. I'm also

### Page 40 1 here as a mother, a grandmother of four, and a person of 2 faith. 3I worry a great deal about what this planet 4 will be like for my children, but especially what it 5 will be like for those four grandchildren. The oil and 6 gas industry is spewing toxic pollutants into our air, 7 without limits, and is the second largest source of 8 life-threatening carbon pollution in the U.S., thanks to 9 loopholes and special treatment. This carbon pollution 10 is causing climate change, which, make no mistake, is a 11 moral issue because it is affecting the poor more than 12 anyone else. 13Here in Denver, Xcel Energy plans to convert 14 two coal-powered plants to natural gas. At first I 15 thought, that's a good idea. But then I was at a 16 national meeting in D.C. in May and heard about this 17 preliminary Cornell study showing that methane emissions 18 from shale gas production -- not burning, which, of 19 course, is cleaner -- anyway, those methane emissions 20 are at least 30 percent more than, and perhaps more than 21 twice as high as, those from conventional gas 22 production. And those higher emissions, of course, 23 result from fracking. 24 While it's preliminary, I kind of felt 25 betrayed, and I grieve because many of us had hoped

### Page 41 1 natural gas would be a good bridge fuel to green energy. 2 Fracking, as you know, is exploding in Wyoming 3 and Colorado. And he already mentioned this: In 2009 4 Wyoming, for the first time in its history, failed to 5meet federal standards for air quality, because of the 6 fumes containing benzene and toluene from roughly 70 -- 7 27,000 wells. Of course, benzene is a known carcinogen. 8 In sparsely populated Sublette County in Wyoming, which 9 has some of the highest concentrations of wells, vapors 10 reacting to sunlight have contributed to levels of ozone 11 higher than those recorded in Houston and LA. 12 And here in Garfield County in Colorado, it's 13 the heart of the gas well gold rush. Wells are being 14 built near where people live; regional air pollution 15 levels are on the rise; and people are getting poisoned 16 from so-called backyard impact, air pollution from those 17 volatile organic compounds. Floyd and Lisa Green and 18 their family in Rifle moved out of the state because of 19 constant headaches, nausea, diarrhea, and nosebleeds. 20 Before they moved, they constantly smelled the fumes. 21 Another family, Bill and Beth Strudley, had to move out 22 of their new house after a gas rig went up next door, 23 because they all became ill. Now there's talk of gas 24 wells in Weld County. That's where we get our organic 25 produce in the summer. It's a little less than 60 miles

### Page 42 1 from our front door. So it is kind of impinging on us. 2 Let me quote Derrick Jensen, who's an author 3 and environmentalist: 4 Fracking is the result of industrial 5 capitalism. The prominent solutions suggested to help 6 curb the worst of global warming all have in common 7 industrial capitalism as a given. But industrial 8 capitalism always destroys the land on which it depends 9 for raw materials, and it always will, until there is no 10 land or water or air for it to exploit. Or until there 11 is no industrial capitalism. 12 How do you stop or at least curb global 13 warming? Easy, stop pumping carbon dioxide into the 14 atmosphere. How do you do that? Easy, stop burning 15 oil, natural gas, and coal. How do you that? Easy, 16 stop industrial capitalism. 17 So you can't stop it without stopping 18 industrial capitalism. So you can't, so you have to 19 decide what you want to do. You have to choose. Those 20 of us who are old enough remember the saying, "War is 21 not healthy for children or other living things." 22 Neither is fracking or industrial capitalism. 23The EPA's actions to regulate fracking is a 24 really good first step. Thanks a lot. 25ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very

### Page 43 1 much. 2 The next two speakers are Andrew Casper of 3 Colorado Oil & Gas Association, and Gene Bruhn. 4 Mr. Casper, if you would spell your name and then begin. 5 It's already on. 6SPEAKER CASPER: All right. Good morning. My 7 name is Andrew Casper; A-n-d-r-e-w, C-a-s-p-e-r. I'm on 8 the Regulatory Council with Colorado Oil & Gas 9Association, or COGA. We're a nationally recognized 10 trade association whose purpose is to foster and promote 11 the beneficial, efficient, responsible and 12 environmentally sound development, production, and use 13 of Colorado oil and natural gas. 14 In recent years, Colorado has proven to have a 15 significant amount of oil and gas resources. Recovering 16 these resources will be beneficial both economically and 17 environmentally, compared to importing these goods. 18 Proposed oil and gas regulations are extensive 19 and complex, amending two existing NSPS, two existing 20 NESHAPs, and introducing a new NSPS. These proposed 21 rules will have a direct impact on Colorado oil and 22 natural gas production and processing. COGA and our 23member companies have been reviewing this proposed 24 action and have the following general comments: 25Because of the large amount of information

### Page 44 1 presented in the proposed rules, COGA requests an 2 additional 60 days to review these regulations. COGA 3 believes that a hundred-twenty-day comment period would 4 be much more appropriate to thoroughly evaluate the 5 proposed regulations, since there are five regulations 6being amended in this single proposed action. 7 Second, COGA also requests a one-year 8 extension on the final issuance deadline. Issuing these 9 rules by February 28, 2012, is very ambitious, and a 10 large number of comments will likely be received by the 11 EPA. The EPA should seek to extend the time frame and 12 the consent decree for final action on these rules, to 13 allow the EPA time to thoroughly address comments and 14 avoid several costly iterations and reissuances of the 15 rule. 16Third, the EPA states that there will be a 17 significant cost savings for the industry associated 18 with these new rules and also -- and has also estimated 19 the cost of control equipment. It is COGA's opinion 20 that the EPA has overstated these cost savings and 21 underestimated the cost of the required control 22 equipment. We believe that more time to validate these 23 costs is needed. By having a more accurate estimate of 24 cost and savings, the EPA should be in a better position 25 to determine the appropriate level of controls.

### Page 45 1 Fourth, the state of Colorado currently has 2 very stringent emissions control guidelines for the 3 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area. These rules, as 4 proposed, will have even more stringent requirements. 5 For example, controls will be required for any 6 condensate tank with one valve or more of production. 7 More sensibly, the state of Colorado today requires 8 controls based on predicted emissions, which are 9 required if the -- if the tank exceeds one ton a year 10 VOC emissions. 11 The proposed control standard based solely on 12 a very low level of production will not be cost 13 effective and will have little additional environmental 14 benefit on smaller sources. More time should be spent 15 investigating these requirements and evaluating proper 16 limitations that will be environmentally beneficial and 17 cost effective, so as not to further drive up consumer 18 costs. 19There will be like -- there will likely be a 20 shortage on much of the required control equipment, such 21 as vapor combustors and other green completion 22 equipment, since these rules will be requiring controls 23 for many sources which have yet to be regulated. The 24 EPA should reevaluate the timing of these requirements 25 so that manufacturers of this equipment will be able to

### Page 46 1 meet the demand. 2 Six, NSPS Quad O, as described in the 3 preamble, is a rule for the purpose of setting new 4 standards for control of VOC and SO2 emissions. 5 However, much of the proposed Quad O rule seems to take 6 aim at greenhouse gas emission -- greenhouse gas 7 emission reductions, and not VOC and SO2 emissions. 8 There are already several new greenhouse gas reporting 9 rules which require a significant amount of new 10 monitoring equipment tracking emissions, through 40 CFR, 11 Part 98. The oil and gas industry is in the midst of 12 installing all of this tracking equipment. 13The dates of these rules vary in several 14 instances, some predating the issuance of the final 15 rule. These dates should be reevaluated based on the 16 comments received, and no dates should be before the 17 issuance of the final rule. 18 The comments which I have just stated today 19 are very general in nature but highlight some of the 20 main issues that we must address before making these 21 rules final. COGA is in the process of working with our 22 member companies to identify the main issues and 23 generate specific comments so that these proposed rules 24 can be amended to reflect actual and achievable 25 compliance goals.

### Page 47 1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I need to ask you 2 to please complete. 3SPEAKER CASPER: Thank you for the opportunity 4 to speak today. We look forward to working with the EPA 5 to help develop a quality final product. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Just one 7 question. You mentioned availability of some of the 8 control equipment for completion operations. Do you 9personally or do your members have -- have information 10 that can be supplied about the availability of the 11 equipment and the shortage potentials? 12 SPEAKER CASPER: Our members have expressed 13 concern, and I can supply more details at a later date. 14 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. It 15 would be helpful information to have. 16Mr. Bruhn. 17 SPEAKER BRUHN: Yes, my name is Gene Bruhn, 18 B-r-u-h-n. I'm just an ordinary citizen, to come down 19 here and comment on this today, the impact on me. I'm 20 not going to comment on emissions or anything like that. 21 But I am an auto broker, do a lot of 22 commercial truck leasing. Several of my clients are in 23 the oil and gas business. Haven't heard from them in a 24 year, year and a half, because they won't buy new 25 equipment because they don't know what rules are coming

### Page 48 1 down the pike that's going to negatively impact their 2 business. If we had rules that were reasonable, then 3 I'd be back in the business of leasing trucks to oil and 4 gas industry people. 5Yesterday President Obama was here to promote 6 his jobs bill. Today, 24 hours later, the EPA is here 7 to promote rules that maybe negatively impact job 8 formation. Negatively impacts my job, and it will 9 negatively -- I believe, will negatively impact the oil 10 and gas business. So I'm commenting more on the 11 political impact of it. 12 After forty years in the car business, there's 13 two or three subjects you never bring up. You don't 14 talk about a guy's mother-in-law, his religion, or his 15 politics. But in the last 18 months, people are 16bringing it up to me, politics. They're angry. And 17 they're angry at stuff like this, where more and more 18 rules are being promulgated daily to try and hamstring 19business and industry. And they're angry. And I think 20 that'll be taken out at election booths next November -- 21 or November of 2012. 22 That's really all I have to say, is just, I'm 23 just more interested in the political impact of this 24 thing, and the job formation impact. I assure you, if 25 you give a person a choice between a little methane, a

### Page 49 1 little different -- a little higher methane emissions 2 and a job, they'll take the job every time. And they'll 3 blame the people. 4 Now, I understand that when you're talking -- 5 there's a gentleman here from Earthworks, and this 6 other one, that Interfaith deal. I'd like to know if 7 they got grants from the EPA. There's many grants being 8 issued by the EPA, who -- with people, given to people, 9 who are beavering away to negatively impact job 10 formation. All they care about is emissions. They're 11 getting grants, so they -- they're getting a paycheck. 12 But the guy in the oil field is not, and 13 they're going to -- they're going to -- and I believe, 14 after 2012 election, EPA budget will be slashed probably 15 50 to 60 percent, from what I hear. Mainly because too 16many rules, too many regulations, and too many grants 17 given to people who are against -- like the lady says -- 18 what did the lady say? You have to stop industrial 19 capitalism. How did she get here? On a bus? On a 20 train? That were made by industrial capitalists? 21 Doesn't matter to her. She's old. All she cares about 22 is, Well, now I got a grant. 23So when you stop there, let's talk about the 24 real world impacts of some of this stuff. I'm going to 25make a lot of you pretty uncomfortable, but listen to

### Page 50 1 this stuff. But that's something that needs to be said, 2 is, what is going to be the job formation and the 3 political impact of what's coming down the road. 4 Now, just two to three weeks ago, President 5 Obama suspended the regulations on coal fired emissions 6 from coal fired plants because they realize, in the West 7 Wing, how devastating that was going to be to their 8 political future. 9So I just kind of -- that's -- that's all I 10 have to say. Thank you. 11 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 12 The next two speakers are William Crossen of 13 the American Lung Association and Wayne Grider of 14 American Lung Association. 15One further thing for our speakers. If you 16 are reading from a prepared statement, if you would 17 leave that with the court reporter, it will assist in 18 getting an accurate transcript as well. 19And so, Mr. Crossen, if you will begin by 20 saying your name and spelling it, and then we'll start 21 the clock. 22 SPEAKER CROSSEN: Hi. My name is Bill 23 Crossen, C-r-o-s-s-e-n. And I'm the Chairman of the 24 Board of the American Lung Association in Colorado. And 25 I'm here today with my colleagues to testify in support

### Page 51 1 of the EPA's proposal to implement new standards to 2 reduce dangerous and harmful air pollution from the oil 3 and natural gas industries. These standards will 4 protect Americans from harmful air pollutants, including 5 volatile organic compounds, toxic air pollutants, ozone 6 and particulate matter across the country. 7 These EPA proposed standards will cut toxic 8 air emissions, including the carcinogen benzene, by 9 95 percent. The air toxic standards will reduce 10 hazardous air pollutants arising from the oil and gas 11 production process as well from the transmission and 12 storage of oil and gas products. Toxic air pollutants 13 can cause cancer, but they can also irritate the eyes, 14 skin, and the respiratory tract; impair lung function; 15 and cause harmful effects to other vital organs. 16People most at risk of harm from breathing 17 these hazardous air pollutants include infants, children 18 and teenagers, older adults, pregnant women, people with 19 asthma and other lung diseases, people with cardio20 vascular disease, diabetics, people with low incomes, 21 and otherwise healthy adults who work or exercise 22 outdoors. 23In addition to supporting the proposed 24 standards, the American Lung Association in Colorado 25 also encourages the EPA to develop additional standards

### Page 52 1 to require the cleanup of both new and existing sources, 2 not just new ones, especially compressors and gas-driven 3 controllers and valves; and also to set standards for 4 the reduction of methane. In addition to being a potent 5 greenhouse gas, methane is an air pollutant that impairs 6 local air quality. Accordingly, it should be directly 7 regulated and not just as a byproduct of efforts to 8 reduce volatile organic compounds. 9Emissions from the oil and gas production not 10 only harm human health, they waste money. Because, 11 essentially, gas products are escaping into the air. 12 These proposed standards provide a proven approach to 13 protect health and save money. The EPA has calculated 14 that these measures will save the industry $30 million 15 annually. 16In summary, we support the proposed 17 regulations because we believe they will improve health, 18 enhance efficiency, and save money. In addition, we 19 encourage the EPA to extend the proposed standards to 20 include existing sources, not just new ones, and to 21 establish standards for the reduction of methane. 22 Thank you for the opportunity to testify here 23 this morning. 24 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Grider. 25SPEAKER GRIDER: Good morning. My name is

### Page 53 1 Wayne Grider, G-r-i-d-e-r. And again, thank you for 2 allowing us to speak to you today. I'm here in support 3 of the EPA's proposal to implement new standards to 4 reduce dangerous and harmful air pollution from the oil 5 and natural gas industries. These standards will 6protect Americans from harmful air pollutants, including 7 volatile organic compounds, VOCs; toxic air pollutants; 8 ozone; and particulate matter across the country. 9The EPA's proposed sulfur dioxide standard 10 will help reduce this harmful pollutant, long recognized 11 for its harm to health. What are the health impacts? 12 It's been clinically demonstrated that breathing sulfur 13 dioxide causes wheezing, coughing, and shortness of 14 breath. Sulfur dioxide, SO2, can worsen asthma and 15 increase the need for hospitalization and emergency room 16 treatments. 17 Collectively, the human clinical, 18 epidemiological, and animal toxicological data are 19 sufficient to conclude that there's a causal relation20 ship between respiratory morbidity and short-term 21 exposure to SO2. Present-day concentrations of SO2 are 22 also implicated in increased emergency department visits 23 and hospitalizations for respiratory causes for children 24 and older adults. 25The American Lung Association of Colorado

### Page 54 1 recommends your Agency require cleanup of both new and 2 existing sources, not just new ones, especially 3 compressors, gas-driven controllers and valves; and set 4 standards for the reduction of methane. In addition to 5 being a potent greenhouse gas, methane is an air 6pollutant that impairs local air quality. It should be 7 directly related and regulated, and not just a byproduct 8 of the reductions of VOCs. 9The VOCs, air toxics, and sulfur dioxide 10 reductions in the proposed rule are expected to improve 11 outdoor air quality, reduce cancer risk, and reduce 12 health effects associated with exposure to ground-level 13 smog and particulate pollution. The VOC reductions are 14 estimated to be 540,000 tons; the methane, another 15 3.4 million tons; and air toxics, 38,000 tons. We 16believe those represent significant strides forward and 17 are worth the short-term costs. We support the proposed 18 standards. 19Thank you again for allowing us to testify. 20 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both 21 very much. If you would leave any statements you have 22 with our court reporter, I'd appreciate it. 23The next two speakers are Natalia Swalnick of 24 American Lung Association and Barry Andrews of Antea 25 Group.

### Page 55 1 If you would say your name, Ms. Swalnick, and 2 spell it for the court reporter, I'd appreciate it, and 3 we'll begin. 4 SPEAKER SWALNICK: Good morning. My name is 5 Natalia Swalnick; N-a-t-a-l-i-a, Swalnick, 6 S-w-a-l-n-i-c-k. And I am the director of Environmental 7 Health for the American Lung Association in Colorado. 8 I'm here today to support the EPA's proposal 9 to implement new standards to reduce dangerous and 10 harmful air pollution from the oil and natural gas 11 industries. These standards will protect Americans from 12 harmful air pollutants, including volatile organic 13 compounds, or VOCs; toxic air pollutants; ozone; and 14 particulate matter around the country. 15And according to the EPA's own estimates, 16 these standards will result in a 25 percent industry17 wide reduction of VOCs. And VOCs are of significant 18 importance to us here in the Denver metro area, as 19 they're one of the key precursors to ozone pollution, 20 and we are in exceedance of the federal standards for 21 ozone pollution in the Denver metro and north Front 22 Range areas. 23The effects that ozone has on lung health 24 include inflammation of our lungs and airways. They can 25 -- ozone pollution can cause chest pain and cough. It

### Page 56 1 can aggravate asthma. It has been shown to reduce lung 2 function. And there's a direct correlation between days 3 with high levels of ozone pollution and increased 4 hospital and emergency room visits for respiratory 5 problems. And ozone can even result in premature death. 6Particulate matter, or PM2.5, are microscopic 7 aerosols that are formed by the reaction of sulfur 8 dioxide in the air. They bypass the body's natural 9 defenses and they can lodge deep in the lungs, causing a 10 plaque, which can make it very hard to breath. PM2.5 11 can trigger asthma attacks and heart attacks. And, 12 again, it is directly correlated to an increase in 13 hospital and emergency room visits. And PM2.5 can 14 shorten life. 15The American Lung Association in Colorado is 16 here to recommend cleanup of both new and existing 17 sources, not just new ones, especially compressors and 18 gas-driven controllers and valves. 19We'd like to see standards set for the 20 reduction of methane. In addition to being a potent 21 greenhouse gas, methane is an air pollutant that 22 directly impairs local air quality and should be 23 directly regulated, and not just a byproduct of the 24 reduction of VOCs. 25The American Lung Association actually works

### Page 57 1 with the oil and gas industry to advance natural gas as 2 a transportation fuel because it is cleaner burning. 3And we'd like to see the same care taken to emission 4 reductions in the field. 5The proposed standards on the oil and gas 6 industry or a good step to protecting the lung health 7 and overall health of Americans. These standards will 8 help reduce ozone and particulate pollution levels in 9 areas where oil and gas production occurs. The Denver 10 metro area especially must find new ways to comply with 11 the 2008 ozone standard, if that is what is likely to be 12 enforced. 13Thank you for your time this morning. 14 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Just one thing. 15 Since the issue keeps coming up about methane's impact 16 on local air quality, if you're aware of studies or 17 something that could be submitted for the record, that 18 would be very helpful. 19SPEAKER SWALNICK: Sure, I'll make sure that's 20 done. Thank you. 21 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. And 22 Mr. Andrews. 23SPEAKER ANDREWS: Good morning. My name is 24 Barry Andrews. That's B-a-r-r-y, A-n-d-r-e-w-s. I am 25 an air quality consultant with Antea Group, with more

### Page 58 1 than 30 years' experience in the profession. 2 Approximately 19 years of this experience has been 3 providing consulting to multiple oil and gas companies 4 that process sour natural gas, with regard to air 5 permitting and compliance issues. 6I would like to direct my remarks to the 7 proposed New Source Performance Standards for the oil 8 and natural gas sector, specifically changes that are 9proposed to facilities that are currently regulated 10 under Subpart LLL. My comments today will focus -- 11 will address three issues associated with the proposed 12 standards: The nonjustification of the proposed 13 standard, the impact of the proposed standard on the New 14 Source Review permitting process, and the unforeseen 15 consequences the new standards will have on industry and 16 the environment. 17 When reviewing the proposed regulations 18 regarding the level of control that is being proposed 19 for large onshore facilities processing sour gas, it is 20 very apparent, from the proposed regulations and the 21 background technical support document, that two 22 facilities, presumably handling large quantities of acid 23 gas with high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, served 24 as the basis for the proposed standards. Specifically, 25 these two facilities, identified in the BACT/LAER

### Page 59 1 Clearinghouse as requiring 99.9 percent control of 2 sulfur dioxide, now make it justifiable for all 3 facilities that would become subject to the proposed 4 standards attain up to this level of SO2 control to 5 comply with the NSPS. 6What isn't addressed openly in the proposed 7 regulation is that one of the facilities located in 8 California that was evaluated for developing the new 9 regulation was subject to the lowest achievable emission 10 rate; and although subject to best available control 11 technology, the other facility, located in Coden, 12 Alabama, was not evaluated to determine why the facility 13 was equipped with a tail gas cleanup unit to meet the 14 99.9 percent sulfur dioxide control level. 15I have worked on several air permitting 16projects for the facility in Coden, Alabama, and I can 17 tell you that the likely reason that the facility 18 controlled sulfur dioxide to the 99.9 percent level had 19more to do with the SO2 impacts on the Breton National 20 Wildlife Refuge, which is a Class 1 area located off the 21 coast of Louisiana, than what was judged to be cost 22 effective as best available control technology. 23Personally, I feel like this establishes a 24 very bad precedent, when a New Source Performance 25 Standard is set at the level of the lowest achievable

### Page 60 1 emission rate. What this does, in essence, is 2 circumvent the New Source Review process for major 3 sources in which BACT is established on a case-by-case 4 basis, taking into account the economics of additional 5 control, and takes away the long-withstanding approach to 6 the New Source Review permitting process whereby best 7 available control technology is required to be at least 8 as stringent as NSPS and LAER -- excuse me, and LAER is 9 only required in cases where the regulated pollutant 10 triggering the review process is a nonattainment-area 11 pollutant. 12 An additional issue that has not been 13 evaluated is the potential impact that could occur to 14 the environment as stricter controls for sulfur dioxide 15 are promulgated. The capture of sulfur at onshore 16 natural gas processing facilities is basically an 17 economic decision. If it is cost effective to capture 18 sulfur using a sulfur recovery unit, then that is the 19 approach that is taken; if it is not, then the 20 alternative becomes reinjecting the acid gas into the 21 ground. 22 Recently the public has become very concerned 23 about the injection of certain pressurized liquids 24 associated with the hydraulic fracturing process. EPA 25may want to consider that the proposed regulation for

### Page 61 1 onshore natural gas processing facilities could result 2 in a decision to inject another liquid known as acid gas 3 into the ground, at a high pressure, containing large 4 quantities of sulfur -- of hydrogen sulfide. 5Thank you. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I have one 7 question for you. Are you aware or are you saying that 8 the 99 -- the control for SO2 is not demonstrative on 9 those two facilities, or are they meeting that level of 10 control? 11 SPEAKER ANDREWS: No. I'm aware that it's 12 demonstrated, but I'm saying that that was not due to 13 the New Source Performance Standards. In the one case 14 in California, that was a lowest achievable emission 15 rate requirement. And in the case in Coden, Alabama, 16 which is the facility I've worked on many projects in, I 17 can tell you that the likely reason that the additional 18 control is put on there was due to the impacts on the 19 Class 1 areas, that being the Breton wildlife area. 20 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: It would be 21 useful if you provided comments on how that would 22 conflict with the definition of "best system of 23 emissions reduction under New Source Performance 24 Standard," in applying that technology in the way that 25 we have.

### Page 62 1 SPEAKER ANDREWS: We will be providing 2 comment. 3ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you much. 4 The next two speakers are Bryce Carter of the 5 Sierra Club, and Mike Findlay. 6SPEAKER CARTER: Good morning. My name is 7 Bryce Carter, and I was asked by April -- 8 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Could you please 9 spell your name for the -- 10 SPEAKER CARTER: Oh, Bryce, B-r-y-c-e; Carter, 11 C-a-r-t-e-r. And again, I was asked to speak on behalf 12 of April Beach; A-p-r-i-l, B-e-a-c-h; to testify in her 13 behalf. April is an Erie, Colorado, resident whose 14 family has been gravely impacted by emissions from 15 natural gas wells in her community. I visited last week 16 and was personally shocked and appalled to see gas well 17 vapors literally drift up the street of April's house a 18 few hundred yards away. 19I've included pictures of this and April's 20 full testimony in the packets I gave you, along with a 21 brief letter from her nine-year-old son Tim, and a 22 video. The following is a shortened version of April's 23 words, to fit the time allowed: 24 First, let me say that my lack of being 25 present at this hearing is not a reflection of my

### Page 63 1 feelings of the importance for this issue. This issue 2 is beyond important. This is presently the most 3 important issue on my plate. I appreciate you allowing 4 someone to read this statement and pray that you can, in 5 fact, hear my voice through this. 6I am April Beach, 35-year-old Erie, Colorado, 7 resident; wife, mother of three amazing boys; owner of a 8 New Parent Consulting Firm; stereotypical suburban mom; 9 and an individual directly affected by the natural gas 10 drilling surrounding me. 11 In 2002 my husband and I bought our first home 12 in Erie, Colorado. Expecting our first son, this was an 13 exciting time. Near this home, they drilled the first 14 gas well I've ever seen. Not knowing what this was, we 15 paid little attention to this (within sight of our home) 16 and managed to get used to the night tremors, the little 17 earthquakes, it seemed to produce. Then in 2005, with 18 the addition of our second son, I began not to feel 19 well. After eight months of tests, spinal tapping, and 20 MRIs, I was diagnosed with an unexplained lesion in my 21 spinal cord. Thankful for no cancer and MS, we moved 22 from our first home and built the next, just down the 23 street. 24 Our new house was perfect. It was on a 25 cul-de-sac, backed to open space with trails for the

### Page 64 1 kids, now numbering three, to ride bikes, explore and 2 just be boys. We did notice the presence of two gas 3 wells at the end of the road. As our oldest son grew, 4 the huge cottonwood tree right next to the wells became 5 his favorite escape, tree fort and all. That same 6 summer Tim played at the tree, he began breathing 7 treatments for asthma-like symptoms and developed 8 migraine headaches, which have become more frequent and 9 which he deals with on a regular basis today. 10 Time passed in this new home, and our youngest 11 boy, Sam, presented some extreme sensitivities. Sam is 12 a regular at the ER for on-contact anaphylaxis allergy 13 issues. Sam's autoimmune issues are "unexplainably 14 severe" and only 3 percent of the population experience 15 reactions like Sam does, according to his doctors. Even 16 with this, Sam never had asthma or any breathing issues 17 whatsoever. In fact, he's a super-athletic kid. In 18 January of 2010, shortly after the newest well was 19 drilled and fracked, Sam developed asthma. 20 The onset was so fast that his symptoms went 21 from initial development to completely out-of-control 22 breathing with a week. We were using his rescue inhaler 23 all the time, and Sam still could not breathe. After 24 another return to the hospital, Sam was placed on 25 steroids to manage his symptoms. Sam now takes daily

### Page 65 1 preventatives to breathe, combined with a rescue inhaler 2 when needed. I myself have now also developed asthma 3 symptoms and have been ordered to undergo pulmonary 4 testing. My nine-year-old son has rotated on and off 5 inhalers, and my 38-year-old husband was recently 6 rediagnosed with his once-cured childhood asthma. 7 On top of these issues, we are all very 8 frequently sick. Sicknesses would range from colds and 9 flu symptoms to migraines, to GI issues and lethargy, to 10 strange and unexplained pains in our bodies. 11 Last December, Encana Oil & Gas drilled a new 12 well right next to the end of our street and closer than 13 the others. Shortly after this well was drilled, I 14 became very sick with GI issues and extreme pain. The 15 sickness lasted for nearly three months and consisted of 16 vomiting, strange and gross bowel activities, lethargy, 17 headaches, and extreme abdominal pain. Narcotics were 18 the only way I was able to function and manage the pain. 19 Test results came back negative, and no one could 20 explain my illness. In this time, I began to look into 21 gas fracking. 22 One day after the well was finalized, I came 23 home to something new. At the immediate end of our 24 street, right along the pedestrian walking trail within 25 550 feet of my home, was a chimney. Coming out of the

### Page 66 1 top was a constant thick, clear vapor cloud, spewing all 2 over the homes on my street and certainly on everyone 3 walking by. In my children's cases, it was pouring all 4 over them. I immediately called Encana Oil & Gas, who 5 dispatched a crew to look into my concern. Their 6 findings were a "properly functioning well." I was told 7 that the emission cloud was excess gas being burned off 8 and not to be worried. Excess gas, in itself, is 9 alarming. But after my own research, I learned that was 10 not, in fact, what was seeping into my kids' lungs, but 11 rather carcinogens and VOCs and excess fracking fluids 12 conveniently burned off as part of the process to save 13 the gas. Save the gas. What about the kids? 14 As we speak, there are five more drilling pads 15 within a mile of my home. We also received notice, a 16 few months ago, that Encana plans to drill numerous more 17 wells directly within our area. In any community, this 18 could be disastrous; in a place where the weather 19patterns and atmospheric conversions are already a 20 health concern, this is a death sentence. This is why 21 we need the EPA's emissions standards. 22 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. And 23 Mr. Findlay. 24 SPEAKER FINDLAY: Yes. Thank you for the 25 opportunity to speak today. I'd like to speak in

### Page 67 1 support of -- 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Could you spell 3 your name, first. 4 SPEAKER FINDLAY: Yes. Michael Findlay, 5 F-i-n-d-l-a-y. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Go right ahead. 7 SPEAKER FINDLAY: I'm here as a young 24- 8 year-old, who is recently graduated from the University 9 of Denver, that looks at my classmates that have 10 graduated, that looks at a bunch of young people looking 11 to get into the job market, and sees a very bleak job 12 market. 13We want jobs. We want to work. We want to 14 contribute to this economy. But, simply put, there are 15 no jobs out there. And we look at the oil/gas energy 16 industry in the United States, and we see the 17 opportunity for these jobs, so many jobs that are going 18 overseas day after day. 19I have friends that have graduated with 20 accounting degrees, with political science degrees, with 21 business degrees, that, if they do find work at this 22 point in time, they're working as a waiter or they're 23 working -- if they're lucky enough, they're working as a 24 bartender, scraping around, trying to make a career for 25 themselves.

