Witnesses:
James Martin
Regional Administrator, Region 8, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Tom Doll
State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Kathleen Sgamma
Vice President, Government and Public Affairs, Western Energy Alliance
Bernard Goldstein
Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh

 

Subcommittee Members Present:
Andy Harris, Chairman (R-MD)
Brad Miller, Ranking Member (D-NC)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Jerry McNerney (D-CA)
Frank Lucas (R-OK)
Todd Akin (R-MO)
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
Paul Broun (R-GA)
Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)

 

Full Committee Members Present:
Ralph Hall, Chairman (R-TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member (D-TX)

 

On February 1, 2012, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled “Fractured Science-Examining EPA’s Approach to Ground Water Research: The Pavillion Analysis.”  The reason for this hearing was to discuss the validity of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ground water analysis in Pavillion, Wyoming, released in a December 8, 2011 draft report.  This has been a charged issue ever since land owners in Pavillion reported well contamination to the EPA back in 2008.  Pavillion is a small rural town with a history of oil and gas exploration and a history of poor water quality dating back to the 1940’s.  The outcome of this EPA study is being closely watched by those who maintain that properly managed hydraulic fracturing is not harmful to drinking water.

 

The hearing was initially delayed when Josh Fox, producer of the documentary “Gasland,” attempted to film the hearing.  Fox was told he would not be allowed to film the hearing without any documentation of press credentials.  After a discussion with security officials Fox was escorted out of the hearing room in handcuffs. Ranking Member Brad Miller (D-NC) called for a motion that the rules on press credentials be suspended to the end of the hearing to allow Fox to film. Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) called for a recess due to the lack of a quorum on the committee.  Once a quorum had been reached, Miller called for a recorded vote.  Those not in favor of suspending the rules won 7-6 and the motion was tabled.  Miller put forth another motion that the hearing be suspended one week to allow for Fox to attain his credentials.  This motion was tabled in another 7-6 ruling.

 

In his opening statement Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) praised the increased production of natural gas as one of the few bright spots in the nation’s energy outlook.  He proclaimed that in 2010 shale gas exploration supported 600,000 jobs and saved U.S. homeowners $16 billion in home energy costs.  He expressed his anger at President Obama for announcing his support for shale gas in the State of the Union address and then allowing his administration to “attack [hydraulic fracturing] through scientific innuendo and regulatory straight-jacketing.”  Harris attacked the EPA for not practicing sound scientific procedure in their analysis and for not consulting with individuals with supreme knowledge of the specific structural and hydrological geology of this region.  He criticized the EPA for releasing 622 documents significant to the report late last night giving the subcommittee insufficient time to evaluate these documents. 

 

Ranking Member Brad Miller (D-NC) opened by stating that the question at hand “is not whether we are pro-drilling or anti-drilling.  The question is whether we will drill with our eyes open.”  Miller believes the public is entitled to know if hydraulic fracturing is safe.  In his statement he went on to clarify that the EPA’s study is a risk assessment not risk management assessment.  The purpose of the risk assessment is to inform decisions makers who develop risk management strategies.  Miller said he is suspicious of industry and their willingness to dismiss the validity of contamination claims, even while they refuse to identify the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing.

 

In his testimony James Martin of the EPA gave a history of the EPA’s investigation.  In the spring of 2008, the EPA office in Wyoming was contacted by some residents of Pavillion requesting an assessment of their drinking water and potential contamination.  A sampling of ground water detected benzene, xylene, methylcyclohexane, naphthalene, and phenols in one third of sampled wells.  Another sampling in 2010 detected inorganic compounds in 16 of 17 samples, but a source could not be identified.  The EPA went back again in 2010 and drilled two deep monitoring wells where they found increases in alkalinity at the deepest points of the wells.  This lead the EPA to “tentatively” conclude that drinking water was “likely” contaminated by drilling practices.  Martin said that peer review and public comment is currently underway.  He defended the EPA and their process of addressing the public’s concerns and acting with the utmost transparency. 

