The Fracking Debate: A Policymaker’s Guide

The Fracking Debate: A Policymaker’s Guide.

The Fracking Debate: A Policymaker’s Guide

Content Items

  • Hydraulic Fracturing: The 2012 Debate
    • Domestic Resource and Production Projections
    • Low and Stable Prices, for Now
    • Economic Benefits: Impact Studies and Their Omissions
    • Public Health and Environmental Concerns
  • States Take Action: The Balancing Act
    • 2012 Legislative Trend Overview
  • State Policy Actions
    • Generating Revenue
    • Increasing Transparency
    • Water Quality Protection
    • Monitoring to Improve Knowledge Base
  • Federal Action
  • Outlook
  • Appendix
  • Notes

NCSL Staff Contact

Jacquelyn Pless

drilling rrigApril 2012

By Jacquelyn Pless

Concerns about hydraulic fracturing are behind many states’ reluctance to tap the economic benefits created by natural gas development. Hydraulic fracturing—“fracking”—is an oil and gas extraction method that uses hydraulic pressure to break up rock. Millions of gallons of pressurized liquids, usually a water-based mixture of sand and chemical additives, are pumped deep underground to help release trapped gas.

This report provides an introduction to the domestic natural gas picture, explores the motivation behind state legislative involvement in fracking regulation, and summarizes state legislation that is being developed to address environmental concerns.

Hydraulic Fracturing: The 2012 Debate

Fracking allows access to previously inaccessible resources, such as shale gas, which is making up an increasingly large portion of the overall energy supply in the United States.

Combined with recent advances in horizontal drilling, the technology has opened up resources that, only a decade ago, were too expensive to develop. Some forecast that this increase in supply could sustain current U.S. consumption levels for another 90 years. Rapid expansion of hydraulic fracturing in densely populated regions where the process is unfamiliar, however, has focused attention on its potential to affect public health and the environment.

Domestic Resource and Production Projections

Cumulative natural gas production from 2010 through 2035 is projected to be 7 percent higher than expected just a year ago.1 This is mainly due to technological advances in hydraulic fracturing that now make shale gas more accessible. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), shale gas production alone will increase nearly threefold from 5.0 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 13.6 trillion cubic feet in 2035. This equates to 23 percent of total U.S. dry gas production in 2010 and 49 percent of total U.S. dry gas production in 2035 (Figure 1).

The EIA expects domestic natural gas production to exceed consumption early in the next decade. By 2016, the United States is projected to become a net exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and an overall net exporter of natural gas by 2021.2

Download PDF (18 page document) to access the full report.

Senator Avella on NYS Senate Bills on gas drilling in NY

The Capitol Pressroom for March 7, 2012 | WCNY Blogs.

 Senator Tony Avella (D-Queens) is demanding public hearings on legislation having to do with gas drilling in New York

Begins at approximately minute 23.

CRS report: Congress can require Keystone oil pipeline approval – The Hill’s E2-Wire

CRS report: Congress can require Keystone oil pipeline approval – The Hill’s E2-Wire.

Environmental Advocates’ 2011 Legislative Summary

vg2011_final_web.pdf (application/pdf Object).

Evironmental Advocates’ 2011 Legislative Summary

 

National Conference of State Legislatures Home

NCSL Home.

H.R. 2018 Un-doing the Clean Water Act

Action Alert

Please see this article by Steve Fleischi of the NRDC:

Not satisfied with merely trying to undo the Clean Air Act, the House
of Representatives has now decided to attack the federal Clean Water
Act with the introduction of H.R. 2018, which is slated for mark-up
tomorrow (Wednesday) in the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.  The bill, sponsored by Congressman John Mica of Florida,
strips EPA of critical oversight authority that for decades has
resulted in improved water quality across the country.  And it’s not
just Republicans leading the charge.  Several Democrats, including
Representatives Nick Rahall (WV), Jason Altmire (PA) and Tim Holden
(PA), have co-sponsored the legislation.

