1 1 2 3 4 * 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 * 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30(b)(6) Videotaped Deposition of the U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, through its designated representative, JOHN BLEVINS, taken on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, commencing at or about 9:17 a.m., in the offices of 500 Poydras Street, Suite B-210, New Orleans, Louisiana. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VERSUS * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND LISA PEREZ JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendants. * * * * * NO. A-11-CA-011-LY * * * * * * RANGE PRODUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibits: No. 1 (42 USC, Section 300i) No. 2 (U.S. EPA administrative record) No. 3 (List of Dr. Beak's experience) No. 4 (Emergency administrative order) No. 5 (Photograph of Hurst water well) No. 6 (Graph of Barnett shale) No. 7 (Article) No. 8 (Aerial photograph) No. 9 (Alisa Rich e-mail) 25 68 81 83 182 193 241 248 309 Witness' Attestation Reporter's Certificate 326 327 Examination JOHN A. RILEY 7 Caption Appearances Agreement of Counsel 1 3 4 Page I N D E X

3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 BY: BRIAN H. LYNK 18 19 20 21 22 23 Reported by: 24 25 Barbara S. McGee Certified Court Reporter State of Louisiana ALSO PRESENT: Tina Arnold, EPA Region 6 Cheryl Seager, EPA Region 6 Keith Tashima, EPA, DOJ, via phone Jeffrey Sands, EPA, DOJ, via phone Aaron Palmer, Videographer U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Attorneys-at-Law Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 23986 Washington, DC 20026-3986 APPEARANCES: Representing Range Production Company: VINSON & ELKINS Attorneys-at-Law 2801 Via Fortuna Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746-7568 BY: JOHN A. RILEY - AND HARRIS, FINLEY & BOGLE Attorneys-at-Law 777 Main Street Suite 3600 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 BY: ANDREW D. SIMS Representing United States Environmental Protection Agency:

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Barbara S. McGee, Certified Court Reporter in and for the State of Louisiana, officiated in administering the oath to the above-named witness. All objections are to be made in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. That the formalities of sealing and certification are hereby waived. The witness It is stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the parties that the 30(b)(6) videotaped deposition of the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, through its designated representative, JOHN BLEVINS, is hereby being taken under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for all purposes permitted under the law. S T I P U L A T I O N

reserves the right to read and sign the deposition. The party responsible for service

of the discovery material shall retain the original.

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOHN BLEVINS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, after having been first duly sworn, testified on his oath as follows: THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the videotaped deposition of EPA designee, John Blevins. This deposition

is being held at 500 Poydras Street, Suite B-210, in New Orleans, Louisiana on January 25, 2011. 9:17. The time indicated on the video screen is My name is Aaron Palmer and I'm a The court

certified legal video specialist.

reporter is Barbara McGee with Gulf Stream Court Reporting. Would counsel please introduce

themselves for the record. MR. LYNK: I'll go ahead and -- and introduce everyone and then make a brief statement on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency. My name is Brian Lynk from the Department of Justice, representing EPA. There are two other

justice department attorneys listening to the deposition by phone, Keith Tashima and Jeffrey Sands, of the environmental enforcement section

6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there. I'm with environmental defense. Two

other EPA counsel are present, Tina Arnold and Cheryl Seager, both from EPA Region 6. I

understand that Mr. John Riley and Andy Sims are here as counsel for Range Production Company. And the witness who will introduce himself, John Blevins, has been designated by the Environmental Protection Agency to appear here today in response to the order issued by judge Yeakel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on January 19th. We have argued in -- in pleadings filed with Judge Yeakel that the order was issued in error. That main -- that remains our

position for all of the reasons that we have set forth in those papers. today to comply. Nonetheless, EPA is here

But we want to make it clear

that we maintain all of our grounds of error, both for purposes of the record in that case, for purposes of any appeal, and to the extent that the transcript of the proceeding may be sought to be introduced in any other case in the future in which EPA is a party. Also with due respect to the Railroad Commission of Texas I will note for the

7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 please? record that EPA is not a party to the proceedings pending before the Railroad Commission and -- and it is not making an appearance there by appearing here in compliance with Judge Yeakel's order. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter please swear in the witness. THE COURT REPORTER: Will you raise your right hand, Do you solemnly swear that the

testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. A. Q. Good morning, Mr. Blevins. Good morning. Excuse me. Sorry. For the record, let

me introduce myself again as well as my co-counsel, Mr. Andy Sims, who's seated to my left and I am John Riley with the law firm of Vinson & Elkins and together with others we represent Range Production Company in the

8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Railroad Commission proceeding and then more broadly Range Production Company and Range Resources Corporation who are listed on the emergency order that to some degree brings us here this morning. A. Q. Yes. -- who we represent? All right. Mr. Is that clear to you --

Blevins, let me start with some preliminary matters that are to some degree a way for us to warm up into the matters for examination this morning. And first I'd like to ask you have you

ever had your deposition taken in any legal proceeding whatsoever at any time? A. Q. Yes. And approximately how many times have

you had your deposition taken? A. Q. Twice. Have you given testimony in a legal

proceeding in court or before any tribunal -A. Q. A. Q. No. -- at any time? No. So your testimonial experience -- and I

may be over simplifying, please correct me if I am -- is limited to two prior depositions?

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. That's correct. When was the most recent of those two

prior depositions? A. They were like 1995 time frame,

generally. Q. Were they in the same action or were

they in different -A. No, they were for two separate I was deposed on behalf of

Superfund actions. the Agency. Q.

And you anticipated my next question.

They were in the context of your work for the United States Environmental Protection Agency; is that right? A. Q. That's correct. Were they enforcement matters to the

best of your recollection? A. They were not enforcement matters, they

were Superfund cases. Q. So it's been some time then since

you've -- since you've given a deposition in any proceeding; is that fair, 15 years or so? A. Q. That's correct. I'm going to go over some of the basics

then as I see them for purposes of taking a

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deposition. Of course the objective of a

deposition is to get your truthful testimony. In this instance you are testifying on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. So you are the designated witness for

the Agency; is that true? A. Q. That's correct. There have been some exchanges among

counsel regarding the subject matter of this deposition. There was a document that was

generated on behalf of Range Production Company that in section 2 of that document the -- the matters for examination were described. know what I'm talking about? A. Q. Yes, I've seen that document. Okay. I don't have -- unfortunately I Do you

wasn't able to grab all the paper necessary or that might be necessary for this morning's deposition and that's a particular example. I

did not bring the document that has the matters for examination with me. Fortunately,

co-counsel, though, has brought a copy and -- is that a copy before you?

11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Is that -MR. LYNK: That -- that appears to be -MR. RILEY: Okay. MR. LYNK: -- what you may be referring to. THE WITNESS: Is this -EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. It is. It is indeed. And I don't want

to belabor the point.

I just wanted to make

sure that you had seen that and had reviewed the section of that document that is entitled "Matters for Examination." A. Q. Yes, I've seen it. There's some 24 matters that are

described or 24 items that are described in the document? A. Q. Yes. There was -- at the end of the document

there is a mention of documentary evidence that at least from our perspective we offered to accept in this deposition to the extent anyone or EPA wanted to offer documentary evidence to

12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answer any of the -- the areas of inquiry or to respond to areas of inquiry. Is there any doc

-- are there any documents you want to provide us this morning before we get on with the oral examination? A. I just have a copy of the record for

our action which I -- I believe that you have as well. Q. And I do. And that -- and that will

become an exhibit shortly. A. Q. Okay. But the notion here was that the judge And because

had ordered testimonial evidence.

there are a number of topics we thought that maybe either -- or there might be some documents that EPA wanted to offer. And I'm gathering

from your response that that's not the case? A. I have no other documents to offer. MR. LYNK: And I'll note just preliminarily, so I suppose it's not an objection, that, you know, we -- we have received your list of examination topics. We -- we also heard the

instructions of Judge Yeakel at -- at -- towards the close of the first hearing before him on the

13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was headed. point then. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Since you've seen the document, you've 19th and again in the brief reconsideration hearing that that -- and -- and I will think accurately paraphrase or summarize his comments that in general his expectation is -- is that this deposition will examine the information related to EPA's emergency order of December 7th, whatever additional documents or information related to that order may or may not exist and who within the Agency is familiar with them and what has in fact been done by EPA in connection with that order. And so in -- in

determining what witness to identify the EPA particularly attempted to comply with those instructions from the Court and -- and -- and has certainly asked its witness in light of those instructions to be prepared to testify today. MR. RILEY: And that's just -- that's where I So let me -- let me get to that

looked at the matters for examination or a description of the matters for examination have

14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you had opportunity to prepare for this deposition this morning? A. Q. Yes, I have. The -- and at this stage are you fully

prepared to go forward with the deposition in the role you've been designated? A. Q. Yes. All right. The objective as I

mentioned earlier is to get your truthful testimony as EPA's designee in this matter. And

it is my personal objective to make sure that I don't ask you questions that confuse you or mislead you or otherwise do not serve the objective to get truthful testimony from you. If I do any of those things it is inadvertent and I would ask you to call it to my attention and I will try to rephrase the question or correct whatever misstatement I've made. But as

I mentioned just a moment ago what I'm trying to do is ask you straightforward questions and get your honest responses; is that satisfactory? A. Q. That's fine. I think we have that agreement between

us that we'll at least try to communicate accurately and -- and -- and in a courteous

15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fashion throughout this process? A. Q. Yes. There are a whole other list of things

that people ordinarily ask at the beginning of a deposition that I don't think are necessarily appropriate but is there anything that would inhibit -- that you're aware of that would inhibit your ability to give truthful testimony this morning? A. Q. No. Can you describe for us your

educational background, Mr. Blevins? A. I have a bachelor of arts in

environmental studies from Warren Wilson College which is outside of Asheville, North Carolina. I have a master's of the science in environmental engineering from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Q. After you obtained your master's could

you describe your employment history? A. Yes. I started with U -- U.S. EPA in

Region 9, which is San Francisco in the Superfund program. I worked there for

approximately 10 years as a staff project manager and as a first line supervisor in the

16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Superfund program. I went on an IPA, which is

an inner governmental transfer of personnel to the state of Oregon. And I was a supervisor

there running a -- the eastern region of Oregon's cleanup program for three years. I

then went to U.S. EPA Region 4, which is in Atlanta, and was a project engineer manager in the federal facilities program for approximately three years. I left the Agency and went to work

for the state of Delaware as a division director running their air and waste division. And then

I returned to U.S. EPA in the position I currently sit in six years ago and about four days as the division director for the compliance assurance and enforcement division. Q. What are your current day-to-day

responsibilities as division director for the compliance and enforcement division? A. I'm basically responsible for the civil

enforcement program for the region in Dallas. So all the enforce -- not all the enforcement work for the region but the majority of enforcement work for the region is within my purview so enforcement of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation Recovery

17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Act, all of that work is funneled through my division and all of my staff and I oversee that program for the region. Q. A. How many staff do you oversee? I have approximately 156 people within It ebbs and flows, but that's

my organization. a good number. Q.

Are the folks within your organization

or in your staff is the term, are any of those individuals lawyers or have a law degree? A. None of the people within my staff Some of them

serve as lawyers for the Agency.

may actually have law degrees but that's not their function or responsibility within my organization. That is housed within the Office

of Regional Counsel within the region and we work closely with that group on all our enforcement actions. Q. Are the people on your staff devoted to

different program areas or enforcement of particular statutes? A. I -- the way our -- my organization is

set up is I have three different branches as an organizational structure. One is responsible

for air enforcement, one is responsible for

18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -water enforcement, one is responsible for waste enforcement, that's hazardous waste, in general. So it's the RCRA program plus some of the other programs like TSCA and the lead paint program -or Lead-Based Paint Program, lead program PCB program. And then I have a group that provides

support to the division as a whole and it also does NEPA analysis. Q. In rough strokes could you break down

the -- I think you said 156 people that are on your staff and how they are proportioned in those categories? A. The air and water branches are probably The RCRA

30 to 40 people staff member strong. group is 20 to 25 people strong.

And then the

support group probably has about 15 to 20 people. And then there's just -- the rest would

make up administrative staff that reports to me or to some of the other division direct -- or branch chiefs. Q. Did I understand you correctly that air

would be 30 to 40 people? A. Q. Right. And then separately water would be 30

19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Yes. -- to 40 people? Correct. Those are the two biggest

branches that do those two enforcement programs. Q. In terms of an organizational chart

who -- how many direct reports do you have? A. I have a deputy director who reports I have four associate directors

directly to me.

who report directly to me that manage each of those four groups that I just talked about. then I have administrative staff within my office who report to me. people. Six people, seven And

But the day-to-day management of those

people is shared between myself and my deputy director. Q. All right. Let's just get a couple of Who is your deputy

individuals identified. director? A. Q. A.

Stephen Gilrein. Who are your associate directors? David Garcia is my associate director

for the air enforcement group; Jerry Saunders is the associate director for the water enforcement group; Mark Hanson is the associate director for the hazardous waste enforcement group; and

20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deborah Griffin is the associate director for the support group and NEPA group. Q. again? A. Q. Deborah Griffin. The individual then who heads the I'm sorry. Can you say the last name

group, the water group, is Jerry Saunders, correct? A. Q. That's correct. And that is the individual -- or that

area is the area which is the subject of the -of this proceeding and this deposition this morning; is that also correct? A. Q. That's correct. Could you tell me all of the EPA

personnel that were involved with the development of any of the administrative record or in the decision -- involved in the decision making process to issue the emergency administrative order, docket No. SDW -- excuse me -- dash 06 dash 2011 dash 1208 which is the subject of this proceeding? A. Can you just clarify for me people

involved in creation of that document and signing of that document or people who were

21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 involved in knowing about that document? Q. Well, let's -- let's start with -- I

don't know if it's an appropriate term but if it works between us let's -- let's use it -- the core group. Who participated in the development

of the factual information that in EPA's view supports issuance of the order? A. The core group for that would be Chris Those

Lister, Jerry Saunders, Scott McDonald.

would be the three primary people that did the work. There were other people within my

organization and within regional counsel who supported those -- those individuals in creating the document and the order itself. Q. Okay. Let's go out then from the core What individuals

group to the next layer.

participated in the next layer for lack of a better phrase? A. That would be Carl Wills was involved, Oh, geez. If I can

Willie Lane was involved. look. Q. A. Q.

Ron -- and I'm just losing, sorry -No --- his last name. -- that's fine. If there's something

you want to refer to that will be helpful to you

22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if you can just tell me what you're looking at so I can -A. I'm just looking at a copy of the --

the record. Q. A. Q. A. Okay. And the -The index of the -The index right now. Ron Van Wyk,

W-Y-K, was involved. Tucker Hanson? Q. believe. A.

I know -- and -- and

Hanson (different pronunciation), I

Hanson, sorry. MR. RILEY: H-A-N-S-O-N, I believe. THE WITNESS: -- was involved. Steve Gilrein and

myself were involved as the management team. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Is that it to the best of your

recollection? A. group. Right, of the -- the extended core Again there were other people that were

involved in periphery discussions and meetings but that's the core.

23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. Let's go one more layer then And I understand if you

in -- in the periphery.

can't be complete but it's best you recall who else was involved in to use your word the periphery of the decision process to issue the administrative order? A. Well, Suzanne Murray would be involved.

Both Cheryl and Tina were involved in helping us build the documents. Within the region we also

held briefings with the regional administrator, the deputy regional administrator, so that would be Dr. Armendariz, that would be Larry Starfield, Miguel Flores who is the water division director was briefed. We also included

discussions with personnel from our headquarters group, OECA. So they were involved in

discussions with us and other personnel within headquarters. Q. Okay. I think I was clear but let me

just check to make sure I have an accurate list. I'm talking about up to the point where the order was issued. A. Q. respect? Correct. So we're on the same wavelength in that

24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Correct. So there's a -- again, I don't know if But we did,

there's people at headquarters.

you would like those names or not.

before we issued the order, have discussions, as we normally do in the course of business, with our headquarters group. Q. names. A. Adam Kushner, Bernadette Rapolppold. Please, if you would, give me the

And I don't think I could spell that one for you. I always misspell it. I think it's

R-A-P-O-L-P-P-O-L-D.

Cynthia Giles was involved

in a briefing, Katherine McCabe was involved, Mark Pollins was involved. Q. A. Q. A. L-L-E-N-S, is it? I-N-S. I-N-S. Those were the key people. Some of

their staff -- those are mainly managers within OECA. They may have had staff people in the

room and I just can't recall all those people's names off the top of my head. Q. she -A. She's a deputy assistant administrator Katherine McCabe, what function does

25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things. for OECA. Q. A. Q. In headquarters; is that -That's correct. -- correct? Let me do a couple of

housekeeping things. MR. RILEY: Let me do a couple of housekeeping Let's mark this Deposition Exhibit 1.

EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Mr. Blevins, I've marked for the record

as Deposition Exhibit 1 what I believe to be a true and correct copy of the section of the U.S. code cited by EPA in the administrative order that's subject of this proceeding. Section 300i, 42 USC, Section 300i. Specifically Do you have

that before you and do you recognize it? A. Q. I do. Have you reviewed this -- this statute

prior to this morning's proceeding? A. Q. Yes. Am I correct that this is the section

under which EPA claims authority to issue the administrative order? A. Q. Yes. As well as the -- the 42 the United

26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 States code -- I'm sorry. That is -- this is Excuse me.

according to the United States code.

So we have before us then the -- the proper authority which EPA cites in its administrative order for issuance of the administrative order as far as you know; is that correct? A. Q. Yes. All right. Well, work through it with

me, if you would, as to which aspects of this statute EPA believes applies in these circumstances? That's the objective.

MR. LYNK: I'll just -- I'll object to the extent it calls for legal conclusions and in saying that it has nothing to do with qualification of the witness but rather to do with whether the witness is here to speak for the Agency in presenting legal conclusions today. However, to the extent you have an understanding as a factual matter from your position within EPA about how and why this order was issued you may answer the question. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY:

27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Let's -- let's just read it together,

if you would and tell me if I'm reading accurately. And I'll read and then I'll

interrupt to see if you agree with my understanding of EPA's basis for issuance of the administrative order. Again, reading from 300i, paragraph A: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subchapter the administrator, upon receipt of information that a contaminant which is present or is likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water -- did I read that correctly so far? A. Q. Yes. Do you agree that there's no allegation

in the administrative order that there is a threat to a public water system? A. again? Q. Certainly. I'm trying to parse out the Can you just ask that one more time

statute to see if I've understood EPA's theory in issuing the administrative order. And maybe

a simpler way to say it is that the allegation is that -- in the administrative order is that there is information, according to the EPA, that

28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a contaminant is present or is likely to enter an underground source of drinking water as opposed to a public water system. understanding? A. I think the Agency's position on this Is that your

is that we definitely believe that there's been a contaminant that's entered into an underground drinking water system. We asked Range to

collect data that would help us determine if it was likely to enter into a public water system. That was part of the order which was to go out and look at the public water system that was in the area and collect data to determine if there was any threat to that public water system. So I think while we don't have data or evidence in the -- or site evidence in the order of the presence of contaminants in a drinking water system we were trying to explore the likely part of the language you read, likely to enter as part of the data collection that we asked Range to provide. Q. Okay. And at -- at the time the order

was issued, though, there was no evidence of a contaminant entering a public water system; is that correct?

29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ahead. THE WITNESS: Yes, that's what I said. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. All right. Maybe this section will be Correct. MR. LYNK: Objection, asked and answered. Go

a little easier.

After the comma, or that there

is a threatened or potential terrorist attack, and then parentheses, or other intentional act designed to disrupt the provision of safe drinking water or to impact adversely the safety of drinking water supplied to communities and individuals. There's no allegation that there's any behavior on the part of Range that -- that is relevant to that provision; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. And then continuing on after that

comma, which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons. Is it EPA's allegation that there are

contaminants present that present or presented at the time the order was issued an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of

30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 persons? MR. LYNK: I'll -- I'll object as misleading to the extent your question doesn't quite match the statutory language you read. MR. RILEY: Okay. itself, Counsel. MR. LYNK: You can answer. THE WITNESS: The EPA's allegation is that we believe there is evidence -- was evidence when we issued the order that there may be an imminent, substantial endangerment present, yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Reconcile that for me. Is it that EPA Will that will stand for

thought there might occur an imminent and substantial endangerment or that there was presently at the time the issuance of the order an imminent and substantial endangerment? MR. LYNK: I'll reiterate my objection about the distinction between questions that ask for legal conclusions versus those that ask for his

31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Counselor. MR. LYNK: Okay. MR. RILEY: And I'd ask you not to make speaking objections. MR. LYNK: If you will -- if you will -MR. RILEY: If you -MR. LYNK: -- recognize that that objection stands to this line of questioning. MR. RILEY: Sure. And as you know your factual understanding of what the Agency did. MR. RILEY: Well, that was a factual question,

objections are all reserved. MR. LYNK: Well -MR. RILEY: So you can say the word objection, you can describe your -- without giving a narrative what you think is wrong and the basis

32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 explain. for your objection and that will be preserved. MR. LYNK: Our procedural posture here is unusual because this transcript presumably will be introduced in the Railroad Commission proceeding. We're not a party there. We won't

have the opportunity to seek relief with respect to objections there. So I feel compelled to With

make my objection clear for the record.

that said on this particular one it's lengthy and I don't want to -- I don't won't to tie up your time by reiterating it verbatim. So if

you'll recognize that line of objections. MR. RILEY: And actually the nature of my objection is giving a narrative objection which is recognized within federal and state law you are instructing the witness. And I would ask Give a legal

you to refrain from doing that. objection, that's fine.

But instructing the

witness how you would like him to answer is inappropriate as you well know. MR. LYNK: If I feel it necessary I'll But as I said I'm willing to just note

33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for the record that objection. MR. RILEY: Thank you. THE WITNESS: At the time that the Agency issued the order we made a determination that there was an imminent and substantial endangerment that existed in regards to the situation for the order, yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. If I understood your answer then, and

please correct me if I'm wrong, the order was issued on December 7, 2010; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. And on December 7, 2010 based on the

administrative record as well as the terms of the order itself EPA found that there was an occurring present imminent and substantial endangerment; is that your understanding? MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: That is correct. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. All right. Reading on in the statute:

34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And that appropriate state and local authorities have not acted to protect the health of such persons. A. Q. Did I read that accurately? Yes. Tell me what facts EPA developed that

would support a finding on behalf of EPA that appropriate state and local authorities have not acted to protect the health of such persons. A. At the time of the issuance of the

order EPA through discussions with state regulatory agencies had not -- had -- did not believe that any direct action was being taken to address the imminent and substantial endangerment that EPA had identified and believed needed to be addressed. Q. Okay. So list for me what local

agencies EPA contacted? A. We had talked with the local fire

marshal, and that's the only local Agency that we could identify that had if any -- if -- had any input or any opportunity to address the situation that existed at the -- at the two wells that we identified in our order. Q. Is there a ground water district that

covers the area that is the subject of our

35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussion? A. I don't know. But we didn't believe

that anybody had any authority to take action to address the situation at the local level. Q. Is this an incorporated area, By "this"

incorporated in any local government?

I mean the area of the Range wells and the Lipsky water well and the Hayley water well. A. It's part of a -- it's incorporated in

the county that I -- the county government or it's incorporated in the county but that's the extent of my knowledge. Q. Tell me on how many occasions you spoke

with county officials regarding their ability to address any endangerment issues? A. Q. None. Are there any other local authorities

that you can think of that EPA might have contacted to determine their ability to address any issues that EPA perceived? A. At the time of the order EPA did not

believe there were any other local agencies that we should contact because we do not believe there was any other local agencies that had authority to address the issues present.

36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Let's talk about state agencies. What

state agencies did EPA contact or have conversation with about their plans to address any issues EPA perceived? A. EPA had discussions with both the

Railroad Commission and with the Texas Environmental Commission -- Quality Commission -- TCEQ, Commission on Environmental Quality, sorry. Q. Are there any other state authorities

that have -- that have jurisdiction over water resource in the state of Texas as far as you know? A. There are other state agencies that are

involved in water issues, yes, but not that had -- that we believe had jurisdiction over the situation that existed at the two wells that are cited in the order based on our discussions with TCEQ and the Railroad Commission. Q. Were your discussions with TCEQ and the

Railroad Commission memorialized in any form? A. There are documents in the record that

memorialized our discussions with the Railroad Commission as the primary regulatory agency involved in this matter. The discussions with

37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TCEQ are not in the record, but it was a discussion that I had with my contact at TCEQ regarding what if any role TCEQ would have in relation to this situation. And TCEQ informed

me that they were not the regulatory agency that would be engaged on this issue, that it would be the Railroad Commission. Q. And who -- who did you speak with, who

was your contact? A. Q. A. John Sadlier. When did you speak with Mr. Sadlier? Without my calendar I wouldn't know the

date, but it was a few days before the issuance of the order. or 4th. Q. Do you have any notes of that So probably like on December 3rd

conversation whatsoever? A. Q. No, I do not. And perhaps it's repetitive but indulge List for me to the best of

me if you would.

your knowledge all local and state authorities that have jurisdiction or potential to address any endangerment issues or water contamination issues that are relevant to this proceeding. A. As far as local agencies the EPA does

38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not know of any local agency that has authority to address the situation that was identified in our emergency order. As far as state agency

it's our belief based on the conversations with TCEQ and the Railroad Commission that the Railroad Commission is the state agency that has the regulatory authority over the situation in and around the situation identified. Q. Do I have a complete list then, no

local agencies and two state agencies as far as you understand it? A. No. I think my answer would be I don't

know -- the Agency does not know of any local agency and only knows of one state agency that has authority in this situation. Q. Okay. So you don't believe TCEQ has

authority? A. Based on all of my conversations with

TCEQ, that's correct. Q. Reading on from the statute: To the

extent he determines it to be practicable in light of such imminent endangerment he shall consult with the state and local authorities in order to confirm the correctness of the information on which action proposed to be taken

39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the statute. under this subsection is based and to ascertain the action which such authorities are or willing -- or excuse me -- are or will be taken. Did I read that correctly? A. Q. Yes. Okay. And did EPA engage in the

directive, same as found the statute, to consult with state and local authorities? A. Q. I believe we did, yes. Tell me first which state and local

authorities EPA consulted with. MR. LYNK: I'm -- I'm going to object, asked and answered. I thought he gave those answers

to you already. MR. RILEY: I think it's a different part of So let's be clear if we could.

And if it's asked and answered then, you know, again, those are -- objections are reserved for the time of trial. MR. LYNK: Well, again, not -MR. RILEY: You know, that's not my choice,

40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 objection. But you can answer, if you wish, if you're able to. THE WITNESS: Regarding the order itself we had discussions on numerous occasions with numerous individuals within the Railroad Commission. though, Counsel. You chose not to be a part of That's what

the Railroad Commission proceeding. you decided to do.

So the fact that your --

your objections won't be heard -MR. LYNK: I ask that we read back the earlier answer in which he identified which local agency he consulted with or that his staff consulted with. MR. RILEY: No. I asked him which local --

state and local authorities had jurisdiction or had the ability to address the endangerment issues EPA perceived. Now I'm asking him which

state and local authorities they conferred with according to this statute. MR. LYNK: I'm going to reiterate my

41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. How many occasions would you say

constitutes numerous as you just used the word? A. Q. Oh, more than 10. Who spoke to whom at the Railroad Who from EPA spoke to whom at the

Commission?

Railroad Commission? A. Again there was contacts at all From a staff level Chris

different levels.

