Public Hearing to Examine Wastewater Produced from Hydraulic Fracturing

1 BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 2 -------------------------------------------------- 3 PUBLIC HEARING 4 TO EXAMINE WASTEWATER PRODUCED

FROM HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 5

----------------------------------------------------- 6 7

The Inn on the Lake 8 770 South Main Street

Canandaigua, New York 9

December 12, 2011 10 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 11 12 13 PRESIDING: 14 Senator Mark J. Grisanti

Chair 15 16 17 SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT: 18 Senator Patrick M. Gallivan 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1

SPEAKERS:PAGE QUESTIONS 2

Eugene Leff 13 29 3 Deputy Commissioner

Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 4

John Wood 74 95 5 Legal Fellow

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 6

Thomas M. Johnson 101 109 7 Vice President, and, Sr. Hydrogeologist

Alpha Geoscience, Clifton Park, NY 8

Paul Drof 118 126 9 Executive Director

Niagara Falls Water Board 10

Katherine Nadeau 141 158 11 Water & Natural Resources

Program Director 12 Environmental Advocates of New York 13 Paul Hartman 165 176

Director of State Government Relations 14 Chesapeake Energy System 15 Robert Duthie 187 192

President & CEO 16 Synergena 17 Brian Rahm 196 212

Post-Doctoral Research Associate 18 Cornell University 19 John Conrad 215 223

Principal, and, Sr. Hydrogeologist 20 Conrad Geoscience Corporation 21 Larry Shilling 225 232

Vice President, Western Region 22 Casella Waste Systems, Inc. 23 Dr. Sandra Steingraber 236 249