### Page 68 1 The -- the industry provides 9.2 million jobs 2 throughout our economy right now. The average salary is 3 $96,000. That's nearly double anything else. These are 4 high-paying jobs that I'd like to -- I'd like the 5 opportunity for my generation to have an opportunity at. 6We're not saying that there shouldn't be -- 7 that we shouldn't have clean air or clean water. We 8 absolutely need to make sure that we need to do it in a 9 way that is -- that is safe and that is sustainable for 10 a long period of time. But when we look at these new 11 discoveries that we have here in Colorado and 12 Pennsylvania, in North Dakota, and we're seriously 13 considering not getting at these plays, to me, that's 14 ludicrous. 15We have so many unemployed people, creeping 16 towards 10 percent. To -- to suggest that we should 17 keep getting all of our energy from overseas, or that we 18 should rely only on renewable energy, to me, doesn't 19make a whole lot of sense. It doesn't make a whole lot 20 of sense for the people in Mesa County, that are just 21 trying to put food on the table for their families, the 22 people in Mesa County that are forced to fly to North 23 Dakota, forced to fly to Pennsylvania, just to find 24 work. 25And I'll keep my comments short. That's all I

### Page 69 1 have to say, is that we just need more jobs, and this is 2 a way that we can do it. We can create jobs, good3 paying jobs, here in America. 4 Thank you. 5ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. The 6 next two speakers are Geri Reinardy at American Lung 7 Association, and Alex Johnson. 8 Ms. Reinardy, if you would say your name, 9 spell it, and then you can begin. 10 SPEAKER REINARDY: Sure. I am Geri, G-e-r-i, 11 Reinardy. That's spelled R-e-i-n-a-r-d-y. Thank you 12 for the opportunity to speak this morning. 13I am Geri Reinardy, and I serve as the speaker 14 of the Nationwide Assembly of the American Lung 15Association. And, in addition, I serve on the national 16board of the American Lung Association. The mission of 17 American Lung Association is to save lives by improving 18 lung health and preventing lung disease. 19I've been a volunteer with the American Lung 20 Association since 2005. And I volunteer because every 21 day where I work, I see the importance of fighting for 22 healthy air. I am director of Public Affairs at 23 National Jewish Health, a Denver based academic medical 24 center that has been named the number-one respiratory 25 hospital in America by pulmonologists for the last

### Page 70 1 14 years. Each day, I see patients who arrive at our 2 hospital coughing, wheezing, and struggling for air, and 3 I renew my commitment to help remove the challenges that 4 impair their most fundamental right; that is, the 5 ability to breathe easily. 6So for this reason, I'm pleased to express the 7 support of the American Lung Association for EPA's 8 proposal to reduce harmful air pollution emissions from 9 oil and gas development. The American Lung Association 10 urges EPA to strengthen these rules to further reduce 11 these emissions. We recommend that EPA: 12 Require cleanup of both new and existing 13 emissions sources, not just new ones, especially 14 compressors and gas-driven controllers and valves. 15In addition, we urge EPA to set standards for 16 the reduction of methane. In addition to being a potent 17 greenhouse gas, methane is an air pollutant that impairs 18 local health, local air quality. The standard should 19 directly limit methane, and not just treat it as a 20 byproduct of the reductions of volatile organic 21 compounds. 22 As oil and gas extraction have expanded, 23 emissions from those sectors have increased, air 24 pollutions have increased. And air pollution emissions 25 from equipment used in the oil and gas production

### Page 71 1 process and hydraulically fractured wells have become a 2 greater concern for lung health. Emitted into the air 3 during the oil production and natural gas production are 4 VOCs, which include gases considered air toxics and 5methane and sulfur dioxide. 6The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review 7 existing standards based on the latest science and 8 research, to see if they adequately protect public 9 health from new sources of pollution and air toxics. 10 The Lung Association is pleased that Congress wisely 11 directed EPA, in the Act, to review the standards. 12 Congress recognized, years ago, when writing 13 the Clean Air Act, that scientific understanding and 14 technology would change and clean air standards needed 15 to reflect that expanded knowledge. These new standards 16 will help reduce ozone and particulate matters -- matter 17 levels in areas where oil and gas production occur. 18 These standards will also reduce the risk of benzene, a 19 carcinogen, and other harmful air toxics. 20 Cleaning up VOCs is critical. VOCs help form 21 ground-level ozone, which is a harmful pollutant and a 22 strong greenhouse gas. Ozone burns and inflames our 23 lungs and our airways and can cause chest pain, cough, 24 worsened asthma, reduced lung function, and increased 25 hospital and emergency room visits for respiratory

### Page 72 1 problems. Ozone can even result in premature death. 2 The sulfur dioxide standard will help reduce 3 this harmful pollutant, long recognized for its harm to 4 health. Breathing sulfur dioxide causes wheezing, 5 coughing, and shortness of breathe. Sulfur dioxide can 6 worsen asthma and increase the need for hospital and ER 7 treatment. These microscopic particles can bypass the 8 body's natural defenses and lodge deep within the lungs, 9 causing asthma, heart attacks, and increased risk of 10 death. 11 These standards will cut toxic air emissions, 12 including the carcinogen benzene, by 95 percent. The 13 air standards will reduce hazardous air pollutants in 14 the oil and gas production process and for transmission 15 and storage. 16Although the standards do not directly address 17 methane, the reductions in VOCs will also cut methane, a 18 powerful greenhouse gas. 19The proposed standards on the oil and gas 20 industry are a very good step, we believe, towards 21 protecting the health of Americans. However, more is 22 needed. We recommend that EPA also expand the limits on 23 air pollution to cover the wider network of emissions 24 from oil and gas production. 25The VOCs, air toxics, and sulfur dioxide

### Page 73 1 reductions will improve our air quality, reduce risk, 2 and reduce health effects associated. 3In closing, the American Lung Association 4 urges EPA to adopt strong final standards for emissions 5 from the oil and gas industry that will move us even 6 closer to having air that all of us can breathe easily 7 and safely. 8 Thank you. 9ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Johnson. If 10 you would spell your name and then begin. 11 SPEAKER JOHNSON: Certainly. My name is Alex 12 Johnson. That's A-l-e-x, J-o-h-n-s-o-n. I'm a student 13 at the University of Denver, a freshman, who's just begun 14 the first quarter here. And I'd like to speak, just for 15 a moment, about my concern with the jobs market and what 16 is, in my opinion, the bleak outlook over the next four 17 or five years for my peers and my classmates. And 18 having thus said, I'm, of course, no expert. 19Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for the 20 purpose of my testimony, is absolutely nothing new. 21 This process, according to the Institute for Energy 22 Research, has been employed without incident since 1947. 23 The IER also adds that it has been employed in more than 24 a million wells, to extract more than 7 billion barrels 25 of oil and 600 trillion feet of natural gas from deep

### Page 74 1 underground shale formations. 2 Having thus said, there are numerous and 3 significant causes which impel us to oppose the proposed 4 regulation, not the least of which includes domestic 5 jobs, domestic energy production, and questionable 6 scientific assertions. 7 A baseline industry estimate, as cited by 8 Mr. Findlay a moment ago, sets the number of American 9 jobs fundamentally tied to this industry at 9.2 million, 10 or nearly 6 percent of the American civilian workforce, 11 this according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. 12 These oil and natural gas producing companies, 13 which contribute massively to the U.S. economy every 14 year and, in addition, pay more than their fair share of 15 federal taxes, would be significantly impacted by the -- 16by the proposed regulations. This is primarily due to 17 the fact that 90 percent of the domestic wells currently 18 employ a hydraulic fracking system. If a ban or 19 regulation were thus put in place, the corporations and 20 the industry would suffer consequences unthinkable to 21 the American conscious and unbearable to the American 22 economy. 23And these corporations, furthermore, have no 24 incentive to sully the groundwater and to pollute the 25 air. Their motive is to extract the natural resources

### Page 75 1 from the planet that we all benefit from. In fact, the 2 Heritage Foundation energy policy analysis -- or 3 analyst, rather, Nick Loris, said, "These companies have 4 every incentive not to contaminate drinking water and 5 air - which is extremely hard to do, by the way, because 6 the water table and fracking occur at far different 7 levels." 8 These companies should operate based on 9 industry standards and market demands, not the 10 regulation of a government oversight. Their operations 11 ought to be restrained only by the demands of a 12 skeptical market and unwilling consumers. 13To again cite the Institute for Energy 14 Research, quote, Recent attempts to portray hydraulic 15 fracturing as dangerous -- as -- as a dangerous 16 unregulated practice are misleading at best. When done 17 within the set parameters of the numerous states and 18 federal regulations already in place by government safe 19 drilling practices, hydraulic fracturing has the 20 potential to provide the U.S. with an abundant supply of 21 clean-burning natural gas for many years to come, end 22 quote. 23This comes as a consensus with the skeptics in 24 the community, who believe that fracking operations 25 ought to be permitted to continue. In fact, Emmanuel

### Page 76 1 Rubio, an industry expert who I interviewed, with three 2 years' experience on the eastern plains of Colorado, 3 described the chemical composition, in his experience, 4 obviously, of the fracking liquid substances, 5 essentially, as he said, 99.5 percent water and 6 .5 percent other chemicals; namely, guaiac gum. Folks, 7 that's a common ingredient used in ice cream. 8 And to add to this point and to -- to sort of 9 finalize it, fracking chemicals remain at a level around 10 3,000 feet above any groundwater. That's 3,000 feet of 11 solid rock. And, in fact, in May 2011, the EPA 12 administrator, Lisa Jackson, herself said, quote, I'm 13 not aware of any proven cases where the fracking process 14 itself has affected water, although there are 15 investigations ongoing. Just four months ago, this 16 account was shed to a Congressional panel. 17 And when one considers the preponderance of 18 evidence in the case regarding this regulation and a 19proposed -- and the proposed ban on fracking concerning 20 the operations, it's clear here that the problem, if 21 there exists one, cannot be solved by regulation alone. 22 Regulating and endangering 90 percent of our domestic 23 natural gas and oil production is simply not worth the 24 tremendous costs in terms of American jobs and our 25 domestic energy.

### Page 77 1 Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very 3much. If you have a prepared statement, please leave it 4 with our court reporter. 5The next two speakers are Jan Bennett and Stan 6 Dempsey. And, Ms. Bennett, if you would begin by 7 stating your name and spelling it, and then you can 8 begin. 9SPEAKER BENNETT: My name is Jan Bennett; 10 J-a-n, B-e-n-n-e-t-t. I'm a native of Colorado and I've 11 lived here for more than 60 years. Colorado was once a 12 place where people came for recovery from lung diseases, 13 asthma and TB. Now it is the last place you would want 14 to go. People who are living in rural areas like Rifle 15 and Silt, people are leaving those areas because the -- 16 God bless you -- the emissions from the natural gas 17 industry are harming their health and killing their 18 animals. It is unfortunate that environmental control 19 over the oil and gas industry has dissolved under 20 lobbying efforts of this special interest group that 21 cares nothing for the health of citizens affected by the 22 current energy craze. 23During my life in Denver, there was one brief 24 patch of blue sky that broke through the brown cloud. I 25 live in Westminster and look down on the city from 84th

### Page 78 1 and Federal. From there you can see the sludge we call 2 air, fired by plumes of smoke arising from the Conoco 3 refinery. Why is there a refinery in the middle of our 4 city? 5I volunteer at St. Anthony North, where we can 6 watch the clouds blow downtown, from the cafeteria. One 7 morning while driving to my job in the Capitol in the 8 early '80s, the ground beneath my tires literally shook. 9A disgruntled employee blew up the Conoco plant. Turned 10 out to be a breath of fresh air. For the two years it 11 took to rebuild, we again saw the pristine blue skies I 12 remembered as a child. What regulations were placed on 13 the rebuilt plant? I'm not sure, but I read that they 14 were slim to none. 15I'm not an expert, so I don't have a lot of 16 statistics to burn. You've probably heard most of them 17 already. How much the citizens of Colorado are being 18 affected by the current plethora of oil and gas wells, 19 the chemicals such as hydrogen sulfide, benzene, toluene 20 and other carcinogens being released into the air, 21 destruction of the ozone. We have become used to caving 22 in to industry on every level. Corporations, oil and 23 gas, and banks have become the darlings of the 24 Government, promising us pampered lifestyles and jobs. 25At what cost? Why must we sacrifice our health and see

### Page 79 1 the destruction of our natural resources because of a 2 corporate culture cult? 3I take the bus, and it adds an hour and a half 4 to my workday. I work in the Golden Triangle, and I 5 see, every day, it coming closer to a town in Belgium 6 where bikes are primary -- are the primary choice of 7 transportation. I cheer all those who make choices that 8 may include sacrifices but also include all others on 9 the planet in their decisions. I love the free bikes in 10 Denver they provide, and I see them zooming up and down 11 the Platte River, which now resembles Boulder Canyon. 12 There are alternatives to destroying our 13mountains, our cities, and the health of our children, 14 in a mad pursuit of more and more energy. We need 15 greener forms of energy. We need sustainable houses and 16 electric cars. In the future, this will be our only 17 choice, as oil and gas are finite sources of energy. 18 Why not make the leap now and realize these dinosaur 19megacompanies are a thing of the past, draining our 20 economy and the government with their government 21 bailouts. 22 We need to take responsibility and limit our 23 intake, first of all. Second, we need to make the 24 decision makers aware that human health and prosperity 25 fall out -- far outweigh the profits of greedy

### Page 80 1 corporations or the needs of another bad-behaving CEO 2 for another golden parachute. 3I'm adopted and met my birth mother in 1975, 4 an Hispanic woman from New Mexico. On the Web, I found 5 342 ancestors from Spain, the Zuni and Taos Pueblos, 6 along with Plains Indians who were captured as children, 7 then given their own town of Abiquiu. My sister and I 8 had our DNA tested. Mitochondrial DNA reveals your 9mothers for thousands and thousands of years. Ours was 10 C1, one of the oldest of Native Americans. Generations 11 of our mothers roamed around these areas, building 12 pueblos, Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde and, before that, pit 13 houses, fighting wooly mammoths in the Pleistocene. I 14 feel I owe it to them to take this brief digression. 15Among the books I read was one by -- among the 16books I read about these hardy survivors was one 17 explaining the Pueblos, who have made it through three 18 successive regime changes: New Mexico and the -- New 19 Spain, Mexico, and then and the U.S. They were always 20 New Mexico. In "Anasazi America," David Stuart 21 explained the anomaly of the Pueblo Indians being able 22 to maintain themselves continually in their original 23 habitats. 24 When we visited the Taos Pueblo, they 25 explained their survival strategy: We care about

### Page 81 1 cornstalks, not the stock market. The same solutions 2 they have found are sadly missing in what will likely 3 prove our lack of survival. The Pueblo see themselves 4 as fragile. We deny any weakness. The Pueblo saw their 5 strength in their community; sharing wealth, lending a 6 helping hand, feeding and clothing each other, realizing 7 we are all in this together. 8 Not so, us. It takes 400 of the richest to 9 equal 150 million of the rest of us, and our 10 representative government continues to be bought off by 11 the spoiled demands of the wealthy at a rate that's 12 bankrupting us. 13Denver is 20 percent higher in pollution than 14 the average -- 15ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I'm going to have 16 to ask you to wrap up very quickly. 17 SPEAKER BENNETT: Okay. Energy is to be used 18 by the people, are not to be sacrificed -- and people 19 are not to be sacrificed for energy. Please protect our 20 environment, protect us. 21 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 22 Mr. Dempsey, if you could state your name and 23 spell it as well, and then begin your comments. 24 SPEAKER DEMPSEY: Thank you very much. My 25 name is Stan Dempsey, Jr. Dempsey is spelled

### Page 82 1 D-e-m-p-s-e-y. I'm president of the Colorado Petroleum 2 Association. The Colorado Petroleum Association is a 3 nonprofit trade association representing the oil and gas 4 industry. We represent all of the various segments; 5 exploration, production, processing, refining, 6marketing, transportation, et cetera. And we appreciate 7 the opportunity to provide you some of our comments. 8 In Colorado, oil and gas has been produced 9 since the 1880s and supplies 7 percent of Colorado's 10 employment. And we have 49,000 direct and 190,000 11 indirect jobs this industry supports in Colorado. In 12 2009, the industry payroll was 8.9 billion. 13In terms of employment, Colorado has an 14 unemployment rate of about 9.1 percent and -- I'm sorry. 15 That's the national level. Colorado's fortunate to have 16 an 8.5, which is slightly lower. But unfortunately, in 17 some of the energy-producing areas such as Grand 18 Junction, that unemployment rate is 10 percent, due to 19 the slowdown in the industry. 20 And we think it's important for the EPA to 21 acknowledge that any rule, particularly these rules, 22 will have an impact on the health of the industry, in 23 particular in those parts of the state where we're 24 seeing a slowdown in the growth of any new production. 25CPA urges EPA to acknowledge the fact that

### Page 83 1 Colorado, like other states, are facing the challenge -- 2 are facing challenging economic times, and we think it's 3 imperative that the EPA's proposed rules covering oil 4 and gas equipment be promulgated carefully, in a 5 cost-effective manner, to avoid unnecessary costs and 6 the potential that oil and gas development be reduced. 7 Oil and gas production in Colorado generates 8 $680 million in public revenue to state and local 9 governments. That tax revenue is critical to Colorado. 10 Like other states, we've been struggling to balance the 11 state's budget. CPA believes that the development of 12 Colorado's oil and natural gas resources play a role in 13 strengthening not only the state's economy, but the 14 national economy by assuring that this country has a 15 stable and dependable energy supply. 16The regional administer, Martin, and other 17 individuals have talked a little bit about Colorado's 18 process of adopting rules, air quality rules, pertaining 19 to oil and gas. And I would just add to that comment 20 that we would urge you to take note of the way those 21 rules were developed, the way they were implemented, and 22 the manner in which they apply, specifically to pieces 23 of equipment that were covered in those rule makings in 24 2000- -- beginning in 2004 and extending to 2010. And 25 we think that would be helpful, because Colorado is able

### Page 84 1 to avoid many of the difficult implementation scenarios 2 that I think some of the other commenters have made. 3We share the concerns of our industry 4 counterparts that EPA's proposal needs additional time 5 to study, prior to becoming effective. But Colorado has 6 already adopted, in certain cases, rules that require 7 green completions. We urge EPA to recognize that there 8 are limitations in the ability of operators to use the 9practice. 10 The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission's rule 11 requiring green completions recognizes those limited 12 circumstances in which green completions aren't 13 feasible, and we would urge your staff to look closely 14 at Colorado's experience with that. We believe that it 15 would be helpful as we look at comparing state rules 16 from all over the country, pertaining to air quality, 17 and with your proposal. 18 One of the things that we might suggest would 19be for you all, as the comment period goes along, is to 20 provide perhaps some kind of a chart of what existing 21 states' rules are, compared to how they work -- how the 22 new proposals would work. Because in our process of 23 providing comments to you, I think that would be 24 especially helpful, because that's taken quite a bit of 25 time and effort, among my members, to be able to give

### Page 85 1 you the very best possible information. 2 We support the comments of the American 3 Petroleum Institute pertaining to the issue of asking 4 you for an additional 60 days of commenting period. We 5 have been soliciting input from our members, and they've 6been participating in API's process as well. We want to 7 provide you the very best information that we can, so 8 that you can have that information to make the very best 9possible rule. 10 In particular what's challenging, I think, for 11 our members -- and I'll wrap up with this -- is, one of 12 the reasons we think an extended comment period would be 13 helpful is the complexity of the record and recording -- 14 recordkeeping and monitoring that's required throughout 15 the rule. And understanding and being able to put some 16 comments together pertaining to that subject, I think, 17 would be helpful to all of us. 18 Thank you. 19ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very 20 much. 21 The next two speakers I have are Patrick 22 Demmer and Clark Rapp. If I could ask you, Mr. Demmer, 23 to state your name for the record and to spell it for 24 our court reporter, and then you can begin your comments 25 and I'll start the clock.

### Page 86 1 SPEAKER DEMMER: Thank you. My name is 2 Reverend Patrick Demmer; Patrick, P-a-t-r-i-c-k, 3 D-e-m-m-e-r. I reside at 2716 South Victor Street in 4 Aurora, Colorado. I am the senior pastor of the Graham 5 Memorial Community Church of God in Christ here in 6 Denver, where our congregation, and I personally as the 7 shepherd and the pastor, is very active in the concerns 8 of our community. 9While I claim no professional education 10 concerning hydraulic fracturing, I have taken a vigorous 11 interest in the vast opportunities that natural gas 12 brings, specifically in light of health and well-being 13 and job opportunities so badly needed in communities of 14 colors. 15I specify "communities of colors" 16 unapologetically because, as an African-American pastor, 17 I am often called upon to stand by the bedside of 18 asthmatics and others who suffer from respiratory 19 illnesses that were linked to antiquated energy sources. 20 And it is no secret, nor exaggeration, to say that 21 communities of color are the least able to afford and 22 maintain appropriate health care. For that reason 23 alone, the very promise of a cleaner and safer 24 environment arrested my attention. 25After carefully following this issue, I am

### Page 87 1 convinced that the brilliant leadership of our former 2 governor, the Honorable Bill Ritter, and visionaries 3 like our current president, Barack Obama, who have 4 called for new goals to increase the share of clean 5 energy sources wherever possible, is the right path for 6 Colorado and the right goal for the nation. 7 Colorado is on the cutting edge of 8 transforming the environment into a cleaner, safer place 9 to live and work. And as a concerned community leader 10 and community activist, I have absolutely no concern 11 about the safety, thoroughness, and commitment of the 12 companies that will provide this commodity to 13 Coloradans. I have noted that there is a strong 14 community and environmental commitment to provide these 15 services in a safe, reliable, and responsible way. 16 Increased red tape will not help, it will only hinder. 17 Colorado has done a fine job of insisting that these 18 companies understand and work hard to balance drilling 19 and protection of the environment and community. 20 Therefore, in closing -- and us preachers 21 always have to have a closing -- whatever you do, please 22 do not slow down the good that is already being done, by 23 overregulating. As evidenced by the groundbreaking, 24 cutting-edge manner in which Colorado is leading the 25 nation in the transformation from coal to natural gas,

### Page 88 1 Colorado gets it. And as a community, we greatly desire 2 the cleaner air we shall breathe and look forward to the 3 economic impact this vast industry will provide. 4 Thank you for your time and your 5 consideration. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 7 Mr. Rapp, if you could please state your name 8 and spell it. 9SPEAKER RAPP: Clark Rapp; C-l-a-r-k, R-a-p-p. 10 And I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 11 speak today. 12 I'd like to begin with a simple statement 13 that, I'm sure, will resonate with many gathered here 14 today: The earth does not belong to us. We belong to 15 the earth. 16This should be the basis of our concern and 17 how we treat our planet today and how we intend to leave 18 it for the future. It seems, in our mad rush to extract 19 and capitalize on every last bit of diminishing fossil 20 fuel resources, we have become shortsighted and 21 desperate. In the natural world, we would be 22 metaphorically observed as running scared, with no plan 23 and nothing available for our next move; just a 24 fanatical desire to keep moving in the same direction to 25 avoid our destiny, just as prey runs from a predator and

### Page 89 1 just before the last predictable and fatal lunge before 2 capture, death, and complete consumption. 3I lived in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, from June 4 2007 to March 2011. I observed the peak of the oil and 5 gas drilling boom in southwest Colorado between 2008 and 6 2009. I'd like to point out that, while this hearing is 7 for Colorado, the use of human boundaries only exist in 8 our minds and has no bearing on the real world or how 9 ecosystems and natural living communities base their 10 existence. Many more oil and gas wells lie just over 11 the border, in northwestern New Mexico. And I think 12 that, you know, this meeting is part of that whole 13 bigger process of manipulation by the system, by -- by 14 those that are able to. 15Anyone with a computer and two fingers and an 16 Internet connection can see for themselves, by accessing 17 Google Earth, how vast portions of the area I'm familiar 18 with, and speak of today, have become a patchwork of 19 roads and pads, with the state line in between Colorado 20 and New Mexico demonstrating our false sense of 21 possession and our silly concepts of yours and mine. 22 From various distances, you could easily assume that the 23 area was a well-populated ex-burb, with expensive homes, 24 long driveways and swimming pools, with golf courses and 25 sand traps. But in reality, there's rigs, service

### Page 90 1 buildings, infrastructure, tailing piles, pad sites, 2 service roads, and holding ponds. 3What happened to multiple use of our public 4 lands? What multiple uses are left for these lands? 5The habitat fragmentation has been disruptive 6 and caused displacement of entire animal communities and 7 stressed additional natural communities in the 8 peripheral areas and beyond with the same -- with the 9 same ripple effects a large stone being thrown into a 10 calm body of water has. The ozone and particulate 11 pollution from the daily fossil fuel extraction 12 activities in the area produce the same greenish-brown 13 cloud under the morning temperature inversion still 14 common in the Metro area today, only with a tiny 15 fraction of the population in southwest Colorado. The 16 once crystal-clear air and blue skies became hazy and 17 dull. 18 No matter how we try to rationalize and 19 justify these activities, there are consequences and a 20 never-ending pattern of degradation that follows. We 21 are going to extremes to inject toxins to remove toxins, 22 with the fracking process, using precious water 23 resources today and potentially destroying valuable 24 groundwaters for tomorrow. 25Of the human community impacts, we can follow

### Page 91 1 human population increases to the areas that struggle to 2 provide for the natural communities, in the first place. 3 The mechanized careers of the workers in the industry 4 directly translate into mechanized recreation; ATVs, 5 dirt bikes, off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, boats, jet 6 skis, and even airplanes and helicopters for the top of 7 the industry's pay scale. 8 Stevens Field in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, 9 has a curious history of improvements, funding and 10 special exceptions that might make an interesting novel 11 or a good investigative journal report, but I believe 12 these are now on the endangered species list. 13The vast majority of the science and 14 technology I see used and deployed related to the fossil 15 fuel industry and similar industries, with profound 16 impacts on the planet, no longer seek clarity or 17 certainty. They avoid the truth. They evade integrity 18 and seek only to create reasonable doubt about the long19 term damages and degradation to the ecosystems, to 20 maintain the status quo. For many years now, we have 21 seen this happening. Science has been assaulted, held 22 hostage, and is being used more for leverage and 23 extortion than protection of the environment and the 24 betterment of mankind. 25In conclusion, I would like to state that much

### Page 92 1 of how we look at things, and from the context and 2 perspective of a meeting like this, we only seem to be 3 able to deliver desired results for the few, at the 4 expense of the many. And the "many" I speak of goes 5 beyond the human species. We are completely failing to 6 deal with reality or the long-term consequences of our 7 actions. 8 As a well-educated and honest American 9 citizen, I am deeply embarrassed and humiliated by the 10 environmental destruction and rationalizations used by 11 our domestic industries and political leadership. 12 Within my lifetime and experience here in Colorado, I 13 have witnessed changes in human population, land use, 14 climate, natural resource consumption, and recreation 15 trends that has worked against natural systems that have 16 sustained life in this region for eons. I can only hope 17 we turn a corner and begin to reclaim, repair, and 18 restore what we once had, rather than continue on the 19 current course. 20 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both. 21 Our next two speakers are Sharon Alexander and 22 Whitney Coombs or Combs of National Wildlife Federation. 23 Ms. Alexander-Holt, if you'll please state your name and 24 spell it, and then we'll start the clock. 25SPEAKER ALEXANDER-HOLT: Okay. Thank you. My

### Page 93 1 name is Sharon Alexander-Holt; S-h-a-r-o-n, 2 A-l-e-x-a-n-d-e-r, hyphen, H-o-l-t. 3ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 4 SPEAKER ALEXANDER-HOLT: Thank you. Hello. 5 My name is Sharon Alexander-Holt. I reside 3413 South 6Akron Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm a Denver native. 7 I'm a former president and CEO of the Urban League of 8 Metropolitan Denver, which is a nonprofit organization 9 that works and assists the community. And I'm a 10 concerned community citizen. I have always been 11 concerned about and a champion for the needs of our 12 communities and the welfare of our communities. 13Not only am I interested in the Colorado 14 environment, but the economy as well. Colorado is 15 experiencing an 8.5 percent unemployment rate. We need 16 jobs now. People are struggling and our communities are 17 suffering. Colorado's Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act has had 18 an economic impact and helped to utilize a range of 19 skill sets as a result of the natural gas industry. We 20 need these Colorado natural gas companies more than ever 21 to continue to provide and expand good job opportunities 22 in our communities, and not be restricted or interrupted 23 by new rules being proposed. Our economy needs a boost. 24 I'm also interested in having the best 25 possible air quality in Colorado that we can, and do --

### Page 94 1 and do not want to see anything get in the way of 2 accomplishing this goal. 3I remember, when I was a little girl, I was in 4 a household where my biological father dropped dead at a 5 young age, he was actually 28 at that time, from a 6 severe asthma attack. He had moved to Colorado at that 7 time because Colorado was known for having some of the 8 best air quality at one time. That's why it's so vital 9 that we try now to capture the good air quality again, 10 through our natural gas resources, and at an affordable 11 rate. 12 Please do not slow down the process. Our 13 communities and our state of Colorado need to be healthy 14 and flourish so that we can grow, and not perish. 15Thank you for the consideration. Respectfully 16 submitted, Sharon Alexander-Holt. 17 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 18 Ms. Coombs, if you would please state your 19 full name and then spell it. 20 SPEAKER COOMBS: My name is Whitney Coombs, 21 C-o-o-m-b-s. I'm here representing the National 22 Wildlife Federation out of Boulder, Colorado. And thank 23 you for having us speak. 24 I would like to support the EPA's proposed 25 emission standards, because at some point it'll no

### Page 95 1 longer be economically profitable to drill for oil and 2 natural gas, and we'll be able to make the full shift to 3 renewable energy. However, the reality at this point is 4 that our infrastructure is dependent on fossil fuels, so 5 we need to focus on extracting them from the earth in a 6 responsible manner that will not make our communities 7 and our wildlife sick. 8 In the last nine years, about 23,000 new oil 9 and gas wells have been drilled in Colorado, and 10 thousands of drilling permits have been approved for the 11 coming year. The oil and gas industry emits millions of 12 tons of pollutants such as methane, benzene, sulfur 13 dioxide into our air every year. These pollutants cause 14 serious health problems and create smog. 15As a former employee of Beaver Creek Ski 16 Resort, Avon, Colorado, and a former raft guide in 17 Salida, Colorado, I've seen, firsthand, the importance 18 of tourism on the Colorado economy. A study titled "The 19 Economic Impacts of Travel in Colorado" was prepared for 20 the Colorado Tourism Office, studying data for 1996 21 through 2008. They found, in 2008, total direct travel 22 spending in Colorado was $15.3 billion. Tourists in 23 Colorado were also responsible for generating 144,300 24 jobs in 2008. 25People travel to Colorado from places like New

### Page 96 1 York City and Los Angeles in order to escape the smog 2 and pollution that surrounds their cities. Colorado is 3 known for its fresh mountain air, its gorgeous seasons, 4 and sunny blue sky. It's unlikely that people will want 5 to spend their money to come Colorado if they can't see 6 the Rockies through the haze. 7 Colorado is one of the healthiest states and 8 is consistently listed as one of the most desirable 9 destinies to visit or live. I've met many people who 10 work all year in order to afford a family vacation for 11 just one week in Colorado. 12 I understand the oil and gas industry creates 13many jobs. And in the current economic climate, it's 14 hard to ignore. However, I think that it's equally 15 important to note that just as oil and gas is a 16 temporary energy fix, it is also a temporary job 17 creator. These resources are finite. Tourism is not. 18 People come to places like Colorado, the Rockies, to 19 connect with wilderness; to hunt, to fish, ski, hike 20 climb, experience the great outdoors. 21 Therefore, I think it is in our best interest, 22 to protect our health and our booming tourism economy, 23 to support the EPA's proposed emissions standards. 24 Thank you for having us. 25ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both

### Page 97 1 very much. 2 The next two speakers are Diane Shrack and 3 Rene Whitmore. Ms. Shrack, if you'll state your name 4 and spell it -- oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't sure who was 5 who -- and spell it for the court reporter. 6SPEAKER SCHRACK: Diane Schrack; D-i-a-n-e, 7 S-c-h-r-a-c-k. 8 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Go ahead. 9SPEAKER SCHRACK: Thank you for the 10 opportunity to speak to you. 11 Due to the lack of government oversight, the 12 2004 EPA declaration that coal bed methane wells pose 13 little or no threat to drinking water, the 2005 14 Halliburton loophole, and technological advances, 15 hydraulic fracturing has rapidly expanded without having 16 to answer for its damaging environmental consequences. 17 The public is now faced with: 18 Higher greenhouse gas emissions, smog-inducing 19 compounds, and releases of neurotoxins and carcinogens; 20 Considerably higher levels of ozone and 21 methane in our air and water, increased airborne 22 pollutants such as methanol, formaldehyde, carbon 23 disulfide, toluene and benzene; 24 Spills, leaks, and accidents which pollute our 25 waterways and can leach into our drinking water supplies

### Page 98 1 with contaminants that have included diesel fuel, 2 chloride, sodium, barium, strontium, and hydrochloric 3 acid; 4 Fracking wastewater with radioactive elements 5 that end up in our rivers due to inadequate municipal 6 wastewater treatment; 7 Short-term economic gains for communities, 8 that ultimately turn into lower property values, heavy 9 truck traffic with costly road repairs, safety hazards 10 from possible pipeline explosions, harm to local tourism 11 and recreation industries, and scenic views replaced 12 with drilling rigs; 13Farmer and rancher livelihoods at risk because 14 of ozone and fracking chemicals that pollute their crops 15 and livestock; 16The use of enormous amounts of precious water 17 in the fracking process; 18 And a possible increase in earthquakes due to 19 fracking. 20 The public is concerned about these issues. 21 Oil and gas companies took unethical advantage of the 22 lack of federal and state oversight of their industry. 23And now the EPA seems to be trying to put a finger in 24 the dyke, to stop a leak, without addressing the real 25 issue, which is the fact that hydraulic fracturing is

### Page 99 1 not safe, to begin with. There are numerous valid 2 studies and investigations that have demonstrated the 3 hazards of fracking. This evidence cannot be 4 conveniently ignored. Fracking is an unacceptable risk 5 to public health and our environment. 6Our communities are being surrounded. In the 7 Denver metro area alone, drilling is active or proposed 8 in Weld, Douglas, Elbert, Arapahoe and other counties. 9 Part of your proposal even appears to ask for more steps 10 to reduce compliance burdens for industry, state, local, 11 and tribal agencies. Reductions in compliance don't 12 sound good to the public who has to live with the 13 negative consequences of fracking. 14 Your proposal to cut smog-inducing VOC 15 emissions is a good step, but it does not go far enough 16 for the people who breathe the air, drink the water, and 17 eat the food from our farms and ranches. And with the 18 recent expansion of shale gas rigs across the country, 19production will, within a few years, probably exceed 20 U.S. demand. 21 Your job is not to placate and enable future 22 profits for the oil and gas industry or to produce jobs. 23 The public demands and deserve more from our 24 Environmental Protection Agency. We, the people, don't 25 have the money and the power that the oil and gas

### Page 100 1 industry has. We don't have the resources to make 2 slick, disingenuous ads like they do. We have you, the 3 EPA, to protect us. That's how important you are. 4 We are sick and tired of the oil and gas 5 industry violating and profiting from our public right 6 to a healthy environment. The EPA needs to ban fracking 7 because it presents a risk of significant contamination. 8 There are better options out there, including serious 9 resource conservation and substantial support for 10 development of renewable alternative energy sources. 11 You are the agency that has environmental 12 protection as your mandate. We hold our health and 13 environment within your hands. Please do the right 14 thing. 15Thank you. 16ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 17 Ms. Whitmore, if you would say your name and 18 spell it, please. 19SPEAKER WHITMORE: Rene Whitmore; R-e-n-e, 20 Whitmore, W-h-i-t-m-o-r-e. Hello. My name is Pastor 21 Rene Whitmore, and I reside at 4775 Argonne Street. I 22 am the pastor of New Wine Cathedral of Worship, and I've 23 lived in Denver for the past 20 years. 24 Prior to my relocation, I grew up with natural 25 gas in Michigan. There was never a concern about our

### Page 101 1 safety, and not once can I recall a time that natural 2 gas posed a threat. I believe natural gas will be a 3 very -- is very important to our Colorado economy. It 4 will create much-needed jobs, as our esteemed President 5 Barack Obama has just spoken to Colorado on yesterday. 6We do not need overregulating that will 7 negatively impact our economic development at such a 8 dire time. 9In closing, I urge you to allow the good work 10 to continue, without delay. My time is up. And I thank 11 you for yours. 12 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both 13 very much. 14 Next two speakers are George Troutman, and 15 Charlie Montgomery of the Colorado Environmental 16 Coalition. Mr. Troutman, you can go first. If you 17 would say your name and spell it, and then you can 18 begin. 19SPEAKER TROUTMAN: Thank you. My name is 20 George Troutman; G-e-o-r-g-e, T-r-o-u-t-m-a-n. I am a 21 petroleum geologist. I live here in Colorado. And I am 22 an independent geologist, so I have my own consulting 23 company. 24 I came today to, basically, listen to some of 25 the comments being made. I wasn't intending to really

### Page 102 1 make any comments. But a couple of things that were 2 said and that have been said, I'd like to comment on. 3First, in relationship to an earlier 4 participant discussing -- or actually reading a letter 5 from a family, I'd like to make a comment on that. The 6 letter related to the -- to the committee here the -- 7 the family's issues with health and their concerns about 8 living close to natural gas wells. I believe asthma, 9 spinal cord issues, et cetera, were being blamed on the 10 natural gas drilling and production. 11 In my 40 years, or nearly 40 years, in the oil 12 and gas industry, it has allowed me to be involved in 13 on-site geological supervision and work while drilling 14 literally hundreds of wells throughout my career and 15 throughout the nation. In addition to being on location 16 while the wells were being drilled, tested, and 17 hydraulically fracked, I've also been on well sites 18 after wells have been put on production, as well as 19 working on natural gas storage wells in New York and 20 Pennsylvania during my earlier career. 21 Having been exposed to fumes and the air 22 quality inherent to oil and gas natural -- oil and 23 natural gas operations during a nearly 40-year career, I 24 have not been affected physically by the emissions, over 25many years of being exposed to such.