Lister dealing with the staff level at the Railroad Commission and in fact going out into the field with members of the Railroad Commission to conduct sampling; as well as there was discussions at the -- at higher levels within the Railroad Commission from Jerry Saunders. There was discussions at my level And there was

with the Railroad Commission.

also discussions between Mr. Armendariz and one of the commissioners at the Railroad Commission. Q. Who was Chris Lister's contact at the

Railroad Commission? A. I don't know exactly. Within the

record I can look if there's some e-mail exchange. But I don't know that the documents

in the record would capture each and every

42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contact that we had with the Railroad Commission. Q. So there may have been other contacts

that are not reflected in the record? A. At the staff level, yes. But they

weren't -- they weren't deemed necessary as part of the administrative record, but they were part of our ongoing discussions with the Railroad Commission. Q. Is it safe to conclude that those

conversations were not documented and, therefore, are not incorporated into the administrative record? A. It's safe to say that those

conversations are not included in the administrative record. Q. So they may be documented in other EPA

records but they're just not included in the administrative record; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. Why were those documents excluded then

from the administrative record? A. They weren't deemed necessary to Those may have

support the action that we took.

been routine discussions with the Railroad

43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commission just on setting up field visits. They may have been conversations with the Railroad Commission to confirm that certain information was submitted to the railroad -- or exchanged between us and the Railroad Commission. We did not include all of those

conversations as -- or deem those as necessary for the administrative record. Q. Who participated in going through each

of those documents and determining what would be part of the administrative record and what would be excluded from the administer -administrative record? A. That would be Chris Lister, Jerry

Saunders, Scott McDonald were the primary people responsible for making sure the administrative record was built for and submitted for this case. And as the record indicates Jerry

Saunders was the one that certified the record. Q. What criteria did they use to determine

what would go into the administrative record and what would be withheld? A. I guess I don't understand the

question. Q. Sure. You had a group of folks that

44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you just described, Chris Lister, Scott McDonald, Jerry Saunders, and they apparently parsed through some EPA records, the best I understand you just testified to, and they made a decision and this will go into the record, this one won't, this document will, this document won't. So I'm assuming based on my own

personal experience in government that a list of criteria for determining what would go into the record was compiled before three staff members were allowed to decide what's part of the administrative record and what's not. asking you for that list of criteria. A. There's not to -- there's not a list of The criteria are the So I'm

written criteria.

documents that are necessary to support the decision or the documents submitted into the record. Q. What about documents that didn't

support EPA's conclusion, were they also included in the administrative record? A. Again, I've already answered that once.

The documents that we believed were necessary to support the conclusions within our admin -- our order were submitted into the record.

45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evidence. MR. RILEY: Well, that's what I heard so... THE WITNESS: That's not what I stated. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. So, again, there's a -- imagine Q. See, what I'm hearing, though, is that

there may be documents that were not in the view of Mr. Lister, Mr. McDonald and Mr. Saunders supportive of EPA's conclusions that may have been withheld from the administrative record. MR. LYNK: Objection, assumes facts not in

a stack of documents. A. I mean, that's not what I stated. I

said the documents that were necessary to support our decision were put in the administrative record. Q. Okay. And what I'm understanding from

that is that there may be other documents that, to use your words, were not necessary to support the administrative order that were withheld from the administrative record. piece right? Have I gotten that

46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LYNK: Same objection. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: I don't believe they were withheld. I don't believe they were put into the record because that's not the standard against which we built the record. The record was built to We reviewed our files and

support our action.

put those documents that we deemed appropriate to support our record. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. So let's suppose as a

hypothetical that there's a record that does not support the order. Is that found in the

administrative record? A. I'm not comfortable addressing a

hypothetical question as speaking for the Agency. Q. Okay. How is it that when you use the

word support the way I am interpreting your use of that word is that there are documents that validate or would lead one to conclude the way EPA did in its administrative order, that's what I'm understanding support to mean. Do you

47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand -- am I understanding your use of the word support correctly? A. My use of support is that we made

certain determinations, findings of fact within our administrative order, we built a record to show what are the documents necessary to support those facts that are included in the record. Q. Okay. Now, are there any documents

that EPA possesses that don't support EPA's findings of fact and conclusions of law that are in the record? again. Are there any documents in EPA's possession that do not support EPA's findings of fact in the administrative order? A. Q. Okay. Say that one more time. Are there any records in Excuse me. Let me try that

Certainly.

EPA's position that do not support, in other words, contradict the findings of fact that are in the administrative order? A. The Agency does have documents in its

possession that were submitted by parties such as Range which they contend do not support our action. Q. Why are they not included -- those

48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 documents, why are they not included in the administrative record? A. Because those documents were not relied

upon or -- to support the decision that we made. Q. So I haven't gotten it wrong, then.

Documents that contradicted any findings of fact are not in your administrative record; is that true? A. Again, I would not -MR. LYNK: Object to form. Go ahead. Object to form. THE WITNESS: I would not say it that way. I

would say the documents in the record are the records that we, the Agency, used to make our decision. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. All right. But you specifically used

an example of there are documents that Range submitted that would tend to contradict or undermine the administrative order; is that true? MR. LYNK:

49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Object to form. THE WITNESS: There are documents that we possess that other parties have submitted evidence from their perspective that make alternate -- are alternate facts or make alternate arguments. But the Agency has not, again, used those in making its determination because those are not facts that we generated to support our order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Am I correct that the Agency did not

include in the administrative record contradictory evidence or arguments as pertains to the findings and conclusions in the administrative order? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object that the question is vague as to time frame. Are you

asking him about documents the Agency had before prior to or on the 7th of December or after? EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, the administrative record was

compiled when? A. The administrative record was certified

on January 13th.

50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tape left. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So the sorting process to determine Q. When did this sorting process you

described occur, the sorting process that Mr. Lister and Mr. McDonald and Mr. Saunders engaged in? When did they do that? It occurred kind of over a period of

A.

time leading up to the certification on January 13th. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, you have five minutes of

what constituted the administrative record occurred after December 7, 2010, true? A. Q. It occurred before and after. Okay. So let's use -- since counsel is

concerned about time frame, let's use the date on which the record was compiled and certified. Which is what again? forgotten. I'm sorry. I've just

What date was the administrative

record cer -- compiled and certified? A. There is no specific date for The record was

compilation of the record. certified on January 13th. Q. Okay.

But I thought I understood you

51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now 10:10. change tape. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is to say that that activity occurred after issuance of the order? A. Q. A. after. Q. And the sorting process we talked about Before and after. Okay. It started before and it was finished

with Mr. Lister, Mr. McDonald and Saunders, that occurred both before and after? A. Q. That's correct. So during that sorting process some

matters were considered part of the administrative record and some matters were considered not part of the administrative record? A. That's correct. MR. RILEY: Why don't we take a break and

This is the end of tape 1.

(Recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the continued videotaped

52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deposition of John Blevins. record. We're back on the This is the

The time is now 10:17.

beginning of tape 2. MR. RILEY: Counsel? MR. LYNK: Let me note for the record John indicated to me during the break he wishes to add to his answer regarding how the record was compiled from just prior to the break. MR. RILEY: Certainly. THE WITNESS: Yeah. Just to clarify -- and I

apologize if I wasn't clear -- the record includes documents that were in the Agency's possession that we relied on up to the date of the issuance of the order which was December 7th. So those were the documents that we -- the

administrative record was built on and that are captured in the certified record that you have. So there may -- the Agency has come into possession of other documents after the decision that are not included in the record because the record is to support the decision which occurred

53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on December 7th. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. second. Okay. Let's talk about that just for a

With respect to information received by

EPA after December 7th, first, has there been information received by EPA that bears on the ultimate question of whether the Range wells, the Butler and Teal wells are causing or contributing to contamination of underground source of drinking water? A. There has been information submitted to

the Agency prior to December -- not prior to, after December 7th related to additional information by outside parties to the Agency that they would like us to consider as we consider the question of the relationship between the Butler well and the two wells cited in our order, yes. Q. And has EPA considered that

information? A. We are -- we have reviewed all that

information and are continuing to evaluate that information, yes. Q. Does EPA have the authority to withdraw

the emergency order that is the subject of this

54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proceeding? A. Q. Yes. Recently the EPA filed the -- the

United States Department of Justice on behalf of EPA filed an action in the northern district of Texas seeking to enforce the administrative order; is that correct? A. Q. Yes. And I'm not trying to go into that

lawsuit, but I just want to understand whether that lawsuit is premature in your mind because EPA has not fully evaluated all of the information it now has available? MR. LYNK: Object to form. You can answer. THE WITNESS: No, I do not believe that the enforcement of our emergency order is premature. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Irregardless of whether you've

evaluated all of the information that's come in after December 7, 2010? A. We have and continue to evaluate that

information but to date and up to the date that

55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ asked to enforce that order we have not seen anything that would alter EPA's position that the order is necessary and needs to be enforced. Q. All right. So let me talk about then I dropped my microphone.

prior -- I'm sorry.

In compiling the record, which as you explained would constitute information EPA had available prior to issuance of the order on December 7, 2010, in compiling the administrative record did EPA have information that tended to contradict its findings of facts that are enumerated in the administrative order? A. Q. A. Q. earlier. Will you ask that once again, please? Sure. And we're -- we're --

No, I understand. We were fumbling with time frame Really what I'm trying to get to is

the process of sorting the EPA records to compile the administrative record. As I

understood your earlier answers is that the three individuals, Chris Lister, Scott McDonald and Jerry Saunders, sorted through EPA documents and determined based on some criteria that certain items would be included in the administrative record and certain records or

56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 items would not be included. A. Q. Yes. The -- with respect to the information Am I right so far?

that was not included is there any information in that -- in those documents that would tend to contradict EPA's findings of fact or conclusions of law that are enumerated in the administrative order? A. There are -- there is information that

the Agency possessed prior to our decision on the 7th of December that within EPA's possession it would -- there's additional information that exists that would -- that helped to educate and inform EPA on the situation that existed in -related to these two wells. Some of that

information clearly was not put into the administrative record. Q. Let me try my question again. Is there

any part of that information that would contradict EPA's findings that are enumerated in the administrative order? A. I'm struggling with the word

contradict. Q. A. Okay. Let me give you an example.

I'm hesitant to use the word

57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contradict. I think there's evidence out there

as in any case that would -- that would exist that you might -- somebody could create a scenario that says: Oh, that evidence doesn't When EPA compiled its

support your decision.

record we don't believe we had any evidence in front of us that would -- would undermine or contradict our decision making that we made, the findings of fact that we made in the order. We

think the findings of fact stand on their face and that there isn't data that we had in our possession prior to the decision that would say a piece of our data was not scientifically valid, a piece of our data was not drawn on scientifically supported conclusions. Q. All right. Let me give you an example.

Did EPA -- does EPA have any documents from any source whatsoever indicating that domestic water wells in the area that is the subject of our discussion have been found to contain or have associated with domestic water well's natural gas? A. Prior to our decision and post our

decision, yes, we were aware of those facts. Q. Are those facts included in the

58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 administrative record? A. No, because we do not believe those

facts were part of the record that we used to make our decision because we don't believe they're germane or relevant to the issue at hand. Q. Well, explain to me EPA's position on

why in that area historically prior to any Barnett shale production there have been instances where natural gas has been found in domestic water wells and how that is not germane to EPA's conclusion that Range is causing or contributing to contamination of the Lipsky or Hayley water wells? A. Because I don't think EPA anywhere in

its order or in its position that we've stated related to this case has ever said that we don't believe there's drinking water wells that can be con -- can be impacted by natural gas. fact know there are, there have been historically, there always will be. We believe We in

the data we have it shows a direct relationsh -relationship between the gas found in the production well owned by Range Corporation and the gas found in the Lipsky and Hayley wells.

59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Because of that fact we don't think that the idea of gas from other sources is necessarily contradictory to our findings nor does it contradict what we found. Q. Let me see if I understand that then.

Is it your position -- by "you" I mean EPA's position -- that it has done sufficient testing to conclusively determine that gas from the Range production wells, the Butler and Teal wells is that the gas found in those wells is the same gas as found in the Lipsky and Hayley water wells? A. We believe that we have enough data --

the Agency believes we have enough scientific data that is valid to support the issuance of an order which, again, we made from information that we believe the Range efforts in and around the Butler and Teal well caused or contributed to the contamination of the underground source of drinking water and presented an imminent and substantial endangerment. Q. Okay. So let's try my question.

There's a -- there's a type of gas being produced by Range. apply to that gas? What term would you like to What -- what is comfortable

60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to you from the Butler and Teal wells? A. We believe the gas that we found in the

Lipsky well and the Hayley well are sufficiently similar to the gas that we found in the Butler production stream to support the issuance of our order under the provision of the statute that we cited 1431. Q. Okay. I'm really trying to get at your

earlier statement that the historical information the EPA possesses and possessed prior to December 7, 2010 is, for lack of a better term, inconsequential to EPA's determination to issue the order; is that true? A. I would not use the word

inconsequential. Q. A. Well, of what consequence then is it? It was part of the data, it was part of We looked at that

the information known. information.

We did not believe it was germane

or relevant to the findings that we cited in our order, that there was gas in one well that was sufficiently similar to gas in another well, a private well, coming from an underground source of drinking water that we thought presented an imminent and substantial endangerment. Again,

61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if you read the order itself, we don't use the word conclusive. same. We don't use the word is the We

We use very likely the source.

believe there is a link between the two and we believe that we were within the authority that the Agency has to ask Range to undertake activities to, one, eliminate the risk that we perceived existed; and, two, to conduct additional infor -- additional data gathering to try to conclus -- to see if we could get to a point of determining conclusively exactly where that gas was coming from. Q. So the way I'm hearing you and

particularly that last piece you're not sure, EPA is not sure if the Range wells are causing or contributing to any contamination of the USDW; is that true? A. Q. A. Q. A. certain. Q. A. Then you're uncertain? No. I said we believe that Range No, that's not true. So you're certain? No. So you're certain? And I don't -- I didn't say I was We issue --

62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 caused or contributed to the situation that led to the contamination of the underground drinking water source. That's the standard that we

believe we have to meet with the issuance of our order. We believe that the data we have At no point -- again, we have

supports that.

not made a determination of the exact pathway. We have made a determination that the gas streams are sufficiently similar to believe they're from the same source. And no data to

date, especially no data before our issuance of the order, have been presented to the Agency that would change our determination of that. Q. All right. How would you characterize

EPA's level of certainty that gas from the Range wells is being found in the Lipsky wells? MR. LYNK: Object to form. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, what I heard so far is that you Is that a fair

think it's possible.

characterization of your answer? A. No. Again, those are all very We believe

qualitative words you're using.

there's data that shows they are sufficiently

63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 similar. Are they exactly the same, no. The

data -- the record doesn't support that, meaning are they identical. But we've never said that.

We think they're sufficiently similar based on the fact pattern in and around the data that we have. We believe that that data shows to a

level of certainty to EPA that there is a relationship between the gas that's in the Range production well and the gas that we found in the Lipsky and Hayley well. And we -- again, prior

to 12-7 and even today we have not been presented data from any source that would conclusively change our -- the Agency's position on that. We believe the two gases are very

similar and we believe they're from the same source, which is the area that Range has tapped for production. We believe the gas from that

formation is the same gas we're seeing in the Hayley and Lipsky well. We believe our data

supports it, and that's why we issued the order. And if we had any uncertainty of that the Agency would have not issued its order. Q. Okay. So if in the course of this

discussion today if we establish the Agency is uncertain then the order is misplaced; would you

64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agree? A. No. MR. LYNK: Object to form. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Let's try to answer -- limit your Now, I'm going

answers to the questions I ask.

to let you go on a little bit but -- but the objective -A. Q. Okay. -- here is for me to ask you questions, So I'm going to

not for you to give narratives. ask you -A. Q. that -A. Q. My answer is no. All right. Okay. -- specific questions.

If I don't do

So you would not withdraw

the order even if you determine as you sit here today that you were incorrect? A. Q. That's not what I said. Well, let's try it the other way then.

If some -- if some part of this discussion you find that EPA has made an error, okay, would you recommend to your bosses and all the powers that

65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be that the order be withdrawn? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object. I mean, this

assumes you're asking him if you prove to him today that the order is wrong will he withdraw it. I don't think that's the purpose of this You're here to find out information

deposition.

related to the order, he's here to answer that. He's not here -- in fact your co-counsel has told the Court he is not intending with this deposition to review the merits of the order. So I think perhaps this is straying beyond the scope -MR. RILEY: Sure. MR. LYNK: -- of the 30(b)(6). MR. RILEY: I apologize for going afield. But And I --

when the witness gave his lengthy answer to a discreet question I thought it was appropriate. But let me -- let me not allow the witness to broaden the scope. I'll adhere to your

instruction, Counsel, and try to ask specific questions. I'd ask you to instruct your

66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Counsel. MR. LYNK: -- that's considered to be both ways. witness, though, to confine his answers to the question asked. Is that fair?

MR. LYNK: Well -MR. RILEY: But if he's going to go afield and make statements on the record then I'm going to have the opportunity to expand the scope. MR. LYNK: Well, I mean, you can't have it You're asking questions I think you

can see that he is making a genuine effort to engage you on that. that. And I'm trying to allow

And I'm not trying to be overly My point

obstructionist with my objections.

though is that we're not here to get the Agency's decision on whether it will take a new action rescinding an order that it issued to Range today. We're here for you to find out

information -MR. RILEY: And that's what I'm trying to do,

67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sir. THE WITNESS: No, but -MR. RILEY: I haven't ask you a question. THE WITNESS: -- I don't believe I went beyond the bounds of your question. question you asked me. MR. RILEY: I haven't asked -MR. LYNK: John, let's wait until he asks you another question. I answered the endeavor. relevant. MR. RILEY: I'm seriously engaging that But if the witness is going to go

beyond the bounds of my question then I'm going to ask follow-up questions. THE WITNESS: Well, I just want to go on the record as the witness I do not believe -MR. RILEY: I haven't asked you a question,

68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: That's fine. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So let's talk about the -- well, let's

re -- regroup for a second and let's get into the deposition record the administrative record of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. I brought two copies with me. I think

you might have a copy before you just based on the outside of your binder and the size of it. MR. RILEY: Let's mark this Deposition Exhibit No. 2 in its entirety. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Mr. Blevins, would you take a minute

and look at Deposition Exhibit No. 2 and just see if you, again, on a quick review whether it's complete? A. Q. It appears to be complete. Now, in fairness there were some blank

pages that were numbered in the -- sequentially, and those are actually not in the deposition exhibit. But I'll make the representation at

least to the best of my review that all that's been removed from the deposition exhibit are

69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 blank pages. Now, as I understand then, Mr. Blevins, this is the entire administrative record as viewed from EPA's perspective in this matter; is that correct? A. Q. Yes. As we established a moment ago there

are other records that are specific to this case that are not included as part of the administrative record -- the certified administrative record; is that true? That may be a cumbersome question. You described a sorting process conducted by three staff members of yours in compiling the administrative record. Am I I'm sorry.

correct that there are other documents in EPA's possession that were not placed into the certified administrative record that are specific to the issues that are the subject of this proceeding? A. Yes, we have other records related to

Range Resources and the issues addressed in our order. Q. So if the administrative record is

intended to be a complete compilation of all

70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 records that bear on the issues presented then the binder we just introduced is incomplete; is that true? A. Q. No. If the administrative record is --

actually constitutes -- is constituted by all records in EPA's possession that bear on the issues in contention in this proceeding then the administrative record is not complete; is that correct? MR. LYNK: Objection. I -- I want to clarify Are

issues in contention in this proceeding. you referring to the Railroad Commission

proceeding or are you referring to the admitted emergency order itself and that action? MR. RILEY: I think they're actually the same but -- but if you prefer me to confine it to the adminis -- excuse me, the emergency order then that's the scope of my question. THE WITNESS: So ask that again, please. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Sure. If the term administrative

71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record is intended or applies to all records in EPA's possession that bear on the issues discussed in the administrative order then the administrative record or Deposition Exhibit No. 2 is incomplete; is that true? A. Again, my answer would be no. Again,

if you read the certification of the record I believe that the attachment represents what the certification for the record is. Q. Okay. But to be clear there are

records that -- that EPA possesses that it elected to not put into the administrative record that bear on the issues addressed in the administrative order; is that true? A. There are records that the agent -- no.

Again -- again, I'm struggling because the administrative record, if you read the certification it says: I certify that the

attached is a true and correct index of the administrative record pertaining to the Agency's decision under review. My answer is yes, this

is the administrative record. Q. Okay. Now, let's say that this

certification -- when one talks about an administrative record, let's suppose that that

72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would include all documents in EPA's possession that bear on the issues discussed in the administrative order, all documents, emphasizing all. Let's suppose that's the case. Do you

understand me? MR. LYNK: I'm just going to object, vague as to time frame of the records. MR. RILEY: Sure. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. 2010. A. Q. Again, ask that again. Sure. I'm just -And, again, it's prior to December 7,

If the administrative record is

actually -- as that term is employed if that is intended to be a complete compilation of all records that bear on the questions and issues raised by the administrative order then the administrative record in Deposition Exhibit No. 2 is incomplete; is that true? A. That's a huge hypothetical question.

If you're asking me if all the records that the Agency possesses related to the Range Resource issue are in this administrative record for this

73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order the answer is no. But I do believe that

the documents that are here comprise the administrative record for this order. Q. Okay. Because that was EPA's ambition

only to find documents that supported its facts and conclusions of law as described in the administrative record; is that true? A. We built an administrative record to

support the issuance of our order, yes. Q. All right. Let me -- let me find out

as best I can EPA's position on, for lack of a better phrase, the level of certainty it had to reach before it issued the order. far? A. Q. A. Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). Okay. Yes. So I'm imagining a spectrum, everywhere With me so

from Range is not the cause to EPA is absolutely sure that Range is the cause of the contamination that's of concern. Okay? Can you

at least get a visual image of that? A. Q. Yeah, I have the image. Okay. So, again, from sure it's not to

sure it is.

With me so far?

74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Yes. All right. Now, you emphasized earlier Did I

that the order speaks to it's likely. understand your position correctly? A. Q.

That's the language in the order. All right. So likely means what in

your mind? A. me. Q. Sure. You know, as lawyers we -- we Again, I'm not sure what you're asking

deal with things like preponderance and stuff like that. So I'm trying to figure out when EPA

uses the word likely its level of certainty that Range is causing or contributing to contamination of a USDW. to you? A. Yes. And I think I've answered before Does that make sense

that the Agency issued the order because we believe we have enough certainty that Range caused or contributed to issue the order. If we

did not we would not have issued the order. Q. And that's why I -- since we got off

track a little while ago because you say enough certainty. And to use our words early, those

are qualitative terms, they're not

75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 quantitative -A. Q. Right. -- correct? I'm trying to understand,

perhaps even in a quantitative sense, what is enough certainty in your -- in EPA's view to issue an administrative order or this administrative order in particular? A. The certainty was that, again, we had a

contamination -- contaminant that entered into an underground drinking water aquifer. We

believe that contaminant posed an imminent and substantial endangerment. When we looked at all

the data in front of us we determined that we believed that the gas in the two wells, the production well and the Lipsky well specifically, but the Hayley well as well, were sufficiently similar to believe that there was a causal relationship between the activities that were undertaken by Range to cause a contamination of the underground drinking water aquifer that led to the imminent substantial endangerment. So the Agency was certain that we

had met our threshold under our own guidance and our own scientific data to issue the order to, one, eliminate the threat, which was the first

76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 part of the order; and, two, to collect data to try to further understand the nature and extent of the contamination and if possible to address that contamination. Q. Is it possible from EPA's perspective

that Range is not causing or contributing to contamination in the Lipsky or Hayley wells? A. Q. I think anything is possible so... So what would you do to bring more

certainty to the situation? A. Have Range collect the data that we Have Range work with us

asked them to collect.

to understand the data that they have in their possession which to date hasn't been shared with the Agency to understand, again, what we ordered, the nature and extent of the contamination, the potential pathways and then potential solutions. Q. Now, I'm going back to my question

because you haven't answered it. A. Q. Sorry. You said there was enough certainty. Okay? What is enough

Those are your words. certainty? A.

Enough certainty is that we believe

77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there's enough scientific data, valid scientific data to believe that Range caused or contributed the contamination that exists in the underground drinking water source. Q. Okay. Please list for me all valid

scientific data that you rely upon, by "you" I mean EPA, in making the statement you just made? A. Q. A. Q. A. That data is contained in the record. Detail it -That data --- for me, please. -- is we have isotopic fingerprinting

data; we have compositional data; and we have data related to the timeline of what was happening in the Hayley Lipsky well prior to the drilling of the Range production well and after the drilling of the Range production well. We

also have data to show that there is no other active production wells in and around the Hayley Lipsky property and there are wells that we believe could have impacted them in the way we're seeing in the field. And that's what

we've contained in the record. Q. Okay. Let's break that down then.

First of all, let's start with the first item

78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you mentioned which is isotopic fingerprinting data. A. Q. That's correct. Describe EPA's full body of information

that supports the administrative order as it pertains to isotopic fingerprinting data. A. We have data that we collected and sent

off to a lab, Isotech, that looked at the isotopic fingerprints from the Butler well, the braden part the Butler well, the Hayley or the Lipsky property. When you run the analysis and

compare the results we believe that the fingerprints are very, if not identical extremely close to being identical and show that the source of that gas is the same. Q. So then you are convinced that the

source -- based on the sample you did prior to December 7, 2010 that the gas in the Range production wells, the Butler and the Teal, is the same gas as that found in the Lipsky water well; is that true? A. stand -Q. So it's substantially similar then you I used the word similar. I will

said it is the same.

79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answered. Answer again. THE WITNESS: Again, substantially similar is not the same, if I used the same. I can't say it's MR. LYNK: I'm going to object, asked and

the exact same gas because it can't actually be the same gas because one is going up one place and another is coming up another place. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. from -A. We believe it's from the same natural Yeah, I took that to mean that it's

gas deposit. Q. Who are the individuals within EPA

whether it be your staff or consultants to EPA outside of the Agency, that interpreted the isotopic data? A. That would be, again, Chris Lister,

Jerry Saunders, Doug Beak who is with our Office of Research and Development, and then it would be the individuals at Isotech. And their -- I

just have to find their names if you need me to. Q. Take your time.

80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. me. A. Q. A. Q. A. Can I use this? Certainly. Your tabs are better than mine. Certainly. Otherwise I've got to find the page. They're in the record. Please take your time and find it for

On page 569, which is the deposition of Chris Lister, he indicates he talked to Mr. Dennis Coleman, co-founder of Isotech Laboratories. And he talked to another gen -- he also talked to a Mr. Steve Pelphrey, P-E-L-P-H-R-E-Y, the lab manager at Isotech Laboratories. on 570. And that's

Those are the individuals that I know And, again,

that we discussed the results with.

there's a record of communication between Chris Lister -- let me just make sure I get that right -- and Mr. Doug Beak who's within EPA at our Office of Research and Development. that is on page 724. Q. A. Q. Do I have a full list, Mr. Blevins? That's, yes, the best of my knowledge. Of those individuals which of them And

according to EPA is an expert in the

81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpretation of isotopic fingerprinting data of the type we've just discussed? A. We would believe that both the

individuals at Isotech qualify as that as well as Mr. Dr. -- Mr. Beak who is within our office of research and development. Q. A. Q. I believe it's Dr. Beak -Dr. Beak, yeah. It is Dr. Beak.

I did a little research in the EPA Web

site panels and I came up with a description of Dr. Beak's experience. MR. RILEY: Let me mark this for the record Deposition Exhibit 3. And off the record. (Off-the-record discussion held.) EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Let me know when you've had an

opportunity review it. A. Uh-huh (affirmative response). Yes.

I'm fine. Q. I -- I will represent to you that I

pulled -- or better stated I printed Deposition Exhibit No. 3 from EPA's Web site and to the best of my knowledge it represents Dr. Beak's

82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 qualifications to some degree at least. As you

can see the date on the bottom indicates when I printed it, it's January 23, 2011. This is the

same Dr. Beak, Mr. Blevins, you described as contributing his opinion to the decision process which led to the issuance of the administrative order? A. Q. Yes. Where is Dr. Beak located in EPA's

organization if you know? A. The Office of Research and Development,

and that's located in Ada, Oklahoma. Q. Who, if you know, consulted with Dr.

Beak in this matter? A. Again, it's included in the record as a

record of communication between Chris Lister and Dr. Beak. Q. It's your tab No. 41.

As far as I can tell based on what's

been provided to me as the administrative record I didn't see any -- any more than appears to be a single contact with Dr. Beak; is that correct? A. There is a single contact included in

the administrative record, yes. Q. Okay. To the best of your information

and knowledge were there other contacts with Dr.

83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Beak that are not reflected in the administrative record by Chris Lister as pertains to this matter? A. Q. I -- I'd only know of the one. Let's put that aside for a moment, if Let's get this out of the way as

you would. well.

