DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
DRBC Must Regulate and Review - 10 TEST WELLS in the Watershed.

LETTER FROM NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TO DRBC

LETTER FROM INTERIOR DEPARTMENT TO DRBC

DRBC’s May 19, 2009 press release eliminating review thresholds for shale gas projects defined exploratory wells as follows:  “Wells intended solely for exploratory purposes are not covered by this determination.  An exploratory well is one that the project sponsor intends to plug and cap at the conclusion of exploratory activities without use for production or fracking.  Exploratory wells are subject to state regulation.”

This definition is meaningless if wells can be reclassified after the fact.

Press reports indicate that 10 such wells are now proposed, up from an initial four.

The concept of exploratory wells as non-production wells exists only for DRBC.

PA DEP permits are standard “drill and operate” permits.

PA DEP geologist Jason Shoemaker, Scranton Times-Tribune, 3/24/10: "Some call them exploration, but they're going to produce them for sure."

Range Resources 1^st quarter 2010 results say that initial results on two test wells “are encouraging and both wells are currently awaiting pipeline connection.”

 Allowing test wells to proceed without DRBC review creates an internally inconsistent policy – an exception that swallows the rule.

• Under DRBC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Section 2.3.4.E, there can be “no substantial construction activity” on any project requiring Commission approval, subject to certain exemptions not applicable here.
• The test well loophole is being used precisely to avoid this rule:  by completing substantial construction activity prior to DRBC oversight, drillers appear to want to create “facts on the ground,” limiting DRBC to a take-it-or-leave-it choice when DRBC review commences near the end, NOT THE BEGINNING, of the drilling process.
• These wells entail very substantial construction activity – construction of well pad, drilling of borehole to the depth of the shale, and in at least one case horizontal drilling also (Teeple).
• DRBC defined natural gas exploration activities requiring DRBC approval quite broadly:  “the drilling pad upon which a well intended for eventual production is located, all accompanying facilities and related activities, and all locations of water withdrawals used or to be used to supply water to the project.”
• In its letter to Stone Energy dated June 6, 2008 (Matoushek Well), DRBC made clear that no impoundments, drilling, or other substantial activities could occur prior to DRBC approval.  This announcement – unlike the test well exemption – is in keeping with DRBC Rule 2.3.4.E (“no substantial construction”) quoted above.

 Remember Robson:  test wells pose real risks.

• Robson Well produced a line of defoliated trees very near a pond, due to an undetermined “weathered petroleum product.”  (“Weathered” because it had gone unremediated and unreported for a substantial period of time.)  Chesapeake never reported the spill and PA DEP responded only after DCS (Pat!) rented a private plane to take aerial photos.  This shows as well that PA DEP oversight will not protect the quality of these designated Special Protection Waters.
• Again, 14 of them are now proposed – and because of the absence of DRBC review, there is NO UPPER LIMIT on how many such test wells there can be.
• DRBC review is founded on both water quality and water quantity issues; if water quantity were the only issue, there would be no need to regulate “all aspects” of natural gas extraction.
• In removing the water withdrawal threshold triggering jurisdiction over shale gas exploration activities, DRBC asserted review over “all aspects” of natural gas drilling, and specifically recognized that “each of these activities” associated with natural gas production poses risks to the waters of the Basin.  Test wells present most of these same risks:  toxic and/or radioactive produced water and drill cuttings, erosion and sedimentation issues associated with well pad construction.

IN SUM, the test well concept is a ruse that allows gas drillers to remove a large portion of their activities from DRBC oversight – despite the risks they pose and despite DRBC’s clear intention to regulate those risks.  The policy is a mistake – a loophole with unintended consequences that must now be closed.

Therefore we urgently request the DRBC review the proposed 14 test wells [5 of which will be hydro-fracked] within the Delaware Watershed. The Delaware River Basin Commission must fulfill its mandate to protect the "special protection" waters of the Basin including requiring an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The oil and gas industries alone enjoy exemptions from all important federal environmental regulations. Accordingly, the residents of the Upper Delaware and, indeed the river itself, depend largely on DRBC to protect water resources from this significant change in use. According to the DRBC Water Quality Regulations (18 CFI Part 410), Section 3.10.3(A)(2), waters within the Upper Delaware are Special Protection Waters (SPW) because they fall within the boundaries of “a national wild, scenic, and recreational rivers system.”

