15 REASONS WHY THE DEC DRAFT SEGEIS REPORT (THE DRAFT) RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN

1. THE COMMENT PERIOD IS TOO SHORT
  • The issues are very complex, the study is over 800 pages and there are many sides to each issue to consider – 60 days isn’t enough time for the public to be able to review the report
  • An important part of the process is for public discourse on as many of the related issues as possible
  • The stakes are too high for the region and the people who live here to force all the public’s comments into a 60 period. It feels like a suppression of public opinion. We deserve a full and comprehensive review
  • It should be noted that major papers in Rochester, Albany, New York City and elsewhere have written editorials asking for a longer period of public comment.  
  • A fair review will not be possible unless the state’s absurdly quick Nov. 30 deadline for public comment is extended.
 
In response to pressure from Catskill Mountainkeeper and other groups, the DEC has extended the comment period to December 31, 2009.
 
 
2. THE DEC NEEDS TO SCHEDULE MORE HEARINGS
  • The DEC has only schedule 4 hearings the public can make comments on the Draft Report – this is totally insufficient
  • Meetings should be located all around the State so that people do not have to travel for hours for their voices to be heard
 
3. THE DRAFT NEEDS A CUMULATIVE IMPACT REQUIREMENT
  • The DEC has said that they didn’t put cumulative impact requirements in the Draft document because they didn’t know how to do it.
  • If they can’t do a cumulative impact assessment we question whether they should be in the business of regulating gas drilling.
  • The ruling stipulates that each drilling operation will only be evaluated as a single event and puts no limitation on the total number of gas wells that could be developed within a specific area.
  • This means that there will be no control of the cumulative impact on air, land, water, wildlife or people. 
  • The document claims that the 1992 GEIS analysis of the cumulative impact was adequate. This is completely irresponsible and shortsighted. There has been no real analysis of the broad reaching implications of a full build out scenario for the nationally important ecological regions of our state.
  • There must be cumulative impact requirements on all wells drilled and these requirements must be enforced on a county and regional basis.
  • Air quality in Orange County and in New York City which are both downwind of where drilling will take place have regularly exceeded EPA standards. While air quality in Sullivan County has not yet exceeded EPA standards, the industrialization from the gas drilling process including extensive truck traffic will significantly denigrate the air quality there and cause the situations in Orange County and New York to substantially deteriorate further.
  • If air quality does exceed safety limits new permits for new wells should not be given out until air quality is back to normal.
  • An air quality study done in August 2009 in Dish, TX (a town that has a high concentration of gas wells confirmed the presence in high concentrations of carcinogenic and neurotoxin compounds in ambient air near and/or on residential properties. The mayor said that almost all of the 200 people living in Dish have some kind of health problems that could relate to the poor air quality.
 
4. THE DRAFT DOES NOT PROTECT OUR WATER - OUR MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE
  • New York State is blessed with abundant water in its lakes, rivers and streams.
  • Of particular concern in the Catskills is the effect of toxic chemicals getting into the aquifer (the underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials -gravel, sand, silt or clay- from which groundwater can be extracted using water wells.)
  • Ralph Heath , a respected USGS geologist, who wrote in 1964 is quoted in the DEC website as saying: “…..In most places ground water occurs in and moves through an intricate network of very small openings. Remarkably few wells drilling in New York fail to penetrate at least a few of these openings."
  • New York City is one of four major cities in the United States with a special permit allowing its drinking water to go unfiltered. If the special permit was revoked the city would have to build a treatment facility that could cost nearly $10 billion which is roughly what the state estimates it would earn from gas development over the next decade.
  • As Ismail Serageldin, former Vice President of the World Bank said in 1995, “If the wars of this century were fought over oil, the wars of the next century will be fought over water."
  • Our water in New York State is much more valuable than the gas that lies beneath it.
 
5. GAS DRILLING SHOULD BE BANNED IN OUR PUBLIC WATERSHEDS
  • The study allows for gas drilling within the New York City watershed, The Delaware Watershed and other municipal watersheds.
  • Drilling in the watersheds should be prohibited
  • The study allows for drilling as close as 1,000 feet from city water tunnels.
  • The report clearly leaves the water supply for many millions of New Yorkers without adequate protection.
  • We need and deserve detailed answers about what will happen should  the watershed be comprised
  • We need answers about who will be on the hook to build water filtration systems to clean up the mess if there is a problem
 
6. GAS DRILLING SHOULD BE BANNED IN THE CATSKILL PARK
  • The Catskill Park was established in 1894.
  • The Catskill Park is one of only 10 areas in the eastern half of the United States that has wilderness of over 50,000 acres.
  • It provides access to a wilderness experience for over 20,000,000 people who live within 100 miles of it.
  • The Catskill Park contains the headwaters of some of the cleanest rivers in our State.
  • It has a myriad of endangered species and habitats.
  • Industrialization from natural gas drilling of the private lands within the Park will impact the public lands.
  • Over 100 years ago our legislators had the foresight to create this unique and special wild region. Their intention was to have it protected in its wilderness state forever.
  • Gas drilling within the blue line breaks that promise, puts this special area at great risk and does not acknowledge that private property within the blue line is different than private property elsewhere.
 