The bill seems to be a reaction to EPA’s recent important efforts to
protect water quality in Florida, West Virginia, and on the Chesapeake
Bay.  But its impact is far broader than that.

Also called the “Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,” H.R
2018 takes “cooperation” to a whole new level by stripping EPA of its
ability to protect national water quality without state-by-state
approval.  Among other things, the bill:

* Limits EPA’s ability to effectively implement or make necessary
improvements to state water quality standards to deal with modern
pollution challenges.
* Prevents EPA from improving numeric criteria for pollutants that
have led to dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico.
* Restricts EPA from upgrading standards for toxic pollutants
where narrative standards only provide very limited protection (a
common example being state standards that prohibit the “discharge of
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts”).
* Prevents EPA from vetoing state-issued Clean Water Act permits
even if EPA concludes those permits are not protective of water
quality.
* Blocks EPA’s ability to withhold federal funding to states even
if EPA determines the state’s implementation of water quality
standards is not protective of water quality.

Basically, H.R. 2018 takes the “federal” out of the federal Clean
Water Act and highlights a new disdain for the federal government’s
role in environmental protection.  Yet it is this federal law and
EPA’s oversight that have resulted in so many improvements to water
quality across America since the Clean Water Act’s passage in 1972.

The federal Clean Water Act provides a safety net for waterways across
the country, where states must implement minimum provisions to protect
water quality.  States can always do more if they so choose, but the
law recognizes that Americans deserve a minimum standard of protection
no matter where they live, and the Clean Water Act is designed to
prevent a “race to the bottom” in places where the benefits of clean
water may be ignored for short term economic or political gain.

By hamstringing EPA, H.R. 2018 would remove the most critical piece of
the puzzle and would take away this safety net.

Indeed, sponsors of the bill seem intent on taking us back to the
“good old days” of limited federal involvement when rivers like the
Cuyahoga caught fire and Lake Erie was declared dead – and when states
sued other states because pollution flowing from an upstream state
ruined a neighboring state’s waterway.  Yet these past horrors and the
legislative history of the Clean Water Act reveal why the federal role
was and remains so important:  before 1972 many states lacked any
approved water quality standards and national efforts to abate and
control water pollution were “inadequate in every vital aspect.”

I say this is the worse attack on the Clean Water Act in at least 15
years because it is hard to compare which is worse, the Dirty Water
Bill of 1995 or today’s H.R. 2018.  Both contained provisions to
paralyze EPA’s Clean Water Act duties – the Dirty Water Act under the
guise of cost-benefit analysis, H.R. 2018 under the guise of state’s
rights.   But one thing that is easy to see is that H.R. 2018 will
undermine almost 40 years of progress in cleaning up America’s
waterways, and it will remove America’s most vital safety net for
protecting water quality across all 50 states.

Please see the below link for original article:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sfleischli/another_clean_water_act_

LWVNYS Calls for Senate Action on Protective Legislation on Hydrofracking

 

Sunday June 19, 2011

Happy Father’s Day

Dear Members of the League of Women Voters and Friends-For the Benefit of us and our Children, Please read and act on the following:

Nassau County based Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos has not brought to the New York Senate floor for a Vote any protective legislation relating to the unconventional-horizontal hydraulic fracturing. Monday, June 20, 2011 is the last day of the Legislative Session. Please place a call Monday to Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos’ office: (518) 455-3171 to confirm you support the following proposed legislation (by Bill Number), which is supported by the New York State League of Women Voters. Tell Senator Skelos’ aide that it is not acceptable for the Senate Leader to refuse to act on any of these bills which State Voters want addressed. Every call makes a difference.

A.7400 Sweeney/S.5592 Carlucci — One Year Moratorium on Hydrofracking:  As we reported last week, the New York State Assembly has already passed a bill that would suspend all permitting for hydraulic fracturing until June 1, 2012. But this bill will go nowhere unless the Senate passes their own version and the governor signs it.