It is, therefore, within DRBC’s mandate to protect these waters from adverse changes to existing water quality of the river itself, as well as tributary streams and groundwater. Section B. under the Stream Quality Objectives, the Manual clearly states “The waters of the Basin shall not contain substances attributable to municipal, industrial, or other discharges in concentrations or amounts sufficient to preclude the specified water uses to be protected.” Similarly, Section 3.40.4(B), under Ground Water Quality Objectives, states; “It is the policy of the Commission to prevent degradation of ground water quality.” “No quality change will be considered which, in the judgment of the Commission, may be injurious to any designated present or future ground or surface water use.” Further, Section 4.40, Ground Water Quality Requirements, states: “No person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, or other entity, including any of the signatory parties, any political subdivision, agency, department, or instrumentality of any of them, shall cause or permit any pollution of ground waters or violate the ground water quality objectives or control requirements imposed by or determined pursuant to this Section or Section 3.40.”

We demand the DRBC to employ the power afforded by its regulations and policies to demand that gas drilling interests maintain the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water resources in the Upper Delaware. This should include requiring the industry to demonstrate, through work plans and an Environmental Impact Study that they are prepared to protect through means and methods that equal or exceed the state of the practice, to monitor water resources, to prove that those methods are effective, and to remedy or replace loss of water uses resulting from the drilling, and that all wastewater is treated and disposed of responsibly. This study must include baselines, full buildup model, public evaluation of the chemicals, materials and methods including “proprietary” information, and continuous monitoring (EIS detailed below). We are especially concerned about the practice of "hydrofracking," a drilling process whereby millions of gallons of slurry are pumped into a well at high pressure to fracture the rock and release the gas for easier extraction. Hydrofracking uses millions of gallons of water and chemicals per well —many of which are known toxins. The DRBC should not issue any permits for gas drilling water use until the EIS is complete and safeguards are in place to protect our ground and drinking water resources. Our water resources are too precious to risk depletion or contamination.

An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) must be performed in order to avoid the kind of environmental damage and pollution that has occurred in Dimock, Pa and in so many parts of the U.S. as a result of gas drilling operations. The EIS should be as comprehensive and meaningful as possible in order to protect and best manage ournatural resources and should include the following: Basin-wide water and air baseline testing surveys must be performed in order to gauge potential changes in water and air quality. Proprietary information regarding gas-drilling practices must be disclosed in order for environmental regulations to be implemented. There must be an evaluation of the chemicals, materials, and possible sources of contamination involved in the hydraulic fracking process, including proposed methods and means for storage and transport of water and materials involved in the process.

Comprehensive engineering plans (surface and subsurface) of the Marcellus gas fields must be available for public review. Plans must include but not be limited to a description and location of all necessary construction of roadways, pipelines, well pads, staging areas, compressor stations, spacing requirements and geographical restraints. A full build out model of the project, incorporating these features should be constructed for the purposes of the study and for public viewing. The study must report on projected influence on ground and sub-grade resources such as aquifers, wetlands and critical habitats, the impact of increased water withdrawals, waste water disposal, and the affects of naturally occurring radioactive releases, gas and wastewater emissions.

The study must report on the projected influence on local and regional infrastructure including roads and increased truck traffic, community infrastructure and emergency resources related to public health and safety, (fires, explosions, and hazardous materials spills have been frequently reported).light pollution, high and low frequency noise, and air emissions. Pollution problems have been documented to cause serious health affects and even adverse social conditions. Cultural resources that are within the construction region should be identified and protected.

These are some but not all of the issues that must be studied if we are determined to protect our health and the health of the natural environment. One well at a time might seem like a manageable project, but the scope of the Marcellus project is anticipated to include as many as 10,000 wells in the Upper Delaware Watershed Region, which provides drinking water to 17 million people - 5% of the US population. A project of this size with as many potential environmental and public health and safety risks requires nothing less than a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study. Given the recent actions of NYS-DEC to protect watersheds within New York State - we beg the DRBC to review any and all test wells.