Distinguished Scholar in Residence 24 Ithaca College 25 1

SPEAKERS:PAGE QUESTIONS 2

Frank Miller 250 258 3 President

Lake Country FracWater Specialists, LLC 4

Sarah Eckel 260 269 5 Legislative and Policy Director

Citizens Campaign for the Environment 6

Walter Hang 270 282 7 President

Toxics Targeting 8 9 ---oOo--- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I'm Senator 2 Patrick Gallivan. I represent the 59th District, 3 which includes the city and town in Canandaigua, in 4 southern Ontario County, and then, heads east, and 5 cuts across Livingston, Wyoming, and Erie County, 6 ending at the lake. 7 So, I'm coast-to-coast: Canandaigua Lake, out 8 to Lake Erie. 9 But, I would like to welcome everybody this 10 morning to this hearing. 11 Welcome, Senator Mark Grisanti, who is the 12 Chairman of the State Senate Environmental 13 Conservation Committee, to discuss, clearly, what is 14 among the issues of our times. 15 We're in the heart of the Finger Lakes. 16 And, the constituents, my constituents, have 17 raised, time and time again, their concerns about 18 hydrofracking as it relates to the Finger Lakes and 19 the water supply. 20 So, that's among the things that we're here 21 today to focus on. 22 And I'd like to thank Senator Grisanti for 23 agreeing to come out here to talk about this, which, 24 of course, affects more than just -- than what we're 25 facing here in the Finger Lakes, but, statewide. 1 And Senator Grisanti has been traveling the 2 state, with different meetings, different hearings, 3 in an attempt to gather as much information as 4 possible so that we then can, ultimately, go 5 forward, and do our jobs. 6 But with that, I thank you again. 7 I appreciate the fact that people took time 8 out of their day to attend today. 9 And, I appreciate Senator Grisanti's work, 10 and his willingness to come here and focus on the 11 issue of water. 12 And, I'd like to turn it over to him. 13 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you. 14 Again, good morning, everybody. 15 Thanks for the introduction, 16 Senator Gallivan. 17 I want to thank all those who are going to be 18 testifying today, and all those who are in 19 attendance today. 20 And, if there was miscommunication out there 21 as far as how this hearing was going to be 22 conducted, what we had is, we had people that were 23 submitting their testimony prior to the hearing. 24 It's, in a sense, not a hearing as it was 25 normally done by the DEC, where many, many people 1 would testify; they would get a whole 2 two to three minutes. 3 This is a hearing that's going to be very 4 specific. 5 As you know, hydraulic fracturing represents 6 the most important, either, economic-development 7 opportunity in the state, but also, most important, 8 environmental concerns to possibly ever face this 9 state. 10 So, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on 11 Environmental Conservation, I have been asked with 12 the responsibility, along with Senator Gallivan, to 13 scrutinize this particular practice. 14 And since the SGEIS report, it's been 15 reviewed by many individuals, including most of you 16 here. 17 And during this year, I've told groups on 18 both sides of this issue, that I would look at every 19 issue that we have, listen to all the testimony, as 20 it relates to fracking, and make a case-by-case 21 determination. 22 But, this hearing today is narrowly focused. 23 The prior hearings that have been across the 24 state have been very broad. 25 This hearing is specifically focusing on the 1 byproducts of hydraulic fracturing; and, 2 specifically, the wastewater and cuttings. 3 So, that's what this hearing is limited to. 4 There have been hearings held by the DEC, the 5 Assembly, many local governments, county 6 governments, across the state, but until today, as I 7 said, those hearings have been a little bit broad. 8 And our goal here today, myself and 9 Senator Gallivan, is to just have a little bit more 10 focus on some of the issues. 11 So, I'm hopeful that the experts here today, 12 and the people that are testifying, will help 13 educate us with their experience. 14 And for those of you that do want to submit 15 comments, still, it has been extended by the DEC, 16 from December 12th, which, today was going to be the 17 cutoff date, to January 11. 18 So, that is still going to go forward. 19 Also, I'll remind you, if anybody is here 20 in -- you know, we're at The Inn on the Lake, 21 Canandaigua. There are -- there is a restaurant 22 here, for those of you that want to either get 23 coffee or snacks, or something like that, that is 24 open. 25 But, with that said, we'll move forward. 1 And the first to come and testify here today 2 is, we have from the DEC, Deputy Commissioner 3 Eugene Leff. 4 And I would ask you to approach here, and 5 begin your comments. 6 (Off-the-record discussion at Chairman's 7 table.) 8 SENATOR GRISANTI: Gene, before you get 9 started, I got handed to me, there was another 10 senator -- as you know, we left this open. 11 There was going to be -- we sent it out to 12 all 62 senators, to come here and listen to the 13 testimonies. 14 You can see you got myself and Pat here. 15 We got a response from a lot of senators that 16 weren't able to make it. 17 One in particular was Senator Avella, who 18 asked me to read this statement into the record, and 19 I will do so at this time. 20 He, basically, thanks myself and 21 Senator Gallivan, "for scheduling this very 22 important public hearing to discuss the wastewater 23 issues involved in hydraulic fracturing. 24 "It is crucial that public hearings such as 25 this are held, and people are given an opportunity 1 to engage in detailed discussions on the 2 appropriateness of allowing what is very 3 controversial, and potentially devastating form of 4 extracting natural gas. 5 "I regret that I am unable to attend today's 6 hearing. However, I urge Senator Grisanti to 7 continue this public-hearing process regarding 8 hydrofracking, and respectfully ask that an 9 additional hearing be scheduled in Albany when the 10 legislative session resumes in January 2012, so we 11 can expand this discussion and invite additional 12 speakers." 13 He goes on to state, Senator Avella: 14 "That while I reviewed the statements of 15 those invited to speak today with an open mind," he 16 has "serious reservations regarding an overall 17 safety of this form of extraction of natural gas 18 reserves." 19 "As many of you, I have spent countless hours 20 researching the issue, and have willingly met with 21 advocates on both sides of the issue, including 22 industry supporters. 23 "However, after long deliberation," he says, 24 he believes "that the dangers of this injury may be 25 too great, and the risk to human health and a vital 1 water resource far outweigh the proposed economic 2 benefits, which are temporary, and certainly not 3 guaranteed." 4 He's "especially concerned about the health 5 and environmental risk posed by the disposal and 6 processing of hydraulic fracking fluids and drill 7 cuttings." 8 "I have come to learn, that despite the 9 current moratorium on hydrofracking in New York, the 10 State currently allows hydrofracking waste products, 11 including drill cuttings, pulverized rock, and 12 drilling fluid to be dumped in our landfills, spread 13 on our fields and roads, and treated in waste 14 treatment facilities that may not necessarily be 15 equipped to properly treat such materials. 16 "Much of this hydrofracking waste includes 17 low-level radioactive waste, such as RA226, which is 18 a known carcinogen, and it is especially dangerous 19 if inhaled and ingested. 20 "It is not a stretch of the imagination to 21 see these waste products could very easily find 22 their way into local groundwater, directly exposing 23 people, by ingestion of the water or by inhaling 24 dust that comes from the local landfills, or from 25 roads and fields where it is been spread." 1 He states, "A significant amount of this 2 hydrofracking waste is being imported from outside 3 New York, primarily from our neighboring 4 Pennsylvania. 5 "Trucks cross New York State borders on a 6 daily basis, carrying this highly dangerous waste 7 into our state, even while we deliberate whether to 8 allow this practice to occur within our own borders. 9 "We have already put many of our citizens," 10 he feels, "at risk." 11 "I am in the process of amending my 12 hydrofracking legislation, Senate Bill 4220, to 13 prohibit the acceptance, disposal, and processing of 14 fluid, including drill cuttings used in hydraulic 15 fracturing processes. 16 "I am also the sponsor of legislation, 17 S4616" -- Senator Avella, he goes on to state -- 18 "which will remove the current exemption from 19 hazardous-waste classification given the drilling 20 fluids, produce waters and other wastes associated 21 with the exploration, development, or production of 22 crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy." 23 He "finds no reason why waste products from 24 oil and natural gas activities that meet the 25 definition of 'hazardous waste' should not be 1 subject to the same laws, regarding generation, 2 transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal, as 3 other hazardous waste products." 4 "The risk of catastrophic danger to the 5 environment, the health of New York State residents, 6 and adverse economic impacts, as a result of 7 hydraulic fracturing, far outweigh the potential for 8 job creation and promotion of natural gas 9 alternatively to oil." 10 Respectfully submitted. 11 Read into the record today, 12/12/2011. 12 Tony Avella, 11th Senatorial District. 13 Now, with that said -- 14 [Applause.] 15 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- we'll move forward from 16 there. 17 And one thing I want to remind everybody of, 18 and this is something that I myself and 19 Senator Gallivan, we talked about: While somebody's 20 testifying, or even after their testimony, I really 21 don't want to get into, either people booing or 22 clapping, or -- or one side or the other. 23 We want to conduct this hearing in a fair 24 manner to all those that are going to be speaking; 25 to all those that are going to give testimony. 1 And, I was at some of the hearings in the 2 past. I was present in some of the hearings that 3 they had in Albany. 4 And, to be honest with you, I find it quite 5 distasteful when somebody just, you know, out of the 6 blue, either yells, or says certain things. 7 Because, if it happens, and it gets out of 8 hand, I'm going ask that you leave the hearing room 9 so we can move forward with the people that we have, 10 that are going to be testifying here today, both, 11 pro and against this practice. 12 Okay? 13 With that, Deputy Commissioner, I appreciate 14 you giving me the time to read that into the record. 15 You may proceed. 16 Thank you. 17 EUGENE LEFF: Good morning. 18 Chairman Grisanti, and Senator Gallivan, 19 thank you very much for this opportunity to testify 20 about wastewater and cuttings that result from 21 natural gas extraction using high-volume hydraulic 22 fracturing, also referred to by the initials "HVHF." 23 My name is Gene Leff. I'm a deputy 24 commissioner at DEC. 25 Commissioner Martens sends his regrets that 1 he was unable to be here today. 2 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 3 EUGENE LEFF: For nearly four years, DEC has 4 been intensively studying the potential 5 environmental impacts of the use of high-volume 6 hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from 7 shale formations in New York State. 8 We just completed four public hearings on the 9 revised draft Supplemental Generic Environmental 10 Impact Statement, referred to as the "SGEIS," that 11 would govern natural gas exploration using this 12 process, and we have received more than 13 14,000 comments already on the draft. 14 We previously received approximately 15 13,000 comments on an earlier draft in 2009. 16 The latest draft builds on, and greatly 17 improves upon, the 2009 draft. 18 We learned much from the experience in other 19 states, as well as from insights offered by 20 commenters. 21 As a result, we have identified many measures 22 to protect our drinking water, our air, our land, 23 and our streams. 24 We have added significant protections 25 recommended by scientists, engineers, and our 1 colleagues at the Department of Health, to ensure 2 that any gas drilling that takes place is undertaken 3 in a manner that protects public health and the 4 environment. 5 The SGEIS fully examines the potential 6 environmental impacts of wastewater that will result 7 from high-volume hydraulic fracturing, as well as 8 the potential impacts of cuttings generated by 9 drilling in deep wells anticipated to be used for 10 the development of the Marcellus and Utica Shales. 11 As its name indicates, high-volume hydraulic 12 fracturing uses large volumes of water, combined 13 with certain chemicals and proppants, to, quote, 14 stimulate a geologic formation and free the natural 15 gas for extraction. 16 DEC anticipates that each individual well 17 will be fractured, using between, approximately, 18 2 and 8 million gallons of water. 19 After the pressure is released of fracturing, 20 the fracturing fluid that returns to the surface is 21 known as "flowback water." 22 [Slide being shown.] 23 And in the slide that you can see on the 24 side, we have two columns: 25 One referring to flowback water. And we'll 1 be talking about production brine, in the other 2 column, a bit later. 3 Now, flowback water is typically recovered 4 within the first two or three weeks after 5 fracturing. And, of the total volume of flowback, 6 as much as 60 percent returns within the first 7 four days. 8 DEC has estimated, that between 216,000 and 9 2.7 million gallons of flowback, per well, would be 10 generated. 11 Next slide, please. 12 [New slide being shown.] 13 Data reported by the Susquehanna River Basin 14 Commission, the "SRBC," confirms that less water 15 than may have may have previously been anticipated 16 returns to the surface after fracturing is 17 completed. 18 The SRBC data indicate that only, roughly, 19 8 percent of the total fluid volume is recovered. 20 In addition to less water being returned, gas 21 companies are now recycling most of the flowback 22 water. 23 [New slide being shown.] 24 Recycling includes the removal of metals from 25 the flowback water, either on site and at a 1 centralized facility. 2 The recycled water is combined with fresh 3 water, and the fracturing-fluid mixture is adjusted, 4 based on the chemical makeup of the wastewater, and 5 then used again in a fracturing process. 6 Next slide, please. 7 [New slide being shown.] 8 All wastewater generated at a well site will 9 be required, under our SGEIS, to be collected in 10 steel tanks. 11 And we have, a slide on the left of this 12 slide, are steel tanks of the type that I'm 13 referring to. 14 This was deemed necessary, to prevent the 15 risk of spills, and to reduce or eliminate air 16 pollution from volatile organic chemicals found in 17 flowback water. 18 And you may have read, Senators, of 19 complaints in other states, of air pollution near 20 well pads. 21 Frequently, this resulted from the use of 22 open-air impoundments for wastewater which would not 23 be utilized in New York State. 24 If an operator seeks to store flowback in an 25 impoundment in a centralized location to serve 1 multiple well pads, this could be an exception. It 2 would be subject to site-specific review, and 3 discretionary approval process would be necessary, 4 as well as, an individual permit for the 5 construction of the impoundment, under our SPDES 6 law. 7 The tanks used for flowback water would be 8 required to be removed from the site within specific 9 time frames shortly after fracturing operations are 10 completed. 11 The tanks are required to have secondary 12 containment, to protect against tank or equipment 13 failures, spills, leaks, or fluid releases. 14 The well pads themselves will be subject to 15 engineered stormwater controls. 16 In addition, DEC has proposed a series of 17 buffered distances between the edge of the well pad 18 and sensitive resources. 19 [New slide being shown.] 20 Over time, water from the target formation is 21 produced with natural gas and returns up the 22 wellbore. This water is commonly referred to as 23 "produced water," or, "production brine." 24 And the slide we're now showing, again, shows 25 on the right, some of the characteristics of 1 production brine, and how we intend to treat it. 2 "Produced water" volume, or, 3 "production brine," is highest in the first 15 to 90 4 days after hydraulic fracturing, and then decreases 5 over time. 6 It is very salty, and contains a high 7 concentration of total dissolved solids. 8 Produced water may also have naturally 9 occurring radioactive materials, known as "NORM," 10 which may contribute to the buildup of scale on 11 production equipment. 12 If that occurs at certain levels, as 13 determined by the Department of Health, a 14 radioactive-materials handling license will be 15 required, primarily for the protection of workers. 16 In the Susquehanna River Basin, of 17 1.6 billion gallons of fresh water delivered to 18 well pads in the basin, only 42 million gallons, or 19 2.6 percent, required disposal according to the 20 SRBC. 21 That's because, so much of the water is 22 being, either, retained in the geologic formations 23 deep in the ground, or, being reused or recycled in 24 the process. 25 Although the volume of wastewater which 1 requires disposal is expected to be reduced as a 2 result of recycling, there still will be significant 3 quantities of wastewater that will be generated. 4 And as to this, DEC will not issue any permit 5 for drilling until it is satisfied that the 6 wastewater will be sent to a properly permitted 7 facility, either here in New York or in other 8 states. 9 (New slide showing.) 10 Applicants will have to provide DEC with 11 their disposal plans before any drilling permit is 12 issued, including contingency disposal plans. 13 At this point in time, besides recycling, the 14 disposal methods anticipated to be proposed, for 15 both flowback water and produced water, are 16 injection and disposal well -- injection into 17 disposal wells or processing at water treatment 18 plants. 19 And, here, we are showing in the slide some 20 of the main requirements for wastewater treatment 21 plant, "WWTP," approval. 22 But, before I address that, first, I want to 23 refer to the disposal-well option. 24 These are frequently used in other states, 25 including Ohio and Texas, but they are uncommon in 1 New York. 2 Disposal wells must be permitted if they are 3 proposed, by both EPA and DEC. They would require a 4 site-specific review under our SEQRA law in 5 New York. And that's been our State's policy since 6 at least since 1992, for oil, gas, and 7 solution-mining issues. 8 However, disposal of wastewater at a well 9 permitted in another state is an acceptable means of 10 disposal as well. 11 For a wastewater treatment plant to receive 12 any new waste stream, including flowback water or 13 production brine, it must go through a longstanding 14 review process, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and 15 the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System, 16 "SPDES," program which requires permits. 17 Any plants that wish to accept flowback would 18 have to have a DEC- or EPA-approved pretreatment, or 19 mini pretreatment, program. 20 First, the plant needs to know the makeup of 21 the waste stream. 22 A technical engineering analysis must be 23 done. This is known as a "headworks loading 24 analysis." 25 This must be undertaken, to determine if the 1 facility is capable of accepting the waste while 2 continuing to meet its limits on effluent. 3 The operators must also determine whether 4 additional capacity to accommodate this waste exists 5 at the plant. 6 [New slide being shown.] 7 DEC sent a letter to all wastewater treatment 8 plants in 2008, reminding them of the requirement to 9 undertake these reviews, and to work with DEC, to 10 ensure that they would be able to meet discharge 11 limits and permit requirements. 12 And we have reiterated the procedure in the 13 SGEIS. This is in our Appendix 22. 14 DEC may modify a facility's SPDES permit to 15 allow for acceptance of this source of wastewater, 16 and include additional permit limitations and 17 monitoring requirements associated with the 18 wastewater, to ensure compliance of all relevant 19 standards. 20 The SPDES permit would also be modified to 21 include limitations on the levels of NORM -- 22 "naturally occurring radioactive material" -- that 23 can be discharged to the facility, to ensure that 24 there are no effects on sludge disposal of the 25 facility. 1 Additionally, pretreatment would be required 2 before material is brought to the facility. 3 And as you know, Senators, robust enforcement 4 authority is available to ensure -- to assure 5 compliance with SPDES permits. 6 Presently, there are no plants that are 7 authorized to accept wastewater from high-volume 8 hydraulic fracturing in New York. 9 [New slide being shown.] 10 However, a facility dedicated to the 11 treatment of wastewater from the drilling industry 12 may be proposed, and existing plants may seek to 13 address these industrial wastewaters, or, other 14 technologies could be developed to treat such 15 wastewater as the use of this technology continues. 16 For example: A new private facility was 17 recently permitted to receive HVHF wastewater in 18 Pennsylvania. 19 So, I've discussed the publicly operated 20 treatment facilities, and now mention the private 21 facilities which would play an important role in 22 this wastewater disposal process. 23 [New slide being shown.] 24 Now, the diagram that we're showing now is, 25 obviously, not legible to people in the back of this 1 hall, but what we wanted to do -- 2 [Inaudible audience comments.] 3 -- we wanted to show you the process that a 4 publicly operated treatment plant would have to go 5 through to get authorization from DEC to accept HVHF 6 wastewater. 7 It's an extremely careful, intensive process. 8 And, at each of these steps in the process, 9 if our standards are not met, it's, "Go back to 10 square one. You cannot get authorization to accept 11 this wastewater unless you satisfy all of these 12 requirements." 13 [New slide being shown.] 14 Moving on to the subject of solid cuttings: 15 When a well is drilled, rock cut by the bore 16 is returned to the surface along with any drilling 17 fluids used. 18 Here, I'm not referring to hydraulic 19 fluids -- hydraulic fracturing fluids; but, rather, 20 water, or other fluids, that are used to drill the 21 wellbore in the first place. 22 The rock that comes up is known as 23 "cuttings." 24 The fluids, in this instance, do not contain 25 any additives of the type used in fracturing fluids 1 that have raised concerns. 2 These materials are generated well before the 3 well is fractured, and they do not come into contact 4 with fracturing fluids. 5 Next slide, please. 6 [New slide being shown.] 7 Cuttings are directed to tanks that are part 8 of a closed-loop system. 9 And the slide now shows, on the right side, 10 such a closed-loop system. 11 Now, it is possible to use a reserve pit, 12 which is pictured on the left side, for cuttings, 13 and the fluids that are utilized in this very early 14 stage, which do not contain any toxic materials. 15 Cuttings can be disposed of on site if the 16 drilling has been done with water, or simply with 17 air; that is, without the use of oil or 18 polymer-based fluid or mud. 19 If polymers or oil are used, the cuttings are 20 considered "solid waste" under our regulations, 21 however, they are eligible for disposal in an 22 ordinary municipal solid-waste landfill. 23 Again, they do not contain the toxic 24 materials that are associated with fracturing. 25 [New slide being shown.] 1 Cuttings from the Marcellus formation may 2 contain pyrite. 3 And slide now refers to that substance. 4 Pyrite is a natural mineral that is found in 5 the Marcellus formation, and can result in acid rock 6 that could potentially leach into groundwater. 7 To prevent any potential leaching of acids, 8 any on-site burial of cuttings would be permitted, 9 under our SGEIS, only if an acid drainage plan is 10 submitted, and approved by DEC. 11 The plan would require management and 12 reclamation of the impacted area of the site as 13 well. 14 Basically, the acid-drainage plan requires 15 that some lime or limestone, or other base, is used 16 to neutralize the acid. 17 Cuttings from the Marcellus formation may 18 also contain naturally occurring radioactive 19 material, or "NORM," as I mentioned. 20 This is due to the high organic content of 21 the formation, and is typically in the form of 22 uranium, thorium, and their decay products. 23 However -- and this is what I want to 24 stress -- the concentrations of radioactivity, while 25 somewhat elevated, are similar to those naturally 1 encountered in the surrounding environment. 2 Our experts have reviewed the data on the 3 levels of NORM, as well as, experts from the 4 Department of Health, and they are confident that 5 NORM from cuttings is not a public-health concern. 6 All the wastes, including wastewater and 7 cuttings, will be tracked using a system similar to 8 the one that we have in place for medical waste. 9 This will ensure that DEC can monitor the 10 movement of wastes from cradle to grave. 11 Some members of the public have misunderstood 12 the SGEIS on this point. 13 We are not saying that these wastes are 14 medical waste; rather, we are adapting a tracking 15 procedure that was developed for medical waste, for 16 this new purpose. 17 Also, the wastes are treated as industrial 18 waste, and any transportation from the well pad to a 19 disposal site must be done by a DEC-permitted 20 hauler. 21 All of these issues are fully discussed in 22 the SGEIS. 23 As was previously pointed out, 24 Commissioner Martens has recently extended the 25 comment period for the draft SGEIS, and proposed 1 regulations, through January 11th. 2 We encourage the public to provide us with 3 detailed comments on waste disposal, on the 4 mitigation measures that we have proposed, as well 5 as all the other issues that have been raised by 6 this subject. 7 Last, I want to stress that it is important 8 that proper oversight and enforcement of all aspects 9 of gas drilling, including the management of wastes, 10 be provided. 11 This is key to ensuring protection of public 12 health and the environment. 13 Commissioner Martens has convened an advisory 14 panel on HVHF, which was tasked with developing 15 recommendations on state and local resource needs to 16 properly oversee, monitor, and enforce conditions 17 for HVHF in New York. 18 We expect those recommendations to be issued 19 sometime in 2012. 20 Thank you. 21 I am happy to answer any questions you may 22 have, and appreciate your interest and engagement on 23 this important issue. 24 25 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you, 2 Deputy Commissioner. 3 Naturally, we do have quite a few questions. 4 If you can go back to the slide that showed 5 the open pit? 6 The one on the left, where it's got a reserve 7 pit, now, you're saying that that is, basically, 8 just for cuttings; is that correct? 9 EUGENE LEFF: That's for cuttings, and the 10 fluid that's used to drill the well initially. 11 Yes. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: Which there is no contact, 13 prior, with fracking fluids? 14 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 15 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 16 Now, isn't it true that, in Pennsylvania, 17 let's say, in the past, that there was those holding 18 ponds that were holding waters for fracking fluid? 19 EUGENE LEFF: I believe there were holding 20 impoundments for fracking fluid that had been 21 utilized, and was flowing back to the surface. 22 And that is what we are not permitting under 23 the SGEIS. 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, so we're clear: So, 25 as far as those open pits that may have fracking 1 fluids, and what may have happened in Pennsylvania, 2 is, some of those lying ponds may have had cracks, 3 where you had this fluid leaking into potential well 4 sites, the buffer zone may have -- not have been at 5 a distance that New York has, that would create some 6 of those problems with regards to some people living 7 in those areas. 8 Is that correct? 9 EUGENE LEFF: Yes, that is correct, Senator. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: What -- can you explain, 11 briefly, what the difference is, between what the 12 DEC is doing, with regards to the fracking fluid and 13 the cuttings, as compared to what was done in 14 Pennsylvania? 15 EUGENE LEFF: As you know, Senator, there 16 were a series of articles in the "New York Times" 17 that discussed that subject. 18 And what the "Times" pointed out, was that, 19 fluids of the type that we've discussed, flowback 20 water and production brine, were taken, in 21 Pennsylvania, to treatment facilities. 22 There was no report indicating that 23 pretreatment was required at those facilities. 24 We would require pretreatment. 25 There was no indication that a headworks 1 analysis was conducted at those facilities. 2 We would require that type of analysis. 3 Only after all of those diamonds in the 4 process that we outlined have been satisfied, would 5 a facility in New York be able to do anything of the 6 nature that was attempted in -- that was done in 7 Pennsylvania. 8 And, so, the result of what was done in 9 Pennsylvania, was that there were reports that 10 contaminants actually went through the treatment 11 facilities, had not been stopped or eliminated by 12 the facility, and actually entered receiving waters, 13 where, in fact, drinking water may have been 14 extracted. 15 That process would not occur in 16 New York State because the treatment facility would 17 be violating its permit by discharging contaminants 18 in that manner. 19 With respect to cuttings as well, I'm not 20 aware that Pennsylvania had an acid-drainage 21 requirement. 22 We would also impose careful requirements on 23 the acceptance by our municipal landfills of 24 cuttings, to make sure that high levels of 25 radioactivity do not exist in those landfills. 1 In fact, we are proposing, and the SGEIS 2 points this out, a specific limit on the radioactive 3 reading of any cuttings. 4 It's a "15 picocuries per gram" limit, which 5 is below what the studies indicate is the level at 6 which any risk would occur. 7 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 8 Now, you know that we recently passed in the 9 Senate, and also in the State, a water-withdrawal 10 bill and water-withdrawal regulation. 11 EUGENE LEFF: Yes. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: And, due to the large 13 amounts of water that may be required to frack some 14 of these wells, what are some of the steps that are 15 taken in order to comply with that particular 16 avenue, with regards to the water-withdraw bill? 17 EUGENE LEFF: For the HVHF process, we have 18 identified specific ecological limits on the 19 withdrawal of water from our rivers, streams, and 20 other sources. 21 We're requiring very careful measurements to 22 be taken, to make sure that the amount of water 23 extracted does not reduce the flow in those streams 24 to levels that become harmful to the biota -- the 25 animals, the invertebrates, et cetera -- who rely on 1 those streams. 2 SENATOR GRISANTI: And the -- I mean, we know 3 in the past, the DEC's been severely cut, as far as, 4 with the number of people; the people that are able 5 to do any sort of permitting, inspectors, so on and 6 so forth. 7 Is it the plan, either through the DEC or 8 through legislation -- because it's that I'm for -- 9 to make sure, that, if this procedure is to go 10 forward, that the cost for the permitting, or any 11 sort of cost, is earmarked to the DEC, to be able to 12 hire additional staff, to hire additional people to 13 look at these permitting processes, to do the 14 inspections, to have testing done of the wells, 15 both, prior, during, and after any of these well 16 pads are put into place? 17 Is that something, that, in the SGEIS report, 18 has been talked about: to move forward to strengthen 19 the DEC, so it can have a handle on this, and not 20 have things slip by? 21 EUGENE LEFF: As you know, the Commissioner 22 has convened an advisory panel -- 23 SENATOR GRISANTI: Right. 24 EUGENE LEFF: -- and tasked it to look at the 25 staffing levels that will be required to do the 1 various important tasks that you just mentioned, 2 Senator, and, to identify specific revenue sources 3 that would be earmarked to pay for that additional 4 staff. 5 The Commissioner has said: If we don't 6 receive that revenue for that purpose, we will 7 simply not issue any permits that we cannot 8 adequately monitor. 9 And, so, we need the cooperation of the 10 Senate, and the other arms of the government, to 11 make sure that that adequate staffing is funded. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: Now, you mentioned that, 13 as of right now, there is no facility in New York 14 that can handle any flowback water. 15 Is that correct? 16 EUGENE LEFF: They are not presently 17 authorized to do so. 18 They could, possibly, if they do the adequate 19 study, they may well have the ability to do it with 20 minor modification to their facility. 21 It would depend on a review of each 22 individual facility. And those that would require 23 some new construction or modification of their 24 process would have to do that work in order to 25 accept those fluids. 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: And you're saying, at the 2 present time, in Pennsylvania, there's a private 3 facility that has recently surfaced, that is doing 4 that? 5 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 6 SENATOR GRISANTI: Prior to that, they were 7 sending the flowback water to Ohio, to dispose of it 8 in wells? 9 EUGENE LEFF: As well as, sending some of the 10 water to their own publicly operated treatment 11 plants. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: Any idea on the cost of -- 13 what creating a private facility, to treat the 14 hydraulic fracturing fluid, what the cost would be 15 on a private facility? 16 EUGENE LEFF: I don't know that -- the answer 17 to that, but I'm convinced that those investors and 18 those corporations that went ahead, did that 19 calculation, and determined that it was a 20 profit-making operation. 21 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 22 Now, one of the things that people talk about 23 is, hazardous waste, or some of the waste, that may 24 be in this flowback. 25 Do you know, are you able to tell us, how the 1 hazardous waste is classified, or regulated, in 2 New York State now? 3 EUGENE LEFF: Many of the same precautions 4 that we apply to hazardous waste are applied, under 5 the SGEIS, to some of the wastes generated from this 6 process. 7 In general, if hazardous waste has been 8 generated, it must go to a designated type of 9 landfill, or, other disposal facility. 10 We have been very careful about identifying 11 what needs to go to such a special facility; and 12 what can, from the hydrofracking process, go to a 13 municipal solid-waste landfill. 14 The key is, we looked at the particular 15 wastes here, and their characteristics, and have 16 adopted the measures that are necessary for this 17 particular waste stream in all its different forms. 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. And in the SGEIS, 19 it talks about protocols of disclosing what the 20 chemicals are in the water? Is that correct? 21 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 22 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 23 EUGENE LEFF: And if I may add: In order for 24 a treatment facility to accept wastes of this kind, 25 they would have to be informed of precisely what is 1 in the wastewater, including the additives that have 2 been used in the fracturing process. 3 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 4 Now, you talked about, uhm, that you're going 5 to track this as if it was -- you know, I'm not 6 saying it is medical waste -- but, what made you go 7 by that particular procedure of, from cradle to the 8 grave, of tracking this as if it were medical waste? 9 Is it just that, that there's a procedure in 10 place already, right now? 11 EUGENE LEFF: Well, it was obvious to us that 12 there was a concern about proper disposal. And, we 13 want to have the ability to verify that all the 14 waste that's generated from this process has been 15 properly disposed of. 16 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 17 And, when we saw that site about an open-loop 18 system and a closed-loop system, what does the DEC 19 prefer? Actually, a closed-system? 20 EUGENE LEFF: Well, we have authorized, for 21 the cuttings, either, of the open or the closed. 22 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 23 EUGENE LEFF: So -- 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: And that's based on 25 your -- the DEC, and others, that have basically 1 stated, that, in those cuttings, that there's not 2 any hazardous materials? 3 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 4 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 5 EUGENE LEFF: Now, there is the potential for 6 higher levels of radioactivity, and that is going to 7 be monitored when those materials are then brought 8 to a landfill. 9 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, a landfill that's 10 designated to handle that? 11 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 13 Now, do you know if, uhm -- if we're 14 receiving any of this material from Pennsylvania and 15 disposing of it in landfills here? 16 EUGENE LEFF: At the present time, I don't 17 believe that the wastewater from Pennsylvania is 18 being disposed of in New York State. 19 And, I'm not aware -- yes, there are cuttings 20 that have been accepted in the Chemung landfill, but 21 I'm not sure whether they originated in Pennsylvania 22 or New York. 23 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 24 And are those cuttings the same cuttings that 25 we're referring to, that do not have -- or, they may 1 have a higher radioactive material, but, you're 2 saying, it's not enough to -- in your studies, to 3 cause health concerns? 4 EUGENE LEFF: That is exactly right. 5 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 6 And at the present time, I mean, is no 7 hydrofracking wells -- well, no permits have been 8 issued? 9 EUGENE LEFF: For high-volume, 10 hydrofracking -- 11 SENATOR GRISANTI: Right. 12 EUGENE LEFF: -- that's correct. 13 There is, and has for a considerable amount 14 of time, been hydraulic fracturing in lower volume 15 of water uses, vertical wells. And that has been 16 conducted without any significant problems of any 17 nature. 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, well, let's touch on 19 that for a minute, because I know that the EPA, in 20 Wyoming County, came out with a site-specific 21 problem with one of the -- I'm assuming it was a 22 vertical well there, in Wyoming County, that had 23 issues. 24 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Wyoming State. 25 SENATOR GRISANTI: Wyoming State. 1 I'm sorry. 2 -- in Wyoming State. 3 What was the difference that would be 4 different, between New York and what they did in 5 Wyoming State? 6 EUGENE LEFF: Well, the report issued by EPA 7 last week, on Pavilion, Wyoming, was really 8 shocking, in indicating the poor practices with 9 respect to the cementing of the wellbore used in 10 Wyoming. 11 There were instances, where there was 12 inadequate cement around the pipe, or casing, that's 13 used to get down into the formation. 14 Now, that's a very serious problem, because, 15 whatever materials, such as the fluids used in 16 hydraulic fracturing, or gas itself that may be in 17 the subsurface, can then move alongside the casing, 18 up to the shallow areas. 19 And EPA hasn't reached a conclusion yet, 20 about whether that was the precise cause, but, there 21 was contamination of drinking water in Wyoming. 22 The EPA said, it may have been due to the 23 insufficient cement. It may have been due to the 24 permeability of the rock in those locations. 25 And I might say, in New York State, in the 1 vicinity of the Marcellus Shale, we have very 2 different geology; less permeable than was present 3 in Wyoming. 4 And it may, they thought, have been due to 5 the creation of fractures that extended up into the 6 shallow drinking-water areas. 7 One of the crucial differences in New York, 8 is that, we will not issue a permit, under the 9 SGEIS, for any drilling proposed to be closer than 10 2,000 feet below the ground surface. 11 What they had in Wyoming, in this instance, 12 was drilling at 1,200 feet below the ground surface. 13 And there was only a separation of a 14 few hundred feet between the drilling process that 15 was going on and the drinking-water wells. 16 Under our SGEIS, there must be at least 17 1,000 feet of separation. 18 And that's a very big difference. 19 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, so, basically, it's 20 the depth, and, as well the casings; which I know, 21 in Pennsylvania, they would have a layer of steel 22 and a layer of concrete. 23 And, in New York, they're talking about 24 having a triple layer under the SGEIS report. 25 It's something, you know -- or, a topic that 1 was at another hearing: It kind of goes below the 2 skull. 3 But, that's, basically, the difference 4 between -- another difference between Pennsylvania 5 and New York? 6 EUGENE LEFF: Yes, it is. 7 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 8 Now -- 9 EUGENE LEFF: And if I could add, in 10 connection with your earlier question, Senator, the 11 need for staff comes into play here. 12 We want our staff from our regional office in 13 this area, to be out at the well pad to check that 14 cementing, to make absolutely certain that it's been 15 done. 16 In Pennsylvania, they didn't send staff to do 17 that. 18 And we have proposed to the advisory panel, 19 several key parts, points in the process, at which 20 we have to have DEC staff at the well pad. 21 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 22 Now, one of the other areas that -- that is 23 asked about, or questions are sent about, with 24 regards to this water, is the potential for, either, 25 spills, or trucking accidents, or something along 1 those lines. 2 And I know the SGEIS touched on this a little 3 bit. 4 What are -- what do you plan on proposing 5 with regards to, either, the prevention of these 6 spills, or potential for trucking accidents, with 7 regards to this fluid? 8 EUGENE LEFF: Well, any transporter, as I 9 mentioned, must be permitted under our existing 10 regulations, so there are very careful requirements, 11 as well as DOT regulations on transporters of 12 material of this nature. 13 There will also have to be a transportation 14 plan submitted by the operator of a well pad, that 15 indicates the routes that are -- to be used for 16 transportation. And that would be subject to our 17 approval as well. 18 We also recognized that there could be a need 19 to amplify the local spill-response staffs that 20 exists. 21 And the advisory panel is going to consider 22 that, and determine whether special revenues needs 23 to be raised, in part, for that purpose as well. 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: The -- they talk about the 25 brine water being used on some roads for de-icing. 