Page 1

1

2

---------------------------------------------------------

3

4 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

5 OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS

6 * * *

7 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS SECTOR RE:

8 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

9 and

10 NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS

11 FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS REVIEWS

12

---------------------------------------------------------

13

14

15 COLORADO CONVENTION CENTER

 700 14th Street, Room 207

16 Denver, 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

16 Andrew 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

5 Anna 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

13 April 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

3 ADMINISTRATOR 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.

15 I want to, first of all, thank all of you for

16 being 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.

25 This 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.

6 But 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,

9 particularly 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.

13 The 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

3 making. And this public hearing is really a vital, vital

4 part of that.

5 So 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.

15 ADMINISTRATOR 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.

25 There'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.

3 If 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.

15 We ask you to limit your testimony to five

16 minutes. 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,

19 blinking 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.

5 The 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.

16 That 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

23 microphone, you can turn on the microphone by pushing in

24 the center to turn it on.

25 And 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.

3 ASSOCIATE 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

6 American 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.

13 This 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

23 most 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.

13 We 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.

16 As 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.

23 Specifically 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,

19 monitoring, 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.

23 In 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

9 practicable.

10 The proposed rules are not --

11 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I'd ask you to

12 please wrap up.

13 SPEAKER 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.

5 That concludes my comments. Thank you.

6 ASSOCIATE 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.

16 We 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

6 burden 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

13 monitoring systems and flow meters that will generate

14 more data, for no real -- no real environmental

15 benefit.

16 EPA 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.

5 Despite 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.

16 Compounding 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.

25 Thank 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

5 Association. Thank you, Greg. You can begin now.

6 SPEAKER 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

5 millions 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.

13 We 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

25 might 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.

9 Currently, 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.

15 We 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.

5 Thank you.

6 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Admire, you

7 can begin now.

8 SPEAKER ADMIRE: Good morning. My name's John

9 Admire, 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.

16 GPA 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

19 build 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.

6 In 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.

15 GPA 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.

5 GPA 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

19 proposed 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.

3 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very

4 much.

5 Our 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

9 by 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.

13 So, 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.

6 We 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

9 providing 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.

19 We 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

3 matter 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.

23 Finally, 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.

3 Again, 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.

9 Thank 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.

15 MR. NIZICH: Okay. Thank you.

16 SPEAKER HASSENBOEHLER: Absolutely.

17 MR. NIZICH: All right.

18 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Baizel.

19 Again 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.

3 I 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.

5 We 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

19 makings 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

19 plume 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.

3 This illustrates why we believe the rule

4 should be expanded to include existing facilities and --

5 existing wells and the related facilities.

6 For 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.

9 I thank you for holding these hearings and for

10 your attention this morning.

11 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both

12 very much.

13 Our next two speakers are Mr. Wes Wilson, and

14 Joy Jamison of Colorado Interforce Power and Light -- or

15 Interface, I'm sorry.

16 Mr. 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.

19 SPEAKER 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.

25 In 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.

13 But 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.

5 This 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.

16 If 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

9 protection. 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.

15 Thank 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.

3 I 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.

13 Here 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

5 meet 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.

23 The EPA's actions to regulate fracking is a

24 really good first step. Thanks a lot.

25 ASSOCIATE 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.

6 SPEAKER 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

9 Association, 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

23 member companies have been reviewing this proposed

24 action and have the following general comments:

25 Because 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

6 being 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.

16 Third, 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.

19 There 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.

13 The 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.

3 SPEAKER 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.

6 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Just one

7 question. You mentioned availability of some of the

8 control equipment for completion operations. Do you

9 personally 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.

16 Mr. 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.

5 Yesterday 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

16 bringing 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

19 business 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

16 many 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.

23 So when you stop there, let's talk about the

24 real world impacts of some of this stuff. I'm going to

25 make 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.

9 So 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.

15 One 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.

19 And 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.

16 People 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.

23 In 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.

9 Emissions 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.

16 In 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.

25 SPEAKER 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

6 protect Americans from harmful air pollutants, including

7 volatile organic compounds, VOCs; toxic air pollutants;

8 ozone; and particulate matter across the country.

9 The 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.

25 The 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

6 pollutant that impairs local air quality. It should be

7 directly related and regulated, and not just a byproduct

8 of the reductions of VOCs.

9 The 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

16 believe those represent significant strides forward and

17 are worth the short-term costs. We support the proposed

18 standards.

