What are we doing to protect Michigan's Waters
|
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council has been actively involved since it was first announced publicly that high volume hydraulic fracturing was occurring in Michigan. We continue to conduct research, educate landowners and the public, and work with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) and Michigan’s legislators to improve protections for Michigan’s water resources. Michigan is still in infancy with respect to high volume hydraulic fracturing. Before the number of high volume hydraulic fracturing operations dramatically increases in our state, Michigan needs to strengthen existing rules and regulations and we are working to ensure that this happens.
The Watershed Council, with many partners, has been working in a variety of means to strengthen Michigan’s regulatory standards. In particular, a list of recommended regulatory improvements was developed outlining the aspects of Michigan’s oil and gas rules and regulations that need to be strengthened. |
|
We have been and will continue working to strengthen Michigan’s current regulations to keep up with the new technology being proposed to reach the deep shale layers.
Recommended Improvements to Oil and Gas Regulations in Michigan
Water Use
Chemical Use
Water Use
- Remove exemption for Oil and Gas under Part 327, Water Withdrawal Legislation, to require freshwater withdrawals for oil and gas well activities to be regulated in the same manner as other withdrawals.
- Develop a standard for site-specific reviews for water withdrawals associated with oil and gas drilling.
- Develop a water conservation and efficiency program for hydraulic fracturing, including the identification of best management practices for well operators and standards to allow reuse of flowback and produced water.
Chemical Use
- Require public disclosure of chemicals used during the fracturing process before fracking begins.
- Require companies to conduct baseline testing on surface waters and water wells.
- Require seismic monitoring to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is inducing microseismic activity only within the shale reservoir.
- Require a tracer be included in fracking fluids for identification of specific wells.
- Require testing of constituents in waste prior to injection in a deep well, including hazardous chemicals.
- Require use of Class I hazardous wells for flowback in testing determines the waste exhibits one of the four hazardous waste characteristics under RCRA: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
- Ensure that the financial responsibility requirements for both production and injection wells are adequate to address the risks.
- Develop a process for public participation for high volume hydraulically fractured wells.
- Reassess and modify, if necessary, Michigan’s oil and gas rules and regulations after release of the Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment and EPA hydraulic fracturing study.
- Require companies to use Best Management Practices
Justification for Recommended Improvements
Remove exemption for Oil and Gas under Part 327
Part 327, Michigan’s water withdrawal law, prohibits new or increased large quantity water withdrawals that cause an adverse resource impact. When the water withdrawal legislation was originally enacted in 2006 and revised in 2008, Michigan’s oil and gas industry was using techniques that did not require large quantity withdrawals of water. As a result, a withdrawal associated with oil and gas production is exempt from Part 327. However, recent hydraulic fracturing techniques use significantly greater quantities of water than traditional methods. The definition of a Large Quantity Withdrawal (LQW) and the threshold for registration with the program is the capacity to cumulatively withdraw over 100,000 gallons per day average in any consecutive 30-day period from all sources of water in the state. Withdrawals for high volume hydraulic fractured wells are meeting the definition of a Large Quantity Withdrawal. For example, the Petoskey Pioneer #1-3 well had a withdrawal of approximately 5.5 - 5.8 million gallons of water. The exemption granted for activities authorized under Part 615 needs to be removed from Part 327 to require water withdrawals for oil and gas to meet the same requirements as all other water withdrawals in Michigan.
Develop a standard for site-specific reviews for water withdrawals associated with oil and gas drilling
Under certain circumstances, the water withdrawal assessment process requires water withdrawals to be reviewed on a site-specific basis. However, there is currently no standard for the site-specific reviews. We understand that a “cookie-cutter” approach is not appropriate, but there should be a baseline standard of review developed that applies to all site-specific reviews associated with oil and gas water withdrawals. A baseline standard will allow both the companies and the public to understand how the impacts of the withdrawal are being evaluated, which leads to a more accountable and transparent process.
