INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH TRICK OR TREAT BOO!!!

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Petition to continue oil and gas drilling on Allegheny National Forest sent to Obama, Rendell

By MARCIE SCHELLHAMMER
Bradford Era Reporter
marcie@bradfordera.com

RED ALERT!

A petition signed by 2,000 people in favor of continuing oil and gas drilling on the Allegheny National Forest has been sent to President Barack Obama and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell.

The petition, distributed by the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association (POGAM) and the Allegheny Forest Alliance, urges intervention to lift a ban on oil and gas development by the U.S. Forest Service.

The ban came earlier this year after a settlement between the Forest Service and a group of environmentalists who were seeking to have environmental impact analyses done prior to any drilling on the forest.

See Splashdown's "Oil and Gas Drilling is Transforming the Allegheny National Forest" and "Warren County Commissioner gathering evidence for oil/gas drilling hearing"

The settlement is a deviation from prior management practices, which never required an analysis. The Forest Service has ordered a halt to new drilling until a forest-wide impact assessment can be prepared.

The oil interests say that delay will be devastating to the local economy, as at least a year will pass without drilling and local companies are having to lay-off workers.

On Thursday, Steve Rhoads, president of POGAM, explained the reason behind the petition.

“The only way, outside of a court action, for this stop is if the Forest Service decides to stop or if someone above forces their hand. We don’t expect the Forest Service to back away from its policy. That’s why we’re in court,” he said. “They are shutting the industry down, period.”

“We wanted to demonstrate to the powers that be that the behavior of the Forest Service and the effects of that behavior is far reaching and very damaging,” Rhoads said, “not only to owners of minerals who are being stifled by the bureaucratic logjam this is creating, but the employees, families, and communities as well.

“The potential for layoffs is growing as the Forest Service shuts the industry down arbitrarily,” he said. “The economic ramifications are significant. We’re asking for some intercession on behalf of the communities to protect their economic interest and health.”

Nearly 2,000 citizens, and civic and business leaders from McKean, Elk, Warren and Forest counties signed the petition.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit is pending in federal court in which Minard Run Oil Co. of Bradford, along with POGAM, the Forest Alliance and Warren County, are awaiting a judge’s decision on whether to grant a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the settlement order.

“We expect a decision on the preliminary injunction at any time now,” Rhoads said. “We don’t know what that decision will be. We’re hopeful for a positive result.”

He said this petition has nothing to do with any action in federal court.

The petition, on the other hand, is to bring attention to the suffering local oil industry at a time when the federal government is working on stimulating the economy and creating jobs.

“We want to bring attention to the issue at the highest level of governments,” Rhoads said.

“State records show that fewer than 50 wells, all of them permitted prior to the drilling ban imposed on January 1, have been drilled in the Allegheny National Forest during 2009. The Forest Service has prevented the drilling of between 200-300 wells that would have otherwise occurred,” Rhoads said. “These undrilled wells translate into private investment of nearly $100 million and jeopardize hundreds of good-paying jobs in the region. The action of the Forest Service amounts to a full-scale assault on the economic health of the families and communities living in and around the Allegheny National Forest.”
...

For the complete story, CLICK HERE.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

STATEMENT OF BOROUGH PRESIDENT SCOTT M. STRINGER ON PLEDGE BY CHESAPEAKE ENERGY TO NOT DRILL IN NYC WATERSHED

Contact: Carmen Boon (212) 669-3882
Joan Vollero (212) 669-8143

FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

The announcement today [Oct. 27] by Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon that his company will not drill for natural gas in New York City’s upstate watershed is an important step toward protecting our drinking water, but it’s not enough. Chesapeake’s leases in the watershed will expire after five years, and even before then there is no guarantee that Mr. McClendon will remain the head of the company.

Today I call on Mr. McClendon to translate his public statement to a legally binding commitment by selling his company’s leases in the watershed to New York City for one dollar. That way, the good words we’ve heard today will not be undercut by an unforeseen corporate deal a year or two from now, once this controversy has passed.

Chesapeake’s announcement validates the calls for a ban on drilling in the watershed that have come from concerned citizens, editorial pages, environmental groups, and elected officials like myself. The State environmental agency now finds itself in the uncomfortable position of lagging behind the industry it regulates in protecting New York City’s drinking water. The Department of Environmental Conservation must correct its mistake by immediately announcing a permanent and complete ban on drilling in the watershed.

Stephen Corson
Investigative Policy Analyst
Office of Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer
One Centre Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 669-2392
Fax: (212) 669-3840

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

*Congress Gives Final Approval to Hinchey Provision Urging EPA to Conduct New Study on Risks Hydraulic Fracturing Poses to Drinking Water Supplies*

Jeff Lieberson
Administrative Assistant/Communications Director
Office of Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY22)


Washington, DC -- The U.S. House of Representatives today approved a provision authored by Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that formally urges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a new study on the risks that hydraulic fracturing poses to drinking water supplies. The Senate is due to pass the identical bill in the coming days and President Obama is expected to sign the measure into law soon after that. Earlier this week, members of the Interior Appropriations Conference Committee, including Hinchey, signed off on the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill and report for fiscal year 2010, which contains the study provision.


"While natural gas certainly has an important role in our national energy policy, it's imperative that we take every step possible to ensure that our drinking water supplies are not contaminated or adversely impacted in any way," Hinchey said. "This legislation puts Congress on record in support of a new, comprehensive study that will examine the impact that hydraulic fracking really has on our water supplies. The study results will put us in a position to take any further steps that are necessary to protect our drinking water supplies from the chemical concoctions being pumped into the ground by energy companies."


In May, the congressman asked EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at a House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing about the need for such a study. Jackson told Hinchey that she believed her agency should review the risk that fracturing poses to drinking water in light of various cases across the country that raise questions about the safety of the natural gas drilling practice. Hinchey's measure would formalize that congressional request for an EPA study on the risks that toxic chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing pose to drinking water supplies in New York and across the nation. The EPA did conduct a study on the matter in 2004 under the Bush administration, but that study is widely considered to be flawed for a variety of reasons, including the way data was selectively collected from sources that had a vested interest in the oil and gas industry while other relevant information was ignored.


The language that Hinchey had inserted into the report reads, "The conferees urge the EPA to carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information. The conferees expect the study to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. EPA shall consult with other federal agencies as well as appropriate state and interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, and it should be prepared in accordance with EPA quality assurance principles."


In the now infamous 2005 Energy Policy Act, which Hinchey strongly opposed and voted against, the then Republican-controlled Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which was designed to protect people's water supply from contamination from toxic materials. This loophole, which some have called the Halliburton Loophole, created an extremely dangerous set of circumstances.


In June, Hinchey, Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), and several of his colleagues introduced the FRAC ACT -- Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, which would close the loophole that exempted hydraulic fracturing from the SDWA and require the oil and gas industry to disclose the chemicals they use in their hydraulic fracturing processes. Currently, the oil and gas industry is the only industry granted an exemption from complying with the SDWA.


"It is critical that our communities are assured that the process of hydraulic fracturing is safe and will not contaminate drinking water supplies," said DeGette (D-CO), Vice Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. "I will continue to work with EPA to encourage a robust study of hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on drinking water."


Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” is used in almost all natural gas wells. It is a process whereby fluids are injected at high pressure into underground rock formations to blast them open and increase the flow of fossil fuels. This injection of unknown and potentially toxic chemicals often occurs near drinking water sources. Troubling incidents have occurred around the country where people became ill after fracking operations began in their communities. Some chemicals that are known to have been used in fracking include diesel fuel, benzene, industrial solvents, and other carcinogens and endocrine disrupters.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

DEP Revokes Erosion and Sedimentation Control Permits for Two Gas Companies

N E W S R E L E A S E COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Agency Also Issues Notice of Violation Letters to Three Licensed Professionals

Williamsport – The Department of Environmental Protection has revoked three erosion and sedimentation control general permits previously issued to Ultra Resources Inc. and Fortuna Energy Inc. due to technical deficiencies, and has sent notice of violation letters to the three licensed professionals who prepared the applications.

“DEP took this action because of numerous technical deficiencies discovered after our approval of the permits,” said DEP Northcentral Regional Director Robert Yowell.

The erosion and sedimentation control general permits are required whenever more than five acres of earth will be disturbed during construction of natural gas well drilling pads or natural gas pipelines.

As part of an expedited permit review process that DEP announced earlier this year, a licensed professional engineer, surveyor, geologist or landscape architect must submit a notice of intent and supporting documentation to DEP, including a certification that the information submitted meets the permit requirements.

DEP staff performs an administrative completeness review, but relies on the professional’s certification that the application is technically correct and meets all the permit requirements.

The technical deficiencies in both permits included inaccurate calculations, failure to provide best management practices where required, and lack of proper technical detail.

The permit revocations mean that Ultra Resources and Fortuna Energy must immediately halt all earth disturbance activities at the sites except those necessary to install or maintain erosion and sediment control or post-construction and site restoration best management practices.

The Ultra Resources permit was for sites in Gaines and Elk townships, Tioga County, and Pike and Abbott townships, Potter County. The Fortuna permit covered sites in Ward and Jackson townships, Tioga County.

DEP has revoked permit for this site
Toxic sludgepit, Tioga State Forest, Ward Township - Fortuna Energy
(Note red pickup truck {dot} for scale)

Neither company is eligible to re-submit notices of intent requesting the expedited permit process for those locations.

The three permits were appealed to the state Environmental Hearing Board by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in August and September, prompting DEP officials to re-examine the permits to determine if they met the regulatory requirements.

In its letter to the three licensed professionals, DEP warns that additional enforcement action may be taken against them, including possible referral to the Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs for disciplinary action.

The licensed professionals receiving the letters include James Gensel of Fagan Engineers in Elmira, N.Y.; Karl Matz of Larson Design Group Inc. in Williamsport; and K. Robert Cunningham of Cunningham Surveyors in Wellsboro.

For more information, call 570-327-3659 or visit www.depweb.state.pa.us keyword: Oil and gas.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

DEP Announces New Oil and Gas Well Permit Application Fees Will Cover Cost of Permitting, Enforcement

N E W S R E L E A S E COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

First Fee Increase since 1984 Affects All New, Non-Marcellus Shale Wells

Harrisburg – The Department of Environmental Protection has begun collecting higher permit application fees for all traditional vertical non-Marcellus Shale oil and natural gas wells drilled in Pennsylvania to cover the cost of the agency’s permitting and enforcement work.
According to Secretary John Hanger, the new fees based on well length and type replace a flat $100 fee established in 1984.

Under the new structure, which went into effect Oct. 26, vertical wells with a bore length up to 2,000 feet will now have a base permit cost of $250 with an additional $50 applied for each additional 500 feet of length.

“We have seen record growth in the number of oil and natural gas drilling permit applications over the past six years, and with the rapid development of the Marcellus Shale formation, we needed to establish a permit fee structure that will support the cost of permitting and inspecting both types of drilling operations,” Hanger said. “The money generated from the new permit fees is allowing us to hire new staff at our Pittsburgh, Meadville and Williamsport offices to better manage and monitor the drilling industry as it expands into new areas of the state.”

The new fee structure for traditional vertical wells follows new fees the department imposed for Marcellus Shale wells in April. Marcellus Shale wells employ a horizontal drilling technology and, as such, are not considered vertical wells.

Marcellus Shale and non-vertical wells have a base permit cost of $900 for the first 1,500 feet of bore, with an additional cost of $100 for every 500 feet beyond that length.

Through Oct. 23, DEP issued 5,333 oil and natural gas drilling permits this year—1,516 of which are for the Marcellus Shale formation.

Of the 1,944 wells drilled in 2009, 403 are Marcellus Shale wells. The department has performed 10,365 inspections of drilling sites during that period.

Since 2005, DEP has issued 2,112 Marcellus Shale permits and there have been a total of 660 Marcellus Shale wells drilled.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

GAS COMPANY WON'T DRILL IN NEW YORK CITY'S WATERSHED!

By JAD MOUAWAD and CLIFFORD KRAUSS

Published: October 27, 2009
The New York Times

Bowing to intense public pressure, the Chesapeake Energy Corporation says it will not drill for natural gas within the upstate New York watershed, an environmentally sensitive region that supplies unfiltered water to nine million people.

The reversal seems to signal a more conciliatory tone from the gas industry, which is facing mounting opposition in New York to its drilling practices. The decision also increases the pressure on state regulators to reverse their decision to allow drilling within the watershed.

“We are not going to develop those leases, and we are not taking any more leases, and I don’t think anybody else in the industry would dare to acquire leases in the New York City watershed,” Aubrey K. McClendon, the chief executive officer at Chesapeake Energy, said in an interview on Monday in Fort Worth. “Why go through the brain damage of that, when we have so many other opportunities?”

...

Chesapeake, one of the nation’s biggest gas producers, is the largest leaseholder in the Marcellus Shale, a subterranean layer of shale rock that runs from New York to Tennessee.

...

But the concerns include the use of chemicals, the disposal of wastewater and the danger of leaks and spills into groundwater and deep aquifers. There also has been a string of explosions from Wyoming to Pennsylvania.

...

Chesapeake acquired 5,000 acres in the watershed when it bought Columbia Natural Resources a few years ago, and it is currently the only leaseholder in the area.

Over all, Mr. McClendon said, the company’s holdings in the watershed are “a drop in the bucket” compared with the Marcellus field’s potential. He suggested that Chesapeake had more to lose by drilling there than by forgoing it, even though he contended such drilling would do no harm.

“How could any one well be so profitable that it would be worth damaging the New York City water system?” he said.

State officials have been eager to embrace the drilling because of its potential economic benefits, especially in the current downturn. This month, the state’s environmental agency said it would allow companies to drill throughout the state, imposing few specific limits on operations.

The proposed regulations, which were requested last year by Gov. David A. Paterson, do not ban drilling in the watershed, as many New York City officials and environmental advocates had urged, but would require buffer zones around reservoirs and aqueducts.

Gas industry representatives say the rules, if enacted, will be among the most restrictive in the country. Opponents say they would be inadequate to prevent contamination.

The New York watershed is an area of about one million acres, representing 4 percent of the state’s total surface. Thanks to gravity, water from the region’s rivers and streams flows to six reservoirs in the Catskills, and then, through a series of aqueducts and tunnels, to the taps of New Yorkers. This system provides unfiltered drinking water for half the state’s population, including 8.2 million people in New York City and about one million people in Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess Counties.

Some New York City politicians welcomed Chesapeake’s decision and said they hoped it would have a broader impact. “To proceed with drilling doesn’t make any business sense and doesn’t make environmental sense, and I think Chesapeake understands this, and I am happy they have come to that decision,” said James F. Gennaro, chairman of the City Council’s Committee on Environmental Protection. “If only we could get the state government to come to the same realization. It is strangely ironic.”