7. THE RULES IN THE DRAFT ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO PREVENT DRILLERS FROM DEPLETING LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES
  • Each well uses between 3 million to 5 million gallons of water, which will come from local streams, rivers, ponds and lakes.
  • In a few places, like the Delaware River Basin, large withdrawals are regulated but in many other places, they aren't.  Even in the Delaware River Basin those regulations are woefully inadequate.
  • According to the DEP Briefing to the NYC Water Board on the Natural Gas Impact Assessment Project, September 25, 2009 very large withdrawals can result in operational impacts due to reduced reservoir inflow or altered flow or quality in regulated streams
  • The same report states that groundwater flow regimes could be altered by natural gas development, potentially impacting baseflow
 
8. A HEALTH IMPACT STUDY NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE DRAFT
  • The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a Colorado research group, has identified 201 fracking chemicals and found almost 90 percent had the potential to harm skin, eyes, and sensory organs; 50 percent could damage the brain and nervous system, and 29 percent may cause cancer.
  • The following types of chemicals have been identified in fracing fluid Carcinogens – chemicals capable of inducing cacner in humans after prolonged or excessive exposure
          Reproductive toxicants – which interfere with sexual functioning and      the reproductive ability of exposed individuals from puberty throughout adulthood
          Arsenic - suspected cause of many types of cancer
          Hydrogen sulfide - a broad-spectrum poison, particularly destructive        to the nervous system
          Mercury - a highly toxic neurotoxin which attacks the central nervous        system and is corrosive to the gastro-intestinal organs
  • The West Virginia DEP declared in July that the following pollutants of concern are associated with oil and gas related wastewaters and may have a potential for inhibition, interference, and pass-through for sewage treatment plants.
 
          Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
          Sulfate
          Chloride
          Arsenic
          Titanium
          Cobalt
          Nickel
          Silver
          Zinc
          Vanadium
          Tin
          Cadmium
          Lead
          Chromium
          Hexavalent chromium
          Copper
          Fluoranthene
          Cyanide
          Mercury
          Selenium
          Antimony
          Beryllium
          Barium
          Ammonia nitrogen
          Fluoride
          Nitrite nitrogen
          Oil and grease
 
          Total suspended solids
          Iron
          Aluminum
          Chloroform
          Benzene
          Phthalate esters
          Strontium
          Strontium-90
          Boron
          Lithium
          Gross alpha radiation
          Gross beta radiation
          Radium 226
          Radium 228
  • Catskill Mountainkeeper appreciates the intention of the proposed regulations to disclose the chemicals in the fracing fluid, however it is not clear from the document to whom this disclosure will be made and in what detail.
  • The chemicals must be disclosed to the public.
  • In order for homeowners to make claims if their wells are contaminated they must have baseline tests to prove that the toxins were not there to begin with. If their baseline tests do not test for the toxins in fracing fluid they will not have a case.
  • The current plan provides that only those wells within 1,000 feet of the drill head must be tested for contaminants. The reality is that with horizontal drilling wells many thousands of feet away from the well head could have their well water contaminated.
Click here to read stories of what has happened to people like us in other states. (Link to people’s stories)
 
9. THE DRAFT HAS INADEQUATE PLANS FOR WASTEWATER
  • There is a tracking system for wastewater provided for in the plan, but it’s a fact that we do not have the wastewater infrastructure or the money needed to upgrade our deteriorating system to handle today's needs without gas drilling chemicals and brine heading towards our State's rivers and streams. 
  • There is little clear direction from the state on how to protect publicly owned treatment plants or the public water bodies into which they discharge if a plant chooses to accept the wastewater.
  • The DEP Briefing to the NYC Water Board on the Natural Gas Impact Assessment Project, September 25, 2009 concluded that “All the activities required for natural gas drilling involve some risk to the water supply. Many are similar to construction sites but the chemical and wastewater risks are unique to this industry.”
  • New York State’s wastewater infrastructure is in need of huge investment and there are few facilities equipped to handle the drilling waste.
  • The DEC’s own March 2008 Report titled “Wastewater Infrastructure Needs of New York State” says “The conservative cost estimate of repairing, replacing, and updating New York’s municipal wastewater infrastructure is $36.2 billion over the next 20 years.”   It goes on to say, “Emerging issues that affect future wastewater infrastructure needs are not included in the Needs Survey. “ That means that this estimate does not include the cost for handling wastewater from gas drilling.
  • The overseers of wastewater treatment plants will also bear a large "responsibility and burden" if they choose to accept waste from hydraulic fracturing.  Any community that does decide to accept fracturing water will have to apply to the state to modify its sewer plant discharge permit, according to the EIS. Individual permits include limits for a variety of substances, such as chlorides and heavy metals.
  • The owners of sewer plants can be fined by the state for violations in their discharge permits.
 
