NOON SGEIS Hydrofracking Comments 2011

$Page 1: NOON SGEIS Hydrofracking Comments 2011$
5/12/2018 NOON SGEIS Hydrofracking Comments 2011 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/noon-sgeis-hydrofracking-comments-2011 1/6

Neighbors of the OnondagaNation

2013 East Genesee St.3

Syracuse, NY 13210 3

(315)[email protected] 3

www.peacecouncil.net/noon

January 11, 2012State of New YorkDepartment of Environmental ConservationAttn: dSGEIS CommentsBureau of Oil and Gas Regulation, Division of Mineral Resources625 Broadway, Third Floor

Albany, NY 12233-6500

To whom it may concern:

The Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation (NOON) respectfully submit ourcomments on the 2011 revised draft Supplemental Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement (rdSGEIS) and request a response from NYS DEC to thosecomments addressing identified sections of the document. NOON is agrassroots educational and advocacy project of the Syracuse Peace Council.

NOON calls on the Governor of New York and the NYS DEC to ban

unconventional drilling for natural gas that includes high volume, slick waterhydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. We take this position afterhearing from our friends at the Onondaga Nation that their concerns on thisissue went unheeded by the NYS DEC. The Onondaga and theHaudenosaunee Environmental Task Force have considered the effects of this practice on the Seventh Generation yet to come, and have subsequentlycalled for a ban of unconventional drilling in their aboriginal territory.(Enclosure #1)

NOON finds this rationale far more sound than the short-sightedpolitical reasoning of our own leaders and thereby supports a ban on

unconventional drilling throughout New York State. We who live in thewatershed of Onondaga Lake are most keenly aware of the impacts of industrial initiatives that focus on profit and economic benefit to the extremedetriment of the environment and our natural treasures. We feel thatallowing high volume, slickwater hydraulic fracturing combined withhorizontal drilling (HVHFHD) will create a burden for future generations on amagnitude exceeding what we are dealing with in the restoration of Onondaga Lake.

NOON asks that, in the absence of a ban on unconventional drilling,the DEC and the Governor enact an indefinite moratorium until such time as



the recently initiated United States Environmental Protection Agency studyon impacts of unconventional drilling on drinking water is complete. If thatstudy results in definitive findings, then New York should consider futureactions based on those results. Once again, we would urge a ban onunconventional drilling in any case.

Regarding the rdSGEIS, NOON believes it fails to establish adequatespecific conditions, criteria, and thresholds to allow drilling permits to be

issued in a manner that will protect the lands, waters, and lives of all wholive in NY. It will take only one misstep, whether accidental or intentional, tocause disastrous impacts on the quality of life of New York citizens. Withoutextensive additional environmental review, NOON advocates for, at the least,a withdrawal of the document.

Here are substantive comments on the dSGEIS:

A. Watershed Protection (Section 7.1.5) – While we applaud theDEC’s stance that watersheds with a filtration avoidancedeclaration (FAD) should be spared HVHFHD, we also submit thatno one watershed should be considered more vulnerable thananother. If the HVHFHD process poses too many risks for twowatersheds, might it not be considered too risky for anywatershed? Therefore, we ask that all sole source aquifers andunprotected water supplies be given the same “watershed plus4000 feet exclusion” that has been enacted for Syracuse andNew York City.

B. Private Wells and Springs (Section 2.4.5) – For many people inrural parts of the state, wells and springs are the standard sourceof water. Understanding that some springs are not groundwaterbut influenced by surface water, drilling activities shall notcommence within the possible surface watershed of the spring.Modern GIS software makes determination of such areas fairlysimple. In particular, we are aware that the Onondaga Nation’swater supply may be adversely affected by hydrofracking in thewatershed above them. As neighbors and in the spirit of the TwoRow Wampum, we ask New York State to ban hydrofrackingupstream of the Onondaga Nation within the Onondaga Creekand West Branch of the Onondaga Creek watersheds, which fallin the Towns of Onondaga, Tully, LaFayette, and Otisco.

C. Regulation of Chemicals (Section 5.3 and 5.4) – It is not enoughto know what toxic chemicals we may discover contaminatingour drinking water and lands in the future. The DEC must takeaction to protect our futures by banning the use of the most toxicchemicals from the hydrofracking process.