Chesapeake’s announcement was also praised by environmental advocates as a positive step. They said the company’s position should encourage the state to reverse its decision and impose an outright drilling ban throughout the watershed.

“When the industry says it will not drill in the watershed, it sends a strong message to state regulators that drilling there is inappropriate,” said James L. Simpson, an attorney at Riverkeeper, an environmental group.

Hydraulic fracturing pumps huge volumes of water laced with chemicals like benzene into the shale to break it and release the natural gas. The process has been linked to contamination of water wells and the death of livestock exposed to potassium chloride, a chemical used during drilling.

State environmental regulators have said they saw no “realistic threat” to water quality that would warrant a drilling ban in the two watersheds in the Catskills region. Their environmental review noted that the city controlled a large amount of the land surrounding the reservoirs and could deny permission to drill in those areas.

In addition to the forum on Wednesday, hearings on the state’s proposed regulations are scheduled Nov. 10 in New York City, Nov. 12 in Broome County and Nov. 18 in Steuben County.

Chesapeake said it had started to publicize the chemical components of the fluids it uses during drilling, down to the percentages for each chemical used since last year, acknowledging criticism that companies had not been transparent enough. “The industry is moving quickly to complete disclosure," Mr. McClendon said.

For the complete report, CLICK HERE.
Mireya Navarro contributed reporting.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Cramer explains Pennsylvania...

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says perhaps Obama can learn from Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who has become a believer in the fuel...


Maybe President Obama can make the transition to natural gas that Ed Rendell just did in Pennsylvania. The transition is a simple one: Focus on jobs and many things go well; don't focus on jobs and you aren't focused on anything.

When I first heard of the Marcellus Shale from Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake (NYSE: CHK) (Cramer's Take), I was pretty much in disbelief. How could there be so much natural gas in some place in western Pennsylvania? Too good to be true.
That was just a few years ago. I devoured everything I could read about the Marcellus Shale and quickly asked the governor to come on the show. I had known him for years, had helped raise money for him and thought this natural gas patch might be the thing he needed to get people in his state hiring again in good jobs.

Initially, he didn't seem all that interested. In fact, I dealt more with his environmental preservation people than him, as there were initial thoughts that too much water was being used and too many roads broken down.

All of that has now been dealt with and this weekend Rendell actually made sure that the industry wasn't taxed for bringing nat gas out of the ground, setting the stage for a drilling boom and pipeline laying -- the infrastructure for this is much better in Louisiana and Texas than Pennsylvania so both the drilling rigs and the pipelines have to be moved and created.

Rendell's pretty confident that as many as 200,000 jobs will be created over the next few years and that nat gas will be used as a bridge fuel. He also believes that if the federal government mandates that its own fleets be natural gas-capable, we will have gone a long way toward switching to this fuel.

Was he helped by lobbyists like Murry Gerber, the CEO of EQT (NYSE: EQT) (Cramer's Take), the largest natural gas company in Pennsylvania?

No. While he took money from them, I think he saw an opportunity to get the drilling companies to come to Pennsylvania over New York, which already has made life hell for them over environmental concerns, and over West Virginia, which does tax the stuff.

For more Cramer, click here.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Dimock resident comments following Monday's Scranton times-tribune article

Victoria Switzer, quoted in the Scranton paper Monday (see post) airs the frustrations she has endured over the past year or more, as the gas drilling industry and elected officials continue to ignore the irresponsible destruction caused to people's lives, homes and environment by the industry:

Do you know how bizarre it is to have been telling this story to your friends for over a year... nearly two and then have them all sign up with a gas company? It is soooo beyond anything "normal" that I am in a state of disbelief and disappointment most of the time. Yes they say that it is toooo bad you don't drink your water, but gee, the $6ooo an acre is hard to pass up.

So today, after the news article in the Scranton paper, Cabot calls saying they will bring us water..."We always meant to do that!" "We've just been too busy with the CHEMICAL spills."... I've seen the water come down the road in the back of a truck, plastic cubes of water - from where? Where does that water come from and is IT tested? My husband is wry and he said, "Hmm, now we know what they do with the frack water..."
So I get to build my American Dream... a home... that I own (not really because I signed a gas lease), a home for our grandkids to come and play in the creek. Trading water for gas...

Understand that Cabot did NOT promise us water at the Sept. 16 meeting ... their water specialist laughed (smirked) at Norma (Fiorentino)'s pleas for water... and when she said "What do I have to do to get water? Sue you?" Cabot replied, "You can, but you'll lose." I called everyone after the meeting to see if Cabot had called and offered them any recourse. Everyone said no. People tell me they repeat my story and people respond: that can't be true... Why?
BECAUSE [THEY] CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH?

Congressman Carney's wife was at our meeting. She told Cabot you will have to supply water to these people and I don't mean bottled water but a water supply. She was visably shaken. Yet when I called her in a followup call she stated "Well, you people will have to sue them".
So much for elected officials looking out for their constituents!

In ten months time our coveted royalty payment have decreased more than 75%, so there goes the economic boom for us. We were locked into experimental wells with out our knowledge. We had over 30 vertical wells -experimental wells- faulty casing, cement and all, within a 5 mile walk... aren't we special!

I have been telling this story, but no one wants to hear it: Sandra Major, Tina Pickett, Lisa Baker, Chris Carney, Bob Casey, Gene Yaw, Craig S. Lobins, Mark Carmen, Sec. Hangar, and Gov. Rendell.

WE ARE DIMOCK AND WE ARE NOT AN ANOMALY!

Please -take up this cause- if you do not have a place to treat the wastewater, how can you issue permits? Shouldn't you have a plan for your waste water before the permit is issued? It says so in PA Code. Permits? That is a joke.. permits are not even accurate...anything goes... get her done. Fines? DEP told me that if they fined the gas co. too much they would not report spills but hide them... Now that's a quality industry that now owns our state lands and water... if DEP knows they can't be trusted? Well, there you have it.
Sleep well folks... I sure don't...

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

National Alliance for Drilling Reform's First Gathering Line Is in the Pipes

Gathering Line - a special pipeline that transports gas from the field to the main pipeline.

The Gathering Line is a round-up of oil & gas drilling news brought to you by National Alliance for Drilling Reform (NA4DR), a broad alliance of grassroots activists from states across the nation that are affected with drilling development.

WWJD on Carter Avenue? TXsharon wants to know if Chesapeake Energy or anyone in Fort Worth government has stopped to consider the answer to that question. Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS.

Some upstate NY landowners are wondering whether they can sell their property if it has a gas lease. Check out the Marcellus Effect for a short review and a link to interviews with realtors.

NEWS FROM PENNSYLVANIA: Laceyville, PA, Getting Nearly $100,000 in Gas Revenues: Is This Good News? Peacegirl at Gas Wells Are Not Our Friends combs the newspapers of Bradford and Susquehanna Counties in Pennsylvania and talks with local people from these areas to find out what is really happening. This week the focus is on Laceyville, Wyoming County, PA. Will the people of Laceyville survive the invasion of the gas industry?

How Many Natural Gas Explosions Does It Take?!! One Too Many! Read it at Cheap Tricks and Costly Truths.

For the first time in decades, New Mexico Senators sacrificed migrating big game with their vote to allow drilling during the winter in the Jicarilla Ranger District of the Carson National Forest. Drilling Santa Fe asks if we have forgotten the high price of deregulation and offers something for consideration.

