the state of state shale gas regulation: report appendices

The State of State Shale Gas Regulation: Appendices

Nathan Richardson, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman

JUNE 2013

© 2013 Resources for the Future. Resources for the Future is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that, through its social science research, enables policymakers and stakeholders to make better, more informed decisions about energy, environmental, and natural resource issues. Located in Washington, DC, its research scope comprises programs in nations around the world.

Table of Contents

Appendix 1. Previous Work on Shale Gas Regulation .............................................................. 1

Appendix 2. Federalism: Division of Authority among Levels of Government Regulating Shale Gas Activities............................................................................................... 6

A2.1 Interstate Regulation: River Basin Commissions ...................................................................... 6

A2.2 Federal Regulation ................................................................................................................................ 7

A2.2.1 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................. 7

A2.2.2 Air Quality......................................................................................................................................... 8

A2.2.3 Other Regulatory Authority ....................................................................................................... 9

A2.2.4 The Federal Government as Landowner .............................................................................. 9

A2.2.5 The Federal Regulatory Role: Summary ............................................................................... 9

A2.3 Local Regulation .................................................................................................................................. 10

Appendix 3. Further Statistical Analyses .................................................................................... 11

A3.1 Number of Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 12

A3.2 Type of Regulation .............................................................................................................................. 14

A3.3 Stringency Method 1 .......................................................................................................................... 15

A3.4 Stringency Method 2 .......................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix 4. Tables of State Regulations ..................................................................................... 17

Appendix 5. State Regulatory Data ............................................................................................... 49

1 RICHARDSON ET AL.

THE STATE OF STATE SHALE GAS REGULATION: REPORT APPENDICES

Nathan Richardson, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman1

Appendix 1. Previous Work on Shale Gas Regulation

The literature contains no comprehensive survey of US oil and gas statutes and regulations that

apply to shale gas development. Several other authors have begun to explore aspects of shale gas and

associated regulation, however, and their work forms a foundation for this project.

Several publications have explored regulation of shale gas development descriptively without

assessing the adequacy of regulation. American Law and Jurisprudence of Fracing,2 a law firm

publication, describes regulations in 18 states, focusing primarily on regulations specific to hydraulic

fracturing (if any), drilling and casing regulations, and recent revisions to state oil and gas law. The

report briefly describes local regulations within some of these states, and the authors identify the state

agencies tasked with writing and enforcing oil and gas and environmental policies. Although primarily

descriptive, the report also makes predictions about the likelihood of future regulation, anticipating

that if states continue to modify their regulations to create robust oversight at the state level, “federal

oversight of fracking will be diminished.”3

Other papers have offered similarly broad, descriptive comparisons of shale gas regulation. The

Texas Wesleyan Law Review published a 2012 Survey on Oil and Gas that summarizes case law,

legislative action, and regulatory action at the state and local level in eight states, for example.4 For

each state addressed, the survey describes agencies and their authority over oil and gas and recent

legal developments—including updates specific to hydraulic fracturing. Terry W. Roberson similarly

explores recent moratoria, regulations, and legislative and regulatory developments relating to

hydraulic fracturing in New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas,5 and Rebecca Jo Reser and David T. Ritter

1 Nathan Richardson is a resident scholar at Resources for the Future (RFF). Madeline Gottlieb is a research assistant at RFF. Alan

Krupnick is a senior fellow and director of RFF’s Center for Energy Economics and Policy. Hannah Wiseman is an assistant professor of law at Florida State University. This work is funded by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and this report was developed by RFF’s Center for Energy Economics and Policy (CEEP) as part of a larger initiative, Managing the Risks of Shale Gas: Identifying a Pathway toward Responsible Development. Updated findings are published at www.rff.org/shalegasrisks. Read the executive summary and full report at www.rff.org/shalemaps. 2 Thomas E. Kurth, Michael J. Mazzone, Mary S. Mendoza, and Christopher S. Kulander, American Law and Jurisprudence on

Fracing—2012 (n.p.: Haynes & Boone, LLP), accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.haynesboone.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Attorney%20Publications/CURRENT_RMMLF%20Fracing%202012%20Paper_Formatted.pdf. 3 Kurth et al., American Law and Jurisprudence, 187.

4 See Edward S. Rennick, “California,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 473; Martha Phillips Whitmore, “Colorado,” Texas

Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 479; Keith B. Hall, “Louisiana,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 511; David L. Seamon, “Maryland,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 527; Stephen R. Brown, “Montana,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 541; Gary Holland, “Tennessee,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 619; Bruce M. Kramer, “Texas,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 627; Andrew Graham and Cole Delancey, “West Virginia,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 675. 5 Terry W. Roberson, “Environmental Concerns of Hydraulically Fracturing a Natural Gas Well,” Utah Environmental Law Review 2

(2012): 67, 88–96.

http://www.rff.org/shalegasrisks

http://www.rff.org/shalemaps

2 RICHARDSON ET AL.

summarize fracking-specific regulatory and legislative developments in Texas.6 Professor Ross Pifer,

in turn, offers a thorough description of Pennsylvania’s regulatory response to the rapid rise in

Marcellus Shale development, including regulations and policies that apply to most stages of the

development process in Pennsylvania and an analysis of Department of Environmental Protection

enforcement efforts.7 Pifer also makes some normative proposals for a “comprehensive proactive

approach to Marcellus Shale issues,” suggesting that the General Assembly should “establish a

framework” for collecting information and reviewing existing laws and “comparable laws in other

states.”8 Michelle Kennedy surveys local attempts at regulating drilling and fracking in New York and

Pennsylvania and courts’ responses to those efforts.9 Several Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation

publications also describe recent developments in federal, state, and local laws that apply to shale gas

development.10

A second area of the literature has begun to normatively address shale gas regulation. In a

publication prepared for the US Department of Energy, the Ground Water Protection Council—a

nonprofit association of state regulators—argued in 2009 that existing regulation of shale gas

development was effective and that regulation should remain at the state level. 11 This publication also

explores the content of state regulations, summarizing the numbers and/or percentages of states

studied by the Ground Water Protection Council that have implemented various regulations to protect

groundwater during the drilling and fracking process, such as required minimum depths of casing

below groundwater or cementing standards. The report does not specify the location or content of the

regulations, however,12 and it sometimes does not specify which states have implemented the

regulations that it summarizes.

The State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER) has conducted

state-specific analyses of hydraulic fracturing and related regulations and, based on these analyses, has proposed several regulatory changes in states. STRONGER is a public–private institution that

voluntarily analyzes the effectiveness of states’ regulatory regimes for oil and gas and recommends

improvements based on a set of core guidelines.13 It has completed individualized reviews of

regulatory regimes for hydraulic fracturing in approximately six states and an initial review in North

6 Rebecca Jo Reser and David T. Ritter, “State and Federal Legislation and Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing,” The Advocate (Texas)

57 (2011): 31, 34–35. 7 Ross H. Pifer, “What a Short, Strange Trip It’s Been: Moving Forward after Five Years of Marcellus Shale Development,” University

of Pittsburgh Law Review 72 (2011): 615, 635–644. 8 Pifer, “What a Short, Strange Trip,” 659.

9 Michelle L. Kennedy, “The Exercise of Local Control over Gas Extraction,” Fordham Environmental

Law Review 22 (2011): 375. 10

Rebecca W. Watson and Nora R. Pincus, “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Supply Protection—Federal Regulatory Developments,” Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, institute (2012, no. 3): paper no. 6; R. Timothy Weston and Stephen J. Matzura, “Acquisition of Water for Energy and Mineral Development in the Eastern United States,” Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, institute (2012 no. 3): paper no. 2A; Colin G. Harris and Ivan L. London, “There’s Something in the Air: New and Evolving Air Quality Regulations Impacting Oil and Gas Development,” Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, institute (2012, no. 58): 6-1; Bruce M. Kramer, “A Short History of Federal Statutory and Regulatory Concerns Relating to Hydraulic Fracturing,” Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, institute (2011, no. 5): paper no. 2. 11

Ground Water Protection Council, State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources (Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, May 2009), 5–6, http://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/state_oil_and_gas_regulations_designed_to_protect_water_resources_0.pdf. For the percentage of states studied that have regulations requiring “surface casing below deepest ground water,” see page 19. 12

Ground Water Protection Council, State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations, 21, describing cement verification methods required in Alaska, Michigan, and Ohio but not citing to the regulations that require these methods. 13

State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER), “Hydraulic Fracturing Guidelines” (n.p.: STRONGER, February 8, 2010), accessed May 10, 2013, http://67.20.79.30/sites/all/themes/stronger02/downloads/HF%20Guideline%20Web%20posting.pdf.

3 RICHARDSON ET AL.

Carolina14—a state that has just begun to receive applications to drill and hydraulically fracture

wells.15 The STRONGER reviews do not address regulations that apply to all stages of the drilling and

fracking process, and some are more detailed than others; all, however, assess state programs based

on hydraulic fracturing guidelines written by STRONGER.

As an example of STRONGER findings, in the organization’s review of Ohio’s regulatory program in

2011, it notes that the state’s well permit application reviews “include an evaluation of potential

pathways for contamination of groundwater” and “are appropriate and commendable.”16 It also

concludes that the state’s requirements for casing and cementing plans “provide a strong incentive to

prevent or correct problems that could lead to groundwater contamination.”17 Further, STRONGER

believes that the state receives adequate information from electric well logs to determine whether a

well failure occurred during fracking.18 Its assessment of the adequacy of Ohio’s standards for surface

pits is vaguer, indicating simply that “[r]egulatory standards exist for pit construction, freeboard, and

timeframes for closure.”19 In other areas, STRONGER recommended improvements, including that the

Ohio Department of Mineral Resources Management require spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids to be

directly reported to staff, that the Department consider whether it is receiving all needed information

about fracking chemicals from operators, that the state continue to evaluate availability of water for

fracking, and that the state continue to encourage flowback water recycling.20

Federal and state groups have also produced several recommendations for improved regulation.

The Shale Gas Production Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board recommends the

growth of “public information about shale gas operations” through a publicly accessible portal; better

communications among state and federal regulators; reductions in ozone precursor, methane, and

other air pollutants “as quickly as practicable;” additional methane leakage studies; and “[e]limination

of diesel use in fracturing fluids,” among other recommendations.21 The Governor’s Marcellus Shale

Advisory Commission in Pennsylvania thoroughly explored federal, state, and local regulations;

executive orders; and other guidance to shale gas developers in the state. Based on this review, the

Commission recommended increasing penalty amounts for civil violations of the state’s Oil and Gas

Act, authorizing “conditioning of a well permit based on its impact [on] public resources,” extending

presumed industry liability for water contamination within 2,500 feet of the well, tracking and

reporting of disposal and wastewater, and other requirements, many of which were later

implemented.22

Several law professors explore regulations and make recommendations for improvements in

published or forthcoming articles in legal journals. David Spence describes the impacts noted so far,

14

“What Is the State Review Process?” STRONGER, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.strongerinc.org/. 15

Clean Energy and Economic Security Act, bill draft 2011-RIxfz-28 (v.17), March 19, 2012 (proposed, 2012 Reg. Sess., 2011 Gen. Assembly), accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/EPI-LRC/FINAL%20--%202012%20LRC%20Energy%20Policy%20Issues%20Report.pdf. See also Elizabeth Turgeon, “’Goin’ To Carolina In My Mind:’” Prospects and Perils for Natural Gas Drilling in North Carolina,” North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 13 (2011): 147, describing North Carolina’s current law, the comprehensive study of “oil and gas resources present in the Triassic Basins and in any other areas of the State” required by the North Carolina legislature, and pending legislation. 16

STRONGER, Ohio Hydraulic Fracturing State Review, (Oklahoma City, OK: STRONGER, 2011), 5, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/11/oil/pdf/stronger_review11.pdf. 17

STRONGER, Ohio, 13. 18



STRONGER, Ohio, 13, 15, 18. 21

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Second Ninety Day Report (Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, 2011), 4, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/111811_final_report.pdf. 22

4 RICHARDSON ET AL.

explores the current regulatory structure, and analyzes where the locus of regulatory authority should

be, concluding that federal regulation should, for the most part, be limited to impacts that cross state

boundaries.23 In a forthcoming reply, Professor Michael Burger explores exemptions for certain oil and

gas and shale gas activities from the SDWA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and suggests

certain considerations that may justify federal regulation.24 Hannah Wiseman describes potential risks

of shale gas development at most stages of the process based on violations of state environmental laws

at well sites; she then explores the regulations that apply to each stage and suggests that gaps remain.

