Proposed Draft Regulations Addressing Hydraulic Fracturing and Additional Clarifying Amendments

8,687 results

Submitted By

8903 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Faith Zerbe

3/30/18 @ 10:08 AM

please see comments to the regulations. thank you for your time.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Rick Wyble

3/30/18 @ 10:00 AM

Dear Commission, I write to oppose the Commission's proposal that effectively bans natural gas development in the Delaware River Basin region. Our nation's public policies---at all levels of government---must be based on evidence, science, and...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Green Delaware (Alan Muller)

3/30/18 @ 9:59 AM

Green Delaware supports the proposal to prohibit High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in the Delaware River basin, and to impose strict controls on the use of water in drilling and the subsequent management of produced water. This subject has received a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Elise Kucirka Salahub

3/30/18 @ 9:59 AM

Delaware River Basin Commission Members Please read how seriously others are considering the deleterious impacts of processing or storing fracked waste water near our water resources: Finally, some people might be listening to the wisdom of Nativ...↓e Americans. Thank you to the Seneca Nation and also to Dr. John Stolz for his never-ending work. http://www.wben.com/articles/coudersport-council-rejects-proposed-wastewater-treatment-plant Coudersport Council Rejects Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Senecas say plant could harm Allegheny River Tom Puckett March 22, 2018 - 2:42 pm AddThis Sharing Buttons Share to EmailShare to Google BookmarkShare to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to More Categories: Local News Salamanca, NY (WBEN) On the same day the Seneca Nation hosted a conference on meeting to discuss concerns over the dangers a proposed wastewater treatment plant would present, the Coudersport Borough Council rejected the plan. The Borough Council voted 5-1 opposing a proposed wastewater treatment plant that would allow for the transport, treatment and release of thousands of gallons of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) into the Allegheny River. The proposed facility would be located in Eulalia Township, at the river's headwaters. "We were very happy to learn of this latest action, by yet another government defending the river from what we believe is a dangerous plan," said Seneca Nation President Todd Gates. "The risk of contamination along the river, and the potential environmental and health risks it could impose, simply should not be tolerated." "The headwaters of the Allegheny River are some of the purest I have tested. They need to be protected," Dr. John Stolz, director of the Center for Environmental Research and Education at Duquesne University said at the Seneca Nation's meeting. "We have learned from other brine treatment facilities operating in the Allegheny basin that their discharges have degraded the water quality." "The health of the river, and the health of those who will come after us, is not negotiable," President Gates added. "We hope that the members of the Coudersport Area Municipal Authority and the Pennsylvania DEP do the right thing and let our beautiful waters continue to flow free of fracking contamination." --------------------------------------------------- From: L Barr Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:21 AM Subject: Frack Waste Treatment Facility Coudersport Wednesday, March 21, 2018 Coudersport Borough Council Votes 5-1 Against Frack Wastewater Facility Seneca Media & Communications Center 14 mins · Seneca Nation Conservation staff attended the Coudersport Borough Council meeting tonight and sent us this very encouraging report: Borough has voted 5-1 against the wastewater treatment facility. The CAMA board will be receiving a letter from the Borough Board suggesting that they cease all pursuit of building facility moving forward. The Borough Board actually appoints 3 of the CAMA Board Members. #defendohiyo #protectourwater 3/21/2018 SENECA NATION HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCE ON PROTECTING OHI:YO': Seneca Media & Communications Center

No attachments

Comment From: Environmental Advocates of New... (Elizabeth Moran)

3/30/18 @ 9:58 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Louise Usechak

3/30/18 @ 9:57 AM

http://dockets.drbc.commentinput.com/?id=PGChb It would be unconscionable for the DRBC to allow the valuable water resources of the Delaware River Basin to be exported from a watershed which already has overwhelming demands on it and on which ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Regina Cornwell