1 And -- and you've heard of that. 2 I mean, is that an appropriate way to reuse 3 this fracking water? 4 Or, is it regulated? 5 Or, is it something that is considered? 6 EUGENE LEFF: Well, let me distinguish 7 between the two types of water that we referred to 8 earlier. 9 The flowback water would not be permitted for 10 that road-spreading use. 11 We are open to the possibility, depending on 12 the particular characteristics of the production 13 brine. 14 There is a potential that the radioactivity 15 would be low enough, and the other constituents of 16 the production brine would be sufficiently low, 17 that, upon review of all the data, we would make an 18 individual determination that a particular quantity 19 of production brine could be used in road spreading, 20 only after its safety has been verified. 21 SENATOR GRISANTI: Now, there's a -- and I 22 know you didn't have a chance to look at it, but you 23 said it was interesting enough, that came out of 24 RIT, and, it's something that is being run through 25 other colleges as well; and that's the -- that 1 airborne remote sensing technology, that we talked 2 about, that would actually be able to sense, not 3 only air, but, the technology is so advanced, for 4 well-site development, particularly flowback waste, 5 rapid assessments of any impact of surface or 6 near-surface releases. 7 And I take it that's something -- I believe 8 it's been submitted, but that's something that seems 9 to be another avenue of assurances for the public, 10 for the environment -- in protecting the 11 environment. 12 Would you agree? 13 I know you just had a chance to look at it 14 briefly, but -- 15 EUGENE LEFF: It is possible that this could 16 become a component of the precautions that are 17 taken. 18 It appears that, what RIT is doing here is 19 still in a prototype, or pilot phase, research and 20 development, and, is not ready to be deployed. 21 But, certainly, anything that -- like this, 22 that could contribute to the protection of 23 groundwater and air would be looked at very 24 carefully. 25 SENATOR GRISANTI: Well, I'm going to go over 1 my notes a little bit here, that I made. 2 I know that Senator Gallivan may have some 3 questions, so I'll turn the mic over to him at this 4 point in time. 5 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you, Chairman. 6 I do have several questions, Commissioner, 7 and I'm going to bounce around just a little bit. 8 If we could go back to the - you mentioned 9 Chemung County as a recipient of, you believe, 10 cuttings, although you don't know what their source 11 is. 12 Why is that? 13 EUGENE LEFF: Why...? 14 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Yeah, why don't you know 15 what the source of the materials is? 16 EUGENE LEFF: Well, I don't have that 17 information with me today, but, we have very 18 carefully reviewed the Chemung County situation. 19 In fact, Commissioner Martens issued a 20 lengthy opinion -- or, decision, in an 21 administrative proceeding, relating to it. And it 22 certainly has all that information in it. 23 SENATOR GALLIVAN: So I -- so the -- in the 24 permitting process for the landfills, is that 25 something that's required -- when the various trucks 1 are bringing in the materials, they're required to 2 identify where they came from? 3 EUGENE LEFF: Yes, they are. 4 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Or not? 5 EUGENE LEFF: Yes, they are. 6 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, thank you. 7 Now, you mentioned -- or, we've talked about 8 the cuttings, and we've talked about how they've 9 been analyzed, and they don't rise to the level of 10 producing any public-health concerns. 11 For the layperson, like me, what is that 12 level, and how do you get to that point? 13 And, what then puts them over the edge that 14 would make them a public-health concern? 15 EUGENE LEFF: There was a study by the 16 Argonne National Lab, that generated a level of 17 50 picocuries per gram, which is the unit for 18 measuring radioactivity of this type. 19 And at that 50, "five oh," level, there was 20 some evidence to support a risk of health impacts. 21 What we have done is, worked back from that 22 level, to make sure we don't get close to it. 23 And, so, we will make sure that the levels 24 that go into a landfill or go into a wastewater 25 treatment facility are well below that. A fraction 1 of that. 2 And if I may, this is the basic method that 3 we utilize to set standards for air pollution. 4 And I'm just not -- not talking just about 5 DEC, but, EPA, all of the states; air pollution, 6 water pollution; we have studies that indicate what 7 the level at which you may see a health impact is, 8 and we work back from that, to limit emissions into 9 the air, discharges into the water. 10 In all cases, we make sure that the levels 11 that we're permitting are well below the level at 12 which some study indicates a possible health threat. 13 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Do you regularly test 14 that, or monitor that, at the different landfills? 15 And let's be specific with, Chemung. 16 I mean, which I understand, it's part of how 17 you treat other materials. 18 EUGENE LEFF: There will be monitoring of 19 that nature, yes. 20 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Is there now? 21 EUGENE LEFF: There is at the Chemung 22 landfill, yes. 23 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Do we have to be concerned 24 about the cumulative impacts of the radiation? 25 I mean, the -- meaning, the volume, not the 1 individual content of each load that's brought? 2 EUGENE LEFF: It could be an issue if a 3 landfill asked us for permission to create a 4 separate part of the landfill that was only taking 5 fracking cuttings. 6 In that case, what we call "a monofill," you 7 might get such a concentration of this material that 8 the normal limitation would be exceeded. 9 But what we're looking at, at Chemung, and 10 what we expect at most -- at these landfills, 11 generally, is that, the cuttings will be stored, 12 will be disposed and placed, with the municipal 13 solid waste, and commercial waste of all types, and 14 that we will not have that type of cumulative 15 effect. 16 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Is the designation of 17 these cuttings as "industrial waste," was that 18 something that was designated prior to our concerns 19 in New York State? 20 EUGENE LEFF: Well, that's a designation that 21 we adopted, that has been in place for -- under our 22 solid-waste regulations for many years. 23 And when we address this particular waste 24 stream, it appeared that this was the suitable 25 category to address, and regulate, this waste 1 stream. 2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I've heard conflicting 3 reports -- reports/rumors -- 4 I haven't seen anything in print, so I don't 5 know. 6 -- but, what about, in Pennsylvania; do they 7 still receive these cuttings in their landfills? 8 I had received some information that 9 Pennsylvania might no longer be allowing this 10 disposal. 11 EUGENE LEFF: I had heard that the treatment 12 facilities were no longer accepting the waste from 13 this -- the wastewater, but I'd -- I believe that 14 was not a binding directive -- 15 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I'm asking about the 16 cuttings. 17 EUGENE LEFF: -- and I don't recall any 18 similar restriction being imposed with respect to 19 the cuttings in Pennsylvania. 20 SENATOR GALLIVAN: But you're not completely 21 aware -- 22 EUGENE LEFF: I'm not certain. 23 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Which is okay. 24 With the cutting -- what's being received in 25 Chemung County, and maybe in some other places in 1 the state, am I to understand correctly, that it is 2 just solids? 3 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. They cannot 4 accept wastewater. 5 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, thanks. 6 Let me move to the medical-waste tracking 7 system, mostly because I'm not familiar with it. 8 Are you able to take us through the process? 9 I mean, you're going to use a process similar 10 to the medical-waste tracking system? 11 EUGENE LEFF: It will be similar. 12 There will be special forums -- 13 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Can you take us through 14 the steps? 15 EUGENE LEFF: Yes. 16 Upon the generation of waste at the well pad, 17 the operator of the well pad would be required to 18 fill out a DEC form, specifying what the nature of 19 the waste is, the volume, and the characteristics of 20 the waste. 21 Similarly, when the waste was transferred to 22 a hauler, the operator of the truck would be 23 required to also fill out a "waste form," 24 documenting the same types of information. 25 Upon delivery of the waste to a facility for 1 disposal, the operator of the facility would have to 2 fill out a form as well. 3 All of these forms would be required to be 4 retained by those individuals, those entities. 5 And, DEC would have the ability to review, at 6 any point, any of those documents, to verify that 7 all of the requirements of the regulations and SGEIS 8 have been satisfied. 9 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I mentioned at the 10 beginning, my district included Livingston County as 11 well. 12 And, if you remember, going back a number of 13 years, there was a mine collapse -- 14 EUGENE LEFF: Uh-huh. 15 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- a salt-mine collapse. 16 And what came out of that, was some ongoing 17 testing and treatment of the brine water. 18 Well, a year or so ago, I visited a plant 19 of -- a water treatment plant in Livingston County. 20 And they indicated that they were involved 21 in -- I may not be terming it right -- a 22 demonstration projection? an experimental-type 23 project? where, under the auspices of the DEC, they 24 treated 300,000 gallons of fracking water that came 25 up from Pennsylvania. 1 I have several questions. 2 First: Is that accurate -- or, is it 3 accurate? 4 Secondly: If it is, what were the results of 5 that, if you know? 6 EUGENE LEFF: Well, we are aware that there 7 was hydraulic fracturing fluid that was received in 8 Canandaigua, perhaps. I'm not sure which facility 9 you're referring to, but there were about 10 six facilities, that we are aware, accepted vertical 11 drilling wastewater. 12 I'm not aware of any high-volume hydraulic 13 fracturing wastewater from any location, any state, 14 that was accepted in New York. 15 And we don't believe that was the case. 16 But, we are not aware of any violation that 17 occurred in connection with those earlier examples 18 of treatment of wastewater from vertical processes. 19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: When those six plants that 20 were accepting the wastewater -- 21 EUGENE LEFF: Yes. 22 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- was that done in 23 conjunction with DEC, or is that something they were 24 doing on their own? 25 EUGENE LEFF: Well, they are required to 1 report to DEC. 2 And, frankly, I don't know the history of 3 each of those instances -- 4 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I understand. 5 EUGENE LEFF: -- and I can't verify what the 6 interaction with the agency was at that time. 7 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Can you -- going back to 8 the -- the wastewater, the cuttings -- 9 I've reviewed the report. I don't have 10 1,100 pages committed to memory, though, so, forgive 11 me. 12 -- but, can you talk about some of the 13 specific enforcement activities as it relates to the 14 byproduct? 15 I mean, site visits; physically, people 16 sitting there looking at pieces of paper, how much 17 will they be on site? -- assuming you have the 18 necessary resources for that. 19 I certainly understand that -- and it's very 20 clear you don't have the resources now to 21 proper-regulate any type of activities, in the 22 calling upon the Legislature to fund it. 23 So, assume you had sufficient resources for 24 just this exercise: Can you take us through some of 25 the regulatory activities, related to the water and 1 the cuttings? 2 EUGENE LEFF: With respect to the water, we 3 would verify the integrity of the system that was 4 transmitting the water from the wellbore to the 5 tanks. 6 We would verify -- we had seen in the slide, 7 the blue tanks that would store this water. 8 There has to be piping. That has to be 9 secure from the wellbore to these tanks. 10 We'd check, to make sure all of that was 11 intact. 12 There has to be secondary containment, or 13 barriers, around these tanks. 14 We would ascertain that the secondary 15 containment was properly constructed, and that it 16 was intact. 17 There would be monitoring of the transfer 18 from these tanks to the trucks. Not every truck, 19 obviously, but there would be some inspection of 20 that nature. 21 That would all be done at the well pad. 22 But, at the publicly operated treatment 23 works, certainly, all of the processes that I 24 mentioned of review of data would be conducted. 25 And, we would have to ascertain on site, that the -- 1 any conditions or modifications of the permit for 2 those facilities were being observed and properly 3 applied in the field. 4 With respect to the cuttings, it would be 5 important to verify that the cuttings were properly 6 transferred to the landfill, and that the 7 measurements were being taken, to ensure that high 8 levels of radioactivity were not permitted in those 9 landfills. 10 Those are just some of the many steps that 11 would be taken. 12 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Can you go back to the 13 slide that showed the closed- and open-loop? 14 I know you touched on this just a bit, but my 15 last question has to do with the open-loop system 16 and the reserve pit. 17 What happens at the very end? 18 So, the drilling has taking place. 19 Eventually, this whole area gets closed up, and 20 people move on and drill somewhere else. 21 But, what happens with what's in that pit? 22 And how do we make sure that that's not a 23 concern? 24 EUGENE LEFF: Well, that pit has to be closed 25 in a short time frame. 1 I don't have the days, but it's in those 2 1,100 pages. 3 And, within that number of days after the 4 usage has ceased, that will have to be also disposed 5 of, and that requires very careful measurement as 6 well. 7 If there is a residue at the bottom of the 8 pit that has concentrated, the characteristics in 9 the cuttings -- 10 For example, it's possible you could have a 11 higher level of radioactivity at that point. 12 -- then that material, that residue, would 13 have to be taken to a low-level radioactive-waste 14 facility. 15 And there are such permitted facilities, or, 16 to a special facility for -- under our RCRA -- 17 federal RCRA laws. 18 Similarly, the lining would have to be 19 disposed of, again, depending on its 20 characteristics. 21 And, the water -- any remaining water, of 22 course, would have to be disposed of as well. 23 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay. 24 Thank you. 25 SENATOR GRISANTI: And staying with that: 1 Is the lining itself -- I mean, what sort of 2 requirements are there, with regards to the lining? 3 Because, if you're talking about a 4 concentration that could potentially mean a higher 5 level of radiation -- 6 Which, if it's not concentrated, you're 7 saying it's not a health concern. 8 -- but, it is possible to concentrate in an 9 area, towards the end stages of it, what procedures 10 or requirements are there with regards to the 11 lining, that we saw in Pennsylvania was a problem, 12 where they -- it would either split or crack, and 13 then that particular fluid would leak out into the 14 public, and into the community, where -- whether 15 it's fracking fluid, or not, if it has concentrated 16 levels of radiation, that could be a concern. 17 So, what are the requirements that are -- 18 they're talking about with regards to that? 19 EUGENE LEFF: I believe what our SGEIS says 20 about that issue, is that, our existing regulations, 21 under our "solid-waste facility" law, must be 22 applied to the construction of the liner and the 23 pit. 24 And that -- our regulations are extremely 25 stringent on that score, and are designed to ensure 1 that no liquid can pass through the liner. 2 I might add, that there's a requirement, to 3 make sure that the rock is disposed in a manner that 4 the rock itself doesn't jeopardize the integrity of 5 that liner. 6 SENATOR GRISANTI: When Senator Gallivan 7 asked you the question on monitoring, whether it's 8 pipes, or what have you, from this flowback well, 9 that same, I take, procedure would be in place when 10 these facilities, or the recycling, reusing, the 11 process for the wastewater, there's got to be 12 monitoring, I'm sure of that. 13 When you have the flowback come back, these 14 companies are reusing some of this fluid, is it the 15 same procedure, to make sure that, whether it's in 16 pipes, there's no leaking, there's -- there's -- how 17 is that regulated by the DEC as well? 18 And like I said, you probably don't have 19 enough people to do that, which is -- I'm happy to 20 hear that you're saying, Well, we're not going to 21 issue as many permits until we have a strength of 22 people to monitor these particular situations. 23 But, that seems to be one the reasons why 24 we're having this particular hearing, is focusing on 25 the water; is that, that was a concern in some areas 1 in Pennsylvania, that even though you're recycling 2 and reusing this water, some of it has a potential 3 of still leaking or spilling. 4 And that's something that, you know, you 5 don't want to have happen. 6 So, was that -- is that what you were talking 7 about, with regards to Senator Gallivan's question, 8 as far as, making sure that these pipes are sealed, 9 and everything else? 10 EUGENE LEFF: That's certainly the general 11 type of concern. 12 You know, Commissioner Martens was asked by 13 the Governor to go to Pennsylvania and visit the 14 site where -- we were all shocked to hear -- I 15 believe it was May, possibly April, of this year, 16 there was a serious incident at a well pad. 17 This was in the township of Leroy, in 18 Bradford County. 19 And one thing that occurred, that contributed 20 to that incident, was that, the berm, or wall, 21 surrounding the well pad had not been properly 22 constructed. Or, at least, it was not constructed 23 in a way that would withstand the kind of very heavy 24 rains that had occurred over that period of time. 25 And what happened was, the -- that corner of 1 the well pad sloughed down, and that, barrier, or 2 berm, no longer operated. 3 So, there was, in addition, a mistake made at 4 the well itself, that resulted in fluids being -- 5 pouring out of the wellbore. 6 They would have been contained by that 7 barrier, but it had not been built sufficiently to 8 withstand the heavy rains. 9 And, so, we're going to make sure that these 10 well pads are inspected, to make sure they are 11 capable of withstanding the conditions they're going 12 to be subjected to. 13 And, it's very important that all parts of 14 the process be checked out before these operations 15 occur. 16 SENATOR GRISANTI: You know, you mentioned -- 17 you mentioned the weather. 18 It brings up a couple of things in mind. 19 Can you touch, briefly, on the stormwater 20 controls that you're talking about in that SGEIS 21 report, as well as the flood zones, which could be a 22 problem? -- especially with, just happened recently, 23 with the tropical storm that hit part of the area in 24 the Southern Tier, and along the East Coast, where 25 there could be a problem. 1 Can you touch on those for us a little bit? 2 EUGENE LEFF: Certainly. 3 With respect to the flooding, the SGEIS, even 4 in its draft form, before those serious hurricane 5 and tropical storm occurred, placed the flood plains 6 out of eligibility for well pads using this process. 7 So, there will be no well pads in the 8 100-year flood plain. 9 We also were concerned to find out what 10 happened in Pennsylvania, so we made inquiries with 11 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 12 Protection. 13 And, apparently, the industry got warnings of 14 the impending storms, and made sure that their 15 operations were secure. 16 And, in fact, there were no incidents that 17 were relayed to us by the State of Pennsylvania -- 18 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, indicating any 19 accident or spillage or flooding that compromised 20 the environment or public health as a result of 21 those storms in Pennsylvania. 22 Which was very good news. 23 But, we are continuing to analyze that issue. 24 I want to make clear: Not only are we 25 continuing to accept comments, we're still looking 1 at all of the issues, to see if there's anything 2 else that needs to be done here, to make sure that 3 we have fully protected drinking water and air and 4 our land. 5 And, what was the first part of your 6 question, Senator? 7 SENATOR GRISANTI: The stormwater controls. 8 EUGENE LEFF: Yes. 9 We are requiring a special permit for 10 stormwater. It will be a general permit for 11 hydraulic fracturing. 12 It will specify, and we've published -- at 13 the same time as the September draft of the SGEIS, 14 we published what that permit would look like. 15 And we invited comment on that as well. 16 There, we're addressing issues, such as, 17 runoff of sediment from the construction of the well 18 pad, construction of the roads, and, specified many 19 of the precautions that have to be taken, which are 20 very similar to the precautions that we require at 21 any building site. 22 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 23 Now, you touched on this a little bit, with 24 regards to Senator Gallivan's question, with the -- 25 the closing of a drilling site, or a pad. 1 And, will the DEC require post-drilling 2 water-quality test, or water samples, or water 3 supplies, near the drilling site? 4 Is that something that -- that you're going 5 to take care of? Or is the industry going to have a 6 burden on that? 7 Or -- or, who's -- who's going to take care 8 of that? 9 EUGENE LEFF: Well, we're requiring 10 monitoring of drinking-water wells on a periodic 11 basis. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 13 The, uhm -- 14 EUGENE LEFF: And, that, by the way, would be 15 done at the expense of industry. 16 SENATOR GRISANTI: At the expense of the 17 industry? Okay. 18 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 19 SENATOR GRISANTI: The -- in Ohio, they talk 20 about these disposable wells being utilized to dump 21 this fluid, in Ohio. 22 Is that something that was looked at here in 23 New York? 24 Is that something that's feasible; pumping 25 the water deep into the ground? 1 Does -- do you feel it's safe? 2 Something that we're not going to look at in 3 New York? We're not interested in doing anything 4 along those lines? 5 EUGENE LEFF: We would take a look at any 6 proposal of that nature, but, there are limitations. 7 I'm not fully versed in what the geological 8 concerns are with respect to that, but, we have not 9 ruled it out. 10 It has, apparently, not been as easy to do a 11 suitable deep injection well in New York State, as 12 it is in Ohio, for example. 13 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 14 All right, so that's something that's not on 15 the table right now? 16 You would rather find other methods, or other 17 alternatives? 18 EUGENE LEFF: It's something that is a 19 possibility that we would have to look at. 20 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 21 And, you know, this is a topic that -- the 22 flowback water itself, and some of the production 23 waste, it's not classified as hazardous waste, 24 and -- or regulated as such. 25 Are there other chemicals that are exempt 1 from that particular title? 2 I mean, I'm just trying to figure out why the 3 DEC decided not to classify flowback or some of the 4 production as hazardous. 5 As some people are pushing for in Senate 6 language, or so on and so forth, as if you're 7 classifying this as hazardous waste, that's got to 8 be treated completely different than just sending it 9 to a facility. 10 EUGENE LEFF: Well, I believe it was the 11 federal government that made that initial decision. 12 And, that, several years ago, that, once that 13 decision was made with respect to federal 14 regulation, that our own regulatory process was 15 conformed to the federal practice. 16 Part of the reason for that is, is that, we 17 operate state regulatory programs as delegated 18 programs from the federal government. And to the 19 extent we do that, we're required to follow the 20 federal government's rules. 21 SENATOR GRISANTI: Got you. 22 Did you have anything further? 23 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Yes. 24 Commissioner, one more question, and it goes 25 back to the regulation and tracking of whether it's 1 the cuttings or the wastewater, and the comparison 2 is made to medical waste. 3 And, you may have answered it and I'm just 4 not clear on this. 5 So, we're keeping track of the materials as 6 they're moved along, from the site to wherever they 7 go: to the treatment facility; to disposal. 8 Similar, in my language of the 9 law-enforcement background, a change of custody of 10 the materials. 11 EUGENE LEFF: Uh-huh. 12 SENATOR GALLIVAN: So there are, DEC 13 regulators then take the paperwork and they look at 14 it, and they see that it's properly filled out after 15 everything is completed; right? 16 EUGENE LEFF: We're not going to do that for 17 every single shipment. 18 We have the ability to request, or, inspect 19 and request copies of that material, but we're not 20 going to routinely collect all of those records. 21 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Understood, but it's 22 available. And, then, when it's looked at -- 23 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 24 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- we say, that, yes, this 25 was handled properly, from cradle to grave. 1 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: But, what -- here's the 3 question that I'm getting at: What if they don't 4 properly dispose of it? 5 EUGENE LEFF: Uh-huh. 6 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Is there any check, from 7 somebody just lying on the sheet of paper, or 8 crumpling it and throwing it in the garbage? 9 So we know, when it lands somewhere in the 10 grave, there's a chain of custody. And you look at 11 the paperwork and you can see all of it. 12 What if they just -- what if somebody takes 13 something and dumps it wherever they want, and this 14 is thrown in the garbage? 15 EUGENE LEFF: As you know, Senator, there are 16 opportunities to commit crimes in all aspects of our 17 society. 18 We have criminal laws on illegal disposal of 19 hazardous waste. 20 The waste that is not exempt from 21 hazardous-waste regulation could just as easily be 22 disposed in a midnight dumping situation. 23 And what we've done, as you know, for many 24 years, is to create imprisonment, and significant 25 fines, for anyone who commits such a crime. 1 And one of the things we are projecting, is 2 the need for more staff in our law-enforcement 3 division. 4 We need environmental conservation officers 5 who are out in the field spotting those examples of 6 criminal behavior. 7 And, it's no different from any other 8 environmentally risky substance in our society. 9 Those criminal actions are, theoretically, 10 possible. But, we have to enforce, and punish, any 11 activity of that nature. 12 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Let me ask it a slightly 13 different way. 14 Do we know, through the proposed regulations, 15 and this particular process, that, a site -- 16 These aren't real numbers. 17 -- produces a million gallons of something? 18 A million gallons of wastewater, for sake of 19 discussion. 20 Do we know that? 21 EUGENE LEFF: Yes -- 22 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I mean, through the 23 proposed regulations, and various audits, you're 24 able to determine that right at the site? 25 EUGENE LEFF: They are required to record the 1 volume of water that they send for disposal. 2 I cannot tell you myself, but I could find 3 out, whether they're required to keep a log, in 4 general, of all the volumes that are generated by 5 the well. 6 SENATOR GALLIVAN: So, we know some 7 wastewater would go for disposal, some will be 8 recycled? 9 EUGENE LEFF: Yes. The large -- 10 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Is there any other places 11 that that water can go? 12 EUGENE LEFF: Well, if we're talking about 13 water that's generated up, out of the pipe, that can 14 either be reused or disposed of. 15 That's correct. 16 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay. 17 Do the companies -- the drilling companies 18 have to keep track of what is recycled? 19 So, if you do an audit, should they have 20 somewhere on paper, what is disposed of, what is 21 recycled, and that should equal 100 percent? 22 EUGENE LEFF: I don't know the answer to that 23 question; whether they're -- whether we are 24 requiring the volume reused on the site. 25 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, what I'm getting at 1 is: At the site, if, somehow, through audits, 2 through the regulations, through the paperwork, if 3 you have the ability to know all the wastewater 4 being produced, or all the cuttings being produced, 5 in doing it at the other end, having a mechanism at 6 the other end, by checking the company's paperwork, 7 to match it up, so that, one million equals 8 one million, wherever it was, whether it's recycled, 9 whether it's properly disposed of? 10 EUGENE LEFF: We will have records of the 11 volumes of cuttings, the volume of wastewater, that 12 is sent for disposal. And, we will have access to 13 the records of the receiving facilities. 14 And we could make that comparison, yes. 15 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Do the haulers of the 16 materials have to be permitted as well -- 17 EUGENE LEFF: Yes, they do. 18 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- by the DEC? 19 EUGENE LEFF: They do, yes. 20 SENATOR GALLIVAN: When they're permitted, 21 are they permitted -- do they have to identify, 22 specifically, where they're going? 23 For instance: Is a hauler permitted to go to 24 three different facilities, or, able to go to any 25 permitted facility, or site? 1 EUGENE LEFF: Well, first, the permit I was 2 referring to is a standing permit that they get, 3 that is good for lengthy period of time. 4 They don't need to come to us for a permit 5 for each waste-disposal trip. 6 Once they've got their standing permit, then 7 they're required to keep the records of each trip, 8 that we referred to earlier, as being similar to 9 what the records in the medical-waste area are. 10 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And the obligation is on 11 the hauler to properly dispose of it? 12 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 13 SENATOR GALLIVAN: But, then, of course, that 14 gets backed up by them keeping records to indicate 15 such? 16 EUGENE LEFF: That's correct. 17 And that's subject to penalties, under our 18 state law. 19 If there is a discrepancy, or a disposal that 20 is not proper, under our regulations or the SGEIS 21 conditions, those haulers would be subject to 22 penalties, including high fines and revocation of 23 their permit. 24 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, thank you. 25 EUGENE LEFF: You're welcome. 1 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Senator. 2 SENATOR GRISANTI: Just, last question: The, 3 uhm -- do we know how Pennsylvania is classifying 4 their flowback water? 5 Are they classifying it as hazardous, or are 6 they following the federal model as well? 7 EUGENE LEFF: They follow the federal model. 8 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. All right. 9 I have nothing further. 10 I want to thank you for providing the 11 information with regards to -- for this particular 12 hearing, and answering our questions. 13 As I said, we're trying to have it very 14 pointed to specific topics, but I know that, in the 15 SGEIS, certain, specific things regarding water, and 16 what's happening, I think we're, kind of, just a 17 little bit of broad stroke. 18 But I think, now, you know, some of the 19 questions that I had with regards of that, I 20 appreciate your candid and truthful answers with 21 regards to such. 22 And I appreciate the fact that the DEC has 23 decided to extend the comment period to 24 January 11th, to get more input. 25 So -- and I appreciate you driving down here, 1 and taking the time. 2 And, thank you for your testimony. 3 EUGENE LEFF: You're welcome. 4 Thank you. 5 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Appreciate it. 6 EUGENE LEFF: Thank you very much. 7 SENATOR GRISANTI: We're going to move 8 forward. 9 John Wood. 10 John, good afternoon. 11 Thank you for appearing today to give 12 testimony. 13 Whenever you're ready to proceed, go ahead. 14 JOHN WOOD: Thank you, Senator Gallivan, for 15 hosting this hearing. 16 And, Chairman Grisanti, for your 17 environmental leadership, for your sponsorship of 18 Senate Bill 4616 in the last legislative session, 19 and for the invitation to assist this Committee's 20 examination of hydraulic fracturing wastewater 21 issues. 22 My name is John Wood. I'm the legal fellow 23 with the Natural Resources Defense Council. 24 NRDC is a national not-for-profit 25 environmental organization, with more than 1 200,000 members in the state. 2 NRDC has worked over for 40 years to protect 3 New York's people and environment. 4 For the past several years, we have dedicated 5 substantial efforts to the issue of proposed new 6 natural gas development in New York State, urging 7 that the State take an extremely cautious approach, 8 and ensure that no new drilling is allowed to 9 proceed, unless, and until, it can be demonstrated 10 to be safe. 11 Today's hearing will illuminate many issues 12 of concern regarding hydraulic fracturing 13 wastewater. 14 To make the most of this opportunity, I 15 recommend the transcript of this hearing be 16 submitted to the Department of Environmental 17 Conservation as a public comment on the revised 18 draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact 19 Statement for natural gas development. 20 Hydraulic fracturing wastewater management is 21 among the most vexing issues faced by states, such 22 as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, which are 23 currently developing their shale formations. 24 It would be highly imprudent for New York to 25 move forward with proposed new hydraulic fracturing 1 without a plan in place to deal with the billions of 2 gallons of wastewater that will inevitably be 3 generated by this activity. 4 According to the Department of Environmental 5 Conservation, Commissioner Joe Martens, currently, 6 no wastewater treatment plants in New York are 7 equipped to treat or permitted to accept wastewater 8 with the range of contaminants expected to be in 9 fluids produced by high-volume hydraulic fracturing. 10 Natural gas drilling operators are not 11 wastewater management experts. 12 Without guidance and regulatory enforcement 13 and proper wastewater management, could jeopardize 14 public drinking-water supplies and public health, 15 and impair aquatic ecosystems. 16 In addition to a general discussion about the 17 nature of hydraulic fracturing wastewater, I'll 18 answer three questions: 19 What are the primary disposal options for 20 hydraulic fracturing wastewater, and the 21 environmental and human and health concerns 22 associated with each option? 23 What is DEC doing on the ongoing review, 24 under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 25 with respect to the regulation of hydraulic 1 fracturing wastewater? 2 And, lastly: How does Senate Bill 4616, 3 relating to the uniformed treatment of waste from 4 the exploration, development, extraction, or 5 production of crude oil and natural gas address the 6 problems associated with hydraulic fracturing 7 wastewater? 8 To save the suspense, I'll answer, in brief, 9 these questions right now. 10 There are limited options for hydraulic 11 fracturing wastewater disposal, and each disposal 12 method poses significant challenges to the 13 environment and human health. 14 New York lacks the infrastructure for, and 15 DEC has no regulatory plan to deal with, the 16 prodigious amounts of potentially hazardous 17 wastewater that will be generated from hydraulic 18 fracturing. 19 Finally, the bill introduced last year in the 20 New York Senate, passed in the Assembly as 21 Assembly Bill 7313, to provide for the uniform 22 treatment of wastewater is a critical development, 23 as it would close the existing loophole on federal 24 and state law. 25 Senate Bill 4616 would require hydraulic 1 fracturing wastewater to be disposed of according to 2 the same practices that apply to waste from every 3 other industry. 4 NRDC encourages to you reintroduce and 5 quickly pass this bill in the coming legislative 6 section. 7 Now I'll discuss the nature of hydraulic 8 fracturing wastewater in terms of quality. 9 I recently watched a video on the 10 Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York 11 website, where a vice president of one of these 12 companies claimed that the additives they use are 13 edible. 14 Many of the chemical additives used in 15 hydraulic fracturing fluid are known or probable 16 carcinogens. 17 In April of this year, United States House of 18 Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce 19 released a report, summarizing the volume and 20 content of hydraulic fracturing drilling-fluid 21 products used by 14 of the nation's leading 22 companies. 23 Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas 24 service companies used products containing 25 29 chemicals that are known, or possible, human 1 carcinogens regulated under the Safe Drinking 2 Water Act for their risk to human health, or listed 3 as "hazardous air pollutants" under the 4 Clean Air Act. 5 The BTEX compounds -- benzene, toluene, 6 xylene, and ethylbenzene -- [unintelligible] safe 7 drinking water are contaminants and hazardous air 8 pollutants. 9 Benzene, specifically, is a known human 10 carcinogen. 11 And in the year -- in the period of study, 12 there are 11.4 million gallons of products 13 containing at least one BTEX chemical used. 14 Furthermore, flowback water is high in total 15 dissolved solids, chloride, surfactants, gelling 16 agents, and metals from spent gel and foam 17 fracturing fluids. 18 Typical classes of parameters present in 19 flowback fluid are: 20 Dissolved solids, like sulfates and calcium; 21 Metals, such as magnesium, barium, and 22 strontium; 23 Suspended solids; 24 Mineral scales, like calcium carbonate and 25 barium sulfate and bacteria; 1 Friction reducers; 2 Iron solids, such as iron oxide and iron 3 sulphide; 4 Dispersed clay finds, colloids, and silts; 5 And, acid gasses, such as carbon dioxide and 6 hydrogen sulphide. 7 The chemical additives are only one piece of 8 the problem of hydraulic fracturing wastewater 9 because the water used in hydraulic fracturing comes 10 into close contact with the shale formation during 11 the well stimulation process. When it returns to 12 the surface, it may contain a variety of formation 13 materials that can make wastewater treatment 14 difficult and expensive. 15 The production brines often contain 16 relatively high concentrations of sodium, chloride, 17 bromide, and other inorganic constituents, such as 18 arsenic, barium, and other heavy metals, total 19 dissolved solids, naturally occurring radioactive 20 material, and all of these significantly exceed safe 21 drinking-water standards. 22 So, both the chemical additives and the 23 formation materials lace the wastewater generated by 24 hydraulic fracturing, rendering it unsafe to 25 discharge without extensive treatment. 1 Now, to give the problem of hydraulic 2 fracturing wastewater its due respect, we should 3 also consider the issue of volume. 4 I'll use DEC's estimates for future 5 development of the Marcellus Shale to build this 6 scenario. 7 Marcellus development is projected over a 8 30-year life cycle. The average year would see 9 1,600 or more wells. 10 The amount of water consumed in each well is 11 projected between 2.4 and 7.8 million gallons, and 12 the average well consumes 4.2 million gallons of 13 water. 14 Between 9 percent and 35 percent of hydraulic 15 fracturing wastewater returns to the surface. 16 Assuming one so-called "frack job" occurring 17 in every well in the state, hydraulic fracturing 18 operations would ultimately generate between 19 18 and 71 billion gallons of wastewater over the 20 next 30 years. 21 If each well is fracked twice over its 22 30-year life, we'll see between 36 and 142 billon 23 gallons of hydraulic fracturing wastewater generated 24 in New York. 25 And, at different times, the chemical 1 compounds in this wastewater differ; and, so, it 2 will require extensive monitoring during the 3 flowback process to know exactly what's in the 4 wastewater. 5 So, wastewater quality and quantity pose 6 capacity challenges to New York's limited wastewater 7 management infrastructure, which I'll discuss next. 8 There are few disposal options in New York, 9 and it's among one of the most critical questions 10 New York faces when deciding whether to open up our 11 shale formations, is, what to do with the huge 12 quantities of toxic, potentially radioactive, 13 wastewater that comes from fracked wells. 14 Existing wastewater infrastructure in this 15 state is simply not designed to accept wastewater of 16 this sort produced by hydraulic fracturing 17 activities. 18 There are four main disposal options: 19 Underground injection, recycling, publicly owned 20 treatment works, and privately owned wastewater 21 treatment facilities. 22 With any of these methods, water must be 23 shipped from the drill site to the treatment or 24 disposal facility. 25 Suppose 2 million gallons of wastewater are 1 generated with each frack job, and, with the 2 capacity of a water tanker truck averaging about 3 5,000 gallons, each frack job would require 4 400 truck trips from the drill site to the 5 wastewater treatment facility, which may be in an 6 entirely different state, perhaps as far away as 7 Ohio or West Virginia. 8 Now, that will occur no matter which option 9 we choose. 10 Now, for underground injection, the risks 11 associated with this method are: Aquifer 12 contamination, toxic plumes, insufficient storage 13 capacity, and, of course, the risks involved in 14 shipping hazardous waste from New York to Ohio or 15 West Virginia. 16 Deep-well wastewater injection is regulated 17 by the U.S. EPA, and is regarded by some experts as 18 marginally better than sending wastes to treatment 19 facilities. 20 But Government Accountability Office study 21 found instances of drinking-water contamination from 22 cracked or poorly plugged injection wells. 23 Underground injection of wastewater may be 24 linked to induced seismicity, or manmade 25 earthquakes, resulting from high-pressured fluid 1 injections, a rash of which have occurred in Texas, 2 Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and even 3 England, conspicuously close to hydraulic fracturing 4 fluid injections. 5 For publicly owned treatment works, "POTWs" 6 are basically designed for municipal sewage. They 7 rely on biological processes and simple chemicals, 8 such as chlorine, to treat wastewater. 