She recommends that states more closely review differences among regulation and update their

regulations closer to the standards of the “leader” states where differences in geology and climate do

not justify differences.25 She also suggests that the federal government should continue investigating

the need to further regulate aspects of the development process where the government already has

authority, such as the regulation of flowback wastewater disposal under the Clean Water Act (CWA).26

Joshua Fershee also explores risks and suggests that EPA should require compliance with API “best

practices for hydraulic fracturing.”27 Robert Freilich and Neil Popowitz explore local aspects of

regulation, generally suggesting that local control over shale gas development is needed and

suggesting effective strategies for local control.28 John Nolon conducts a similar analysis for New York

but does not propose where authority should lie; instead, he explores the many challenges that lie

ahead in deciding, and clarifying, which governments should have authority over shale gas

development.29

A variety of student notes and comments in legal journals discuss limited regulatory issues in the

fracking area from a normative perspective—often suggesting improved regulation in single states or

for narrow portions of the shale gas development process. Several projects address the legal

frameworks for water withdrawals for fracking. For Pennsylvania, one student proposes centralized

state permitting of withdrawals based on a “precise, scientific standard.”30 In Louisiana, where the

legislature passed a temporary law (Act 955) allowing the state to sell certain amounts of water from

state-owned water bodies to fracking operators, a student explores this and other state water law and

argues that the act fails to adequately consider environmental impacts.31 Another note thoroughly

explores the state’s water laws, including Act 955, and argues that further clarification of the laws is

needed to govern water withdrawals by the many fracking companies that do not own riparian water

rights.32 Finally, some student-authored articles address shale gas regulation more broadly. One

23

David Spence, “Federalism, Regulatory Lags, and the Political Economy of Energy Production,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161 (2012): 431. 24

Michael Burger, “Fracking and Federalism Choice” (response), University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 161 (2013): 150, accessed May 10, 2013, https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume161/issue2/Burger161U.Pa.L.Rev.150(2013).pdf. 25

Hannah Wiseman, “Risk and Response in Fracturing Policy,” University of Colorado Law Review 84 (forthcoming 2013), accessed May 10, 2013, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2017104. 26

Wiseman, “Risk and Response.” 27

Joshua P. Fershee, “The Oil and Gas Revolution, Learning from the Hydraulic Fracturing Experiences in North Dakota and West Virginia,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 19 (2012): 23. 28

Robert H. Freilich and Neil Popowitz, “Oil and Gas Fracking: State and Federal Regulation Does Not Preempt Local Government Regulation,” Urban Law 44 (2012): 533. 29

John R. Nolon and Victoria Polidoro, “Hydrofracking: Disturbances Both Geological and Political: Who Decides?” Urban Law 44 (2012): 507. 30

Michael Dillon, “Comment: Water Scarcity and Hydraulic Fracturing in Pennsylvania: Examining Pennsylvania Water Law and Water Shortage Issues Presented by Natural Gas Operations in the Marcellus Shale,” Temple Law Review 84 (2011): 201, 242–43. 31

Robert Fleming, “Comment: Hydraulic Fracturing, Louisiana Water Law, and Act 955: An Irresistible Economic Force Meets an Immovable Legal Object,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 24 (2011): 363, 397–98; 32

Laura Springer, “Comment: Waterproofing the New Fracking Regulation: The Necessity of Defining Riparian Rights in Louisiana’s Water Law,” Louisiana Law Review 72 (2011): 225, 252–53.

5 RICHARDSON ET AL.

explores the many laws that apply to natural gas extraction in Pennsylvania and concludes that

Congress and the states over the Marcellus should “facilitate the formation of a Marcellus Shale

Compact and Commission,” which would streamline and simplify regulation while also minimizing

environmental effects.33 Another student note explores the extent to which states have implemented

comprehensive regulations to address fracking, concluding that state regulations provide “extensive

environmental protections” and that federal regulation would overlap with or void state rules and

would be expensive.34

Finally, a growing body of scientific and other literature—only briefly reviewed here—assesses

the potential impacts of development and, in some cases, proposes regulatory efforts to address these

impacts. A team of Duke scientists has published two articles on potential migration of methane35 and

brine36 into groundwater as a result of drilling and fracking for gas in the Marcellus shale. These

authors suggest “that systematic and independent data on groundwater quality” should be collected

before drilling operations begin in a region, and that certain areas of the Marcellus Shale should be

monitored “to test potential mechanisms of enhanced hydraulic connectivity,”37 which they believe

could contribute to brine entering shallow groundwater. They also propose that regulation may be

“needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction.”38 Terry Engelder concludes in

another scientific publication that brine from gas wells does not migrate to aquifers, although he

makes no proposals as to whether regulation or monitoring should occur.39 Another study has

explored the potential for spills in the Marcellus Region and the impacts of these spills,40 concluding

that, under “best-case risk management,” contaminated water volumes “would equate to several hours

flow of the Hudson River.”41 The authors propose additional steps to “reduce the potential for

contaminated fluid release from hydraulic fracturing.”42 Another study that broadly assesses the

impacts of shale gas development on health concludes that “testing of air and water prior to drilling

and at regular intervals after drilling has commenced” is essential to fully assess shale gas risks.43 It

also suggests that exposure to drilling and fracking chemicals could be “minimized with strict safety

standards and careful inspection” but concludes that current state agency staffing levels are

inadequate, thus making monitoring difficult.44

33

Laura C. Reeder, “Note, Creating a Legal Framework for Regulation of Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale Formation,” William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 34 (2010): 999, 1015–20; 1022–23. 34

Matt Willie, “Comment: Hydraulic Fracturing and ‘Spotty’ Regulation: Why the Federal Government Should Let State Control Unconventional Onshore Drilling,” Brigham Young University Law Review 2011 (2011): 1753, 1762–66, 1777–76. 35

Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson, “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (2011): 8172, 8176. 36

Nathaniel R. Warner, Robert B. Jackson, Thomas H. Darrah, Stephen G. Osborn, Adrian Down, Kaiguang Zhao, Alissa White, and Avner Vengosh, “Geochemical Evidence for Possible Natural Migration of Marcellus Formation Brine to Shallow Aquifers in Pennsylvania,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (2012): E3626, E3626, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/03/1121181109.full.pdf. 37

Nathaniel R. Warner et al., “Geochemical Evidence for Possible Natural Migration,” 6. 38

Stephen G. Osborn et al., “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water,” 8172, 8176. 39

Terry Engelder, “Capillary Tension and Imbibition Sequester Fracturing fluid in Marcellus Gas Shale,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences E 109 (2012): 3625, E2625. 40

Daniel J. Rozell and Sheldon J. Reaven, “Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale,” Risk Analysis 32 (2011): 1382, 1384, accessed May 10, 2013, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01757.x/pdf. 41

Rozell and Reaven, “Water Pollution Risk,” 1391. 42

Rozell and Reaven, “Water Pollution Risk,” 1391. 43

Michelle Bamberger and Robert E. Oswold, “Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health,” New Solutions 22 (2012): 51, 68. 44

Id at 70.

6 RICHARDSON ET AL.

Appendix 2. Federalism: Division of Authority among Levels of Government Regulating Shale Gas Activities

The question of shale gas regulatory federalism—that is, which level of government is best

equipped to regulate risks—is complex and highly controversial. Although the issue is ripe for study, it

is not our purpose to do so here. The following sections, therefore, briefly discuss shale gas regulation

by authorities other than states to put the earlier discussion of state-level regulation in context.

A2.1 Interstate Regulation: River Basin Commissions

To coordinate regulation on matters of joint concern, multiple states may enter into interstate

compacts or agreements. Under the Constitution, such agreements require the consent of Congress.45

A common form of such compacts is the creation of new governmental bodies (agencies or

commissions) with regulatory authority in the relevant area. These commissions derive their

authority from that of the states that form the compact, and that authority is limited by the terms of

the compact. More than 150 such compacts have been created in the past 70 years.46

For regulation relevant to shale gas development, the most significant interstate compacts are

RBCs. These bodies are created by states that share a river basin or watershed, and are invested with

authority to manage that resource and/or prevent environmental damage. Powers granted to RBCs

vary, however.47 The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, for example, lacks

independent regulatory authority, and exists primarily for coordination among states.48 Some RBCs do

have independent authority, however. For regulating shale gas development, only two—the Delaware and Susquehanna RBCs—have independent authority. These RBCs have been characterized as “the

‘high point’ of well-established integrated surface water/groundwater management arrangements.”49

Both the Delaware and Susquehanna RBCs have authority to issue regulations, require permits,

and impose fines for noncompliance.50 This authority is significant for shale gas development for two

reasons. First, much of the Marcellus shale play lies underneath land in the Delaware or Susquehanna

basins and is therefore subject to RBC authority. Second, shale gas operations require significant water

withdrawals and may require disposal of wastewater—both of which are regulated by the RBCs.

The Delaware RBC has very broad authority, possibly due to its creation in the early 1960s, before

independent environmental legislation (most notably the CWA) gave the federal government

significant regulatory authority.51 Specifically, the Delaware RBC Compact requires any “project having

a substantial effect on the water resources of the basin” to obtain advance approval (in practice, a

45

Compact clause. 46

“Understanding Interstate Compacts,” Council of State Governments—National Center for Interstate Compacts, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/CompactEducation/Understanding_Interstate_Compacts--CSGNCIC.pdf. 47

Reeder, “Creating a Legal Framework,” 1017. 48

See Joseph W. Dellapenna, “Transboundary Water Allocation in the Twenty-First Century: Colloquium Article: Interstate Struggles over Rivers: The Southeastern States and the Struggle over the 'Hooch,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 12 (2005): 828, 840 n58, “To a lesser extent, the Potomac basin also features a rather more developed system of interstate cooperative water management than is found in most other compacts, although strictly speaking it only requires consultations and has no decision-making authority.” 49

Weston, R. Timothy, “Harmonizing Management of Ground and Surface Water Use,” University of Denver Water Law Review 11, no.2 (2008): 239. 50

Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting, Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, (Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, and National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2009), accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/epreports/shale_gas_primer_2009.pdf. 51

Weston, “Harmonizing Management of Ground and Surface Water Use,” 281.

7 RICHARDSON ET AL.

permit) from the RBC.52 The RBC has used this authority to impose an indefinite moratorium on shale

gas development in the basin.53 Yet, two of the four states covered by the Delaware RBC (New York

and New Jersey) have moratoria of their own, and in the other two states (Pennsylvania and

Maryland), areas with shale gas development potential are largely or completely outside the Delaware

basin. The Delaware RBC’s moratorium has very limited independent effect.

Shale gas development is ongoing in the Susquehanna River basin. The Susquehanna RBC’s

authority over development is more limited than that of the Delaware RBC, applying only to water

withdrawals and consumptive use.54 All such uses of water for oil and gas development require a

permit issued by the Susquehanna RBC. The Susquehanna RBC does not regulate water quality—this

is left to state regulatory agencies and the federal government. 55

A2.2 Federal Regulation

The federal government has broad regulatory authority relevant to shale gas development,

especially for protection of surface water quality and air quality, as described below.

A2.2.1 Water Quality

The CWA prohibits discharge of any pollutant into US waters without a permit.56 This gives EPA

substantial authority to regulate disposal and treatment of oil- and gas-related fluids and wastes.

Permits (through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) are required for any such

disposal. Current regulations prohibit discharge of any untreated wastewater from shale gas

operations—these wastes cannot be disposed of in US waters except via permitted treatment

facilities.57 EPA has announced plans to develop a “pretreatment standard” governing shale

wastewater by 2014.58

52

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) Compact, §3.8, “No project having a substantial effect on the water resources of the basin shall hereafter be undertaken by any person, corporation or governmental authority unless it shall have been first submitted to and approved by the commission …. The commission shall approve a project whenever it finds and determines that such project would not substantially impair or conflict with the comprehensive plan and may modify and approve as modified, or may disapprove any such project whenever it finds and determines that the project would substantially impair or conflict with such plan. The commission shall provide by regulation for the procedure of submission, review and consideration of projects, and for its determinations pursuant to this section.” 53

“Natural Gas Drilling Index Page,” DRBC, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.nj.gov/drbc/programs/natural/, “The commissioners at their May 5, 2010 meeting unanimously directed staff to develop draft regulations on well pads in the shales for notice and comment rulemaking and postponed the DRBC’s consideration of well pad dockets until regulations are adopted. The special meeting scheduled for Nov. 21, 2011 to consider adoption of draft natural gas development regulations was postponed to allow additional time for review by the five DRBC members. The commissioners continue to work through some unresolved issues and no new date has yet been announced for a vote on the draft regulations.” 54

“Frequently Asked Questions: SRBC’s Role in Regulating Natural Gas Development,” Susquehanna RBC (SRBC), accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.srbc.net/programs/natural_gas_development_faq.htm, “SRBC has a limited but very important role in the regulation of natural gas development, namely the regulation of water withdrawals and consumptive water uses. SRBC regulates all withdrawals of surface water and groundwater and consumptive water uses within the basin for natural gas development in certain tight shale formations. Prior approval from SRBC through an application process is required for water withdrawals and consumptive uses for natural gas development.” 55

Id., “In the Susquehanna basin, water quality regulations fall in the domain of our sovereign member states, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland, and the federal government. Since the states had already assumed responsibility for regulating water quality, SRBC consciously chose not to regulate water quality to avoid what would be an obvious duplication. SRBC has an active, long-standing role in monitoring and assessment of water quality in the basin, and much of this would be used to support recommendations made by the project review program.” 56

Clean Water Act (CWA). 57

“Unconventional Extraction in the Oil and Gas Industry,” EPA, accessed May 10, 2013, http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/shale.cfm, “Currently, wastewaters associated with shale gas extraction are prohibited from being directly discharged to waterways and other waters of the US. In order to meet this prohibition, some of the

8 RICHARDSON ET AL.

The CWA also gives EPA authority to regulate risks to surface water from stormwater runoff and

discharge.59 The act, however, explicitly exempts oil and gas operations from these requirements

under some conditions.60

The CWA applies only to surface water, however. The SDWA gives EPA authority to protect

groundwater resources (or surface waters that are also drinking water supplies).61 The SDWA gives

EPA authority to regulate underground fluid injections, but the 2005 Energy Policy Act specifically

excluded fracking operations and fluids (except diesel fuel) from this grant of authority.62

Underground injection of wastes, however, remains regulated under the SDWA.63

In short, EPA has substantial, primary authority under the CWA over the surface water impacts of

shale gas development—both wastewater disposal and stormwater. Its authority over underground

drilling activity, and in particular fracking operations, is much more limited, and primary regulatory

authority lies with the states.