Splashdown wants you to remember that "safest" doesn't mean safe. It simply means least dangerous. This is important for communities to keep in mind as they ponder allowing a wastewater treatment plant, as Athens PA Township is now doing, or rejecting one, as neighboring South Waverly has done.

Nearly a year after a water well explosion, Dimock Twp. residents thirst for gas-well fix

BY LAURA LEGERE (STAFF WRITER)
Published: October 26, 2009
thetimes-tribune.com

DIMOCK TWP.

The problem in the water here erupted on New Year's Day when an explosion in Norma Fiorentino's backyard well shattered an 8-foot concrete slab and tossed the pieces onto her lawn.

An investigation by the state Department of Environmental Protection revealed that the culprit - methane in the aquifer because of nearby natural-gas drilling - had seeped into the drinking water at nine homes in the township, causing a threat of explosion in at least four of them.

The department found that Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., the company that had drilled 20 wells into the gas-rich Marcellus Shale within three square miles of the blast, had polluted the fresh groundwater with methane, the highly combustible, primary element of natural gas. Inspectors suspected that too much pressure in the mile-deep wells or flaws in their cement-and-steel casings had opened a channel for the gas.

Now, the state environmental oversight agency is rethinking its gas drilling regulations with the aim of preventing incidents like the one in Dimock from happening again.

An early draft of regulations the department unveiled in September would change the way wells are built and sealed off from drinking water aquifers; mandate that existing wells are tested to ensure they don't leak; increase cementing and casing standards and strengthen rules for replacing drinking water if gas drillers disturb it.

Rising fast

Now that the state is poised to become one of the biggest gas producers in the nation, "we want to make sure that we're putting in place for Pennsylvania and for the public over the next 50 years the very best practices and the best materials in our regulations," DEP Secretary John Hanger said.

Although Mr. Hanger said the proposed regulations were not inspired by any particular incident, catastrophes or close calls caused by stray gas migrating from natural gas wells "highlight the reasons for the review and the changes." A cover letter from DEP to the state's Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board made the case in stark detail: Over the last decade, six explosions caused by gas that migrated from new or old wells killed four people in the state and injured three others. The threat of explosions has forced 20 families from their homes, sometimes for months, and at least 60 water wells, including three municipal water supplies, have been contaminated.

...

To tap the gas-bearing rock, a well bore must penetrate several geological layers before reaching the target formation; in the case of the Marcellus Shale, it is often about a mile underground. The hole is then sealed off from the drinking water aquifer and the surrounding geology with several rings of steel casing, which keeps the gas and the chemical-laden liquid used to fracture the shale from seeping out and helps control the tremendous pressure that builds up inside the well. In particularly sensitive areas, like groundwater zones, the casing is cemented into place to make sure the barrier is impermeable.

According to a report by the Ground Water Protection Council, a coalition of state water regulators from around the country, casing is a crucial protection for groundwater, but it is the cementing of the casing "that adds the most value to the process of groundwater protection." Because of that, the quality of the initial cement job "is the most critical factor" in preventing gas and fluids from getting into the drinking water supply.

Stronger safeguards

The DEP's proposed rules would strengthen that standard of protection. For the first time, oversight would be added to ensure that cement completely surrounds the surface casing - the steel pipe most responsible for protecting drinking water - and call for deeper casings to be cemented above any gas-producing rock layers.

The rules would mandate that companies create a casing and cementing plan before each well is drilled, outlining the type and strength of casing and cement to be used and more fully incorporating national standards for the cement and pipe. They would also create an annual reporting requirement for companies to inspect every operating well to make sure there is no obvious leak, corrosion or excess pressure.

In addition to changes in the way wells are built and inspected, the new rules would establish clearer standards for what gas operators must do to restore or replace residents' water supplies if their drilling pollutes it. An "adequate" replacement would now have to be as reliable, accessible, clean, plentiful and permanent as a resident's previous, untainted supply, and it could not cost more to maintain. If residents tell a gas operator that their water has been polluted, the company would have to report the complaint to DEP.

Mr. Hanger said the department is proposing to strengthen the response for when somebody loses their drinking water because he has "not been fully satisfied" with the way polluted supplies are being replaced under the current standard.

Standard of living

Norma Fiorentino has not consumed water from her faucets since her well exploded 10 months ago. The 66-year-old widow lugged jugs of it up a hill from her neighbors' house for about a month, until they found out they had methane in their water, too. Now she buys it for about $20 a week at the grocery store or travels to a spring in Montrose to collect it.

Cabot has been providing water to four families since January and has installed methane separation systems in the basements of three homes, according to Kenneth Komoroski, a Cabot lawyer and spokesman. DEP puts the count higher, saying Cabot is providing water or treatment systems to 13 Dimock homes with elevated methane.

But residents say at least 18 families no longer drink their well water, many of whom, like Mrs. Fiorentino, pay for replacement water on their own.

"I've begged him since my well blew up to give me water," Mrs. Fiorentino said of Mr. Komoroski, "but he's never given me a bottle."

In the middle of September, a group of Dimock landowners met with Cabot representatives to plead for water supplies to replace the wells they believe have been contaminated. They have observed odd changes: bubbling from the methane, but also odors, foam, an orange color or shimmering white flakes. Water tests at their homes have revealed elevated levels of iron, aluminum and bacteria as well as methane.

A DEP investigation in March found that hydraulic fracturing fluids from the Cabot gas wells had not contaminated the water in the homes affected by the methane migration, but residents continue to have concerns.

"Most of us believe methane is the least of our worries," Victoria Switzer, the meeting organizer, said. "We'll never drink our water."

Plugging leaks

... both Cabot and DEP are continuing their investigations into what is causing the stray methane. Stable isotopes in the methane dissolved in the water, which Mr. Baldassare, the DEP stray gas inspector, likens to a genetic fingerprint of the gas, have allowed them to determine that the gas originated not from the Marcellus, but from another Devonian shale formation above the Marcellus.

DEP spokeswoman Freda Tarbell said the department knows the gas came from a Cabot well "but we don't know how it got there or why." Cabot insists DEP was premature in announcing that the company was responsible for polluting the water supply.

...

Mr. Komoroski said Cabot will produce a final report in less than 60 days that will "attempt to rule in or rule out Cabot as a cause or a contributing source."

But Mr. Baldassare, who has reviewed Cabot's preliminary report, said the company report provides "no evidence whatsoever" that the gas in the water came from anywhere but one of its wells.

Although the lessons of past well drilling mistakes are helping to shape the state's new regulatory direction, Mr. Hanger faces an uphill battle to turn the proposed rules into law.

Risk mitigation

In DEP's cover letter to the technical advisory board, the department acknowledged that "controversy may ensue" from the introduction of the proposed regulations. Already the new rules have been met with skepticism by the industry and caution by the advisory board members.

"We all understand the goal of course," said Stephen Rhoads, the president of the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association.

But he said there are clearly "issues" with the proposed casing and cementing requirements and the well monitoring plan, and the industry will be giving all of the proposals a thorough review to make sure they are "technically sufficient."

...

Loss and gain

In Dimock, Ms. Switzer was ready to weigh in on the proposed regulations: She would like to see all of Cabot's earliest gas wells inspected.

For the last five years, she and her husband have been living in a cramped trailer in a gully near Burdock Creek as they build their retirement home, an investment that has wedded them to the town and the drilling.