D. History of Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in Water Supply Areas(Section 2.4.6) – All chemicals to be used on a wellsite shouldbe made available to the public on a well by well basis. All publicand private water supply sources within a mile of a well bore



should be tested for those chemicals in advance of the start of drilling to offer a baseline. Further tests should be conductedannually while the well is active and for two years after drillingstops and the well is capped. These tests should beadministered by the DEC Division of Water, with specialized staff headquartered in each regional office, and not the County HealthDepartments as written in the dSGEIS as they lack regulatorycontrol over gas drillers. Funding for such testing and monitoring

operations should be levied from the drilling companies as partof the permitting process.

It has been widely documented that there are incidents of drinking watercontamination even in the files of the NYS DEC as per the research of WalterHang and others (see www.toxicstargeting.com). However, the rdSGEIS stillseems to avoid those records in Section 2.4.6 by stating:

“… No documented instances of groundwater contamination from previous horizontal

drilling or hydraulic fracturing projects in New York are recorded in the Department‟s

well files or records of complaint investigations. No documented incidents of groundwater contamination in public water supply systems could be recalled by the

NYSDOH central office and Rochester district office (NYSDOH, 2009a; NYSDOH,

2009b).”

If the NYS DEC is to become a trusted protector of our air and water during agas drilling onslaught to our environment, it would seem appropriate toaddress information in their own files in some way other than none “could berecalled”. Are they there or aren’t they?

E. Cumulative Impact (Section 3.2.1.2) - The dSGEIS states “eachapplication to drill a well will continue to be considered anindividual project…”. This is unacceptable; the cumulativeimpact of additional wells in a given community must be takeninto consideration for each subsequent well, and state-wide. There needs to be a cumulative impact analysis to understandthe full impact this form of drilling could have on the water, air,land, animals, local roads, infrastructure, habitat, and otherecological systems upon which we all depend. NOON appreciatesthat the SEQRA process has been inserted to well permitting,however, the issue of cumulative impacts is dealt with less than20 times (16 times by document search) in a 1500+ pagedocument. With the industry projecting the drilling of thousandsof wells, cumulative impacts apply to every facet of human andanimal life in New York State.

F. Local government planning for future cumulative impact (Section6.12) – Local governments currently lack capacity forunderstanding the extent of possible gas drilling developmentand the rdSGEIS is not much help considering the information istotally pro-drilling using the Independent Oil and Gas Association(IOGA) and a strictly benefit oriented “socio-economic study”. Inthe absence of balanced research and findings, it is unlikely that

http://www.toxicstargeting.com/

http://www.toxicstargeting.com/



local governments can realistically develop planning for HVHFHD. This is particularly true based on incident after incident comingout of other states where drilling is already underway.

A process of recording gas leases needs to be streamlined and funded sothat county governments are able to easily provide answers to localgovernment queries regarding the extent of gas leases. This should bedeveloped in full collaboration with local planning agencies to ensure proper

planning for the future. Counties with GIS capabilities should include suchmaps in their publicly-accessible data; counties without GIS capabilitiesshould receive assistance from a DEC program collecting and disseminatingthis information on a statewide basis.

G. Mitigating Road Use Impacts (Section 7.11) – This paragraphshould REQUIRE that operators provide road use contracts,bonding for damage compensation, and contact with local jurisdictions PRIOR to initiating permit application rather than just submitting road use plans with their permit applications. NYSDEC and the NYS Attorney-General’s Office should provideexpertise to any jurisdiction where natural gas drilling isproposed at the beginning of the permit application process.Improvements to the 2009 dSGEIS in the 2011 version are wellintentioned but need to go even further.

H. Flowback water Handling at the Wellsite (Section 5.11.2) – Allflowback that is stored in closed steel tanks should be monitored,inspected, and removed in timely fashion that is specified (not just recommended) with significant enforcement penaltiesresulting from non-compliance.