A2.2.2 Air Quality

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has substantial authority to regulate threats to air quality that

threaten public health and/or welfare. The CAA is a complex statute, with different regulatory

schemes for different classes of pollutants, and for different classes of sources. Many of these schemes

require substantial cooperation between EPA and states.64 Oil and gas operations may release toxic

pollutants regulated as hazardous air pollutants or higher-volume pollutants regulated via National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—or precursors of these pollutants. For hazardous air

pollutants, EPA has authority to regulate directly.65 For NAAQS pollutants, EPA sets national standards

and reviews state plans to meet those standards.66

EPA may also issue new source performance standards (NSPS), which all new or modified

emissions sources in the relevant category must meet.67 In 2012, EPA finalized NSPS for the oil and gas

sector specifically aimed at reducing toxic pollutants and volatile organic compounds.68 These

regulations, which are the first such standards to apply explicitly to hydraulic fracturing, require the

use of “green completion” during flowback to minimize emissions.69

The 2012 NSPS are the only exercise of CAA authority over shale gas operations to date, but EPA

has substantial authority in this area and may regulate further in the future. Although EPA claims that

its recently issued NSPS will reduce methane emissions,70 a group of states has petitioned EPA to

shale gas wastewater is reused or re-injected, but a significant amount still requires disposal. Some operators reinject the wastewater into disposal wells. Other shale gas wastewater is transported to public and private treatment plants, which may not be equipped to treat this type of wastewater, resulting in the discharge of pollutants to rivers, lakes or streams where they can impact drinking water or aquatic life.” 58

Id. 59

CWA. 60

CWA 402(l)(2). 61

SDWA. 62

SDWA. 63

40 CFR Part 144. 64

See, e.g., Clean Air Act (CAA) §110. 65

CAA §112. 66

CAA §108, §110. 67

CAA §111. 68

EPA, “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews,” Federal Register 77 (2012): 49490. 69

Id., 49492. 70

Id., asserting that the regulations will reduce methane emissions from the sector by one million tons in 2015.

9 RICHARDSON ET AL.

specifically target methane with NSPS.71 Although it is unclear whether EPA will do so, it undoubtedly

has the authority under the CAA.72

A2.2.3 Other Regulatory Authority

Other statutes give EPA or other federal agencies regulatory authority that is or may be relevant to

shale gas development, as shown by the following examples.

The Endangered Species Act requires operators to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife

Service and, in some cases, obtain an “incidental take” permit if development activity may

affect threatened or endangered species.73

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires firms to annually report

to EPA any releases of toxic chemicals; these are recorded and released to the public in the

Toxic Release Inventory.74 Currently, EPA excludes oil and gas operations from the Toxic

Release Inventory, but could revise this position in the future.75

The Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA,

also known as Superfund) requires the reporting of any release of hazardous substances

exceeding specified limits within 24 hours and imposes liability for cleanup costs.76 Oil and gas

are specifically excluded from CERCLA—releases need not be reported to EPA.77 Other

substances used in shale gas operations may, however, be covered by CERCLA.

A2.2.4 The Federal Government as Landowner

In addition to its regulatory authority, the federal government also exercises control over shale gas

development practices in its role as a landowner. The BLM in 2012 proposed extensive rules for

hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands.78 These rules, which govern fracking on more than

700 million acres of land controlled by BLM, require fracturing fluid disclosure, impose well

construction standards, and regulate flowback water management practices.79

A2.2.5 The Federal Regulatory Role: Summary

The federal government’s role in shale gas regulation is modest and is capped by the authority

available under current law—federal authority to regulate to protect surface water and air quality, or

as a landowner, is extensive, but relatively limited in other areas. The federal government notably

lacks authority to regulate well construction, wastewater disposal, or other practices for protection of

groundwater, at least outside of federal lands. With the exception of underground injection wells for

oil and gas waste disposal, erosion and sedimentation controls and wastewater standards under the

CWA, and several other federal protections, states have full control over most stages of drilling and

71

State petition. 72

EPA established in 2009 that methane, along with other greenhouse gases, endangers public health and welfare. This determination allows EPA to regulate methane as a pollutant under the CAA. 73

Endangered Species Act § 9. 74

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 75

Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting, Modern Shale Gas Development, 41. 76

Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 77

CERCLA. 78

Bureau of Land Management, “Oil and Gas; Well Stimulation, Including Hydraulic Fracturing, on Federal and Indian Lands,” Federal Register 77 (2012): 27691. 79

Id., 27692.

10 RICHARDSON ET AL.

fracking oil and gas wells. Even where federal authority is extensive, most environmental statutes

envision and require substantial cooperation between states and the federal government. States’ traditional primacy in oil and gas regulation has persisted as shale gas development has expanded,

even in those states with little or no experience with conventional development. New regulations may

increase the federal role.

A2.3 Local Regulation

The authority of counties, cities, towns, townships, and other local governments over oil and gas

development varies substantially among the states. Due to the structure of the US Constitution, states

initially possess “police powers” to regulate public health, safety, and welfare. Courts over the years80

have construed police powers to include broad authority over land use, road use, aesthetics, and

activities with localized effects, which often include nuisances or mere annoyances. Most states have

delegated these powers to local governments through zoning enabling acts, yet the degree of

delegation varies widely. This has been important in the context of shale gas as municipalities have

attempted to assert control over development and its impacts—in some cases banning it.

States like Texas and New Mexico have tended to allow relatively detailed regulation of shale gas

development by municipalities. The Farmington, New Mexico, Code of Ordinances81 demonstrates this.

For potential visual and noise-based impacts, the city requires a minimum 6-foot fence around oil and

gas operations, drilling and completion only during daylight hours (with exceptions), compliance with

noise control standards, mufflers on internal combustion engines, and the prevention of mud and

other wastes from flowing into city “alleys, streets, lots or leases.”82 Farmington also has standards

that address potentially larger environmental concerns, requiring certain casing specifications (50 feet

into bedrock) and storage tanks that meet API specifications. Fort Worth83 and Arlington, Texas,84

have similar regulations and further require that oil and gas operators obtain environmental liability

coverage in the amount of $5 million per loss.

States like Pennsylvania have been slightly more aggressive in limiting local control over oil and

gas development. As drilling and fracking expanded within the state, Pennsylvania courts interpreted

the state’s prior preemption of municipal governance of oil and gas regulation85 to prohibit attempts at

broad local control of the location of and activities on well sites and access,86 and the state legislature

aimed to more clearly displace municipal authority in 2012 with Act 13.87 This act requires

municipalities to allow oil and gas development and associated facilities in most zones, although a

lower state court struck down these provisions;88 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has heard oral

arguments but has not yet issued an opinion. New York has a preemption provision similar to

80

The Supreme Court initially supported broad zoning powers—including the powers to create pleasant neighborhoods free of perceived annoyances, such as apartments—in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365 (1926). 81

Farmington, New Mexico, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 19—Oil and Gas Wells, accessed May 10, 2013, http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10760. 82

Id at 19-3-1 83

City of Fort Worth, Texas, Ordinance no. 18449-02-2009, 29, adopted February 3, 2009, accessed May 10, 2013, http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/Gas_Wells/090120_gas_drilling_final.pdf. 84

City of Arlington, Texas, Ordinance no. 11-068, Gas Drilling and Production Ordinance, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.arlingtontx.gov/planning/pdf/Gas_Wells/Gas_Drilling_and_Production_Ordinance.pdf. 85

58 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 601.602. 86

See Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of Oakmont, 964 A.2d 855, 865–69 (Pa. 2009); Range Resources–Appalachia v. Salem Township, 600 Pa. 231, 244 (2009) 87

H.B. 1950, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2011), accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.ctbpls.com/www/PA/11R/PDF/PA11RHB01950CC1.pdf. 88

Robinson Tp. v. Pennsylvania, 52 A.3d 463 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).


Pennsylvania’s, prohibiting most local regulation of oil and gas development.89 So far, however, several

New York courts90 have determined that, as long as municipalities characterize drilling and fracking

bans as land use controls (as opposed to other types of regulation), these bans are acceptable. Finally,

Colorado has struggled with state–local conflicts, leading the governor to create a task force. The task

force issued recommendations on state–local cooperation in regulation, but the state government has

not been receptive to recent local bans. 91

Appendix 3. Further Statistical Analyses

In this Appendix are details of regressions that appear in the text and alternative regression

specifications that help explain the choice of model for the text. As noted in the text, the variables are

drawn from three “levels.” Level one variables are posited to influence all regulatory outcomes. Level

two variables target groups of regulatory elements. There are broad groupings, such as all water-

related elements, and specific groupings, such as surface water-related elements. To target such

elements requires using an interaction variable, which consists of the main variable and a dummy

variable, the latter taking the value of one for the targeted regulatory elements and zero otherwise.

Multiplying the two variables together creates the interaction variable. To actually identify whether

the interaction term is associated with the regulatory outcome of interest or whether the components

of this term are responsible for the association requires that the components be included in the

regression as separate variables, in addition to the interaction variable.

As is customary, for compactness, variable names are used in the regression tables. Below is a

listing of those names with their definitions.

89

N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 23-0303(2). 90

See, e.g., Anschutz Exploration Corp. v. Dryden (N.Y. Cty. of Tompkins Supreme Ct. 2011); Cooperstown Holstein Corp. v. Middlefield (N.Y. Cty. of Otsego Supreme Ct. 2011). 91

“Protocols Recommendations,” Task Force on Cooperative Strategies Regarding State and Local Regulation of Oil and Gas Development, April 18, 2012, accessed May 10, 2013, http://dnr.state.co.us/taskforce/Documents/Task%20Force%20LGD%20Matrix%20%E2%80%93%20Final.pdf.


Variable name Variable definition

Wells Log of number of natural gas wells in 2010

Production Conventional production in 2010 (Bcf)

Donations Donations to environmental NGOs per Democrat ($)

GDP GDP per capita ($1,000s)

Species Number of endangered/threatened animal species

Forested Percent of land area forested

Surfconsumption Percent of freshwater consumption from surface

water

Groundconsumption Percent of freshwater consumption from groundwater

Fedland Percent of land federally owned

Ruralpop Rural population density in 2000 (people per sq. mi.)

Dumwater Dummy variable for water-related regulations

Dumground Dummy variable for groundwater-related regulations

Int Dumwat*ruralpop Interaction between water regulations and rural

population density

Int Dumwat*species Interaction between water regulations and number of

endangered animals

Int Dumwat*fedland Interaction between water regulations and percent of

federally-owned land

Int Dumground*groundconsumption Interaction between groundwater regulations and

freshwater consumption from groundwater

A3.1 Number of Regulations

There are 567 state-regulatory element pairs. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and logit regressions

were used to look for groups of variables associated with the number of a maximum 20 regulatory

elements that the state regulates. In technical terms we estimated the probability that any possible

state-regulatory element was present. Using OLS (in this context termed a linear probability model) is

a less restrictive model than a logit model. Recent econometrics textbooks (Angrist and Pischke,


2009) note that neither approach is necessarily superior to the other.92 Results from these two

specifications appear in some of the regression tables below.

Table Appendix 3-1 shows some of the results for the only variables with high correlation with the

number of regulations variable and that are robust to inclusion of other variables. Model 5 is the

model in the main text. Models 1-3 include various non-environmental level one variables,93 that are

either in Model 4 or were significant in other specifications. Model 4 adds two level one environmental

variables and model 6 is model 5 estimated using a logit model.