9 Because these facilities are not designed to 10 treat hazardous waste, sending hydraulic fracturing 11 wastewater to them could create pass-through 12 problems that jeopardize the water quality of 13 receiving water bodies. 14 The combination of bromide from the shale 15 formations and chlorine from the treatment plant can 16 create trihalomethanes in public water supplies, 17 which are linked to cervical cancer and birth 18 defects. 19 Treatment of this wastewater may increase 20 water costs to end-consumers. 21 Our neighboring states have been trying to 22 figure out how to deal with mounting evidence that 23 hydraulic fracturing wastewater was sent to 24 overburdened facilities and discharged into nearby 25 rivers without adequate treatment. 1 Without adequate regulation, surface and 2 groundwater bodies could be contaminated with high 3 salt levels, heavy metals, volatile organic 4 chemicals, radioactive materials, and cancer-causing 5 compounds. 6 And, further, pretreatment, as has been 7 discussed, simply does not solve the capacity issue 8 in terms of volume. Many of these treatment 9 facilities are currently operating at capacity 10 already. 11 Privately owned wastewater treatment plants 12 are another option as an alternative to public 13 treatment works. 14 These are massive construction projects for 15 which New York has little to no experience. 16 Centralized privately owned treatment plants 17 present a host of human health and environmental 18 impacts that simply were not analyzed by DEC. 19 Notably, drilling operations from the entire 20 region around a privately owned treatment works 21 would, foreseeably, ship their wastewater by truck 22 or pipeline to this facility, which will cause 23 truck-traffic impacts, and, in the case of 24 pipelines, ecosystem fragmentation. 25 There are also serious questions about the 1 energy intensity of treatment technologies at 2 industrial wastewater treatment facilities. 3 And, let me make a point about the publicly 4 owned treatment works. 5 Uhm, we have -- NRDC has documents on file, 6 obtained through our Freedom of Information law 7 requests, that suggests that the towns of Auburn and 8 Watertown have accepted hydraulic fracturing 9 wastewater treatment facilities, as late as 2009, 10 with the approval of the DEC. 11 Just a corrective point. 12 And, as far as recycling goes, while 13 wastewater recycling is, at least in theory, a 14 positive development, because it reduces waste and 15 conserves fresh-water resources, ultimately, there's 16 a highly concentrated toxic waste left over that 17 still needs to be disposed of somehow, but it is 18 still exempt from hazardous-waste rules. 19 Waste injected over and over again is, 20 typically, more toxic than when it's first used. 21 There is little information available from 22 industry about exactly what technologies they're 23 using to recycle wastewater; and there is scant 24 verifiable information from industry on how much 25 waste is actually being recycled, since they don't 1 that have to report these numbers. 2 Of course, some companies claim to be 3 recycling 100 percent of their wastewater; while 4 others say, the high salt levels make that claim 5 implausible, if not impossible, because of the 6 likely corrosive effect that that water would have 7 on their equipment. 8 Recycling may also be energy intensive. 9 For the moment, claims by industry that 10 recycling wastewater will ameliorate the concerns 11 raised here must be regarded with skepticism. 12 And, there are also possible impacts 13 resulting from temporary storage tanks proliferating 14 as operators wait for a backlog of disposal permits 15 as they generate the waste. 16 Now, I'll discuss DEC's approach to 17 wastewater under SEQRA. 18 In short, the DEC has no meaningful plan to 19 address the massive problem of hydraulic fracturing 20 wastewater. It is of serious concern that they're 21 preparing to issue permits to drill without having a 22 regulatory plan in place for dealing with this. 23 The United States EPA, as well as DEC, have 24 both stated that traditional publicly owned 25 wastewater treatment works are not capable of 1 processing waste generated from hydraulic fracturing 2 operations. 3 For this reason, it is a concern that DEC 4 says "flowback water may be sent to POTWs" in the 5 same section in which they conclude that "the high 6 concentration of TDS present in this source of 7 wastewater may prove to be inhibitory to the 8 biological wastewater treatment systems." 9 Of all 1,500 pages of DEC's environmental 10 impact statement for hydraulic fracturing in their 11 proposed regulations, DEC never lays out a coherent 12 wastewater management plan, and it fails to analyze 13 the risks involved in each of the different disposal 14 methods. 15 Commissioner Martens has suggested that waste 16 should simply be shipped to Pennsylvania or Ohio. 17 Another glaring omission from DEC's 18 environmental impact statement, which should be a 19 concern to everyone, is the failure to conduct any 20 health-impact assessment whatsoever, despite the 21 fact that allowing hydraulic fracturing in New York 22 means that billions of gallons of carcinogen-laced 23 water will be pumped into New York lands, shipped 24 over New York roads, or disposed of, somehow, in 25 New York wastewater infrastructure. 1 NRDC hopes the Senate's leadership will 2 correct defects such as this, by calling on the DEC 3 to analyze the health impacts of hydraulic 4 fracturing before issuing permits for it. 5 The closest thing to a wastewater plan is 6 DEC's proposed ad hoc manifest system, which would 7 enable regulators to track the transport of 8 wastewater, which may assist in the prevention of 9 illegal discharges, but in no way does this qualify 10 as an adequate risk-mitigation measure. 11 To quote, "DEC's waste-tracking procedure is 12 similar to that which is required for medical waste 13 even though the hazards are not equivalent." 14 Since, quote, "manifesting is not required 15 for non-hazardous industrial commercial waste," it 16 is strange that DEC proposes a manifest system for 17 hydraulic fracturing waste, in spite of their 18 regulatory position that it's not hazardous, and in 19 despite of the fact that DEC uses the word "hazard" 20 to describe it. 21 If hydraulic fracturing wastewater is 22 hazardous, then DEC should regulate it as much. 23 Because DEC has not proposed a wastewater 24 management plan for hydraulic fracturing wastewater, 25 apparently, its strategy is, to wait and see, for 1 industry to decide which disposal method they 2 prefer; at which point, DEC would then conduct an 3 analysis of the corresponding environmental impacts. 4 This post hoc assessment of impacts is a 5 violation of the purpose of SECRA, which requires 6 government decision-makers to analyze significant 7 adverse impacts before taking actions that would 8 bring them about. 9 Now, what can the Senate do? 10 Hydraulic fracturing operators currently 11 enjoy a loophole in environmental law, exempting the 12 waste generated by their activities from regulation 13 as a hazardous substance, despite the fact that it 14 contains hazardous constituents. 15 Last session, Senate Bill 4616 would close 16 this loophole. 17 By way of context, the Resource Conservation 18 and Recovery Act, Subtitle C -- or "RCRA" -- creates 19 a federal program that mandates hazardous waste 20 from -- that manages hazardous waste, from cradle to 21 grave. 22 There are Subtitle C regulations for the 23 generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and 24 disposal of hazardous wastes. 25 However, waste, quote, "uniquely associated 1 with the exploration, development, and production of 2 natural gas at primary field operations, such as 3 produced water or spent hydraulic fracturing fluids, 4 are exempt from regulation under RCRA, Subtitle C. 5 Because of this exemption, most shale 6 gas-extraction wastewater is, by legislative fiat, 7 not, quote, hazardous within the meaning of RCRA; 8 hence POTWs receiving exempt oil- and gas-extraction 9 wastewaters would not be receiving hazardous wastes, 10 and, thus, would not need to meet RCRA permit 11 requirements. 12 NRDC has petitioned the EPA to update RCRA, 13 to regulate exploration and production wastes, which 14 would include waste streams generated by 15 Marcellus Shale drilling. 16 In the meantime, states can, of their own 17 accord, regulate these waste streams. 18 This is an opportunity for New York to seize. 19 There is also a loophole at the state level. 20 Oil- and gas-development wastes are currently 21 excluded from the environmental conservation law, 22 the definition of "hazardous waste," through DEC's 23 regulatory disposition. 24 This exclusion could either be removed 25 through regulatory amendment or superseded by 1 statute. 2 The ECL defines "hazardous waste," broadly, 3 by characteristic. 4 It means: A waste, or combination of wastes, 5 which, because of its quantity, concentration, or 6 physical-chemical, or infectious characteristics, 7 may cause or significantly contribute to an increase 8 in mortality, or an increase in serious irreversible 9 or incapacitating reversible illness, or pose a 10 substantial present or potential hazard to human 11 health or the environment, when improperly treated, 12 stored, transported, disposed, or otherwise managed. 13 Clearly, hydraulic fracturing wastewater fits 14 this characteristic. 15 It is by regulatory fiat that natural gas 16 development wastes are currently excluded from the 17 statute's application. 18 This is so, despite the fact, that under the 19 statute's expansive definition, these wastes may 20 pose a substantial hazard to human health and the 21 environment. 22 Senate Bill 4616 closes this loophole. 23 In order to bring natural gas development 24 waste back under the purview of New York's hazardous 25 waste management program, the regulatory exclusion 1 must, either, be removed through an amendment to 2 these regulations or superseded by an act of the 3 Legislature. 4 DEC, of course, could commence a new 5 rule-making, in light of this substantial evidence 6 demonstrating the hazardous nature of these wastes, 7 in terms of their quantity, concentration, or 8 physical-chemical, or infectious characteristics. 9 Alternatively, the Legislature could overcome 10 this regulatory stalemate on this issue by amending 11 the relevant sections of the ECL, to require the DEC 12 to consider whether natural gas development wastes 13 are potentially hazardous. 14 Senate Bill 4616 would require the uniform 15 treatment of wastewater, regardless of its source. 16 If it tests as hazardous, it must be regulated as 17 hazardous, even if it came from hydraulic fracturing 18 operations. 19 This historic and completely commonsense 20 legislation does a couple of critical things. 21 First: It levels the playing fields so that 22 the oil and gas industry is subject to the same 23 rules that govern, pretty much, every other industry 24 in the state. 25 Now, even though much of the waste it 1 generates is hazardous, the hydraulic fracturing 2 industry gets a free pass that exempts its waste 3 from the transportation, tracking, treatment, 4 storage, and disposal requirements that apply to 5 other industries' wastes. 6 Second: This legislation shifts the cost of 7 water cleanup, from the taxpayers who have to pay 8 increased rates due to contamination of public water 9 supplies, to the industry actors who generated the 10 waste. 11 Now, representatives of the natural gas 12 drilling industry may decry such regulations as 13 cutting into profit margins by unnecessarily 14 increasing the costs of doing business for waste 15 that isn't hazardous, but, they cannot have their 16 cake and eat it too. 17 If hydraulic fracturing wastewater is not 18 hazardous, then Senate Bill 4616 would not, in any 19 way, impact their business. 20 If hydraulic fracturing wastewater is 21 hazardous, there's no good reason why it should not 22 be regulated as such. 23 If this raises the cost of doing business, it 24 is proper that these costs are borne by the industry 25 rather than by the public. 1 Thank you for this opportunity to testify 2 today about the issues of paramount importance to 3 New York's environment and health. 4 We look forward to working with the 5 Committee, to ensure that the risks associated with 6 wastewater generated by hydraulic fracturing are 7 properly evaluated and addressed before any new 8 natural gas development is permitted to proceed in 9 New York State. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thanks, Mr. Wood. 11 I appreciate it. 12 You know, you mentioned the, uhm -- you 13 mentioned the possibility of disposal options; 14 whether it's underground injection, publicly owned 15 treatment work plants, or so on and so forth. 16 In the research, and something that you were 17 looking at, I know that you have a brief scenario, 18 which one of those, if this were to move forward, 19 would be preferable? 20 JOHN WOOD: Well, I'm not about to endorse 21 any one of these disposal methods. 22 SENATOR GRISANTI: All right. 23 The, uhm -- I mean, I understand you have -- 24 I mean, recycling, basically, there's still going be 25 an end product in recycling; correct? 1 JOHN WOOD: Correct. 2 SENATOR GRISANTI: And the privately owned 3 wastewater treatment plants, as we know -- I don't 4 believe we have any, that was testified to, in 5 New York, that should be, actually, taking any of 6 this fluid. 7 In fact, Pennsylvania just came up and said 8 that they have one in the Southern Tier. 9 And the underground injection was something 10 we just asked the Deputy Commissioner, who said that 11 it's something they would look at, but it doesn't 12 seem, because of the depths and the geological 13 formations, that that's even possible in the state. 14 And, you know, I understand your concerns 15 with regards to, you know, if it's hazardous waste, 16 it's hazardous waste, and it needs to be regulated. 17 That question was asked. 18 And, they're going by a federal regulation 19 that was put in place, and that's why they're 20 following those rules. 21 So, in a nutshell, if -- really, until it's 22 labeled -- in your opinion, until it's labeled 23 "hazardous waste," and you figure out a disposal 24 method, it's something you feel strongly against, 25 that this should not be happening in New York State. 1 Correct? 2 JOHN WOOD: That's correct, Senator. 3 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 4 The, uhm -- and not to get into a big 5 dissertation -- the -- so your concern is, truly, 6 the reason why, in concerns that were brought up, 7 you're -- specific to this hearing, is the water, 8 and issue of the flowback water, and the chemicals 9 that are in the water. 10 It's not the procedure of casings, or how 11 many steel around the casing. That strictly has to 12 do with the water. 13 Is that correct? 14 JOHN WOOD: Well, there are myriad issues 15 involved, but the quality and volume of the 16 wastewater generated is certainly a paramount risk. 17 As I suggested -- as I said -- and these are 18 from DEC's numbers -- there are billions of gallons 19 that will be -- 20 SENATOR GRISANTI: Based on DEC's own 21 numbers, or own formulas, that you took out of the 22 SGEIS report? 23 JOHN WOOD: That's correct. 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: Yeah, because I've seen 25 those numbers. 1 Okay. 2 Well, like I said, I appreciate you coming 3 here today. 4 You've raised very important concerns with 5 regards to, you know, this process, you know, if it 6 goes forward. 7 And I hope that, uhm, you know, some of the 8 things that we touched on, with regards to the 9 Deputy Commissioner who testified, still may not 10 answer all your questions, but, it's a concern 11 that's raised. And it's something -- which is the 12 reason why we're having this hearing. 13 So, I appreciate you coming here today. 14 JOHN WOOD: Thank you for the opportunity. 15 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Mr. Wood, thank you for 16 your testimony. 17 I have one question. 18 In listening, and looking through your 19 testimony, which you provided us, you talk about 20 existing wastewater infrastructure in this state 21 simply not designed to accept wastewater of this 22 sort. 23 You mention, on number of occasions, that the 24 DEC, through their proposed regulations, has not 25 properly dealt with it; that -- or, properly dealt 1 with it or properly addressed it. 2 Public treatment plants aren't equipped. 3 Private treatment plants, none in New York. 4 And they're, just -- they're huge, very expensive 5 projects. 6 I guess my question is: Is it your opinion 7 that wastewater from hydraulic fracturing can be 8 properly dealt with? 9 That it just hasn't to this point yet, in 10 New York State? 11 JOHN WOOD: I think the opinion, is that, 12 properly dealing with it is prohibitively expensive. 13 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, let me ask it 14 different. 15 I understand that point. 16 If money was no object, which, of course, it 17 is -- 18 JOHN WOOD: Right. 19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- but if money was no 20 object, is it your opinion that the wastewater can 21 be properly treated, or not? 22 JOHN WOOD: I don't believe that there's any 23 way of removing all of the possible deleterious 24 consequences from this wastewater. 25 Certain companies that assist in the 1 recycling of wastewater can -- at least they 2 suggest, that they can remove the heavy metals. 3 But, that's not all of the concerns. 4 And, a lot of the constituents in this 5 wastewater would disrupt the biological systems that 6 are used in publicly owned treatment works. 7 Currently, the EPA is developing pretreatment 8 standards for wastewater before sending it to 9 POTWs. 10 I think it would be advisable for the DEC to 11 at least wait, and see what the EPA suggests about 12 these pretreatment programs, before proceeding with 13 this. 14 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, thank you. 15 SENATOR GRISANTI: And that's something they 16 plan on coming out with in 2012? 17 JOHN WOOD: I believe it's 2014, under the 18 Clean Water Act. 19 SENATOR GRISANTI: 2014? Because I heard 20 something about preliminary results coming out in 21 2012. 22 But, that's something we can look at. 23 JOHN WOOD: Uh-huh. 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: All right, Mr. Wood, 25 again, I appreciate you coming here, and giving your 1 testimony. 2 Thank you very much. 3 JOHN WOOD: Thank you. 4 SENATOR GRISANTI: We have, uhm -- is 5 Tom Johnson here? 6 Mr. Johnson, whenever you're ready, just, for 7 the record, state your name, area you represent, and 8 we can move forward. 9 Appreciate it. 10 THOMAS JOHNSON: Okay. 11 Good morning -- or, I guess it's afternoon. 12 My name is Tom Johnson. I am a 13 vice president of Alpha Geoscience, in Clifton Park, 14 New York. 15 I am a hydrogeologist with 33 years of 16 experience in geologic, hydrogeologic, and as an 17 environmental consultant. 18 Alpha Geoscience is engaged throughout 19 New York, and other parts of the U.S., in projects 20 involving water contamination and treatment to clean 21 the water and return it to the environment for 22 reuse. 23 I appreciate, and thank, both, you, Chairman, 24 and Senator Gallivan, and other members of the 25 Standing Committee on the Environmental 1 Conservation, for organizing this hearing, to 2 further explore this important opportunity for 3 New York, and for allowing me to speak today. 4 I would like to address two statements today 5 that I have often heard as reasons why gas drilling 6 should not be allowed in New York State. 7 These are: "Hydraulic fracturing will 8 contaminate drinking-water aquifers"; and, 9 "The water cannot be cleaned once it is 10 contaminated." 11 Neither of these statements is based on 12 scientific fact, and I'd like to explain why. 13 A combination of several principles of 14 geology and physics prevent migration of hydraulic 15 fracturing fluids from the deep target fracture 16 zones. 17 Hydraulic fracturing would occur at depths of 18 a few thousand to several thousand feet in New York 19 if horizontal drilling and high-volume 20 hydrofracturing proceeded in New York. 21 In contrast, drinking-water aquifers are no 22 deeper than about 800 feet; and, in fact, most 23 drinking-water wells are completed at depths of a 24 few hundred feet. 25 Two criteria are necessary for the hydraulic 1 fracturing fluids to reach the aquifers, and neither 2 criterion is met. 3 First, there would need to be a pathway for 4 the fluids to travel through the thousands of feet 5 of overlying low-permeability rock. 6 "Lithostatic pressure" is the pressure that 7 is exerted by overlying rocks. 8 This pressure is so great in the zones that 9 would be drilled and fractured, that neither natural 10 nor man-made fractures remain open. 11 This is why sand, or other materials, known 12 as "proppants," are necessary to be pumped into the 13 ground to hold the man-made fractures open. 14 This is also one of the reasons that gas in 15 the deep geologic formations remains in place until 16 a well is drilled. 17 In addition to this requirement that there be 18 a pathway, the pressure in the fracture zone must be 19 greater than the pressure in the aquifer for any 20 upward flow to occur. 21 The pressure in the drilled borehole is 22 raised temporarily, enough to fracture the rock 23 during the hydrofracturing process; however, the 24 entire hydraulic fracturing of a single well takes 25 only one day, after which, the pressure is released, 1 to allow the gas and fluids from the rock to flow 2 into the borehole. 3 Once the well is producing, the gas and other 4 fluids will flow only towards the borehole, which 5 offers a path of least resistence. 6 These fundamental scientific principles 7 preclude hydraulic fracturing fluids from flowing 8 upward into drinking-water aquifers. 9 Additionally, New York has had a redundant 10 casing-and-cementing program in place for more than 11 20 years. 12 The absence of groundwater contamination, 13 despite thousands of oil and gas wells being drilled 14 in New York, demonstrates the adequacy of this 15 program to protect the waters of the state. 16 This casing-and-cementing program is further 17 strengthened in the revised draft SGEIS, and it 18 provides the necessary protections to prevent 19 groundwater problems that are being reported in 20 other states and highlighted in the media. 21 In regards to water treatment, critics of gas 22 drilling have stated, there is no way to clean the 23 so-called "flowback water" that returns to the 24 surface after the hydraulic fracturing process. 25 In fact, millions of gallons of industrial 1 wastewater are processed and treated every day in 2 this country to remove contaminants in much higher 3 concentrations than what is found in flowback water. 4 Standard water-treatment technologies that 5 have been developed to treat water from landfills, 6 chemical plants, plating facilities, mills, 7 quarries, petroleum refineries, and a range of other 8 industrial and commercial businesses, are equally 9 applicable, and effective, in treating flowback 10 water. 11 Many private water-treatment companies and 12 facilities are operating in Pennsylvania, as you've 13 hear, and in other states, where high-volume 14 hydraulic fracturing currently is being performed. 15 These businesses and facilities are not the 16 same as the publicly owned wastewater treatment 17 plants that we've heard about this morning, and that 18 have been the focus of media attention, as being 19 inadequate for treatment of hydraulic fracturing 20 fluid. 21 There are a variety of treatment methods 22 being used, but the process generally consists of 23 removing suspended solids and organics, and then 24 precipitating the undesirable metals. 25 The low level of radioactive material, known 1 as "NORM," precipitates with the metals to form a 2 sludge, which is disposed at permitted, regulated 3 landfills, as we heard from the Deputy Commissioner. 4 Studies and monitoring have shown that the 5 radioactivity in the sludge is not present at levels 6 that constitute a health concern to workers or the 7 public. 8 90 percent or more of the treated water is 9 reused for subsequent hydraulic fracturing jobs 10 after this preliminary treatment. 11 Water that contains too much salt and 12 dissolved solids often is disposed in deep injection 13 wells that are permitted under both federal and 14 state regulations. 15 A lesser-known fact, is that a 16 crystallization technology has been refined and 17 developed to treat the brine, or, the salty water, 18 that is currently disposed in the injection wells. 19 The crystallization process produces 20 distilled water, salt that can be used in water 21 softeners and livestock feed, and a liquid brine 22 that can be used for road de-icing and dust 23 suppression. 24 There is no sludge or liquid discharge from 25 this crystallization treatment process. 1 Commensurate with the start of horizontal 2 drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing in 3 New York, private businesses will build wastewater 4 treatment plants at strategic locations to 5 effectively and safely treat flowback and produced 6 water. 7 The water treatment industry is just one 8 example of related businesses that provides 9 permanent jobs to support the energy industry. 10 Finally, I would like to address the effect 11 that the current delay in New York State to permit 12 horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic 13 fracturing has on businesses and jobs. 14 As a small business owner, I expect that my 15 company, likely, could hire, anywhere from three to 16 five geologists to support drilling activity in this 17 state. 18 These jobs represent a potential growth for 19 my small business, of 20 to 30 percent of our core 20 business, that is not being realized because of the 21 delay. 22 Additionally, my company is involved in a 23 partnership to develop water treatment plants that 24 I've described. 25 Unfortunately, we cannot wait for this 1 opportunity to develop in New York, and we plan to 2 initially build up to four plants in Pennsylvania. 3 We anticipate that each plant will employ 4 approximately 12 to 15 people in permanent, 5 well-paying jobs. 6 It is likely that one or more of these plants 7 will be located in northern Pennsylvania at 8 locations that may then preclude the need to build 9 similar plants in southern New York. 10 There's no doubt that the delay to allow 11 horizontal drilling and high-volume hydrofracturing 12 has caused, and continues to cause, businesses to 13 locate in Pennsylvania that might have located in 14 New York. 15 The likelihood increases, as the delay 16 continues, that more jobs and businesses will not be 17 realized in New York, and may be permanently lost. 18 I respectfully urge our elected leaders to 19 facilitate the process to finalize the revised draft 20 SGEIS, and associated regulations, that allow 21 horizontal drilling and high-volume hydrofracturing 22 to proceed in New York in a safe, responsible 23 manner. 24 The DEC has proven, for many years, that it 25 can, and will, effectively regulate the oil and gas 1 industry. 2 That concludes my comments, and I thank you 3 very much for allowing me the opportunity to speak 4 here today. 5 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thanks, Mr. Johnson. 6 I appreciate the fact that you have submitted 7 testimony, and explaining such. 8 I just have a few questions for you. 9 The -- you know, you've heard testimony from 10 the Deputy Commissioner, and -- there's only been a 11 couple -- and Mr. Wood, basically talking about that 12 there's -- does not seem to be a safe alternative. 13 So, I take it, those four things that he 14 cited, Mr. Wood, the last speaker, based on your 15 being a hydrogeologist, would say that, yes, we can 16 treat in these facilities, whether you do it by 17 private, public, or what have you? 18 It's your belief that this wastewater can be 19 treated? 20 THOMAS JOHNSON: Yes, it is my belief that it 21 can be effectively treated, and disposed. 22 This country has had, for many, many years, a 23 deep-injection-well program, as I said, that's been 24 regulated by states, and the federal government. 25 It's not widely known by the public, 1 certainly, but there are thousands of wells, deep 2 injection wells, many of them located in the western 3 New York, where all kinds of industrial waste are 4 injected into the ground -- deep into the ground, 5 well below drinking-water aquifers. 6 That program is not as vital here in the 7 northeast because of the geology. The western 8 geology is more suitable for that. 9 There are wells in Pennsylvania. 10 There are a few deep disposal wells in 11 New York. 12 However, Ohio has better geology, and there 13 are many more deep disposal wells in Ohio than there 14 are in Pennsylvania and in New York. 15 And that, right now, is where a lot of that 16 wastewater is being taken by the oil and gas 17 industry for disposal from the Marcellus play. 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: Now, we're talking -- 19 we're talking, that when you have a well pad that's 20 drilled, you're talking about -- what is your 21 estimate on the percentage of water that's going 22 to -- that stays in the ground, and then what comes 23 back up through a flowback? 24 THOMAS JOHNSON: Well, the general estimates 25 are, about 10 to 30 percent will flow back. 1 However, I think, practically, what's being 2 seen right now, is that, that number is really on 3 the low end. 4 And I believe the Deputy Commissioner's 5 testimony said something in the range of 6 9 or 10 percent actually flows back, and the rest 7 remains underground. 8 SENATOR GRISANTI: And is it true, what your 9 testimony is saying, that, based on New York's, sort 10 of, revised regulations on the casing, and the types 11 of the cement versus steel in casings, and the 12 regulations that are in place -- because -- I 13 mean -- I agree with you, that it's -- it's -- 14 because it's several thousand feet down, and under 15 the geology of the different layers of rock and 16 formation, very difficult for the water, besides 17 gravity, of coming back up, unless it's following 18 that path of the casing pipe. 19 But, still, I mean, accidents can happen, and 20 you could have casing that breaks, and water can 21 come back up, and it can still find its way, whether 22 it's in stream, or even if there's a buffer zone, it 23 can still have the potential of finding its way into 24 a well, or -- or something along those lines. 25 Correct? 1 THOMAS JOHNSON: Yes. 2 And, DEC has had more extensive 3 casing-and-cementing regulations than other states, 4 for quite awhile, since the 1992 regulations were 5 implemented. 6 And, we've seen that these regulations have 7 served very well in protecting the groundwater 8 resources. 9 Other states have not had as good 10 regulations. And, in fact, that, those lapses in 11 regulation are exactly what caused the problems in 12 Dimock that we've all heard about. 13 And, with respect to the situation in Wyoming 14 right now, if you dig into that report, you'll see, 15 also, that there's some pretty strong suspicion that 16 the casing and cementing was at least part of the 17 problem that they're starting to see out there. 18 So, it's important to realize that the 19 vertical wells that have been drilled in this state, 20 for years, are drilled exactly the same way as the 21 upper portion of a horizontal well. The casing 22 requirements are the same. 23 So, that, if we've been doing it safely for 24 many years, that will not change, as far as the 25 upper portion of the well that penetrates through 1 the aquifers in the first few thousand feet of the 2 vertical rock that is drilled. 3 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 4 And you talked about -- you saw the photos 5 that the Deputy Commissioner had here, regarding 6 these open pit, and these ponds. 7 And he was talking about, however long -- and 8 it's different water, but however long it stays 9 there, it can have a higher concentration of 10 radioactivity, more so than what has been stated to 11 be a non-cause of effect for health concerns. 12 But, there is that potential of, depending on 13 length of time that it stays in these holding ponds, 14 and it could concentrate, you would agree with that 15 assessment? 16 THOMAS JOHNSON: Yes, sir. 17 Both, in holding ponds, and, in the case in 18 New York, will be held in the steel tanks, anyplace 19 water stays for any period of time, there is the 20 possibility for concentrations to build up. 21 And, that is why the SGEIS has provisions to 22 monitor that, so that we'll be able to protect the 23 workers and the public. 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: Yeah, would that then be 25 treated, then, as hazardous waste, if it gets to 1 that high of a level? 2 THOMAS JOHNSON: That's a little beyond my 3 area of knowledge, so I'm going to -- 4 SENATOR GRISANTI: Would you -- would you -- 5 I mean, would that be something that you would 6 consider? 7 If it reaches that extreme, it should be 8 considered as hazardous waste? 9 THOMAS JOHNSON: I'm not sufficiently 10 well-versed in the hazardous-waste regulations, so, 11 I'm going to ask -- I'll pass on that. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: The, uhm -- and you're 13 involved in Pennsylvania right now, with regards to 14 specific well pads, and testing, and work that's 15 being done in Pennsylvania? 16 THOMAS JOHNSON: I am not directly involved, 17 no. 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: Not directly. 19 Okay, not directly involved. 20 Okay, I thought you were. 21 THOMAS JOHNSON: We have plans to do some 22 work, and build some plants in Pennsylvania, but 23 that has not come to fruition at this time. 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 25 All right, I appreciate your testimony here 1 today. 2 And, I'll turn it over to Senator Gallivan, 3 if he has any further questions. 4 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thanks for being here 5 today, Mr. Johnson. 6 I have two questions, one in each area of 7 your testimony. 8 The first has to do with contamination, or 9 potential contamination, of drinking water; and, 10 specifically, the aquifers. 11 You testified about lithostatic pressure that 12 is so great, that the geology, essentially, would 13 prevent the contamination of the aquifers, however 14 many feet above where the horizontal drilling has 15 taken place. 16 And, also, that the hydraulic fracturing of 17 the single well will take about one day. 18 Is there any risk of any flow of those 19 hydroflack -- hydrofracking liquids, during the 20 process, migrating upwards? 21 THOMAS JOHNSON: No, there's not, because of 22 the short duration that the pressures are raised, 23 and because of the monitoring that occurs during 24 that process. 25 The energy companies are very interested in 1 making sure that the fractures don't extend any 2 further than necessary because they don't want to 3 fracture areas beyond the target zone where they're 4 trying to draw gas from. 5 So, this is a process that's monitored with 6 sophisticated equipment, to make sure they know how 7 far the fractures are propagating. 8 Again, the distance we're talking about, 9 generally, is four to six thousand feet, probably, 10 that the Marcellus zone will be developed and 11 fractured. 12 And, the drinking-water aquifers, the maximum 13 depth is about 800 feet. 14 So, you've got several thousand feet of rock 15 above -- or, between where the fracturing is 16 occurring and the drinking-water aquifers. 17 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Second has to do with the 18 actual treatment of the water once it's 19 contaminated. 20 And it's certainly your testimony that the 21 water can be treated; correct? 22 THOMAS JOHNSON: Yes. 23 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Would it be your 24 opinion -- do the chemicals that are used in the 25 hydrofracking solutions, that the drilling companies 1 have indicated as proprietary, is it your opinion 2 that they need to be disclosed, in order for the 3 water to be -- the wastewater to be properly 4 treated? 5 THOMAS JOHNSON: Well, I think they should be 6 disclosed. 7 And I believe the SGEIS requires that they be 8 disclosed. 9 What is interesting about some of the 10 discussion and debate that is ongoing, is that, the 11 chemicals that are actually added to the water for 12 the fracturing process are in extremely small 13 quantities. 14 And, in fact, the compounds that are coming 15 back up in the flowback water, in the highest 16 concentrations, are the naturally occurring minerals 17 that are in the rock. 18 So, as the water is injected into the rock, 19 and it stays there for a period of time, as the rock 20 is fractured, those natural compounds leech out of 21 the rock and into the water, and are present at much 22 higher concentrations than what is actually added 23 for the fracturing process. 24 So, some of what you've heard about the 25 barium, the strontium, the calcium, the sodium, the 1 magnesium, all of these compounds -- and the salts, 2 are all natural, and are what comes out of the rock 3 during the hydrofracturing process, and are not the 4 compounds that are added during the hydraulic 5 fracturing. 6 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, thank you. 7 THOMAS JOHNSON: You're welcome. 8 SENATOR GRISANTI: I have nothing further. 9 I appreciate you submitting your testimony, 10 and being here today, and taking questions from 11 myself and Senator Gallivan. 12 Thank you very much. 13 THOMAS JOHNSON: Thank you. 14 SENATOR GRISANTI: Paul Drof. 15 PAUL DROF: Okay, well, good afternoon, 16 Chairman Grisanti and Senator Gallivan. 17 My name is Paul Drof. I am the executive 18 director of the Niagara Falls Water Board. 19 I would like to thank you for the opportunity 20 to testify at this hearing. 21 By way of background: The Niagara Falls 22 water board is a public benefit corporation created 23 in 2002. 24 We have approximately 19,000 residential, 25 commercial, and industrial accounts throughout the 1 city of Niagara Falls, and also in surrounding 2 communities. 3 The Water Board is a financially 4 self-sustaining entity, with an annual operating 5 budget of approximately 25 million. 6 Our revenues are generated through the sale 7 of potable water, as well as wastewater treatment 8 services. 9 Last year, the Water Board's total water 10 production was more than 6.6 billion gallons, with a 11 daily average of 18.2 million gallons per day. 12 The Water Board owns and maintains nearly 13 550 miles of water and sewer lines throughout our 14 service area. 15 Chairman Grisanti, I would like to take this 16 opportunity to thank you for your leadership in 17 holding this hearing to examine solutions to 18 flowback water produced through the hydrofracking 19 process. 20 The proper treatment of flowback water is a 21 key issue as New York State continues to vet the 22 efficacy of permitting horizontal drilling and 23 high-volume hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale 24 formation. 25 Needless to say, it is imperative these 1 materials be managed in a way that focuses, first, 2 and foremost, on public health and safety, as well 3 as the protection of the environment and natural 4 resources. 5 The Niagara Falls Water Board has been 6 closely following the DEC's draft regulation 7 process; and, in fact, we are preparing our comments 8 for submission. 9 We feel the DEC has done a thorough and 10 responsible job of developing a framework for the 11 safe treatment of flowback water and production 12 water. 13 The Water Board wholeheartedly supports this 14 approach. 15 As you know, the Niagara Falls Water Board 16 operates a unique, physical-chemical activated 17 carbon wastewater system. 18 The facility was built in the 1970s, 19 specifically to handle organic, electrochemical, 20 metallic, and high-solids waste streams from some of 21 the country's largest industrial and chemical 22 manufacturers, as well as remediation of Superfund 23 sites within our service area, including the 24 Love Canal. 25 What this means, Senator, is that our 1 facility has treated, is treating, and will continue 2 to treat contaminants that are as complex and 3 difficult as the contaminants that result from 4 hydrofracking. 5 Furthermore, the Niagara Falls Water Board 6 has an approved U.S. EPA industrial pretreatment and 7 enforcement program. 8 We also have a longstanding U.S. EPA- and 9 DEC-approved hauled-waste program that regularly 10 accepts chemical wastewater for treatment from 11 throughout the region, not just from our service 12 territory. 13 The bottom line, is that we responsibly 14 handle heavy industrial waste as part of our 15 day-to-day operation. It's what we do. 16 Suffice it to say, the Water Board has a long 17 history of treating chemicals and other industrial 18 wastes in compliance with applicable environmental 19 law. 20 The Water Board has met with DEC officials to 21 discuss our capabilities and treatment processes. 22 We have also commenced studies to evaluate 23 our wastewater treatment plant's capabilities to 24 properly and safely treat flowback water. 25 Based on the information provided by the DEC 1 to date, we have made certain conservative 2 assumptions about the levels of treatment the 3 Department will require for the constituents of 4 concerns, or, the "COCs." 5 With that, we have conducted several 6 bench-scale studies targeting these constituents. 7 The results have been encouraging. 8 Our preliminary results demonstrate 9 significant removals of these COCs. 10 As you will see in these pictures, we have 11 effectively pretreated the flowback water before it 12 is even treated in our unique facility. 13 Another option to treating this pretreated 14 water may be to reuse it at the wellhead. 15 This reduces the use of potable water for 16 fracking purposes, and does not require discharge to 17 local waterways. 18 [Photograph being shown.] 19 The first photo you see shows water from a 20 wellhead in Pennsylvania. 21 It's the brackish-colored water here on a 22 six-paddle stir. 23 [New photograph being shown.] 24 The second photo shows the initial 25 flocculation of that water, and the initial stages 1 of cleaning it. 2 [New photograph being shown.] 3 The third picture shows the final product of 4 the pretreatment operation at our facility in our 5 wastewater treatment plant. 6 This, again, is pretreatment before it would 7 even be introduced to the publicly owned treatment 8 plants. 9 Just to make that: this is a pretreatment. 10 We eagerly await further guidance from the 11 DEC as to the level of treatment needed to safely 12 address the constituents of concern. 13 In addition, we continue to assess the 14 economic impact of treating flowback water on our 15 operations. 16 We are confident, that once we know the 17 mandated treatment requirements, we will be in a 18 better position to assess the viability of our 19 efforts to pursue this initiative, including, 20 options to build infrastructure, and for reuse of 21 the water at the wellhead, resulting in no discharge 22 to local waterways. 23 What is our interest in the development of 24 the Marcellus Shale? 25 The State's decision to move forward with the 1 exploration of natural gas in the Marcellus 2 formation presents a significant opportunity for the 3 Niagara Falls Water Board. 4 Our Board believes that we may be poised to 5 be in a unique position to provide a solution to the 6 issues of properly treating flowback water from 7 hydrofracking. 