October 15, 2015
TALKING POINTS FOR TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO VIRGINIA’S GAS DRILLING REGULATIONS
“We should not do any of these techniques here in Virginia until everyone is 100 percent – 100
percent – sure of safety.… Let’s look at all the alternatives. Wind is clean, wind is safe. Solar is
clean, solar is safe.”
- Terry McAuliffe, as candidate for Governor, September 2011
Thank you for your interest in testifying. Below are background notes and talking points, followed
by information on the dates and locations of the upcoming hearings.
Background

The natural gas industry would like to use unconventional shale gas drilling methods — including
hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling that can extend 1.5 miles horizontally
from the drilling pad -- (“fracking”) in at least two areas of Virginia: shale deposits, including the
Marcellus Shale, in the western part of the state, and the Taylorsville Basin in the Tidewater
area. While no permits for unconventional methods have been granted yet in the Tidewater
area, and no high-volume fracking has yet occurred in Virginia, more than 80,000 acres in the
Tidewater area have been leased with the intent to frack. Virginia needs to be prepared with
strong regulations that address the many risks.

Industry points to forms of fracking that have occurred in the southwestern part of the state
without publicized environmental harm. These include coal bed methane and lower-volume
fracking which reportedly use far less water, fewer chemicals, and produce far less toxic
wastewater than high-volume techniques. The forms of fracking now under consideration
present a greater threat to our natural resources and health.

Virginia had the least protective gas drilling regulations of all 31 states with actual or potential
shale gas production, according to a 2013 survey of shale gas regulations by Resources for the
Future. The proposed changes will not adequately improve the regulations.

