The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has released a draft scope document that outlines how they will regulate natural gas drilling of the Marcellus Shale. In addition to commenting at public hearings around the state, you can submit your comments via letter or email by December 15th.

Submit comments to:
Attn: Scope Comments
Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation, NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources
625 Broadway, Third Floor
Albany, NY 12233-6500

Or email to dmnog@gw.dec.state.ny.us with “Scope Comments” as the Subject

Download the pdf of the scope

Don’t have time to read the whole Scope or write a letter from scratch? Below are some sample letters and talking points and a summary of the Draft Scope GEIS from Shaleshock members…

---

Earthworks has created an online comment to the DEC that you can endorse and send from your zip code…
DON’T REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS
Tell the Department of Environmental Conservation:
without real safeguards, hydraulic fracturing is NOT safe for New York

---

Here’s a sample letter from Sara Hess that you can modify and send:

To the Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation, NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources:

Thank you for this opportunity to express my deep concern for the ecological, economic and social damage that could occur from the unprecedented planned gas drilling into Marcellus Shale using hydro-fracturing methods in New York.

The availability of clean, fresh water, scenic panoramas and clean air are fundamental to the high quality of life we enjoy in the Finger Lakes and Southern Tier. Those resources are also fundamental to the main engines of our economy, including wineries and tourism.

Our environment faces a grave threat by the cumulative impacts of Marcellus drilling. Gas companies have estimated massive development, with thousands of industrial sites that that could last our lifetime. One company owner said that within 50 years, he expects to see 3,000 to 6,000 operating wells in Broome County alone.

The DEC must establish regulations that protect public health and safety by preventing and mitigating pollution that has been well documented in other states with established hydro-frac drilling. Just two examples include:

- “Air pollution from gas drilling in the Fort Worth area is equal to twice the amount from all motorized, moving vehicles in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.” – Professor Al Armedariz, Southern Methodist Univ.

- In Wyoming, the benzene and flouride contamination in usable aquifers can only be explained by chemicals from adjacent drilling. – Lustgarten, ProPublica, Nov. 2008

I recommend you add regulations in the following areas:

1. The products and process of drilling must be transparent. DEC must require that the chemicals and toxic materials used in drilling, and especially in the facturing, be available information for the public. DEC should prohibit use of any materials that are unsafe by EPA standards.

2. Hold drilling companies financially accountable for their impact by requiring significant bonding or severance tax on each well to cover costs of long-term damages, proper disposal of waste back-flow, and capping of wells. Require credible plans for proper waste water treatment before drilling permits are granted, and do not allow for disposal by dilluting waste water into lakes or rivers. Also, prohibit open pits for “produced water”; evaporation releases potentially toxic materials into the air and soil.

3. Require withdrawal of fresh water from rivers, streams, lakes, etc. to be documented, coordinated, monitored, and limits enforced by the DEC and appropriate authorities, with significant fines for violations.

4. Charge gas companies a per-well fee to pay for many more DEC inspectors. Without adequate monitoring by the DEC, even the strongest regulations are worthless.

The gas is not going anywhere. Please take the time needed for research and deliberation so the true costs as well as the benefits of drilling are known. Your revised regulations must be based on the latest information available, and we need assurance that resources are securely in place for enforcing new regulations.

In the name of national security interests and free-market economics, oil and gas corporations have been allowed to exploit natural resources like clean water, air and soil in many other states, leaving enormous environmental damage for governments and private citizens to deal with. Please don’t let that happen in New York.

Sincerely,
YOUR NAME

---

Here are some more sample letters from CDOG (Chenango Delaware Otsego Gas Group):

Choose from 2 options:
Option 1 calls for a total ban on gas drilling in NYS
Option 2 calls for strict protections

Second, cut and paste the text of your choice into an e-mail and send it to dmnog@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

Option 1: NO DRILLING MESSAGE

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Draft Scope for Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS) on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program.

I would like to make it clear that I fully support, as the first option, the alternative suggested by the DEC in the draft scope of work:

7.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

Alternatives to be reviewed by the dSGEIS will include (1) the prohibition of development of Marcellus Shale and other low permeability reservoirs by horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing

As a second option, I am calling for an entirely new GEIS to be completed by the DEC. The 1988 Draft and 1992 FGEIS are out of date and no longer relevant. The new GEIS should include cumulative impacts, and the impacts from gas pipelines and greenhouse gas emissions, which were specifically omitted in the scope of work.