19 Thank 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.

23 The 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.

15 And 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.

23 The 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.

6 Particulate 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.

15 The 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.

19 We'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.

25 The 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.

3 And we'd like to see the same care taken to emission

4 reductions in the field.

5 The 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.

13 Thank 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.

19 SPEAKER SWALNICK: Sure, I'll make sure that's

20 done. Thank you.

21 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. And

22 Mr. Andrews.

23 SPEAKER 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.

6 I 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

9 proposed 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.

6 What 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.

15 I have worked on several air permitting

16 projects 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

19 more 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.

23 Personally, 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

25 may 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.

5 Thank you.

6 ASSOCIATE 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.

3 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you much.

4 The next two speakers are Bryce Carter of the

5 Sierra Club, and Mike Findlay.

6 SPEAKER 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.

19 I'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.

6 I 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

19 patterns 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.

6 ASSOCIATE 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.

13 We 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.

19 I 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.

6 We'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.

15 We 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

19 make 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.

25 And 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.

5 ASSOCIATE 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.

13 I am Geri Reinardy, and I serve as the speaker

14 of the Nationwide Assembly of the American Lung

15 Association. And, in addition, I serve on the national

16 board 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.

19 I'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.

6 So 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.

15 In 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

5 methane and sulfur dioxide.

6 The 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.

16 Although the standards do not directly address

17 methane, the reductions in VOCs will also cut methane, a

18 powerful greenhouse gas.

19 The 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.

25 The VOCs, air toxics, and sulfur dioxide
Page 73

1 reductions will improve our air quality, reduce risk,

2 and reduce health effects associated.

3 In 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.

9 ASSOCIATE 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.

19 Hydraulic 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 --

16 by 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.

23 And 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.

13 To 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.

23 This 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

19 proposed -- 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

3 much. If you have a prepared statement, please leave it

4 with our court reporter.

5 The 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.

9 SPEAKER 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.

23 During 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?

5 I 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.

9 A 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.

15 I'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.

25 At 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?

3 I 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

13 mountains, 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

19 megacompanies 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.

3 I'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

9 mothers 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.

15 Among the books I read was one by -- among the

16 books 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.

13 Denver is 20 percent higher in pollution than

14 the average --

15 ASSOCIATE 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,

6 marketing, 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.

13 In 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.

25 CPA 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.

16 The 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.

3 We 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

9 practice.

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

19 be 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

6 been 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

9 possible 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.

19 ASSOCIATE 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.

9 While 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.

15 I 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.

25 After 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.

6 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you.

7 Mr. Rapp, if you could please state your name

8 and spell it.

9 SPEAKER 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.

16 This 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.

3 I 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.

15 Anyone 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.

3 What happened to multiple use of our public

4 lands? What multiple uses are left for these lands?

5 The 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.

25 Of 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.

13 The 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.

25 In 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.

25 SPEAKER 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.

3 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you.

4 SPEAKER ALEXANDER-HOLT: Thank you. Hello.

5 My name is Sharon Alexander-Holt. I reside 3413 South

6 Akron 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.

13 Not 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.

3 I 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.

15 Thank 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.

15 As 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.

25 People 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

13 many 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.

25 ASSOCIATE 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.

6 SPEAKER SCHRACK: Diane Schrack; D-i-a-n-e,

7 S-c-h-r-a-c-k.

8 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Go ahead.

9 SPEAKER 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;

13 Farmer and rancher livelihoods at risk because

14 of ozone and fracking chemicals that pollute their crops

15 and livestock;

16 The 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.

23 And 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.

6 Our 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,

19 production 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.

15 Thank you.

16 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you.

17 Ms. Whitmore, if you would say your name and

18 spell it, please.

19 SPEAKER 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.

6 We do not need overregulating that will

7 negatively impact our economic development at such a

8 dire time.

9 In 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.

19 SPEAKER 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.

3 First, 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

25 many 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

9 more 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.

13 Based 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.

5 You 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.

9 I 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.

16 Being 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.

23 Mr. Montgomery, if you would state your name

24 and spell it, and then you can begin.

25 SPEAKER 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.

3 Colorado Environmental Coalition, or CEC, is a

4 coordinating group that works with nearly 100

5 environmental and other nonprofit groups in this state.

6 And one of our main objectives, one of our main

7 activities, is to advocate for responsible energy policy

8 in Colorado.

9 In 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

16 patch.

17 Of course, I guess, as a resident on the Front

18 Range, I experience some of the consequences of that

19 production, 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.

5 Typically 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.

25 ASSOCIATE 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.

6 SPEAKER 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

9 both 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.