Table A3-1. Regressions for the Number of Regulations

Model 1 OLS

Model 2 OLS

Model 3 OLS

Model 4 OLS

Model 5 OLS

Model 6 Logit

Variable Coeff. (S.E.) Coeff. (S.E.) Coeff. (S.E.) Coeff. (S.E.)

Coeff. (S.E.).

Coeff. (S.E.)

Wells 0.024*** (0.007)

0.025*** (0.007)

0.024*** (0.007)

0.021*** (0.007)

0.018*** (0.006)

0.150*** (0.051)

Donations -0.054a (0.034)

-0.063** (0.032)

-0.042 (0.028)

-0.378* (0.223)

GDP 1.752 (2.362)

3.511 (2.606)

Species -0.003*** (0.001)

-0.003*** (0.001)

-0.015*** (0.005)

Surfconsumption 0.0013* (0.0008)

0.0012*

(0.0007) 0.011* (0.006)

Dumwat 0.314*** (0.045)

Omitted

Int Dumwat*species 0.003*** (0.001)

Omitted

Constant 0.582*** (0.062)

0.502*** (0.123)

0.476*** (0.124)

0.624*** (0.083)

0.482*** (0.074)

-0.947* (0.577)

Prob>F 0.0007 0.0025 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 (Prob>chi

2)

Adj R-squared 0.0183 0.0176 0.0202 0.0428 0.2838 0.0591 (pseudo

R2)

Observations 567 567 567 567 567 297 Note: significant at: a=11% level; *=10% level; **=5% level; ***=1% level, S.E., standard error

The top two variables on the table are significant in all specifications, but GDP per capita is not. So,

for example, states with more wells tend to have more regulations. In Model 4, number of endangered

animals is significant, but the direction of causation is reversed from what one might expect (see the

92 Angrist, J. D. and J.-S. Pischke (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. 93

The top level is the variable by itself. The second level interacts this variable by a dummy for whether the regulation is from a broad group of regulations (e.g. all water-related regulations). The third level is an interaction with a dummy variables for the specific group level, e.g., all groundwater regulations.


text). The percent of water consumption from surface water is also significant. Model 5 is discussed in

the text. The logit model (column 6) gives similar results to model 5, except that two variables are

omitted because of collinearity.

A3.2 Type of Regulation

There are 444 state-regulatory element pairs that we can classify as command and control,

performance standards or permitting. Both OLS and logit regressions are used to look for associations

between whether command and control was used versus other regulatory tools and our list of

“independent” variables. Table Appendix 3-2 shows some of the results for the only variables with

high correlation with type of regulation. Models 1 and 2 have the identical specifications to Models 3

and 4, with only the statistical model differing. Models 1 and 3 are more complete specifications.

Models 2 and 4 drop the insignificant variables.

Table A3-2. Regulations for type of regulation (Command and Control = 0; performance standards and permitting = 1)

Model 1 Logit

Model 2 Logit

Model 3 OLS

Model 4 OLS

Variable Coeff. (S.E.) Coeff. (S.E.) Coeff. (S.E.)

Coeff. (S.E.)

Production -0.110** (0.054)

-0.082* (0.049)

-0.015** (0.007)

-0.012* (0.007)

Forested 0.007 (0.007)

0.0008 (0.0008)

Surfconsumption 0.006 (0.007)

0.0008 (0.0008)

Ruralpop 0.004 (0.013)

0.008 (0.012)

-0.0004 (0.0012)

0.0002 (0.0011)

Dumwat 2.403*** (0.607)

2.361*** (0.601)

0.266*** (0.056)

0.263*** (0.056)

Int Dumwat*ruralpop

-0.025* (0.014)

-0.024* (0.014)

-0.003** (0.001)

-0.003** (0.001)

Constant -2.440*** (0.943)

-2.151*** (0.855)

0.151 (0.108)

0.189* (0.097)

Prob>F 0.0000 (prob>chi2)

0.0000 (prob>chi2)

0.0000 0.0000

Adj R-squared 0.0952 (pseudo r2)

0.0896 (pseudo r2)

0.0666 0.0665

Observations 444 444 444 444 Note: significant at: a=11% level; *=10% level; **=5% level; ***=1% level, S.E., standard error

The log of production by conventional wells is significant in all models, but the other level one

variables are never significant. In states with more production, command and control approaches are

more likely to be used. The dummy variable for water-related regulations is highly significant and

implies that flexible regulatory approaches are more likely to be used for water-related regulations

than other types of regulations. However, the negative sign and significance of Int Dumwat*ruralpop


means that in states that have higher rural population densities, the water regulations tend to rely

more on command and control approaches relative to approaches used for other types of regulations.

A3.3 Stringency Method 1

There are 200 state-element pairs with a relative stringency measure calculated with method 1.

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) was used to look for groups of variables associated with this stringency

measure. Table Appendix 3-3 shows some of the results for the only variables with high correlation

with the stringency variable and that are robust to inclusion of other variables. Model 3 is the model in

the main text. Model 1 includes only level one variables that were in table A 3-1. Model 2 adds the

variables in the model in the text. As none of the general level one variables are significant, they are

dropped for model 3. Model 4 includes a set of variables that are significantly associated with

stringency using Method 2.

Table A3-3. Regression results for Stringency Method 1

Model 1 OLS

Model 2 OLS

Model 3 OLS

Model 4 OLS

Variable Coeff. (S.E.)

Coeff. (S.E.)

Coeff. (S.E.)

Coeff. (S.E.)

Wells -0.013 (0.010)

-0.013 (0.011)

Donations 0.074 (0.055)

0.069 (0.070)

GDP -3.712 (3.962)

-3.330 (3.956)

Fedland -0.002 (0.003)

-0.002 (0.002)

-0.001 (0.002)

Groundconsumption 0.001 (0.001)

Dumwat -0.016 (0.061)

-0.017 (0.061)

-0.055 (0.087)

Int Dumwat*fedland 0.006* (0.003)

0.006* (0.003)

0.006** (0.003)

Dumground -0.017 (0.099)

Int Dumground*groundconsumption 0.003 (0.002)

Constant 0.776*** (0.182)

0.768*** (0.185)

0.560*** (0.042)

0.528*** (0.054)

Prob>F 0.3259 0.2006 0.1508 0.0782

Adj R-squared 0.0024 0.0429 0.0117 0.0272

Observations 200 200 200 200 Note: significant at: a=11% level; *=10% level; **=5% level; ***=1% level, S.E., standard error

None of the models performs very well, explaining only between one and about three percent of

the variance in the stringency across state-elements. The federal land variable is significant when

interacted with the water-related regulations dummy, meaning that in states with a greater


percentage of federal land, the water regulations tend to be more stringent that those for other types

of regulations. From model 4, in addition to the above effect, the groundwater regulations tend to be

more stringent than other regulations. However, we lack an explanation for what is ultimately driving

this outcome.

A3.4 Stringency Method 2

There are 292 observations to use to help explain the variance in relative stringency calculated

using method 2. This measure, in contrast to Stringency Method 1, includes as minimally stringent, any

state-element pair of the 13 quantitative regulations that is missing for a given state (i.e., where the

state doesn’t regulate that element). Given that there are 201 state-elements in stringency method 1,

this implies that there are 92 state-elements unregulated by the states.

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) was used to look for groups of variables associated with this

stringency measure. Table Appendix 3-4 shows some of the results for the only variables with high

correlation with the stringency variable and that are robust to inclusion of other variables. Model 3 is

the model in the main text. Model 1 contains general level one variables that were significant in some

specifications in explaining the number of regulations. None of them are significantly associated with

stringency – the same outcome for stringency method 1. Model 2 adds the interaction term and its

related variables found to be significant in table A 3-3. Model 3 drops the general variables and adds

another interaction term along with the component variables.

Model 1 performs poorly. The model itself and the individual variables are insignificant. Model 2

does better, in that the regression is significant, and about 15 percent of the variation in the stringency

metric is explained and only two variables, whether the regulation is water-related, and for water

related regulations only, the percentage of federal land, are significant. Model 3 explains more of the

variance (17%) and finds that the federal land variable is significantly associated with weaker

regulations and that the groundwater regulations tend to be weaker than other regulations. However,

if a state takes a higher percentage of their water consumption from groundwater, the groundwater

regulations tend to be more stringent (see text).


Table A3-4. Regression results for Stringency Method 2

Model 1 OLS

Model 2 OLS

Model 3 OLS

Variable Coeff. (S.E.)

Coeff. (S.E.)

Coeff. (S.E.)

Wells 0.006 (0.010)

0.002 (0.009)

Donations -0.039 (0.044)

0.006 (0.050)

GDP 3.437 (3.419)

1.175 (3.166)

Fedland -0.003 (0.002)

-0.002*

(0.001)

Freshwaterg -0.0005 (0.0011)

Dumwat 0.258*** (0.053)

0.292*** (0.077)

Int Dumwat*fedland 0.004* (0.003)

0.005* (0.003)

Dumground -0.160* (0.091)

Int Dumground*groundconsumption

0.005** (0.002)

Constant 0.273* (0.162)

0.285* (0.152)

0.360*** (0.042)

Prob>F 0.6687 0.0000 0.0000

Adj R-squared -0.0050 0.1490 0.1679

Observations 292 292 292 Note: significant at: a=11% level; *=10% level; **=5% level; ***=1% level, S.E., standard error

Appendix 4. Tables of State Regulations

The tables in this appendix show the preliminary results of the analysis for approximately 20

important regulatory elements in each of the 31 states in the continental United States that have

significant shale gas reserves or where industry has shown interest in shale gas development. As

relevant regulations or statutes are adopted or passed, or other new information becomes available,

the tables will be updated accordingly.

RICHARDSON ET AL. 181818

Alabama

Regulatory Tools Used:

Regulatory Tools Used: 15 1 1 3

Ac vity/Regulatory Element

Tool

Details Site Development and Prepara on Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng No evidence of regula on found

Water Withdrawal Restric ons Registra on & repor ng required (if >100k gal/day)

Setback Restric ons from Buildings 200 .

Setback Restric ons from Water Sources No evidence of regula on found

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Yes

Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Yes, varies based on drilling depth

Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons Cemen ng to surface required

Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons Isolate all hydrocarbon zones

Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons 500 . above shoe/uppermost hydrocarbon zone

Ven ng Regula ons Restricted

Flaring Regula ons Restricted

Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found

Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids

Freeboard Requirements 2 .

Pit Liner Requirements Condi onal

Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking Permit/approval and recordkeeping required

Underground Fluid Injec on Underground injec on allowed

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time 6 months permi ed

Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements Immediate

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria N/A None

Severance Tax N/A 8% (about 19.68₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)

Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A 2

Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale

gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for

each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the

quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each

ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below.

KEY Command/control

Permit

Performance standard

Other

No evidence of regula on found


Arkansas


14 1 5


Tool

Details

Site Development and Prepara on Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng No evidence of regula on found

Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit required

Setback Restric ons from Buildings Has setback restric ons

Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Has setback restric ons

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons No evidence of regula on found

Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements 100 . below water table/50 . into consol. rock


Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons No evidence of regula on found

Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons Cemen ng to surface required

Ven ng Regula ons No evidence of regula on found

Flaring Regula ons No evidence of regula on found

Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Disclosure required

Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Tanks required for some fluids


Pit Liner Requirements 20 mils

Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking Permit/approval and recordkeeping required (3 years)

Underground Fluid Injec on Some local bans/moratoria



Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 24 hours a er discovery



Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A 3+






KEY Command/control

Permit


Other



California


6 3 1 10


Tool

Details



Setback Restric ons from Buildings Other setback restric ons

Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Other setback restric ons

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Addressed in permit

Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Addressed in permit


Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons 500 . above uppermost hydrocarbon zone

Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons 500 . above uppermost hydrocarbon zone



Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Proposed: disclosure required


Freeboard Requirements No evidence of regula on found

Pit Liner Requirements No evidence of regula on found

Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking No evidence of regula on found



Temporary Abandonment No temporary abandonment status in state regs

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements No evidence of regula on found


Severance Tax N/A 1.4₵/MCF (about .5% at $2.46/MCF price)


KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Colorado


18 1 1


Tool

Details

Site Development and Prepara on Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng 0.5 miles



Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Designated water sources only, varies


Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements 50 . below water table




Ven ng Regula ons No ce and approval required

Flaring Regula ons No ce and approval required





Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking Recordkeeping required (5 years)





Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria N/A Local bans/moratoria








KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Georgia*

Regulatory Tools Used: * Very li le shale gas development—no natural gas wells as of 2010.

7 4 1 1 7


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit required (if >100k gal/day)




Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Performance standard








Freeboard Requirements Addressed in permit

Pit Liner Requirements Addressed in permit







Severance Tax N/A None


KEY Command/control

Permit


Other



Illinois


13 1 6


Tool

Details

Site Development and Prepara on Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Within 0.25 miles of well

Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit required, register & report if >100k gal/day










Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Proposed: disclosure required



Pit Liner Requirements 20 mils.




