This is long so I'll have to send the 2nd attachment she refers to as a
separate email.
For those who can get attachments the Sus Tomp list cannot utilize them,
nor can I send them anyway from my AOL from this computer.
Jeanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Martha Robertson <[email protected]>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Sent: Wed, Nov 18, 2009 2:48 am
Subject: Thursday public hearing - Sign up at 6:00 to speak!
Dear folks,
I hope you've got the public hearing -- on the DEC's dSGEIS on
gasdrilling -- this Thursday on your calendar! It's at the State
Theatreat 107 W. State St, and it formally starts at 7:00. HOWEVER,
we'retaking sign-ups starting at 6:00, so that people can speak in the
orderthey've signed up.
I hope you can get there at 6:00! Other DEC hearings have seen
busloadsbe driven in from landowner coalitions, and it would be a shame
to havelocal people (especially opponents!) be squeezed out.
There's also a rally on the Commons starting at 4:30 sponsored
byShaleshock.
Attached are two rich resources for content, to help you with your
ownstatement. Thanks to Helen Slottje for being such an
incredibleresource!
See you Thursday!
Martha Robertson
Water Issues -- Withdrawals, Use, Disposal, Contamination
1. DSGEIS states that private wells and springs should be used as
drinking
water sources only as a last resort. There is no discussion about the
fact that
they are many people’s only option. [dSGEIS p. 2-24]
2. Drinking water standards only protect against known or anticipated
contaminants and therefore will not guard against chemicals that are not
historically anticipated to be in drinking water. Yet, DEC will not make
chemical
contents public. [dSGEIS p. 2-12]
3. Inappropriate reliance on the fact that “No documented instances of
groundwater contamination are recorded in the NYSDEC files from previous
horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing projects in New York.” DEC
has
acknowledged that it has never looked. [dSGEIS 2-26]
4. Water testing does not test for methane. [dSGEIS p. 7-41] Local
health
departments are responsible for addressing and investigating water
contamination. [dSGEIS p. 7-42]
5. Other potential causes have to be ruled out before water
contamination
cases are referred back to DEC. Presumption is not that problem is
caused by
drilling. [dSGEIS p. 7-42]
6. No discussion of impact of 4000 identified wells awaiting plugging or
40,000 unidentified abandoned wells. [STRONGER survey of NY 2006] Yet
the
dSGEIS notes at Appendix 11, p. 31 “It is theoretically possible but
extremely
unlikely that a flow path such as a network of open fractures, an open
fault, or an
undetected and unplugged wellbore could exist that directly connects the
hydraulically fractured zone to an aquifer. “
7. Lack of distinction between drilling waste, flowback waste water and
produced water/waste. Incomplete understanding of composition of any of
those
wastes. DEC has done no testing of these wastes. [dSGEIS 5-101, 6-18,
7-34, 7-
50] Nor does the DEC have any idea of potential volumes. [dSGEIS p.
7-90] But
the DEC does hope, that by the time the dSGEIS is finalized industry (in
the form
of the Marcellus Shale Committee and the Appalachian Shale Committee)
will
make public data about flowback waters. [dSGEIS p. 7-96]
8. Water treatment plants are left to their own devices to determine
what
kind of wastes they receive….” It is incumbent upon the POTW to
determine
whether the volumes and concentrations of chemicals present in the
flowback
water or production brine would result in adverse impacts to the
facility’s
treatment processes as part of the above headworks analysis.” [dSGEIS
7-59]
9. Road spreading of “produced water” is allowed (although no
distinction is
made between the differing kinds of wastes and DEC acknowledges no
testing has
been done.) Flood Zone maps are out of date so do not provide adequate
protection against flooding of gas wells or open pits. [dSGEIS p. 2-35]
Yet,
severe flooding is acknowledged as a problem. [dSGEIS p. 6-42]
Conclusion:
Local governments are expected to “consider” this problem.
10. There is no proposed permitting for the 10,000 to 12,0000 gallons of
diesel fuel that will be stored on site. That is the quantity of gas
that an ordinary
gas station keeps on hand. [dSGEIS p. 5-23]
11. Failure to address large scale water withdrawals. “The concern for
aquifer
depletion due to increased ground water use in New York is being
reviewed and
addressed by the DEC.” [dSGEIS p. 7-6] But not in the dSGEIS.
12. The only discussion of recycling or conservation of water is the
note that
“it is beneficial to the operators to implement water conservation
practices.”
[dSGEIS p. 7-78]
13. Stormwater permits need to be revised, but have not been yet and
inspections
and documentation of storm water permits is apparently left up to local
governments.