She pointed to a recess in the wall during a tour through her future kitchen. "This was going to be our wine closet," she said. "Instead, this is where we'll put our water."

The unofficial leader of the local residents' fight for safe gas extraction, Mrs. Switzer knows she is not popular.

In the best-case scenario, she said, she and her neighbors will have their water replaced and "everyone else will benefit from the tragedy of Dimock." The proposed DEP regulations have brought her some hope for that.

The alternative - "that we lost and no one gained" - would be too much to handle, she said.

"If people don't learn from this, then we are a total waste."

For the complete article, CLICK HERE.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

A new light on drilling

By ABRAHM LUSTGARTEN, Pro Publica
First published in print: Monday, October 26, 2009
(Albany) timesunion.com

New York may become the first state in the nation to demand that in certain situations companies that drill in New York be required to report the concentrations of the chemicals they use to state regulators.

The rules would reveal information that environmental scientists say is essential to investigating water pollution from drilling.

New York's recently released review of the environmental risks of proposed natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale in the state's Southern Tier also offers the clearest picture yet of the chemicals used in the drilling process called hydraulic fracturing.

The document makes public the names of 260 chemicals, more than eight times as many as Pennsylvania state regulators have compiled. The list, the most complete released by any state or federal agency, could help answer concerns about hydraulic fracturing in Congress and in states where gas drilling has increased in recent years.

The industry has been reluctant to release information about the chemicals it uses because it considers them trade secrets. While New York has made the names of the chemicals public, it seems likely the data about their concentration will be shared only with state officials.

...

Environmental scientists have long sought complete information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, saying they need it to thoroughly investigate water pollution. Contamination can occur when the chemicals are pumped underground, held in waste pits or trucked to water treatment plants before being discharged back into rivers and drinking water supplies.

...In Pennsylvania, environmental officials told ProPublica that their list of chemical products used for drilling there was complete, but it names just 39 products and 31 unique chemicals. ...

New York obtained the names of the chemicals by surveying drilling companies, their contractors and the manufacturers of the chemicals. The Department of Environmental Conservation identified 152 trademarked products and obtained the complete list of their ingredients; it gathered a partial list of ingredients for an additional 45 products.*

To read more CLICK HERE.

*See the following post for the list of chemicals used in drilling/fracking operations.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Table 5-6 from NY's DSGEIS: Chemical Constituents in Drilling/Fracking Additives/Chemicals

• Table 5.6 is a list of chemical constituents and their CAS numbers that have been extracted from complete chemical compositions and Material Safety Data Sheets submitted to the NYSDEC.

• These are the chemical constituents of all chemical additives proposed to be used in New York for hydraulic fracturing operations at shale wells. Only a few chemicals will be used in a single well; the list of chemical constituents used in an individual well will be correspondingly smaller.

NOTE: These chemicals can be searched at eChemPortal.
This site offers free public access to information on properties of chemicals: physical chemical properties, environmental fate and behavior, ecotoxicity, toxicity.