MR. RILEY: I'd like to enter the actual emergency administrative order as Deposition Exhibit 4. MR. LYNK: What number will this be? MR. RILEY: 4. MR. LYNK: 4. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Do you have Deposition Exhibit 4 or a

copy of it before you -A. Q. Yes, I do. -- Mr. Blevins? All right. Let's --

let me draw your attention to some of the items in the -- in the exhibit. Among the things you

mentioned supporting EPA's decision to issue the

84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 administrative order you describe some timing as being a factor in EPA's decision. A. Q. That's correct. All right. Could you describe how

timing in the context of our discussion is relevant to EPA's decision to issue the administrative order? A. Well, as part of our investigation that

was conducted related to the citizen's complaint received by Mr. Lis -- Lipsky and Mr. Hayley we entered into discussions with them and gained information from them about when their wells were drilled, what the status of their wells were at the time of drilling, their ability to use their wells, when their wells and their -from their perspective became problematic in terms of having contamination or problems with the operation of their wells. Comparing that to

when the production wells, Butler and Teal wells were drilled by Range Corporation and establishing at least a mental timeline as to the timing of events we believe that helps or that was information we used in deciding whether or not to issue our order. Q. Are you familiar with the Latin phrase

85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 post hoc ergo proctor hoc? A. Q. I am not. All right. Well, trust me when I tell

you it means after this therefore because of this. It's a description of a legal -- a

logical fallacy. Is EPA's possession that because natural gas was detected in the Lipsky well after Range began production in the Butler and Teal wells that that is an indication of causality? A. No. It's part of the fact pattern that

we considered along with the other data and we believe it does support our position, our issuance of the order. So in and of itself it

does not make the determination or drive the decision but it's part of a fact pattern that we consider. Q. How is it relevant in a fact pattern

context to bear on any indication of cause or contribute? A. Well, from EPA's perspective this well They

had no -- was used for active production. were drinking from it. fill their pool.

They were using it to

They were using it for

86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agricultural uses. They had no problems. And

then upon a certain time they started experiencing problems with their well that over time grew worse. So looking for what might have

been the trigger for that change in the -- their ability to use their well one of the -- one of the facts that came to our attention was the drilling of the Range production wells near their -- near their homes, near their wells, looking at how those two were located within a certain geographic area we believe that there was potential for causality. We then collected

other data based on that to see if there were indicators that we could rely on to say that we believe that the two were linked. Again, the

Agency's position is we believe there is a link -Q. A. Q. A. Q. And we'll get to that --- because --- I promise you. Okay. -- is about, simply about the fact that But my question --

Range went into production, some time passed and based on Mr. Lipsky's information or information he provided to EPA some part of the conclusion

87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vague. is that since Mr. Lipsky's problems occurred after Range began production from the subject wells that that is an indicator of causality; is that what I heard you say? MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: It is part of the facts that we considered, yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. What other potential facts might result Are there other

in the exact same phenomenon?

scenarios that could result in Mr. Lipsky experiencing contamination of his well that don't involve Range? MR. LYNK: I'm going to -- well, objection, Are you asking did EPA consider any

other scenarios prior to making its decision as reflected in the order? MR. RILEY: Sure. better, why not. THE WITNESS: Again, it's a hard question. If you like that question

88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There's a lot of scenarios that might play out. As we investigated the case, again, we believe the scenario we issued the order on is the scenario that the Agency stands behind. I can't

enumerate all the scenarios because, again, you and I could sit here and create 10 scenarios that weren't considered by the Agency. there are other scenarios. Again,

We know about them. And

The methane could come from other sources.

that's part of why we collected data, that's part of why we've asked Range to collect data as part of our order is to try to, again, see if there's other data out there that might identify or change our conclusions. But based on the

data we have we believe there is a link. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, let's actually just drill down on Look at I think it's

it a little bit.

Deposition Exhibit 4, paragraph 46 on page 6. Would you read it into the record, please? A. "Respondents caused or contributed to

the endangerment identified herein." Q. there. Now, I don't see any qualifying words It seems as though that is EPA's Am I misunderstanding how to

conclusion.

89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpret that paragraph? A. Q. No. So EPA's conclusion is that respondents

caused or contributed to the endangerment identified herein? A. Q. That's correct. And that's an absolute? It's not

qualified in any way, it don't say likely or may? A. Q. It's -No. -- an absolute conclusion? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object that that calls for a legal conclusion. MR. RILEY: Well, he's been giving legal opinions throughout. MR. LYNK: No. He's been attempting to ask -But I'm asking --

give factual information in response to your questions. MR. RILEY: Okay. MR. LYNK: We're here to comply -Well, this is a fact --

90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Counsel. Counselor. MR. LYNK: -- with the Court's order. MR. RILEY: It's a finding of fact. MR. LYNK: He's not here to testify as to legal conclusions. And I'll note that I believe MR. RILEY: This is a finding of fact,

in the Railroad Commission proceeding itself the Commission sustained an objection -MR. RILEY: Well, you're not a party -MR. LYNK: -- to testimony specifically about this paragraph. MR. RILEY: So you weren't there, Counsel. MR. LYNK: I'm going to instruct him not to answer questions about this conclusion of law. MR. RILEY: Okay. There's a finding of fact,

I'm not misreading the order.

91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 law. MR. RILEY: So you're instructing him not to answer as to whether EPA has concluded in -conclusion of law, excuse my mistake, that respondents have caused or contributed to the endangerment identified herein? instructing him not to answer -MR. LYNK: Yes. MR. RILEY: -- is that correct? EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So I assume you'll adhere to that Okay. You're MR. LYNK: You read from paragraph 46. MR. RILEY: Yes, sir. MR. LYNK: That would be in the conclusions of

instruction, Mr. Blevins? A. Q. Yes. And you're refusing to answer that

question, correct? A. Yes.

92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Now, we were talking about you

mentioned that there were a lot of different scenarios that could explain contamination with -- in the Lipsky water well; is that right? Did I understand you correctly? A. I said there -- yes. There's always a

lot of potential scenarios. Q. Would you tell me what some of those

scenarios are? A. As the Agency, no. As a person I could

speculate.

But as speaking for the Agency I

don't think I can. Q. So the Agency has not looked at any

other scenarios or considered any other scenarios; is that true? A. No, but I -- I can't today tell you all

the scenarios that the Agency might possess related to how -- my understanding is your question is how natural gas might come to reside in the drinking water aquifer. Q. Okay. And as EPA's designee are you

able to articulate any other potential scenarios that may lead -- may have led to contamination in the Lipsky water well? A. That may have led?

93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answer? MR. LYNK: Subject to that objection, if you're able to answer you may go ahead. THE WITNESS: Are you asking -- again, let me just be clear. Are you asking what we Q. Yes, sir. MR. LYNK: Again, I'm going to object to the extent it calls for more than what the Agency actually considered in making its decision as reflected in the order. MR. RILEY: Are you instructing him not to

considered or what are some possible scenarios? EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, let's suppose, okay, that it was

incumbent on EPA to consider alternative scenarios, do you think that was an obligation of EPA to consider what other sources there might be for contamination of the Lipsky water well? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object to form.

94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: I think we -- the Agency has a responsibility to consider alternative scenarios, yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. In that case, then, what alternative

scenarios did the Agency consider? A. Again, we started our investigation

looking to see what scenarios might be out there. Is there another source of the methane

gas and other contaminants that entered into the Hayley and Lipsky well that might account for the levels that we found and the concentrations that we found and the risk that we found. So

those could include somebody tampering with the well; those could include the Hayley well or the Lipsky well being drilled or screened in a -- in a part of the geologic formation that contains its own source of methane gas. So we, again, as

part of our investigation considered those options as we move forward. where we landed. Q. That's again not

We landed with our order.

Tell me what steps EPA took to exclude

the other scenarios it considered? A. Again, the record is very clear on

95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. We collected air data; we collected water

data; we made some analysis on the composition of the water; we made some analysis on the composition of the head space air and then based on that we -- it led us to the conclusions that we ended up with. Q. Well, I didn't see in the record, and

please point me to the part of the record that I missed, where it shows that you tested any other natural gas production well in the area. A. Again, as the record says our belief is

there is not another natural gas production well in the area that had the potential to impact those wells. Q. And that is part of the record.

Then I didn't see in the record where

you evaluated the geology below the Lipsky site. A. Q. Correct, we did not. Okay. So I'm looking for -- since you

had a list of scenarios that you obviously were under obligation and duty to consider, which you just explained a moment ago, I would like to know what other things you did to consider alternate sources of methane gas or natural gas in the Lipsky water well. A. Again, one, I did not say or use the

96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 words obligation or duty. I did not. Q. A. You used those words,

Two, I've told you what we did.

So -I've answered the question. We took

samples, analytical samples to determine if there were -- what the composition of the gas was, what the composition, what the contaminants in the water itself were and looked for, again, as you would say scenarios that might lead to that. We did not find any. We did not find any

evidence in the construction information that's contained in the record about the construction of the Lipsky well that would lead us to believe, as I said in my earlier answer, that potentially let's say it was screened in a part of the formation that could have led to the contaminants we found being present in the well. We did not look underneath the Lipsky well nor did -- I would state that we had the obligation to look at the geology beneath the Lipsky well. Q. Well, how were you able to determine

whether the Lipsky well is screened in a geologic formation that may contain natural gas if you didn't look at the geology below the Lipsky property?

97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. We read the well logs provided to us as

to the well logs from the driller who drilled and -- and analyzed that. And nothing in the

record, nothing in the drill welling logs that were provided to us would indicate there was anything found in the Lipsky well when was drilled that would indicate this problem. And

then again as we move into the compositional data that's in the record and the isotopic data we think it showed the link back to the source of the natural gas which is where the -Q. A. Q. And I know you --- formation --- want to keep saying that, Mr.

Blevins -A. Q. A. Q. Okay. -- but I didn't ask you that question. Okay. I think you did, so I'm sorry. And I apologize to you too.

All right.

I'll try to be more precise -A. Q. Okay. -- if you'll try to be more succinct.

My question is about your investigation into the geology below the Lipsky well. A. And I answered that. That's the --

98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. -- the context of my question. So my

question is -A. Q. I said no. It's going to be helpful if you wait

for me -- until I stop speaking before you start speaking and I'll do the same for you. A. Q. Okay. The -- can you name me the

stratographic layers from surface to the Barnett shale underneath the Lipsky property? A. Q. No. Can you tell me what if any

stratographic formation has or contains natural gas? A. Q. No. Can you tell me whether in any

stratographic formation that is below the Lipsky property whether there is any thermogenic natural gas found? A. Yes, of course there's thermogenic That's

natural gas found below the Lipsky well.

the -- that's the thermogenic natural gas that you guys have tapped into with your production well. Q. Okay. So that's the only thermo --

99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 only -A. I don't know if that's the only one. I said yes.

You said did I know of any. Q. shale? A. Q. A. Right. Okay.

So you know of the Barnett

Do you know of any other? No. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Five minutes left, Counselor.

EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Have you ever heard of the Strawn

formation? A. Q. A. Yes. And what is that? I've heard of the Strawn formation. I

do not know the technical details of what it is. Q. Is it a natural gas bearing zone

underneath the Lipsky property to the best of your knowledge? A. I know it's a natural gas bearing zone

but I do not know where it exists or where it does not exist based on the size and nature of the formation. Q. Tell me all the things that EPA did to

100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 investigate alternate sources of natural gas underneath the Lip -- Lipsky property in the concept -- context of geologic formations? MR. LYNK: Object to form. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Again, I think I've already answered that. investigation. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Distinguish for me the -- the label We have done no geologic

thermogenic and biogenic. A. Thermogenic is -- well biogenic is the Biogenic means it's methane

easier one.

produced from a biological activity that occurs in certain substrates. Thermogenic is natural

gas that's formed by, to the best of my knowledge, heat or pressure or maybe the better answer is and/or pressure but... Q. Did EPA's isotopic fingerprint --

fingerprinting determine anything more than the -- whether the methane gas was isogenic or biogenic -- excuse me, thermogenic or biogenic? A. It indicates whether it's thermogenic

101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or biogenic. Q. Okay. So the -- the methane analysis,

the isotopic fingerprinting that you've repeated several times, that only determines whether the gas tested is thermogenic and biogenic; is that correct? A. Q. Yes. To the best of your awareness would you

agree that all gas, natural gas -- I'm sorry, methane gas would share the thermogenic characteristic if it were formed through heat and pressure? A. Q. Ask that one more time. Certainly. Let's sort of make this a Thermogenic,

little more vivid, I suppose.

biogenic, that's what we're -- that's what the isotopic fingerprinting as it pertains to methane demonstrate; is that correct, in your mind? A. Yes. Again, it can also -- it tells

you that but it can also tell you the extent of that. Q. A. Okay. Meaning you can have at least in my

understanding you can have a source of methane

102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now 11:15. that may have signs of both thermogenic and biogenic indicators. And that will give a

different fingerprint than something that let's say is solely thermogenic or solely biogenic in nature. Q. So it can be one or the other or both,

a mixture of both; is that right? A. Q. Right. As pertains to the EPA sampling --

well, let me -- let me interrupt for a second because I think we're running out of tape. Let's take a five-minute break if that's okay with you. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is

This is the end of tape 2.

(Recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the continued videotape deposition of John Blevins. beginning of tape 3. This is the

The time is now 11:37.

EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Mr. Blevins, I think we left off

generally just in the subject matter of geology and particularly geology below the Lipsky

103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you know. THE WITNESS: Generally I would agree with you. But without knowing the specifics that's as far as I can go. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. Let me take another cue from property which I -- I would expect, but I'm not a geologist, is the same as the geology below the Hayley property. Would you agree generally

that we're talking about a small area that you wouldn't expect a wide difference or big difference in the geologic formations below the Hayley and the Lipsky property? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object just to the extent that some of these questions may be calling for an expert opinion on geology. He

hasn't been identified as such in the foundation laid to date nor designated as such. With that said you may answer if

your counsel and ask you if you are -- if you personally are -- you would consider yourself an expert in the science of geology? A. No.

104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Are any of the EPA folks or outside

consultants you've mentioned in this deposition so far geologists? A. I don't know without looking.

Especially for the Isotech people I don't know their -- their resumes. I don't know about, to

be honest about Chris Lister what his background is. And Dr. Beak is a geochemist I think is Yes, a geochemist. A little bit

what his says.

different than a geologist. Q. I agree. So are there geologists

employed by EPA to the best of your knowledge? A. Q. Yes. And can you say with any degree of

certainty that a geologist, someone who holds that credential, was consulted as part of the team that recommended issuance of the emergency order? A. No, I can't. I don't believe that a

geologist was consulted nor would I have expected one to be consulted. Q. Why would you not expect a geologist to

be consulted as pertains to geology or geologic stratum below the Lipsky and Hayley properties? A. Because for the order that we issued

105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and the facts that we based the order on that wasn't part of the decision making that we made. Q. So whether Mr. Lister is a geologist or

not really doesn't bear on any decisions EPA made in issuing the order. He didn't offer any

geologic opinions that would support the administrative order; is that true? A. Q. A. Can you ask that again because -Sure. -- there was two parts. I got -- sorry

I got lost. Q. I'm sorry. What I took you to say is

you're uncertain about Mr. Lister's qualifications -A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Right. -- whether he's a geologist or not. Right. Am I right so far? That's correct. And then regardless of whether he holds

that qualification I didn't find in the administrative record any instance where Mr. Lister offered an opinion in the field of geology. Did I miss something in the

administrative record?

106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. I do not believe you did miss anything. So even if he holds that qualification

and is a geologist he didn't offer any opinions as a geologist in support of the administrative order; is that the best of your understanding? A. There's nothing in the record that Now, he may have as he

would say that, yes.

developed his case have geologic opinions that he used to lead his data collection and fact finding but it's not captured in the record. Q. Okay. So in order to know whether Mr.

Lister employed any training he might have in the science of geology in making any part of his recommendations or participation in this case we'd have to talk to Mr. Lister to find that out; is that right? A. Q. That's correct. Is -- there's a Strawn formation -- let

me withdraw that portion. I think you said a moment ago or a short while ago that you were familiar with the Strawn formation in broad strokes; is that correct? A. I'm aware that it exists and it exists

in the general vicinity of the Lipsky and Hayley

107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wells. Q. Do you know if it's a natural gas

producing formation? A. I don't know that for a fact but it's

my understanding that it is. Q. Did EPA do any testing of Strawn

formation natural gas to determine whether it is thermogenic or biogenic? A. Q. Not related to this case, no. In other cases has EPA done any

analysis of Strawn formation natural gas in that context as to whether it's thermogenic or biogenic? A. Not to my knowledge. But, again, EPA

is a large organization. Q. Sure. But to the best of your

knowledge there's no record that is in the assembly of documents that may or may not be administrative record as it pertains to this case where there's any analysis of Strawn formation natural gas; is that right? A. correct. Q. For this case, no. Sorry. And, by the way, documents that were Yes, you're

evaluated by the review team to compile and

108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 certify the administrative record if they weren't included in the administrative record were they preserved as to your knowledge? A. Yes. They're still part of the

Agency's records. Q. So they wouldn't have been destroyed;

is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. Okay, Mr. Blevins, let's talk about

with precision the isotopic and compositional analysis that EPA relied upon in issuing the administrative order. All right? Just to

orient you to the subject. A. Q. Okay. Let's talk first about compositional What is EPA's position on the value

analysis.

of compositional analysis in this case? A. We believe there is compositional data

that again was used to support the issuance of our order. Q. Okay. Could you -- could you detail

that compositional data precisely as to what components of the analysis or components that were detected in the analysis that would lead to the conclusion that natural gas found in the

109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lipsky water well is tied to, related to or otherwise connected to the production gas from the Range wells? A. We looked at the concentrations and the

ratios of concentrations of ethane and propane and propane and butane. And we believe there's

a significant correlation between those compositional elements in both of the gas streams that would again lead us to believe that they're related. And so, for example, when you

look at the ratios of those compounds in the gas collected from the bradenhead of the Butler unit production well you don't see those same relationships, but we do see it in the gas from the production well in the Lipsky well. Q. So tell -- tell me, you've used the

term at least twice, once just now and earlier, what you're referring to when you refer to bradenhead? A. My understanding is that's the gas that

exists in the production well outside the casing, so between the wall of the -- the bore hole and the casing there's gas that exists there that can be sampled. It was actually

sampled I believe by the Railroad Commission.

110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So that's not a -- that's not a sample

that EPA took; is that correct? A. It was -- no. It was a sample that the

Railroad Commission took. Q. Okay. Is it something EPA relied upon

in its analysis of the situation? A. Q. Yes, it's in the record. When did -- when did the Railroad

Commission take the bradenhead sample? A. Q. A. Q. September 20th. 2010? Yes. Did the Railroad Commission take other

samples at that -- at that time? A. That is the sample that we included in

the record that we reviewed prior to making our decision, yes. Q. Okay. And I'm not -- I'm asking you

whether the Railroad Commission took other samples that are not included in the record. A. Q. They may have. And on that date what specifically did

the Railroad Commission sample and what results do you rely upon from that sampling? A. Again, there's a whole list of

111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 analytical -- if you look at Exhibit -- well, the first exhibit, the first page, there's a table. And you can see the bradenhead sample The table is labeled And the only point

contained in that table.

"Comparative Gas Analysis."

I was trying to make is if you look at the -the proportion, the ratios of methane to propane and propane to butane, they're different in that air sample than they are in the Lipsky well and in the -- excuse me -- production part of the Butler/Teal well. Q. Okay. Let's do that. Let's use the

table that you pointed to -A. Q. Okay. -- and just work our way across from There's a -- the first column is

left to right.

a description of various compounds. A. Q. Right. And then various indicators for the But the second column which is

later columns. labeled Dom 1? A. Q.

Domestic well 1, right. And it appears to be a sample that was

taken on August 26, 2010. A. That's correct.

112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. It looks like based on the annotation

here that it's a Railroad Commission sample? A. Q. That's correct. And then there's something after the

colon on that same -- or in that same box Anacon slash SPL, is that the lab that -A. Q. That's my understanding, yes. And then analytes slash units and then

there's in the same column we were describing there's a mol percentage; is that correct? A. Q. A. Q. Right. Monthly percent? Correct. And so is that where I'd go to look at

the ratios of the compounds that we've been discussing? A. there. You -- the ratios aren't contained in You'd have to actually calculate them.

But, yes, you could find them so -- like ethane and propane you could calculate a ratio between those. Q. Okay. And it's that ratio that you

refer to as supportive of EPA's determination in this -A. That's correct.

113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. The -- without tediously going through

all of these various columns let's just skip a bit to the third column or fourth column actually which -- I'm sorry. direction. The third column location again domestic water well one, correct? A. Q. Which column? Yeah. I'm sorry. It's the third one. That's the -Let me change my

I'm sorry.

It's going to be the EPA colon Isotech samples -A. Q. Oh, yes. -- I think. That is the -- from EPA's

perspective it took samples from domestic water well 1 and from Butler unit 1 production gas on October 26, 2010, am I right? A. Q. That's correct. Those are the only two -- well, it's

single sampling event in terms of number of days when he goes out there to sample. two different sources, correct? A. Q. For the gas sampling, yes. But this -- the gas sampling is where And there are

you did your isotopic fingerprinting, correct? A. That's correct. And that's -- those

114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 results are at the bottom of the table. Q. All right. Okay. And the other

samples identified in the table are taken by the Railroad Commission and there's one -A. Q. A. Q. Taken by Range. The 5th column taken by Range, right? That's correct. Now, the Range sampling seems to It

predate EPA's investigation in this matter.

looks like it was taken on February 16, 2010; is that true? A. Q. A. Q. The Range was taken -February 2010? Yes, February. When did EPA's investigation begin as

it pertains to this matter? A. Let me just see if it's -- I just need

to find when we started -- got the contact from the Listers and/or the Hayleys. to -Q. A. You said Lister, did you mean Lipsky? Or Lipsky. Sorry. Yeah. Let me look I'm trying

at Chris' declaration. the date.

I just don't remember But I

It was well after that date.

don't know the exact date.

115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Take your time because I'm going to

have some questions along the line of the initiation of the EPA investigation. A. I mean one place it's clearly marked is

in Exhibit 18 which is the Railroad Commission initial report regarding the Lipsky complaint. And I can pull the date of their complaint. Because Mr. Lipsky contacted I think the Railroad Commission, EPA and TCEQ all at the same time. 19. And that's, again, Exhibit 18 and

There's two of them. Okay. Exhibit --

Q. A. sorry.

So now Exhibit 18 or -- that's 19, No, that is 18. On August 6, 2010

there's one inspection that we followed up on or one contact. And then the other one was on

August 8 a joint inspection of the -- or on August 26th a joint inspection of the property was conducted where we were involved on the 26th. Q. A. Okay. But let me -- I can also look. So it

was in August that we started our investigation. Q. A. Okay. Yes. So August 2010?

116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Would you agree with me toward the

later part of the month? A. yes. Q. A. Who is Alisa Rich? She is an environmental consultant The middle to late part of the month,

hired by Mr. Lipsky. Q. Have you had any dealings directly

with -- you personally have any dealings directly with Alisa Rich? A. Q. A. Q. Myself personally? Yes. No, sir. Does any work performed by Ms. Rich or

her company, Wolf Eagle, support EPA's decision to issue the emergency order? A. We definitely considered the

information and it's part of the record. Document 13 is report comprehensive well water analysis, Hayley well, which is dated September of '10. And there should be one other. Yes,

document No. 9, which is August 10th is the date on it, water well results for Stephen Lipsky property done by Wolf Eagle. So there's two

reports and associated analytical data sheets

117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that are contained in the record. Q. What -- what -- in what way did EPA

rely upon the work performed by Alisa Rich and submitted to EPA? A. We looked at the analytical data that

was contained within those reports and considered that data and some of those are contained in the findings of fact. So I think,

for example, one of the benzene concentrations that was identified in one of the Wolf reports is in one of our findings of fact. Q. And what steps did EPA take to verify

the reliability of the work performed by Wolf Eagle? A. We reviewed the report and the QA

packages that were contained within those reports and those are part of the record. Q. What would that data tell you about the

method about which samples were taken? A. It would tell you the method used and

the -- so the specific method used for either gas or water sampling and then the -- the results and the QA results and whether through the QA results at the lab did they find any deviations that they needed to point out.

118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And what I'm driving at is do you --

does EPA train its employees in taking environmental samples? A. We have training events that, yes, are

different depending on what part of the program and what your actual job title is. We do

have -- the Agency does have training that we send people to to learn how to take samples. Q. Were the individuals that took samples

in this case trained in EPA's sampling protocols? A. Yes. All of EPA's inspectors actually And there's a body

have inspector credentials.

of training that they are required to take by the Agency to maintain those inspector credentials. And part of that is being trained

to be able to take field samples. Q. Okay. And what's the importance of

that, Mr. Blevins? A. To make sure that valid samples are

taken in the field. Q. Would you agree with me that laboratory

QAQC data does not -- does not reach the lab or, excuse me, the field sampling methodology? A. Yes. Yes, I agree with you.

119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So the lab QAQC doesn't indicate

whether the samples were properly taken? A. Q. That's correct. And I assume that EPA trains its

inspectors for the purpose of consistency and getting valid information; is that a fair statement? A. Q. That is our goal, yes. You mentioned a certification that EPA

employees would gain when they've been properly trained in the methods for taking samples. is that again? A. All of our inspectors nationwide have And there's -What

to be certified as inspectors.

depending on, again, the media program that you're certified as an inspector for there's a list of training events that you have to certify that you've taken to maintain your inspection credentials. Q. A. Q. go. A. So they have -- they're certified as I'm having a little trouble. I know. It's not going to stay. There we

It just keeps slipping down.

inspectors and they have to maintain their

120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inspection credentials by keeping up their -the required training. That training is

specified by the OECA, the headquarters office for enforcement. So each of our inspectors have

to meet certain requirements to maintain their inspector credentials. Q. A. Go ahead. And then -- I'm sorry.

Is there something more?

When you go -- we take samples in the

field we have sampling plans that our field inspectors or samplers are supposed to follow to ensure data collection consistency. And the

record actually includes a sampling plan for the sampling that took place by EPA staff. Q. Now, in your career with EPA you've

worked a lot with consulting firms, environmental consulting firms; is that a -A. Q. A. Q. Yes. -- correct assessment? Yes. Would you agree with me that they --

like any other group of companies or individuals they vary in quality? A. Q. That's a true statement. The Wolf Eagle, do you have any prior

experience with Wolf Eagle Environmental and its

121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 personnel? A. Q. A. Q. Me personally or -Yes, sir. Personally, no. So then as far as you know does EPA

have any prior history with Wolf Eagle Environmental? A. I don't know -- for EPA I don't know. You know, they could

That's a broad question.

be -- because they collect -- they do some drinking water work. They could be involved in

some other parts of the Agency that I'm not aware of. But I don't know of any interaction

between us and Wolf Environmental. Q. Do you know if EPA -- excuse me. Do

you know if any employees at Wolf Eagle are trained in the proper methodology for taking environmental samples? A. Q. I don't know either way, yes or no. Do you know Ms. Rich's individual

qualifications for either sampling or interpreting data as it pertains to this case? A. Q. No. Do you know her 19-year-old son's

qualifications for taking samples or

122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpreting any results from analysis as it pertains to this case? A. Q. No. Are you aware that Ms. Rich relies upon

her 19-year-old son in taking environmental samples that are relevant in this matter? A. Q. No. Do you know what training her

technician or 19-year-old son has in taking environmental samples? A. No. Since they weren't a contractor to

EPA we would not know that information. Q. Would that be relevant to assessing the

reliability of any information you received from Wolf Eagle or any environmental consulting firm? A. If we knew there was a problem it would

be relevant but absent knowing a problem I don't know that it's relevant. Q. So wouldn't be important to EPA to know

the method by which samples were taken that EPA put into the administrative record and is relying upon to some degree in this matter? A. It would be important if it was the

only piece of data for that particular constit -- constituent or decision that we made,

123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if we were relying on it exclusively. But since

we have our own data that EPA took and ran through our own contractors I think it takes -it has less relevance. Q. Does EPA's order stand on -- in any way

on any information received from Wolf Eagle Environmental or from Ms. Rich? A. It definitely was considered but it

does not stand alone on her -- the data supplied by Wolf Environmental. Q. In any portion -- and I'm sorry. I

don't want to drill down on this but is the data received from Wolf Eagle Environmental or Ms. Rich in any way relied upon by EPA in issuing the administrative order? A. Well, it was concluded in our

administrative record so we definitely considered it and -- and used it in our decision making. Q. So is a shorter way to that answer yes,

you relied upon data from Wolf Eagle Environmental and Ms. Rich in issuing the administrative order? MR. LYNK: Objection, asked and answered.