10. THE DRAFT PUTS AN UNFAIR BURDEN ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES
  • There is an unfair burden on local communities as a result of gas drilling.
  • It appears that if gas production starts in New York State,landowners, rig operators and energy companies will start realizing income on which they will pay New York State income taxes. The state will realize a huge increase in revenues thanks to gas production. The counties will not because their revenues are based on property taxes rather than income, except for some increases in sales tax revenue. So the state will get much more revenue but will saddle the counties with the mandates to oversee operations.
  • An article in the Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin revealed that county health departments in New York would end up providing oversight of monitoring water quality in private wells that might be affected by the chemicals used by companies as they extract natural gas from shale lying underground
  • Broome County, where officials believe that 2,000 to 4,000 gas wells could be drilled, already has started doing the math about that impact. Claudia A. Edwards, county health department director, said that her agency has figured that if just 600 well pads go up in the county as many as 2,500 drinking water wells would have to be monitored. She already has asked other state officials whether there will be state aid reimbursement for the staff time spent on monitoring and investigating complaints.
  • Most local counties are already financially strapped and their revenue outlooks for 2010 look as bleak as 2009.
  • Adding more work with no money to offset the cost would further burden taxpayers
  • In addition, the report calls for the requirement that wells be monitored that are within 1000 feet from the drill head. This is an arbitrary standard that is very inadequate. Your well could be 5000 feet from the drill head but drilling could be going on right under you.
  • Local governments will have additional cost burdens to deal with accidents, road repair, social problems and more.
  • All of these new burdens will likely contribute to an increase of taxes at the local level.
 
11. THE DRAFT DOESN’T MAKE PROVISIONS FOR ADEQUATE STAFF TO MONITOR AND RESPOND TO ACCIDENTS
  • We seriously question the provisions and the state's staffing abilities relative to monitoring and responding to accidents. 
  • The issue of public safety cannot be delegated to local governments. 
  • In the last year and a half since the commencement of drilling, there have been an extraordinary number of reported accidents connected to gas drilling in nearby Pennsylvania.
  • It is highly questionable whether local authorities will be prepared to handle the wide variety of responsibilities for monitoring and tracking accidents as well as preparing local police, firefighters and healthcare institutions to adequately respond to emergencies
  • The potential for chemical accidents that local health officials will likely see are unlike anything they have seen before.
 
 
12. THE DRAFT SHOULD PROTECT AGAINST POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
  • We need to make sure that there was no conflict of interest between the state government and the gas industry in preparing the Draft Report.
  • We need full disclosure of how the report was created, including where the information came from and who was consulted.
  • There has been a history of government employees getting lucrative jobs in the gas industry. 
  • We would like a requirement in the report that no high level government employee can work for the gas companies for at least 4 years.
 
13. THE DRAFT SHOULD STIPULATE THAT ALL ACCIDENTS RELATED TO GAS DRILLING NEED TO BE REGULATED
  • The current plan says that only the accidents that happen at the drill site will be regulated. This is unacceptable! All accidents that happen in relationship to the gas drilling process should be regulated. If toxic chemicals are spilled from a truck or if drilling wastewater contaminates our drinking supply, these will have the same horrific impacts on our health and the environment as the accidents that happen right at the drill head.
  • According to the DEP Briefing to the NYC Water Board on the Natural Gas Impact Assessment Project, September 25, 2009 Failures compiled from eight formations/states (PA, LA, TX, AR, WY, NM, CO, KY) focused on analogous shale formations. Failures occurred for all activities. Human error was a leading cause when cause was determined
  • The same report states that systemic failures generally related to lack of regulation (e.g., use of unlined wastewater pits)
 
14. THE DRAFT NEEDS TO MAKE CLEAR WHO WILL BE LIABLE IF OUR WATER IS CONTAMINATED
  • The DEC and the gas industry says that there is no realistic threat that gas drilling will contaminate our water, however they have not made clear who will have the liability should that happen.
  • The cost of environmental cleanup is far more expensive than the cost of environmental protection.
  • People who question this document have been called environmental radicals, but there is nothing radical about wanting clean water and air.
  • Gas has been here for 300 million years. Until we can bring it out safely, it should stay there.
 
15. THE DRAFT SHOULD REQUIRE THAT THE GAS COMPANIES ADHERE TO THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
  • So far the gas companies have been successful and the drilling processes are exempted from many of the federal environmental laws created to safeguard public water — including the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  • This lack of regulation has been excused by our national priorities to control climate change and become energy independent since burning gas emits less greenhouse gas than burning oil. 
  • However, getting gas out of the ground is anything but clean - there can no excuse for not having regulations to monitor our water and air.
  • The gas company’s assertions that hydraulic fracturing is safe run counter to the thousands of documented cases of the contamination of drinking water supplies, streams and aquifers and even residential wells across the country where there has been intensive drilling.
  • At the very least hydraulic fracturing requires further comprehensive study to determine the relative risk and best practices.
» login or register to post comments