CAS Number - Chemical Constituent
2634-33-5 1,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one
95-63-6 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene
123-91-1 1,4 Dioxane
3452-07-1 1-eicosene
629-73-2 1-hexadecene
112-88-9 1-octadecene
1120-36-1 1-tetradecene
10222-01-2 2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
27776-21-2 2,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride
73003-80-2 2,2-Dobromomalonamide
15214-89-8 2-Acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid sodium salt polymer
46830-22-2 2-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride
52-51-7 2-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
111-76-2 2-Butoxy ethanol
1113-55-9 2-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)
104-76-7 2-Ethyl Hexanol
67-63-0 2-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol
26062-79-3 2-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer
9003-03-6 2-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt
25987-30-8 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of
acrylamide and sodium acrylate
71050-62-9 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)
66019-18-9 2-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite
107-19-7 2-Propyn-1-ol / Progargyl Alcohol
51229-78-8 3,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-
chloride,
115-19-5 3-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol
127087-87-0 4-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol
ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol
64-19-7 Acetic acid
68442-62-6 Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine
108-24-7 Acetic Anhydride
67-64-1 Acetone
79-06-1 Acrylamide
38193-60-1 Acrylamide - sodium 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonate copolymer
25085-02-3 Acrylamide - Sodium Acrylate Copolymer or Anionic Polyacrylamide
69418-26-4 Acrylamide polymer with N,N,N-trimethyl-2[1-oxo-2-propenyl]oxy
Ethanaminium chloride
15085-02-3 Acrylamide-sodium acrylate copolymer
68551-12-2 Alcohols, C12-C16, Ethoxylated (a.k.a. Ethoxylated alcohol)
64742-47-8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbon / Hydrotreated light distillate / Petroleum Distillates /
Isoparaffinic Solvent / Paraffin Solvent / Napthenic Solvent
64743-02-8 Alkenes
68439-57-6 Alkyl (C14-C16) olefin sulfonate, sodium salt
9016-45-9 Alkylphenol ethoxylate surfactants
1327-41-9 Aluminum chloride
73138-27-9 Amines, C12-14-tert-alkyl, ethoxylated
71011-04-6 Amines, Ditallow alkyl, ethoxylated
68551-33-7 Amines, tallow alkyl, ethoxylated, acetates
1336-21-6 Ammonia
631-61-8 Ammonium acetate
68037-05-8 Ammonium Alcohol Ether Sulfate
7783-20-2 Ammonium bisulfate
10192-30-0 Ammonium Bisulphite
12125-02-9 Ammonium Chloride
7632-50-0 Ammonium citrate
37475-88-0 Ammonium Cumene Sulfonate
1341-49-7 Ammonium hydrogen-difluoride
6484-52-2 Ammonium nitrate
7727-54-0 Ammonium Persulfate / Diammonium peroxidisulphate
1762-95-4 Ammonium Thiocyanate
7664-41-7 Aqueous ammonia
121888-68-4 Bentonite, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethylammonium stearate
complex / organophilic clay
71-43-2 Benzene
119345-04-9 Benzene, 1,1'-oxybis, tetratpropylene derivatives, sulfonated, sodium salts
74153-51-8 Benzenemethanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-[2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]ethyl]-,
chloride, polymer with 2-propenamide
10043-35-3 Boric acid
1303-86-2 Boric oxide / Boric Anhydride
71-36-3 Butan-1-ol
68002-97-1 C10 - C16 Ethoxylated Alcohol
68131-39-5 C12-15 Alcohol, Ethoxylated
10043-52-4 Calcium chloride
124-38-9 Carbon Dioxide
68130-15-4 Carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar
9012-54-8 Cellulase / Hemicellulase Enzyme
9004-34-6 Cellulose
10049-04-4 Chlorine Dioxide
77-92-9 Citric Acid
94266-47-4 Citrus Terpenes
61789-40-0 Cocamidopropyl Betaine
68155-09-9 Cocamidopropylamine Oxide
68424-94-2 Coco-betaine
7758-98-7 Copper (II) Sulfate
31726-34-8 Crissanol A-55
14808-60-7 Crystalline Silica (Quartz)
7447-39-4 Cupric chloride dihydrate
1120-24-7 Decyldimethyl Amine
2605-79-0 Decyl-dimethyl Amine Oxide
3252-43-5 Dibromoacetonitrile
25340-17-4 Diethylbenzene
111-46-6 Diethylene Glycol
22042-96-2 Diethylenetriamine penta (methylenephonic acid) sodium salt
28757-00-8 Diisopropyl naphthalenesulfonic acid
68607-28-3 Dimethylcocoamine, bis(chloroethyl) ether, diquaternary ammonium salt
7398-69-8 Dimethyldiallylammonium chloride
25265-71-8 Dipropylene glycol
139-33-3 Disodium Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetate
5989-27-5 D-Limonene
123-01-3 Dodecylbenzene
27176-87-0 Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid
42504-46-1 Dodecylbenzenesulfonate isopropanolamine
50-70-4 D-Sorbitol / Sorbitol
37288-54-3 Endo-1,4-beta-mannanase, or Hemicellulase
149879-98-1 Erucic Amidopropyl Dimethyl Betaine
89-65-6 Erythorbic acid, anhydrous
54076-97-0 Ethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]-, chloride,
homopolymer
107-21-1 Ethane-1,2-diol / Ethylene Glycol
9002-93-1 Ethoxylated 4-tert-octylphenol
68439-50-9 Ethoxylated alcohol
126950-60-5 Ethoxylated alcohol
67254-71-1 Ethoxylated alcohol (C10-12)
68951-67-7 Ethoxylated alcohol (C14-15)
68439-46-3 Ethoxylated alcohol (C9-11)
66455-15-0 Ethoxylated Alcohols
84133-50-6 Ethoxylated Alcohols (C12-14 Secondary)
68439-51-0 Ethoxylated Alcohols (C12-14)
78330-21-9 Ethoxylated branch alcohol
34398-01-1 Ethoxylated C11 alcohol
61791-12-6 Ethoxylated Castor Oil
61791-29-5 Ethoxylated fatty acid, coco
61791-08-0 Ethoxylated fatty acid, coco, reaction product with ethanolamine
68439-45-2 Ethoxylated hexanol
9036-19-5 Ethoxylated octylphenol
9005-67-8 Ethoxylated Sorbitan Monostearate
9004-70-3 Ethoxylated Sorbitan Trioleate
64-17-5 Ethyl alcohol / ethanol
100-41-4 Ethyl Benzene
97-64-3 Ethyl Lactate
9003-11-6 Ethylene Glycol-Propylene Glycol Copolymer (Oxirane, methyl-, polymer
with oxirane)
75-21-8 Ethylene oxide
5877-42-9 Ethyloctynol
68526-86-3 Exxal 13
61790-12-3 Fatty Acids
68188-40-9 Fatty acids, tall oil reaction products w/ acetophenone, formaldehyde &
thiourea
9043-30-5 Fatty alcohol polyglycol ether surfactant
7705-08-0 Ferric chloride
7782-63-0 Ferrous sulfate, heptahydrate
50-00-0 Formaldehyde
29316-47-0 Formaldehyde polymer with 4,1,1-dimethylethyl phenolmethyl oxirane
153795-76-7 Formaldehyde, polymers with branched 4-nonylphenol, ethylene oxide and
propylene oxide
75-12-7 Formamide
64-18-6 Formic acid
110-17-8 Fumaric acid
65997-17-3 Glassy calcium magnesium phosphate
111-30-8 Glutaraldehyde
56-81-5 Glycerol / glycerine
9000-30-0 Guar Gum
9000-30-01 Guar Gum
64742-94-5 Heavy aromatic petroleum naphtha
9025-56-3 Hemicellulase
7647-01-0 Hydrochloric Acid / Hydrogen Chloride / muriatic acid
7722-84-1 Hydrogen Peroxide
79-14-1 Hydroxy acetic acid
35249-89-9 Hydroxyacetic acid ammonium salt
9004-62-0 Hydroxyethyl cellulose
5470-11-1 Hydroxylamine hydrochloride
39421-75-5 Hydroxypropyl guar
35674-56-7 Isomeric Aromatic Ammonium Salt
64742-88-7 Isoparaffinic Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Synthetic
64-63-0 Isopropanol
98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene (cumene)
68909-80-8 Isoquinoline, reaction products with benzyl chloride and quinoline
8008-20-6 Kerosene
64742-81-0 Kerosine, hydrodesulfurized
63-42-3 Lactose
64742-95-6 Light aromatic solvent naphtha
1120-21-4 Light Paraffin Oil
14807-96-6 Magnesium Silicate Hydrate (Talc)
1184-78-7 Methanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide
67-56-1 Methanol
68891-11-2 Methyloxirane polymer with oxirane, mono (nonylphenol) ether, branched
8052-41-3 Mineral spirits / Stoddard Solvent
141-43-5 Monoethanolamine
44992-01-0 N,N,N-trimethyl-2[1-oxo-2-propenyl]oxy Ethanaminium chloride
64742-48-9 Naphtha (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy
91-20-3 Naphthalene
38640-62-9 Naphthalene bis(1-methylethyl)
93-18-5 Naphthalene, 2-ethoxy-
68909-18-2 N-benzyl-alkyl-pyridinium chloride
68139-30-0 N-Cocoamidopropyl-N,N-dimethyl-N-2-hydroxypropylsulfobetaine
7727-37-9 Nitrogen, Liquid form
68412-54-4 Nonylphenol Polyethoxylate
121888-66-2 Organophilic Clays
64742-65-0 Petroleum Base Oil
64741-68-0 Petroleum naphtha
70714-66-8 Phosphonic acid, [[(phosphonomethyl)imino]bis[2,1-
ethanediylnitrilobis(methylene)]]tetrakis-, ammonium salt
8000-41-7 Pine Oil
60828-78-6 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[3,5-dimethyl-1-(2-methylpropyl)hexyl]-whydroxy-
25322-68-3 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-hydro-w-hydroxy / Polyethylene Glycol
24938-91-8 Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-tridecyl-ω-hydroxy-
51838-31-4 Polyepichlorohydrin, trimethylamine quaternized
56449-46-8 Polyethlene glycol oleate ester
62649-23-4 Polymer with 2-propenoic acid and sodium 2-propenoate
9005-65-6 Polyoxyethylene Sorbitan Monooleate
61791-26-2 Polyoxylated fatty amine salt
127-08-2 Potassium acetate
12712-38-8 Potassium borate
1332-77-0 Potassium borate
20786-60-1 Potassium Borate
584-08-7 Potassium carbonate
7447-40-7 Potassium chloride
590-29-4 Potassium formate
1310-58-3 Potassium Hydroxide
13709-94-9 Potassium metaborate
24634-61-5 Potassium Sorbate
112926-00-8 Precipitated silica / silica gel
57-55-6 Propane-1,2-diol, or Propylene glycol
107-98-2 Propylene glycol monomethyl ether
68953-58-2 Quaternary Ammonium Compounds
62763-89-7 Quinoline,2-methyl-, hydrochloride
15619-48-4 Quinolinium, 1-(phenylmethl),chloride
7631-86-9 Silica, Dissolved
5324-84-5 Sodium 1-octanesulfonate
127-09-3 Sodium acetate
95371-16-7 Sodium Alpha-olefin Sulfonate
532-32-1 Sodium Benzoate
144-55-8 Sodium bicarbonate
7631-90-5 Sodium bisulfate
7647-15-6 Sodium Bromide
497-19-8 Sodium carbonate
7647-14-5 Sodium Chloride
7758-19-2 Sodium chlorite
3926-62-3 Sodium Chloroacetate
68-04-2 Sodium citrate
6381-77-7 Sodium erythorbate / isoascorbic acid, sodium salt
2836-32-0 Sodium Glycolate
1310-73-2 Sodium Hydroxide
7681-52-9 Sodium hypochlorite
7775-19-1 Sodium Metaborate .8H2O
10486-00-7 Sodium perborate tetrahydrate
7775-27-1 Sodium persulphate
9003-04-7 Sodium polyacrylate
7757-82-6 Sodium sulfate
1303-96-4 Sodium tetraborate decahydrate
7772-98-7 Sodium Thiosulfate
1338-43-8 Sorbitan Monooleate
57-50-1 Sucrose
5329-14-6 Sulfamic acid
112945-52-5 Syntthetic Amorphous / Pyrogenic Silica / Amorphous Silica
68155-20-4 Tall Oil Fatty Acid Diethanolamine
8052-48-0 Tallow fatty acids sodium salt
72480-70-7 Tar bases, quinoline derivs., benzyl chloride-quaternized
68647-72-3 Terpene and terpenoids
68956-56-9 Terpene hydrocarbon byproducts
533-74-4 Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (a.k.a. Dazomet)
55566-30-8 Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate (THPS)
75-57-0 Tetramethyl ammonium chloride
64-02-8 Tetrasodium Ethylenediaminetetraacetate
68-11-1 Thioglycolic acid
62-56-6 Thiourea
68527-49-1 Thiourea, polymer with formaldehyde and 1-phenylethanone
108-88-3 Toluene
81741-28-8 Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride
68299-02-5 Triethanolamine hydroxyacetate
112-27-6 Triethylene Glycol
52624-57-4 Trimethylolpropane, Ethoxylated, Propoxylated
150-38-9 Trisodium Ethylenediaminetetraacetate
5064-31-3 Trisodium Nitrilotriacetate
7601-54-9 Trisodium ortho phosphate
57-13-6 Urea
25038-72-6 Vinylidene Chloride/Methylacrylate Copolymer
7732-18-5 Water
1330-20-7 Xylene