I. Waste Transport (Section 6.1.7) – Recent news stories indicatedamage and fish kills caused by illegal dumping in other states.Given the cost of transportation and treatment and the difficultyin finding facilities capable of removing fracking chemicals,radioactive materials, and heavy metals from the flowback, thelack of manifesting would seem to provide an incentive to cheat.If hydrofracking is allowed in NY, all contaminated water leavinga hydrofracking site shall be documented with a manifest toensure that it does not simply “disappear” if treatment facilitiesreject it. It will be treated as a hazardous waste to ensure the

public trust in its appropriate and legal disposition.

J. Treatment Facilities (Section 6.1.8.1) – The 2011 rdSGEIScontains significantly more detail on disposal of frack water,however, no amount of “detail” can change the fact thattreatment options are inadequate to deal with the magnitude of fluid that will be produced. Next to well casing integrity, thedisposal of frack water will be the NYS DEC’s greatestopportunity for failure. In no case can dumping in existingsurface water, placement in local sewage systems (includingsewage processing plants), or long term (more than 45 days) on-



site storage even in closed steel tanks be considered acceptable.Independent testing of treated water shall be required with theexpense born by the drilling company and the results includedwith the manifest for the load. This needs to be one of thestrictest pre-requisites for issuing a permit to drill. (Enclosure #2)

K. Utica Shale and other gas-bearing shales (Section 4.3) – If hydrofracking is allowed in NY, the Utica Shale and other gas-

bearing shales should be subject to the same, or more stringent,regulations as the Marcellus shale.

L. As-Built Wellbore Construction (Section 7.1.4.2) – While the

requirement to have a state inspector present during casingcementing may offer some quality assurance regarding theintegrity of the casing, the current staffing of the NYS DEC makesthis seem more imaginative than reality based. Staffing levelshave to be increased with qualified, impartial personnel thatunderstand the magnitude of their responsibility to the futuregenerations of New York State. The failures of well casings inhigh profile incidents like the Cabot failure in Pennsylvania andthe BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico are lessons for futureinspectors.

M. Other State Regulatory Statements (Section 8.4 and Appendix15) - Most of the statements presented seem inappropriately self serving for the gas industry. These documents are about two andone half years old and in many cases have been proven incorrectby subsequent investigations by EPA and others in various areasof the country. The idea that the DEC should include these prodrilling statements by present and former state officials aroundthe country without considering the accuracy of the claims andthe bias of those who wrote the letters is a disservice to theresidents of New York State. (Enclosures 3 & 4)

It is fairly well known that many of the incidents of air and water pollutioncaused by the poor practices of the industry have been covered up throughnon-disclosure agreements limiting victims ability to come forward. Theindustry has a practice of requiring those who are harmed to sign astatement requiring their silence if they are to receive any kind of recompense for damage. It is also a fact that in many areas where HVHF

was done early on there was no baseline testing of wells and ground waterallowing the industry to claim that any bad environmental impacts foundcould have been present before the drilling. New York State would be betterserved if this entire section and appendix were removed from the rdSGEIS asit gives the appearance of an industry bias on the part of the NYS DEC. Thereason there is such strong sentiment apposing HVHFHD is the poor trackrecord of the industry in states where it is already practiced. Usingstatements from those states’ officials in the NYS document erodes the NYSDEC’s credibility.



These comments are offered for consideration in strengthening a flawedrdSGEIS. NOON sincerely believes that the only way to protect the world thatcurrent and future generations will live in is to ban this industrial process. The only way that we can be certain we will not have to apologize to ourchildren is by banning this process. While progress on cleaning up OnondagaLake gives us hope for its future, it also presents a lesson in decision makingrelative to the exploitation of our natural resources.

Therefore, once again, Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation calls on theGovernor and the NYS DEC to ban these unconventional drilling proceduresin New York State.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack RamsdenNeighbors of the Onondaga Nation (NOON)Committee on Hydrofracking

Cc: Governor Andrew CuomoCounty Executive Joanne M. MahoneySelected Members of the State SenateSelected Members of the State Assembly

Encls:1. Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force Statement on Hydrofracking2. Wastewater Wasteland (NOON White Paper)3. Sandra Steingraber testimony before NYS Senate En Con Committee 12-12-114. Amy Mall Blog (Natural Resources Defense Council) drinking watercontamination 12-19-11

Documents

NOON SGEIS Hydrofracking Comments 2011