Draft SGEIS
4/24/13: Wall Street Journal [AP]: NY Groups Claim Industry Bias in Fracking Study: http://online.wsj.com/article/APdd2abef6c284422689e6eca9cfc34c80.html
4/24/13: Democrat and Chronicle: Jon Campbell: Andrew Cuomo Asked to Scrap Fracking Review Over Potential Conflict of Interest: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013304240039
4/24/13: Democrat and Chronicle: Jon Campbell: Andrew Cuomo Asked to Scrap Fracking Review Over Potential Conflict of Interest: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013304240039
NOTED FLAWS AND OMISSIONS AND
HOW TO COMMENT ON THE DEC'S REVISED DRAFT SGEIS
The DEC closed the SGEIS public comment period January 11, 2012.
Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deNiK_nl1jQ for an 8 minute tutorial by Chip Northrup on how to write your comments to the DEC.
The public comment period has begun, 9/7/11 until 1/11/12. We encourage everyone to submit a 'substantive' letter in response to the DEC's Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.htmlweeblylink_new_window
The DEC states: "Written comments will be accepted through the close of business January 11, 2012 by two methods only:
- Electronic submission using a web-based comment form http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/76838.htmlweeblylink_new_window available on DEC's website (preferred method); or
- Paper submission mailed or delivered to: Attn: dSGEIS Comments, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 625 Broadway,Albany, NY 12233-6510. Please include the name, address, and affiliation (if any) of the commenter.
Please use the DEC's web-based comment form to provide your input:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/76838.html
• Keep your letter CONCISE! State your concern as a clear statement of fact about a flaw with the document.
For example... Instead of "How can the DEC monitor XYZ thoroughly??",
Say this: "It is clear due to staffing cuts the DEC cannot monitor XYZ thoroughly"
• If you reference studies or any other document, include A COPY OF IT with the letter. THE DEC WON'T LOOK IT UP!!
• If you reference something in the 2011 SGEIS, be sure to state section number and paragraph.
• Be sure to copy all correspondence and comments to the DEC, Department of Health, Gov. Cuomo, and the Attorney General, as well as the media and your legislators:
Department of Health:
Dr. Nirav Shah, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health
Corning Tower, Empire State Plaza,
Albany, NY 12237
518-474-2011
Attorney General:
Eric Schneiderman 1-800-771-7755
Office of the Attorney General, The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341
http://www.ag.ny.gov/online_forms/email_ag.jspweeblylink_new_window
Governor:
The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.phpweeblylink_new_window
Lieutenant Governor
The Honorable Robert Duffy
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
DEC Commissioner:
Joe Martens, Commissioner
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-1010
518-402-8545
Find your state Senator here: http://www.nysenate.gov/contact_formweeblylink_new_window
Find your state Assembly Person here: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?sh=searchweeblylink_new_window
Join the "A million fracking letters": http://www.amillionfrackingletters.com/
This link will take you to Source Watch, an invaluable guide to the DEC's SGEIS, conintually updated by Chip Northrup and others. Bill Huston has added handy hyperlinks for use with the DEC's Online Response: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=2011_SGEIS_Flaws(NY)#Get_the_SGEIS.21weeblylink_new_window
For examples of responses, categorized by DEC's online response categories:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DSGEIS_Responses
If you haven't time to work your way through Source Watch, R-CAUSE has compiled the following list of flaws and omissions in the revised draft SGEIS (listed in no particular order) from various sources including:
Catskill Mountainkeeper: http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/weeblylink_new_window
Environmental Advocates of New York: http://www.eany.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&Itemid=116weeblylink_new_window
11/8/11 Webinar by Environmental Advocates and Citizens Campaign for the Environment: https://cc.readytalk.com/cc/playback/Playback.do
You'll hear several beep-beeps from people joining the webinar - allow about 1.21 minutes for the webinar to start.
Source Watch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=2011_SGEIS_Flaws(NY)weeblylink_new_window
Tompkins County Marcellus Accountability Project for PowerPoint presentations by Lou Allstadt, Tony Ingraffea, Roger Downs, and Helen Slottje: http://www.archive.org/details/SgeisWcbIthaca7-25-11weeblylink_new_window
Chip Northrup's explanations of many of the 25 categories: http://www.scribd.com/northrup49
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46288.htmlweeblylink_new_window
Otsego Community Advocacy: http://otsegoadvocacy.org/writing-comments-on-the-draft-sgeis-environmental-impact-statement/
When possible we have included section numbers for referral. We recommend checking these for accuracy. Please email us with suggestions, corrections, additions.
