While acknowledging differences between conventional and unconventional drilling, DEP said, “We cannot allow corners to be cut that could contributed to a legacy of environment degradation.
“As written, the bill presents environmental and public health risks and loosens current environmental protections to the point, in some cases, of nullification.
“Further, contrary to recent rhetoric, the bill does not properly address legacy well plugging and methane emissions.
“Make no mistake, the primary purpose of this bill is not the elimination of methane, it’s the elimination of Act 13 of 2012” [that updated environmental protection requirements for all oil and gas drilling].
“The substantive issues outlined herein are merely a fraction of DEP’s concerns. DEP believes House Bill 2154 (and Senate Bill 1088) will cause great harm to the environment, and to the public, and urges members to vote NO on this legislation.”
The House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee Monday approved and reported out House Bill 2154 (Causer-R-Forest), the Conventional Oil and Gas Act, to regulate conventional drilling operations based on the original 1984 Oil and Gas Act. Republicans voted for the bill, Democrats against.
The bill is scheduled for action by the full House Tuesday and is expected to move quickly.
The text of the DEP letter follows--
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) acknowledges that the conventional oil and gas industry, and the unconventional gas industry, present different challenges in many ways to the environment, and the public health and safety of the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Moreover, DEP acknowledges that the rise of unconventional drilling in Pennsylvania has significantly impacted the competitiveness of the conventional industry, and that new creative thinking is necessary so that the industry can remain vital.
However, as we address these challenges, we cannot allow corners to be cut that could contribute to a legacy of environmental degradation.
In recent years we have made significant progress through collaboration, good environmental stewardship from the conventional industry, and appropriate regulation.
DEP remains committed to working collaboratively and in good faith to develop requirements specifically tailored to the conventional oil and gas industry’s operations, but we have a significant number of substantial concerns with House Bill 2154 (and its Senate companion, Senate Bill 1088), of which we had very little input.
DEP does not believe these concerns can be resolved within the current bill structure and opposes the legislation.
As written, the bill represents environmental and public health risks and loosens current environmental protections to the point, in some cases, of nullification.
For example, the bill promotes well abandonment and improperly well plugging practices that threaten drinking water supplies; the bill substantially weakens the protection of important public resources such as parks and public forests; public health and safety is jeopardized by relaxing casing and cementing standards that protect coal miners; and it lowers standards for restoring polluted water supplies.
Some other important environmental protection and health and safety standards weakened by the bill includes spill reporting and clean-up standards, brine treatment standards, public transparency and DEP’s enforcement authority.
Further, contrary to recent rhetoric, the bill does not properly address legacy well plugging and methane emissions. The language is ambiguous at best and proposes no new source of funding to address these issues.
Make no mistake, the primary purpose of this bill is not the elimination of methane, it’s the elimination of Act 13 of 2012.
The substantive issues outlined herein are merely a fraction of DEP’s concerns. DEP believes House Bill 2154 (and Senate Bill 1088) will cause great harm to the environment, and to the public, and urges members to vote NO on this legislation.
DEP welcomes a dialogue on how we can all work together on new legislation that can move Pennsylvania forward, not backward.
Respectfully,
Patrick McDonnell, Secretary
Click Here for a copy of the letter.
Related Stories:
No comments :
Post a Comment