124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record. THE WITNESS: Again we -- it's part of our We did use it. We considered it. It

was weighed in the decision making. sole factor, no. I'm sorry.

Was it the

I'm just not sure If the

what -- I struggle with relied upon.

definition of relied upon is used, the answer is yes. If the definition of relied upon was it

like the key to my decision -- the decision making, the answer is no. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. A. Q. A. Q. Well, and just -I know. -- bear with me. I'm just struggling. Sure. Let's suppose there are 10

different things that EPA considered before it issued the administrative order and Wolf Eagle -- Wolf Eagle's data is the 11th thing. Okay? A. Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). It's in the administrative record but Using that as a context

it's not relied upon.

for our discussion is the Wolf Eagle and Ms. Rich's data one of the 10 things EPA relied upon

125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evidence. MR. RILEY: That's exactly right. MR. LYNK: Calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: Say -- ask it again. MR. RILEY: Sure. THE WITNESS: Sorry. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. If the data has been falsified how does or is it an 11th thing that you just looked at and considered? A. Wow. I'd have to say we definitely

considered it and relied upon it in our decision making but it wasn't -- again using your scenario it wasn't one of the main factors in our decision making. Q. If that data had been falsified or has

been falsified how does that weigh on EPA and its decision process? MR. LYNK: Objection, assumes facts not in

126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that bear on EPA's decision to issue the administrative order? MR. LYNK: Same objections. THE WITNESS: If we -- it were determined and presented to the Agency that the data was invalid data, we'd have to weigh that in reviewing the order. But as I sit here today I

don't believe that it would change our decision, the decision we made in the order because the order was based on other data that was proving other things than the Wolf Environmental data proved. But it was part of our decision making; That's why

it was part of our consideration. it's in the record.

But it's hard because again

I'd have to know -- before the Agency could -speaking for the Agency as I am in this situation we'd have to know exactly what falsification occurred, why it was invalid, what it meant and then have to weigh the impact of that on the overall picture of what we decided. Q. Let's talk in a bit more context.

Let's say that Ms. Rich in taking her air samples purposely positioned the air canister in

127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proximity to the source of natural gas for the Lipsky well. In other words, tipped the garden And

hose and put it near the air canister. let's suppose that's the case.

Would that be a

valid sampling methodology from your perspective within EPA? A. example. Okay. I'm struggling a bit with your Because part of what the

I'm sorry.

gas samples are is the gas that would come out of that garden hose. So I'm just struggling how

to frame the answer that -- that I would give. Again, I would say if we found that there was something from a quality assurance, quality control standpoint related to the data that Wolf Environmental collected and it was presented to us and again we were able to analyze it and make the assumption that we thought it was problematic we would -- again, the Agency would look at that and look at the impacts it would have or potentially have on the data, the decision we made. But I will tell you that I

don't believe that the Wolf Environmental data was the driving force for our decision making because, again, as we've -- we've -- I've tried to say, you know, I think we believe the

128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 isotopic analysis which Wolf Environmental didn't do is significant to us. Some of the

compositional analysis which we talked about a minute ago wasn't collected by Wolf Environmental and then the timeline issues were kind of the significant data we looked at moving forward and the Wolf Environmental data is more supporting supplemental to those data points that we have. Q. Well, are you trained, by the way, in

proper sampling methodologies? A. Q. Long ago and far away. Okay. Are you at least familiar with

the in general terms protocols that are maintained by EPA to ensure quality sampling? A. Yes. I mean, generally I -- yes, I

remember, but it's been a long, long time. Q. If I were to climb up on a drinking

water storage tank on the Lipsky property and stick my hand in with a bottle taped to a stick is that consistent with EPA's proper protocol for sampling water? A. Again, I can answer generally. It

would be no.

But again I would need to see the

sampling plan and exactly whether situations

129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exist in the field that may have led to that sampling method. And you'd have to weigh those.

Like were there other reasons, was that the only way to get a sample? And then you might say

that that then wasn't an appropriate protocol. It just depends on the situation of the facts in the field. But in general I would say a bottle

taped to a stick is probably not the way the EPA would want to see a sample taken. But there are

situations that might warrant that because of health and safety concerns and other things like people entering into a confined space. Q. Tell me all the things that EPA did to

verify that Wolf Eagle employed proper sampling protocols as EPA would view them to gain the analysis that is part of the administrative record. A. All that EPA did related to the Wolf

Environmental information that's included in the administrative record was review what was submitted to us. Q. Okay. So no investigation was done

into whether those samples were validly taken, whether they were validly preserved or properly preserved and ultimately whether the analysis

130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has any meaning whatsoever; is that correct? MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: No investigation was performed to validate the sampling or the sampling protocols that were used by Wolf Environmental. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Was Ms. Rich interviewed by any of the

EPA employees? A. It's not part of the record that we So if there was there

interviewed Ms. Rich.

might have been -- I wouldn't call it an interview. There might have been discussions

with Ms. Rich by Chris Lister as he was forming his investigation and trying to understand the scope of the data before us. And part of that

data was data collected by Wolf Environmental. Q. So as far as you know, though, you

can't testify with any certainty as to how much contact there was with Ms. Rich or Wolf Environmental or Wolf Eagle Environmental, excuse me? A. Q. That's correct. Would Mr. Lister be a better person to

131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ask those questions of? A. Q. Potentially. Is there anybody other than Mr. Lister

that you would think in the scope of his responsibilities or her responsibilities at EPA would have had contact with Wolf Eagle Environmental? A. Mr. Lister would be the primary person.

There may have been contact with some of the other people that supported Mr. Lister as he conducted his investigation. Q. Did Dr. Armendariz have any contact

with Ms. Rich as it pertains to the administrative order? A. Not -- to the best of my knowledge not Ms. Rich may have actually sent

direct contact.

some information to Dr. Armendariz that he sent down to me but it was more of a transfer of e-mail than a direct interaction. Q. Do you know if Dr. Armendariz replied

to Ms. Rich's e-mail where I believe she forwarded a videotape or some sort of video file to Dr. Armendariz? A. Q. To the best of my knowledge he did not. Would Dr. Armendariz be a better person

132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to ask those questions of? A. If you're asking for something that he

might have personally done I would assume he would be a better witness on that. Q. In some of Dr. Armendariz's public

statements he references -- it's on the topic list, for lack of a better term, of quoting Dr. Armendariz from I believe an interview he granted to the TV station that EPA scientists and engineers have reviewed the data and are certain of cause. talking about? A. Q. I'm aware of the interview, yes. And have you reviewed the interview in Has anybody shown it to Are you aware of what I'm

any way with the video? you? A. Q.

I have not personally. If you look at item No. 4 if you have

it in front of you on the topic list you reference a quote of Dr. Armendariz that refers to EPA scientists and engineers who have looked extensively at a lot of data. put it into the record. MR. LYNK: This is 4. The order is 4. I don't think I

It was --

133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RILEY: I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: You did say 4? make sure I'm looking at 4. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Not in the emergency order though. I just wanted to It's --

It's in the scope of matters for examination document that you had -A. Q. A. Okay. -- awhile ago. Sorry. I just wanted to make sure I

was looking -Q. I just didn't bring copies of that. I

apologize. A. Q. That's okay. I have it here somewhere.

When you get to it if you'd look at

item No. 4 in the matters for examination. A. Q. Okay. I'm looking -- I'm asking you to detail

for me who the EPA scientists and engineers are that are referred to in that quote by Dr. Armendariz. scientists. Specifically let's start with Who are the EPA scientists that

looked at the data -- excuse me, looked at --

134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scientists. THE WITNESS: Again, it's the same list of people I've already given. Those would be Chris looked extensively at a lot of data in this case? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object as asked and answered to the extent that I thought the witness spent a substantial portion of time identifying to you every Agency individual he could possibly name -MR. RILEY: Yeah. MR. LYNK: -- who prepared this order. MR. RILEY: -- which of those individuals are Now I want to find out --

Lister; those would be Jerry Saunders; those would be -EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. A. Q. Okay. -- Ron Van Wyk. Specifically -- specifically, Mr.

Blevins, which of those individuals you've

135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 listed fit the description scientist? A. Q. I just -- that's what I was giving you. Please. Okay. Then I apologize for

interrupting you. A.

Give me that again.

That would be Jerry Saunders; that

would be Chris Lister; that would be Dr. Beak; that would be Ron Van Wyk; that would be Chris Wills and Willie Lane. Q. you. A. Q. Lane. Thank you. Is my list complete now Tell me the last name. I couldn't hear

with Jerry Saunders, Chris Lister, Dr. Beak, Ron Van Wyk, Chris Wills and Willie Lane as the list of scientists? A. Q. Yes. Okay. Could you also list for me EPA

engineers who have looked extensively at a lot of data? A. I don't -- I guess no because those

people who I just listed to you may be engineers. I think Dr. Armendariz was speaking

generically because the Agency doesn't hire necessarily by engineer or scientist. some cases. We do in

So I don't know specific engineers.

136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The only two that I can give you clearly that are engineering by schooling would be Steve Gilrein and myself. But some of those other

people may be, I just don't know, to tell you the truth. I consider them all scientists

because of the work we do. Q. All right. Within EPA is there a

classification of employment as EPA scientists? A. Q. Yes. Do any of those individuals hold that

classification? A. Most likely all of them do. They most

likely -- again, I would have to go back and pull their personnel records. EPA has three

classifications, broad classifications we hire under and then we have a wide list. But the

broad classifications would be environmental scientist, environmental engineer and environmental specialist. And just depending on

again what position you fill you might get one or all of the above in your career. So, for example, I was hired as an environmental engineer. But I -- as I moved

through my career at EPA I moved into a scientist position. I moved into a specialist

137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 position just depending on the job I took. Q. Okay. Specifically since it's within

the scope that we announced some days ago can you be more precise as to who Dr. Armendariz was referring to in his description of EPA scientists and engineers specifically that looked extensively at a lot of data? A. That I believe he was referring

generically when he said those two words to the first list of people I gave you. Q. Are you familiar with the licensing

requirements for professional engineers in the state of a Texas? A. Q. I am. Are any of the individuals identified

so far in any portion of this deposition licensed professional engineers in the state of Texas? A. The only person that I know for a fact

that's a licensed professional engineer is Mr. Gilrein, and I would have to check on the others. Again, just for clarification, EPA --

as part of employment of EPA we don't require people to maintain PE's. Even in

classifications as environmental engineer, if

138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's your job title there is no requirement within the Agency to maintain a PE to be that. The only requirement is, again, if you want to sign it as a professional engineer you need to maintain your -- your standing. Q. Yes, sir. And I believe under Texas

law someone who's in a governmental position who holds the title engineer is exempt from the licensing requirements -A. Q. A. Okay. That may be.

-- as best I understand. Yeah. So I just -- okay. But Steve

Gilrein is the only one I know that has a PE. Q. All right. Now, back to the quote in I believe the

the media about Dr. Armendariz.

question Dr. Armendariz was responding to is accurately paraphrased as whether there was any doubt in EPA's mind that Range was the cause of the contamination in the Lipsky and Hayley wells. If I'm right do you think that's a true

statement? A. Q. Can you read his quote again? Sure. And really the -- the quote -But what I understood to be a When

I'll paraphrase.

question and Dr. Armendariz's response.

139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the scope. asked is there any question -- Mr. Armendariz was asked whether there was any question as to whether Range was the cause of the contamination as the subject of our discussion. Armendariz's response was: And Dr.

No, EPA scientists

and engineers have looked extensively at a lot of data and have conclusively determined Range to be the source. Do you agree with that

statement as a representative of EPA taking this deposition? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object to as beyond I mean, I -- I understand you're I

interested in Dr. Armendariz's statements. understand it's listed as a topic. I also

understand that the court after initially considering whether to order Dr. Armendariz to appear ultimately ruled instead that there should be a deposition to find out the basis for the order and it is in that capacity that he's appearing today. And I'll object -- so I'll

object that it's beyond the scope and that it calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: I don't think I can answer that I'm not instructing.

140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 question. I don't know -- again, I was not at I don't know the exact question

the interview.

that was asked of Dr. Armendariz, nor do I know exactly his frame of mind when he answered it. My -- so... I can give you my belief but I

can't give you an answer from a fact standpoint. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. Then as representative of EPA

for purposes of this deposition is it EPA's position that there is absolutely factually totally the case that Range Resources and the production wells of Butler and Teal are the source of the contamination in the Lipsky and Hayley water wells? MR. LYNK: Objection, asked and answered. You can answer again. THE WITNESS: Again, I think I would -- as EPA's representative my answer is the order says we believe that Range caused or contributed to the contamination. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Yeah. I was sort of deflective when I But now that

tried to ask you about that.

141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you've brought it up is it conclusive in EPA's opinion that Range caused or contributed to the endangerment identified in the administrative order? MR. LYNK: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Based on the data that we had in front of us on 12-7 the Agency made a determination and issued an order that we believe that Range caused or contributed to the contamination that we found. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. Do you see cause or contributed In other words, can one

as a linked phrase?

cause and then separately can one contribute or are those cause and contribute together? A. I think they can stand alone or stand I think you can cause and contribute

together.

or you can cause or contribute, depending on the facts of the case and the case that we're bringing. Q. Let's talk about cause then since they

seem separable at least for discussion purposes. In EPA opinion what is the meaning of the word

142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cause in the context we're discussing? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object, calls for a legal conclusion. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Factually speaking what is the -- what

facts would EPA look to in this case to determine whether Range caused the contamination of the Lipsky well? A. Again, I think those are the facts that

we talked about, the timeline that shows that there was a well drilled and that there was a contamination of a drinking water source; the analytical data that we presented from a fingerprinting standpoint and from a composition standpoint. When we compile that all together

and look at it we believe that there -- that Range did something to cause the contamination or contributed to the contamination. Q. Okay. So when I hear contributed what

I'm imagining is that there's already a situation existing, some level of concern and some natural gas that existed in the Lipsky water well before Range engaged in any activity in the area. Would you agree with me that

143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contributed to means that it's not the sole source but it's a part of perhaps several sources that contribute to the issue? A. No, I probably wouldn't agree. I think

I would consider contribute to also mean that there was a static situation, some action happened that then caused that situation to change. And in this instance that caused

contamination to again find its way to an underground drinking water source that then led to an imminent and substantial endangerment that the Agency felt it was necessary because of the situation to act upon. Q. Okay. So let's suppose the Lipskys had

no natural gas in their water prior to Range production activities. Is that EPA's position

that there was no natural gas in the Lipsky well prior to Range engaging in the construction of the Butler and Teal wells? A. We believe that the Lipsky -- again no We believe that there were not

is a hard word.

significant levels of natural gas in the Lipsky well at the levels we found prior to the drilling of the Range. Q. Tell me all the information EPA relies

144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 upon to make that assessment. A. Again as contained in the record it's

data and information provided by Mr. Lipsky to us to indicate that he operated his well for a period of time with no problems. He believed he

had water that he could drink, that he could fill his pool with and that he could use for agricultural purposes and that he did not believe and there were no signs that it was significantly impacted. Q. So all of your information is derived

from Mr. Lipsky's representations that that was the case prior to Range's production? A. Well and also the information presented

that's in the record that was, you know, contained in the state's records regarding the well log, the report filed by the well driller at the time that they drilled the Lipsky's well, that report does not indicate at that time there was any problems with the well that was drilled. Q. Okay. So we have two sources now. We

have Mr. Lipsky told you so and we have a well log from a water well driller who I believe is Mr. Peck; is that correct? A. Yes.

145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Five minutes left, Counsel. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Peck? A. I know that Chris and/or Jerry Did any EPA investigator interview Mr.

Saunders, I'm not sure which, had discussions with Mr. Peck. I don't know that I would call But, again, as we built our Not built

it an interview.

case or conducted our investigation.

our case but conducted our investigation we definitely had discussions with Mr. Peck. Q. And were those discussions documented

in the administrative record that's before us? A. Q. I don't believe they are. Did either Mr. Lister or Saunders have

any discussions with Mr. Peck about other wells, drinking water wells he's drilled in that area and identification of natural gas in those water wells? A. To the best of my knowledge, yes, they

had generic discussions with Mr. Peck about his experience in the -- in that general area and more specifically again about Mr. Lipsky's well. Q. One of the ordering provisions in the

146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 administrative order expresses concern about a public water sys -- supply system known as Lake Country Acres; is that correct? A. Q. That's in your -- this document? It's in the administrative order, which Should be the --

I believe is Exhibit 4. A. Q. A. Q. A.

So in the order part of the -Yes, sir. Okay. Paragraph 50-D. Okay. Right. We wanted to have

sampling and an investigation conducted in and around Lake Country Acres to make sure that their public water supply system was not in any way being impacted. Q. Did -- does Lake Country Acres file

water quality reports with any administrative agency that you're aware of? A. state. Q. And did you review or you, meaning EPA, My understanding is they do with the

review those water quality records? A. My understanding is that we did but

they don't -- those water quality standards don't include the compounds like methane as a --

147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's not a required reporting element. Q. Do I understand you correctly that

methane is not a -- the concentration of methane in a public water supply is not a constituent that EPA requires the public water supply to analyze for? A. It's not part of the list of compounds

that are required to be analyzed for on a regular basis and reported out; that's correct. That's a -Q. A. limits. Q. Does EPA --- list of MCLs, maximum contaminant There's a long list of compounds. There is a long list of compounds.

Methane is not one of those; is that correct? A. correct. Q. A. Q. Is propane one of those compounds? To the best of my knowledge no. Do you know if any volatile or organic That's my understanding; that's

compounds that are required by EPA to be analyzed under its Safe Drinking Water Program? A. Oh, yes. I could not read you the

whole list.

But, for example, benzene is a

volatile organic compound and it has an MCL and

148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now 12:34. it's -- you have to report out on it. Q. A. Do you know what the benzene MCL is? Five parts per billion. MR. RILEY: Is this a convenient time to take a break for lunch? MR. LYNK: Seems like it. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is

This is the end of tape 3.

(Recess was taken.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the continued videotape deposition of John Blevins. beginning of tape 4. MR. LYNK: I'm going to disclose that I -- I did ask Mr. Blevins during a break if there was anything he felt he needed to add to his earlier answers about the compilation of the record and that process to clarify what he meant by the terms, including documents that support the record. He did indicate that he thought he This is the

The time is now 1:28.

should add --

149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RILEY: Counsel, let's -- let's do this the sort of the ordinary way. If at the end of my

questioning you have questions you want to ask then certainly you'll have that opportunity. let's do it that way. MR. LYNK: I would be happy to do it that way. I am cognizant of the fact that you would probably want your standard day of deposition. I know redirect may lead to recross. And I So

don't want to get in a situation where we're disagreeing over whether we can close at the end of the day. MR. RILEY: Sure. MR. LYNK: Given that the airlines are going to impose a deadline for us to get out of here. MR. RILEY: Yeah. MR. LYNK: So far I think I've managed to hopefully avoid redirect. MR. RILEY:

150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Well, let's see how it goes and then -- unfortunately I don't want to -- I don't want to get into a pattern of going off the record and then coming back and asking clarifying questions. I'd rather you do that in

a proper fashion at the end of the deposition. MR. LYNK: That's fine. MR. RILEY: When it's your turn. MR. LYNK: That's fine. MR. RILEY: Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Mr. Blevins, let's go -- I want to

clarify one thing as pertains to documents you have seen, you personally have seen. Did I

understand you correctly that you have seen documents that are not part of the administrative record that -- that reflect correspondence or communication between members of EPA and Alisa Rich? MR. LYNK: I'll object as to vague as to time

151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 frame. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. In the context of this discussion, say

from the onset of EPA's investigation, middle of August, to the issuance of the administrative order on December 7, 2010. A. Q. Okay. Sure. Ask me again. Do you have the context that I'm

asking so I -A. Q. I think so. -- don't have to repeat all that? I'm

looking to see what -- I'm trying to find out whether you've seen additional documentation in EPA's records that reflect communication between any member of EPA and Alisa Rich in the context of the administrative order that's the subject of this proceeding. A. I have not seen any documentation

records of communication, records of communication between any of my -- any of the EPA team and Alisa Rich. I'm aware that there

have been conversations but I have not seen any documentation. Q. All right. And if there is

documentation of those communications then that

152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be in the set of documents that were reviewed by your staff in compiling the administrative record, is that a reasonable expectation? A. If there is any documentation it would

have be reviewed as the administrative record was compiled. Q. Okay. Excuse me. Let's talk -- we

somewhat left off before we took a break discussing EPA's drinking water, water quality standards. standards? A. Q. I'm familiar with them, yes. Okay. Now, tell me EPA's position on Is it indicative Are you familiar with those

its water quality standards.

of EPA's position as to whether drinking water is safe to drink or consumed by humans? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I guess I don't -Sure. -- get the question. What's an MCL? It's a maximum contaminant level. What does it indicate as it pertains to

drinking water? A. For those specific compounds or

153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 chemicals that have MCLs it's a health based standard that's been derived and approved by the Agency related to concentrations of that compound that are acceptable under the Safe Drinking Water Act in drinking water. Q. So if I have a constituent in drinking

water that's below the MCL then EPA's position on that -- the presence of that constituent is that it does not render the drinking water unsafe; is that correct? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. MR. RILEY: Health based standard. THE WITNESS: Again, those are -- you can't say -- I don't think the Agency would say you can look at the individual, you have to look at the totality of all the contaminants in the water and make a decision as to whether it's safe. You just can't say: Well, that one

compound is above or below an MCL so therefore the water is safe. You have to look at But if you were looking

everything in totality.

154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at one specific compound the Agency says if it's below a certain level then we don't believe there's a health threat. Q. Okay. Where would I look in the Agency

discussion or guidance for the combined effect of constituents in drinking water that you were describing? A. That would be -- a risk assessment

would have to be performed. Q. it? A. Q. A. Well -In the context of our discussion. A risk assessment would be actual What is a risk assessment as you view

assessment performed by a party that looks at all the potential sources of exposure to a set of chemicals singular or multiple and would assess under different exposure scenarios a risk both from a cancer standpoint and a noncancer standpoint. Q. Was a risk assessment done by EPA as it

pertains to the samples taken by EPA of the Lipsky drinking water? A. No. And it wasn't necessary for one

for the action we took.

155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. I didn't ask you that last part And I'd ask you not to

of the question.

volunteer information unless the question calls for it so we can expedite this process, have Mr. Lynk make his plane, help me make my plane and make this a shorter exchange. A. Q. I thought it was necessary. Sorry.

Well, necessary versus what I'm asking

you is different. MR. LYNK: Can we just -MR. RILEY: Sure. MR. LYNK: -- ask the next question, please. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So the question I asked you and I want

to be clear that was a risk assessment done to evaluate the safety of the Lipsky drinking water by EPA? A. Q. And I answered you no. Were any contaminants identified by EPA

that were above maximum concentration levels according to EPA's drinking water quality standards?

156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. As contained in the record there is a

sample that was analyzed for benzene and that sample was above the MCL. Q. A. Q. A. Who took that sample? The Railroad Commission did. On what date? On August 17, 2010. It's item No. 19

in the order. Q. After August 17, 2010 EPA performed its

own sampling of the drinking water in the Lipsky well; is that correct? A. Q. A. Yes. On what date did that occur? October 26th was the sampling of the

Lipsky well. Q. What was the -- what did the EPA's

analysis reveal as it pertains to the constituent benzene at the -- based on the October 26th sampling of that? A. billion. Q. A. Q. 4.55 ppb? Parts per billion. And that's below the maximum The level was report at 4.55 parts per

concentration level that EPA considers safe as

157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it pertains to the constituent benzene; is that true? A. Q. That is true. On December 7, 2010 when the EPA issued

the administrative order what constituents, if any, found in the Lipsky drinking water were of concern from a human health perspective? A. I think there was a wide Range of

compounds found that were of a concern from a human health perspective. Q. Okay. I didn't seek to limit you so

please tell me what those constituents were. A. Well, basically, again, any of the

sam -- any of the compounds that were tested for in the water. There's a long list. I mean, I

can go through all of them.

But the reason we

test for them is we want to make sure we know what the concentrations are and whether they exist above or below a standard. Q. 2010. Okay. So you tested on October 26,

EPA took samples, had them analyzed and I

would say based on your last response concerned itself with a long list of constituents that potentially could be in the Lipsky drinking water, correct?

158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Correct. And was an analysis complete as to each

of those constituents? A. That's what's the date that's in the

record you can see, yes. Q. Now, from that list based on EPA's

sampling what constituents remained a concern after EPA's sampling and analysis? A. Well, as shown on Exhibit 2 there's

concentrations of benzene in the Lipsky water; there's concentration of hexane in the Lipsky water; there's concentrations of toluene in the Lipsky water; there's concentration of ethane, methane and propane. Plus there's other I can

indicator compounds that exist as well. go through all of them.

There's boron; there's All of

chlorides; there's total alkalinity.

those had positive results based on EPA's sampling on 10-26. Q. When you say positive results, what do

you mean? A. Q. Above the detection limit. For each of those compounds were any of

them identified as above any applicable drinking water standard?

159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Not in the 10-26 sampling event, no. So at that stage would you agree with

me that the Lipsky water well was safe for human consumption based on EPA's maximum concentration levels for the various constituents you've described? MR. LYNK: Object to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: I don't think I can say either way. We have a sample collected by the Railroad Commission that shows an exceedance of the MCL for benzene. We have a sample by EPA that is As you know those are

slightly below the MCL. snapshot samples.

So I would say there's still

a concern but not an exceedance on the 26th. But we do have a sample that showed an exceedance in the same general time frame. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. But not a sample EPA took, that's

one -- that's a sample the Railroad Commission took; is that correct? A. Q. That is correct. But based on EPA's careful sampling and

160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 analysis there was no constituent above an EPA approved maximum concentration level; is that true? A. Q. Based on EPA's sampling that is true. Did EPA take any action with respect to

the Lipsky family and their use of their water well prior to issuance of the December 7, 2010 order? A. What are you -- can you clarify what

you mean by action? Q. Certainly. Did you instruct the

Lipskys in any form or fashion as to the use of their drinking water well? A. Q. A. Yes. What did you do? We recommended to the Lipskys that they

stop using the water as the domestic water supply. Q. A. Why? Because of the high concentrations of

natural gas in their water well and the Agency's concern that an emergency situation could exist if the gases collected in their house and an ignition source was present. Q. Did you do any testing, air quality

161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testing in the Lipsky residence? A. Q. We did not. As I understand it Mr. Lipsky had

before even receiving that advisory from EPA discontinued use of that water well. your understanding as well? A. Q. That is my understanding. Describe then if you would, assuming it Is that

to be the case that Mr. Lipsky had voluntarily discontinued use of the drinking water well; that is, domestic well No. 1 as identified in the emergency order, how Mr. Lipsky was in imminent and substantial peril? A. Because exactly the reason the words He was doing that on a voluntary

you used.

nature and there was no guarantee that at any time he might not start using that water again and introduce the potential for those gases to be transmitted by the water into his home, the gas is released into his home and be collected in an area that could be subject to an ignition source and an explosion could occur. Q. What action has EPA taken to prevent

Mr. Lipsky from using the water well we're discussing?

162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. The action was we ordered Range to

provide alternative water supply under the order which is an enforceable order. Q. How does that prevent Mr. Lipsky from

using his well if he decides to? A. It doesn't but there's -- we believe

there's a better guarantee that if he's provided alternative water supply that he's not financially responsible for that he won't turn on the water in his house. Q. means? A. Agency. Q. Okay. But could you have ordered Mr. Could That's not relevant to me or to the Do you know Mr. Lipsky's financial

Lipsky to -- to not use the water well? EPA have done that? A. Q. to? A. No.

What depth is Mr. Lipsky's well drilled

I'd have to look at the well log.

It's

going to take me a minute to find. Q. A. Take your time. The exact well log for his well. Based

on the well report which is No. 437 in the

163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 administrative record it looks like it was -the bore hole is completed to 200 feet. Q. How was the well completed according to

the document you're reviewing? A. There was a gravel pack placed --

gravel pack from 60 feet to 200 feet. Q. A. Was the well cemented in any way? It indicates that there was cementing

but I couldn't tell you the exact information. The document says it was cemented by Larry Peck. Q. Does it indicate to you that cement was

placed at the bottom of the well bore? A. Again there's no information for me to

tell that. Q. Do you know the distance from the

bottom of the Lipsky well at 200 foot depth to the top of the Strawn formation? A. Q. I do not. Would it surprise you to learn that

it's a matter of 20 or 30 feet? A. Q. That wouldn't surprise me. Would you expect there to be natural

gas in proximity to the Strawn formation in that distance if a water well was drilled to that depth?