Temporary Abandonment 24 months



Severance Tax N/A 0.1% (about 0.246₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)







KEY Command/control

Permit


Other



Indiana


11 3 6


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit, register & report if >100k gal/day






Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons Cemen ng to surface required

Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons Addressed in permit











Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 2‐48 hours a er discovery, depending on severity


Severance Tax N/A 3₵/MCF (about 1% at $2.46/MCF price)







KEY Command/control

Permit


Other



Kansas


13 4 3


Tool

Details



Setback Restric ons from Buildings No evidence of regula on found

Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 660 .


Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Determined by county


Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons Addressed in permit





Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Permit required for all pits and tanks

Freeboard Requirements 1‐2.5 ., depending on pit type

Pit Liner Requirements Yes, liner required














KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Kentucky


11 1 2 6


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Oil and gas industry exempt







Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons No evidence of regula on found

Ven ng Regula ons Discre onary standard

Flaring Regula ons Discre onary standard





Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking Permit or approval required


Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Idle me regulated, me limit not specified






KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Louisiana


15 2 3


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Registra on and repor ng required







Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons 500 . above shoe

Ven ng Regula ons Banned









Temporary Abandonment 3 months permi ed, if the well has no future u lity



Severance Tax N/A 16.4₵/MCF (about 6.7% at $2.46/MCF price)


KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Maryland


12 3 1 4


Tool

Details



Setback Restric ons from Buildings 1,000 .

Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1,000 .











Pit Liner Requirements Pit liners required




Temporary Abandonment No temporary abandonment status in state regula ons

Well Inspec on & Enforcement

Accident Repor ng Requirements 2 hours a er discovery

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria N/A 18 month statewide moratorium



KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Michigan


16 3 1


Tool

Details

Site Development and Prepara on Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Yes























KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Mississippi


12 1 7


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit required (if>20k gal/day)






















KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Montana


9 3 1 1 6


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit required (if >50.4k gal/day)














Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking No temporary abandonment status in state regs








KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Nebraska


10 5 1 4


Tool

Details

Site Development and Prepara on Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Within 1 mile of well










Flaring Regula ons Allowed













KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








New Jersey*

Regulatory Tools Used: *Very li le shale gas development—no natural gas wells as of 2010.

2 1 1 16


Tool

Details







Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons No evidence of regula on found






Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons No evidence of regula on found





Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time No evidence of regula on found

Temporary Abandonment No evidence of regula on found

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 2‐24 hours a er accident, depending on severity

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria N/A Recently ended statewide moratorium



KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








New Mexico


14 4 2


Tool

Details



Setback Restric ons from Buildings Other setback restric ons

Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Other setback restric ons










Freeboard Requirements 2‐3 ., depending on pit type










KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








New York*

*Most regula ons part of comprehensive proposal released in

Regulatory Tools Used: 2011, and have not been finalized or implemented.

19 1


Tool

Details

Site Development and Prepara on Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Within 0.19 miles



Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 150‐2,000 ., depending on water body





Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons Cemen ng to surface required












Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria N/A Indefinite statewide moratorium



KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








North Carolina*

Regulatory Tools Used: * Very li le shale gas development—no natural gas wells as of 2010.

6 2 12


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Registra on and repor ng required (if >100k gal/day)















Underground Fluid Injec on Statewide ban

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time 1 month permi ed



Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria N/A De‐facto statewide ban, pending wri ng of regula ons



KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








North Dakota


11 3 1 5


Tool

Details




Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Performance‐based setback restric ons












Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking Permit or approval required








KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Ohio


15 2 3


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit req. if>2m gal/day, reg./report if>100k gal/day

Setback Restric ons from Buildings 100‐200 .





Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons 500 . above shoe










Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time 12‐24 months permi ed


Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements No evidence of regula on


Severance Tax N/A 2.5₵/MCF (about 1% at $2.46/MCF price)


KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Oklahoma


14 2 4


Tool

Details














Freeboard Requirements 1.5‐3 ., depending on pit type










KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Pennsylvania


16 1 2 1


Tool

Details

Site Development and Prepara on Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Not required; relevant liability rule



Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 300‐1,000 ., depending on type of water body





Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons 500 . above true ver cal depth












Other Local bans/moratoria State/Local Bans & Moratoria N/A Local bans/moratoria



KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








South Dakota


8 4 8


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit required (if >25.9k gal/day)




Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Yes


















KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Tennessee


11 1 8


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Registra on and repor ng required (if >10k gal/day)






















KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Texas


13 2 1 1 3


Tool

Details








Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons 600 . above shoe
















KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Utah


11 2 1 6


Tool

Details






Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Yes


















KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Vermont*

Regulatory Tools Used: *Very li le shale gas development—no natural gas wells as of 2010.

3 1 16


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit req. if >57.6k gal/day, reg./report if >20k gal/day




Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements No evidence of regula on found







Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons No evidence of regula on found






Temporary Abandonment Temporary abandonment allowed, no meline specified


Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria N/A Statewide ban



KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Virginia


9 1 10


Tool

Details






Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements No evidence of regula on found













Temporary Abandonment No evidence of regula on found





KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








West Virginia


14 3 3


Tool

Details


Water Withdrawal Restric ons Permit, register and report if >7k gal/day


Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 100‐1,000 ., depending on type of water body









Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Only pits regulated



Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking Recordkeeping required




Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements Accident repor ng required, but no meline specified




KEY Command/control

Permit


Other








Wyoming


15 1 1 3


Tool

Details








Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons 200 . above trona interval

Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons 200 . above trona interval






Pit Liner Requirements Discre onary standard









KEY Command/control

Permit


Other



Appendix 5. State Regulatory Data The tables in this appendix, one for each state, list cita ons for the regulatory elements in our analysis and

for other relevant informa on about the state’s shale gas regula ons.

Alabama AACR: Alabama Administra ve Code, Ala. Admin. Code r. (2012)

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng No evidence of regula on found.

Water Withdrawals AACR § 305‐7‐10.01‐.07

Setback from Buildings AACR § 400‐1‐2‐.02(2)(h)

Setback from Water No evidence of regula on found.

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons AACR § 400‐1‐4.09.2

Casing and Cemen ng Depth AACR § 400‐1‐4.09.2(a)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on AACR § 400‐1‐4.09.2(c)

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. Id.

Produc on Casing Cement Circ. Id.

Ven ng AACR § 400‐1‐9‐.02.10.d

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure No evidence of regula on found.

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons AACR § 400‐1‐4.10

Freeboard AACR § 400‐1‐4.10.3

Pit Liners AACR § 400‐1‐4.10.5

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking AACR § 400‐1‐9.03

Underground Fluid Injec on No evidence of regula on found.

Fluid Disposal Op ons AACR § 400‐1‐4.11

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time AACR § 400‐1‐4‐.14

Temporary Abandonment AACR § 400‐1‐4‐.17(1)

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng AACR § 400‐1‐4.09.01

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria No evidence of regula on found.

Severance Tax Ala. Code § 9‐17‐25‐35 (produc on tax), § 40‐20‐1 (privilege tax),

Regula ng Agencies State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama, under the direc on of the State Geologist and Oil and Gas Supervisor; AL Department of Environmental Management implements federal rules.

Permit Applica on Requirements AACR § 400‐1‐2‐.03, AACR § 400‐1‐2‐.04


Arkansas GRR: Ark. Oil & Gas Comm'n, General Rules & Regula ons (2009), available at

h p://www.aogc.state.ar.us/OnlineData/Forms/Rules %20and%20Regula ons.pdf

AC: Ark. Code. Ann (2012)


Water Withdrawals AC § 15‐22‐503

Setback from Buildings GRR B‐26(c)(5)

Setback from Water GRR B‐26(c)(5)

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons No evidence of regula on found.

Casing and Cemen ng Depth GRR B‐15

Surface Casing Cement Circula on Id.

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. No evidence of regula on found.

Produc on Casing Cement Circ. GRR B‐15

Ven ng No evidence of regula on found.

Flaring No evidence of regula on found.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure GRR B‐19

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons GRR B‐17(c)(21); GRR B‐17(g)(1)‐(2) outlines condi ons for pit storage.

Freeboard GRR B‐17(f)(2)(3)

Pit Liners Id.

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking GRR E‐3

Underground Fluid Injec on GRR H‐1(s) (regional ban)

Fluid Disposal Op ons GRR B‐17(h)

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time GRR B‐7(d)

Temporary Abandonment GRR B‐7(h)

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng GRR B‐34(b); see also GRR B‐17(e) (applying to any discharge)

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria No evidence of regula on found.

Severance Tax AC § 26‐58‐111(5)

Regula ng Agencies Most aspects of gas development regulated by Oil and Gas Commission. Waste pits, leaks, spills, blowouts, air and water pollu on regulated by Department of Environmental Quality; drinking water also regulated by Department of Health.

Permit Applica on Requirements GRR B‐19(d)


California CCR: Cal. Code Regs. (2013)

CPRC: Cal. Pub. Res. Code (2013)


Water Withdrawals CCR t. 23, § 650

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on found (CPRC § 3600 regulates setbacks from other infrastructure)

Setback from Water Id.

Well Drilling and Produc on

Cement Type Specifica ons Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Form OG105 "No ce of inten on to drill new well" (requires cement type).

Casing and Cemen ng Depth Id. (CCR t. 14, § 1722.3 regulates the number of feet of casing required but not the se ng depth)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on CCR t. 14, § 1722.4





Fracturing Fluid Disclosure AB 591 2011‐2012 Sen. Reg. Sess. (Ca. 2011)

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons CCR t. 14, § 1773.2

Freeboard No evidence of regula on found.

Pit Liners No evidence of regula on found.

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking No evidence of regula on found.

Underground Fluid Injec on CCR t. 27, § 20090

Fluid Disposal Op ons Id. (CCR t. 27, § 17369 regulates hazardous waste disposal facili es)

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time CCR t. 14, § 3237(d)(i)

Temporary Abandonment No evidence of temporary abandonment status found.

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng No evidence of regula on found.

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria None.

Severance Tax CPRC § 3403

Regula ng Agencies The Department of Conserva on's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR); 5 other agencies are involved with regula ng drilling wastes

Permit Applica on Requirements CCR t. 14, § 1721‐1721.9


Colorado CR: Colo. Reg. (2013)

CRS: Colo. Rev. Stat. (2012)

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, Final Rule 609(b) (2013)

Water Withdrawals CRS § 37‐92‐101 through 602

Setback from Buildings 2 CR 404‐1‐604(a)(1)

Setback from Water 2 CR 404‐1‐317B


Casing and Cemen ng Depth 2 CR 404‐1‐317(f)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on 2 CR 404‐1‐317(h)

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. 2 CR 404‐1‐317(i)


Ven ng 2 CR 404‐1‐912(b); see also 2 CR 404‐1‐912(a) (prohibi ng unnecessary or excessive ven ng)

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure 2 CR 404‐1‐205

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons 2 CR 404‐1‐902

Freeboard 2 CR 404‐1‐902(b)

Pit Liners 2 CR 404‐1‐904

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking 2 CR 404‐1‐907(b)

Underground Fluid Injec on 2 CR 404‐1‐907(d)

Fluid Disposal Op ons Id.

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time 2 CR 404‐1‐319(b)(3)

Temporary Abandonment 2 CR 404‐1‐319(b)

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng 2 CR 404‐1‐906(b)

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Council of the City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 032, 2013

Severance Tax CRS § 39‐29‐105(1)(a)

Regula ng Agencies Colorado Oil and Gas Conserva on Commission (COGCC), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), CO Department of Public Health and Environment

Permit Applica on Requirements 2 CR 404‐1‐303


Georgia GCRR: Ga. Comp. r & Regs. (2012)


Water Withdrawals GCRR 391‐3‐2‐.03

Setback from Buildings GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.05


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons DNR Representa ve (email communica on, May 24, 2012)

Casing and Cemen ng Depth GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(12) (GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(10) mandates that freshwater be protected)



Produc on Casing Cement Circ. GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(12)




Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(11)

Freeboard

GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10 § 11(a) (requiring pits be “of sufficient size to receive and contain the maximum volume of drilling fluid an cipated at the surface”); see also GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.04 § 9(f)(6‐7) (requiring descrip on of program for disposal of drilling fluids as part of permit applica on).

Pit Liners DNR Representa ve (email communica on, May 24, 2012)


Underground Fluid Injec on GCRR 391‐3‐13.10(11)(b)


Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time DNR Representa ve (email communica on, May 24, 2012)

Temporary Abandonment DNR Representa ve (email communica on, May 24, 2012)

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(5)


Severance Tax No evidence of regula on found.