8 Mr. Chairman, as the State Senator 9 representing parts of Niagara County, especially 10 Niagara Falls, you have witnessed firsthand the 11 decline in business and population in that region. 12 The Water Board has been hard-hit by this 13 decline. 14 We have been faced with significant losses 15 due to the downsizing of the industrial base and the 16 loss in population. 17 We need to find new and additional revenue 18 streams to make up for these significant losses. 19 Marcellus Shale may provide the Board with an 20 opportunity to take advantage of an underutilized 21 asset that is uniquely designed to treat complex 22 waste, such as flowback water. 23 We see the development of the Marcellus Shale 24 as a unique opportunity for the Water Board to 25 offset these losses, and stabilize the water and 1 wastewater rates for our customers in our service 2 area. 3 We also see it as an opportunity to enhance 4 and reinvest in our wastewater treatment facility 5 and related infrastructure. 6 In conclusion: Drilling and exploration in 7 the Marcellus formation in New York is a unique 8 opportunity for both the State and the Water Board; 9 however, it must be done right. 10 The regulations promulgated by DEC must 11 ensure that the treatment of flowback and production 12 water from the process of hydraulic fracturing will 13 protect public health and safety and the 14 environment, including, our employees, and those 15 employed by the drilling and exploration industry. 16 With proper regulation and focused upgrades, 17 we believe that the Niagara Falls Water Board 18 wastewater treatment plant can treat flowback water 19 and production water as an interim or long-term 20 solution, and may allow for the recycling and/or 21 recovery of treated flowback and production water to 22 the well pad for reuse. 23 It also provides an exciting opportunity for 24 public-private sector partnership, related to job 25 growth, and infrastructure investment. 1 I would like to thank you for hosting this 2 hearing. 3 I appreciate the opportunity to testify 4 before this Committee, and I'm available to answer 5 any questions that you may have. 6 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, thank you, Mr. Drof. 7 Just, briefly, the photos that you brought 8 here, now, this is flowback water that was taken 9 from Pennsylvania? 10 PAUL DROF: That is correct. 11 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 12 And you're saying it's pretreated. It's not 13 gone through a, uhm -- any sort of, what, stage in 14 your facility. It's just something that -- 15 Can you explain that a little bit, what you 16 mean by the "pretreatment stage"? 17 PAUL DROF: Okay, we were looking at the 18 possibility of the treatment of flowback water. 19 We recognized unique requirements of this; 20 and, as such, we've designed a pretreatment facility 21 to, one, handle material, segregate it from the main 22 public treatment works, provide for a high level of 23 treatment before it's even introduced to the rest of 24 the facility. 25 So, we'd have the ability to regulate that 1 particular flow outside the publicly owned treatment 2 works. 3 SENATOR GRISANTI: Do we know -- where it's 4 got "pretreated," where it's showing clear -- 5 PAUL DROF: Uh-huh? 6 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- do we know what 7 chemicals are still in, what seems to be clear 8 water, compared to -- 9 PAUL DROF: Yes. 10 We -- we've produced, looking for what they 11 call the "NORMS." 12 We've look for the barium, the strontium. 13 And we also looked at turbidity; the total 14 dissolved solids, and those items. 15 We sampled the water prior, and to the water 16 afterwards, and went through 136 priority pollutants 17 that were done on that constituent of the water, 18 before treatment, and after treatment. 19 So, we do have some results of where we could 20 be. 21 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, but, in the 22 pretreatment stages of, right there, there's still 23 chemicals that are in that water that looks clear? 24 It's -- 25 PAUL DROF: That is correct. 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- that's not drinkable at 2 that point? 3 PAUL DROF: At this point, no, it is not 4 drinkable. This is pretreatment stage. 5 It's done in a lot of industries, to get to a 6 stage before it could be discharged to a publicly 7 owned treatment works. 8 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 9 Now, from the Southern Tier, where there's 10 proposals for fracking, and -- and -- in case people 11 don't know -- we're considering where Niagara Falls 12 is, that's quite a distance. 13 And you have proponents regarding -- there's 14 estimates of how many trucks it would take to clear 15 one well pad. 16 It would be significant truck routes to -- to 17 get from wherever a potential well pad is, up to 18 Niagara Falls for potential treatment, if you're 19 able to meet whatever the guidelines of the DEC is 20 looking at. 21 What other alternatives do you have, that 22 would put you in a -- in, let's say, a different 23 position than a privately, you know, built facility, 24 so on and so forth? 25 PAUL DROF: Okay, well, we are on approved 1 truck lines. We have a corridor that's highly 2 industrialized in Niagara Falls that's used to the 3 traffic of trucks. 4 And, again, as New York State develops the 5 fields, it's not going to be a lot of volume to 6 begin with. They're going to have to crawl before 7 they can even walk, and walk before they can run. 8 So, if it follows the Pennsylvania model, 9 you're maybe going to have 8 to 10 wells in the 10 first year. 11 So, it will be a ramping up of the need for 12 the treatment facility. 13 Our facility's unique, because, not only are 14 we on a truck line, we are also a rail spur, and we 15 have three rail spurs that enter the facility. 16 We used to use it for handling a liquid 17 chlorine. We no longer use that as a disinfection 18 method. 19 So, we can bring the material in in tankage, 20 which would be 90,000 gallons at apiece, versus, a 21 liquid tanker truck, which is anywhere from five to 22 seventy-five hundred gallons. 23 We would also propose, that, as we move 24 forward in this, there is a brine pipeline that was 25 developed for the hypochlorite business, which was 1 the Olin-DuPont facility, which originates in 2 Batavia, and actually enters into the city of 3 Niagara Falls. 4 Those rights-of-way still exist. 5 If we're looking at a long-term solution, and 6 the removal of truck traffic, and the capability of 7 spills, we may want to look at, uhm -- looking at 8 that as a future alternative, uhm, to redevelop that 9 pipeline for usage for hydrofracking water, to bring 10 from the well, and back to the wellhead for reuse. 11 SENATOR GRISANTI: What is the -- where does 12 the pipeline actually go? 13 I mean, I know it's in the Falls -- 14 PAUL DROF: It -- 15 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- but where does it 16 spread out from there? 17 PAUL DROF: It just goes, from Batavia, 18 directly to the Olin-DuPont facility, at this point 19 in time. 20 We -- I can give you a trace of where it 21 goes. 22 SENATOR GRISANTI: So you would need 23 significant infrastructure to expand that pipeline 24 to other areas in the -- especially in the 25 Southern Tier, or southern part of New York? 1 PAUL DROF: That would be correct. 2 Or, it could be a truck head, that all the 3 truck would go to one pinch point. Those trucks 4 then can be offloaded, and regulated by the DEC 5 before it's entered into the pipeline. 6 So, you could have a pinch point before, and 7 at the end, of the pipeline, to make sure that the 8 material that was introduced is the same material 9 that comes out at the end of the pipeline. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: Now, you're saying, in 11 Niagara Falls, that you have certain federal 12 requirements that have already met, or certain, 13 uhm -- that allows to you proceed forward. 14 What makes, uhm -- what makes your treatment 15 facility different from the private ones that are 16 being built, let's say, in Pennsylvania? 17 PAUL DROF: Well, very similar. 18 We're different from most facilities. 19 99 percent of the facilities throughout the 20 United States are biological in nature. 21 And I think it's been discussed before, that 22 those treatments facilities are, maybe, inadequate 23 to handle this. 24 Niagara Falls, because of its industrial 25 past, and legacies, has developed a 1 physical-chemical wastewater treatment plant which 2 is made to take this material. 3 We also use activated carbon to remove the 4 organic materials that may be another issue there. 5 Since we have this facility, the type of 6 chemicals that come in, such as the high solids, the 7 metals, do not affect the biological biomass to 8 achieve treatment because we have none of that 9 existing. 10 So, that's what makes us unique. 11 We are, basically, a large-scale facility 12 that's underutilized. We currently are a 48 MGD, 13 or, "million-gallon-per-day," facility, that's 14 running about 25 million gallons a day. 15 So, again, it's an underutilized public 16 utility, that would take some, as you said, 17 investment to make it better, but we feel that it's 18 being a viable alternative in biological facilities 19 that are there. 20 SENATOR GRISANTI: So you're only running at 21 half a capacity right now? 22 PAUL DROF: That's correct. 23 SENATOR GRISANTI: The, uhm -- what are some 24 of the chemicals that, uhm -- you know, you 25 mentioned Love Canal. There's other things. 1 What are some of the chemicals that you've 2 actually treated there before? 3 PAUL DROF: Well, we have whole -- our permit 4 is quite extensive, that was issued to us by the 5 DEC, along with the Joint International Commission, 6 and the Canadian government, because we discharge 7 into an international waterway. 8 We monitor for volatile organics, 9 semi-volatile organics, heavy metals, a lot of the 10 priority pollutants. 11 We're also required to do toxicology testing, 12 for both vertebrate and invertebrate species, to 13 make sure that our discharge does not affect the 14 biota in the receiving stream. 15 So, we are under very strict guidelines. 16 We currently also have a headworks analysis 17 and a rail system, which looks at what we can accept 18 at the head of the plant, what those volumes would 19 be, and how it would affect us at the end. 20 We also report any truck waste to the DEC 21 through the Part 364 permitting process, that was 22 mentioned by the DEC. 23 We currently give the State all that 24 information, once a year, of what we've accepted: 25 volumes, and where they originated. 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: So, are you fully familiar 2 with the chemical makeup that's in the flowback 3 water that's coming back from these sites? 4 PAUL DROF: We know of one particular type. 5 Their flowback water can change. The 6 chemicals, or the constituents, are -- may be unique 7 to each type of drilling. 8 We're hoping, now, as the process becomes 9 more transparent, that those amounts will be 10 available to us, to look at, and be able to treat 11 them on a better basis. 12 Again, it's a hauled waste. It has a 13 constituency that's much more predictable than 14 what's being discharged to us by the various 15 industrial sites throughout the city, which, again, 16 by themselves, may be easily to treat. But, when 17 they're put into a pipeline, and have time to react, 18 they can -- what we -- react at the head of the 19 plant is considerably different than what the plants 20 are discharging. 21 So, I think we have the experience, and the 22 background, to be able to look at this, and do a 23 good job at it. 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: So you're saying, it's not 25 so much as the chemicals that are added to the water 1 and sand mixture to do the fracking; it's, once that 2 process underground actually takes place, that 3 additional chemicals, that their the reaction, 4 causes a combination of additional chemicals that 5 come back in the flowback water? 6 PAUL DROF: That could be a possibility, that 7 you'll be creating things that you've never -- you 8 weren't intending to. 9 And that's why we would look at each load 10 coming in, prescreen it before it's accepted, to 11 make sure it meets the criteria for treatment. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 13 Well, they had mentioned -- I think 14 Deputy Commissioner had mentioned, that it's got to 15 be disclosed, what the chemicals that are being 16 used. 17 And this particular water that you got from 18 Pennsylvania, were the chemicals disclosed to you, 19 as to what they were, and then you can figure out 20 exactly what you got rid of? 21 Or, are you at a stage, where, you know, we 22 still need to do additional work to get rid of 23 additional chemicals that are in the water? 24 I mean -- 25 PAUL DROF: This is a very preliminary stage. 1 We received flowback water from one or two 2 well sites. We moved that together. 3 We analyzed that, since we didn't have the 4 information of what the raw feed water was, so 5 that's why we did an entire scan for priority 6 pollutants and all the constituents that we had seen 7 in the literature. 8 Again, we treated, and looked at various 9 compounds that we considered to be the marker 10 compounds. 11 We found the best treatment that we could 12 render. 13 And, at that time, we did another scan, to 14 look at all those priority pollutants at the final 15 to end, to see: 16 One: Are they there? 17 Two: Did we remove those? -- and, how 18 successfully we were with removing those. 19 And that was a preliminary bench test. 20 It was not -- the next phase would be, to 21 look at a pilot test of some size. 22 In other words, to ramp it up to larger size, 23 to see whether or not the assumptions that were 24 made, or in the bench testing, translate to an 25 actual pilot facility. 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 2 So, it's basically -- so, it's still a work 3 in progress until -- like I said, you need to know 4 what this chemicals are -- 5 PAUL DROF: Well, we need to -- 6 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- to make sure you got 7 rid of them all? 8 PAUL DROF: Yes, sir. 9 And we need two things: 10 One: To know what the chemical disclosure 11 is; 12 And, two: To see what the State DEC will 13 come as their final targets of where they'd like to 14 be for the treatment. 15 Then we can look at: 16 Can we achieve those treatment goals? 17 At what cost? 18 And, whether or not that is a model for us to 19 proceed. 20 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 21 All right, thank you very much. 22 SENATOR GALLIVAN: What do you do with the 23 contaminants that are removed? 24 PAUL DROF: Currently, right now, the 25 contaminants -- 1 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Well, in this project that 2 you did here. 3 PAUL DROF: Right here? 4 They were sent back to Pennsylvania for 5 disposal. 6 It was only, about -- I think we have only 7 received about 5 gallons of flow. 8 SENATOR GALLIVAN: How -- this water that you 9 got, or that you did in this project, how was it -- 10 upon receipt, or, at your last stage, where the 11 water is clear -- 12 PAUL DROF: Uh-huh? 13 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- how was that different, 14 or how does it compare, to the chemicals that you 15 had been treating over the years, from the 16 Superfund -- like the Superfund-site chemicals? 17 PAUL DROF: It's very applicable to what 18 we've seen in the past, historically, and what we 19 continue to see today. 20 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Again, in this project, 21 you compare -- go back to your experience with the 22 Superfund chemicals, what the plant was built for, 23 and now we look at this particular project. 24 Is there anything that stands out, that is so 25 different than what you're equipped to do? 1 THOMAS JOHNSON: Well, we're -- 2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Or any more problematic 3 than what you've done in the past? 4 PAUL DROF: We're concerned about the 5 NORMS -- the "normally occurring radioactive 6 materials" -- to see whether or not we'll be 7 concentrating them in the coagulation process. 8 So, we're looking at that. 9 We're also concerned with the total dissolved 10 solids; how that would affect the waterways, and 11 those high volumes, because, since they're 12 dissolved, they're very difficult to remove from the 13 solution. 14 We've done an excellent job with turbidity, 15 excellent job with suspended solids. We've done a 16 good job with the barium and strontium. 17 And those were the compounds that, whether or 18 not it would be effective to treat. And that's how 19 we decided that we'd like to proceed to the next 20 stage, because we had success in treating those. 21 Again, our concern is, we need to know what 22 New York State is going to require for us to do. 23 Based on that, we would remodel the original 24 bench scale, and then try to translate that into a 25 pilot plan, to see if it is effective. 1 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, thank you. 2 Go ahead, Mark. 3 SENATOR GRISANTI: But at the present time, 4 until those models are put in place, you really 5 can't go forward on it, because you don't know 6 exactly what -- what's going to be required from the 7 DEC? 8 PAUL DROF: That's correct. 9 And we've never accepted fracking water at 10 this point in time. 11 This was just a laboratory-scale exercise, to 12 see whether or not, uhm -- what the material was 13 consisting of, whether or not we could render 14 treatment, and how effective that treatment would 15 be. 16 Recognizing the fact that we'd like to use 17 this as a pretreatment system, that we'd have to 18 make some investiture into our structures, and that 19 we'd have to spend money to do it correctly. 20 What we don't want to do is dilute the 21 material. 22 We'd like to treat the materials so that 23 there's no question as to what happens to the 24 constituents as they drop out. 25 SENATOR GRISANTI: Is there any estimate on 1 what the cost would be to -- if you had to upgrade 2 your facility, to actually treat the water? 3 Is there any talk about a cost analysis of 4 what it would cost to treat? 5 PAUL DROF: Well, initial figures, of course, 6 where these are -- they vary quite a bit, is, if we 7 would look at about a million gallons of treatment 8 per day, to put in holding facilities, and 9 improvement to the rail lines, and all the other 10 items, would be about five to six million dollars, 11 for a basic pretreatment facility prior to 12 introduction to our regular wastewater facility. 13 SENATOR GRISANTI: I got you. Okay. 14 All right, I appreciate you coming. 15 Thank you very much. 16 Thank you for giving the testimony today. 17 PAUL DROF: Thank you very much. 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: Is Katherine here? 19 KATHERINE NADEAU: Good afternoon. 20 My name is Katherine Nadeau, and I am the 21 water and natural resources program director for 22 Environmental Advocates of New York. 23 I would like to thank the Senators for 24 convening this hearing, and for inviting me to 25 testify today. 1 Environmental Advocates' mission is to 2 protect our air, land, water, and the health of all 3 New Yorkers. 4 We monitor state government, evaluate 5 proposed laws, and champion policies and practices 6 that will ensure the responsible stewardship of our 7 shared environment, and, to make New York a leader. 8 So, as we sit here discussing fracking today, 9 I just want to point out that some of my testimony 10 has been covered by previous speakers, so, I'll kind 11 of jump around a little bit, to not beat on issues 12 that have already been discussed. 13 SENATOR GRISANTI: Yeah, we actually have 14 most of the testimony that's submitted in writing. 15 So, yeah, if you could paraphrase? 16 You know, it might be -- 17 KATHERINE NADEAU: Great. 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 19 KATHERINE NADEAU: Great, thank you. 20 So, fracking, as we've discussed at length 21 this afternoon, is a process, that, if allowed to 22 proceed, as proposed currently by New York State 23 officials, it would industrialize much of 24 Upstate New York, and, undoubtedly, lead to 25 accidents, spills, and air and water contamination. 1 Just last week, the 2 Environmental Protection Agency released preliminary 3 studies, pointing to water contamination caused by 4 fracking. 5 This was discussed earlier. 6 I only bring it up now, just because this is 7 an issue, where the industry has said, over and over 8 and over again, that fracking doesn't contaminate 9 water supplies. It's not contaminating groundwater. 10 Whether or not the exact scenarios hold true 11 in every state across the nation, this is an issue 12 that cause those -- calls, excuse me, those claims 13 into question, for sure. 14 So, as we discuss this, we need to keep in 15 mind the sources of the information, and where this 16 is all coming from. 17 So, New Yorkers know that contamination can 18 happen. 19 And, we understand that fracking cannot 20 happen at the scale and the pace projected by the 21 Department of Environmental Conservation, which, as 22 said, is up to, and including, 1,600 wells drilled 23 per year, without serious consequences, especially 24 to our waters. 25 So, so far, DEC has issued three drafts of 1 the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact 2 Statement for public review, two for public comment. 3 And despite improvements in the process as 4 it's gone along, much more analysis on waste 5 production, transport, and treatment remains, and 6 additional mitigation measures need to be evaluated 7 if any fracking's going to be permitted in New York 8 State. 9 And, New Yorkers are rightfully concerned 10 that improperly treated waste will pollute the 11 state's waters. 12 And, based on reports from Pennsylvania, and 13 other states in the nation, these concerns are 14 well-founded. 15 So, my testimony really focuses on how 16 fracking waste is classified in New York, and making 17 sure that, if it is, in fact, hazardous, it's 18 classified as hazardous; making sure that we're 19 prohibiting fracking waste treatment at the state's 20 publicly owned treatment works; and, DEC resources. 21 These are not Environmental Advocates only 22 concerns as related to fracking, but, just given the 23 scope of the hearing today, this is where I'm 24 focusing my testimony. 25 So, the first part of my testimony relates to 1 how much fracking waste may be produced. 2 And I think NRDC covered this fairly well, 3 but I will just say, that this is a tremendous 4 amount of wastewater anywhere. 5 On the order of billions of gallon per year. 6 Hundreds of billions of gallons over the 7 projected 30-year play -- 30-year, excuse me, life 8 of the play in the modeling that DEC has done so 9 far. 10 And, right now, we are in a tricky situation, 11 because these wastes are not considered hazardous, 12 even if, in fact, they are. 13 And we are allowing them to be -- or we may, 14 excuse me, under the DEC's proposals, allow them to 15 be treated at facilities that are ill-equipped to do 16 so. 17 Now, first, under State regulations, has -- 18 drilling waste is just, by definition, not hazardous 19 waste. 20 As Mr. Leff said, from the Department of 21 Environmental Conservation, it is treated as 22 industrial waste. 23 He's claimed, that this is because the 24 federal government doesn't classify the waste as 25 hazardous waste either; and that, therefore, 1 New York State has tied our regulations to the feds. 2 This is -- this is a case where the DEC can, 3 and should, go far beyond what the federal 4 government is doing. 5 And this happens all across our regulations, 6 and in our laws now. 7 If you look at the Clean Air Act, if you look 8 at the Clean Water Act, these are both delegated 9 programs in New York State, where it's the State's 10 responsibility to carry these out. 11 And, in both cases, we have standards and 12 requirements that go beyond what the federal 13 government has -- has provided for. 14 And this is because, upon careful 15 examination, the State has realized, that, if we're 16 going to protect our resources, we need to set in 17 place the most stringent standards possible. 18 So, this is something that the State -- 19 there's plenty of precedent for it, and the State 20 should do it in this case as well. 21 So, because they're not -- and, you know -- 22 and I want to -- and, what -- again, what does this 23 really mean, because they're not classified as 24 hazardous waste? 25 First of all: When it comes to 1 transportation, they're not required to have the 2 same level of manifest systems; 3 And, when it comes down to disposal, they're 4 not required to be treated at facilities 5 specifically constructed and designed to handle 6 these -- the toxicity of these wastes. 7 Just for an example: I went through the 8 Supplemental Generic -- excuse me, the revised draft 9 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, 10 and went through the State's hazardous-waste 11 regulations -- just like, I'm sure a lot of other 12 people in this room have done -- and, to look at, 13 you know, if this waste coming off the wells is, in 14 fact, hazardous, and why. 15 And one of the contaminants, one of the 16 chem- -- one of the toxins, that is listed in State 17 regulations -- hazardous-waste regulations, is 18 barium. 19 And, it's the concluded that, barium, at 20 levels of 100 milligrams per liter, or more, would 21 be considered hazardous, by definition, under State 22 regulation. 23 Then went to the States draft plans, and went 24 to industry studies themselves, and said: Okay, so, 25 if this is the case, do we have any studies that 1 prove that we've got levels of barium in the waste 2 that would trigger the standard? 3 And, we do. 4 According to an industry study of 5 eight Marcellus Shale wells, identifying the 6 northern counties in Pennsylvania with comparable 7 character to New York play area, the level of barium 8 detected in flowback fluid ranged, but -- on day one 9 of the flowback, the first day that the water was 10 coming out of the well, the median level there was 11 387 milligrams per liter. 12 So, clearly above the "100 milligram per 13 liter" standard in State regulations. 14 And then, on Day 14, and 15, the amount of 15 barium detected in flowback fluid varied as well; 16 but, again, the median level was 17 1,835 milligrams per liter, far exceeding the 18 State's standards for hazardous waste. 19 So, if this were created by any other 20 industry, you know, General Motors, 21 General Electric -- anybody else in the state -- 22 this would be considered hazardous waste. 23 But because, by definition, it is not. 24 The State looked at tests coming from 25 Pennsylvania and West Virginia. And, again, there 1 were varying levels of barium detected; but, the 2 median level there -- detected there, was 3 1,450 milligrams per liter. 4 So, this is -- you know, a lot of these 5 wastes clearly would fall under the category of 6 "hazardous." 7 Another problem with the fact that this 8 definition rules the amount of treatment as 9 hazardous waste, is that, we're not only talking 10 about what might come down the road with high-volume 11 hydraulic fracturing. 12 Under current drilling in New York State, 13 under the current hazardous-waste loophole, these 14 exemptions, that means we're not looking at what's 15 happening with the waste being created now, either. 16 Getting back to the transport for a minute 17 here: The DEC, as has been discussed at length, has 18 proposed a tracking system for fracking waste. 19 They keep saying it's similar to the 20 medical-waste system. 21 And, you know, that's -- that is indeed the 22 case. 23 And this is a great example of good public 24 relations, because everybody hears "medical waste," 25 and goes, "Ah!" because it sounds gross. 1 But, this doesn't live up to the standards of 2 what would be required under hazardous-waste 3 regulations; and in one particular point, 4 specifically for the medical-waste tracking system, 5 the medical-waste generators, transporters, and 6 handlers, all have to report, all have to keep the 7 manifest systems, but they have to -- excuse me, the 8 manifest tracking forms. 9 But, they have to, those entities, keep the 10 forms on site, and are available at the request of 11 the Department of Environmental Conservation. 12 Under hazardous-waste regulations, it -- 13 those have to be reported to the State. 14 They're put into a database. And, that way, 15 anybody -- you, me, anybody in the public -- can go, 16 and look and see, what's, in fact, happening with 17 this waste. 18 This is a big problem, especially with DEC's 19 staffing and resources being what they are, at 20 historically low levels. 21 This means that we've got a very important 22 check in the system, in the proposed system, which 23 would be missing, if the State goes forward, not 24 counting this as hazardous waste. 25 Now, that's just on the transport. 1 That's to say nothing of what actually 2 happens to the waste once it arrives at the 3 facilities, and how it's treated -- how it would be 4 treated there. 5 Moving on a bit to the other issue I 6 identified today, is, treating waste at the 7 publicly owned treatment works; the municipal sewage 8 systems. 9 A big problem with treating fracking waste at 10 these plants is the levels of total dissolved solids 11 in fracking wastes. 12 Total dissolved solid are, essentially, 13 salts, they're metals. And, they are found at -- in 14 fracking wastes at levels 1.6 to 6.6 times the 15 levels found in seawaters. 16 This is incredibly, incredibly salty waters. 17 Sewage plants aren't designed to remove these 18 types of salts. 19 They -- salts in -- in fact, according to the 20 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement: 21 "Salts, and dissolved solids, may not be 22 sufficiently treated at municipal treatment and/or 23 treatment technologies not designed to remove 24 pollutants of this nature." 25 So that means, if these wastes are disposed, 1 and sent to these types of plants, the best that we 2 could hope for is that they would be diluted. That, 3 the waste would go in, and that they would pass 4 through the system, diluted. 5 This leads to lots of other problems when you 6 get into cumulative impacts. 7 If you've got more than one plant treating 8 fracking waste on the same water body, now you run 9 into problems, like what was seen in Pennsylvania, 10 where, all of these wastes add up, because they 11 don't disappear once they go into the ecosystem. In 12 fact, they just keep getting worse. 13 The DEC went on, in the Supplemental Generic 14 Environmental Impact Statement, to question -- to 15 further question whether or not this should be 16 treated at our municipal treatment plants. 17 And, I quote: 18 "There's questionable available capacity for 19 POTWs in New York State to accept high-volume 20 hydraulic fracturing wastewater. 21 "Further, because of the inability of 22 biological treatment systems to remove certain 23 high-volume hydraulic fracturing additives and 24 flowback water, as previously described, POTWs are 25 not usually equipped to accept influent containing 1 these contaminants. 2 "The potential for inhibition of biological 3 activity and sludge settling, and the potential for 4 radionuclide concentration in the sludge, impacts 5 sludge-disposal options." 6 So, if we take this apart, the State is 7 questioning the capacity -- how much? -- which, 8 basically, means two things. 9 First: Can the plant handle it? 10 Is there, literally, capacity? Is there room 11 in the pipes? 12 Secondly, it also gets at the ability for the 13 receiving water; the capacity of the receiving 14 water, to handle this type of waste, and to take 15 that on. 16 The State then went on to say: 17 "Because of the inability of biological 18 treatment systems to remove certain additives -- 19 Again, the TDS being one of these. 20 -- "they're not usually equipped to accept 21 the influent" -- "they're not usually equipped to 22 accept these wastes." 23 And then, third, "The potential for 24 inhibition of biological activity." 25 And this is something that the gentleman from 1 Niagara Falls had touched upon. 2 We've got most of our treatment plants in 3 New York State relying on biological systems; 4 meaning, that these are bacteria that break down the 5 waste. 6 These are bugs. 7 And they rely on having certain water-quality 8 standards within those systems in order to properly 9 break down municipal sewage. 10 If we start allowing very, very salty waste 11 to enter this system, without being properly 12 treated, if this goes in, we run the risk of, 13 essentially, shutting down the plant, making the 14 plant itself unable to treat other wastes. 15 And because fracking wastes would, 16 presumably, be just one portion of waste that any of 17 these plants are accepting, if this is allowed to go 18 forward, then we run the risk of the plant not being 19 able to treat the waste it was designed to treat, 20 and that communities rely on for treatment. 21 In Pennsylvania, this -- they ran into all 22 sorts of problems. 23 The industry admitted as much in a 24 "Post Gazette" article, where they said that, you 25 know, natural gas industry is a contributing factor 1 to elevated levels of contaminants in various 2 rivers. 3 So, based on the State's concerns regarding 4 the questionable available capacity, the potential 5 of inhibition of biological activity in sludge 6 settling, and Pennsylvania's experience, and citizen 7 opposition to the practice, municipal treatment 8 plants in New York State should not be permitted to 9 accept fracking wastes. 10 In my testimony, I go on to just touch on the 11 issue of recycling and reuse. 12 I would just like to echo what I said before, 13 you know, this is promising. The more that can be 14 recycled and reused, the better. 15 If this industry is going to operate, you 16 know, we want to make sure that they are using as 17 little fresh water as possible, and polluting as 18 little water as possible. 19 However, at the end of the day, you still 20 have contaminants that need to be dealt with. 21 So, in the coming session, there are a couple 22 of things that the Senate can work to do. 23 First: Passing Senate Bill 4616, as had been 24 said before. 25 And, Senator -- we appreciate the Senator's 1 support for this. 2 This -- you know, this is a bill that's given 3 "three trees" in Environmental Advocates' rating 4 system. 5 It's been designated a "superbill" by the 6 environmental community, showing the community's 7 strong support for this measure. 8 And, it's a very basic, and a very 9 reasonable, action to ask these companies to take; 10 that, if the waste would be classified as 11 "hazardous waste," to treat it as such. 12 Secondly: The Senate can act to make sure 13 that municipal treatment plants are not accepting 14 fracking waste. 15 Third: The New York State Comptroller is 16 advancing legislation to establish strict liability, 17 as well as the Spill Cleanup Fund. 18 This gets at the problem of, you know: 19 What happens if something goes wrong? 20 What happens if a company does not act in -- 21 does not act as a good actor in New York, and then 22 moves on? 23 It gives New York an ability to go back, and 24 make sure that there is a fund in place, to provide 25 for any cleanup that happens. 1 Assemblyman Sweeney is carrying this bill. 2 And it's something that the Senate should consider 3 as well. 4 And then, finally, on the issue of DEC 5 funding and staffing: You know, as the Senators are 6 both well aware, this is an issue that the State -- 7 excuse me, funding and staffing issues are plaguing 8 the DEC, from top to bottom, and in every -- every 9 division within the agency. 10 They're operating with fewer staff than they 11 were in the 1980s; yet, the responsibilities of 12 the agency to protect our water, our communities, 13 has only increased. 14 We are at a very critical time right now, as 15 everybody's considering looking towards the next 16 session, and looking towards the budget. 17 As a member of the Fracking Advisory Panel, 18 the Environmental Advocates is looking at this issue 19 closely, and participating in discussions with other 20 stakeholders about how this should move forward. 21 But what has become clear, is that, industry 22 should not be externalizing the costs of oversight, 23 and of running a system that is, essentially, 24 designed to cater this one industry's needs. 25 This is something that industry needs to take 1 a strong lead on as well. 2 So, that is, in a nutshell, my testimony. 3 I appreciate your time. I appreciate your 4 leadership on this. 5 And, I'm happy to take any questions. 6 SENATOR GRISANTI: Yeah, we're going to ask 7 you some questions. 8 We got to take a break for a few minutes. 9 They have to change some of the technical and audio, 10 so... 11 [Discussion at Chair's table.] 12 [Pause in the proceeding.] 13 [The proceeding resumed, as follows:] 14 SENATOR GRISANTI: We had a brief break to 15 change some of the audio, which was good, so... 16 Katherine, the couple questions that I have, 17 is, you had mentioned -- you had mentioned about the 18 possibility -- in particular, you mentioned about 19 the Niagara Falls not being able to -- if they were 20 to treat this, then they may not be able to treat 21 other -- 22 KATHERINE NADEAU: Right. 23 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- you know, what they 24 were normally set up for. 25 KATHERINE NADEAU: Right, right. 1 And I wouldn't -- I wasn't speaking 2 specifically about the Niagara Falls facility, 3 because they do have specialized treatment systems. 4 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, that's what I want 5 to differentiate. 6 So you're talking about the facilities that 7 you feel that just treat regular -- 8 KATHERINE NADEAU: Right. 9 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- what they're set up to 10 do, that if they were to do this, it could 11 jeopardize what they were originally set up for in 12 the beginning? 13 Okay. 14 KATHERINE NADEAU: Absolutely. 15 And that's most of the -- most of the 16 facilities in the state are based on -- the biologic 17 treatment systems are just meant to treat sewage, 18 and that's what they're based upon. 19 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 20 I have heard in testimony in other hearings, 21 that a lot of the companies in Pennsylvania are 22 doing a lot more recycling than they were in the 23 past. 24 They would only, you know, maybe do two times 25 pass-through, but some of them are recycling, and 1 carrying it from wells to wells. 2 But, again, the concern with that is, is the 3 storage; 4 The concern is, still, you know, the water 5 coming out from the flowback, from the casings. 6 And, at the end, you're going to have, pretty 7 much, because of its sitting, a higher 8 concentration, I think, of chemicals, and that's 9 also a concern. 10 I would take it, you agree with that? 11 KATHERINE NADEAU: Yeah, absolutely. 12 Absolutely. 13 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 14 And, uhm -- and it's -- you know, I was kind 15 thinking the same thing in my head, when it was 16 mentioned about: Well, we're following the federal 17 guidelines on this, with regards to hazardous waste, 18 but -- so that's why we're doing it. 19 When I know, just being in the Senate, that 20 New York State, on various occasions, has gone so 21 much higher above the federal requirements, from 22 Medicaid, to other issues, that you don't really 23 need to -- you know, to stay at that same level. 24 And I think it's something I think that the 25 DEC has actually, you know, starting to take a look 1 at again. 2 KATHERINE NADEAU: And just on that point, if 3 I may: The one thing that I would say, is that, 4 folks concerned about this issue are looking to the 5 feds for a lot. 6 The Environmental Protection Agency is doing 7 their study on how fracking impacts groundwater and 8 water supplies. 9 They're the studies that the EPA is doing out 10 of Wyoming. 11 So, the feds do have more resources, they 12 have more abilities at their disposal, when we're 13 looking a what's going on, on a national level, and 14 taking some of those lessons and applying them to 15 New York. 16 So, there's definitely a role for the feds to 17 play, but, again, it should be, as it has been in 18 environmental law all along, the floor, and not the 19 ceiling. 20 You know, the feds set the minimum standards. 21 But we can look here in New York, and we can 22 say: You know, what? We need to do better to 23 protect our waters -- 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: Yeah, and I know -- and 25 I said it before, that I know that there's going to 1 be some preliminary reports coming out in 2012. 2 Somebody mentioned '14, but I think that's a 3 final end study. 4 And I understand what happened in Wyoming. 5 And I understand that -- in New York, that's 6 not a case that that would happen here, based on the 7 depths, and buffer zone, so on and so forth. 8 But there's -- the EPA is still doing their 9 particular -- their study, and still moving forward. 10 I've also heard that, you know, there may be 11 a reduction in the type chemicals that are actually 12 used in this process. 13 And I want to say, more greener chemicals, 14 but, I mean, chemicals, and, nonetheless, the sense, 15 that if -- if you're reducing something, that's 16 always, uhm -- that's always of good importance, 17 too. 18 KATHERINE NADEAU: Absolutely. 19 SENATOR GRISANTI: The salinity of the water, 20 could a public treatment facility, or a retrofitted 21 public facility, in your opinion, work as, or in 22 conjunction with, like a desalinization unit, a 23 facility to work with clean, or getting rid of the 24 saltwater? 25 Do you see that as a potential? 1 KATHERINE NADEAU: There are -- yeah, there 2 are different treatment systems out there that 3 specifically go after salinity. 4 The problem that they encounter so often, is 5 that there are super energy-intensive; and, 6 therefore, they wind up being very, very expensive. 7 And, you know, this makes sense. Otherwise, 8 if not, you know, we could -- all of Long Island 9 could be drinking out of the ocean, and we could do 10 it -- 11 SENATOR GRISANTI: Right. 12 KATHERINE NADEAU: -- you know -- or, where 13 there is ocean. Not just Long Island. I don't mean 14 to pick. 15 But, you know, we could be looking at this as 16 a real option, but it comes down to expense. 17 And, again, if that's something that the 18 industry wants to take on, and can, you know -- can 19 reduce these pollutants down to the point where they 20 are not a problem, that's something that makes 21 perfect sense. 22 But, at this point, it's not being proposed 23 in New York State; and, therefore, we shouldn't be 24 allowed this -- we shouldn't allow this waste to be 25 treated at municipal treatment plants in 1 New York State. 2 SENATOR GRISANTI: Gotcha. 3 Okay, I appreciate your testimony. 4 And, I'll turn over to Senator Gallivan. 5 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Just one question, going 6 back to the manifest system that had been testified 7 about -- 8 KATHERINE NADEAU: Right. 9 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- earlier, and you 10 testified earlier as well. 11 And, you talked about the differences 12 between, what's being proposed and the requirement 13 of the manifest system right now for hazardous 14 wastes. 15 And, the major difference is, where the 16 fracking forms ultimately go, and then -- to the 17 DEC, versus, kept by the industry. 