Require public disclosure of chemicals used during the fracturing process
ELGE revised administrative rules in 2015 to require operators to disclose information on chemical additives used in fracking fluid on a web-based registry, FracFocus (www.fracfocus.org). However, the rule requires oil and gas companies to disclose the chemical additives used in the fracking process within 30 days after drilling begins – a standard that falls short of safeguarding Michigan’s fresh water. For our water resources to be fully protected, we need to know which chemicals oil and gas operations are using before fracking begins. This information is crucial should property owners want to conduct additional testing to protect their health and property as well as for first responders who need to know what chemicals they may encounter in the event of an emergency during fracking operations.
Require companies to conduct baseline testing on surface waters and water wells
The revised administrative rules require operators to collect baseline samples from up to 10 drinking water wells within a quarter mile of the site before drilling. Samples are to be analyzed for what would be most likely found in the event of contamination including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, total dissolved solids, chlorides, and methane. While this rule is a good first step, it only covers the minimum contaminants that can be associated with oil and gas drilling. The entire point of requiring baseline sampling is to develop scientifically defensible baseline data before oil and gas development starts. In order to accomplish this, baseline sampling needs to be comprehensive - testing all water sources including surface, ground, and drinking water before, during, and after fracking, for all oil and gas wells and for more than a small handful of chemicals.
Require seismic monitoring to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is inducing microseismic activity only within the shale gas reservoir
Microseismic monitoring can reduce the risk of environmental hazards caused by the fracking process. Microseismic monitoring can optimize the placement of fractures and their connection with networks of natural fractures within hydrocarbon-bearing rock formations, not only increasing the recovery of domestic natural gas and oil resources but minimizing the potential environmental impacts. This technique provides direct measurement of the location of fracture propagation which can help operators to know where the fracking fluids are going.
Require a Tracer to Be Included in Fracking Fluids
In order to protect both the public and oil and gas companies in the event of problem, companies need to include a unique tracer compound enabling regulators to determine if a drilling operation is responsible in the event that the gas or chemicals find their way into drinking water supplies or surface waters.
Require testing of constituents prior to injection in a deep well, including hazardous chemicals
Because flowback fluids are part of an oil and gas operation, the fluids are designated as an oil and gas waste, even if there are hazardous chemicals in the wastes. This designation results in less protective requirements. There is no requirement to analyze the constituents in the fluids prior to disposal in an injection well. Applicants who wish to inject wastes associated with oil and gas operations in a disposal well do not have to identify hazardous waste components in their analysis of the waste product. However, disclosure of the constituents to be injected is necessary to enable regulatory agencies, health professionals, and citizens to respond appropriately should contamination or exposure occur.
Require use of Class I Hazardous wells for wastes if testing indicates it exhibits one of the hazardous waste characteristics
High volume hydraulically fractured wells often use chemicals that are identified as hazardous or extremely hazardous. However, the wastes are not designated as such. Rather, the waste is designated simply as oil and gas waste. In Michigan, the law requires that oil and gas waste be disposed of in Class II deep injection wells or nonhazardous injection wells. Class II wells have less protective requirements for the design, construction, monitoring, testing, reporting, and closure than wells that can accept hazardous waste. Class I hazardous waste wells have additional requirements because of the nature of the fluid injected. Any waste that exhibits hazardous characteristics should be disposed of in injection wells that have the additional requirements for hazardous waste.
Increase conformance bond and financial responsibility statement requirements for oil and gas drilling operations and injection wells
There have been documented problems associated with the high volume hydraulic fracking techniques associated with oil and gas development. In Pennsylvania, state regulators found that gas drilling using high-volume hydraulic fracturing has caused contaminated drinking water, polluted surface waters, polluted air, and contaminated soils. Given the increase potential for adverse impacts as well as documented contamination elsewhere in the country, Michigan needs to increase the conformance bond and financial responsibility statement requirements to ensure adequate financial resources are available to address potential risks.
