The Pennsylvania Environmental Council Friday asked Sen. Joe Scarnati (R-Jefferson) and Rep. Martin Causer (R-Cameron) to respond to several significant concerns about Senate Bill 1378 and House Bill 2350 that would regulate conventional oil and gas wells differently than unconventional (Marcellus Shale) wells.
PEC said it was concerned about statements made by both members at the Senate and House Environmental Committees this week that the bills were meant to take conventional wells out of the basic law-- Act 13-- regulating oil and gas well activities leaving open the question of what kinds of environmental standards would apply to conventional wells.
The text of the letter follows--
The Pennsylvania Environmental Council is concerned about comments made Wednesday in both the Senate and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committees about the intent behind Senate Bill 1378 and House Bill 2350. We want to give you an opportunity to respond to these concerns.
In the Committee meeting you said the General Assembly “erred” in putting conventional wells and unconventional wells in the same law and further explained, “The intent (of this bill) is to take conventional wells back out of Act 13.”
In the House, Rep. Causer said, “Conventional wells are shallow and have significantly smaller well pads. Their overall impact on the surrounding environment is far less than that of deep, Marcellus wells. Both types of drilling will continue to be regulated under this bill, but by differentiating between the two, we can protect against over regulation that could eventually drive shallow well producers out of business.”
We agree that there are appropriate differences between conventional and unconventional drilling that can be addressed through specific regulations, provided the distinction between the two is the right one. However, if the intent of the bills is to remove or “differentiate” conventional well regulatory requirements to the point of eliminating them from Title 58 regulating oil and gas operations, the basic law that requires regulation of oil and gas well development, what requirements do apply to each kind of well in your view?
Section 4 of both bills says-- “General rule.-- Proposed regulations and regulations promulgated by the Environmental Quality Board under 58 Pa.C.S. (relating to oil and gas) or other laws of this Commonwealth relating to conventional oil and gas wells or unconventional gas wells shall differentiate between conventional oil and gas wells and unconventional gas wells.”
Under existing law, the permit, well construction, environmental setbacks, bonding, enforcement and other requirements of Title 58 covered both kinds of wells. If the intent is to take conventional wells out of Title 58 or to “differentiate” or eliminate some requirements, do any of these apply? Just some? Or to what extent?
The choice of what applies and what does not is left to the Environmental Quality Board and the professionals at the Department of Environmental Protection in the rulemaking process under both Senate Bill 1378 and House Bill 2350.
Once those decisions are made in the rulemaking process, however, the language in both bills gives the conventional and unconventional oil and gas industry a new legal right to challenge the determinations made by the EQB and DEP, not just on the substance-- what is a reasonable setback from a stream or wetland or reasonable well construction standards, but also on whether the requirement should even apply to a conventional or unconventional well.
The additional workload these changes will put on DEP staff is also a concern to PEC. It has been more than two years since Act 13 was signed into law and DEP has yet to finalize its first set of regulations to implement its provisions. We are concerned the added bureaucratic process and potential for legal challenges resulting from it will result in Pennsylvania falling further and further behind in regulating the oil and gas industry.
Potentially removing conventional gas drilling from regulation under Act 13 could leave that portion of the industry with relatively free rein to operate without appropriate regulatory oversight. This is especially troubling when one looks at the recent record of the conventional gas operators based on numbers of permit violations.
The Pennsylvania Environmental Council has previously expressed our concerns with regulating oil and gas wells based on depth of drilling and not the technology used. The statements made at the Committee meetings broaden and deepen those concerns.
We hope these issues can be addressed before the Senate and House take final action on this legislation. We believe there are simpler and more effective ways to deal with the differences between conventional and unconventional drilling than the broad language in these bills.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss our concerns. Please contact me at 412-481-9401 if you would like to follow-up.
Sincerely,
Davitt Woodwell
Executive Vice President
Pennsylvania Environmental Council