18 KATHERINE NADEAU: Yes. 19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And then, ultimately, be 20 made public. 21 Are there other significant differences, that 22 you're aware of? 23 KATHERINE NADEAU: That's the most -- for the 24 tracking system alone, that's the most significant 25 one that I've come across in my research so far. 1 Because, both the hazardous wastes and the 2 medical systems would require the generators to 3 know: How much waste is being transported? You 4 know, who's transporting? Where it's going to? 5 Signatures at both ends. 6 That sort of thing. 7 So, so far, in my research -- and I'm not 8 saying I won't find something else -- but, so far, 9 that's the biggest difference. 10 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, thank you. 11 That's all. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 13 Thank you very much for coming in today. 14 KATHERINE NADEAU: Thank you. 15 SENATOR GRISANTI: Can we have, Paul Hartman, 16 please. 17 And I know, Mr. Hartman, that you have a 18 pretty lengthy testimony. It will be submitted in 19 the record. 20 You know, as I said before, paraphrase as 21 much as you possibly can. 22 PAUL HARTMAN: Sure. 23 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, thank you very much. 24 PAUL HARTMAN: Thank you, Chairman. 25 Chairman Grisanti, Senator Gallivan, other 1 members of the Senate Environmental Conservation 2 Committee that will see or hear our testimony, thank 3 you for the opportunity to address you today on the 4 matter of produced water and drill-cuttings disposal 5 as it will relates to natural gas drilling and 6 hydraulic fracturing. 7 My name is Paul Hartman. I am the director 8 of state government relations for 9 Chesapeake Energy System. 10 Chesapeake Energy is the second-largest 11 producer of natural gas, a Top 15 producer of oil 12 and natural gas liquids, and the most active driller 13 of new wells in the United States. 14 Due to time constraint, my testimony today 15 will focus on Chesapeake's water recycling and reuse 16 program: Aqua Renew. 17 And I am very pleased to hear today, 18 environmental advocates advance water recycling as a 19 major solution to the water issues. 20 It has been an issue of major concern to the 21 State of New York, and to the industry as a whole, 22 and I hope to illustrate today how we have 23 approached to solve the water-disposal problems. 24 Water is an important and highly valued 25 resource, and Chesapeake takes its use very 1 seriously. 2 One of the major advances in the process of 3 developing our natural gas resources in recent 4 years, that has resulted in significant conservation 5 of our water resources, is the advent of recycling 6 and reuse of flowback and produced water by the 7 industry. 8 Water recycling, particularly in neighboring 9 Pennsylvania, has been transformed from a trend to 10 an essential operation procedure. 11 Recycling produced water reduces the impact 12 on local water supplies, which translates into less 13 truck traffic, which means reduced road 14 infrastructure wear-and-tear from water tanker 15 trucks. 16 Founded on the concept of water recovery and 17 reuse, Chesapeake's Aqua Renew program is utilizing 18 state-of-the-art technology in an effort to recycle 19 produced water. 20 This naturally occurring water is generally 21 laden with various minerals that travels from the 22 producing formation, through the wellbore, to the 23 surface, with natural gas, during the completion of 24 production operations. 25 The quality of produced water, as was 1 mentioned earlier by others that have testified, 2 differs greatly with the varying amounts of salt, 3 sand, or silt, depending on the formation from which 4 it -- it's found. 5 Due to its normally high salt content, reuse 6 and completion operations had been considered 7 impossible by the industry for a very long time. 8 Chesapeake began to intently focus on water 9 reclamation and conservation after the 2006/2007 10 drought in the Barnett Shale in Texas. 11 The drought had an obvious effect on 12 Chesapeake's drilling and completion activities, as 13 well as surrounding communities. 14 From that experience, Chesapeake's -- and 15 Chesapeake's involvement with the Barnett Shale 16 Water Conservation and Management Committee, the 17 company entered into an agreement with the City of 18 Fort Worth, to study evaporation systems as a 19 potential way to reduce the amount of produced water 20 being injected into saltwater disposal wells, which 21 was the preferred disposal technique at the time. 22 Using an evaporative reduction and 23 solidification system to capture heat generated by 24 natural gas compressor stations, an energy source 25 that would typically be wasted, a portion of the 1 produced water is then filtered and reduced to water 2 vapor. 3 The resulting clean vapor is then released 4 into the atmosphere where it enters the normal 5 hydrologic cycle. 6 Since this preliminary reclamation project, 7 Chesapeake's focus on reuse of water has become a 8 company-wide endeavor, stretching from the 9 Barnett Shale in north Texas to 10 northern Pennsylvania. 11 In fact, the Aqua Renew program is helping to 12 change the longstanding industry assumptions that 13 produced water is unusable. 14 As referenced previously, it was a 15 longstanding supposition that using anything other 16 than fresh water would harm the ultimate 17 productivity of the well. 18 As a result, operators have previously only 19 used fresh-water resources in 20 drilling-and-completion procedures. 21 Chesapeake decided to challenge and test that 22 theory, and see if it was true; or, if there was, in 23 fact, a limit as to how much recycled water could be 24 used without compromising well production. 25 At each well site, produced water is 1 collected and stored in on-site holding tanks before 2 being transferred to a central filtration location. 3 Our current methods of fluid treatment use 4 both chemical and physical methods. 5 The fluids from our drilling operations are 6 treated through a filter press which requires some 7 chemical additions to adjust fluid parameters, such 8 as pH. 9 Aqua Renew also uses fluctuating agents to 10 assist in removing solids from the fluid. 11 The physical treatment utilizes a 12 backwashable system which filters out the suspended 13 solids larger than 20 microns. 14 The filtered water is then either stored in 15 on-site tanks or transported to the next well 16 scheduled for hydraulic fracturing, commonly 17 referred to as "fracking." 18 The water is tested for salt content, total 19 hardness, to determine at which rate it can be 20 blended with fresh water to ensure proper quality 21 and quantity for reuse. 22 Chesapeake still has to mix the recycled 23 produced water with fresh water in order to ensure 24 the proper mixture for fracturing, but every gallon 25 of produced water that is filtered and reused is one 1 less gallon of water that has to be permitted at a 2 disposal location, and one less gallon of fresh 3 water that has to be sourced. 4 To date, Chesapeake still has not found a 5 limit on the reuse of recycled water. 6 In fact, the company's northern and central 7 districts of the eastern division operations are 8 treating and recycling 100 percent of the initial 9 produced water from the flowback process. 10 We believe that water can be recycled 11 indefinitely, as it's mixed with fresh water during 12 the fracturing process. 13 The fracturing process uses an average of 14 6 million gallons of water per well, depending on 15 several factors. 16 Through the second quarter of 2011, 17 Chesapeake had four Aqua Renew sites recycling 18 drilling and production fluids in Pennsylvania, 19 under an OG-71 permit issued by the Department of 20 Environmental Protection, Oil and Gas Division. 21 This past summer, the Commonwealth changed 22 the permit requirement to require a new permit, the 23 WMGR123, which is managed by the waste management 24 division of the Pennsylvania DEP. 25 All future fluid-processing sites will 1 require an MRG123 [sic]. 2 I have included a copy of this permit with my 3 testimony, for your reference. 4 The OG-71 permit will remain available in 5 Pennsylvania; however, allowable activities under 6 this permit will be limited to the utilization of 7 the recycled water on the well pad at which it was 8 processed. 9 Chesapeake has established a program of 10 periodic measurement of the radioactivity of the 11 recycled water, and has found no increase in 12 radioactivity over background data. 13 We also measure the radioactive level of 14 every load of solids which has been filtered from 15 the produced waters, as required per our permit, and 16 have found no load of solids which exceed the limits 17 set under the state operating limit. 18 Currently, all filtered solids are trucked to 19 a rail siting in Meshoppen, Pennsylvania, and taken 20 to Ohio for disposal in the landfill. 21 The filtered solids are once again checked 22 for abnormal radioactivity at the landfill before 23 final disposal. 24 On average, this process is able to filter 25 and reuse more than 10 million gallons of produced 1 water a month in the Marcellus Shale. 2 In 2010 alone, Chesapeake recycled 83 million 3 gallons of produced water. 4 With such large volumes of recycled water, 5 the company's seen more than just environmental 6 advantages. 7 Our accounting department has estimated that 8 this aspect of the process is saving an average of 9 $12 million a year in the eastern division alone. 10 The program is garnering results like these 11 throughout our shale plays; and, subsequently, the 12 Aqua Renew program is expected to continue to grow. 13 Chesapeake is always evaluating new 14 technology on our own, and through partnerships, 15 like the one we have with the Barnett Shale Water 16 Conservation Group, and others. 17 Currently in Pennsylvania, our biggest 18 challenge to enhancing our recycling and reuse 19 efforts, is obtaining the permits for the 20 development of additional fluid processing sites, 21 and avoiding the potential for exceeding current 22 filtration capabilities. 23 However, I must take the opportunity to 24 appeal to the Committee, that innovation of the 25 technological advancement are only possible through 1 a flexible regulatory and statutory regime that does 2 not lock industry into yesterday's technology, best 3 practices, or common practices. 4 In April of this past year, the Pennsylvania 5 DEP requested that all natural gas operators cease 6 delivering wastewater from shale-gas extraction to 7 permitted wastewater treatment facilities in the 8 Commonwealth. 9 Chesapeake, and all operators active in the 10 Marcellus Shale Coalition, have made extensive 11 efforts to meet that objective, predominantly 12 through the expansive reuse and recycling of 13 produced water. 14 Meeting the goal of near-universal recycling 15 and reuse can be impeded by burdensome and overly 16 prescriptive regulations, or legislative-stipulated 17 best-management practices. 18 I would advise the Committee to examine the 19 overall impact of any new proposals in regards to 20 wastewater retreatment, recycling and reuse, to 21 determine the effectiveness of the policy, and the 22 creation of any additional barriers to sound water 23 management and conservation practices that have been 24 developed by industry leaders, such as Chesapeake, 25 over the past several years. 1 Please keep in mind, that only five to 2 six years ago, the conventional wisdom dictated that 3 produced water could not be recycled and reused. 4 And, today, in our Marcellus North operations 5 we are, in fact, recycling and reusing 100 percent 6 of the initial and produced water from the flowback 7 process. 8 In closing: It is with great pride that 9 Chesapeake can share with you that the filtration 10 recycling process we are utilizing is working quite 11 well in Pennsylvania. 12 Utilization of recycled water in our 13 fracturing process has not had a negative impact on 14 well productivity, and our fluid waste treatment 15 capability creates a closed-loop system which has no 16 impact on the fresh-water rivers and streams in 17 Pennsylvania. 18 I thank you for the opportunity to address 19 the Committee today on this important issue. 20 Please rest assured, that Chesapeake stands 21 ready to assist the Chairman and members of the 22 Committee on this, and any other issues pertaining 23 to the responsible development our natural gas 24 resources. 25 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you very much. 2 Do you know if, uhm -- do you know if other 3 oil and gas companies are, uhm -- I don't know, 4 being, somewhat, as your company, is with 5 100 percent recycling? 6 PAUL HARTMAN: There are a number of 7 companies that have achieved 100 percent at this 8 point in time. 9 As of the directive from DEP, regarding 10 disposal at public wastewater treatment facilities, 11 I believe the industry was at about 70 percent, 12 industry-wide, recycling reuse. 13 That number has increased dramatically. 14 I don't have the current figure, but it is 15 well north of 70 percent at this time. 16 SENATOR GRISANTI: All right. 17 And, then, if you're recycling the water at 18 some point, there's got to be an end product; 19 correct? 20 PAUL HARTMAN: The end product that we have 21 right now is the solids that are filtered out. And 22 those are disposed of at landfills. 23 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 24 PAUL HARTMAN: We currently are evaluating 25 the effectiveness of the water and reuse of the 1 refracturing. 2 At this point in time, we don't see a time 3 where that water's not going to be useful for us for 4 that purpose again. 5 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 6 The [unintelligible] disposal landfills, is 7 there still -- are you still disposing in Ohio as 8 well? 9 PAUL HARTMAN: Yes. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 11 PAUL HARTMAN: We are disposing a little bit 12 of our produced water from our southwest 13 Pennsylvania operations, in Ohio. 14 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 15 And you saw -- I mean, you were here earlier. 16 And when you saw, like the open pits, as far 17 as what they're talking about, and -- and, uhm -- 18 the cuttings -- this is besides the frack water -- 19 what are you doing with that regards, with regards 20 to cuttings, and so on and so forth? 21 PAUL HARTMAN: We use a fulcrum (ph.) 22 closed-loop system for our flowback water, as well 23 as for our drill cuttings. 24 So, we are operating on that closed-loop 25 system currently. 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: All right, so you're 2 not -- it's not what they have here in New York, 3 where they showed, like some of the areas are using 4 an open-pit system? 5 PAUL HARTMAN: We are not using an open pit 6 in our processes in the northern Marcellus. 7 SENATOR GRISANTI: All right, so -- 8 basically, so everything's closed; it's contained? 9 PAUL HARTMAN: That is correct. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: Is the regulations in 11 Pennsylvania sort of less restrictive than they will 12 be in New York, as far as, if someone called for, 13 like, a double containment, so on and so forth? 14 PAUL HARTMAN: It's important to note that 15 the standards and the regulations that we have been 16 operating, as an industry in New York State, have 17 exceeded most other jurisdictions for a number of 18 years. 19 The proposals prior to the original SGEIS 20 draft that was put out in 2008, we were operating at 21 a higher standard than many jurisdictions across the 22 country, in New York State, under the current 23 guidelines. 24 When you add in the additional 25 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement 1 requirements, we'll be at a level far exceeding 2 anything that's even been contemplated in other 3 jurisdictions across the country. 4 With that said, Pennsylvania began 5 significant development of the Marcellus about 6 four years ago. 7 They have been evaluating the process as 8 development has increased. 9 They have responded to, what they have deemed 10 as, deficiencies in their operations. And, they 11 have responded to suggestions from industry, as to 12 how better to implement some best-management 13 practices in a, either legislative or regulatory 14 framework. 15 SENATOR GRISANTI: All right. 16 So, it's -- it would be fair to say, then, in 17 the beginning, then, Pennsylvania was basically 18 saying: Okay, let's move forward this procedure. 19 But, then, as they're moving forward, they're 20 seeing that certain things weren't working properly, 21 and they implemented changes, or put additional 22 regulations on, in order to, uhm -- you know, to 23 take care of any downfalls or shortcomings? 24 PAUL HARTMAN: There have been a number of 25 issues that the State has -- the Commonwealth has 1 decide they'd they needed to address, and enhance 2 their regulations, over the last couple of years. 3 SENATOR GRISANTI: Have they expanded, as 4 they have done here in New York; whether it's, 5 buffer zones from specific well sites? 6 Or -- or, in Pennsylvania, do they have sort 7 of a continuing moratorium, and you can't drill 8 within these certain watersheds, so on and so forth? 9 PAUL HARTMAN: There are established buffers 10 in most jurisdictions across the country, that range 11 in size, depending on who put those buffers in 12 place. 13 Pennsylvania began this process a number of 14 years ago, with buffers in place. 15 They are currently reviewing those buffers. 16 And there is a number of bills that are 17 pending before the legislature, that would increase 18 buffer zones. 19 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, but New York still 20 is ranked high in regulation on buffer zones, and as 21 far as -- 22 PAUL HARTMAN: The -- the -- I would place 23 New York in a category of having more, uhm -- more 24 things that there are buffers from. 25 Some of the distances are greater in New York 1 than they are in existing jurisdictions. 2 There are a couple of buffers, to my 3 understanding, that may be larger in other 4 jurisdictions. 5 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 6 The, uhm -- so, the recycling of the water -- 7 and that's something that we've heard environmental 8 advocates talk about, we've heard other groups talk 9 about it -- that, you know, if you can do it, it's 10 the way to go. 11 Have you noticed in your company, a -- sort 12 of a -- a -- taking some of the chemicals out of the 13 equation that are added, saying these are needed, 14 are you seeing that more so in, uhm -- what you're 15 doing in Pennsylvania, that some of the chemicals 16 that we're actually using, or what's being fracked 17 and what's coming back, that you're able to, either, 18 not use some of those chemicals, or you're able to, 19 by recycling, minimize any effect? 20 PAUL HARTMAN: Well, the important thing 21 to -- yes, we are. 22 And the important thing to realize, is that, 23 each geological formation of which we are extracting 24 this resource has its own complexities, and requires 25 certain additives, based on the geology, to produce 1 a productive well. 2 What we have found through our experience in 3 northern Marcellus, is that we are able to reduce, 4 somewhat dramatically, the amount of additives that 5 were necessary to produce the well at a highly 6 performing rate. 7 So, we've been able to go from 14 additives 8 in our fracturing process, to, roughly, about 6, on 9 an average fracturing job in the northern Marcellus. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 11 And according to DEC, those additives, or 12 those, chemicals, are going to be disclosed -- 13 PAUL HARTMAN: Yes. 14 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- anyways? 15 PAUL HARTMAN: That is one of the largest 16 misun- -- misconceptions about our industry. 17 The fracturing fluids are disclosed, in their 18 totality, to the regulatory agent, under the SGEIS. 19 And under the current GIS, we are disclosing 20 those chemicals to the State of New York. They have 21 the formulations. They have the number of 22 chemicals. 23 We are also publicly disclosing, through a 24 joint venture with the Groundwater Protection 25 Council, and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 1 Commission, of which New York State is a member, all 2 of the chemicals that are used in every fracturing 3 job that we do in the Marcellus, publicly, on a 4 website called "FracFocus," where we disclose the 5 maximum concentration of every chemical used in that 6 process. 7 Now, the reason for disclosing the maximum 8 concentration, is that, it gives the public full 9 knowledge of what the extreme amount of fluid would 10 be contained in that process. 11 But, at the same time, it protects the 12 federally protected proprietary trade secrets of the 13 formulation that many of our service providers have 14 asserted on their specific chemical formulations. 15 So, this way, we get the maximum amount of 16 knowledge out into the public domain without giving 17 the compact, specific chemical formulations. 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 19 The, uhm -- but, in New York, are they going 20 to take that same approach, by exempting out the 21 proprietary interests? 22 PAUL HARTMAN: In New York, all of the 23 information, in its totality, will have to be 24 provided to the agency. 25 The agency, at that point in time, will be 1 able to provide that information, as necessary, to 2 emergency responders, or other individuals, that 3 need to have the exact chemical composition. 4 SENATOR GRISANTI: What about facilities that 5 are trying to treat it? 6 They would need that information as well. 7 PAUL HARTMAN: That information I don't have 8 readily available, but it's something we can look 9 into and get back to you on. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: Is there something -- do 11 you utilize the, uhm -- in Pennsylvania, the private 12 facility that's trying to clean up the fracking 13 water? 14 There's a facility that just opened there 15 recently; correct? 16 PAUL HARTMAN: We are not currently. 17 Although, we have been in discussion with a number 18 of private entrepreneurs about private facilities 19 that are either being investigated to come on-line 20 or looking for details on how to build those 21 facilities. 22 We are currently doing all of our recycling 23 in-house. 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 25 I have nothing further at this point. 1 I'll pass it to Senator Gallivan. 2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: With your recycling 3 program and reuse program, do I understand correctly 4 that -- from your testimony, that whatever waste 5 there is, is limited to solids? 6 So, you have no liquid waste -- 7 PAUL HARTMAN: Correct. 8 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- that's transported off 9 of your site? 10 PAUL HARTMAN: That is correct. 11 We are maintaining the fluid for additional 12 fracturing jobs, following that -- that initial 13 processes. 14 SENATOR GALLIVAN: How much additional water 15 do you need -- you've indicated that you're reusing 16 100 percent of your liquid, after you're removing 17 certain contaminants out of it, but then you need to 18 add some fresh water to the process? 19 PAUL HARTMAN: Correct. 20 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And can you put that in 21 percentage terms? 22 PAUL HARTMAN: Yeah. 23 The top end, right now, that we're able to 24 reuse recycled water in a new fracturing job, we're 25 using 20 percent recycled water and about 80 percent 1 fresh water. 2 That is the current mixture that's -- that 3 we've required -- that is required to effectively do 4 the next fracturing job. 5 We hope to be able to continue to refine the 6 process, and maximize the amount of recycled water 7 that we're using in additional fractures. 8 But, it's also important to remember, that 9 we're getting a smaller percentage of that water 10 returned, between, you know, 10 and 18 percent 11 returned water. 12 So, we are always going to be at a deficit of 13 recycled water for additional fractures. 14 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, thank you. 15 Good. 16 SENATOR GRISANTI: The, uhm -- you know, 17 if -- if you guys are doing 100 percent recycling, 18 have new figures been, sort of, estimated then, on 19 how much new water won't be necessary, because of 20 the fact that you're doing 100 percent recycling? 21 PAUL HARTMAN: Well, we've -- we've -- we've 22 recycled 83 million gallons of water, thus far, in 23 the northern Marcellus. 24 So, that's 83 million gallons of water that 25 we did not source for additional fractures. 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: And I take it, if it's a 2 30-year well, that's -- that could be a huge amount 3 of water that's actually saved? 4 PAUL HARTMAN: Well, at this point in time, 5 we don't anticipate refracturing the wells. 6 We are -- based on the production of the 7 wells, often, initial fracturing job, we don't 8 anticipate having to come back and refracture those 9 wells. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 11 All right. 12 All right, I appreciate your testimony. 13 Thank you very much. 14 PAUL HARTMAN: Thank you. 15 SENATOR GRISANTI: I know you have a lot of 16 information here. That will be put into the record. 17 I just ask you to paraphrase as much as you 18 can, because we still have other speakers to get 19 through, and I don't know if they're going to throw 20 us out of here by the time we said. 21 So, I don't want to take that chance, and cut 22 somebody off at the end. 23 ROBERT DUTHIE: You're correct. 24 I will paraphrase. 25 SENATOR GRISANTI: All right. 1 ROBERT DUTHIE: I will paraphrase. 2 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you. 3 ROBERT DUTHIE: Good afternoon, 4 Chairman Grisanti, and Senator Gallivan. 5 I am Robert Duthie, president, 6 Synergena, Incorporated. 7 And, it's J.R. Red, Incorporated. Synergena 8 is the division. 9 I'm a bioengineer, by profession. 10 Today I will introduce you to an advanced 11 industrial wastewater treatment, and technology. 12 The technology is: Nanophotonic 13 decontamination purification. 14 "Photonics" is the application of light, 15 whose basic energy unit is photon. 16 SIAD is a patented process, incorporating a 17 specific combination of proprietary light waves, 18 operating simultaneously, to decontaminate, purify, 19 and sterilize. 20 I led a team over the past 30 years, combined 21 with Roswell Park doctors and University of Buffalo 22 researchers, along with many other institutions 23 around this country, to develop this process. 24 Interesting, as we've heard about the 25 medical-device industry, we began in the 1 medical-device industry, with successful and 2 validated use of this SIAD technology equipment 3 produced by Synergena over two decades ago. 4 I also heard quite a bit about solids. 5 We began by micro-cleaning. 6 We did organic and inorganic decontamination 7 and sterilization of medical equipment. Medical 8 equipment and implant equipment. 9 We removed the contaminants. 10 This research and trials were done at 11 nationally and internationally recognized 12 institutions: Roswell Park, Cleveland Clinic, UCLA, 13 University of Buffalo, Veterans Administration, and 14 others around the country. 15 About 10 years ago, we advanced this 16 technology from -- and tried it in liquids. 17 We were funded by the State of New York, 18 federal government; and we had successful studies in 19 the fields of food, beverage, and agricultural 20 purification. 21 Excuse me. 22 Weapons-grade biological and chemical 23 decontamination, after the 2000 -- 9/11 of 2001, 24 and, industrial wastewater remediation. 25 Clients in this field included everyone, from 1 Tropicana, to Boeing. 2 Just recently, we finished our last study of 3 a benchmark, hazardous industrial waste hydrocarbon, 4 phenols, and PCB. 5 That is attached in your folder there. 6 Why is this important? 7 We changed PCB-contaminated water from the 8 transformer industry into drinking-grade water. 9 Not environmentally sound water that you just 10 release, but, drinking, human-consumption water. 11 About a year ago, hydrocarbon-contaminated 12 shale drilling and hydraulic fracturing flowback 13 water was brought to my attention. 14 Hydrocarbon-contaminated water contains 15 hydrogen-and-carbon compound, which is non-polar; 16 and water, which is a polar. 17 Hydrocarbons and water do not mix, but are 18 extremely difficult to separate, and require 19 industrial water treatment. 20 Simple hydrocarbons, such as methane, ethane, 21 propane, butane, are found in natural gas. 22 Horizontal shale drilling and hydraulic 23 fracturing flowback water contains natural gas. 24 Horizontal shale drilling -- 25 Let me repeat that: Horizontal shale 1 drilling. Not vertical. 2 -- horizontal shale drilling and hydraulic 3 fracturing flowback water is carbon-contaminated 4 industrial wastewater, and requires industrial 5 wastewater treatment. 6 Again, I am here to introduce you to a new 7 technology. An advanced industrial wastewater 8 technology. 9 We call it "SIAD." 10 That stands for: synergistic isogenis active 11 decontamination. 12 It is value added. 13 It is value added to the industry, in that, 14 the watered recycling and industrial water treatment 15 facilities conducive to reducing transportation and 16 water costs. 17 It is value added to the community. New 18 equipment, manufacturing, and sales opportunities 19 for New York State. 20 It is value added to the environment, because 21 we can produce clean water and clear air. 22 Both the stationary and mobile industrial 23 SIAD wastewater treatment systems and facilities, we 24 hope to be operational and located in communities 25 and on industrial sites, producing clean water and 1 pure air. 2 SIAD is a New York green technology and 3 manufacturing initiative for a global market. 4 SIAD is made in the U.S.A. 5 Synergena is a local company. 6 We can address solids, we can address 7 radioactive, our research. 8 And we are prepared to work jointly with 9 these companies, to use our research and technology 10 to improve the quality of life in New York State. 11 And I offer that today. 12 Thank you for your time. 13 And if you have any questions, which I 14 imagine you will. 15 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you, Robert. 16 You know, in looking a this earlier, it 17 seems, is that, because you've been in this industry 18 for so long -- 19 ROBERT DUTHIE: Yes. 20 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- that some of the -- as 21 you said, with the PCBs, some of the things that 22 you've cleaned, you're saying are -- and filtered, 23 are a lot harder to filter and clean than this? 24 ROBERT DUTHIE: That is correct. 25 That is correct. 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: In a nutshell, what you're 2 saying is -- 3 ROBERT DUTHIE: We are -- 4 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- what we've done in the 5 past, with the hydrocarbons and cleaning, is, 6 something that was more difficult, you're able to 7 do. 8 You feel you can do this, as far as the 9 flowback water? 10 ROBERT DUTHIE: Yes. 11 Again, I refer to the medical-device 12 industry. 13 In the medical-device industry, we use 14 benchmark organisms and chemicals, with the FDA. 15 Once those are remediated, you can do the 16 lesser amounts. 17 Again, that's what we did with the chemicals 18 here. 19 That's why the phenols and the PCB was so 20 important. 21 It is, literally, impossible to break down 22 the PCBs in the water. 23 In fact, it's so impossible, that we now have 24 a working relationship with one of the large 25 electrical-transformer companies in the nation, 1 internationally, that's looking at this process. 2 What we see in the hydraulic fracturing water 3 is, applying our knowledge of what we've used 4 already, and it's called "technology transfer from 5 the medical-device industry," including, what we 6 know about quality assurance in the medical-device 7 industry. 8 It is interesting, that when you talked of 9 the regulatory and the control factors, in the 10 medical-device industry -- again, which I've been a 11 member of for 30 years -- we are controlled by the 12 FDA. 13 When we ship out any medical-device equipment 14 that is contaminated, or it is -- it is rubbish. 15 We are responsible. 16 We are responsible for that transportation. 17 We are responsible for, on down the line, 18 right into the facilities, their pits, and so on. 19 When the FDA inspector comes in -- I don't 20 know if you're familiar with an FDA inspector. 21 An FDA inspector will come into your 22 facility -- a hospital, or so on -- show you his 23 credentials and flash his sidearm. 24 FDA inspectors are the only inspectors that 25 are allowed that. 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: I didn't know that. 2 ROBERT DUTHIE: Yes. It is scary. 3 You don't mess with FDA. 4 They take, and they will go over your 5 records, and you better have your quality assurance 6 in place, at every sequence down that line, is 7 validated, and verified. 8 Or you're responsible, and they will shut you 9 down immediately. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: Now, when they talk 11 about -- and you were here this morning, when they 12 talk about, you know, whether it's public or private 13 facilities, being able to, uhm -- trying to clean 14 this water, you're saying that that could be 15 possible, but that your technique -- 16 ROBERT DUTHIE: My technique is one of a 17 series of techniques. 18 In our mobile units that we designed, we use 19 a separation process; a filter -- course-filtration 20 process, similar to what Chesapeake just explained. 21 Our nanophotonic SIAD process, which removes 22 it -- reduces the hydrocarbons. 23 You don't totally remove it. You get down 24 below levels that are hazardous. 25 And then you do the final filtration process, 1 which is 1 to 2 microns, and you come out with close 2 to a drinking-water standard; which, after we've 3 finished this process, we are able to recycle the 4 water in a vertical well, which is, when you start 5 drilling the well, you have to use a pure water. 6 I'm sure everyone will agree on that, because 7 you're going to be penetrating the aquifer. 8 SENATOR GRISANTI: Got you. 9 Okay. 10 Well, I appreciate your testimony here today. 11 I'll turn it over to Senator Gallivan. 12 SENATOR GALLIVAN: No more questions. 13 Thank you. 14 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 15 Thank you very much. 16 ROBERT DUTHIE: Thank you. 17 SENATOR GRISANTI: Brian, please. 18 Good afternoon, Brian. 19 How are you? 20 BRIAN RAHM: How's it going? 21 Go ahead? 22 SENATOR GRISANTI: Go ahead. 23 BRIAN RAHM: All right. 24 My name is Brian Rahm. I'm a post-doctoral 25 associate with the New York State Water Resources 1 Institute. We're at Cornell University. 2 Thank you for the opportunity to participate 3 in this discussion. 4 I'll move on with my testimony. 5 So, my testimony will address the following 6 subjects: 7 One: Pertinent wastewater and cuttings data 8 from Pennsylvania related to similar issues 9 potentially faced by New York; 10 Two: Wastewater acceptability at publicly 11 owned treatment works, or, "POTWs," in New York, 12 with an emphasis on recommendations provided by 13 New York Water Environment Association. 14 It's a professional group, which I'll say 15 "NYWEA," instead; 16 And then, three: Wastewater treatment 17 capacity in the Southern Tier of New York, and 18 thoughts on future development. 19 Throughout, I will try to highlight some 20 language from the revised draft Supplemental Generic 21 Environmental Impact Statement, or, what I'll call 22 the "SGEIS," as well as some New York regulations. 23 So, Point Number One: Pertinent wastewater 24 and cuttings data from Pennsylvania related to 25 similar issues potentially faced by New York. 1 Some of this has been talked about by 2 previous speakers. I'll just go through it quickly. 3 I just want to outline some definitions, real 4 quick, so you understand what I'm going to talk 5 about, subsequent. 6 Brine and frack fluid, also known as 7 "flowback," and, "produced water," includes water 8 for hydraulic fracturing. 9 In the Marcellus Shale, frack fluids consist 10 of water, again, mixed with approximately 11 8 to 15 chemical additives per well. 12 According to the Susquehanna River Basin 13 Commission, which is this interstate body in charge 14 of regulating water withdrawals in the Susquehanna 15 River Basis portion of New York, Pennsylvania, and 16 other states, they have data from 2008 to 2011, 17 where they say, that about 10 percent of the water 18 injected into each well returns to the land surface 19 within 30 days. 20 It's an average. 21 And the rest remains underground. 22 Once the well's in production, relatively low 23 volumes of produced water, or brine, will continue 24 to come to the surface. 25 This is different from drilling muds. 1 Drilling muds include fluids used during the 2 drilling process, to cool and lubricate the drill 3 bit and motor, and to transport the cuttings to 4 surface. 5 Overall, mud volumes are not high compared to 6 flowback, but can contain chemical additives and 7 metals, and things, that do require treatment. 8 And then, finally, cuttings -- according to 9 the SGEIS, rock chips and fine-grained rock 10 fragments -- removed by the drilling process and 11 returned to the surface as part the fluid. 12 So with these definitions in mind, there are 13 a few treatment options, or disposal options. 14 These have also been covered by some previous 15 speakers. 16 We have, number one, I'll say: On-site or 17 off-site industrial treatment facilities; 18 Two: Reuse, with pretreatment, on-site or 19 offsite. 20 I want to make the distinction that, a lot of 21 times, when we talk about reuse, or recycling, it 22 goes through a treatment process first, and then 23 they reuse it. 24 And, generally, I know some companies have 25 tried to reuse without treatment. 1 And I think, from what I've understood, their 2 results weren't particularly good. 3 So, usually there's some sort of treatment 4 involved in the reuse. 5 So, three: Underground injection via 6 federally regulated deep wells. 7 There's been a lot of discussion about those. 8 And, four: Publicly owned treatment works. 9 Again, "POTWs." 10 So, in Pennsylvania, it is possible to get 11 information on trends, in terms of wastewater 12 treatment and disposal, because of recent 13 establishment of a statewide tracking system. 14 No state in the region, other than 15 Pennsylvania, has yet reported data on wastewater 16 management, although, West Virginia is in the 17 beginning stages of this. 18 So, it's not clear if these numbers will 19 translate directly to New York, but they do provide 20 some trends that might be relevant, if we're trying 21 to, you know, learn lessons from our neighbors. 22 New York has proposed such a system, although 23 it's not exactly the same. 24 So, how are certain Pennsylvania wastes being 25 handled? 1 This is based on Pennsylvania DEP information 2 from January to June of 2011. 3 It's a publicly available database. It goes 4 back a few years, but not very far, because, again 5 it's something they just set up. 6 Now, in terms of brine and frack fluid, 7 according to the database -- which is an industry 8 self-reported database, so I can't necessarily vouch 9 for the numbers, exactly -- but, according that 10 database, roughly half is reused for subsequent 11 frack jobs. 12 Again, likely following industrial, or some 13 other form of treatment. 14 And the SGEIS does support this, by saying 15 that reuse is expected to be significant in 16 New York. 17 Roughly, one-third of the water, the brine 18 and frack fluid from Pennsylvania, is sent to 19 industrial treatment facilities. 20 None of those facilities, according to the 21 database, are located in New York. 22 About 5 percent of the wastewater does go to 23 deep injection wells, mostly in Ohio, but also in 24 other states, like West Virginia. 25 Less than 1 percent, according to the 1 database, is going to POTWs, all of which are 2 located in Pennsylvania. 3 Again, we've heard, the Pennsylvania DEP has 4 asked operators to voluntarily stop going to 5 POTWs. 6 There's some evidence in the database that 7 this has been occurring over the last couple years. 8 I think this is, probably, just one of 9 several reasons why that trend is happening. 10 As far as drilling muds and other liquid 11 wastes, in terms of where they're being disposed of, 12 it's roughly split between, what they're calling 13 "reuse and industrial treatment facilities." 14 And then, again, you have, about, 15 1 to 2 percent, each, for POTW ands landfills, in 16 terms of the drilling muds. 17 Solid-waste, or the cuttings, are almost 18 exclusively going to landfills. 19 Most of those landfills are in Pennsylvania. 20 It's about 60 percent. 21 But, there's a significant amount of cuttings 22 also coming to New York. Again, according to the 23 database, that number's at, about, 30 percent of 24 cuttings. 25 So, it's worth mentioning, that treatment of 1 these wastewaters, even at sophisticated industrial 2 facilities, usually leads to some sort of 3 byproduct -- a solid or concentrated liquid waste -- 4 that usually needs to handled, either by, landfill, 5 or, again, some sort of deep-well injection, or 6 other form of treatment. 7 New treatment technologies are being 8 developed by a growing water-service industry in 9 Pennsylvania, although, many are not in yet in wide 10 use. 11 I think we heard about some crystallization 12 technologies earlier. 13 So -- okay, so that's Point One. 14 Point Number Two: Wastewater acceptability 15 at POTWs in New York, with -- 16 And I'm going to be talking about some 17 recommendations that were provided by NYWEA, which 18 is a group that I had a chance to work, in making 19 some of these recommendations, as well as with other 20 issues related to Marcellus Shale. 21 So, I want to briefly give an engineer's 22 perspective on this. Some of these recommendations 23 are a little technical. 24 I apologize for that. 25 So, according to NYWEA: Existing or new 1 POTWs that utilize physical-chemical treatment 2 processes may have the ability to successfully treat 3 specific shale-gas wastewaters. 4 However, only two such systems currently 5 exist in New York. 6 And we just heard from Paul Drof, from 7 Niagara Falls, being one of them. 8 Successful treatment depends on the ability 9 to understand and characterize waste composition 10 over time, and the capabilities of the specific 11 treatment system it's being sent to. 12 Biological treatment plants, the vast 13 majority of facilities in New York, likely will not 14 be able to accept wastewaters without significant 15 pretreatment, with the possible exception of some 16 drilling muds that may be less complex than some of 17 the flowback in previous waters. 18 If treating shale-gas wastewaters were to be 19 an option, NYWEA recommends that each POTW wishing 20 to accept this kind of waste, review their facility, 21 they examine the types of wastes that they're 22 accepting, and their treatment capabilities, and see 23 if they can meet the regulatory obligations. 24 They also suggest revisiting the assimilative 25 capacity of receiving water bodies. 1 So, those are the streams, the rivers, that 2 those plants are discharging into, in terms of, 3 particularly, TDS or salts. 4 So, can those rivers or streams accept any 5 further loadings of these kinds of constituents? 6 Sometimes that's the case, and sometimes it's 7 not. 8 Pennsylvania, in particular, is already in 9 bad shape when it comes to TDS in their streams. 