Require a public participation process or high-volume hydraulic fracturing wells
Part 615 is one of the few environmental laws that does not include for some level of public participation in review of applications. Policies and decisions affecting the environment have the potential to impact the public at large, whether in a positive or a negative manner. It is therefore of significant importance that the public is engaged in the formulation, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, particularly where the public, or a section of the public is directly or indirectly affected by the law or its outcomes. Part 615 should include a public participation process including a public comment period and opportunity for a public hearing for high-volume hydraulic fracturing wells to ensure that wise-use and sustainable decisions are made with respect to our environment, economy, and energy policy.
Modify part 13 deadlines to accommodate for public participation
The Department currently has 50 days under Part 13 to process an application under Part 615. This includes 30 days for an administrative completeness review and 20 days for a site review. The high-volume hydraulic fracturing wells are more complicated and require more time for review already. Therefore, under the current Part 13 timeline, there is no room for a public participation process. The Part 13 time deadlines need to be extended to allow for adequate public participation.
Remove exemption for Oil and Gas under Part 327
Part 327, Michigan’s water withdrawal law, prohibits new or increased large quantity water withdrawals that cause an adverse resource impact. When the water withdrawal legislation was originally enacted in 2006 and revised in 2008, Michigan’s oil and gas industry was using techniques that did not require large quantity withdrawals of water. As a result, a withdrawal associated with oil and gas production is exempt from Part 327. However, recent hydraulic fracturing techniques use significantly greater quantities of water than traditional methods. The definition of a Large Quantity Withdrawal (LQW) and the threshold for registration with the program is the capacity to cumulatively withdraw over 100,000 gallons per day average in any consecutive 30-day period from all sources of water in the state. Withdrawals for high volume hydraulic fractured wells are meeting the definition of a Large Quantity Withdrawal. For example, the Petoskey Pioneer #1-3 well had a withdrawal of approximately 5.5 - 5.8 million gallons of water. The exemption granted for activities authorized under Part 615 needs to be removed from Part 327 to require water withdrawals for oil and gas to meet the same requirements as all other water withdrawals in Michigan.
Develop a standard for site-specific reviews for water withdrawals associated with oil and gas drilling
Under certain circumstances, the water withdrawal assessment process requires water withdrawals to be reviewed on a site-specific basis. However, there is currently no standard for the site-specific reviews. We understand that a “cookie-cutter” approach is not appropriate, but there should be a baseline standard of review developed that applies to all site-specific reviews associated with oil and gas water withdrawals. A baseline standard will allow both the companies and the public to understand how the impacts of the withdrawal are being evaluated, which leads to a more accountable and transparent process.
Require public disclosure of chemicals used during the fracturing process
ELGE revised administrative rules in 2015 to require operators to disclose information on chemical additives used in fracking fluid on a web-based registry, FracFocus (www.fracfocus.org). However, the rule requires oil and gas companies to disclose the chemical additives used in the fracking process within 30 days after drilling begins – a standard that falls short of safeguarding Michigan’s fresh water. For our water resources to be fully protected, we need to know which chemicals oil and gas operations are using before fracking begins. This information is crucial should property owners want to conduct additional testing to protect their health and property as well as for first responders who need to know what chemicals they may encounter in the event of an emergency during fracking operations.
Require companies to conduct baseline testing on surface waters and water wells
The revised administrative rules require operators to collect baseline samples from up to 10 drinking water wells within a quarter mile of the site before drilling. Samples are to be analyzed for what would be most likely found in the event of contamination including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, total dissolved solids, chlorides, and methane. While this rule is a good first step, it only covers the minimum contaminants that can be associated with oil and gas drilling. The entire point of requiring baseline sampling is to develop scientifically defensible baseline data before oil and gas development starts. In order to accomplish this, baseline sampling needs to be comprehensive - testing all water sources including surface, ground, and drinking water before, during, and after fracking, for all oil and gas wells and for more than a small handful of chemicals.
Require seismic monitoring to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is inducing microseismic activity only within the shale gas reservoir
Microseismic monitoring can reduce the risk of environmental hazards caused by the fracking process. Microseismic monitoring can optimize the placement of fractures and their connection with networks of natural fractures within hydrocarbon-bearing rock formations, not only increasing the recovery of domestic natural gas and oil resources but minimizing the potential environmental impacts. This technique provides direct measurement of the location of fracture propagation which can help operators to know where the fracking fluids are going.