19 To 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

9 permitting 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

13 American people and American government. This,

14 perversely, hits the pockets of the American public as

15 much 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.

9 The 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

16 proposed 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.

19 Energy 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.

9 Even 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.

13 An 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 --

19 ASSOCIATE 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.

25 ASSOCIATE 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.

3 And, Ms. Phillips, if you'd state your name

4 and spell it.

5 SPEAKER PHILLIPS: Virginia Phillips;

6 V-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.

9 HRL 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.

16 As 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

23 means 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,

15 mathematical 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

6 NESHAP 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.

15 In 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

19 prevent 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.

16 Thank you for your time and consideration.

17 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both

18 very much.

19 The 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.

5 Thank 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.

6 SPEAKER 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,

16 before 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.

9 Also, 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

19 method 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.

9 Imagine, 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.

13 This 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

16 North 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.

9 And 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.

15 Many 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.

19 EPA'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.

25 All right. Our next two speakers are Deborah
Page 126

1 Thomas of Powder River Basin's Resource Council and

2 citizen, and John Fenton.

3 And 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.

9 ASSOCIATE 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

19 Wyoming, 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.

25 This 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.

6 Most 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.

15 These 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.

19 And 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.

5 In 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.

23 The 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.

13 Mr. Fenton, if you would state your name and

14 spell it, please.

15 SPEAKER 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.

3 This 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.

6 We'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.

13 We 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.

6 So 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.

15 So 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

19 much 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

6 National 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

23 more 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

6 pollution; 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.

15 From 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.

25 Mr. 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.

5 A 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.

15 The 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.

23 I hope you will consider these facts as you

24 consider the rule process. Thank you.

25 ASSOCIATE 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.

5 SPEAKER 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

16 Water USA, I get reports from everyone across the United

17 States, in respect to everything that has to do with

18 domestic resource production.

19 It 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.

25 Listening 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.

16 My 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.

5 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I need to ask you

6 to conclude.

7 SPEAKER SYLVESTER: That's it.

8 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay.

9 SPEAKER 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.

15 About 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

19 many 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.

23 Now, 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

6 Washington, 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

19 make 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.

5 So 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.

15 And 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.

23 So I called the sheriff's department, and I

24 said, "Hey, listen, they are dumping stuff out here."

25 And 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.

5 And 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?

13 And 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.

16 Thank you.

17 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both

18 very much.

19 Our 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.

19 As 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.

9 After 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.

13 Some 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.

5 These rules are prudent. They would help the

6 public, 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.

13 Ms. Hartmann, if you'd say your name and spell

14 it, please.

15 SPEAKER 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.

5 And 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.

19 Regulation 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.

6 Thank 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?

13 This next speaker will be the last speaker

14 before our lunch break. It's John Gale of National

15 Wildlife Federation.

16 If 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.

9 Sadly, 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.

23 Hydrogen 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.

5 Although the oil and gas industry claims that

6 more 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

19 Washington 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.

23 As 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

19 Americans' 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.

25 We 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.)

3 ASSOCIATE 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.

6 In 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.

13 Today 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

19 people 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.

23 For 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.

13 We 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

16 both 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.

5 SPEAKER 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.

9 SPEAKER 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.

3 The 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.

19 This 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.

5 I, 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.

15 ASSOCIATE 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.

5 SPEAKER 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.

25 And 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.

5 So 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.

15 But 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.

23 But 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.

3 And 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

9 proposing 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.

16 And 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?

23 MR. 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.

3 MR. NIZICH: Okay. All right. I just wanted

4 to make that clear. Thanks.

5 SPEAKER SHAKTI: Uh-uh.

6 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Mr. Blotter, if

7 you would state your name and spell it for the court

8 reporter, I'd appreciate it.

9 SPEAKER 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

16 pits -- 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

19 more 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.

3 The 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

6 being 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.

3 Mr. Saum, if you would like to go first,

4 you -- please state your name and spell it for the court

5 reporter.

6 SPEAKER 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

16 profession, 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

6 platforms 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.

13 My 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.

3 I 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.

19 Therefore, 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

9 profits 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

23 Act, 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

15 mamma 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.

19 One 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

6 Americans 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.

19 As 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?

23 Thank you.

24 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both.

25 Our 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.

3 SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: It's a difficult

4 name.

5 ASSOCIATE 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.)

9 SPEAKER 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.

13 SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: Yes. My name is

14 Sonia Skakich-Scrima, a mouthful. You want the spelling

15 of my last name or both?