[dSGEIS p. 7-25]
“Centralized Impoundments”
14. Large centralized impoundments of toxic waste would not even be
subject
to the same regulations as ponds of fresh water. [dSGEIS p. 6-38] Liner
requirements will be the same as for landfill leachate, but “ as with
all
environmental containment systems, it is acknowledged that conservative
liner
requirements alone do not guarantee groundwater protection. Emphasis has
to
be placed upon facility design….to best ensure[] successful protection
of the
groundwater..” [dSGEIS p. 7-52] But none of the “emphasized” items are
required. In fact, the DEC points out that above ground storage tanks
are
preferable, but they don’t require them. [dSGEIS 7-55]
15. At p. 2-31 the dSGEIS notes that the region receives more
precipitation
than evaporation, but fails to address what that means for open pits
collecting
rainwater over time. [dSGEIS, p. 6-56, pits may be used for up to three
years.]
16. If flowback impoundments are used, the dSGEIS states that it will be
necessary to exclude certain solvents and surfactants containing benzene
and
xylene from frac’ing fluds. [dSGEIS p 7-89] Yet benzene appears to occur
naturally in the Marcellus shale and will be present in the flowback
whether it is
added as a solvent or not.
17. Despite the fact that “these larger off-site impoundments have the
potential to qualify as a major source of Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs) due to
certain chemicals” the DEC still plans to allow them although maybe, it
might
require, in some instances “a physical barrier to public access at least
500 feet
from the well pad” but only if the applicant is not able to show that
specific
control equipment will be used to further reduce particulate matter
emissions
during hydraulic fracturing operations. [dSGEIS p. 7-89]
18. It is possible the water in these pits will be contaminated with
radioactivity. Yet no studies have been undertaken. [dSGEIS p. 7-103]
DEC
notes that someone (it does not say who, when or how) should take
sampling,
analysis, and surveys after production has begun and determine what
radioactive material licenses may be needed.
Chemicals
1. Inadequate data on chemicals - Data is on hand for 197 chemicals with
complete information on 152 of those. Within the 197 products are 260
chemicals that the DEC had identified and at least 40 that they have
not. (dSGEIS
p. 5-35) DEC has not considered or investigated the biocides being used –
at least
one of which (4nitroquinolineNoxide) is used to induce cancer in
lab rats.
[dSGEIS p. 5-111, 6-92, testimony of Dr. Hays) Appendix 11, p. 32 states
that
“The solubilities of many chemicals proposed for use in hydraulic
fracturing in
New York State are not well established or are not available in standard
databases…”
2. DSGEIS proposes to wait for an emergency to research some of the
chemicals “In the event of environmental contamination involving
chemicals
lacking readily available health effects information, the toxicology
literature
would have to be researched for chemical specific toxicity data. [dSGEIS
p. 5-65]
3. Radioactive contamination of drilling equipment and waste is
completely
unexplored. [dSGEIS p. 5-131] “No state has assessed the occurrence of
NORM
from longer duration drilling operations at multi-well sites or larger
accumulations of shale cuttings from horizontal drilling.” [dSGEIS p.
7-99]
However, initial tests show the potential for NORM build up to the
extent that
NORM waste may require licensing and production water may be subject to
limitations as radioactive waste. [dSGEIS p. 7-103]
4. Synergy, whereby chemicals react with each other and the environment
has not been investigated, so there may be many chemicals produced by
the
reaction of frac’ing fluids with each other and the environment that
result in
chemicals that are not being tested for. Benzene is a known carcinogen.
5. Refusal to consider “green chemicals” on the basis that “at this
time, it may
not be feasible to require the use of ‘green’ chemicals because
presently there is
no metric or chemicals approvals process in place in the US.” [dSGEIS p.
9-10]
6. DSGEIS concludes that “the only potential exposure pathway to
fracturing
additives identified by this Supplement is via air emissions from
uncovered
surface impoundments used to contain flowback water…..Therefore the
Department proposes that full chemical disclosure be required for
applications
that propose open surface impoundments. Products listed in Table 5.3
require no
additional disclosure, but the application materials will have to
specify their
planned concentrations in the fracturing fluid. The Department
recognizes that
flowback water chemistry may be preferable for determining impoundment
emissions, but to date Department staff has not seen any flowback water
analyses
that tested for all of the chemicals and compounds that could be
present. …
For well permit applications that do not propose use of open surface
impoundments, the Department proposes to require identification of
additive
products and proposed percent by weight of water, proppants and each
additive.
…. This Supplement has not identified any potential impact other than
impoundment emissions that requires full compositional disclosure to the
Department for such water-based solutions.”
Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Air Pollution
1. Reliance on Penn State/industry data that natural gas development
will
reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions when this is not clearly the case.