164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Can you ask that again? Sure. If a water well was drilled -If a

drilled at -- let's phrase it differently.

water well was drilled into the Strawn formation which we talked about earlier has historically produced natural gas would it surprise you to learn that natural gas was found in that water well? A. I don't have a surprise either way on It would just be a piece of data that

that one.

the Agency would look at. Q. Okay. Did the Agency look at the

relationship of the Lipsky water well to the Strawn formation in this case? A. Again we were aware of it, yes. Did we

do an investigation to collect data, no. Q. Did anyone ever advise you internally

or externally that that was a necessary element to any conclusion as to the source of natural gas in the Lipsky water well? A. No. But, again, I don't think that's a The Agency doesn't believe

necessary element.

that's a necessary element to support the decision we make. Q. So alternate sources of natural gas in

165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Lipsky water well is not something the Agency needs to investigate prior to issuing the December 7, 2010 order; is that a correct statement? A. Q. A. No. Okay. Tell me --

Again, we went through this earlier.

There -- there are other potential migration pathways. us. We followed the data we had before

We did not have anything in the data that

was in front of us on December 7th that would show that there was gas from the Strawn formation entering into the Lipsky well or that the Lipsky well was drilled into the Strawn formation. So that data was not in front of us

when we made our decision. Q. A. Did you investigate it? And, again, I've answered that before

and I said no. Q. was -A. Q. We did not investigate it. Okay. It's going to be helpful for the So you didn't look to see whether there

transcript purposes for me to get my question -A. Sorry.

166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. -- completed before you -Sorry. -- answer. So it's possible then as

best you know then that the Lipsky water well is actually drilled into the Strawn formation? A. Based on the information -MR. LYNK: Objection, calls for speculation. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Yeah. Based on the information we

have I don't have anything that would indicate that. And anything is possible.

EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. So the source of the natural gas

if that's possible in the Lipsky water well could be naturally occurring gas that is contained in the Strawn formation; is that true? MR. LYNK: Same objection. THE WITNESS: Again, I can't -- I don't know because you're asking me to speculate. have that data in front of me. I don't

The Agency did

not have any data in front of it at the time we

167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 made the decision to indicate that there was gas emanating from the Strawn formation entering into the Lipsky well. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Can the Agency in your opinion simply

remain ignorant of factual information that's documented in public record and then simply say: We didn't have that before us? position? MR. LYNK: Objection, assumes facts. THE WITNESS: I don't think that's what I said EPA's position was. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. No. I'm saying -- you just keep Is that EPA's

telling me that you didn't have data in front of you or information in front of you. been -A. Q. No. That's been in your responses the last That's

several sets of questions. A. No. There's no definitive data as in

analytical data contained in the record that would indicate that there is a -- a

168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scientifically proven connection between the Strawn formation and the gas that we found in Lipsky's well. The Agency I don't believe --

and I don't believe as the Agency's representative that the Agency is ignorant in the decision we made. we made a decision -Q. A. You seem --- based on the extendency of the We evaluated the data and

circumstance. Q. Sure. And I'm going to go over that. By you

You seem to have made this decision.

again I'm not speaking about you personally but EPA since you're the designated representative -- made this decision without consultation with a geologist that defined or illuminated the geological stratum underneath the Lipsky formation. correctly? A. Q. Say it again, please. Sure. You didn't consult a geologist Have I stated that

before issuing the order; is that true? A. We did not because we didn't deem it

necessary for the order. Q. I -- I understand that.

169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Yeah. And you've deemed many things necessary

and unnecessary. A. Q. Okay. But simply stated you did not consult a

geologist, correct? A. Q. Again, no. You did not review any geologic

information available through federal and state agencies regarding natural gas formations or formations underneath the Lipsky property, true? A. No. We did review data and it's part It's not documented in I can't

of our investigation. the record.

Again, we reviewed data.

point to the exact data because we do look at everything that we can find and make decisions. Specifically what piece of data I can't tell you but the Agency looked at all the information. We understand -- the people who review this order for the Agency understands that there's other -- like that the Strawn formation exists. I told you that in my responses before. We

understand there's other potential pockets of natural gas in and around the formations in and -- in the geologic formation in and around

170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Hayley and Lipsky well. What we said is in

the order supported by the record is that we believe that the gas we found in the Lipsky well is, as I've said before, significantly similar and related to the gas found in the formation that you guys are -- you're producing. all we've said. That's

We haven't said that it didn't

exist, that there's not gas out there, that there aren't geologic formations that contain gas. We believe we have enough data to make the

link to issue an order because of the situation that we were presented with, which was explosive gas levels in a wellhead and potentially that gas entering into homes. Q. Blevins. Now, let's pick that apart a bit, Mr. Is the gas that is found in the Strawn

formation substantially similar to the gas found in the Lipsky water well? A. I have no data, the Agency has no data

to say that it is. Q. Tell me all the things, every single

thing the Agency did to discover whether the gas found naturally occurring in the Strawn formation is substantially similar to the gas found in Lipsky water well.

171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. We have no data, as I've told you, that We did nothing to go find

would say it does.

the gas in a Strawn formation and test it because as our investigation evolved we found the gas in the formation as being produced by Range and compared it to the gas we found in the Lipsky formation. And if you refer to, you

know, item 2 in the record, page 3 in the record we believe that there's a close correlation between those two gas sources. Q. What is the nitrogen content of natural

gas found in Barnett shale formation? A. I don't know. I'm not an expert in

that area. Q. What is the nitrogen content of the

natural gas found in the Lipsky water well? A. Again, based on the sample that EPA Did you ask about the Lipsky

took -- sorry. well? Q. A.

Yes, sir. Based on the information presented in

the record, based on our sampling on 10-26 the concentration by percent was 4. -- almost 7 percent. Q. 4. I think that's 89. 7 percent or --

172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. 4.89 percent -4.89. -- by molecular weight. And is there -- from EPA sampling is

there a nitrogen content for the Range production units? A. Well, EPA did not sample the Range Range sampled that well. And

production well.

the data that we have in front of us for the production well there's two data points, 10-16 -- or 2-16 and 9-20. And one is at 1.24

percent and one is at 1.28 percent. Q. Would you agree with me that those are

not similar, the 1.24 and 1.28 percent versus 4.89 percent? A. Q. I would agree they're different, yes. Did EPA investigate potential reasons

for the difference of nitrogen content in the two sampled gases? A. I know it was discussed but, again, it

wasn't the reason the fingerprinting did not -it's not the basis for the decisions we make. Q. I realize that it may be a basis for But I'm asking you

undermining the decision.

whether you investigated --

173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. We look at -- yes, we discussed -MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: -- and we were aware of the differences between the nitrogen levels in the different wells, yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. And is that significant in -- in

identifying the source of the natural gas in the Lipsky water well? significant? A. It's a factor, yes. Its significance Is the nitrogen content

is again up to discussion.

And there, again,

are a variety of reasons why those nitrogen numbers can be different. Q. A. Tell me all the -Including the sampling methods used to

collect the data. Q. Tell me all the reasons those nitrogen

values might be different. A. method. Well, one is, again, the sampling Atmospheric air could have been

introduced into any of the samples that would change the nitrogen concentration found in the

174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 gas analysis. Another option is, again, that

you're looking at different sources for those gases. And I'm sure there's plenty of others.

Again, this is not an area that I'm an expert in of all the possibilities of why nitrogen might be different in two distinct gas sources. Q. Who within EPA was the expert consulted

as it pertains to this order and the nitrogen values we're discussing? A. The same people that -MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: The same people that we've already discussed that were responsible for analyzing the data and bringing forth the recommendation for an order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So all of those folks, everybody you've

mentioned in EPA is capable of opining as an expert on the significance of the nitrogen

175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concentration of the different gases? A. Sorry. I don't believe that I could

say EPA has an expert to opine on the nitrogen levels within any gas source. The best person

we might have would be, again, the ORD contact that was contacted for this case. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I'm sorry who is it? The ORD contact, Dr. -Dr. Beak? Yes. Now, to be clear could you describe

from EPA's perspective the -- I heard you -- let me start again. I thought you said earlier is that there was some concern about gas accumulation in the Lipsky home and potential explosive -explosivity; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. And how many samples did EPA take from

the Lipsky home, whether it be water samples or air samples? A. Again, I've already answered that. We

did not take any samples from the Lipsky home. The samples that's presented in the record are the samples from the wellhead, from the water

176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 within the well. Q. And tell me the treatment system, if

any, Mr. Lipsky has at his home before it would enter his home? to his home? A. He passes it through a -- into a tank But I'm not How is his water well plumbed

and through a treatment system.

exactly sure that I know what the treatment system is. I'd have to look in the depositions

to see if we mentioned it in the record. Q. A. Please take your time. Again, the letter from Mr. Lipsky's

lawyer to us talks about a purification system that includes a purging cycle on the holding tanks. Let me -- I'll have to see if Chris I

Lister in his declaration mentions anything.

don't see anything in the record that would go beyond what was contained in Exhibit 33. Q. To address what appears to be one of

EPA's concerns at least, namely accumulation or pooling of natural gas in the Lipsky residence, would it be more valuable to test the water at the wellhead or more valuable to test the water that's actually entering the home? A. I think we need to clarify that it's

177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not only the gases in the wellhead that were -we believe constituted the imminent and substantial endangerment. It was the gases that

were building up in the wellhead itself because that presents its own risk. So, again, we

tested at the wellhead, the concentrations we saw were so significant, so far above the lower explosive limit that we felt and, you know, there -- an imminent and substantial endangerment existed that could impact human health either from buildup in the house which we think is very concerning -- again, one of the things we asked Range to do is collect -Q. A. Q. Sir -- sir, I asked you a question -Okay. -- about the house, about the I didn't ask you --

residence, okay. A. Q. Sorry.

-- all of your concerns and to give me

the litany of concerns you've described repeatedly throughout. I've tried to be But I'm asking

courteous and let you answer.

you to confine your answers to the questions I ask. A. And I thought I was. So I'm sorry.

178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. My question was specific to the home.

As it pertains to the potential of natural gas to be transmitted from the Lipsky water well into the home in your opinion or EPA's opinion does it make sense to test the gas concentration at the wellhead or after the treatment system, after the water enters the home? A. place. Q. is -A. Q. Yes. I answered yes. For determining what potential there I think we tested the appropriate

-- for determining what potential there

is for gas to accumulate in the Lipsky home through transmission of well water into the house the proper place to test for that is at the wellhead; is that correct? restate your answer? A. Well, that's not my answer. My answer Did I accurately

is we believe we tested at the proper place and the data indicated that there was a threat and that's what we took action on. Q. What type of threat then, Mr. Blevins, What

is it that EPA took action on?

specifically was EPA concerned with might happen

179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the Lipsky residence or around the Lipsky property that EPA's order seeks to address? A. Q. A. The threat of explosion. From where? From the gases that are contained in

the wellhead, anywhere that they can potentially migrate to, collect and explode. Q. Tell me all the places EPA has

concluded the gases could migrate to on the Lipsky property. A. Within the wellhead, within the holding

tank, within the home. Q. Did EPA test anywhere other than the

wellhead, namely the holding tank and the home? A. Q. Again, as the record says, no. Mr. Blevins, I think you said earlier Tell me what happens to a

you're a scientist.

gas under pressure when the pressure is relieved or gas dissolved in liquid, particularly water, after pressure is removed? A. Q. It expands. And what happens? Let's use this Coke

can as an example.

When I open it up, contents

are under pressure; would you agree with me? A. Uh-huh (affirmative response).

180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. that? A. Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). Tell me what -- what scientific And it fizzes; would you agree with

principle is at work in that context? A. Q. A. I guess I don't -Familiar with Henry's law? Again, I -- I don't feel com -- I don't

understand what you want me to answer. Q. A. Sure. It expands and it collects in the area

that it's in. Q. A. Q. Or not, right? Or not. Right. I mean --

It expands and releases. And so one would expect that a

liquid under pressure with some gas above that liquid there would be some component that's dissolved in a liquid, right? A. Q. Right so far?

Well, I'd like you to finish. Sure. And when the pressure is

relieved or pressure is taken off that environment then the gas is released from the liquid depending on the pressure resulting? A. In principle, yes. Not all the --

depending on the chemical concern and the

181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 compound it -- it has a different release. Q. A. Q. Let's talk about natural gas. Methane will release from water. Okay. So if I take water from a well

put it into an open-top holding tank what would you expect to happen with the gas concentration as compared to the wellhead under pressure to where the holding tank is? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object, beyond scope. THE WITNESS: Again, if you're saying it's an open top it's going to release to the environment, to the atmosphere, which is where the gas always releases. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So the expectation being my example

would be that the gas concentration in solution would be less in an open-top holding tank; would you agree, from a wellhead under pressure? A. Again, I don't understand the question.

The two don't relate. Q. They don't? Okay. Well, sorry that

that's confusing to you. MR. RILEY:

182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Mr. Blevins, you have before you what's Let's mark this Deposition Exhibit

now been marked as Deposition Exhibit 5. A. Q. before? A. Q. No. Well, I'll represent to you that it's a Yes. And have you seen this photograph

photograph of a water well in the area we've been discussing called the Hurst water well. And as you can see on the exhibit itself there's an indication of the year of 2005. Would you

agree with me that 2005, the year of 2005 predates any of Range Production Company's activities in the area we've been discussing around the Lipsky and Hayley residence? A. Yes. MR. LYNK: I'm going to object as to lack of foundation and beyond the scope. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So are you saying that EPA does not

have any record or any documents in its records

183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that are the same as Deposition Exhibit 5? A. I may have misinterpreted your I have not seen this photo myself. I

question.

think the Agency is aware of this photo, yes. Q. Okay. Again, you are the EPA And I've tried to be careful So --

representative.

about saying EPA but it gets cumbersome. A. I know. I apologize.

But we have

shifted so I just -Q. A. Q. Certainly. -- assumed I was me. So I apologize.

So you've seen then all the documents

EPA has available in this matter as it pertains to the issuance of the order, correct? A. I have seen all the documents contained

in the administrative record. Q. Okay. So that's a different ques -All the

different answer to my question.

documents that we've discussed earlier would be a bigger set of documents than what's contained in the administrative record; is that true? A. Do we -- there are other documents that I have not seen all of them, no.

exist, yes. Q.

So there are 42 documents that are

contained in the administrative record and that

184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 means at least in EPA's records there might be a document 43 up to who knows what that might pertain to the administrative order; is that correct? A. I guess I'm confused on the term Do we have other

contained or pertaining to.

records related to the situation in and around Parker County, yes. Do they pertain to the

order, the administrative record, are those documents that we compiled to support the issuance of the order, and that includes all documents pro or con that we had at the time that we used in making the decision to issue our administrative order, our emergency order. Q. Right. And if I understood correctly

your objective or your staff's objective was to select out of that larger set of documents only documents that supported EPA's decision to issue the administrative order, correct? A. Again, this was a clarification we The use of the

wanted to try to make earlier.

word support, I think you're using it in a different connotation than I do. Support in Support in

terms of only positive things, no.

terms of the documents we reviewed and we relied

185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on to make sure decision to issue an emergency order, yes. But that includes any and all

information positive or negative about the situation as we knew it prior to issuing the order on 12-7. And I think that's a slight Because I

difference in the use of support. believe -- well, I'll stop there. Q.

I've asked you earlier then to tell me

the criteria that were used to select documents that went into the administrative record. you remember me asking you that question? A. Q. A. Q. A. Yes. And you told me that there weren't any. No, I did not say that. Okay. Tell me what they are then. Do

All documents as Jerry certified were

used by the Agency in making a decision to issue an emergency order are contained in the administrative record -Q. A. Q. A. Why didn't --- as criteria. Please continue. I interrupted you.

That's the criteria is those things

that were used to make -- take the action we took was the issuance of an imminent and

186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 substantial endangerment order under Section 1431. That's what we included in the

administrative record. Q. Why didn't you just include all records

that EPA had that had gathered as part of its investigation from any source whatsoever and put that in the administrative record? A. I don't -- I mean, I'm not an expert on

the subject for EPA but I don't believe that is our practice for administrative records in any of our programs. We build a record to

support -- to include those documents that we used and relied on to make an action. Again,

any and all records is a very excluse -- a very long list and in fact, you know, you can get at those records through a different way which is FOIA. And I believe there's an active FOIA

request out on this project that will supply vastly more documents related to this. Q. Well, it's interesting you mention that

because, yes, there has been a FOIA request pending, it's been pending for some time and EPA has asked for several extensions. But

regardless of that and independent of that separate legal activity under a different law

187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 entirely, what is it that was used to pick from a large subset of documents -- a large set of documents the specific documents in the administrative record? A. Those documents that we considered and

relied upon to make our decision to issue that 1431 order, which is an emergency order to address an imminent and substantial endangerment determination by EPA when we issued the order. Q. A. Q. Back to the picture. Uh-huh (affirmative response). Okay. Have you seen this? Is this

document contained in EPA's records, this picture? A. To the best of my knowledge it is but I

have not seen it personally. Q. Sorry to hear that. But as the

designated representative of EPA and this being one of the records that was not included in the administrative record and assuming its caption to be correct -MR. LYNK: Well -MR. RILEY: These are records -- these are I --

188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know. records of yours. MR. LYNK: Are you representing that it in fact does not -- is that what you're -MR. RILEY: I'm sorry. MR. LYNK: In your question are you making a representation for the record that it is in fact not part of the certified -MR. RILEY: What I've heard the witness say, Counsel, is that he believes this photograph is in the records of EPA. MR. LYNK: I thought your question then contradicted his testimony and maybe you should -MR. RILEY: No. I'm asking him. That's my understanding.

MR. LYNK: -- restate it. MR. RILEY: I'm trying to find out. I don't

Because I unlike some of the folks in

189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this room have not had an opportunity to review those records, even though I've tried and I've tried mightily through all systems and manners available to me. So the fact that I don't have

the record I'm at a bit of a disadvantage. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. What I understood you to say is you

believe this photograph to be in the records of EPA. A. Am I understanding correctly? That's -- yes. But I do need to

clarify because I don't know today sitting here on behalf of EPA whether that document, that photograph existed in our records prior to 12 dash 7. Q. Blevins. And I have no way of knowing that, Mr. Who would be the person I should

depose then to answer the question I have as to what was in the complete set of records as opposed to the administrative record and available to EPA before December 7, 2010? MR. LYNK: Object to form. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: I don't know who to tell you to

190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 depose to get to that level of detail. there's a FOIA request. Again,

If it's in our record

it will come out in our record unless we claim one of the exemptions under FOIA that would not release it. that. And I'm not the person to decide

That decision hasn't been made by the When it's made I think that's where But

Agency.

you'll see that document produce itself.

we -- I don't -- it's not in the record that we built for this case. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. I heard you say earlier under oath that

there were three individuals that put together the record, Scott McDonald, Jerry Saunders and Chris Lister; is that correct? A. Q. Those are the primary people yes. And is it fair for me to conclude then

based on your testimony that those are the individuals that would know -- have seen the full body of information available to EPA prior to December 2010? A. They would have seen all the documents

in our possession, yes. Q. Okay. So in order to find out whether

this photograph that's now been marked as

191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deposition Exhibit 5, whether that was in your records before December 7, 2010 I would have to speak with or depose the three individuals you just mentioned or I mentioned, correct? A. Either that or you see if it's released

as part of the FOIA request that you have which it very well may be. Q. Well, I'm just not sure if that would So

tell me what date it was in your possession. I would have to find out from folks in your

agency as to what you had and when you had it. MR. LYNK: Objection, argumentative. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Obviously it's been some time since the

December 7th date has passed, correct? A. To the last part of that, correct, it's

been some time since December 7th. Q. Okay. What does this indicate? What

does Deposition Exhibit No. 5 indicate to you? A. Based on the picture in and of itself

with no additional data it looks like flaring of some sort of gas and the gas has been lit on fire. Q. Can you see the stream below the gas

192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 flame that appears to be a clear liquid flowing out onto the ground? A. Q. Vaguely. Do you know where the Hurst water well

identified in the picture is located? A. The answer to the Agency, yes, the

Agency knows where the Hurst water well is located. Q. Did the Agency sample gas from the

Hurst water well as part of its investigation prior to issuance of the emergency order? A. Q. No. Mr. Blevins, I understood your

background to be, to a large degree at least from your early years with EPA involved the Superfund program; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. And as part of your work for EPA I

assume that you've -- you're familiar with contaminant plumes and time -- how a contaminant plume might change over time? A. Q. Yes. Do you know what depth below surface

Range's production or hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett shale occurs in the area of the

193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lipsky water well? A. Yes, the Agency does. I don't know the

exact depth off the top of my head. Q. Okay. Let's take a look at another

exhibit then because it would help. A. Q. Thank you. Take a moment and look at Deposition

Exhibit 6. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Five minutes left, Counsel. MR. RILEY: Thank you. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Do you have any appreciation for what's

depicted on Deposition Exhibit 6? A. Conceptually, yes. Specifically, no,

not in the amount of time I've had to look at it. Q. A. Okay. Do you want more time?

I think it would take an extensive

amount of time for me to, if you want me to render a technical opinion, to look at this. Q. I'm not asking you any opinions. I'm

asking if you can appreciate what's depicted in the figure.

194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, appreciate, again, I don't know

what that means. Q. Well, see when I look at a figure I'd look at the legend

here's what I would do.

and then the lines and the figure, scale and the various component of figure and then I'd render an opinion one way or the other whether I knew what it meant or not. approach? A. Well, that's not appreciate. But, yes, Is that a reasonable

I know what this graph depicts. Q. Okay. So let's take a break, maybe

take a few more minutes and look at it so I can ask you some questions about it. A. Q. Okay. Thank you. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the record. time is now 2:22. The

This is the end of tape 4.

(Off the record.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the continued videotape deposition of John Blevins. beginning of tape 5. This is the

The time is now 2:32.

EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY:

195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Mr. Blevins, we ended or before the

break we were discussing Deposition Exhibit 6. Have you had a few minutes to look at this? A. Q. Yes. All right. And you see it's entitled

"Hydraulic Fracturing in the Barnett shale, Parker County, relative to mapped aquifers." you see that at the title? A. Q. Yes. And at least as per the document or Do

diagram the deepest aquifer depth in the area of the Parker County -- which would include the Lipsky and Hayley property, would you agree? A. Q. Say that again. Yes. Lipsky and Hayley properties are

in Parker County; is that right? A. Q. Oh, yes. And based on EPA's review of available

information do you agree that the depth of the deepest aquifer is somewhere in the 100, 200 foot range? A. Based on the representations contained

in this chart, yes. Q. Okay. Do you know -- well, did EPA

look at the depth of the aquifers underneath the

196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lipsky and Hayley properties? A. We were aware of the depth of the

aquifers and the depth of the Barnett shale, yes. Q. Okay. And just -- you anticipated my What is the depth of the Barnett

next question.

shale in the area of the Lipsky and Hayley property? A. Somewhere between -- based on this

graph somewhere in the vicinity of 5 to 7,000 feet. I don't know exactly where the Lipsky

well set over the Barnett shale. Q. Well, let's take the most -- according

to this diagram at least the shallowest depth to the Barnett shale. Would you agree with me

based on the diagram, again, it's about 4500 feet? A. Q. Yes, based on this graph. And if we subtract 4500 feet -- or 200

feet from 4500 feet we get about 4300 feet; is that right? A. Q. Yes. Now, is it EPA's theory in this case

that hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett shale caused or contributed to natural gas being found

197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 again? in the Lipsky water well? MR. LYNK: Would you read back the question I'm sorry. THE COURT REPORTER: Now, is it EPA's theory in this case that hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett shale caused or contributed to natural gas being found in the Lipsky water well? EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Are you waiting? MR. LYNK: I have no objection. THE WITNESS: No, I just -MR. LYNK: Sorry. THE WITNESS: I believe the EPA -- the best position I can give you for the Agency is EPA believes that activities related to the drilling of the production wells and the associated fracturing may have caused or contributed the migration of gas to the Lipsky well. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY:

198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I'm trying to isolate the activity What would

known as hydraulic fracturing.

you -- how would you describe hydraulic fracturing, what terms would you like to use? A. I think you're going beyond my --

the -- that would call somebody with a technical expertise beyond what I possess to answer that question. Q. And who on your staff or participated

in the issuance of the -- the administrative order or would support the statement you just made should I speak with in deposition to answer the question? MR. LYNK: Object, beyond the scope. But go ahead. THE WITNESS: The Agency has people you could talk to about hydraulic fracturing. Nothing in

our order and nothing in our record talks about the activities of hydraulic fracing and the direct link or indirect link to the gas in Lipsky's well. So nobody on my staff and nobody

that created the order is an expert in hydraulic fracing.

199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So if Mr. Lister expressed the opinion

in a meeting that I attended that EPA is not concerned that the activity of hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett shale caused the natural gas to accumulate in the Lipsky well then he was speaking outside of his expertise; is that right? MR. LYNK: Objection, beyond scope. But go ahead. THE WITNESS: I can't comment on that because I wasn't in the meeting. I don't know the context

of Mr. Lister's question and the question posed to him and his response. Again, the order

itself and the record for that order does not get into or discuss hydraulic fracturing and the activities related to hydraulic fracturing in the relation to the imminent and substantial endangerment that we claimed and responded to. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. I realize it doesn't and that's what

I'm trying to explore. A. Okay.

200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. What is the theory that EPA is

operating under that leads to the conclusion that Range's activities whether it be in the drilling of the well or operation of the well or hydraulic fracturing activity caused or contributed to natural gas in the Lipsky water well? A. EPA's position is it could be all of

the above. Q. So EPA currently holds the position

that hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett shale could lead to natural gas transmission some 4300 feet up through the subsurface of the earth to the Lipsky water well; is that correct? A. Again, EPA has not taken a definitive Again, as we talked it's a Whether it's an

position either way.

possibility it could occur.

actual fact we have not opined on that in this case. It's not part of the decision that was

made nor the record. Q. So EPA doesn't know whether hydraulic

fracturing contributed one way or the other? A. That's correct. And as I said earlier

part of the order was to have Range conduct investigations to try to determine that one way

201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or the other. Q. The other activities associated with

hydraulic fracturing, that would be drilling of the well and construction of the well; is that correct? A. Q. That's correct. Tell me your understanding of how the

well -- wells, sorry, the Butler and Teal wells were constructed in this case? A. I don't have specific knowledge nor was

that knowledge that was relied on for the issuance of the order. Q. No, you specifically didn't look into EPA did not look into

that; is that correct?

how the wells were constructed and whether they had integrity; is that true? A. No. There's information within the

record that talks about that but I'm not an expert on that subject. Q. Who is the expert that you consulted

with to determine that there's any possibility of Range contributing to the natural gas that was found in the Lipsky water well? A. Q. Say that again. Sure. I'm assuming that EPA was

202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conscientious and went step wise through a process to reach a conclusion that it should issue this emergency order. A. Q. Right. And so it seems reasonable to expect

that you consulted with all available resources within EPA before you took this unilateral action. Is that a reasonable expectation from a

company engaged in an enterprise in this country? A. We, the Agency, consulted with and

reviewed all the appropriate data to make a decision based on an ISE situation. The

extendency of the circumstance drove the decision. Q. You keep inserting words into your Who made that

explanations like appropriate. decision?

Who made a decision as to what was

appropriate, was that you? A. I made the decision as to whether the

issuance of the order was appropriate based on the fact base in front of me, yes. Q. Okay. And you have not reviewed all

the documents in the case, correct? A. I have reviewed all the documents in

203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the record upon which I made my decision. Q. You've not reviewed all relevant Agency

records; is that true? MR. LYNK: Objection. THE WITNESS: I have -- again, I have reviewed all appropriate documents for the decision that was made. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Who decided what was appropriate Object to form.

documents for you to review and what wasn't? A. I think I've already answered that.

The record was built by Jerry Saunders, Chris Lister and Scott McDonald. Q. All right. There was a day, it was

December 7, 2010.