10 So, confirmation that it can protect the 11 treatment-plant personnel and equipment from harm 12 and damage. 13 Something that maybe isn't talked about as 14 much, are the actual workers themselves; making sure 15 that they're safe. 16 Analysis of the effect the wastewater may 17 have on treatment-plant sludge and residuals -- 18 those are solids -- and whether the POTWs can 19 cost-effectively manage and dispose of them. 20 NYWEA also recommends that POTWs confirm 21 they have the authority to stipulate monitoring 22 requirements, as well as the ability to reject the 23 wastewater that does not meet those requirements. 24 Lastly, NYWEA recommends that POTWs give 25 consideration to testing each load of new 1 wastewater, especially for radioactivity. 2 The revised draft of the SGEIS, as well as 3 some of the new proposed regulations in Part 750 of 4 NYCRR, address some of these concerns, by requiring 5 that each batch of wastewater leaving a well pad be 6 tested for TDS, NORM, and BTEX; requires testing for 7 influent and treatability at both public and private 8 facilities; fluid disposal plans; and things like 9 wastewater-volume monitoring. 10 I think that still leaves an open question, 11 in terms of DEC personnel for inspection and 12 enforcement of these kinds of regulations. 13 The regulations do have some pretty 14 progressive terms in there; but, again, you know, 15 it's always a question as to whether we're going to 16 have the personnel doing what we say we're going to 17 carry through on. 18 So, I just leave that as an open concern. 19 And, finally, Point Number Three: Wastewater 20 treatment capacity in the Southern Tier of New York. 21 So, so far, I've provide some information on 22 how wastewater and cuttings are dealt with in 23 Pennsylvania. And I've outlined some considerations 24 relative to the use of POTWs in New York. 25 However, it is clear that POTWs are not being 1 extensively used in Pennsylvania. 2 Again, that's less than 1 percent of their 3 wastewater. 4 And that their use in New York entails a 5 variety of concerns, that we've heard about this 6 morning. 7 So, what is the available POTW capacity in 8 New York, and will they matter going forward? 9 According to the SGEIS, the DEC performed a 10 basic analysis, to determine the potential available 11 capacity of POTWs for accepting this kind of 12 wastewater. 13 And given a number of, not always realistic 14 assumptions, that were generous, the analysis did 15 still find that there's questionable available 16 capacity, quote/unquote, for POTWs in New York 17 State to accept high-volume hydraulic fracturing 18 wastewater. 19 So, even with a scenario that assumed that a 20 lot of this would be able to go forward, they still 21 found that capacity was lacking. 22 At WRI, we've also performed a similar 23 analysis in the Susquehanna River Basin, 24 specifically; so, more in the Southern Tier than the 25 whole state. 1 Again, assuming the facilities have the 2 ability and inclination to do so, which, very many 3 will not, results of our analysis support the idea 4 that capacity is limited, due to a combination of 5 public-infrastructure size and regulatory 6 constraints, such as those proposed in the SGEIS. 7 In reality, there are additional reasons to 8 think that POTWs will not be extensively utilized 9 in New York. 10 For example: No POTW currently has 11 TDS-specific treatment technologies. 12 That would be the thermal-distillation or 13 crystallization technologies. 14 And, so, that's a reason to think that 15 they're not going to be highly used here, because 16 they would need to invest in those kinds of 17 technologies in order to meet the requirements. 18 These analyses, together with evidence from 19 Pennsylvania, suggest that industrial treatment 20 facilities have a greater ability and capacity to 21 treat these waste streams. 22 And it leads me to conclude that POTWs will 23 not really be acceptable for industry within the 24 regulations New York is likely to adopt. 25 Encouraging establishment of purpose-built 1 industrial treatment facilities, either on-site or 2 offsite, has several key advantages over POTWs: 3 The technology is more appropriate; 4 They have greater capacity; 5 In terms of oversight, assuring compliance 6 of, what may be a smaller number of industrial 7 facilities, compared to a larger number of POTWs, 8 is, perhaps, more manageable for DEC staff. 9 And, then, something that's, sort of, equally 10 important here: Planning and finance. 11 From a planning perspective, private 12 facilities may be built at a pace and scale 13 concurrent with the development of the shale, and 14 may have more flexibility than public entities, in 15 choosing business models that accommodate the 16 volatile nature of extractive development. 17 We talk about 30 years of development, but 18 there's really no way to predict, with any 19 certainty, exactly where the drilling's going to 20 happen, exactly at what times, what the price of gas 21 will be over that time. 22 It would be nice to know, but we really 23 don't. 24 So, just offer the following conclusions: 25 One: Due to a combination of evolving 1 regulation, expanded industrial treatment 2 infrastructure, and advancements in treatment 3 technologies, a large majority of shale-gas 4 wastewater in Pennsylvania is being handled by 5 private industrial treatment facilities with an 6 increasing model of reuse. 7 Solid cuttings from Pennsylvania development 8 are almost exclusively sent to landfills, both in 9 Pennsylvania and New York. 10 Treatment of most -- 11 So, Conclusion Number Two: Treatment of most 12 shale-gas wastewaters is not appropriate at POTWs 13 utilizing biological processes, which is almost all 14 of them in New York. 15 That being said, these wastewaters are 16 treatable, but only under carefully controlled 17 circumstances, using appropriate technologies with 18 well-trained professionals and adequate regulatory 19 personnel. 20 That's a lot of caveats. 21 So, this likely means, sophisticated 22 physical-chemical processes, perhaps like the ones 23 in Niagara Falls, with some form of 24 thermal-distillation technology, or its equivalent. 25 Three: POTW treatment capacity in New York 1 is limited, even under the most permissive policy 2 scenarios. 3 Given the relatively stringent regulations 4 New York is likely to adopt, use of POTWs would 5 not represent a viable treatment disposal option for 6 the shale-gas industry. 7 Private facilities purposely designed, and 8 located within areas of significant shale-gas 9 development, could treat wastewater without putting 10 public facilities and taxpayers at risk. 11 Lastly, I would like to offer a general 12 comment in support of gathering as much data on 13 these important issues as possible, in the event the 14 development moves forward in New York. 15 In the SGEIS, the DEC proposes many new 16 measures and data-collection requirements, but it's 17 not clear, to me at least, who will organize and 18 analyze this data, to what extent it will be made 19 public, and how it will feed back into policy and 20 management decisions in the future. 21 I would urge the State to be diligent in its 22 approach to data collection, analysis, and 23 presentation in the upcoming years, so that all 24 stakeholder have access to good information, and so 25 New York can critically evaluate its approach to 1 complex development issues. 2 Thank you for your time. 3 SENATOR GRISANTI: Is it your concern, then, 4 with regards to the public facilities, and it was 5 testified to before, that -- that if they're not, 6 uhm -- if they're not geared to accept this type of 7 fluid, then it could jeopardize what they're 8 initially set out to do in the first place, with 9 just regular treatment of the local community's 10 water? 11 BRIAN RAHM: I think that's true. 12 A biological system can be sensitive to 13 unexpected impacts coming in the influent. And if 14 they're designed to treat this kind of wastewater, a 15 biological system is not going to handle that 16 particularly well. 17 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 18 BRIAN RAHM: You wouldn't want to kill off 19 your biological system. It's going to stop treating 20 the waste it's meant to do. 21 SENATOR GRISANTI: Right. 22 And that would exclude, I think there's, 23 what, two in the area of Niagara Falls, and I think 24 there's also one in the, uhm -- 25 BRIAN RAHM: North Tonawanda is the other 1 one. 2 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- North Tonawanda is -- 3 BRIAN RAHM: They're both in the same -- 4 SENATOR GRISANTI: No other facilities? 5 BRIAN RAHM: -- Buffalo area. 6 Not to my knowledge, no. 7 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 8 And what's your take on what the -- the 9 industry talking about recycling; utilizing that 10 water? 11 Which is also, probably, a technique for now. 12 And, at some point, you've got to -- it's going to 13 be treated at -- to some capacity. 14 But, uhm, that would also take a burden off, 15 as far as having to treat the water as well, right, 16 to some extent? 17 BRIAN RAHM: It would do, what? I'm sorry? 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: Take the burden of 19 treating all that water, to some extent, because you 20 keep recycling the same water over and over again? 21 BRIAN RAHM: I mean, it -- you are the only 22 getting, again, as we said in the last talk, like, 23 only 10 to 20 percent of that water back. 24 So, you do still need quite a bit of fresh 25 water. 1 That depends on the fact that you're drilling 2 as many wells in the future as you were in the past, 3 so, that -- those percentages stay as they are. 4 I think that you are seeing, and especially 5 in northern Pennsylvania, these new industrial 6 treatment facilities popping up. And, some of them 7 have quite good technology. 8 And that is taking some of the burden off, 9 but, you know, you can't relieve the entire burden 10 because you're always going to need some make-up 11 water. 12 SENATOR GRISANTI: I understand that -- for 13 the water itself, you're saying that would be the 14 way to go, is -- in your opinion? 15 BRIAN RAHM: Of the options that are 16 currently available, that seems to be one of the 17 best ones I can see. 18 You're basically saying, that the investment 19 in that facility is a private one. It's -- you 20 know, if it doesn't go well, it's also a private 21 risk. The industry is assuming the risk, as opposed 22 to a public entity. 23 I would hate to see taxpayers put in money at 24 a public facility, even to upgrade it, and then, to 25 not have it, either, perform as it was expected; or, 1 for 10 years from now, for the industry to move on 2 to whatever becomes, you know, the next big play, 3 maybe up in Canada. And, suddenly, the idea that 4 we're going to have drilling here for, 30, or 5 50 years, doesn't actually pan out, because it's 6 hard to say. 7 SENATOR GRISANTI: Got you. 8 BRIAN RAHM: There's a risk involved with 9 that. 10 And, it's different to ask -- you know, a 11 private risk versus a public risk, are two different 12 things. 13 SENATOR GRISANTI: Right. 14 I got you. 15 All right, I appreciate it, then. 16 I'm going to pass it over to 17 Senator Gallivan. 18 SENATOR GALLIVAN: All set. 19 Thank you. 20 BRIAN RAHM: Sure. 21 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you. 22 John Conrad, please. 23 John, good afternoon. 24 How are you? 25 JOHN CONRAD: Good afternoon. 1 Senators Grisanti and Gallivan, thank you for 2 including me in today's proceedings. 3 My name is John Conrad. I am a 4 hydrogeologist and environmental consultant with 5 Conrad Geoscience Corporation, a PVE Scheffler 6 company, with offices in Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh 7 area, and Poughkeepsie, New York. 8 I have some comments to share regarding 9 management of wastewater produced as a result of 10 natural gas production and hydraulic fracturing. 11 First, I'd like to make a few comments to 12 provide a little bit of context, and to demonstrate 13 the scale of the challenge that wastewater 14 represents. 15 Natural gas already underpins New York's 16 economy and long-term energy strategy. 17 By next year, the Marcellus Shale will be the 18 largest natural gas play in the U.S., which means, 19 now, more than ever, in my opinion, natural gas can 20 help New York meet its energy, economic, and 21 environmental challenges. 22 New York now uses more natural gas than 23 46 other states. 24 Although New York is one of the world's 25 largest consumers of natural gas, we import about 1 95 percent of the supply we need from other states 2 and from Canada. 3 And with the Marcellus Shale, we now have the 4 opportunity to meet those needs by extracting the 5 gas beneath our feet. 6 Our reliance on natural gas is likely to 7 continue to grow. 8 The U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates 9 that U.S. consumption of natural gas will increase 10 by 60 percent over the next 30 years, and reliance 11 on shale-gas sources, like the Marcellus Shale, will 12 triple over the next 15 years, even assuming massive 13 investment in renewable energy sources, like wind, 14 solar, and geothermal, during that same period. 15 And, natural gas is key to the U.S -- U.S.'s 16 strategy to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. 17 It's a cleaner burning alternative to 18 coal-fired electricity generation. 19 Natural gas is a reliable backup for 20 renewables, like wind and solar, which are available 21 only intermittently. 22 And because natural gas is storable and 23 transportable, it can replace oil as a heating fuel 24 and as a motor fuel. 25 About produced water: After a gas well is 1 hydraulically fractured, some of the fracturing 2 fluid returns to the surface with the flow of gas. 3 And as we've been talking about today, we 4 call this "produced water," or, "brine." 5 Produced water continues to flow to the 6 surface during the life of the well. 7 Because the Marcellus Shale was deposited in 8 a marine environment, it contains larger quantities 9 of salt, which leaches into the fracturing fluid. 10 And, consequently, produced water contains 11 high concentrations of dissolved solids, such as 12 chloride, and may contain other substances, such as 13 metals and hydrocarbons, that are also present in 14 the shale. 15 A single Marcellus well will use 16 approximately 5 million gallons, perhaps more, of 17 water for hydraulic fracturing. 18 And of that amount, as much as 20,000 to 19 25,000 barrels might return to the surface during 20 the initial flowback period following hydraulic 21 fracturing. 22 Once it is producing gas, a Marcellus well 23 will generate an additional 1 to 5 barrels of water 24 each day, and might generate 5,000 to 15,000 barrels 25 of water over the life of the well. 1 And it's this long-term production of water 2 that represents one of the bigger challenges before 3 us when it comes to shale-gas wastewater. 4 Existing environmental regulations in 5 New York prohibit surface discharge of untreated 6 produced water; so, as more and more gas wells come 7 online, our ability to process produced water 8 becomes critical. 9 There must be sufficient wastewater 10 management capacity to handle the increasing flow of 11 produced water. 12 So, if New York is going to realize the full 13 benefit of its shale-gas resources, the development 14 of sufficient treatment capacity must keep pace with 15 natural gas development. 16 This Committee has correctly identified waste 17 management as a central issue for unlocking the 18 benefits of New York's shale-gas resources. 19 I believe that the demand for water 20 management associated with natural gas production 21 could bring much need capital investment to 22 New York, and lead to a new era of technical 23 innovation. 24 And we've already heard today about some of 25 these innovations that are occurring already in 1 other parts of the Marcellus play. 2 So the good news is, that technologies 3 already exist for safely managing produced water. 4 In fact, we already handle much more 5 hazardous waste streams generated at commercial and 6 industrial facilities across this state. 7 Produced water from shale gas does not have 8 the hazardous properties of, say, the concentrated 9 solvent and metals' waste from various manufacturing 10 and other industrial processes. 11 The bigger challenge has more to do with the 12 amount of wastewater that will eventually be 13 generated. 14 The problem that needs solving, when it comes 15 to shale-gas development is a quantity problem, not 16 a technological problem. 17 Assuming that water remains the fracturing 18 fluid of choice, which seems likely, there are 19 numerous options for produced-water management. 20 All are discussed in the SGEIS. 21 I'll touch on just a couple before I take 22 questions. 23 Treatment and reuse, we've just finished 24 talking about that today. 25 This approach allows gas-well operators to 1 simply reuse water produced during the flowback 2 period by diluting it with clean water and using it 3 for fracturing more gas wells. 4 Reuse may entail modest pretreatment to 5 remove suspended solids or adjust PH, et cetera. 6 Some operators are reporting that they are 7 reusing as much as 80 to 100 percent of their 8 initial flowback water. 9 Reuse, of course, depends on there being 10 upcoming fracture-stimulation treatments needed 11 within a short distance of those wells. 12 Thermal processes are also known to work for 13 these concentrated salt waters. 14 Thermal processes are effective at treating 15 highly saline brine, but this technology is 16 energy-intensive, and, therefore, can be costly. 17 It may be possible to set up thermal 18 treatment systems at solid-waste disposal facilities 19 equipped with landfill-gas power plants. 20 In these cases, heat is used to evaporate or 21 crystallize the brine, and the residue is 22 landfilled, or converted to concentrated chloride 23 solutions that can be then used for road de-icing. 24 Crystallization can be used to achieve a 25 zero liquid discharge, where all resulting liquids 1 can be reused or safely discharged. 2 A crystallizer plant might generate distilled 3 water, and salable salt products, such as pelletized 4 salt that can be used in water softeners or other 5 applications. 6 At landfills that are already converting 7 landfill gas to energy, it might be possible to use 8 the waste heat from these systems for brine 9 evaporation, an opportunity to use an otherwise 10 wasted resource, and increase the cost-effectiveness 11 of landfill-gas-to-energy operations. 12 Most produced water from the U.S. oil and gas 13 operations is simply disposed of by returning it to 14 deep geologic formations through injection wells. 15 The federal EPA regulates injection wells 16 through the Underground Injection Control program, 17 which is part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 18 Injection wells associated with the oil and 19 gas -- with oil and gas production are designated by 20 EPA as Class II injection wells. 21 And there are, approximately, 22 144,000 Class II injection wells in the U.S. that 23 inject more than, about, 2 billion gallons of brine 24 every day, in the U.S. 25 Ohio has approximately 180 Class II injection 1 wells, which, today, are used to dispose of much of 2 the produced water from the Marcellus -- from 3 Marcellus wells drilled in Pennsylvania. 4 The advantage of deep injection, is that it 5 eliminates risks and impacts associated with 6 treating and disposing of waste at the surface. 7 The siting, design, and operation of Class II 8 wells is rigorously controlled by state and federal 9 regulatory agencies, and the disposal zones must be 10 demonstrated to be isolated from fresh-water 11 aquifers. 12 For these reasons, disposal by deep injection 13 is considered to be highly protective of shallow 14 underground sources of drinking water. 15 Until now, there has been little demand for 16 Class II injection wells in New York, but it is 17 reasonable to assume that this technology will 18 provide at least part of the wastewater management 19 solution in coming years. 20 And I'll end there, and answer any questions 21 that the Committee might have. 22 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, John, appreciate it. 23 Just a couple of questions, John. 24 There was some testimony earlier, about, 25 these deep injection wells may not be so easy to get 1 at in New York State, because of the geology and the 2 rock formations underneath, compared to Ohio. 3 Would you agree with that? 4 JOHN CONRAD: It's uncertain. 5 My company is one that is studying the 6 geology of New York, and Pennsylvania, for the 7 purposes of injection; so, it remains to be seen. 8 There are places where it looks promising, 9 that there could be at least some injection. 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 11 And I noticed on here, too, you have, reuse 12 is always a good thing, if you're going to reuse it. 13 And then we talked -- I think somebody talked 14 about that earlier, the thermal distillation, as far 15 as it being very expensive. 16 JOHN CONRAD: Right. 17 SENATOR GRISANTI: Probably, extremely 18 expensive. 19 But I appreciate your testimony here today. 20 Let me put on the record, and -- 21 I don't know if Senator Gallivan has any 22 questions? 23 SENATOR GALLIVAN: No questions. 24 Thank you. 25 JOHN CONRAD: Thank you. 1 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, thank you. 2 We could we have, Larry, please, Shilling. 3 Good afternoon. 4 How are you? 5 LARRY SHILLING: I'd like to thank 6 Senator Grisanti, and the members of the 7 Environmental Conservation Committee, for the 8 opportunity to brief the Committee today on the 9 issue, and for allowing us to share our expertise in 10 managing the waste and resource challenges 11 associated with shale drilling. 12 My name is Larry Schilling. I'm regional 13 vice president for Casella Waste Systems, Inc. 14 I am responsible for all of the company's 15 operations in New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. 16 Casella Waste Systems provides collection, 17 recycling, energy, organics, and disposal services 18 throughout, what would be considered rural 19 northeastern U.S., as well as the Boston area. 20 We serve communities throughout Pennsylvania, 21 New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and 22 Maine. 23 We were founded in 1975, and are 24 headquartered in Rutland, Vermont. 25 We employ approximately 500 people 1 in New York State. 2 We have been part of the New York State's 3 resource management efforts since 1995, and have 4 formed extensive and successful private-public 5 partnerships with several Upstate counties, 6 providing operating expertise and economic risk 7 management for all-inclusive county solid-waste 8 infrastructures; more specifically, managing 9 disposal and recycling assets for Clinton County, 10 Ontario County, and Chemung County. 11 We have worked extensively as well with 12 New York State Department of Environmental 13 Conservation on leveraging proactive integrated 14 waste-management approaches, such as, the first 15 single-stream recycling processing facility in 16 New York State, to help New York State shape a 17 resource conservation future. 18 As for the question of whether or not to 19 ban -- a ban on shale drilling should be lifted in 20 New York, we are not here today to take a position 21 on that issue, which we recognize has many facets. 22 Instead, we are here today to give the 23 Committee a sense of how the waste stream associated 24 with the shale drilling can be managed safely within 25 New York State's regulatory approach. 1 As we all know, drilling for natural gas has 2 occurred for decades in New York State. 3 We have, on occasion, disposed of customers' 4 drill cuttings for many years. 5 When the level of activity around this waste 6 stream began to grow at our facility in 7 Chemung County, which, as you know, sits very near 8 the border of Pennsylvania and the Marcellus Shale 9 activity, we thought it prudent, and desirable, to 10 learn as much as we could about drill cuttings 11 and -- as a disposal material. 12 We thoroughly investigated the environmental, 13 health, and safety impacts of drilling disposal in 14 furtherance of our responsibility to effectively and 15 safely manage this material once it came through the 16 gates of our facilities. 17 These studies were conducted with the 18 involvement and cooperation of resources at the DEC. 19 The DEC has been engaged in the evaluation of 20 many of the issues we identified, which has been 21 extremely helpful while we proceeded with developing 22 an approach that worked for us, our personnel, and 23 the environment. 24 After extensively studying -- extensive 25 study, we were able to identify a number of 1 best-management practices for drill-cutting 2 transportation and disposal, which we've now 3 implemented. 4 We keep all material more than 6 feet from 5 the bottom of the landfill; 6 We keep all material at least 10 feet from 7 the landfill's final cap; 8 We installed radiation detectors at the 9 incoming gate of our facility; 10 We track this waste separately; 11 We chemically test and confirm that this 12 waste is appropriate for disposal in a municipal 13 solid-waste facility through an extensive, special 14 waste-approval protocol; 15 And, we require that all transporters of this 16 waste be licensed, and that all loads delivered to 17 us be manifested. 18 The radiation detectors have verified our 19 research and analysis that drill cuttings do not 20 present any significant health, safety, or 21 environmental issues. 22 For example: To date, the radiation 23 detectors have only alarmed twice; and neither alarm 24 was caused by drilling waste. 25 In the first case, the driver of the 1 collection vehicle had recently received radiation 2 therapy related to cancer treatment, and was found 3 to be the source of the alarm. 4 In the second instance, the responsible load 5 was found to contain municipal solid waste only, 6 and, in fact, was contaminated with 7 medical-treatment waste likely from a patient that 8 had been released and sent home from a hospital. 9 No drill-cutting loads have set off an alarm 10 at any of the detectors at any of our three 11 landfills in New York State that have accepted these 12 wastes. 13 Overall, we do not view this waste stream as 14 any more or less challenging than any other waste we 15 accept for disposal. 16 Many waste streams require special handling 17 or tracking, and this waste is no different. 18 Our study of this issue continues, since this 19 industry has emerged at a level we expect will be 20 steady for at least the next two decades or more. 21 We are currently researching alternative 22 transportation and material-handling methods to 23 reduce traffic, both at the well sites and around 24 our facilities. 25 A benefit for all. 1 Through our relationships with natural gas 2 production companies, we also learned that they were 3 looking for proactive waste and resource management 4 solutions for the treatment, disposal, and 5 acquisition of water. 6 The significance and longevity of the shale 7 play has caused us, once again, to thoughtfully and 8 extensively analyze and research opportunities to 9 manage flowback and produced water. 10 With our background and commitment to 11 resource renewal, we have decided to pursue 12 water-treatment services for the industry. 13 After extensive research, we have formed a 14 joint venture with Altela, an Albuquerque, 15 New Mexico-based company. 16 Altela has developed a technology that treats 17 flowback and produced water through heating, 18 condensing, and distilling the highly brackish drill 19 wastewater, essentially, mimicking the 20 billion-year-old process of producing rain. 21 Much of the wastewater winds up as a highly 22 purified distilled water. 23 The remaining component is a salt water that 24 can be combined with other material at our landfill 25 to produce a solid that can be landfilled, or, 1 turned into other beneficial-use products. 2 The DEC's draft Supplemental GEIS on drilling 3 has suggested that distillation is one of the best, 4 if not the best, treatment solutions. 5 Altela's technology has been operating at a 6 plant in Pennsylvania since January 2011, and is 7 proving to be highly successful. 8 Our plan is to locate this technology at our 9 landfills. 10 The benefits of doing so are significant, 11 particularly from an environmental-impact 12 perspective. 13 Drilling companies can bring their wastewater 14 directly to one facility, and leave with distilled 15 or recycled water to return to their drill sites. 16 This one-stop service would reduce the need 17 for water withdrawal from our lakes and streams and 18 transportation-related carbon emissions. 19 Landfill staff are already trained and 20 experienced in managing lagoons and water storage, 21 as demonstrated by our need to deal with leachate 22 that is produced at the landfill. 23 Extensive groundwater monitoring systems are 24 already permitted and monitored extensively by the 25 company and the DEC at our landfill facilities. 1 And, the wastewater-treatment process would 2 be powered by the energy we produce from harvesting 3 and converting methane gas from our landfill; 4 meaning, the process is near carbon-neutral. 5 The bottom line: In our view, is that 6 wastewater from drilling can be managed safely, and 7 with a measure of innovation that advances 8 New York State's resource sustainability goals. 9 In fact, in the larger picture, waste from 10 the natural gas industry does not present any 11 challenges that are any different than any other 12 industry we serve. 13 Through innovation, technology, and existing 14 regulatory protections, New York State is more than 15 equal to the task of managing these waste streams 16 proactively, safely, sensibly, and without any risk 17 to the public health. 18 Again, thank you for the opportunity to share 19 our experience and expertise with the Committee. 20 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you, Larry. 21 The, uhm -- it seems, by harvesting that 22 energy, and converting methane gas, that's where -- 23 because we were talking about this earlier, that 24 it's very cost -- costs a lot of money to do certain 25 procedures. 1 But, you're actually -- 2 LARRY SHILLING: Yeah, because we have -- 3 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- working within your own 4 system? 5 LARRY SHILLING: Exactly. 6 We have to collect the methane anyway. 7 And, at some facilities, we produce 8 electricity. 9 SENATOR GRISANTI: Right. 10 LARRY SHILLING: And off of those engines, 11 the exhaust gas is 1,000 degrees, coming out of the 12 exhaust. So, that has a lot of capability of 13 driving the process of distillation. 14 Other facilities, we don't have energy plants 15 yet, but we have flares. 16 So, we have a gas supply that is not from 17 fossil fuel, but from the landfill, and that can be 18 used to drive this process as well. 19 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 20 Well, I appreciate your testimony. 21 Further, I will turn it over the 22 Senator Gallivan. 23 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Just a couple of questions 24 about the cuttings that are disposed of at the 25 Chemung landfill? 1 LARRY SHILLING: Yes. 2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And you instituted a 3 number of different, specific procedures, in 4 addition to what you're doing with other waste. 5 So, while you're still complying with these 6 procedures, do you keep the cuttings all in one 7 location, or is it spread throughout the landfill? 8 LARRY SHILLING: It is mixed in with the rest 9 of the waste. 10 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And the testing that is 11 done, it's at the incoming gate. 12 Do you regularly test throughout the landfill 13 for radiation? 14 LARRY SHILLING: No, we haven't tested 15 throughout the landfill. 16 The, uhm -- you know, where the trucks come 17 in, at the scales, they run through the radiation 18 detectors for that. 19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay. 20 Now, you made -- in your testimony, you 21 talked about, the steadiness, or level, if this goes 22 forward, for at least the next two decades or more. 23 Do you have the capacity to handle the 24 cuttings for two decades? 25 LARRY SHILLING: We do. 1 I mean, the level of activity will be 2 something that will change. 3 We manage facilities, and we have, you know, 4 quite a bit of capacity, from a landfill standpoint; 5 as well as the ability to increase that capacity as 6 time goes on. 7 So, we would -- we would gauge our capacity 8 with the needs of the market. 9 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Under the current proposed 10 regulations, will anything change for you? 11 Will you have -- will you have additional 12 restrictions, or additional recordkeeping 13 responsibilities, than you have now, or will they 14 remain the same, or less? 15 LARRY SHILLING: We implemented some of those 16 changes that are proposed in those regulations early 17 on. 18 So, it is worth mentioning, that, when I 19 mentioned that -- in my testimony, that we work with 20 the DEC, we produced several -- a couple documents; 21 several hundred pages of information. 22 Went out and did our own studies, and 23 developed these best-management practices, really, 24 long before the DSGEIS even came out. 25 So, this is not very different. 1 What we're doing today is the same as what's 2 in the GEIS. 3 SENATOR GALLIVAN: So, you're doing this 4 today, essentially, adopting best practices; but, in 5 the future, what you're doing will be required? 6 LARRY SHILLING: Correct. 7 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I mean, if the proposed 8 regulations stay as-is. 9 LARRY SHILLING: That's correct. 10 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And -- 11 LARRY SHILLING: So, the thing that will 12 change is, today, we have our own form that we track 13 drill cuttings with, that the driver carries with 14 them. 15 Tomorrow, when the DSGEIS is approved, we'll 16 use a State form that is issued by the DEC. 17 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay. 18 Thank you. 19 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you very much. 20 LARRY SHILLING: Thank you. 21 SENATOR GRISANTI: Do we have -- is Sandra 22 here? 23 DR. SANDRA STEINGRABER: Senator Grisanti and 24 Senator Gallivan, and distinguished members of the 25 Committee, thank you for convening this hearing on a 1 topic that is of urgent concern to all New Yorkers. 2 As we consider whether to permit or prohibit 3 high-volume horizontal hydrofracking in our state, 4 it's essential that we understand the fate of the 5 toxic waste that is necessarily generated: Where 6 does it go? Who is exposed? What are the health 7 effects? 8 My name is Sandra Steingraber. I serve as a 9 distinguished scholar in residence at 10 Ithaca College. And, my Ph.D. is in biology, from 11 the University of Michigan. 12 My field of study is environmental health, 13 and I'm the author of three books on the topic, the 14 most recent of which, investigates the impact of 15 fracking on children's health. 16 Last month, I received a Heinz Award for my 17 work on health in the environment. I am devoting 18 the $100,000 prize money to the fight against 19 fracking in New York State, and I hope my testimony 20 today will help explain why. 21 Hydraulic fracturing relies on pressure, 22 water, and high-volumes of inherently toxic 23 chemicals to shatter the bedrock beneath our feet. 24 Once shattered, the bedrock releases more 25 than just bubbles of gas. The rock itself releases 1 inherently toxic materials that have been bound 2 together with the shale for 400 millions years, and 3 this toxic waste from fracking takes three forms. 4 The first are, vapors, such as benzene and 5 toluene. 6 Benzene is a known human carcinogen. 7 Toluene is a potent reproductive toxicant, 8 with the power to extinguish human pregnancies. 9 Now, I'll return to the issue of reproductive 10 health effects at the close of my remarks. 11 These volatile organic gasses also combine 12 with tailpipe exhaust to create smog, and this kind 13 of air pollution is lethal. 14 Exposure to smog is definitively linked to 15 stroke, heart attack, diabetes, and premature death. 16 In children, it is linked to premature birth, 17 asthma, cognitive deficits, and stunted lung 18 development. 19 Last May, and again in October, I provided 20 testimony before the New York Assembly on the 21 potential health effects of air pollution created by 22 fracking. 23 And, today, I'll focus on the liquid 24 wastewater. 25 As with air contaminants, the present 1 technology does not ensure public health; nor does 2 the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact 3 Statement provide a regulatory framework that would 4 compel such technology. 5 Of course, what brings us together today is 6 the slight-of-hand legal exemptions that classifies 7 dozens of the chemical constituents used in fracking 8 fluid as hazardous, but spares the flowback fluid 9 from wearing the same label, even though it contains 10 those very chemicals, along with a bunch of others. 11 By any definition known to toxicology, 12 wastewater from fracking operations is hazardous. 13 Hydrofracking fluid is -- was sprayed in a 14 forest in West Virginia. It defoliated and killed 15 more than half the trees, and elevated the sodium 16 and chloride levels of the soil by fiftyfold. 17 When spilled on the ground, fracking waste 18 sows baroness where nothing will grow. 19 Those ancient Roman conquerors who salted the 20 earths of their enemies would be impressed with 21 this. 22 Fracking wastewater is also radioactive. 23 According to the DEC's own findings, flowback 24 waste contains Radium-226 at more than 200 times the 25 safe limit for discharge into the environment, and 1 more than 3,000 times the safe drinking-water 2 standard; and, yet, the SGEIS does not ensure that 3 this truly hazardous fluid is treated as truly 4 hazardous substance, nor does it attempt to make it 5 less hazardous. 6 The volume of wastewater generated by 7 fracking is immense, and it's really hard to 8 visualize. 9 In the Marcellus Shale, between 10 4 and 9 million gallons of water are required to 11 frack a single well. 12 At least 1 million gallons return to the 13 surface as wastewater. 14 62,000 wells are envisioned for 15 New York State. 16 And if all those wells are fracked only once, 17 which is a highly conservative assumption, the total 18 amount of wastewater generated is 19 62 billion gallons. 20 Now, to visualize that amount of water, 21 consider that 500,000 gallons of water go over both 22 sides of Niagara Falls every second. 23 The amount of wastewater that would be 24 generated in New York State from fracking, if we 25 decide to permit it, is equal to the volume of water 1 cascading over the Niagara Falls for 2 35 straight hours. 3 So, imagine standing in front of the 4 Niagara Falls for 35 hours. 5 And, now, imagine that all the cascading 6 water that you see is radioactive and full of toxic 7 chemicals; and, your job, is to figure out where to 8 put it so it won't come into contact with any person 9 or any body of water or the soil or the air, 10 forever. 11 And keep in mind that our neighbor 12 Pennsylvania is already generating a 13 "Niagara Falls" worth of wastewater of its own, and 14 will be competing with us for storage space. 15 The "Where to put it?" question is not 16 adequately addressed in the draft 17 Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which does 18 not put forth a comprehensive plan for waste 19 disposal; nor explicitly prohibit fracking waste 20 from entering sewage treatment plants. 21 Deep injection wells are one repository for 22 fracking wastewater, and the nearest ones are in 23 Ohio. 24 How much fracking wastewater can be shoved in 25 the underground rock formations of Ohio? 1 One Niagara Falls of wastewater? Or two? 2 I have not been able to find an answer to 3 this question in they geological literature, and 4 neither can I find it in the SGEIS. 5 Certainly, citizen opposition to the 6 importation and deep-well injection of fracking 7 wastewater in Ohio appears to be growing, especially 8 now that earthquakes are an officially recognized 9 risk of fracking-fluid injection. 10 Unlike fracking itself, the creation of 11 injection wells to store the resulting waste is not 12 a jobs creator. 13 As the town councilman of Mansfield, Ohio, 14 noted last week: "The promise of four or five jobs 15 isn't necessarily worth living with a chemical dump 16 site for hundreds of years." 17 This comment came in response to a "no" vote 18 by the Mansfield City Council to a Texas company 19 that proposed to drill two injection wells for 20 Pennsylvania-based fracking waste. 21 Meanwhile, in Youngstown, Ohio, 22 seven protesters were recently arrested for blocking 23 trucks at a brine injection site. 24 As one of them explained, "We have a 25 responsibility to take a stand. 1 "If these companies are poisoning our water 2 and our air, they are the real criminals, and not 3 us." 4 Such actions raise another question. 5 Even if the subterranean landscape of Ohio 6 could hold all the toxic waste Pennsylvania and 7 New York can send it, should we in New York State 8 move forward with the energy plan that hinges on the 9 successful transfer of large amounts of hazardous 10 waste to a place where residents are willing to lay 11 their bodies in front of trucks to prevent that 12 transfer? 13 Now, a lot has been said today about 14 filtering and recycling and reusing wastewater. 15 I just want to point out, that the laws of 16 thermodynamics still apply here, "Newton's Law," 17 that says, "Matter cannot be created, nor 18 destroyed." 19 So, although, through filtering, reusing, and 20 recycling, you may actually reduce the volume of 21 water, the mass of all the toxic chemicals that are 22 in the wastewater still remain; they're just more 23 concentrated, so that, when you truck them off, and 24 they still need to be disposed of, somewhere, you 25 have even more poisonous substance. 1 A few weeks ago, a letter was sent to 2 Governor Cuomo from dozens of cancer advocacy 3 organizations in New York State, from Buffalo, to 4 Long Island, demanding that a rigorous health impact 5 assessment proceed, and inform the decision whether 6 or not to open our state to fracking. 7 I've included a copy of this document in the 8 appendix of my testimony. 9 So, I just point out here, that the SGEIS 10 does not prohibit the use of cancer-causing 11 chemicals in fracking fluid. 12 The word "children" does not appear in the 13 SGEIS. 14 Lung cancer from radon exposure is not a 15 topic taken up by the SGEIS, even though radon is 16 the second-leading cause of lung cancer, responsible 17 for 21,000 cases a year in the U.S. 18 The words "breast cancer" do not appear in 19 the SGEIS, even though the international -- the 20 Institute of Medicine's new report on breast cancer 21 identifies benzene and radiation exposure as 22 two chemical exposures that are -- have the strong 23 evidence likening them to breast cancer. 24 A new human rights' assessment of 25 hydrofracking was released today by the 1 Environment on Human Rights Advisory. 2 And I've brought a copy for you. 3 It details 26 human rights norms of concern, 4 relevant to fracking, ranging from, security of 5 person, to the right to -- of prior, free and 6 informed consent. 7 The report concludes, that: 8 "Viewed in lights of human rights standards, 9 these facts may raise liability concerns for the 10 New York State Department of Environmental 11 Conservation." 