3/30/18 @ 9:57 AM

Regina Cornwell [email protected] 917-379-6985 Comment on Part 440—Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale and other Formations In opposition to Part 440 as it stands and in support of a total ban on hydraulic fracturing (HF) of all sizes, not on...↓ly high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), and all related activities including wastewater processing and discharges from and water withdrawals for drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations through the Delaware River Watershed. Below I point to some of the reasons for my opposition: It defies logic to claim to oppose HVHF, but not to oppose all hydraulic fracturing. Both must be banned. It further defies logic and is dangerous to ban HF without banning all produced water and wastewater from and all water withdrawals for HF operations from the Delaware River Watershed. The Commission claims to "discourage" practices referring to transfer from the Basin "surface water, groundwater, treated wastewater or mine drainage water, at any rate or volume, for utilization in hydraulic fracturing...." But the Commission leaves wide open its willingness to approve exceptions with a docket and possible evaluation. 440.4 "Discourage" is used again, this time referring to importing produced water and wastewater (as CWT waterwater) into the Basic. But under certain conditions "at any volume or rate" it can be done with approval by the Commission given to the centralized wastewater treatment facility (CWT) operator located within the Basin. 440.5 (b) (e) (I & 2) For approval of the above, "therein lies the rub". Commission requires the "sponsor" involved to identify and submit a list of all of the "proposed" sources of produced water and CWT wastewater followed by one or more treatability study submitted to the Commission. The sponsor selects a professional licensed engineer in the state(s) where the CWT facilities doing the work are located. All studies are paid for by the company requesting exemption from the regulations. There are serious problems in requirements for the study which are listed in six points. 440.5 (f) (1 to 6) First, the hydraulic fracturing and its related industries are exempt from reporting all of its chemical and other products used in HF under the protection of Confidential Business Information. (CBI) As a consequence, all of the chemicals and other substances in pollutants of concern are not available. In a study conducted by Harvard of "well-by-well fracking chemical disclosures submitted to the NGO FracFocus, between approximately March 2011 and April 2015", at least "one chemical identity" was withheld from 92 percent of the disclosures on the grounds of CBI. Today FracFocus in the largest repository of "chemical disclosure information" with data from more than 127,000 wells in the US. The EPA notes that when chemicals are claimed as CBI there is no "public" way of assessing information on them. The agency goes on to say that some chemical mixtures, disclosed or found in produced water, lack information on what affects "their movement, persistence, and toxicity in the environment should they be spilled." The Delaware Riverkeeper Network goes on to point out how totally chancy it would be to proceed, considering public health and the environment. It adds: It also raises questions about how water treatment facilities would be able to treat fracking wastewater if neither they nor EPA know what's in it". Save when quoting from the Part 440, the information on the Harvard Study and from the EPA is from the "Delaware Riverkeeper Network Talking Points: DRBC Frack Ban Campaign" There is much more to be refuted from the assumptions the Commission is making about the answers it will receive from treatability studies. There is extreme danger to the quality and quantity for safe drinking water supplies when tainted by use for the HF industry. Others will point out more of the problems. Before I miss the deadline, one more point: The environment, including all of its ecosystems, the life and beauty of the Delaware River Basin and Watershed, the health of all who live near, and the water this precious river supply to 17 million or more people and to businesses, large and small, cannot be held up and destroyed by the hydraulic fracturing industry as it has done in other places in this and other regions around the country and abroad. Please ban all hydraulic fracturing and its threats to our water for perpetuity. Please rewrite Part 440 into a Ban. Thank you, Regina Cornwell

No attachments

Comment From: Shirley Masuo

3/30/18 @ 9:57 AM

Regarding NATURAL GAS JOBS vs GREEN & TOURISM jobs: My name is Shirley Masuo and I live in the DRB in Shohola, PA. I also work in the DRB in Narrowsburg, NY. The organization I work with is currently conducting a survey of the people who have been...↓ impacted by natural gas activity all over the country. These surveys and the supporting documents to back up what these people are reporting, have been sent to, and officially recorded by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) - a part of the CDC. The ATSDR has in turn, sent this information to the PA Department of Health, which is now also making a registry of them and interviewing the survey-takers to verify what is in the surveys. One of the questions in our survey is on quality of life. Almost all survey-takers have noted a diminishment of tourism in their area since the gas industry came and began working. Below is a report on jobs in relation to gas drilling in PA. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All the fracking processes and infrastructure, degrade health - human, regional environmental and global health - but today I will speak about economic health in relation to those same fossil fuel processes. In considering the Delaware River Basin's economic health which has been relatively unencumbered by drilling since 2008. In the Kauffman report, on the DRBC website, Kauffman adds up the value (in 2011) of the Basin - It's $51 billion per year and natural capitol of $683 billion. - without drilling! What would happen in the Delaware Basin if drilling was allowed? - a boom and a bust! with permanent damages as happens everywhere that allows itself to become a resource colony. Let's look at what actually happened in Pennsylvania even with the abandonment of an ecotourism, hospitality initiative, called PA Wilds in order to embrace the boom and bust of the gas industry. Over the ten years from 2007 to 2017 drilling industry jobs went up - and then down! WHILE leisure hospitality jobs went steadily up!. through a few years of 'boom' to a bust in a typical boom-bust bell curve - leaving total drilling, mining and logging jobs just a little higher than in 2007 - from about 20 to 23 thousand in the state. The leisure, hospitality sector, however has grown steadily - a straight line upward growth - and at orders of magnitude larger - from 2007's 498 thousand to 571 thousand in 2017. Would it have grown even more if the PA Wilds promotion effort, advertising and focus not been withdrawn in order to facilitate the gas industry? Experts think so. ------------------------------------------ http://nj.gov/drbc/library/documents/SocioeconomicValueDRB-UDEL-FinalRpt.pdf From Kaufman Report Executive Summary: The Delaware Basin's water supplies, natural resources, and ecosystems in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and a small sliver of Maryland: Contribute $22 billion in annual economic activity from recreation, water quality, water supply, hunting/fishing, ecotourism, forest, agriculture, open space, and port benefits. 1 Provide ecosystem goods and services (natural capital) of $21 billion per year in 2010 dollars with net present value (NPV) of $683 billion discounted over 100 years. 2 Are directly/indirectly responsible for 600,000 jobs with $10 billion in annual wages. Jobs and PA Wilds material for this comment came from: JOBS - two paths diverged - by Jon Bogle, Williamsport, PA compiled from Bureau of Labor Statistics - including the graphs below Leisure and Hospitality All Employees, In Thousands - Pennsylvania - Statewide Mining and Logging - including petroleum and gas extraction jobs All Employees, In Thousands - Pennsylvania - Statewide