Require a Tracer to Be Included in Fracking Fluids
In order to protect both the public and oil and gas companies in the event of problem, companies need to include a unique tracer compound enabling regulators to determine if a drilling operation is responsible in the event that the gas or chemicals find their way into drinking water supplies or surface waters.
Require testing of constituents prior to injection in a deep well, including hazardous chemicals
Because flowback fluids are part of an oil and gas operation, the fluids are designated as an oil and gas waste, even if there are hazardous chemicals in the wastes. This designation results in less protective requirements. There is no requirement to analyze the constituents in the fluids prior to disposal in an injection well. Applicants who wish to inject wastes associated with oil and gas operations in a disposal well do not have to identify hazardous waste components in their analysis of the waste product. However, disclosure of the constituents to be injected is necessary to enable regulatory agencies, health professionals, and citizens to respond appropriately should contamination or exposure occur.
Require use of Class I Hazardous wells for wastes if testing indicates it exhibits one of the hazardous waste characteristics
High volume hydraulically fractured wells often use chemicals that are identified as hazardous or extremely hazardous. However, the wastes are not designated as such. Rather, the waste is designated simply as oil and gas waste. In Michigan, the law requires that oil and gas waste be disposed of in Class II deep injection wells or nonhazardous injection wells. Class II wells have less protective requirements for the design, construction, monitoring, testing, reporting, and closure than wells that can accept hazardous waste. Class I hazardous waste wells have additional requirements because of the nature of the fluid injected. Any waste that exhibits hazardous characteristics should be disposed of in injection wells that have the additional requirements for hazardous waste.
Increase conformance bond and financial responsibility statement requirements for oil and gas drilling operations and injection wells
There have been documented problems associated with the high volume hydraulic fracking techniques associated with oil and gas development. In Pennsylvania, state regulators found that gas drilling using high-volume hydraulic fracturing has caused contaminated drinking water, polluted surface waters, polluted air, and contaminated soils. Given the increase potential for adverse impacts as well as documented contamination elsewhere in the country, Michigan needs to increase the conformance bond and financial responsibility statement requirements to ensure adequate financial resources are available to address potential risks.
Require a public participation process or high-volume hydraulic fracturing wells
Part 615 is one of the few environmental laws that does not include for some level of public participation in review of applications. Policies and decisions affecting the environment have the potential to impact the public at large, whether in a positive or a negative manner. It is therefore of significant importance that the public is engaged in the formulation, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, particularly where the public, or a section of the public is directly or indirectly affected by the law or its outcomes. Part 615 should include a public participation process including a public comment period and opportunity for a public hearing for high-volume hydraulic fracturing wells to ensure that wise-use and sustainable decisions are made with respect to our environment, economy, and energy policy.
Modify part 13 deadlines to accommodate for public participation
The Department currently has 50 days under Part 13 to process an application under Part 615. This includes 30 days for an administrative completeness review and 20 days for a site review. The high-volume hydraulic fracturing wells are more complicated and require more time for review already. Therefore, under the current Part 13 timeline, there is no room for a public participation process. The Part 13 time deadlines need to be extended to allow for adequate public participation.
University of Michigan (UM) Graham Sustainability Institute
Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment (IA)
In 2012, the University of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute began conducting an Integrated Assessment (IA) on High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan. The IA attempted to provide a comprehensive review of the current status and trends of high volume hydraulic fracturing in Michigan and an analysis of policy options. A Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment Final Report was released in September of 2015.
The report does not recommend any specific course of action, but by presenting a menu of options, including the pros and cons of those options, it offers valuable input that can help Michigan regulators improve the state’s oversight of fracking. Importantly, it also notes that not enough study has been done to quantify the risks of high volume hydraulic fracking on human health and the environment.
Below are key areas that deserve special consideration by Michigan lawmakers. We support each of the following policy options, which are categorized by topic and identified by the number assigned to them in the report and the page on which they appear.