And at that point in time you

had reviewed a certain amount of information, correct? A. I had -- yes, I had been briefed; I had

reviewed information; I had asked questions; I had gotten responses from my staff and I made a determination to sign the order that you know about. Q. All the information you saw is

204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contained in this administrative record; is that your testimony? A. Q. Yes. So you saw nothing of the other

documents that are not contained in the administrative record? MR. LYNK: Object to form. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, did you see any other documents

that are not contained in the administrative record? A. Q. Did I see other documents, no. So you've only seen what's in the

administrative record? A. Right, because it's the basis of the

action that I took on behalf of the Agency. Q. So you cannot personally testify as to

whether the other information in the EPA files are relevant to the issues in the -- in the administrative order? MR. LYNK: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: I can testify as the Agency's Go ahead.

205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 representative that we built the administrative record and the record supports the decision we made. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. And I know that's your opinion, sir.

But I'm asking you whether you've seen every document in person? A. Q. A. As an Agency representative, no. Okay. As a human being no, correct? I've already answered

Personally, no.

that numerous times. Q. All right. And I'm not sure who's

keeping count but I'm trying to get at a succinct answer. So you can keep saying you've I don't believe you

answered it numerous times. have. A. Q. A. Q.

And I can object not responsive. Okay. And I can continue to talk. That's fine. I'll even raise my volume so you know But the objective here is to get All right?

when I stop.

your truthful testimony, sir. MR. LYNK:

John, I think your volume is fine. MR. RILEY:

206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you. MR. LYNK: I'll object if I need to object. He'll answer -- he'll ask questions, you'll respond. Let's all stay within our roles. THE WITNESS: That's fine. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. The -- I want to be clear. Since you I'll reduce it.

were the decision maker, correct, to issue the administrative order, correct? A. Q. Yes. I want to know what you now personally

saw before you made that decision and is -- and ask you succinctly is all the information you saw contained in the administrative record? A. Q. Yes. Now beyond that there was some other

documents which we've talked about numerous times that exist in EPA's records that are relevant to the subject matter of our discussion that I'm expecting you didn't see; is that true? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object to the term relevant, misstates his prior testimony.

207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. There are other documents

that -- that EPA has compiled in this matter that you did not review, true? A. Again, I struggle with the word in this Do

matter because I don't know what you mean. we have other files, yes. Q. again. Okay.

Let's take a look at Exhibit 5 Exhibit 5 is the

It's just an example.

picture. A. Q. Yeah. Exhibit 5 is one of the documents you

said you've seen and you know you have an awareness of it is in EPA's records. I'm trying

to get at how much information have you not seen before you made the decision -- or had you not seen before you made the decision to issue the administrative order? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object, vague as to the time frame when the record was -MR. RILEY: Prior to December 7, 2010. THE WITNESS: I believe I saw all the relevant

208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information to make the decision I made. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. So recapping just a bit, see if All the

I've got a full understanding.

information that you saw is contained in the administrative record, everything outside of the administrative record, in your opinion, is irrelevant to the decision you and EPA made to issue the administrative order; is that a correct statement? A. I would not use the word irrelevant. I

did not use it to make the decision I made. That does not render it irrelevant, it just renders it not used for the decision. Q. A. Q. All right. In my mind. Mr. Blevins, can you understand how

someone who's trying to find out what information EPA had available to it on December 7, 2010 could be a little frustrated at this point? A. made. Q. A. Well -You've asked me numerous times what Actually, no, not for the decision I

209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decision (sic) I relied on to make my decision. Here it is. If -- I understand that you believe

there should be additional information in here, that's fine. But this is the information that I

made my decision on, that the Agency made its decision on to move forward to issuance of an ISE order under 1431. Q. I just think the record should be I don't think that EPA should have

complete.

selectively chosen documents to put in the administrative record. I'm expressing. That's the frustration

Do you understand that?

MR. LYNK: Objection, argumentative. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. I'm just saying do you understand why

someone might be frustrated in these circumstances? A. Q. I understand your position. The -- do you have any sense of time as

it pertains to hydraulic fracturing activity -what is EPA's position on how long it would take for a gas that may be released through hydraulic fracturing activity in the Barnett shale to -to move through the earth, to arrive at the

210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lipsky water well? A. I think that goes beyond the technical

expertise that I possess. Q. In between the Barnett shale and the

Lipsky water well is another natural gas bearing formation we talked about earlier, the Strawn, correct? A. Q. That's my understanding. All right. Would you consider the

Strawn since it's a formation that has retained natural gas and there's been production from the Strawn that that would be a barrier for gas coming from the Barnett before it reached the Lipsky water well? A. I think potentially, again, I would

need a lot more facts to answer that question. Q. What happens to hydrocarbons in the

subsurface of the earth if there's no barrier, do you know, particularly gas? A. Q. A. That's a broad question. Sure. If there's a pathway, it will find the If there's

pathway and go to the atmosphere.

not it may get trapped somewhere which is why you have natural gas pockets.

211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. correct? A. Q. Like the Strawn and other formations. Okay. So if the Strawn is between the Right. Like the Strawn formation,

Barnett and the 200-foot aquifer would you expect it to act differently than it did over geologic time in trapping hydrocarbons? A. I don't think I can answer that

question because it's very broad. Q. No, it's simple in my mind. Is that

there's a formation which has trapped hydrocarbons, natural gas in particular, that intervenes between the Barnett shale and the Lipsky -- the aquifer the Lipsky water well is drilled into. That's called the Strawn

formation; do you agree with me? A. Conceptually I do. But, again, without

additional data you'd have to see if the formation pinches out, if it's discontinuous, if there's pathways through the formation that exist to allow gas to migrate. I don't have

that information in front of me to answer that question for you. And it goes beyond my

technical expertise level on this situation, nor was it information that we relied on for our

212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decision. Q. No, I'm saying EPA should have I understand you didn't, and

investigated.

that's very clear, abundantly clear that you didn't look into any of the issues I've been trying to ask you about. But let's talk about Did anybody in

Strawn formation in particular.

EPA take -- make itself aware of the geological phenomena called the Strawn formation and its characteristics? A. I think I've answered that and the

answer is we know about the Strawn formation. It was considered in the decision we made and we made the decision we made. Q. Okay. There's no information in the

record that indicates the Strawn formation was considered, is there? A. No -- no, there's no document in the

record; that's correct. Q. Okay. So I just have to rely on you

without documentation as to the extent of your consideration of the Strawn formation? A. Q. itself. I guess so. Let's look at the administrative order Let's look at the ordering provisions

213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beginning on page 6 paragraph 50. A. Q. Okay. I asked you a little while ago whether

EPA could have issued an order to Mr. Lipsky and/or Mr. Hayley -- actually, I asked you about Mr. Lipsky to be fair -- precluding Mr. Lipsky from using domestic water well No. 1. that question? A. Q. Yes. And you said you could not, EPA could Remember

not issue that order; is that correct? A. Q. A. That's my understanding, yes. And to your understanding why not? I don't believe we have the statutory

authority to issue an order to a private well owner. Now, that's, again, a legal decision.

But that's my understanding. Q. Was it considered by EPA to prevent

imminent and substantial endangerment in this case to simply order the property owners, the Lipskys and the Hayleys, not to use their water wells until further investigation could be conducted to determine the source of natural gas in those wells? A. It was not considered.

214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Is it proper practice to vent a

natural -- excuse me, a water well from a safety perspective? A. I think all water wells have venting Again, practices probably very

capabilities.

widely observed throughout the country. Q. A. The -- is the Lipsky water well vented? I know it has ability to be vented

because there's where we tested. Q. Is it your understanding and opinion

that the water that is pumped from the Lipsky water well would contain natural gas? A. Q. Are you -- I -I think you mentioned at least to some

degree you're familiar with well construction. So let's talk about water well construction. You have a well completion report. Where does Does it

the water come from in a water well? come off the top, off the bottom? A.

It comes from the aquifer that it's

screened across. Q. A. Q. So water enters the well, correct? Correct. Where's the pipe? Or, excuse me,

where's the pump?

215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Pump's either within the well somewhere Again,

or could be towards the top of the well. it depends on the well construction. Q. A. Q. A. Where it is in Lipsky's case? That I don't know.

Where is it in the Hayley's case? That I don't know without looking at

the record to see if the well completion report documents that. Q. Okay. It's in the record. Well, what is the -- if -- I

think I heard you say, I may be wrong, that the -- well, let -- let me go a different direction. Is it EPA's understanding that there

have been issues in domestic water wells involving natural gas that predate any activity by Range Resources in the context of the Butler and Teal wells? A. Q. Yes. And does EPA have a theory as to those

prior instances of natural gas occurring in domestic water wells in the area we're discussing? A. no. Q. And has EPA done any investigation into I don't think we have a generic theory,

216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those historic episodes of natural gas occurrence in domestic water wells? A. In -- the Agency has -- has some But

investigative work looking at this issue.

as far as Parker County not that I know of, no. Q. What did EPA do in response to the

occurrence that's depicted in the Deposition Exhibit No. 5 the Hurst water well? A. Q. A. This one? Yes, sir. Sorry. I thought there's a different At the time in 2005 I

number at the bottom.

don't know to be -- that this issue was brought to our attention in 2005. So I don't believe

the Agency responded to this event. Q. What did the Railroad Commission do in

response to this event to the best of your knowledge? A. Q. I do not know. What did anyone do in response to this

event to the best of your knowledge? A. Q. I do not know. What efforts were made by you, the

Railroad Commission or anybody that EPA is aware of to determine whether the gas occurring in the

217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Hurst well in 2005 is substantially similar to the Lipsky -- the gas in the Lipsky well? A. I can't speak for the Railroad You'd have to ask them. They're a

Commission.

state agency. authority.

They have their own independent

At the time, as I've said, we did Since the issuance of the

not do anything.

order we have sampled the Hurst well. Q. A. What have your samples revealed? That we believe the gas contained in

the Hurst well is different from the gas found in the Hayley and Lipsky well. Q. A. Why? Based on the compositional information

that we talked about earlier as well as the fingerprinting that we did. Q. Specifically what was different that

you're relying upon? A. Again we believe that the compositional

data, the propane to ethane -- I've got to look at those and make sure I get them right. Ethane

to propane con -- ratios, the propane to butane ratios and the fingerprint is different. So the

fingerprint -- if you look at figure 2 on page 2 I think. Let me just get it right. Sorry. If

218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you look at page 3 and this page shows that the Butler well and the domestic well 1, which is Lipsky well, the fingerprint signatures are very close to each other. If you plotted the Hurst

well it would not be in close proximity to those two points. Q. Which -- when did you -- when did EPA

sample the Hurst well? A. Q. The 21st of December. And what caused EPA to sample on the

21st of December? A. We I think were aware that there were

concerns expressed to the Agency about the issues related to the Hurst well. And based on

that information we decided it would make sense to go out and sample. Q. done. And you said when the sampling was When did you receive results from the

sampling? A. me yet. Q. I don't have the exact date in front of I just know -Would you have the various ratios

you've referenced? A. I do not have those in front of me. I

just know that they were different.

219 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Range? A. No. MR. TASHIMA: Mr. Riley, this is Keith Tashima. I'm going to have to sign off now. But thank Have you provided that information to

you and if I rejoin I'll let you know. MR. RILEY: Thanks, Keith. MR. LYNK: Thanks. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. A. Q. I'm sorry. No. Have you sampled other wells other than I didn't hear your answer.

the Hurst well? A. Q. A. Q. EPA has not. Just the Hurst well then? Yes. And is my understanding correct you

don't have the information today with you to give me the ratios you say distinguish the Hurst -- gas in the Hurst well from the Lipsky well? A. That's correct.

220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. But you're confident that those results

of your December 21st sampling would indicate a difference between the gases found in the Hurst well and the Lipsky well; is that correct? A. Q. for EPA? A. Again, Jerry Saunders, Chris Lister Yes. Who interpreted those results for you,

were involved in the sample collection and the valuation of the data submitted to us by our lab. Q. A. Q. What lab did you use; do you recall? Isotech. Is there a reason you've withheld those

results from Range? A. I don't believe we've withheld the

results from Range. Q. Range hasn't been provided the results,

have they? A. Q. They have not. Okay. My use of the word withheld Is

meaning you haven't given them to us. that -A.

My meaning of withheld is that I We haven't -- again,

purposely withheld them.

221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we just got the data back. requested to release it. We haven't been

And, again, it's not

normal course of business for the enforcement program within EPA to release data as we're investigating enforcement actions. Q. All right. So, obviously, based on

that sampling event EPA has only gained in confidence that it's made the right determination in the administrative order; is that correct? A. I would say we didn't find any data

that would alter our conclusions made in the order. Q. Did I -- am I mischaracterizing your

earlier answers to say that EPA is uncertain whether Range's activities are causing or contributing to natural gas being found in the Lipsky water well? MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Again, I think we have -- we believe they have caused or contributed. That

was part of the order itself, and that was a finding we made and we issued the order.

222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Then what would be the purpose of any

additional investigation? A. The same purpose for asking Range to

collect data as part of our order, which is to expand our knowledge of the situation existing in and around the Parker area and as to are there other wells at risk from -Q. A. But you --- from the same issues that we've

identified. Q. So you've concluded Range caused or

contributed to transmission of natural gas to at least domestic water well 1 and domestic water well 2, correct? A. Q. That's the basis of our order. All right. That's not a hypothetical,

it's not a possibility, you've saying that you've concluded that? A. Q. That they may have contributed to -See, that's the word I keep trying to That sounds to me like there's

get to is may.

an uncertainty as to whether it's actually caused or that there's a suspicion it's causing. You understand what I'm saying?

223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I think the determination we made was

that Range may have caused or contributed and that's the Agency's position. Q. Okay. So you're -- the Agency's

position is then Range needs to investigate that to find out whether they are indeed causing or contributing as opposed to maybe causing and contributing; is that right? A. We asked Range to collect additional

data to define the scope and nature of the threat, if the threat exists beyond the two wells that we identified in our order. And as

part of that we gave Range the opportunity to present additional data, conduct a study to determine if the exact pathway and cause could be defined. Q. So it's Range's obligation in EPA's

view to determine whether there is a pathway from Range's -- that relates to Range's activities; is that correct? A. I think it's Range's obligation to And as part

collect data to satisfy the order.

of collecting that data Range collects data they want to present to the Agency that would either support or deny their liability they have that

224 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opportunity. Q. Well, that's not what the order says, The order says different. Let's

is it, sir?

look at the ordering provisions.

The order

says -- let's skip A because that's just asking for EPA's response -- excuse me, Range's response to EPA. The second one says do

something to Range, provide potable water supplies -- water supplies to consumers of water from domestic well No. 1 and domestic well No. 2, correct? A. Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). So that's not an investigative step,

that's a remedy step? A. That is to address the imminent

substantial -- the imminent threat that we identified. Q. Okay. Now, by this point, December 7,

2010, the Lipskys have stopped using the water well and are actually obtaining water from an alternate source, having a truck to their property; is that right? A. Q. That's correct. So that's not imminent and substantial The Lipskys have already taken

endangerment.

225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 care of order in provision B, 50-B by the time this order is issued, correct? A. The Lipskys had on their own

voluntarily provided themselves potable water supply, yes. Q. Why is it you think Range was then

obligated based on the base of information you had on December 7, 2010 to take over that activity -A. Q. A. Because --- for the Lipskys? Again, I think I've answered this once.

We believe that Range caused or contributed -may have caused or contributed to the problem and that Mr. Lipsky should not carry that burden himself. Q. So the other side of may is may not.

So Range may not have caused or contributed to the natural gas in the Lipsky well too? another possibility, right? A. That's a possibility but that's not the That's

determination the Agency made. Q. Now, your determination you've repeated

several times is they may have caused or contributed, that Range may have caused or

226 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contributed. A. Q. Yes. So the exact opposite side of that coin

is they may not have, correct? A. Again -Q. A. So is the first part. No. The first part we had to make a That's a theoretical question.

formal determination, we did that in our order. And that's what I'm here to give you the Agency's position on. So our determination, our

position as the -- as EPA is that we believe Range may have caused or contributed the contamination in the drinking water supply that led to an imminent and substantial endangerment. We did not make a determination that Range may not have caused or contributed to that -- those two things and we still wanted them to do work. Q. Okay. Distinguish for me the use of

the word may from the use of the word it's possible or the words it's possible. Distinguish that for me. When the Agency

determined Range may have caused or contributed to natural gas in the Lipsky water well how is that different from it's possible Range may

227 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have -- it's possible Range -- Range's activities led to the finding of natural gas in the Lipsky water well. A. Again, as the Agency's representative

the determination we made was may have caused or contributed. I did not make a determination or

the Agency didn't make a determination if possible. Those are words. They can -- people

can decide if they want to interchange them. That's not the Agency's decision or determination. Me speaking for the Agency, or

we believe the words we used is the words we wanted to use which is may have caused or contributed. Q. And if I'm understanding then

correctly, Mr. Blevins, the Agency has not conclusively determined that Range has -Range's activities have caused or contributed to natural gas in the Lipsky water well; is that correct? MR. LYNK: Object, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: We have used the word may. I did

not use the word did cause or contribute, we

228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 used the word may. itself. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. The way it speaks to me for I think it speaks for

itself is there's not -- the Agency has not concluded Range has caused or contributed to natural gas being found in the Lipsky well. I being obtuse or am I understanding you accurately that that's the Agency's conclusion? MR. LYNK: Object to form. and answered. THE WITNESS: Again, I understand what you're saying but the Agency's position in speaking on behalf of the Agency is we believe Range has -may have caused or contributed. That's the Objection, asked Am

basis for the issuance of our order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So since you've made a may conclusion,

may have caused or contributed, the onus in your mind then shifted to Range to disprove that it was causing or contributing to contam -- or excuse me, to natural gas being found in the Lipsky water well?

229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standpoint. MR. LYNK: Object to form. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. right? All right. That's what the order does, We think it

It shifts from EPA is done.

may be that Range has caused or contributed so now Range we want you to do some things and those are enumerated in paragraph 50 of the emergency order, correct? MR. LYNK: I'll object to form to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. You can answer. THE WITNESS: Again, I can't answer from a legal I can tell you that we -- what the

order says and what determinations the Agency made. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. So would you expect it's free

for Range to provide water to the Lipskys? A. Q. A. Q. That's it's free? Yes, sir. No. No. So there's cost associated with

230 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that requirement, correct? A. Q. Yes. And would you expect that the

installation of domestic -- excuse me, of explosivity meters in the dwelling served by domestic wells 1 and 2 that that's a -- at some cost to Range? A. Q. Yes. And so even on the strength of a may

have caused or contributed Range would be compelled, according to this order, to do certain things, correct? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object to that to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Is that correct? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object as beyond the scope as well. In fact, I'm going to object it's beyond the scope and instruct you not to answer. THE WITNESS: Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY:

231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Okay. Yes. And finally with respect to 50-D -- I'm Let's skip to the bottom With respect to 50-F -- see You accept that instruction?

sorry, not finally. line, so to speak. that? A. Q. Yes.

Within 60 days of receipt of this order

respondents shall develop and submit to EPA for approval a plan to identify gas flow pathways to the Trinity Aquifer to eliminate gas flow to the aquifer if possible and, 3, remediate areas of the aquifer that have been impacted. A. Q. A. Q. That's correct. Did I read that correctly? Yes. Is it correct then that regardless

of -- this seems to be broader than Range's activity, this ordering provision. It doesn't

seem to limit it to pathways connected to Range's activities. Do you see a limitation in

this provision that I'm missing? A. Q. Do I see a limitation on -It says identify gas flow pathways to Let's suppose that the

the Trinity Aquifer.

232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Strawn formation as natural -- generates natural gas that flows through a pathway to the Trinity Aquifer. A. Q. Right. Okay. Is that one of the pathways

you'd want Range to identify here? A. If it was -- we would want Range to And then again I think

identify the pathways.

in compliance with the order if Range were able to present data to the Agency that the Agency believed was valid and appropriate we may -that showed that it wasn't related to your activities there's always the option that we would not pursue asking Range to do anything beyond what they did. Q. right? A. Q. A. Q. A. That's not what the order -There's a step two. The order -Read to me the step two. The order asks you to present a report Here's what needs to be done. And it's a plan to, one, That's not what the order says, though,

that says: Q.

Right.

identify gas flow pathways --

233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scope. A. Q. A. Q. aquifer? A. Q. A. Q. Right. Right? Right. And then, three, to remediate the Right. -- at Trinity Aquifer? Right. And, two, eliminate the gas flow to the

aquifer, correct? A. Q. Right. That doesn't seem to be attributable to

any Range activities exclusively. MR. LYNK: I'm going to object as beyond You can answer. THE WITNESS: Again, I understand your question. Again, if the Agency received data to say that none of these activities were the responsibility of actions of Range conclusively I think the Agency would discuss with Range whether they complied with the order and satisfied the orders which is what, again, common practice for the Agency to do as we move through these cases.

234 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, I didn't see that in the order.

Is that in the order somewhere -A. Q. A. No. -- that I've missed? No. That's -- you're right, it's not

explicit in the order. Q. So when 50-A asks Range to say yea or

nay so to speak, whether it would comply or not, there's not a provision in here that says: if you're not responsible for natural gas occurring in the Lipsky well you can stop complying. correct? MR. LYNK: Object, calls for legal conclusion and beyond the scope. THE WITNESS: It asks you if you intend to comply with the order, that's correct. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. All right. And the provision we talked It says: Will you comply or not, Even

about just a moment ago that you said is Agency policy and it may prove up that Range isn't responsible and then the Agency would further

235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 negotiate or consider its ordering provisions, that's not in here; is that right? A. Q. it? It's not explicit in here, no. Is it implicit somewhere? Did I miss

Am I looking at -It's the Agency's. -- if I read between the lines? MR. LYNK: Same objection. THE WITNESS: It's the Agency's -- again, in an Go ahead.

A. Q.

enforcement case it's the Agency's practice to work with companies that we've issued order to and to -- again, if data comes to light that we believe would indicate they don't have to take action we will work with them to that. not explicit. But it's

It's just part of how we write

our orders, you're correct. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. How many orders of this type have you

personally signed and issued? A. Q. How many -Orders of this type have you personally

signed as you did this one -A. ISE orders --

236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. -- previously? -- or administrative orders for water

or -- that's a broad question to me. Q. Well, this one I'm going with emergency

administrative orders under the authority of Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act? A. I have personally signed -- I'd have to

go back and look but I can tell you it's in the ballpark of less than five, three to five. Q. A. Over what time frame? Since I've been with the Agency in

Region 6, six years. Q. How many has EPA issued at the time

you've been at EPA, Region 6 in that six years? A. Q. ISE orders under 1431? Yes, sir. You keep using a term that

I'm not familiar with. A. Sorry. Imminent and substantial Sorry. I apologize.

endangerment, ISE.

Emergency orders under this authority, that's what I'm saying, three to five. Q. A. Okay. If they were issued in the last six

years I would have been the person to sign them. Q. What's the most recent of those three

237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to five orders? A. It was -- we issued an order to a

tribal government entity related to issues with their drinking water supply. I would have to go But we issued

back and pull -- find exact name. it.

The other again orders that we've issued to

date have been to tribal entities related to their providing drinking water. Q. At the time of the emergency order on

December 7, 2010 were the Hayleys still using their water well for consumption? A. Yes, to the best of my understanding

they were. Q. Do -- did EPA conduct any sampling of

the Hayley's water? A. Yes. It's in the record. It's

contained in that same table that we're looking at, 00 or page 2. Q. A. Page 2. And it's listed in a few of the

findings of fact within the order itself. Domestic well 2 is the Hayley property. Q. And I may have misled you but I thought

I read in the administrative order that you relied on -- you being EPA relied upon sampling

238 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conducted by the Hayleys, not that EPA conducted. A. Q. A. No. If you look on table 2.

Yes, sir. Where it says domestic well 2 you can

see that we did collect -- so not the first page of the table but the second page of the table. Q. I'm looking at page 2, right, Bates

labeled page 2? A. Yeah. If you look at domestic well 2,

that's the Hayley well, and you can see that the EPA collected those water samples. We did not

collect air samples from the Hayley well. Q. A. sample. Q. All right. Now, based on table 2 what Maybe that's what I'm remembering. Yeah. So we did collect a water

constituents were above MCLs in the Hayley water based on EPA's testing? A. Q. None. Now, you did rely on some testing done

by the Hayley's or a consultant for the Hayleys as to gas in the Hayley well. that part correctly? A. I don't -- the record does not contain Am I remembering

239 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anything related to gas samples for the Hayley well and the order itself. If you look at I

paragraph 37 talks about water samples.

believe all the data is -- for the Hayley well was previous water samples and our water sample in comparing what we saw in those. Q. And I apologize. I just didn't

remember accurately.

You're absolutely right.

In paragraph 37 it details that the consumer, meaning the Hayleys, contracted for water samples to be taken -A. Q. A. Q. Right. -- from their well, correct? Right, that's what I was reading. And what constituents if any detailed

in paragraph 37 are above EPA standards or MCLs? A. Again, there was no MCL exceedance MCL, sorry.

recorded. Q.

Do you know who took the samples that

are referred to in paragraph 37, what firm or what individual? A. Let me check real quick. I believe --

I just want to double check.

I believe a report

was issued by Wolf Eagle Environmental. Q. Wolf Eagle?

240 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. Wolf Environmental I think. Now, we've heard that name before in That is Rich's firm; is that

the deposition. correct? A.

That is correct.

So document

identification 15 in the record is -- relates to the Wolf Eagle report prepared for the Hayley well. Q. A. Q. A. And document 14 also, sorry. Did -Act --- Ms. Rich -- I'm sorry. I was just going to say looking --

sorry, I should have -- but like 14, 15 and 16 in our record, 17 in our record all related to the Hayley well and the testing done by Wolf Eagle on the water. So it's various analytical

reports submitted related to the Hayley well in the record. Q. Did Ms. Rich influence EPA's decision

to act in this matter? A. Q. No. You're confident of that answer as a

representative of EPA? A. Q. Yes. Was Ms. Rich's desire made known to EPA

241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as to what she would like to see happen as it pertains to the Lipsky or Hayley water wells? A. Not that I know of, no. It may have

been in conversation but it wasn't documented in the record. MR. RILEY: Let me mark this paper quickly as Deposition Exhibit -THE COURT REPORTER: 7. MR. RILEY: -- 7. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Now, I know you haven't had time to

study this article but let me ask you if you're familiar with this bunch called the United States Geologic Service? A. Q. Yes. All right. And this other gang they

call the United States Department of Interior Office of Surface Mining? A. Q. Yes. They're pretty reputable folks in those

agencies? A. They're sister agencies.

242 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So no reason to -- let me ask you

preliminarily, have you ever seen this article before? A. Q. ever -A. I don't know if the Agency has seen I would assume that the Agency In what capacity? Really in any capacity. Have you

this article. has.

I have not seen it in a personal capacity

related to this case. Q. Now, this article at least in a quick

review and I know you haven't had a lot of time, discusses methane in West Virginia ground water and discusses at least an opinion of those sister agencies what are concentrations of concern for methane in ground water. that? A. Levels"? just -Q. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I'm generally Oh, the part that's titled "Action Is that what you're talking about? I Do you see

speaking.