The agency that oversees gas drilling, the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME),
started a process to revise its regulations in late 2013. The original notice filed by DMME
indicated that it would revise gas drilling rules to bring them up to “best industry practice.”
However, in conducting the review of its regulations, DMME chose to focus on only a handful of
issues including requiring disclosure of fracking fluid ingredients, limited baseline testing of
groundwater, some improvements to well integrity, requiring submission of an emergency
response plan, and requiring fences around open storage pits. DMME refused to conduct a
thorough review of its regulations and did not respond to detailed comments filed by
environmental groups.
Page | 1
Sample Talking Points
NOTE: For more detail, look to the links at the end of this summary. For more impact, explain why
this issue matters to you personally. In spoken testimony, there will only be time to focus on a few
key points. Written comments can be any length. More tips on preparing comments are provided at
the end of this document.
Interagency study needed in advance of regulation. This proposed regulation fails to consider the
most important question: Is it in Virginia’s interest to allow these new forms of unconventional
drilling at all? The Governor should order a rigorous interagency study of the health, environmental,
economic and other risks and benefits to Virginia, as Governors of Maryland and New York have
done.
Comprehensive review of drilling regulations is essential. If the interagency study finds that it is
possible to safely regulate unconventional shale drilling techniques, a rigorous and comprehensive
review of existing drilling regulations will be needed. No permits for unconventional shale gas
drilling should be approved until this thorough review has been completed and rules that
adequately protect the public have been implemented.
Health experts must be involved in the regulatory review. Many of the most serious risks of
fracking are to human health. It is surprising that no one with public health expertise was appointed
to the Regulatory Advisory Panel convened by DMME, and that the Virginia Department of Health
(VDH) does not appear to be involved. A more rigorous and thorough review of these regulations
should be conducted, and should rely on public health professionals with expertise in the health
issues associated with shale gas fracking operations. In addition, a complete health impact
assessment (HIA) should be conducted prior to approving new shale drilling methods in Virginia.
Open-air waste pits must be prohibited. The proposed regulations would continue to allow the use
of open-air pits to store toxic wastewater, a practice that has led to overflows and harm to
surrounding land, groundwater and wildlife in other states. The air pollution that escapes into the
atmosphere from open pits also can cause disease in people living nearby. Given the dangers, other
states such as New York and Pennsylvania now require closed tanks for capturing flowback water
from a well. Virginia should adopt this best practice.
Fracking wastewater must not be disposed of by spreading it on roadways, agricultural and forest
land. The proposed regulations would continue to allow the practice of spreading fracking
wastewater on roadways, agricultural and forest land as a means of disposal, assuming the fluids do
not exceed certain chemical limits. “Best practice” is to prohibit this fundamentally unsafe practice,
as other states have done.
Regulations must provide for safe testing, labeling, transportation, storage and disposal of drilling
wastewater. Drilling produces large amounts of briney wastewater, usually toxic and sometimes
radioactive, that cannot be properly treated in any wastewater treatment plant in Virginia. Testing,
labeling, transportation, storage and disposal of such wastewater has presented huge problems in
other states and must be addressed in Virginia’s regulations in consultation with the Department of
Page | 2
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and VDH. Permits for unconventional shale fracking must not be issued
unless these public health and environmental risks have been fully addressed.
Regulations should provide similar protections to all Virginians. The Virginia Gas and Oil Act
protects Tidewater Virginia from some of the risks associated with drilling, but these protections are
not extended to the rest of the state. For example, drilling companies are required to follow “best
practice” by safely disposing of drilling muds and cuttings (toxic drilling waste) in Tidewater, but are
allowed to bury the waste on-site in western Virginia, despite the obvious risk that toxics will
contaminate groundwater and land. There is no reason for this double-standard. Oil and gas drilling
regulations should extend “best practice” protections to all Virginians, not just those in Tidewater.
Protective setbacks are an essential “best practice” missing from the proposed regulation. Given
the risks inherent in drilling for oil and natural gas, wells and infrastructure need to be set far back
from floodplains, public water supply watersheds, fisheries, schools, hospitals and other sensitive
areas. Other states provide protective setback requirements in their regulations. Yet Virginia’s only
requirement for wells is that they are a mere 200 feet from an occupied building. Much more
protective setbacks are another “best practice” that Virginia should adopt.
Regulations must address serious air pollution caused by drilling operations. Pollution from
methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, ozone, and other harmful gasses associated with shale drilling
has been a major problem in states that allow shale drilling. Air pollution must be addressed by the
regulations, as it is in other states. Moreover, testing for methane must continue for years after
closing the well, because this potent greenhouse gas can leak from wells many years after the well
is abandoned. EPA’s proposed regulations may provide a floor in this area, but are subject to
litigation and other uncertainties. Virginia should provide higher and more certain standards.
State regulations should support local authority. State regulations should ensure that operators
respect local land use and zoning ordinances by requiring certification of compliance by the
operator. Operators should be required to certify that they are complying with all local, state and
federal requirements at regular intervals, not just at the time they apply for a permit. Companies
also should be required to report any violations of local, state and federal law to DMME promptly,
along with a description of measures that will be taken to correct any errors or omissions. Preapplication meetings publicizing the drilling plans and inviting the public to ask questions should be
required for all fracking proposals, not just those in the Tidewater area.
Other issues that could be addressed in comments include:

Weak water testing requirements need to be strengthened. The regulations establish some
baseline water testing and monitoring requirements, but only for groundwater, only within a
quarter mile of the wellpad and only for a limited number of chemicals. There are no
requirements to test surface water. Testing requirements stop 12 months after the well is
completed, while other states such as Colorado require testing for five to six years. The
regulations should be amended to provide “best practice” protection for Virginia’s
groundwater and surface water supplies, including testing for all the chemicals used to frack
the wells.
Page | 3

Water supply issues should be addressed. Shale fracking can require large quantities of
water, putting local water supplies at risk. Identification of quantities and sources of water
and permitting should be required. While some protections are provided for the Tidewater
area, similar protections should be extended to western Virginia.

Bond requirements are inadequate. DMME does not require bonds that are sufficient to
cover the costs of addressing major spills, blowouts, polluted aquifers, and other risks.
DMME has promised to address bond requirements in a separate Guidance Document. This
is an important issue to all Virginians concerned with the potential shifting of costs and risks
from the drilling industry to state and local jurisdictions and landowners.