SGEIS 2011 NOTED FLAWS & OMISSIONS
7/28/11
CONTENTS
# FLAWS & OMISSIONS
1 NO BAN ON CHEMICALS
2 INADEQUATE WATER PROTECTION
3 DEC MANAGEMENT
4 WASTE MANAGEMENT
5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
6 HOME RULE
7 RESTRICTIONS HAVE SUNSET DATES
8 GLOBAL WARMING ASSESSMENT: OUTDATED INFO
9 LEARNING FROM PENNSYLVANIA
10 AREAS OF GEOLOGICAL RISK NOT PROTECTED
11 STATE LAND BANS INADEQUATE
12 ABANDONED WELLS
13 IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE
14 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
15 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT REPORT RELEASED 9/7/11
16 REGULATIONS
1. NO BAN ON CHEMICALS
No ban on any chemicals, even those known to be toxic and carcinogenic.
While the proposed public disclosure component has been strengthened, telling New Yorkers what toxic chemicals will be used is not the same as protecting the public from negative health impacts. (Environmental Advocates)
2. INADEQUATE WATER PROTECTION
Protection of Primary Aquifers for Limited Time Only
The DEC is proposing to prohibit fracking in primary aquifers that serve as public drinking water supplies but this “prohibition” is only limited to a couple of years after which the state could “reconsider” the bans. In addition, the DEC does not lay out the conditions under which “reconsideration” would be reviewed. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
Drinking water supplies inadequately protected
The preliminary draft increases buffers and setbacks from aquifers and wells. However the protections are inconsistent and can be waived in some instances. All setbacks and buffers must be set to provide maximum protections that cannot be altered. (Environmental Advocates)
While proposing to put the New York City and Syracuse watersheds off-limits to drilling, critical water supply infrastructure would not be protected.
The state proposes a buffer around New York City drinking water infrastructure in which only an additional review would be required and upon which projects could be permitted-not a formal ban. The proposed buffer is only one-quarter as long as a typical horizontal wellbore, too close to the sensitive, aging infrastructure that provides the city with drinking water. There are no proposed buffer requirements for Syracuse. (Environmental Advocates)
Drilling through principal aquifers and aquifers serving private wells is allowed. The DEC would allow drill bores extending into them.
DEC proposes to prohibit well pads on the few primary aquifers that serve as public drinking water supplies for major populations 7.1.12.1, but the DEC will reconsider their ‘prohibition’ 2 years after first permits are granted.
Drilling is allowed on principal aquifers with a site-specific review. 1.8
Drilling is permitted 500’ from private well or springs (closer with owner’s permission). 7.1.12.1
By giving NYC and Syracuse Watersheds special protections, the NY DEC is implicitly admitting this process is inherently unsafe, and denies many New Yorkers Equal Protection of the Law.
Q: Why the special protections?
A: Because this activity is inherently unsafe, both the US Constitution (1st Amendment) and the NY Constitution (Article 1, 11) demand that all persons are deserving Equal Protection of the Law. These regulations fail this. (Walter Hang)
3. DEC MANAGEMENT
DEC is understaffed:
New York DEC has been subject to steep budget and staff cuts and does not have adequate staff or resources to properly oversee fracking, even if every possible protection were in place This reality raises the possibility that the DEC will be forced to cut corners with its reviews or fast-track permits despite the risks. Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Advocates of New York are members of an advisory panel expected to weigh in on agency resources (Environmental Advocates)
DEC says permits will be limited to what staff can handle: 9.2
SOLUTION: Limit BY LAW the number of wells each DEC inspector can handle (Allstadt)
See Roger Downs’ PP Presentation page 10: http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/Downs%20Slides%207-25-11.pdfweeblylink_new_window
Environmental Impact Reviews Split Among Several Agencies
The thousands of miles of pipelines or compressor stations required for drilling to get the resulting gas to market will be reviewed by a different agency under a different process. Without an accounting of such impacts, New York’s environmental assessment is incomplete and the full impacts of fracking are unknown. The Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over gas infrastructure. As such, Governor Cuomo should direct state agencies to coordinate their efforts in order to protect our air, water and communities. (Environmental Advocates)
The public Service Commission has jurisdiction over gas infrastructure. Unless DEC and PSC coordinate review of full build-out, the real cumulative impacts of fracking are not assessed.
Permitting and regulating fall under the same roof: conflict of interest?