Sincerely,
Your Name and Address

— OR —

Option 2: STRICT REGULATION MESSAGE

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to submit comments to the Draft Scope for Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS) on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program.

Drilling in the Marcellus shale requires the use of hydraulic fracturing, a process that relies on toxic chemicals and very large amounts of water to fracture the shale. During the process of fracturing, some of these toxic chemicals are left in the ground. Experience with fracturing in many other states has shown that it cannot be precisely controlled and so it frequently damages nearby water wells and can contaminate drinking water.

The process also requires large amounts of water and produces large amounts of waste. Transporting these large amounts of water and waste will require large numbers of trucks moving through the towns of New York, with the risk of accidents and spills.

Drilling for “un-natural gas” will also create air and noise pollution, increase global warming, and negatively affect the health of New York’s residents.

Before the DEC begins to review any permit to drill wells into the Marcellus shale that would use hydraulic fracturing to produce the gas, the agency should address:

• full disclosure of the name and amount of any chemical to be used in the drilling and fracturing process;
• whether any non-toxic alternatives are available for these chemicals;
• where the water needed to fracture the shales will come from and what permits are required to use this water;
• where the waste water from these wells will be handled, what standards these waste facilities have to meet and how the waste will be moved from the well to the waste facility;
• if the wastes will be moved by truck, whether the roads are capable of handling these heavy loads, how many accidents and spills will be expected and whether the local emergency spill responders are equipped to address these toxic spills;
• what options landowners whose water wells are damaged will have to replace their drinking water;
• noise impacts assuming 16 wells per square mile over 1/2 of NYS;
• air quality impacts assuming 16 wells per square mile over 1/2 of NYS;
• soil and food impacts assuming 16 wells per square mile over 1/2 of NYS;
• health impacts assuming 16 wells per square mile over 1/2 of NYS;
• transportation impacts assuming 16 wells per square mile over 1/2 of NYS; and
• impacts on fish and wildlife assuming 16 wells per square mile over 1/2 of NYS.

I believe an entirely new GEIS needs to be completed by the DEC. The 1988 Draft and 1992 FGEIS are out of date and no longer relevant. The new GEIS should include cumulative impacts and the impacts from gas pipelines and greenhouse gas emissions, which were specifically omitted in the scope of work.

Until the DEC has fully addressed these issues to the satisfaction of all stakeholders, I urge the DEC not to process any well permits for drilling in the Marcellus shale.

Sincerely,
Your Name and Address

---

Sue Heavenrich advises:

When you do write your comments please remember: the topic is not “to drill or not to drill”. The topic is specifically related to Marcellus, hydro-fracking, and water use. The best thing to do is to read the scoping document and choose a couple areas that you have knowledge of or care deeply about. My comments are focused on wastewater disposal and consumptive use & aquifer depletion.

---

Here are some general talking points:

BROADENING THE SCOPE OF DEC SGEIS

1. SPACING/DENSITY
*40 acre spacing with 5-acre well pads equals 12.5% of the land — spacing should be increased.
*Need Full Build-out model to review cumulative impact
*With 40 acre spacing, it would be possible to to feel impact from drilling in all four directions, plus trucking, pipeline development, noise, emissions etc.

2. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MUST BE STUDIED
*Drilling is NOT (as it says in SGEIS) of “independent nature”
*Impacts under the jurisdiction of other agencies or divisions MUST be included in scoping.

• Air quality/Emissions — pollution NOT solely from accidents (as it says in SGEIS), but also from flaring, machinery and condensate evaporation (See 2006 study from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)
• Noise – compressors
• Spills
• Pipeline construction
• Final disposition of waste

3. DISPOSITION OF WASTE
*Risks need to be studied. Need evidence of safety. Is there adequate treatment available for chemicals? (Not just dilution).
*Proof that injection wells are safe. What about after Marcellus is fracked everywhere? Can water migrate upward? With injection, water is out of water cycle.

4. HEALTH IMPACTS
*Need Health Impact Analysis (HIA) as used by World Bank etc. (see Catskill Mt. Keepers paper)
*Need baseline epidemiological studies

5. NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
*Need baseline data of air quality, water quality, water quantity, and wildlife.