### Page 103 1 I am empathetic with the letter writer's 2 family members having asthma. I have six children. My 3 youngest child developed asthma as a young child growing 4 up in Oklahoma. Our family did not live close to any 5 oil or natural gas wells. He is now married and has a 6 family, yet still suffers from asthma. Yet he has it 7 under control. 8 It is a fact of life that some individuals are 9more susceptic -- susceptible to chronic conditions, 10 such as asthma, than others are. None of my other five 11 children or my wife or myself have developed such a 12 breathing problem. 13Based on the logic used in the letter 14 submitted, I would have developed something health 15 related over my years of being exposed, but I have not. 16 I have worked with many engineers and geologists over 17 the years, that have similar work experience such as 18 mine, and I have not known any to have developed asthma 19 as a result of being around gas or oil wells. 20 My final comment is directed at the fracking 21 and hydraulic fracking of natural gas and oil wells 22 around the country. I've been associated with numerous 23 oil and gas companies, either as an employee or as a 24 consultant. During my associations with those 25 companies, I have involved -- I have been involved with

### Page 104 1 the recommending of zones to be fracked and completed. 2 I am not aware of any well that was fracked to have ever 3 resulted in the contamination of uphill drinking water, 4 aquifers. 5You know, basically, as a geologist, we're 6 drilling for specific zones, and most all those zones 7 are well below, and I mean usually hundreds, if not 8 thousands of feet below, the drinking water zones. 9I am convinced that those having indicted the 10 oil and gas companies for contaminating drinking water 11 and other pollution issues related to those companies 12 completing their wells to increase production and 13 contribute to the energy needed to run our country, are 14 being mislead or -- by other organizations, with 15 ulterior motives. 16Being green is one thing, but destroying the 17 very backbone of our energy sector is not going to be in 18 our best interest as a nation. To ban fracking is 19 ludicrous. 20 Thank you for your -- this opportunity to 21 testify. Thank you very much. 22 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 23Mr. Montgomery, if you would state your name 24 and spell it, and then you can begin. 25SPEAKER MONTGOMERY: My name is Charles

### Page 105 1 Montgomery; C-h-a-r-l-e-s, M-o-n-t-g-o-m-e-r-y. I'm 2 here representing Colorado Environmental Coalition. 3Colorado Environmental Coalition, or CEC, is a 4 coordinating group that works with nearly 100 5 environmental and other nonprofit groups in this state. 6And one of our main objectives, one of our main 7 activities, is to advocate for responsible energy policy 8 in Colorado. 9In my position at CEC, I have a role that's 10 somewhat different from others who will speak here 11 today. First of all, I don't have technical insights to 12 offer. I'm not an expert on air emissions. And, 13 secondly, as somebody who works and lives in Denver, I 14 don't have direct experience of diminished air quality 15 that comes from living near a drilling site in the gas 16patch. 17 Of course, I guess, as a resident on the Front 18 Range, I experience some of the consequences of that 19production, so I can empathize a bit. 20 What I can express today is the position of 21 CEC on the proposed rules and also my perspective on 22 what the rules mean to ordinary citizens in Colorado. 23 Now, these are citizens who are not necessarily opposed 24 to natural gas development, but they are increasingly 25 concerned about the impacts of it.

### Page 106 1 So, first, Colorado Environmental Coalition 2 supports the proposed rules. We view them as a 3 significant step forward, and we urge EPA to move them 4 forward without delay. 5Typically we at CEC work, on the state level, 6 to ensure that oil and gas development follows a 7 responsible course. In 2009, we had a big breakthrough 8 when our state legislature approved a set of innovative 9 rules that balanced the interests of oil and gas 10 companies against the need to protect communities and 11 protect Colorado's natural heritage. 12 But when it comes to air quality, we have run 13 into challenges at the state level. We've had a hard 14 time getting studies under way or getting studies 15 completed that could measure the impact of emissions, 16 let alone rein them in. That's why EPA's proposed 17 rules to reduce VOCs, cancer-causing toxic pollutants, 18 and methane are so welcome. If they're aggressively 19 implemented, the rules will deliver hundreds of 20 thousands of tons of pollution reductions from drilling 21 operations. 22 We would like to see them go a bit further; 23 specifically, like a number of other groups, we feel 24 they can go further in curbing methane emissions at 25 existing sources.

### Page 107 1 That said, what's particularly heartening 2 about the rules is that they are projected to yield both 3 significant pollution reductions and significant savings 4 for industry. At a time when EPA is under constant 5 attack merely for doing its job, it's great to see that 6 the proposed pollution control measures will save the 7 gas industry $30 million per year by preventing the 8 outright waste of natural gas. I think that's something 9 everyone can get behind. 10 So that's the position of CEC. We feel 11 there's room for improvement, but we generally support 12 the rules and want to see them implemented 13 expeditiously. 14 Let me just finish up by sharing my sense of 15 why these rules are so important to Colorado citizens. 16 Of all the energy-related issues we work on at CEC, 17 having clean air ranks at the top of our citizens' 18 environmental priorities. Whether it's because of 19 esthetic concerns or because of some health concern or 20 simply a very basic human need to breathe clean air, 21 there's a deep-seated desire among citizens to get a 22 handle on air pollution. And there is a visceral 23 aversion to new sources of air pollution. 24 I know this partly from polling we do, and I 25 also know that because that's what citizens tell me when

### Page 108 1 I meet with them. Part of my job involves meeting with 2 citizens who gather together to talk about their 3 concerns with oil and gas development. And largely 4 because of new opportunities for the industry, opened up 5 by hydraulic fracturing, more and more people from 6 suburban communities, particularly on the eastern side 7 of Denver and Arapahoe County and Douglas County and 8 southeastern areas down to El Paso County, these people 9 are now coming to grips with what accelerated 10 development may mean in their areas. 11 When I give presentations to groups, one of 12 the things I do is show a video, the same sort of video 13 that's on the information page of the website for this 14 rule making. And it's a -- it's a video of emissions 15 leaking from oil and gas facilities at oil and gas 16 wells. And the reaction I get from people is one of 17 stunned anger. People are stunned. 18 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: You're going to 19 have to conclude. 20 SPEAKER MONTGOMERY: People are stunned 21 because they are shocked that this equipment is leaking 22 emissions. And they -- they can't understand why gas is 23 being wasted and people are being exposed to it. 24 Thank you very much. 25ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you for

### Page 109 1 your time. 2 The next two speakers are Jason Rauen of 3 Enerplus Resources USA, and Virginia Phillips. 4 Mr. Rauen, if you could state your name and spell it and 5 then begin. 6SPEAKER RAUEN: J-a-s-o-n; Rauen, R-a-u-e-n. 7 My name is Jason Rauen. I'm a Colorado 8 native, and I've worked in the environmental field for 9both industry and as a consultant to the industry. I'm 10 here today on behalf of Enerplus Resources USA 11 Corporation. 12 I have a BS degree in environmental science 13 and technology and a master of applied science in 14 environmental policy and management, with specialty in 15 energy and sustainability. I have worked with and for 16 the industry now for more than seven years, and in that 17 time I have become very knowledgeable about the 18 regulations that govern the oil and gas industry on a 19 federal level, several states within the southwestern 20 and northeastern United States, and numerous counties 21 within those states. 22 I'm a proponent for responsible energy 23 development, efficient and sustainable use of natural 24 resources, and the diligent environmental stewardship of 25 those entities which are developing the resources that

### Page 110 1 are fueling our nation's economy and energy demands. 2 Enerplus is steadfast and dedicated to environmental 3 stewardship and comprehensive regulatory compliance. 4 With that being said, I'm also a proponent of 5 effective and efficient policy that facilities the 6 responsible development of our natural resources. 7 Policy needs to guide, not hinder or confuse, the people 8 who are on the ground, carrying out day-to-day tasks 9 which support the nation in our drive toward achieving 10 our national energy goals. And that policy needs to be 11 founded upon logical and scientific principles. 12 There is significant amount of benefit and 13 sustainability which can come out of these proposed 14 regulations if the language can be modified to better 15 align with some of the values stated for emission 16 factors or thresholds, and the monitoring, metering, 17 recordkeeping, reporting and notification burden can be 18 lessened to a level that is practically achievable. 19To caveat, I am sensitive to the fact that 20 superfluous regulation can stifle or all-out suppress 21 not only the health and vitality of the economy, but 22 also threaten the security of our nation with regard to 23 domestic energy supply, employment sourcing, and the 24 intended environmental benefits that set -- that 25 regulation set out to facilitate.

### Page 111 1 A prime example of that was demonstrated when 2 the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rules 3 and regulations governing oil and gas exploration and 4 production in Colorado were given a complete overhaul in 5 2009, just as the EPA is now doing with Parts 60 and 63 6 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as pertaining 7 to a New Source Performance Standards and NESHAP. 8 Burdensome regulation, which creates 9permitting gauntlets and daunting recordkeeping, 10 monitoring, reporting, metering, notification hurdles, 11 do little to improve the quality of life and protect the 12 environment. They create an undue burden on the 13American people and American government. This, 14 perversely, hits the pockets of the American public as 15much as it does hit the pockets of the oil and gas 16 industry, creating innocent casualty, for little to no 17 gain. 18 While Enerplus is not opposed to increased 19 capital expenditure to environmentally responsible and 20 regulatory-compliant energy development, the magnitude 21 of the capital costs which the proposed regulation 22 brings all at once is quite staggering. As the EPA has 23 stated, the annual capital cost to complying with the 24 proposed requirements would be 754 million annually in 25 2015 dollars. The expected payback period, according to

### Page 112 1 the EPA, is six months to one year. 2 Our estimates predict that the rate is more in 3 the area of one to five years, depending on the 4 technological/operational changes made. This could 5 place a significant financial burden on the industry, 6 which contrasts with the goals of the current 7 administration that advocates for energy security, 8 energy independence, and affordable energy. 9The regulatory proposals made by the EPA, 10 which were published on August 23rd in the -- in the 11 76th volume of the Federal Register, are, for the most 12 part, fair initiatives to perpetuate the EPA and the 13 nation's dedication not only to energy independence, but 14 also to the environment that supports our society and 15 life. However, I do urge the EPA to consider all 16proposed regulation with extreme care and sensitivity to 17 ensure that assumed environmental benefits do not come 18 at too grave a cost economically and socially. 19Energy sustainability is three pronged. Not 20 all harm that befalls us is generated from the direct 21 impact on the environment; secondary and tertiary 22 effects can do as much more -- or can do much more harm 23 from those excessive actions which were intended to 24 prevent harm. One example of this would be the reckless 25 implementation of regulation which would hinder an

### Page 113 1 industry which energizes the nation in a time of 2 economic hardship, nay I say recession or identify the 3 social and/or additional economic implications of such. 4 Enerplus believes assumptions made in the 5 proposed rules have led to higher emissions rates and 6 lower emission thresholds, which unnecessarily triggered 7 NSPS or NESHAP compliance requirements for equipment and 8 operations. 9Even in cases where additional compliance 10 requirements do not occur, there's significant cost to 11 the industry to implement meters and monitoring programs 12 to demonstrate nonapplicability to proposed regulations. 13An example of such can be reviewed when looking at the 14 proposed regulations for condensate and crude storage 15 vessels. Upon reassessment of the MACT standard imposed 16 on storage vessels may reveal that unnecessary 17 regulation of numerous appurtenances when the data set 18 is examined -- 19ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I'm going to have 20 to ask you to conclude. 21 SPEAKER RAUEN: Okay. Enerplus appreciates 22 EPA's intent of the proposed regulations. Thank you for 23 your time and thank you for giving me the time to 24 express Enerplus's concerns. 25ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: And if you could

### Page 114 1 provide the statement to the court reporter, it would be 2 helpful for the record. Thank you. 3And, Ms. Phillips, if you'd state your name 4 and spell it. 5SPEAKER PHILLIPS: Virginia Phillips; 6V-i-r-g-i-n-i-a; Phillips, P-h-i-l-l-i-p-s. I work for 7 HRL Compliance Solutions Incorporated, and I'm here to 8 make a statement on their behalf. 9HRL Compliance Solutions has been providing 10 environment consultation to the oil and natural gas 11 industry since 2002. HRL Compliance has provided 12 regulatory and environmental consultation on a wide 13 variety of issues affecting day-to-day oil and gas 14 operations, from water quality to waste management to 15 air monitoring and compliance. 16As such, we have become involved with 17 preparing our clients through the proposed and subject 18 New Source Performance Standards and National Emissions 19 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations. 20 This is in addition to the newly imposed greenhouse gas 21 emissions regulations, specifically 40 CFR, Part 98, 22 Subpart W. In so doing, we have done everything in our 23means to familiarize ourselves with the EPA's electronic 24 greenhouse gas reporting tool, otherwise known as the 25 e-GGRT.

### Page 115 1 This comment is in regards to Section V.D.3. 2 of the proposed rules, Volume 76, Federal Register, 3 52738, to use the e-GGRT as a mechanism to 4 electronically report emissions such as volatile organic 5 compounds and hazardous air pollutants, per 40 CFR, 6 Part 60, Subpart OOOO. During the e-GGRT sandbox 7 trial, Subpart W was not available as a test option; 8 therefore, we were unable to adequate -- adequately 9 assess the tool's functionality and compatibility with 10 data collected from oil and gas operations. 11 Electronic reporting may offer efficient data 12 management and provide many benefits such as 13 standardized data requirements, quality assurance and 14 quality control checks in realtime for missing data, 15mathematical and methodology checks, and statistical 16 analyses. However, it is our concern that since the 17 e-GGRT was not fully functional in June of this year, 18 the month of our sandbox trial, integrating another set 19 of different pollutants will only hinder and complicate 20 a reporting process that will likely still have bugs not 21 yet discovered. 22 Per Section V.D.3, the EPA does not feel 23 requiring, quote, owners/operators to report the data 24 they already have for Subpart W in an ERT for NSPS and 25 NESHAP, end quote, in addition to the e-GGRT, would be a

### Page 116 1 significant burden on owners and/or operators. However, 2 this seems redundant and creates an unnecessary 3 opportunity for a wider error margin. If this is 4 something the EPA feels is a necessary procedure, then I 5 suggest interfacing the two ERTs, the ERT for NSPS and 6NESHAP and the e-GRRT, so information from one can be 7 easily imported into the other automatically. 8 Pertaining to Section V.D.2. of the proposed 9 rules: If the EPA proceeds with third-party 10 verification, then serious consideration should be given 11 to private organizations, such as contractors familiar 12 with oil and gas and who are already strategically 13 positioned to develop efficient methodologies, to 14 satisfy future verification requirements. 15In addition, establishing third-party 16 verification guidelines on a national level would help 17 states confirm that the proposed verifying organization 18 has the necessary organizational controls/safeguards to 19prevent conflicts of interest, and competent individuals 20 able to conduct in-depth verification of reported 21 emissions. However, in saying this, the development 22 process of a verification protocol will be extensive and 23 will likely take a lengthy amount of time. 24 It will be critical for the EPA to learn from 25 various current emissions verification protocols in

### Page 117 1 place, including their own Emission Protocol Gas 2 Verification Program established under the Clean Air 3 Markets program. To implement a cohesive, compressive, 4 and efficient third-party verification program, the 5 development process will require not only the 6 development of guidelines and monitoring of compliance 7 criteria, but also trial assessments and training. 8 As time-consumptive as the process of 9 developing a viable and effective verification protocol 10 will likely be, it will help to instill confidence in 11 credited individuals and provide a consistent form of 12 standards that will create a credible verification 13 system, thereby enhancing transparency and public 14 understanding of the industry. This, in turn, fosters 15 trust and stability in the market. 16Thank you for your time and consideration. 17 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both 18 very much. 19The next two speakers are Elizabeth Paranhos 20 and Connie May. And, Ms. Paranhos, if you would go 21 first. 22 SPEAKER PARANHOS: Thank you so much. My name 23 is Elizabeth Paranhos. I'm an attorney consultant for 24 Environmental Defense Fund, which is a nonpartisan 25 environmental organization with over 700,000 members

### Page 118 1 nationwide. EDF is dedicated to working toward 2 innovative, cost-effective solutions to environmental 3 problems, building on a foundation of sound science, 4 economics, and law. 5Thank you for the opportunity to testify 6 today. EPA's proposal rule for new national clean air 7 standards for oil and natural gas represents a critical 8 step toward protecting public health and the environment 9 from harmful airborne contaminants. 10 The standards will not only reduce air 11 pollution through highly cost-effective air pollution 12 controls, but avoid the needless waste of a valuable 13 domestic resource, by preventing leaks and venting of 14 natural gas, the development of which is expanding 15 briskly across the United States. Further, they will 16 standardize many commonsense practices and technologies 17 that are already being implemented here in Colorado and 18 Wyoming and that are being used by many natural gas 19 companies throughout the country. Strong air emissions 20 standards are vitally important to protect public health 21 and the environment. 22 Oil and gas exploration and production is 23 rapidly expanding into new locations, across diverse 24 portions of the country, due to technological 25 developments that have made expansion of previously

### Page 119 1 untapped, unconventional resources, such as shale gas, 2 feasible. The lack of adequate national-level emission 3 standards poses a serious threat to people and 4 communities across the United States, since these 5 activities emit a number of hazardous air pollutants and 6 other airborne contaminants known to negatively affect 7 human health and the environment. 8 For example, wintertime ozone levels in excess 9 of the nation's health-based standard for ozone have 10 been recorded in remote parts of Wyoming and Utah where 11 little industrial activity other than oil and gas 12 production occurs. These high exceedances in rural, 13 previously pristine parts of Wyoming and Utah are higher 14 than levels recorded in some of the most heavily 15 polluted cities in the U.S. Further, oil and gas 16 activities are the largest source of U.S. methane 17 emissions, which is a potent greenhouse gas with a 18 warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide over 19 the long term, and 72 times over the short term, 20 20 years. 21 The good news is that existing cost-effective 22 solutions are at hand. EPA's proposal builds some 23 regulations in place here in Colorado and Wyoming. 24 Further, EPA, in cooperation with oil and gas companies, 25 has identified over 100 technologies and best management

### Page 120 1 practices that reduce emissions from upstream 2 activities, a number of which form the basis for EPA's 3 proposed rules. 4 These technologies reduce gas losses, 5 resulting in greater recovery and sale of natural gas, 6 and thus increase economic gains. And the return on the 7 initial investment for many of these practices is 8 sometimes as short as a few months and almost always 9 less than two years. Smart standards would ensure that 10 our domestic resources are being used wisely. 11 EDF supports EPA's proposal and recommends 12 that it be strengthened. EPA's proposal is an important 13 first step in securing cleaner air and more efficient 14 industry practices. It goes a long way toward capturing 15 the multiple benefits achievable through the 16 implementation of readily available technologies and 17 practices. However, we believe that the standards could 18 be strengthened. We're concerned that the proposal 19 fails to reduce emissions from many existing sources. 20 As a result, these sources will continue to contribute 21 to unhealthy levels of air pollution for years to come. 22 EPA has also declined to reduce methane 23 emissions directly. While reductions in this potent 24 greenhouse gas will occur as a cobenefit of compliance 25 with many of the proposed requirements, additional

### Page 121 1 opportunities to prevent waste of natural gas, which is 2 primarily comprised of methane, exist but were not 3 included in the proposal. 4 EDF applauds EPA's efforts thus far, but calls 5 on the Agency to address these concerns, in order to 6 achieve greater health and environmental benefits and 7 reduce waste of a valuable natural resource. 8 Industry growth is consistent with stronger 9 air pollution requirements, as demonstrated by Wyoming 10 and Colorado. We already know that achieving EPA's 11 proposed standards is both possible and cost effective. 12 The national proposed standards are very similar to 13 existing state-level regulations in Colorado and 14 Wyoming, where compliance has not only been feasible, 15 but has been accompanied by healthy growth in the oil 16 and natural gas industries. 17 As explained yesterday by senior EDF economics 18 policy analyst Susanne Brooks at the Pittsburgh public 19 hearing, the industry in both Wyoming and Colorado has 20 experienced considerable growth, despite the adoption of 21 state air pollution standards -- 22 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I'm going to have 23 to ask you to conclude. 24 SPEAKER PARANHOS: Okay. -- comparable to 25 those proposed by EPA.

### Page 122 1 In conclusion, it's vitally important for EPA 2 to enhance the emission standards applicable to the 3 natural gas and crude oil sectors. These standards -- 4 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I do have to ask 5 you to stop. 6SPEAKER PARANHOS: Oh, okay. Thank you very 7 much. I appreciate it. 8 SPEAKER MAR: My name is Connie Mar, not May. 9 So C-o-n-n-i-e and M-a-r. 10 I'm a private citizen, but I also have a 11 degree in chemical engineering and petroleum refining 12 from Colorado School of Mines in Golden. I grew up in 13 North Dakota, first 30 years of my life in North Dakota, 14 before I moved to Colorado; and it took only three years 15 of living in the Denver metro area, living and working, 16before I developed asthma. So I'm acutely aware of the 17 problems with having poor air quality. I really thank 18 the EPA for pursuing regulations that will protect our 19 health and our environment. 20 The fracking emissions need to be regulated, 21 first of all, for health reasons. The toxic compounds 22 in these emissions are known carcinogens, and exposure 23 to these compounds, such as when they are burned during 24 flaring operations, requires special protective gear, 25 including breathing apparatus. You don't see that in

### Page 123 1 the oil and gas workers, and you certainly don't see us 2 wearing protective gear, breathing apparatuses, as we 3 walk around and are being exposed to these emissions. 4 Also, as has been mentioned before, the 5 fracking emissions have been identified as a fuel 6 source; a General Electric report estimates that, world7 wide, over $20 billion worth of natural gas is wasted 8 through flaring. That kind of says it all. 9Also, as with my educational background, I'm 10 acutely aware that the hydraulic fracturing processes 11 are very cost- and energy-intensive, as compared to 12 other extraction methods. But this does not include the 13 cleanup costs or the health costs to the oil and gas 14 workers or to the people, farm animals, and wildlife 15 exposed to the toxic chemicals used in fracking or the 16 subsequent emissions. 17 If all the real costs were considered and paid 18 by the oil and gas industry, they would not utilize this 19method of extraction. Without regulations, the oil and 20 gas industry will continue to pollute our air, our water 21 and our land with toxic chemicals, resulting in lethal 22 and expensive health problems for people and animals in 23 both rural and urban areas. 24 This industry has a history of contaminating 25 water and soil to the point of creating Superfund sites

### Page 124 1 that either become a burden on taxpayers or never get 2 cleaned up. Denial of the contamination is their most 3 common tactic. When we see farms close to fracking 4 sites, that have oil and gas seeping up in their barn 5 and the basement of their homes, where oil and gas in 6 the -- is in the water that their cows drink or is 7 coming out in their kitchen faucets and their shower8 heads, this cannot be denied. 9Imagine, in your home, turning on your shower 10 to take a -- to clean yourself, and having oil and gas 11 covering your body. I cannot imagine anything more 12 disgusting. 13This industry also touts the millions of jobs 14 that are created and in operation because of their 15 industry. I'm still in contact with many people in 16North Dakota, and in the Minot/Williston area, where 17 there is a boom in the oil shale extraction industry, 18 the unemployment rate is 2 percent. Yay. But this does 19 not also -- we must also consider the significant 20 increase in crime, in deterioration in the quality of 21 their life due to the influx of temporary people, who 22 are only out for a quick buck, with no integrity or 23 concern for the community. Recently a truck driver, an 24 oil/gas worker, beat up a farmer on a road, and he ended 25 up in the hospital.

### Page 125 1 So I ask, does this also reflect the attitude 2 of this industry? The long lines of heavy trucks 3 impair local traffic, including rescue workers trying 4 to respond to emergencies. And these roads are being 5 totally torn up. So when this boom busts, the local 6 residents will be left with the burden of cleaning up 7 the mess that is created by these workers and by this 8 industry. 9And I recognize that EPA's budget has been cut 10 by 18 percent, and I really appreciate your hard work in 11 protecting our health and saving our lives. We ask that 12 you address the existing 1.1 million wells in operation 13 in the United States, not just the 25,000 fracking and 14 refracking wells. 15Many people believe that regulation costs 16 jobs. But in reality, they create jobs by encouraging 17 industry to focus on higher technology and cleaner 18 processes, rather than just operating as usual. 19EPA's main focus is environmental protection 20 and protecting our individual health. Thank you. 21 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. And 22 if you would leave your statements, if you could, with 23 the court reporter. That way, we'll get the whole thing 24 in. Thank you. 25All right. Our next two speakers are Deborah

### Page 126 1 Thomas of Powder River Basin's Resource Council and 2 citizen, and John Fenton. 3And just so it's not a distraction, she needs 4 to load something up for his presentation. So I would 5 ask you to wait until she finishes doing it, so the 6 whole audience is paying attention to you. 7 SPEAKER THOMAS: Yeah, we actually have two 8 presentations, so I have one and Mr. Fenton has one. 9ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. They're 10 both on there, so we'll wait. 11 (Pause in the proceedings.) 12 (A slide display was given during the 13 following two speakers' presentations.) 14 SPEAKER THOMAS: Good morning. My name is 15 Deborah Kathlean Thomas; D-e-b-o-r-a-h, K-a-t-h-l-e-a-n, 16 T-h-o-m-a-s. I'm here representing Powder River Basin 17 Resource Council, Clark Resource Council, Pavilion Area 18 Concerned Citizens and our members, most of whom live in 19Wyoming, and many of whom are impacted by oil and gas 20 development. 21 Our members are the folks who live in the gas 22 patch, in the oil and gas patch, and oftentimes we also 23 live and work in areas where exploration, development, 24 and production is happening. 25This picture is a picture from back in Basin,

### Page 127 1 Wyoming. It's an area where a lot of the oil and gas, 2 both oil development and new gas development, is 3 centralized. And this is an incident of what we believe 4 is burning pits; however, we couldn't actually find out 5 what it was. As you can see, this was taken in 2007. 6Most of the wells in Wyoming are fracked, other than the 7 coal bed methane wells. 8 This is a picture from Clark, Wyoming, during 9 a fracking event. This is an area in the middle of a 10 subdivision where many people live. I think the picture 11 is worth a thousand words. 12 We -- we're really thanking EPA for making 13 these proposals and for continuing to support our 14 clean -- not only our clean water, but our clean air. 15These are some of the pits. We have major 16 concerns about volatile -- volatizing from the pits. As 17 well as you can see the production equipment that's on 18 site is also a major source of emissions. 19And this was a gas well blowout. You can see 20 what the DEQ estimated the emissions to be. 97 tons of 21 volatile organic compounds; 11 tons of hazardous air 22 pollutants; 2 tons of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, 23 xylene; 101 tons of methane; and 43 tons of ethane. 24 So again, and in closing, we thank you guys, 25 the EPA, very much for making these proposals. We can't

### Page 128 1 tell you how important it is that they move forward. 2 And we encourage you to do them as rapidly as possible, 3 because we're seeing a lot of sick people from 4 emissions. 5In addition, we request that the EPA review 6 and ensure that all coal bed methane wells and 7 infrastructures are covered under this rule making. 8 Contrary to what EPA indicates, many CBM wells can 9 comply with green completions and already do. And 10 although there are some green completions happening in 11 Wyoming, the areas that we've showed you today are not 12 under green completions, and so it's really important 13 that it -- that that increases across our state. 14 Moreover, we are extremely concerned about the 15 increasing and significant level of NOx and VOC 16 emissions in the Powder River Basin, as documented by 17 the Western Regional Air Partnership in the latest 18 Phase 3 inventory for oil and gas development in the 19 Basin. This latest RAP inventory actually shows that 20 venting associated with completions and recompletions is 21 responsible for 33 percent of all of the VOC emissions 22 in the region, or a third of all VOCs. 23The NOx emissions in the Powder River Basin, 24 according to this same document, are more than 21,000 25 tons a year, with compressor engines and drill rigs

### Page 129 1 comprising the biggest sources. Total VOC emissions are 2 21,567 tons a year with venting, unpermitted fugitives 3 and compressor engines compromising the biggest sources. 4 These emissions are significant, and we ask 5 that EPA address them. The RAP previously estimated 6 that total NOx emissions statewide for Wyoming were just 7 more than 28,000 tons per year. Now we see that the 8 Powder River Basin alone nearly makes up that total. We 9 ask that EPA require that CBM emissions be addressed and 10 included in this oil and gas rule making. 11 And again, thank you very much. 12 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 13Mr. Fenton, if you would state your name and 14 spell it, please. 15SPEAKER FENTON: I'll wait and let them set 16 this up first. 17 (Pause in the proceedings.) 18 SPEAKER FENTON: Thank you for allowing me to 19 speak today. My name is John Fenton; J-o-h-n, 20 F-e-n-t-o-n. I am a board member of the Powder River 21 Basin Resource Council and represent members from that 22 organization as well as the Pavilion Area Concerned 23 Citizens and Clark Resource Council. 24 We would like to tell you how much we support 25 the EPA's proposed standards, as people who live and

### Page 130 1 work in these gas fields. This is very important to us, 2 and we believe it is a very good start. 3This is during a fracking procedure in 4 Pavilion, Wyoming. This is actually our home. This 5 occurred multiple times over the period of a week. 6We're living and working directly in this, all the time, 7 so this makes a big difference, these rules, for us. 8 This also occurs in Pavilion. These are very 9 densely disbursed amongst rural agricultural land, where 10 people live and work within feet of these all the time. 11 You can also see, directly in front of the location 12 there, that there are deer in the picture. 13We also are surrounded by all the production 14 equipment, once these wells are drilled and stimulated. 15 This is a good example of one of the 250 locations in 16 the area that each have at least one, but mostly two, 17 tanks on the location, venting volatiles. 18 This gives a good overview of what the density 19 is, interspersed with the people that are exposed to 20 these emissions all the time. I also work with people 21 in Deaver, Wyoming, on the eastern side of the Bighorn 22 Basin, where emissions from H2S, SO2 volatiles are a 23 very common occurrence. 24 As you well know, in extremely wild parts of 25 Wyoming, we have ozone problems that have exceeded

### Page 131 1 national standards. We're also starting to see this in 2 Pavilion with wintertime smog, and effects from that 3 have been felt to increase rates of asthma, headaches, 4 eye problems, endocrine disruptions, with effects on how 5 the immune system works. 6So we're here to ask that these rules be 7 instated and that it's done, you know, without delay. 8 Because we live in this, and -- and this directly 9 affects not only us, but everybody around who is exposed 10 to these. This would greatly help reduce the chances of 11 cancer from toxins such as benzene. It would also be of 12 benefit to the companies who could reap higher profits 13 if these products were contained and produced, rather 14 than leaked into the atmosphere. 15So once again, in closing, we greatly support 16 these. And I believe I'm finished. Thank you very 17 much. 18 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very 19much for your presentation. 20 The next two speakers are David Ellenberger of 21 the National Wildlife Federation, and Brett Moore. 22 And I assume we'll have the pictures for the 23 record as well. 24 Okay. Mr. Ellenberger, if you would like to 25 begin by stating your name and spelling it for us,

### Page 132 1 please. 2 SPEAKER ELLENBERGER: Sure. I'm David 3 Ellenberger, E-l-l-e-n-b-e-r-g-e-r. Okay. 4 And good morning. I'm the regional -- or 5 Rocky Mountain Regional Outreach Coordinator for the 6National Wildlife Federation based in Boulder, Colorado. 7 NWF is America's largest conservation organization, 8 working with more than 4 million members, partners, and 9 supporters in communities across the country to protect/ 10 restore wildlife habitat, confront global warming, and 11 connect people with nature. 12 On behalf of the NWF members we represent 13 across our state and in the Rocky Mountain Region, we 14 applaud the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 15 proposal to establish new controls on emissions of 16 hazardous toxic air emissions from oil and gas 17 operations. This proposal represents a huge step 18 forward in the right direction and also is the first 19 time that the federal authority has been used to address 20 hydraulic fracturing gas drilling operations. 21 Addressing air emissions from fracking 22 operations is essential. Each year, the industry fracks 23more than 25,000 wells nationwide, including over 800 so 24 far this year here in Colorado. These wells threaten 25 the health of people and wildlife and annually emit

### Page 133 1 500,000 tons of smog-causing volatile organic compounds, 2 the incredibly potent greenhouse gas methane, and known 3 carcinogens like benzene into our air. 4 These emissions also contribute to a variety 5 of air pollution problems, including ground-level ozone 6 or smog; toxic air pollution; particulate pollution; 7 climate disrupting pollution; and the haze that obscures 8 scenic vistas in national parks and our wilderness 9 areas. 10 Our nation's clean air resources and the 11 safeguards that protect our skies have been under an 12 unprecedented assault as of late. Bills in Congress to 13 attack funding for enforcement, rollback protections 14 afforded by the Clean Air Act, and handicapping the 15 EPA's authority to issue new rules have been moving 16 through the legislative process pretty rapidly. 17 President Obama also recently has scuttled a new 18 science-based EPA ozone standard that is desperately 19 needed across our country. 20 But even under the insufficient ozone standard 21 promulgated by the Bush administration, many rural 22 areas, including those like Wyoming's Upper Green River 23 Basin, repeatedly fall out of compliance, under the 24 ozone standard, due to the intensive oil and gas 25 extraction activities there.