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: David Garney

3/30/18 @ 9:57 AM

No attachments

Comment From: ken sommerhalter

3/30/18 @ 9:56 AM

Please do NOT allow the pollution of our water.

No attachments

Comment From: Wendy Robinson

3/30/18 @ 9:56 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Sierra Club of DE (Coralie Pryde)

3/30/18 @ 9:55 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Henry Restaino

3/30/18 @ 9:55 AM

Dear Commission, I write as a member of America's energy industry to say that I strongly oppose the DRBC's proposed rule to severely limit and thereby effectively ban hydraulic fracturing within your jurisdiction. Our industry serves the natio...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Faith Zerbe)

3/30/18 @ 9:53 AM

Dear Commissioners and Mr. Tambini, Please see the supplemental filing and report by Delaware Riverkeeper Network. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: David Garney

3/30/18 @ 9:53 AM

Dear Commission, I am writing today to voice my strong opposition to the Delaware River Basin Commission's (DRBC's) proposed rules to severely restrict---and therefore effectively ban---hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and horizontal drilling wi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: zsuzsa palotas

3/30/18 @ 9:53 AM

As one of the 1.3 million supporters of the National Parks Conservation Association, I support and applaud the Delaware River Basin Commission's (DRBC) proposed ban on high volume hydraulic fracking within the Delaware River Basin. Here in the Del...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Garney

3/30/18 @ 9:51 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Natural Resources Defense Coun... (Kimberly Ong)

3/30/18 @ 9:50 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Karen BATT

3/30/18 @ 9:49 AM

I am writing to voice my views on the Delaware River and fracking. I am totally against fracking, and am also against waste exports and wastewater disposal in our drinking water! Our Delaware River provides drinking water to millions of people...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Henry Restaino

3/30/18 @ 9:49 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Ryan Florek

3/30/18 @ 9:48 AM

Fracking in the Delaware River Basin is a massive public safety concern. The health affects are untold, between air pollution and the ground/water pollution to those living in the area. It also put the entire region along the basin, which includes m...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kathleen Steele

3/30/18 @ 9:48 AM

Dear Brigadier General William H Graham, governor Murphy, governor Cuomo, Governor Wolf, and governor Carney, I am writing to you during the public comment period of the Delaware river basin commission. Thank you for your proposal to ban hydraulic fr...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sierra Club PA Chapter (Tom Torres)

3/30/18 @ 9:48 AM

Attached are comments on behalf of the Sierra Club PA Chapter's members and supporters.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Dusty Horwitt