Public notice and involvement
2.3.3.2—Increase public notice. (Page 42.) Pursuing this policy option would expand public notification when the state proposes to lease oil and gas drilling rights on public land. The state now issues public notice in newspapers, sends announcements to local governments and posts information on the Department of Natural Resources website, among other measures. This policy option calls for notifying all adjacent landowners and posting announcements at the parcel itself, if the land is used for recreation. As the report notes, “Expanding public notice offers a relatively inexpensive way to increase transparency about potential state mineral rights leasing and ensure that affected parties have an opportunity to comment.”
2.3.3.3—Require DNR to prepare a responsiveness summary. (Page 42.) Current rules do not require the DNR to respond to public comments on state mineral leases. The basic idea here is to require the department to compile a summary of public comments received, how the department responded to public input and how that input influenced DNR’s decision about whether and how to lease the rights on that parcel. As the report notes, such a requirement would strengthen the state’s accountability to the public.
2.3.3.5—Increase public notice and comment when lessees submit an application to revise or reclassify a lease. (Page 43.) It makes sense that the state should be diligent in notifying the public not only when a company seeks to lease mineral rights on public land, but also when the company seeks to modify an existing lease. Those revisions could substantially change how the land is used—allowing drilling directly on the land, rather than with horizontal drilling from adjacent properties, for example—so it’s appropriate to increase public awareness of proposed changes. Not discussed in the report, but related: We believe the DNR should end the practice of leasing land before a formal assessment has been done. Currently, if the department does not have time to assess a nominated parcel, it will lease the land as “non-development,” which prevents access directly from the surface but may allow horizontal drilling from adjacent parcels. Many times drilling in the vicinity of recreational land can diminish its recreational value.
2.4.3.3—Require a public comment period with mandatory EGLE response. (Page 45.) The next two policy options have to do with EGLE permits that drillers must obtain after securing leases with the DNR. Currently, there is no formal public comment process for these permits. This option calls for requiring a 30-day public comment period after a permit application is submitted, and could include a responsiveness summary like the one described above. “By inviting the public to comment on permit applications,” the report notes, “EGLE may learn of important local considerations that should be factored into its decision making. At the same time, including the public in this decision making process may help relieve stress in affected communities as well as increase perceptions that EGLE is being transparent and treating the public fairly.”
2.4.3.4—Explicitly allow adversely affected parties to request a public hearing before a HVHF well permit is approved. (Page 46.) This option would allow local governments and residents to petition for a public meeting in the community where a drilling permit is sought, and would require EGLE to hold such a meeting. The public could submit comments during the meeting or during a subsequent 15-day public input period, which EGLE would be required to consider. The goal of this change would be to promote a community discussion regarding how development would occur and potential ways to minimize conflicting surface uses.
Water protection
3.2.1.2.3—Disallow any high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) operations within a cold-transitional stream. (Page 62.) Protecting cold-transitional streams is particularly important because they provide habitat for cold-water species but are very sensitive to changes in land use and stream flow. This policy option involves an outright ban on water withdrawals for fracking from these inherently fragile watersheds.
3.2.3.2—Update the scientific components of the Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool. (Page 66.) The Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool—which is used to ensure proposed large water withdrawals won’t have adverse impacts on nearby rivers and streams—represented the state-of-the-art in groundwater modeling when it was adopted in 2008. However, it is important to remember it was designed to serve as a screening tool and not to make final agency decisions within sensitive watersheds. In the context of high-volume fracking operations, the tool is only as good as the data we have in a particular area. Therefore, real-time monitoring of the impacts of water withdrawal would both protect cold-water habitat and provide valuable information for future decisions. In addition, improved models have been developed that could help the agency make better decisions if incorporated into the decision-making process.
Monitoring and regulation of wastewater disposal
3.3.5.2.2—Increase monitoring and reporting requirements. (Page 76.) Michigan’s regulations require an EGLE permit to dispose of the hazardous wastewater that is a byproduct of fracking, and that the waste be injected deep underground into stable rock formations where it can’t contaminate fresh water. As the report notes, “The presence of public concern over the volumes of wastewater being produced and disposed implies a need for greater transparency and expansion of wastewater disposal information.” This policy option calls for reporting to ensure that the volume of wastewater injected underground matches what drilling companies claim to have produced. It also notes that a publicly available database of wastewater injection data would be helpful for monitoring trends.