### Page 134 1 And, for example, in spite of its low population 2 densities, the Upper Green experienced ozone pollution 3 levels, in March of this year, that were actually higher 4 than levels of this pollutant that had been reported in 5 the dense urban areas of Los Angeles at any time during 6 the previous year. 7 Though many of these effects on clean air are 8 based on industry complaints that regulation would be 9 too costly and burdensome, government studies have 10 repeatedly found that benefits from protecting clean air 11 easily outweigh the costs. One such comprehensive White 12 House OMB study found that each dollar invested in clean 13 air resulted in $8 in actual benefits. 14 Already during the hearing process for these 15 rules, we're hearing that industry is asking the EPA to 16 extend the comment period and delay implementation of 17 these commonsense standards that we stand to benefit 18 from. There should be no delay. These rules have been 19 needed for quite some time. And clearly, if the 20 industry fails to responsibly rein in their air 21 pollution, there will likely be strengthened and ongoing 22 opposition to fracking and oil and gas extraction 23 activities. 24 We also believe these rules could be 25 significantly strengthened over the current proposal by

### Page 135 1 requiring this rule to target direct methane reductions 2 and controls, specifically addressing the dangerous air 3 pollutant hydrogen sulfide and ending the industry's 4 common practice of flaring, or burning off uncaptured 5 gas, as this is still a significant source of air 6pollution; requiring the best available technology in 7 all oil and gas operations; improving monitoring, 8 recordkeeping and reporting requirements; regulating all 9 significant emission sources such as frack pits. 10 By utilizing and enforcing our environmental 11 laws as well as promoting new, innovative win-win 12 regulations such as those we're addressing here today, 13 we can help clear the air of these harmful pollutants 14 and restore the health of our waters and lands. 15From the hunters, anglers, and 16 conservationists our organization proudly represents, we 17 urge the EPA to expeditiously promulgate strong air 18 protections to address the impacts on our outdoor 19 heritage and health caused by air pollution from the oil 20 and gas industry. 21 Thank you for the opportunity to comment today 22 and for EPA's ongoing work to protect our nation's clean 23 air resources and the environment. 24 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 25Mr. Moore, if you would state your full name

### Page 136 1 and spell it, please. 2 SPEAKER MOORE: Sure. My name is Brett Moore; 3 B-r-e-t-t, M-o-o-r-e. Hello, and thank you for the time 4 to address this hearing concerning the proposed 5 amendments to the air regulations in the oil -- oil and 6 gas standards. I'm here as a concerned citizen and 7 young professional from Denver, who is concerned about 8 not only our environment, but also about responsible 9 energy development. 10 The EPA has a very important job of protecting 11 our people, land, air, and water. However, particularly 12 regarding the regulation of VOC emissions, the EPA must 13 find a balance between your mission and allowing private 14 industry to obtain the resources that we all depend on 15 in our daily lives and that many Colorado citizens and 16 communities require to put food on the table every day. 17 Facts are that the state of Colorado has lost 18 189,000 jobs since 2008, which has coincided with our 19 dedication to be a leader in the new energy economy. 20 New state-level Colorado oil and gas regulations have 21 hampered the energy sector in this state for the last 22 several years. Federal subsidies for ethanol have been 23 largely rolled back as a failure. A recent notable 24 example of the abject failure, the federal moneys to 25 (inaudible), is the latest example of the failures that

### Page 137 1 occur when government gets involved in the energy 2 sector. The EPA must find a balance in these new rules 3 and incorporate reasonable economic burdens on the 4 industry. 5A couple notable examples specifically 6 regarding fracking: EPA administrator Lisa Jackson 7 recently testified that she was not aware of any proven 8 cases where the fracking process itself has affected 9 groundwater. Also from our own governor, John 10 Hickenlooper, a geologist by trade, I quote, Wells here 11 in Colorado are usually 6,000 feet deep, well below 12 domestic groundwater sources. He goes on to say, 13 Impermeable shale protects the groundwater from drilling 14 zones. 15The hope that we'll all some day be able to 16 rely on renewable energy sources, that have proven 17 wholly insufficient to provide our energy at this point, 18 leaves us to rely on gas and oil to live our daily 19 lives. And, largely, these renewable sources would not 20 exist without heavy government subsidization. So we 21 should not hamper our private businesses as they create 22 the jobs for local economies and our state as a whole. 23I hope you will consider these facts as you 24 consider the rule process. Thank you. 25ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both.

### Page 138 1 And the next two speakers are Roni Bell 2 Sylvester and Marie Sodenberg (sic). Ms. Sylvester, if 3 you could state your name and spell it for the record 4 and then begin. 5SPEAKER SYLVESTER: Sure. Thank you. I 6 appreciate that very much. My name is Roni, R-o-n-i, 7 Sylvester, S-y-l-v-e-s-t-e-r. I'm here as a volunteer 8 editor for Land And Water USA. I am not paid by anyone 9 to be here, which is probably a little unusual in 10 respect to the rest here. 11 Just this morning I received, and I will give 12 this to you, "The EPA IG Finds Serious Flaws In 13 Centerpiece of Obama Global Warming Agenda." And I 14 think this is a really critical report that everyone 15 needs to read. And as volunteer editor for Land And 16Water USA, I get reports from everyone across the United 17 States, in respect to everything that has to do with 18 domestic resource production. 19It is our position to try to stay domestic 20 resource production. We do this as a wholly volunteer 21 bunch of people. We don't receive any government 22 grants, nor do we solicit them. We don't receive any 23 funding, actually, from anyone. It's just a bunch of 24 hard work. 25Listening to some of the testimonies gives me

### Page 139 1 more questions than answers. My first question: I live 2 in Weld County, by the way, and I wonder how many Weld 3 County natives have health problems, of record, that -- 4 that have been diagnosed as directly -- directly 5 attributed to fracking. I would like to have some 6 specific statistics on that. 7 And as with the inspector general's findings, 8 I do have grave -- I share, I should say, my concerns 9 with the credibility of EPA as a whole. My -- some of 10 my concerns include EPA's failure to respect private 11 property rights. There seems to be a considerable 12 amount of blurring between intrastate and interstate and 13 our commerce clause and the federal exercising police 14 powers within a state in order to site a person on 15 so-called violations. That's a big concern of mine. 16My husband happens to ranch in Wyoming. And 17 in watching the pictures on the Powder River Basin and 18 around Pavilion, of course, brought to mind that it 19 appears that the wildlife there has not gotten the memo 20 in respect to problems with the air quality and the 21 groundwater, et cetera, because we have a fast-growing 22 population of feral horses and sage grouse and wolves 23 and -- and elk and antelope, and none of those seem to 24 be affected, whatsoever. But I could be wrong. That's 25 just a personal observation.

### Page 140 1 Some of my other concerns about that EPA as 2 a whole is that it does have a history of ignoring 3 science. I have, on the Land And Water USA website, a 4 full scientific study that was done voluntarily by 5 Dr. Willie Soon, who is an astrophysicist with the 6 Harvard-Smithsonian in Boston, and those on mercury. 7 And it's unfortunate, but there have been a number of 8 people who have claimed that the Harvard-Smithsonian has 9 engaged in a little bit of foolishness in taking money 10 or something, I don't know, in order to have Dr. Soon do 11 this report. 12 Also, I have seen the EPA actually engage in 13 what was an incredibly laughable voodoo trick. I'm just 14 a homemaker. I don't have a college education. But I 15 do study and observe things, and I saw some footage 16 where a regional director, Eric (sic) Blumenfeld, took a 17 little -- little thing of water with some supposed 18 residue from Incline -- I guess maybe street sweeping 19 from Incline, Nevada, and shook it in front of Senator 20 Feinstein, Senator Reid, Governor Sandoval and Governor 21 Brown and said that that was why they needed to have 22 another, oh, I don't know, 65 million or $400 million -- 23 you know, what's a million here and a million there? -- 24 to get Lake Tahoe to a hundred-foot clarity, without 25 taking into any accounting the unusual snowpack of Reno

### Page 141 1 and so forth and so on. 2 Also, of course, I find it absolutely 3 appalling that the EPA refuses to lift the ban on DDT 4 when it was debunked years ago. 5ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I need to ask you 6 to conclude. 7 SPEAKER SYLVESTER: That's it. 8 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. 9SPEAKER SYLVESTER: Thank you. 10 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Ms. Sodenberg. 11 SPEAKER SODERBERG: Right. Marie Soderberg. 12 It's M-a-r-i-e, S-o-d-e-r-b-e-r-g. And I'm a citizen, 13 and I'm also listening for the world. So I live in 14 Elbert County, and I've been there for 36 years. 15About maybe 20 years ago or 15 years ago, all 16 of a sudden, down at the corner of my road, I saw, like, 17 a trainload of semis, tankers. And I said, "What are 18 you guys doing down here?" Because there's not that 19many people out where I live. And they said, "Oh, we're 20 going over there to that well over there." And I said 21 to myself, Well, you're going to go over there? And 22 they were fracking a well. 23Now, they never said they were fracking the 24 well, and later on I learned -- I learned what fracking 25 was.

### Page 142 1 There's been a lot of information that has 2 been given to you all, and it's been scientific. It's 3 been scientific, and it's been from both sides. The 4 thing that really concerns me was that, years ago, I 5 went and got a grant to study the government in 6Washington, D.C., and I came back -- it was during the 7 1960s. I came back. I did not vote for the next 8 30 years. And it was because I saw how powerful 9 lobbyists and big industry were back in the 1960s. 10 This is what I ask of you. First of all, I 11 know that each one of you is committed to making a 12 difference in the world. I want you to just -- it's not 13 an issue of what is right or what is wrong. It is more 14 an issue of being courageous, to make the right 15 decision; not only for -- for what's happening in the 16 economy, not only for what's happening with energy in 17 the world, but what is happening for the world. So we 18 are looking at you, for you to be a stand for what will 19make a difference for the world. And I am here to just 20 stand for that and to listen, what's going on. 21 There are too many cancers in the world. 22 There's too many diseases in the world, that are not 23 being connected with anything or are being connected 24 with something. And it is impacting not only this 25 country, not only people that are around the wells, but

### Page 143 1 it is impacting every person in this country. So that 2 is what I really want to address, is more about you all 3 being true to what your heart says and to what you know 4 will make the difference. 5So I live out there, in the middle of nowhere. 6 I have goats, and I have horses and chickens and cats 7 and dogs. And I used to run all the time. So they put 8 a well out there. And I would go out and run to the 9 well, because I didn't have any clue about air 10 pollution, ground pollution, any of that. And I would 11 run by the wells, and my eyes would start to burn and I 12 would start to feel this something in my body. And, 13 wow, I could taste it. I could literally taste it in my 14 mouth. And then I would run back. 15And then one day I ran down the road. And it 16 wasn't even a road. It was just like a trail. I was 17 like Forest Gump, all I wanted to do is run. And I 18 would take off and run everywhere. And I came back and 19 I saw this stuff on the ground. My dogs actually went 20 and rolled on it. And it was then that I found out 21 that, wow, this is not good. And they had dumped some 22 kind of residue from the well right there. 23So I called the sheriff's department, and I 24 said, "Hey, listen, they are dumping stuff out here." 25And this is what the sheriff said to me. He said,

### Page 144 1 "Well, did you catch 'em at it?" And I said, "No. I 2 didn't see who did it." And he said, "Well, if you 3 don't catch 'em at it, then you don't have anything to 4 say about it." So I went back home and forgot about it. 5And I think that there's something that wants 6 to be said for people being able to speak up and make a 7 difference and be heard. And you guys are representing 8 us. And you're not only representing us, you're 9 representing the future. Like, what is the future for 10 generations to come, in sight of pollutions that are 11 happening not only in the air, but in the water, in the 12 food, in the ground? 13And you all know that when you come down to 14 either going one way or the other, that you have to be 15 true to yourself. And that's what I ask you to do. 16Thank you. 17 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both 18 very much. 19Our next speakers are Donna Bonetti and Anita 20 Hartmann. Ms. Bonetti, if you'll state your name and 21 spell it for the record. 22 SPEAKER BONETTI: My name is Donna Bonetti, 23 B-o-n-e-t-t-i. I'm a homemaker in Boulder. My 24 background is, I graduated from CU in 2006, and along 25 the way I studied some atmospheric science as a major.

### Page 145 1 And after graduation I worked in -- as a staff person, 2 for a couple years, in one of our national science -- 3 atmospheric science labs. 4 While I was at CU in my senior year, we had 5 one class where we did our -- kind of like a senior 6 thesis. And one of my fellow students, a guy named Joe 7 Brown, did this incredible documentary. It was about 8 fracking. And it was sort of like that movie "Gasland," 9 only he did it himself. And it was the first I'd heard 10 of what really goes on in Fracking. 11 And he went up into the Western Slope and 12 interviewed a lot of people, including Randy Udall, Mark 13 Udall's -- Senator Mark Udall's brother, and people who 14 lived up there. And what he found was that in the areas 15 where they have these wells, people were getting sick, 16 horses were getting sick, cattle were getting sick, 17 water was getting polluted. It was an incredible film, 18 and I was really impressed, and I never forgot it. 19As far as atmospheric science goes, one of the 20 things I learned is that methane, which is one of the 21 things that's being currently leaked from the fracking 22 operations, is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse 23 gas than carbon dioxide, due to its molecular structure. 24 When it comes to public health, asthma and 25 cancer are caused by some of the pollutants that are let

### Page 146 1 out by fracking and other oil and gas leakages. This 2 summer I went to Wyoming for vacation. And coming down 3 into Casper, from Casper Mountain, I noticed really a 4 lot of smog. And I also camped, for several days, in 5 the Bighorn Mountains. And when I went into the Bighorn 6 Basin, I saw like this haze all over the place. And I 7 thought, It kind of looks like a smoggy day in LA. And 8 I kind of wondered where it came from. 9After I came back, I saw an article that said 10 that some small towns in Wyoming are experiencing worse 11 pollution problems than Los Angeles because of oil and 12 gas leaks. I guess that's what I saw. 13Some more recent problems that I've heard 14 about is, a year or two ago, there was a big gas 15 explosion in San Bruno caused by pipeline leaks. And 16 that was natural gas. And it just happens to be a 17 couple miles from where my grandparents used to live and 18 where I spent the first few years of my life. And I was 19 just like, Oh, my God, this could happen anywhere. They 20 need to have really strict regulations so pipes like 21 this aren't allowed to leak. Yesterday's New York Times 22 spoke about wildfires in North Dakota that are being 23 caused by natural gas leaks. 24 The benefits to the air quality rules that 25 you're proposing would improve public safety. It would

### Page 147 1 create new jobs in retooling for compliance to this. 2 And the oil and gas companies would make more money off 3 some of this gas that's currently being wasted, because 4 they can sell it. 5These rules are prudent. They would help the 6public, the planet, and have a built-in benefit for the 7 oil and gas companies. This is a good start in 8 lessening the pollution and safety problems, and I 9 encourage you to continue to look for good solutions to 10 the problem. 11 Thank you. 12 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 13Ms. Hartmann, if you'd say your name and spell 14 it, please. 15SPEAKER HARTMANN: Anita Hartmann; A-n-i-t-a, 16 H-a-r-t-m-a-n-n. 17 I am here to share a message of possibility. 18 And I want to thank you all for having this meeting and 19 giving us the opportunity to come and speak to you and 20 express our concerns and what we're aware of. 21 I'm here as a citizen, a mother, and a 22 grandmother. And I want to acknowledge the importance 23 of having a strong and relevant EPA, and I want you to 24 know that you have my commitment to work diligently for 25 your continued existence and your support. And I want

### Page 148 1 to thank you for your commitment to us. 2 America and the world will continue to have 3 our energy requirements grow, and we as Americans are 4 and humanity are an unstoppable force of creativity. 5And it's possible for us to work together to establish 6 energy technology and policies that will meet the future 7 needs of this world. And this would look like diverse 8 technology, new technology that is clean and safe, with 9 new levels of effectiveness; and also existing 10 technology to meet the immediate needs, in responsible 11 ways, to protect people, the environment, animals, and a 12 future that our children and grandchildren will be 13 living into. 14 My personal thought is that there should be a 15 review of regulations and a strengthening of regulations 16 to create a balance of protection where needed, with 17 regulations that can also support the companies who lead 18 our country in the world in meeting our energy needs. 19Regulation should be as conservative as 20 necessary for, first, the protection of our citizens; 21 ensuring transparency into processes, policies, and 22 technology; and flexible enough to allow companies to 23 responsibly develop preferably clean and renewable, a 24 multitude of natural and renewable, resources. 25 Regulations, funding, and staffing should also be strong

### Page 149 1 enough to enforce clean, healthy, and balanced policies. 2 Additionally, regulations should include 3 enforceable accountability for cleanup of damaged and 4 polluted sites and restitution for people who have 5 incurred injury with the energy development that occurs. 6Thank you very much for being here today. 7 Thank you for the stand that the EPA is, in protecting 8 us as citizens, our environment, and for being the voice 9 of the people. 10 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both 11 very much. 12 Next speakers? 13This next speaker will be the last speaker 14 before our lunch break. It's John Gale of National 15 Wildlife Federation. 16If you could state your name and spell it for 17 the record. 18 SPEAKER GALE: Thank you. Appreciate this 19 opportunity to address the EPA today. Again, my name's 20 John Gale; J-o-h-n, G-a-l-e. 21 On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation 22 and the 20,000 members that we represent across the 23 state of Colorado, I'd like to urge the EPA to increase 24 limits on toxic air emissions and strengthen regulations 25 for the oil and gas industry.

### Page 150 1 Our mission is to inspire Americans to 2 protect wildlife for our future. Today's children are 3 the first generation ever to grow up isolated from 4 nature. Outdoor time for kids has decreased by almost 5 90 percent, while time spent inside, plugged into 6 electronic media, has stretched to more than six hours a 7 day. Our priority campaign is designed to inspire 8 families to open up the door and to get outside. 9Sadly, the oil and gas industry emits more 10 than 300 million tons of pollutants such as methane and 11 sulfur dioxide every year. That contributes to serious 12 health problems. And our state has seen more drilling 13 and development than anywhere else in the country. 14 Failure to regulate harmful air pollution threatens our 15 ability to reconnect people with the outdoors and is a 16 health risk for children and families, that none of us 17 can afford to witness. 18 In light of these serious problems, I'd like 19 to ask the following be addressed specifically: 20 As the oil and gas industry is one of the 21 largest sources of methane pollution, this rule must 22 require direct methane regulations and controls. 23Hydrogen sulfide is a dangerous air pollutant, 24 with significant health effects for all who are in 25 contact with it. This dangerous gas is currently

### Page 151 1 ignored and must be addressed immediately. 2 The oil and gas industry must not be allowed 3 to flare, or burn off, uncaptured gas, as this is still 4 a significant source of air pollution. 5Although the oil and gas industry claims that 6more stringent regulations would be extremely costly, 7 the proposed rule would actually help the industry 8 capture fugitive gas emissions, generating an estimated 9 $30 million annually. Encouraging more industry 10 practices just makes good economic sense. By working 11 with companies to achieve greater certainty in business, 12 we also provide clean air and a safe place outdoors for 13 our families and children to recreate in. 14 We recently celebrated National Hunting and 15 Fishing Day as a way to acknowledge the contributions 16 that sportsmen, above all others, make to wildlife 17 habitat and conservation. Ted Nugent actually 18 highlighted the day by publishing an article in the 19Washington Times, celebrating these accomplishments, and 20 acknowledged clean air as a fundamental component of 21 what makes the outdoors a healthy and safe part of our 22 heritage as hunters and anglers. 23As a father and a sportsman raising a family 24 here in Colorado, I'm motivated to do everything I can 25 to ensure that my daughter and future generations are

### Page 152 1 safe and healthy as we spend time together outdoors. 2 Some of the wild places we like to hunt, fish, hike, and 3 camp as a family are also places where energy 4 development is growing. Like hunting and fishing, my 5 family understands that energy development is an 6 important part of the life and our economy here in 7 Colorado. All we ask is that we develop our resources 8 responsibly and consider public health and clean air as 9 a priority instead of an afterthought. 10 By utilizing our environmental laws, we can 11 help rid the air of harmful pollutants and ensure the 12 outdoors remain a healthy place for American families to 13 recreate. 14 From the hunters, anglers, and 15 conservationists our organization represents, myself and 16 the National Wildlife Federation encourage the EPA to 17 put forth strong air protections to address the impacts 18 on our outdoor heritage and needless threats to 19Americans' health. 20 Thank you for your time today. 21 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. And 22 if you could leave your -- a copy of your statement, if 23 you wouldn't mind, with our court reporter, that would 24 be helpful. 25We will now be taking a break until 2 o'clock,

### Page 153 1 and then we'll restart the hearing. 2 (Recess taken from 12:30 p.m. to 2:04 p.m.) 3ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I'd like to 4 welcome you to the afternoon session of our public 5 hearing on the EPA's rules related to oil and gas. I 6 want to give you a little background before we get 7 started. 8 My name is Bill Harnett. I'm the Associate 9 Director for the Office of Air Quality Planning and 10 Standards, in OAQPS. On our panel today we have Kate 11 Fay, who is the Senior Adviser on Energy and Climate 12 with Region 8; and Greg Nizich, who is our technical 13 expert on these rules that we have proposed. 14 We're here today to get your comments. The 15 comment period will be open until October 29th, 2011, so 16 that if you want to submit additional comments in 17 writing, you can do so. 18 We proposed these rules back on July 28th of 19 this year. It's a suite of rules that deal with New 20 Source Performance Standards under the Clean Air Act and 21 Air Toxics Standards under the Clean Air Act. So one is 22 dealing with pollution that's more looked at as 23 ubiquitous around the country, and the other is about 24 specific hazardous compounds and writing requirements 25 for them.

### Page 154 1 They -- we are writing standards that'll be 2 under the New Source Performance Standard program, which 3 will address volatile organic compounds and SO2, or 4 sulfur dioxide. We are revising one standard, and we're 5 proposing to include some additional sources under that. 6In addition, some of those volatile organic 7 compounds are also hazardous air pollutants, so the MACT 8 standards will address or the Air Toxics Standards will 9 address existing and new sources of those compounds as 10 well; and again, from oil and gas, parts of the oil and 11 gas production line, as it were, from wells at least 12 through processing and into the pipeline. 13Today everything we -- everything we get will 14 be -- we will have a written transcript. We have a 15 court reporter taking down everything today. So this 16 will be all put into our public record for the rule 17 making. 18 As a result, when I -- if you are one of the 19people that are coming up to speak, we ask you to start 20 by introducing yourself and spelling out your name so 21 that she can get the right spelling into the -- the 22 record. And then we'll begin the clock. 23For speakers, we will -- you're given five 24 minutes. And because we have -- we want to accommodate 25 everybody we can, we would like you to stick to those

### Page 155 1 times. We have a set of lights up there, that you'll 2 see when you're sitting there. At the four-minute mark 3 it'll go -- it'll start at green once I've turned the 4 clock on. It will go to yellow at four minutes, so 5 you'll have a minute left at that point. And then at 6 five, I will enforce the closure of the comments on you. 7 You can submit additional comments either in 8 writing or, if you have a statement where you've typed 9 something out, it's helpful if you could leave that with 10 the court reporter after you give your presentation, so 11 that she can have that to make sure she's got an 12 accurate summary of what you've said. 13We are taking everybody up in pairs. It works 14 fairly efficiently. We would ask you, even if you're 15 the first one of the two to talk, that you wait till 16both of you are done. And also when you finish yours, 17 we may have a question or two for you as well, so . . . 18 But once both of you are done, then we'll call 19 up a next pair of speakers. 20 So that said, we're ready to begin the 21 session. I have two people to call up, who have signed 22 up for comments. One is Shakti, and the other is Gupa 23 Ross -- Gopa Ross. 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think Gopa will be 25 coming later.

### Page 156 1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. Well, 2 we'll let you go head. So if you want to go ahead and 3 do your -- introduce yourself and spell out your name 4 for the court reporter. 5SPEAKER SHAKTI: My name is Shakti, and I'm 6 unaffiliated. And my name is spelled S-h-a-k-t-i. 7 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. You can go 8 ahead and begin. 9SPEAKER SHAKTI: I came here today to comment 10 because, as a resident of Colorado, air quality is 11 particularly important to me. My husband and I returned 12 to Colorado, after living in Boston for ten years, 13 because we missed the natural beauty. Now that we've 14 returned, I can say, the natural beauty is more stunning 15 on some days than on others, depending on the level of 16 smog and haze. 17 In light of world events in the last ten 18 years, I understand the push for more domestic sources 19 of energy. However, increased drilling must be done 20 responsibly. By that, I mean, EPA should set limits for 21 all toxic emissions from individual sites and should 22 also consider the cumulative impact of all oil and gas 23 drilling. What matters to me is if I can see the 24 vistas, if my children will grow up healthy, and if we 25 are generally being responsible as a society. Achieving

### Page 157 1 those goals requires regulation of the cumulative 2 impacts from oil and gas drilling. 3The current proposed rule moves in the right 4 direction by reducing the allowable emissions, thereby 5 reducing both the smog and the number of cancer-causing 6 agents in our environment. 7 I am also impressed that the regulation 8 indirectly regulates methane. It does not make sense to 9 continue using outdated techniques that emit large 10 quantities of methane, when methane is such a potent 11 greenhouse gas, 20 times more potent than carbon 12 dioxide. Instead, that methane can and should be 13 captured and used productively as natural gas. Given 14 the amount of energy that the government and individuals 15 are putting into reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 16 vehicles and industry, it does not make sense to be lax 17 in the regulation of methane, which has a larger 18 detrimental effect. 19This regulation could be better. Ideally it 20 would reduce air emissions more by requiring the use of 21 up-to-date, currently available technologies; it would 22 regulate all toxic emissions, including hydrogen 23 sulfide; it would directly regulate methane, thereby 24 creating much greater reductions in methane pollution 25 and increasing the amount of natural gas produced. And

### Page 158 1 it would not include the malfunction defense, which 2 allows companies to emit higher levels of pollution. 3 However, as written, the regulations are a step in the 4 right direction. 5I, like many people, choose to live in 6 Colorado because it is beautiful and pristine. I 7 breathe the air while hiking up mountains and admiring 8 the views. To the extent that we allow the degradation 9 of Colorado's air, we threaten the whole economy of this 10 state. That is why I support the facilitation of a 11 modern oil and gas industry that uses up-to-date 12 technology in order to produce domestic energy while 13 protecting Colorado's land and air. 14 Thank you. 15ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. Has 16 Gopa shown up? Okay. 17 You can go ahead and sit down, and I'll call 18 up the next two speakers. Brooke Tvermoes of Chemical 19 Risk -- or ChemRisk, and Rick Blotter, if you'd come up. 20 SPEAKER TVERMOES: I have a slide 21 presentation. 22 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Yeah, I was going 23 to say, I think you need Amy for that. 24 (Pause in the proceedings.) 25(A slide display was given during the

### Page 159 1 following speaker's presentation.) 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Just say your 3 name and spell it for the court reporter, and then you 4 can begin. 5SPEAKER TVERMOES: Sure. So my name is Brooke 6 Tvermoes, and I'm with ChemRisk. And I spell my name 7 B-r-o-o-k-e, and then T-v-e-r-m-o-e-s. 8 So my name is Brooke Tvermoes, and I'm with 9 ChemRisk. And recently we've become particularly 10 interested in trying to understand the actual risk that 11 may be associated with hydraulic fracturing. 12 So just briefly, ChemRisk is a scientific 13 consulting firm that specializes in -- oops -- that 14 specializes in using risk assessment methods to 15 characterize and understand complex exposures. So we 16 specialize in dose reconstruction, exposure assessment, 17 hazard identification, human health and environmental 18 risk assessment, as well as historic state of the 19 knowledge regarding workplace safety and health. 20 And after thoroughly reviewing the new 21 proposed ruling, we have three main concerns, one being 22 the VOC emissions from storage vessels that are not 23 defined as major sources of emission. The second is the 24 potential VOC emissions from the holding ponds or pits. 25And then the third, and what we feel is the most

### Page 160 1 important, is a true understanding of the toxicological 2 impacts that may be associated with hydraulic 3 fracturing. These are the -- sorry, the three main 4 areas of practice for ChemRisk. 5So there's been a lot in the news recently 6 about the potential risk that may be associated with 7 hydraulic fracturing. And we applaud EPA's use of risk 8 assessment in reevaluating the existing New Source 9 Performance Standards and National Emissions Standards 10 for Hazardous Air Pollutants that are applicable to the 11 oil and natural gas industries. And we agree with the 12 more stringent provisions that have been set forth to 13 govern VOC emissions, especially those that pertain to 14 storage vessels. 15But one of our concerns with the new ruling is 16 that the new guidelines are applicable to only things 17 that are classified as major sources of emissions, and 18 your definition -- or the EPA's definition of a storage 19 vessel is defined as a single stationary vessel or 20 multiple stationary vessels that are manifolded together 21 or located in a single well site and have the potential 22 for VOC emissions of 10 times per year or more. 23But we can easily imagine a scenario where 24 you're going to have multiple wellheads -- or multiple 25 well pads and multiple wellheads and multiple storage

### Page 161 1 vessels that are going to be in a close vicinity to each 2 other, but no one single storage vessel is going to 3 produce more than 10 tons per year of VOC emissions, and 4 thus may not be regulated. But if you were to look at 5 the VOC emissions from that -- like that area as a 6 whole, it might be quite high. And we think that EPA 7 should consider that in their proposed guidelines. 8 We agree with EPA in that holding ponds may be 9 a major source of VOC emissions, and we understand that 10 more testing needs to be done or further studies need to 11 be done to understand the potentials of VOC content of 12 the produced water and how that content may change over 13 time or how VOC emissions may fluctuate as the climate 14 changes. But we do feel that they should be regulated 15 under the new guidelines, and we would support further 16 studies to understand potential VOC emissions from 17 holding ponds. 18 But to us the big question that still remains 19 to be answered is, What is the true toxicological impact 20 that is associated with hydraulic fracturing? And 21 there's a lot of sporadic and inconsistent reports of 22 methane and other chemicals in the air and groundwater, 23 and the potential for impact differs depending on a 24 number of different factors. But the uncertainly exists 25 because, to date, no company, organization, or

### Page 162 1 government agency has performed a comprehensive risk 2 assessment. 3And we think that a qualitative risk 4 assessment would allow companies and government agencies 5 to properly attribute the potential risk to the right 6 chemicals and the right pathways and focus the risk 7 management options to minimize risk. 8 And I'll just do this quickly. We are not 9proposing that the risk assessment needs to be complex. 10 It just needs to be thorough. So, you know, we've 11 identified constituents and -- or sources that may lead 12 to the release of constituents of concern, and then how 13 these constituents may be transported through the 14 environment, and then in turn where they're going to end 15 up and then how these interact with each other. 16And so we just -- one last sentence. We feel 17 that a qualitative risk assessment would help to 18 separate the potential risk and perceived risk from 19 actual risk, and then help prioritize activities to 20 mitigate actual risk. 21 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: One question. 22 SPEAKER SHAKTI: Yes? 23MR. NIZICH: I just want to make one 24 clarification on the mention of major sources when 25 you're talking storage vessels. Is that in correlation

### Page 163 1 to the 10-ton-per-year VOC threshold? 2 SPEAKER SHAKTI: Yeah. 3MR. NIZICH: Okay. All right. I just wanted 4 to make that clear. Thanks. 5SPEAKER SHAKTI: Uh-uh. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Blotter, if 7 you would state your name and spell it for the court 8 reporter, I'd appreciate it. 9SPEAKER BLOTTER: Okay. Good afternoon. My 10 name is Rick Blotter; R-i-c-k, B-l-o-t-t-e-r. 11 Nine months ago my wife and I received a 12 letter from a landman asking us to lease our mineral 13 rights, if we owned them, to Conoco-Phillips. Since 14 then I've tried to learn as much as I can about 15 hydraulic fracturing. I'm not a petroleum engineer or a 16 geologist or even an attorney. I'm a retired public 17 school teacher who can't afford an attorney. 18 I've gone to many Colorado Oil and Gas 19 Conservation Committee meetings. It's the regulatory 20 agency here in Colorado. I've watched numerous online 21 videos, have read as much as I can. I've watched 22 documentaries, "Gasland," "Split Estate." I've read 23 "Collateral Damage," by Tara Meixsell. I've talked to 24 geologists who work for Encana, Chesapeake, and Andarko. 25 I've driven through Garfield and Weld counties to try to

### Page 164 1 understand what fracking is. One doesn't have to look 2 far to find numerous incidences of the consequences of 3 living in an industrial site. 4 My wife and I have worked and lived in Elbert 5 County in eastern Colorado for 30 years. We've looked 6 forward to retiring on a ranch where we grow organic 7 vegetables, raise dairy goats, chickens, and a few 8 steers. We -- we consider ourselves lucky to watch the 9 constellations move through the night sky, hear the 10 coyotes call, songbirds sing, and the wind blow through 11 our ponderosa pines. Our well water is ample and good. 12 But we know that when a ten-story, 150-foot 13 oil rig move in -- with generators running 24/7; lights 14 lighting up the sky at night; nonstop truck traffic; the 15 smell of spent diesel fuel and open hydraulic fracking 16pits -- that'll all change. 17 With the mortgage debacle, our property is now 18 worth less than what we owe on it. To make matters even 19more dismal, property values around oil fields typically 20 depreciate 25 to 75 percent. And because of President 21 Lincoln's 1862 grant of mineral rights to the railroad 22 and subsequent purchase by them, by Andarko, we'll get 23 nothing in royalties. 24 I will not accept ground-level ozone 25 pollution; dust from more than 4,000 truck trips per

### Page 165 1 frack, on dirt roads; volatile organic compounds from 2 condensate tanks, as Dr. Theo Colborn has validated at 3 the Endocrine Disruption Exchange in Paonia, Colorado; 4 and, as the "Colorado Congress Clarion" in Grand 5 Junction has recently published, toxic carcinogenic 6 chemicals in our air. 7 We citizens cannot rely on corporations to 8 regulate themselves. The recent banking industry 9 debacle, the mortgage industry collapse, the New Horizon 10 BP spill in the Gulf have confirmed that Big Industry 11 is in it for the money. If they don't make money, they 12 don't survive, regardless of the consequences to the 13 people. It's not unreasonable to ask companies that 14 make billions of dollars each quarter, to initiate 15 changes in their business that would protect people that 16 they impact. 17 It's obvious that the Colorado Oil and Gas 18 Conservation Committee -- Commission doesn't care about 19 the results of hydraulic fracturing on the public. It's 20 fruitless to talk to them. We have petitioned our 21 county commissioners to install regulations to protect 22 the county, but apparently the state regulations preempt 23 the county's. The Colorado Supreme Court has given the 24 oil companies the right to drill on anyone's land, to 25 get their minerals. Surface owners have no rights. And

### Page 166 1 the oil and gas industry uses eminent domain for their 2 private gain. 3The Federal Government -- I'm asking you, EPA, 4 please, help us -- needs to help protect landowners. 5 The Federal Government needs to protect the planet from 6being raped. I don't think anyone is asking the oil 7 companies don't drill. People are asking that the 8 drilling be done safely and that, if a person's property 9 is violated, compensation is quickly provided. Use 10 closed loop systems, afterburners on wells; mitigate 11 dust on dirt roads; use mufflers and cleaners on 12 mufflers; and keep wells a reasonable distance from 13 residents. 14 The EPA's proposed rules take a big step 15 forward in addressing the cumulative impacts of 16 hydraulic fracturing. 17 Thank you. 18 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. Thank 19 you both. And did you leave us a copy of it? 20 SPEAKER BLOTTER: Yeah, I'm going to make a 21 PDF. 22 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. That's 23 fine. 24 The next two speakers I have are Joe -- George 25 Saum and Sue Gruenier.