How can the same agency, which is charged to "conserve, improve and protect New York's natural resources and environment and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well-being", do that while they are the same agency which will be issuing permits which will likely harm the environment? (Chip Northrup)
4. WASTE MANAGEMENT
Transported as commercial Waste 6.1.7
Should be classified Hazardous
Transportation tracking system 7.1.7.1
Self reporting??
Toxic Wastewater Still a Major Problem
The plan by the DEC to track the solid and liquid wastes that are generated in connection with fracking sounds positive until you read that they are leaving the tracking of these wastes up to gas industry operators. We’ve all seen what happens when the industry is asked to police itself. Even more upsetting is that the DEC is still not classifying some of the waste that normally qualifies as hazardous, as hazardous, meaning that fracking waste could be sent to treatment facilities that are unable to properly treat it. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
The preliminary draft allows drilling waste to escape treatment as hazardous waste, even if it is in fact hazardous under the law. This means fracking waste could be sent to municipal sewage treatment facilities unable to properly treat it, putting the health and safety of our waters and communities at grave risk. (Environmental Advocates)
The state proposes allowing sewage plants to treat drilling wastes, even though such plants are not permitted to handle the toxic elements in such wastes, and even though the DEC itself has called into question New York’s capacity and ability to treat fracking wastes. (Environmental Advocates)
BENEFICIAL USE PERMIT AVAILABLE TO SPREAD FRACKING WASTE ON ROADS
Open Waste Pits Not Banned
he DEC has sidestepped banning deplorable open waste pits because they say that the gas industry has asserted that they are unlikely to use open pits for the storage of wastewater. Instead of prohibiting open pits out right, which should be done, they have proposed a system where a lone DEC employee could grant approval without doing an individual environmental impact study. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
DEC failed to use SEQR review for spreading PA wastewater on NY roads
The DEC has already failed to protect NY drinking water by allowing wastewater from PA to be spread on roads in NY without SEQR review Please see this article and this page.
5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Only speaks of single well pad (Appendix 5 and 6) but no discussion of long-term cumulative impacts of repeating an impact over many years or how all of these impacts interact with each other – short term or long term. NO INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION, SOCIO-ECONOMICS, PIPELINES, PROCESSING PLANTS AND COMPRESSOR STATION IMPACTS (Lou Allstadt)
Does not consider what localities can absorb. (Allstadt)
References to how an area would be affected by the cumulative impact of many, many wells is only addressed for some aspects of that cumulative impact but the DEC has failed to lay out a comprehensive, focused plan to review and analyze the consequences of a full build out. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
SOLUTION: Permitting several wells, time-staged to reduce overlap with other wells or related facilities. Could significantly reduce intensity of local impacts. (Allstadt)
Refer to these pages in SGEIS (Allstadt):
- Transportation infrastructure impacts: 2.4.12
- Socioeconomic impacts 2.4.13
- Visual Impacts 6.8
- Noise 6.9
- Roads 6.10
- No control of pace of drilling 9.2
- Will only limit pace to DEC capabilities 9.2.4
6. HOME RULE
Need legislative action.push your legislators to support these bills supporting local control over zoning.
Home Rule Clarification (S. 3472 – Openheimer / A. 3245 – Lifton)
Clarifies that current local zoning law, and local zoning laws enacted in the future, will dictate where oil, gas, and solution mining is a permissible use, even with a regulatory program at the state level. The legislation affirms that local governments are able to utilize zoning ordinances to protect shared infrastructure, public health, and environmental quality from inherent risks of industrial oil and gas development in their communities. CCE’s Memo of Support for Home Rule Clarification (Citizens Campaign)
SEE HELEN SLOTTJE’S POWERPOINT PRESENTATION: http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/Slottje%20Slides%207-25-11.pdfweeblylink_new_window
7. RESTRICTIONS HAVE SUNSET DATES
Some fracking restrictions would have sunset dates. The preliminary draft proposes to place some areas of the state off limits to gas drilling, but upon closer examination, many of the restrictions have sunset dates and some of the protective buffers only call for site-specific individual environmental review, rather than clear restrictions. (Environmental Advocates)
8. GLOBAL WARMING ASSESSMENT USES OUTDATED INFO
See Tony Ingraffea’s PP presentation pages 4, 5,6 10-11 http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/Ingraffea%20Slides%207-25-11.pdfweeblylink_new_window
DEC uses outdated data on the global warming potential of methane, uses an inappropriate time horion to estimate climate change impact, and incorrectly concldes that emissions from HVHF wells are the same for conventional wells. see 6.6
9. LEARNING FROM PENNSYLVANIA
After 4 years of intense drilling in PA, there is no data from PA about groundwater contamination or other actual impacts there in the SGEIS (Tony Ingraffea) Please see: http://blogs.wcny.org/the-captiol-pressroom-for-july-22-2011/weeblylink_new_window 22 July 2011
See Dr. Ingraffea’s PP presentation page 19:
http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/Ingraffea%20Slides%207-25-11.pdfweeblylink_new_window
After 4 years of intense drilling in PA with many complaints about water contamination, the SGEIS gives no data from PA or other states about groundwater contamination incidents, rates of occurrence, or analysis of causes or rates of accidents.