6. IMPACTS ON OTHER NY INDUSTRY
*Including agriculture, wine industry and tourism industry

7. IMPACTS ON MUNICIPALITIES
*Including emergency response; roads. Towns need notice and full disclosure.

8. LIABILITY ISSUES NEED LOOKING AT
*Superfund law in effect? Are landowners liable? DEC?

9. RE-FRACKING
*Must be included in scoping and cumulative impact — or else prohibited
*Not mentioned in SGEIS, DEC claims won’t happen, industry websites include it.

10. EMERGENCY PLANS NEED TO BE IN PLACE
*For major spills, water contamination, fire etc.

11. EACH EPA EXEMPTION NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED
*Clean Water & Clean Drinking Water Acts impact Injection wells
*Clean Air — DEC is not looking at pollution from flaring or condensate evaporation
*Storm water Run-off?
*Superfund law
*Public Right to Know

12. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES NEED TO BE REVIEWED & IMPLEMENTED IN ALL AREAS

13. CLIMATE CHANGE

---

Here’s a summary of the Draft Scope by Meghan Tauck

Brief Overview

New York’s Environment Conservation Law (ECL) is regulated by the NYS DEC under ECL Article 8, the State’s Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The GEIS was drafted in 1992 as the regulatory bible for the DEC regarding oil and gas drilling in NYS. When an application for a drilling project is accepted by the DEC according to the GEIS, the DEC issues a permit for the drilling to take place (the DEC may consult with other divisions, agencies, and/or the Dept of Health if deemed necessary). Because “slick water” hydrofracing uses so much more water than other types of drilling, the DEC has identified it as needing review for supplemental regulation according to the SEQRA. Hence, the DEC is in the process of drafting a Supplemental GEIS (SGEIS) that will address the issues and concerns raised by slick water hydrofracing and will set additional parameters for DEC permits.

The GEIS regulatory “standards” states that in order for an application to receive a DEC permit under SEQRA the project cannot have a “significant” impact on the environment. Therefore, according to the DEC, as long as no accidents or violations take place, a permit’d well site does not have a “significant” environmental impact. Specifically, the GEIS concerns itself with addressing impacts of drilling in potentially “sensitive” areas and production wastes, on water quality, land use, socioeconomics, cultural resources, and endangered species. So, the SGEIS will address any possible “significant” impacts of sick water hydrofracing that may therefore need supplemental regulation.

NYS’ official policy is to “conserve, improve, and protect its natural resources and environment.” Under ECL section 23-0301, regarding oil, gas, and solution mining law, the DEC has power to manage natural resources to ensure their protection and balanced utilization (i.e. not overuse of water as in slick water hydrofracing, but, one might surmise, not under use either of, say, natural gas reserves…); prevent and abate water, land, and air pollution; and regulate storage, handling, and transport of solids, liquids, and gases to prevent pollution. Article 23 states that the DEC is required to prevent waste (which, again, means over use as well as under use) of NYS oil and gas resources, to provide for greater ultimate recovery of said resources, and to protect correlative rights. This means that it is incumbent upon the DEC to promote drilling while mitigating negative environmental impacts of it—that’s the stated purpose/function/mission of the DEC—a double standard. Article 23 also states that the DEC’s mining law supersedes local regulation laws except pertaining to roads and property taxes. This means that local governments have no jurisdiction over or within mining pads.

Public and Local Participation

When the DEC issues a permit they notify the local government only if no other wells yet exist there. The company must notify landowner and local government of its plans to drill. The DEC then responds to any complaints issued by the public or local government and may take remedial actions or cease operation if a violation exists.

Drilling Locations

The GEIS states that drilling in state parkland, in an agricultural district, or within 2000 ft of a municipal water supply may be “significant” and requires site-specific SEQRA determination. The public may comment on any permit issued to drill in state parkland, within 2000 ft of municipal water supply, or that will result in more than 2.5 acres in an agricultural district.