### Page 167 1 SPEAKER GRUENLER: Gruenler. 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Gruenler, sorry. 3Mr. Saum, if you would like to go first, 4 you -- please state your name and spell it for the court 5 reporter. 6SPEAKER SAUM: Okay. Thank you. 7 Good afternoon. My name is George Saum; 8 G-e-o-r-g-e; last name Saum, S-a-u-m. I live in Elbert 9 County, southwest of Denver. My thanks to the 10 Environmental Protection Agency for having one of these 11 three -- one of the three hearings on this important 12 topic here in Denver and allowing me to present my 13 opinions and comments on the proposed regulations. 14 Let me begin by saying that I'm not a 15 petroleum geologist, nor an atmospheric chemist, by 16profession, and therefore I'm not able to assess the 17 details of the proposed regulations. I come before you, 18 however, to plead the case that air quality regulation 19 of oil and gas exploration, drilling, and production in 20 the U.S. is desperately needed. 21 Just read the book "Collateral Damage," see 22 the video "Split Estate" or "Gasland," and read the 23 reports written by researchers like Dr. Theo Colborn of 24 the Endocrinology Disruption Exchange, and you will 25 understand that people get sick and some die after they

### Page 168 1 have been exposed for weeks to the atmospheric -- 2 atmosphere surrounding some oil and gas drilling and 3 production platforms. The casualties may be few in 4 numbers, but the numbers can be reduced to near zero if 5 regulations limiting the exposure of residents to these 6platforms are enacted and strictly enforced. 7 Now, oil and gas operations have not begun 8 where I live in most -- but most of Elbert County is 9 reported to overlay the Niobrara Formation. And if 10 exploration data recently obtained in southern Arapahoe 11 County is at all promising, my situation might change 12 quite rapidly. 13My property is among the hundreds in Elbert 14 County where the mineral rights were severed from the 15 surface rights by President Abraham Lincoln in his 16 vision to build a transcontinental railroad. The 17 severed mineral rights have subsequently fallen into the 18 hands of petroleum companies, who may drill even if 19 exploration results are below average. 20 Without mineral rights ownership, I will gain 21 absolutely no benefit from oil and gas operations, and 22 indeed I may lose my good health and my property values 23 if the operations are allowed to continue in this 24 largely unregulated environment that exists today. If 25 you think -- you or anyone else thinks the Colorado Oil

### Page 169 1 and Gas Conservation Commission will protect my rights 2 and health, then you are very, very naive. 3I wish to draw the EPA's attention to one 4 other aspect of oil and gas operations relative to air 5 quality that might not be covered in the subject 6 regulations. In Elbert County most of the roads are not 7 paved; moreover, the county is not part of an existing 8 air quality district, like other Front Range Colorado 9 counties are. Hydraulic fracturing, common in 10 contemporary oil and gas operations, requires a large 11 volume of water. Elbert County has no lakes, streams or 12 water reservoirs that can support hydraulic fracturing, 13 so water must be trucked in from outside sources, over 14 these unpaved roads. Large trucks create large 15 quantities of fugitive dust. I am aware of several 16 incidences where distant views of dust clouds were -- 17 caused by large trucks, were reported as suspected grass 18 fires. 19Therefore, the regulation of fugitive dust 20 levels in Elbert County must take place; if not in this 21 regulation, than in others that may already be in place. 22 Likewise, the regulation of emissions from stationary 23 internal combustion engines must also take place. The 24 EPA must insist that all such engines burn high-quality, 25 low-sulfur fuel and be regularly maintained.

### Page 170 1 We in Elbert County have the right to breathe 2 air that is not poorer than that found in downtown 3 Denver. But I also might add that I don't wish our air 4 quality degraded to that in downtown Denver, either. I 5 and my family are depending upon the EPA to use all of 6 its persuasive powers to convince the Congress, the 7 President, and the oil and gas companies that the public 8 health and well-being is more important than corporate 9profits or speed in getting their products to market. 10 Thank you. 11 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Ms. Gruenler, if 12 you could spell your name and then -- state it and spell 13 it for the court reporter. 14 SPEAKER GRUENLER: Okay. My name is Sue 15 Gruenler, G-r-u-e-n-l-e-r. I'm from Aurora, Colorado. 16 One of my degrees is in horticulture. Naturally, I love 17 the state of Colorado, with its astounding beauty. 18 Lately we have read and heard of how fracking is 19 ravaging this beautiful state. 20 One word that I have come to loathe is the 21 word "exempt." The oil and gas industry is partially 22 exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air 23Act, CERCLA, and other federal regulations. One of 24 these exceptions that troubles me is the one that says 25 Oil & Gas do not have to disclose the toxic chemicals

### Page 171 1 used during fracking. 2 I would like to see some intelligent and 3 adequate regulations for the fracking process, such as 4 closing the open pits so that the toxic chemicals do 5 not evaporate into the air. Duke University has 6 recommended that we test the water and air before, 7 during, and after fracking. 8 Why would I like to see some regulations? I 9 will give you an example. There are hundreds, but I 10 will give you one. In Colorado one unfortunate family 11 had to move because they could no longer live on their 12 farm, the water contamination and air pollution were so 13 bad. One spring the goats were inhaling the fumes from 14 the nearby gas wells. Later that year, one particular 15mamma goat gave birth to a head. That's right, a head 16 without a body. 17 Ladies and gentlemen, the circle of truth is 18 closing in. 19One professor from Cornell University found 20 alarming problems with air pollution in Texas and 21 Pennsylvania. He has been reviled and criticized for 22 his studies. He was so alarmed, he recommends a 23 national moratorium on fracking. Why? So there can be 24 enough time to study to see what regulations are 25 sufficient.

### Page 172 1 Deepak Chopra, a famous medical doctor, is 2 very concerned about fracking. He said it so well: It 3 interferes with the very web of life. 4 Now, we all know that the Mayans and 5 Nostradamus could peer into the future. Native 6Americans also possessed this gift. I would like to 7 relay a Mohawk prophesy that was made many, many years 8 ago. It should be self-evident, it is not meant to 9 replace an objective scientific study. But to me, it is 10 a metaphor, haunting and eerie: 11 The Mohawk saw, in his vision, strange animals 12 being born deformed, huge stone monsters tearing open 13 the face of the earth. The rivers were aflame. The air 14 would burn the eyes of man. Then birds would fall from 15 the sky and fish would die in the water. Finally, man 16 would go -- would grow ashamed of the way he had treated 17 his Mother, the Earth. 18 Fracking is like a rocket ship out of control. 19As I said, we need intelligent regulations. We also 20 need enough funding, enough money, to study this 21 problem. And I have one question. If we can't breathe 22 the air, what can we breathe? 23Thank you. 24 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both. 25Our next two speakers are Sonia Skakich-Scrima

### Page 173 1 and Randee Webb. And I hope I was somewhat close. 2 Pronunciation is not my forte. 3SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: It's a difficult 4 name. 5ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: That's okay. Is 6 Randee Webb present? Okay. Okay, she's on her way up, 7 so we'll just give her a second to get up there. 8 (Pause in the proceedings.) 9SPEAKER WEBB: Sorry, I'm running quickly. 10 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: That's all right. 11 So, Sonia, if you would say your name and then 12 spell it for the court reporter. 13SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: Yes. My name is 14 Sonia Skakich-Scrima, a mouthful. You want the spelling 15 of my last name or both? 16ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Both would be 17 good. 18 SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: Sonia with an "i." 19And Skakich-Scrima, S-k-a-k-i-c-h, dash, S-c-r-i-m-a. 20 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. Go 21 right ahead now. 22 SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: Thank you. I'm from 23Aurora, Colorado. We were surprised to learn recently 24 that we're one of the epicenters of the oil industry, 25 which was a great surprise to us, in that there's oil in

### Page 174 1 the Niobrara shale underneath some of our aquifers and 2 so on. 3I'm here today out of concern for -- for the 4 air quality, water security, and so on, regarding 5 horizontal hydraulic fracking, which is the most common 6 technique used for extracting oil from the shale and 7 also from extracting the gases. 8 In 1925 one of the Geneva Convention 9 conventions, which was the consensus of the Western 10 World, was against the release of asphyxiating gases. 11 And that was in the context of warfare, releasing 12 asphyxiating gases to a civilian population. We're now 13 in a situation in the United States where oil and gas 14 companies do so from every phase of the life-span 15 process of drilling and extracting oil and gas, without 16 independent measurement of all the known types of toxic 17 emissions, and with impunity, at will, and for profit. 18 The fundamental mandate of the EPA is to 19 ensure protection of our health and environment. This 20 mandate cannot even begin to be fulfilled if a large 21 polluting industry such as oil and gas has a categorical 22 exclusion from public health and safety regulations such 23 as Safe Water Drinking Act, Clean Air Act, CERCLA, 24 et cetera. 25The so-called Halliburton loophole of 2005,

### Page 175 1 the exemption from eight key federal regulations that 2 normally would protect our health and safety, has had an 3 extraordinary impact, on the order of a black hole, on 4 our environment, our health, and our civil society, in 5 that it precludes the necessary centralized data 6 collection that would allow us to measure, allow the EPA 7 to measure for us, all toxics emitted at every phase of 8 the life-span process of drilling and extracting for oil 9 and gas; would allow for collection of centralized 10 national data on the epidemiological information 11 regarding health impacts, environmental study on flora 12 and fauna; and would allow a database that would point 13 to technologies that might need to be put in place in 14 order to mitigate some of the harm that's noted. 15Without such a centralized database, there is 16 no university or private group that can afford to do so. 17 Private individuals are being asked to do measurements 18 of their water and their air before and after because 19 other entities, the State and the Federal Government, 20 none of them are performing that service for them in 21 protection of public health and air that's common to all 22 of us. 23So without such a centralized data collection, 24 we're not even clear on the scope of the harm from toxic 25 emissions to our air and our water and our health. But

### Page 176 1 it is clear that the seven- to ten-year-old practice of 2 horizontal hydraulic fracturing has indeed had 3 significant impact on public health in the areas where 4 it's practiced, in terms of serious neurological, 5 respiratory, endocrinological, reproductive impacts. 6These are, in many cases, permanent lifelong 7 conditions; serious water contamination and air quality 8 issues that disrupt all fundamental rights of residents 9 in areas where this is taking place. Many residents 10 lose their capacity for livelihood, in terms of their 11 farming, organic farming, or ranching, et cetera. They 12 certainly lose their peace, peaceful quality of life. 13And they have no say in this because they don't own 14 mineral rights. 15So it is so important that we are able to 16 regain the -- the ability for the EPA to fully fulfill 17 its mandates. And while the mood in Washington appears 18 to be very antiregulatory, and in part largely financed 19by large corporate interests that like that approach, we 20 would like you to know that there are many grassroots 21 groups in Colorado that will be working very hard in the 22 next months to try and kind of take back the language 23 and get down to commonsense principles of, you know, a 24 common sustainable future. 25ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I have to ask you

### Page 177 1 to bring it to a close. 2 SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: Okay. One more 3 sentence? 4 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. One more 5 sentence. 6SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: Okay. So we 7 appreciate your being here and look forward to the 8 closing of the Halliburton loophole. Thank you. 9ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: And you can file 10 fuller comments, if you want. And you can also, if you 11 have a written statement there, you can provide it to 12 our court reporter to get it all reflected in. Thank 13 you. 14 Ms. Webb, if you'd identify yourself and spell 15 out your name for our court reporter. 16SPEAKER WEBB: Sure. I'm Randee Webb; 17 R-a-n-d-e-e, W-e-b-b. And I'm from Aurora as well, a 18 long residential suburb of 325,000 people between Denver 19 and the prairie. 20 Welcome to Colorful Colorado, or as we now 21 call it, Fraca-rado. Today it's your job to hear from 22 the people. And by now it's probably just repetitious, 23 but it's my duty to stand up and be counted and to 24 apprize you of some of my thoughts. 25The EPA exists because we, the people, have a

### Page 178 1 right to life. And in order to live, we need to breathe 2 clean air in this 11th windiest state, necessitating 3monitoring air pollution. We need to be exposed to the 4 right amount and type of sunshine, in the second 5 sunniest state, necessitating monitoring of ozone. And 6 we need to drink plenty of clean water, and other things 7 we usually take for granted. So to sustain ourselves, 8 we must sustain our miraculous planet and its 9 environment, which generally comes down to having rules. 10 And as I understand it, the EPA is in Denver 11 today to get feedback about the rules, particularly 12 relating to the gas and oil industry's continual and 13 heinous polluting of the air and destruction of the 14 ozone in order to accomplish extraction of those 15 resources from our earth. 16We all know we can't breathe natural gas and 17 we can't drink oil and we'll burn up without a certain 18 amount of protection from the sun. So rules must apply 19 to everyone, including the oil and gas industry. 20 Obviously, the Halliburton loophole must be closed. You 21 individually, the EPA, our elected officials, all of us 22 must turn a deaf ear to the whining of an underregulated 23 industry. Oil and gas industry, including the newest 24 process of horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, 25must once again be accountable to the Clean Air Act and

### Page 179 1 all the environmental protection acts. 2 As the richest industry in the world, it 3 should actually be easy to hold them accountable 4 retroactively and to require Oil & Gas to foot the bill 5 for all cleanup, like every other industry or company, 6 and without subsidies. It's the kind of thing that I 7 wouldn't hire a company, a repairman, to come back into 8 my house if he's broken something as he works, and does 9 it again, doesn't fix it. So I don't understand why 10 we're hiring fracking companies and operators who spill 11 every day in Colorado. 12 Back in 1987 an EPA report, which finally 13 showed up, shows fracking as a hazard to humans. It's 14 just logical and sensible that fracking is responsible 15 for its neighbors and their neurological illnesses, 16 cancer and more. Proof is all over the Internet. The 17 many, many hazards of fracking, with factual proof, can 18 be found on Facebook, for example; at FrackingColorado, 19 which I coadminister. You must be aware of the many 20 public petitions about fracking; and I'm submitting, 21 herewith, one initiated in Arapahoe County, Colorado, 22 that includes some specific regulations necessary for 23 fracking. 24 Minimally, to protect public health and public 25 environmental rights, the EPA must require use of

### Page 180 1 currently available technologies to reduce toxic 2 emissions related to the oil and gas extraction process. 3 The EPA's proposed regulations regarding air pollution 4 are better than what we had. But we must have much 5 greater reductions in methane emissions, smog-forming 6 compounds, VOCs, hydrogen sulfide. We need clean air in 7 order to breathe, not just cleaner than polluted. 8 Even as Gas & Oil is frenzied in its obtaining 9 about 30,000 new drilling permits each year in the 10 United States, we, the people -- and only with the help 11 of the EPA, including your attention today -- must 12 urgently put life itself before the lifestyle of the 13 industrial age. 14 You yourselves -- that is, the EPA -- have 15 researched and stated that following better 16 environmental rules will actually create jobs. We have 17 only crawled toward a Renewable Energy Age, but it is 18 time that we must run forward, before the time runs out 19 on our health and our lives. While change is difficult, 20 this is already the 21st century. 21 Thank you. 22 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both 23 very much. 24 The next two speakers are Roger Singer of 25 Sierra Club and Jeremy Nichols of Wild Earth Guardians.

### Page 181 1 Is Roger Singer in the room? Okay. 2 Mr. Nichols, you can go ahead. If you would 3 just say your name and spell it for the court reporter. 4 SPEAKER NICHOLS: Sure. My name is Jeremy 5 Nichols; J-e-r-e-m-y, N-i-c-h-o-l-s. And I'm the 6 climate and energy program director for Wild Earth 7 Guardians. 8 First off, I just want to thank you for coming 9 out today and for hearing everybody's concerns about the 10 air quality impacts of oil and gas drilling and our 11 thoughts on -- on your proposed rule. 12 To sum it up, you know, we are heartily in 13 support of what the EPA has proposed. It's a great -- 14 well, I won't beat around the bush. It's a huge step 15 forward, and we really appreciate all the hard work that 16 went into that and appreciate the EPA's efforts to 17 ensure that the industry is held to a reasonable 18 standard of emission controls and public health and 19 environmental safety. 20 We have a few concerns. And we'll, of course, 21 be following up with more detailed comments in writing. 22 But just to kind of sum up some of the gaps that we see 23 in this, and perhaps opportunities for next steps 24 forward. On the New Source Performance Standards, we're 25 concerned that the modification, definition of

### Page 182 1 "modification" in relation to fracking and refracking, 2 is only limited to, it appears, activities at the 3 borehole, completion activities, and doesn't extend to 4 other equipment on site. 5Now, I know that the draft rule specifically 6mentions other equipment, like storage vessels, are not 7 considered an affected facility when it comes to the 8 "fracking" or "refracking modifications" definition. 9We'd strongly urge EPA to consider taking a more 10 expansive view. 11 Fracking and refracking does affect the 12 operation of storage vessels and other equipment on 13 site. Sometimes production increases lead to greater 14 emissions from those pieces of equipment. It seems to 15make sense to take a more expansive view about that 16modification and the emission increases associated with 17 it, for purposes of determining NSPS applicability. 18 Additional pollutants, we are a little 19 discouraged that EPA did not directly address methane 20 emissions. We have a finding from the EPA administrator 21 that methane along with other greenhouse gases do pose 22 an endangerment to public health and welfare. It seems 23 incredibly reasonable here to start to directly regulate 24 methane, especially given the cost effectiveness of the 25 control options that are out there.

### Page 183 1 But other pollutants as well, hydrogen 2 sulfide. We're hearing, more and more, that hydrogen 3 sulfide is an issue in relation to individual well 4 sites. But also just dust from construction activities, 5 fugitive dust emissions. And there are other NSPS that 6 deal with dust emissions. It seems to make a lot of 7 sense to look at whether some reasonable standards 8 should be put in place through these proposed rules. 9Sources of emissions that were overlooked, 10 we're concerned that certain activities, for example, 11 blowdowns or liquid uploading at the well site, was 12 overlooked in some areas. Those are significant sources 13 of VOC emissions. For example, in the San Juan Basin in 14 northwestern New Mexico, casing head gas releases, which 15 is more of an issue with relation to oil wells, we'd 16 strongly urge the EPA to look at those emission sources 17 and determine whether it is reasonable, through this 18 proposed rule making, to include those sources as well. 19Also, EPA did ask for comments on whether coal 20 bed methane wells should be subject to the reduced 21 emission completion standards. Obviously, in some cases 22 the VOC content typical of methane gas is lower than 23 conventional or other natural gas wells. What we're 24 seeing, though, here in the West is that it's not so 25much what matters or what happens at one individual

### Page 184 1 well; it's a cumulative issue. And when we have 2 thousands of coal bed methane wells across the 3 landscape, they actually do contribute considerably to 4 overall VOC emission inventories. So we'd strongly urge 5 EPA to include coal bed methane wells in implementing 6 the reduced emission completion standards. 7 On the MACT, the proposed MACT updates, we're 8 concerned that the floor may not be adequate right now. 9We're seeing certain -- certain operations meet emission 10 reduction requirements above 95 percent, for example, 11 from tanks and glycol dehydrators. We're not sure why 12 the EPA did not look at ratcheting that down further or 13 even consider going beyond the floor, even to the extent 14 of prohibiting emissions, which is feasible in some 15 situations. And we strongly urge the EPA to explore 16 those opportunities. 17 But overall, we feel like this is a stellar 18 proposed rule, and we look forward to seeing much if not 19 all of it come to be finalized. We look forward to -- 20 to the improvements that we stand to gain here. So 21 thank you, and we look forward to continuing to engage. 22 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 23Mr. Roger Singer, I assume. Okay. If you 24 would state your name and spell it for the court 25 reporter. Thank you.

### Page 185 1 SPEAKER SINGER: Sure. Roger Singer; 2 R-o-g-e-r, S-i-n-g-e-r. 3And good afternoon everyone. Yes, my name 4 is Roger Singer, and I'm the senior regional manager 5 for the Sierra Club based here in Colorado, here today 6 to provide testimony on behalf of the 28,000 members 7 and supporters of Sierra Club here in Colorado and the 8 1.4 million members and supporters that we have 9 nationwide. 10 I want to start out just by saying thank you 11 for moving forward with these proposed rules. We do see 12 that they are significant steps being taken to improve 13 our air quality and to set up certain safeguards, for 14 the first time in a long time, on updating these rules 15 for oil and gas operations for processing and drilling 16 and all the other facets included with it. 17 It's high time. These new standards are 18 desperately needed. We have seen a significant increase 19 in the amount of new drilling permits being approved 20 here in Colorado and in the western region and 21 nationwide. Just looking at the Colorado State Oil and 22 Gas Conservation Commission data, I noted that just 23 between January 2010 and June 2011, 8,082 new permits 24 had been approved, about a 97.4 percent rate of approval 25 of the permits put forward for applications. That's a

### Page 186 1 pretty significant increase in just 18 months; 8,000 new 2 sources of pollution being permitted here in Colorado 3 alone. 4 And that's across the state, going from Erie 5 to La Veta to Battlement Mesa, that we are seeing these 6 impacted communities see, firsthand, the air quality 7 problems associated with the significant increase. So 8 these rules are desperately needed now, and we 9 appreciate that. 10 There are quite a few provisions that we 11 support in the rules. And while we will be providing 12 more detailed analysis for legal and technical aspects 13 of the rule, I just want to say, in summary, right now, 14 that we're certainly happy with provisions that will 15 reduce methane emissions, cancer-causing emissions like 16benzene, volatile organic compounds that can help 17 produce smog somewhere in the range between 25 to 18 30 percent for all of these dangerous pollutants. This 19 is a significant step forward in cleaning up our air, 20 and we appreciate that aspect. 21 We appreciate that there are being new 22 standards put in place for controlling leaks and 23 fugitive emissions. And we're glad to see that there's, 24 at least at some level, means to address the unreleased 25 venting from wells; and instead to capture in flare,

### Page 187 1 perhaps, some of these gases, which, as you've noted 2 yourselves, would have financial benefits for both the 3 oil and gas sector and for the general public as well, 4 in reducing the impacts and costs on our health as well 5 as, hopefully, reducing the cost of gas to the consumer 6 and saving the sector some money. 7 Yes, we do agree that there are some 8 improvements needed in directly controlling methane 9 emissions and in addressing new and existing compressors 10 and in addressing hydrogen sulfide. And again, we will 11 provide more detailed comments, to that effect. 12 I'd just like to say, in summary, that we 13 recognize the work that you've been putting into 14 creating these new rules, and we ask you to improve upon 15 them; but then also to, as soon as possible, adopt them 16 so that all of these communities can breathe a little 17 easier. 18 Thank you. 19ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Could I ask, are 20 you also going to be providing data behind the 21 information you were providing on the permitting in 22 Colorado, of the number of new sources? Will that also 23 be part of what you're submitting? 24 SPEAKER SINGER: Yes, I can make certain to 25 pull that data from the State Oil and Gas Commission's

### Page 188 1 reports and provide that to you. 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Or just provide 3 us with where to get it. It would be useful information 4 to have. Thank you, sir. 5SPEAKER SINGER: Okay. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both. 7 Is Gopa Ross here? Okay. And, Libby Comeaux, 8 or Comeaux, you can come up now. 9If you weren't here at the beginning, we're 10 bringing two people up to speak at the same time. We 11 ask you to wait till both of you are done to leave. It 12 helps us keep things moving along. And we'll also ask 13 you to state your name and spell it for the record. 14 So let's have a minute here while the 15 presentation's getting set up. 16(A slide display was given during the 17 following speaker's presentation.) 18 SPEAKER ROSS: My name is Gopa Ross, and I'm 19 with the Sierra Club. My name is G-o-p-a, R-o-s-s. I 20 want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today 21 regarding changes to the EPA air quality performance 22 standards for hazardous air pollutants generated during 23 oil and gas operations. 24 PowerPoint 1 shows you a picture in the Raton 25 Basin. Requiring oil and gas corporations to capture

### Page 189 1 95 percent of volatile organic compounds emissions using 2 the proven technology will help reduce methane and other 3 noxious gas releases that contribute to greenhouse gases, 4 creating climate change. This will also be a positive 5 start towards protecting the welfare of Colorado 6 communities facing serious health risks associated with 7 oil and gas extraction. 8 If the oil and gas industry captured the 9 escaping gases, it would benefit from millions of 10 dollars annually during the life cycle of operations. 11 Increasing air regulations for natural gas transmission 12 and storage is an important proactive measure. As you 13 can see, this is a transferal in Las Animas County, of 14 chemicals that are being used in operations, and there's 15 obviously some release to the atmosphere here. 16Colorado has experienced a rapid increase of 17 oil and gas well permitting during 2011. With 18 approximately 35,000 or more active wells statewide, 19 there are other serious issues facing Colorado residents 20 concerning air quality impacts. 21 Many drilling and hydraulic fracturing 22 operations are literally in homeowners' backyards or 23 close to schools. Many residents complain of health 24 impacts, living in close proximity or downwind from 25 wastewater evaporative drilling pits. Colorado

### Page 190 1 residents have reported nosebleeds, headaches, nausea, 2 brain lesions, eye inflammation, asthma or respiratory 3 problems, and other health-related issues when living 4 near oil and gas pits. 5The practice of water trucks spreading 6production wastewater on rural roads presents serious 7 concerns for community members where oil and gas 8 development is occurring. Thousands of gallons of 9 untreated water is used to suppress dust on the back 10 roads throughout Colorado. Usually the water evaporates 11 after a matter of two hours, and residents complain that 12 the dust cloud then seems to increase. What 13 particulates bond to the fine silica on the dirt roads? 14 What, then, are local people breathing when living near 15 these roads or traveling among them? 16The hydrology company for a gas corporation in 17 Las Aminas County stated that the water used in dust 18 mitigation on the county roads was proprietary 19 information. We asked to see what was being spread, and 20 we were told it was on the COGCC site. And we could not 21 find it, and we have not any public access to that. 22 Recently, Shell Oil disclosed their intention 23 to flare an exploratory well operation for 45 to 60 days 24 just 2.5 miles west of the town of La Veta, located in 25 southern Colorado. The prevailing wind blows in the

### Page 191 1 direction of La Veta from the west, which would expose 2 residents to toxic emissions such as benzene, 3 ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene, which are known or 4 suspected of causing cancer and other serious health 5 effects. 6La Veta's economic well-being is dependent 7 upon the seasonal tourism from neighboring states and 8 local train ride adventurers. Degradation of southern 9 Colorado's landscape and air quality would seriously 10 reduce the economic stability in the region. 11 We call upon all of our elected 12 representatives to provide adequate appropriations to 13 facilitate the EPA's efforts protecting public health 14 and the environment for the welfare of Colorado 15 communities, our children, and future generations. 16 Funding must be adequate for comprehensive monitoring 17 and regulation to guarantee clean air and protect the 18 Constitutional and human rights of all of our Colorado 19 citizens. 20 I know the personal suffering of landowners 21 and ranchers impacted by gas and oil operations 22 firsthand. I suffered from nosebleeds, headaches, and 23 an inflamed upper pallet for three years. I had to 24 breathe the blue-haze contamination during hydraulic 25 fracturing and the toxic fumes from four surrounding

### Page 192 1 pits for three years, until I received a settlement for 2 damages on my ranch, for drilling, and later from what I 3 believe was from hydraulic fracturing. 4 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: If I could ask 5 you to sum up quickly. 6SPEAKER ROSS: One more sentence? 7 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. 8 SPEAKER ROSS: I live -- I lived in my tack 9 room of my barn, without water facilities, and I lost my 10 life savings as a teacher, due to the gas extraction 11 impacts. 12 And I just want to do one quote from Upton 13 Sinclair. He once said, "It is difficult to get a man 14 to understand something when his salary depends upon his 15 not understanding it." 16So I want to thank you very much. We need 17 your help. We need these rules that you're coming forth 18 with. And as other people have stated here, we need you 19 to expand that consideration, please. Because of our 20 health issues in rural areas, it's really necessary. 21 Please. 22 Thank you. 23ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 24 Ms. Comeaux. 25SPEAKER COMEAUX: Comeaux.

### Page 193 1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Comeaux. 2 SPEAKER COMEAUX: Elizabeth Comeaux, 3 C-o-m-e-a-u-x. I'm a 40-year resident of Colorado and 4 an attorney. I grew up in a part of the country where 5 shrimpers and oil rig roughnecks gather on Sunday 6 afternoon at the dinner table together. I want to thank 7 you for bringing us together to coordinate the economic 8 interests represented by the oil and gas industry and a 9 demanding consumer public, with everyone's interests in 10 breathing, living, and having a planet on which to do 11 both. 12 First, please draw on the unbiased scientific 13 data from independent scientists such as Dr. Theo 14 Colborn and her facility up in Paonia, Colorado, and 15 Dr. Wilma Subra, who has been so instrumental in 16 revealing the health impacts from the Gulf oil spill of 17 last year. Considering their technical work alongside 18 that of the scientists who are directly or indirectly 19 commissioned by the industry will give you better 20 evidence of what effect the VOCs and other toxics have 21 on living things like us. 22 Dr. Colborn's website gives a long list of 23 illnesses caused by airborne toxins from products known 24 to be used in fracking fluids. I haven't been here all 25 day. You've probably heard the list.