3.3.5.2.3—Obtain primary authority over Class II well oversight by the state. (Page 76.) Class II wells are the type of wells approved for disposal of fracking fluid. Currently, they are managed both by EGLE and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. This policy option would put Michigan in charge of regulating wastewater injection wells. Doing so would simplify reporting requirements for drillers while also improving oversight of wastewater disposal activities.
Financial assurance to protect taxpayers
4.4.2.3—Financial responsibility. (Page 102.) Michigan currently requires oil and gas companies to post bonds before drilling a well, to ensure that the companies can afford any necessary cleanup. However, the report notes, “Even the largest bonding amounts required by state law are insufficient to cover damages caused by a catastrophic release, which can amount to millions of dollars.” This policy option calls for requiring the companies to also purchase liability insurance, in addition to the bonds, to protect taxpayers from cleanup costs.
We hope to work with the Legislature and the administration in updating Michigan’s fracking regulations to include these common-sense measures.
While the recent update to Michigan’s fracking regulations moved us in the right direction, there is still a great deal we can do to ensure that oil and gas drilling is conducted in a manner that protect the health of our natural resources, citizens, and economy.
Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment (IA)
In 2012, the University of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute began conducting an Integrated Assessment (IA) on High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan. The IA attempted to provide a comprehensive review of the current status and trends of high volume hydraulic fracturing in Michigan and an analysis of policy options. A Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment Final Report was released in September of 2015.
The report does not recommend any specific course of action, but by presenting a menu of options, including the pros and cons of those options, it offers valuable input that can help Michigan regulators improve the state’s oversight of fracking. Importantly, it also notes that not enough study has been done to quantify the risks of high volume hydraulic fracking on human health and the environment.
Below are key areas that deserve special consideration by Michigan lawmakers. We support each of the following policy options, which are categorized by topic and identified by the number assigned to them in the report and the page on which they appear.
Public notice and involvement
2.3.3.2—Increase public notice. (Page 42.) Pursuing this policy option would expand public notification when the state proposes to lease oil and gas drilling rights on public land. The state now issues public notice in newspapers, sends announcements to local governments and posts information on the Department of Natural Resources website, among other measures. This policy option calls for notifying all adjacent landowners and posting announcements at the parcel itself, if the land is used for recreation. As the report notes, “Expanding public notice offers a relatively inexpensive way to increase transparency about potential state mineral rights leasing and ensure that affected parties have an opportunity to comment.”
2.3.3.3—Require DNR to prepare a responsiveness summary. (Page 42.) Current rules do not require the DNR to respond to public comments on state mineral leases. The basic idea here is to require the department to compile a summary of public comments received, how the department responded to public input and how that input influenced DNR’s decision about whether and how to lease the rights on that parcel. As the report notes, such a requirement would strengthen the state’s accountability to the public.
2.3.3.5—Increase public notice and comment when lessees submit an application to revise or reclassify a lease. (Page 43.) It makes sense that the state should be diligent in notifying the public not only when a company seeks to lease mineral rights on public land, but also when the company seeks to modify an existing lease. Those revisions could substantially change how the land is used—allowing drilling directly on the land, rather than with horizontal drilling from adjacent properties, for example—so it’s appropriate to increase public awareness of proposed changes. Not discussed in the report, but related: We believe the DNR should end the practice of leasing land before a formal assessment has been done. Currently, if the department does not have time to assess a nominated parcel, it will lease the land as “non-development,” which prevents access directly from the surface but may allow horizontal drilling from adjacent parcels. Many times drilling in the vicinity of recreational land can diminish its recreational value.