Well Spacing

The current spacing regulations for vertical wells state that there can be 1 well per 40 acres which is equal to up to 16 wells per square mile. Spacing is the same for single horizontal wells (that means only one well bore drilled from a single pad), but with the caveat that there must be adequate (330 ft) spacing between well bore leg and unit boundary. Therefore, fewer than 16 horizontal well sites will fit within 1 square mile. The SGEIS will address the possibility/regulation of multiple horizontal wells (which means multiple well bores are drilled from a single well site), considering that the well pad will be larger (3 acres instead of the customary 2 acres), but there will (in theory) be fewer well pads per square mile as well as fewer access roads and storage facilities which will cause less environment disruption. (This is an assumption. My question is: if multiple horizontal well sites are allowed with the current 40 acre spacing, what’s to stop companies from drilling just as many (larger) multiple horizontal well sites to access that much more fuel??) At any rate, the GEIS does allow for variances to the 40 acre spacing on a case by case basis pending public comment, adjudicatory hearing, and/or environmental review.

As of 2007 there are (or were) 6,683 producing natural gas well in Chautauqua County equaling 3 per square mile, though there are more that are not in production.

Pipelines

DEC does not have jurisdiction over pipelines—that’s the Public Service Commission. A DEC permit for setting a pipeline is only required if doing so would disturb an environmentally “sensitive” area.

Geology

SGEIS will address Marcellus shale specifically and whether Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) in the shale might pose a risk.

Noise

Short term:
There will be significant noise impact within 1000ft of well during drilling phase which may last several days to two weeks or longer (another source says up to three months…). Property owner and neighbors will be most impacted by noise. Property owner “has agreed to the disturbance by entering into voluntary lease agreement.”

This scope for the dSGEIS doesn’t mention noise impact on local wildlife.

Long term:
Well production sites are supposedly very quiet after initial drilling phase. SGEIS will review and address possible long-term noise impacts associated with drilling and production of Marcellus Shale, specifically.

Visual

The most visible aspect of the drill site will be the rig, which may be up to or more than 100ft tall (an 80ft rig can be seen for 2 miles). During drilling and production there will be truck traffic, construction equipment, compressors, pipe racks, work sheds/trailer, and frac pits (for produced fluid). After the drilling phase frac pits must be emptied and closed (within 45 days after fracing), construction equipment, compressors, and pipe racks will be taken away, and what may remain will include gas meter, well heads (4-8ft tall), dehydrator, gas-water separator, brine tank, fire suppression tank, and access road. This scope for the dSGEIS does not mention the visual impact of land scars from well sites, access roads, and pipelines. When the well is no longer in production it will be plugged, the land will be regraded if necessary, reseeded (though not necessarily with native vegetation), and abandoned. At this point, the only visual impact, they claim, will be the deforestation. Whoopee!

Air

The GEIS finds potential air contaminants to include: dust from roads and construction activity, diesel fumes, and accidental flows of methane and hydrogen sulfide. This does not constitute a significant impact, according the GEIS. The GEIS does not yet include a statement on greenhouse gas emissions associated with drilling.

Water

Surface Water (i.e. Sources):
Water for hydrofracing (up to 8 million gallons at a time) is likely to be drawn from rivers and streams and then transported to drill site (this is currently permitted in Pennsylvania by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC)). The DEC is concerned with the potential impacts of withdrawing so much water on water availability downstream for other needs, including public supply, wetlands, other users, and fish and wildlife, as well as the potential for denigration of streams and rivers “best use” (not sure what that means).

Produced water:
Produced liquid (slick water frac fluid post hydrofracing process) is pumped out of the well bore and either into steel tanks or a lined pit. It must then be disposed of (within 45 days) either to local or out-of-state treatment facilities or pumped into “injection wells” (the latter is under jurisdiction of DEC’s State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) and federal Underground Injection Control (UIC)).

The DEC is concerned with proper handling of produced liquid and the GEIS states that produced liquid, specifically the adequacy of pit liners, pit liner maintenance, and whether storage in steel tanks should be required and the use of storage pits discontinued.

Watersheds

Susquehanna:
The Susquehanna River Basin comprises 27,510 miles in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland and drains to the Chesapeake Bay at a rate of 20 billion gallons per day. 24% of the SRB lies in southern central NYS.

The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) is a compact between the federal government, NYS, PA, and MD to coordinate and review consumptive water resource management and related effects/impacts; i.e. how water is being consumed and how that’s effecting water availability (I don’t think they go so far as to review the effects on the hydrologic cycle as a whole). SRBC says it’s okay to consume up to 882.5 million gallons per day from the SRB.