Ingredient disclosure should be strengthened. The regulations continue to provide
companies with substantial latitude to conceal the identity of harmful ingredients of fracking
fluids by claiming that they are proprietary, except under very limited emergency
circumstances. Public disclosure of the identities of injected or spilled chemicals should be
required.

Disposing of fracking waste in injection wells is strongly linked to earthquake risk and
should not be allowed in seismically active regions of Virginia. This is especially true in light
of the presence along fault lines in central Virginia of the North Anna Nuclear Generating
Station, which suffered damage in Virginia’s 2011 earthquake.
For more details
For help in developing comments, and for more detailed information about fracking in Virginia,
please consult the following resources:
1. We will provide a link to Sierra Club comments as soon as they are available.
2. The full text of the proposed amendments: Virginia Register of Regulations, Volume 32, Issue
3, October 5, 2015, available online at http://register.dls.virginia.gov/vol32/iss03/v32i03.pdf
3. “Governor McAuliffe considers changes to Virginia fracking regulations, currently among
worst in nation” Power for the People VA, June 15, 2015, available online at
http://powerforthepeopleva.com/2015/06/15/governor-mcauliffe-considers-changes-tovirginia-fracking-regulations-currently-among-worst-in-nation/
4. A Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of
Fracking (Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction), Concerned Health Professionals of New
York, Oct. 14, 2015, available online at http://concernedhealthny.org.
5. Nathan Richardson et al, The State of State Shale Gas Regulation, at pages 18, 20 (June
2013), available at http://www.rff.org/rff/documents/RFF-Rpt-StateofStateRegs_Report.pdf.
6. Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Initiative Study, Part III, Final Report, Findings and
Recommendations, December 19, 2014; available online at
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Land/mining/marcellus/Documents/Final_Marcellu
s_Shale_Report.pdf.
Page | 4
When and where are the hearings and what should you expect? There will be three public
hearings:
1. October 20, 2015, 2:00 p.m., Russell County Office Building, 139 Highland Drive, Lebanon,
Va.
2. November 2, 2015, 2:00 p.m., University of Mary Washington, Dahlgren Campus, 4224
University Drive, King George, Va., 22485
3. November 3, 2015, 2:00 p.m., Virginia State Capitol House Room 3, 1000 Bank Street,
Richmond, Va. 23219



Anyone with a concern is welcome to speak at these hearings and make their concern a part of
the record.
There will be a table near the entrance to the room to sign up to speak, and speakers will be
called in the order they signed up. Arrive and sign up early if you wish to be one of the first
speakers. Expect your time to be limited to 3 minutes.
The sole intent of the hearing is to hear from the public. There may be some opening comments
from DMME staff, but there will not be a question and answer period.
How to prepare a comment for a hearing










Introduce yourself and why you are commenting.
If you are the designated speaker for a group, briefly describe the group and its mission.
Do not suggest that you are speaking on behalf of a group unless you’re sure you have authority.
Briefly state the key points (focus on just a few) that you would like to see addressed before
these regulations become final. Your comments will become part of the official record.
Make sure to state a clear request for DMME to do something specific to address your
concerns. The more concrete you can be, the more likely it is that DMME will respond to your
comment when it develops the final rule. DMME is required to explain why it does or does not
address specific concerns raised in comments.
You may use these talking points as a starting point for developing a comment. You can learn
more by reading the materials referenced at the end of the talking points.
Illustrate your most important point with a personal story if possible. Your story should show
why this issue matters to you.
If time allows you may reinforce some of the good points made by other speakers without restating what they have said.
Always be polite, even if you are sharing strong feelings.
Please provide a copy of your comments in writing to staff at the hearing. This will help ensure
that your words are made part of the record. Include your full name and address with your
written comments. If you do not have a written copy at the hearing, you may submit a copy
before December 4, 2015, by mail or electronically. Written comments may be any length. They
should be submitted to DMME’s Regulatory Coordinator for this issue, Michael Skiffington, at:
Email: mike.skiffington@dmme.virginia.gov; FAX: 804-692-3237.
For more information, please contact John Bloom at johnbloom@mindspring.com. Bloom serves as
chair of public health issues for the Sierra Club’s Virginia Chapter.
Page | 5