### Page 194 1 One such illness, cancer, has stricken my 2 family, like many others. Saturday, when my brothers 3 walk the Race for the Cure in Houston, the typed 4 printout, in 14-point type, of their friends and 5 relations stricken with cancer goes from their chest to 6 their knees. The last thing we need is an increase in 7 scientifically documented carcinogens in the air. 8 Second, I would like your cost-benefit 9 analysis to be what I would call sober. Please focus on 10 the balance between cost to public health and ecological 11 services on the one hand and the economic benefits to 12 the industry -- or of the industry on the other. As 13 "High Country" -- as "High Country News" published 14 July 25th, considerable infrastructure is already in 15 place for exporting the products of these fracked wells. 16 Exporting them. 17 The industry value at stake is more a rush to 18 a global market than national security. So please don't 19 weight the cost -- you know, weight, like tip the 20 scales -- in the cost-benefit analysis, toward national 21 security. I don't think it's supported on the facts. 22 Third, a real urgency -- as you know, the real 23 urgency is climate change. The cost-benefit analysis 24 should consider the very significant cost of lost 25 opportunity in research and development. The industry

### Page 195 1 is capable of transitioning to the renewable energy 2 economy that is most desperately needed. Granted, some 3 natural gas will be needed during the transition, while 4 infrastructure is put in place to handle fluctuations in 5 solar and wind. Regulations of our government should 6 help redirect most of the research and development that 7 the industry is capable of, to ramping up renewables. 8 Fourth, update the numbers. The 1.1 million 9 wells on the EPA slide slow are 2009 numbers. For the 10 past few years, the industry has been fracking up a 11 storm, and they're planning to continue. I think that's 12 probably already been addressed. 13Fifth, cumulative impact. This proposal is, 14 understandably, designed to be enforced site by site. 15 But the effect on public health and the viability of 16 life comes from cumulative effects of many sites, and 17 not just those involved in oil and gas. Please look at 18 regulatory proposals for addressing cumulative impacts 19 which are coming out in the legal literature. 20 And, sixth, don't mess with Mother Nature 21 until we fill an ignorance gap. Dr. Sandra Steingraber, 22 on September 15th, in a forum on New York's Finger 23 Lakes, commented that some biologists are beginning to 24 study strange creatures in the shale. It's actually a 25 living ecosystem miles beneath the surface of the

### Page 196 1 ground, and we didn't know about that. Those strange 2 creatures are thought to have a role in stabilizing 3 climate. Please consider the consequences of large4 scale tinkering with something we do not understand at 5 all because we have never had to study it. It's too 6 late in the game to wink or look aside as if we are not 7 the responsible ones. 8 So to sum up my six points: Number one, use 9 scientific -- use unbiased scientific data, including 10 independent scientists. Two, be sober in the cost11 benefit analysis; don't weight the industry side for 12 national security. Three, the real urgency is climate 13 change, and the real cost is lost research and 14 development opportunity; refocus industry resources on 15 ramping up renewables. Four, update the numbers. And, 16 five, cumulative impact. Six, don't mess with Mother 17 Nature till we really know what we're doing. 18 Now, those are all additions to the rule. But 19 thank you very much for setting this hearing and for 20 establishing the proposed rule. I do support the 21 proposed rule, and God bless your work. 22 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: And I would also 23 request that -- you made some references to different 24 types of studies and things. If you could provide those 25 for the record, that would be good. Thank you.

### Page 197 1 The next two speakers I have is Kenneth Sajdak 2 and -- I'm not sure if I'm saying that correct -- and 3 Keli Kringel. Okay. 4 SPEAKER SAJDAK: Yes. My name is Kenneth, 5 K-e-n-n-e-t-h; Sajdak, S-a-j-d-a-k; and I live in 6 La Veta, Colorado. 7 Thank you for the opportunity to have my 8 concerns about this vital issue heard. The name of your 9 agency includes a word that very simply addresses a 10 need that we, as both citizens and human beings, have. 11 And that word is "protection," and your agency has the 12 authority to make decisions that ensure that you indeed 13 protect our air and our water. 14 The energy industry likes to frame the issue 15 of your protecting us in simple, childish terms. An 16 industry, whose corporate giants each year post record 17 profits, would like us all to believe that we have to 18 choose between clean air and having a strong economy. 19 They would like to offer the option of jobs or safe 20 drinking water. They spend millions to convince our 21 representatives of these assertions, without hard 22 evidence to support them. 23Since the Energy Bill of 2005, crafted by an 24 oil-soaked Administration with notable conflict of 25 interests in this sensitive area, record profits have

### Page 198 1 accompanied reduced environmental safeguards. This 2 raises a most obvious question. If the oil and gas 3 industry is capable of effective self-regulation in the 4 interest of public health and safety, then why was there 5 a need to grant them exemptions to the Clean Air and 6 Clean Water Acts that have stood since the 1970s? 7 I remember the great satisfaction of watching 8 President Nixon sign these bills into law. The feeling 9 then was that we had put this issue to rest for our 10 lifetimes. And now we witness, some 30 years later, a 11 fresh and vigorous assault on our precious natural 12 resources. Fueling this attack is the energy industry's 13 huge outpouring of money spent to lobby for degradation 14 of protective regulation. 15Our air and water are not commodities which 16 are to be manipulated or sacrificed for corporate 17 profits. They are vital public resources, birthrights 18 of us all, as intrinsically protected by intention of 19 our founders as our rights to free speech and redress of 20 grievances. 21 The health of our people, young and old, 22 present and future, will determine the health of our 23 nation. Without access to clean air and water, our 24 future is bleak. Healthy men and healthy women generate 25 ideas, effect growth and change, and discover new ways

### Page 199 1 to do things better. Healthy people automatically 2 reduce the burden on our medical care system, which has 3 been universally identified as a barometer of our 4 nation's moral as well as fiscal soundness. 5CEOs and stockholders of gas and oil companies 6 need to breathe clean air and drink pure water as much 7 as any of us do. If we are correct in our demands to 8 have your agency bolster the defense against polluting 9 our resources, then the outcome benefits all people, not 10 just environmental activists. If the industry is wrong 11 about their ability to self-govern their activities, 12 then all of us suffer permanently. 13There is not a price that can adequately 14 describe the value of our water and air. The money that 15 oil and gas industries spend on political persuasion 16 alone would go a long way toward implementing 17 restrictions and regulations to which we, as citizens, 18 are entitled. Our domestic resources are increasingly 19being targeted for export, in pursuit of new markets and 20 increased profits, while oil and gas companies give lip 21 service to U.S. energy independence. 22 Please do not compromise the health of our own 23 people by allowing the eagerness of a booming industry 24 to dictate the terms of their own operation. Please 25 remember the name of your agency when you are

### Page 200 1 considering your actions. You are part of a thin line 2 of defense which can offer protection for the overall 3 integrity of our environment. Your failure to act 4 accordingly will have irretrievable consequences for all 5 of us. 6Please, please, please, seize the opportunity 7 to elevate this nation's health to its rightful place 8 above the bottom line. Thank you. 9ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 10 Ms. Kringel, if you could state your name and 11 spell it for us. Thank you. 12 SPEAKER KRINGEL: Yeah, I'm Keli Kringel; 13 K-e-l-i, K-r-i-n-g-e-l. 14 Okay. There is nothing technical I can tell 15 you, that the EPA doesn't already know, about the health 16 and environmental threats presented by natural gas 17 fracking. Your website has a wealth of information, for 18 example, on health hazards of benzene. 19I also have no horrible personal experience to 20 share here regarding the ill effects that oil and gas 21 operations have had on my health, air, or water, yet; 22 although I know personally and of many people who do. 23 If I did, I would hope that even my one story of getting 24 sick would be enough to warrant serious investigation 25 and action. The massive outcry of problems from

### Page 201 1 fracking, including some serious health problems, the 2 cause and scope of which are not fully understood, by 3 being ignored, are starting to make the situation appear 4 nearly like a form of genocide in our nation. 5I also do not have the balance sheet to prove 6 the monetary costs to one side or the other of this 7 regulatory change. Yet when I read the EPA mission 8 statement, "to protect human health and the 9 environment," I have to think that money should not be a 10 main consideration for the EPA. It's not their job. 11 The EPA is one agency the public should trust to 12 understand the intrinsic value of clean air to breathe 13 and clean water to drink, which ultimately are the 14 bottom bottom line to all living creatures on this 15 planet. 16So all I will do is thank you for proposing 17 these regulations, and say that I think you should do 18 them, and take the opportunity to tell you about what 19brought me here, and request your help to make things 20 more secure and protected in the future. 21 The town where I live, La Veta, Colorado, is a 22 town of about 900 in Huerfano County, one of the least 23 populated areas in the United States. To give you an 24 idea, the nearest Starbucks is over an hour away. 25 Wildlife abounds. People stop and talk to each other.

### Page 202 1 There are no traffic lights. There's no need to lock 2 your house or car. We have no Walmart, no Petsmart, no 3 Office Max, no Old Navy, no Sports Authority, no Target. 4 What we do have is a real main street, with 5 real mom-and-pop shops, a great library, good schools 6 and a lovely park. I've heard it described as Colorado 7 like it used to be. We have gorgeous scenery and the 8 ability to be self-sufficient, if we want to. Our air 9 is sweet and pure. We can see the stars, lots of stars, 10 at night from anywhere in our town. People come from 11 other places to get away to here; for example, from 12 Texas, to escape the air pollution problems experienced 13 from fracking and drilling there. 14 We do not want to lose the beauty we have. We 15 do not need to be dependent upon oil and gas. We want 16 the opportunity to pursue or own local renewable energy 17 sources and to grow our own healthy local food. 18 I'm here representing Citizens for Huerfano 19 County, a nonprofit that formed in response to the 20 threat, as mentioned by Gopa Ross, posed by Shell Oil's 21 recently proposed drilling and fracking in our area. 22 The unique geology of our area, radial dykes, suggests 23 hydraulic fracturing in this area may be especially 24 dangerous or at least worthy of further study. The 25 permitting process for Shell's first exploratory well, a

### Page 203 1 14,500-foot-deep Klikus 2-19, occurred in May, slash, 2 June, under the radar, without public knowledge or 3 input. 4 We are currently in litigation with the COGCC, 5 Neslin and Shell, claiming rights to public input and 6 hearing, and demanding to have our very real 7 environmental health and safety concerns satisfactorily 8 addressed before drilling proceeds. We have been 9 educating the public, and our membership and support is 10 rapidly growing. 11 So one specific comment I have is that I 12 believe the green completion requirements should also 13 apply to exploratory wells; i.e., the fact sheet says, 14 "The green completion requirements would not apply to 15 exploratory wells or delineation wells . . . because 16 they are not near a sales line." I understand no 17 environmental reason that exploratory wells should be 18 treated differently. 19And going forward, I would ask you to work 20 hard to eliminate the Halliburton loophole, which, per 21 Earthworks, effectively strips the Environmental 22 Protection Agency of authority to regulate fracking, a 23 process invented by Halliburton. 24 You achieved your dream of a career at the EPA 25 because you had the capabilities and the heart. Those

### Page 204 1 capabilities are what will allow to you navigate the 2 complexities and challenges in front of you. But love 3 is what will make you ultimately act. I ask that you 4 reconnect with the idealism inside you which brought you 5 to where you are now. This country needs that spirit 6more than ever now, in each and every person. 7 Please restore integrity by fully regulating 8 fracking. Thank you. 9ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank both of 10 you. 11 Our next speakers are Wayne Sartori from Gas 12 Compressor Consultants, and Sandy Toland. Mr. Sartori, 13 if you would state your name and spell it for the court 14 reporter, please. 15SPEAKER SARTORI: Sure. My name is Wayne 16 Sartori. That's S, as in Sam, a-r-t-o-r-i. 17 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: And you can -- 18 let me back up. You can begin. 19SPEAKER SARTORI: Okay. I'm currently 20 president of Gas Compressor Consultants. I have over 21 40 years of experience in the maintenance, design, and 22 operation of compression. My comments are going to be 23mainly about the seal replacement on compressors, both 24 reciprocating and centrifugal; VOC emissions; new 25 fracking and pneumatic controls; and condensate on crude

### Page 205 1 oil tanks. I assume that's part of this discussion. 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Yes. 3SPEAKER SARTORI: My company is currently 4 building compressor stations and optimizing compressor 5 and process facilities in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, 6Mississippi, Louisiana, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and 7 North Dakota. 8 Our mission statement is, "GCC is dedicated to 9 improving the economic performance of compression 10 facilities and gathering systems by applying new and 11 proven solutions to optimize natural gas delivery in 12 gathering, compression and processing." 13The majority of our clients are small 14 producers and small midstream companies seeking ways to 15 reduce their LOE as percentage of throughput. So what 16 caught our attention primarily is the estimated -- the 17 statement by the EPA, "The estimated revenues from 18 selling the gas that currently goes to waste are" 19 significantly -- "significant - so much so that today's 20 proposed rule is anticipated to quickly result in a net 21 savings of nearly $30 million annually, while 22 significantly reducing pollution from [the] expanding 23 industry." 24 On the seal replacement issue, specified at 25 26,000 hours on the new rules, in our experience,

### Page 206 1 typical seals will have some initial leakage upon 2 installation. This leakage will remain fairly constant 3 until the seal fails. Seal failure could occur at 4 20 hours, it could occur at 2,000 hours, or it could 5 occur at 150,000 hours. It's hard to predict. 6Any operator will immediately need to replace 7 these seals, upon failure, as their compressor will not 8 operate properly. A specified time period is a useless 9 and costly endeavor to control emissions released from 10 compressor seals. In all cases, seal replacement will 11 result in substantial downtime. In some cases, a seal 12 replacement may require the dismantling the compressor 13 piston, cross head, the piston rod and piping, and may 14 require realignment of the compressor itself. 15So the question is, How is this cost 16 reimbursed by the new regulations? Is there a grand17 father clause for older compressors? What would be the 18 baseline point for determining runtime on these to 19 justify the 26,000 hours? How would this be enforced? 20 And how will this be handled for rental compressors 21 where the operator or the producer is not necessarily 22 responsible? Will they still be liable? 23Concerning VOCs on new fracking and refracking 24 wells, one of the options for the VOCs coming back from 25 the flowback from these fracked wells is to flare the

### Page 207 1 gas, I believe, in the specifications. If that is an 2 option, where is there any net savings coming from? 3 Because that's probably the least expensive option for 4 the producer. 5Again, we work primarily with small companies. 6 If we were assuming this is a new well, without any 7 infrastructure in place yet, where is this captured gas 8 going to be sold to create this net savings, as you 9 cannot truck it off? 10 Question: If we're assuming this is a new 11 well without infrastructure, will the producer need to 12 operate a separate -- obtain a separate permit to install 13 a VRU compressor, vapor recovery unit? Obtaining these 14 permits could take up to 12 months in some states, 15 specifically Colorado. For smaller producers, this 16 could make wells unviable, with the requirement for 17 additional costs and delays. 18 If a permit is not needed, then there will 19 generally not be any controls required. How much 20 additional emissions will this VRC unit create -- VRU 21 unit create from these uncontrolled emissions? You 22 know, is there an offset there? 23Another question is, Where will the fuel gas 24 come from to operate a VRU if there's no electrical 25 infrastructure, since quality of gas coming off the

### Page 208 1 wells directly in most cases is not adequate to run a 2 VRU unit? So, again, we're trying to capture these 3 vapors, but there's no methodology, and substantial cost 4 involved, to capture them and bring them into a 5 nonexisting pipeline. 6They talk about a return of net new savings. 7 Has that included the cost to provide fuel gas or 8 electricity -- 9ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I'll have to ask 10 you to conclude your remarks. 11 SPEAKER SARTORI: Okay. For the large 12 producers and midstream companies, these rules may be 13 acceptable. For the smaller companies, the capital 14 cost, maintenance costs, and recordkeeping will force 15 them from the market. 16ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. And you 17 can file the full paper with us, and we'll consider all 18 of those comments. I'd ask you to just -- we've -- we 19 like the people to actually stay till both speakers are 20 done. Thanks. 21 Ms. Toland, if you would state your name and 22 spell it for the record. 23SPEAKER TOLAND: Okay. My name is Sandy 24 Toland; S-a-n-d-y, T-o-l-a-n-d. I'd like to thank you 25 for letting me speak at this hearing. I live in Aurora,

### Page 209 1 Colorado, and I'm concerned about the oil and gas boom 2 that is headed our way and the adverse environmental 3 impacts it will have on our state and the nation. 4 As a member of a group trying to raise 5 awareness about fracking's dangers, we have submitted 6petitions to our local officials to let them know about 7 fracking, that fracking needs more stringent regulations 8 to reduce risk to our health and the environment. 9One day, while collecting petition signatures, 10 a couple approached me, wanting to know what the 11 petition was about. And when I told them, they were 12 anxious to sign it. They said they owned a house in 13 Denver and one in Nebraska and that fracking was 14 happening near their home in Nebraska. The woman, who 15 was clearly distressed, said the fracking was driving 16 her crazy. The man said he was always glad to come to 17 Denver, because he can breathe here. Apparently, 18 fracking has made parts of Nebraska a bad place to live 19 if you like to breathe. 20 So I'm here today to speak for this couple and 21 anyone who likes breathing clean air. We have a right 22 to clean air, and this right must be protected. The 23 Halliburton loophole must be closed so that the oil and 24 gas industry isn't exempt from several important 25 regulatory acts that protect the environment and our

### Page 210 1 health. And the EPA's new proposed fracking regulations 2 must be stringent enough to prevent VOCs, methane, and 3 other toxic gases from polluting our air and 4 contributing to climate change. 5If you do anything less, our government will 6 have fallen short of its most important role, to 7 represent and protect the people. 8 Clean air, land, and water are real wealth. 9 If we continue to base our economy on plundering the 10 earth and polluting our environment, we will eventually 11 destroy our wealth and ourselves. 12 Author Kurt Vonnegut wrote, "We probably could 13 have saved ourselves, but we were too damned lazy to try 14 very hard, and too damned cheap." 15I hope you prove this statement wrong and 16 implement the strongest air regulations possible for oil 17 and gas fracking. Thank you. 18 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both. 19The next two speakers I have are Dave Devanney 20 of Western Colorado Alliance, and Lisa Willis. And if 21 you would state your name -- Mr. Devanney, if you would 22 state your name and spell it for the court reporter. 23SPEAKER DEVANNEY: Certainly. My name's Dave 24 Devanney; D-a-v-e, D-e-v-a-n-n-e-y. I come to you today 25 from Battlement Mesa, Colorado, a community with a

### Page 211 1 current population of about 4400 residents in 2 unincorporated Garfield County in western Colorado. 3I'm speaking to you on behalf of the members 4 of the Battlement Concerned Citizens, a grassroots group 5 of Battlement Mesa residents who, for the past two-plus 6 years, have advocated for responsible national natural 7 gas drilling practices and health- and safety-based 8 regulation of the energy development industry. 9This action was taken after a national -- 10 yeah -- natural gas operator announced plans to develop 11 up to 200 wells on ten well pads within our PUD 12 boundary. Some of those well pads will be as close as 13 450 feet to residences, and two of them will be located 14 on our golf course. Talk about a hazard. 15For the past two years, some of our residents 16 have experienced the negative impacts of natural gas 17 drilling operations in the area just outside our PUD 18 boundaries. Many significant impacts were experienced 19 in July of 2010 due to odors from the fracking flowback 20 operation at a well pad just outside their PUD. More 21 recently, another well pad, in the town of Parachute and 22 near some of Battlement Mesa homes, has caused 23 particulate pollution due to not only the dust from the 24 traffic and on the dirt and site preparation work, but 25 also from the handling of the sand used in the fracking

### Page 212 1 operation. With a large retiree population, many 2 residents already complain of respiratory problems of 3 unknown origins. 4 Additionally, I know one person, who I've 5 lived with for over 43 years but cannot identify due to 6 HIPAA regulations, has recently found that she has 7 higher than normal levels of mercury, lead, and barium 8 in her -- in her blood. Of course, we don't know the 9 cause, and we'll probably never know, but we can only 10 speculate about the increasing exposures due to a more 11 toxic environment that we live in. 12 I'm here to say that, while these new 13 regulations are necessary and long overdue, I feel that 14 more could and should be done. 15First, I would recommend that hydrogen sulfide 16be more carefully regulated. H2S has recently been 17 acknowledged to be found in well pads in Garfield 18 County. Whether biogenic or thermogenic, the presence 19 of potentially lethal H2S is a major health concern, for 20 the public and particularly for the industry workers. 21 Also, I have personally observed and been 22 exposed to hydrogen sulfide at a private water well of a 23 residence in Garfield County, but not in Battlement 24 Mesa. Shortly after natural gas drilling began near 25 this home, the water became fouled and contaminated and

### Page 213 1 ultimately came to smell like rotten eggs. 2 As a member of the Battlement Mesa Bucket 3 Brigade, I was able to collect an air sample outside the 4 home, next to a running water faucet, and sent the lab 5 to -- sent the air sample to a lab for analysis. The 6 results showed an H2S level of 370 micrograms per cubic 7 meter, a level that, I'm told, is 185 times the long8 term levels set by EPA of 2 micrograms per cubic meter. 9Second, I would recommend more strict controls 10 of particulates such as road dust and the dust from the 11 fracking sand, and that those be considered in -- in the 12 future. The health effects may not be clearly known at 13 this time but certainly warrant further study and 14 potential regulation. 15And, finally, I would like to see the EPA 16 recognize and support of the use of citizen-initiated 17 and cost-effective air monitoring methods such as the 18 Bucket Brigade, as developed by an organization called 19 Global Community Monitor. Their recently released 20 report highlights the air pollution hazards from natural 21 gas drilling that have currently -- that are currently 22 present in Colorado and New Mexico, using citizen 23 volunteers and low-cost sampling equipment. 24 I understand that the staff at the EPA 25 Region 9 has reviewed the methodologies of the Bucket

### Page 214 1 Brigade and found them to be satisfactory. The data 2 collected by a Bucket Brigade would be used as a 3 screening tool and as a supplement to more standardly 4 collected samples from regulatory agencies. 5Finally, I want to thank the EPA, first of 6 all, for taking the necessary steps to develop new, more 7 stringent air quality regulations that help protect 8 public health, and also for the opportunity to present 9 the public comments here today. In these difficult 10 financial times, some are calling for less bureaucratic 11 red tape that can hamper industry and job creation. 12 While I can support -- 13ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I do need you to 14 conclude. 15SPEAKER DEVANNEY: I am concluding. 16ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: All right. 17 SPEAKER DEVANNEY: While I can support more 18 health- and safety-based regulations, I would also 19 advocate for more jobs in the monitoring and enforcement 20 side of energy development. 21 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 22 Ms. Willis, if you would state your name and spell it. 23SPEAKER WILLIS: Yes, my name Lisa Willis; 24 L-i-s-a, W-i-l-l-i-s. 25ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. Go

### Page 215 1 ahead. 2 SPEAKER WILLIS: I'm a Denver resident and a 3 cancer survivor. The doctors couldn't tell me why I 4 contracted renal cell carcinoma. I had a kidney 5 removed, which did the trick. But I know, firsthand, 6 that cancer is very painful for a person and her family. 7 I don't want anyone else to get it, especially if it can 8 be prevented by taking extra care to stop deadly 9 chemicals from being in our drinking water and our air. 10 I've read some articles about fracking. 11 There's a danger of carcinogens ending up in drinking 12 water. I'm old enough to remember Congressional 13 hearings where the big tobacco executives stood and 14 swore that smoking did not cause cancer. It was later 15 proven that they clearly knew otherwise. Things are 16 different today. We know that chemicals in cigarettes 17 cause cancer. We've identified a lot of chemicals that 18 cause cancer. Some of these chemicals are used in 19 fracking. 20 I've noticed an energy company's TV ads 21 lately, about fracking. They're great commercials, very 22 reassuring. To hear them tell it, fracking is the 23 safest thing ever. But they don't tell you that there 24 are already documented examples of contaminated drinking 25 water near fracking locations. So you'll forgive me for

### Page 216 1 doubting their good intentions. It's an historical fact 2 that corporations aren't as keen on protecting the 3 public as they are on making profits. 4 There is a danger of these chemicals being 5 spread into drinking water in the fracking process. 6 From what I understand, when the fracking is complete 7 and the pipes pulled out of the ground, the toxic 8 chemicals they injected down there are leaked into the 9 ground as wastewater. This wastewater can leak into 10 wells and other drinking water and is very hard to get 11 rid of. You can't just clean it up. Methane gas can 12 also be brought up and actually leaked into wells. This 13 could make homes explode. It doesn't get much more 14 dangerous than that. 15I also think we've all seen the TV footage of 16people setting their drinking water from their faucet on 17 fire after fracking in their area. That paints a more 18 vivid picture for me than the illustrations in the gas 19 company commercials. 20 I know that natural gas is a big part of our 21 future as we move away from coal, but these dangers 22 haven't been studied enough. Fracking isn't well 23 regulated or even understood by local governments. 24 These drilling sites also poison the air. So this is 25 the purpose of the EPA, to protect the public against

### Page 217 1 health and environmental threats. 2 You do a good job. The United States is a 3much safer place because of the EPA. It's your job to 4 investigate this method of getting gas out of the ground 5 and just make sure it's safe. It's your job to make 6 sure that energy companies follow the strictest safety 7 regulations as possible. I believe it's your duty to 8 protect us against the threat of dangerous chemicals in 9 our drinking water, our land, and our air. By doing so, 10 you might well prevent our people from having to learn 11 what it's like to have cancer. 12 Thank you for your consideration. 13ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both. 14 We're going to take a 15-minute break now. 15 We'll regather at 4 o'clock, so probably be closer to 16 about a 20-minute break. 17 (Recess taken from 3:43 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.) 18 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: The next speakers 19 are Clayton Caroon and Anna Florey. And, Mr. Caroon, if 20 you could state your name and spell it for the record, 21 I'd appreciate it. 22 SPEAKER CAROON: My name is Clayton Caroon; 23 C-l-a-y-t-o-n, C-a-r-o-o-n. Though I'm college educated 24 and gainfully employed, I'm here today primarily as a 25 concerned citizen. I'd like to thank you for creating

### Page 218 1 the document entitled, "Summary and Location of [the] 2 Requests for Comments on Oil and Natural Gas Sector 3 Proposal," that was available on the table. So I'll 4 address my first comments to No. 14 and 15. 5I appreciate it that you're beginning to 6 solicit information and our opinions about whether 7 third-party verification paid for by the industry would 8 result in impartial, accurate or complete data 9 information. This is, again, No. 14. I think that, 10 unfortunately, the oil and gas industry has a 11 well-documented history of influencing third-party 12 verifiers. 13And I'm excited by the fact that in No. 15 you 14 also ask us whether or not the EPA should approve 15 third-party verifiers. I feel the answer to that should 16be yes. And I hope that you could do that with a level 17 of oversight which would not just analyze perhaps 18 economic interests or industry interests, but would put 19 real teeth in the environmental protection that we hope 20 will continue to protect the natural resources and the 21 interests of the citizens of America. 22 The next comments that I'm interested in 23making are in regards to No. 22 and No. 23, "Produced 24 Water Ponds." Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to 25 speak about the size and the throughput capacity of

### Page 219 1 typical evaporation pond facilities. However, as a 2 resident of Colorado who frequently drinks glacial 3 runoff from my water supply, I am particularly concerned 4 about the use of evaporation ponds. 5I realize that some documents on hydraulic 6 fracking are criticized, for good reason, and are not 7 always exactly accurate. In some such documentaries, 8 evaporation ponds have been shown not only to release an 9 incorrect amount of emissions, but also technologies 10 have been put in place in which to reduce the cost of 11 treating wastewater. Devices are installed, in some 12 evaporation ponds, which toss the wastewater up into the 13 air to increase evaporation. 14 It's my belief that additional research should 15 be done especially in glacial water, that there would 16probably be reason to expect increased concentration of 17 chemicals that could be harmful to citizens who drink 18 that water. I hope that that will be something that 19 will also be considered. 20 On my closing comments, I would suggest, I 21 feel like, as I kind of review some of the verbiage, I'm 22 excited about some of the things you're doing, but I 23 feel there's a little bit too much of an emphasis on 24 making sure that solutions are cost effective. And I 25 understand that, in order to work closely with industry,

### Page 220 1 that will be an interest that industry will have, though 2 I'd like to go a little bit beyond cost-benefit analysis 3 for analyzing some of these kinds of things, and hope 4 that the language will increasingly look at hazard, 5 danger, threat, contamination and other aspects. 6As a closing comment, I was a little bit 7 disappointed that the current work is really only on air 8 quality. I hope to see more work on water quality, 9 water protection, as well, in the future. 10 I'm excited that you're having this venue 11 today, and I appreciate the opportunity to address you. 12 Thank you very much. 13ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. If I 14 can ask, we would like you to stay till the other person 15 finishes their comments as well. 16SPEAKER CAROON: Okay. 17 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: And, Ms. Florey, 18 if you would state your name and spell it for our 19 recorder, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. 20 SPEAKER FLOREY: My name is Anna Florey. It's 21 A-n-n-a, F-l-o-r-e-y. And I am a citizen here in 22 Denver. 23I own oil and gas stocks. In fact, a large 24 percentage of my portfolio is energy stocks. So I have 25 a vested interest in the profit to the companies that

### Page 221 1 I've invested in. High profits mean money in my pocket. 2 To add more regulations to the energy-extraction process 3 will affect the amount of money I receive as dividends. 4 More importantly, I believe I am human. I 5 breathe air and I drink water. Extracting energy, 6 especially in the form of fracking with the high-powered 7 sand, water, and chemicals, is a dirty process, a 8 process that pollutes the air with all kinds of noxious 9 chemicals like methane, benzene, and sulfur dioxide. It 10 pollutes my drinking water, and it toxifies the air that 11 I breathe. And over time, all of that pollution is 12 going to cause me and my family to get sick, possibly, 13 and possibly to die premature deaths. 14 The oil and gas industry would have you 15 believe that safeguards and regulations on their 16 standard business process will impose undue financial 17 hardship on them. I would like to disagree. Oil and 18 gas companies have a considerable amount of money. They 19 already receive government subsidies; in other words, 20 the taxpayers currently pay them to pollute our basic 21 resources that we need to live and stay healthy. 22 The oil and gas companies have very smart 23 people working for them. They can figure out how to 24 efficiently clean up their act, and they won't do it 25 without a fight. And they won't do it without strict

### Page 222 1 regulations and true government oversight and 2 enforcement. Do not let them get away with raping our 3 environment any more than they've already done. They 4 must be forced to find a cleaner way to do their 5 business. 6It's time for these dirty industries to clean 7 up after themselves. It's time for them to change 8 business as usual and standard industry practice. 9 There's no excuse for the pollution and resulting sick10 ness that this industry forces on us. 11 Specifically what can be done? I don't have 12 very specific points, like my colleague here. But what 13 I would like to express is that any rule or regulation 14 must require direct methane reductions and controls. 15Hydrogen sulfide is a dangerous air pollutant 16 that is currently ignored and not regulated. This 17 oversight must be addressed immediately. 18 The oil and gas industry must not be allowed 19 to flare, or burn off, uncaptured gas. That just 20 creates more pollution. 21 Even if it means that I, as an investor, must 22 sacrifice money in my pocket, I, as a human, will be 23 forever grateful for clean air to breathe and clean 24 water to drink. I implore you to regulate this industry 25 in the strictest manner possible.