 

Tom Doll of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission states in his testimony the unreliability of the EPA report.  He argues the EPA drilled monitoring wells that found contamination far deeper than the drinking water wells that the residents of Pavillion rely on.  He says the geology of the Wind River Formation is complex making the identification of migration pathways difficult.  He further states that the EPA did not investigate other potential contamination pathways.  Wyoming has historically regulated hydraulic fracturing and the chemicals that drilling companies use are required to be released.  He concluded by saying that Wyoming does not support the EPA findings or procedures and has requested further testing.

 

In her testimony, Kathleen Sgamma of Western Energy Alliance emphasized the importance of the public perception of hydraulic fracturing.  She has seen false information get to the public and then spread uncontrollably.  She says ground water protection groups consider hydraulic fracturing low risk and consider agriculture to pose a far greater risk.  Sgamma questioned why the EPA jumped to conclusions before holding a scientific peer review.

 

In his testimony Bernard Goldstein said he supports maximum production of natural gas while at the same time cautioning the nation to learn from the past, specifically ignorance to potential environmental health issues.  He said he believes the public is confused over the contradictory messages they are receiving about hydraulic fracturing.  On one hand they are being told that we have been doing hydraulic fracturing for decades: however the implementation of new techniques has completely changed the methods.  Goldstein expressed further concern over the current lack of any support for studies dealing with health concerns related to hydraulic fracturing.  He believes the U.S. should take time to study the health concerns sooner rather than later to possibly avoid any potential serious issues. 

 

Harris opened the question and answer portion of the hearing by asking Martin which chemicals were found in the EPA drilled wells and to what degree these chemicals were above the allowable drinking water regulations, as well as if both wells showed contamination.  Martin replied that benzene was the only chemical found and that only one well showed contamination.  Martin clarified that when the same well was sampled six months later it showed half the contamination level.  Harris urged Martin to agree that hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale is a completely different geological regime than in the Wind River Formation and that the results of this study cannot be applied to hydraulic fracturing in different areas of the country.  Martin agreed saying at the EPA they have “not proposed to extrapolate” the findings in Pavillion to the Marcellus Shale.  

 

Miller followed Harris by asking Martin if benzene is a known carcinogen and to what levels above the allowable drinking water standards was it at both of the sampling times.  Martin confirmed that benzene is a known carcinogen and that it was at 50 times above the acceptable level and at 25 times the acceptable level six months later.  Miller made it clear he did not think Sgamma was qualified to make conjectures on this case because she has no background in “geology” or “toxicology”.  Miller questioned Martin on whether the EPA study tested for other means of contamination besides hydraulic fracturing.  Martin confirmed that they did and at this point some of these alternative means of contamination have been ruled out and some have not.  Miller reemphasized that it would help the EPA evaluation if the drilling company, Encana, would release the complete list of chemicals that they used in drilling.

 

Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY) directed questioning at Doll asking him if he believed the contaminants in the water are from natural sources and if so why the state offered up five measures for the residents of Pavillion to get safe drinking water.  Doll said the measures offered by the state were in order to assure the residents of Pavillion that their drinking water is safe.

 

Representative Jerry McNerney (D-CA) asked Martin what the EPA’s assessments were on the quality of the cement casings used to enclose wells.  Martin said that the EPA found some missing or soft cement in some of the wells which is why they hypothesized that the incomplete cement casings could have served as migration pathways for contaminants.  However, they were not able to identify one as an absolute pathway. McNerney believes the casings in general circumstances are adequate but need to be better regulated. 

 

In the second round of questioning Harris asked Doll if he believes that the contaminants found by the EPA in their deep well testing relate to drinking water complaints .  Doll did not believe the deep wells are of any significance to the shallow wells where the residents are pulling their drinking water.    

 

In the third round of questioning Harris asked Martin why those specific depths were chosen when they drilled their monitoring wells.  Martin explained that they were trying to sandwich the lowest depth of drinking water extraction and the highest depth of hydraulic fracturing in order to see if there was evidence of contamination pathways between these two depths.  Harris attributed the detection of contaminants at that level to the known presence of natural gas in that area.  Harris drew his evidence from the presence of blowouts at around the same depth.  The fact that there were blowouts acknowledges there are small amounts of natural gas in the area that are insignificant enough to commercially pursue.

 

Opening statements, witness testimony, and a web cast of the hearing can be found at the House Science, Space, and Technology web site.