[dSGEIS p. 2-
6]
2. Assumption that development of natural gas resources serves the
public
interest when this is not clearly the case. [dSGEIS §2.2]
3. Determination that “The prohibition of development of Marcellus Shale
and other low permability gas reservoirs by horizontal gas drilling and
[HVHF]
would be contrary to New York State and national interests.” [dSGEIS
9-1]; “It
would also contravene Article 23-0301 of the Environmental Conservation
Law
where it is stated:…” [dSGEIS 9-2]; “The Draft 2009 New York State
Energy Plan
recognizes the potential benefit to New York from development of the
Marcellus
Shale natural gas resource:” [dSGEIS 9-3]; and
“such a prohibition is contrary to New York statute and State policy
advocating
development of this resource. A prohibition would also deny owners of
mineral
interests an opportunity to realize the benefit of mineral rights
ownership. It is
not a reasonable alternative to development as set forth in this dSGEIS.”
[9-3]
4. Air pollution from diesel exhausts, well emissions, and pipeline
emissions,
and flaring are not mitigated.
5. The discussion of TEG dehydration units relies upon “industry
supplied
emission data” and while “impacts are predicted to be above the
corresponding
standards, no simple mitigation measures were indicated.” [dSGEIS p7-88]
Apparently since industry did not tell DEC how to mitigate the problem,
it won’t
be mitigated. The DEC does suggest “the preclusion of public access” to
the well
pad (although set backs from the public range from 50 to 100 feet) or
that
“alternative mitigation measures could be defined by industry…”
6. The DEC also notes that it “encourages” participation in the STAR
program
(but it is not mandatory). [dSGEIS p. 7-92] It also helpfully points out
that well
operators could limit generation of carbon dioxide by limiting vehicle
miles
travelled.
Absence of Actual Rules and Regulations, Funding, Inspections
1. Lack of required inspections on the site (pre-drilling and at closure
only)
when inspection should be required as a deterrent. [dSGEIS p. 1-5,
5-127]
2. DSGEIS proposes to rely on site specific permit conditions and other
“existing Department tools” instead of regulations and rules. [dSGEIS p.
3-4, 7-
26, 7-53] If site specific conditions are required, then a GEIS should
not be relied
upon. The DEC notes that if they can make site specific determinations,
they
don’t need to seek variances.
Cumulative Impacts
1. Cumulative impacts are completely dismissed as too difficult to
figure out.
[dSGEIS p. 6-145-6]. The Marcellus Shale is acknowledged to be a “
blanket play”
with 100% success rate yet found to be comparable to the wells drilled
in 1985
which were into a limited number of pools or reservoirs and thus had a
very low
success rate.
1. Lack of understanding about results of underground fracturing “ICF
reports that, despite ongoing laboratory and field experimentation, the
mechanisms that limit vertical fracture growth are not completely
understood.”
[dSGEIS p. 5-89] Analytical techniques ….still imperfect…” [dSGEIS p.
5-90]
2. No discussion or mitigation of drilling into faults or inducing
seismic
reactions because it is “in the operator’s best interest” to avoid
drilling into a
fault and they will “endeavor” to be “prudent.” [dSGEIS p. 6-149, 150,
154]
Impacts on Wildlife – Flora – Communities
1. Wildlife are expected to just know that the 5 acre open pits of toxic
waste
are just that and not ponds. [dSGEIS p. 6-48] It is suggested but not
required,
that operators make pits “unattractive” to wildlife and netting “should”
(but not
must) be used.” [dSGEIS p. 7-83]
2. No discussion of impact of pipelines on habitat fragmentation.
3. A comprehensive plan for dealing with invasive species will be (but
isn’t
yet) developed. (dSGEIS p. 7-74) The DEC notes that
“precautions must be implemented” but doesn’t provide any. [dSGEIS p.
7-78]
And after noting that “the safest way to avoid transfer of invasive
species is not
to transfer water from one waterbody to another.” [dSGEIS 7-78] Yet DEC
does
not prohibit the practice.
4. No visual impact mitigation are mandated, but the DEC makes some
suggestions that industry can voluntary take or not. [dSGEIS p. 7-104]
And DEC
“encourages” the operators to review the local land use plan and to try
to not site
wells in areas where there will be impacts. But none of this is
mandatory.
[dSGEIS p 7-106]
5. The DEC also notes that “noise is best mitigated by distance” and
that
drilling is more tolerable during the day than at night [dSGEIS p.
7-107], but
mandates no noise buffers or restrictions on drilling times.
Impacts on Muncipalities
1. Responsible for monitoring and investigating water tests [dSGEIS
7-42]
2. Responsible for storm water permit inspections [dSGEIS p. 7-25]
3. Responsible for “considering” impacts of flooding [dSGEIS p.6-42]
4. Road Use agreements are suggested but not mandated. Road system
integrity test is suggested. [dSGEIS p. 7-110]
5. Municipalities must monitor the NYSDEC website to learn about wells.
[dSGEIS p. 7-110]
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please
visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