Chemical Constituent
Chemical constituents are not linked to product names in Table 5.6 because a significant number of product composition and formulas have been justified as trade secrets as defined and provided by Public Officers Law §87.2(d) and the Department’s implementing regulation, 6 NYCRR 616.7.
Aliphatic acids
Aliphatic alcohol glycol ether
Alkyl Aryl Polyethoxy Ethanol
Alkylaryl Sulfonate
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Aromatic ketones
Oxyalkylated alkylphenol
Petroleum distillate blend
Polyethoxylated alkanol
Polymeric Hydrocarbons
Salt of amine-carbonyl condensate
Salt of fatty acid/polyamine reaction product
Sugar
Surfactant blend

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

PRES. OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE ORDER: CHESAPEAKE BAY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release May 12, 2009

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in furtherance of the purposes of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and other laws, and to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the Nation's largest estuarine ecosystem and the natural sustainability of its watershed, it is hereby ordered as follows:

PART 1 – PREAMBLE

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure constituting the largest estuary in the United States and one of the largest and most biologically productive estuaries in the world. The Federal Government has nationally significant assets in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed in the form of public lands, facilities, military installations, parks, forests, wildlife refuges, monuments, and museums.
Despite significant efforts by Federal, State, and local governments and other interested parties, water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay prevents the attainment of existing State water quality standards and the "fishable and swimmable" goals of the Clean Water Act. At the current level and scope of pollution control within the Chesapeake Bay's watershed, restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is not expected for many years. The pollutants that are largely responsible for pollution of the Chesapeake Bay are nutrients, in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus, and sediment. These pollutants come from many sources, including sewage treatment plants, city streets, development sites, agricultural operations, and deposition from the air onto the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and the lands of the watershed.

Restoration of the health of the Chesapeake Bay will require a renewed commitment to controlling pollution from all sources as well as protecting and restoring habitat and living resources, conserving lands, and improving management of natural resources, all of which contribute to improved water quality and ecosystem health. The Federal Government should lead this effort. Executive departments and agencies (agencies), working in collaboration, can use their expertise and resources to contribute significantly to improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay also will depend on the support of State and local governments, the enterprise of the private sector, and the stewardship provided to the Chesapeake Bay by all the people who make this region their home.

PART 2 – SHARED FEDERAL LEADERSHIP, PLANNING, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 201. Federal Leadership Committee. In order to begin a new era of shared Federal leadership with respect to the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, a Federal Leadership Committee (Committee) for the Chesapeake Bay is established to oversee the development and coordination of programs and activities, including data management and reporting, of agencies participating in protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. The Committee shall manage the development of strategies and program plans for the watershed and ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay and oversee their implementation. The Committee shall be chaired by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the Administrator's designee, and include senior representatives of the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), the Interior (DOI), Transportation (DOT), and such other agencies as determined by the Committee. Representatives serving on the Committee shall be officers of the United States.

Sec. 202. Reports on Key Challenges to Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Within 120 days from the date of this order, the agencies identified in this section as the lead agencies shall prepare and submit draft reports to the Committee making recommendations for accomplishing the following steps to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay:

(a) define the next generation of tools and actions to restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and describe the changes to be made to regulations, programs, and policies to implement these actions;

(b) target resources to better protect the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters, including resources under the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, the Clean Water Act, and other laws;

(c) strengthen storm water management practices at Federal facilities and on Federal lands within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and develop storm water best practices guidance;

(d) assess the impacts of a changing climate on the Chesapeake Bay and develop a strategy for adapting natural resource programs and public infrastructure to the impacts of a changing climate on water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed;

(e) expand public access to waters and open spaces of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from Federal lands and conserve landscapes and ecosystems of the Chesapeake Bay watershed;

(f) strengthen scientific support for decisionmaking to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, including expanded environmental research and monitoring and observing systems; and

(g) develop focused and coordinated habitat and research activities that protect and restore living resources and water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.

The EPA shall be the lead agency for subsection (a) of this section and the development of the storm water best practices guide under subsection (c). The USDA shall be the lead agency for subsection (b). The DOD shall lead on storm water management practices at Federal facilities and on Federal lands under subsection (c). The DOI and the DOC shall share the lead on subsections (d), (f), and (g), and the DOI shall be lead on subsection (e). The lead agencies shall provide final reports to the Committee within 180 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 203. Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay. The Committee shall prepare and publish a strategy for coordinated implementation of existing programs and projects to guide efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. The strategy shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(a) define environmental goals for the Chesapeake Bay and describe milestones for making progress toward attainment of these goals;

(b) identify key measureable indicators of environmental condition and changes that are critical to effective Federal leadership;

(c) describe the specific programs and strategies to be implemented, including the programs and strategies described in draft reports developed under section 202 of this order;

(d) identify the mechanisms that will assure that governmental and other activities, including data collection and distribution, are coordinated and effective, relying on existing mechanisms where appropriate; and

(e) describe a process for the implementation of adaptive management principles, including a periodic evaluation of protection and restoration activities.

The Committee shall review the draft reports submitted by lead agencies under section 202 of this order and, in consultation with relevant State agencies, suggest appropriate revisions to the agency that provided the draft report. It shall then integrate these reports into a coordinated strategy for restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay consistent with the requirements of this order. Together with the final reports prepared by the lead agencies, the draft strategy shall be published for public review and comment within 180 days of the date of this order and a final strategy shall be published within 1 year. To the extent practicable and authorized under their existing authorities, agencies may begin implementing core elements of restoration and protection programs and strategies,

in consultation with the Committee, as soon as possible and prior to release of a final strategy.