2.4.3.3—Require a public comment period with mandatory EGLE response. (Page 45.) The next two policy options have to do with EGLE permits that drillers must obtain after securing leases with the DNR. Currently, there is no formal public comment process for these permits. This option calls for requiring a 30-day public comment period after a permit application is submitted, and could include a responsiveness summary like the one described above. “By inviting the public to comment on permit applications,” the report notes, “EGLE may learn of important local considerations that should be factored into its decision making. At the same time, including the public in this decision making process may help relieve stress in affected communities as well as increase perceptions that EGLE is being transparent and treating the public fairly.”
2.4.3.4—Explicitly allow adversely affected parties to request a public hearing before a HVHF well permit is approved. (Page 46.) This option would allow local governments and residents to petition for a public meeting in the community where a drilling permit is sought, and would require EGLE to hold such a meeting. The public could submit comments during the meeting or during a subsequent 15-day public input period, which EGLE would be required to consider. The goal of this change would be to promote a community discussion regarding how development would occur and potential ways to minimize conflicting surface uses.
Water protection
3.2.1.2.3—Disallow any high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) operations within a cold-transitional stream. (Page 62.) Protecting cold-transitional streams is particularly important because they provide habitat for cold-water species but are very sensitive to changes in land use and stream flow. This policy option involves an outright ban on water withdrawals for fracking from these inherently fragile watersheds.
3.2.3.2—Update the scientific components of the Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool. (Page 66.) The Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool—which is used to ensure proposed large water withdrawals won’t have adverse impacts on nearby rivers and streams—represented the state-of-the-art in groundwater modeling when it was adopted in 2008. However, it is important to remember it was designed to serve as a screening tool and not to make final agency decisions within sensitive watersheds. In the context of high-volume fracking operations, the tool is only as good as the data we have in a particular area. Therefore, real-time monitoring of the impacts of water withdrawal would both protect cold-water habitat and provide valuable information for future decisions. In addition, improved models have been developed that could help the agency make better decisions if incorporated into the decision-making process.
Monitoring and regulation of wastewater disposal
3.3.5.2.2—Increase monitoring and reporting requirements. (Page 76.) Michigan’s regulations require an EGLE permit to dispose of the hazardous wastewater that is a byproduct of fracking, and that the waste be injected deep underground into stable rock formations where it can’t contaminate fresh water. As the report notes, “The presence of public concern over the volumes of wastewater being produced and disposed implies a need for greater transparency and expansion of wastewater disposal information.” This policy option calls for reporting to ensure that the volume of wastewater injected underground matches what drilling companies claim to have produced. It also notes that a publicly available database of wastewater injection data would be helpful for monitoring trends.
3.3.5.2.3—Obtain primary authority over Class II well oversight by the state. (Page 76.) Class II wells are the type of wells approved for disposal of fracking fluid. Currently, they are managed both by EGLE and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. This policy option would put Michigan in charge of regulating wastewater injection wells. Doing so would simplify reporting requirements for drillers while also improving oversight of wastewater disposal activities.
Financial assurance to protect taxpayers
4.4.2.3—Financial responsibility. (Page 102.) Michigan currently requires oil and gas companies to post bonds before drilling a well, to ensure that the companies can afford any necessary cleanup. However, the report notes, “Even the largest bonding amounts required by state law are insufficient to cover damages caused by a catastrophic release, which can amount to millions of dollars.” This policy option calls for requiring the companies to also purchase liability insurance, in addition to the bonds, to protect taxpayers from cleanup costs.
We hope to work with the Legislature and the administration in updating Michigan’s fracking regulations to include these common-sense measures.
While the recent update to Michigan’s fracking regulations moved us in the right direction, there is still a great deal we can do to ensure that oil and gas drilling is conducted in a manner that protect the health of our natural resources, citizens, and economy.
|
It is essential for Michigan to be proactive in protecting against unnecessary negative impact to the environment and in protecting public health and safety while encouraging the wise development and use of the state’s energy sources. Michigan is at a crossroad with the new technology and innovative approaches in the exploration and development of oil and gas allowing for new reserves to be tapped. Prior to an influx of high volume hydraulic fracture wells in Michigan, we have the opportunity to be a leader setting an example for the rest of the county on how sustainable development and protection of natural resources and environment can go hand-in-hand. |
Additional Information