3/30/18 @ 9:47 AM

A PDF OF THESE COMMENTS IS ATTACHED THAT INCLUDES FOOTNOTES Written Comments by Partnership for Policy Integrity to the Delaware River Basin Commission Concerning Special Regulations Regarding Natural Gas Development Activities Submitted Ma...↓rch 30, 2018 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Delaware River Basin Commission's proposed regulations that would prohibit high volume hydraulic fracturing in shale and other rock formations in the basin, set standards for the management in the basin of wastewater from fracking, and set standards for exports from the basin of freshwater for fracking. Partnership for Policy Integrity is a nonprofit organization that focuses on energy and environmental policy. For the past three years, we have investigated the EPA's regulation of new chemicals used in drilling and fracking and published a major report about our findings in 2016 entitled Toxic Secrets. This fall, Marketplace on NPR broadcast a two-part story on our investigation. Also this fall, Elsevier published a textbook, Environmental Issues Concerning Hydraulic Fracturing, Vol. 1, that included a chapter on hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure by our Senior Counsel, Dusty Horwitt. Horwitt has spent more than a decade researching oil and gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing. He has testified about drilling issues before several government bodies including four times before the New York City Council regarding the risks to the city's drinking water from high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River Basin. Based on our recent findings about the widespread use of secret and potentially harmful drilling and fracking chemicals, mounting evidence about additional risks, and significant data gaps, we support the Delaware River Basin Commission's proposal to prohibit high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the basin. Recent decisions and statements by New York State and the state of Maryland are consistent with this position. We also urge the commission to prohibit wastewater disposal, water withdrawals and other related activities. We are not convinced that the proposed protections for wastewater disposal or water withdrawals would be sufficient to protect drinking water quantity or quality in the basin. The Delaware River Basin is a critically important watershed. Most significantly, it provides drinking water for more than 15 million people, including those who live in New York City and Philadelphia. To be sure, extracting natural gas from the basin through high-volume fracking would likely generate tax revenue and a modest number of jobs. However, the costs of contaminated drinking water alone would likely outweigh these benefits, particularly if the water were difficult or impossible to clean up. The likelihood of such a catastrophic scenario is unknown, but the risk is too great considering the large number of highly toxic and unknown chemicals associated with drilling and fracking. Allowing high-volume hydraulic fracturing and related activities in the basin amounts to a huge gamble with one of our nation's major drinking water supplies. Background Hydraulic fracturing typically involves the underground injection into oil and gas wells at high pressure of a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals. The fluid fractures underground rock formations, liberating trapped oil and/or natural gas. High volume hydraulic fracturing as defined by the commission involves the use of a combined total of 300,000 gallons or more of water in all stages of well completion whether a well is vertical or horizontal. If allowed, fracking could occur in about 40 percent of the basin that is located in New York and Pennsylvania and sits above the Marcellus and Utica shales. As the commission notes, these formations are known to contain natural gas. West of the basin, drilling companies are extracting oil and natural gas from these formations using high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which combines directional (typically horizontal) drilling and hydraulic fracturing using large quantities of water. The commission states that it is unknown whether the Marcellus and Utica shales within the basin contain "commercially viable" natural gas. Because New York banned high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) in 2014 due to uncertainties about health impacts and whether such impacts could be reduced or prevented, drilling in these formations could currently occur only in Pennsylvania's portion of the basin, namely in Carbon, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe, Pike, Schuylkill, Sullivan, and Wayne counties. The commission adds that "the South Newark basin formation, which underlies portions of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, may also contain oil and gas deposits capable of development by HVHF." The Commission's Ban on High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing is Justified – and There is an Even Stronger Case to be Made The commission makes a compelling case for banning high volume hydraulic fracturing in the basin. Among the reasons provided include the need to acquire large amounts of water for fracturing – 6.5 million gallons per well or more – most of which will be injected underground and not returned to the basin's usable ground or surface water. Such consumptive use of water may adversely affect water quantity, "particularly during periods of low precipitation or drought." The commission cited the potential for spills of chemicals added to fracturing fluid and noted that some of the chemicals' identities are withheld from the public by drilling companies as confidential business information. Such spills can contaminate surface and ground water. Cracks in wells' protective steel casing or cement create a risk that gas or fluids inside the well can leech into nearby ground- and surface water. Disposal of significant quantities of wastewater creates more contamination risks because scientists have found high levels of total dissolved solids and toxic substances in wastewater from the Marcellus shale including carcinogenic benzene and radium. "Because produced water contains high TDS and dissolved inorganic constituents that most publicly owned treatment works and other municipal wastewater treatment facilities are not designed to remove," the commission wrote, "these constituents can be discharged from such facilities; can disrupt treatment processes, for example by inhibiting biological treatment, can accumulate in biosolids (sewage sludge), limiting their