Dear Commissioner Martens
The previous draft of the SGEIS on horizontal hydrofracking failed to address some essential aspects of the activity
It either simply ignored or glossed over them.
I urge the DEC to address all the major life cycle aspects of horizontal hydrofracking of shale.
Not simply the narrow range of topics that are legacies from the pre HHF GEIS.
For instance:
1. The SGEIS ignores local land uses and land use ordinances.
While the SGEIS addresses set-backs from buildings and wells, it does not take local land use into consideration.
An applicant for a HHF shale gas well should show that the well location conforms to local land use ordinances.
Conformance with local land use is required in a mining permit; the same conformance should be required for a HHF permit.
Local land use ordinances can more effectively address issues that the SGEIS is blind to - such as residential mortgage guidelines.
Without such local safeguards, shale gas industrialization would be devastating on some communities.
http://my.brainshark.com/Why-Home-Rule-Matters-133909146
2. Final disposition of frack waste flowback is not adequately addressed.
The last draft mentioned re-use and treatment, but gave no indication of where or how frack waste flowback is to be safely disposed of.
The state has 8 permitted disposal wells, 4 of which are active, none of which take fracking waste flow back.
The closest permitted disposal wells are in Ohio.
The SGEIS should require proof of final disposal of the flow back before issuing a permit for a HHF shale gas well.
3. Funding for state regulatory oversight and environmental mediation is not addressed at all.
The regulation of oil and gas production is typically self-funded via a severance tax.
Absent such a tax in New York, there is no separate funding source for the DEC's regulation of the activity.
Without adequate funding, the DEC will not be able to adequately regulate HHF of shale gas.
Regulation of the activity will be an unfunded burden on the Department.
4. Frack waste is being trucked in from out of state and dumped in NYS municipal waste water treatment plants.
None of these plants were designed to remove the toxic chemicals and NORMS found in shale frack waste.
Such a practice is illegal in other states - notably Texas and Pennsylvania.
Municipal waste water treatment plants should not be allowed to take frack waste.
5. NYS water will be given away without adequate over-sight regarding the end use.
The Water Withdrawal Bill has a "loophole" that would allow unlimited amounts of water to be withdrawn from NYS lakes and rivers
For free without a permit. In Texas, it's illegal to withdraw more than 25,000 gpd from your own property without a permit.
Free water from rivers and lakes is unheard of.
The bill allows any "entity" to withdraw up to 100,000 gpd for free without a permit. That's about 10 tanker truck loads.
Any trucking company could qualify as an entity.
10 contract truckers could withdraw 1,000,000 gallons a day for an end use - a fracking operation.
The word "entity" should be changed to "end user" or "end use" to close this loophole.
6. All watersheds should be given equal standing under the regulations.
The proposed special treatment of NYC reservoir watersheds is without scientific merit.
No municipal water filters in NYS are designed to filter the known pollutants from HHF industrialization.
All municipal drinking water should be given the protections proposed for NYC's reservoirs.
7. Compulsory Integration should not be applied to horizontal hydrofracking.
Applying Compulsory Pooling to horizontal laterals is a complete misapplication of gas field unitization.
Invoking compulsory pooling to extend a lateral would be a travesty of property rights.
http://my.brainshark.com/Why-Home-Rule-Matters-133909146
I urge the DEC to look at HHF in a more comprehensive manner.
Not simply attempt to graft the proposed regulations for this evolving technology onto the outmoded GEIS.
Regards
James N