A.7013 Sweeney/S.4616 Avella — Classifying Fracking Waste as Hazardous: Toxic drill cuttings and fluid wastes are coming over the border from Pennsylvanian gas wells into ill-equipped New York landfills and treatment centers, endangering the drinking water of millions. Even though fracking chemicals arrive at the drilling site as regulated hazardous materials, federal and state exemptions allow drillers to treat the same drilling wastes leaving the site as standard industrial waste. This bill will update current regulations so that all resulting waste from natural gas drilling meets the definition of hazardous waste under New York State law.

A.3245 Lifton/S.3472 Oppenheimer — Restoring Local Protections Over Natural Gas Development (Home Rule): This bill will clarify a local government’s right to enact and enforce zoning laws within their jurisdiction to protect them from the negative impacts of oil and gas development. The burden of oil and gas development is an unfunded mandate on upstate communities if they are not allowed to use the most basic land-use planning tools to protect unique local assets.

“The public is increasingly ready to commit to change in its energy use patterns, invest in its children’s energy futures, and is no longer willing to accept the notion that a corporate business plan is the same as a national strategic energy plan.” –Anthony Ingraffea, Professor of Engineering, Cornell University

 

Thank you for taking the time to act in the best interests of the economic and environmental future of our great state.

Elisabeth Radow

Chair Hydraulic Fracturing Committee

For the New York State League of Women Voters

Six new bills introduced by Assemblywoman Lifton 6/15/2011

Six Bills Submitted by Lifton to NYS Assembly on 6/15/2011

 

1.  Require filing within 30 days

2.  Require lease filing in entirety

3.  Plain language phrases

4.  Notice when leases are assigned

5.  Establish clearinghouse

6.  Require signatures of both parties

 

1. TITLE OF BILL: Requires oil, gas or mineral land lease to be recorded within thirty days of execution.

PURPOSE: To amend the real property law, in relation to requiring oil, gas or mineral land leases to be recorded within thirty days of execution.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: The bill amends section 291 of the real property law, requiring that any conveyance of real property within New York State which is an oil, gas, or mineral land lease shall be recorded within thirty days from execution of the lease.

EXISTING LAW: Section 291 of the real property law.

 JUSTIFICATION: Faced with increasing amounts of real estate property in New York that is subject to an oil, gas or mineral land lease, the housing and mortgage markets depend more than ever on timely and accurate information about lease agreements. Proper assessment and valuation of property is integral to the mortgage lending process, and for selling one’s home. However, reports from assessors and real estate agents indicate that gas companies which hold a lease interest have been delaying in recording their lease agreements with the relevant county clerk’s offices. Often the delays in filing have been upwards of six months to a year after execution of an agreement. Lack of information about a parcel’s lease terms, and the possibility of a lease on neighboring properties, have already been gravely impacting the mortgage and real estate markets. Establishing a thirty day requirement for recording of such lease agreements provides ample time for a leaseholder to comply without arbitrarily and capriciously impacting the housing market.

 

2. TITLE OF BILL: Relates to excluding oil, gas or mineral land leases from leases that may be recorded by memorandum of lease.

PURPOSE: To amend the real property law, in relation to excluding oil, land or mineral land leases from leases that may be recorded by memorandum of lease.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: The bill excludes oil, gas, and mineral leases from the option to record a memorandum of lease at a county clerk’s office, requiring that a lease, in its entirety, be filed and available for public review.

 

EXISTING LAW: Section 291-c of the real property law.

 JUSTIFICATION: Often, after executing an oil, gas, or mineral lease in New York State, the lessee will record a “memorandum of lease” with the relevant county clerk’s office. Such a memorandum provides only the bare minimum of information for public review about each specific lease agreement. Accordingly, the real estate industry in counties that have many oil and gas leases, which have increased exponentially over the past several years due to the possibility of shale gas extraction in the Marcellus play, has been greatly affected. Residential property valuation can be heavily dependent upon the specific terms of an oil, gas, or mineral lease. Notably, the duration of a lease, any easements or surface rights granted to a lessee, among other concerns, can directly impact a property’s value. Also, the existence of a lease on one’s land, or even on neighboring property given the lending institutions’ setback requirements, can impair the viability of a home to be eligible for title insurance or a mortgage. This is critical information for valuation of real property; therefore, the exact terms of a lease must be available to both assessors and lending institutions.