beneficial use; and can facilitate the formation of harmful disinfection byproducts." The commission noted that EPA finalized a rule in 2016 that would prohibit publicly owned treatment works from receiving untreated wastewater from "unconventional" formations such as the Marcellus and Utica shales. However, the commission notes that the rule does not extend to commercially owned treatment works that could treat wastewater from the shale formations nor does it extend to discharge of wastewater to publicly owned treatment works after the wastewater has been partially treated at centralized waste treatment facilities. On top of these risks, the commission cites many uncertainties about the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water identified in major reports by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of New York. Partnership for Policy Integrity believes that the case for a ban on fracking in the basin is even stronger based in part on the extensive use of confidential chemicals in drilling and fracking, some of which may be harmful to human health. The commission notes that regarding chemical identities, "in some cases, chemical information is considered Confidential Business information and not disclosed by the fracturing operator (italics added)." However, the use of confidential chemicals is extensive. Drilling companies are required by many oil and gas producing states, including Pennsylvania, to publicly disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Most or all of these states allow companies to withhold chemical identities as confidential. Drilling companies are required to make many of these disclosures available to the public through FracFocus, a nongovernmental organization that is the nation's largest repository for well-by-well hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure data. For example, Pennsylvania requires fracking chemical disclosures to be made to FracFocus for unconventional wells, the type that would be drilled in the Delaware River Basin if high-volume hydraulic fracturing were allowed. EPA analyzed more than 39,000 FracFocus disclosures made between 2011 and 2013 and found that operators withheld the identities of 11 percent of the chemicals disclosed and at least one chemical identity on more than 70 percent of well-by-well disclosures. In a study published in 2015, two Harvard researchers analyzed FracFocus disclosures made between 2013 and 2015 for more than 53,000 wells and found that well operators withheld 16.5 percent of all the Chemical Abstracts Service numbers submitted and withheld at least one chemical identity on 92.3 percent of the well-by-well disclosures. Chemical Abstracts Service numbers, or CAS numbers, are considered the most precise way to identify chemicals because each chemical has only one, whereas chemicals can have multiple names or trade names. Pennsylvania-based FracTracker Alliance recently found similar results when the organization worked with Partnership for Policy Integrity to analyze data from FracFocus for Pennsylvania. The data showed that between 2013 and 2017, hydraulic fracturing injections for 3,702 of 4,525 wells reported to FracFocus from Pennsylvania or almost 82 percent, contained at least one confidential chemical. Drilling companies injected a total of 19,306 confidential chemicals in the 3,702 wells or an average of about five confidential chemicals per well. Some wells received injections of far more confidential chemicals. In Susquehanna County, directly adjacent to the Delaware River Basin, drilling companies injected 16 confidential chemicals per well into three different wells and injected 14 confidential chemicals per well into at least two additional wells. In total, drilling companies injected 3,703 confidential chemicals into 649 wells in Susquehanna County, the second highest county-wide totals in the state. FracTracker found that more than 99 percent of the wells for which fracking chemical disclosure information was reported to FracFocus from Pennsylvania were unconventional wells, according to a comparison between API numbers reported to FracFocus and those reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. API numbers are unique numeric identifiers assigned to each well by the American Petroleum Institute. These figures suggest that if high-volume hydraulic fracturing were allowed in the Delaware River Basin, drilling companies would extensively use confidential chemicals including multiple confidential chemicals per well. It is unacceptable to expose drinking water for 15 million people to such unknown chemicals, especially when EPA has found that fracking chemicals are involved in six of seven steps in the hydraulic fracturing process that EPA concluded are "more likely than others to result in more frequent or more severe impacts" to drinking water. These steps include: • Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; • Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and • Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources. EPA reported that fracking wastewater contains both the chemicals injected in the fracking fluid and naturally occurring constituents from the drilling formation, so confidential chemicals would be a concern both in fracking fluid and wastewater. EPA commented that "when chemicals are claimed as CBI [confidential business information], there is no public means of accessing information on these chemicals. Furthermore, many of the chemicals and chemical mixtures disclosed, or those detected in produced water, lack information on properties affecting their movement, persistence, and toxicity in the environment should they be spilled." These data gaps would leave citizens, scientists, and regulators in the basin guessing as to what pollution or health impacts might result from high-volume hydraulic fracturing. In 10-K forms required to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, drilling companies have disclosed to investors that releases of fluids and water contamination are among the most serious risks facing their businesses. "Oil and natural gas operations are subject to many risks, including well blowouts, cratering, explosions, pipe failures, fires, formations with abnormal pressures, uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas, brine or well fluids, oil spills, severe weather, natural disasters, groundwater contamination and other environmental hazards and risks (italics added)," Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy Corp. recently reported in its 10-K form. "Natural gas, NGLs [natural gas liquids] and oil operations are subject to many risks, including...uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas or well fluids, fires, pipe or cement failures, pipeline ruptures or spills, vandalism, pollution, releases of toxic gases, adverse weather conditions or natural disasters, and other environmental hazards and risks (italics added)," Fort Worth, Texas-based Range Resources Corp. wrote in its 10-K form." Chesapeake noted that its insurance "may not be adequate to cover all losses or exposure to liability" from environmental damages while Range commented that the company "may not be fully covered" by insurance for such damages. These disclosures offer additional evidence that chemicals from hydraulic fracturing would expose the basin to serious pollution and that taxpayers may be largely responsible for cleanup costs. Other information from the EPA suggests that fracking chemicals are likely to be harmful. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, PFPI has conducted a four-year investigation of EPA's health and environmental assessments of new chemicals proposed for use in drilling and fracking under the Toxic Substances Control Act. In 2016, we published some of our conclusions in Toxic Secrets referenced above and have continued to receive documents from EPA that raise concerns about human health risks. EPA records show that between 2003 and 2014, the agency reviewed 126 new drilling and fracking chemicals. EPA identified health concerns for 109 of the chemicals. The agency approved 62 of the chemicals for commercial use that evidence shows or suggests were later used commercially in oil and gas wells despite concerns that the chemicals might harm human health. The agency's health concerns ranged from "irritation to the eye, skin, and mucous membranes" to kidney toxicity, liver toxicity, neurotoxicity, and developmental toxicity. Chemical manufacturers invoked confidentiality claims (allowed under federal law) for 41 of the 62 chemicals that shielded from the public (but not from EPA) the chemicals' specific identities. Using the available data about these chemicals, PFPI searched FracFocus and the other leading fracking chemical disclosure database maintained by the state of California. PFPI was able to document only two of the 41 chemicals as being used in specific oil and gas wells. It is possible that some of these chemicals were used in wells in Pennsylvania and could be used in wells in the Delaware River Basin. However, it is impossible to know whether the same chemicals declared confidential at the state level in FracFocus are the same chemicals declared confidential at the federal level during EPA's review process. In November 2017, a group of more than 100 first responders, health professionals and scientists wrote to EPA requesting that the agency reveal the chemical identities of the 41 chemicals referenced above. The Toxic Substances Control Act requires that confidential chemical identities "shall be disclosed if the Administrator determines that disclosure is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." As of this week, EPA had not responded to the request beyond an acknowledgment that it was received. Another major problem facing regulators and citizens concerning drilling and fracking chemicals is that the chemicals' toxicities are often unknown. In its national study of fracking and drinking water, EPA identified 1,606 chemicals in fracking fluid or drilling wastewater including 1,084 identified in fracking fluid and 599 identified in wastewater. Yet only 173 of the chemicals had toxicity values from sources that met EPA's standards for conducting risk assessments. "This missing information represents a significant data gap that makes it difficult to fully understand the severity of potential impacts on drinking water resources," the agency wrote. For the 173 chemicals that had significant toxicity data, EPA found that "health effects associated with chronic oral exposure to these chemicals include carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, immune system effects, changes in body weight, changes in blood chemistry, liver and kidney toxicity, and reproductive and developmental toxicity." EPA did not mention that the agency's own failure to request health testing for new chemicals proposed for oil and gas drilling and regulated by EPA contributed to the lack of information about chemical risks. From 2009 and 2017, the GAO consistently included EPA's chemical review program on a list of federal government programs at highest risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement partly because of the lack of health testing data used to regulate chemicals. The GAO issues the list every two years at the beginning of each new Congress. In our investigation of EPA's regulation of new chemicals proposed for use in drilling and fracking, we found that manufacturers said they submitted health testing data for only 21 of 126 chemicals and in only six of those cases were the data clearly available in the public record. EPA asked for health testing data for only 10 chemicals, and in only five of those cases were the data present in the public record and relevant to the agency's health concerns. This record gives us little confidence that EPA will soon act to identify and protect the public from risks associated with drilling and fracking chemicals. Other authorities have banned fracking due to the significant risks and uncertainties involved. As mentioned previously, in 2014, New York State banned high-volume hydraulic fracturing citing uncertainties about harms and how to prevent them. In 2016, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan signed a ban on hydraulic fracturing passed by the state legislature, concluding "that possible environmental risks of fracking outweigh any potential benefit." The Delaware River Basin Commission is wise to take similar action. Allowing high-volume fracking activities in the basin would amount to a huge gamble with people's health. The Commission Should Also Prohibit Wastewater Importation Into the Basin The Commission has proposed to allow the treatment and discharge of fracking wastewater in the basin if it is treated at a centralized waste treatment facility (CWT) and meets other standards. Among the most important of these other requirements are that the project sponsor who wishes to treat and discharge the wastewater conduct an "analysis, characterization and quantification of all pollutants of concern" as defined in an EPA technical document. The sponsor must also show that "the acute and chronic toxicity of the waste, measured as Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET), have been evaluated." Based on the information we have presented previously about confidential chemicals and missing toxicity data, we are skeptical that operators could effectively meet these standards. Part of our concern is that wastewater is likely to contain confidential chemicals that may not appear in EPA's technical document. Therefore, it seems possible that an operator could conduct an analysis of "all pollutants of concern" but fail to analyze confidential chemicals that are not listed in EPA's document – chemicals that might be harmful. In its national study of fracking and drinking water, EPA concluded about centralized waste treatment facilities that "the effectiveness of treatment cannot be evaluated for constituents for which the wastewater has not been tested. This makes it challenging to know the degree to which effluent from a CWT is protective of public health." We are also skeptical that operators would be able to measure the acute and chronic toxicity of the waste when EPA has found toxicity values to be lacking for more than 1,400 chemicals found in fracking fluid or wastewater. In its national study, EPA identified several additional concerns with centralized waste treatment facilities: Historically, CWTs have not included processes to treat for constituents that are difficult to remove, such as the high concentrations of TDS found in wastewater from unconventional reservoirs. As a result, impacts on drinking water resources have included increased suspended solids and chloride concentrations downstream of discharging facilities that were accepting hydraulic fracturing wastewater...and elevated bromide concentrations and radium concentrations in CWT effluent....Even if wastewater could be effectively treated, EPA has found that "spills and leaks can occur in pits or impoundments associated with the storage of treated wastewater at CWTs....Wastewater being transported by truck or pipeline to and from a CWT can also present a vulnerability for spills or leaks...." The EPA added that "even an efficient treatment process may not be able to reduce the concentrations of some constituents to levels that allow for discharge to a drinking water resource if influent concentrations are so high that they exceed the capabilities of the treatment technology(ies) to meet those discharge limits." The agency stated, too, that "relatively few studies describe the ability of individual treatment processes to remove constituents from hydraulic fracturing wastewater." In light of all the uncertainties and risks, the commissions should prohibit or place a moratorium on fracking wastewater importation and discharge. The Commission Should Prohibit Water Withdrawals for Fracking The commission has already expressed concern that water withdrawals for fracking "may adversely affect aquatic ecosystems and river channel and riparian resources downstream, including wetlands, and may diminish the quantity of water stored in an aquifer or a stream's capacity to assimilate pollutants." The commission continued: "Because HVHF operations may significantly increase the volume of water withdrawn in a localized area, they may ultimately upset the balance between the demand on water resources and the availability of those resources for uses protected by the Commission's comprehensive plan, particularly during periods of low precipitation or drought." In addition, the EPA and Susquehanna River Basin Commission have found that 90 and 96 percent of the water used for hydraulic fracturing, respectively, is permanently removed from the water cycle. In contrast, the commission found that 90 percent of water withdrawn from the basin for domestic and commercial uses is returned to the basin. Therefore, water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing are likely to have a particularly adverse effect on water quantity in the basin, especially during times of drought. In addition, evidence shows that the amount of water used to fracture wells near the basin could be significantly higher than the highest nearby average per-well water use reported by the commission, 6.5 million gallons for wells drilled in the Susquehanna River Basin. Such higher water use would be consistent with the commission's observation that "advances in horizontal drilling technology are leading to longer drill paths and the need for more fracturing fluid volumes for each path." FracTracker analyzed FracFocus data and showed that the average water use for each unconventional well fractured in Pennsylvania in 2017 was 11.6 million gallons. This figure may represent a significant increase in water consumption even over the course of a year or two. Data from a report in March 2016 by IHS Global Inc. commissioned by the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that drilling companies were using nearly 8.35 million gallons of water to fracture a typical well in an area of the Marcellus shale known as the "Super Core" located just west of the basin in Pennsylvania. Companies were using 3.7 million gallons in another nearby area known as the "Northeast Core." In the "Periphery" area located across a swath of central Pennsylvania, drilling companies were fracturing typical wells with 10.19 million gallons of fluid, IHS found. And in areas of southwest Pennsylvania, drilling companies were using more than eight million gallons of water per well. These figures suggest that if drilling companies withdrew water from the basin for fracking, the withdrawals might be far greater than currently anticipated. We understand that water withdrawals from the basin are discouraged, and that any proposed withdrawals would be carefully evaluated. However, the drilling industry's demand for water is growing, and any withdrawals are likely to mean a permanent removal of water from a basin that 15 million people depend on for drinking water. The commission has identified risks to water quantity should such withdrawals occur. We therefore encourage the commission to prohibit or place a moratorium on such withdrawals. Conclusion For the stated reasons, we support the commission's proposal to ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing and believe that the commission should prohibit or place a moratorium on fracking wastewater disposal and water withdrawals for fracking. We are happy to answer any questions that you might have and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. Sincerely, Dusty Horwitt Senior Counsel Partnership for Policy Integrity 1301 S. Walter Reed Dr.; #204 Arlington, VA 22204 571-982-3778 [email protected]