I'm not trying to belabor this point

but I'm wondering how much consideration EPA gave in this instance as it pertains to concentrations of methane or other gases in

243 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 either of the domestic water wells that are in discussion and whether the levels themselves are harmful to potential consumers of the water. A. Q. A. Sorry. Sure. I was reading and lost you. I Can you state that again?

apologize. Q. No, that's perfectly fine. There's

this notion that constituents in ground water may be harmful to human health if consumed. Is

that generally speaking any level of concern of EPA in this case? There's the explosive aspect And

if methane accumulates it could blow up.

then there's the other aspect at least I'm interpreting EPA's order to cover that consumption of the domestic -- of water from the domestic wells in discussion could be harmful to human health. EPA's concern? A. I think EPA -- if I understood your But Is that -- am I misunderstanding

question, so I apologize if I missed it. EPA was concerned that there were other

constituents beyond the methane, propane, the natural gas constituents showing up in the drinking water which while not over the MCLs

244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could have health impacts. The primary driver

for our action again was the concentrations of the natural gas in the -- both in the water solubilized as well as in the head space. don't know if I answered you or not. Q. Sort of. But let's go to it then -So I

let's -- the concentration in the water, that's separate from the concentration in the head space, correct? A. Q. Separate but related, yes. And so we've had the pressure

discussion we had and what happens when the water comes out of the well and goes to the holding tank. But the concentrations in the

well water itself as -A. Q. Right. -- identified by EPA are they a health

concern from EPA's perspective? A. Not from ingestion of the water as

drinking it because the methane or the natural gas components will quickly volatilize. So the

health impacts related to methane and other natural gas components will probably be through the inhalation pathway and there are studies out there that look at that. But you're talking --

245 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 apart from the explosion risk you're talking at, you know, significant concentrations. Because

of the ability of methane and other organic compounds like methane to basically produce an environment that they may be oxygen starved so you -- there's no air to breathe because you've got too much of something else in the air, it could cause health problems that way. Q. Because you could die if there's no

oxygen, right? A. You could die and there's other things

you could -- you know, there's other health affects, short-term health affects that you might -Q. If we filled this room with pure water

that would be bad for us -A. Q. A. Q. That would be bad for us. -- sitting here, right? Yeah. So --

So it's not just -- it's an asphyxiant

but only to the extent that it displaces oxygen; is that correct? A. Correct. That's what EPA believes the

literature would indicate. THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

246 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Five minutes. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Do you know if EPA has a similar paper?

Have you ever seen any information from your experience and particularly with respect to this order that supports that any of the concentrations of any of the components of natural gas are in that context in terms of ingestion are -- endanger human health? A. paper. I don't know if EPA has a specific Again, we're aware of the scientific

literature and the health impacts related to like methane. I think we actually -- there may

be a reference in the order. Q. break. then -A. Yeah. See if you read No. 32 -Why don't you take -- let's take a Why don't you look at that reference and

sorry -- 32 in the order says hexane, propane, ethane and toluylene may also cause health -adverse health impacts if inhaled or ingested. So that's kind of a broad statement. But I

think the Agency as a whole realizes that methane, propane doesn't -- they don't want to stay in water. They're compounds that want to

247 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now 3:29. get out of water. So ingestion directly like

through drinking a cup of water is probably very hard unless the concentrations are significant. Q. As a matter to bring this all home I And

brought in some glasses of hexane for us. would you -- I'm just teasing.

I mean, what I'm

really trying to say is that this statement is so broad it would suggest that, yeah, if I drank hexane or if I ingested propane that that probably wouldn't be good for me. But is there

some constituent level that's associated with these compounds that EPA would consider unsafe in drinking water? A. Not that I'm aware from an MCL To be honest I'd have to go look to

standpoint.

see if a secondary MCL is set for any of these compounds -- MCL secondary. I'm not aware of

one but I would have to go back and check. MR. RILEY: Let's take a break and we'll resume in a few minutes. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is

This is the end of tape 5.

(Recess was taken.)

248 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and counsel. THE WITNESS: Thank you. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Mr. Blevins, have you had an THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the continued videotaped deposition of John Blevins. beginning of tape 6. This is the

The time is now 3:46.

EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Blevins. MR. RILEY: Let's mark another exhibit, Deposition Exhibit 8. Let me give a copy to Mr. Blevins Only a few more hours to go, Mr.

opportunity to look at what's been now marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 8? A. Q. Yes. Okay. And do you recognize it to be in

broad strokes again generally the area we've been discussing around the pad site for the Teal and Butler Range Production Company wells? A. Q. Yes. And I'm not asking you to confirm or

249 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 otherwise validate the exhibit but I'm asking if you -- if you have sufficient knowledge to discuss the relative locations and approximate distances of the various items labeled on the diagram. A. I have -- I don't have any reason to --

to question them. Q. All right. As pertains to ground water

in the Trinity Aquifer do you know the direction of ground water flow? A. The Agency does. I couldn't tell you

off the top of my head, no. Q. Okay. Who would be best qualified of

the folks that have been discussed in this deposition to testify about ground water flow direction of the Trinity Aquifer in the area we've been discussing? A. Chris -Q. A. Q. A. Q. Mr. Saunders and Mr. Lister? Yes, Chris Lister. It's okay. Just spaced out on that one. All right. And you see the oval to the Sorry. That would be Jerry Saunders and

right-hand side, lower right-hand corner of the

250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 diagram? A. It's the big green or the big yellow

oval, yeah. Q. Yes, sir. And it's labeled: Center

mill, parentheses, Strawn, S-T-R-A-W-N, closed parentheses, BUQW 370 feet perf interval 358 to 426 feet. A. Q. Do you see that?

Yes. All right. Now do you -- do you have

any appreciation of -- that the oval as depicting the historic -- or area of historic production of natural gas from the Strawn formation in the general vicinity of the area we've been discussing? A. Say that again. You're representing

that the oval represents -Q. Best of my understanding. I didn't put

this diagram together but I believe that's what it represents. And the perf interval talks

about or is speaking to the depth from surface. A. Right. I know what those are. But you

would think the circle -- I thought you were trying to say what you believe the circle represented. Q. I believe it's the historic production

251 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from the Strawn formation in the area we've been discussing. A. Q. Okay. I have no data to dispute that. So just sort of thinking

All right.

through the rest of the diagram or looking at the rest of the diagram you see the Lake Country Acres public water supply about midway on the left-hand -- excuse me, right-hand edge of the diagram? A. Q. Yes. And according to the diagram that's

about 6,000 feet from the Butler and Teal well pad site? A. Q. Yes. And you've got the Lipsky well to the

northwest or north northwest? A. Q. Right. And you've got the Hayley well further

north but generally in the direction of north and west from the Butler and Teal well site. And you've got the Hurst well. A. Q. Yes. Yes. See that?

And I'm going to go with Oujesky, but

it's spelled O-U-J-E-S-K-Y, water well drilled. See that?

252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. sorry. Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). Yes. And then the Lipscomb well again I'm

further to the west from the Range -A. Q. Yes. -- site. Now, without asking you to

confirm the information contained in the various boxes it appears that there has been incidents of natural gas occurrence in water wells in the area of the Lipsky/Hayley and ultimately the Butler and Teal wells historically. A. Q. Yes. -- fair? And is that basically you Is that --

have a general understanding that's the case? A. Q. Yes. Now, we talked a moment ago before the

break that EPA did some testing of the Hurst well; is that correct? A. We took a ground water sample -- or,

no, sorry, an air sample, yes. Q. Yeah. I think you did some isotopic

analysis if I understood your testimony. A. Q. That's correct. All right. Did you test any of the

other wells depicted on this diagram for --

253 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 again, take an air sample from any of the other wells that are -A. Q. Oh, an air sample, no. All right. And by other wells, let me

be clear.

We've talked about Lipsky; we've I'm talking about the

talked about Hayley.

other wells being the Oujesky, the Lipscomb or the Lake Country Acres wells. A. not. Yes, I understand that. No, we have

The only well that we've sampled beyond

Lipsky and Hayley to date, EPA has sampled, is the Hurst well. Q. All right. Based on your recent

sampling has the Hurst well proved to be -- the gas in the Hurst well -- let, me start again. Did EPA detect gas in the Hurst well, natural gas in the Hurst well? A. Q. gas? A. Q. No. Are there any -- other than apparently Yes. Has EPA determined the source of that

you've distinguished it from the Range production gas that's been discussed throughout this deposition and that is part of the

254 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evidentiary record or the administrative record? A. Q. Correct. So what we know then based on EPA's

opinion is that the gas that EPA detected in the Hurst well is not related to Range production activities; is that correct? A. We believe it's not -- yes, it's not

the same gas that we're finding in the Lipsky and Butler well, yes. Q. A. that. Q. What -- let me start again. Have What is the source of the Hurst gas? We have not gone that far to determine

you -- has EPA issued an emergency order as it per -- as it pertains to the Hurst well? A. Q. No. Has EPA looked for production

activities surrounding the Hurst property to determine whether any of those production activities are the source of the gas in the Hurst well? A. No. Again I gave you the date that we

did that sampling and I couldn't give you the exact date as to when we got the data back but it's with -- been within the last probably two

255 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 weeks. So we're still -- we just got the data. Again, we

We're just starting to analyze it.

did an isotopic testing so we could look at those results and compare them to existing results. And we did some compositional water And we can compare those to the That's the extent of our

testing data.

existing wells.

investigation to date. Q. correct? A. Q. use. A. Q. That I don't know. Are you concerned for the well-being of Um -Is in use. I shouldn't say still in The Hurst well is still in use,

consumers of water from the Hurst well? A. Based on the data that we have to date

and the initial review of it we don't see the same conditions existing in that well that we see -- that we saw on the Lipsky and Hayley well. So we have not made a determination that

there's an imminent and substantial threat that we would need to act on. Q. right? Well, there's natural gas in the well,

256 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. There is natural gas but at different

concentrations -Q. A. Q. Is it --- and makeup. -- different natural gas from the type

that explodes? A. Q. A. No. Okay. I mean all natural gas at certain

concentrations can explode. Q. Well, if it's piped into the Hurst

residence or some confined structure -A. Q. Right. -- then it has a potential to

accumulate and explode; am I -A. Q. A. It could --- incorrect? -- yes, if the concentrations are

significant enough. Q. Well, insignificant or significant

that's the nat -- excuse me, the nature of accumulation is that if gas accumulates in a confined space, regardless of what the concentration is of the wellhead it could -A. Right.

257 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. -- lead to an explosion? And we have not concluded our

investigation or analysis of the data related to Hurst to make a determination if EPA needs to take action. Q. All right. But we know it's not

related to the Range production activities, correct, according to EPA? A. Based on the data we have to date and

an initial review of that data we do not believe it so. But, again, we are still evaluating the

data and will make further determinations based on that evaluation. Q. What isotopes were considered in your

isotopic analysis of the gas sample from the Hurst well? A. We basically -- it's the same two,

the -- looking at the hydrogen, the hydrogen and the carbon monomers, 1 and 2 and 12 and 13, sorry. So it's the same exact isotopic analysis

that we did on -- performed on the Butler gas that we were provided a sample of and on the Lipsky well. Q. All right. And that would tell you

whether the gas is thermogenic or biogenic; is

258 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that right? A. Q. It will, yes. And was the gas determined -- or excuse

me, the gas in the Hurst well determined to be thermogenic or biogenic? A. I -- we just have the results back.

Again, I don't know that we made a final determination as to where it fits on that -where it would land on the -- that graft that's on page 3 and whether it's thermogenic. I do

believe we think it -- based on the numbers I saw, we haven't done the analysis, but I think it probably has thermogenic characteristics, but it may also have biogenic. And we talked about

that earlier that sometimes you can have gas that might exhibit both. Q. Okay. Now, let's go back and talk a

little bit about -- well, let me ask it differently then or one more question as it pertains to this exhibit. A. Q. Okay. Tell me all the things EPA is doing to

investigate other wells, whether depicted on this diagram or not, but in the general area depicted on this diagram. What is EPA currently

259 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 doing as pertains to furthering its investigation? MR. LYNK: Object as beyond scope. You can answer. THE WITNESS: We are moving to enforce our order that asks Range to perform that work for the Agency. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Interesting characterization of it.

You would like Range to perform the work to prove that Range is not the source of the gas in the Lipsky well; is that an accurate characterization of EPA's desire? MR. LYNK: Objection to scope and form. THE WITNESS: Will you ask that again -MR. RILEY: Sure. THE WITNESS: -- just so I can make sure. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. You would like Range to perform an

260 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 investigation to prove that it is not the source of natural gas detected in the Lipsky well; is that a fair characterization of EPA's desired response from Range? MR. LYNK: Objection, scope and form. THE WITNESS: Again, I would say no. I believe a

fair characterization is we've asked Range in our order to perform -- collect data that would help us define the scope and nature of the contamination problem in the underground storage, underground water aquifer and help us collect data to find the scope and nature. And

then also we've asked that Range perform a study to look to see if the pathways can be determined; two, if they can be determined how we might go about addressing those pathways to eliminate the contamination in the underground water aquifer. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So Range's responsibility is to step

into the shoes of EPA, identify the pathways and then advise EPA on how to solve the issue; is that correct?

261 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Range's responsibility is to respond to

the Agency's order that we issued under the authority of the act. Q. And you have Range response to the You've received a response from

order, right?

Range as it -- as it pertains to the emergency order? A. Q. That's correct. And Range respectfully disagrees with

EPA's both factual and legal conclusions as you understand, correct? A. Q. That's correct. And is it EPA's position that

regardless of responsibility and despite Range's belief that EPA's factual and legal conclusions are flawed that it must move forward according to the emergency order? MR. LYNK: Object to it, beyond the scope. And I object it calls for legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: I believe the Agency's position is that Range should -- has the responsibility to respond to our order and implement it. And

we've asked that that order be enforced.

262 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 policy. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. When I read to you one of the

provisions of that order which -- it talked about that there's an unwritten law or policy that talks about: Well, if we're wrong and you

do all these things and you show us you're not responsible well then, naturally, we wouldn't make you complete the ordering provisions. I mischaracterize our earlier discussion? MR. LYNK: Same objection. THE WITNESS: I don't think there's a law or a I think the Agency has established a Did

longstanding practice that when we issue administrative orders that we are willing to sit down and discuss the contents of those orders and the completion of the provisions under those orders with the affected parties. offered that to Range. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Who would be doing the analysis of the And we've

additional sampling you recently did on the Hurst well? A. The --

263 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LYNK: Object to scope. You can answer it. THE WITNESS: The same staff that I've talked about before. for us. Isotech performed the analysis

We'll talk to Isotech about how they We will use Jerry, Chris

interpret the data.

and Scott McDonald to look at that data as well as we move forward as part of our investigation. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Let's get your binder open, if you

don't mind and look at I think some handwritten notes of conversations with I believe it's Mr. Coleman and a Mr. -- I think it will help you to turn to page 639. A. Q. 639. This is part of the administrative Is it Polesky I think?

record this document Bates labeled page 639? A. Q. Right. And it appears to be someone's

handwritten notes of conversations with Dennis Coleman and a Stephen something that begins with a P. A. Correct. They're Chris Lister's

264 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 handwritten notes that he has attached as part of his declaration. Q. A. Q. Can you read them? I can't read all of them, no. Let's see if we can read the portion The date of --

under Mr. Coleman's name.

apparently the discussion was November 19, 2010. I can't make out the time. a.m. A. Q. Right. See at least for reference to the Looks to be 10:05

document you can see where -A. Q. A. Q. Right. -- where I am? I'm with you. Okay. This conversation apparently

predated the issuance of the -- of the order. A. Q. That's correct. And let's try to read -- let me try to

read the note and see if you agree with my reading. A. Q. Right. It says, after the arrow: Said that

the isotopic signatures being as close as -- I can't make out that word -- as our two samples

265 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. indicates that, one, both are thermogenic in origin; and, two, that they're like to be from the same source given the proximity of the production well to the water well. And the next sentence: One must

valuate the potential for other sources that would be thermogenic and the geology or structures that would store or transmit the gas from origin to aquifer to be certain. Do you see that? Yes. Do you agree with me that EPA did not

follow the recommendation of one of the experts it cites in investigating the geology or structure that would store or transmit the gas from origin to aquifer to be certain? A. One, I would just say Chris captures He recounts in his depo -- or

this on page 569.

his declaration of what -- there's text in there that matches up with his handwritten notes. But -Q. A. Q. A. Which one are you referring to? 569, No. 10. No. 10. He talks about his discussion with Mr.

266 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Coleman at Isotech. and 2, so... Q. then? A. Q. A. there. Q. A. Thank you. That's helpful. I think you did. Go ahead. I just wanted to point out it was Okay. Seems like I read it correctly He goes through bullet 1

And his notes also in No. 11 he talks Can

about his discussion with Stephen Pelphrey. you ask -- your question was -Q. A. Q. Sure. -- did we not follow -No.

It says that Mr. Coleman stated

that to be concern one must evaluate the potential for other sources that would be thermogenic in origin and evaluate the geology or structure that would store or transmit the gas from the origin to the Trinity Aquifer. EPA

did not act on Mr. Coleman's recommendation; is that correct? A. EPA acting on Mr. -- oh, sorry. MR. LYNK: Object to the form.

267 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Go ahead. THE WITNESS: EPA acting on Mr. Coleman's opinion based -- captured in the order when the order asked Range to work on that information for us as part of the order. We did an evaluation,

again, to start that investigation but we've asked Range to provide additional information in that regard as part of the order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, define for me where in the order

it says that Range should evaluate the geology or structure that would store or transmit the gas from the origin to the Trinity Aquifer. A. I believe that would be the -- where

we've asked them to look at pathways. Q. Okay. So Range should do a full-scale

all-out investigation of all of their sources in geology to satisfy EPA; is that correct? MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Again, I will just -MR. LYNK: Object as beyond scope as well.

268 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: The order asked Range to look at pathways to do exactly what Mr. Coleman suggested before a certain determination was made. EPA's position is we haven't made a We made -- consistent

certain determination.

with the language earlier in here that we believe that the gases are likely to be from the same source. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. What does likely mean, Mr. Blevins? Is

it 50 percent possibility, 75 percent?

Is there

any percentage you can affix to the word you keep using likely? MR. LYNK: Objection, asked and answered. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: I don't have a percentage to give Again, there's no hard binder that I can

go to and pick a percentage up for you. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, you could have -- EPA could have

taken the step recommended by Mr. Coleman

269 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 itself, correct? A. Q. Yes, but... I reviewed your budget just recently. So you have the

It's the highest in history.

resources to do the investigation recommended by Mr. Coleman, no? MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: No. Again, I think that's a

misstatement the Agency's budget as a whole. The Agency could do the work. The Agency

doesn't believe that we need to do the work. The Agency believes that the statute gives us the authority to ask a company who we believe may have caused or contributed to do the work, to collect the data and that's what we've done. And, in fact, that's consistent with again how enforcement works for the Agency across the nation. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, you know, I was in the

enforcement game myself for a good number of years and I don't recall that particular aspect. But maybe I just had a different experience from

270 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the suspicion leads to accusation. But let's

just move on and look at other recommendations within EPA to do a similar thing. it's from Dr. Beak. correct? A. Q. Correct. And he so far as I can tell is your I believe

He is an EPA employee,

most credentialed expert in the topic or on the topic of isotopic analysis or gas fingerprinting; would you agree with me? A. Q. A. Q. He's the most -- what word? Credentialed. He is a doctor, yes. Written a number of papers, seems to be Sorry.

a fellow with some experience in the subject, would you agree? A. Q. He's written numerous papers, yes. Would you look at -- I believe it's

item 41 in the administrative record. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Page 724? Yes, sir. Yes. If you start with the second paragraph. Uh-huh (affirmative response). And I'm looking for the particular

271 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 provision. I'm going to pick up about four With that said,

lines down with the sentence:

this is not conclusive evidence because of the limited data set; however, it also does not rule out gas migration from the production well to the Lipsky well. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Sorry. Sure. -- which paragraph? Second paragraph. The little paragraph? The big paragraph. -- paragraph. I'm sorry I was counting Oh the big -Do you see that? You're in the --

paragraphs. Q. That's okay. Begins with the word

with, fourth line down. A. Q. Right. Okay. I'm with you. And tell me if I read it

correctly.

With that said, and the width At the

referring to -- well, let me read it. beginning of the paragraph:

The isotope data

for the Lipsky well and the production well look to be identical and are thermogenic in origin. The gas composition of the production well and the Lipsky are similar. And the compositional

272 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 changes are what one might expect for a gas that has migrated from the production well to the Lipsky well. With that said, this is not

conclusive evidence because of the limited data set; however, it also does not rule out gas migration from the production well to the Lipsky well. A. Q. Did I read that correctly? Yes. So -- and Dr. Beak's been in the

evidence collected by EPA to that date at least, November 28, 2010, was not conclusive; is that right? A. Q. That's what he says in his e-mail, yes. And then it says what will be very

important to document is the timeline of when the well went into production and the appearance of gas in the Lipsky well. A. Q. Yes. I could not compare the analysis from You see that?

the Texas Railroad Commission with your analysis. The problem here is that the data

from any of the three analytical labs is present as normalized data. far? A. Uh-huh (affirmative response). Did I read correctly so

273 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. This means that the data is normalized

to -- excuse me, normalized at least to what was analyzed for and not all the labs analyzed the same components or possibly used the same method. A. Q. See that? Yes. I would suggest in the future that the

data provided in terms of non-normalized data in mass or concentration units. A. Q. Right so far?

Uh-huh (affirmative response). This way we can directly compare data

and normalize all data to the same set of criteria. The only way now to compare the data

would be to make assumptions to fill in data gaps and I don't believe we have enough experience at this site or data to do this at this time. A. Q. Do you see that?

Uh-huh (affirmative response). Now, it doesn't seem as though Dr. Beak

felt that the time was right for EPA to conclude that Range was the source or caused or contributed to gas in the Lipsky well. agree with -A. I don't agree with your summation, no. Do you

I agree with what you've read.

274 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Well, you agree with what I read

because I read it correctly. A. Q. No. All right. I'm just saying --

But do you agree with the conclusions

reached by Dr. Beak in that paragraph? A. I agree with Dr. -- we agree with Dr.

Beak's analysis but that in no way precludes or affects our ability to issue an order under the statute. Q. So what is your -- since you brought it

up, I'm sure I'll get an objection as to scope. You've said that it doesn't affect your ability that the factual or the -- the analysis of the data available to EPA from its most credentialed consultant -A. He says additional data is necessary to We did not make a

make a definitive conclusion. definitive conclusion.

The Agency reacted to

what we believe is an imminent and substantial endangerment. We believe that the Agency needed

to take immediate action to address that imminent and substantial endangerment. believe that consistent with Dr. Beak's recommendation as well as recommendations from Isotech, the people we worked with there, that And we

275 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we needed to collect -- have additional data collected. Q. right? A. Q. saying: that? A. Q. A. Right. Correct? You just -No. We ordered them to do that. So you didn't send them a note We've asked Range to do that.

Well, you didn't ask them to do it,

Right.

Yeah, it would be nice if you could do

That's not EPA's way of proceeding in

these efforts. Q. These efforts are -- how many -- how

many emergency orders have you issued in Region 6 that are similar in circumstances to the present case? A. Again, I think earlier I answered under

1431 we've issued three or four, under five. And we've issued other emergency orders under our other statutory authorities. Q. In any of those instances was the --

was the source of the contamination less than certain in EPA's view? A. Again, each case has its own facts. I

can tell you, for example, we've issued an ISE

276 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order because of pathogen contamination of a drinking water source. And the pathogens were

there just like we believe the contaminants were here. And we've issued that order to basically

undertake the same sort of assessment in that circumstance that we've asked Range to take here which is to collect additional data to try to determine where the pathogens were deriving from and what actions could be taken to address those pathways once they were identified. Q. Sorry. And what was the title or style What was the name of it?

of that order? A. Q. A. tribes. my head.

It was an emergency order under 1431. To whom was it issued? It was issued to one of the, again, And I don't have a name off the top of But I can -- we can get that for you It was a tribe that was

very quickly.

delivering drinking water to their tribal constituents, it was contaminated. Q. So they were in the business of

supplying water to their -A. Q. A. Right. -- constituents as you mentioned. Right. They were --

277 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. There were pathogens in the water. They were more consistent with what you

might -- in this situation everybody considers a PWS, a public water supplier. Q. And you see a parallel there because

you wanted the supplier of the water with pathogens in the water to the Range circumstances? A. No. I see the parallel. You asked was

there anything similar.

I see the parallel and

there was contamination of an aquifer; water was being served; an imminent and substantial health situation existed; consistent with the language in the statue we issued an order addressing the imminent and substantial endangerment and then asking the water supplier to figure out where the contamination was coming from and to address it because we believe under the statute that's their responsibility. Q. That would be consistent in all

emergency orders, right, there was suspicion, there was ordering provisions? I'm asking you

specifically in what instances where you have been less than certain of the cause whether an entity caused or contributed to natural gas in a

278 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 analogous. give. answer. THE WITNESS: Again, I believe they are That's the answer the Agency would water well or some analogous situation and you've ordered that entity to assume the responsibility of investigating whether it is or it isn't? MR. LYNK: Object as beyond scope. You can

We weren't certain in that situation that

I laid out to you where the pathogens originated from, what pathway they were migrating into the drinking water supply. But they were there.

They needed to be addressed because we should not serve water that's contaminated and -- so I think they're analogous. I can give you. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Is there an imminent and substantial That's the best answer

endangerment occurring today as we sit here on January 25, 2011 in the area of the Lipsky or Hayley water well? MR. LYNK: Objection, beyond scope.

279 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: I believe -- the Agency believes there is because we have not finished the work under the order to address where the contamination is coming from and its potential migration. The Agency's position would be that

there still exists concerns about the gas in the wellhead at both the Lipsky and Hayley property. We do believe that the actions taken by Range to provide alternative water and put in the explosive meters were helping with the situation but they have not resolved the situation. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, who is in imminent and What individuals are

substantial endangerment?

in imminent and substantial endangerment in EPA's view presently today? A. Anybody that -MR. LYNK: Object as beyond the scope. THE WITNESS: Anybody that encounters the gas building up in the wellheads and near or with a potential ignition source. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY:

280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. You mean like if Mr. Lipsky were to

take a hose, jerry-rig it to the top of his well and light it on fire, that would be imminent and substantial endangerment? MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: That's an example. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Right. And that's what happened with He jerry-rigged a hose

Mr. Lipsky in this case.

to the top of his water well and lit it on fire; is that right? A. That -- there is -- yes. There is

video evidence that that's what occurred. Q. Well, and that video evidence was sent

by Mr. -- excuse me, Ms. Rich to Dr. Armendariz, was apparently received at some point by you and you've reviewed it that Mr. Lipsky is opening his well, allowing natural gas to escape and lighting it on fire; is that right? A. I don't think that's -- there's a

dispute of that, no. Q. correct? There's no dispute that he's done that,

281 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. He's done that. All right. And that's conscientious in

your mind, correct? A. The Agency has no position on that.

That's an act of an individual homeowner related to property that they own. Q. And so he's allowed to do that

according to EPA? A. Q. A. Q. EPA can't stop him from doing that. That's your view, correct? That's the Agency's belief. So EPA couldn't order this well to be

sealed; is that your understanding? A. I think I've answered that before. We

believe we couldn't order Mr. Lipsky to seal the well. Q. What if the well is drilled into a

producing formation and is contaminating the aquifer by its own -- as to how it was drilled? Have you investigated that possibility? MR. LYNK: Objection, beyond the scope. THE WITNESS: Have we investigated -EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY:

282 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that before. Q. A. Q. Yeah, sure. Again -As of December 7, 2010 tell me all the

things you did to make sure that Mr. Lipsky's activities were not responsible for his own issues. MR. LYNK: I'm going to note the objection that we're here to testify about the basis for the order. There's no order to Mr. Lipsky. By

definition it's beyond the scope. THE WITNESS: And I think, again, I've answered We don't have any information

before us that would show that the well that was drilled on Mr. Lipsky's property caused or contributed to gas migration that we're finding in his wellhead. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, suppose it's -- I mean, certainly I mean, if it's

it could contribute, right?

contributing in the sense that it creates -THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You dropped your microphone, sir. MR. RILEY:

283 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the scope. THE WITNESS: Again, I think I've answered it. We don't believe that the data shows that the gas that Mr. Lipsky is encountering in his wellhead is the gas -- is actually we believe it is similar to the gas that's coming from the Barnett shale formation, not from the formations that might exist near his well that his well could have penetrated. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So you're trying to make the world safe Oops. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Mr. Lipsky's water well could be

creating a pathway for contamination of am aquifer; is that true or not? MR. LYNK: Object to form. Objection, beyond

from people who try to light their water wells on fire. Is that basically the imminent and

substantial endangerment that existed on December 7, 2010 that you're seeking to avoid? MR. LYNK: Object to form. Objection, asked

284 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and answered. THE WITNESS: No. Again, I tried to say in

multiple ways we believe that there was contamination of an underground drinking water aquifer. We believe that contamination has led

to situations that could be -- cause harm to somebody's health. We believe that the Agency

needs to address the contamination of that aquifer and make sure those pathways are addressed to the best of our ability. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Are there any producers of natural gas

from Barnett shale that might also be causing or contributing to the natural gas in the Lipsky water well? A. Based on the information in our record

we don't believe that's so. Q. Well, I noticed in your administrative

order you fix a distance of 2,000 feet that you looked apparently in the diameter of 2,000 feet or maybe it's a radius of 2,000 feet from the Lipsky well for additional producers. why is that? Why --

Why did you choose 2,000 feet as

your limitation?