3. TITLE OF BILL: Requires a certain statement to be included in all oil, gas or mineral leases.

PURPOSE: To amend the general obligations law, in relation to requiring a certain statement to be included in all oil, gas or mineral leases.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: The bill adds subdivision 5-a to section 5-333 of the general obligations law, requiring that a plain language phrase explaining the possible risks to property value and to the ability to obtain a mortgage on a home with an oil or gas lease appear in all oil and gas leases executed on or after January 1, 2012.

 

EXISTING LAW: Section 5-333 of the general obligations law.

 JUSTIFICATION: New York State is experiencing exponential growth in the amount of land that is leased for oil, gas or mineral extraction, due to the possibility of hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale play. An issue that has recently come to light, with the increasing frequency of leases across upstate NY, is the potential impact of a lease upon one’s property value and upon the ability to obtain a mortgage. Most landowners are unaware at the time they sign a lease that long-term impacts to their property interests could result. This legislation seeks to provide consumer protection for landowners, providing notice of possible adverse impacts.

 

4. TITLE OF BILL: Relates to notice requirements for assigning oil, gas or mineral land leases.

PURPOSE: To amend the general obligations law, in relation to notice requirements for assigning oil, gas or mineral land leases.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: The bill amends general obligations law, requiring that after January 1st 2012, the lessee or assignee must provide written notice to the landowner of any such assignment, and provide the names and addresses of such assignees to the current landowner.

 

EXISTING LAW: Subdivisions 5 and 6 of section 5-333 of the general obligations law.

5. TITLE OF BILL: Relates to establishing an oil, gas or mineral land leases clearinghouse.

PURPOSE: To amend the executive law and the real property law, in relation to establishing an oil, gas or mineral land leases clearinghouse.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: The bill amends executive and real property law in relation to establishing an oil, gas or mineral land leases clearinghouse within the Department of State, to allow for the collection and maintenance of all such leases in physical and/or electronic form.

 

EXISTING LAW: Section 291-cc of the real property law; section 100-a of the executive law.

JUSTIFICATION: New York State is experiencing exponential growth in the amount of land that is leased for oil, gas or mineral extraction, due to the possibility of hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale play. As the number and density of leases increase, the complexity of navigating the implications for real estate assessment, and the effect upon the ability of a landowner to obtain a mortgage, also becomes much more difficult to gauge. Knowing what properties have leases, the specific terms of a lease, and whether New York citizens are able to buy and sell homes in our state is of compelling state and integral to the establishment of a state regulatory program for oil, gas and mineral extraction. Since the state takes the position that it is the sole regulator of natural resource extraction industries they ought to have clear and uniform records with regard to the mortgage lending industy, local assessments, and New Yorkers’ property value.

6. TITLE OF BILL: Requires signatures of both parties to record a modification, extension or renewal of an oil, gas or mineral land lease.

PURPOSE: To amend the real property law, in relation to requiring signatures of both parties to a lease to record a modification, extension or renewal of an oil, gas or mineral land lease.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: The bill adds a new provision to real property law in relation to the recording of a modification, extension or renewal of an oil, gas, or mineral lease, requiring that such modification, extension or renewal be duly acknowledged by both parties to a lease.

 

EXISTING LAW: Section 291-cc of the real property law.

 JUSTIFICATION: County clerks across New York State have increasingly, over the past year or so, been presented with oil, gas and mineral lease extensions which bear only the signature of a representative of the lessee company which has acquired a mineral interest. The unilateral extensions are delivered by couriers who operate on behalf of the lessee company who report that the landowners at issue have been notified of their lease extension. However, without a duly-acknowledged signature of both parties to a lease, there is no way for a county clerk to verify that a landowner has knowledge of the extension. In fact, landowners have reported that they were unaware of lease extension on their property. This legislation will clarify that a valid lease extension or modification must require the signature of both parties.