In order for a gas company to get approval from SRBC to consume said resource the SRBC must review the site of withdrawal (where the company will be taking the water from) as well as how much water is flowing both upstream and downstream. Site must be monitored, metered, and records kept throughout the withdrawal project. The SRBC may change or cease approval of the withdrawal project if it finds that it is over-reaching supply. The SRBC does not regulate or have jurisdiction over flow back of produced “brine” fluid—it’s the states responsibility to make sure flow back is properly treated before returning to source.

The SRBC is refining rules for approval of re-use sources for slick water hydrofracing, i.e rather than taking clean water and mucking it up, take already used water.

Delaware:
The Delaware River Basin comprises 13,539 square miles in NY, PA, and NJ and flows to the Delaware Bay. 18.5% of the DRB is in southern central NY. The DRB supplies 50% of NYC’s drinking water and 100% of Philadelphia’s drinking water. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is a compact between the federal government, NY, NJ, and DE. The DRBC does the same as the SRBC but they haven’t yet been asked for withdrawal approval for the Marcellus slickwater hydrofracing.

Great Lakes:
The Great Lakes River Basin (GLRB) comprises all or parts of 34 counties in Upstate NY. Any diversion of water out of the GLRB must be approved by the Governor of each Great Lakes state (??). Its commission does not have the same regulatory authority as the SRBC or DRBC.

Aquifers and Groundwater

The GEIS states that drilling a well above an aquifer is okay because they have “special aquifer conditions,” i.e. are or can be specially designed for aquifer protection. Anywhere frac liquid might come into contact with ground water the DEC requires that freshwater aquifers be sealed behind cemented steel pipe before a well may be hydrofraced. The DEC claims that well bores are specifically constructed to mine natural gas without polluting ground water and that they have no accounts of groundwater contamination from hydrofracing. Furthermore, produced brine must be contained in water tight tanks or containers, including lined pits, and cleaned out within 45 days after fracing. Produced brine may then taken to “disposal” or “infill wells” if they get SPDES, EPA, and UIC permits…

The GEIS also states that municipal ownership or control of land surrounding a surface water reservoir preclude oil and gas development.

Companies can get a special permit for “stream disturbance” for access roads, etc, if they will upset natural stream beds or banks.

Wetlands

The GEIS states that wetlands should be avoided but allows for permits “only when alternate locations are not available.” Wetlands (generally over a certain size) are protected by NYS ECL articles 24 and 25.

The SGEIS will set parameters for water withdrawal for slick water hydrofracing upstream from wetlands.

Cumulative Impacts

The draft scope for the SGEIS states that assessing cumulative impacts of slick water hydrofracing in the Marcellus is impossible because 1) there’s no way to know in advance how many wells will be drilled because of a) market volatility and b) unknown and varying conditions and productivity of Marcellus formation, and 2) “significant” negative environmental impacts would be the result of an accident or violation of regulations (and thus not subject to GEIS or DEC accountability).

Community Impacts

The GEIS acknowledges potential negative impacts on community associated with drilling sites (comparable to those associated with construction sites) as well as the positive revenue based impacts on local communities.

In Conclusion

The SGEIS is concerned with determining additional and specific impact mitigation regulations OR prohibition of slick water horizontal hydrofracing in the Marcellus Shale. Specific concerns for the SGEIS include:

• water volume used for slick water hydrofracing, withdrawal sources and impacts of aquatic habitat and public needs
• watershed protection (NYC, Susquehanna, Deleware, and Great Lakes basins),
• chemicals used in frac brine
• fluid handling and disposal procedures
• size of sites
• Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) in Marcellus that may be released as a by-product of drilling
• Noise and visual impacts
• Air quality/pollution
• Equipement used, type, size, and quantity
• Multiple wells drilled from single site
• Duration of initial development/drilling phase
• Rate and scale of development
• Community/economic/environmental justice impacts
• Permit process, coordination of agencies, and adequate staffing

Hence, if the DEC finds EITHER that none of these issues pose a “significant” threat to the environment OR ways of mitigating potentially “significant” impacts, they will write that into the SGEIS and it will be law.

(Currently, according to those in the lobbying working group of the Shale Shock Coalition who traveled to the DEC hearing in Albany on Oct. 15, 2008, the DEC’s biggest concerns, and therefore the greatest opportunities for us to intervene, are: water treatment for the vast amounts of water used for slick water hydrofracing, disclosure of chemicals used in fracing, and the fact that the DEC is apparently woefully understaffed to monitor and thus enforce the regulations they impose.)