### Page 223 1 Thank you. 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both. 3The next two speakers I have are Joan Seeman 4 and Davis Shane. And, Ms. Seeman, if you would state 5 your name and spell it for the record, I'd appreciate 6 it. 7 SPEAKER SEEMAN: My name is Joan Seeman. And 8 "Joan" you can spell, hopefully; J-o-a-n, Joan Davis. 9And Seeman, S-e-e-m-a-n. 10 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. Go 11 right ahead. 12 SPEAKER SEEMAN: Thank you, EPA, for coming to 13 Colorado and requesting public input on your cost 14 reduction plan here, to promote clean air and air 15 quality standards for major sources for the oil and gas 16 industry. But I also want to thank the Wild Earth 17 Guardians and San Juan Citizens Alliance for suing the 18 EPA to get you here. 19Unfortunately, I must say that your proposed 20 regulations are a small step toward a very dangerous, 21 dirty, and deadly industry. You know, we breathe 20,000 22 liters of air a day. And the fact that EPA is just now 23 deciding that because they've been forced to look at the 24 MACT standards, that you will review that. And the sad 25 piece is that this is based on a cost-benefit analysis,

### Page 224 1 and this is not a benefit to the health and safety of 2 the citizens of Colorado. 3When I read in your document, initially you 4 had said that benzene was at a 90-in-a-million risk. 5And then you said, to evaluate the entire industry, we 6 took it to a 400-in-a-million risk, 400 people that 7 were -- that would be exposed and guaranteed cancer. 8 I've never seen that, in any document, in all the old 9 years -- I'm pretty old, and I'm telling you, I've been 10 reading this stuff, and I never saw a EPA risk 11 assessment that said that the oil and gas industry or 12 any industry had a 400-in-a-million risk. 13I just learned that EPA in 2007 decided to 14 extract -- decided that the industry did not have to 15 comply with MACT standards for minor sources. Most of 16 Colorado oil and gas are minor sources to them. So they 17 didn't have to comply with these major-source standards. 18 I mean, this equates to: Did you want a drill rig 19 outside your kitchen window, and is there anything you 20 can do about those minor sources? 21 Minor sources. Theo Colborn, here in this 22 state, said that there are over 700, and far greater 23 than that, chemicals. Well, you know, it's a secret. 24 We can't know what the chemicals are. But EPA's gone 25 ahead and done an analysis based on: What data have you

### Page 225 1 got that claims and knows about all those chemicals and 2 what those releases are? How do you do a risk 3 assessment if you're only going to base it on a couple 4 chemicals? 5NRD stated, Nobody really knows what the 6 health impacts are from living near oil and gas 7 exploration and production sites. There are reported 8 serious health symptoms that they believe are related to 9 exposure to contaminants in their water or both. And in 10 some cases, tests of the air and water have identified 11 high level of toxic substances. 12 Did you know that physicians here have ordered 13 some families to evacuate their homes? This kind of 14 reminds me of a movie I just saw, "Cowboys and Aliens." 15 Colorado are the cowboys; and Oil & Gas, the aliens. 16And the aliens are looking for gold, because gold is -- 17 it's powering up their machines. 18 Today the citizens are made to believe that 19 the standard promoted will help communities in Colorado, 20 they're going to protect them from the deadly fumes it 21 releases. And I think the biggest piece that really 22 bothered me was the statement that EPA made in 2007 on 23 these minor sources. They said, We conclude that they 24 don't have to comply with MACT standards because we are 25 hoping that the rule will provide incentives for

### Page 226 1 industry to reduce their hazardous insurance -- 2 hazardous emissions. 3EPA hopes? EPA crosses their finger that 4 industry is going to do the right thing? I'm not 5 understanding that statement. 6A health assessment was done in Colorado. I'm 7 not sure any of you have seen the health assessment that 8 was done by CU Public Health. The county that provided 9 that public health assessment decided to stop the health 10 assessment immediately. 11 Let me give you the statement that could have 12 maybe prompted this particular county to no longer go 13 ahead with the health assessment. It said, "Their 14 principal findings of the health impact assessment are 15 that the health of the Battlement Mesa residents will 16most likely be affected by chemical exposures, 17 accidents, emergencies resulting from industry 18 operations, and stress related to community changes." 19Is EPA aware that there is a nondisclosure 20 clause that is being given to citizens? I don't know if 21 you -- are you aware of a nondisclosure clause that says 22 they won't say anything about impacts? Maybe their air, 23maybe their groundwater. And then they sign this 24 document, and they're no longer allowed to talk. So 25 that means, EPA, how do you know if there aren't ground-

### Page 227 1 water wells that are being impacted? 2 I believe that the EPA -- and I wish that you 3 would come to town not to just have us read hundreds and 4 hundreds of pages on many air impact changes that you're 5making; that you might have provided an overview to give 6 us an idea of why you came to some of the conclusions 7 that you have. 8 People are being made sick in Colorado and 9 they're dying from exposure. 10 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I have to ask you 11 to conclude your comments. 12 SPEAKER DAVIS: May I defer one minute to the 13 lady, of my time? 14 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Yes. 15SPEAKER SEEMAN: At this time Colorado 16 oversight is out of control. Has the EPA reviewed their 17 delegated authority? You signed a memorandum of 18 understanding that said you would delegate your 19 responsibilities to the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, 20 much of your responsibilities. 21 And at this time I took a look at the Colorado 22 Oil and Gas Commission's website. Page after page after 23 page, hundreds of citizens complaining; thousands of 24 pages on spills and leaks; thousands of reports on 25 notice of violations; thousands of reports of lack of

### Page 228 1 remediation. 2 There's a problem here in Colorado. Something 3 is wrong. I have done environmental reviews for years, 4 and never did I see this kind of inactivity, this 5 negligence, on the case of the State of Colorado and 6 their oil and gas commission. 7 Right now -- 8 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: And I do have to 9 ask you to -- 10 SPEAKER SEEMAN: I will close with this. We 11 believe that there should be a federal investigation in 12 the state of Colorado, right now, about what is 13 happening with all of these sites, that nothing is 14 happening. 15We believe, if we can't call for a 16moratorium -- and maybe we should. We should at least 17 begin with a moratorium, and we'll provide the list on 18 what we believe, why a moratorium should move forward in 19 the state of Colorado to stop any future processing, to 20 stop these permits, because of this negligence. 21 And we're asking the EPA. It's either we ask 22 the EPA but maybe we'll have to sue to get there, or we 23 ask the Department of -- the Department of Justice to 24 take a look at this right now. We have a problem, and 25 we're asking for your help.

### Page 229 1 Thank you. 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 3And, Mr. Shane, if you would state your name 4 and spell it for the record. 5SPEAKER DAVIS: My name is Shane Davis. It's 6 spelled S-h-a-n-e, D-a-v-i-s. I'm speaking on behalf of 7 myself as a citizen. I'm a research biologist. And I 8 thank you for your time today, coming here to allow all 9 of us to speak. 10 I have serious concerns for clean air and to, 11 what appears, the real probability that the oil and gas 12 industry is heavily contributing to enormous dangerous 13 and potentially deadly increases in volatile organic 14 compounds from the mining extraction processes known as 15 hydraulic fracturing, to include the hundreds of 16 thousands of diesel-burning trucks that are used for 17 this unregulated method of gas extraction. 18 Although EPA's new standards is a good step 19 forward, and I appreciate that, I believe that there are 20 a lot of elements, just as many people have stated, that 21 could be more stringent in regulations pertaining to the 22 exponential growth in this new sort of gold rush in 23 Colorado. 24 When you consider the amount that we have now, 25 which is roughly 43,000 active oil and gas wells, it is

### Page 230 1 reported that we are set to have near a hundred thousand 2 very soon, and I would ask that your rules would 3 actually address the exponential growth and the air 4 quality impacts accordingly. 5One of the things that I do is I research the 6 state's database; the architecture of it, the data 7 itself, the science and everything behind it. I've 8 actually researched a single evaporation pit in Colorado 9 that contains toxic produced water from fracking, and 10 it's known to evaporate more than 7 million gallons of 11 toxic water per day, has approximately 15 operators that 12 pump directly into this facility. The facility can hold 13 anywhere from 14 to 16 million gallons. So when you 14 consider 7 million gallons of produced water being 15 evaporated per day, the communities downwind would 16 effectively be in contact with that; not to mention the 17 wildlife and the environmental impacts as well. 18 That equates to approximately 2.5 billion 19 gallons of toxic evaporation of produced water from that 20 single pit in a year. Of course, those are rough 21 figures. What is the probability that the chemicals in 22 the air would cause harm to the environment and humans? 23 I feel that the probability is great, greater than the 24 reward of the natural gas extraction itself. 25Some of the known chemicals found in the air

### Page 231 1 are cyclopentane, dimethyl butane, cyclohexane, benzene, 2 toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and a whole host of other 3 serious dangerous chemicals, which you probably are 4 aware of. 5I live in Weld County. That's also called 6WELL County. It's an acronym. Weld County actually 7 hosts nearly 40 percent of the state's entire active oil 8 and gas wells. We are just shy of 17,000 oil and gas 9 wells. My simple math indicates that we have one oil 10 and gas well per four homes. If that's set to double, 11 there will be one -- or actually one well, oil and gas 12 well, per two homes in the next decade or so. A lot of 13 these fracking wells are within a few hundred feet or a 14 few hundred yards from elementary schools, from public 15 playgrounds where my friends' children play. I've been 16 there myself. 17 We don't -- we don't know -- we don't have 18 active flares like they have in Wyoming and North 19 Dakota. However, there are vent stacks that you see at 20 every frack pad. Are these vents actually emitting 21 fugitive emissions or are they controlled emissions? 22 Because based on my research, again in the state's 23 database, there is a number that every operator has for 24 their methane production, methane sold, and methane 25 flared.

### Page 232 1 Has anybody ever seen a flare? I haven't. So 2 I would like to address that. If it's a controlled 3 release, we want to know about it. Obviously, if it's 4 invisible, we can't see it. The toxic emissions are 5 invisible to the people of Colorado, and they must know 6 what is being released and in what quantities they're 7 being released. 8 I urge the EPA to work efficiently and 9 effectively to protect our livelihood with clean air 10 standards -- cleaner air standards that are in favor to 11 the health of the environment and the citizens over the 12 wealth of an industry. 13Again, a lot of information that I find in 14 Weld County, there are thousands of field inspection 15 reports. I've reviewed hundreds and hundreds of spill 16 incident reports where toxic produced water is actually 17 spilled in certain volumes, maybe into a creek. There 18 have been groundwater contaminations that have been 19 concluded as positive by the State. 20 And one of the biggest fears I have is that a 21 vast majority of these spills, whether it be a thousand 22 barrels, the operator has only recovered X amount of 23 that. So, in essence, what you have is a small 24 Superfund site that would still retain toxic emissions 25 or actual produced water that's still there in the

### Page 233 1 ground. 2 You know, I mean, I really think that there 3 should be a federal investigation. I think that the 4 state's database is providing what appears to be 5 erroneous data on a general inquiry. The general query 6 is very different than when you do deep informational 7 search, rooting out the factual information per 8 operator. And if the general query is providing 9 standard benchmark information for the state to make 10 changes, it appears to be erroneous. 11 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very 12 much. 13SPEAKER SEEMAN: I would like to clarify that 14 I'm representing myself as a citizen today. You put 15 that -- your data was incorrect on the sign-in sheet. 16ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. The next 17 two speakers will be Lawrence Martinez and Rena 18 Kaplowitz. 19SPEAKER KAPLOWITZ: It's Kaplowitz. 20 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Kaplowitz, sorry. 21 SPEAKER KAPLOWITZ: It's phonetic. 22 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Pronunciation 23 isn't my strong suite. I apologize. 24 SPEAKER KAPLOWITZ: That's okay. It ends in a 25 "z," just like Martinez.

### Page 234 1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: So, Mr. Martinez, 2 if you would state your name and spell it for the 3 record. 4 SPEAKER MARTINEZ: My name is Lawrence 5 Martinez; L-a-w-r-e-n-c-e, M-a-r-t-i-n-e-z. I am here 6 as a business owner. I became involved in this issue 7 because of the Clean Air, Clean Jobs legislative act in 8 the state of Colorado. I am concerned, as a grandfather 9 and a father, for the environment. But I'm also 10 concerned, as a businessman, about the state's economy. 11 I believe that the United States and the state 12 of Colorado has to find a cleaner and efficient 13 homegrown energy source. And I believe that we are on 14 target with this. I believe the state of Colorado has 15 taken large steps in putting together regulations and -- 16 and standards that can keep this under control, and I do 17 not believe that a blanket regulation is the way to go. 18 In my own business, regulations have to be 19 followed, but it also is important for the company to 20 have a standard of their own, what -- what they're doing 21 to the environment, what they're doing to their 22 employees. And I think, for the most part, the natural 23 gas companies in Colorado have done that. 24 I am not a technical person. I do not know -- 25 like I said, I became involved in this because I felt so

### Page 235 1 passionate that we needed to find energy and something 2 here in Colorado, in Wyoming, in new Mexico, that we can 3 promote, create jobs; have good, upstanding citizens 4 here. And when I say that, I mean the companies. They 5 should be and have to be good citizens as well as 6 employers. And I think, so far, from what I've seen, 7 they -- they've done their best to do that. 8 There's always room for improvement. We 9believe that. I believe that as a citizen, as a 10 grandfather; that it's important for the environment to 11 be clean. But I also believe that companies have to be 12 able to do their job. And I think the state of Colorado 13 has done a pretty good job at keeping that in line. 14 I believe natural gas production is -- is the 15 way to go for us. I believe that the future has to be 16made here in Colorado. I think what we're trying to do, 17 what we've been trying to do, is on the right track. 18 Yes, improvements can be made. And, yes, we 19 have to look at everything. But I think, for right now, 20 we have to trust that the industry does hire good people 21 and does bring in the best, top talent they can. I 22 think these jobs are going to be important. Those jobs 23 that are being brought in by these companies and the 24 people that are being hired affect my business and 25 affect the businesses that will service these people as

### Page 236 1 they come to Colorado and become part of our community. 2 Thank you very much for having me today. I 3 appreciate it. As a citizen of Colorado, I just wanted 4 to get my little two cents in, and hopefully we'll see 5 how this grows from there. 6Thank you very much. 7 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I just had one 8 question, to be sure if I'm understanding what you were 9 saying, is, when you were saying you did not believe a 10 blanket regulation is the way to go, would you -- are 11 you suggesting we should not go forward and finalize the 12 rules, but instead rely on Colorado and state rules? 13SPEAKER MARTINEZ: I -- I'm -- yes, I believe 14 that Colorado and the state is a better way to go. I do 15 believe that some kind of oversight by the EPA is -- is 16 warranted, but I also believe that the state of Colorado 17 should be the ones making the rules. 18 Thank you. 19ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Should I even 20 try? Could you please say your name and spell it for 21 the record. 22 SPEAKER KAPLOWITZ: My name is Rena Kaplowitz. 23 My name is spelled R-e-n-a. My last name is 24 K-a-p-l-o-w-i-t-z. And I live in La Veta, Colorado. 25 I'm a citizen of Huerfano County. And the word

### Page 237 1 "Huerfano" in Spanish means "orphan." We are the orphan 2 children of the state. We're in a very, very poor 3 county. But as poor as it is, that's how beautiful it 4 is. And we're very much in danger of losing that 5 beauty, due to a lot of development in recent years. 6 First we had CO2. Then we had coal bed methane. The 7 regulations of the COGCC were not always enforced. 8 And I commend the EPA for its willingness to 9 strengthen oil and gas drilling safeguards. I would 10 like to see more safeguards, for water as well as air. 11 Our area is in danger of going from a beautiful, 12 pristine valley to a very polluted one. And I am hoping 13 that this does not come to pass. 14 I'm not against industry. I much prefer 15 seeing wind and solar development, alternative energy, 16but we have got to work with what we have. 17 And the things that concern me the most are 18 the threats to health and safety of children and elders, 19 specifically respiratory illnesses. I don't have really 20 good statistics because a lot of the information is 21 protected under HIPAA. But we need studies. We have 22 increased rates of RSV, which is something that affects 23 infants and can be deadly. We have a lot of people in 24 hospitals, with pneumonia. And we have some very extreme 25 weather conditions in our county. And if we've got

### Page 238 1 evaporation pits, with large amounts of produced water 2 and chemicals, we may very well have more instances of 3 respiratory illness. 4 As well as respiratory illness, we have 5 endocrine disruptions, we have reproductive system 6 failure; and with animals, we have miscarriages. We've 7 had a lot of things that have happened, and this is 8 before fracking. Shell Oil has requested to frack a 9 very deep well, 14,500 feet. And we really do not know 10 what the results of that will be, and we're really 11 concerned. 12 According to the Constitution, we do have the 13 right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, 14 which includes breathing pure air and drinking clean 15 water. But I don't know how much longer we'll be able 16 to do that. Your regulations will be an improvement. 17 But without the ability to enforce those regulations, 18 which means funding, we may not even see the results. 19I hope that the regulations become even more 20 stringent and that the citizens are as respected as the 21 oil and gas companies have been in this state. 22 Thank you. 23ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both. 24 I have two speakers to call up, Jeff Briggs 25 and Bob Arrington. I believe we have a presentation to

### Page 239 1 set up too, so we'll do that before we begin either of 2 the two. But come on up. 3(Pause in the proceedings.) 4 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Briggs, if 5 you'd say your name and spell it for the record. 6SPEAKER BRIGGS: Jeff Briggs; J-e-f-f, 7 B-r-i-g-g-s. This is not my presentation, but I'll 8 speak before it. 9My name is Jeff Briggs, and I'm a member of 10 Citizens for Huerfano County. You've heard of that name 11 several times today already. We're an organization 12 representing close to 15 percent of the county's voting 13 population, and we're trying to establish health and 14 safety guidelines to promote clean air and water before 15 Shell Oil begins fracking deep shale wells, looking for 16 gas and oil. 17 We have been balked, in doing so, by the 18 Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and by our 19 own county commissioners, who have denied public citizen 20 input into the process. They claim that Huerfano public 21 citizens have no stake, no public standing, to request a 22 formal public hearing in front of the COGCC, even though 23 the Colorado Supreme Court decided, just last week, to 24 uphold an appeals court ruling that was rendered in 2010 25 on the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance case, versus the

### Page 240 1 COGCC, that our group intervened on, which gave legal 2 standing to Colorado public citizens for just such 3 public hearings. 4 We are now engaged in our own court case 5 against the COGCC and Shell Oil and our own county 6 commissioners, simply asserting our right to a legal 7 public hearing to voice our legal concerns. 8 What we object to is being stampeded by the 9permitting process, assured by Big Oil and their 10 representatives that everything is okay without 11 oversight and citizen participation in a proper venue. 12 We need a public federal government agency, such as EPA, 13 to give us certainty that clean and healthy air and 14 water will be protected. We come in front of you today 15 to affirm this process of making new rules to regulate 16 clean air, and hope that you will extend those rules for 17 clean water. 18 There's also a time, as of the 13th of 19 September, according to the Denver Post, where oil and 20 gas drilling in Colorado causes seven spills every five 21 days, releasing more than 2 million gallons this year of 22 diesel, oil, drilling wastewater and chemicals that 23 contaminate land and water. 24 For example, on the 12th of August, on the 25 22nd of August, and on the 24th of August of this year,

### Page 241 1 Andarko Petroleum, a subsidiary of Kerr McGee, spilled 2 cancer-causing benzene in concentrations exceeding state 3 standards by as much as 320 times. That's a quote from 4 the Denver Post article of September 13th. 5The COGCC has 15 inspectors, who are charged 6 with overseeing the 45,793 wells, which, obviously, are 7 increasing by several thousand every year. Right now, 8 that averages to 3,000 wells per inspector. Even with 9 the best intentions to serve public health and safety, 10 it would be impossible to protect the citizens of 11 Colorado with this kind of operation. 12 Nationally, every day, the Bakken Shale Field 13 in North Dakota is flaring a hundred million cubic feet 14 of natural gas. This was reported in the New York Times 15 this Monday, the 26th of September. This results in the 16 release of 2 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. 17 30 percent of the natural gas produced in North Dakota 18 is burned as waste. The oil companies argue they cannot 19 afford to pay for pipelines and processing plants to 20 capture and sell the gas until sometime in the 21 indefinite future, even though studies show they would 22 make a profit now by capturing and selling that gas. 23Seems to be just one more case of a lawless 24 Wild West gold rush that makes money for the few, at the 25 expense of public health and safety.

### Page 242 1 The public has lost a big chunk of its civil 2 rights with the gutting of the Clean Air, Clean Water 3 and the Clean Drinking Water Acts, which happened in 4 2005 through the Halliburton loophole. Only you, the 5 EPA, and the court system can restore those rights to 6 us, the public citizens. 7 And perhaps there is one other person, your 8 boss, who can stand up and do the right thing. Tell him 9 we said hello and that we have a few concerns we wish he 10 would address. 11 Thank you very much. 12 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 13Mr. Arrington, if you would state your name 14 and spell it for the record. 15(A slide display was given during the 16 following speaker's presentation.) 17 SPEAKER ARRINGTON: Yes. My name's Robert 18 Arrington. I go by "Bob." My last name is spelled 19A-r-r-i-n-g-t-o-n. And I've come here tonight, and I've 20 heard some very eloquent speeches or talks and comments 21 to the EPA. And I thank you for your time of listening 22 to these comments in front of the presentation here. 23This is a picture here of Mount Sopris. 24 That's -- over that little green ridge is the town of 25 Carbondale. Now, this is east of Battlement Mesa, where

### Page 243 1 I live. But this is the pristine type of conditions that 2 are within 40 miles of us. 3What's going on in Battlement Mesa can change 4 all of this up here, because the air don't stay put. 5 From California to New York, the same air mass can move 6probably in about five days, and so this is a national 7 concern. No one state can control that thing. And if 8 they do nothing to control it within their state, then 9 the rest of the nation suffers and it becomes of 10 national interest. 11 So what is involved? From gas wells up there 12 in the green circle -- I wish I had a laser pointer for 13 you -- but right on down the pipelines, to compressor 14 stations, and the institution of various treatments 15 along the line of the pipeline, right down to even final 16 refining, we have the products that hit market. 17 What I've prepared is a little talk on each -- 18 some of these elements within there, and your existing 19 rules that you have proposed; and where, as a 20 professional engineer, I seem to find quite a few little 21 shortcomings in some of the details. 22 First off, rules need to require, on these 23 things, top-to-bottom cementing in all these wells. 24 That's to prevent seepage into the upper formations. 25 The water's there, the faults that come and the

### Page 244 1 intersected faults that leak clear to the surface. In 2 our country, we have faults that run far deeper than 3 anything they're drilling. From surface, down, we have 4 upthrust blocks that come all the way up, that bring the 5 formations they're drilling clear to the surface. 6So what would this top-to-bottom do? Well, it 7 reduces the water and air contamination. It prolongs 8 the pipe life and reduces the corrosion and damage in 9 the leaking pipes that become a problem. And at the end 10 of this 30-year life, it enhances the closure of these 11 wells down the line. Unclosed wells is a major problem 12 that's already developing. Thirty years from now, it's 13 going to be much worse. 14 Piping arrangements everywhere should be 15 welded, as opposed to any screw fits. Leakage on screw16 fit pipes is tremendous. But the only place they should 17 be is absolutely necessary make-break applications. 18 Normally, closed valves should be used in all 19material handling. This would cut down on the spills 20 greatly because you couldn't have a valve open unless 21 the attendant was opening it. And if they were to walk 22 away, they couldn't leave it open. It would 23 automatically close. 24 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Sir, if I could 25 just -- you're going to have difficulty, I think,

### Page 245 1 getting through the whole presentation. If there's some 2 key points you want to make, you may want to get to 3 those. 4 SPEAKER ARRINGTON: Well, bear with me. I'll 5 give her a shot here. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. 7 SPEAKER ARRINGTON: Electric power should be 8 used wherever possible with the well pads; and use dual 9 fuel engines on those pads, with natural gas being the 10 alternate fuel. 11 Further, on the pad, H2S removal equipment 12 should be required at any time any H2S over 10 parts per 13million is ever encountered. Because the well's 14 permanently contaminated from that point on, whether it 15 was induced or not. 16No open dumping of downholed gases and 17 nonproduction operations or rework. They currently just 18 vent valves wherever they want. When they get to the 19production water, they'll shoot it to a tank or a pond. 20 Flaring devices: There should be an emission 21 program of improvement. Right now they're talking 22 95 percent efficiency, and that's where it's led. I 23 believe they should be taken to 99 percent efficiency 24 within five years. Catalytic converters could possibly 25 be put on these things as a minimum application right

### Page 246 1 now. 2 Valves on well pipes and pipe trace must be 3 aboveground. We've run into conditions where Antero has 4 had valves subsurface, and workers can't get to 'em, and 5 the valve panels come off and they lose the parts. They 6 can't do anything with them. 7 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Sir, we will 8 consider all of things you have in here. I'd have to 9 ask you to conclude at this point. 10 SPEAKER ARRINGTON: All right. I'll go to 11 completion. As you see, I've treated pipelines, 12 compression stations, and other considerations. 13And this was in the news here, day before 14 yesterday, New York Times: They are venting, flaring, 15 and burning off all the gas that they -- because they 16 don't have the networks. It should be -- their entire 17 network should be constructed, inspected, and processed 18 to handle everything before the get-go. 19And I do thank you for the time. 20 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very 21 much for your comments, both of you. 22 I have two speakers, Robin Cooley of Earth 23 Justice and Isaac Rivera of the University of Colorado. 24 Ms. Cooley, if you could state your name and spell it 25 for the record, and then you can begin.

### Page 247 1 SPEAKER COOLEY: It's Robin Cooley; R-o-b-i-n, 2 C-o-o-l-e-y. I'm a staff attorney with Earth Justice, 3 and I just want to start by thanking you for providing 4 this opportunity for the public to weigh in on the very, 5 very important issue of controlling air pollution from 6 the oil and gas industry. 7 I'd just like to make two points today. The 8 first is that the time to act is now. And the second is 9 that while these rules are a big step forward in terms 10 of protecting public health and the environment, EPA has 11 also missed some key opportunities that they had, 12 through this rule-making process, to truly get a handle 13 on the pollution that's caused by this industry. 14 First, the time to act is now. Existing rules 15 that apply to the oil and gas industry are woefully 16 inadequate and out of date. As you know, EPA is 17 supposed to update its standards in this area every 18 eight years, and they haven't done it. And some of 19 these standards have been around for more than 20 years, 20 without any update. 21 So in 2009 Earth Justice sued the EPA, on 22 behalf of Wild Earth Guardians and San Juan Citizens 23Alliance, to force them to take a look at what's been 24 happening in the industry in the last 20 years; and 25 where the gaps, in terms of protecting the public

### Page 248 1 health, are. 2 And what's been going on in this industry is 3 that there's been a oil and gas drilling boom in the 4 Rocky Mountain West and other parts of the nation. And 5 the development of fracking technology has enabled 6 industry to drill in places that have never been 7 drilled. So suddenly we're in a situation where 8 communities, a lot of whom we're hearing from today, are 9 suddenly waking up with air quality problems that 10 they've never experienced before. 11 For example, some of the worst air pollution 12 problems in the nation, related to oil and gas, are now 13 in rural western Wyoming, where the smog problems and -- 14 and smog levels are exceeding the worst days of smog in 15 Los Angeles. And on those days, public health officials 16 are warning citizens with respiratory problems and kids 17 and the elderly to stay inside and avoid strenuous 18 activity. 19Here in Colorado, the problems are growing as 20 well. We've heard a lot about these problems today. 21 There are more -- now more than 45,000 oil and gas wells 22 in this state that are actively producing. People in 23 western Colorado have been complaining for years about 24 the noxious fumes and the headaches and dizziness and 25 nosebleeds caused by oil and gas development in their

### Page 249 1 very backyards. 2 Denver also has a notorious smog problem, and 3 Rocky Mountain Park has now already had eight days where 4 the air quality within the park is exceeding the ozone 5 standards that are designed to protect human health and 6 the environment. So until we get a handle on this 7 pollution, the public's health will continue to be at 8 risk, along with the places we love, like Rocky Mountain 9National Park. 10 EPA's proposed rules are a good first step. 11 They target the VOC emissions that lead to ozone 12 pollution and smog, as well as hazardous pollutants that 13 are making people sick. And they also, for the first 14 time ever, control air pollution associated with 15 fracking wells. 16So we're very encouraged to see EPA tackling 17 fracking in this rule making, and glad to see that 18 happening. 19My second point is that while EPA's proposal 20 is a good first step, there's more to be done. First 21 and foremost, EPA must regulate methane directly. There 22 is simply no excuse for the Agency not to regulate this 23 greenhouse gas at this time. EPA has found that methane 24 endangers public health and welfare. The Supreme Court 25 has made it clear that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases

### Page 250 1 under the Clean Air Act. 2 The oil and gas industry is the largest source 3 of methane emissions in the United States, and therefore 4 a major contributor to global warming. And there are 5 cost-effective control measures that are available to 6 control methane from this industry. 7 There are also additional sources of pollution 8 that EPA has overlooked in the proposed rule. For 9 example, we saw some of the flaring pictures from North 10 Dakota, and the EPA appears to be letting oil wells off 11 the hook in this rule. EPA also appears to have ignored 12 cost-effective controls that are available to prevent 13 pollution associated with liquids unloading, as well as 14 other sources of pollution at the well site in 15 particular, such as storage tanks and pneumatics and 16 compressors that are located at the well. 17 Additionally, the proposed rule is focused on 18 cleaning up new and modified sources, which is certainly 19 really important, but there's also a lot of existing 20 outdated infrastructure -- 21 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I do have to ask 22 you to conclude. 23SPEAKER COOLEY: -- that we'd like to see EPA 24 address. 25So we'll provide more information in our

### Page 251 1 technical comments, but I thank you for letting us speak 2 today. 3ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: And if you could 4 provide your statement to the court reporter, she can 5 use it to ensure we have an accurate record. Thank you. 6SPEAKER COOLEY: Thank you. 7 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Rivera, if 8 you would state your name and then spell it so that we 9 get it accurately, I'd appreciate it. 10 SPEAKER RIVERA: It's Isaac Rivera. It's 11 I-s-a-a-c; Rivera, R-i-v-e-r-a. 12 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I'm not sure if 13 you can see the lights, with where the computer's been 14 slid to. 15SPEAKER RIVERA: I can switch it down. 16ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Yeah, you can 17 close that down. Okay. Go right ahead. 18 SPEAKER RIVERA: My name is Isaac Rivera, and 19 I am the current treasurer of the University of Colorado 20 Denver's Environmental Science, Geography and GIS Club, 21 otherwise known as the Edge Club on campus. And I want 22 to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to come 23 and speak to you about my concerns over hydraulic 24 fracking. 25It comes with deep sadness in seeing natural

### Page 252 1 gas and oil companies fight, tooth and nail, over any 2 amount of regulation surrounding their destructive 3 practices. Though their campaigns are filled with 4 scenes of beautiful landscapes of our country, including 5 scenes of lush green spaces, water and wildlife, it's a 6 slap in the face to millions of Americans who suffer 7 from asthma attacks and lung cancer that is causing them 8 to die prematurely. Knowing that many of these 9 individuals have never touched a cigarette in their lives 10 tells us that there is something very wrong with the 11 environment we all live in. 12 In regards to hydraulic fracking, the mounting 13 evidence of its adverse effects on ecosystems and, most 14 important, on human beings, is growing day by day. The 15 chemicals used by gas companies are slowly coming to 16 identification by scientists from around the world, 17 including Dr. Theo Colborn, who is a director of the 18 Endocrine Disruption Exchange in Paonia, Colorado. He 19 and his team have so far identified 65 chemicals that 20 are total components of the fracking fluids used by gas 21 drillers. These chemicals include benzene, glycol 22 ethers, toluene, ethanol, phenols. All of these 23 chemicals have been linked to health disorders when 24 human exposure is too high. 25A peer reviewed study published in the

### Page 253 1 National Academy of Science found water wells near gas 2 wells having 17 times the higher normal of methane 3 levels. Families in Dimock, Pennsylvania, for example, 4 live with drinking water contaminating with these heavy 5metals and methane. 6The Federal Energy Act of 2005 exempted 7 hydraulic fracturing from regulation, under the Safe 8 Drinking Act, in disclosing any of the chemicals used in 9 their methods to drill for gas. One must ask, how can 10 something that has had a direct link into harming human 11 beings ever be exempted from any regulation? 12 The notion of the business-as-usual practices 13 by our Government, that is supposed to be protecting the 14 people from these adverse effects, is deeply troubling. 15 The actions proposed by the EPA today are merely just a 16 little step in getting proper regulation for the 17 protection of the citizens of this country. 18 The economic concerns addressed by the natural 19 gas and oil industries surrounding regulation on their 20 methods will, of course, cause them to lose some profit. 21 But when you are profiting in the billions of dollars, I 22 believe a little regulation and their practices will 23 really not have a big impact on their overall services 24 as an energy industry. 25Their services, I know, are still a very

### Page 254 1 essential part of the economy. They are the driving 2 force of some of the biggest decisions regarding to all 3matters of political actions against any form of 4 regulation that might threaten their profits. They are 5 the driving force of the misinformation that is keeping 6 the United States from ever taking any real action in 7 matters of climate change. They are the driving force 8 that is making sure that every last drop is obtained for 9 their gain. They are the driving force that is 10 destroying our democracy even as I speak unto you today. 11 Even as I speak, they are lobbying intensely 12 in Washington and around the country. The Chamber of 13 Commerce, who poses a government office in Washington, 14 2010 alone gave over $33 million to climate denier 15 politicians. And I believe that 2012 they will only 16 increase their investment into securing further profits. 17 The issue at hand today is hydraulic fracking 18 that harms both our air and water, that only pushes our 19planet into deeper peril. I am asking that we simply 20 protect human lives over the interests of profits. 21 There are alternatives in place that will provide 22 millions of new jobs, and they need to be given a fair 23 chance to adequately meet the growing demands of energy 24 here and around the world. 25Let us put people first, over -- over -- over

### Page 255 1 profits. Let us be a sustainable people instead of one 2 that destroys. Let us be a model for the rest of the 3 world. 4 The regulation of fracking is a commonsense 5 regulation that is seeing huge opposition by the, no 6 surprise, oil and gas companies. But it is indeed just 7 only a small step into ridding our addiction of 8 destructive finite resources such as oil and gas. 9ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Could you stop 10 for a second? Our court reporter's running into a 11 problem, and we want to be sure we're getting this. I 12 apologize. We'll give you your time. 13(Pause in the proceedings.) 14 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: You can continue. 15SPEAKER RIVERA: Judging by looking around 16 this room, I believe I am the youngest person here. And 17 I speak for my generation and future generations. And 18 in implementing a real regulation, my concerns towards 19 climate change are, it's scary. I'm terrified of it. 20 And knowing that there are uncertainties that lie ahead 21 is deeply frightening, and I urge action immediately. 22 Thank you. 23ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. Thank 24 you both for your comments. 25The next two speakers I have are Carol

### Page 256 1 Schreuder, and Frank Smith of Western Colorado Congress. 2 Ms. Schreuder, if you could please state your name and 3 spell it for the court reporter. Thank you. 4 SPEAKER SCHREUDER: My name is Carol 5 Schreuder. It's C-a-r-o-l, S-c-h-r-e-u-d-e-r. I thank 6 you for bringing these hearings to Denver and for 7 allowing me to speak. I'm experiencing awe in what I 8 just heard. And being one of the older people here, I 9 appreciate what I just heard from a younger man. 10 I live in Colorado Springs and have lived in 11 Fort Collins, New Mexico, and Wyoming. I come with a 12 moral and ethical voice, leaving the technical voices to 13 organizations I support, such as Sierra Club and 14 Colorado Environmental Coalition. 15For me, the EPA represents a voice deep inside 16 our cultural past, saying, Do no harm. The Clean Air 17 and Water Act was passed to provide legal means to 18 offset the other part of our inner urgings, the urgings 19 that say the newest, latest technology is very exciting, 20 we should go ahead with it, and our desire for greed. 21 And certainly, for myself, looking at my retirement 22 income, looking at the bottom line myself. 23When I was a child, death was courting me all 24 the time. I had severe asthma attacks. I was always in 25 the hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, because of the

### Page 257 1 dirty air from the steel industry. And when I was in 2 Los Angeles, I was in the hospital because of the 3 terrible smog. Courageous laws were passed, and today 4 those two cities have much cleaner air and people can go 5 outside and breathe, in a way that I couldn't as a 6 child. 7 But now there is smog in Wyoming, there's smog 8 in Denver, there are ozone holes in Wyoming and Utah, 9 there are no boundaries for air and water pollution. 10 Why does New Zealand have ozone holes? Will our 11 children always have to wear hats when they go outside, 12 like the children in New Zealand do? 13Across the southwest we are aware of our short 14 stay on these common lands. We are aware of the 15Anastazi, the Hopi, the Apache, the Cherokee, and other 16previous inhabitants. They left a very small footprint 17 for thousands of years. Let us do the same. 18 I ask you to implement these new regulations, 19 to close the loopholes, to pay particular attention to 20 what's needed with the new fracturing technology, for our 21 air and our water. And in the end, do no harm. 22 Thank you for letting me speak. 23ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. Thank 24 you. 25And, Mr. Smith, if you would say your name and

### Page 258 1 spell it, just to be sure she has the spelling right. 2 SPEAKER SMITH: Are you sure? Because it's 3 Frank Smith. F-r-a-n-k, S-m-i-t-h. 4 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I've dealt with 5 some people from England who have a "y" in there. 6SPEAKER SMITH: Well, Mamma had to make it 7 easy for me. 8 My name is Frank Smith, and I'm representing 9 the Western Colorado Congress, an alliance for community 10 action. And it's a group of 2,000 citizens, community 11 leaders, ranchers, royalty owners and more, coming from 12 western Colorado. 13For over 30 years, we've been dealing, now, 14 with oil and gas development as well as other forms of 15 resource development, which can and does impact 16 communities, for better or for worse. We're here today 17 to not only say thank you for moving forward with these 18 proposed regulations, but also to encourage additional 19 actions. 20 Because if, in fact, natural gas is going to 21 increase its stature within the domestic energy policy, 22 we do need to do things better on the ground, in order 23 to get off of all those climate-change-causing items. 24 But, so I'm here today to primarily talk about those 25 items which we would like to see.