 

 

H.R.1380 Latest Title: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011 (Natural Gas Act)

The latest from The Library of Congress Thomas Site
The NATGA$ myth across the party and political $pectrum.
178 cosponsors in only 3 weeks

NY and PA reps are highlighted. No doubt I missed a couple.

Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 – 2012)
H.R.1380
Cosponsors


Item 1 of 1


H.R.1380
Latest Title: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011
Sponsor:
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] (introduced 4/6/2011)      Cosponsors (178)
Latest Major Action:
4/6/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Science, Space, and Technology, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.


COSPONSORS(178), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 4/6/2011
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] – 4/6/2011
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] – 4/7/2011
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] – 4/7/2011
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 4/6/2011
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] – 4/15/2011
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] – 4/6/2011
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 4/6/2011
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] – 4/7/2011
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] – 4/6/2011
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 4/6/2011
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2] – 4/6/2011
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] – 4/12/2011
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 4/6/2011
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] – 4/12/2011
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] – 4/6/2011
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] – 4/6/2011
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] – 4/6/2011
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] – 4/6/2011
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 4/6/2011
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] – 4/7/2011
Rep Bucshon, Larry [IN-8] – 4/13/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 4/6/2011
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 4/7/2011
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] – 4/6/2011
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] – 4/6/2011
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. [CA-18] – 4/7/2011
Rep Carnahan, Russ [MO-3] – 4/7/2011
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] – 4/7/2011
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 4/7/2011
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 4/14/2011
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] – 4/6/2011
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] – 4/14/2011
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] – 4/6/2011
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] – 4/6/2011
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 4/6/2011
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 4/6/2011
Rep Connolly, Gerald E. “Gerry” [VA-11] – 4/12/2011
Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] – 4/6/2011
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] – 4/6/2011
Rep Critz, Mark S. [PA-12] – 4/6/2011
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] – 4/7/2011
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] – 4/6/2011
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 4/6/2011
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] – 4/12/2011
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 4/7/2011
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 4/7/2011
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] – 4/6/2011
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] – 4/12/2011
Rep Denham, Jeff [CA-19] – 4/14/2011
Rep Donnelly, Joe [IN-2] – 4/6/2011
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] – 4/6/2011
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] – 4/7/2011
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] – 4/7/2011
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 4/15/2011
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 4/7/2011
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] – 4/7/2011
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 4/7/2011
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 4/6/2011
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] – 4/6/2011
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] – 4/6/2011
Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] – 4/6/2011
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] – 4/8/2011
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] – 4/14/2011
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] – 4/7/2011
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] – 4/7/2011
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] – 4/6/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 4/12/2011
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 4/7/2011
Rep Grimm, Michael G. [NY-13] – 4/6/2011
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 4/6/2011
Rep Hanabusa, Colleen W. [HI-1] – 4/7/2011
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 4/6/2011
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] – 4/7/2011
Rep Heinrich, Martin [NM-1] – 4/7/2011
Rep Higgins, Brian [NY-27] – 4/7/2011
Rep Himes, James A. [CT-4] – 4/12/2011
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] – 4/7/2011
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] – 4/7/2011
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] – 4/6/2011
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] – 4/7/2011
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] – 4/14/2011
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] – 4/6/2011
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] – 4/7/2011
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] – 4/12/2011
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 4/6/2011
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] – 4/6/2011
Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3] – 4/12/2011
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] – 4/7/2011
Rep Kissell, Larry [NC-8] – 4/6/2011
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 4/7/2011
Rep Landry, Jeffrey M. [LA-3] – 4/7/2011
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] – 4/7/2011
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 4/6/2011
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] – 4/6/2011
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] – 4/14/2011
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 4/7/2011
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] – 4/14/2011
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] – 4/6/2011
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] – 4/6/2011
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] – 4/7/2011
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] – 4/6/2011
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] – 4/6/2011
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] – 4/6/2011
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] – 4/14/2011
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. [MA-9] – 4/12/2011
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 4/6/2011
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 4/15/2011
Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] – 4/6/2011
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] – 4/12/2011
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] – 4/7/2011
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 4/6/2011
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 4/14/2011
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 4/7/2011
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] – 4/6/2011
Rep Meehan, Patrick [PA-7] – 4/15/2011
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] – 4/12/2011
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] – 4/7/2011
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 4/14/2011
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] – 4/6/2011
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] – 4/6/2011
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 4/7/2011
Rep Nugent, Richard [FL-5] – 4/15/2011
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 4/8/2011
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] – 4/7/2011
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] – 4/6/2011
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] – 4/15/2011
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] – 4/14/2011
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] – 4/6/2011
Rep Peters, Gary C. [MI-9] – 4/6/2011
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 4/14/2011
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 4/14/2011
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] – 4/14/2011
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] – 4/7/2011
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] – 4/12/2011
Rep Reed, Tom [NY-29] – 4/13/2011
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] – 4/6/2011
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] – 4/12/2011
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] – 4/12/2011
Rep Richmond, Cedric L. [LA-2] – 4/7/2011
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] – 4/7/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 4/6/2011
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 4/7/2011
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] – 4/6/2011
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] – 4/7/2011
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] – 4/6/2011
Rep Sablan, Gregorio Kilili Camacho [MP] – 4/6/2011
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] – 4/7/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 4/6/2011
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] – 4/8/2011
Rep Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” [VA-3] – 4/7/2011
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] – 4/6/2011
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 4/6/2011
Rep Sewell, Terri A. [AL-7] – 4/14/2011
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] – 4/12/2011
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 4/6/2011
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] – 4/6/2011
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] – 4/7/2011
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] – 4/7/2011
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 4/8/2011
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] – 4/12/2011
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] – 4/6/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 4/6/2011
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] – 4/6/2011
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] – 4/6/2011
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 4/7/2011
Rep Tipton, Scott [CO-3] – 4/7/2011
Rep Tonko, Paul [NY-21] – 4/6/2011
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 4/12/2011
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] – 4/12/2011
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] – 4/7/2011
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] – 4/6/2011
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 4/12/2011
Rep Wilson, Frederica [FL-17] – 4/12/2011
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 4/7/2011
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] – 4/6/2011
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] – 4/7/2011
Rep Young, Don [AK] – 4/14/2011