16 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Both would be

17 good.

18 SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: Sonia with an "i."

19 And 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

23 Aurora, 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.

3 I'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.

25 The 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.

15 Without 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.

23 So 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.

6 These 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.

13 And they have no say in this because they don't own

14 mineral rights.

15 So 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

19 by 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.

25 ASSOCIATE 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.

6 SPEAKER SKAKICH-SCRIMA: Okay. So we

7 appreciate your being here and look forward to the

8 closing of the Halliburton loophole. Thank you.

9 ASSOCIATE 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.

16 SPEAKER 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.

25 The 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

3 monitoring 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.

16 We 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,

25 must 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.

5 Now, I know that the draft rule specifically

6 mentions other equipment, like storage vessels, are not

7 considered an affected facility when it comes to the

8 "fracking" or "refracking modifications" definition.

9 We'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

15 make sense to take a more expansive view about that

16 modification 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.

9 Sources 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.

19 Also, 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

25 much 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.

9 We'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.

23 Mr. 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.

3 And 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

16 benzene, 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.

19 ASSOCIATE 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.

5 SPEAKER SINGER: Okay.

6 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you both.

7 Is Gopa Ross here? Okay. And, Libby Comeaux,

8 or Comeaux, you can come up now.

9 If 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.

16 Colorado 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.

5 The practice of water trucks spreading

6 production 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?

16 The 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.

6 La 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.

6 SPEAKER 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."

16 So 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.

23 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you.

24 Ms. Comeaux.

25 SPEAKER 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.

13 Fifth, 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.

23 Since 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.

15 Our 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.

5 CEOs 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.

13 There 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

19 being 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.

6 Please, please, please, seize the opportunity

7 to elevate this nation's health to its rightful place

8 above the bottom line. Thank you.

9 ASSOCIATE 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.

19 I 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.

5 I 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.

16 So 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

19 brought 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.

19 And 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

6 more than ever now, in each and every person.

7 Please restore integrity by fully regulating

8 fracking. Thank you.

9 ASSOCIATE 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.

15 SPEAKER 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.

19 SPEAKER 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

23 mainly 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.

3 SPEAKER SARTORI: My company is currently

4 building compressor stations and optimizing compressor

5 and process facilities in Pennsylvania, West Virginia,

6 Mississippi, 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."

13 The 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.

6 Any 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.

15 So 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?

23 Concerning 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.

5 Again, 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?

23 Another 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.

6 They talk about a return of net new savings.

7 Has that included the cost to provide fuel gas or

8 electricity --

9 ASSOCIATE 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.

16 ASSOCIATE 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.

23 SPEAKER 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

6 petitions 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.

9 One 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.

5 If 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."

15 I 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.

19 The 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.

23 SPEAKER 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.

3 I'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.

9 This 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.

15 For 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.

15 First, I would recommend that hydrogen sulfide

16 be 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.

9 Second, 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.

15 And, 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.

5 Finally, 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 --

13 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: I do need you to

14 conclude.

15 SPEAKER DEVANNEY: I am concluding.

16 ASSOCIATE 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.

23 SPEAKER WILLIS: Yes, my name Lisa Willis;

24 L-i-s-a, W-i-l-l-i-s.

25 ASSOCIATE 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.

15 I also think we've all seen the TV footage of

16 people 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

3 much 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.

13 ASSOCIATE 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.

5 I 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.

13 And 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

16 be 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

23 making 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.

5 I 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

16 probably 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.

6 As 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.

13 ASSOCIATE 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.

16 SPEAKER 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.

23 I 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.

6 It'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.

15 Hydrogen 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.

3 The 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.

9 And 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.

19 Unfortunately, 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.

3 When I read in your document, initially you

4 had said that benzene was at a 90-in-a-million risk.

5 And 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.

13 I 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?

5 NRD 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.

16 And 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.

3 EPA hopes? EPA crosses their finger that

4 industry is going to do the right thing? I'm not

5 understanding that statement.

6 A 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

16 most likely be affected by chemical exposures,

17 accidents, emergencies resulting from industry

18 operations, and stress related to community changes."

19 Is 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,

23 maybe 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

5 making; 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.

15 SPEAKER 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.

15 We believe, if we can't call for a

16 moratorium -- 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.

3 And, Mr. Shane, if you would state your name

4 and spell it for the record.

5 SPEAKER 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.

5 One 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.

25 Some 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.

5 I live in Weld County. That's also called

6 WELL 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.

13 Again, 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.

13 SPEAKER 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.

16 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. The next

17 two speakers will be Lawrence Martinez and Rena

18 Kaplowitz.

19 SPEAKER 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

9 believe 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

16 made 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.