Regula ng Agencies Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protec on Division

Permit Applica on Requirements GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.04


Illinois ILAC: Ill. Admin. Code (2013)

ILCS: Ill. Comp. Stat. (2012)

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng 62 ILAC § 240.350(b)(1)

Water Withdrawals 525 ILCS 45/1‐45/7

Setback from Buildings 62 ILAC § 240.410(f)



Casing and Cemen ng Depth 62 ILAC § 240.610(a)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on 62 ILAC § 240.610(a)(3)


Produc on Casing Cement Circ. 62 ILAC § 240.610(c)


Flaring 225 ILCS 725

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure H.B. 3897, 97th Gen. Assem., (Il. 2013)

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons 62 ILAC § 240.520‐.530


Pit Liners 62 ILAC § 240.525(b)

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking 62 ILAC § 240.925‐926

Underground Fluid Injec on 62 ILAC § 240.930(b)‐(c)


Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time 62 ILAC § 240.1130

Temporary Abandonment 62 ILAC § 240.1130(c)

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng 62 ILAC § 240.880(b)

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Tri‐Power Resources v. City of Carlyle, 967 N.E.2d 811 (2012) (holding

that IL county may ban hydraulic fracturing).

Severance Tax 225 ILCS 728/30

Regula ng Agencies Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IL DNR), Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) in the Office of Mines and Minerals (OMM), IL EPA

Permit Applica on Requirements 62 ILAC § 240.220; 62 ILAC § 240.240‐245; 62 ILAC § 240.250


Indiana IAC: Ind. Admin. Code (2013)

Form 21096: Indiana Dep. of Nat. Res., Form 21096 “Applica on for Well Permit”, available at

h ps://forms.in.gov/Download.aspx?id=9154


Water Withdrawals Ind. Code § 14‐25‐7 (Ind. Code § 14‐29‐1‐8 oversees permi ng of withdrawals from navigable waterways)

Setback from Buildings IAC 32‐23‐7‐6(3)


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons 312 IAC 16‐5‐9

Casing and Cemen ng Depth Form 21096; see also 312 IAC 16‐5‐9 (requiring surface casing to be set through an impervious forma on).

Surface Casing Cement Circula on 312 IAC 16‐5‐9


Produc on Casing Cement Circ. Form 21096




Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons 312 IAC 16‐5‐12

Freeboard 312 IAC 16‐5‐13

Pit Liners Form 21096


Underground Fluid Injec on 312 IAC 16‐5‐14

Fluid Disposal Op ons 312 IAC 16‐5‐13

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time IAC 14‐37‐8‐8

Temporary Abandonment 312 IAC 16‐5‐20

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng 312 IAC 16‐5‐23

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria None

Severance Tax 45 IAC 6‐1‐1

Regula ng Agencies IN Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Oil and Gas; Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)

Permit Applica on Requirements 312 IAC 16‐3‐2 and 312 IAC 16‐3‐3


Kansas KAR: Kan. Admin. Regs (2013)

Form C‐1: Kansas Corpora on Commission, Form C‐1 "No ce of intent to drill", available at

www.kcc.kansas.gov/conserva on/intents/K_011613_Pearson_I_39.pdf


Water Withdrawals KAR § 5‐3‐4

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on found.

Setback from Water

State Corp. Comm'n of Kansas, General Rules and Reg. for the Conserva on of Crude Oil and Natural Gas, Table I, Appendix "B" ‐ Eastern Surface Casing Order #133,891‐C (available at h p://www.kcc.state.ks.us/conserva on/cons_rr_010711.pdf)

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons KAR § 82‐3‐106(c)(1)

Casing and Cemen ng Depth KAR § 82‐3‐106(b)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on KAR § 82‐3‐106(c)(2)(B)(i)

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. Form C‐1


Ven ng KAR § 82‐3‐314(b)

Flaring Id.


Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons KAR § 82‐3‐600(a) (regula ng pits); KAR § 82‐3‐603(a) (regula ng tanks)

Freeboard KAR § 82‐3‐601(a)

Pit Liners KAR § 82‐3‐601(b)

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking KAR § 82‐3‐127

Underground Fluid Injec on KAR § 82‐3‐400

Fluid Disposal Op ons KAR § 82‐3‐400 and KAR § 82‐3‐607

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time KAR § 82‐3‐111(a)

Temporary Abandonment KAR § 82‐3‐111(b)

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng KAR § 82‐3‐603


Severance Tax KAR § 79‐4217

Regula ng Agencies Kansas Corpora on Commission, Oil and Gas Conserva on Division (KCC); Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)

Permit Applica on Requirements KAR § 82‐3‐124(b)


Kentucky KRS: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. (2013)

KAR: Ky. Admin. Regs. (2011)


Water Withdrawals KRS § 151.140

Setback from Buildings 805 KAR 1:030



Casing and Cemen ng Depth 805 KAR 1:020.3



Produc on Casing Cement Circ. No evidence of regula on found.

Ven ng KRS § 353.160(1)

Flaring Id.


Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons 401 KAR 5:090.9‐.10

Freeboard 401 KAR 5:090.9(5)(b)

Pit Liners 401 KAR 5:090.9(5)(a)

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking 401 KAR 5:090.6

Underground Fluid Injec on 401 KAR 5:090.5


Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time 805KAR 1:060

Temporary Abandonment 805KAR 1:060.1

Well Inspec on & Enforcement

Accident Repor ng 807 KAR 5:027.3; see also 401 KAR 5:015 (separate rules for leaks that could cause pollu on)


Severance Tax KRS § 143A.020

Regula ng Agencies Kentucky Division of Oil and Gas, Energy and Environment Cabinet, Department of Natural Resources (KDOG); KY Department of Environmental Protec on

Permit Applica on Requirements KRS § 353.590


Louisiana LAC: La. Admin. Code (2013)

Order No. U‐HS: Office of Conserva on Order No. U‐HS (2009), available at

h p://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/news/2009/U‐HS.pdf

Site Development and Prepara on

Predrilling Water Well Tes ng No evidence of regula on found. (but see LAC t. 43, § XIX.309.requiring monitoring near any pit likely to contaminate an aquifer)

Water Withdrawals La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38:3094

Setback from Buildings Order No. U‐HS



Casing and Cemen ng Depth LAC t. 43, § XIX.109(B)


Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. Office of Conserva on, Form MD‐10‐R‐1 "Applica on for permit to drill for minerals"

Produc on Casing Cement Circ. LAC t. 43, § XIX.109(D)

Ven ng LAC t. 43, § XIX.3507

Flaring Order No. U‐HS

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure LAC t. 43, § XIX.118

Wastewater Storage and Disposal

Fluid Storage Op ons LAC t. 43, § XIX.303; see also LAC t. 43, § XIX.307.c.5 (restric ng fluid storage in pits)

Freeboard LAC t. 33, § IX.708.C.1.vi

Pit Liners LAC t. 43, § XIX.307.A.1

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking LAC t. 43, § XIX.545

Underground Fluid Injec on LAC t. 43, § XIX.313

Fluid Disposal Op ons LAC t. 33, § IX.708.C.2.c and LAC t. 43, § XIX.313 (Different sec ons regulate different disposal op ons)

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time LAC t. 43, § XIX.137.A.2.a

Temporary Abandonment LAC t. 43, § XIX.137.A.2.b‐.c

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng LAC t. 33, § I.3915.A.1‐.3; LAC t. 33, § I.3917.A; LAC t. 33, § I.3919.A


Severance Tax La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47:633(9)

Regula ng Agencies Department of Natural Resources, Office of Conserva on (OC); Department of Environmental Quality

Permit Applica on Requirements LAC t. 43, § XIX.103 and LAC t. 43, § XIX.104


Maryland COMAR: Md. Code Regs. (2013)

Form .045: Maryland Department of the Environment, Form Number .045 (2008) "Applica on for Gas Explora on and

Produc on", available at h p://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Permits/LandManagementPermits/LandPermit

Applica onsandOtherForms/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/permit/MDE‐LMA‐PER045.pdf


Water Withdrawals COMAR 26.17.06.00‐.07; see also Form .045 (es mated withdrawals)

Setback from Buildings COMAR 26.19.01.09


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons COMAR 26.19.01.10(P)(2)

Casing and Cemen ng Depth COMAR 26.19.01.10(O)(4)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on COMAR 26.19.01.10(P)(1)

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. Form .045; see also COMAR 26.19.01.10(S) (requiring sufficient cement for an effec ve seal above any producing zone)




Fracturing Fluid Disclosure MDE Form Number .019 (2009); Form .045

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons COMAR 26.19.01.10

Freeboard COMAR 26.19.01.10(J)(2)



Underground Fluid Injec on COMAR 26.19.01.10(W)

Fluid Disposal Op ons Id; see also Form .045 (other disposal op ons addressed in permit)

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time COMAR 26.19.01.12(D)


Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng COMAR 26.19.01.02

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria MD Exec. Order No. 01.01.2011.11 (Statewide moratorium on fracking

for dura on of study)

Severance Tax Pub. Local Laws of Garre County § 51.01‐.07; Allegany County Code § 394‐1 (no state severance tax)

Regula ng Agencies Department of the Environment, Mining Program

Permit Applica on Requirements COMAR 26.19.01.06


Michigan MAC: Mich. Admin. Code r. (2013)

Form EQP 7200‐1: Department of Environmental Quality, Form EQP 7200‐1 "Applica on for permit to drill,

deepen, covert and operate a well", available at h p://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7‐135‐

3311_4111_4230‐8856‐‐,00.html

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng Mac r. 324.1002

Water Withdrawals Supervisor of Wells Instruc on 1‐2011 (May 23, 2011); see also MAC324.404 (prohibi ng use of surface water for drilling fluid)

Setback from Buildings MAC r. 324.301


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons MAC r. 324.411

Casing and Cemen ng Depth MAC r. 324.408


Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. Form EQP 7200‐1


Ven ng MAC r. 324.1010; see also MAC r. 324.1117(1), 1122(2), 1124, and 1129(1) (addi onal requirements for wells with high hydrogen sulfide)

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure

MAC r. 324.416 (requiring permitees to file records of "fracturing" with regulators); see also Supervisor of Wells Instruc on 1‐2011 (May 23, 2011) (interpre ng this regula on to require disclosure of fracturing fluids).

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons MAC r. 324.407; MAC r. 324.502; MAC r. 324.503(1)


Pit Liners MAC r. 324.407(6)(a)

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking MAC r. 324.705(4)

Underground Fluid Injec on MAC r. 324.703

Fluid Disposal Op ons MAC r. 324.703 and MAC r. 324.705(3) and MAC r. 324.407(7)(a)

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time MAC r. 324.903

Temporary Abandonment MAC r. 324.209

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng MAC r. 324.1008


Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria See, e.g., Township of West Bloomfield, "Resolu on con nuing and

extending moratorium on all natural resource explora on and extrac on ac vi es in the township," Feb. 11, 2013

Severance Tax Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 205.303

Regula ng Agencies Office of Oil, Gas and Minerals, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), through Supervisor of Wells, Geological and Land Management Division (GLM); Air Quality Division MDEQ

Permit Applica on Requirements MAC r. 324.201


Mississippi SRR: Miss. State Oil & Gas Board, Statewide Rules and Regula ons (2011), available at

h p://www.ogb.state.ms.us/docs/20130320.RULEBOOK.pdf


Water Withdrawals Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality Regula on LW‐2m, "Surface Water and Groundwater Use and Protec on," (2009) available at h p://www.sos.ms.gov/ACProposed/00018085b.pdf

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on; see also SRR 8(1) (setbacks from wells).



Casing and Cemen ng Depth SRR 11

Surface Casing Cement Circula on SRR 12


Produc on Casing Cement Circ. SRR 12

Ven ng SRR 45(III)(C)

Flaring Id.


Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons SRR 45(III)(E)(2)

Freeboard SRR 45(III)(E)(3)(C)(1) (SRR 45(III)(E)(7)(d) sets out rules for drilling mud and reserve pits)

Pit Liners SRR 45(III)(E)(3)(a)


Underground Fluid Injec on SRR 45(III)(E)(9)

Fluid Disposal Op ons SRR 45(III)(E)(7)(e) and SRR 45(III)(E)(9) and SRR 68(IV) (Different sec ons regulate different disposal op ons)

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time SRR 28(A)(2)

Temporary Abandonment Id.

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng SRR 17


Severance Tax Miss. Code Ann. § 27‐25‐703

Regula ng Agencies Mississippi Oil and Gas Board (OGB); MS Department of Environmental Quality through Office of Pollu on Control (OPC)

Permit Applica on Requirements SRR 4, 88


Montana MAR: Mont. Admin. r. (2013)

Form 22 R: Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conserva on, Form 22 R


Water Withdrawals MAR 36.12.102

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on found (MAR 36.22.702 regulates setbacks from boundary lines and other spacing requirements).

Setback from Water No evidence of regula on found (MAR 36.22.702 regulates setbacks from boundary lines and other spacing requirements).

