High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations in New York and Pennsylvania: Drilling for Gas in the Marcellus Shale Formation and Vulnerability of the New York City Water Supply Kaled Alamarie, Michael Bell, Deborah Gavello, and David McGregor

Will the proposed revised New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations adequately address the potential effects of High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing and related activities on water resources, if the New York State (NYS) moratorium is lifted? Problem Statement

Methodology Literature search/review, including published writings about field events elsewhere, to identify water-related High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing issues that may need to be addressed by New York State regulators Comparison of current Pennsylvania (PA) regulations with current and proposed NYS regulations Evaluation of adequacy of proposed regulations in NYS based upon possible problems identified in PA and elsewhere ➔ Some unique conditions to be addressed in NYS, e.g., protection of unfiltered New York City and Syracuse water supplies Identification of possible regulatory improvements, inconsistencies, conflicts, and gaps

Discussion Background: What is High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing and why is it controversial?

Discussion We have run out of easy oil Demand for energy has increased Increase in energy prices Advances in technology Possible Energy Independence Profit for energy companies and jobs and leasing revenues for disadvantaged Southern Tier of New York State Source: Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: What drives High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing?

Discussion Source: NYSDEC

Marcellus Shale Geological Formation Structural Geology of Middle Devonian Hamilton Period Geological profile of Appalachian Mountains Source: www. geology.com

Discussion Categories of possible High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing threats to water resources: Source: WRF 2011Source: NYSDEC 2011 Land Disturbance, Site Activity, and Truck Traffic Pit or Surface Impoundment Failures or Leaks Water Withdrawals Chemical UsagePolluted Stormwater Runoff Surface Spills Surface Chemical/Petroleum Spills Subsurface Migration Groundwater Contamination from Improper Drilling/Construction Water Treatment & DisposalImproper Waste Disposal Regulations attempt to mitigate these threats. (NYSDEC RDSGEIS 2011, Photo 5.25)

Discussion Complex oil & gas and water resources regulatory environment in the Marcellus Shale region Each regulator has different rules and scope of oversight, where regulation of water and oil & gas sectors meet NY is proposing new regulations (via NYSDEC RDSGEIS 2011) for the first time since 1992, when regulations for Low-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing were adopted (North Dakota has revised five times in that period, and Pennsylvania six) Unlike traditional fracking, High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing uses between 2-4 million gallons of water instead of 100k gallons* After a well is fractured, 30-70% of the water will flow back to the surface, and is referred to as wastewater. (Storage and Transportation) Moratorium on High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing until Commissioner of Health review and Final SGEIS completed -- not expected until at least 2015 * Modern Shale Gas Development in the US, 2009 Source:

Discussion Comparison of regulatory approaches in NY and PA (with reference to North Dakota) - Most technical standards congruent - New York stronger operational/reporting requirements than Pennsylvania - e.g., in detail and frequency of required reporting - Some unexplained gaps in New York draft, relative to Pennsylvania: - Amount of empty wall above the fill line in the wastewater pit - PA has limitations on water discharges effluents - NYS allows longer time after closure of well to remove pit - PA requires the polluter responsibility for 6 months after closure, and NYS has no time period

Discussion NYSDEC estimating 1,700 to 2,500 wells in ‘peak development year’; 1600 or more in an average year, over a 30-year period Site-specific reviews if: shallow High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing; less than 1,000 ft below water supply; principal aquifers; well pad within 150 ft of stream, lake, pond; surface water withdrawal plan does not allow preferred passby flow New York City & Syracuse water supply prohibitions; primary aquifers; distance to public drinking water supplies; floodplains; private wells; chemical disclosure to NYSDEC; enhanced well casing; secondary containment and stormwater controls; wastewater & solid waste disposal rules; well site- specific reviews & permitting; equipment testing; fluid removal; approval of waste treatment plans; submission of transportation plans NYSDEC RDSGEIS, 2011, Executive Summary, p. 4 Expected High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Activity and Regulatory Response in NYS

Discussion A Unique Regulatory Concern: Protection of the New York City (NYC) Water Supply NYS proposes that activities be prohibited within NYC water supply watershed Financial and health consequences of contamination too great to consider NYC: 1000-ft buffer does not adequately protect water supply infrastructure Two studies state that High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing has directly induced seismicity Induced seismicity (faults & fractures) could damage aqueducts & tunnels; 7-mile & 2- mile exclusion zones, respectively, requested

Discussion and Findings Inconsistencies, Conflicts, & Weaknesses in Proposed NYS Regulations NYCDEP concerns over induced seismicity damage to tunnels and low-volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYC watershed; NYC may oppose state regulatory proposals if unaddressed Much weaker protections for other NYS water supplies -- may allow activities in aquifers after 2-3 years -- any plan for safety evaluation? What is the plan if public water supplies are contaminated? Duke University study of 68 samples of well water near sites found measurable amounts of methane in 85 percent of the samples (May 2011) Insufficient standards on radioactivity of produced water and waste materials? Radium-226 influent limit of 15-piC/Liter 3 at wastewater treatment plants, but what about others (e.g., radium- 228, radon in gas)? No NYS requirement that High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing fluids be recycled; questions about disposal locations Toxic Chemicals used will only be disclosed to regulators NYS High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing decision delayed until NYS health effects study completed and released -- EPA study incomplete -- not all the evidence is in for effective regulation

Too many risks to water resources to pursue High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing today No amount of Regulation can stop a mistake(s) All we can expect of Regulators is: To do their “best” Enforcement against violations (political will, contributions) No current method for ensuring sufficiency of local water supplies Wastewater disposal (no natural sites) Flexibility to extract natural gas in the future with better technology Disaster planning (what if something goes wrong?) Given water’s essentiality, can “normal government operations” suffice? Conclusions

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014 Thirsty?