Proposed Allegheny Township drilling rules panned |

Proposed Allegheny Township drilling rules panned

Allegheny Township officials believe a proposed ordinance regulating natural gas drilling is a solid first step, but some residents wish it would go further.

The ordinance, which is aimed primarily at the more extensive Marcellus shale drilling, addresses issues including noise, lighting, fencing, road maintenance, traffic and providing information to the township and neighbors.

Residents said there is one glaring concern the proposal does not address: restricting Marcellus wells from R-1 — single-family residential areas.

Others requested supervisors prohibit drilling from the town center district.

“I’m quite frankly amazed you would allow drilling in R-1 and some commercial zones,” said resident John Framel, a former supervisor who worked for 30 years in the oil and gas industry.

Resident Marce Urbanski said if she can’t operate a business from her home or have a leaking sewage system, she didn’t understand how a company could drill for profit and use a pond containing toxic chemicals in the same zone.

Attorney Lee Demosky, who helped draft the ordinance with Township Manager Greg Primm, said he believes restricting the zones in which a company can drill could open up the township to lawsuits.

He said existing court decisions set conflicting precedents on what limits municipalities can set.

Demosky said many of the issues residents brought up during Monday’s public hearing should be addressed at the state level by the Department of Environmental Protection.

Those issues included the prevention, reporting and cleanup of leaks from the hydraulic fracturing — or fracking — process; water and air pollution; capping containment ponds; and the proximity of wells to buildings, roads and waterways.

Residents scoffed at a $600 penalty called for in the ordinance, saying it is too small to affect large drilling companies.

Demosky said that is the largest fee that realistically can be assessed by a district judge. He said the township also can file an injunction before a Westmoreland County Court judge to temporarily shut down a well until it comes into compliance.

Sev Scaglia said he felt sections of the ordinance dealing with dust control, posting signs about possible dangers and noise prevention were too vague. Demosky said the township’s engineer might be able to suggest ways to beef up those sections.

He noted some of those issues could be addressed by existing township ordinances.

Several residents said they felt the ordinance was a good start, but requested some improvements before it is approved.

“I think this draft was well-written,” resident Mable Mazza said. “But there are still some issues that need to be addressed.”

Supervisors Chairwoman Kathy Starr said she would prefer to have an ordinance in place to install some protections for residents, then add provisions later on.

Primm said the ordinance has been in the planning stages already for several months. Supervisors did not indicate when they might vote on it.

Noting that only a few other local communities are considering new regulations for Marcellus drilling, Starr said she thinks Allegheny Township is being proactive: “We are ahead of the curve.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.