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Damascus Citizens for Sustaina... (Jeff Zimmerman)

3/30/18 @ 9:45 AM

Each of the member states of the Delaware River Basin Commission is subject to the public trust doctrine as is the Commission itself. These obligations arise either explicitly, such as the Environmental Rights Amendment in Article 1 Section 27 of t...↓he Pennsylvania Constitution (see Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A. 3d 901, 950-51 (Pa. 2013)(plurality); Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth, (Pa., June, 20, 2017), or as a matter of statutory or common law in other DRBC member states. The Pennsylvania constitutional provision (Section 27) provides: "The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people." In the current proposal of new regulations that would apply to oil and gas development related to the Basin and its resources, we are pleased to see the Commission will be prohibiting gas production utilizing high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF). However we are concerned that the proposed regulations may not apply to prevent what is known as "conventional" wells that may not apply HVHF technology. We also are quite concerned that the proposed rules in conjunction with the recently adopted "one process/one permit" ("OP/OP") rule could be applied to authorizing activities involving gas development, such as allowance of facilities to treat waste liquids generated by conventional or HVHF production permitted in other Commission member states such as Pennsylvania. For instance, we are quite concerned that the proposed rules could be interpreted to allow waste liquids and solids to be imported into the Basin for treatment and disposal. Of great concern is whether practices such as "brine" disposal by dumping or spraying waste liquids and solids produced by HVHF or other gas production operations outside the Basin on to unpaved roads located in the Basin. Much of this disposal by "brine" spreading is allowed in many townships in Pennsylvania as a "beneficial use" to control dust or "stabilize" un-paved roads. First, there is nothing to support the characterization of this practice as a "beneficial use." Secondly, it does not actually even function to control dust, but rather creates more dust - dust that includes toxic materials. This "brine" material is just as toxic as the materials and wastes that should be banned under the proposed new rules. Second, the ban that is proposed for HVHF wells must be extended to ban all oil and gas drilling and brine spreading or other waste management practices that could introduce into the Basin the toxic waste materials produced outside the Basin. On this issue, we have attached for your information a report prepared by HydroQuest on the so-called "beneficial use" of oil and gas development wastes. See attached Hydroquest Brine document. The proposed regulations must be read in conjunction with the recently adopted "OP/OP" rule. This rule is being relied on as the basis for a significant number of projects that would be reviewed under the DRBC docket process if the OP/OP was not applied to those projects. Among the currently pending projects under this rule in New Jersey is an application by DuPont to re-open the Chemours treatment facility to accept wastes from out-of-Basin oil and gas development projects. Under the public trust obligations of the Commission and the involved member states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey the Chemours project should be rejected because the ban on oil and gas development under the proposed rules should be applied to all aspects of the oil and gas process. This avoidance of the use of the DRBC docket process if the OP/OP process is in effect may very well violate the Delaware River Basin Compact. In conclusion, the proposed rule should be expanded to assure that all aspects of oil and gas activity are banned in the Basin. We have seen an alarming increase of adverse health effects in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio where oil and gas development continues to expand. See, Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction),(Concerned Health Professionals of NY, March 13, 2018). See, http://concernedhealthny.org/ We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. If you have any questions please contact us. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Zimmerman, DCS Attorney Barbara Arrindell, DCS Director

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Henry Restaino

3/30/18 @ 9:45 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Amy Lauren

3/30/18 @ 9:44 AM

Do not drill the Delaware River! We've seen the costly and permanent environmental damage that this kind of drilling can lead to. Residents are deeply concerned and angered over the potential fracking happening in their backyards. This is our home an...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Delaware Riverkeeper Network (Matthew McCann)

3/30/18 @ 9:41 AM

Please find attached three documents further demonstrating the dangers of frack wastewater. The first attachment (entitled EPA Consent Order) is an Administrative Order for Compliance on Consent between the EPA and Fluid Recovery Services, Inc., Hart...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Joe Birbeck

3/30/18 @ 9:40 AM

I am writing to express my opposition to hydraulic fracking and all related activities in the area surrounding the Delaware River Basin. Such activity puts our drinking water at risk. It is also a risk to all wildlife that depends on the river incl...↓

No attachments

Comment From: John Duffin

3/30/18 @ 9:39 AM

Please ban Fracking in the Delaware River Basin.

No attachments

Comment From: Lew Herndon

3/30/18 @ 9:39 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Dominick Carnevale

3/30/18 @ 9:35 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Nolting

3/30/18 @ 9:32 AM

As a New Yorker and a member of Environmental Advocates of New York, I strongly urge the Delaware River Basin Commission to use their rulemaking process on Hydraulic Fracturing to ban fracking and all associated processes from taking place in the bas...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Karen Frock

3/30/18 @ 9:31 AM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed draft regulations addressing hydraulic fracturing and additional clarifying amendments. Please see the attached PDF.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Ian Kinniburgh

3/30/18 @ 9:30 AM

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposal that DRBC impose a complete and permanent ban on fracking within its geographical area, but also to argue that the proposed action by DRBC is incomplete and totally inadequate. In addition t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tracy Marotta

3/30/18 @ 9:30 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Adele Wolfe

3/30/18 @ 9:28 AM

How can dumping toxic frack waste water in the river basin even be considered??!! This water includes hundreds of "exempt chemicals," including radioactive materials. The proposed treatment hasn't previously removed them and the particles, so exactly...↓

No attachments

Comment From: New Jersey League of Conservat... (Eva Piatek)

3/30/18 @ 9:28 AM

I am submitting comments on behalf of 2,191 of our organizations' members. Please see the attached document.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Daniela Carnevale

3/30/18 @ 9:27 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Ann Kimball

3/30/18 @ 9:26 AM

I am against hydraulic fracking and all related activities that impact the Delaware River and its watershed. The prposal to dump toxic waste water into the Delaware watershed for disposal risks the contamination of our ground water and drinking water...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jeffrey Broadhead

3/30/18 @ 9:25 AM

No attachments