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons Form 22 R

Casing and Cemen ng Depth MAR 36.22.1001(1)




Ven ng MAR 36.22.1221

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure MAR 36.22.1015(2) (MAR 36.22.1016 provides for trade secrets)


Fluid Storage Op ons MAR 36.22.1226‐1227 (MAR 36.22.1207 governs fluid storage in recomple on and workover phases)

Freeboard MAR 36.22.1227

Pit Liners Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conserva on, Form 22 R; see also Mont. Admin. r. 36.22.1227 (requiring pit liners under certain condi ons).


Underground Fluid Injec on MAR 36.22.1226


Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time MAR 36.22.1303


Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng MAR 36.22.1103


Severance Tax MAR 42.25.1809

Regula ng Agencies Department of Natural Resources and Conserva on (DNRC), Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conserva on; MT DEQ

Permit Applica on Requirements MAR 36.22.602 and MAR 36.22.608


Nebraska NAC: Nebraska Admin. Code (2013)

Form 2: Nebraska Oil and Gas Conserva on Commission, Form 2 "No ce of Intent to Drill or Re‐enter", available at

h p://www.nogcc.ne.gov/Forms/NE_Form2_IntentToDrill.pdf.

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng NAC Title 267, Ch. 4 § 004.02J4

Water Withdrawals NAC Title 457, Ch. 2 § 001

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on found; but see NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.15 (setbacks from unit boundary lines).


Well Drilling and Produc on

Cement Type Specifica ons Form 2; see also NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.04 (requiring cement to be tested and the results reported to the Director prior to use).

Casing and Cemen ng Depth NAC Title 267, Ch. 2 § 006

Surface Casing Cement Circula on NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.01

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. Form 2


Ven ng

Flaring



Fluid Storage Op ons NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.14 (NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 022.12(B) restricts fluid storage in pits)

Freeboard NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.11

Pit Liners NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.13

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 022.16(A)

Underground Fluid Injec on NAC Title 267, Ch. 4

Fluid Disposal Op ons NAC Title 267, Ch. 4; NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.12(F), 012.14

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 040

Temporary Abandonment NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 040.01

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 022.01


Severance Tax Neb. Rev. Stat. § 57‐703

Regula ng Agencies Nebraska Oil and Gas Conserva on Commission (OGCC); NE DEQ

Permit Applica on Requirements NAC Title 122, Ch. 7


New Jersey NJAC: N.J. Admin. Code (2009)


Water Withdrawals NJAC § 7:19‐1.4

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on found; but see NJAC § 7:9D‐2.11.d.7 (distance between wells).



Casing and Cemen ng Depth NJAC § 13:1M‐2.k

Surface Casing Cement Circula on No evidence of regula on found.






Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons No evidence of regula on found.




Underground Fluid Injec on NJAC § 7:14A‐8.1


Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time No evidence of regula on found.

Temporary Abandonment No evidence of regula on found.

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng NJAC § 7:14A‐8.9.a.4

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria State of New Jersey, 214th Legislature, Senate No. 2576: January 9,

2012 (one‐year moratorium recently ended).


Regula ng Agencies Unclear

Permit Applica on Requirements NJAC § 13:1M‐2


New Mexico NMC: N.M. Code (2013)

Form C‐101: Energy Minerals and Natural Resources, Form C‐101 "Applica on for permit to drill, re‐enter, deepen,

plug back, or add a zone", available at www.emnrd.state.nm.us/OCD/documents/C‐10120121114.doc .


Water Withdrawals NMC r. § 19.25.13

Setback from Buildings NMC r. § 19.15.17.10



Casing and Cemen ng Depth Form C‐101; see also NMC r. § 19.15.16.10.A (requiring casing and cement as necessary to seal off and isolate oil and gas‐bearing strata)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on NMC r. § 19.15.16.10.B

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. Form C‐101


Ven ng NMC r. § 19.15.18.12

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure NMC r. § 19.15.16.19

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons NMC r. § 19.15.17.9

Freeboard NMC r. § 19.15.17.11.G.9

Pit Liners NMC r. § 19.15.17.11.F.3

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking NMC r. § 19.15.36.13.G

Underground Fluid Injec on NMC r. § 19.15.35.13

Fluid Disposal Op ons NMC r. § 19.15.36.14, 17; NMC r. § 19.15.35.8, 11‐13; NMC r. § 19.15.34.12, NMC r. § 19.15.17.13

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time NMC r. § 19.15.25.8

Temporary Abandonment NMC r. § 19.15.25.12

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng NMC r. § 19.15.26.9‐.10

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria See, e.g., Resolu on No. 03‐15‐11‐Natural Resources (San Miguel

County moratorium); Ordinance 2013‐01 (Mora County ban)

Severance Tax NMC r. § 3.18.4.8

Regula ng Agencies New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, Oil Conserva on Division (OCD); NM Environment Department (NMED)

Permit Applica on Requirements NMC r. § 19.15.5.9.A and NMC r. § 19.15.25.8 and NMC r. § 19.15.14.10


New York SGEIS: Suppl. Generic Env. Imp. Stmt. (rev. 2011)

Site Development and Prepara on

Predrilling Water Well Tes ng SGEIS § 8.4.2.2; see also SGEIS § 7.1.4.1 (addressing water quality tes ng during and a er fracturing).

Water Withdrawals SGEIS § 6.1.1.7

Setback from Buildings SGEIS § 6.8.2

Setback from Water SGEIS § 7.1.11.1 see also §7.2 (prohibi ng fracturing within 100‐year floodplains).

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons SGEIS § 7.1.4.2

Casing and Cemen ng Depth Id.

Surface Casing Cement Circula on SGEIS § 5.9

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. SGEIS § 1.7.7.2

Produc on Casing Cement Circ. SGEIS § 1.7.7.1

Ven ng SGEIS § 7.5.3.1

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure SGEIS § 8.2.1.1

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons SGEIS § 5.11.2

Freeboard SGEIS § 7.1.3.2

Pit Liners Id.

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking SGEIS § 7.1.7

Underground Fluid Injec on SGEIS § 5.13


Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time SGEIS § 17.E.1.e

Temporary Abandonment SGEIS § 17.E.1.f

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng SGEIS § 7.1.6

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria See Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden. 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078

(2013) (holding that municipali es may prohibit oil & gas development via zoning).


Regula ng Agencies Bureau of Oil and Gas Regula on, Division of Mineral Resources of the NY State Department of Environmental Conserva on

Permit Applica on Requirements N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 23‐0501; see also SGEIS (rev. 2011) § Chapter 8 (providing details on new permi ng process)


North Carolina NCAC: N.C. Admin. Code (2013)


Water Withdrawals N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143‐215.22H

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on found; but see 15A NCAC 05D.0106 (well spacing).



Casing and Cemen ng Depth 15A NCAC 05D.0107

Surface Casing Cement Circula on 15A NCAC 05D.0107(c)


Produc on Casing Cement Circ. 15A NCAC 05D.0107(c)




Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons 15A NCAC 05D.0107(f)




Underground Fluid Injec on 15A NCAC 02C.0209(b) (statewide ban)

Fluid Disposal Op ons "Current Regula on." NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, available at h p://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/current‐regula on

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time 15A NCAC 05D.0109



Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Recently legalized by Session Law 2012‐143, Senate Bill 820 (2012),

though development is delayed pending new regula ons.

Severance Tax N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113‐387

Regula ng Agencies NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources

Permit Applica on Requirements 15A NCAC 05D.0105


North Dakota NDAC: N.D. Admin. Code (2013)

NDCC: N.D. Cent. Code (2013)

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng NDAC 43‐02‐05‐04.1.l; see also NDCC § 38‐11.1‐06 (liability rule)

Water Withdrawals NDAC 89‐03‐01‐01

Setback from Buildings NDAC 43‐02‐02‐28

Setback from Water NDAC 43‐02‐03‐19


Casing and Cemen ng Depth NDAC 43‐02‐03‐21



Produc on Casing Cement Circ. Industrial Commission Form 1H "Applica on for permit to drill horizontal well", available at h ps://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/rules/forms/Form1H.xls

Ven ng NDAC 43‐02‐03‐45

Flaring Id. (Unsold gas must be flared and reported. Technical requirements areimposed, but flaring volume and frequency appear to be unregulated).

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure NDAC 43‐02‐03‐27(1)(g)

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons NDAC 43‐02‐03‐19(3)


Pit Liners NDAC 43‐02‐03‐19(3)

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking

Department of Health, Guideline 42 “Oilfield Explora on and Produc on Associated Waste Ac vi es”, available at h p://www.ndhealth.gov/wm/Publica ons/Guideline42OilField Explora onAndProduc onAssociatedWasteAc vi es.pdf.

Underground Fluid Injec on NDAC 43‐02‐03‐53

Fluid Disposal Op ons NDAC 43‐02‐03‐19.2 and NDAC 43‐02‐03‐53

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time NDAC 43‐02‐03‐55

Temporary Abandonment NDAC 43‐02‐03‐55.2

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng NDAC 43‐02‐03‐30


Severance Tax NDCC § 57‐51‐02.2

Regula ng Agencies North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division; ND Department of Health and Environment, Health Sec on

Permit Applica on Requirements NDAC 43‐02‐03‐16


Ohio OAC: Ohio Admin. Code (2013)

ORC: Ohio Rev. Code. Ann (2013)

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng ORC § 1509.06.A.8.c

Water Withdrawals ORC § 1521.16 (permit must indicate proposed source of water and es mated rate and volume of withdrawal)

Setback from Buildings ORC § 1509.021


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(j)(1)

Casing and Cemen ng Depth OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(M)(4)(a)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(M)(4)(b)

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(M)(6)(b)(iv)

Produc on Casing Cement Circ. OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(M)(7)(a)

Ven ng ORC § 1509.20

Flaring Id; see also ORC § 1509.073 (permi ees to no fy local emergency response before flaring)

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure ORC § 1509.10

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons ORC § 1509.22



Wastewater Transporta on Tracking ORC § 1509.223

Underground Fluid Injec on

See Mark Nique e, Ohio Quake Spurs Ac on on 5 Wells, Won’t Stop Oil and Gas Work, BloombergBusinessWeek, Jan. 5, 2012 (repor ng that Ohio DNR shut down injec on opera ons at 5 wells a er an earthquake near Youngstown linked to the ac vity).

Fluid Disposal Op ons ORC § 1509.22 and ORC § 1509.226

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time ORC § 1509.062



Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Ordinance No. 2012‐17 (Yellow Springs ban)

Severance Tax ORC § 5749.02

Regula ng Agencies Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resources Management (ODNR‐DMRM); Ohio EPA

Permit Applica on Requirements ORC § 1509.06.A


Oklahoma OAC: Okla. Admin. Code (2012)


Water Withdrawals OAC § 785:20‐1‐6

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on found.



Casing and Cemen ng Depth OAC § 165:10‐3‐4(c)(1)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on OAC § 165:10‐3‐4(c)(5)


Produc on Casing Cement Circ. Oklahoma Corpora on Commission, Form 1000 "Applica on to drill, recomplete or reenter", available at h p://digitalprairie.ok.gov/ cdm/singleitem/collec on/forms/id/19/rec/17

Ven ng OAC § 165:10‐3‐15(b)‐(c)

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure OAC § 165:10‐3‐10(b)

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons OAC § 165:10‐9‐1(f)(7)

Freeboard OAC § 165:10‐7‐16(d)(1), (f)(2)(E); OAC § 165:10‐7‐20(b)(4)

Pit Liners OAC § 165:10‐9‐1(e)(7)‐(8)

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking OAC § 165:10‐1‐46

Underground Fluid Injec on OAC § 252:652

Fluid Disposal Op ons OAC § 252:652; OAC § 165:10‐9‐2; OAC § 165:10‐7‐16e; OAC § 165:10‐7‐18, 28.

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time OAC § 165:10‐11‐3(e)

Temporary Abandonment OAC § 165:10‐11‐9

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng OAC § 165:10‐7‐5


Severance Tax Okla. Stat. t. 68. § 1001.B

Regula ng Agencies Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Oklahoma Corpora on Commission (OCC), Oil and Gas Division; OK DEQ

Permit Applica on Requirements OAC § 165:10‐3‐1, OAC § 165:10‐1‐25, OAC § 165:10‐7‐31


Pennsylvania Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng 25 Pa. Code § 78.52

Water Withdrawals

25 Pa. Code § 110.301 (PA DEP, "Water Management Plan Example Format Instruc ons for Marcellus Shale Gas Well Development," Form 5500‐PM‐OG0087 (April 2009) available at h p://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document‐74084/5500‐PM‐OG0087%20Applica on%20Example.pdf outlines cradle‐to‐grave water use procedures for shale development)

Setback from Buildings 58 Pa. Code § 3215(b)


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons 25 Pa. Code § 78.85

Casing and Cemen ng Depth 25 Pa. Code § 78.83.c




Ven ng 25 Pa. Code § 78.74

Flaring 25 Pa. Code § 78.73

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure 25 Pa. Code § 78.122.b.6; (HB 1950)

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons 25 Pa. Code § 78.56

Freeboard 25 Pa. Code § 78.56(a)(4)(i)

Pit Liners Id.