Sec. 204. Collaboration with State Partners. In preparing the reports under section 202 and the strategy under section 203, the lead agencies and the Committee shall consult extensively with the States of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Delaware and the District of Columbia. The goal of this consultation is to ensure that Federal actions to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay are closely coordinated with actions by State and local agencies in the watershed and that the resources, authorities, and expertise of Federal, State, and local agencies are used as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the Chesapeake Bay's water quality and ecosystem and habitat health and viability.

Sec. 205. Annual Action Plan and Progress Report. Beginning in 2010, the Committee shall publish an annual Chesapeake Bay Action Plan (Action Plan) describing how Federal funding proposed in the President's Budget will be used to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay during the upcoming fiscal year. This plan will be accompanied by an Annual Progress Report reviewing indicators of environmental conditions in the Chesapeake Bay, assessing implementation of the Action Plan during the preceding fiscal year, and recommending steps to improve progress in restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay. The Committee shall consult with stakeholders (including relevant State agencies) and members of the public in developing the Action Plan and Annual Progress Report.

Sec. 206. Strengthen Accountability. The Committee, in collaboration with State agencies, shall ensure that an independent evaluator periodically reports to the Committee on progress toward meeting the goals of this order. The Committee shall ensure that all program evaluation reports, including data on practice or system implementation and maintenance funded through agency programs, as appropriate, are made available to the public by posting on a website maintained by the Chair of the Committee.

PART 3 – RESTORE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATER QUALITY

Sec. 301. Water Pollution Control Strategies. In preparing the report required by subsection 202(a) of this order, the Administrator of the EPA (Administrator) shall, after consulting with appropriate State agencies, examine how to make full use of its authorities under the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters and, as appropriate, shall consider revising any guidance and regulations. The Administrator shall identify pollution control strategies and actions authorized by the EPA's existing authorities to restore the Chesapeake Bay that:

(a) establish a clear path to meeting, as expeditiously as practicable, water quality and environmental restoration goals for the Chesapeake Bay;

(b) are based on sound science and reflect adaptive management principles;

(c) are performance oriented and publicly accountable;

(d) apply innovative and cost-effective pollution control measures;

(e) can be replicated in efforts to protect other bodies of water, where appropriate; and

(f) build on the strengths and expertise of Federal, State, and local governments, the private sector, and citizen organizations.

Sec. 302. Elements of EPA Reports. The strategies and actions identified by the Administrator of the EPA in preparing the report under subsection 202(a) shall include, to the extent permitted by law:

(a) using Clean Water Act tools, including strengthening existing permit programs and extending coverage where appropriate;

(b) establishing new, minimum standards of performance where appropriate, including:

(i) establishing a schedule for the implementation of key actions in cooperation with States, local governments, and others;

(ii) constructing watershed-based frameworks that assign pollution reduction responsibilities to pollution sources and maximize the reliability and cost-effectiveness of pollution reduction programs; and

(iii) implementing a compliance and enforcement strategy.

PART 4 – AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES TO PROTECT THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

Sec. 401. In developing recommendations for focusing resources to protect the Chesapeake Bay in the report required by subsection 202(b) of this order, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, as appropriate, concentrate the USDA's working lands and land retirement programs within priority watersheds in counties in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These programs should apply priority conservation practices that most efficiently reduce nutrient and sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay, as identified by USDA and EPA data and scientific analysis. The Secretary of Agriculture shall work with State agriculture and conservation agencies in developing the report.

PART 5 – REDUCE WATER POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL LANDS AND FACILITIES

Sec. 501. Agencies with land, facilities, or installation management responsibilities affecting ten or more acres within the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay shall, as expeditiously as practicable and to the extent permitted by law, implement land management practices to protect the Chesapeake Bay and its

tributary waters consistent with the report required by section 202 of this order and as described in guidance published by the EPA under section 502.

Sec. 502. The Administrator of the EPA shall, within 1 year of the date of this order and after consulting with the Committee and providing for public review and comment, publish guidance for Federal land management in the Chesapeake Bay watershed describing proven, cost-effective tools and practices that reduce water pollution, including practices that are available for use by Federal agencies.

PART 6 – PROTECT CHESAPEAKE BAY AS THE CLIMATE CHANGES

Sec. 601. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall, to the extent permitted by law, organize and conduct research and scientific assessments to support development of the strategy to adapt to climate change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay watershed as required in section 202 of this order and to evaluate the impacts of climate change on the Chesapeake Bay in future years. Such research should include assessment of:

(a) the impact of sea level rise on the aquatic ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, including nutrient and sediment load contributions from stream banks and shorelines;

(b) the impacts of increasing temperature, acidity, and salinity levels of waters in the Chesapeake Bay;

(c) the impacts of changing rainfall levels and changes in rainfall intensity on water quality and aquatic life;

(d) potential impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed; and

(e) potential impacts of more severe storms on Chesapeake Bay resources.

PART 7 – EXPAND PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND CONSERVE LANDSCAPES AND ECOSYSTEMS

Sec. 701. (a) Agencies participating in the Committee shall assist the Secretary of the Interior in development of the report addressing expanded public access to the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and conservation of landscapes and ecosystems required in subsection 202(e) of this order by providing to the Secretary:

(i) a list and description of existing sites on agency lands and facilities where public access to the Chesapeake Bay or its tributary waters is offered;

(ii) a description of options for expanding public access at these agency sites;

(iii) a description of agency sites where new opportunities for public access might be provided;

(iv) a description of safety and national security issues related to expanded public access to Department of Defense installations;

(v) a description of landscapes and ecosystems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that merit recognition for their historical, cultural, ecological, or scientific values; and

(vi) options for conserving these landscapes and ecosystems.

(b) In developing the report addressing expanded public access on agency lands to the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and options for conserving landscapes and ecosystems in the Chesapeake Bay, as required in subsection 202(e) of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall coordinate any recommendations with State and local agencies in the watershed and programs such as the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network, and the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail.

PART 8 – MONITORING AND DECISION SUPPORT FOR ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall, to the extent permitted by law, organize and conduct their monitoring, research, and scientific assessments to support decisionmaking for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and to develop the report addressing strengthening environmental monitoring of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed required in section 202 of this order. This report will assess existing monitoring programs and gaps in data collection, and shall also include the following topics:

(a) the health of fish and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;

(b) factors affecting changes in water quality and habitat conditions; and

(c) using adaptive management to plan, monitor, evaluate, and adjust environmental management actions.

PART 9 – LIVING RESOURCES PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

Sec. 901. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall, to the extent permitted by law, identify and prioritize critical living resources of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, conduct collaborative research and habitat protection activities that address expected outcomes for these species, and develop a report addressing these topics as required in section 202 of this order. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall coordinate agency activities related to living resources in estuarine waters to ensure maximum benefit to the Chesapeake Bay resources.

PART 10 – EXCEPTIONS

Sec. 1001. The heads of agencies may authorize exceptions to this order, in the following circumstances:

(a) during time of war or national emergency;

(b) when necessary for reasons of national security;

(c) during emergencies posing an unacceptable threat to human health or safety or to the marine environment and admitting of no other feasible solution; or

(d) in any case that constitutes a danger to human life or a real threat to vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made structures at sea, such as cases of force majeure caused by stress of weather or other act of God.

PART 11 – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 1101. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 12, 2009.

View document HERE.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!