 |
| active Marcellus well, Bradford County, PA |
Nearly two weeks ago, the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) released their Final
SGEIS. Weighing in at 2,000 pages – about 20 pounds – this report lays the
groundwork for what many believe will be a statewide ban on high volume
hydraulic fracturing.
The SGEIS
(Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement) on high-volume horizontal
hydraulic fracturing supplements the existing environmental impact statement
for oil, gas, and solution mining that was adopted in 1992. The original
scoping document called for an SGEIS to address just a handful of issues that
hydraulic fracturing would present including increased water use for drilling
and the impacts of multiple wells at a single well pad.
Over the
years the document grew as its scope expanded. Now, with the completion of the SGEIS,
there is just one more official step in meeting the State’s Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA): issue a formal “findings statement”. The “findings
statement” is legally binding and cannot be issued any sooner than 10 days
after the release of the Final SGEIS.
What’s
different about the Final SGEIS, besides its heft, is the amount of effort that
DEC put in to gather comments from medical and public health professionals,
environmental organizations, municipalities, industry groups, and other members
of the public; the review of the state Department of Health report; and a review
drilling incidents in Pennsylvania.
Here’s what you’ll find when you crack open
its covers:
In chapter
two, DEC notes that, if allowed, hydro-fracking would impact areas not
previously exposed to oil and gas development. Furthermore, ancillary activities
associated with drilling activities “would likely spread to those areas of the state
where high-volume hydraulic fracturing is prohibited.”
Chapter
six focuses on environmental impacts. DEC acknowledges uncertainty about the
effectiveness of mitigation; the inability to quantify potential risks and
impacts to environment and public health; and that some significant adverse
impacts simply can’t be avoided. They
list potential impacts on water resources, ecosystems, wildlife, air resources,
local communities, local economies, and transportation. DEC also brings up additional
concerns about radioactive materials that are released during drilling and the
potential for man-made earthquakes. When considering drilling’s impact on greenhouse
gases, DEC cites New York’s long-term policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions through a reduction – not an increase – in reliance on fossil fuels.
Despite
the weaknesses inherent in mitigating potential harm from intensive
industrialized drilling, DEC outlines seven possible measures. These steps
include prohibiting hydro-fracking in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds,
fracking within a 500-foot buffer area above primary aquifers, and mandatory disclosure
of ingredients in fracking fluids. The DEC specifically points to the lack of
evidence showing that high-volume hydro-fracking can be done “without posing
unreasonable risk to human health.”
At the end
of the process, DEC Commissioner Joseph Martens must file a findings statement
that describes how the state moves forward. The Final SGEIS provides three
alternatives: no action, a phased-permitting approach, or allowing green and non-chemical
fracking technologies and additives. Many think it’s likely that Martens will choose the “no
action alternative”, especially given Cuomo’s statement in December calling for
a ban. Under the “no action” alternative, DEC would deny applications for hydro-fracking
that uses more than 300,000 gallons of water. High-volume hydraulic fracturing,
which uses 5 – 7 million gallons of water per well, would not be allowed.