Uniform treatment of waste

S4616-2011 Memo

BILL NUMBER:S4616

TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to the uniform treatment of waste

PURPOSE:

This bill would require hazardous wastes produced from oil and natural
gas activities to be subject to the requirements for treatment of
hazardous wastes.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one of the bill amends section 27-0903 of the Environmental
Conservation Law to add a new section that would classify all waste
resulting from oil or natural gas production activities as hazardous
waste, if such waste meets the definition of hazardous wastes set
forth in the Environmental Conservation Law.

This section also directs the Department of Environmental Conservation
to make all necessary changes to bring its rules and regulations into
compliance.

Section two contains the effective date.

JUSTIFICATION:

Currently, the regulations promulgated by the Department of
Environmental Conservation that govern the waste produced by the oil
and natural gas industries exempt “drilling fluids, produced waters,
and other wastes associated with the exploration, development or
production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy” from being
regulated as hazardous waste. This exemption is in place despite the
fact that the waste resulting from the exploration, development,
extraction and production of crude oil and natural gas may be
hazardous in many instances.

This legislation would supersede that regulation and ensure that when
waste from these operations meets the definition of hazardous waste,
that it be treated in a manner consistent with other hazardous
wastes. Failure to properly classify waste that meets this threshold
could present a real danger to public health and the environment. If
not treated properly, hazardous waste can, among other concerns, lead
to contaminated air, drinking water, soil, and food. There is no compelling reason why waste
produced from oil and natural gas activities that meets the
definition of hazardous waste, should not be subject to the same laws
regarding generation, transportation. treatment, storage and disposal
as other hazardous wastes.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
This is new legislation.