12 So, I'd like to close now by putting a 13 personal face on the human rights issue. 14 In 1979, at the age of 20, I was diagnosed 15 with bladder cancer. 16 My diagnosing physician asked me about my 17 possible exposures to toxic chemicals. 18 I didn't know then that his questions would 19 become my life's work. 20 Years later, I returned to my hometown in 21 Illinois, and investigated an alleged cancer cluster 22 there, of which I was one data point. 23 Among other things, I discovered that there 24 were dry-cleaning fluids in the presence of the 25 drinking-water wells. 1 The underlying geology of the area should not 2 have allowed that to happen, but there it was. 3 I came to appreciate how little we really 4 know about the unmapped landscape below the ground 5 which has intimate unseen connections to the world 6 aboveground. It's not just an inert lump of rock. 7 Now, at the time of my diagnosis, I was 8 heartened, because the newspaper headlines were full 9 of a story -- stories about a woman named 10 Lois Gibbs, in a place in Upstate New York called 11 "Love Canal." 12 And I was so impressed that had a single 13 woman could organize a community, that not only 14 prevented further exposure to toxic waste that had 15 been buried years before, but she was able to 16 actually compel changes in our federal environmental 17 laws to assume that all Americans are protected from 18 such exposures. 19 Fracking, literally, turns the earth inside 20 out. 21 It turns precious fresh water in the earth's 22 surface into poison, and then buries it in fractured 23 geological strata where it is no longer part of the 24 hydrologic cycle. 25 In its place, it brings toxic rocks, heavy 1 metals, poisonous vapors, and radioactive 2 substances, and mass amounts of wastewater, out of 3 earth, which then requires permanent containment on 4 the surface of the earth for time and memorial. 5 Fracking could easily become Love Canal on a 6 epic scale; and there is nothing in the current 7 SGEIS that indicates the lessons of Love Canal have 8 been remembered, and applied. 9 I said I would end with a topic of 10 reproductive health. 11 This is an emotional topic, so I wanted to 12 put it near the end of my remarks. 13 A lot's been said here about the amount of 14 dissolved solids and sediment that end up in the 15 water. 16 When that water is chlorinated, you end up 17 with disinfection byproducts. 18 I know a lot about these because they're a 19 cause of bladder cancer, as well as colon cancer. 20 But what I want to talking about now, is that 21 when the -- total dissolved solids are chlorinated 22 for drinking water, for sewage treatment, and you 23 produce hundreds of these chlorination byproducts, 24 many of these also have the power to interfere with 25 prenatal life and end human pregnancies. 1 In fact, this is even admitted in the SGEIS 2 itself, Section 6, page 46: 3 "Disinfection byproducts have been identified 4 in a number of medical studies as a factor linked to 5 early term miscarriage." 6 I hope this disturbs you as deeply as it 7 disturbs me. 8 The admission that fracking waste generates 9 chemicals that can extinguish pregnancy is deeply 10 distressing. 11 Whether you look at this as evidence for 12 harm, as I do, as a planned-parenthood issue, a 13 woman should be able to plan a parenthood, and carry 14 it out, without other people's chemicals 15 interfering; 16 Or, from a right-to-life perspective, as many 17 members of my own very conservative family do, who 18 believe very deeply in the question of fetal 19 sanctity. 20 The question of what the dissolved solids are 21 doing when they're chlorinated, and how it might be 22 affecting the prenatal life of women in New York; if 23 it's ending pregnancies, and harming fetuses, this 24 is a question that needs to be answered. 25 If we frack New York, are we ending 1 pregnancies, and will babies die? 2 I urge you to take this up. 3 Thank you. 4 [Applause.] 5 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you very much, 6 Sandra. 7 Do you have in knowledge, if, uhm -- do you 8 have any knowledge, that -- if, in Pennsylvania or 9 Texas, they've done any impact health statements? 10 DR. SANDRA STEINGRABER: There has been some 11 work on health impacts in Texas, but none of them 12 were done as a prerequisite for permitting fracking; 13 so, they were after-the-fact studies. 14 So, we know, for example, in the areas of -- 15 the gas patch in Texas, that we see the transfer of 16 volatile organics into people's indoor air space, 17 and we can actually measure those chemicals in their 18 blood and urine. 19 We know that some of the symptoms that these 20 people are experiencing -- numbness, nausea, and so 21 forth -- are known health effects of the particular 22 chemicals that they're -- have been exposed to. 23 There's some emerging data from Texas on 24 breast cancer and fracking, showing that women who 25 live in the most intensely fracked areas of Texas, 1 their breast-cancer-incidents' rate is actually 2 going up. 3 Which is in interesting, because, throughout 4 the U.S., as well as the rest of Texas, 5 breast-cancer incidents, happily, now is on the 6 decline. 7 So, these are correlative data. 8 I would not, as a scientist, want to claim 9 that these are definitive proof of anything, but 10 they are certainly clues for further inquiry that we 11 need to pay attention to. 12 And -- 13 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. And I -- 14 DR. SANDRA STEINGRABER: Yeah. 15 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, I appreciate your 16 testimony today. 17 I don't know if Senator Gallivan has any 18 questions? 19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: No. 20 Thank you. 21 DR. SANDRA STEINGRABER: You're welcome. 22 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you. 23 Frank Miller, please. 24 FRANK MILLER: Good afternoon. 25 SENATOR GRISANTI: Whenever you're ready. 1 FRANK MILLER: Okay. 2 My name is Frank Miller. I'm the president 3 of Lake Country FracWater Specialists, and the 4 original founder of the company. 5 I have over 36 years of experience in water 6 and wastewater treatment, power generation, food and 7 chemical processing, pharmaceutical manufacturing, 8 pulp and paper manufacturing, and consulting, 9 engineering, design. 10 As part of this experience, I've held the 11 position of: 12 Director of engineering for a Fortune 500 13 company; 14 General manager, and production manager, of 15 several chemical manufacturing plants; 16 And, technical director in the paper 17 industry; 18 As well as, engineering manager of an 19 engineering firm, specializing in industrial 20 processes, design, and development. 21 Previous to Lake Country, I was founder, and 22 president, of Innovative Environmental Products, 23 Incorporated, of Rochester, New York. 24 The mission of IEP, and now Lake Country, has 25 been to develop an environmentally sound green 1 technologies that maximize reuse and recycling of 2 waters, minimize waste, make hazardous waste 3 non-hazardous, and, ultimately, can create 4 marketable product from waste. 5 I hold two patents that include, the recovery 6 of industrial and agriculture wastes for water 7 reuse, and, mitigation of environmental impacts by 8 the resultant solid waste. 9 Additionally, I currently have multiple 10 patents pending related to unique wastewater 11 treatment and precipitate-separation technologies 12 designed for treating Marcellus fluids and waste. 13 Lake Country FracWater Specialists is a small 14 start-up company, with operations in Livonia, 15 New York, and, Tioga, Pennsylvania. 16 This business start-up is a direct result of 17 Marcellus development. 18 Treating hydraulic fracturing wastes in 19 wastewaters is a new business venture, with 20 considerable opportunity for many other 21 entrepreneurs. 22 You will hear today that there is no way to 23 dispose of Marcellus waste in New York today, but 24 the oil and gas industry is no different from other 25 industries. 1 All processes create waste, and it has been a 2 trademark American business to learn to handle all 3 waste in an environmentally safe manner while 4 pursuing opportunities to create beneficial 5 businesses from waste streams. 6 At Lake Country, we have successfully 7 developed -- <coughs> -- excuse me -- we have 8 been -- 9 Sorry. Just need to get a drink of water. 10 [Pause in the proceeding.] 11 [The proceeding resumed, as follows:] 12 FRANK MILLER: At Lake Country, we have been 13 successful in developing technologies to perform our 14 stated mission, in primarily mobile systems, which 15 may also be readily adapted to semi-permanent or 16 permanent systems. 17 Our mobile systems allow for cost-effective 18 treatment of waste at a well site, resulting in 19 recycling and reuse of the water, as well as 20 mitigating truck traffic. 21 In addition, because our systems are mobile, 22 they do not require the high capital costs and 23 long-term land-used impacts associated with 24 brick-and-mortar treatment plants. 25 We have developed and commercialized a series 1 of technologies, most of which are patent-pending, 2 specifically focused on oil-and-gas-development 3 industries. 4 These include the following: 5 Removal of barium and strontium from 6 hydraulic fracturing flowback water, produce a 7 product -- to produce a product, which is barium 8 sulfate, a weighting agent in drilling muds, and 9 clear brine for recycling of the water in subsequent 10 fracks. 11 Another system is: 12 Treatment of oil-based drilling wastes, 13 recycling and reuse of waste from bentonite, and 14 cutting wastewaters from pipeline-boring 15 applications; 16 Treatment of drilling fluids from top-hole 17 operations, and saline concentration reduction of 18 high TDS -- "total dissolved solid" -- drilling 19 wastewaters, to accommodate safe storage, and 20 disposal and economic reuse. 21 In each of these technologies, our goal is to 22 take problematic waste products, or potentially 23 hazardous materials, and render them non-hazardous 24 through chemical reactions or other means. 25 In some cases, the materials are suitable for 1 reuse, or for an alternate beneficial use, in their 2 new form. 3 Additionally, these technologies may also 4 provide an opportunity for both public and private 5 water treatment plants, to integrate them into their 6 headworks, in order pretreat certain 7 oil-and-gas-field wastes, such as heavy metals, 8 before treating the wastewaters for eventual 9 discharge. 10 Lake Country also has an additional exciting 11 technology that will be integrated into our water 12 treatment systems, or as a standalone process for 13 management of drilling waste cuttings. 14 This product has EPA approvals as absorbent 15 material, and has ability to lock in hazardous 16 wastes, such that the waste can be treated as 17 non-hazardous, and be place in a landfill instead of 18 a hazardous-waste treatment plant or disposal site. 19 As a point of information: The primary 20 reason why there are no systems in place in New York 21 for management of Marcellus development waste 22 streams is because companies are not willing to 23 invest here until there are certain -- until they 24 are certain that New York is indeed moving forward 25 with permitting the development of this resources -- 1 this resource, and the regulatory framework for that 2 development is finalized and clear. 3 The current situation does not mean that we 4 do not have the technology and the expertise to 5 treat any and all waste from Marcellus development. 6 In fact, our mobile platform for our 7 treatment systems are adaptable, and will allow for 8 rapid deployment into the play once Marcellus 9 commences development in New York. 10 With regard to the need for new legislation, 11 I submit, and it's the opinion of our board of 12 directors, that there is no identified need. 13 New York already has substantial authority to 14 monitor the transport of waste, monitor the 15 disposition of waste, and has a robust system in 16 place for discharge limitations for both surface and 17 groundwater discharges. 18 From my exposure to regulations in place, and 19 pending, across several energy-intensive state 20 and -- states, and in two foreign countries, 21 New York already has some of the strictest 22 environmental regulations on development of oil and 23 gas resources. 24 It is my opinion, that we need to be very 25 careful about opposing new legislation that may 1 create unintended consequences, and blunt 2 technological innovations and advancements with 3 regard to water reuse and treatment. 4 As an example: The hazardous-waste bill, 5 which was proposed last year, would have treated all 6 oil-and-gas-field wastes as hazardous. 7 This action would have deemed non-hazardous 8 waste -- some non-hazardous wastes as hazardous; 9 meaning, that recycling and reuse of the hydraulic 10 fracturing flowback water would not have been 11 possible, based upon a regulatory definition. 12 In addition, it would have resulted in taking 13 valuable space in a hazardous-waste facility for 14 materials that are not hazardous. 15 That space could be put to a better use for 16 important hazardous waste. 17 Finally, because the waste would not have 18 been able to be recycled and reused, the waste would 19 need to be transported to "hazardous" facilities, 20 resulting, exponentially, in more truck traffic. 21 From my perspective of this industry, there 22 are technological advances happening as we speak. 23 The industry has made great strides in 24 drilling, and extending laterals and horizontal 25 wells. 1 In my opinion, the evolution of technologies 2 to treat and reuse water and waste from the 3 Marcellus is equally as impressive. 4 We need to be cautious to not prevent, and to 5 be proactive, in allowing the advances in technology 6 to continue without legislative and regulatory 7 constraints that will hamper environmental progress. 8 We hope that New York will move forward 9 expeditiously to improve Marcellus development for 10 the benefit of its citizens. 11 Having adequate technologies and systems to 12 treat Marcellus fluids and waste is not an 13 impediment for approval. 14 I appreciate your time, and will welcome 15 questions. 16 SENATOR GRISANTI: Well, thank you, 17 Mr. Miller. 18 Can you just briefly explain, in a little 19 more detail: You talk about removing barium and 20 other raw chemicals from hydraulic fracturing 21 flowback water? 22 How are you doing that? 23 FRANK MILLER: We have a sequential 24 precipitation process, whereby, we inject certain 25 chemicals that react with the barium, and turn into 1 a barium sulfate, which is a drilling mud. 2 Of the deep-water horizon, the material that 3 was used to kill that well was barium sulfate. 4 We actually manufactured that as part of 5 process, out of frack water. Flowback water. 6 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay, are you able to -- 7 so, some of the waters that you have, do you know 8 what all the -- all the chemicals that are in the 9 water? 10 FRANK MILLER: Yes. 11 We have done research on water from multiple 12 locations across Columbia, Mexico, West Virginia, 13 North Dakota, Pennsylvania, New York, and Texas. 14 And, there's a lot of consistency in the 15 types of water, and there's variations. 16 But, we understand the variations, and the 17 consistencies, and we have multiple stages. 18 Our water-treatment processes are modular. 19 For example: The systems that we're going to 20 be sending to Columbia have seven different, 21 individual chemical-treatment modules in them, that 22 include, precipitation; oxidation through ozone; 23 hydrogen peroxide, followed by reverse osmosis. 24 So, there's multiple, different -- depending 25 on the particular waters that we're going to be 1 treating, we have multiple, different modules that 2 we would provide. 3 SENATOR GRISANTI: These mobile units, how, 4 uhm -- how -- what's quantity of water they can 5 treat? 6 FRANK MILLER: They're typically in modules 7 of 2,500 barrels, which is 100,000 barrels a day. 8 And in the cases where they need larger 9 quantities, we just have additional modules that we 10 provide. 11 They're all about the size of a horse 12 trailer. 13 SENATOR GRISANTI: All right. 14 I appreciate that. 15 I don't know if Senator Gallivan has any 16 questions? 17 SENATOR GALLIVAN: No questions. 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: No questions? 19 Okay. 20 Thank you very much. 21 Is Sarah here? 22 Hi, Sarah. 23 SARAH ECKEL: Hi. 24 SENATOR GRISANTI: Hi, Sarah. 25 How are you? 1 SARAH ECKEL: I'm doing well. 2 My name is Sarah Eckel. I'm the legislative 3 and policy director for Citizens Campaign for the 4 Environment. 5 CCE is an 80,000-member, non-profit, 6 non-partisan, advocacy organization. We work 7 throughout New York to protect health and the 8 natural environment. 9 We want to thank both of you for sitting 10 through this long day, and holding this important 11 hearing on waste and fracking. 12 Too often, unfortunately, waste, in all 13 forms, related to drilling, or not, is -- and 14 especially if it's associated infrastructure, is 15 "out of sight, and out of mind." 16 However, we know drilling wastes can be 17 toxic, caustic, and hazardous. 18 And, in New York, liquid and solid waste, as 19 discussed today, coming off that drill pad is 20 classified as, industrial waste, not hazardous 21 waste. 22 We know that the transportation, storage, and 23 treatment of the waste can pose significant risks to 24 the public health and the environment. 25 And, unfortunately, New York's plan to deal 1 this waste is not clear. 2 I'd like to say, that, you know, a lot has 3 been talked about recycling, and the benefits for 4 that today. 5 And just to remind you, that, with all those 6 benefits from recycling, we're still not mandating 7 that recycling. So, we still have to figure out 8 what to do with the waste coming off that pad, 9 unless it's mandated. 10 I talked briefly about drill cuttings in my 11 testimony, but I think that's been covered 12 extensively today, so, I'm just going to skip down 13 to production brine. 14 The concentrated fluid that comes off of the 15 gas-well pad, called "production brine," due to 16 Marcellus Shale's marine origins, we know that it's 17 really high in total dissolved solids. 18 Every day, 300 to 6,300 gallons of brine can 19 be generated. 20 And, we need a -- we need secure on-site 21 storage and disposal for all of that production 22 brine. 23 A lot has been talked about Marcellus's 24 marine origins, and the total dissolved solids 25 associated with that. 1 I would just also like to remind you, that, 2 this document doesn't just deal with 3 Marcellus Shale. It also deals with Utica Shale, 4 and other shale formations. 5 So, one of the gaps that we're looking at in 6 this document, is the fact that we don't really know 7 what constituents are associated with those shale 8 formations. 9 We really just talk a lot about Marcellus. 10 The flowback fluid that comes off of the well 11 is contaminated with chemicals used for fracking, 12 and any contaminants from the shale itself. 13 The combination of chemicals used depends on 14 the specific geology. And, of course, company 15 preference, as was discussed at length; that they 16 have proprietary information in chemical formulas. 17 Proper treatment and disposal of the liquid 18 waste poses a great risk. 19 And as we've said, current water-treatment 20 infrastructure cannot meet the existing demand in 21 increasing treatment capacity for radioactive and 22 corrosive hydrofracking waste. 23 Over the next 20 years, New York State needs 24 $36.2 billion to address its aging and failing 25 wastewater infrastructure needs. 1 And this does not account for fracking. 2 So, when we're looking at the gaps, and what 3 we need to address, that's a huge number that we 4 still already have to take account for. 5 The composition of flowback water changes 6 over time. 7 And this is from the DEC's document: 8 The concentrations of dissolved solids, 9 chloride and barium, can increase; 10 Levels of radioactive -- radioactivity can 11 increase; 12 Calcium and magnesium increase; 13 Iron concentrations increase; 14 Sulfate levels decrease; 15 Alkalinity decreases; 16 And, concentrations of metals can increase. 17 The DEC attributes these changes to shell 18 formations, frack fluids, and operations control, 19 but what it clearly demonstrates, is that we need a 20 waste-disposal plan that accounts for the fact that 21 this fluid composition is going to change over time. 22 As discussed before, radioactivity in 23 Marcellus Shale is a product of normally occurring 24 radioactive materials. 25 The DSGEIS includes well sampling from 1 13 conventional wells already drilled in 2 New York State, that are Marcellus wells. 3 The production brine coming off of these 4 wells all exceed -- 5 Well, that's not true. 6 -- 80 percent of them exceed EPA 7 safe-drinking standards of 5 picocuries per liter. 8 So, we're already exceeding those standards 9 now. We need to figure out what to do with this 10 waste. 11 The DSGEIS fails to identify the facilities 12 that are going to treat and dispose of that liquid 13 radioactive waste. 14 And, in addition to the high levels of 15 radiation coming from production brine, flowback 16 fluid is positive for Radium-226 as well, with 17 levels that range between 2.58 and 33 picocuries per 18 liter. 19 Radon is -- occurs naturally as a decay 20 product of Radium-226. 21 We've all heard about radon, and the build up 22 that is -- causes a lot of problems in homes. 23 Radon exposure is the second-leading cause of 24 lung cancer, as mentioned by Dr. Steingraber. 25 And, from the National Academy of Sciences, 1 15,000 to 22,000 Americans die every year from 2 radon-related lung cancer. 3 Radon in drinking water causes an additional 4 180 cancer deaths annually. 5 Almost 90 percent of those projected deaths 6 were from lung cancer, from the inhalation of radon 7 released to the indoor air from water. 8 About 10 percent were from cancers of 9 internal organs; mostly stomach cancers from 10 ingestion of radon in water. 11 Long-term exposure to radium can increase the 12 risks of developing several diseases, including, 13 lymphoma, bone cancer and diseases that affect the 14 formation of blood, such as leukemia and aplastic 15 anemia. 16 External exposure to radium's gamma radiation 17 increases the risks of cancer to all tissues and 18 organs at varying degrees, and the greatest health 19 risk from radium is exposure to its radioactive 20 decay product: radon. 21 As we all know, throughout New York, our 22 local municipalities are taking a strong stand on 23 dealing with hydrofracking. 24 And it's pretty easy to understand why. 25 Because the demands on our local 1 infrastructure are growing, we're already facing 2 huge infrastructure needs, as I discussed before. 3 And to be able to deal with these upgrades, 4 that's going to fall on the shoulders of our local 5 municipalities. 6 Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental 7 Protection stated, that: 8 "Oil and gas wells disgorge about 9 million 9 gallons of wastewater a day in Pennsylvania. 10 "According to industry estimates used by the 11 DEP -- 12 Oh, sorry. This is from a few years ago, 13 but... 14 -- "by 2011, that figure is expected to rise 15 at least 19 million gallons, enough to fill almost 16 29 Olympic-size swimming pools every day. 17 "That's more than all the state's waterways, 18 combined, can safely absorb. 19 "I didn't know that. Even our water-program 20 people hadn't any idea about the volumes that would 21 be used," said Dana Aunkst, who headed -- the head 22 of DEP. 23 We clearly need to know where this waste is 24 going, if they were dealing with such -- 25 Pennsylvania is blessed with the number of 1 fresh-water resources, as we are, and they are 2 having a problem dealing with this as well. 3 So, just a couple of recommendations that I 4 know have been mentioned already today: 5 CCE also supports Senate Bill 4616, which 6 would classify waste that comes off of a drilling 7 pad as hazardous. 8 And I just want to clarify one point: If it 9 meets the State definition of "hazardous." 10 It's not just going to just, across the 11 board, classify waste as hazardous if it doesn't 12 meet that definition. 13 Another positive point, is that, is that we 14 deal with, retroactively, waste that's already being 15 generated. So, it wouldn't just deal with 16 high-volume hydraulic fracturing. 17 CCE believes that DEC's proposed waste 18 manifest program that's been discussed today, should 19 require that the waste manifests are regularly 20 reported back to DEC. 21 As discussed, those are in the hands of the 22 truckers; and, sometimes they reported back, and 23 sometimes they're not. 24 In order to make this process transparent and 25 publicly accessible, we need those waste manifests 1 to regularly go back to DEC, regardless. 2 CCE encourages the Legislature to prohibit 3 the treatment of wastewater at municipal treatment 4 facilities. 5 I know that you've discussed this at length 6 today. 7 And we also believe that New York State 8 should prohibit the use of toxic and carcinogenic 9 chemicals. 10 We all know that those chemicals are out 11 there, and we have the power to stop them from 12 coming into our state to be used. 13 We should do that. 14 And, thank you, again, for the opportunity to 15 speak today. 16 I'll take any questions that you have. 17 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thanks, Sarah, appreciate 18 it. 19 I don't have any questions for you. 20 I'm familiar with Citizens Campaign, and the 21 topics. 22 And, I appreciate your testimony here today, 23 and submitting your testimony, and focusing on those 24 areas that, uhm -- which is the reason why we had 25 the hearing, and -- to begin with. 1 So, I appreciate you being here today. 2 SARAH ECKEL: Absolutely. 3 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you. 4 SARAH ECKEL: Thank you. 5 SENATOR GRISANTI: Is Walter here? 6 [Inaudible] quite a lot here. 7 Just ask you to paraphrase as much as you 8 possibly can. 9 I appreciate it. 10 WALTER HANG: Thank you for the opportunity 11 to comment on the environment, the one public health 12 concerns of natural gas drilling, wastewater, and 13 hydrofracturing wastewater problems in New York. 14 I commend your efforts because I believe this 15 issue warrants New York's utmost concern. 16 For decades, New York has failed to identify, 17 investigate, and clean up gas-drilling wastewater 18 hazards reported at hundreds of sites. 19 Toxics Targeting has compiled detailed data 20 from the New York State Department of Environmental 21 Conservation's "hazardous-substances' spills" 22 database, regarding gas-drilling wastewater releases 23 that have, reportedly, impacted homes, waterways, 24 drinking-water wells, and natural resources. 25 New York's existing gas-drilling wastewater 1 problems could be vastly exacerbated if 2 Marcellus Shale horizontal hydrofracking is 3 permitted to proceed without adequate safeguards. 4 I urge you to require that the problems I 5 will document today be fully resolved before 6 New York's de facto horizontal-hydrofracking 7 moratorium is lifted by the adoption of a final 8 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement. 9 I would note that approximately 10 7,000 gas-production wells in New York generate 11 flowback and produce wastewater. 12 A comparable number of oil-production wells 13 in the state also generate produced water. 14 There is currently no regulatory system to 15 track those wastewaters from, quote, "cradle to 16 grave," close quote. 17 As a result, the volume and fate of those 18 wastewaters is unknown to environmental authorities. 19 You've heard a great deal about the 20 constituents in the wastewater. 21 I would note, that, the total dissolved 22 solids that have been reported in gas-drilling 23 wastewater generated in Pennsylvania is up to 24 413,000 parts per million. 25 The key thing about TDS is it's soluble in 1 water. 2 In contrast, the petroleum hydrocarbons, 3 notably in the diesel range, have been reported up 4 to 72,600 parts per billion in gas-drilling 5 wastewater generated in West Virginia. 6 This is insoluble in water. And as we've 7 heard so much, contains benzene, reportedly, up to 8 660 parts per billion. 9 Many of these constituents resist 10 biodegradation and toxic at extremely low levels of 11 exposure. 12 For example: The maximum contaminant level 13 for benzene in New York State drinking water is only 14 5 parts per billion. 15 That's 5 seconds in 32 years. 16 You've heard a lot about the natural 17 occurring radioactive materials. 18 I would note, that Radium-226 has a half-life 19 of 1,600 years. 20 These are very toxic, very persistent 21 compounds. 22 I would note, that while a great deal of 23 attention has been focused on flowback concerns, 24 contaminant concentrations in produced water are 25 often higher for all three contaminant categories. 1 In short, both flowback and produced 2 wastewaters are highly complex mixtures of hundreds, 3 if not thousands, of inorganic, as well as organic, 4 compounds. 5 To date, those wastewaters have yet to be 6 fully characterized by analytical studies. 7 I want to focus on three categories of 8 gas-drilling wastewater problems that we've had in 9 New York. 10 Massive gas-drilling wastewater releases are 11 documented to have been caused by hundreds, and 12 perhaps thousands, of spills, accidents, and other 13 uncontrolled discharges in New York. 14 Gas-drilling wastewater spills, up to 15 100,000 gallons, have been reported to DEC in a 16 single incident. 17 Many spills are never cleaned up in strict 18 compliance with remediation requirements. 19 Shockingly, there is no specific regulatory 20 requirement even to report gas-drilling wastewater 21 releases in New York. 22 As a result, a full scope of this problem is 23 unknown. 24 In contrast, petroleum releases are required 25 to be reported to DEC's hotline within two hours; or 1 fines up to $25,000 can be levied per day of 2 noncompliance. 3 I've given you a series of actual DEC data 4 for national fuel gas, wells, et cetera, that have 5 been reported. 6 You can see: Brine-tank overflow due to 7 apparent equipment failure. Materials flowing over 8 land into local creek. Doesn't meet standards. 9 And, the problem occurred in 1997. 10 So, you can look at all of those data. I've 11 posted them on the Internet. 12 Perhaps the most shocking thing that I've 13 discovered in the last two years, is that, DEC has 14 long-approved land spreading of gas-drilling 15 wastewater for dust control, winter de-icing, and 16 road-bed stabilization. 17 DEC's Beneficial-Use Determination program 18 has approved natural gas wastewater to be spread, 19 untreated, on roadways at farms, residential and 20 business properties, a summer camp for children, a 21 water treatment plant, the Chautauqua County 22 Fairgrounds, state lands, as well as, areas 23 adjoining critical water-supply sources, including, 24 a major reservoir, and sole source, and primary 25 aquifers. 1 And these include: Chemung, Thompkins, 2 Broome, Tioga, Chenango, Steuben, Cayuga, Cortland, 3 Madison, Genesee, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, 4 Allegheny, and other counties. 5 In Chautauqua County alone, in 2010 to 2011, 6 1,322,450 gallons of gas-well production brine were 7 spread. 8 You can review those documents. 9 Contrary to DEC's assertion that the 10 BUD program requires the gas-drilling wastewater to 11 be spread safely, DEC's own data refute this 12 assertion. 13 You can read examples that I posted. 14 The Tuscarora brine application, June 21, 15 2010, quote: 16 "Caller states, town is using brine from gas 17 wells to control dust on dirt roads, and are 18 applying it way too heavy, causing runoff to ditches 19 and streams. 20 "Also concerned about his well, and what 21 might be in the brine." 22 Close quote. 23 And this spill still does not meet applicable 24 standards. 25 In short, gas-drilling wastewater should have 1 been banned from land-spreading decades ago, when 2 spraying waste all on dusty roads was outlawed, 3 along with burying garbage in open pits. 4 It is inconceivable the DEC still authorizes 5 spreading of this toxic radioactive material on 6 roadways and watersheds all over central, 7 southwestern, and the Leatherstocking's Region of 8 New York. 9 And I've presented a map for your review. 10 You've heard a lot today about the 11 contribution of gas-drilling wastewater to publicly 12 owned treatment works. 13 I want to note, that, tens of millions of 14 gallons have been discharged in New York in recent 15 years. 16 These POTWs are neither designed, 17 constructed, nor maintained, to be able to break 18 down and remove gas-drilling wastewater pollutants. 19 This is an extremely important public-policy 20 matter that must be fully resolved prior to 21 permitting horizontal hydrofracking in New York's 22 tight shale. 23 The gas-drilling wastewater is fundamentally 24 incompatible with this, quote, "secondary," close 25 quote, biological treatment systems employed at, 1 virtually, all municipal treatment systems in 2 New York to break down human sewage. 3 These, quote, "activated sludge," close 4 quote, and, quote, "trickling filter," close quote, 5 or biotower systems promote the growth of bacteria 6 that degrade human-wastewater components. 7 Many of the constituents of gas-drilling 8 wastewater resist biological degradation, and, 9 quote, "pass through," close quote, into receiving 10 bodies of water, concentrate in residual biosolids, 11 or sludge, and compose hazards to treatment plant 12 workers. 13 It is entirely appropriate that you're 14 hearing is being held today in Canandaigua, because 15 the Canandaigua wastewater treatment plant, 16 reportedly, received 177,000 gallons of gas-drilling 17 wastewater generated in Pennsylvania by 18 EOG Resources, Inc., without knowing the source of 19 the wastewater. 20 The facility, reportedly, stopped accepting 21 all gas-drilling wastewater in September 2009. 22 Prior to that time, it had, reportedly, 23 accepted gas-drilling wastewater for up to 24 nine years. 25 Canandaigua exemplifies how toxic 1 gas-drilling wastewater has been discharged to 2 POTWs in New York's Finger Lakes Region without 3 approved pretreatment, and in contravention of 4 pretreatment in other regulatory requirements. 5 This illustrates the fundamental inadequacy 6 of New York's enforcement efforts regarding this 7 concern. 8 I wanted to note, that EPA has undertaken 9 extensive investigation of gas-drilling wastewater 10 going to POTWs that are not equipped to regulate 11 it, to manage that material. 12 These efforts occurred after more than 13 850,000 local residents near Pittsburgh could not 14 drink water drawn from the Monongahela River in the 15 autumn of 2008, after gas-drilling waste discharges 16 caused unacceptably high TDS levels in the river's 17 ambient water. 18 Local POTWs were, reportedly, accepting 19 gas-drilling wastewater up to 40 percent of their 20 influent. 21 And I've, again, posted extremely detailed 22 technical comments that have been provided by EPA to 23 DEC. 24 Basically, we're in a de facto moratorium in 25 New York with regard to horizontal hydrofracking in 1 tight shale. 2 And I believe that it is absolutely 3 imperative that the concerns I have summarized today 4 are fully resolved prior to the permitting of 5 horizontal hydrofracking in New York's tight shales. 6 As you know, there is an executive order; 7 it's very onerous. 8 And I do not believe that DEC has fulfilled 9 the requirements to, basically, protect New York 10 from horizontal hydrofracking. 11 I would suggest that you review a coalition 12 letter that has nearly 11,000 signatories, calling 13 for the revised draft to be withdrawn. 14 Among the concerns that are referenced in 15 that letter: 16 We've asked Governor Cuomo to ban 17 gas-drilling wastewaters from being discharged into 18 publicly owned treatment works designed for sanitary 19 waste, and, we've requested that strict pretreatment 20 standards be adopted. 21 This is very important. We've heard a lot 22 about recycling. 23 Gas-drilling wastewaters, including flowback, 24 as well as produced water, or, brine, are currently 25 exempted from extremely stringent GA effluent 1 limitations, designed to safeguard drinking water 2 drawn from the ground in New York. 3 So, the GA effluent limitations were adopted 4 decades ago, because so many people, particularly on 5 Long Island, have only one source of water -- that's 6 from the ground -- and hundreds of wells were 7 impacted. 8 So, currently, the gas-drilling wastewater 9 can be reinjected into the ground, as fracking 10 fluid, or as cutting fluid, only because there is an 11 exemption from those very strict GA effluent 12 limitations. 13 The revised draft SGEIS fails to eliminate 14 this exemption, even though gas-drilling wastewater 15 is documented to contain pollutant concentrations 16 that would vastly exceed applicable GA effluent 17 standards. 18 For example: Benzene reported in 19 gas-drilling wastewater, up to 660 parts per 20 billion, is only allowed at 1 part per billion in 21 permitted groundwater discharges. 22 Finally: I suggest that the land spreading 23 of the toxic drilling wastewater also be banned. 24 And I would note, that the horizontal 25 hydrofracking issue, as you've heard, is really 1 deep-well injection, because, up to 95 percent of 2 the fracking fluid, reportedly, remains in the 3 ground. 4 In New York, deep-well-injection permitting 5 requires individual environmental impact statement 6 review, not the generic EIS review that DEC is 7 currently undertaking. 8 In short: The entire premise of the SGEIS 9 permit-guideline proceeding is specious. 10 This is another reason why DEC's efforts are 11 inadequate, and warrant starting the process all 12 over again. 13 And I would note, that these exemptions 14 should be lifted by regulatory fiat. They don't 15 need new laws to be passed. 16 And I've given you data that I compiled for 17 the Niagara Falls wastewater treatment plant. 18 I personally sampled this effluent in 1981, 19 as part of a landmark study of the Niagara River. 20 So, while that facility does have granular 21 activated-carbon treatment, that's, again, only for 22 the insoluble compounds. 23 And you can see, many of the compounds pass 24 right through, including, benzene, phenol. 25 So, there's no panacea, and that carbon would 1 not take out the total dissolved solids, including 2 the various toxic metals that you've heard about so 3 much today. 4 Thank you very much. 5 I appreciate the time. 6 And, if you have any questions, I'll try to 7 answer them. 8 SENATOR GRISANTI: Just briefly -- 9 [Applause.] 10 SENATOR GRISANTI: -- what you have listed 11 here in Niagara Falls, from the -- can you explain 12 that a little bit, the 1981 figures that you have 13 here? 14 WALTER HANG: Yes. 15 So, basically, as you know, that is an area 16 that is very unusual, because it has many industries 17 that were originally alike. 18 Many fewer today, unfortunately, then 19 earlier. 20 So you can tell that many of these compounds 21 are volatile organic compounds; notably, benzene. 22 These are very common industrial solvents and 23 intermediates. 24 They're also turning up in wastewater that's 25 discharged on-line to the treatment plant. 1 Unfortunately, the activated carbon doesn't 2 take out anything. 3 The most important thing to realize, when it 4 comes to toxic organic compounds, that means, 5 they're principally made out of carbon and hydrogen. 6 They're very toxic at extraordinarily low 7 levels of exposure. 8 So the standards are frequently, 5 parts per 9 billion, 10 parts per billion, 50 parts per billion. 10 Those are minuscule levels, and they're just 11 passing through, into the receiving body of river. 12 And the Lower Niagara is an impaired water 13 body. It's on the National 303(d) Registry of 14 Impaired Water Bodies. 15 So, this system is not taking out these toxic 16 organic chemicals and heavy metals. 17 And if the gas-drilling wastewater would 18 discharge into this plant, it would similarly pass 19 through, concentrate in the solids, and potentially 20 pose a hazard to the workers. 21 SENATOR GRISANTI: Got you. 22 I appreciate that. Thank you. 23 I don't have any other further questions. 24 I don't know if -- 25 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Nothing else. 1 WALTER HANG: Thank you so much. 2 SENATOR GRISANTI: Thank you very much. 3 Well, that's going to conclude our Senate 4 hearing that we had here, scheduled for today. 5 I want to, again, thank those that spoke and 6 gave testimony, and submitted testimony. 7 I want to thank those that came to listened. 8 Once, again, there's a lot of information 9 that -- on the specific issue, with regards to the 10 water, and the disposal of the water, and what some 11 are claiming could be treatment; whether it's 12 hazardous waste, whether it's not hazardous waste. 13 But, these are all important factors that 14 myself and Senator Gallivan -- that were not covered 15 to the extent as they were in these broad-based 16 hearings that were done throughout the state. 17 So, we wanted to be very specific, because 18 that's what I kept hearing, is the issue of the 19 water. 20 "What are you going to do with the water?" 21 "There's a lot of water. There's a lot of 22 materials left over from, whether it's the wells or 23 the flowback water." 24 It got to -- you know, it got to the point, 25 where, you know, we're talking to each other, and we 1 said: You know, we got to get some specific answers 2 as possible, with regards to that issue. 3 And I'm glad that the testimony that was 4 presented here today will be in the record. 5 It's something that the DEC has to take a 6 look at; has to move forward on it. 7 But, I just appreciate it. 8 And, I'll say good night to you, but I'll 9 turn it over to Senator Gallivan, to say a few 10 words. 11 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I, too, would like to 12 thank you for being here; for the people that 13 presented testimony, and the people that had the 14 patience, as we moved along, to wait your turn. 15 Clearly, this is an issue of our times; and, 16 perhaps, the most significant thing that we will 17 face in our time in the Senate. 18 So, it's not something we take lightly. 19 And, from my perspective, this was meant to 20 be information-gathering. 21 As we continue to go forward, we'll continue 22 to do that. 23 I know we mentioned it a little bit earlier: 24 If people had written testimony to present, you can 25 leave it with us. 1 Or, you could, certainly, connect with our 2 offices, or through our website. 3 If you just go to NYsenate.gov, you can get 4 to each of us personally, and submit attachments, or 5 individual comments. 6 But, I'd like to thank everyone for their 7 time. 8 And, Senator Grisanti, for continuing the 9 work. 10 And I can assure you, he is traveling 11 throughout the state, conducting numerous hearings. 12 But, thanks for your leadership, and your 13 work on this. And, coming into our district, and, 14 an area, like I say -- said earlier: 15 We're in the heart of the Finger Lakes; and, 16 our lakes and our waters are very important. 17 So, thank you. 18 SENATOR GRISANTI: Okay. 19 Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 20 Thank you. 21 [Applause.] 22 (Whereupon, at approximately 4:11 p.m., 23 the public hearing, held by the Chair of the 24 New York State Senate Standing Committee on 25 Environmental Conservation, concluded.)