DEC failed to use SEQR review for spreading waste water on NY roads: /uploads/8/0/2/5/8025484/ij_wastewater-roads_110720-hl.pdf
DEP Inspections Show More Shale Well Cement Problems:
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/dep-inspections-show-more-shale-well-cement-problems-1.1205108#axzz1YQqtQWtm
10. REGIONAL AREAS OF GEOLOGICAL RISK NOT PROTECTED
Regional Areas of Special Geological Risk Not Protected The DEC has not addressed fracking in areas of special geological risk, such as those with fault lines that are potential pathways for the upward gradient of contaminants into aquifers because they claim that contaminants can’t rise into aquifers. However, independent scientific studies have proven that upward migration of contaminants is not only possible, but also likely. The DEC based their assertion on industry studies that looked at just 5 days in the fracking process. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
11. STATE LAND BANS INADEQUATE
The ban on drilling in state-owned lands looks good until you read that while the state will prohibit well pads above ground they will allow drilling under these same lands. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
12. ABANDONED WELLS
No comments on this issue yet.
13. IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY
No mention of live stock wells and ponds
14. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
No analysis of public health impacts despite the fact that fracking-related air pollution and the potential for water contamination have serious effects on people-especially the elderly and children, and communities downwind and downstream of proposed fracking operations. There is growing evidence of negative health impacts related to gas extraction in other states. (Environmental Advocates)
NYS isn’t proposing to ban any chemicals and disclosure is limited. According to the SGEIS there is little to no information on health impacts of many of the chemicals likely to be used. Endocrine disruption impacts are not even mentioned and aquatic toxicity is not evaluated, yet the SGEIS does not prohibit any chemicals from use. While the proposed public disclosure component has been strengthened, companies can claim ‘trade secret’ status and limit public access to a material safety data sheet.
This public health fact sheet created by the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units has many references useful for our letters: http://aoec.org/PEHSU/documents/hydraulic_fracturing_and_children_2011_health_prof.pdf
15. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT REPORT RELEASED 9/7/11: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/rdsgeisecon0811.pdfweeblylink_new_window
Dr. Jannette Barth's responses to this report can be accessed through this link:
/uploads/8/0/2/5/8025484/barthpreliminarycommentsquestionssep92011.pdf
16. REGULATIONS
DEC released proposed fracking regulations 9/28/11: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/77353.html
There are no regulations in the SGEIS (Allstadt & Ingraffea)
Permits to be Issued BEFORE Rulemaking Process is Complete! 3.3
SOLUTION: Clear and transparent REGS should be in place before permits are issued. (Allstadt)
Water well drillers have to pass a test. Why shouldn’t gas drill rig operators and frackers have to as well? (Allstadt)
Performance Bonds not mentioned in GEIS. Driller should not be able to walk away from problems. They are currently bonded @ $5,000: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.htmlweeblylink_new_window
SOLUTION: Multi-million dollar bond on each well until plugged and abandoned. (Allstadt)
The document lays out a rulemaking process that would formalize its proposed safeguards in a single set of uniform, legally enforceable regulations, which is critical, but in a totally backward move they have said that they would begin processing permit applications before the rulemaking is finished. (Catskill Mountainkeeper)
The DEC proposes issuing permits before formal rulemaking is complete, a backward move that leaves New York’s waters and communities at risk. (Environmental Advocates)
Findings from the SGEIS are legally difficult to enforce and were not intended to serve as a regulatory program. It is not a legally binding document.
The proposal to require an intermediate casing in HVHF wells is not a new solution since such casings have historically been used in NYS and commonly used in PA Marcellus wells, including wells with failed containments. The wells in Dimock had 5 casings (per Ingraffea).