285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I think it's just a -- was a convention

of form because it's the -- the closest production well that we know of is the Butler/Teal well. And we didn't see any other So we

production wells in the close vicinity.

used that in the order to basically make sure that it was clear that we wanted to look at the But -- or Teal well. Q. A. Q. A. How many -If -I'm sorry. If somebody has evidence that they

think another production well is responsible they're free to submit that to the Agency for consideration. Q. And that's their responsibility again.

They must go out and investigate other producers of Barnett shale gas to provide to the Agency an alternate theory; is that right? A. If they believe there's somebody else

that has potential liability I think it's in their best interest. their responsibility. Q. Well, let's talk about the distance Why that distance? What I don't want to say it's

selected, 2,000 feet.

286 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specifically, what technical expertise was applied to come up with 2,000 foot radius around the Lipsky well, in order to investigate other production possibilities? A. I think I answered that. Again, it was

convention picked to -- to address and make sure the distance included the Teal/Butler well which we, the Agency, believes it possesses information to link the gas and the Lipsky/Hayley well to the gas coming up through the production well. Q. Okay. I get that. That's the

fingerprinting.

But that would be true of all The fingerprinting

Barnett shale gas, correct?

from the Barnett shale gas that is in the Range wells would not be distinguishable from Barnett shale gas produced from some other producer, correct? A. Q. Right. All right. So what -- what have you

done to look at other producers in the area? A. We looked at, again, what other The only producer

producers exist in the area.

we've been able to identify is the Range production well.

287 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And that's because you looked within a

2,000 foot radius? A. No, we looked wider. We -- we keyed

the order to 2,000 feet.

But we did not know of

any other production wells in the area. Q. Would you look at page 153 of the

record under section 5.0 entitled "Discussion." A. Q. Okay. Okay. I'm there. Would you read the first

paragraph under that section? A. Q. A. (Witness complies.) Out loud, please. Recent activities related to natural

gas exploration, mining and production have occurred in the area surrounding client's residence. The region is know for having a thin

shale and thus a higher incident rate for environmental impact. In approximately 2008 a

natural gas well was blown directly under the area in a subdivision which is located to the north and east of the client's residence. Recent impacts of the region include a major impact to well water on a neighboring property just west of the client's residence. Q. Do you know who drilled that well, what

288 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 company drilled the well? A. Q. It's not in the record so I don't know. Tell me all the things that EPA did in

its diligent effort prior to issuing this order to explore the situation described in the Wolf Eagle report. A. record. Again, we did nothing. It's not in the

We didn't believe that the Agency was As per the order we've

responsible to do that.

asked Range to do that if they think it's a viable pathway. Q. So Range could be totally innocent but

the EPA still would believe that Range's obligation attaches with the issue of the order to prove its innocence or lack of responsibility; is that right? MR. LYNK: Object as beyond the scope and calls for a legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: We believe that under the order Range has a responsibility to comply with the order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, under the order Range has a

289 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 responsibility to comply with the order is a bit circular; would you agree with me? A. Q. No. Okay. The Railroad Commission of the

State of Texas, what is your opinion regarding their efforts in this matter, EPA's opinion, excuse me? A. EPA has no opinion regarding the

Railroad Commission's efforts in this matter. The Railroad Commission is a state agency that has its own regulatory authority that is responsible for implementing. And EPA believes

it needs to do what it believes its responsibility is. Q. Well, that's not exactly what the

statute you cited as authority for your order requires; is that right? A. Q. Well, I would disagree. I think --

Well, tell me where you disagree, sir. Why don't you

Just let's go to the statute. read the words and tell me -MR. LYNK:

Why don't you make sure he's finished answering -MR. RILEY:

290 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other -MR. RILEY: I'm trying. MR. LYNK: -- when we talk. MR. RILEY: I'm trying, Counsel. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Let's find I think it's Deposition question. MR. RILEY: That's fair. But let's try to Certainly. MR. LYNK: -- before you launch into the next

confine our answers; otherwise were going to run into a time problem. MR. LYNK: Okay. But let's both respect each

Exhibit 1. A. Q. correct? A. Q. Correct. Would you find in the statute where it Right. That is the statutory provision,

291 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 says that EPA must make a finding as it pertains to the Railroad Commission or -A. Q. Right. -- local and state authorities. We

talked about this at the outset. A. Q. Right. What specific finding must EPA make in

order to proceed with issuance of an emergency order? A. If the state and local agencies do not

plan -- have any -- are not planning to take any action, immediate action to address the situation that EPA is issuing the emergency order related to. Q. No, that's not exactly right, is it?

Did you read the full sentence or the clause that begins: And that?

MR. LYNK: I'm going to object. speaks for itself. MR. RILEY: Sure. MR. LYNK: If you're asking for a conclusion -The statute

292 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RILEY: And I'm asking for -MR. LYNK: -- I object. MR. RILEY: Sure. read it out loud. THE WITNESS: He shall consult with the state and local authorities in order to confirm the correctness of the information on which action proposed to be taken. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Let me try to read it then since you're I'm not. I'm asking him to

not finding the right spot. A. Q. I missed where you wanted me to read. That's fair. Tell me if I'm reading

correctly.

And that appropriate state and local

authorities have not acted to protect the health of such persons. Is that EPA's position that

the Railroad Commission and any other authorities that might be encompassed by that clause have not or had not acted to protect the health of such persons? A. Is that EPA's position?

I think EPA's position is we issued the

293 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order and we believe that the state did not take the action necessary. Q. Well, I'm reading you the requirement

of the statute. A. Q. And I -And I'm trying to find in your order --

which I think we can look at paragraph 40 for that purpose. Last sentence, paragraph 40, tell EPA has

me if I'm reading it correctly.

determined that -- that that appropriate state and local authorities have not taken sufficient action to address the endangerment described herein and do not intend to take such action at this time. A. Q. Did I read that correctly?

Yes. Now the entirety of the order ties back

to the statutory authority, correct? A. Q. Right. And that the finding the EPA must make

is that appropriate state and local authorities have not acted to protect the health of such persons, correct? A. Q. matter? Right. And so is that what EPA found in this

294 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. section. That's in the conclusions of law I think that section addresses that And I think it speaks for

and it's section 48. itself. Q.

Well, it doesn't seem to.

So let me

ask as a factual matter what facts EPA is relying upon to meet the statutory requirement that at least the Railroad Commission did not take the necessary action in order to protect the health of such persons. MR. LYNK: I'm going to object to the extent it calls for legal conclusions on the conclusions of law to the extent you're asking about findings of fact. MR. RILEY: I found only one finding of fact that even bears on topic. So I'm looking for

the facts that back up that finding of fact. Because that's a conclusion. fact is a conclusion. statement in any way. The finding of

It's not a factual So I'm asking for it now

as EPA's designated representative to provide this evidence. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY:

295 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. A. What facts support -Again --- the finding we just discussed? EPA had discussions with the Railroad EPA shared its concerns with the EPA communicated clearly

Commission.

Railroad Commission.

to the Railroad Commission what actions EPA felt were necessary to address the imminent and substantial endangerment. We clearly asked the

Railroad Commission if they were planning to undertake any action to address that threat that is addressed by our order and the clear answer from the Railroad Commission is at this time we do not plan to take any action. Q. What was the reason given by the

Railroad Commission? A. They said they would like to collect

more data. Q. Similar to the recommendation of Dr.

Beak, similar to the recommendation of Mr. Coleman, correct? A. Q. They wanted to collect more data. Similar to the recommendation of Dr.

Beak and similar to the recommendation of Mr. Coleman, correct?

296 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Their recommendation -- we did not get any more recommendation from them other than they wanted to collect more data. I have no

clue or the Agency has no understanding of what data the Railroad Commission wanted to collect so I can't say its similar to the recommendations of those two other people that we talked about. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, that certainly might have come up

in your conversation, right, of what the Railroad Commission intends to do by way of collecting more data? A. We -- no. In our conversations -- in a

conversation that I had personally with the Railroad Commission it did not come up as to what they wanted to do. Q. I --

So the Railroad Commission said -MR. LYNK: He has not finished his answer.

EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Please, go ahead.

297 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. What the Railroad Commission did after

we issued our order is they called a hearing which clearly dictates what their next step was. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. See, the problem though is the finding

needs to be made before you issue your order. So I'm asking you is what was your information from the Railroad Commission before you issued your order, not after and what they did in reaction. A. No. And I thought I answered that. We

talked to the Railroad Commission.

We've asked

them a specific question, did they plan to take any action to address what EPA had defined as the imminent threat and their answer was no. And based upon that answer we issued our order. Q. See, what I heard you say that their No, we need to take more -- we need

answer was:

to collect more data. A. They did need to collect more data.

But the question, as I said, was are you planning to take action now to address the threat that EPA has identified and their answer was no. Q. Okay. And so EPA -- at some point the

298 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Railroad Commission said: We need to collect

more data to be certain of -THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Microphone. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Would you take a look at page of 668 of

the record? A. Q. 668? Yes, sir. It documents a conversation

between Dr. Armendariz and Mr. Carrillo or Chairman Carrillo of the Texas Railroad Commission. A. Q. Uh-huh (affirmative response). And tell me if I read this correctly.

I believe it's correspondence from Mr. Carrillo to Dr. Armendariz. Al, after our conversation I

had a conference call with Keith's staff at the Railroad Commission. They confirm that we have

seen the analysis upon which EPA determined the water well gas and the deep production gas are the same source. To date we have not reached

the same conclusion and that is why we've asked for additional information from Range. Okay. So the Railroad Commission --

Correct.

299 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. -- was taking action, correct, that's

described in this e-mail? A. The Railroad Commission asked for

additional information from Range. Q. Right. And you've mentioned a moment

ago that -- described for me it sounded like a phone call where you or someone on your staff called up the Railroad Commission and said: Hey, are you guys going to do something? they said: Well, we're not going to do And you said: And

something till we have more data. Okay. A. Q. A. Q. Gotta go. That's not a correct -Okay. -- characterization.

So where do I look for the

memorialization of the interaction you or your staff or Dr. Armendariz had with the Railroad Commission? A. Again, in the record there's a record

communication between Jerry Saunders and Chris Lister that supplements what's here in this e-mail exchange between the Commissioner and Dr. Armendariz. Q. What page are you on, sir?

300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. It's 728. I went over the -- I'll read

from it if you don't mind. Q. A. No, I don't mind at all. I went over the content of our draft I also told her why we were

order with her.

going forward at this time, compositional analysis, isotopic testing results and timing of well contamination. I asked her if they were

going to be -- if they were going to be moving forward with any action soon. this time. She said not at

She did not anticipate doing

anything until they understand the flow pathway. So that was the feedback we got. EPA

did not believe that was a sufficient answer to address the imminent and substantial endangerment that we communicated to the Railroad Commission so understanding their response to our inquiry we decided to move forward. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Five minutes, Counselor. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So the Railroad Commission wanted to

understand the pathway; is that correct? A. That's what their communication to us

301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 indicates, yes. Q. Okay. You think that was responsible

on their part? A. I think under the state's authority and

what the Railroad Commission is responsible for it's not an inappropriate concern but it did not -- again, the issuance of our order was not predicated on understanding the pathway. Q. And, in fact, you didn't understand the

pathway and you still don't understand the pathway, correct? A. That was not what we needed to issue

the order on. Q. A. Q. Well, that's your say-so and -Okay. -- I'll submit that that's a legal But you didn't understand the

conclusion.

pathway; you don't understand the pathway; you may never understand the pathway unless EPA actually goes out and does some investigation, correct? MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Unless somebody goes out and

302 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 collects extra data, yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. A. Q. Okay. And you'd like that to be Range?

We've order Range to do that, yes. The Railroad Commission has interacted

with Range and Range is involved in investigating the pathway, correct? A. That's what it indicates here. We have

no factual data to support that from either the Railroad Commission or Range. Q. Tell me what steps EPA has taken with

regard to water well drillers in the area, any cautions issued, any advisories, any orders issued to Mr. Peck regarding the depth of drilling for domestic water wells in the area? A. Q. A. None. And why not? We don't believe that's within our We believe if those

regulatory purview.

warnings or cautions need to be issued there's a state regulatory agency responsible for that. MR. RILEY: Can I have just a minute? should only take a minute. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This

303 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now 4:45. now 4:42. minutes. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The time is that -THE VIDEOGRAPHER: If you want me to I can. minutes left. MR. RILEY: I'll take a little more than three Three Do you want me to go off the video? MR. RILEY: Do you want to switch out? Is

This is the end of tape 6.

(Off the record.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record. The time is

This is the beginning of tape 7.

EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. All right. Mr. Blevins, just a few

more matters and then I think we'll break for the time being. The exhibit I just had marked

and put before you is an e-mail that's been previously validated by the sender in another deposition of Ms. Alisa Rich is who is the principal of Wolf Eagle Environmental, as I

304 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scope. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, Wolf Eagle's records are some understand it, and as she testified to in her deposition. As you can see it's an e-mail

correspondence to I believe Steve, being Steve Lipsky, and it describes a strategy for getting EPA involved in Mr. Lipsky's issues pertaining to his domestic water well, domestic water well No. 1. A. Q. Do you see that? Yes. See where she describes a scheme, for

lack of a better term, for collecting a sample that would necessitate EPA's involvement? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object as beyond the

part of the administrative record and do you agree, Mr. Blevins, this bears on Ms. Rich's objectives and her credibility? A. I don't -MR. LYNK: I'm going to renew the objection specifically no foundation as to whether this would have been before to Agency prior to the decision.

305 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RILEY: That's unfortunate that there wasn't an investigation into this. just talk about it for what it is. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. It's an e-mail from an environmental But let's

consultant that disparages the enforcement program of the Railroad Commission, the enforcement program of the TCEQ and schemes to involve EPA by taking a nonrepresentative sample. Would you agree with my

characterization of Ms. Rich's e-mail? MR. LYNK: Object to form and the scope. THE WITNESS: All I can say is it talks about how she would like to take a certain type of sample. In terms of representative it depends on how that sample would be characterized to those receiving the data to determine if it was nonrepresentative or not. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Well, so you received the data. So

that part's done.

You've received the data. You

You put it in the administrative record.

306 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the scope. said it's a portion you're relying upon and here's the underlying -A. Q. A. Q. I don't know --- scheme -- may I finish? Okay. Sorry.

Here's the underlying scheme that Ms.

Rich employed to get a sample that it was -that was designed to insight EPA to take jurisdiction of the matter. MR. LYNK: I'm going to object again beyond I don't know how a witness can speak

for EPA as to a personal e-mail not circulated to EPA as to which there's no foundation that it was presented to the Agency prior to its decision. MR. RILEY: Well, that's sort of the point. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. allow. A. Again, from the Agency I can't comment I But go ahead and answer if counsel will

on this e-mail other than I see the e-mail. understand that she wrote it.

I don't know if She

this is the air sample that we looked at.

307 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 may have taken this air sample, she may not have. The record doesn't tie the two together.

So the air sample that we looked at from Wolf Environmental may actually be a different air sample. Q. Does this e-mail, assuming all things

you just stated under oath, does it affect your opinion as to the value of any data submitted by Wolf Eagle Environmental consultants? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object again, renew my same objections. THE WITNESS: Again, I don't know that it does one way or another. It's a personal e-mail that

the Agency has no way of validating the -- what happened after this e-mail was sent, whether it occurred this way or not. So the Agency has no

position on this e-mail other than it is here. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. A. Q. What's the date of the e-mail, sir? August 12th. Okay. What's the date of the sampling

that Wolf Eagle did regarding the Lipsky and Hayley water wells?

308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. reports. Sorry. I'd have to go look at their

They're in the contemporary same time

frame with us but I don't know the exact dates. Q. Let me represent to you that certainly

the sampling of air, reportedly representative sampling of air around the Lipsky well postdated the date of this e-mail. A. Q. A. Q. So it was after this e-mail? Yes, sir. Right. Well, let see. Let go back a bit.

You've had lots of experience with environmental consultants. Have you ever seen an e-mail like

this in the entirety of your career that schemes and proposes a strategy to circumvent state authority and instigate action by EPA? ever seen anything like this before? MR. LYNK: Same objections as stated. THE WITNESS: I've seen lots of e-mails that scheme to circumvent EPA's authority as well as a number of state agencies' authority. So is -Have you

I think this just falls under that category. This is not an e-mail that I would say I've

309 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 never seen one like this before. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. So you get this all the time,

this kind of scheming; is that right? A. say -MR. LYNK: Same objections. THE WITNESS: We've seen -- in my experience representing EPA I've seen e-mails in similar vein from a lot of people. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. And what has your view been of those I wouldn't say all the time. I'd

people when you've seen documentary evidence of a scheme such as depicted in the e-mail that's now Deposition Exhibit 9? MR. LYNK: Same objections. THE WITNESS: I don't think the Agency has an opinion one way or the other. face value and move forward. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Sure. Face value. That's what you're We take it on

310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 basing all your conclusions on here is face value of some sample results that may or may not indicate that Range is responsible for any natural gas in the Lipsky well. sum it up, Mr. Blevins? MR. LYNK: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Please say that again. MR. RILEY: Sure. THE WITNESS: I was trying to -EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Taking at face value all the evidence, Does that about

whether it be EPA generated, Wolf Eagle generated, you're just taking that at face value which may indicate Range is responsible and that's good enough to issue an emergency order. Does that sum up your testimony in this matter? MR. LYNK: Objection to form. THE WITNESS: And we presented -- evaluate the data before us. We created a record. That

311 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record speaks for itself in terms of the validity of that data. And the Agency made a

determination to move forward with the emergency order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. Let me cover that component of The record is the

your testimony here today. record is the record. A. The record -MR. LYNK:

Is that about it?

Object to form. THE WITNESS: The record is the record for the action taken and issuing the emergency order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. All right. The incomplete record that

we have before us in the sense that it does not comprise all the documents that EPA possesses that bear on this topic is the record you've compiled, EPA has compiled, to support the issuance of its order? MR. LYNK: Object, that misstates testimony. MR. RILEY: It speaks for itself.

312 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 information. THE WITNESS: Again, the record that we used to support the decision, the data we used to make the decision is captured in our record. if -- you have it. It's --

We made our decision based

on the information that's contained in this record. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. All right. And excluded other

information that you had available, correct? MR. LYNK: Objection, misstates testimony. THE WITNESS: We did not exclude other This is the information that we

compiled to support the order, we used to make the decision to support the issuance of the order itself, the emergency order. And this is

the data that supports the findings of fact within those orders. There's other information

in our possession as we've talked about throughout the day that the Agency has, but this was the information compiled by the Agency to support the administrative action. So I do not

view this as an incomplete administrative

313 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record. The Agency has certified that this is

the record for the action that we've taken and that's the Agency's position. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. A. Q. Who signed the certification? Jerry Saunders. To understand better why Mr. Saunders

felt comfortable signing the certification would you agree with me I need to speak to Mr. Saunders? A. No. I think the certification speaks

for itself and the documents within the record speak for themselves. Q. Well, it speaks volumes, sir. The EPA

has selectively included materials it has in the administrative record and I think that's clear from your testimony. MR. LYNK: Objection. And now we're going to

use additional time now to make your legal arguments for the record. MR. RILEY: I don't think it's -MR. LYNK: If you have any other questions --

314 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RILEY: I was -MR. LYNK: -- I think we need to -MR. RILEY: -- summing it up. MR. LYNK: -- sum it up. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Tell me if you have any internal

documents, briefing memos, anything that you're aware of that is not comprised or not contained in the administrative record. Say, for

instance, a demo prepared for Dr. Armendariz. Any of that exist in EPA's records? A. In EPA's record there is information We've stated that before.

related to this case.

This is the administrative record. Q. Let me try to be really careful. Is

there any -- are there any memoranda that were prepared by EPA staff regarding the circumstances surrounding the Lipsky water well and the emergency order we've been discussing, any EPA memoranda, addressed to Dr. Armendariz from staff?

315 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I guess I'm confused about the

question. Q. There's a guy name Dr. Armendariz.

He's the head of the Agency. A. Has the information been sent to Dr.

Armendariz? Q. Yeah. Is there a memo that's been

written by anybody under your authority, anybody in the EPA whatsoever that is a recommendation to Dr. Armendariz? A. Q. A recommendation, no. Okay. Is there a description in a

memorandum form that's gone to Dr. Armendariz regarding the subject of this deposition? A. There has been material provided to Dr.

Armendariz related to this situation that was not part of the record used to make the decision but to provide Dr. Armendariz information. Q. Okay. And you elected not to -- you

meaning EPA elected not to include that in the administrative record, true? A. It was not included in the

administrative record. Q. Okay. Is there some problem you're

having with my word elected?

316 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yeah, because, again, I struggle

because I can tell you I wrote Dr. Armendariz a memo and I forwarded Dr. Armendariz that memo electronically that said: Oh, by the way here's

the three article -- or two or three of the articles that Isotech has provided us about fingerprinting. interested. FYI for you in case you're

We did not include that in the

record nor do I think it's appropriate to include that in a record because it was not a memorandum that was used as a basis for our decision. It was peripheral information that I But it's related to

provided to Dr. Armendariz.

the situation but I provided him information. It was not used to make the decision that was made that I signed, not Dr. Armendariz, and the record that we base that decision on is the record, and we certified that record. Q. What approvals did you obtain

specifically from what individuals in the EPA organization to sign the order and issue it? A. I received no approvals because the

signature authority for this document is delegated to me as specified in the order. Q. So there was no documentation within

317 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testimony. MR. RILEY: That's what I'm asking. the question. MR. LYNK: Asked and answered and misstates the testimony. THE WITNESS: Again, I said I have the authority to sign this document. I don't need to get I'm asking EPA's records as to who signed off on the issuance of the administrative record? MR. LYNK: I'm going to object, misstates his

approval from anybody to sign the document. That's my responsibility -EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. A. Q. Now, let me ask you my question --- and delegation. -- this time. Did anybody approve it?

Did you -- regardless of whether you have the signature authority, it's in your purview, any of those words that you want to use did someone, anyone other than yourself, review the information and approve issuance of the permit?

318 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LYNK: Objection, asked and answered. MR. RILEY: No, he didn't. MR. LYNK: Yes, he did. MR. RILEY: Counsel, with all due respect now he's avoiding answering the question. asking him specifically. MR. LYNK: He answered it. MR. RILEY: Regardless of his signature authority. MR. LYNK: But you can answer it again. THE WITNESS: Nobody -- other people reviewed the action, other people had information about the action but I did not seek approval from anybody to issue this order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So when I find -- eventually go through I'm

all the documents that EPA possesses that have

319 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 been withheld at this point I'm not going to find any document from anybody other than yourself that says: correct? A. Yes. I have the delegated authority to Approved, issue; is that

sign this order and I signed this order. Q. What specific input did Dr. Armendariz

have into issuance of this order? A. To the fact of issuing the order Dr.

Armendariz was briefed on the timing of the order, the content of the order. extent of his role. That's the

Again, he did not have or

issue -- make a decision as to whether this order should be issued or not. That decision

rests solely on my shoulders as a representative for the Agency. Q. Did Dr. Armendariz express any kind

of -- did Dr. Armendariz express any approval in any form whatsoever, either orally, documentation, that said he in his position was comfortable or otherwise authorized the issuance of the emergency order? MR. LYNK: Objection, asked and answered. You can answer again.

320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: Again, Dr. Armendariz provided his thoughts to us as we briefed him. But, again,

at no time did he express approval authority or disapproval authority of moving forward with the order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Did he give you a thumbs up? MR. LYNK: Objection, asked and answered. can answer again. THE WITNESS: Dr. Armendariz did not indicate that he did not want me to issue this order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. So he sat with you after his briefing You

and said -A. Q. A. No. -- John, this is your baby. He said it's my decision. MR. LYNK: Objection, asked and answered. If you can answer, okay, fine. THE WITNESS: It was my decision. He did not

321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 object to the order nor did he say that he felt it was his decision to issue this order. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. Okay. Could he have stopped you from Is it within his authority

issuing the order? to say:

John, I understand you have signature

authority here but I'm hereby telling you I'm not comfortable with where you are in this case, I need more investigation. issue the order. A. I don't want you to

Is that within his authority?

If it's within his ability as regional

administrator to raise concerns they would be discussed among all of us who have the decision making authority. So not unilaterally he would

not make that decision nor is it in his authority to make that decision. Q. So he cannot -- he does not have the

authority, as you understand the office of regional administrator, to have stopped issuance; is that correct? A. Not the way the delegation is specified

in this action. Q. All right. Now, he is actually an

important piece of your support and that's that he had conversation with the chairman of the

322 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Railroad Commission, correct? A. He had discussions with Railroad

Commission. Q. So he participated in the development

of this order and in some part you've offered into the record Dr. Armendariz's direct participation to satisfy one of the elements necessary to issue the order, namely what was the Railroad Commission doing, correct? A. We -- Dr. Armendariz had a

communication with his counterpart at the Railroad Commission about our intent to move forward and it is part of the record, yes. Q. No. What did he say on the telephone?

Because the e-mail from Mr. Carrillo references a conversation, telephone conversation. What

did Dr. Armendariz say to Mr. Carrillo and what did Mr. Carrillo say to Dr. Armendariz specifically? A. I was not a party to all those

conversations so I cannot tell you. Q. So I need to ask Dr. Armendariz that

question, right? A. No. I think the record includes a

record of communication between the two that

323 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for you. scope. THE WITNESS: Again, I think I've answered that I said I was not privy to those addresses what they talked about. Q. Well, that may be your opinion but in

order to know what they said on the telephone -you can't tell me what they said on the telephone, right? A. I cannot tell you. But the Agency's

position is you don't need to talk to Dr. Armendariz because the record is clear on the discussion they had. Q. I understand the Agency is just

absolutely adverse to us talking to Dr. Armendariz, I understand that. But you cannot

tell me, nor can anyone else tell me what was said on the telephone between Dr. Armendariz and the chairman of a state agency; is that correct? MR. LYNK: Object to form. Object, beyond the

discussions and I do not know what was said. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. A. Do you know anybody else who was privy? Not to all the discussions, no.

324 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Counsel. here. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the conclusion of the colleague. MR. LYNK: I'm going to have to leave now. MR. RILEY: Yeah. Let me just check quickly. Thank you, position. Q. Okay. So I'd have to ask Dr.

Armendariz about that, correct? MR. LYNK: Object to form. EXAMINATION BY MR. RILEY: Q. In order to understand Dr. Armendariz's

total recollection of his conversations with the chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission? MR. LYNK: Object to form, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Again, you -- that's your -- you I won't disagree with it.

MR. RILEY: Let me just check with my

Thank you, Mr. Blevins. Thank you other counsel.

We're out of

325 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 videotaped deposition of John Blevins. going off the record. We're

The time is now 5:03.

326 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Signature _________________________ JOHN BLEVINS 23 ________________ Date 24 25 W I T N E S S' A T T E S T A T I O N

I have read or have had the foregoing testimony read to me, pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Article 1445 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and hereby attest that, to the best of my ability and understanding, it is a true and correct transcription of my testimony, with the exception of any attached corrections or changes, complete with reasons for changes, on the Witness' Amendment Pages; I have in no way altered the printed transcript pages containing testimony herein, tampered with the seal on the last numbered page herein, or tampered with the security strip on the binder hereof. The integrity of this

certified transcript has been maintained in the identical form as it was received by me, with the exception of any changes on the Witness' Amendment Pages.

327 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ________________________ BARBARA S. McGEE 24 Certified Court Reporter State of Louisiana 25 Certificate No. 87384 C E R T I F I C A T E This certification is valid only for a transcript accompanied by my original signature and original stamp on this page. I, BARBARA S. McGEE, Certified Court Reporter in and for the State of Louisiana, as the officer before whom this testimony was taken, do hereby certify that JOHN BLEVINS, after having been duly sworn by me upon authority of R.S. 37:2554, did testify as hereinbefore set forth in the foregoing (325) pages; That this testimony was reported by me in the stenotype reporting method, was prepared and transcribed by me or under my personal direction and supervision, and is a true and correct transcript to the best of my ability and understanding; That I am not related to counsel or to the parties herein, nor am I otherwise interested in the outcome of this matter.