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking 58 Pa. Code § 3218.3

Underground Fluid Injec on 25 Pa. Code § 78.18

Fluid Disposal Op ons 25 Pa. Code § 78.57 and 25 Pa. Code § 78.61 and 25 Pa. Code § 78.18 (Different sec ons regulate different disposal op ons)

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time 58 Pa. Code § 3203

Temporary Abandonment 25 Pa. Code § 78.101 (25 Pa. Code § 78.104 allows for extensions)

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng 25 Pa. Code § 78.66

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria See Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 52 A.3d 463 (2012) (overturning

state legisla on blocking municipal fracking bans).

Severance Tax No severance tax, but state has impact fee; see 58 Pa. Code § 2302.

Regula ng Agencies Department of Environmental Protec on, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management (Office of Mineral Resources Management)

Permit Applica on Requirements Sec on 215 of the act 58 Pa. Code § 601.215 and 25 Pa. Code § 78.19


South Dakota SDAR: S.D. Admin. r (2013)

Form 0437: Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Form 0437 "Applica on for permit to drill", available

at h ps://www.state.sd.us/eforms/secure/eforms/E0437V1‐Applica onForPermitToDrill.pdf


Water Withdrawals SDAR 74:02:05:01‐:08

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on found; see SDAR 74:12:02:05 (well spacing).


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons Form 0437

Casing and Cemen ng Depth SDAR 74:12:02:12


Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. Form 0437


Ven ng SDAR 74:12:05:04

Flaring SDAR 74:12:04:05, SDAR 74:12:02:17 (requiring that ven ng be reported, but not limi ng the prac ce)


Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons SDAR 74:12:02:10


Pit Liners SDAR 74:12:02:10.2


Underground Fluid Injec on SDAR 74:12:04:15



Temporary Abandonment SDAR 74:12:03:03

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng SDAR 74:12:02:10‐:11


Severance Tax S.D. Codified Laws § 10‐39A‐1

Regula ng Agencies SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Board of Minerals and Environment

Permit Applica on Requirements SDAR 74:12:02:01 and SDAR 74:12:02:02


Tennessee TCRR: Tenn. Comp. r. & Regs. (2013)

TCA: Tenn. Code. Ann (2005)


Water Withdrawals TCA § 69‐7‐304

Setback from Buildings TCRR 1040‐2‐4‐.01.1.d



Casing and Cemen ng Depth TCA § 1040‐2‐7‐.02




Ven ng TCA § 1040‐2‐7‐.02

Flaring Id.


Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons TCRR 1040‐4‐1‐.12


Pit Liners TCRR 1040‐4‐1‐.12


Underground Fluid Injec on TCRR 1040‐4‐1‐.12


Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time TCRR 1040‐02‐09‐.04

Temporary Abandonment TCRR 1040‐02‐09‐.06



Severance Tax TCA § 60‐1‐301

Regula ng Agencies Tennessee Department of Environment and Conserva on (TDEC), State Oil and Gas Board.

Permit Applica on Requirements TCRR 1040‐02‐02‐.01


Texas TAC: Tex. Admin. Code (2013)


Water Withdrawals 30 TAC § 1.297

Setback from Buildings Municipal Code Sec on 235.005(c)


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons 16 TAC § 1.3.13(c)(iii)

Casing and Cemen ng Depth 16 TAC § 1.3.13

Surface Casing Cement Circula on 16 TAC § 1.3.13(a)(2)(B)

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. 16 TAC § 1.3.13(a)(3)

Produc on Casing Cement Circ. 16 TAC § 1.3.13(a)(4)

Ven ng 16 TAC § 1.3.3(32)(c)

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure 16 TAC § 1.3.3(29)

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons 16 TAC § 1.3.3(8)


Pit Liners Railroad Commission of Texas, Form W‐1 "Applica on for permit to drill, recomplete or re‐enter", available at h p://www.rrc.state.tx.us/forms/forms/og/pdf/finalw‐1‐92104.pdf

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking 16 TAC § 1.3.3(8)(f)

Underground Fluid Injec on

City of Fort Worth, Ordinance No. 19946‐10‐2011, October 25, 2011, available at h p://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/City_Secretary /City_Council/Official_Documents/2011_Ordinances/19946‐10‐2011.pdf

Fluid Disposal Op ons 16 TAC § 1.3.3(8)‐(9)

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time 16 TAC § 1.3.14.b.2


Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng 16 TAC § 1.3.20(a)(i)

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Ordinance No. 10‐12A (Dish moratorium)

Severance Tax Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 201.052

Regula ng Agencies Railroad Commission of Texas (RCC) through Oil and Gas Division; TX TCEQ

Permit Applica on Requirements 16 TAC § 1.3.5


Utah UAC: Utah Admin. Code (2013)

Form 3: Department of Natural Resources, Form 3 "Applica on for permit to drill"


Water Withdrawals Utah Code Ann. § 73‐3‐2

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on founding (UAC r. 649‐3‐2 regulates well spacing).

Setback from Water No evidence of regula on founding (UAC r. 649‐3‐2 regulates well spacing).

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons Form 3

Casing and Cemen ng Depth Id. see also UAC r. 649‐3‐8 (requiring surface casing to reach a depth below all u lizable, domes c fresh water sources)

Surface Casing Cement Circula on UAC r. 649‐3‐8



Ven ng UAC r. 649‐3‐14.2

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure UAC r. 649‐3‐39

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons UAC r. 649‐9‐3

Freeboard UAC r. 649‐9‐3.5.7

Pit Liners UAC r. 649‐9‐3.2


Underground Fluid Injec on UAC r. 649‐9‐2

Fluid Disposal Op ons UAC r. 649‐3‐25; UAC r. 649‐9‐2

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time UAC r. 649‐3‐36.3

Temporary Abandonment UAC r. 649‐3‐36

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng UAC r. 649‐3‐32


Severance Tax Utah Code Ann. § 59‐5‐102

Regula ng Agencies UT Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, Department of Natural Resources; UT DEQ

Permit Applica on Requirements UAC r. 649‐3‐18


Virginia VAC: Va. Admin. Code (2013)

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng 4 VAC § 25‐150‐340.b

Water Withdrawals 9 VAC § 25‐220‐70

Setback from Buildings 4 VAC § 25‐150‐520



Casing and Cemen ng Depth No evidence of regula on found.




Ven ng 4 VAC § 25‐150‐410.c; see also 4 VAC § 25‐150‐410.e (ven ng allowedonly when flaring is not safe or feasible)

Flaring 4 VAC § 25‐150‐410.c


Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons 4 VAC § 25‐150‐300 regulates pits, 4 VAC § 25‐150‐310 regulates tanks

Freeboard 4 VAC § 25‐150‐300(B)(1)

Pit Liners 4 VAC § 25‐150‐300


Underground Fluid Injec on 4 VAC § 25‐150‐420

Fluid Disposal Op ons 4 VAC § 25‐150‐420 and 4 VAC § 25‐150‐430 (Different sec ons regulate different disposal op ons)


Temporary Abandonment No evidence of regula on found.

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng 4 VAC § 25‐150‐380.A‐.B


Severance Tax Va. Code Ann. § 58.1‐3712

Regula ng Agencies Division of Gas and Oil, VA Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (MME); VA DEQ

Permit Applica on Requirements 4 VAC § 25‐150‐80


Vermont VSA: Vt. Stat. Ann (2012)


Water Withdrawals VSA t. 10 § 1418 (permi ng) andVSA t. 10 § 1417 (repor ng)

Setback from Buildings No evidence of regula on found (VSA t. 29 § 14‐522.2 regulates well spacing).

Setback from Water No evidence of regula on found (VSA t. 29 § 14‐522.2 regulates well spacing).


Casing and Cemen ng Depth No evidence of regula on found.







Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons No evidence of regula on found.




Underground Fluid Injec on VSA t. 29 § 14‐505.4


Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time VSA t. 29 § 14‐544.d



Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria VSA t. 29 § 14‐8‐571


Regula ng Agencies Vermont Natural Gas and Oil Resources Board

Permit Applica on Requirements VSA t. 29 § 14‐541


West Virginia WVC: W. Va. Code r. (2013)

Form 6B: Department of Environmental Protec on, Form 6B "Well Work Permit Applica on", available at

h p://www.dep.wv.gov/oil‐and‐gas/GI/Forms/Documents/UIC%20Permit%20Package.pdf.

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng WVC § 35‐4‐19.1; see also WVC 22‐6A‐18 (liability rule)

Water Withdrawals WVC § 35‐8‐5.6; see also WVC 22‐6A‐7 (water management plan)

Setback from Buildings WVC § 22‐6A‐12


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons WVC § 35‐4‐11.4

Casing and Cemen ng Depth WVC § 35‐4‐11.3


Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. Form 6B


Ven ng WVC § 35‐4‐17

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure WVC § 22‐6‐2

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons WVC § 35‐4‐16.4

Freeboard WVC § 35‐4‐16.4(d)

Pit Liners Id.

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking WVC § 35‐8‐4(2)(c)(2)

Underground Fluid Injec on WVC § 35‐4‐7

Fluid Disposal Op ons WVC § 35‐8‐4.3 and WVC § 35‐4‐7 (Other disposal op ons addressed in permit)

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time WVC § 22‐6‐19


Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng WVC § 35‐4‐15.2

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Civil Ac on 11‐C‐411 overruled local regula on such as Ar cle 721

(Morgantown ban)

Severance Tax WVC § 11‐13A‐3(b)

Regula ng Agencies Office of Oil and Gas (OOG), WV Department of Environmental Protec on

Permit Applica on Requirements WVC § 35‐8‐3


Wyoming ORDR: Wyo. Oil & Gas Conserva on Comm'n, Opera onal Rules, Drilling Rules, (2010), available at

h p://wogcc.state.wy.us/downloads/proposed_rules_2010/Post8jun10/CH3_8jun10.pdf

Rule 7929: Environmental Rules 7929, Chapter 4, available at h p://soswy.state.wy.us/rules/rules/7929.pdf


Water Withdrawals Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41‐3‐101

Setback from Buildings ORDR 3‐22(b)


Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons ORDR 3‐22(a)(ii)

Casing and Cemen ng Depth ORDR 3‐22(a)(i)


Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. ORDR 3‐22(e)(v)


Ven ng ORDR 3‐39(f); see also ORDR 3‐39(a) ( ming and ac vity limits)

Flaring ORDR 3‐39(a); see also ORDR 3‐39(e) (constant flare igniter system may be required if ven ng is not safe)

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure ORDR 3‐45(d); see also ORDR 3‐45(g) (prohibi ng the use of BTEX compounds in fracturing fluid)

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons ORDR 3‐45(j)


Pit Liners ORDR 4‐1(w)


Underground Fluid Injec on Rule 7929

Fluid Disposal Op ons Id; see also ORDR 3‐45(j).

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time ORDR 3‐4(e)

Temporary Abandonment ORDR 3‐16(b)

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Rule 7929, Chapter 4, Sec on 3(a)(b)(c)


Severance Tax Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39‐14‐204

Regula ng Agencies Oil and Gas Conserva on Commission; DEQ; WSEO

Permit Applica on Requirements ORDR 3‐1, 3‐18


API HF1: API Guidance Document HF1, “Hydraulic Fracturing Opera ons‐ Well Construc on and Integrity

Guidelines,” (2009)

HF2: API Guidance Document HF2, “Water Management Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing,” (2010)

HF3: API Guidance Document HF3, “Prac ces for Mi ga ng Surface Impacts Associated with Hydraulic

Fracturing,” (2011)

RP 51R: API Recommended Prac ce 51R, “Environmental Protec on for Onshore Oil and Gas Produc on

Opera ons and Leases,” (2009)

Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng HF1: 20 (area of sampling); HF2: 19 (what to test for)

Water Withdrawals HF2: 12‐16

Setback from Buildings HF3: 15‐16

Setback from Water HF3: 13‐15; see also HF2: 18 (pit setbacks)

Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Specifica ons HF1: 7

Casing and Cemen ng Depth HF1: 11‐12

Surface Casing Cement Circula on HF1: 11

Intermediate Casing Cement Circ. HF1: 12


Ven ng RP 51R: 12

Flaring Id.

Fracturing Fluid Disclosure HF3: 7‐8; see also HF2: 12 (sugges ng addi ves that pose minimal risk)

Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons 51R: 10; see also (51R: 22 recommending tanks)

Freeboard 51R: 22

Pit Liners HF2: 18

Wastewater Transporta on Tracking HF3: 10

Underground Fluid Injec on Not applicable

Fluid Disposal Op ons 51R: 28

Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time No best prac ces found.

Temporary Abandonment No best prac ces found.

Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng HF3: 14

Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Not applicable

Severance Tax Not applicable

Regula ng Agencies Not applicable

Permit Applica on Requirements Not applicable