### Page 259 1 First, it's incredible to see these new EPA 2 regulations; however, they focus largely on major 3 sources. Minor sources do need to be included in this. 4 We've got over 43,000 active oil and gas wells in the 5 state of Colorado; and, in general, many of these 6 locations have small-size ponds and pits, which 7 themselves emit VOCs into the air at an unknown rate. 8 But that previously mentioned researcher, Dr. Theo 9 Colborn, does understand what some of these VOCs and 10 other toxins may be which collect into the air. But 11 nonetheless, they're prevalent across the state. 12 Additionally, we've heard mention of the 13 trucks and the traffic. In general, a lot of diesel 14 fuel is burned during all stages of development, if it's 15 exploration, if it's production, for years to come. So 16 in general, we would encourage the use of low-sulfur 17 diesels and would like to see that included within EPA's 18 proposed regulations. 19Additionally, you heard from folks from 20 Battlement Mesa, Colorado, where they found hydrogen 21 sulfide in Garfield, County, much to the chagrin of the 22 Colorado Oil and Gas Commission. They said, the State 23 said, It's not out there, we have no problems, we're not 24 going to require additional safety precautions. 25Well, citizen sampling efforts found H2S. We

### Page 260 1 do have hydrogen sulfide here in the state of Colorado, 2 and we would like to see H2S included, which is a toxin, 3 included within your proposals. 4 Additionally, we'd very much like to see 5 particulate matters being discussed in here. Because 6 in -- we know that in places like Garfield County, we 7 have studies which show increases in respiratory 8 ailments among the young and the old, asthmas as well as 9 either -- other concerns. And particulate matters is 10 some of the stuff in the air which potentially leads to 11 those effects. 12 Also, monitoring. There is minimal mention of 13monitoring programs. And we'd encourage some type of 14 random selection process where anybody could find 15 themselves talking with EPA about a monitoring program 16 for the life of that particular project. Or, for that 17 matter, if it's not random, then we'd like to have some 18 identified risk-based criteria. For example, those oil 19 and gas facilities which may be close to homes, as well 20 as communities, maybe those are the ones that especially 21 need to have monitoring programs for the life of those 22 facilities. 23Also, we recognize that EPA does have a 24 memorandum of understanding with the Department of 25 Public Health and Environment here in the state of

### Page 261 1 Colorado. However, it would be great for EPA to 2 periodically review CDPH&E's implementation of Clean Air 3Act standards. 4 As it relates to that, it also would be great 5 if somehow we could get EPA to review the Colorado Oil 6 and Gas Commission and some of those regulations that 7 they have. Cumulative impacts of those minor sources is 8 also vital to really have a big-picture understanding 9both for the state of Colorado and the region. 10 And, lastly, let's be careful about some 11 identified best management practices, because what, at 12 face value, may be good, in the longer scheme of things 13may, in fact, be a cost. For example, the new state 14 rules in Colorado, passed in 2008, encourage or discuss 15 flaring in general. But flaring is a pro and a con. 16We're going to have less VOCs going up into the air; but 17 in exchange, we have more particulates going into the 18 air. 19Lastly, again, we're a group of 2,000 strong. 20 We have roughly 200 members in Garfield County. And we 21 would invite you to come on out to Garfield County to 22 see the sites, to smell the smells. 23And with that, thank you. 24 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both 25 very much.

### Page 262 1 Okay. So the next two speakers I have are 2 Sean Conway, a Weld County commissioner, and Bryce 3 Carter. 4 And then we'll be breaking for dinner, just as 5 a warning to the rest of you. 6So go right ahead. 7 SPEAKER CARTER: Right here? 8 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: No. Both of you 9 should go ahead and be seated. And, Mr. Conway, if you 10 would just state your name and spell it so our court 11 reporter gets it. 12 SPEAKER CONWAY: Yes. Sean Conway; S-e-a-n, 13 C-o-n-w-a-y; Weld County commissioner. 14 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: You can begin. 15SPEAKER CONWAY: Thank you. First of all, I 16 want to thank you all for coming out here to Colorful 17 Colorado. What a great time of the year. Hopefully, 18 you'll get some opportunity to get up and see our 19 wonderful foliage that's turning in the high country. 20 I'm here today to, hopefully, bring a more 21 practical voice to these proposed rules and regulations. 22 I represent a 4,000-square-mile county north of here. 23 That's bigger than the state of Connecticut or the state 24 of Delaware, Rhode Island, or Washington, D.C. put 25 together.

### Page 263 1 A previous speaker mentioned that there were 2 43,000 active wells in Colorado. 17,000 of those are in 3my county. We have had a long history, in terms of 4 dealing with the oil and gas industry, and have had many 5 challenges over the years, but we have worked very hard 6 to ensure public health and public safety. 7 Two years ago, I had the opportunity to hear 8 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., at the opening of the Abound 9 solar energy or solar plant in Frederick, Colorado, 10 which is in my county, talk about that our future needs 11 to be tied to natural gas. Weld County is the Saudi 12 Arabia of natural gas. We are where the new Niobrara 13 play is. And, obviously, with 17,000 active wells, we 14 have an opportunity, on a daily basis, to interact and 15 see that, firsthand. 16It has a tremendous impact, this industry has 17 a tremendous impact, on our -- on our -- on jobs in 18 our area, our tax base. This funds not only our local 19 schools; recently the State Lands Board, which is 20 responsible for raising money for public K-through-12 21 education, reported that 70 percent of the revenue that 22 was raised last year through their programs came out of 23 Weld County through oil and gas development. 24 This has a huge impact on our K-through-12 25 public education, not only in Weld County but throughout

### Page 264 1 the state of Colorado. It also funds many library 2 districts, fire districts, and other special districts. 3 It has a huge impact, not to mention, on -- we also have 4 more municipalities in Weld County than any other county 5 in the United States, 32. They're very reliant on this, 6 on severance taxes, in order to meet their services, as 7 well as counties. Not only is Weld County very 8 dependent on -- on this revenue, but other counties 9 throughout western Colorado and other parts of eastern 10 Colorado. 11 My concern today -- we are all about public -- 12 public health and safety. My daughter has asthma. I 13 would never want to compromise her health or public 14 safety in terms of this. But I want to bring some facts 15 to the table here, that you may not be aware of. 16Since 2006 the ozone levels in Weld County, in 17 spite of one of the most rapid growth in terms of oil 18 and gas exploration in the country, has gone from 19 .082 -- I'm sure you're all familiar with these 20 standards in terms of ozone -- to .071. We've seen 21 almost a 15 percent reduction, and well below, as you 22 know, the current standard of .075. All of the 23monitors, the ozone monitoring towers, in Weld and 24 Larimer County are in compliance, below the .075. 25So I wanted to address some of the concerns

### Page 265 1 earlier, in terms of ozone, which I can appreciate. 2 It's a -- it's a issue we have been dealing with 3 proactively in Weld County since 2006. And, in large 4 part, that's been done because the oil and gas industry 5 in this state stepped up to the plate and capped their 6 emissions at 95 percent levels. And we've seen the 7 reduction in terms of ozone. And they have been very 8 proactive on this, and we've worked with them 9 collectively. 10 I should also note that I sit on the North 11 Front Range NPO, which is the lead air quality planning 12 entity for northern Colorado. So I also bring a 13 voice -- I'm not here today to represent the North Front 14 Range NPO, but I am a council member. And so I do sit 15 on that in terms of setting air quality standards. 16In -- I also want to talk about that, in 2008, 17 State of Colorado enacted some of the most stringent oil 18 and gas rules in the country, our oil and gas 19 conservation commission. And I want to bring -- bring 20 that to the table. 21 I have two primary concerns I'd like to bring 22 to you. Number one, I am concerned about the -- what is 23 referred to as the applicity (phonetic) date being one 24 year from publication in the Federal Register, which was 25August of 2011. I'm very concerned that if that is not

### Page 266 1 moved back at least a year, we could find ourselves 2 in -- in some quandaries in terms of the industry being 3 able to comply with these hundreds of pages of rules and 4 regulations. 5From my personal perspective and from my 6board's personal perspective, we just have not had, I 7 believe, a sufficient timeline for the industry to 8 comment on potentially unintended consequences. We all 9 want clean air, clean water. But I am concerned that 10 there has not been enough time. I know the EPA has 11 taken 18 months in terms of putting these together. I 12 just think two months is too short a time frame. And I 13 would ask that at the very minimum, that you look at 14 pushing back the applicity (phonetic) date one year from 15 publication in the Federal Register, in terms of that. 16I just think the idea that you would 17 promulgate a rule with so many hundreds of pages, in 18 such a short time frame, is -- is tantamount to saying, 19 out here on I-25, "We're going to reduce the speed limit 20 from 70 to 65, and we're going to push back the 21 enactment date to August of 2011." And I came down 22 today. I drove down from Greeley, Colorado, which is 23more than 60 miles away, going 75 miles an hour, which 24 is the posted speed limit. And I find out, after the -- 25 after the fact, that I actually broke the law because I

### Page 267 1 was going 75 and the new standard was 65. 2 So I would -- I would just ask that you take 3 time, you -- you take more time to hear on possible 4 unintended consequences. My concern is that this will 5 have real effect. I'm telling you, these rules and 6 regulations impact jobs, will impact the education, our 7 ability to provide a good education not only to -- to 8 our 16 school districts in Weld County, but throughout 9 the state of Colorado because the State Lands Board does 10 derive such a large amount of revenue from -- from 11 this -- this extraction. 12 And I'd also say, from -- from this 13 standpoint, that I think that good public policy always 14 takes a little extra time. I sit every day and I have 15 to make decisions on land use cases, violation hearings, 16 and I always try to -- I've heard the term, "Do no 17 harm," from previous speakers. I think you also have to 18 apply that "Do not harm" in terms of taking just a 19 little extra time to make sure you flush through any 20 potential unintended consequences. 21 And from a decision-making standpoint, as an 22 elected public official, every time I've taken a little 23more time, I've learned a little bit more, and I think 24 we've ended up with better rules, better regulations. 25So those are my two asks today. I want to

### Page 268 1 thank you for coming out here and hearing our testimony. 2 I know we're the last speakers before dinner, and I 3 learned a long time ago from my grandfather, don't stand 4 between a person's dinner. 5So thank you very much. I'll cut it short. 6ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 7 And, Mr. Carter, if you would state your name 8 and spell it for the court reporter, I'd appreciate it. 9SPEAKER CARTER: Yes. Bryce Carter; 10 B-r-y-c-e, C-a-r-t-e-r. At this time I'll be speaking 11 on behalf of myself. 12 So I am a community organizer. In the last 13 year, I've actually traveled across the country, working 14 on a variety of campaigns. And while I never worked 15 directly on the issue of fracking, I got to know it 16pretty intimately, working up in North Dakota. 17 I was based in Bismark, working on a campaign 18 to support local ranchers. And in just the few months I 19 was working there earlier this year, there were multiple 20 events within the fracking industry. A lot of cows were 21 actually sick and dying, that were exposed to wells and 22 property. There was also an incident in which fracking 23 fluid overflowed from a well and went straight to the 24 reservoir of Bismark, the drinking reservoir. There 25 were multiple fires, and the refinery also had a fire

### Page 269 1 there. And that was all just within a month-or-two 2 period. 3And overall, certainly, hearing some of the 4 testimonies today, you know, it's obvious that there is 5 a rush within this industry to continually expand. And 6 I certainly thank and appreciate the work you all are 7 doing at the EPA to move forward with getting these 8 regulations in place, because this industry wants to 9build as many wells as they can before they are 10 regulated, with air emissions particularly. So I 11 certainly commend your work for that. 12 And the fact is, you know, we are -- there is 13 a timetable. I mean, people like April, who I testified 14 on behalf of this morning, they are getting very sick 15 because of this. And being in the community up here in 16 Erie, Colorado, where they're having multiple wells 17 installed, I mean, you can see these vapors going 18 straight up the roads and into these communities. And 19 there's multiple vents that just stick out randomly by 20 sidewalks within the infrastructure of one community I 21 saw. And just seeing that firsthand and understanding 22 that people are breathing in these emissions, which are 23 currently not regulated, it's just a terrifying thing to 24 see and understand. 25Certainly the other thing I wanted to bring up

### Page 270 1 is that being up in North Dakota, there is a lot of fear 2 and intimidation with people. I know -- I got -- I 3 became very familiar with a group up there that is 4 working with the coalition on the fracking issues, and 5 within the industry, and to push forward for regulations 6 like these. And a lot of people that are certainly in 7 support of these issues are unable to speak because they 8 are too intimidated. 9In fact, one story was, a woman, whose teenager 10 had a tumor in her ear, was interested originally in 11 speaking. But, you know, my friend went to this house 12 to talk to the mother about this issue, and immediately 13 the mother clamped up and didn't want to talk about 14 it -- even though they had a well literally in their 15 backyard, with emissions, and there was inhalers 16 throughout their home -- of what they had. 17 So certainly the culture up there, I had 18 learned from coming in, was very restricted and people 19 are very afraid. 20 The argument, certainly, is jobs. Well, the 21 jobs that are being created in North Dakota are 22 specialized jobs from out of state, so they're importing 23 people and a lot of issues into the state. There was 24 actually an incident in which someone that was tried for 25 a crime actually brought a gun to the courthouse and was

### Page 271 1 intending to shoot somebody. You know, North Dakota's 2 not exactly known for its crime, and they're very proud 3 of that, and so a lot of people are scared of what's 4 happening. 5In fact, the industry is buying out apartments 6 and not renewing leases for families. So the families 7 that are impacted by the industry, I mean, they're 8 literally resulting in being homeless because industry's 9buying up what housing is available. So that's 10 something that, you know, when you look at the long-term 11 stability of the state of North Dakota, is that really 12 what we want for that community? 13So certainly -- I'll just wrap up there and 14 say again, certainly appreciate this step forward with 15 these regulations. And I won't go into the other things 16 that other speakers have said throughout the day, but 17 certainly it is a step, and there's many more steps to 18 look forward to in these regulations. 19So thank you very much and enjoy your dinner. 20 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both 21 for your time and comments. 22 SPEAKER CONWAY: Thank you. 23ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I need to check, 24 but I think we'll regather at 6:30. I think we -- so we 25 will gather at 6:30.

### Page 272 1 (Recess taken from 5:26 p.m. to 6:32 p.m.) 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: We're going to be 3 starting our evening sessions. I will cover a little 4 bit of the background and just the operating rules we've 5 had for the hearing, just so any of the speakers 6 understand how we're approaching things. 7 I'd like to thank you all for coming and 8 taking the time to be here. I'm Bill Harnett. I'm the 9 associate director of the Office of Air Quality Planning 10 and Standards in EPA. With us is Deirdre Rothery, who's 11 the head of the air section in Region 8 and here in 12 Denver for EPA, and Greg Nizich from -- who's a member 13 of OAQPS and is working on the actual rules that we're 14 talking about here today. He's an engineer on the 15 rules. 16Those rules were proposed in July 28th of 17 2011. It proposed a suite of the rules. There are four 18 different rules, two of them are for New Source 19 Performance Standards, and two of them are to regulate 20 the air toxics from oil and gas, parts of the extraction 21 onto the pipeline parts of the facilities. 22 We propose to regulate SO2 and volatile 23 organic compounds, which contribute to ozone or smog, 24 with the New Source Performance Standards. And then we 25 also propose to regulate different hazardous air

### Page 273 1 pollutants that also come from the facilities. 2 We appreciate you taking the time to come here 3 and share comments with us. What I'm going to do is I 4 will call on the scheduled speakers, to the degree we 5 have pairs, in pairs. We'd like you to come up together 6 and sit and both stay till both of you are finished. 7 You will be given five minutes to make any 8 comments. We have a series of lights that are visible 9 to the speakers up there. It will go green when the 10 comment part starts for you. And it will go yellow one 11 minute before you're supposed to finish. And then it 12 will go blinking red when your time has run out. 13We -- obviously with the numbers of speakers 14 tonight, we can be a little more flexible on time. But 15 if you would try to respect it, that's helpful to us. 16If you have written comments that you're 17 working off of or a written sort of presentation, if you 18 could leave it, we're -- we're preparing a transcript of 19 this whole hearing, and if you could leave those, any 20 typed or written notes you have, for our -- for the 21 court reporter, who's taking all this down, it will 22 assist her in having an accurate record of what was said 23 here. 24 So with that said, I will call up the two 25 people that we have on the list right now. One is Susan

### Page 274 1 Stantejsky -- and I hope I have that right -- from the 2 Sierra Club, and Richard Creswell. So if you two will 3 come up now, we can begin tonight's hearing. 4 And, Ms. Stantejsky, if you could please say 5 your name and spell it for the court reporter before you 6begin. 7 SPEAKER STANTEJSKY: Sure. My name is Susan 8 Stantejsky. 9ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Yeah. 10 SPEAKER STANTEJSKY: The last name is spelled 11 S-t-a-n-t-e-j-s-k-y. And I want to start by saying good 12 evening and commending the EPA for proposing the first 13 ever air pollution standards for the gas fracking wells 14 and systems. It's a great start. 15I understand you're trying to reduce the 16 levels of air pollution by 25 percent. I do wonder if 17 more can be done than that. 18 But the air pollution admitted from the 19 fracking contains some of the most dangerous air 20 pollutants known at this time. The volatile organic 21 compounds, the VOCs, are known to cause damage to the 22 liver, kidney, and central nervous system. 23There's air toxics, such as benzene. Those 24 are known carcinogens. There's no question. 25And then methane. Methane, a potent

### Page 275 1 greenhouse grass -- gas, is more potent than even carbon 2 dioxide as a greenhouse gas. These are horribly 3 dangerous pollutants, and the oil and gas industry is 4 spewing out tremendous amounts -- huge, significant 5 sources -- of these emissions all over America today. 6And the trend is to drill even more and more 7 wells, at the rate of 25,000 new and refractured wells 8 each year, this year and every year after that. In 9 other words, the air pollution will continue and become 10 worse very quickly. 11 Just how significant is this pollution to 12 human health? For the EPA's own risk assessment from 13 just one source alone, just the wells, the cancer risk 14 to individuals is 40 in 1 million. What does this mean 15 to Colorado? This state, with only 5 million residents, 16 can expect 200 Coloradans to get cancer this year and 17 every year due to the air pollution from these wells. 18 From another source, that from the transport 19 and storage of the gas, the cancer risk is a whopping 90 20 in 1 million. This means an additional 450 Coloradans 21 will get cancer each and every year from this source. 22 All told, air pollution from gas wells 23 currently causes 650 Coloradans to get cancer this year 24 and every year because a part of the industry is not 25 regulated. Ramp these numbers up to the national level,

### Page 276 1 and those figures go up to 39,000 Americans getting 2 cancer every year due to the oil and gas industry's 3 executive decisions to not employee sufficient air 4 pollution controls. 5I don't want to be one of those Americans 6 getting cancer from this reason. I don't want my loved 7 ones getting it. I don't want anyone in this room 8 getting it from oil and gas air pollution. We need the 9 EPA to step up and create strong, enforceable standards 10 to protect Americans' health. 11 The mission of the EPA is to protect human 12 health and the environment. We need the EPA to perform 13 their mission and protect our health with the strongest 14 of all possible regulations. We need the EPA to stand 15 strong against the highly paid and efficient industry 16 lobbyists; to be aware that they will fight these 17 regulations, tooth and nail, and they'll fight them with 18 half truths. 19When I say "half truths," I've heard a quote 20 saying fracking does not cause air pollution. The half 21 truth is, no, at the very moment of fracking when the 22 shale splits, that does not, in itself, cause air 23 pollution. But in the seconds later and continuing for 24 three to ten days, during the period of time known as 25 the flowback period, literally tons, tons, of these

### Page 277 1 pollutants are spewed from the wells. 2 Be aware of these half-truth tactics and stand 3 strong protect our health. This is not about being 4 antibusiness. It's about making business pay the full 5 cost of doing business, including environmental costs. 6 It's about realizing that our air is not just a 7 convenient place to dump their waste and then for 8 Americans to suffer the health and environmental 9 consequences. 10 What this is about is protecting American 11 health and our air. It is about the industry paying the 12 full cost of doing business and still making reasonable 13 profits. And then -- I have to throw this in -- after 14 establishing the strongest of all air pollution 15 standards for this industry, the next step for you is to 16 establish strong water pollution standards. They're not 17 going to do it by themselves. We need you. 18 Thank you for this opportunity to speak and 19 state my concerns. 20 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. 21 SPEAKER CRESWELL: Yes. I'm Richard Creswell, 22 and I got a note from the Sierra Club about this 23 happening too. And I'm really happy that -- that 24 regulations are going to start with, because it seems so 25 often --

### Page 278 1 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I hate to 2 interrupt, but could you spell your last name -- 3SPEAKER CRESWELL: Oh, sure. 4 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: -- so the court 5 reporter gets it. 6SPEAKER CRESWELL: Sure, C-r-e-s-w-e-l-l. 7 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Go right ahead. 8 SPEAKER CRESWELL: Yeah, I'm grateful for 9 these regulations because it seems, so often, that 10 tragedies have to happen first, and then we get 11 regulation. 12 Well, here the extraction industry, the 13 fracking people, come in and say they're going to 14 provide jobs and economics and all this good stuff. And 15 when everything -- all the damage is done, they'll go 16 away. 17 But I have read, just recently, how there are 18 places where the pollution, the smog, is actually worse 19 at some of these way out in the middle of noplace, more 20 so than in Los Angeles. And I've just taken a little 21 tour around Wyoming, and I have found some of these 22 places really bad. 23One of the problems is that a lot of these 24 places take place on wildlife refuges and right nearby. 25 Those things are sort of made of compromises between

### Page 279 1 industry and fishing and everybody else. And we've got 2 wildlife there that needs protection from the air too. 3 So I'm putting in a word for them as well. 4 And that -- that's all I want to say. 5ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. Thank you 6both very much for your comments. 7 That's all of the registered speakers we have, 8 up until 7:30 tonight, and that person hasn't checked in 9 yet. So if anyone else would like to, otherwise we 10 would just wait and see if anybody shows up. But we'll 11 be here the whole time. But we just wanted to alert you 12 that there won't be any speakers, unless someone else 13 wants to talk, for now. 14 SPEAKER TETTLEBAUM: I actually registered, 15 but I'm not sure -- 16ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. Just state 17 your name and spell it, and we'll get it all down. 18 SPEAKER TETTLEBAUM: Sure. My name's Ben 19 Tettlebaum, Benjamin. And the last name is spelled 20 T-e-t-t-l-e-b-a-u-m. 21 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. 22 SPEAKER TETTLEBAUM: I'm here on behalf of 23 Earth Justice. 24 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Go right ahead. 25SPEAKER TETTLEBAUM: Great, thanks.

### Page 280 1 First, I want to thank EPA for undertaking 2 this long-overdue rule making. EPA hasn't promulgated 3 NSPS for the oil and gas sector for over 25 years, and 4 existing standards only cover emissions of VOCs and 5 sulfur dioxide from natural gas processing plants, which 6 neglects to control a vast portion of the industry. 7 EPA last promulgated NESHAPs for this sector 8 over ten years ago, and this current rule making has 9been further delayed. Thus, we therefore strongly urge 10 EPA to delay no more and to implement this rule that's 11 necessary to protect public health and welfare. 12 Second, the oil and gas sector is booming. 13 Shale gas production in the U.S. increased 14-fold in 14 the last ten years. In 2008 alone the oil and gas 15 production sector emitted over 6.5 million tons 16 hazardous air pollutants nationwide. The Colorado 17 Department of Public Health and Environment recently 18 concluded that the smog-forming emissions from 19 Colorado's oil and gas operations exceed vehicle 20 emissions for the entire state. 21 And for the first time in the state's history, 22 Wyoming failed to meet federal health-based standards 23 for air pollution, primarily due to emissions from the 24 state's oil and gas sector. 25The U.S. Energy Information Administration

### Page 281 1 projects a nearly four-fold growth in shale gas 2 production alone from 2009 to 2035. These facts demand 3 immediate action to protect the public from pollutants 4 that will not only cause and exacerbate respiratory 5 diseases, asthma attacks, cancer and neurological 6 issues, but also will significantly contribute to the 7 accelerating climate crisis, which brings me to my third 8 and final point. 9EPA should directly control emission of 10 methane, in the final rule. Methane, as you know, is a 11 potent greenhouse gas that's over 20 times more effective 12 than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. In 2009 13methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas 14 systems, adjusted for tight sand plays and the Marcellus 15 shale plays, constituted over 328 million metric tons of 16 CO2 equivalents. The proposed rule would capture less 17 than 20 percent of methane emissions by regulating VOCs 18 as a surrogate for methane. To use EPA's own 19 comparison, that would be the climate equivalent of 20 leaving over 45 million typical passenger cars on the 21 road. 22 EPA has made an endangerment finding that 23methane is an air pollutant that, quote, causes or 24 contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be 25 anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. And

### Page 282 1 in the proposed rule, EPA admits that methane emissions 2 remain, quote, significant. Consequently, under the 3 Clean Air Act, EPA must implement controls to regulate 4 directly methane emissions. 5In sum, we strongly urge EPA to implement the 6 final rule, without delays, that adequately protects the 7 public health and welfare. 8 Thanks very much for your time. 9ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. Thank you. 10 If you could -- if that's a prepared statement, if you 11 could leave that with her, that'd be great. 12 So now we'll just be waiting here. You're 13 welcome to wait with us, but you don't need to. You 14 won't offend us if you feel like you need to go. 15(Recess taken from 6:48 p.m. to 7:04 p.m.) 16ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. We have 17 another person who wishes to speak. So -- oh, boy -- 18 April Matzenbacher, if you would like to come up. 19If you just can sit at the table, there's 20 microphones there, and they're on. If you would state 21 your name and spell it for our court reporter. We are 22 taking a full transcript of everything. And if you do 23 have a prepared statement you're reading off of, if you 24 could leave it with her at the end, it would help her in 25 getting accuracy in the transcript.

### Page 283 1 SPEAKER MATZENBACHER: Okay. 2 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: So begin anytime 3 you wish. 4 SPEAKER MATZENBACHER: Okay. My name is April 5 Matzenbacher. It's M-a-t-z-e-n-b-a-c-h-e-r. My maiden 6 name was Jones. 7 I've come to speak today because recently my 8 family has encountered several health issues, primarily 9my mother was recently diagnosed with lung cancer. 10 She's never smoked. She's never had any high-risk 11 activities in her life. She's always exercized, 12 maintained a reasonable weight. She's never been 13 diabetic; had a healthy diet, exercised. And as I've 14 been looking into the horrible world of cancer, because 15 it's not something that's been in our family -- you 16 know, nobody I know has cancer -- what I've found is 17 that cancer rates have increased by 30 percent. 18 And I'm a nurse, and I've seen, you know, the 19 effects of what the loss of your health really means. 20 If you don't have your health, you really don't have 21 anything. You can't enjoy your nice house. You can't 22 enjoy your nice car. Nothing you wear means anything. 23Any traveling plans you may have, it really doesn't 24 matter because you feel terrible and you're always 25 linked to a hospital.

### Page 284 1 So I found that cancer rates overall globally 2 have gone up 30 percent. Also, in terms of real 3 numbers, that means about 7-1/2 million people globally 4 die every year from cancer. Also, I was disturbed to 5 find that cancer is the number-one killer of children 6 now. 7 Also, my daughter was born with some birth 8 defects nobody in our family has; namely, reproductive 9birth defects. I doubt she'll ever have children, no 10 matter how much money we throw at it. It's not going to 11 do any good. 12 So the type of cancer that my mother had is 13 called adenocarcinoma, and it's largely caused by 14 exposure to environmental toxins, which sort of led me 15 down the road of, you know, organics and fertilizers and 16 et cetera, et cetera; the topic being, today, fracking 17 to harvest natural gas for a new source of energy, 18 which, you know, obviously we need. We need to not be 19 dependent on foreign oil. We're mired down in this war 20 that we can't get out of. 21 But as I investigated it, it seems like about 22 a year, year and a half ago, there was a news feed about 23 Weld County having flammable water. They turned on 24 their tap, lit it up, and it was like a blowtorch with 25 water. I don't -- that was from the fracking that's

### Page 285 1 occurring there. And apparently there's not a great 2 deal of industry oversight. 3And as far as fracking goes, I have a list, 4 which I will provide. It says something like 400 5 different types of ingredients that they use in the 6 fracking fluid. And apparently, I'm not sure that all 7 of that has been tested or even fully disclosed on the 8 effects and safety on humans and our environment, how 9 long it lasts and where it goes. 10 Also there's a town in Pennsylvania, I 11 believe, called Dimock, which has been devastated. 12 Their water supply is forever contaminated. And the 13 company that fracked and bought the mineral/gas rights 14 under this town has to now import water to these people. 15Also I understand that fracking has been associated with 16 cancer clusters. 17 I saw an article here that states that there 18 are other alternatives to the fracking fluids; namely, 19 water, just plain water, can be used as a fracking fluid 20 quite effectively. Also it's called Schlumberger Green 21 Slurry System. And it says here it delivers consistent 22 earth friendly performance; however, has not been 23 utilized on land, but is most typically used in a marine 24 type environment. 25Also it's my understanding that some

### Page 286 1 contamination can happen in the air. As the gases are 2 forced upwards, they often leak and are sometimes burnt 3 off, thereby creating a source for CO2 methane 4 contamination. 5My concern is, is that I understand this is 6probably going to go forward anyway, but I would like to 7 be reassured that the EPA is going to protect us from 8 contaminated drinking water, contaminated air; to put 9 the systems in place in redundancies of safety that can 10 assure us that, while we get this nice source of fuel, 11 that the industry isn't cutting corners to just save a 12 few bucks, and harm -- potentially harm and kill people. 13And I think that once we let Pandora out of the box, 14 it's awfully hard to get her back in, and also at what 15 cost. 16So I came to voice my concerns to make sure 17 that it's thoroughly regulated and a good deal of 18 oversight is put into place. 19ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very 20 much for your comments. We are -- we appreciate you 21 coming. 22 SPEAKER MATZENBACHER: Thank you. 23ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: And feel free to 24 leave whatever information with the court reporter, and 25 she'll make sure either it's part -- used to check her

### Page 287 1 transcript or be information that can be given to us to 2 put into our record. 3SPEAKER MATZENBACHER: Okay. Thank you. 4 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: That was our last 5 registered speaker, so at this point we will be here 6 till 8:00 p.m. when we advertised we would be open. But 7 we have no one else that's signed up, so unless someone 8 comes in, we expect no more speakers. 9(Recess taken from 7:11 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) 10 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: We're officially 11 ending the hearing. Thank you for sticking it out. 12 We're done. 13(The hearing adjourned at 8:00 p.m.) 14 (Documents attached but not marked.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

### Page 288 1 REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 2 I, CARLA D. CAPRITTA, Registered Professional 3 Reporter, certify; 4 That the foregoing proceedings were taken 5 before me at the time and place therein set forth. 6That all foregoing proceedings were recorded 7 stenographically by me and were thereafter transcribed; 8 That the foregoing is a true and correct 9 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken; 10 I further certify that I am not a relative or 11 employee of any of the parties, nor financially 12 interested in the action; 13I declare, under penalty of perjury under the 14 laws of Colorado, that the foregoing is true and 15 correct. 16Dated this 10th day of October, 2011. 17 18 19__________________________ Carla D. Capritta, RPR 20 21 22 23 24 25