6 Thank 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?

13 SPEAKER 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.

19 ASSOCIATE 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,

16 but 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.

19 I 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.

23 ASSOCIATE 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.

6 SPEAKER 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.

9 My 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

9 permitting 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.

5 The 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.

23 Seems 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.

13 Mr. 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

19 A-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.

23 This 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.

3 What'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

6 probably 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.

6 So 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

19 material 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.

6 ASSOCIATE 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

13 million is ever encountered. Because the well's

14 permanently contaminated from that point on, whether it

15 was induced or not.

16 No 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

19 production 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.

13 And 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.

19 And 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

23 Alliance, 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.

19 Here 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

9 National 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.

16 So we're very encouraged to see EPA tackling

17 fracking in this rule making, and glad to see that

18 happening.

19 My 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.

23 SPEAKER COOLEY: -- that we'd like to see EPA

24 address.

25 So we'll provide more information in our
Page 251

1 technical comments, but I thank you for letting us speak

2 today.

3 ASSOCIATE 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.

6 SPEAKER 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.

15 SPEAKER RIVERA: I can switch it down.

16 ASSOCIATE 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.

25 It 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.

25 A 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

5 metals and methane.

6 The 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.

25 Their 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

3 matters 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

19 planet 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.

25 Let 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.

9 ASSOCIATE 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.

15 SPEAKER 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.

23 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. Thank

24 you both for your comments.

25 The 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.

15 For 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.

23 When 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?

13 Across the southwest we are aware of our short

14 stay on these common lands. We are aware of the

15 Anastazi, the Hopi, the Apache, the Cherokee, and other

16 previous 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.

23 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you. Thank

24 you.

25 And, 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.

6 SPEAKER 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.

13 For 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.

19 Additionally, 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.

25 Well, 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

13 monitoring 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.

23 Also, 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

3 Act 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

9 both 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

13 may, 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.

16 We're going to have less VOCs going up into the air; but

17 in exchange, we have more particulates going into the

18 air.

19 Lastly, 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.

23 And 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.

6 So 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.

15 SPEAKER 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

3 my 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.

16 It 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.

16 Since 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

23 monitors, the ozone monitoring towers, in Weld and

24 Larimer County are in compliance, below the .075.

25 So 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.

16 In -- 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

25 August 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.

5 From my personal perspective and from my

6 board'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.

16 I 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

23 more 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

23 more time, I've learned a little bit more, and I think

24 we've ended up with better rules, better regulations.

25 So 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.

5 So thank you very much. I'll cut it short.

6 ASSOCIATE 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.

9 SPEAKER 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

16 pretty 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.

3 And 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

9 build 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.

25 Certainly 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.

9 In 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.

5 In 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

9 buying 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?

13 So 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.

19 So 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.

23 ASSOCIATE 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.

16 Those 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.

13 We -- 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.

16 If 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

6 begin.

7 SPEAKER STANTEJSKY: Sure. My name is Susan

8 Stantejsky.

9 ASSOCIATE 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.

15 I 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.

23 There's air toxics, such as benzene. Those

24 are known carcinogens. There's no question.

25 And 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.

6 And 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.

5 I 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.

19 When 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 --

3 SPEAKER CRESWELL: Oh, sure.

4 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: -- so the court

5 reporter gets it.

6 SPEAKER 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.

23 One 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.

5 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Okay. Thank you

6 both 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 --

16 ASSOCIATE 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.

25 SPEAKER 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

9 been 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.

25 The 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.

9 EPA 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

13 methane 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

23 methane 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.

5 In 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.

9 ASSOCIATE 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.)

16 ASSOCIATE 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.

19 If 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

9 my 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.

23 Any 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

9 birth 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.

3 And 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.

15 Also 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.

25 Also 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.

5 My concern is, is that I understand this is

6 probably 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.

13 And 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.

16 So 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.

19 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR HARNETT: Thank you very

20 much for your comments. We are -- we appreciate you

21 coming.

22 SPEAKER MATZENBACHER: Thank you.

23 ASSOCIATE 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.

3 SPEAKER 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.

6 That 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;

13 I declare, under penalty of perjury under the

14 laws of Colorado, that the foregoing is true and

15 correct.

16 Dated this 10th day of October, 2011.

17

18

19 __________________________

 Carla D. Capritta, RPR

20

21

22

23

24

25